Category Archives: movie reviews

Sin City

Posted by melydia on April 10, 2005 None comments

Sin City: I’ll start with the good points, er, point: the film style. The use of black and white with just a smattering of color, the glowing white blood in certain shots, the stark shadows and bright lights – it was all gorgeous, just like watching a comic book come to life. A feast for the eyes, if you can handle something this gruesome.

Then there was the rest of the film. The dialogue was full of overblown metaphors, typical of the most outrageous satire of film noir. To make matters worse, most of the acting was on par with a readthrough at your average high school drama club. The fact that over half of the speaking was done in internal monologues didn’t help either.

Then finally there was the story. I was so bored I almost walked out an hour into it. See, the problem was that I just didn’t care. None of the characters were more than cardboard cutouts, walking stereotypes. You had your sexy, scantily-clad, gun-toting hookers; your ugly, monotone, gun-toting superheroes; your almost amusing but similarly ugly bad guys; your corrupt cops, politicians, and clergy; and a whole lot of blood. That’s about it – no originality anywhere to be seen.

There you have it: a bunch of stock characters spewing stilted dialogue while blowing each other’s brains out and surviving unlikely physical assaults. Oh yeah, and just to annoy you a little bit more, they jump around in time about halfway through. I didn’t think a movie this violent could possibly be so arm-chewingly boring. Don’t waste your money or your time.

Chicago

Posted by melydia on March 22, 2005 None comments

Chicago: First, a quick synopsis: Roxie Hart kills her lover when she learns he was using her for sex and indeed was not her ticket to a singing career. Earlier that same night, the famous singer Velma Kelly killed her sister and husband for sleeping with each other. They both end up in the same prison, and from there on out the story becomes a tangle of lies and greed as each woman vies for the spotlight any way she can get it.

Though I have never seen the stage production, I can guess what it’s like: lots of flashy costumes, crazy dance numbers, and relatively sparse sets. That’s how musicals generally are, and that’s fine. Songs can be dialogue, interior monologue, or exposition in a musical without feeling like the story has been interrupted. So what if a bunch of chorus girls wearing absurdly large headgear pop up in the middle of a courtroom? In a musical, that’s perfectly fine. A movie, however, is different. The sets are detailed, realistic – too realistic to make said chorus girls look anything other than out of place. Things have to start out a little surreal and larger-than-life, as in Moulin Rouge or Singin’ in the Rain, for the audience to not be startled by people suddenly bursting into song.

Chicago takes a different approach. Instead of incorporating the songs directly into the story, they are performed as sort of dream sequences, mostly in Roxie’s mind. Whenever a song begins, the action cuts back and forth between the real world and an imaginary vaudeville. This of course could not happen in the theater, as the costume changes would be impossible, but it is an interesting attempt to bring the stage to the screen without actually blending the two worlds together.

I can’t decide how I feel about this approach. On the one hand, it provides opportunities for some interesting symbolism – the husband as the sad clown, the lawyer as the puppeteer – but on the other hand, the constant switching back and forth is distracting. I did stop and think about the film from an artistic angle for quite a while afterwards, however, so in the end I suppose that comes out in its favor. But I’m sure the stage show is better.

Saturn 3

Posted by melydia on February 25, 2005 None comments

Saturn 3: Big names, complicated story, surprisingly forgotten movie. The beginning is especially strange. Captain James is in a locker room, hurriedly getting ready for his big launch, and runs into Harvey Keitel, who was waiting for him and similarly attired. James jokes about Harvey’s recent classification of “mentally unstable,” saying that being assigned to Saturn 3 would make anybody unstable (keep in mind neither of them have actually gone there yet). Harvey responds to this by tossing James out the airlock. Mentally unstable, indeed. But here’s the weird part: Harvey takes James’s place on the Saturn 3 assignment as captain of the one-man ship. He boards the vessel wearing his opaque helment and no one is the wiser.

He lands on Titan (Saturn’s third moon, hence the name), where Kirk Douglas and Farah Fawcett live on a scientific outpost working on what looks like hydroponic research to help replenish the Earth’s food supply. They are also lovers with a strange backstory that is never explained adequately. Kirk’s been banned from Earth but Farah’s never been there. Not sure how that all ties together but anyway the two of them are lovers and seem fairly happy with their lot, isolated as it is. Then Harvey arrives and brings with him a robot named Hector, which is supposed to help Kirk and Farah speed up their output. However, Harvey trains Hector by interfacing him directly with his brain through a plug in the back of his neck which very obviously was the inspiration for The Matrix. Since Harvey’s unstable, so is the robot, to the point of lusting rather single-mindedly after Farah.

From there it turns more or less into your standard monster movie. The acting is decent (except for Harvey – his monotone sounded like was reading) and the effects are reasonable for the time period, but a lot of the story must be taken on faith and not questioned, because it certainly isn’t going to be explained. Like the entire future history of Earth between now and whenever this movie is supposed to take place. And the backstory of basically all the characters. And the fact that you can kill a man by cutting off his hand. And that a robot in a Harvey hat is supposed to be scary, not funny.

All in all it was an enjoyable romp, ripe for a hearty MST3K treatment, but it might have made a really good book. Movies have a lot of trouble with science fiction because everything must be explained in dialogue. Books do not have this limitation and this story would have benefited greatly from more background and scientific details. That, and in a book you can have a naked man without actually having to see Kirk Douglas’s 64-year-old ass. That would have been an improvement.

Constantine

Posted by melydia on February 23, 2005 None comments

Constantine: I like movies about the battle between Heaven and Hell. This film’s take on it is that God and Satan made a wager about the Earth regarding who can get more souls (not exactly a new concept, but it works here). They can’t interact with humans, but “half breed” angels and demons can influence people indirectly, hoping to nudge them one way or the other. One of these half-breed demons is Balthazar, played by Bush’s lead singer, Gavin Rossdale. I was pleasantly surprised at what a convincing and animated character he portrayed here, considering what a soulless and boring singer he is the rest of the time. Keanu Reeves, however, struck me as terribly miscast in the role of John Constantine, the damned soul trying to buy his way into heaven. His monotone voice and weird inflection were wrong for this part. But I’ve come to expect such things from Ted Theodore Logan, so I can forgive that here. Anyway, the other character I’d like to mention is Gabriel, a half-breed angel. I have no idea what his/her motivations were nor even if s/he was supposed to have a gender at all. Was s/he good? Was s/he evil? Hard to tell. But I thought Tilda Swinton did an interesting job in the part, even if she looks too much like Cate Blanchett. All in all, it was an entertaining film and I can’t say I regret seeing it. I just wish it had starred someone else.

One more thing: ever notice in this kind of movie that Satan always shows up in person while God’s only a ray of light, if He shows up at all?

Near Dark

Posted by melydia on February 23, 2005 1 comments

Near Dark: One of the stranger (and sillier) takes on the vampire legend I’ve seen. Redneck vampires kidnap sweet old cowboy Caleb and make him one of their own. Then Caleb’s dad rescues him and cures his vampirism. Yeah, I didn’t know there was an antidote either. Apparently, all that matters is how you get the blood into your system. If it’s by mouth, you become a vampire. If it’s through a needle in your arm, you turn human again. Convenient, that.

The Merchant of Venice

Posted by melydia on February 14, 2005 None comments

The Merchant of Venice: I’ve seen and read and participated in a fair amount of Shakespeare’s plays but was unfamiliar with this story. Al Pacino plays Shylock, a Jewish man who lends the Christian Antonio three thousand ducats at zero interest with the provision that if Antonio should forfeit, Shylock may cut off a pound of his flesh. In the meantime there are all kinds of amusements going on among the main lovers: Bossanio and Portia, Gratiano and Nerissa (Shakespeare was fond of double weddings). This was meant to be a comedy, after all, with Shylock being largely played as a bumbling fool. In a more anti-semitic time, I can imagine all this being quite humorous, even Shylock’s poor end: losing all his money, being forced to give up his religion, and watching his own daughter marry a Christian. Think of it this way: if Shylock was a Nazi instead of a Jew (since Nazis are one of the few remaining acceptable Bad Guy stereotypes), would we feel very sorry for his ruin?

Even so, this is a play at odds with itself. If Jews are meant to be portrayed as such loathesome creatures, why the famous monologue wherein Shylock talks about the similarities between Christians and Jews as men (“If you prick us, do we not bleed”)? If he’s supposed to be looked upon with such scorn, why include Shylock’s comparison between being merciful to Antonio at the forfeiture of his bond and the notion of showing mercy towards slaves? Perhaps the latter would be so preposterous that the crowds would have laughed, but today it serves as a powerfully dramatic moment. Such is the beauty of Shakespeare.

Regarding this specific version, I thought it was gorgeous. The costumes and sets were amazing and the acting was actually quite good. I liked the dichotomy between the merry antics of the lovers and the tortured and blindly vengeful acts of Shylock. I liked the quiet scenes tacked onto the end of Shylock standing in the rain and his daughter Jessica looking remorseful from Portia’s palace. In the end, there were no real heroes or villains. Shakespeare, though perhaps unintentionally this time, has once again provided us with characters of such depth, such complexity, that they become truly human.

Drugstore Cowboy

Posted by melydia on January 21, 2005 None comments

Drugstore Cowboy: Bob is a junkie in the early 1970s who robs pharmacies to get the drugs. He and his friends inject everything they take, then rob another drugstore before the effects wear off, thus ensuring they are more or less perpetually high. There is some humor and some tragedy, but I was less moved by the story than by the situation. This film has a similar feel to it as Trainspotting, minus the thick accents and statutory rape, which leaves the viewer marveling at the fact that there are actually people who spend their lives this way. Such a waste, but it makes for a decent movie. And for God’s sake, man, don’t leave that fucking hat on the bed!

House of Flying Daggers

Posted by melydia on January 16, 2005 None comments

House of Flying Daggers: To quote a truly apropos user comment, “It’s An Action Flick! It’s A Love Story! It’s A Date Movie!” I can’t really explain the story very well without giving away most of the plot twists, so suffice it to say that this movie contains amazingly choreographed martial arts against a backdrop of absolutely gorgeous scenery, with a Romeo & Juliet style romance interlaced throughout. As long as you can accept that this film is more a feast for the eyes than anything else – and that Chinese people are impervious to stab wounds – this movie is worth seeing. Just don’t come looking for an original, actor-driven plot; you’ve seen all these characters before.

Singin’ in the Rain

Posted by melydia on January 16, 2005 None comments

Singin’ in the Rain: The word “classic” is overused. When I watch a movie that’s supposed to be a classic, I expect an engrossing story and likeable characters – sheer entertainment, basically. A classic should be able to make such guarantees. Happily, that is exactly what I got with this famous musical. The film is set in 1927, right at the introduction of the talkies. The story revolves around a famous silent film actress whose voice is absolutely terrible (and hysterical), so in order to ensure her smooth transitions into talkies, a chorus girl is hired to dub over her voice. With the exception of a lengthy dance number in “Broadway Melody” that kind of drags on (much like the movie it parodies, An American in Paris), the entire film is smart, witty, and a delight to watch. I confess to a pre-existing love of tap dancing, but I did not expect to laugh out loud as much as I did. The first take of “The Dueling Cavalier” as a talkie is a true highlight of the film. What happened to comedies that aren’t vulgar? What happened to subtly funny lines tossed off casually, so quick you almost miss them? Luckily, they’re still available on DVD.

National Treasure

Posted by melydia on November 24, 2004 None comments

National Treasure: This, my friends, is a very silly movie. It tries to be Indiana Jones meets The Da Vinci Code: Nicolas Cage plays a man attempting to find an ancient treasure which was hidden from the British back in the Revolutionary War, the map to which is supposedly on the back of the Declaration of Independence. Believe it or not, the premise is far from the most ridiculous part of this film.

I laughed every time someone pulled a fact or a theory out of thin air and it ended up being exactly the correct interpretation of the clue (apparently practice makes perfect: they took 30 years to puzzle out the meaning of “the secret lies with charlotte” and maybe a week to get the rest). I laughed even harder at the logical errors: more than once I wondered, “How would he have known about that?” Ah, but the biggest was the scientific errors. My personal favorite was the clocktower, the shadow of which was supposed to fall on the location of some vital clue when the clock struck a certain time. However, what the writers failed to realize is that the Earth travels around the sun: the clocktower’s shadow would only fall in that precise location at that particular time of day once a year. How lucky for Nicolas Cage that he happened to show up just at the right time.

Ah, but it was a fun movie. Surprisingly few explosions (for a Bruckheimer film) but plenty of amusing banter and entertaining plot holes. It’s cheesy and formulaic, in that I called the Love Interest, the Witty Sidekick, and whenever something was about to explode or otherwise fall apart at the Worst Possible Moment, but National Treasure remains a solidly entertaining film.

© 2010-2025 kate weber All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright