Change Your Image
nickschuyler
Reviews
Awake (2007)
Alba Saves a Mediocre Script of a very Original Idea.
I haven't read anyone's comments but the last persons, so I assume everyone hates Alba. Before I get to her performance, let me talk about other aspects of the movie.
SCREENPLAY The premise of a person being alive while under Anasthesia is an original idea (outside of ER or maybe Greys), and that's very refreshing. Unfortunately, the script isn't completely polished. That's unfortunate.
Wihout including th spoiler, the movie has a clever plot twist. The actors (especially Alba) pull it off well. Other than that, some of the reveals seem forced and there are a few elements that are either too cumbersome or needed re-working to make the script flow just a bit.
DIRECTION The director often blocked the actors in strange ways, including a switch between Olin and Alba during the soda machine cutaways and the cut between warm sepia tones for Christiansen and Olin in the stark white hospital waiting room.
Although necessary, the director nor the Screenwriter develop the Alba/Olin chemistry quite convincingly. Also, the purse reveal seems a little over-contrived and unworked. Overall, Abrams (the Director) could have done better.
ACTING: CHRISTIANSEN Notably, I haven't really mentioned Christiansen. That's for good reason. His role was under-acted and not too well developed on any part. Whether that's the Screenwriter's, the Director's, or the Actor's fault, we may never know. For now, I'd have to blame the Actor, since other actors held their own.
ACTING: ALBA Alba takes several turns in this movie. She gets to play several angles, which is exciting and keeps the movie alive. If not for either her acting or the screen writing for her part, this movie would be utterly forgettable.
ACTING: OLIN Lena Olin, as usual, delivers quite well. SHe also makes the best of a mediocre script under a great premise. Although Olin plays a foil to the Alba character, she does this well, in spite of the exposition by either the writer or director. Bravo! ACTING: SUPPORT Terrence Howard is fine, although not great. Fisher Stevens very mediocre, and Christopher MacDonald is almost utterly forgettable (although I put this almost entirely on the director and the screenwriter. He has one line (AND You'll KNOW WHICH ONE IM SPEAKING OF) is a noisy clunker. There couldn't have been more noise had you dropped a crescent wrench on the operation room floor.
OVERALL Well, it's a 4, because about 60 percent of the movies I've seen in my life have been better. In fact, It might be a 3, but I can't quite give it that, because although I found it pretty mundane, It WAS AN ORIGINAL IDEA for a screenplay and it was worth the price of admission and the two hours spent watching it.
FOUR STARS.
One Night Stand (1997)
A Daunting Screenplay and poor Editing is almost saved by a Great Ensemble
Watched "One Night Stand", followed by "Goodfellas" and then watched the Director's Commentary for "One Night Stand."
Englightening. Intriguing. Sloppy.
"One Night Stand" took on a lot: Racism, Stereotypes, Adultery, AIDS, Family-life. One IMDb author badmouthing this film: "How is this realistic?" In the grand scope of life, we do much more unrealistic things. Problem is, moviegoers need something more refined and a great deal more palatable. We've all eaten Mac & Cheese over the stove and had fancy steak dinners in the same calendar year, yet it's not good on the big screen.
The ensemble delivers the story well. The major problem is in Figgis. He takes on way too much at once. He has to edit things down and all these realistic situations (because life is crazy) seem so unrealistic by the moviegoer's eye. He should have reigned it in quite a bit.
There was such an attempt to joust with everything, to be REAL. I really cannot even get a handle on writing a short review. If you love Indie pics, you'll love this one. If you love director commentaries, you'll love this one, too.
If you want a straight-forward flick, you'll hate "One Night Stand." The editing was rushed and the story was encumbered by all the extra-curriculars: Black Husband/Asian Wife, two-way extra-marital affairs, bi-coastal stereotyping, the Gay/AIDS "agenda." Whoo boy. I just don't have the time to tackle it all adequately, so I'll comment on the actors, which would have made a better script and better editing into a 7 or 8 star film (Goodfellas: 8, The Departed and Rocky: 10. In my book, you have to fire on every cylinder to be a 10. Most films are 4, 5, or 6).
Wesley Snipes: Great Dramatic Acting about a man torn between where he is and where he wants to be in life.
Ming-Na: excellent "American neglected wife" who happens to be Asian. Very anti-stereotypical role. Her stage presence is underscored by how poorly her role was written. She delivers it strongly.
Thomas Hayden Church: He really performed so well, you wished for more of him on Camera, unfortunately, he was written only in support.
Nastassia Kinski: Part Muse, Part Heroine in distress, Part Mistress foil to Wen's Mimi.
Robert Downey Jr: Drug addict. If you've seen any movie where his character is some sort of addict, you've seen him before. Tab A, meet Slot B.
Kyle MacLaughlin: Weakest player. Offered little substance to the movie - which he should have had a major part. Unfortunately, the scrip was way too heavy.
Way too complicated, like life often is. A good screenplay strikes the balance, complicating only what is necessary. This script fails that, and in the end, the director has to rush through places where he should stop to breathe, and breathes in places he should have rushed.
I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry (2007)
Not Written by Sandler/Simonds - And you can tell.
I'm a huge Adam Sandler fan and really enjoyed the direction his scripts were going...Click was funny, but well written and touching, too. Figured "INPYC&L" to be a continuation of that.
Unfortunately, I was wrong.
Many of the jokes were poor, even by "Sandler Standards." The Gay jokes were not clever for themost part, and the additions of characters that were lackluster (David Spade as an overwrought fairy, the Japanese Minister in Toronto, and even Ving Rhames coming out) - poorly done.
Sandler gave a so-so performance. Kevin James was relatively strong. Jessica Biel was awful. Surprisingly, Dan Ackroyd was one of the two strong links (James being the other).
Will watch it again, but only when it reached USA Network to only reconfirm my opinions.
Eragon (2006)
Sequel City, here we come!
Good movie with a somewhat predictable plot. I couldn't help but visualize the dragon as a mix of Lisa Kudrow and Gwen Paltrow. The voice characterization fluctuated between Brit and American - slightly disarming.
THe story is regular D&D, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Star Trek fodder, which will be okay with some but the Trekkies will pick apart its inadequacies - including the sappy "dragon growth" phase of things that tugs at 14 y.o. girls' hearts.
But...the action is good, nonetheless, and the CGI is unreal and not overly done, which seems to happen to every other movie these days - why blow it up when you can make it look like an overgrown fireworks display? Thank you Special Effects team for not going overboard with that! Still, this is worth a viewing and although the set-up for the sequel is transparent and bland - it'll be worth looking into the eragon mythology develop, if it is allowed to.