SGAngel Reviews

August Rush (2007)

Well-meaning but lazy

[5/10 · 2 November 2007]

August Rush is about an orphaned boy who is a musical genius and tries to find his separated parents (Louis and Lila) through the power of music. The film is supposed to be a feel-good film and I can see how the talented cast was drawn to its message, but they are let down by lazy writing.

One example is how Lila and Louis meet. The writing fails the actors and cramps them with dialogue such as:

Louis: "What's your story?" Lila: "Me. That's it." Louis: "Yeah?"

It reminds me of the stilted dialogue from Star Wars II. The audience needs to believe these people had such a connection they would hold on for 11 years. The writers use the awkward assumption that since the whole story is based on the couple's love, Lila and Louis must love each other then - even if there aren't many scenes that justify it. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy.

Another example of lazy writing is the character played by Robin Williams. From the trailer, you'd assume the character was an eccentric vagabond that teaches August about music from the heart. Instead, he's an exploitative child abuser who is out of sync with the rest of the film. But why does he exist in the film? His role is merely to create a physical villain to stand up to since hard work, overcoming your fears and believing in yourself are too hard for the writers to show. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy.

Everything also comes too easy in the film. None of the characters give up or overcome anything to reach the end. For example, Louis ends up in San Francisco and obviously he's a suit now because -duh- he wears a suit. (Lazy.) He has a girlfriend (Amanda from Ugly Betty! in a thankless cameo) which could have been interesting if the girlfriend doesn't leave on her own. (Lazy.) he leaves his job to move to Chicago, then New York (but we don't get to see him quit) and gets back into a band seamlessly after 11 years assumed not playing or practicing. (Lazy.) He never even knows he has a son, which seems also pretty lazy for a film about a boy reconciling his parents.

By the way, August is a prodigy and it's like someone out of the Matrix downloaded all the genius level tapes on music into his brain. He plays guitar amazingly without having been given a single lesson. (Lazy.) He can play a church organ by feel. (Lazy.) After being told that piano keys can be remembered as FACE, he can write music using trills, ties and running sixteenth notes. (Lazy.)

He never fumbles and I wonder how long we're going to force ourselves to believe that determination, practice and instruction are less important than talent alone. I'd counterpoint this film with "Akeelah and the Bee" which showed the need for both.

Finally, the film misses the essential scenes. We don't get to see Louis trying to find Lila except for after their first night together. No phone book. No Googling. He does sit at the Arch in Manhattan sometimes, but so does she and I guess they go enough times for a montage but not enough to meet each other.

They only meet at the end, which is ridiculous. The two should meet up two-thirds into the film so they can spend the last third finding their son together. But why doesn't this happen? Because it might lead to conflict (how does he feel that he has a son he never knew about? is he still mad that she left him? will they still like each other after a decade?) and the writers want to avoid that at all costs.

At the end, when everyone does meet up, they don't even hug or kiss or play music together. They just stare at each other. I want catharsis. I want to see family stuff. Why did I spend almost two hours if they don't even have a meal together or something?

In the end, the film assumes you have seen countless films like this one and will go along with it without having to explain much. It's like they decided to dramatize the synopsis on the back of a Blockbuster video than actually create a full story. Do I need to say this one more time? Lazy. Lazy. Lazy.

I will disclose that a few people in the audience were sobbing, so if you don't expect too much, enjoy the pretty actors and see the film for free, you're golden.

I think there was a smarter, rougher film in here that got sanded down to its blandest edges. And I can enjoy sappy sugary films. But I can't like ones that pretend to look for meaning, but are actually looking to fill time until the final frame.

The Constant Gardener (2005)

Good intentions, average movie

[7/10 · 28 September 2005]

The Constant Gardener attempts to do it all. Thriller. Romance. Moral/Social Conscience. Unfortunately, it doesn't all add up to a satisfying movie.

The film begins with a running start. Ralph Fiennes is Justin Quayle, a mid-level diplomat in Kenya, who discovers his wife, Tessa (Rachel Weisz), has been murdered. The questions of why? and who did it? are involving and the urgency to discover the answers contrasts perfectly to the withdrawn, inactive personality of Quayle. Tessa is fire and Justin is, well, dirt. For the first half, he just mopes, while we flash back in time to see how they meet and the events that lead up to the murder.

