Written by Drew Bolduc
Directed by Drew Bolduc & Dan G. Nelson
Pretty much everything by Drew Bolduc & Dan G. Nelson
As mentioned in tons of reviews before, the only way to describe The Taint is Gonzo. Everything about it is to the fullest extreme, comedy lurks in every shot, and every level of ridiculousness is amped to the highest possible point.
The black and white opening shots of tits, the shot from the inside of a vagina, welcome you to the experience that is The Taint. As the main character Phil O'Ginny (Drew Bolduc) wakes from his Oedipal nightmare, he is next to a girl, and suddenly, he's being chased by a woodland maniac, holding a severed penis, a scythe, shitting his pants as he runs. If you can continue to watch this film, you know you just stumbled into a very wild movie.
Bolduc handled the awesome synth soundtrack, Nelson did the insane, kinetic cinematography, they both edited the picture and sound, and Nelson did both the practical and digital f/x for the film, making it a true independent film, because when no one will listen to your insane idea, sometimes you just have to do it yourself, and trust that people will get the joke. In the case of The Taint it works. It all works. What should be boring and unfunny is quickly paced and full of sick laughs.
The cover of the film and the scattered synopsis' may scare some people off, same with the Troma-esque look, but this is the best, most exciting Troma film that Troma didn't have the drive to make, but the spirit remains the same.
Some films simply entertain, and no matter how good they are, they simply can only entertain. Other films transcend that ability, and make you feel as though you've seen the face of something new, giving them an almost religious feel; The Taint is one of these films, in line with Jodoworski's El Topo as a balls out cinematic experience.
To comment on the plot is to ruin the joy of going into the film thinking it's only about exploding penises, so I'll leave the threadbare description that everyone else has been passing around: Once he discovers the water in his town has been tainted, Phil bumps into the guy that created the taint, and he tells Phil the ridiculous story of how it happened, which features Drew Bolduc in another role as Drew, who helped create the taint, which culminates in one of the most hilarious on-screen attacks of all time.
There's no way to properly explain the brilliance and mischief that is The Taint, it needs to be seen to be not only believed but processed, but if you're into independent film, extreme comedy (Trey Parker, anyone?) or just plain ludicrous fun, head over and check out The Taint today: http://www.taintmovie.com/store/ You won't be sad.
9.6/10 (A)
Friday, June 3, 2011
The Maiden Heist (2009)
Written by Michael LeSieur
Directed by Peter Hewitt
This is a movie we always had a bunch of copies of at Blockbuster, that no one ever wanted. Based on the cast alone (Walken, Freeman, Harden, Macy) I always wanted to check it out, so I finally got the chance. The film centers on Roger (Christopher Walken), a museum security guard, who is utterly captivated by the beauty of the painting "The Lonely Maiden" and enjoys every day of his 30 year employment staring at it. Until a co-worker informs him that a museum in Denmark made a better offer, the entire installation would soon be replaced with something else. Terrified, Roger begins to hatch a scheme to steal the painting, when he notices Charles (Morgan Freeman) weeping in front of "Girl With Cats", his favorite piece. As they meet, they devise a plan together, needing only a night security guard to complete their plan, when they notice that George (William H. Macy), the night security guard, is obsessed with the Bronze Warrior statue.
With their plan complete, of course the only thing that can happen is things can go horribly wrong at every turn, and since this is a comedy, you know they will. The script is a classic heist caper spoof, but with a certain sensibility more suited to older audiences, but it doesn't stop the cast from being a delight. In the hands of younger actors, it would lose it's coy charm and instead be another bland thriller, but with the comedic sincerity of Freeman, Walken, and Macy the film manages to be warm and frequently hilarious.
Roger's wife Rose (Marcia Gay Harden) manages to complicate every situation with her explosive personality, which Roger constantly exacerbates with calm ignorance to the fact that she will constantly do this. Charles is the worrier, always about to shatter at every turn, but he doesn't, because George, with his misguided chutzpah, is the leader because "Are they communists today in Grenada, Roger?" Great characterizations turn a clever script into a hilarious script, and it's done often here.
Some of the cheesier sequences involve Roger's daydreams about busting up bad guys, and while it shows a bit into his character, they feel out of place in the scheme of the movie. The biggest problem here is inconsistency, in all aspects. The laughs are reserved for the funny scenes, the suspenseful scenes are suspenseful, etc. Marcia Gay Harden has some great bits at the opening, and she seals the ending, but throughout the film she's just a side character, part of Roger's conflict, when she could have easily been a conflict all along.
