Overall rating from 1 to 100: 58
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 28, 2007
“The Condemned” is a humorously ironic, hypocritical movie: Produced by World Wrestling Entertainment and with a tagline that reads, “10 people will fight. Nine people will die. You get to watch,” this movie proceeds to lecture on how immoral it is to enjoy violence as entertainment.
This is the summer of snuff films. “Vacancy,” which is also playing in theaters, is also about recording actual deaths for entertainment purposes. Of course, neither movie is truly a snuff film itself — no one really dies — but that’s what both movies are about.
Essentially a star vehicle for wrestler Steve Austin, “The Condemned” owes a lot to the Stephen King novel “The Running Man,” which was adapted into an Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle in 1987. (The 20-year-old movie is far superior to this new one, by the way.)
Ian Breckel (Robert Mammone) is an unscrupulous TV producer who has an idea for a twisted spin on reality television: He wants to collect 10 tough death-row inmates from around the globe. Then he wants to put them on an island and have them fight to the death until a sole survivor remains. This one survivor will be awarded with money and freedom.
But since this scheme is illegal, and no TV station will pick it up, Breckel plans to broadcast a stream of live footage on the Internet, which can be viewed for the nominal fee of $49.99. His ambition is to become rich and to draw at least as many viewers as the Super Bowl draws: 40 million.
So the producer’s staff rigs 400 cameras throughout the island. He collects the criminal titans from international prisons, including one Jack Conrad (Steve Austin), and deposits them on the island for mortal combat.
The game is simple: Each of the 10 has a bomb strapped to his or her leg (yes, there are two women). Of course, if they try to tamper with the device, it explodes. And, after 30 hours, the bombs are set to explode. So, the only way to get of the island alive is to kill the other nine contenders before 30 hours has passed. And, much like TV’s “Survivor,” bones are thrown to aid their competition from time to time: Duffel bags with food, water and weaponry parachute from the sky.
That’s the premise of “The Condemned.” It’s more violent than I suspected. Much like in “Vacancy,” the scenes where the women are being beaten are way too much. During the event, some of Brechel’s staff have a crisis of conscience, and the longer we sit in the theater, we feel like we can relate.
My chief complaint is the same as the one I had with “Pathfinder”: During the fight scenes, it appears as though the camera was strapped to their fists. Fast flashes of indistinguishable action flicker on the screen to give us the feeling of speed and power. But without any context, we aren’t impressed, nor do we care.
In some ways, “The Condemned” was better than I expected but worse in other ways. I’d rather watch “Lost.”
Directed by Scott Wiper
Steve Austin / Robert Mammone / Tory Mussett
113 min. Action
MPAA: R (for pervasive strong brutal violence, and for language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0092 : 510
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Pathfinder (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 37
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
X Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 28, 2007
It doesn’t happen very often, but once in a great while, I actually get bored during a movie and hope it will end soon and leave me alone. Such was the case with “Pathfinder,” a supposed action movie.
(Note: Anytime a movie’s release date keeps getting pushed back (as this one’s did), it’s never a good sign. Another red flag — for future reference — is when a movie is shorter than 90 minutes.)
But “Pathfinder” is 99 minutes, so it’s not all taboo. In fact, the acting is fine. The sets are satisfactory — as are the costumes. My “Pure mediocrity” rating is the result of two crucial elements: the storyline and the photography. The plot is a tired, old revenge formula: young warrior’s people are slaughtered by brutes, so young warrior is determined to slaughter said brutes. The end.
More accurately, what we have here is a blend of “Apocalypto” (2006) and “300” (2006), but “Pathfinder” is a much, much lesser movie than either of those.
The photography is maddening. First of all, “Pathfinder” follows the unfortunate “artistic” trend of photographing movies in an overexposed, high contrast. The epitome of this evil practice is “Pitch Black” (2000). The only reason I continued to watch that movie was because the filmmakers were attempting to create a glaringly bright planet that had multiple suns. I could appreciate that, but it was taxing, nevertheless.
Because of this overexposure technique, the colors in “Pathfinder” seem to be washed out to the point that the film often looks like it’s shot in black and white. Black and white is wonderful when it’s intentional: “Good Night, and Good Luck” (2005) is a modern example.
The other problem with the photography is the disorienting method that is used to cheat on the action scenes. Close flashes of bits and pieces of action are depicted in rapid succession to give us the sense that a lot is happening. But we, the bewildered audience, are left without any frame of reference for perspective. In other words, I couldn’t really tell what was going on. For my examples, I cite a sledding chase scene and pretty much every single battle in the movie.
But enough technical criticism ... on to what you really want to know: “Pathfinder” takes place about 600 years before Columbus came to the New World. Native people who already inhabited the land were occasionally raided by Viking marauders. The encroaching plunderers’ objective was to bring about the extinction of the “savages” that they might inherit the new land for themselves.
During one attack gone awry, a solitary Viking child survives. The native people take him in, raise him and name him “Ghost.” Years later, when full-grown Ghost (Karl Urban) is on a hunting trip, the “dragon men” revisit his people with murderous brutality. And here I have come full circle with “Pathfinder”: I’m bored just writing about it.
Directed by Marcus Nispel
Karl Urban / Moon Bloodgood / Russell Means
99 min. Action
MPAA: R (for strong brutal violence throughout)
Copyright 2007.
JP0089 : 481
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
X Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 28, 2007
It doesn’t happen very often, but once in a great while, I actually get bored during a movie and hope it will end soon and leave me alone. Such was the case with “Pathfinder,” a supposed action movie.
(Note: Anytime a movie’s release date keeps getting pushed back (as this one’s did), it’s never a good sign. Another red flag — for future reference — is when a movie is shorter than 90 minutes.)
But “Pathfinder” is 99 minutes, so it’s not all taboo. In fact, the acting is fine. The sets are satisfactory — as are the costumes. My “Pure mediocrity” rating is the result of two crucial elements: the storyline and the photography. The plot is a tired, old revenge formula: young warrior’s people are slaughtered by brutes, so young warrior is determined to slaughter said brutes. The end.
More accurately, what we have here is a blend of “Apocalypto” (2006) and “300” (2006), but “Pathfinder” is a much, much lesser movie than either of those.
The photography is maddening. First of all, “Pathfinder” follows the unfortunate “artistic” trend of photographing movies in an overexposed, high contrast. The epitome of this evil practice is “Pitch Black” (2000). The only reason I continued to watch that movie was because the filmmakers were attempting to create a glaringly bright planet that had multiple suns. I could appreciate that, but it was taxing, nevertheless.
Because of this overexposure technique, the colors in “Pathfinder” seem to be washed out to the point that the film often looks like it’s shot in black and white. Black and white is wonderful when it’s intentional: “Good Night, and Good Luck” (2005) is a modern example.
The other problem with the photography is the disorienting method that is used to cheat on the action scenes. Close flashes of bits and pieces of action are depicted in rapid succession to give us the sense that a lot is happening. But we, the bewildered audience, are left without any frame of reference for perspective. In other words, I couldn’t really tell what was going on. For my examples, I cite a sledding chase scene and pretty much every single battle in the movie.
But enough technical criticism ... on to what you really want to know: “Pathfinder” takes place about 600 years before Columbus came to the New World. Native people who already inhabited the land were occasionally raided by Viking marauders. The encroaching plunderers’ objective was to bring about the extinction of the “savages” that they might inherit the new land for themselves.
During one attack gone awry, a solitary Viking child survives. The native people take him in, raise him and name him “Ghost.” Years later, when full-grown Ghost (Karl Urban) is on a hunting trip, the “dragon men” revisit his people with murderous brutality. And here I have come full circle with “Pathfinder”: I’m bored just writing about it.
Directed by Marcus Nispel
Karl Urban / Moon Bloodgood / Russell Means
99 min. Action
MPAA: R (for strong brutal violence throughout)
Copyright 2007.
JP0089 : 481
Fracture (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 73
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 28, 2007
Most likely, “Fracture” probably isn’t what you were expecting. From the previews, it appears to be another “Silence of the Lambs” (1991), but it’s not.
Instead of being about freak-show monsters like Hannibal Lecter or Buffalo Bill, “Fracture” is about an exceptionally intelligent man whose wife’s infidelity has led him to devise (and attempt to execute) a brilliant murder plot. And it turns out, not so coincidentally, that the arresting officer is his wife’s lover.
As in many Hitchcock films, we are unwittingly persuaded to root for the immoral antagonist. And as with Hitchcock’s works, we have to uncomfortably reconcile our feelings later in the movie. It is wonderful to watch a film, like this, that is crafted well enough to make us lose our bearings momentarily.
“Fracture” is a murder mystery and a courtroom drama. But Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling maintain a strong screen presence throughout the movie. Gosling plays Willy Beachum, a hotshot attorney from the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office who just got a promotion to his dream job in the lofty world of corporate litigation. Hopkins is Ted Crawford, the cunning genius behind Crawford Aeronautics. And he’s a man of means.
Gosling portrays charm, charisma and arrogance with his character. Hopkins also demonstrates charm and confidence, and the cold, calculating, manipulation of a mastermind. The premise is adequate, but the reason to see this movie is the performances.
On his way out the door to his new job, Beachum is invited to prosecute one final case that should be a cinch. But Crawford, who chooses to represent himself, has devious designs in store for the young lawyer and his wife’s lover.
Ultimately, “Fracture” is a little too slick for its own good. In its concluding complexity, “Fracture” becomes ambiguous and difficult to follow — even for the most attentive moviegoers, like myself. After all, I always take notes.
The movie interestingly floats for too long on a simple plot point: finding the weapon. Then “Fracture” ramps up the complications. But it would be infinitely better if the writers’ good ideas were evenly dispersed for our easier digestion.
Even so, at the end of the day, I can still recommend “Fracture,” but I’d wait until it is released for video rental.
Directed by Gregory Hoblit
Anthony Hopkins / Ryan Gosling / Billy Burke
112 min. Drama / Mystery
MPAA: R (for language and some violent content)
Copyright 2007.
JP0087 : 375
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 28, 2007
Most likely, “Fracture” probably isn’t what you were expecting. From the previews, it appears to be another “Silence of the Lambs” (1991), but it’s not.
Instead of being about freak-show monsters like Hannibal Lecter or Buffalo Bill, “Fracture” is about an exceptionally intelligent man whose wife’s infidelity has led him to devise (and attempt to execute) a brilliant murder plot. And it turns out, not so coincidentally, that the arresting officer is his wife’s lover.
As in many Hitchcock films, we are unwittingly persuaded to root for the immoral antagonist. And as with Hitchcock’s works, we have to uncomfortably reconcile our feelings later in the movie. It is wonderful to watch a film, like this, that is crafted well enough to make us lose our bearings momentarily.
“Fracture” is a murder mystery and a courtroom drama. But Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling maintain a strong screen presence throughout the movie. Gosling plays Willy Beachum, a hotshot attorney from the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office who just got a promotion to his dream job in the lofty world of corporate litigation. Hopkins is Ted Crawford, the cunning genius behind Crawford Aeronautics. And he’s a man of means.
Gosling portrays charm, charisma and arrogance with his character. Hopkins also demonstrates charm and confidence, and the cold, calculating, manipulation of a mastermind. The premise is adequate, but the reason to see this movie is the performances.
On his way out the door to his new job, Beachum is invited to prosecute one final case that should be a cinch. But Crawford, who chooses to represent himself, has devious designs in store for the young lawyer and his wife’s lover.
Ultimately, “Fracture” is a little too slick for its own good. In its concluding complexity, “Fracture” becomes ambiguous and difficult to follow — even for the most attentive moviegoers, like myself. After all, I always take notes.
The movie interestingly floats for too long on a simple plot point: finding the weapon. Then “Fracture” ramps up the complications. But it would be infinitely better if the writers’ good ideas were evenly dispersed for our easier digestion.
Even so, at the end of the day, I can still recommend “Fracture,” but I’d wait until it is released for video rental.
Directed by Gregory Hoblit
Anthony Hopkins / Ryan Gosling / Billy Burke
112 min. Drama / Mystery
MPAA: R (for language and some violent content)
Copyright 2007.
JP0087 : 375
The Forgotten (2004)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 59
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 28, 2007
“The Forgotten” is a science-fiction mystery about the boundless power of a mother’s love. The movie goes from intriguing, to touching, to way out in left field.
Telly Paretta (Julianne Moore) sees a shrink. She has to. She’s a grieving mother who is unspeakably devastated over the loss of her nine-year-old son who died in a plane crash 14 months ago. We see her weep as she stares at photographs, home videos and revels in happy memories of her little boy, Sam (Christopher Kovaleski).
Dr. Munce (Gary Sinise) is visibly worried about Telly, as is her husband, Jim (Anthony Edwards). We quickly share their grave concern when we learn that the photo albums she had been revisiting were empty all along. And the home videos were blank.
The good doctor and her patient husband try to remind Telly that her son, Sam, never existed. Their explanations are quite upsetting for her.
But Telly is still convinced otherwise, despite her inability to find those familiar plane-crash headlines in newspapers at the library.
The distraught mother has an alcoholic acquaintance, Ash Correll (Dominic West), who also had a child die in that same plane crash. But Ash doesn’t remember his daughter ... at first.
That is all I can tell. But as you can see, the premise is interesting. Unfortunately, the movie has trouble maintaining this level of spellbinding fascination, as it leads down bizarre paths of explanation.
Much like “From Dusk Till Dawn” (1996), which I saw in a previous life, “The Forgotten” begins as one movie and turns out to be quite another.
The DVD gives us two options for the movie’s ending: the original, theatrical-release version and an alternate ending version. As a movie critic, I watched both (of course) that I might recommend the better choice. Most people (and apparently test audiences) will prefer the original theatrical ending. But science-fiction purists (those who appreciate films like “Contact” (1997) and 1968’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”) will tend to favor the alternate ending. Both are similar.
I wish more films would explore the strength and depths of a mother’s love. I salute “The Forgotten” for addressing this theme; I only wish it would have forgotten its writer’s whimsical inclinations.
Directed by Joseph Ruben
Julianne Moore / Dominic West / Gary Sinise
91 min. Mystery / Sci-Fi
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense thematic material, some violence and brief language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0084 : 369
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 28, 2007
“The Forgotten” is a science-fiction mystery about the boundless power of a mother’s love. The movie goes from intriguing, to touching, to way out in left field.
Telly Paretta (Julianne Moore) sees a shrink. She has to. She’s a grieving mother who is unspeakably devastated over the loss of her nine-year-old son who died in a plane crash 14 months ago. We see her weep as she stares at photographs, home videos and revels in happy memories of her little boy, Sam (Christopher Kovaleski).
Dr. Munce (Gary Sinise) is visibly worried about Telly, as is her husband, Jim (Anthony Edwards). We quickly share their grave concern when we learn that the photo albums she had been revisiting were empty all along. And the home videos were blank.
The good doctor and her patient husband try to remind Telly that her son, Sam, never existed. Their explanations are quite upsetting for her.
But Telly is still convinced otherwise, despite her inability to find those familiar plane-crash headlines in newspapers at the library.
The distraught mother has an alcoholic acquaintance, Ash Correll (Dominic West), who also had a child die in that same plane crash. But Ash doesn’t remember his daughter ... at first.
That is all I can tell. But as you can see, the premise is interesting. Unfortunately, the movie has trouble maintaining this level of spellbinding fascination, as it leads down bizarre paths of explanation.
Much like “From Dusk Till Dawn” (1996), which I saw in a previous life, “The Forgotten” begins as one movie and turns out to be quite another.
The DVD gives us two options for the movie’s ending: the original, theatrical-release version and an alternate ending version. As a movie critic, I watched both (of course) that I might recommend the better choice. Most people (and apparently test audiences) will prefer the original theatrical ending. But science-fiction purists (those who appreciate films like “Contact” (1997) and 1968’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”) will tend to favor the alternate ending. Both are similar.
I wish more films would explore the strength and depths of a mother’s love. I salute “The Forgotten” for addressing this theme; I only wish it would have forgotten its writer’s whimsical inclinations.
Directed by Joseph Ruben
Julianne Moore / Dominic West / Gary Sinise
91 min. Mystery / Sci-Fi
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense thematic material, some violence and brief language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0084 : 369
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Vacancy (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 29
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
X Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 21, 2007
What an unpleasant, nasty little venture this movie is. And that’s just what it was intended to be because of its subject matter: “Vacancy” is a horror story about an unlucky couple who fall into a snuff film operation, like flies into a spider’s web.
If you’re unfamiliar with this sick concept, snuff films are movies that show the actual murders of actual people. Essentially, snuff films are violence pornography; and worst of all, such things exist — along with many fake imitations.
David and Amy Fox (Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale) have a relationship that’s on the rocks. Apparently, they’ve shared a mutual tragedy that they feel their marriage cannot overcome. Watching the way the two treat each other is almost as sad as the way they’re treated by the snuff filmmaker(s). (I thought I had somehow subjected myself to “The Break-Up” (2006) again.)
Because of a wreck on the interstate, the couple from Los Angeles take an alternate route, resulting in their getting lost on a dark, windy road during their all-night road trip. When their car begins to break down, they pull into Small’s, a filling station where “everyday’s the fourth of July.” Beside this gas station is a dumpy place called the Pinewood Motel.
When the two decide to spend the night, they find video tapes of people being brutally murdered in their room. A cat-and-mouse game ensues between the victims and the killer(s).
Basically, if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve seen the movie. That is the whole movie. The couple try to survive being cast as the stars of the motel’s next snuff film.
Kate Beckinsale does a wonderful job with her performance. I was worried about Luke Wilson, however, because he has been type-cast as a comedic actor. And though he’s up to the challenge and performs quite well, I couldn’t take him seriously. His mere presence took the edge off the movie’s realism.
The movie isn’t creative; there’s no originality or innovation. In fact, “Vacancy” owes a lot to “Psycho” (1960), with its similar motel-murders-scenario and Norman Bates-like character.
Like “The Blair Witch Project” (1999), this film could have been made on a very low budget. In many ways, “Vacancy” is like a snuff film itself: hopeless, joyless, thoughtless, evil garbage.
See something else.
Directed by Nimrod Antal
Kate Beckinsale / Luke Wilson
80 min. Horror
MPAA: R (for brutal violence and terror, brief nudity and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0081 : 380
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
X Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 21, 2007
What an unpleasant, nasty little venture this movie is. And that’s just what it was intended to be because of its subject matter: “Vacancy” is a horror story about an unlucky couple who fall into a snuff film operation, like flies into a spider’s web.
If you’re unfamiliar with this sick concept, snuff films are movies that show the actual murders of actual people. Essentially, snuff films are violence pornography; and worst of all, such things exist — along with many fake imitations.
David and Amy Fox (Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale) have a relationship that’s on the rocks. Apparently, they’ve shared a mutual tragedy that they feel their marriage cannot overcome. Watching the way the two treat each other is almost as sad as the way they’re treated by the snuff filmmaker(s). (I thought I had somehow subjected myself to “The Break-Up” (2006) again.)
Because of a wreck on the interstate, the couple from Los Angeles take an alternate route, resulting in their getting lost on a dark, windy road during their all-night road trip. When their car begins to break down, they pull into Small’s, a filling station where “everyday’s the fourth of July.” Beside this gas station is a dumpy place called the Pinewood Motel.
When the two decide to spend the night, they find video tapes of people being brutally murdered in their room. A cat-and-mouse game ensues between the victims and the killer(s).
Basically, if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve seen the movie. That is the whole movie. The couple try to survive being cast as the stars of the motel’s next snuff film.
Kate Beckinsale does a wonderful job with her performance. I was worried about Luke Wilson, however, because he has been type-cast as a comedic actor. And though he’s up to the challenge and performs quite well, I couldn’t take him seriously. His mere presence took the edge off the movie’s realism.
The movie isn’t creative; there’s no originality or innovation. In fact, “Vacancy” owes a lot to “Psycho” (1960), with its similar motel-murders-scenario and Norman Bates-like character.
Like “The Blair Witch Project” (1999), this film could have been made on a very low budget. In many ways, “Vacancy” is like a snuff film itself: hopeless, joyless, thoughtless, evil garbage.
See something else.
Directed by Nimrod Antal
Kate Beckinsale / Luke Wilson
80 min. Horror
MPAA: R (for brutal violence and terror, brief nudity and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0081 : 380
Friday, April 20, 2007
Disturbia (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 79
Directed by D.J. Caruso
Shia LaBeouf / Sarah Roemer / David Morse
104 min. Thriller
MPAA: PG-13 (on appeal for sequences of terror and violence, and some sensuality)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 20, 2007
Every once in a while, Hollywood exceeds our expectations with a pleasant surprise like “Disturbia.”
When I first watched the trailer for "Disturbia," I scoffed at its apparent audacity to rip off Hitchcock's classic "Rear Window" (1954). I was wrong. "Disturbia" doesn’t duplicate, but honors "Rear Window," and even provides some modernized twists.
If a movie has a great curtain-raiser, then it’s usually a good sign. Kale (Shia LaBeouf) is on a fly-fishing trip with his dad. Almost immediately, we like Kale. But after disturbingly tragic circumstances befall his family, we can understand why Kale strays from his usual “good kid” beaten path.
The judge seems to understand, too, so the 17-year-old’s punishment is somewhat lenient: three months house arrest. And to keep him in his domestic prison, Kale has a GPS ankle band that prevents him from leaving his yard. If he crosses the perimeter or tries to remove the anklet, the police are summoned.
The house-arrest concept is an excellent plot device. In “Rear Window,” the protagonist had a cast on his leg that confined him to his living quarters. Both gimmicks work quite well and enhance the movies’ suspense.
As the previews have excessively revealed, Kale, in his boredom, becomes a voyeur. He watches all of his neighbors and their activities. Kale’s favorite entertainment, however, is his attractive neighbor, Ashley (Sarah Roemer), who just moved in. But Kale finds an equally intriguing person to watch: a killer … or so he suspects.
Although much of the movie is given away from the trailer, there is much more to “Disturbia” than meets the eye. This movie combines so many of Hollywood’s most entertaining bag of tricks. It’s thrilling, quite humorous and extremely fun to watch. Films like “Disturbia” are the reason people love movies.
“Disturbia” is currently rated PG-13, a rating that’s on appeal. This movie should be rated R. It’s shockingly violent and the sexuality and partial nudity are excessive, as well.
Shia LaBeouf has me convinced: He is on his way to becoming a monumental presence on the silver screen. Initially, I was saddened to hear that he was cast in the fourth Indiana Jones installment; but now, I’m looking forward to it even more. LaBeouf is an actor whom we should keep our eye on.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0080 : 380
Directed by D.J. Caruso
Shia LaBeouf / Sarah Roemer / David Morse
104 min. Thriller
MPAA: PG-13 (on appeal for sequences of terror and violence, and some sensuality)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 20, 2007
Every once in a while, Hollywood exceeds our expectations with a pleasant surprise like “Disturbia.”
When I first watched the trailer for "Disturbia," I scoffed at its apparent audacity to rip off Hitchcock's classic "Rear Window" (1954). I was wrong. "Disturbia" doesn’t duplicate, but honors "Rear Window," and even provides some modernized twists.
If a movie has a great curtain-raiser, then it’s usually a good sign. Kale (Shia LaBeouf) is on a fly-fishing trip with his dad. Almost immediately, we like Kale. But after disturbingly tragic circumstances befall his family, we can understand why Kale strays from his usual “good kid” beaten path.
The judge seems to understand, too, so the 17-year-old’s punishment is somewhat lenient: three months house arrest. And to keep him in his domestic prison, Kale has a GPS ankle band that prevents him from leaving his yard. If he crosses the perimeter or tries to remove the anklet, the police are summoned.
The house-arrest concept is an excellent plot device. In “Rear Window,” the protagonist had a cast on his leg that confined him to his living quarters. Both gimmicks work quite well and enhance the movies’ suspense.
As the previews have excessively revealed, Kale, in his boredom, becomes a voyeur. He watches all of his neighbors and their activities. Kale’s favorite entertainment, however, is his attractive neighbor, Ashley (Sarah Roemer), who just moved in. But Kale finds an equally intriguing person to watch: a killer … or so he suspects.
Although much of the movie is given away from the trailer, there is much more to “Disturbia” than meets the eye. This movie combines so many of Hollywood’s most entertaining bag of tricks. It’s thrilling, quite humorous and extremely fun to watch. Films like “Disturbia” are the reason people love movies.
“Disturbia” is currently rated PG-13, a rating that’s on appeal. This movie should be rated R. It’s shockingly violent and the sexuality and partial nudity are excessive, as well.
Shia LaBeouf has me convinced: He is on his way to becoming a monumental presence on the silver screen. Initially, I was saddened to hear that he was cast in the fourth Indiana Jones installment; but now, I’m looking forward to it even more. LaBeouf is an actor whom we should keep our eye on.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0080 : 380
Friday, April 13, 2007
The Reaping (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 55
Directed by Stephen Hopkins
Hilary Swank / Idris Elba / AnnaSophia Robb
96 min. Thriller / Horror
MPAA: R (for violence, disturbing images and some sexuality)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 13, 2007
Never try to make a serious movie where cows suffer unusual fates. People will always think that’s funny. I know I always do. Here are two examples: “Twister” (1996) and “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” (2000). Add “The Reaping” to the list because it also has some unfortunate cows that are hilarious, even though the humor is unintended.
Our diverse actress, Hilary Swank, plays professor Katherine Winter, a skeptic whose job it is to explain away miracles. “The only miracle is that people are still believing,” she says. But the fact of the matter is, she used to be a believer, too. Something has dispelled her faith.
Because of her rationality and scientific expertise, Winter is commissioned to travel to a small, Bible-Belt town full of religious zealots called Haven, La. Three days ago, something weird happened to the water: a two-mile stretch of river turned to blood.
Also, somehow closely related to this mystery is another oddity: A young girl named Loren (AnnaSophia Robb) is accused of killing her brother.
These bizarre events begin Winter’s investigation of what appears to be the unfolding of the 10 Biblical plagues from the Old Testament, found in Exodus. Each of these plagues was done well — except for the cows.
But “The Reaping” doesn’t work because it has some fundamental flaws. First of all, children are not inherently scary — especially pretty, little, blonde-haired girls with blue eyes whom we just saw in “Bridge to Terabithia.” Next, whenever characters clash, it appears as if the filmmakers didn’t know what to do next, so the fight always cuts away to some dreamy vision sequence, rather than seeing the physical battle. And let’s not forget those cows ...
At any given moment during the film, “The Reaping” feels like “Scary Movie 5,” which doesn’t exist yet — but when it does, this movie should be one of its targets.
There is a sad tragedy in this film. The horror story at hand isn’t a very good story. The ending has left many people disgusted by its ridiculousness. But the sad tragedy is that Stephen Hopkins made the wrong film: The real horror story, the truly scary part of the movie is the horrifying tale of what happened to Winter to make her lose her faith. Forget this plague and evil child business, the movie should have been about this incident from the past.
I saw “The Reaping” with one of my best friends, Karl. In the movie’s opening shots, he sarcastically said, “I think digitized birds are my favorite.” But the birds were nothing compared to those kooky, CGI cows. If you must insist on watching “The Reaping,” watch the cows.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0073 : 444
Directed by Stephen Hopkins
Hilary Swank / Idris Elba / AnnaSophia Robb
96 min. Thriller / Horror
MPAA: R (for violence, disturbing images and some sexuality)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 13, 2007
Never try to make a serious movie where cows suffer unusual fates. People will always think that’s funny. I know I always do. Here are two examples: “Twister” (1996) and “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” (2000). Add “The Reaping” to the list because it also has some unfortunate cows that are hilarious, even though the humor is unintended.
Our diverse actress, Hilary Swank, plays professor Katherine Winter, a skeptic whose job it is to explain away miracles. “The only miracle is that people are still believing,” she says. But the fact of the matter is, she used to be a believer, too. Something has dispelled her faith.
Because of her rationality and scientific expertise, Winter is commissioned to travel to a small, Bible-Belt town full of religious zealots called Haven, La. Three days ago, something weird happened to the water: a two-mile stretch of river turned to blood.
Also, somehow closely related to this mystery is another oddity: A young girl named Loren (AnnaSophia Robb) is accused of killing her brother.
These bizarre events begin Winter’s investigation of what appears to be the unfolding of the 10 Biblical plagues from the Old Testament, found in Exodus. Each of these plagues was done well — except for the cows.
But “The Reaping” doesn’t work because it has some fundamental flaws. First of all, children are not inherently scary — especially pretty, little, blonde-haired girls with blue eyes whom we just saw in “Bridge to Terabithia.” Next, whenever characters clash, it appears as if the filmmakers didn’t know what to do next, so the fight always cuts away to some dreamy vision sequence, rather than seeing the physical battle. And let’s not forget those cows ...
At any given moment during the film, “The Reaping” feels like “Scary Movie 5,” which doesn’t exist yet — but when it does, this movie should be one of its targets.
There is a sad tragedy in this film. The horror story at hand isn’t a very good story. The ending has left many people disgusted by its ridiculousness. But the sad tragedy is that Stephen Hopkins made the wrong film: The real horror story, the truly scary part of the movie is the horrifying tale of what happened to Winter to make her lose her faith. Forget this plague and evil child business, the movie should have been about this incident from the past.
I saw “The Reaping” with one of my best friends, Karl. In the movie’s opening shots, he sarcastically said, “I think digitized birds are my favorite.” But the birds were nothing compared to those kooky, CGI cows. If you must insist on watching “The Reaping,” watch the cows.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0073 : 444
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Paradise Now (2005)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 51
Directed by Hany Abu-Assad
Kais Nashif / Ali Suliman / Lubna Azabal
91 min. Drama
MPAA: PG-13 (for mature thematic material and brief strong language)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 11, 2007
As I turned on my computer, this very morning, the headline on my default news page was “14 Killed in Iraqi Suicide Bombing.” We Americans read such headlines — almost daily — and wonder ‘Why would anyone ever do that?’
“Paradise Now” is an Arabic film that addresses that exact question. The strength of this movie is that it doesn’t demonize the bombers; it portrays them as real people with real lives — just like us.
While watching “United 93” (2006), I remember that the movie confounded me when I realized that even the terrorists of September 11 were not literal monsters; they were doing what they thought was right, according to their beliefs.
I’m not a sympathizer with terrorists, of course. September 11 makes me angry to this day. But I think it’s imperative for us to remember that there’s always another side of the story, even if we disagree. I doubt if anyone ever thinks, ‘I know I’m evil — and completely wrong — but I’m going to do this anyway.’
Said (Kais Nashif) and Khaled (Ali Suliman) have been friends for a long time. They grew up together. We immediately get the sense that their lives aren’t that much different from ours. They have jobs where they deal with jerky customers and an unfriendly boss. They like to relax to music. They notice a pretty girl and wonder if she returns the sentiment. They pose for professional photography and have trouble smiling naturally.
But one day, it is time. A “mission call,” of sorts, comes for the two of them. Said and Khaled are commissioned to be suicide bombers together in Tel Aviv. Tomorrow, they will blow themselves up while surrounded by as many Israeli military occupants as possible, and they will die as martyrs.
“Paradise Now” isn’t so much about carrying out the mission itself, as it is about how the two young bombers feel about it. It’s stifling to know exactly how and when you’re going to die.
“Paradise Now” sometimes feels like a documentary in its realism. The dialogue is spoken in Arabic, with English subtitles.
But “Paradise Now” doesn’t stay true to its initial, brilliant premise. It badly veers off course, making some unexpected turns that seem to “sell out” for dramatic effect. Worse yet, I felt gypped by the ending. In addition to these unworthy sacrifices by the filmmakers, the movie is slow and probably not a good rental choice for most people — unless you’re particularly curious about suicide bombers.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0072 : 413
Directed by Hany Abu-Assad
Kais Nashif / Ali Suliman / Lubna Azabal
91 min. Drama
MPAA: PG-13 (for mature thematic material and brief strong language)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 11, 2007
As I turned on my computer, this very morning, the headline on my default news page was “14 Killed in Iraqi Suicide Bombing.” We Americans read such headlines — almost daily — and wonder ‘Why would anyone ever do that?’
“Paradise Now” is an Arabic film that addresses that exact question. The strength of this movie is that it doesn’t demonize the bombers; it portrays them as real people with real lives — just like us.
While watching “United 93” (2006), I remember that the movie confounded me when I realized that even the terrorists of September 11 were not literal monsters; they were doing what they thought was right, according to their beliefs.
I’m not a sympathizer with terrorists, of course. September 11 makes me angry to this day. But I think it’s imperative for us to remember that there’s always another side of the story, even if we disagree. I doubt if anyone ever thinks, ‘I know I’m evil — and completely wrong — but I’m going to do this anyway.’
Said (Kais Nashif) and Khaled (Ali Suliman) have been friends for a long time. They grew up together. We immediately get the sense that their lives aren’t that much different from ours. They have jobs where they deal with jerky customers and an unfriendly boss. They like to relax to music. They notice a pretty girl and wonder if she returns the sentiment. They pose for professional photography and have trouble smiling naturally.
But one day, it is time. A “mission call,” of sorts, comes for the two of them. Said and Khaled are commissioned to be suicide bombers together in Tel Aviv. Tomorrow, they will blow themselves up while surrounded by as many Israeli military occupants as possible, and they will die as martyrs.
“Paradise Now” isn’t so much about carrying out the mission itself, as it is about how the two young bombers feel about it. It’s stifling to know exactly how and when you’re going to die.
“Paradise Now” sometimes feels like a documentary in its realism. The dialogue is spoken in Arabic, with English subtitles.
But “Paradise Now” doesn’t stay true to its initial, brilliant premise. It badly veers off course, making some unexpected turns that seem to “sell out” for dramatic effect. Worse yet, I felt gypped by the ending. In addition to these unworthy sacrifices by the filmmakers, the movie is slow and probably not a good rental choice for most people — unless you’re particularly curious about suicide bombers.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0072 : 413
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Blades of Glory (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 54
Directed by Josh Gordon and Will Speck
Will Ferrell / Jon Heder / Jenna Fischer
93 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual humor, language, a comic violent image and some drug references)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 5, 2007
No one will stumble into “Blades of Glory” without knowing what’s coming: Will Ferrell and Jon Heder team up as partners in a couples’ skating division. How much can we really expect from such a premise?
Writing fair reviews for movies like “Blades of Glory” is difficult. The narratives are thin and simple. The most humorous parts are spoiled if they’re described. And it wouldn’t be right for me to criticize any “dumb parts” of a movie whose objective is stupid humor.
But “Blades of Glory” is funnier than you might anticipate. It begins with a four-year-old orphan who is an ice-skating prodigy. This young phenom is Jimmy MacElroy (Jon Heder). He is adopted by a billionaire who develops the boy’s talents further with state-of-the-art training methods.
We flash forward to see 26-year-old Jimmy competing in an ice-skating competition in Stockholm. His nemesis, Chazz Michael Michaels (Will Ferrell) is the coarse, arrogant antithesis of Jimmy’s gentle grace and style. When the two skaters tie for the gold medal, they erupt into a skirmish that results in their being stripped of their medals and banned from men’s figure skating for life.
In order to be able to skate professionally again, Chazz and Jimmy find a loophole that enables them to compete in the couples’ skating division — together. The unlikely pair must deal with reconciling their differences that they may skate as a unified team, and face their unscrupulous competition, the Van Waldenberg siblings (Will Arnett and Amy Poehler).
I have to hand it to Heder for stealing the show from Ferrell. Heder’s effeminate, pastel-loving figure skater is a better character than Ferrell’s macho, cowboy, sex-addict ice slasher. Plus, Ferrell’s vulgar, incessant, sexual humor wears thin — especially during a sex addicts’ meeting.
There are many surprises in the casting, including cameos. Jenna Fischer (also known as Pam from “The Office”) plays Heder’s love interest. Her character complements the film. I also appreciated seeing (and hearing) William Daniels; he was the voice of K.I.T.T. from “Knight Rider.”
For fans of Jimmy’s scarily obsessed fanboy, Hector (Nick Swardson), keep watching the movie after the credits begin to roll.
“Blades of Glory” is similar to, but better than, “The Benchwarmers” (2006). It’s the same kind of ridiculousness. Both movies are fun and both have plenty of advertisements and product placement.
Like everyone, I believe I have a good sense of humor. I had a few hearty laughs during “Blades of Glory.” Nevertheless, for the most part, these idiotic comedies are wasted on me, but I’m sure middle schoolers appreciate them.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0066 : 425
Directed by Josh Gordon and Will Speck
Will Ferrell / Jon Heder / Jenna Fischer
93 min. Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual humor, language, a comic violent image and some drug references)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 5, 2007
No one will stumble into “Blades of Glory” without knowing what’s coming: Will Ferrell and Jon Heder team up as partners in a couples’ skating division. How much can we really expect from such a premise?
Writing fair reviews for movies like “Blades of Glory” is difficult. The narratives are thin and simple. The most humorous parts are spoiled if they’re described. And it wouldn’t be right for me to criticize any “dumb parts” of a movie whose objective is stupid humor.
But “Blades of Glory” is funnier than you might anticipate. It begins with a four-year-old orphan who is an ice-skating prodigy. This young phenom is Jimmy MacElroy (Jon Heder). He is adopted by a billionaire who develops the boy’s talents further with state-of-the-art training methods.
We flash forward to see 26-year-old Jimmy competing in an ice-skating competition in Stockholm. His nemesis, Chazz Michael Michaels (Will Ferrell) is the coarse, arrogant antithesis of Jimmy’s gentle grace and style. When the two skaters tie for the gold medal, they erupt into a skirmish that results in their being stripped of their medals and banned from men’s figure skating for life.
In order to be able to skate professionally again, Chazz and Jimmy find a loophole that enables them to compete in the couples’ skating division — together. The unlikely pair must deal with reconciling their differences that they may skate as a unified team, and face their unscrupulous competition, the Van Waldenberg siblings (Will Arnett and Amy Poehler).
I have to hand it to Heder for stealing the show from Ferrell. Heder’s effeminate, pastel-loving figure skater is a better character than Ferrell’s macho, cowboy, sex-addict ice slasher. Plus, Ferrell’s vulgar, incessant, sexual humor wears thin — especially during a sex addicts’ meeting.
There are many surprises in the casting, including cameos. Jenna Fischer (also known as Pam from “The Office”) plays Heder’s love interest. Her character complements the film. I also appreciated seeing (and hearing) William Daniels; he was the voice of K.I.T.T. from “Knight Rider.”
For fans of Jimmy’s scarily obsessed fanboy, Hector (Nick Swardson), keep watching the movie after the credits begin to roll.
“Blades of Glory” is similar to, but better than, “The Benchwarmers” (2006). It’s the same kind of ridiculousness. Both movies are fun and both have plenty of advertisements and product placement.
Like everyone, I believe I have a good sense of humor. I had a few hearty laughs during “Blades of Glory.” Nevertheless, for the most part, these idiotic comedies are wasted on me, but I’m sure middle schoolers appreciate them.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0066 : 425
Monday, April 2, 2007
Shooter (2007)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 73
Directed by Antoine Fuqua
Mark Wahlberg / Danny Glover / Kate Mara
124 min. Action / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong graphic violence and some language)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 2, 2007
Times of war are reflected throughout a culture — especially in its films.
Most of the 1940s was booming for Hollywood, partly because of government perks for its “patriotic support” of World War II propaganda pictures. “Casablanca” (1943) comes to mind.
The Vietnam era produced scathingly critical films in the late ‘70s, like “The Deer Hunter” (1978), “Coming Home” (1978) and “Apocalypse Now” (1979). This kind of anti-war filmmaking is still prevalent today.
“Shooter” is decent action flick — quite entertaining, in fact — but it has an unmistakable agenda: the U.S. government is evil. In principle, there’s nothing wrong with expressing such sentiments; that’s the beauty of freedom. But I tend to resent manipulation, particularly blatant manipulation that borders on obnoxiousness. (And no, I don’t doubt that our government has done reprehensible things. And no, that likely fact is not OK with me.) Indeed, there are many inconvenient truths.
Bob Lee Swagger is a patriotic and dutiful man. And he knows a lot about guns. He served as a long-distance sniper (really long distances) for the U.S. military in Ethiopia. We learn from this opening sequence why Swagger has a mistrust of the government and a distaste for helicopters.
Three years later, the retired gunnery sergeant is commissioned by some U.S. government, Secret-Service types to help prevent the assassination of the president of the United States.
The president has three, upcoming, public speeches where a sniper is planning to shoot him from a mile away. Swagger is asked to scout the three locations and tell the government goons how he would execute such a fantastic shot. (The science of such things is discussed in some detail and is quite fascinating.)
It’s no secret, as usual — thanks to the trailers — that Swagger is set up to have the president’s assassination pinned on him. Nor is it a secret that this is a “revenge, getting even, take-justice-into-your-own-hands” kind of movie.
The greatest strength of “Shooter” comes from the realistic way that Swagger has to deal with a potentially fatal wound. Though he is a superman when he’s holding a gun, there’s a lot of time given to the frailty of Swagger’s mortality. This is a mark of excellence that most action films never even attempt to target.
Danny Glover, Ned “squeal-for-me” Beatty and Kate Mara (“We Are Marshall”) add flare to the cast. And Wahlberg is great at playing this tough, smart, quiet, Bruce Willis type of character.
Overall, I recommend “Shooter.” It has that delicious revenge quality that makes you feel a little animalistic, as when you watch “Dirty Harry” (1971) or “Death Wish” (1974). At the same time, “Shooter” also makes you feel like you should go hide from our government in a hole.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0063 : 452
Directed by Antoine Fuqua
Mark Wahlberg / Danny Glover / Kate Mara
124 min. Action / Thriller
MPAA: R (for strong graphic violence and some language)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 2, 2007
Times of war are reflected throughout a culture — especially in its films.
Most of the 1940s was booming for Hollywood, partly because of government perks for its “patriotic support” of World War II propaganda pictures. “Casablanca” (1943) comes to mind.
The Vietnam era produced scathingly critical films in the late ‘70s, like “The Deer Hunter” (1978), “Coming Home” (1978) and “Apocalypse Now” (1979). This kind of anti-war filmmaking is still prevalent today.
“Shooter” is decent action flick — quite entertaining, in fact — but it has an unmistakable agenda: the U.S. government is evil. In principle, there’s nothing wrong with expressing such sentiments; that’s the beauty of freedom. But I tend to resent manipulation, particularly blatant manipulation that borders on obnoxiousness. (And no, I don’t doubt that our government has done reprehensible things. And no, that likely fact is not OK with me.) Indeed, there are many inconvenient truths.
Bob Lee Swagger is a patriotic and dutiful man. And he knows a lot about guns. He served as a long-distance sniper (really long distances) for the U.S. military in Ethiopia. We learn from this opening sequence why Swagger has a mistrust of the government and a distaste for helicopters.
Three years later, the retired gunnery sergeant is commissioned by some U.S. government, Secret-Service types to help prevent the assassination of the president of the United States.
The president has three, upcoming, public speeches where a sniper is planning to shoot him from a mile away. Swagger is asked to scout the three locations and tell the government goons how he would execute such a fantastic shot. (The science of such things is discussed in some detail and is quite fascinating.)
It’s no secret, as usual — thanks to the trailers — that Swagger is set up to have the president’s assassination pinned on him. Nor is it a secret that this is a “revenge, getting even, take-justice-into-your-own-hands” kind of movie.
The greatest strength of “Shooter” comes from the realistic way that Swagger has to deal with a potentially fatal wound. Though he is a superman when he’s holding a gun, there’s a lot of time given to the frailty of Swagger’s mortality. This is a mark of excellence that most action films never even attempt to target.
Danny Glover, Ned “squeal-for-me” Beatty and Kate Mara (“We Are Marshall”) add flare to the cast. And Wahlberg is great at playing this tough, smart, quiet, Bruce Willis type of character.
Overall, I recommend “Shooter.” It has that delicious revenge quality that makes you feel a little animalistic, as when you watch “Dirty Harry” (1971) or “Death Wish” (1974). At the same time, “Shooter” also makes you feel like you should go hide from our government in a hole.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0063 : 452
Brick (2005)
Overall Rating From 1 to 100: 57
Directed by Rian Johnson
Joseph Gordon-Levitt / Emilie de Ravin / Lukas Haas
110 min. Crime / Drama
MPAA: R (for violent and drug content)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 2, 2007
The opening scene of “Brick” is an excellent curtain raiser: a dead girl lies in shallow water outside a tunnel while a young man stares at her corpse in disbelief.
This is the way to begin a movie. Unfortunately, writer and director Rian Johnson didn’t know how to maintain this same level of intrigue. He loses this momentum by alienating us, the viewers, with incomprehensible, slang-filled dialogue.
“Brick” seems to be a detective story or a murder mystery. And it is. But more impressively, “Brick” is also an effective illustration of a human phenomenon: the way people always think that their own troubles are greater than everyone else’s troubles.
Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is an unlikely protagonist. In this role, he physically resembles Daniel Radcliffe (of Harry Potter fame) but with longer hair. Perhaps because he doesn’t look too tough, we don’t expect much from Brendan. But this kid is surprisingly capable of unpleasant acts. And we can tell right away that he’s not as harmless as he seems.
Brendan’s old flame, Emily (Emilie de Ravin — better known as “Claire” from TV’s “L O S T”), is in serious trouble with a highly organized, high school drug ring. And it’s no secret, from the movie’s beginning, that she is already dead. Through flashbacks, “Brick” shows us Brendan’s painful infiltration into this drug gang to investigate his ex-girlfriend’s murder.
This is a great premise for a movie. But “Brick” cheats by amplifying its characters’ mystical qualities to the point that we cannot believe that a bunch of high school kids could be so slick, so intelligent and so collected. I mean, these punks have the composure of Don Vito Corleone. Their actions are a little too confident and too deliberate for the magnitude of the matters that they’re dealing with.
But despite its super teens and its unintelligible dialogue (which is my biggest gripe), “Brick” is well made and has much to admire. The photography evokes its January setting, shot primarily in grays and blues. And a masterful scene involving a violent brawl that’s happening just upstairs on the floor above approaches Hitchcockian talent when it comes to suspense.
The two best, most intriguing characters are “The Pin,” a young, powerful drug lord played by Lukas Haas and The Pin’s mom, played by Reedy Gibbs. His power is so tangible that when he’s onscreen, we try to figure out its source. His friendly mother (apparently clueless when it comes to her son’s dope enterprise) offers The Pin’s druggie friends fresh glasses of O.J. and big smiles. This naive, idiot-parent role hearkens back to those in “Rebel Without a Cause” (1955).
Speaking of characters, the movie’s original music by Nathan Johnson plays as significant a role as the actors. If you decide to watch “Brick,” notice that the musical score is essential to the film’s tone.
“Brick” is rated R, but I might have suggested PG-13. There is hardly any profanity and no sex or nudity. There is drug paraphernalia and violence — with one semi-graphic shooting.
“Brick” is an OK movie, albeit inaccessible. If it had subtitles (in English), then Rian Johnson might have had a great film.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0046 : 525
Directed by Rian Johnson
Joseph Gordon-Levitt / Emilie de Ravin / Lukas Haas
110 min. Crime / Drama
MPAA: R (for violent and drug content)
Review by Jason Pyles / April 2, 2007
The opening scene of “Brick” is an excellent curtain raiser: a dead girl lies in shallow water outside a tunnel while a young man stares at her corpse in disbelief.
This is the way to begin a movie. Unfortunately, writer and director Rian Johnson didn’t know how to maintain this same level of intrigue. He loses this momentum by alienating us, the viewers, with incomprehensible, slang-filled dialogue.
“Brick” seems to be a detective story or a murder mystery. And it is. But more impressively, “Brick” is also an effective illustration of a human phenomenon: the way people always think that their own troubles are greater than everyone else’s troubles.
Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is an unlikely protagonist. In this role, he physically resembles Daniel Radcliffe (of Harry Potter fame) but with longer hair. Perhaps because he doesn’t look too tough, we don’t expect much from Brendan. But this kid is surprisingly capable of unpleasant acts. And we can tell right away that he’s not as harmless as he seems.
Brendan’s old flame, Emily (Emilie de Ravin — better known as “Claire” from TV’s “L O S T”), is in serious trouble with a highly organized, high school drug ring. And it’s no secret, from the movie’s beginning, that she is already dead. Through flashbacks, “Brick” shows us Brendan’s painful infiltration into this drug gang to investigate his ex-girlfriend’s murder.
This is a great premise for a movie. But “Brick” cheats by amplifying its characters’ mystical qualities to the point that we cannot believe that a bunch of high school kids could be so slick, so intelligent and so collected. I mean, these punks have the composure of Don Vito Corleone. Their actions are a little too confident and too deliberate for the magnitude of the matters that they’re dealing with.
But despite its super teens and its unintelligible dialogue (which is my biggest gripe), “Brick” is well made and has much to admire. The photography evokes its January setting, shot primarily in grays and blues. And a masterful scene involving a violent brawl that’s happening just upstairs on the floor above approaches Hitchcockian talent when it comes to suspense.
The two best, most intriguing characters are “The Pin,” a young, powerful drug lord played by Lukas Haas and The Pin’s mom, played by Reedy Gibbs. His power is so tangible that when he’s onscreen, we try to figure out its source. His friendly mother (apparently clueless when it comes to her son’s dope enterprise) offers The Pin’s druggie friends fresh glasses of O.J. and big smiles. This naive, idiot-parent role hearkens back to those in “Rebel Without a Cause” (1955).
Speaking of characters, the movie’s original music by Nathan Johnson plays as significant a role as the actors. If you decide to watch “Brick,” notice that the musical score is essential to the film’s tone.
“Brick” is rated R, but I might have suggested PG-13. There is hardly any profanity and no sex or nudity. There is drug paraphernalia and violence — with one semi-graphic shooting.
“Brick” is an OK movie, albeit inaccessible. If it had subtitles (in English), then Rian Johnson might have had a great film.
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don’t watch (1-29)
Copyright 2007.
JP0046 : 525
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
