Older Reviews- The Island

This film starts out as your typical science fiction opener, a calm scene with a vague idea what’s actually going on. The two main characters Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan McGregor) and Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson) find themselves in a secure facility after the end of the world. The facility is fairly standard futuristic technology, with the hologram screens, white walls and furniture, and creepy security guards. The facility is supposedly in existence to find and protect the survivors of a pathological apocalypse, as well as funnel the survivors off to the last “clean” place on earth, the Island.

There are only two ways to get to this mythical island, though only one of them is ever mentioned outright, and the other is seen in and assumed from the plot. One of the residents can either win the lottery, a random draw of a person to go to the island, or if a pregnant woman goes into labor, she is instantly sent to the island. Before you start thinking that the easy solution is to get pregnant, the inhabitants of this facility actually don’t know how babies are made. And now is where we see the Mr. Evil of the movie, Dr. Merrick. I’m sorry, but if they were going for a plot twist here, they should have made it less obvious. First, when the “kind” doctor looks as evil as Sean Connery does to Alex Trebek in celebrity jeopardy, you know something's not right. The entire setup is pretty obvious, so anyone who doesn’t see this coming is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Jordan wins the lottery, hip hip hurray! She’s told to pack her things and get ready for paradise. Meanwhile Lincoln follows a bug up the ventilation shaft to the evil laboratory of the facility… the medical wing. There, he sees a pregnant woman give birth, and witnesses the miracle of life, only to see her die of lethal injection a few seconds later. This sends him running to save the life of his good friend Jordan.

And now we can say, let the action begin! For those of you that go to a movie to see things blow up, this is where you wake up from your nap. For those of you that actually enjoy the plot, I hope you enjoyed the film up until now, because it’s about to go to hell in a hand basket… literally. The entire film now follows the classic action movie plotline, not even bothering to switch things up even a tiny bit. I’ll admit that as a 20 year old guy and pyro chem. major, I appreciate the occasional explosion and little bits of action here and there. However, Michael Bay takes it to a whole new level, turning a movie that could have had both a better than average plot and amazing action, to a film with more action than even I could stand. And keep in mind he fits the action into the last hour of the film, so by the end you’re a bit sick of it.

Now it’s time for some actual comments on the film. The movie starts out with an above average plot setting, and some fairly decent character development. However, once we get about forty-five minutes in, everything becomes chase scenes and things going boom. This is a film where there are many casualties near the end, and one of them is the plot. The plot line in the beginning holds so much potential that is eventually put to waste. My final advice on this movie is this. If you like lots of action and a little bit of plot, fast forward and you’ll like it. If you like plot, and some action, you’ll enjoy it. You won’t love it, and you might be disappointed to see such unfulfilled potential, but you’ll enjoy it.

Grade: B+ Despite my rant, it was a decent film, it just could have been so much better.
Reviewed by Thomas Jenkins

Older Reviews- Twilight

            It is impossible to separate Twilight from its fandom.

            Thursday night, theaters around the country were filled with teenage girls anxiously anticipating the release of the film version of Stephenie Meyers’ hit novel. Lines of preteens wearing “Team Edward” tshirts sat along the wall before the doors opened. The Twilight series has gotten more kids excited about reading than any book since Harry Potter, and the movie has sparked a similar excitement for the obsessive readers. But is it worth it?

            A part of me doesn’t see the point of writing this review, since the people who want to see the movie will see it, regardless of what I say, and the people who don’t want to see it probably still won’t want to see it, at least not within the first two weeks. It’s not that the movie can’t stand on its own, away from the books- it can. It’s that the fans in the audience cheer, sigh, and applaud so loudly at parts that foreshadow or portray parts of the novel that it can ruin the mystery of the story for anyone who doesn’t know it.

            That said, the movie is a decent movie. Nitpicky fans of the books will probably find issues with the representation, but for my own part, it got the plot down pretty well. If you would like to compare it to any of the Harry Potters, compare it to the fourth. The move is beautiful visually with a great soundtrack, and the only real plot changes are artistic and cinematic licenses that make it flow more smoothly on the silver screen.

            As the leads, Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson perform well as Bella and Edward. Kristen Stewart is adorable when she trips over everything in her path and accidentally hits a classmate in the head with a volleyball, and her performance otherwise is reminiscent of her quiet, understated performance in Speak (but with less angst). As Edward, Robert Pattinson is slightly more awkward than his literary counterpart, but this just adds to his believability as a boy changed into a vampire at seventeen, and keeping his seventeen-year-old mindset. The two of them make a nice couple, much more realistic and likeable than their characters in the books (though militant “Team Edward” members will probably disagree).

            Once fans can pry their eyes away from Robert Pattinson, they can admire the rest of the movie. As Charlie, Bella’s quiet and slightly awkward father, Billy Burke gives a wonderful performance. At first, he seemed a little stiff, but as the movie goes on, his acting is much more believable and much more heartwarming. His facial expression in one crucial scene towards the end of the movie is more emotion-inducing than every lovey-dovey scene between Edward and Bella combined. Visually, the film is stunning, capturing every possible bit of beauty that Washington State has to offer. Fans who have never seen Forks, La Push, or Port Angeles will now be able to understand exactly what Bella gets to wake up to every morning, and no amount of rain can make that view ugly. The soundtrack is a decent but not overbearing backdrop to the film, and the screenplay allows for little moments of dialogue that make the entire movie.

            The film’s flaws come mainly from the story itself and the filmmaker’s duty to the squealing fanbase. The least believable moments are the love proclamation scenes between Edward and Bella that could easily have been taken out, except that fans would have revolted. Robert Pattinson spends many close-ups staring moodily into space, as if the filmmakers really wanted to make screenshots for teenage girls’ posters. And, of course, it is impossible to hear much of the film with the applause and swooning from the peanut gallery every time Pattinson appears on film. But, such is the territory of fan candy. 

Grade: B

Older Reviews-The Uninvited

            A surprise ending turns this mediocre horror movie into an above average one.

            The Uninvited, released this Friday, is a pretty standard representation of its genre. Emily Browning (Series of Unfortunate Events) plays Anna, a troubled teen who has spent ten months in a mental hospital after attempting suicide following the death of her mother (who knew that one-time suicide attempts could get you ten months in a hospital these days?). After her release, she returns to her now-haunted lakeside home to find that her father is shacking up with her mother’s former nurse, the delightfully creepy Rachel (Elizabeth Banks, from Zack and Miri Make A Porno). Together with snarky sister Alex (Arielle Kebbel, who looks like Mandy Moore but is actually the girl from The Grudge 2), Anna begins to believe that Rachel has murdered their mother and intends to murder them.

            Most of the scares are fairly standard. Three vaguely creepy children haunt Anna at random intervals, leading her to their gravestones and telling her that she’s next. Anna’s mother’s ghost appears crawling and burned to a crisp, pointing blindly at any of the characters and moaning “murderer!” Blood flows from keyholes, garbage bags have dance parties, and all the while, stepmother Rachel practices her Jack Nicholson impressions. The army of teenagers in the audience (PG-13 horror film- what can you expect?) scream in terror at all of these moments, but the seasoned horror fan sees it all as par for the course, and will most likely remain unmoved.

            What the film lacks in scares, it makes up in plot. The audience is expecting a twist (or at least it should be- the teenagers behind me kept getting fooled by the most obvious red-herrings), and there is one. Part of the twist is not that surprising, but the biggest shock of them all comes almost out of nowhere. I considered watching the movie again to see all of the pieces fall into place and check to make sure the filmmakers didn’t cheat, but as I couldn’t find the movie online and don’t feel like paying $9.25 to see it again, you’ll just have to sort it out for yourselves.

            Frankly, if the filmmakers had settled for making a psychological thriller rather than a horror film, this one would have been better. As Anna, Emily Browning is gorgeously innocent and almost as fun to watch as Elizabeth Banks (who knew that Banks could do creepy?). Browning and Kebbel make a nice pair and have passable chemistry as far as sisters go. If the filmmakers wanted to expand the plot, they could have given the father (David Strathairn) more to do- he’s certainly capable of having more of a presence. The landscape is gorgeous, the plot is almost intriguing- the ghosts are unnecessary.

            This film will never match up with the horror films it’s being compared to. It is not The Shining, or The Sixth Sense. But as far as horror films go, it is far better than most of the other ones out there, PG-13 or otherwise. Just wait to rent it on video, if you want to uninvite those pesky audience teenagers. 

Grade: B-

Older Reviews- Miracle at St. Anna

            Spike Lee really wants that Best Picture Oscar, doesn’t he? Sadly, Miracle at St. Anna falls short of what it would take to earn said Oscar; however, that is absolutely no reason to skip this movie.

            Miracle at St. Anna, released this past Friday, appears to be the perfect film to start the Oscar bait season. The film begins with a murder mystery in a post office in 1983 but spans most of its time in 1944, covering the story of the 92^nd Infantry Division of the American army during World War II and its four soldiers trapped behind enemy lines in Italy. Being the first Hollywood film to feature the African American soldiers who fought for their country in a time when it refused to respect them, the film is primed to receive national attention. Add in the epic style of the film making, and it would seem to be a clear choice for the academy. And yet…

            The film, according to most critics, is far from Best Picture worthy. And admittedly, it is far from perfect. Certain moments tend to be a little cheesy, and, for a World War II film, parts of it feel awfully 20^th century. The film feels a little too long in parts and spends too much time on too many subplots. However, aside from these flaws, this war film is easily one of the best films to be released so far this year.

            There are moments when Spike Lee’s directing truly shines. Visually, this movie is stunning. Lee clearly saw the potential of filming Italy’s countryside, which even through the eyes of war manages to hold its beauty. However, even the less beautiful images stay with the viewer long after the film, not the least of which is a moment towards the beginning where the corpses of several soldiers float in a swamp, victims of a recent battle. The film manages to glorify the soldiers without making them unrealistic, and to portray the realities of war without sacrificing imagery. Backed by Terence Blanchard’s score, the film feels as epic as its director intended.

            Many moments in the film manage to be heartwarming, and it’s easy to sympathize with even the most minor characters (which, in a cast this large, is an impressive feat on its own). The four soldiers to cross enemy lines befriend the Italians they meet, and the scenes between them are often very rewarding to watch. In particular, Private Train, played by Omar Benson Miller, has several wonderful scenes with a young and potentially delusional little boy named Angelo, played by Matteo Sciabordi. The familial moments in Italy almost allow the viewer to believe that the film could end happily, and the soldiers can rebuild a life in a country where, despite the language and political barriers, accepts them more than their home country ever will. However, this is a war film, and, in the words of William Goldman, “There is death ahead, and some of the wrong people die.”

            I will be honest and admit that I was sobbing for pretty much the entire second half of the film. The presence of a broken statue head held by one of the soldiers and the trauma hinted at by Angelo suggest that something horrible happened at the St. Anna cathedral, and the film manages to take the event and make it stay with the viewer long after the credits. And, if that wasn’t enough, the rest of the film from that moment on keeps the viewer in tears. The ending, while not necessarily happy, ties up every mystery- all of which keep the viewer’s attention, I might add- and leaves the viewer feeling satisfied, even when it seems a little cheesy.

            So to the harshest of critics, Miracle at St. Anna may not leave the impression that Spike Lee was expected to make. But to the average filmgoer, it wins the battle over every other film out so far moment. Welcome to Oscar season. 

Grade: A-

Older Reviews- Smart People

            A pretentious reincarnation of the indie film about the dysfunctional family, Smart People is like the self-proclaimed genius in the back of every classroom, throwing out self-important attempts at wit and relying too heavily on the studious actors in the front row. For as good as the screen writers think it is, you’d expect it to be better.

            Smart People stars Dennis Quaid as Lawrence Wetherhold, an arrogant literature professor at Carnegie Mellon who loses his driving privileges after falling off of a fence and suffering a seizure. Since his wife is long gone and his two kids (Ellen Page  as overachiever Vanessa and Ashton Holmes as slacker poet James) are too wrapped up in their own lives to care, Wetherhold is forced to rely on his laid back and irresponsible adopted brother Chuck (Thomas Haden Church) and his ex-student turned doctor/girlfriend, Janet (Sarah Jessica Parker). It’s interesting that Chuck had been recruited as a chauffeur when he drives Wetherhold all of twice in the movie, most of the time leaving the professor to take a taxi, but I suppose they needed some excuse to bring the humor into the film. It certainly isn’t coming from anywhere else.

            There is a certain format to the modern indie film. There must be realistic performances, heavy-hitting humor, and a light, modern-folk oriented soundtrack. There must be a dysfunctional family with unusual circumstances that let the audience know that the creative team spent hours coming up with the new quirkiness. And while these films manage to not rip each other off, they don’t really feel different from each other after a while. Smart People is this sort of film, keeping the general format of predecessors like Little Miss Sunshine and Garden State, but it loses the humanity that other indie films are renowned for in favor of pretentious realism.

            The acting is all very good. As Vanessa, Ellen Page gives yet another Juno-esque performance as a snarky teenager, but for some reason overachiever Vanessa is significantly less likeable. Dennis Quaid is extremely believable as the nasty professor, but he fails to make the character enjoyable to watch. Sarah Jessica Parker is passable but bland, and only Thomas Haden Church manages to make his character fun to watch. The actors all did the best they could with the given script, and it would be unfair to call their performances anything less than wonderful. But even the best actors can’t carry a film without any other redeeming qualities.

            There is something to be said for a film that paces itself so poorly that the audience constantly feels the end must be coming and is shocked to learn that only an hour and forty minutes has passed since it started. The movie cannot be faulted on its realism, but realism only works if the film has other redeeming qualities. Every so often an interesting joke will come through, but there is only so much “intelligent” humor that one movie can take. Intellectuals will feel superior watching this film, as every other joke involves obscure SAT terminology or Victorian literature references, but understanding a joke doesn’t make it funny, just as relating to a film doesn’t make it enjoyable. Maybe next time the screen writer can look up “human” in his thesaurus, rather than letting the Smart People try to act it for him.

Grade: C 

Older Reviews- Righteous Kill

            What do Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro have in common? Multiple awards after performing in decent movies and easy paychecks after coasting through Righteous Kill.

            Pacino and DeNiro are undeniably good actors. It is almost always worth watching them perform alone, and seeing them perform together should be a rare opportunity to witness art on the big screen. But do remember- this is a cop-thriller. Which means that no matter how noteworthy the talent is, they’ve still got a criminal record following them- after all, predictability is easy and lucrative enough to be considered crime, and, like the villains in their films, screenwriters are now just begging to be caught.

            The film follows DeNiro and Pacino as detective team Turk and Rooster, two aging, tough-guy cops after a poetry-writing, bad guy-murdering serial killer. Further investigation leads the team of detectives (DeNiro and Pacino, with John Leguizamo and Donnie Wahlberg as Detectives Simon Perez and Ted Riley, respectively, led by Brian Dennehy as Lieutenant Hingis and shadowed by CSI Karen Corelli, played by Carla Gugino) to determine that the killer is almost certainly a cop- a fact supported by both cinematic past precedent and the confessional film-footage of one of the main characters interspersed throughout the movie.

            The film doesn’t particularly feel like a movie at first. For a long time, I forgot that I was in the theater, and wondered, instead, which season of Law and Order I was watching. Then Karen Corelli was introduced, and I realized my mistake- I was watching CSI, not Law and Order. And then dramatic music started playing, and the lighting changed, and I remembered that this was, in fact, a DeNiro and Pacino blockbuster. Once this became clear, the plot became slightly more interesting.

            The trouble with genre clichés is that they become clichés for a reason. The movie isn’t a complete waste of time, as it manages to be entertaining- it was enjoyable to watch the investigation team attempt to solve a murder that the audience thinks it has already solved. Though the way the plot is set up does put the film into a bit of a bind- after all, if there is no plot twist, the audience will feel gypped out of a surprise ending, and if there is a plot twist, the film becomes yet another tiresome thriller. The serial killer’s antics are typical- after all, what serial killers don’t leave appropriate rhyming quatrains on their victims’ bodies these days? But that said, these little quirks keep the film-goer’s interest.

            If all else fails, the viewer can fall back on the little pleasures. Moments where the acting is so realistic that the audience may as well be sitting in an actual precinct. Several times, the actors talk over each other so loudly that it is impossible to understand a single word of dialogue, and once or twice, DeNiro and Pacino utter monologues that consist of nothing more than a few innocuous words framed by strings of profanity. It’s touching moments of realism like these that make modern films worth watching. Unless, of course, you’re looking for high art.

            If that’s what you’re looking for, look for other Pacino and DeNiro films. Even this Oscar-winning investigative team can’t save this film.

Grade: C+

Older Reviews- Quills

Quills is a well-done film about a difficult historical figure. Blessed with a leading cast of four Oscar nominees (two of which double as Oscar winners), the film is fun, thought-provoking, and strangely educational for a film with such a pornographic subject.

            The film studies the life of the Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush) in his years at the Charanton Insane Asylum. The asylum is surprisingly enlightened for an 18^th century France establishment. Inmates are given many opportunities for self-expression, including group games, painting, and even public theater, using the Marquis’ prose as a medium. Some of these scenes are a bit unbelievable- the paintings in the art room are all magnificently done, the patient choir is full of magnificent singers, the inmates are given access to candles and, in the Marquis’ case, almost everything he desires, and dangerous inmates, while usually locked up, are far too often free with only the Abbe (Joaquin Phoenix) and a few women to guard them. Patients at modern crisis centers are denied everything from pens to shoelaces, so it is amazing to wonder that France, in the era of the guillotine, no less, is so enlightened.

            Alas, these many opportunities for self-reflection are not enough for the Marquis de Sade. Desiring publication, he smuggles his erotic literature out of the asylum with the laundry maid, Madeline (Kate Winslet). Madeline, in her life of cleaning the linens of the insane, desires much in the way of excitement, and is smitten with both the Marquis and his prose. Everyone, for that matter, loves the Marquis de Sade in this world, from Madeline to the inmates to the Abbe himself, who calls him a friend. Under the Abbe’s handsome nose, the Marquis’ pornographic novel, Justine, is published in the outside world.

            Never fear, viewers. Doctor Royer-Collard (Michael Caine) arrives just in time to ruin the brain-healing utopia. Having read the Marquis’ smuggled novel, Napoleon orders the doctor to undergo an impossible task and cure the Marquis de Sade. In his first scene, the doctor demonstrates a “cure” for madness that involves forcibly dunking them in buckets of water over and over again. His every action suggests a sadistic nature that would make even the Marquis de Sade proud. The Marquis, in fact, is quick to make this connection himself, after hearing that the doctor has taken a young wife directly from a convent and virtually imprisoned her in his mansion. The inmates of the asylum instantly and at the last second pick up the Marquis’ comedy about a wealthy, elderly doctor raping his young wife to perform for the public, including the doctor and his underage bride. This gives Collard the ammunition necessary to really attack the kind-hearted atmosphere of the Abbe’s asylum.

            The movie moves from farce to tragedy as the Marquis ruins himself and everyone around him in his quest for notoriety. After the Marquis refuses to be reasoned with, the Abbe confiscates his quills and writing implements. He proceeds to write in wine on his linens. After being given only bread and water, he writes on his clothing in his own blood. When stripped of his clothes and locked in solitary confinement, he passes the story orally through the patients in the other stalls to Madeline, who proceeds to copy it. After Madeline is murdered by a highly suggestible inmate and Dauphin, the asylum’s pyromaniac, sets his bed on fire, the Marquis writes all over the walls of his cell with his own excrement.

            The movie does raise several interesting questions about the nature of pornography. Should the Marquis de Sade be allowed to publish, even though his works are, as the Abbe says, “unprintable” and in the case of Justine, “nothing but an encyclopedia of perversions?” Probably the most controversial notion raised is that the Marquis’ pornography insights violence. One inmate constantly attempts to assault Madeline, generally after having heard the Marquis prose. After foreshadowing it the entire movie, he rapes and drowns her during the movie’s climax (no pun intended) where the inmates pass the story through the walls of the asylum. The movie gives little indication that sane people are just as likely to commit these acts; however, the Marquis’ novel does inspire the doctor’s young wife to commit adultery with the architect sent to design the interior of her prison.

            Aside from its inconsistencies, the film is beautifully made. Kate Winslet, Geoffrey Rush, Joaquin Phoenix, and Michael Caine are acting at their best in four drastically different roles. Phoenix is loveable as the Abbe and manages not to become insufferable, and the viewer finds it easy to root for his character from the beginning to his tragic end. Kate Winslet manages to be both innocent and corrupt, and Michael Caine is delightfully sinister as the doctor. Of course, Geoffrey Rush stands out as the likeably crude yet undeniably dangerous Marquis de Sade. Nominated for three Oscars, Quills should be on the viewing list of anyone looking to learn more about the issue of forbidden sex. Or just anyone in the mood to see a decent film.

Grade: A

.