edcarpediem Reviews

Uptown Girls (2003)

Mediocre...

[2/10 · 6 February 2004]

Some SPOILERS possible.

Uptown Girls... kind of excited to start watching this since I liked Britanny very much on Just Married and absolutely loved Dakota Fanning in Trapped and I Am Sam. Well, was I dissapointed...

Let's go one thing at a time. The story is just a big mess and has no recognizable point. Is it about struggling for independence? Is it about the "gray bossy girl" turning into the "pink fun girl"? Is it about romance and love? Or tragic loss of parents and coping with it? Or was it all just an excuse for some gags and jokes? My guess it that it was all of this and much more mixed into what turned out to be a huge mess. It touched all these subjects so superficially it hurt, and really got into my nerves. It failed in every possible way. Come on, any B-movies writer could do a lot better. The links between scenes made no sense most of the time. They had no real connection. The ending was a nice little surprise, I admit, but couldn't save the film. It was like a good end to a mediocre beginning and middle part, and that just doesn't work, because what we had before was too bad. Had they worked more on the heart of the film, the ending could have been ten times as great. Maybe if they grabbed onto the finish and tried to write the script backwards...

The characters were so badly developed I couldn't believe it. You feel like you don't know anybody and obviously don't know what to expect from each one (which is a big deal if you want to surprise the audience). What's the matter with that singer guy? Who is he? What goes on in his head? What the hell is he doing in the film? And Ingrid... what is her part in all this? Just a pretty face? The way relationships were resolved was too awful.

I guess my expectations were too high. Or maybe the movie actually failed to achieve any of its purposes. Speaking of them, what were they anyway? What is this film supposed to be? Should it be a comedy? A drama? A mix of both? Well, maybe I smiled three times during the movie. That doesn't make it a comedy (and I have a wide sense of humor). I never felt sad for the characters or situations. I was never thrilled to see "what will happen next". I felt nothing. Sincerely, I was just waiting for the movie to end since the first 10 minutes... hoping and trying to enjoy what I could during that hour.

I'm not saying it was a painful experience, since it is always nice to look at Britanny, and I really enjoyed the chemistry between her and Dakota. Also, that pig just rules! Every time that animal appeared on screen, it lifted my hopes up again, like some sort of fuel you need to endure the journey. Huey, now that's a character (could be a lot better though) and I liked to see some guitars around too, but that's just about it concerning the strong features.

Overall, if I tell you that I've probably gave more thought into writing this than the authors did while imagining the film, do I need to say more?

Rating: 2 / 10

Bully (2001)

What to say about these 3 films?

[6 February 2004]

Bully is the second film of Larry Clark's trilogy on teenagers. The first was "Kids" and the third was "KenPark". Having seen all of them, I'm now ready to make my final judgement on this kind of work.

Analizing all three movies together, I see several things in common, being them the horrible plots (well, one of them - Bully - is a true story, and the others could have been too), the attempt to shock the audience in almost every scene, the messy directing (although sometimes in a good way), and of course, and this is the strongest point, the amazing actors.

One can discuss whether Larry Clark is a lunatic and obsessed with teens old man, but that's hardly the point here. The fact is that a lot of viewers were not ready for this kind of cinema when they came and watched it. They didn't know what it was really about. Having been a teenager 6 years ago, I can pretty much believe that stories and people like these characters can exist. Make no mistake about it. These lives, these environments, all this emptiness of values and principles are out there. The real point is, how good is Larry Clark's filmmaking?

From all these movies, one thing that stuck in my memory were the incredible performances and some will never be forgot. Like Leo Fitzpatrick in Kids and Bully (hilarious in this one), Michael Pitt as the junkie of Bully (excellent), Nick Stahl (now a successful actor), Tifanny Limos and James Bullard in Ken Park, etc. All great, amazing work. You have to give them and Larry Clark some credit for that. It's not as easy as it seems to portray "real life" on camera.

The best one, in my opinion, is Bully. Maybe I think this way because the story leads you somewhere, for a change, and also because the characters are either more hilarious and/or tragic than in the other two films.

I do agree that Larry Clark could have made his point in a much different way in some scenes of these films, but it's up to him to decide what's best. It's his career and his choices on the line. Not ours. I, for once, tried to get some profit of having watched them. The time I spent was not wasted, for I have learned something from it.

Yet, people who are easily shocked (and also parents with teenagers) should probably not watch them (or.. maybe they should).

Overall, I believe Larry Clark's film making, although at times irresponsible and misdirected, added something to world cinema.

Trapped (I) (2002)

Decent but with some flaws

[5/10 · 4 February 2004]

First of all, I think this film fails right from the beginning, starting with the cast. I mean, come on, Stuart Townsend is supposed to play an experienced and prestigious doctor? He is not old nor apparently mature-looking enough to even play a nurse... not to mention the fact that at some scenes he was not at the emotional level his character demanded.

Putting that aside, the remaining actors were ok. Bacon can play this kind of part with "his eyes closed". Charlize just had to cry a lot and look like a mess, which she does very well. And I can't say that I like Courtney Love but I think she was fit for the role. However her character was not very well developed. About the little girl, I had the constant feeling that I have seen her somewhere... and there you go, she was Sean Penn's daughter in I Am Sam. Wow! She really delivered a great performance, just like before. But.. couldn't save the movie.

In fact, the story has many, many flaws (I haven't read the book so I can't compare). It "tries" to be original starting from the new-flawless-riskless kidnapping plan they elaborated, but that's it. Besides its predictability, there is almost no suspense what so ever. You don't get scared at all. You feel no tension at any time.. Is this supposed to be a thriller? And that ending... Jesus Christ! What were they thinking? Trying to spice things up? Sorry, not a chance.

All in all, I guess you can enjoy it if you just clear your mind and forget about all kidnapping movies you've seen, or if you would like to see how Charlize would look like in "Devil's Advocate II", or if you're a Hole fan and want to see the new Courtney Love flick, or if you just can't get enough of Bacon playing the bad guy, or if you're thirsty to know how Aragorn could have looked like. If you don't fit in any of those categories, forget it.

5/10 (and I'm being generous because of the little girl)

True Romance (1993)

Memorable

[3 February 2004]

When you see the cast on this one, you just think to yourself: Now this must be a movie!! However, unfortunately, most of the stars only appear in brief minutes, like Samuel L. Jackson (you can hardly tell it's him) and Val Kilmer. I was disappointed that Gary Oldman's character (excellent) had only one big scene. Brad Pitt was fantastic, his character must be the coolest junkie I've ever seen on film (ok ok Johnny Depp was also terrific in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas). Also, most of these actors didn't even act together, which was a shame. The main characters are played by Christian Slater (not very good) and Patricia Arquette (ouch... how HOT can she get?).

This film lives by "flashes" instead of the development of the story (which is pretty basic). For instance, the little "chat" between Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper, the fight between Gandolfini and Arquette, the Oldman vs Slater scene, any scene with Brad Pitt, and finally, the ending, were all memorable.

I saw this mainly because Quentin wrote it, but I guess that the Two Thumbs Up go to the director Tony Scott and the actors. Quentin made it possible, but they made it memorable. I guess it's just good team work.

If you just want to know if you should watch this or if it is a waste of time, well, I guess I would definitely recommend it for the scenes I mentioned, but don't expect an amazing plot. And also avoid this if you have a problem with constant shooting and bloodshed, because this one is loaded with it.

Rating: 7/10

Crazy/Beautiful (2001)

Nice and entertaining, not a disappointment

[1 February 2004]

First, I was reluctant to see a movie that had "teen cliche" written all over it. I guess it's the fame Kirsten Dunst got over the years (Get Over it, Strike!, Bring It On, etc.) I only liked her in The Virgin Suicides and Levity (actually she played a similar character there), and thought that in Spiderman she did the job ok. On the other hand, there was this guy (Jay Hernandez) whom I had never heard about, but I figured he would just be the "cool latin cute guy" stereotype in teen movies. On imdb.com the movie was rated 6.5 which was pretty good for this kind of films, and had overall good comments. I usually have a peek at these two factors before watching a movie, but they're obviously not essential. But enough about my expectations. Let's talk about what I experienced.

The plot is really basic and you feel like you've seen this story a thousand times before. But... sometimes it's the way in which something is told that makes the difference. And I believe this is why it got me. It got me from the very beginning, and I just wanted to see scene after scene. It glued me to the seat at some point. I felt for the characters, which is important. They had depth, they had background. I identified myself with Jay's character, as he always tried to do the right thing and avoided trouble. The differences and the connection between the two worlds were very well done. The acting was also good, especially Kirsten Dunst and her father. Jay was ok, I think he really didn't have to try very hard for this role.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Some reviewers said that the movie made them reflect about certain aspects of life, or something like that. Well, I guess I don't need a movie to do that for myself, but maybe after you've seen it, you might start to wonder what would be really important for your life. Jay had his family, that sacrificed hard for him to go to school. He was the only one in the family that could have some sort of career ahead of him. And falling in love with Nicole would probably mess it up, not to mention escaping town with her. And Nicole, she had everything in the material field, but lacked love (although she did have that weird friend). She found in Carlos what she needed. The story develops on an ideal pace and style, making you feel that every scene has a purpose and that you are not wasting your time. Even the "videoclips" of their relationship were very fun to watch. The dramatic component of the picture is well mixed in the overall. Not too much, not too less.

Overall, this is a good nice film. If you happen to rent it, you will have a good time.

The Unsaid (2001)

Worth watching

[8/10 · 5 July 2003]

There are many kinds of thriller/drama movies.

Some have the ability to confuse and bore you to death during most of the time, with just some good twist in the end, which "should" compensate for the "lentish", sacrificing hour before that. And many overrated movies have that formula, which only works because you become so numb as you watch it, that you feel very surprised by the final outcome of the plot, and then believe that it was such a terrific film.

Others are the exact opposite, meaning that they have a great starting point, but the story gets duller and duller until the final result becomes very predictable. And so many other variations of this genre may arise.

With `The Unsaid', however, you can expect to be tied to your seat the whole time as the plot develops. It has a dramatic starting point, a powerful and constant *thrilling* middle section and well, I won't refer the ending because, believe it, if you start watching this flick, you won't go away until you see the whole thing. It's that good! But that's me, I personally like movies that grab your attention from the start and make you not even take bathroom breaks or answer to your cell-phone calls. What about you?

The acting by Andy Garcia was brilliant; he really got inside his character. Only with a role like this could he show his true dramatic acting skills, and was followed very well by the rest of the cast. The directing was ok, and had some notorious influence on our understanding and dramatic effect of the scenes. It was done the way it's supposed to, clean and sober, even in action sequences. I won't refer to the story or the subjects it's about, since none of that is necessary here. This is a review, not a `plot outline'.

The bottom line is this: it's a definitely worth watching film! And if you're not entertained during and pleased after it, well. admit it: You watched some movie other than `The Unsaid'.