The movie centers around both uncovering Tessa's killers and the wrongdoing in Africa by a major pharmaceutical company and is very uneven. On one hand, the movie attempts a raw look at corruption in Africa and the death and poverty that are associated with it. Meanwhile, the movie distracts us with the convoluted corruption within the British government that allows Tessa's death. Well, which one is more important? The death of the Africans or the death of Tessa? In a great movie, they would be symbolically linked, but not in this movie. Instead, the movie oddly throws out red herrings regarding Tessa's motives in the beginning , then lets the mystery fall down like a house of cards in the second half when man after man comes forward with vital exposition in comic-book banality. One man realizes he has cancer and so gives up information. Another man has two scenes before he returns to spill his guts in a car and then disappears again.

Another flaw is if Tessa and her doctor friend can be disposed of so quickly, why is Justin not killed quicker and covered up as well? In fact, he manages to travel to the UK through parts of Europe and then back to Africa with only warnings. He gets two threatening notes and thugs beat him up. Huh? Why not just kill him? Other sloppy plot points include not one, but two incriminating letters, both which are found too easily and in the oddest places. (Spoiler: Uh, they take everything away that was hers and madly search the house but miss a box in the linens?) The dots are too easily connected making this a weak thriller.

Why is this a problem? Because the film has a heart regarding abuse in Africa. Thus, the plot takes away from the emotion behind the tragedy. It's almost like the filmmakers didn't believe anyone would see a movie or a documentary on African abuse and needed to drape it under a thriller. The trouble occurs when there is scene after scene that are continually preachy. Characters make declarations about mistreating Africa. We are treated to multiple scenes of the dry, barren land, an obvious metaphor for the situation there. Children are murdered and kidnapped in two different points. The filmmakers did not trust that viewers would want to see a drama on African poverty, but also did not trust their intellect in understanding the direness of the situation.

Thus, with a blah conspiracy theory that involves nearly every British man who comes onto the screen, a love story that isn't really fleshed out (she's inconsistent as a character and we're not really sure why he loves her or vice-versa), and the main thrust behind the story being hidden, the Constant Gardener doesn't quite work. The intent is there, but the story is not.

The Eye (2002)

So good until the end.

[7/10 · 13 August 2005]

Minor plot points are discussed, but no spoilers.

"The Eye," like "Ringu" and "Dark Water," is another horror film from the East. It emphasizes plot and characterization more so than most films.

The main character is a blind woman who has lived a normal, productive life (she is even in a symphony for the blind) but is given a chance to see through an experimental surgery involving eye transplants. (She actually gets both eyes transplanted making the title a grammatical error. In Chinese, the direct translation is "See ghosts.") However, something bizarre occurs when she begins to ghosts, as well as a bedroom (more of a shack really) that she's never visited before. Thus, her and her surgeon (don't ask) go on a hunt to discover the truth behind her visions.

The first two acts are extremely atmospheric and chilling. Because we care for the very charismatic lead actress, her journey is heartbreaking; for example, when she meets her friend in the hospital and when she is turned away from the symphony because she is no longer blind. The ghosts are used sparingly and one scene in the elevator will stay with you long after the film is over.

Now, comes the bad. The film, first of all, sets up a bland love story between patient and doctor which doesn't work because the doctor looks like he's twelve and also because there is no impetus for their relationship. Second, when we uncover the truth, the film should end with them leaving the bedroom (you'll see what I mean), but instead has an extended scene in a traffic jam that is melodramatic and too pat. It deflates the film. If you turn off the film right before they are on the bus, you'll think you'd have seen a horror spectacular!

Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)

Quirky for the sake of quirky

[6/10 · 13 August 2005]

Miranda July's debut film is, at heart, a student film. The themes and characters are not as fully developed as they could be and, in part, this could be due to the sheer number of characters she has. The film follows two handful of characters in their interactions and search for a true connection.

Why is it a student film? Perhaps, it is the lack of confidence July may feel. She spells out every detail of the characters inner lives, but since they are not fully developed, the end result is not very satisfying. The characters "speechify" on and on, without impact. Two characters walking down a road that is a metaphor for life talk and talk until the emotional resonance of their journey has been talked away. Without constant self-reference, the characters could just walk and talk a la Before Sunset, which would have been more satisfying. There are quiet winning moments in the film, such as the encounter in the elevator of the art gallery, and more of those were necessary.

This movie is so self-conscious and precious, it clouds the emotional truth in the film. July works best in her stories regarding children; her adult stories pale in maturity. I never believed the relationship between the separated husband and wife and found the potshots at the art gallery to be juvenile. July's character is a wreck and a drama queen that was exhausting to watch. Quirky and imaginative does not mean behaving like a two-year-old.

I tried to imagine this as a literary novel, making up a realistic internal dialogue for the characters, but failed to be able to. The film is devoid of true characterization. This would have worked better as a 45 minute short film.

Broken Flowers (2005)

A well-meaning film that doesn't quite work.

[7/10 · 10 August 2005]

The film "Broken Flowers" works well as an accompaniment to Alexander Payne's "About Schmidt." Both deal with older men trying to find a place in the world and attempting to interact with it after a loss. In "Schmidt," it's the wife; in "Flowers," Don Johnston (Bill Murray) deals with the loss of a his latest lover (a cameo by Julie Delpy) and the possibility of an adult son from an earlier tryst. And so, Johnston travels to find the five former lovers who may have birthed the child and ends up confronting his past, the possibility of the future and where he is in the present. Murray is perfect and so expressive with his face; he is a perfect match for director/writer Jim Jarmusch.

The film works best in the first two vignettes with Sharon Stone and Frances Conroy and then, the last vignette. In these vignettes, there is an undercurrent of emotions, a subtext that is sorely missing in the two vignettes with Jessica Lange and Tilda Swinton (whose role is essentially an afterthought and really, a mockery). That the humour is subtle, to the point of constantly having to search for it, and it doesn't work because the film is unable to tap into the sense of caring it's attempting to elicit.

The film means well but the pieces just don't come together.

Dead Birds (2004)

A solid addition to the horror genre

[6/10 · 17 September 2004]

I saw Dead Birds Thursday at noon at the Film Fest and it scared me silly. The story line is simply bank robbers during the 1860s enter a haunted house as a hideaway during a nasty storm only to discover the deadly secrets that lay within. I found the backstory to be interesting, especially compared to movies like The Ring. Either tell me enough or don't tell me at all. I thought the Ring was silly since once Naomi Watts solved the puzzle in the videotape, she still was poised to die. So why explain the story? It seemed more a tool of exposition, than as a living part of the film.

Here are some highlights:

I really enjoyed how the director was able to keep the house fresh for the entire length of the movie, although I agree with previous reviewers that some parts lagged from too much exploration of the house. Luckily the house is scary enough to warrant the set up of mood. If the rooms in the house had more function, perhaps it would feel less slow. It's hard to explain without spoiling any of the secrets of the film, but the rooms are laboriously set up to explain the backstory later. Each room has an event tied to the backstory. The performances were just pitch perfect. I liked that there was no modern references and the accents stayed pretty consistent. I don't know how much character development a haunted house story requires. They are robbers. If the learn something through the experience, it sort of cheats the purpose of the story: that is, them getting their butts kicked all around town by this ghoulish house.

Now, some negatives:

I kinda wish there weren't so many loud noise boo scares but they still scared me silly! Unfortunately, I also knew when they were coming. In fact, every major scare comes with a sound blast. Also, although I thought the backstory was too clear (albeit interesting), one audience member in the crowd asked for clarification. So I guess the film can't win. The film repeats the backstory nearly thrice.

*Spoiler alert*

But I thought after the appearance of the father to Patrick Fugit an hour in it was pretty clear what happened.

*End spoiler alert*

Anyhow, I loved the ending which was a perfect way to finish it off and it does have a twist, although it doesn't overshadow the film. The movie is one of my favourites from the festival because of how it set up mood and tone and since this was the director's first film, I think he'll only get better and more confident in letting the material scare the audience, opposed to the sound effects.

Still, I'd take this over RE2 or Alien V Predator any day.

Our Lady of the Assassins (2000)

Not nearly poignant enough.

[6/10 · 16 October 2001]

Our Lady of The Assassins will have you either loving it or hating it. It polarizes because it never compels as a movie itself, but is laid out before each person, needing him or her to internalize the film. The movie speaks of living in a Columbian drug town and the irony as people get shot everyday by moral-less teens set against the beautiful city and sky. But the main character, an old gay writer, is never engaging or as articulate and thoughtful as one would expect from the "best known grammarian" from Columbia. In fact, as grammar is rigidly structured, so are the writer's banal comments about 'time being what you want it to be' and 'life only being lived to die.' The musings have been heard before, but with greater clarity and depth. There is no epiphany to be associated with any of his sayings. However, he meets a young former gang member, marked for death, named Alexis and they fall in love. The film is so detached that their love is the closest element to emotion, and still one cannot understand why this boy would sleep with a man who incessantly whines constantly. The shocking life in Medellin is the most compelling aspect of the movie and the movie still has points, it's just that they are not nearly poignant enough. They are shown by the director, but never cohesively placed into an argument. I really wished I could have liked this movie.

The Mummy Returns (2001)

What? I can't hear you. I've gone deaf and blind from The Mummy 2.

[3/10 · 15 June 2001]

This film is competent yet annoyingly stupid and wastes every single person in this film. The femme fatale was sexy because she was sexy, not because the director/writer had any clue how to make her sexy. The mummy was the default villain only because we know the title of the movie and the premise. And frankly, half the movie is crap CGI. How can you be afraid when you know EVERYTHING IS FAKE. And loud. The director must have been at the dentist when he figured this part out. The film does not break for, say, story at any time besides the occasional "save the world or we'll all die!" cliche stuff scene everywhere. I liked the first mummy but it looks like you can't teach an old dog how to get better.

Stand and Deliver (1988)

The story is inspiration though the story itself was not as spectacular.

[6/10 · 23 May 2000]

It is easy to be moved by the driven perseverance of the teacher but this film as a film is lacking. The characters are one-dimensional and drama is created in throwaway scenes which never are introduced or set-up resulting in a lopsided film that never truly reaches the emotional power it should have. The acting is good though what may have been fun to do on screen does not always translate as many, many words are reused again and again requiring the pondering of the writers' abilities to created competent dialogue. These are technical matters which, of course, do not detract from the accomplishment of the real-life personas, but instead reflect badly on the director.

Scream 3 (2000)

It's not right, but it's okay.

[6/10 · 6 February 2000]

Yes it's derivative, anemic in tension-creating chase scenes, and the killer is nearly impossible to guess. Still, you can't dismiss that it's a good ol' slasher movie with enough killing, gore to satisfy. It never chills you (save one scene with Randy on videotape) quite like the 6th Sense and TBWP but it gets the job done (but why does the killer have everyone's voices?). If only the characters had seen Scream (or stab) then they wouldn't split apart so often to find the killer. B

House on Haunted Hill (1999)

House freaky up till end

[6/10 · 31 October 1999]

'House' - An atmospheric film with some of the creepiest imagery like a 100-minute Marilyn Manson video. Too bad its got no logic. Wonderfully tense until they use CGI, then all disintegrates into hooey. A wonderful score accentuates the dread in film. Perfect for a matinee that will leave your less horror-film-acquainted friends shaking. Better than the Haunting, but same cop-out ending. - First Hour or so: B+ - Ending: F+ - Overall: C+

The Famous Jett Jackson (1998–2001)

A summary.

[22 April 1999]

The show is basically about an african-american child star who escapes from hollywood to a small suburban multi-cultural town and his daily adventures there. He has a best friend JB and some girl named Kayla. They film partly around Toronto. Britney Spears was on it recently for a guest appearance.

Never Been Kissed (1999)

What a fake movie!

[4/10 · 22 April 1999]

A horrible, horrible movie! Spend your money on 10 THINGS. NEVER has simplistic dialogue which comes out as forced and fake, even through Drew Barrymore's skilled acting. She is truly the only saviour of this 2-dimensional picture. Her comedic talents surpass David Arquette's one-note character and the logistics of the film have to be interpreted by the viewer: no one really knows why Drew is sent back to high school, what the teacher see in Drew? (i guess he falls in love with an intelligent 18 year old, not some whiny self-victimizing and utterly depressed 25 year old) and the same old stereotypes are back... ick, ick, ick...