ReelFilmster Reviews

Columbus Day (2008)

A Truly Great Film. An Exhilarating, Funny, and Uplifting Crime Film

[7/10 · 8 May 2008]

Finally a crime drama that doesn't end on the most depressing of notes.

The kid and Kilmer are just brilliant when their dialogue bounces between each other in the most unexpected ways while growing to become friends. Wilmer Valderrama puts in a performance that shows he's probably the edgiest actor to come out of 'That 70's Show' set. I didn't clue into the fact it was him until the final 30 minutes of the film. Marg must have loved playing a new role like this- she broke my heart with this performance and I cared so much about what happens to her and her daughter in relation to Kilmer's outcome. So realistically portrayed- bravo Marg. Kilmer is great as always and continues his reputation of delivering a fine tuned performance.

A truly great film that deserved a higher budget, but Kilmer and co have created an amazingly, smooth piece of cinema. Everyone involved should be very proud.

The acting, editing, cinematography, music: all fantastic- and there's so many lines of dialogue that catch you off guard either comedically or more often dramatically that I can't see the type who wouldn't get sucked into this movie's story.

AND THE ATTENTION TO DETAIL IS INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!

Even the friggin extras in the background of the park Kilmer hides out in have their own small story lines going on (ie one couple meets for the first time in the background of one shot and later near the end of the film you see them again in the background arguing...everything comes full circle in this movie- plot, characters, extras(lol)...fantastic.

I can't wait to put this one in my DVD collection. Thanks for making up for Conspiracy in a grand fashion.

Great screenplay. Great acting. Great film.

sin-surely, RF

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Third Time Was Not The Charm

[5/10 · 1 February 2008]

I usually love going on and on about films- adding as much insight and comparing and contrasting as much as I can to prove my points...but I find I should comment on this movie in short. There is only one fatal flaw to this film:

There's more stuffing in this turkey than the turkey could possibly hold. .

This franchise was building to a satisfying conclusion, and for some reason it decided it's loyal audience didn't deserve the ending it expected. It explodes with disappointment, and does not allow Peter Parker or SpiderMan to come full circle in life or as an individual.

For action it's still a fun film...but it's the intellectual dud of the 3.

sin-surely,

RF

Manufacturing Dissent (2007)

Somebody's reaching pretty damn far...Pointless, bitter, and jealous. A waste of time.

[3/10 · 30 October 2007]

This film accomplishes nothing. Even the tagline is exaggerating, far reaching crap. It should have been:

"Because we're small time and couldn't get an interview- it's never been so hard to get Michael Moore in front of a camera."

The film shifts tone, focus, and favoritism with each interview or point. What's the big deal with Moore doing the same thing as Republican politicians with their tainted media? It's like fighting fire with fire- you lie, we lie. It's obvious he does it much better than this group of filmmakers trying to ride his coattails- and by the way- they're late. This film should have come out decades ago so it's dated and tired out already. If it had a point to prove, they blew it by waiting decades to state it, because with time facts and footage are lost- so if this films investigators couldn't find facts or footage it must be because Moore was lying...dumb way to prove your point. The only thing this film achieves is letting the audience realize what a bunch of amateurs this group is by comparison to Moore. If you're going to lie, do it well...and for a frigging reason at least. Moore has moved on to other topics, other films, and new focus. This film lives in the past, so there's nothing compelling about it other than a cover design featuring graphic art of Moore as a caricature.

LMFAO "Unbiased" my ass. They'd be more credible, in my opinion, if they just said this was an anti-Moore film. They're lucky Moore wouldn't waste his time discrediting these hacks, because all this film had going for it is Michael Moore's name. This film has been made before at least twice, so come up with an original concept for once- instead of remaking Republican propaganda that discredits Moore. Instead the filmmakers waste our time telling us something we all know already. It's more about their self- importance and how they're 'worthy' to continue on their journey to discredit Moore. This is a bitter and resentful documentary with jealous undertones and I'm sorry- but they don't have the chops or charisma to win over Moore's popularity.

Aren't their more prominent world figures to discredit? Like ones who influence the world because they RUN IT- and not watch it on CNN while eating chips and thinking up conspiracy theories? the man may throw out a lie here or there, but at least he gets his audience to think with a different view or mindstate- unlike this film, which has nothing to say other than: "we're as good as him"- which they also are not.

sin-surely,

RF

"This is me...ya anonymous bitches" http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PREVALENTMIND

Hollywoodland (2006)

Goes nowhere but ambiguity on all levels- 2 hour running time 3 hour feel.

[6/10 · 8 September 2006]

Hollywoodland, though it has great performances, and despite the fact i think Adrien Brody is a masterful actor for his age, disappointed me a great deal. It's very long, has an excruciatingly slow pace, and every possible scenario that could have happened to George Reeves is left ambiguous and open as well as all the character ties and side plots. nothing seems to be fully developed besides the actors performances, and it just simply doesn't go anywhere but ambiguity. Another case of a director who should have stuck to TV? maybe- but the acting is so amazing I can't possibly believe a fool directed this, and I know that a fool did not.

The film almost seems afraid to commit to to any view or character side story- in other words they play it way too safe. and i hate to admit it but, Ben Affleck's portrayal of George Reeves and Diane Lane's portrayal of Mrs Maddox in flashbacks are the most interesting parts of the film. Was it possible to explore this mystery just by focusing on the man and his rise and fall instead of following a fictional character who runs around for 3 hours and doesn't solve or bring clarity to anything? Brody's character as he investigates the case begins to feel intrusive to your interests after an hour or so once you realize the filmmakers have no intention of 'wrapping up' this film in a conventional way (not that I'm particularly one for conventional films but a little 'bang' for my buck would have been appreciated). I even found myself throwing my hands up in futility and getting enraged

whenever they cut away from Reeve's story line. also this film doesn't have any polished transitions between flashback or present- they simply cut between the two time-lines, so if you wished, one could even re edit the film without Brody's investigator, and still be left with the same feelings and thoughts on Reeve's murder or suicide.

Must everything have been left so open? from Brody's relationship with his wife, girlfriend, child, business partners, and cop buddies to Afflecks relationship with mistress, lover, mother, career, and suicidal behavior nothing and no one is drawn clear. i would have enjoyed it more if Brody's character caught a bullet in the end- at least that would have explained why the mystery was never solved decades ago seeing how the only man who believed Reeves committed suicide was murdered too. but no, ambiguity is this films downfall. So much so that one could either call this film a work of genius...or a laughable bore (depending on how you ingest Affleck's performance), and sadly for Affleck he is ironically suffering the same fate as George Reeves in that he gets type cast and when he actually gets a good role- we can't fully appreciate it, and like Reeves edited scene in 'From Here To Eternity' we might even laugh unintentionally at a stellar performance.

Now I cant wait for Black Dahlia, just because i know De Palma will at least bust a few caps at his talented cast while exploring the dark mystery. films were originally created to entertain and mesmerize- not to bore and confuse and to leave one hanging on nothing. oh yeah and if you cast Bob Hoskins, for the love of god let him chew up some scenery instead of giving him several lines to mutter under his breath...even though it was very well acted breath.

But in conclusion my biggest problem with the film is that no character dynamics were written for Brody whatsoever: Was he a wrongly accused cop? Did he quit the force? Was he a drunk? Was he a bad father? Was he a good father and she was a bad mother? Was his secretary his girlfriend? Was she just a sexual benefit? Was he a famous detective once? Was he a bottom-feeder that got pushed out? Was he a liar? (sigh) Brody's detective seems to be all these things and none of these things.

It isn't hard to write a story when you write it in a way that forces the audience to draw and create ALL their own conclusions using their own imaginations. There's only one medium in which we all should be using our imaginations in this way- they're called NOVELS.

Sincerely, RF

Dear Wendy (2005)

An Amazing Metaphor- A Film That Should Have Been Words Alone

[8/10 · 16 August 2006]

A pacifist writes a love letter to his lost gun which helped him gain confidence in himself and others. He soon starts a gun club for other pacifists and social outcasts. the one rule is to carry your gun- but never brandish it in public. but soon they all realize what a gun was made for- and despite their beliefs- they acknowledge that the guns should be serving their purposes.

short and sweet- the movie's a metaphor for how a gun can become an extension of someone's personality and how someone's personality can become an extension of a gun- in exactly the same way two people can become an extension of each other by sharing a loving relationship. which is why the movie is written like a love letter. in love you find each other...and if the love is true the next step you approach together is death. And in relationships you never try to change who you're lover truly is.

If you are confused by this film think of it like this:

"Relationships" build confidence and ego- even though it may be false. Not having a "Relationships" can crush you back to nothing. "Relationships" can make you possessive, jealous, and vengeful. "Relationships" can make you feel invincible and unstoppable. "Relationships" can make you forget what your own goals were because you are constantly thinking about what else you could do with your "Relationship". If you're together all the time and never apart, people stop thinking of you as an individual and only see the "Relationship".

Now to understand this movie...replace the word "Relationship" with the word "gun". wow eh? notice how all those points happened in the movie...do you feel a little smarter for knowing that now? good. I'm glad.

Sincerely, RF