Still, it's a funny enough film that it will keep you smiling for most of the 90 minutes it runs, and too often that's something you can't say about comedy films, unfortunately. If you're a fan of anyone in the cast, check it out, just know it's a lighthearted film, but it has enough moments that will make you chuckle that you'll be glad you checked it out.
7.9/10 (C+)
Directed by Peter Hewitt
This is a movie we always had a bunch of copies of at Blockbuster, that no one ever wanted. Based on the cast alone (Walken, Freeman, Harden, Macy) I always wanted to check it out, so I finally got the chance. The film centers on Roger (Christopher Walken), a museum security guard, who is utterly captivated by the beauty of the painting "The Lonely Maiden" and enjoys every day of his 30 year employment staring at it. Until a co-worker informs him that a museum in Denmark made a better offer, the entire installation would soon be replaced with something else. Terrified, Roger begins to hatch a scheme to steal the painting, when he notices Charles (Morgan Freeman) weeping in front of "Girl With Cats", his favorite piece. As they meet, they devise a plan together, needing only a night security guard to complete their plan, when they notice that George (William H. Macy), the night security guard, is obsessed with the Bronze Warrior statue.
With their plan complete, of course the only thing that can happen is things can go horribly wrong at every turn, and since this is a comedy, you know they will. The script is a classic heist caper spoof, but with a certain sensibility more suited to older audiences, but it doesn't stop the cast from being a delight. In the hands of younger actors, it would lose it's coy charm and instead be another bland thriller, but with the comedic sincerity of Freeman, Walken, and Macy the film manages to be warm and frequently hilarious.
Roger's wife Rose (Marcia Gay Harden) manages to complicate every situation with her explosive personality, which Roger constantly exacerbates with calm ignorance to the fact that she will constantly do this. Charles is the worrier, always about to shatter at every turn, but he doesn't, because George, with his misguided chutzpah, is the leader because "Are they communists today in Grenada, Roger?" Great characterizations turn a clever script into a hilarious script, and it's done often here.
Some of the cheesier sequences involve Roger's daydreams about busting up bad guys, and while it shows a bit into his character, they feel out of place in the scheme of the movie. The biggest problem here is inconsistency, in all aspects. The laughs are reserved for the funny scenes, the suspenseful scenes are suspenseful, etc. Marcia Gay Harden has some great bits at the opening, and she seals the ending, but throughout the film she's just a side character, part of Roger's conflict, when she could have easily been a conflict all along.
Still, it's a funny enough film that it will keep you smiling for most of the 90 minutes it runs, and too often that's something you can't say about comedy films, unfortunately. If you're a fan of anyone in the cast, check it out, just know it's a lighthearted film, but it has enough moments that will make you chuckle that you'll be glad you checked it out.
7.9/10 (C+)
The Tunnel Movie (2011)
Written by Enzo Tedeschi & Julian Harvey
Directed by Carlo Ledesma
I grabbed this movie through VoDo.net's promotion, where they are giving it away via legal torrent. They ask that if you like the movie, you make a donation, buy the DVD, or at the very least, tell someone about the movie. This is the second part of a funding scheme that I help will continue to change how movies are released. From the outset, the producers of The Tunnel (the Movie part is added to differentiate from another title) started funding by selling individual frames of the movie for $1 each. Not a bad investment, to own a few frames of a feature film, especially if you can spend $30 and own a second of the film. I'm not sure exactly how many frames they shot, but theoretically, for less than $30 you could own a second of the 90 minute film. Not bad.
Reports are that this wasn't quite as successful as the producers hoped, netting only $36,000 (not a number to be scoffed at, however) of their $135,000 total budget. Instead of paying to go through a big company like Netflix, iTunes, or Amazon, they have chosen to give the film away themselves, trusting that the film will find an audience, and the audience will gladly pay to find the movie if they like it. What too many filmmakers believe is that EVERYONE wants to see their movie, but some will steal it because they don't want to pay. These filmmakers are hoping everyone is wrong. I hope so too.
With all that said about the production of it, I suppose it might spoil it for some to learn this is a found footage film. The genre is take it or leave it, either you're intrigued, or you think they all look the same. There is no middle ground, and in the evolution of current cinema, found footage is just the first major mini-genre in what is already known as meta filmmaking. If you don't like found footage as a concept, well, you probably shouldn't bother with any films in the genre.
So from the underground of Australia, comes a found footage film that ultimately suffers because it's so ingrained in the genre of found footage, and does not apologize for doing so. The tapes are presented as having happened the year before, captured by a team of journalists that went off on their own to find the answers to Sidney's water shortages, and why a plan to build pumps underneath the city has seemingly been abandoned.
