Reviews by Alexander

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

The wrong kind of Perfume.

Posted : 8 months, 2 weeks ago on 17 March 2009 08:46 (A review of The International)

''Sometimes you find your destiny on the road you took to avoid it.''

An Interpol agent attempts to expose a high-profile financial institution's role in an international arms dealing ring.

Clive Owen: Louis Salinger

The plot deals with an agent (Clive Owen) attempting to uncover and possibly prove a bank's involvement in sudden killings as well as arms dealing. The premise itself is good and sufficient enough to be carried through the film's nearly 2 hour runtime. This combined with a mostly solid story give the film an almost Tom Clancy-esquire style. Unfortunately, what keeps the story from being full realized from its potential is how it, along with most of the film seems to drag on to the point of yawns aplenty. Due to the relative slow pacing it can almost become hard to realize there's actually an interesting plot unfolding.

The events of the plot are placed on the shoulders of various characters, with Clive Owen and Naomi Watts carrying the weight of this task. While Watts, as with most of the supporting cast, seems to have on and off performance deliveries Owen really manages to shine as the lead. Most of the film's best lines of dialogue come from Owen and his conversations with other characters, especially Watts. Sadly, these line deliveries aren't too frequent and, as a result (as with the plot), it can become hard to realize the subtlety of some of the dialogue.
There are times, however, that the film manages to shine and show what it'd be like if every scene was handled as well. The one major action scene in the middle of the film is probably one of the better shot and more entertaining action scenes I've seen recently. There are also a few more suspense-oriented scenes that help make things interesting here and there, which also break up the seeming monotony. Unfortunately, these scenes are too few and far between to make much of an impact on the film overall.
Back and forth between Germany, France, Italy, New York and more, The International treats audiences to action and intrigue in some amazing locales. The most impressive sequence takes place in the Guggenheim Museum in Manhattan, involving the most unlikely ambush, machine-gun shootout and bloody getaway. The setup for location-hopping and international espionage makes this feel like James Bond, except there isn't quite enough action, the pacing is a little slow, and the first act is reminiscent of a CSI episode. That's not entirely a bad thing - although the film doesn't know what it wants to be, the constant chases, high-speed pursuits and thrill of the hunt is enough to keep things generally amusing.

Protocol, procedure and jurisdiction always get in the way of justice. No one can handle the truth because of the immense responsibilities; stepping out of the boundaries of the law is crucial to success, and no real solutions can ever change the overwhelming corruption that seizes each aspect of every government. This isn't a new premise for Hollywood, and The International isn't relying on huge twists or extreme creativity to separate it from the commonplace action films opening on a regular basis. Audiences aren't likely to get the resolution or confirmation they're looking for by the end of this confused thriller, but as far as anyone should be concerned, the inconclusive toxin results, edited police statements, cover-ups and assassinations are no match for Clive Owen's powerful stare. It's all he ever brings to a gun-toting engagement, and it usually suffices.

All told, The International is a film that shows so many signs of greatness but only occasionally successfully administrates them. If you're interested in the film's plot and how it unfolds you might find a solid watch with The International, but be ready for a rather slow story. This is far from a bad film, yet the well-executed scenes are too few and far between to make it worthy of an honest recommendation. For Tom Tykwer, this a far cry from Perfume and even a brief cameo by Ben Whishaw absently, subtly reminds of this fact, maybe next time Tom...

Jonas Skarssen: What do you want?
Louis Salinger: I want some fucking justice.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

A long, great, ''watchable'' adapt of beauty.

Posted : 8 months, 3 weeks ago on 6 March 2009 05:50 (A review of Watchmen)

"Watchmen. One of us died tonight. Somebody knows why. Somebody knows."

When an ex-superhero is murdered, a vigilante named Rorschach begins an investigation into the murder, which begins to lead to a much more terrifying conclusion.

Malin Akerman: Laurie Jupiter / Silk Spectre II

Zack Snyder's Watchmen is not your average graphic novel adaptation. Unlike with 300, which was short and sharp and shallow and easy to adapt, the original Watchmen is incredibly dense and, as written, un-filmable. So Snyder did something very clever - he didn't even try. What he did instead was to take the world of Watchmen and rebuild it in a way which made a virtue of this new medium (film) rather than try to cram the graphic novel into a cinematic form.

Nowhere is this approach more obvious than in the film's title sequence. A wonderfully composed collage of images depicts scenes from the universe of Watchmen in a way which is only possible in the movies. In this way, we are subconsciously introduced to a world where costumed heroes are a part of everyday culture and brought, in a stylish and fluid way, from the original days of the Minutemen to those of the Watchmen. This introduction is perfectly executed, and is indicative of the heights which the Watchmen movie is perfectly capable of achieving but not quite capable of sustaining.

"The only person with whom I felt any kinship with died three hundred years before the birth of Christ. Alexander of Macedonia, or Alexander the Great, as you know him."

Watchmen is a brave film for a major studio to make and without a doubt it would not exist in its present form without the success of 300. It is incredibly dark (both in tone as well as shooting style) with events that would be anathema to any other superhero story. The less you know about the story, the better, so there will be no spoilers here but suffice to say Watchmen's version of a happy ending is a far cry from the Hollywood norm.

