Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Typical Hollywood tripe that betrays the lives lost in Bosnia
11 September 2007
This film is of the worst types of Hollywood films, historical enactments that trivialize tragic events by glossing over the human element while barely paying lip-service to the dead and loosely tying together history and hearsay with clichéd dialog and the worn-out conventions of cheap action-thrillers. It's no wonder MGM tried to burn-off this stinker at the end of the summer movie season, long before the more vital Holiday box office. I saw this in limited release in LA... at $12, it was a rip-off.

Terrence Howard is mediocre at best. He lacks both the charisma and power to carry this film, which is awkwardly patched together with his clumsy and lifeless narration. Jesse Eisenberg is awful. It's clear he either got this role by pulling a fortune from a Cracker Jack box or by being the nephew of an important Hollywood producer. This possibility is only more pathetic considering his character is exactly that: a greenhorn thrust into the action by an overbearing father high-up in the network he works for. His incessant blinking, acting through his eyes and pour delivery made me want to laugh. Richard Gere's performance is uneven and his character never appears quite as conflicted as the script would have you believe.

Which brings us to the heart of this piece of Hollywood clap, the pathetic excuse for a script by Richard Shepard, whose most notable work before this was directing for Ugly Betty and Criminal Minds. The pacing is awful. The film doesn't truly start for over an hour, yet the most climatic scene of the whole film is setup and over in 45 seconds. No build-up, no tension. Throughout the painfully slow first 60 minutes there are numerous clunky scenes of ugly exposition that are forced down the viewer's throat like so many pieces of un-masticated, Americanized, overcooked and soggy hot dog. I was almost sickened as the clichés rolled in one after another... Bar scenes where buddies pour drinks of the local liquor that is said (more than once, by the SAME character) to bring the Devil himself to the table... Dark characters in clandestine meetings striking a match to light a cigarette and illuminate their distrustful visage... Evil faces emerging from behind dirty plastic sheets hanging in dank basements... Triumphant characters telling bad guys, "You're going down, mother-f***er!"... CIA characters being more than happy to offer lectures about the "gray areas" their organization is forced to work in... Car chases on dark rainy nights... Long shots of foreboding looks from local villagers... Flashback after flashback of the same scenes of lust and libations with lost loves. Easily the worst of these unnecessary flashbacks was a single line of dialog that was spoken by a character barely 20 minutes before. I literally asked the film - out loud - "Do you really think I'm so stupid that I needed to hear that line again?" It's sad to see such a good idea for a compelling story completely destroyed by an inexperienced, untalented writer/director with too much power.

Even if you can ignore all the cheap Hollywood tactics used to manufacture conflict, the script is riddled with so many other problems, it's impossible to become engaged long enough to enjoy anything... Long exposition scenes that could have been summarized in one line... Horribly out-of-character dialog... Completely superfluous girlfriend characters vacationing in Greece... Manipulative scenes that are so convenient in the placement of characters and timing that they are completely unbelievable. Add in a musical score filled with sappy, over-sympathetic violin melodies that destroy every mood that the movie was so careful to ALMOST construct, and it seems as though the film's intent is to dare you to become engaged.

The worst part is that The Hunting Party tells a story of a tragic conflict and genocide that NEEDS to be heard by every American, but the film is so bad at conveying its message, it betrays the memory of those lives lost. This film will not reach the audience it should, it will not touch the hearts that need changing, it will not come close to opening enough minds to possibly prevent another genocide in the future.