The film intercuts between security cam footage, the clean, lit camera of the team's camera man, and later, a handheld digital video camera in nightvision mode. Amongst all of this, there are interviews with the "survivors". It's a slightly different take on the found footage "something is chasing us" film, but upfront, learning who survives kind of takes some of the fun out of it. While it's still fun to watch everyone slowly disappear, it's like they're admitting it's a movie, which of course it is, but the point of found footage is supposed to be the coy mystery that it could have been real.
Otherwise, all the found footage conventions are here, a group of journalists decides to take a story into their own hands, they go underground, get lost, and pretty soon they learn they aren't alone. What they did the best was to put the confrontations between "them out there" and the main characters, people sometimes just disappear from a corner, but more often than not, it's worked out to where they are holding the camera during their confrontation, which is another cool aspect that happens too rarely in found footage films.
Despite my belief in the method of distribution and funding, I can't lie and say I love this movie. For fans of found footage, it's a good time, a bit slower paced than a lot of the films in the genre, and maybe even a little overlong. Those are the only two major complaints I have, however, so if you're looking for a creepy film, some interesting camera work, lots of jump scares, then you'll find The Tunnel to be an entertaining fright flick. If found footage bothers you, that's what this is, they make no bones about it.
If you would like to support The Tunnel, check out their page on Vodo.net right here: http://vodo.net/thetunnel ]
8.1/10 (B-)
Directed by Carlo Ledesma
I grabbed this movie through VoDo.net's promotion, where they are giving it away via legal torrent. They ask that if you like the movie, you make a donation, buy the DVD, or at the very least, tell someone about the movie. This is the second part of a funding scheme that I help will continue to change how movies are released. From the outset, the producers of The Tunnel (the Movie part is added to differentiate from another title) started funding by selling individual frames of the movie for $1 each. Not a bad investment, to own a few frames of a feature film, especially if you can spend $30 and own a second of the film. I'm not sure exactly how many frames they shot, but theoretically, for less than $30 you could own a second of the 90 minute film. Not bad.
Reports are that this wasn't quite as successful as the producers hoped, netting only $36,000 (not a number to be scoffed at, however) of their $135,000 total budget. Instead of paying to go through a big company like Netflix, iTunes, or Amazon, they have chosen to give the film away themselves, trusting that the film will find an audience, and the audience will gladly pay to find the movie if they like it. What too many filmmakers believe is that EVERYONE wants to see their movie, but some will steal it because they don't want to pay. These filmmakers are hoping everyone is wrong. I hope so too.
With all that said about the production of it, I suppose it might spoil it for some to learn this is a found footage film. The genre is take it or leave it, either you're intrigued, or you think they all look the same. There is no middle ground, and in the evolution of current cinema, found footage is just the first major mini-genre in what is already known as meta filmmaking. If you don't like found footage as a concept, well, you probably shouldn't bother with any films in the genre.
So from the underground of Australia, comes a found footage film that ultimately suffers because it's so ingrained in the genre of found footage, and does not apologize for doing so. The tapes are presented as having happened the year before, captured by a team of journalists that went off on their own to find the answers to Sidney's water shortages, and why a plan to build pumps underneath the city has seemingly been abandoned.
The film intercuts between security cam footage, the clean, lit camera of the team's camera man, and later, a handheld digital video camera in nightvision mode. Amongst all of this, there are interviews with the "survivors". It's a slightly different take on the found footage "something is chasing us" film, but upfront, learning who survives kind of takes some of the fun out of it. While it's still fun to watch everyone slowly disappear, it's like they're admitting it's a movie, which of course it is, but the point of found footage is supposed to be the coy mystery that it could have been real.
Otherwise, all the found footage conventions are here, a group of journalists decides to take a story into their own hands, they go underground, get lost, and pretty soon they learn they aren't alone. What they did the best was to put the confrontations between "them out there" and the main characters, people sometimes just disappear from a corner, but more often than not, it's worked out to where they are holding the camera during their confrontation, which is another cool aspect that happens too rarely in found footage films.
Despite my belief in the method of distribution and funding, I can't lie and say I love this movie. For fans of found footage, it's a good time, a bit slower paced than a lot of the films in the genre, and maybe even a little overlong. Those are the only two major complaints I have, however, so if you're looking for a creepy film, some interesting camera work, lots of jump scares, then you'll find The Tunnel to be an entertaining fright flick. If found footage bothers you, that's what this is, they make no bones about it.
If you would like to support The Tunnel, check out their page on Vodo.net right here: http://vodo.net/thetunnel ]
8.1/10 (B-)
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Knockout (2011)
Written by Evan Jacobs & Joseph Nasser
Directed by Anne Wheeler
The biggest flaw this movie had going was the cinematography, I don't know what it is about Canada, but you can spot their productions by the look of the movie before you hear your first "aboot". Otherwise, this is what it is: A "G" rated family film starring Stone Cold Steve Austin in a loose boxing remake of "The Karate Kid". The script is even so clever, the main character notices his parallels to that movie! It's not a bad film, it's the type of thing I would have loved at 6-10 years old. Watching it now, as an adult, I find it has a lot of the "nice" elements that family movies typically gloss over in favor of "this only sounds gross, it's not actually gross" laughs family films seem to shoot for today.
With that said, most people would find this to be an overtly hammy movie about a kid named Matthew Miller (Daniel Madger) who has to move to a new town and doesn't like it one bit, for all the usual reasons. He wears a suit to school at his mother's insistence, and of course he cares more about knowledge than socializing, so immediately he's spotted as a victim. Luckily, only the class clown Nick (Samuel Patrick Chu) spots him, and despite some jokes at Matt's expense, they end up becoming friends, where Nick introduces Matt to Ruby (Emma Grabinsky), this movie's idea of an "alternative" girl (which oddly reminds me of what Nickelodeon thought was "alternative" circa 1992) who of course Matt has an immediate crush on.
Quickly, Matt learns the ropes of the school, which includes the idiom that the toughest kid in school is the state champion boxer, who of course boxes to release some of his unfettered rage he seemingly has, never able to not pick on Matt. The obviousness of the stereotypes aside, most of these kids aren't very good actors to begin with, so their attempts at unique characters get lost in the awful dialogue, broad overacting, and G-rated insults.
Steve Austin steps up as the lead actor here, using his charisma to keep the film from being a boring mess. Which, amazingly, it's really not. Although, whomever had Steve shave his mustache should be slapped. I suspect that's what this film really was, a chance for Steve Austin to step outside the Condemned/Expendables tough guy role and show he has a little bit of range, and can still make family friendly entertainment. To me, that shows the greatest improvement in Austin's abilities, rarely before has he been tasked with making people laugh without cursing or violence, and very rarely was he intended to be heartfelt. Here he does both with aplomb, showing he's ready for bigger and better things.
I noticed the budget for this film was $9 million, my main question is where that money went. It didn't go into design, actors, or fancy camera rigs. Besides that fact (more suited to the worries of the producers, I suppose) I can honestly say I enjoyed most of this film, despite the fact that it's a very blatant Karate Kid rip-off, it has enough heart and family friendliness to not be an awful boring mess as so many of these films are. For the crowd it was made for, probably not many people outside of that 6-15 male age range will find anything of value though.
7.0/10 (C-)
Directed by Anne Wheeler
The biggest flaw this movie had going was the cinematography, I don't know what it is about Canada, but you can spot their productions by the look of the movie before you hear your first "aboot". Otherwise, this is what it is: A "G" rated family film starring Stone Cold Steve Austin in a loose boxing remake of "The Karate Kid". The script is even so clever, the main character notices his parallels to that movie! It's not a bad film, it's the type of thing I would have loved at 6-10 years old. Watching it now, as an adult, I find it has a lot of the "nice" elements that family movies typically gloss over in favor of "this only sounds gross, it's not actually gross" laughs family films seem to shoot for today.
With that said, most people would find this to be an overtly hammy movie about a kid named Matthew Miller (Daniel Madger) who has to move to a new town and doesn't like it one bit, for all the usual reasons. He wears a suit to school at his mother's insistence, and of course he cares more about knowledge than socializing, so immediately he's spotted as a victim. Luckily, only the class clown Nick (Samuel Patrick Chu) spots him, and despite some jokes at Matt's expense, they end up becoming friends, where Nick introduces Matt to Ruby (Emma Grabinsky), this movie's idea of an "alternative" girl (which oddly reminds me of what Nickelodeon thought was "alternative" circa 1992) who of course Matt has an immediate crush on.
Quickly, Matt learns the ropes of the school, which includes the idiom that the toughest kid in school is the state champion boxer, who of course boxes to release some of his unfettered rage he seemingly has, never able to not pick on Matt. The obviousness of the stereotypes aside, most of these kids aren't very good actors to begin with, so their attempts at unique characters get lost in the awful dialogue, broad overacting, and G-rated insults.
Steve Austin steps up as the lead actor here, using his charisma to keep the film from being a boring mess. Which, amazingly, it's really not. Although, whomever had Steve shave his mustache should be slapped. I suspect that's what this film really was, a chance for Steve Austin to step outside the Condemned/Expendables tough guy role and show he has a little bit of range, and can still make family friendly entertainment. To me, that shows the greatest improvement in Austin's abilities, rarely before has he been tasked with making people laugh without cursing or violence, and very rarely was he intended to be heartfelt. Here he does both with aplomb, showing he's ready for bigger and better things.
I noticed the budget for this film was $9 million, my main question is where that money went. It didn't go into design, actors, or fancy camera rigs. Besides that fact (more suited to the worries of the producers, I suppose) I can honestly say I enjoyed most of this film, despite the fact that it's a very blatant Karate Kid rip-off, it has enough heart and family friendliness to not be an awful boring mess as so many of these films are. For the crowd it was made for, probably not many people outside of that 6-15 male age range will find anything of value though.
7.0/10 (C-)
The Hangover Part II (2011)
Written by Craig Mazin & Scot Armstrong & Todd Phillips
Directed by Todd Phillips
We all knew it was coming. People were begging for it by the amount of money they spent on the first film. So what exactly did everyone who hated The Hangover 2 expect? A wildly different movie that wasn't about them getting a hangover and waking up in a strange place, unaware of what they did the night before? A sequel if there ever was one, The Hangover 2 is exactly what it should be, a remake of the first film in spirit, with new locations, characters, situations, and laughs.
Apparently, critics are not aware that comedy is critic-proof, that pointing out loose plot threads in a movie about guys getting so wasted they destroy entire towns is like screaming at a turkey that's it's stupid. It knows. It still doesn't care. And apparently neither do fans, pushing The Hangover 2 to the number one movie of the weekend, and outgrossing the first film at this point. With that said, does it matter if nobody liked it? The third film is already in the works, to be much hated by critics I assume, long before it even comes out.
Awake, and hung over, this time in Bangkok, Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zack Galifianakis), and Phil (Bradley Cooper) think they may have avoided any serious damage the night before, despite their lack of recollection. Until they find the finger. Which leads them to explore the who, what, and where of the night before. This time, Stu is supposed to be getting married to the gorgeous and ridiculously understanding Lauren (Jamie Chung, who was underutilized here) in a quiet corner of Thailand.
However, before leaving, Doug (Justin Bartha) and Phil manage to guilt Stu into going to talk to Alan, who considers them all his best friends, and has been desperately waiting for an invitation to Stu's wedding, which he won't ever get, until he manages to pout his way into a last minute invitation and is quickly along for the ride.
Insisting he doesn't want any repeats, Stu settles for a bachelor party in the form of brunch at IHOP, terrified of being roofied yet again. Once they arrive in Thailand though, it's on Lauren's insistence that he joins his friends for a beer around the camp fire on the beach that sets in motion the near-destruction of Bangkok.
The next day, Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) is back in one of the best movie entrances of all time. The big difference in this movie from the last one is the way Mr. Chow is played and viewed by the characters. In the first film, the joke is he's no criminal at all. Here, he's actually carved some type of niche out for himself, and it's odd to see Mr. Chow have so much influence on the characters. However, for the sake of the plot, it's a fun direction, and everything the guys get into this time around seems to be darker and weirder, which I found appropriate given the Bangkok setting.
I felt it all kept pace with The Hangover, in terms of how many laughs are in the film, and at the end of the day, that's my only real requirement for a comedy film. Toss in likeable characters that we already love, and give them some different angles to spin into, and you have a very fun film. As always, some of the biggest laughs come at the very end of the film, where we finally get to see everything the guys took a picture of all night, the grand payoff for the mysterious night.
8.6 (B+)
Directed by Todd Phillips
We all knew it was coming. People were begging for it by the amount of money they spent on the first film. So what exactly did everyone who hated The Hangover 2 expect? A wildly different movie that wasn't about them getting a hangover and waking up in a strange place, unaware of what they did the night before? A sequel if there ever was one, The Hangover 2 is exactly what it should be, a remake of the first film in spirit, with new locations, characters, situations, and laughs.
Apparently, critics are not aware that comedy is critic-proof, that pointing out loose plot threads in a movie about guys getting so wasted they destroy entire towns is like screaming at a turkey that's it's stupid. It knows. It still doesn't care. And apparently neither do fans, pushing The Hangover 2 to the number one movie of the weekend, and outgrossing the first film at this point. With that said, does it matter if nobody liked it? The third film is already in the works, to be much hated by critics I assume, long before it even comes out.
Awake, and hung over, this time in Bangkok, Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zack Galifianakis), and Phil (Bradley Cooper) think they may have avoided any serious damage the night before, despite their lack of recollection. Until they find the finger. Which leads them to explore the who, what, and where of the night before. This time, Stu is supposed to be getting married to the gorgeous and ridiculously understanding Lauren (Jamie Chung, who was underutilized here) in a quiet corner of Thailand.
However, before leaving, Doug (Justin Bartha) and Phil manage to guilt Stu into going to talk to Alan, who considers them all his best friends, and has been desperately waiting for an invitation to Stu's wedding, which he won't ever get, until he manages to pout his way into a last minute invitation and is quickly along for the ride.
Insisting he doesn't want any repeats, Stu settles for a bachelor party in the form of brunch at IHOP, terrified of being roofied yet again. Once they arrive in Thailand though, it's on Lauren's insistence that he joins his friends for a beer around the camp fire on the beach that sets in motion the near-destruction of Bangkok.
The next day, Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) is back in one of the best movie entrances of all time. The big difference in this movie from the last one is the way Mr. Chow is played and viewed by the characters. In the first film, the joke is he's no criminal at all. Here, he's actually carved some type of niche out for himself, and it's odd to see Mr. Chow have so much influence on the characters. However, for the sake of the plot, it's a fun direction, and everything the guys get into this time around seems to be darker and weirder, which I found appropriate given the Bangkok setting.
I felt it all kept pace with The Hangover, in terms of how many laughs are in the film, and at the end of the day, that's my only real requirement for a comedy film. Toss in likeable characters that we already love, and give them some different angles to spin into, and you have a very fun film. As always, some of the biggest laughs come at the very end of the film, where we finally get to see everything the guys took a picture of all night, the grand payoff for the mysterious night.
8.6 (B+)
Dream Home (2010)
Written by Kwok Cheung Tsang & Chi-Man Wan & Ho-Cheung Pang
Directed by Ho-Cheung Pang
From the outset, Dream Home sets the bar high for the film to continue as a balls out slasher. A dementedly gory opening has a security guard to a high rise building in Hong Kong doing things no person should ever do with a razorblade. The perpetrator escapes quietly in the background.
First and foremost, the cinematography is exquisite. Full of rich colors and vibrant tones, color is used often to set an unsettling tone for each scene. We begin to follow Cheng Lai-Sheung (Josie Ho), as she toils at her job as a telemarketer for a bank, continually getting hung up on.
A series of fragmented flashbacks reveal that her ultimate dream was to save her father, to get him close to the view of the ocean he longs for, before his ailing body ultimately fails him. We follow the trials and tribulations of a home buyer, stepped on by large companies with no compassion for the individual, only the hard numbers, a new style of business since the crumbling of the world housing markets.
The audience is treated to the daily frustrations of life as Cheng Lai-Sheung faces roadblocks along her way to what she imagines is success. Her sometimes fling (Eason Chan) is a drunken fratboy type that only calls when he needs a quick release, or just doesn't want to go home to his wife. Cheng uses this to her advantage, adding his brutish sympathy to her cache of weapons.
Some audiences may find the juxtaposition of Chinese melodrama and extreme gory horror off putting, but for those experienced with CAT III films, it's a splattery fun ride, with some of the best practical F/X work in the past few years. Reminiscent of old school KNB, the practical work is messy and detailed, they managed to capture a lot of the shine that just N and B seem to be missing these days.
As for the slasher conventions, it's nothing new. The whole approach, of a stepped on homeowner trying to hold fast what has become theirs, is an interesting one, but once it gets down to it, all the slashing takes place in a few measured sequences, and while the kills and gore are fresh and unique, the whole episode turns into a murky mess of plot.
Which is not to say it's not enjoyable. It is, very much so. Some of the most squirm inducing moments I've seen in a recent horror film. However, the marriage of the two concepts just don't quite gel in the end, while I respect the filmmakers for the unique approach to a slasher, it's not a coy play on the conventions of a slasher like the very good All the Boys Love Mandy Lane. As far as Chinese slashers go, however, it's one of the better films you'll see.
8.7/10 (B+)
Directed by Ho-Cheung Pang
From the outset, Dream Home sets the bar high for the film to continue as a balls out slasher. A dementedly gory opening has a security guard to a high rise building in Hong Kong doing things no person should ever do with a razorblade. The perpetrator escapes quietly in the background.