Snyder's brings his unique approach to action to bear on Watchmen, expanding on the action scenes in the comic without making it feel too redundant. His efforts are ably supported by the incredibly game cast, excellent cinematography and near perfect visual effects - this film is incredible to look at but also manages to create an entire world in a way which most superhero stories never do. The attention to detail in even the smallest scenes is commendable and the dense flashback structure means the same attention is paid to the presentation of full and complex characters.

"Rorschach's Journal: November 12th 1985. Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' And I'll whisper 'no'."

Snyder has made a film which is gorgeous to look at, agreeably violent, well written, wonderfully designed and features some of the best small scale action sequences ever committed to celluloid. But, naturally, not everything is perfect. Most of the performances are excellent, with a cast of relative unknowns who manage to distinguish themselves despite constantly competing with overbearing effects and design. Patrick Wilson, in particular, does great work with a difficult role as Nite Owl, while Jackie Earle Hayley is blistering as Rorschach. Unfortunately in a film which could have done with a strong female presence, neither Carla Gugino nor Malin Ackerman make much of an impression, despite having quite a lot of screen time. Synder's musical cues are another bone of contention - often pushing the tone of the film into the realm of parody. And the ending... well let's just say it cheapens the experience in search of the lowest common denominator and the whole package suffers. On a related note, neither of the stories major revelations are handled that well. These moments were genuinely shocking in the graphic novel but are almost glossed over in the film.

Don't get the wrong impression, Watchmen is a good film, sometimes a great film. Snyder has managed to make a movie which is a terrifically well balanced compromise between accessibility and fidelity. That anyone can sit down in the cinema and experience a distillation of the Watchmen universe in just 163 minutes is a marvel. It does not deliver the depth of feeling and connection of the novel but that is more a matter of the differences in the media than a failure on the part of the film.

On its own merits, Zack Synder's Watchmen is a dark and twisted tale peopled with complex characters whose motivations are not obvious even to themselves. It is a solid film, sometimes rising into the extraordinary, and deserves to be successful. This is not Alan Moore's Watchmen but it is a competent extension of the universe into another medium and a worthy cinema-going experience.

"It doesn't take a genius to see the world has problems."

2 comments, Reply to this entry

Grand Torino!

Posted : 9 months ago on 3 March 2009 02:48 (A review of Gran Torino)

''Yea? I blow a hole in your face and then I go in the house... and I sleep like a baby. You can count on that. We used to stack fucks like you five feet high in Korea... use you for sandbags.''

Disgruntled Korean War vet Walt Kowalski sets out to reform his neighbor, a young Hmong teenager, who tried to steal Kowalski's prized possession: his 1972 Gran Torino.

Clint Eastwood: Walt Kowalski

Gran Torino comes from someone who has considered some of his highly praised directorial works as over appreciated, I was absolutely in awe and pleasantly surprised with Gran Torino, a exquisite film and compelling story to boot.
Eastwood stars as Walt Kowalski, an ill-natured racist Korean War veteran living in the heart of a run-down and heavily Hmong-populated area of Michigan. When his 17-year-old Hmong neighbor, Thao, tries to steal his '72 Gran Torino, the ever-so-grouchy Walt is wrenched away from his lonely porch and is thrown into the life of this Hmong family. Not only is Walt now sampling southeast Asian cuisine but he begins to unwillingly mentor Thao, begrudgingly care about the family, and selflessly protect them from the local gang.

I disagree greatly with the suggestion that Eastwood is merely channeling his classic tough guy routine here in Gran Torino - I see and get far more out of his performance. There are many different facets to this Walt character, there is a lot from his past that he is living with and a lot in the present that he is working through. I think Eastwood brings out the conflicted nature of his character very well in a subtle way. Yeah, Eastwood is one tough dude in the film, but he works in his classic tough-guy persona while being very funny, layered, and giving a heartfelt effort. It is easily the best performance I have ever seen him give.

''Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have fucked with? That's me.''

Screenplay was probably written with Eastwood in mind (I am not sure of the behind-the-scenes details on this) and it shows. He captures Kowalski perfectly. The film is surprisingly humorous, something that isn't being captured well enough in advertising. It's absolutely hilarious at times (watch as Kowalski attempts to make a man out of Thao by teaching him how to talk like men do), and Eastwood handles the shifts in tone brilliantly. When the film takes a dark turn towards the end I sat on the edge of my seat in suspense, fully aware of where it was heading but still mesmerized by Eastwood's tour-de-force direction. This is an artist at his prime as an actor and as a director.
Whether or not Gran Torino will hold up as one of Eastwood's great films remains to be seen, and the film feels like it would be good for multiple viewings. The characterization is strong and not simplistic at all, you could argue that Kowalski is just another moody war vet, but Eastwood's beautiful, nuanced performance as well as some neat little touches in the screenplay (particularly towards the end) which I won't discuss in detail to avoid spoiling anything (and it's really fun to watch this movie unfold, Eastwood keeps the film moving at a wonderfully involving pace) would prove you wrong. The film works on yet another level as a deconstruction of Eastwood's image. I don't mean that as a negative, it just adds to the film's strength as a character study.

Overall, a Korean war veteran who has killed and has seen killing. His hate for Asians, presumably due to the war, is subdued after acts of kindness by his neighbors and the boy he befriends. Kowalski's parish priest is persistent in attempting to subdue the hate that boils within Kowalski. In the end the priest gets through to Kowalski, learning something from Walt as well. Kowalski repents in the end and offers up the supreme sacrifice for his Asian neighbors. A heart-warming story that leads one on an emotional journey of self discovery.

''The thing that haunts a guy is the stuff he wasn't ordered to do.''

2 comments, Reply to this entry

A surprisingly hard Comedy to resist.

Posted : 9 months, 1 week ago on 23 February 2009 07:18 (A review of Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story)

''It's called Karate, man. Only two kinds of people know it, The Chinese and The King. And one of them is me.''

Singer Dewey Cox overcomes adversity to become a musical legend.

John C. Reilly: Dewey Cox

What a surprisingly funny and entertaining movie. This movie is one of the best spoofs on media stars to come out in a long time. Not only was John C. Reilly wonderful in his role as Dewey Cox, the entire cast was great. Special commendation must be afforded to Raymond J. Barry who plays Dewey's rambunctious father. Mr. Barry was truly hilarious. Now there a lot of nudity in this movie, but it's part of the story and without it the story of Dewey Cox could not be effectively told. If you like a clever script, strong comedic acting, and a movie that is a great parody of the entertainment industry and undoubtedly draws its material from the actual depraved behavior of some of the most well-known and internationally famous entertainment stars, then this movie is for you. Remember, though, the humor is adult and it's not for kids.

There are so many things wrong with Dewey the character. At times he can be downright nasty; most of the time he is thoughtless and self-centered. Nevertheless, the creators of this movie have succeeded in developing a character who, despite his myriad of shortcomings, is likable, and, unlike the mentally challenged and emotionally stilted Forrest Gump, is a creditable metaphor for the human condition - and for a Hollywood movie, that's impressive.

The actual material itself is fairly hysterical. There are plenty of laughs to be found at any given turn here, and many laugh out loud moments to go with them. Just watching these actors delivering their lines in purely serious ways, especially during the some of the film's most ridiculous moments (ironically, moments that fall very close to those found in Line or Ray), is just too much to not be able to laugh at. All of these actors seem very at home with the material, and look like they are having a lot of fun with their characters. This also seems to be one of the closest followed scripts of the past few Apatow films, and rarely does it appear that the characters are improvising (or they have just really improved from their consistent ad-libbing). The sets, backgrounds and costume designs, evoking the specific periods, are just as funny, if not more. There is a grand sense of authenticity at work here, and anyone watching the movie can pick out specific ties to their own memories (real or imagined) of those eras. Of course, there are a few too many nods to current fashion trends, but it stays very keenly in the area of that specific era depicted during that point in the film.

Reilly as Cox is a marvel in the lead role. He brings his more refined dramatic style to the role, and I think it helps lend a certain aura of credibility to the performance. He really makes this character his own, and when he is not being downright hilarious, without even breaking a grin, he is being heartbreakingly hysterical. It is a mixed bag, but Reilly makes it work, and he makes it work very well. His performance as the actor is only topped by his performance as the singer. He leads songs brilliantly at every point in the film, and even though the subtext of most of them is a bit risqué, they are still wonderfully written songs sung by someone with a great voice. If this role does not spring board Reilly into more leading actor work, it just may give him the needed boost to be a singer (or at least, to do more musicals or head to Broadway).

The supporting cast, although not nearly as funny as Reilly, all lend a hand in making Walk Hard a very funny movie. From Kristen Wiig and Jenna Fischer as Cox's wives, to Tim Meadows, Chris Parnell, and Matt Besser as his band mates, to Raymond J. Barry as his father, everyone manages to steal a scene for themselves, and manages to deliver some solid laughs. Yes, there are quite a few flat jokes that are given by the supporters much more often than Reilly as the lead, but for the most part, they do a great job backing him up. It also helps that it seems like everyone has some sort of minuscule amount of chemistry with Reilly, allowing their jokes to fly very easily.
Despite its faults, Walk Hard is a solid addition to the growing canon of Apatow comedies, and is one hell of a funny parody. Reilly was the best man for this role, and I am happy to say that he makes the film more than just watchable.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Not a patch on the first.

Posted : 9 months, 1 week ago on 23 February 2009 07:01 (A review of AVP: Aliens vs Predator - Requiem)

''What the fuck are you?''

Warring alien and predator races descend on a small town, where unsuspecting residents must band together for any chance of survival.

Steven Pasquale: Dallas Howard

Gunnison County, Colorado faces an incredible crisis of galactic proportions..A Predator-alien hybrid, Pred-lien, has birthed on a Predator ship, causes the space vessel to crash-land in a forest region on Earth near the Colorado town posing a thread to humankind. We watch as the Predalien spreads eggs into the human populace while the face-huggers, which escapes the crashed Predator ship, attach to human faces. The birthing process, unlike in previous Alien films, is much faster it seems and they soon grow into the monsters that go on a murderous rampage leaving bodies piled up. Soon the National Guard moves in only to be eliminated in quick fashion, leaving a motley group of surviving citizens to fend for their very lives as menacing baddies are at every turn. A Predator warrior, who finds his fallen comrades, silently vows vengeance, and any human in this path will die.

Glossy dumb cartoon action-horror flick is a fun way to waste 100 minutes. Characters are given just enough exposition to establish them before they face the trials of being in between a war of a Predator warrior and slimy alien walkers. Yes, a lot of the film takes place at night and within darkened places(such as a sewer during which alien face huggers attach themselves to derelicts' faces and Predalien attacks a female hobo who finds her buddies under unfortunate conditions, while we also see the Predator warrior setting up hi-tech booby-traps and blasting them before exploding through the city street above)so the action can be hard to place which is a shame. I didn't have a problem others, it seems, have with the CGI used in the film. CGI granted is obvious in areas. The filmmakers found clever ways to use Predator warrior's night vision to display the violent wake of their victims' dead bodies. There was also an amusing scene where a citizen's head is taken clean off by the Predator warrior's helmet laser. And, the Predator warrior uses a large , hi-tech forms of daggers which, when thrown, slice off alien heads(..one even sticks a human to the wall). The Predalien is a funny hybrid which can actually lay eggs down the throats of victims(..as is the case when the things fills the body of a pregnant woman in a hospital). It has the face of a Predator, yet has the alien walker's whipping tail. As in any of the previous films that came before this, there are human casualties, in the wrong place at the wrong time, such as a father and his son hunting, nuclear power plant technicians who find themselves trapped at work while the Predator warrior does battle with an alien walker, a sensitive father whose killed right in front of his returned soldier wife and frightened daughter, etc. You have two brothers, with a troubled relationship, who must set aside their differences when terrors are threatening them.
One's gorgeous girlfriend gets the goofy clichéd lines that have become standard dialogs for these kind of films, such as "We're not gonna make it, are we?" or "Maybe, they're all gone." You have the typical governmental corruption, as humans expect an airlift to rescue them with a plane under different orders. As you've probably read elsewhere, with a fine-tooth comb, you could pick this film clean because there are an endless foray of holes which pop out to snap you faster than an alien walker's second mouth..but, it goes by so fast that I barely had enough time to care. Certainly a guilty pleasure, but isn't a classic by any means of the imagination. If you can somehow turn your brain off...this might be entertaining.

If anything, we get little aliens bursting from the stomachs of women, acid melting away human faces, and a combat between a Predator using the gadgetry at his disposal against a growing number of nasty, slimy-mouthed aliens. What's not to love? Cue awkward silence...

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Inside out.

Posted : 9 months, 1 week ago on 23 February 2009 07:03 (A review of The Insider)

"I told the truth."

A research chemist comes under personal and professional attack when he decides to appear in a "60 Minutes" expose on Big Tobacco.

Al Pacino: Lowell Bergman

Against this backdrop director Michael Mann gives us The Insider, a film every bit the equal in seriousness to All the President's Men. Russell Crowe plays Tobacco Executive Jeffrey Wigand. Al Pacino is Sixty Minutes Producer Lowell Bergman. Wigand has just been fired from his $300,000 a year job. Bergman wants help deciphering a tobacco industry document. The two of them start an uneasy relationship. The film suggests Wigand's employer began spooking his family BEFORE the executive agreed to become a whistleblower for Sixty Minutes. I doubt that is true.

Soon the two men are developing the story. The Mississippi Attorney General's office wants Wigand to testify. Reporter Mike Wallace (Christopher Plummer) is brought in to interview Wigand. Executive Producer Don Hewit (Anthony Michael Hall) is brought on board. Brown & Williamson gets wind of Wigand's betrayal. Bergman says it wasn't him who tipped B&W. Wigand begins a new job as a high school science teacher. Brown and Williamson assigns detectives to follow him and make trouble for Wigand's family. The Tobacco giant plants anti-Wigand stories in other Press outlets in anticipation of the Sixty Minutes bombshell. Wigand's wife and daughter leave him. He loses his home and the wife divorces him.

The story keeps developing and the pressure builds. But the biggest problem is inside CBS itself. CBS Legal learns that Wigand has a contract with Brown & Williamson that provides for serious financial penalties if Wigand reveals ANY of its secrets, and CBS is liable too. All of a sudden the story is threatening the financial interests of the Network itself. Wallace and Hewitt agree to back off. Bergman is livid. He says CBS owner-CEO Laurence Tisch is betraying the news division because he is afraid a major liability suit will queer plans he has to sell the network to Westinghouse. Left out of the script is the news that the Tisch family owned Loews controls Lorillard, another of the seven giant tobacco companies in America. Even director Michael Mann had to make some concessions. He must have bargained away this embarassing little detail when making his own deal with CBS over what would appear in the script.

Bergman has to tell Wigand the story has been squelched. After all he has had to put up with, Wigand is more than disappointed. Bergman begins leaking CBS' betrayal of the news division to other press outlets. Wallace is now angry that his own part in the coverup has been revealed. He and Bergman quarrel. The Producer is furloughed for a week by Hewitt. But CBS News has a black eye that would make Edward R. Murrow roll over in his grave. Wallace has a brilliant public relations ploy. Lets go over to Black Rock (CBS Corporate) and sell them a package that will save all our reputations. I won't tell you what the deal is though you can probably make a good guess.

The film is two hours and 37 minutes long. It doesn't drag but its a very long sit for a film audience that is mostly under 30 and more interested in special effects than public affairs. In 1976 the film would have been hailed as something like the Second Coming. Today, a film like this is released with almost no fanfare. Its only hope is to capture enough awards to alert the mostly 35 and older audience that has abandoned filmgoing, at least in theatres. Two years ago, Crowe made a boffo debut in a wonderful film called LA Confidential that was soundly trounced at the Awards by the Carnivorous, youth-oriented Titanic. And Crowe, whose performance is tempered in this role, is one of the greatest screen actors to hit these shores since Marlon Brando, James Dean, George C. Scott and Tony Hopkins. Because he still insists on acting at a time when appearing in monster special effects packages is the key to success.., because of this, Crowe's success as a film actor is still not a cinch.

There are other actors in this film that are wasted. Any film that would use Rip Torn as little as this one does, deserves a slap. Torn plays PR man John Scanlon, but he barely speaks a sentence. British actor Michael Gambon plays a high executive at B&W. His screentime is minimal. And Mann repeats a video clip of Gambon repeatedly. The guy who lit a welding torch to reshape the Otter's Uncle's Lincoln in Animal House 21 years ago is wonderful as one of the courtroom lawyers from Mississippi. Wings Hauser, the aptly named and wonderfully over -the-top B-movie actor who usually is larger than Richard Simmons onscreen, is subdued here as a B&W lawyer at a Mississippi court hearing. Speaking of subdued, the most interesting performance is Christopher Plummer's subtle underplaying of Mike Wallace. Plummer's Wallace almost seems to be subordinate to producer Bergman. I wonder if Wallace is really this quiet around his colleagues at the network. The Plummer portrayal is in savage contrast to the Mike Wallace we are used to on-air. Plummer makes no attempt to imitate the on-air Wallace. His delivery is sufficiently newsman-like, but it is not the hard-hitting TV character we are used to. Gina Gershon is sharp and sharklike playing the CBS Lawyer who deflates the team's hopes of putting the story on the air. And former New York Post Editor and columnist Pete Hamil plays a reporter-editor at the New York Times, one of the few Gotham publications he has not worked for.

I wasn't crazy about this film, but in a debased American Cinema, the Insider stands out just because it is directed to an adult sensibility. There are many adults who will not enjoy this film. Its been a long time since Watergate. Not everyone is interested anymore.
All in all this is a true masterpiece. Intellectual (which is rare in a film today), gripping, and truly mesmerizing in every sense of the meaning. This is by far among Mann's best work to date and if he churns out more treasures like this I will remain a fan forever.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Confessions.

Posted : 9 months, 1 week ago on 22 February 2009 12:45 (A review of Confessions of a Shopaholic)

"Did you just type: good angles on APRs, into Google?"

A college grad lands a job as a financial journalist in New York City to support where she nurtures her shopping addiction and falls for a wealthy entrepreneur. Based on the novel "Confessions of a Shopaholic" by Sophie Kinsella.

Isla Fisher: Rebecca Bloomwood

P.J. Hogan may be responsible for the refreshingly grim atmosphere of 2003 offering Peter Pan that tried to take away the timeless tale of the boy who wouldn't grow up away from its heavily romanticized robust roots, yet the ample book origins of Confessions of a Shopaholic, his latest film about a woman who wouldn't grow out of an excessive materialistic folly, is as substantial and as memorable as a flicker of a candle. Based from Sophie Kinsella's series of uber-popular books, this hybrid of The Devil Wears Prada and Sex and the City has all the profoundness one can expect from a Jerry Bruckheimer-funded project and a hypocritical underlying theme on anti-consumerism despite the extravaganza that's shown to us.

For a romantic comedy to remain in its genre, there are certain boundaries that it mustn't wrong. So we really can't begrudge such a film for playing it safe and Confessions of a Shopaholic is successful at that. Our financially naive protagonist inadvertently finds her calling while awaiting what she feels she's always longed for, but her addictions strive to bring her down. As she reaches rock bottom she will inevitably conquer her demons and rise once again. Perhaps closer analysis may uproot a deeper message as her boss's journey contradicts her own; while he yearns not to be defined by family she discovers that it is indeed those loved ones that define her.

Struggling with her debilitating obsession with shopping and the sudden collapse of her income source, Rebecca Bloomwood (Isla Fisher) unintentionally lands a job writing for a financial magazine after a drunken letter-mailing mix-up. Ironically writing about the very consumer caution of which she herself has not abided, Rebecca's innovative comparisons and unconventional metaphors for economics grants her critical acclaim, public success, and the admiration of her supportive boss Luke (Hugh Dancy). But as she draws closer to her ultimate goal of writing for renowned fashion magazine Alette, she questions her true ambitions and must determine if overcoming her "shopaholic" condition will bring her real happiness.

The finding yourself story, which has the truth come out eventually, seems to keep popping up in every single romantic comedy of late, Confessions of a Shopaholic is no exception, although the supporting characters and environment that surrounds star Isla Fisher is entirely more satisfactory. In fact, her wide-eyed, perky and cheery attitude brightens the screen, even if the plot is unduly contrived and understandably formulaic. She's believable, charismatic and similar to a great many, and eye candy for the rest - which is more than can be said for most of the generic female-oriented films that flood the field of foreboding romantic finding oneself genres.

Like last year's How to Lose Friends & Alienate People, Confessions of a Shopaholic revolves around the same humorous elements that made the far superior, serious executed story films of the 80s, Big and Working Girl successful: an open-minded boss who's willing to risk hiring an under qualified (or outstandingly creative) employee for the chance on a fresh point of view, and the joys of seeing said underdog rise to the top, against the norm, utilizing random luck at every turn, and combating jealous coworkers. The pattern is simple, the outcome is assured, and while no scene dares to stare originality head on, this fluffy, flamboyant romantic comedy manages to entertain unexpectedly.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Honour, respect, and truth. Letters is greatness.

Posted : 9 months, 1 week ago on 18 February 2009 05:56 (A review of Letters from Iwo Jima)

''For our homeland. Until the very last man. Our duty is to stop the enemy right here. Do not expect to return home alive.''

The story of the battle of Iwo Jima between the United States and Imperial Japan during World War II, as told from the perspective of the Japanese who fought it.

Ken Watanabe: General Kuribayashi

A well executed movie with a powerful, historical significance. Told from the side of the Japanese as they prepare to protect Iwo Jima from American invasion.
Some scenes especially the suicide deaths are quite graphic, and the action in it has a gritty, tense, war-drenched realism to it.
Fantastic diverse range of Japanese actors, Ken Watanabe always impresses. Would like to watch this again, very powerful, very emotional, very relevant and historical. Lets all take notice of the past for the future.
In the second half of Letters from Iwo Jima a group of Japanese soldiers find an American who has been badly wounded and take him into their cave. Their general speaks English, so he begins talking to this soldier, whose name we later find out is Sam. Although the two men should be sworn to kill each other, they are able to have a connection in the one conversation they have. A while later, the general comes back into the room only to discover that Sam's wounds have killed him. He searches him for a while and discovers a letter written by his mother. The letter is full of words that truly come from the heart of this kid's mother, and by the time the general finishes reading the letter, every soldier in that cave has realized that Americans aren't these savages; these hate-driven murderers. No, they all realize that Americans are exactly like they are, and that they don't want to be there and want to return home safely just like their enemies. I believe the point that Clint Eastwood is making with his Iwo Jima saga is just this: these two enemies were far more alike than they had imagined and they were both fighting only in hopes of returning home safely to their family.

''I don't know anything about the enemy. I thought all Americans were cowards. I was taught they were savages.''

As for the specific film itself. In just about every way imaginable, this absolutely brilliant film is a step up from Flags of our Fathers (which is not something I say easily, as "Flags" is a terrific film as well). From the acting of the incredible ensemble cast, to the film's delicate but powerful script, to the beautiful imagery of the film (the colour distortion could not be any more brilliant), to Clint Eastwood's absolutely perfect knowledge of film and what works in a film like this.
The score, written by Kyle Eastwood(Clint's son), captures the feel of the movie better than any score written for any movie this year. It is very quiet music, but listening to it makes you think about all the people that die as casualties of war.
The acting is truly phenomenal. All of the actors do incredible, extraordinary work, although I must single out two actors in particular who really blew me away. The first is Ken Watanabe. I haven't seen any of his native work, but I can safely say based upon his American studio work (The Last Samurai, Memoirs of a Geisha and of course this film) that the man is a force to be reckoned with. I simply hope that he is not reduced to roles in vain of Chow Yun-Fat or Jet Li in their American films. He adds such an atmosphere of wisdom, intelligence and determination – quite the opposite of how the Japanese enemy is usually portrayed in WWII films. His character is entirely human and not reduced to a suicidal, angry general type, which is probably what many people would expect. The second is Kazunari Ninomiya, who plays Saigo. What a heartbreaking performance this actor provides. He is small, scrawny, not built for war. He has trouble fitting in. His expression is that of constant exhaustion. But his determination to live and to honour his general over himself is touching and fascinating to watch. His delivery and performance in general is absolutely stunning.

''We can die here, or we can continue fighting. Which would better serve the emperor?''

In terms of themes, the most intricate and important aspect of the film is its examination of the psyche of the warfare itself. In Flags of our Fathers, like in his earlier films such as Unforgiven, Eastwood portrays an examination and dissection of heroism and what it meant both for those who are labeled heroes and those who did the labeling. With Letters from Iwo Jima, Eastwood studies the exact opposite of the spectrum; glory. It's almost as if Eastwood is more fascinated with the Japanese comprehension of heroism than the American one. The Japanese soldiers in the film don't have such a thing as heroism to begin with. What they do have is glory and honour. They accept their clear and present defeat with humbleness and modesty, perhaps too much so as they rather take their own lives than fall into the hands of the enemy. If Flags of our Fathers was a criticism of wartime splendor and heroism, Letters from Iwo Jima is a modest glorification of these elements.

In all, with Letters from Iwo Jima, Eastwood creates a new kind of war film that stands quite apart from its counterparts both because it portrays the side of the enemy but also and especially because it takes extra special care in emphasizing the human aspect of the soldiers it depicts, humanizing and characterizing them to endless extent. As a psychological study of warfare and as a history lesson, Eastwood has crafted a truly masterful and meaningful piece that's riveting and fascinating as it is intricate and complex. One of the best films of the year.
To sum it all up, Letters from Iwo Jima is one of the greatest war films ever made, and is easily does the best job of depicting war as something that harms all involved that I have ever seen. Clint Eastwood has, with this achievement, engraved his name as one of the greatest American directors in film history.

''A day will come when they will weep and pray for your souls.''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Flags and letters.

Posted : 9 months, 1 week ago on 18 February 2009 05:36 (A review of Flags of Our Fathers)

''They may have fought for their country but they died for their friends. For the man in front, for the man beside him, and if we wish to truly honor these men we should remember them the way they really were, the way my dad remembered them.''

The life stories of the six men who raised the flag at The Battle of Iwo Jima, a turning point in WWII.

Ryan Phillippe: John "Doc" Bradley

The film told from America's perspective.

Historical, epic and well executed but boring on the whole compared to Letters.
Glorifying heroes and putting the flag up symbolises victory. Above average war film. Although it jumps back and forth through time to the actual landing at Iwo Jima, like its counterpart Letters there are very graphic scenes. The realities of war and the coldness and brutal side are all shown. Good acting and well contrived cast but more of a history of the Flag than a proper War Movie. Clint Eastwood flick that is a tribute to the past...
Flags of our Fathers is an important film, but unfortunately, not a stellar one. The battle scenes are very well done and show the chaotic atmosphere and pace that follows a ground war, but it's the relationship and the manipulation of public interest as used by the media that the movie hits home. In a time where America is fighting two separate wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with veterans of Vietnam still being paraded on CNN every evening news to discuss comparisons, Flags of our Fathers is important in that it shows how a single picture or event can change an entire opinion over an effort that will cost young men and women their lives.
But where Eastwood tries hard, he tries mightily, to drum up any emotional attachment to the three characters. Haggis does his Crash best to have us 'tisk' at the consistent barrage of racial epithets thrown towards Indian descent Ira Hayes, but Eastwood fails to weave this sympathy and the sympathy for those left behind on the beach into an emotional punch that will carry us to the voting polls in the awards season.

The biggest dysfunctional hiccup with Flags of our Fathers comes with the expectation that the three major players in the production bring to the table. Eastwood in particular has stemmed together three films – Unforgiven, Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby – that each dealt with a person of people dealing with the emotional weight of violence that they were present or about to endure. The heavy handedness of Flags of our Fathers is be right up his wheelhouse. Add the brilliant writing experience and resume of Haggis and the movie should have been celluloid gold. Instead, we deal with waving veterans, moments of tenderness between the soldiers and the families of the dead they fought beside and the emotional burden of the horrors that surrounded them in combat without any tear tugging or tissue pulling on behalf of the experiencing movie watcher.

Lundsford: You actually chose the Marines because they had the best uniforms?
Rene Gagnon: No sense being a hero if you don't look like one.

Flags of our Fathers was filmed back-to-back with Letters from Iwo Jima which shows the Japanese perspective of the battle and is a moving mirrored story that respectfully gives the honourable view of the Japanese. While watching Flags of our Fathers, there are a few scenes of battle which feature in Letters.
Despite a very strong, moving story and some very intense and brutal war scenes featuring torture and death the one downside to the film is I didn't think the performances were as powerful as they could have been. It felt as though the cast and characters weren't as strong or important as the message behind it and that aspect is a little disappointing. Ryan Phillippe headlines the cast as John Bradley "Doc". Phillippe tends to be a little monotoned in his performances and I just didn't get a lot of emotion from his character. I think he'd do better playing a villain, although he hasn't taken those particular roles into consideration as of yet. His character is vitally important and a strong character but just not enough depth which doesn't help matters any. Jesse Bradford in a very off role for him plays spotlight insistent Rene Gagnon, who encourages all the attention surrounding the infamous flag raising picture. Bradford gets only a small portion of lines and really no depth at all which is unfortunate because he could have done something with this character.

''Nobody even noticed that second flag going up. Everybody saw that damn picture and made up their own story about it. But your dad and the others knew what they had done, and what they had not done. All your friends dying, it's hard enough to be called a hero for saving somebody's life. But for putting up a pole?''

Now the big exception to this slightly sub standard cast is fellow Canadian Adam Beach who plays Native American Ira Hayes. Beach definitely gets all the depth in his character that should have existed in the other characters. Hayes is met with constant racism from the battleground to the media spotlight. Hayes becomes an insatiable alcoholic from his desperate guilt in leaving his friends and fellow soldiers to battle. He feels this dedication to his people and to the country despite the racism. He has some heart wrenching speeches and moments in the film and hands down should receive an academy nomination for his moving performance. The supporting cast is who's who of Hollywood young up and comers who perhaps just didn't have the experience needed to carry the film. Barry Pepper, Jamie Bell, Paul Walker, Robert Patrick and the film lacks a certain experience to it in the cast. They needed someone top notch, a great actor (Eastwood himself would have changed the entire feel of the film if he had starred or even played a small role.)

Despite a slightly under written cast the film is spectacular. It shows such a diversity from the brutality of the world war 2 battle field to the hero worship of America that stemmed from the infamous picture. The extreme opposites the film takes you through really sends a powerful message that is unforgettable. I think this film will gain a cult following like many of Eastwood's films do and it should be appreciated for it's message and it's brilliant direction by Eastwood.

''This isn't just any island to them. This isn't Tarawa, Guam, Tinian, or Saipan. This is Japanese soil, sacred ground. Twelve thousand Japanese defenders in eight square miles, they will not leave politely, gentlemen! It's up to us to convince them.''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Clone Wars...

Posted : 9 months, 1 week ago on 18 February 2009 05:15 (A review of Bride Wars)

''Sometimes you really can find that one person who will stand by you no matter what.''

Two best friends become rivals when they schedule their respective weddings on the same day.

Kate Hudson: Liv

The romantic comedy is a type of film that relies on two obvious traits, the ability to make its audience laugh, and the ability to make that very same audience tear-up or at least feel some degree of warmth towards the central characters' love story. Bride Wars, which ostensibly at least, takes the form of your typical rom-com is an example of such that constantly tries to do the former and only hints at the latter only in the background in order to advance plot. The result from this is a middling and sluggishly mundane feature that neither offers memorable characters or even a few cheap laughs. To be fair, there has to be something said for the fact that I am not exactly within the movie's target audience criteria. Yet judging by the reactions of those around me, I got the feeling that what I was experiencing wasn't exclusively restricted to gender.

The story here, which zooms and focuses upon two best gal-pals Liv (Kate Hudson) and Emma (Anne Hathaway) as they try to cope with their simultaneous weddings, is one that is likely to get a few chuckles from females, but less so with their male counterparts. Yes, this is somewhat expectant of a movie titled Bride Wars, but then again, if half of your audience are neglected to the sidelines then you're needlessly cutting yourself short. This stunted, polarizing depiction of "every girl's biggest day" feels fitting to its source material, so women will enjoy this moreso than men, but not by much. You see, aside from the fact that Bride Wars wants nothing more than to cater to cheap gags and sappy melodrama fit to please the Legally Blonde enthusiasts, there also remains blatant problems in just about everything else that fills the movie's first two acts. With little romance to back up the flimsy plot, dull, dry characterization coupled with non-existent chemistry between either the friends and their partners, or even themselves, the vast majority of Bride Wars turns ugly, rather quickly, the movie pushes that this cat fight between Hudson and Hathaway is meant to be fun and airy with plenty of laughs, but it's too transparent and formulated to even move beyond dry caricature.

It doesn't help at all that the majority of the performances from the main cast are remotely daft. Hudson and Hathaway, who are supposed to playing long-time best buddies whom suddenly fall out over a petty dispute, are strangely forgettable, if not repelling, like a pair of unidentifiable twins. In all fairness, both hit the proverbial hammer on the head with their portrayals as stock-pile, cardboard cut-out typecasts befitting of the genre and only the genre, but this isn't exactly saying much. The remainder of the cast, who each have around ten minutes tops of total screen time are just as unremarkable, with Kristen Johnston giving the movie its only real favour and edge. So, what's worse than a romantic comedy with next to no compelling or memorable performances? Not much.

To be lenient however, Bride Wars isn't really a romance at all. At least, that's what I derived director Gary Winick was trying to put across. If anything, the movie exists more as a mildly poignant example of companionship in the form of friends rather than romance. This tangent, which takes full form in the third act, for the most part surpasses the drudgery that comes beforehand, and establishes a touching, if slightly overly done sentimental climax. By all means, it's far too little, too late, but I at least found myself moved by the movie's final statement, even if it was by means of extreme contrast. Yet had Winick went with this theme for the majority of his film, rather than save it for after all the silly, perfunctory cat fight scenes that in turn just about destroy all human shades within his characters, Bride Wars could have been a much more flowing, and relevant feature instead of a strangely wafer thin comedy piece. Instead it exists simply as throwaway popcorn fodder for girls on a night out who have nothing better to do than to revisit the same old characters, wacky situations and sit-com dialogue typical of your average Top Model episode. This is certainly no Devil Wears Prada and it's definitely not going to be affirmatively, kept in memory.

''...But there's also the chance that the one person you can count on for a lifetime, the one person who knows you sometimes better than you know yourself is the same person who's been standing beside you all along.''

0 comments, Reply to this entry