Even in its last moments, the film tries too hard to draw parallels and lay shame upon the inactive parties of the U.N. and the world's indifference to atrocities... While flashing "Where Are They Now?" title cards of the various characters in the last shots of the movie, Richard Shepard (with great and smarmy righteousness), goes above and beyond any notion of responsible storytelling by adding the idea that the U.N. and other related countries were unable to find the masterminds of the genocide in Bosnia because they were perhaps too busy trying to find Osama Bin Laden. This suggestion is so ridiculous, it smacks the face of every life destroyed by this war.
68 out of 140 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Superman Returns, but maybe he shouldn't have...
4 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Sorry folks, but the film just does not live up to expectations. Perhaps a more appropriate title would have been "Superman Comes Back, Kinda." While Brandon Routh is a great new Superman (taking more than a few queues from Christopher Reeve) Kate Bosworth is awful. I don't care for her Lois Lane at all, she's lost the edgy, strong mindedness that Margot Kidder gave Lois nearly 20 yrs ago. Some is due to her bad acting, but some can be blamed on a bad character in a lack-luster script. At one point, Lois has to ask her husband and child (yes, Lois is now domesticated) how she will get into a highly secured area. HUH? Why would Lois Lane ask anyone? She would just do it! Bosworth and Routh have the chemistry of a wet sponge sitting on a half-filled colostomy bag. And sadly, although Routh has aptly captured both the nerdy goof in Clark Kent and the Man of Steel in Superman, he has the fewest lines in the entire film! Both Lois (unfortunately) and Lex have more lines. Now that I think about it, perhaps the title should have been: "Lois Lame and Lex Luther in Superman Comes Back, Kinda." The early special effects are rubbery (think the first Spiderman movie), the plot slows to a stand-still an hour and 15 minutes in, and the story is just plain lame. Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey are good, but seeing James Marsden (Cyclops from X-Men) playing Lois' husband is too distracting. I kept thinking, when is Cyclops going to join in and help fight evil? Two hours into this 150 minute pile of crap I was clawing to get out of the theater. The end is lame, all the new tricks Superman has are silly, the worst part being that somehow Kryptonite doesn't even seem to affect Superman anymore. Well, it does, but completely randomly. One minute Superman is devastated by it, the next he saves the entire world with a chunk of it stuck INSIDE him! WTF?!? Also, much of the film revolves around the magic crystals that traveled with Superman from his home planet, but the dialogue surrounding them is so hokey, I feel like any moment some Gypsy medium will pop out of nowhere to start reading fortunes. It's 'Crystal this' and "Crystal that' the entire film. Ugh...

Mimicking a problem common to nearly all blockbusters today, Superman Returns is too long. The first hour is OK. It starts slow, but gives a good amount of action early on. The last hour and a half could have been condensed into 45 minutes, and the film wouldn't have been quite so unbearable. Don't even get me started on Superman and Lois' romantic "Can you read my mind" flight around Metropolis. I wanted to puke the entire ten minutes they were on screen together.

SPOILER WARNING: I don't give away too much, but some plot info will follow... Other problems in the film: Again, the meteorite that Lex uses to extract Kryptonite from lands in Addis Ababa just as it did in the 1978 film, which is weird and stupid. Superman has been away for five years (I think, though exactly how long is not quite clear) at the opening of the film to visit the ruins of Krypton, but we never hear more than two lines about his time there. Plus, he returns to Earth in another star-probe and lands in the same field he originally did as a child AND is found by his mom. Again, this makes no sense. Why did he need a probe? How did he reach the remains of Krypton in deep space? It took him 2.5 years (doing the math) to get there (and he can fly near the speed of light according to this movie), so wouldn't he need a space-ship to go so far? After all, if he traveled too far from Earth's yellow sun, wouldn't he lose his powers and die? Towards the end, Superman is put in a coma, but seems to wake from it randomly. Neither a kiss from Lois nor their son (yes, he had a semi-super-son with her) wakes him, but the obvious cure would have been to have the sun hit his skin. Earlier, the movie made a point of showing Superman "charging up" with sunlight, so why didn't the script use that same device to wake him from a coma. And of course, Superman and Lois' son has (unpredictable) super powers, but how could he have conceived a child? As argued in many nerd groups and pulp comedies, wouldn't his super sperm have killed Lois? And if their child was conceived while he was a mortal man (supposing the crystal chamber in Superman II removed his powers first), why does the kid have powers at all? And if Superman has only been gone 5 years, how is this kid somewhere around the age of 6 or 7? Nine months of pregnancy would put his age at four at the most. Finally, the whole movie borrows too much from the 1978 version with Christopher Reeve. Lex is again trying to create a devastating real-estate deal that kills billions of people until Kitty (Parker Posey) again finds love in Superman and partially foils his plot. Add in the Addis Ababa meteor, the star-probe, Superman's mom and you've got a film that wants to be the 1978 classic, but falls woefully short.