First and foremost, the cinematography is exquisite. Full of rich colors and vibrant tones, color is used often to set an unsettling tone for each scene. We begin to follow Cheng Lai-Sheung (Josie Ho), as she toils at her job as a telemarketer for a bank, continually getting hung up on.
A series of fragmented flashbacks reveal that her ultimate dream was to save her father, to get him close to the view of the ocean he longs for, before his ailing body ultimately fails him. We follow the trials and tribulations of a home buyer, stepped on by large companies with no compassion for the individual, only the hard numbers, a new style of business since the crumbling of the world housing markets.
The audience is treated to the daily frustrations of life as Cheng Lai-Sheung faces roadblocks along her way to what she imagines is success. Her sometimes fling (Eason Chan) is a drunken fratboy type that only calls when he needs a quick release, or just doesn't want to go home to his wife. Cheng uses this to her advantage, adding his brutish sympathy to her cache of weapons.
Some audiences may find the juxtaposition of Chinese melodrama and extreme gory horror off putting, but for those experienced with CAT III films, it's a splattery fun ride, with some of the best practical F/X work in the past few years. Reminiscent of old school KNB, the practical work is messy and detailed, they managed to capture a lot of the shine that just N and B seem to be missing these days.
As for the slasher conventions, it's nothing new. The whole approach, of a stepped on homeowner trying to hold fast what has become theirs, is an interesting one, but once it gets down to it, all the slashing takes place in a few measured sequences, and while the kills and gore are fresh and unique, the whole episode turns into a murky mess of plot.
Which is not to say it's not enjoyable. It is, very much so. Some of the most squirm inducing moments I've seen in a recent horror film. However, the marriage of the two concepts just don't quite gel in the end, while I respect the filmmakers for the unique approach to a slasher, it's not a coy play on the conventions of a slasher like the very good All the Boys Love Mandy Lane. As far as Chinese slashers go, however, it's one of the better films you'll see.
8.7/10 (B+)
Monday, May 9, 2011
Thor (2011)
Based on the Comic Character "Thor" by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby
Story by Mark Protosevich and J. Michael Straczynski
Screenplay by Ashley Miller & Zack Stentz and Don Payne
Directed by Kenneth Branagh
I've always said I though Thor was a terrible property to adapt to the big screen, and that the only reason to do it would be to get him into the Avengers movie. Well, it seems both happened, and only the second one will seemingly make any sense in the long run. That, and the fact that this film grossed its budget overseas before it even opened in a US theater.
The only real problem with this film is the fundamental problem I mentioned. Thor exists in such a fantastical, brightly colored world, that it's tough to relate that to present day America. It's even harder when you have to deal with rainbow bridges, armor that would make Lady Gaga feel stupid, and unexplainable teleportation.
The problem with a film like Thor is it's usually most effective in its natural setting, and here that would be Asgard. If they stuck with the fantasy elements, the film would've worked on every level. The problem is, the whole mythology of Marvel's Thor is that he ends up coming to our present day Earth. So not only is this an epic story of deities, it's a fish-out-of-water comedy. Somehow, those two concepts just never seem to jibe.
Don't be mistaken, this is still a well made, and entertaining film. It just never had the opportunity to even come close to Iron Man or Spider-Man, not only because the character is secondary in popularity, but it's just an odd duck. Thor, in the comics, fits nicely into the brightly colored panels of a comic book, to adapt that style to film is seemingly impossible, as Branagh has made two distinctly separate films. One concerns the mythical Asgard, where Thor has to deal with his own arrogance, family strife, and the competition with his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) for their father Odin's (Anthony Hopkins) throne.
Once Thor is banished to Earth though, it basically becomes an episode of the sitcom Perfect Strangers where the character is so far from this culture, he doesn't understand even the simplest of modern concepts. I understand that's the nature of the character, but did we really need to watch half a movie of "fish out of water" moments?
There are many redeeming qualities, for one, the spectacular cast. Stellan Skarsgard, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Idris Elba, Clark Gregg, Colm Feore, Ray Stevenson...and introducing Chris Hemsworth. From what I've heard in interviews, most of the actors were psyched based on the fact that Branagh was directing, being an actor beloved by other actors does indeed have its advantages.
Amazingly, Chris Hemsworth was able to overcome all doubts and come through as a solid Thor. In many ways he reminded me of Heath Ledger, full of charisma, energy, and physicality. In one intense scene with Anthony Hopkins, he manages to hold his own. Good pick, Marvel, you've made a star.
The technical aspects are what we've come to expect from these films, big action set pieces, highly detailed sound, and huge f/x spectacles. However, here, I don't feel it jibes well with the rest of the story, as most of the big action takes place in Asgard, and since Thor doesn't have his powers on Earth, it only helps to divide the two settings within the film.
Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) is supposed to be the connecting factor, and he is great in his scenes. All the stuff that is hinting towards The Avengers Initiative is well played and fun to spot, but in the end, it's not enough to put this film on the level with other big Marvel films.
In the end, it feels like what it is: A movie that simply had to be made to sell The Avengers movie, because unlike Hawkeye, he's a much more well known character. I don't think I'm alone when I say I would've rather seen a Hawkeye movie, but I suppose Thor does its job. It sets up The Avengers, and made its money back.
The actors, action and Avengers set ups save Thor from mediocrity, but not by a lot. With that said, it doesn't seem to matter, as seemingly any Marvel character can make money at the box office, so I doubt that any lessons will be learned from this film, let's just hope they aren't learned on The Avengers.
8.4/10 (B)
Story by Mark Protosevich and J. Michael Straczynski
Screenplay by Ashley Miller & Zack Stentz and Don Payne
Directed by Kenneth Branagh
I've always said I though Thor was a terrible property to adapt to the big screen, and that the only reason to do it would be to get him into the Avengers movie. Well, it seems both happened, and only the second one will seemingly make any sense in the long run. That, and the fact that this film grossed its budget overseas before it even opened in a US theater.
The only real problem with this film is the fundamental problem I mentioned. Thor exists in such a fantastical, brightly colored world, that it's tough to relate that to present day America. It's even harder when you have to deal with rainbow bridges, armor that would make Lady Gaga feel stupid, and unexplainable teleportation.
The problem with a film like Thor is it's usually most effective in its natural setting, and here that would be Asgard. If they stuck with the fantasy elements, the film would've worked on every level. The problem is, the whole mythology of Marvel's Thor is that he ends up coming to our present day Earth. So not only is this an epic story of deities, it's a fish-out-of-water comedy. Somehow, those two concepts just never seem to jibe.
Don't be mistaken, this is still a well made, and entertaining film. It just never had the opportunity to even come close to Iron Man or Spider-Man, not only because the character is secondary in popularity, but it's just an odd duck. Thor, in the comics, fits nicely into the brightly colored panels of a comic book, to adapt that style to film is seemingly impossible, as Branagh has made two distinctly separate films. One concerns the mythical Asgard, where Thor has to deal with his own arrogance, family strife, and the competition with his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) for their father Odin's (Anthony Hopkins) throne.
Once Thor is banished to Earth though, it basically becomes an episode of the sitcom Perfect Strangers where the character is so far from this culture, he doesn't understand even the simplest of modern concepts. I understand that's the nature of the character, but did we really need to watch half a movie of "fish out of water" moments?
There are many redeeming qualities, for one, the spectacular cast. Stellan Skarsgard, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Idris Elba, Clark Gregg, Colm Feore, Ray Stevenson...and introducing Chris Hemsworth. From what I've heard in interviews, most of the actors were psyched based on the fact that Branagh was directing, being an actor beloved by other actors does indeed have its advantages.
Amazingly, Chris Hemsworth was able to overcome all doubts and come through as a solid Thor. In many ways he reminded me of Heath Ledger, full of charisma, energy, and physicality. In one intense scene with Anthony Hopkins, he manages to hold his own. Good pick, Marvel, you've made a star.
The technical aspects are what we've come to expect from these films, big action set pieces, highly detailed sound, and huge f/x spectacles. However, here, I don't feel it jibes well with the rest of the story, as most of the big action takes place in Asgard, and since Thor doesn't have his powers on Earth, it only helps to divide the two settings within the film.
Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) is supposed to be the connecting factor, and he is great in his scenes. All the stuff that is hinting towards The Avengers Initiative is well played and fun to spot, but in the end, it's not enough to put this film on the level with other big Marvel films.
In the end, it feels like what it is: A movie that simply had to be made to sell The Avengers movie, because unlike Hawkeye, he's a much more well known character. I don't think I'm alone when I say I would've rather seen a Hawkeye movie, but I suppose Thor does its job. It sets up The Avengers, and made its money back.
The actors, action and Avengers set ups save Thor from mediocrity, but not by a lot. With that said, it doesn't seem to matter, as seemingly any Marvel character can make money at the box office, so I doubt that any lessons will be learned from this film, let's just hope they aren't learned on The Avengers.
8.4/10 (B)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)