Change Your Image
Yakisoba
Reviews
Hard Candy (2005)
'Torture porn' is a lazy label . . .
The infamous premise of Hard Candy is well known: a 14-year-old girl ensnares a sexual predator and proceeds, in the name of justice, to torture him physically and psychologically for his crimes. This premise has understandably rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and has led a great number of professional critics to dismiss the film as exploitive pulp. But to condemn Hard Candy as nothing but "torture porn," I think, is to grossly oversimplify a difficult issue.
Watching torture is unpleasant, yes, but Saving Private Ryan, a critically lauded film, is also unpleasant to watch. What, on a purely moral level, separates Saving Private Ryan from Hard Candy? What elevates one film to art, and reduces the other to exploitation? Many people would argue that "meaning" is what separates the two. But how, exactly, do you define "meaning"? Did Sin City (which also deals with torture and is infinitely more gruesome than Hard Candy) have a "meaning"? If not, why did most critics like that? Because the brutality was more stylized? If so, to what extent can stylization justify unpleasant subject matter? And if it can, does that mean stylization is equitable with art? What is art, anyway?
I won't pretend that I have answers to all of these questions. But through them, I think I've proved that to dismiss Hard Candy as nothing but exploitation is intellectually lazy, and very probably hypocritical. Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle, in a particularly idiotic case of critical hypocrisy, calls Hard Candy a "wallow in ugliness" with "no point," while praising Sin City for its "entertainment value," despite noting directly in his review that it's a pointless exercise. Apparently a faked castration that occurs entirely off-screen is more "ugly" to him than a real one shown in graphic detail (also, curiously enough, performed on a pedophile). This isn't at all a condemnation of Sin City, mind you, but a condemnation of Mick LaSalle and the many other critics who engage in this kind of intellectual hypocrisy.
Viewed objectively, without any particular moral basis, Hard Candy is a tautly directed, brilliantly acted, and generally effective psychological thriller unfortunately hampered with a contrived plot that is unable to find a satisfying conclusion. It is not a great film, but the gripping performances and crackling dialogue keep the enterprise from ever derailing entirely, and elevate what could have been a sensationalist attempt at rejuvenating the thriller genre into something memorable.
Whether or not the film is morally wrong in its depiction of torture is up to each individual. I personally found that the viciously funny dialogue and extraordinary performances justified the subject matter, and while it is very possible that some people will disagree with this assessment, I can live with that. As long as they don't turn around and praise Sin City.
Juno (2007)
The script is not as bad as everyone seems to think . . .
I can't praise "Juno" any more eloquently than its myriad supporters have already done, so instead I will try to counter some of the criticisms of the script that have arisen. By providing a direct counterpoint to some of that negative criticism, I hope to expose prospective viewers to both sides of the script argument, and, hopefully, allow them to watch the film objectively, without any preconceived opinions.
The script by Diablo Cody has a tendency to rub people the wrong way due to the frequent cultural references and general extravagance of the dialogue. Because of these factors, a common complaint is that the dialogue sounds contrived--an argument I feel is only valid for the first fifteen minutes of the film, after which I felt the dialogue became very fluid and natural. For example, in an early scene, Juno rebukes the cashier by saying, "Silencio, old man!" This sounds contrived and forced; she is aware that she isn't speaking like a normal person. Later on, however, when she is angry at Mark, she doesn't say "Silencio, old man!" or anything remotely similar. She says, "You guys are supposed to take care of this . . . I want things to be perfect."
This transition from forced cleverness to genuine humanity is so gradual I had to watch the film a few times before realizing that it is very much intentional. Watching the film is like meeting Juno herself for the first time--a little jarring and uncomfortable at first, but as she gradually lets down her smart-mouthed facade, you grow to love the person inside.
The Forgotten (2004)
Hehehe . . .
This movie sucks. It's not very intense or suspenseful for a thriller, the acting is just average, the plot is slightly less thin than your average piece of paper, and towards the end it just gets ridiculous.
I mean, what's up with the people flying up into the air and crap? That was really stupid. And the "climax" was hilarious--which is typically not a good sign when the movie is supposed to be a dramatic thriller. The part when the alien-guy said "You will FORGET!!!" and all the windows shattered and his face turned all ugly was riotously idiotic.
And as for the--no, wait! I need to finish this review! Let me--please! Give me more tiiiiime . . . !
The Paper Brigade (1996)
Oh my God . . .
This is one of the stupidest movies ever made. If you plan to view it seriously, I urge you not to watch it. If, however, you watch it solely for the entertainment value of its unintentional hilarity, it may be worth watching once--maybe.
There is hardly a single redeeming aspect of the film, except maybe the female character (there really is only one female character, except for the mother, who hardly counts as a character at all), because she is hot. Though the fact that she ends up with Gunther at the end of the movie diminishes this fact somewhat; she should have stuck with his little brother.
Other than that, the film is a disaster. The script is pandering, inane, cliché-ridden, and occasionally so mind-boggling stupid that you begin to wonder what the screenwriter was smoking when he/she wrote it. The acting is terrible--though the actors, to their credit, aren't exactly given a whole lot to work with. The music and cinematography are bland and unmemorable. The editing is competent--I guess.
When the best thing you can say about a movie is that the editing is competent, you know something's wrong.