Change Your Image
jonnyhart
Reviews
Haiku Tunnel (2001)
There's no light at the end of this tunnel!
I'll dispense with the usual comparisons to a certain legendary filmmaker known for his neurotic New Yorker persona, because quite frankly, to draw comparisons with bumbling loser Josh Kornbluth, is just an insult to any such director. I will also avoid mentioning the spot-on satire `Office Space' in the same breath as this celluloid catastrophe. I can, however, compare it to waking up during your own surgery it's painful to watch and you wonder whether the surgeons really know what they're doing. Haiku Tunnel is the kind of film you wish they'd pulled the plug on in its early stages of production. It was cruel to let it live and as a result, audiences around the world are being made to suffer.
The film's premise if indeed it has one is not even worth discussing, but for the sake of caution I will. Josh Kornbluth, a temp worker with severe commitment-phobia, is offered a permanent job. His main duty is to mail out 17 high priority letters for his boss. But ludicrously, he is unable to perform this simple task. My reaction? Big deal! That's not a story
it's a passing thought at best - one that should've passed any self-respecting filmmaker by.
The leading actor if you can call him that is a clumsy buffoon of a man, with chubby features, a receding, untamed hairline, and a series of facial expressions that range from cringe-making to plain disturbing. Where o where did the director find this schmuck? What's that you say
he is the director? Oh, my mistake. Playing yourself in your own embarrassment of a screenplay is one thing, but I suspect that Mr Kornbluth isn't that convincing as a human being, let alone an actor. Rest assured, this is by no means an aimless character assassination, but never before have I been so riled up by an actor's on-screen presence! My frustration was further confounded by his incessant to-camera monologues in between scenes. I mean, as if the viewer needs an ounce of intelligence to comprehend this drivel, Kornbluth insults us further by `explaining' the action (first rule of filmmaking: `dramatize exposition'
show, don't tell). Who does this guy think he is? He has no charisma, no charm, and judging by his Hawaiian shirts, no sense of style. His casting agent should be shot point blank!
The supporting actors do nothing to relieve the intense boredom I felt, with but one exception. Patricia Scanlon puts in a very funny appearance as Helen the ex-secretary, who has been driven insane by her old boss, and makes harassing phone calls from her basement, while holding a flashlight under her face. This did make me chuckle to myself, but the moment soon passed and I was back to checking my watch for the remainder of the film.
The film's title is also a misnomer. Haiku Tunnel has nothing to do with the ancient form of Japanese poetry. Don't be fooled into thinking this is an art house film because of its pretentious-sounding title or the fact that it only played in a handful of cinemas and made no money at the box office
there's a very good reason for that!
My Wrongs 8245-8249 and 117 (2002)
A dog-ugly short film
Being something of an aspiring filmmaker myself, I thought I was in for a treat when I took home "My Wrongs..." (according to the deliberately vague DVD cover, I had purchased "a short film including scenes"). I should have known better really, and avoided this insipid (and often offensive) piece of twoddle.
The scene in the church is repulsive to watch (especially for those familiar with Morris's warped attitude towards paedophilia from his notorious TV series, Brass Eye) and serves no purpose other than to shock. How this film is labelled a comedy I will never understand.
The runner's commentary sounds like a novel idea in principle (having worked as a runner myself, it's often an interesting and uninhibited perspective on the filmmaking industry), however this is sadly not the case here. Instead, we are treated to some public schoolboy ranting about dogs on film, before concluding that there are no really great movies starring dogs. This is all very interesting, but not worth a single frame of celluloid.
To say that this film goes nowhere would be an understatement. It relies far too heavily upon its heightened style, at the expense of plot, character and dialogue, leaving the viewer strangely perturbed and unfulfilled. Its over-simplified message - that man should take responsibility for his actions - is both glaringly obvious and poorly illustrated.
The film does have its moments of pseudo-Kafkaesque surrealism, but ultimately, it fails to convince, to entertain, to enlighten and just ends up being irritating. If you want to see a really great piece of short filmmaking, I strongly recommend "Franz Kafka's It's A Wonderful Life", by Peter Capaldi.
WiseGirls (2002)
bittersweet
'I wonder if you ever took a few steps without knowing where you were going
and all of a sudden you found yourself on a different path
and you had no idea how to turn around'. This is the basic premise of the film; young girl moves to a new town trying to escape her troubled past, unknowingly gets caught up in mafia-run restaurant, and finds herself at a moral and ethical crossroads. The film's central character, Meg (Sorvino), is the waitress in this precarious situation, along with her two waitress friends, Raychel (Carey) and Kate (Walters).
The mood is dark and the language and violence are typical of the genre. Some of the scenarios are quite grisly but after having witnessed the 'cleanup' scene in Very Bad Things, I am not so easily shocked! The dialogue does have its moments of weakness and this doesn't do the lead actresses any favours. Carey seems like she'd be more comfortable on an episode of Whose Line Is It Anyway? I don't know whether she was going for gritty realism, but I found her incessant 'whatever's' mildly distracting. As good a singer as she is, Carey is not a natural actress. Sure, it's a huge leap forward since her now-notorious acting debut, but that still isn't enough to prove herself on the big screen. She needs some substantial parts, and a few more acting lessons wouldn't go astray. However, it was nice to see her in a more assertive role, and not as the underdog who everyone has sympathy for. Sorvino is excellent as always, though she has yet to surpass her Oscar-winning turn in Mighty Aphrodite (which is no mean feat). However, she makes the most of whichever part she plays, and does so with great sincerity. That is why she is totally believable as the innocent Kate, walking into a spider's web of corruption and intrigue. By contrast, Walters brings little depth or emotion to her character. Hard as I try, I cannot find a redeemable thing to say about her forgettable, wooden performance. The supporting actors - though stereotypical - actually give the film its authenticity, and an edgy, unpredictable quality.
*SPOILERS*
It is highly implausible that Kate would still befriend Meg and Raychel after the revelation of her true identity, and even more unlikely that they would forgive her betrayal so soon after. Also, the subplot involving Meg's grandmother feels somewhat contrived, like it was setup just so that her extended 'family' would have a pawn with which to blackmail her.
Overall, Wisegirls is an enjoyable and entertaining mobster movie, though perhaps not the most inspired. It really has more of a "friendship overcomes all' overtone and while the plot is simple, it is quite effective.
Director, David Anspaugh, has done a nice job with a modest budget and the Carey-esque soundtrack compliments the film.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
"Intelligent Art" (possible spoilers!!)
When I first saw A.I. at the cinema, I didn't really know what to expect. I'd managed to distance myself from all the media hype surrounding the project, which only served to fuel my curiosity. What I did come away with was a profound sense of awe and memories I know will stay with me for a very long time - pretty powerful stuff for just a fairy tale. I feel it's my duty to warn those hard-hearted cynics out there that you might be disappointed with the movie's contrived ending. For the rest of us less jaded movie-goers, this film is a real treat for the heart and the mind, with plenty of breath-taking special effects that are at times so seamless, they do not distract you from the story (unlike many of its contemporaries, A.I. is a big budget movie that doesn't rely on gimmicks to capture the imagination). For all its criticisms, A.I. is a true cinematic masterpiece, begging repeated viewing to fully appreciate its many subtleties and complexities. It is surprising that it was overlooked at this year's Academy Awards, as I was sure Haley Joel Osment would get nominated for best actor.
The story begins in a time when robots (or 'Mechas') who can feel human emotions are being exploited by man's greed. David (played by an eerily convincing Osment, who doesn't blink once throughout the entire film) is a child Mecha adopted by a couple whose real son has some incurable illness. At first they find it hard to accept David as their own, but he is gradually won over by Monica's maternal instincts and she comes to love him. When the family feels threatened by David's almost obsessive desire to be loved, they decide to abandon him in the woods (similar to the old parable Snow White, where the wicked queen calls for her to be taken into the woods and killed, but she is set free). Monica tells David to 'Stay away from people. only Mecha are safe' - judging by the actions of the humans in this story thus far, it seems like good advice! From that point onwards, the story dives into Spielberg waters, and David and his supertoy 'Teddy', embark on a quest to find the Blue Fairy, who he hopes will make him a 'real boy' so that Monica will love him once more. The film is littered with allusions to fairy tales, the most prominent being Pinocchio. In the garish Rouge City, David finds Dr. Know, a CGI character (voiced by none other than Robin Williams) reminiscent of The Wizard of OZ, the man behind the curtain with all the answers. On his journey, David encounters Gigolo Joe, played by Jude Law. Theirs is a strange friendship borne out of the fight for survival in a world gone mad. Law's performance as the slick Lover Mecha is brilliant, and he really epitomises the decadence of Rouge City - a hybrid of Las Vegas and the red light district of every major city. By contrast, David's character represents innocence and virtue. It is the pairing of these two very different characters that makes for such great on-screen chemistry.
The imagery in this film is magnificent, if a little unsettling at times, and makes you realise how much love was put into the composition of every meticulously crafted shot. The image of David lying motionless at the bottom of the swimming pool with his eyes wide open, bubbles escaping from his mouth, is particularly dark and moving (Kubrick's influence can really be felt in the first act). Watching A.I. is like watching a visual poem, where each aesthetic is a metaphor (above David's bed hangs the silhouette of a girl with a cutout where her heart should be). John Williams's score is beautifully haunting and complements the story well, adding to that unsettled feeling I mentioned.
When Blade Runner was released in 1982, it was considered ahead of its time. It dealt with the idea of man playing god, and the moral and ethical implications. Similarly, A.I. paints a bleak picture of humanity, one that abuses its power and takes no accountability for its unwitting creations. However, unlike Blade Runner's criminal replicants who are being hunted down, A.I. portrays the Mecha as a far more likable and sympathetic creature. In many ways, the Mecha is more human than its creators.
People shouldn't judge this film too harshly for its overt sentimentality, but rather they should see it for what it is: a work of art packaged for a mainstream audience. We are always complaining about the 'dumbing down' effect of certain Hollywood films, and here we are presented with a film that is not afraid to wear its heart on its sleeve and tackle an issue that might not be so far off from being Science Fact. A.I. might even be considered by some as a cautionary tale, given its relevance to today's advances in technology and genetics. Can we really afford to dismiss it as being too cute for its own good?
Swimming with Sharks (1994)
"Shut up, listen and learn" (possible spoilers!!)
There I was treading water, awash in a sea of banality before American Beauty came to my rescue and gave me the kiss of life, restoring my faith in the motion picture. Little did I realise that a relatively unknown Indie film called Swimming With Sharks, was circling my local video store long before American Beauty had ingrained itself in our collective psyche. I must confess, I only picked it up off the shelf because I saw Kevin Spacey's name on the cover - the hallmark of a great film. Besides which, the subject is one that I can closely identify with, having myself been an underpaid, overworked runner in a film company. Though I have never had to endure the same nightmarish ordeals as Buddy's downtrodden assistant, Guy, I have poured enough tea and coffee to put me off a career in film.
Spacey gives a tour de force performance as the ruthless Buddy Ackerman, an egomaniacal Hollywood producer who is so demanding, so unbearable, it's hard to imagine lasting a day in his company. Enter Guy (Frank Whaley), a young film school graduate with vague aspirations of making it in the movies. But by the end of it, his priorities have changed so drastically that he has become everything he once despised.
Much like Nicole Kidman's Machiavellian weather girl in the pitch black comedy, To Die For, Buddy will do whatever it takes to be successful, even if that means humiliating Guy, crushing his spirit, calling him a 'worthless piece of sh*t' on a daily basis, and a great deal of back-stabbing. But Guy shows great resolve in the face of such adversity and learns a thing or two about surviving in a 'kill or be killed' environment.
Spacey's genius is finding pathos in Buddy's sadistic, cruel nature, so that by the time the audience gets to hear the reasons behind this façade, we almost feel sorry for the bastard! Whaley gives an equally impressive performance as the underdog, and the friction between these two characters is at once funny and depressing; of course, it's depressing to those who've never experienced it, and funny to those who have. This movie is not for the faint of heart, so if you're the kind of person who broke down in tears at the end of Titanic, then perhaps you'd better take a handful of valium before viewing.
Guy's breaking point comes when he suspects his not-so-innocent girlfriend, Dawn (Michelle Forbes), is sleeping with his boss. Without wanting to give too much away and spoil the fun, I'll just say this: Buddy gets his comeuppance in a series of flashbacks that culminate in the mother of all revenge scenes. However the ending is quite unexpected, and sends out rather a chilling message about the price we pay for success.
Swimming With Sharks reads like a veritable assault on the film industry, exposing its dark underbelly of corruption, exploitation, manipulation and betrayal. I think that this will be quite unnerving to those who have only ever considered the glamour and prestige associated with the world of movies. It not only shines new light on this rather enigmatic subject, but also raises a sardonic eye to the abuse of power in the workplace, the inevitable politicking that comes as standard with most jobs.
Technically, the film is quite limited due to time and budget constraints (it was made in less than three weeks for less than $3m), as the director explains in his commentary, but the story and the acting more than make up for this. I mean, ask yourself, how does a first-time director secure an actor of Spacey's calibre? Simple. With a fantastic script (as a side note, I'm glad they decided to change the film's title from its unimaginative beginnings as The Buddy Factor - which sounds better suited to Saturday morning TV - to the more ominous Swimming With Sharks).
The DVDs only worthwhile feature is the director's commentary which is surprisingly candid, revealing many behind-the-scenes secrets, and it is told in a lively and entertaining manner. In fact I would go as far as saying that it's possibly the best commentary I've ever heard.
K-PAX (2001)
possible spoiler!
K-Pax is a film I truly wanted to like, and for the mostpart I did. However if I am to be objective in my critique, I must say that I didn't find it particularly satisfying or life-affirming. Sure it has its moments, but those are courtesy of the great performances by Spacey and, to a lesser extent, Bridges (a case of style over content). In terms of subject, it reminded me of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and Awakenings, the latter being far superior.
I love films that are brave enough to tackle lofty or sensitive issues and challenge our perceptions of reality (Being John Malkovich springs to mind, as do most Woody Allen films). But I can't help feeling that K-Pax tries too hard to deliver that "all important message", resulting in an overworked motif (the light sequences are a bit much) and a mostly transparent plot.
The film offers an interesting character study about a troubled patient who forces his therapist to reconsider his priorities in life, reminding him of the importance of family. Though I feel that this patient/doctor role-reversal could have been developed further, perhaps by making Bridges' character more vulnerable with more at stake. As it stands, the parallels between Prot and Powell's lives are too flimsy and there needed to be a stronger affinity between them. The humour and pathos Spacey injects into Prot is the film's only saving grace in my opinion. Bridges' character is relatively bland, but that must be a weakness in the script, as he is a fine actor given the right material. The patients in the hospital are merely caricatures, unlike those in Awakenings, who are fully-fledged characters and an integral part of the story.
Kevin Spacey brings a touch of genius to the part of Prot, and at first impressions, his portrayal of an other-worldly being is quite convincing. However as the film progresses, it becomes submerged in moralistic overtones and the acting becomes rather contrived. (As a side note, Haley Joel Osment's turn as a robot child in Speilberg's masterpiece A.I. is one of the most subtle and mesmerizing performances I have ever witnessed).
The film's biggest let-down is the ending, which is as absurd as an episode of the X Files. Is he an alien or isn't he? That is the question. But rather than leave the ending ambiguous (in true X Files fashion), it consciously pushes the viewer towards an answer. I half expected to see the silhouette of Spacey riding a bike across the moon!
After reading the other user comments, I can appreciate people's mixed feelings. But do yourself a favour: watch this film for its sheer audacity and make up your own mind.