Brandy-at-the-foxhole Reviews

2046 (2004)

Also known as: Where are We going with this - Or is that the point?

[12 November 2004]

Minor spoilers.

Chinese cinema's A-list at Wong Kar Wai's disposal, sounds too good to be true, huh?

Well, there's a lot of good acting and directing here, no question. Moody atmospheres and a cinematography that never allows us to take our attention off the well-acted faces of the characters in the story. Well-used actors, nearly all of whom are nuanced (I think Faye Wong's surprised ingenue look is starting to wear on me, though).

But ultimately, what was all this in aid of? A lot of it went into articulating what is, ultimately, an ambling narrative that takes us on a journey that doesn't really end. More empty than a Paul Schraeder film, Wong Kar Wai spends a lot of time lingering on the loss that comes from aimlessness and the haunting of a wasted life.

Of course, this is deliberate and many who've seen Wong Kar Wai films expect nothing more (not nothing less, mind you). It's engrossing when you're sucked in by the character's desires and conundrum, but then the movie doesn't end as much as we get off, his train of thought that is.

9 for the 10 acting and atmosphere. 4 out of 10 for story.

PS. Was it me or did it seem like Carina Lau's character got resurrected towards the end of the film? Or is that continuity glitch?

Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)

The Meat and the Grease!

[12 November 2004]

Robert Rodriguez, on the DVD, has a special feature about how to cook puerco pibli or something like that and it is fascinating. Like this film, there's a lot of spicy ingredients in it, and clearly a lot of things added for flair.

I'm just thinking aloud though: Why toss in the unnecessary grease? The movie can do without the occasional character who is the "celebrity who can't act", namely: Eva Mendes and Enrique Igleisias. Everybody else is really good.

Plus, I'm pretty sure Johnny Depp has a second career somewhere in him as a comedian!

Like a lot of Rodriguez's work, we got to separate the ingredients and rate 'em:

(a) Story - passable - 6 out of 10 (b) Acting - except for afore-mentioned greasy under-talented actors, good, but I gotta take points away for Mendes and Iglesias so, 8 out of 10 (c) Editing - pretty darn good - 9 out of 10 (d) Special effects - not bad for a low budget flick - 8.5 out of 10 (e) Music - nothing we ain't heard before - 5 out of 10 (f) Sets - serviceable but a lot better than before, give this man a budget! - 7 out of 10

Works out to around 7-ish out of 10

The Craft (1996)

A lot darker than your usual teen flick

[11 November 2004]

SPOILERS

I thought this was a pretty decent teen flick - if you remember that it is, at the end of the day, a teen flick. No one should be expecting massive doses of striking directorial depth or stunning method-acting here. When taken for what it is - ie. a teen jaunt about peer pressure, teen cruelty and the hidden power-trip behind most teens' quest for emancipation, this is a pretty decent film.

What surprised me was the fact that, given the opportunity to go ditzy, the script went dark - and that's always good when you're bucking convention. This ain't no "Clueless".

I think Fairuza is one scary, scary chick and seeing her all tied up in a mental asylum didn't quite put the fear out. Why doesn't she do more horror movies? I think she'd be one helluva a scream queen!

6.5 out of 10!

PS check out the somewhat toneless rendition of Peter Gabriel's "I have the Touch" in the movie. The original is way better!

The Devil's Backbone (2001)

It's all about the story

[11 November 2004]

Two severed thumbs up!!

You and I have probably done it over and over again: walk into a cinema, watch a horror movie, scream at the loud thump in the sound system (as opposed to the un-scary mess on screen), and then walk out wondering: Why in the world did I watch that drivel? Well, not THIS movie!

Other horror films go for the cheap scare and completely forget that truly good horror films are about truly good stories. The Devil's Backbone is more good story than it is good horror.

Hollywood execs looking to paste the next hasty scare flick from their "Scream 2, 3 etc" files ought to have a good think about this one.

I wish more movies like this would make their way round the world.

9 out of 10!!

Raging Bull (1980)

Overrated, not one of Scorsese's best

[29 October 2004]

Scorsese has given us his share of snorefests and movies that look like they were hastily drawn up cardboard creations. Snorefests like The Age of Innocence. Unconvincing fake pieces like Gangs of New York.

He has also given us some gems. Gritty and witty films like Goodfellas and Mean Streets. Cleverly orchestrated biopics like Casino.

Raging Bull, fits neatly in the mediocre category, along with films like Kundun. Though it possesses some of the grittiness with which Scorsese seems more at home with than his pre-20th century period pieces, the script is flat out one-dimensional. Though realistically portrayed, Scorsese's directing and story telling is pretty much a bland delivery that shows none of the inventiveness a masterpiece like Goodfellas possesses.

I remain convinced that many of Martin's pieces are better off as documentaries. At least that way, he can spend a lot more time taking as close to the realism as possible and serve his compulsive desire to add an opinion.

5 out of 10

The Good Thief (2002)

Intellectually Lazy Film

[29 October 2004]

I'm guessing the script was designed with an American setting in mind and with American characters.

This is why some of the lines in the moving jar when they are spoken by the characters. With so many Americanisms in the script, the only character who looks like he fits in, is Nolte's character.

It looks like the scriptwriters for this film didn't design the movie for the cast and setting the director was using. It's also an interesting oversight: Didn't ANYBODY on the set express concerns through th weeks of shooting? Or is it so easy to believe for everyone in the world speaks like an American?

Apart from this, there are also too many stereotypes in the film. Okay, we're not looking for deep social debate here but can't the makers of the film be just a little bit more inventive? The Russian hacker who loves rock music sounds and behaves like he came out of a Bruckheimer pastiche. The background shot of some Japanese men performing some kind of Shinto ritual looks like a cut and paste from war films. And of course, the smooth-talking wise-cracking American thief that Nolte plays is straight out of a film noir '40s or '50s script, except he's in colour.

I normally like Neil Jordan but this effort is intellectually lazy. 4 out of 10. Oh, and Nutsa is HOT!!

Collateral (2004)

Gimme a break! * SPOILERS *

[11 October 2004]

Is it just me or did anyone else think about how ludicrous the premise is?

I mean, why would ANY killer want to use the same taxi from one destination to another? Is it because that would help the police track him down better? What is the point of killing a prosecutor when all the witnesses are dead? Why does it take a huge suitcase to store what is essentially just a list of names? Why not a rolo-dex? it's lighter and easier to use. Why aren't ANY of the witnesses under surveillance by police or in a witness protection program? Didn't ANY of them think that they would be tracked down? How can 2 people face each other at point blank range (granted, with a subway train door between them), open fire and only ONE guy (the expert hit-man, by the way) get hit?

Reality check, Mr Mann, 3 out of 10 for an unbelievable story...

House of Sand and Fog (2003)

Thomas Hardy lives!! *SPOILERS!*

[11 October 2004]

This is a throwback to the really overwrought "beat up the characters while you can" tragedies that Thomas Hardy was good at writing. Almost everybody dies and those who don't die are either emotionally scarred or are better off dead. Sheesh.

There's no mistaking the expert craftsmanship in making the film and to be fair to it, it is well made. The actors are fabulous and the director has a good grip on the material. As a film, it is difficult to fault. The script (and by extension, the book), are, however, the kind of story that borders on ludicrous.

9 out of 10 for the film maker and the cast. 3 out of 10 for the plot and premise. Get me a whiskey...

Ju-on: The Grudge (2002)

Pointless Scare

[11 October 2004]

An unnerving but pointless piece. Horror films like these are just asking to stereotype themselves to death.

A good scare film finds a message and its the message that gets under your skin long after the thrills and shocks are passe. Ju-on is not only a cheap scare, it frustratingly direction-less piece. No head, no tail, nothing except a repeated eerie motif that is just begging to be lampooned.

This one is destined to spawn a hundred imitations, and most of them will probably as drearily devoid of substance as the original.

Go watch Ringu instead. 2.5 out of 10.

The Company (2003)

Awful Meandering

[11 October 2004]

Sorry, while Altman's pieces usually have a fairly good frame around them that make the whole ensemble work, this was just pointless meandering at best. This is more like "A day in the Life of a Ballet Company", only without any goal, plot or direction in sight.

I kept wondering: "When will this thing end? Is anything going to happen? Why do I even bother?"

Be warned, apart from interesting choreography, there is no payoff. Altman should have made a documentary. Nothing in this piece justifies the use of actors.

3 out of 10 - and that's mostly McDowell and Campbell who deliver fairly focused performances.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Good and Jim Carrey wasn't bad too!

[30 May 2004]

Kaufman is one of the few writers in Hollywood original enough to be a real pull factor for moviegoers and in this outing is his best to date.

Kaufman's script is good enough to allow some real empathy for the characters to develop. Anyone who's been through the ups and downs of a relationship or even the bittersweetness in separations will find something in this film for them.

Gondry has allowed the "wormy mind" of Kaufman - whom I suspect invests a lot of himself in the characters he portrays - to live on film and here, the cast should be given kudos.

Even Jim Carrey, who is usually guilty of overacting, manages to put in more subtlety than usual. Only once, somewhere near the very end, did he lift the lid up enough for us to see a glimpse of the same IL' Carrey but thankfully, that scene is fairly short.

The production design and special effects are truly first class - I'd be upset if they weren't somehow recognised for this at Oscar time.

One of the more original Hollywood films in a while. 8.5 out of 10

Troy (2004)

Homer is Spinning in his grave

[30 May 2004]

This was ugly, cheesy ugly. Why didn't the producers be honest and call this movie "Brad" instead of "Troy"?

Blonde Greeks who look like Vikings with the kind of golden tans seen on a sun and surf holiday. Special effects that scream "CGI, CGI!". Putrid dialogue bearing no resemblance to the heroic language of Homer's poetry.

If there was a saving grace to this film, it is Eric Bana and Peter O'Toole, each of whom bravely, like the Trojans they portrayed, fought an ultimately doomed battle with the substandard script and stock directing.

Homer has been subjected to a horrible Hollywood holocaust. Stay away if you can't bear the stench. A half point out of 10.

Henry V (1989)

Tour de Force portrayal of English King's "Tour de France"

[30 May 2004]

As famous as Olivier's Henry V was, it was sorely outdated and as part of a war effort, it was predictably one-dimensional. Branagh's Henry V does more justice to the many facets of Shakespeare's words and reminds us of how good the Bard was at spinning a good yarn.

Some of the best English actors take their turn here. Scofield is in his element, playing a distracted French monarch. Ian Holm is an irascible (isn't he always?) Fluellen. Derek Jacobi is a master chorus (you can listen to that voice ALL day). Judi Dench is a soft hearted Nell who's seen better days. Branagh himself puts forward energetic vitality to the lead role. However, it IS rather difficult to look past the very English look Emma Thompson has in her portrayal of a French princess - but that's no fault of hers.

8 out of 10

21 Grams (2003)

*SPOILERS* Excellent Film

[11 February 2004]

21 grams centres on the idea of being moral debt. Each of the main characters in the film finds or feels himself/herself morally indebted or owed something. The story is propelled inevitably along by the desire of each character to make good what they consider wrong and it is their pursuit that drives the events forward.

The story is so delicately and completely interwoven with this thread that when Penn's character lies dying on the hospital bed and we are given his last thoughts, and the reference to 21 grams, we are left with the image of weighing scales, dispensing justice and weighing the debts paid.

It's not a sermonizing film, far from it - it does what any good film does, which is to question all easy answers. You get the sense that any of these characters would have been better off without a conscience. Arriaga has crafted a sparse, terse but effective script which seldom (if ever) loses focus.

The characters are incredibly believable - enhanced by the fine performance of the actors. There were no real weak performances here and moments which, in a lesser film, would have seemed sophmoric or patronising, are relayed with a certain honesty that overcomes your reservations.

The scenes have been chopped up and re-arranged, as if in a blender, but after the first few cuts, the narrative flows with extreme ease and each new scene compounds on your understanding of another. I tried imagining how the story would have looked without this technique and came to the conclusion that it would have been a lot more ordinary, and less thought provoking. The scene cutting helps distil the narrative so that we cut to initimate scenes quicker, with less of the useless by but necessary fluffage one usually sees in most conventional narratives. We go from intimate moment to revelatory instant efficiently and there is no wastage of the audience's time. The quote: "Film is life with all the boring stuff cut out" is never truer as it has been here.

This film represents one of the best marriages between dramatic and thematic content to emerge in some time. Easily 8.5 out of 10.

City by the Sea (2002)

Horrid mess of a film

[15 October 2002]

I watched this film and was appalled at how poorly directed, scripted and shot it was. The premise of the movie clearly has promise. Strains of Road to Perdition are visible.

But unlike Road, this movie seemed more focussed on trying to add pace to the story than depth. Scenes with promise or potential for engaging the viewer were too often wasted as the movie moved on too quickly. Clearly, better scene management should have been used. The film makes the awful mistake of showing too much of what should have been suggested and telling us too much of what should have been shown. A perfect example lies in the backstory of De Niro's character and his father. This is basically reciteds to us and there is no opportunity for us to engage the formative experience on De Niro's character other than to have characters stand around and tell us how it was.

Combine this with a strange obssession with moving from scene to scene and you get half-formed characters I had diffculty connecting with, despite solid acting from McDormand and Franco. McDormand's character was clearly wasted.

It would have been better if the story had cut away some unnecesary exposition and sub-plots, freeing up more time so that we didn't have to jump from scene to scene with little opportunity to engage the characters.

De Niro turns out the worst performance I have seen in a while. For most of the film, a pained expression not unlike a man suffering from constipation passes for inner conflict. In the hands of a better director, we would no doubt have had a slightly better result but clearly, he is unable to fill this role. They would have had better chances with a more engaging actor, one who elicited our emotions with better range. Compare his performance to Tom Hanks' in Perdition and yo can see how far off he is.

The cinematography is uninventive. There was only 1 shot worth looking at in the film and this was one of a plane flying through the broken roof of a warehouse. It was the only image with any emotional resonance. Everything is cookie-cutter photography.

Ultimately, this movie is best contrasted with Road to Perdition and as a case study of itself as an example of bad movie making and Perdition as the opposite. The person most responsible for this mess is the director Caton-Jones who should really go back to film school.

Avoid this movie if you can.