|
Saturday, 26 April 2008 |
The site has been static for the last few months. I definitely haven't decided to stop adding to it, so I plan to be back and more actively adding reviews once life has stabilized and I am feeling more motivated
John |
|
Friday, 28 September 2007 |
  Hollywood has an obsession with genres. Every movie simply must fit into one of a handful of convenient little definitions. They have to be "Action", "Drama", "Horror", "Thriller", even when they defy description. Director William Friedkin has probably been victim of this shortsightedness as much as any other director. After all, he made The French Connection, one of the most popular action films of all time, so he must be an "Action" director. Then he made The Exorcist, which is commonly considered the greatest Horror film of all time, and followed it up with a film titled Sorcerer, which had the gall to NOT be another Horror story. So, with his latest venture, Bug, the studio decided to promote it as another straightforward horror flick, when it is anything but. It is horrifying, but in an eroding sanity way most horror fans will find far too ponderous, outlandish and dull. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Friday, 28 September 2007 |
 
"I think we all experience moments of despair,
but for most of us, the sun comes out."
I doubt many people will watch The Bridge without being deeply shaken. Some will be outraged that the documentary was even made in the first place. Some will be baffled by the actions shown. I know I haven't felt quite the same. It has been pointed out to me on more than one occasion that I enjoy difficult and painful movies, but this one has challenged even my mettle. 90 minutes of reactions to, commentary on, consequences of and actual footage of people plummeting 240 feet to their deaths from the Golden Gate bridge will have that effect. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Saturday, 08 September 2007 |
  The independent film industry is virtually overrun with stories of children having to cope with addicted or otherwise abusive parents, typically leading to their own addictions. This is probably because an awful lot of young filmmakers seem to have no other motive than to tell the world what a difficult childhood they had. Most of them produce one movie which makes the film festival rounds, receives applause from plenty of sympathetic attendees, and are never heard from again. These movies often involve talented actors who are fully capable of earning roles in movies which pay much better, but are interested in applying their craft, as well as helping out an emerging filmmaker. The problem is, there are far too many (usually) young writer/directors who are so blinded by letting everyone know how difficult their life has been, they don't have any idea how to tell a compelling story. That is probably the main aspect Pure has going for it. Director Gillies MacKinnon is not a 24 year old film school grad, and he didn't write the story. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Thursday, 06 September 2007 |
  Sometime around 2003, director Darren Aronofsky announced his next project. An ambitious, three hour, hundred million dollar sci-fi drama epic about one man's quest for immortality. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett signed on, elaborate sets were designed, construction was started and locations around the globe were scouted. Then, according to unconfirmed reports, Pitts began demanding script changes, the studio got nervous and the project was scrapped. Aronofsky, however, couldn't drop the idea. He radically scaled back the scope and cost and eventually convinced the studio to bring the project back. Hugh Jackman (X-Men) signed on in Pitt's place and Aronofsky's future wife Rachel Weisz (The Constant Gardener) in place of Blanchett. What resulted is an abstract, cerebral, visually captivating, profoundly philosophical work, which was almost universally panned by critics.
Sometimes critics are just a bunch of idiots. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Thursday, 06 September 2007 |
  Some 15 years or more ago I had seen a bizarre movie starring Judd Nelson, of "Brat Pack" Fame, several years after their peak. All I could recall was a remarkably unfunny stand-up comedian who suddenly discovers an arm growing out of his back. What I didn't recall was how monotonous the movie was. I suspect my vague memory from that first viewing was because I caught up on some sleep, as I did this time, despite several glasses of iced tea. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Thursday, 06 September 2007 |
 Any time a movie is made about sexual identity, it is easy, not to mention likely for it to devolve into a preachfest. After all, the independent film industry is full of young filmmakers more than willing to hoist their personal beliefs, particularly sexual ones, on any movie viewer who crosses their path. With Puccini for Beginners writer/director Maria Maggenti manages to tread a fine line on a touchy subject and produce a distinctly enjoyable, amusing film. |
|
Read more...
|
|
