pardy_travis Reviews

The Dark Knight (2008)

The End of All Hope

[24 July 2008]

Without a doubt, this film is the greatest motion picture of all time. There has never been another epic or equally eloquent piece of symphonic imagery ever put to celluloid. The death of young Heath Ledger, ripped from his prime by a careless accident, drives the emotion and catharsis for us as we witness the desolation and self-destruction of his Joker on the big screen. It is life imitating art imitating life, and it gives us a reason to cheer for the bad guy, as much as we fear him. We know the tragic end of his dramatic life, and we know there can never be another way to bring his end about - it will be deft, heart-rending, and the journey to it will be a monstrous glimpse of the harsh century we have to cope with... but it will be meaningful. It is, after all, a life to be remembered. This appears to be the case, after the first weekend of The Dark Knight's release, and the film has straddled the top of this website's top 100 film list (beating out The Seventh Seal, Schindler's List, The Godfather, and other brooding commentaries of humanity's dark side),has broken records left and right at the theatre box office, and has generated talks of major awards to be administered posthumously to young Mr.Ledger. But what does it all mean? Are we such a society that we welcome a chance to applaud the dead because their final bow from the stage was a glorious one? Is the destitution of hope, as pictured by the lengths the Dark Knight goes to in order to end the destructive reign of Ledger's Joker, a cause we are willing to pick up and carry forth into that dark night? Are we hoping that the terrorists we face, again embodied by Joker, have some tragic story behind them in order to ease the turmoil, and misunderstandings, we have about their cause and their intent to destroy us? Is destruction a means in itself? More importantly, are we willing to allow this vision of Ledger to be our last? A young, tortured, nightmarish caricature of the original comical figure the Joker was meant to be when he started 60 years ago is the way we will commemorate this unbelievably talented actor's passing? Doesn't he deserve better? He certainly does deserve better, and so do we. We do not deserve the abandonment of our ability to laugh, to welcome destruction as a way of ending destruction, to go solemnly into a dimming world buried by our misunderstanding of one another. We deserve a hero, and we should be cheering for one as well.

The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra (2001)

Blamire's got everything right...

[3/10 · 30 March 2006]

And that's the problem. Let's see, women were portrayed as the obviously weaker sex? Scientists were manly men? Aliens looked and spoke like us? The special effects sucked? Gee, Mr. Blamire, nobody's ever thought of this before. Thank you for bringing up things that everybody already knows about cruddy 50's sci-fi movies. Oh yeah, you forgot to throw in anti-communist sentiments. This can (and probably has been) be described as a "tongue-in- cheek" "lighthearted" "affectionate" "send-up" of the films Blamire used to watch. Well, that means he was too lazy to really point out new things, and wasn't even really concerned with making innovative jokes. He just wanted to make a movie for the hell of it. Comedians like Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner know how to poke at a genre without being offensive, and Mel Brooks you're not, Larry Blamire. Repetitiveness and banality for the sake of being banal isn't humor... it's just lame. 3 stars for making me laugh once at a joke I can't even remember.

Cremaster 3 (2002)

"Un Chien Andalou" for a new generation?

[7/10 · 1 July 2005]

"Cremaster 3" is a bold, vibrant, thought-provoking, if disturbing, film. In this respect, it recalls the psycholinguistic-immersed nature of another film, the (in)famous "Un Chien Andalou". However, in terms of pure filmic artistic revelations, the film is hardly anything new and its power comes from its subject matter and presentation of that content. Again, this is brings "Chien" to mind, as that films raw psychological energy catapulted itself at the viewer, not with abandon but with an intent of destruction. This is where "Cremaster 3" comes in. The film's cinematography is the masterful, colourful stroke of the brush onto that Barney uses in lieu of a canvas and paint. Like, "Chien", the movie has only this energy of the visual to contribute to the world of film, and film manipulation is far from the likes of true film pioneers like The Lumiere Brothers and Scorsese. However, there are many scenes in "Cremaster 3" that I would compare to the deadly "eye-slitting" scene in "Un Chien Andalou". The film delves into the masculine mind and, of course, sex to a degree as a consequence. "Chien" also had its thematic roots in the psychological, using sex and the inhibitions of everyday life on the modern man as a template for its odd imagery. "Cremaster 3" is the modern version of Salvadore Dali's 1929 screenplay - a groundbreaking artist made a film then and a groundbreaking artist makes a film now. Both have this in common, and both have the distinction of ambivalence that my film professor once told me about "Chien": either it all means something, or it all means nothing. "Cremaster 3" is brave, visceral and powerfully unsettling, and so was "Un Chien Andalou". It will be interesting to see what the scholars 80 years from now think of the Cremaster series and its contribution to the world of film.

The Notebook (2004)

Purrty Good

[8/10 · 17 April 2005]

The first half is dreadfully contrived and clichéd and rehashed/generic/typical, blah blah blah. Good, now that the machismo-infused bashing and criticism is out of my system, THIS MOVIE WAS WICKED! I had actually won this movie in a VALENTINE'S DAY contest of all things, this year (2005), and my girlfriend and I watched it a few days later. We actually did cry during the ending (which you may seem coming, but it doesn't really save your tear ducts any work, just kinda warms them up). The cinematography and matteur-en-scene/character proxemics are definitely the high points - Cassevetes has done well in his romantic endeavour. Gosling is surprising. At first, he seemed to have a Ralph Fiennes in "Maid in Manhattan" creepy-romantic vibe, but his character is simply earnest to the point of disarming, it's revealed. Anyway, this movie was durn good. If you want to remove the splinters from your eyes, watch this. But be warned: If you're a Tim Allen type, stay the hell away from this movie and don't bash it ostentatiously, while weeping in private.

Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (2001 Video Game)

The Greatest Game in History

[10/10 · 13 December 2004]

The Greatest Game in History.

That sets up some pretty high expectations. Reasons are plentiful: The character proxemics, the ambiance and the use of camera angles, mise-en-scene and the editing are skilled beyond many of Hollywood's films today. The characters themselves are deeply psychological. They're all troubled in some way or another, and yet, despite their own individual depth, they're also representations of a side of the human experience and psyche. Raiden is the brash, headlong energy of youth, but he is also the insecurity and inexperience that comes with it. It comes back on his own life, his romantic life no less, in a big way. Snake is Raiden's foil - strong and secure, with years of experience to back up his quiet confidence.

However, his expertise comes at a toll to his own mental health.

The game itself transcends the nature of video games. It uses its predecessor (MGS 1 was itself a revolution in the gaming world) as a symbol of games in general. MGS 2 comments not only on technology, the effect it has on each of our individuality, the nature of humanity in exploration, and our own inabilities to confront demons, but it does all this while reflecting ON THE NATURE OF GAMES THEMSELVES. Bar none, this game has no rivals - it is consummate gaming, and film-making, for that matter. Being both entertaining and thought-provoking, philosophical and compassionate, the games paradoxes and dichotomies are whole and beautiful. In short, this is the game to end all games. I kid you not.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Wow, that's overrated

[6 February 2004]

I know. Every time we get a Tarantino film we get those who love it and those who don't. Those who praise it as a hallmark of cinematic stylistics, and those who think it's a pretentious piece of poop. Well, guess what, up until this film, I wasn't part of the latter group. But Mr. Tarantino went and screwed himself up. Written as a homage to the samurai films of the 60's, Kill Bill lacked substance, which was not the case in Pulp Fiction or Resevoir Dogs. This movie was totally lacking plot, and Tarantino thought he could make up for it by shoving in a feminist edge and story line, couple it with, admittedly, excellent direction (the shot set-ups and colourization were awesome) and he expects to get praise. Well he did. Tarantino went out there, continuing on his trend of rethinking the film genres. First it was gangster films (Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction), and then it was blaxploitation. Why does he resurrect these dead film genres and skewer their traditions? To get attention. Once all the commentary has been said, he can go in and make it seem like he's brilliant. The guy's a great director, but he's a lousy writer. This film took a terrible, wafer-thin plot, mixed it with a storyline that most critics would be afraid to disapprove of, and threw in some great mise-en-scene. And for this, he's one of the greats? No, sorry. The greats made their own classics. They didn't pick on genres already gone by in a pointless fashion. But, he'll continue to do this, and people will continue to praise it... or not.

Frailty (2001)

Not frail

[8/10 · 16 April 2003]

This movie is very disturbing. Watching it alone with the lights off is not a good idea (I found out). The visuals are quite unnerving at the beginning credits, the music is right out of the X-Files (only not as science-fiction-y), and Bill Paxton gives a stand-out performance of a career. He also directed the film, which some would call arrogant and others would call intelligent. He knew what he wanted of his actors, and he would be the perfect choice for the lead role since he knew what he wanted. He also may be trying to steal the show. This however is not possible, as the real performance is given by the children, particularly O'Leary. The film does get a bit too bizarre near the end, as unexplainable events keep popping up that weren't there for the rest of the movie. However, these events only add to the film's mysterious atmosphere. Matthew McConaughey does an excellent job of being just creepy enough to know something is not right with him, but not so creepy that we know exactly what is going on with him. The film has a budget and it shows. Scenes that could've done with a little gore are clean as a whistle (except for the obvious splash-back of blood on Paxton's clothes, shown after the murder scenes). The script is something else, despite a fairly predictable coup-de-gras, bit twist ending. The editing is great and the shots are so unique and just plain out-there, you have to wonder if this is actually Paxton's first venture as a director.

Basically, go out and see it, because it's worth it.

The Vindicator (1986)

Crap-tacular

[6/10 · 16 April 2003]

Ok, it's not "craptacular", I just wanted to use the line. I just don't know what the other reviewers are raving about, as this is just not GOOD. The movie does have great special effects and acting, IN COMPARISON to 80's sci-fi Canadian efforts. However, they don't stand up when compared to other films of the same time in the same genre (and Canadian science fiction in the 80's is kind of a narrow field anyway, right?) Even animated films like Akira beat it. Budget-conscious editing and production is apparent but forgivable, as the crew did do a great job with the money given to them (probably the loose change out of George Lucas' wallet). The performances give what is demanded of them, undoubtedly, but the movie has a plot as see-through as the (very bizarre) goop the main character gets trapped in. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but it's not good either. It's certainly nothing to build Canadian sci-fi around (we still have someone named David Cronenberg), and if Atom Egoyan ever put his massive brain into this genre we'd get something really wonderful. In short, go rent it, give it a shot. It won't live up to the fantastic title, but you might enjoy it for what it is. An 80's Canadian sci-fi movie.

The Lost Boys (1987)

This bites... (sorry)

[18 March 2003]

This movie has received praise and criticism over the years that is undeserving, in my opinion. It's just a bad movie. There is very little camp value, and it's a stain on Keifer Sutherland's career. The cinematography is dark, and this is probably how it's meant. But that doesn't justify not being able to see some scenes without adjusting the TV. It's not scary, the ending is anti-climactic (55 gallons of blood per minute doesn't justify it), and it's just lazy. Long story short, this is not great. It's gotten way too much attention for a sub-par vampire flick... then again, at least it's not "Queen of the Damned" (now THAT sucked).

Godzilla 2000 (1999)

Wow, this is cheap

[17 March 2003]

This is really a B-movie, that is undeniable. But are all B-movies bad? I guess not, as this one isn't. Sure it's production values are probably what Spielberg spends on lunch, and its dubbing is unforgivable, but that is easily looked past. The plot is basic, but the acting is solid, and the people in charge did the best they could given a small budget. The only problem I have is the "repent" at the end, where a feeling of sorrow is expressed for Godzilla. It is spoken as he trashes Tokyo. Why the hell is it there? Oh well, we can't expect perfection (or at least a great level of coherence). As long as that is kept in mind, just enjoy the movie.