Don't waste your time. Get this on DVD.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hard Candy (2005)
7/10
Wild, compelling, but lacks a clear point and wholly implausible
18 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Hard Candy is a graphic and gripping film without being overly visceral or inflammatory... well maybe just a little. It forces the audience to examine the gray area between right and wrong, whether or not pedophiles can ever truly be "rehabilitated" and what society should do when the justice system becomes ineffective in dealing with sick people who hurt others, especially children.

A wild ride...

The viewer is constantly tossed back and forth the whole film, wondering who is in the "right..." the pedophile or his antagonist. Torture, graphic language, (implied) gore and heart-felt stories of abuse, love lost and sorrow compel the viewer to wonder who is lying, who is committing the crime, and how either character will make it out of the house alive. It's odd to occasionally side with Jeff the pedophile, but as all sociopaths do, he rationalizes his behavior very well, spins intriguing, almost plausible lies and causes you to wonder how easily a single adult male who legitimately photographs under-age girls for a living could be wrongfully accused of abuse. Hayley's character is brilliant (and brilliantly acted by Ellen Page) and in her own way, another sociopath. It's perhaps the first case I've ever seen on film of "the blind torturing the blind."

What I do like about the film: It is beautifully shot, with vivid colors and tastefully-used camera techniques that highlight the tension and ambiguity of the story. The film avoids being overtly graphic, considering the subject matter covered includes pedophilia, child abuse, child porn, torture and murder. The story itself is not new (the hunter becoming the hunted), but it is presented in a new way that forces the audience into uncomfortable places and (hopefully) constructive discourse on a pressing social issue. Ellen Page is amazing. Watch for her in the future...

What I don't like about the film: Overall, it asks quite a lot of the audience in the sense of suspending one's disbelief. As mentioned, the Hayley character is brilliant, but I found it nearly impossible that a (supposed) 14 year old girl - savant or not - could have created such a complicated and nefarious plan to bring Jeff to "justice." Also, even though the film goes to strange lengths to show Hayley's extremely fit (muscular and cut) body, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for her to move the unconscious body of a full-grown, 180 pound man, let alone lift him onto a chair or table as she somehow manages to do. Finally, I don't like the sociological stance the film seems to take, that society creates pedophiles. Most of that conjecture comes from learning Jeff's background through his own words (are we supposed to believe a single word from him?) and from info Hayley has gathered on her own, but it creates several disturbing questions: Are pedophiles born or raised? Can being lonely, heartbroken and unable to find love drive a normal human being to depraved, horrific and prurient lows, or were they inherently flawed to begin with? When are people no longer responsible for their actions (when does an illness take over for personal responsibility), and what can ultimately be done to "rehabilitate" repeat child molesters? Mostly, I suppose I find it disturbing to humanize pedophiles as I personally feel they are not human.

Overall, I liked the film. It was quick. Hayley's dialogue is biting and acerbic, often drawing an uncomfortable laugh from the audience in the midst of a melee of violence and anger. Jeff is a (nearly) likable villain, though the lines between villain and hero become increasingly blurred the farther we go down the rabbit hole. There are moments of raw anger, vengeance and pity. The characters are well-drawn and acted, and you genuinely feel for both of them at different times. When Hayley takes a blow to the stomach, you feel it. When Jeff struggles to break free from his ropes, you squirm with him. The social commentary that the film *should* create is vital to the future of our nation, especially as more and more repeat child molesters are being caught and hundreds of thousands of their victims silently suffer, or disappear altogether, each year.

Unfortunately, Hard Candy is heavy-handed and manipulative. It pulls every cinemagraphic/dramatic trick known to man to force the audience down one track, then another, leaving the viewer to feel disoriented and themselves molested (possibly intentionally?). I nearly expected a never-before-seen cat to jump out of the darkness in one scene just to scare the audience. The story is altogether implausible, no matter how much we would like it to be. You'd like to leave the theater thinking, "Wow, I'm glad the bad guy got what he deserved!" but you know he didn't, as this is America and the legal system is unable to correctly handle sociopathic pedophiles. Still, go see it. It's a wild, phrenetic ride well worth the ticket price. Think about the characters, their actions and motivations and form your own opinions. Then - most importantly - talk about them.
39 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst piece of self-important indie junk ever...
18 April 2006
I cannot believe there are actually people out there who like this film. They are either completely delusional or rabid Jarmusch fans who are too enamored with him to be honest. Remember IMDb people, we're rating the FILM here, not the director! Speaking of which...

Broken Flowers wreaks of a self-absorbed "artsy fartsy" director determined to put EVERY LAST PIECE of film used into the final cut, whether the scene was needed or not. What results is an unbalanced, herky-jerky story of jumbled occurrences (with no arc or emotional build-up) and dozens of shots held waaaaay tooooooo looooonnngg.... I'm not exaggerating! I timed shots of unnecessary driving/road footage that lasted for five minutes. There's nearly a dozen three-minute shots of Bill Murray alone on screen (often referred to as "reaction" shots) that simply take way too long. Even if Bill Murray could convey enough emotion to engage me (he falls short the entire film), I would still get the point after thirty seconds. Add in dozens of unnecessary shots of Bill walking, staring into the rain or literally DOING NOTHING, and you can barely resist the urge to watch in 2x fast forward! Forget the imagery, forget the symbolism. NO amount of "hidden meanings" or symbols in this film can save it. "Pink" as a theme? You've got to be kidding! The girl in the flower shop and the last bouquet are supposed to mean something? I DON'T CARE - THE FILM IS GAWD AWFUL!!! Jim Jarmusch truly shows his inability to create an interesting, driven narrative that keeps the audience engaged. The story, while compelling, is thin at best, the characters are poorly developed and difficult to care about, and the overall pacing and dialogue are way off. There is no real resolution to the film, leaving the viewer to decide what happened after the credits roll on their own, only adding to the feeling of being cheated. The non-ending is intended to further the indie appeal of the piece, but simply strikes a sour note... "I watched nearly two hours of movie for that?!?" This entire film could have been condensed into an interesting 30 minute short, but unfortunately, there's an entire hour and 40 minutes of long boring shots, poor dialogue and uninteresting characters.

AVOID this film for your own good.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Brick (2005)
10/10
Brilliant modern day Film Noir with color, drugs and a twist
2 April 2006
That's the story, right? Going back to the days of "China Town" with Jack Nicholson chasing lead after lead, turning corners left and right, only to find more corners. Who's duping who? We don't know until the very end in this fast-paced, hipster lingo drenched wild revival of the classic Black and White Film Noir. Joseph Gordon-Levitt (yes, the kid from Third Rock) is a brilliant hero/foil as Brendan, the bitingly dry, quick-witted, scrappy and yet reluctant detective trying to walk his way through a web of lies, more lies, murder and lots of missing drugs. His character is bright, he can read a situation like a psychic on crack, turn things to his favor in seconds and play people as deftly as he is ultimately played himself. ...And he can take a punch. The plot turns this way, then that, keeping you constantly guessing as to where it will take you next. As soon as you think you know what's going on, you don't. Nora Zehetner is a beautiful and beguiling femme fatale. "The Brian" (Matt O'Leary), who is constantly feeding Brendan his facts and keeping him on track, knows his stuff but never let's you know how. Rian Johnson has written an amazing script and directed it into a whirlwind experience of near misses, painful betrayal and love/love lost. The lingo takes a second to catch. I'm reminded of Swingers, had it been as thrilling as it was funny. The words fall into place and give the film a slick, quick delivery like the best exchanges between Bogart and Bergman, Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake. Take all that and drop it into a dark, starkly brutal modern world... In a high school, of all places. There's even some quirky humor thrown in, though most of the laughs from the audience were really nervous release from all the tension built into the story. A must see.
111 out of 170 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed