Reviews by Alexander

All reviews - Movies (315) - Books (1) - Games (1)

A film about Blindness...I see.

Posted : 1 month, 3 weeks ago on 7 October 2009 06:19 (A review of Blindness)

''The only thing more terrifying than blindness is being the only one who can see.''

A city is ravaged by an epidemic of instant "white blindness". Those first afflicted are quarantined...

Yusuke Iseya: First Blind Man

On release, Blindness was strangely labeled the new Children of Men, even comparisons were drawn to the dystopia I Am Legend. Even though it has actresses from both (Julianne Moore and Alice Braga), it results as being worse than both combined, it is safe to say, Blindness shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Alfonso Cuarón's exceptional Children of Men. The quality speaks for itself if you compare these projects, and even I am Legend had it's CG flaws and unoriginal strains.

However, that doesn't mean not to miss out on Blindness as it is a decent enough drama with some solid performances. The film opens very intriguingly, an Asian man in an unnamed city goes blind at the wheel, this is the unknown start of the epidemic and traffic chaos has already erupted around him. Obviously then director Fernando Meirelles' view of the worlds morality in this film is shown as a man appears to help him, only to kick him out of his own car and drive away.
Perhaps this is where the main fault lies, the film tries so hard to hammer home a message that society has lost sight, using literal blindness as a metaphor for all that is bad in human thought and action. No wonder various foundations have protested against the concept and story itself.
It might have been wiser to let the viewers decide for themselves how this city would react and keep things relatively ambiguous. People going blind doesn't necessarily mean they will become selfish, indifferent and aggressive yet overall the film puts this point across repeatedly. An example is the doctor played by Mark Ruffalo, he completely changes in character, and even in the middle of the crisis, he cheats on his wife.

I think what saves Blindness overall though, and the reasons for me giving it 3 stars is that it is nicely structured and evenly paced while looking visually stunning, it is supposed to be set in an unidentified city and there are no clues at all to where it is filmed which is successful, and adds to the experience. The ruined and deserted city caused by the aftermath is also terrifically done.

The performances are definitely worth a mention, Julianne Moore is an excellent emotional core as one of the few humans immune to the blindness and carries the film. I also liked Alice Braga, Yuseke Iseya and Gael García Bernal who has fun as one of the quarantined victims who tries to take over the wards for everything they have to achieve personal profit. However, I was disappointed with Mark Ruffalo who is normally a fine actor (Collateral,Zodiac) but he struggles with the material and delivering his character here. Danny Glover isn't great either and his clunky voice-overs don't help matters any further.

You will enjoy this film more if you can see past the over emphasized moral message and plot-holes. It would take too long to go through them all but for example: everyone is blind yet not once does anyone call each other by name, it would surely help the situation! I can't understand what Meirelles was trying to achieve with the non-use of name calling for the characters.
Overall, Blindness is an average standard drama, that is worth seeing for the visuals and mediocre performances. However, if you want something similar and in my view much better, watch the superior Children of Men. Let's face it, anything Fernando Meirelles ended up doing after his masterpiece City of God, would have had serious problems living up to the imposed pressure of equaling such an achievement. Blindness doesn't even come close to the shadow of greatness City of God basks in, which to me, shows complacency and a lack of utilizing the same potential. Possibly the source material is to blame in Meirelles favour, only time will tell when we see the work from his next conjecture.

So Fernando Meirelles, a film about Blindness...I don't see a point, thats for sure.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

This is no Babylon.

Posted : 1 month, 3 weeks ago on 7 October 2009 04:34 (A review of Babylon A.D.)

''Oh, you're a disgrace to the profession. You're not a mercenary, you're a fucking terrorist. You need two things to live in this business, your balls and your word. You don't have either! You know the difference between you and me, Karl? I still got both.''

Veteran-turned-mercenary Toorop takes the high-risk job of escorting a woman from Russia to America. Little does he know that she is host to an organism that a cult wants to harvest in order to produce a genetically modified Messiah.

Vin Diesel: Toorop

Babylon A.D., the story of Toorop, a veteran-turned-mercenary who takes the job of escorting a woman named Aurora from Central Asia to New York, stays fresh and witty in its first hour. What Toorop thinks is an ordinarily dangerous mission soon becomes much more when he discovers that his guest is carrying twin babies, thought to be the next Messiah figures. The movie begins frantically and the first hour is interesting — one can only help but admit there is little chance of a blockbuster after hearing zero publicity. All preconceived notions aside, there are actually quite a few great turns at its opening, including a border-crossing scene equaling intensity with any action film. Needless to say, after the 40 minutes my hopes were exceptional.

The movie could have got one of two ways, really. Either it stayed true to its first hour – gritty, surprising evil marked by mysterious characters or get lazy and forever be lost to theatrical mediocrity. Unfortunately, it was the latter. What started out great in this production failure ultimately pandered its way to murky depths of boredom.

The movie ended in the direct opposite way it began. We were met with intrigue and let out with unbelievability. We were ushered in with mystery and exited with apathy. Nothing kept me thinking, nothing kept me caring. The movie ended in a lump of lazy, backward thinking – as if we cared what happened to the babies? The last scene of the film was about as entertaining as watching mould grow on a piece of bread. Standing outside some house, Toorop held the hands of two very different looking children, in an act of true love, and a commitment to raise the children on his own. All this coming from a man whom we'd grown to love by seeing him throw innocent people from a vessel he was trying to board out of self preservation. Apparently Toorop turned nice in a flicker of a moment...who knew?

If I could be blunter, I would. There were many, many things wrong with this film outside of the fact that it was created on the floor of a cutting room. The fight sequences had to be ambiguously edited in order to show the least amount of production error and lack of footage. The characters, although almost brimming with development possibility, were left to hang like a basketball mid-flight, as if we were watching a trilogy without the courtesy of seeing part one and having no hope for part three. It was nearly torturous. Babylon A.D. isn't worth the bother of a sequel, a prequel, or even the time wasted to make this intrepid affair.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

An out of body experience.

Posted : 1 month, 3 weeks ago on 7 October 2009 03:57 (A review of Awake)

''Am I supposed to still hear you?''

The story focuses on a man who suffers "anesthetic awareness" and finds himself awake and aware, but paralyzed, during heart surgery. His mother must wrestle with her own demons as a drama unfolds around them, while trying to unfold the story hidden behind her son's young wife.

Hayden Christensen: Clay Beresford

Awake, the thriller by first-time director Joby Harold, takes off from a grisly real-life phenomenon called anesthetic awareness. This is when patients are unaccountably left fully conscious — and physically paralyzed — during the process of surgery, thus Harold, whom also wrote the script, has spun a preposterously entertaining web from this grisly germ of an idea, and manages to hold us in a vice-like grip for pretty much the entire length of the ordeal. How often can you say of a Hollywood thriller that you don't have a clue what's going to happen next? Awake is brazenly indifferent to plausibility, but you can't help but admire the film's audacity. Along with unique plot twists, Harold throws Hitchcock-esque flourishes and elements of Greek tragedy into the mix like a crazed chef adding ingredients to a new dish. .

Harold brings energy and focus to the scenes that he transcends the subject matter and gives it an almost surreal intensity, and the performances are strong enough to keep the film's evolution from capsizing it. Jessica Alba is suitably luscious and beguiling (her role gives new meaning to the term heartbreaker), and Lena Olin and Terence Howard are both in fine form. As the unfortunate victim of anesthetic awareness, Hayden Christensen comes into his own as a performer (having mercifully managed to escape the Mark Hamil curse: that of being horribly miscast by George Lucas). Christensen has an unusually expressive face (the camera takes to him), and he can convey emotion without ever appearing to do much—fortunately, because the film hinges around his internal struggle, and on our feelings of empathy for him.

Awake is a white-knuckle movie experience if ever there was one (it even carries a viewer warning), with some of the most sheerly visceral scenes of horror ever committed to celluloid. Watching someone undergoing open-heart surgery while fully conscious (and able to feel the incision) is enough to frazzle the nerves of the most hardened horror veterans, and this film is certainly not for the squeamish. Too bad the loopy plot (and the melodramatic character revelations, which are really just tired genre conventions) finally stretches our credibility to breaking point. As a result, Awake lacks a strong climax, and as a roller-coaster ride it doesn't have enough emotional depth to be fully engaging. But for most of its length it's close to a pop classic, and probably the best metaphysical story around. In fact, Harold better watch out or he may wind up as the next M. Night Shyamalan, which is not necessarily a good thing. Awake has so many twists it makes you dizzy, as if you are the one going for surgery.

''I think my new heart will love you as much as my old one.''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

The Milky bar kid wants your vote.

Posted : 1 month, 3 weeks ago on 7 October 2009 03:33 (A review of Milk)

''Without hope, life's not worth living.''

The story of Harvey Milk, and his struggles as an American gay activist who fought for gay rights and became California's first openly gay elected official.

Sean Penn: Harvey Milk

How miraculous it is how crucial timing is. Released only a few weeks after the passage of Proposition 8 - a measure that took away the rights of same-sex couples to marry in California - Gus Van Sant's Oscar-nominated effort Milk turns back the clock to another point in time, with an all too similar struggle in American civil rights history and to the iconic man who helped to get the ball rolling.

Harvey Milk was the San Francisco supervisor and gay-rights pioneer who, along with Mayor George Moscone, was shot in city hall in November 1978. The perpetrator, Dan White, a disgruntled fellow board member who had recently resigned his seat, was found guilty of manslaughter, sent to prison for a mere five years, then released in 1984, only to take his own life two years later from guilt I suppose.

Dustin Lance Black's Oscar-winning screenplay traces Milk's meteoric rise from an obscure, still largely closeted Republican businessman in the early 1970s to the de facto leader of the gay-rights movement that began to take shape during that period. He became the first openly gay man in the state to be elected to public office and, in 1978, he was instrumental in helping to defeat Proposition 6, which, if passed, would have made it illegal for homosexuals (and even straight supporters of homosexuals!) to teach in California public schools (was this really only thirty years ago?). Throughout all this, Milk managed to develop a large, highly charged grass roots organization, the purpose of which was not merely to combat bigotry wherever it reared its ugly head but to win over the hearts and minds of the people in their community and the nation as a whole.

''My name is Harvey Milk and I'm here to recruit you!''

There has been some arguments and complaints leveled against the movie that it is too reverential in its treatment of Milk, that it paints him too much as a saint and not enough as an ordinary human being being with the requisite number of weaknesses and flaws to make him truly viable as a character. Even if one were to accept that charge, it still doesn't take into consideration the very special quality that Sean Penn himself brings to the role. With obviously heightened mannerisms that he is careful never to allow to slide over into caricature or camp, Penn makes Milk both charismatically larger-than-life and recognizably human at one and the same time. Whether he's in front of a crowd rallying the troops with his megaphone or enjoying a tender moment with his longtime boyfriend, Scott Smith, Penn allows us see the many facets of this obviously complex man.

In a movie chock full of outstanding supporting performances, James Franco as Smith, Josh Brolin as Dan White, and Emile Hirsch as Cleve Jones, a rootless young man inspired by Milk to become a lifelong activist, are the obvious standouts.

As a director, Van Sant keeps things moving at an almost whirlwind pace, beautifully balancing the "big" scenes of rallies and marches with the more intimate moments depicting Milk's relationships with those around him. At times Van Sant brings an almost documentary-style immediacy to the film, seamlessly blending actual footage from that era (much of it of Anita Bryant and her anti-gay crusade) with convincingly staged re-enactments of events at that time. Obviously wanting to end on a positive note, the movie mentions but does not dramatize the White Night Riots which took place in the city following the assassinations, instead focusing on the enormous candlelight march that wended its way through the shocked and devastated city. Thus, the ending, like the movie itself, is a necessary and deeply moving reminder of how the courage of one individual to stand up for what he knows is right can inspire others to follow in his footsteps - and change the world at the same time.

''All men are created equal. No matter how hard you try, you can never erase those words.''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

A fun thrill ride of Apocalyptic action

Posted : 1 month, 3 weeks ago on 7 October 2009 11:56 (A review of Doomsday)

''This is our city! Whoever they send here, we're gonna catch them, we're gonna cook them, and we're gonna eat them!''

A futuristic action thriller where a team of people work to prevent a disaster threatening the future of the human race.

Rhona Mitra: Maj. Eden Sinclair

After Dog Soldiers (2002) and The Descent (2005), director Neil Marshall seemed like the new maestro of British horror cinema. His latest, Doomsday, is a markedly different film from his earlier work – most clearly in it's inability to choose which genre it belongs to. Dog Soldiers clearly aimed in the direction of comedy while The Descent was a masterful lesson in claustrophobic horror, marred only slightly by a number of over the top action scenes in its final act. Doomsday has funny moments, horrible moments, thrilling moments and, more often, scenes filled with levels of absurdity which would not feel out of touch, in a full-blown spoof.

The year is 2033. A quarter of a century has passed since the outbreak of a fatal disease in northern Britain. Scotland has been cut off - segregated behind a barrier closely following the lines of Hadrian's wall. But the disease has returned, the south is threatened and a crack military team (led by Rhona Mitra) is sent into the contaminated zone to find survivors, and a cure. Throw in Marshall's proved abilities to create tension and a little offbeat humour and it sounds like the making of a minor classic, right? Well yes and no. The films' greatest strength is also its biggest liability – namely nostalgia.

Some films execute nostalgia extremely well. A random example being Superman Returns. The slow, majestic sweep of the title sequence served as a starter course, to reintroduce us to the universe of Superman (literally and figuratively). John Ottman's marginal reworking of John William's superb score was so evocative that it, in conjunction with the familiar (though now CG enhanced) starscapes created a near instant sense of comfort. Superman Returns is grateful homage, Doomsday is chaotic random hysteria.

Doomsday is Neil Marshall doing whatever he wishes, having a crazy laugh and mixing genres together. After only 2 features, Neil Marshall's track record was simply not strong enough to be allowed this kind of free reign. The result is a mess; the bastard child of a dozen or so 70's and 80's films – from The Warriors to Mad Max via Escape from New York. It also moves schizophrenically from one genre to the next: near future vistas give way to post-apocalyptic deserted cities (a la 28 Days Later) before moving on to psychedelic dancing cannibals, mobs of bikers and an extended, somewhat unnecessary, car chase. Did I mention there's a medieval section as well that comes off as a nice mixture of Robin Hood and Gladiator? As a knowing and self-referential piece of cinematic shlock this would be perfectly enjoyable but the fact is that Doomsday takes itself far too seriously,then at times, it does not.
This works, to a point, but it is missing that vital cue for the audience, how are we supposed to take this? In Dog Soldiers there was a healthy sense of the ridiculous, both on the part of the characters and the audience. Likewise in The Descent, we know from the outset that the film will not be lighthearted. Doomsday refuses to make that choice, veering from an overlong dance sequence which looks like the gag reel from a Prodigy music video to the genuinely shocking roasting of a live human being. The contrast of different styles can work within the structure of a film to make the relief of the comedy or the shock of the horror more powerful but when it vacillates this often and this wildly any such affect is lost.

One major point to remember is that the movies which Doomsday references are themselves a mixed bag. That's the thing with nostalgia, its better felt than examined. The original Superman comes across, to me, as strangely elitist these days and Escape from New York is an extremely uneven, dated film. So, in trying to bring these kinds of films together, Marshall has doubly handicapped himself: Firstly, by being limited to sources of varying quality. Secondly, by trying to reference so many other films, the continuity of Doomsday suffers. So much so that each scene begins to resemble a discrete entity, rather than part of the whole.

Doomsday is, however, a difficult film to truly dislike. There is a kind of manic energy to it, an undercurrent of gleeful nastiness that allows it to bulldoze through the clichés, plot holes and bloated editing. The action is generally well shot and presented and the whole film has a technical polish which we are not used to seeing in British cinema. The acting is generally good and Mitra makes an impressive leading lady, hopefully this will be a breakthrough role for her. As for Neil Marshall, this is without a doubt his craziest film to date, and alot of fun albeit lacking originality. Doomsday is a big mix of other inspirations.

''The hounds are hungry! It's feeding time at the fucking zoo!''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Story of friendship, emotion, and kites.

Posted : 1 month, 3 weeks ago on 7 October 2009 11:21 (A review of The Kite Runner)

''The Mullahs want to rule our souls... and the Communists tell us we don't have any.''

After spending years in California, Amir returns to his homeland in Afghanistan to help his old friend Hassan, whose son is in trouble.

Khalid Abdalla: Amir

The Kite Runner is a very sad movie. This emphasized by the fact the main characters begin and transition as children. There are moving emotional stories and the unsuccessfully delivered ones - I don't believe that just because I'm moved to tears, a movie deserves the highest praise. The Kite Runner glides between the good and bad to deliver heart-wrenching moments and some very transparent messages.

Basically The Kite Runner's story is this, Amir is the son of a wealthy businessman, and Hassan is the Hazara son of one of the servants in Amir's household. Amir and Hassan are great friends as children, and race kites in tournaments. Because the Hazara are an ethnic minority, Hassan is constantly harassed, and Amir along with him. The political situation with the Soviet Union becomes increasingly difficult, that Amir and his father must flee the country, leaving Hassan behind. Some time later, Amir is a successful novelist living in California. He gets a call to come back to Afghanistan and help Hassan's child.

Story-wise The Kite Runner is originally delivered and with somepoignant messages of importance. Events that run smoothly are too convenient and achieved almost effortlessly. Anything that can go wrong does go wrong, which eventually winds up being disappointing, rather than resulting in depressing circumstances. Three conflicts arise in Amir's life, and his inaction drive the outcome of the first two - as an adult, Amir must learn courage and finally confront the third. Relationships spring up and entwine, such that no minor character is ever left behind, and no relationship is as simple as it initially appears.

I do appreciate the portrayal of an everyday, normal protagonist, and the intricacies of boyhood friendships and trials. The characters are well captured in their dimensions, if lacking backbone in areas script wise. The first half of the movie - where the friendship is explored and Kabul is alive - is charismatic and nostalgic. There are cultural details abound, both overt and hidden, for any who wish to be immersed in this mysterious land of intrigue.

''Fuck the Russia!''

The second half of the movie descends into clichés. You can see everything that's about to happen a good half-hour in advance. Amir's final conflict occurs in Afghanistan, and is very physical and action-oriented, in contrast to the rest of the story. This is all highlighted by a childish movie score that punctuates every dramatic moment with strangely dated instrumentation.

It's true that you cannot tell the story of a person without exploring their culture and their background. But it's a very tricky thing - western audiences leave the theatre thinking they know all about the culture, and while none of the stereotypes in The Kite Runner seem harmful, they are stereotypes. I'm particularly opposed to the way in which the Taliban were suddenly introduced into events, not because I'm some weird pro-Taliban radical, but because I didn't see the necessity to tie it in so closely with the story of friendship. The Taliban receives the same treatment that the Nazis do in old WWII movies, they're an ever-present, one-dimensional evil villain. I am by no means suggesting that either the Taliban or Nazis deserve anything but vilification, but this basic treatment is out of place, overly-affecting, and not very entertaining.

It's possible that the tightly formulated conclusions in the story are a result of having to pare down the book. I do enjoy the unconventional ways in which the characters behave: more in keeping with reality than nobility and idealized images of love. The Kite Runner has some moments that are truly heartbreaking, but continues to tug on those strings too frequently and with diminishing success.

''There is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft... When you kill a man, you steal a life. You steal his wife's right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone's right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness.''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

A beautiful display of friendship.

Posted : 1 month, 3 weeks ago on 4 October 2009 02:58 (A review of The Soloist)

''Beauty is art, music is beauty.''

A Los Angeles journalist befriends a homeless Julliard-trained musician, while looking for a new article for the paper.

Jamie Foxx: Nathaniel Ayers

2009 has been a year of many true stories, book adaptations and documentaries. The Soloist offers a true to life story, terrific performances and a stab at the real America and the countless homeless whom reside throughout the country.
The story revolves around Steve Lopez, an L.A. Journalist played charismatically by Robert Downey Jr, and Jamie Foxx plays homeless musician Nathaniel Ayers. Both performances result in Oscar Worthy performances, and even a possible nomination or award attention for Joe Wright, whom previously worked on the acclaimed Atonement and Pride & Prejudice.

Joe Wright seems to have a skill for bringing sensationally talented actors together and bringing the best out of them. Catherine Keener shines as Mary Weston, and a nice inclusion of, Tom Hollander as Graham Claydon, a Christian Musician whom helps Steve help Nathaniel with his music.
The Soloist strong points really are the performances by it's two leads and the problem it addresses of the homeless and the mental illnesses they endure. Nathaniel's schizophrenia isn't always present in his life we discover, he is intelligent and extremely gifted musically on the cello and other string instruments. As we learn from flashbacks we see how he reached his present predicament and also his crazy ramblings which proceed to be confusing as well as informative to his frame of mind.
Robert Downey Jr as Steve the Journalist who ends up trying to help Nathaniel out of his poor way of life, shines as a good man caught up on two sides, trying to discover a new story for his paper, and creating a friendship and feeling an obligation to that friendship.

''I don't give a smooth fart whether or not we go.''

The Soloist is an emotional journey, one scene really makes us feel the raw emotion of both parties, whom are touched and swayed by the power of the music. It's energy present in the player and the listener. Another scene shows us vibrant colours representing the depth of feeling Nathaniel is experiencing from a passionate composition from an orchestra.
There is humour also present in The Soloist, the part where they run with Nathaniel's possessions in a trolley, or the falling out with Tom Hollander's 'christian' musician causes a few wry smiles. As does the Robert Downey Jr scenes involving either his own piss or strangely raccoon pee pee.

Overall, The Soloist gives us an interesting portrait of a moral, that sometimes you cannot help someone, because sometimes they do not want help. The best help being a self motivated mental state of enlightenment, a sense that some cures come from the heart, your own realizations, your own natural healing. Sometimes genius is dizzying madness, a tragic reminder The Soloist brings to our awareness, and for me, it makes me want to change not just myself but the world as well.

''I've never loved anything the way he loves music.''


1 comments, Reply to this entry

Control or be controlled...

Posted : 1 month, 3 weeks ago on 4 October 2009 12:10 (A review of Gamer)

''...Kable's the perfect soldier. He's a tactical killing computer. His only vulnerability is the nanex itself; the *ping*, the delay between Simon's commands and Kable's ability to execute...''

Set in a future-world where humans can control other humans in mass-scale, multi-player online gaming environments...

Gerard Butler: Kable

We see many types of futuristic films mixed with an action-packed revenge bad guy theme. In this regard Gamer is no different from previous projects which have preceded this venture. For it's strengths it has some interesting ideas and moralistic questions of how free will and control can be applied to human beings on a large scale. Death Race, a similar film released a couple of years ago, also had an entertainment spin on violence, criminals and racing. Gamer is a sort of virtual version of the former, being one of action, carnage and perhaps lacking originality in places but making up for that with new ideas in others.

The whole concept gels well because Gamer also has a tightly knitted cast of strong players. Gerard Butler being the star attraction of the whole affair, Michael C. Hall the villian mastermind, and Logan Lerman as Simon the kid controlling Butler's Kable star of the game 'Slayers'.
Acting wise it is weak on various scenes, which is unfortunate because other scenes are well executed.
The actors weren't bad, but they were given little to work with. Butler was extraordinarily limited with few lines, I realise he's capable of so much more emotion than he showed here, so even his most poignant scenes were apparently stripped of almost all feeling by the directors. Sedgwick was so exaggerated as a character that she was stereotypically robotic, so much so that her character didn't gel with all the other characters she got into contact with. Can Valeletta act? I have no idea because she really didn't act at all here nor did it appear that she was supposed to.
As for Ludacris he was simply ludicrous in this, his acting talent non-existent. I mean not all black people talk like home boys, and this let down the film slightly.

''I hope one day to have the opportunity to breach your firewall, Miss Parker Smith.''

Gamer was written and directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor(Crank). I loved the action, but I disliked the script. It was disjointed and far too stylized, while I'm as much a fan of hand-held cameras as anybody, it was overused in the whole picture, and then combined with what amounted to a strobe effect as the screen flashed split seconds of disparate scenes. While these things can be very effective and provide unique perspectives they are not necessary in being used so often.
I liked ideas, in the film, such as Kable drinking a whole bottle of vodka or alcohol, so he can later be sick into a car, hence giving fuel to the vehicle. A particularly disgusting fat guy controlling a girl confused me, but also made sense, in the regard there are a vast amount of sickos out there. A midget, a basketball final act, and a massive shootout in a suburban area show how surreal this whole affair is.

Overall, Gamer is over so fast, gives us new ideas as well as old ones, opens our eyes to a futuristic vision of possibility. Gamer seems to be released in a time where hollywood seems to be interested in ''control'' and ''future'' with the also similar Surrogates. Fans of Gerard Butler, action films or futuristic movies will love this, just don't go into Gamer expecting a revelation or mind-blowing twist, this is violent rollercoaster fun.

''This is not something you can control!''


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Sometimes an Angel is a Demon.

Posted : 2 months ago on 27 September 2009 02:25 (A review of Angels & Demons)

''Religion is flawed because man is flawed.''

Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon works to solve a murder and prevent a terrorist act against the Vatican.

Tom Hanks: Robert Langdon

Ron Howard's sequel to The Da Vinci Code has a battle between religion and science. Controversy from it's predecessor, is sadly extinct, Angels and Demons is more of a thriller than an actual historical revelation of mythological proportions. This is a heavy dose of shadowy secret groups, and a villain interested in serving his own paradoxical ways to the Church.

So Angels & Demons begins with our protagonist being called upon by the Vatican for help, because this time, the Pope has died. The four candidates for new pope kidnapped, and bizaare anti-matter planted somewhere in the city which is going to explode. A sect know as the Illuminati has resurfaced, after hundreds of years, responsible for stealing the anti-matter and kidnapping the cardinals.
Performance wise Tom Hanks is sadly under-used, as he reprises his role as Langdon. The lack of Ian Mckellan and Audrey Tautou from Da Vinci Code, is apparent, Ewan McGregor as the Camerlengo Patrick McKenna amused me, here we have a Scottish actor playing surprise...wait for it...an Irish priest. He does have a timid, nervous disposition which does provide laughs at times. Angels & Demons does offer originality in having a priest parachuting over the Vatican in a dizzying sequence of apocalyptic proportions. Stellan Skarsgård as Commander Richter is the supposed villain of the piece here, and Ayelet Zurer as Vittoria Vetra the female lead whom succeeds in being unmemorable throughout.

The feel of Angels & Demons is not one which its title might suggest. It has no physical angels or demons to tantalize us with, the title represents religion and science in conflict with each other. Religion being a traditionalist unchanging humanistic matter of faith and Science being the turbulent, change and materialistic advancement of discovery and technology. Sometimes Angels & Demons leaves an unsavory taste in ones mouth, in the sense we feel like we are on a virtual tour ride of the Vatican and it's many historical locations. Similar perhaps to Indiana Jones but lacking the fun and adventurous tendencies of the former.
One aspect I do love, is the soundtrack which offers a level of sophistication which stays with you. The proceedings are greatly boosted by the mystical, vibrant tones we are blessed with.

Plot holes appear to be rife here, with some questions or scenarios left unanswered. Who tries to suffocate Langdon in the archives? Why would anyone go through such a long winded process? Angels & Demons offers so many questions it sometimes forgets to give answers. Perhaps it wants to be too clever for its own good, perhaps it thinks it is intelligent and twists galore are present. It succeeds in being mediocre and at the end of the day people fail to care for the facts but rather for the entertainment and action. Favorably Angels & Demons offers some great chases, some horrific deaths and some glorious effects in places. Sadly there is not alot of historical revelation for shock purposes here. As for Christians, Angels & Demons is a fantastical tale of fiction, and here I agree because the story is that just of a thriller, and a fabrication of the villains whom use history for their own advantages.

Overall, Angels & Demons is an entertaining piece yet lacks the deep meaningful conclusion of it's predecessor. Dan Brown's books have made so much money from being interesting and for their conspiracies with history, yet when they are visually integrated for the big screen they sometimes lack that excitement the medium requires.
It is fun, and I admit a pleasure to watch overall, but sadly it feels like this routine Angels & Demons gives us has been done many times before.

''Our church is at war. We are under attack from an old enemy. The Illuminati. They have struck us from within and threatening us all with destruction from their new god Science.''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Thirteen is the number you won't forget.

Posted : 2 months ago on 27 September 2009 01:43 (A review of Thirteen)

''If everybody married someone from a different race then in one generation there would me be no prejudice.''

A thirteen-year-old girl's relationship with her mother is put to the test as she discovers drugs, sex, and petty crime in the company of her cool but troubled best friend.

Evan Rachel Wood: Tracy Freeland

First of all, Thirteen is a story of characters, a story true to life that doesn't hold back on the punches. Scenes contain the truthful grit of desperation in this web of conceit surrounding the main female lead, Tracy Freeland, amazingly played by a favourite of mine, Evan Rachel Wood. I mean Thirteen really gets across the troubled angst of teenage behavior especially in certain girls at this crucial stage in life.
Performances are really above par here in Thirteen, whether its Holly Hunter playing Tracy's troubled, vulnerable mother Melanie Freeland, or her psychotic, unruly, trouble-maker best friend Evie Zamora played by Mikki Reed. There really is alot to think about in Thirteen and the performances combined with a story and script everyone can relate to, a story which echoes realism and struggle in dual doses.

As Thirteen progresses so do we as we see the evolution and change of a girl, in this circumstance, Tracy Freeland, she begins as an innocent, intelligent girl. We see her doing well at school, civil friends, and a stable relationship with her mother and family. Then as fate has it, an equation comes along that tips all these proceedings on there head, the catalyst in question, a girl. The girl being, someone Tracy finds enticing, someone she wants to know and be noticed by, this girl Evie Zamora a beauty but trouble. So Tracy proceeds to change, to be accepted by this Evie and thus herself changing, as always for better or for worse. Just in this case for the worse.
Scenarios show her divorced parents, her mothers ex-drug addict boyfriend, her friend Evie's bad ways.
We really begin to see Thirteen deliver rebellious ways of both girls, Tracy reverting to her attraction to Evie, Evie teaching her bad ways without even aware of doing so.

Director Catherine Hardwicke also knows how to utilize an array of camrea techniques and clever formulated angles which help portray the mood and chaos happening at specific points in Thirteen. Combine a dizzying soundtrack with an impressive visual style, and alot of memorable acting which explains why Thirteen has something of a cult following. To me, it seems everyone at some point in their life had to cross from being a child into adult-hood, and the change that takes place in this state of change. This reason I feel, is why Thirteen succeeds in captivating viewers and giving our grey matters something to feed upon.

Overall, Thirteen deals with family, friendship, silly things we do when we are young, and the changes we confront. Drugs, drinking, a change in lifestyle, friendships, a journey of life for a troubled world and the confused inhabitants traveling through this stormy repertoire we call living.
Helen Hunter was Oscar Nominated but failed to win, which surprises me when I see this superior acting in play. I'm also mystified how Evan Rachel Wood didn't even receive some sort of nomination, she is utterly spell blinding in her role.
Thirteen reasons why to see Thirteen: Riveting story, powerful performances, clever filming and camera angles, addictive soundtrack, Sexuality, Family life, Friendships, The hazards of Drugs, The falseness of so called friends, Betrayals, Happiness and unhappiness, Mistakes we make, and the best reason is how true to life Thirteen succeeds in being.

''You're my heart.''

0 comments, Reply to this entry