utahfilmmaker Reviews

Left Behind II: Tribulation Force (2002)

Key to understanding world events

[27 February 2003]

I rent these Christian end of the world movies for their camp value, and so far I haven't been disappointed. However, I recently read an article which pointed out that many of the higher ups in the Bush administration are big fans of this series. It was speculated that perhaps some of Bush's foreign policies are guided by a desire to hasten the arrival of the "rapture" which this film portrays. Watching Left Behind II with that new knowledge, I experienced it as more of a horror movie then a comedy. All you have to do is watch a few minutes of the news to see the terror and death that can be caused when people who really believe in this swill have the power to do something about it. I don't want to leave any spoilers, except to say that this movie, and the original Left Behind, will do a lot to clarify the motivations behind some seemingly asinine policies being implemented today. As you watch the movie, keep saying you yourself: Yes, some people actually believe this is the way the world is, and they have guns.

Devil's Playground (2002)

Intelligent, not exploitative

[10/10 · 19 January 2002]

I thought for sure that a movie about Amish-teenagers-gone-bad would be a series of images of Amish kids dressed in traditional garb drinking, getting high, and sleeping around. I expected it to be a spectacle which would get old fast, and I went into the movie with this bias. It turned out to be one of the best documentaries I've seen in a while. For one thing, the director had the perfect balance of showing a broad social situation (rebellious Amish kids in general) and a more character centered story (the drug addicted Amish youth Faron). You're getting the factual information you need, as well as the emotional punch of what Faron is going through. The director is able to show very clearly the effect of Amish society on these kids without ever forcing a direct connection or being exploitative.

Love Liza (2002)

Exemplary script

[10/10 · 19 January 2002]

(WARNING: Potential spoilers in this review). This very daring film, about a man whose wife has killed herself, and who becomes addicted to sniffing gasoline as a result, is one of the best I've seen in a while. I'm reasonably sure that it will flop in theaters as a result of its courage in being ambiguous about key plot points (Why did the wife commit suicide? Where is he going at the end? Why did the person who robbed his house do it?). This ambiguity is not a weakness, it's a strength. It allows us to see the situation in the same way that the main character has - he doesn't know the answer to these questions either. I also commend the choice of gasoline as the character's choice of intoxicant. If it had been alcohol, cocaine, or heroin, it would have been burdened with the unintentional romanticizing that you find in (otherwise good) movies like Trainspotting and Jesus's Son. Because it's gasoline, we're able to see it as what it is: a devastated man poisoning himself.

Secretary (2002)

Shock value, little else

[4/10 · 19 January 2002]

The director claims that this is a BDSM love story. Unfortunately that's all there is there. You watch the movie and it develops as a typical love story, with nothing we haven't seen before, except that the leading man is wooing the leading lady (his secretary) by spanking her and chastising her for typos. The only thing it has which is different is the fact that it's about S&M. This is not enough to make it original. He has a good start, but unfortunately doesn't go anyplace new with it.

Tadpole (2002)

Some cheap laughs

[5/10 · 19 January 2002]

This movie isn't very good. The story, about a 15 year old kid in love with his step mother, is very bland and formulaic considering the opportunities presented by the subject matter. There are a few places where I laughed, but not many, and most of the jokes are predictable. Most of the scenes really, are played for cheap laughs, at the expense of the plot. For example (potential SPOILER ahead), when tadpole is at dinner with his father, step-mother, and step-mother's friend who he's slept with, there are several jokes built around the possibility that the step-mother's (40 year old) friend will reveal their liaison. The tension builds (or tries to build), until finally she does reveal it. However, nobody seems to care very much. Tadpole's father and step-mother express some surprise and there are some discussions about it between the step-mother and her friend, but the impact is very muted. Why was it written this way? Because they placed the cheap laughs before the plot. This would be fine if it were a comedy, but it seems to take itself very seriously. One of the only good things about this movie is that it goes one more step in showing cheap digital video (a Sony PD150 was used) as a viable format for a feature film.

ChickenHawk (1994)

Good movie for a documentary class and a Psychology class

[9/10 · 19 January 2002]

This movie will unfortunately never get the attention it deserves due to the unsettling subject matter, and the potential confusion some people may have between portraying child molesters and supporting them. This movie portrays several of the members of a group called NAMBLA, whose members promote child molestation as a viable and healthy activity and as even go so far as to claim that it is beneficial to the molested children. It resists the temptation to condemn them, and instead gives them enough rope to hang themselves, which they do. I say this movie is an absolute for any aspiring documentarian because it's very educational on the issue of objectivity. Although there is no voice-over condemning the pedophiles, the audience will leave with the message that these people are perverts and predators. Why? Simply because they *are* perverts and predators, and any objective portrayal of the subject cannot avoid making that clear. It seems almost as if the filmmakers go out on a limb to "show both sides" (witness the negative behavior of the KKK-like anti-nambla group that the filmmakers show), the pedophiles still end up the bad guys of the film, simply because they are the bad guys in real life and any footage of them shows it (I won't list a spoiler, but look at the last shot in the film for a great example of this). This is also an excellent psychological study of how some people, pedophiles in particular, will lie to themselves in order to remain happy. For example, see how the character Leland constantly talks about how it's the children who really go out of their way to "seduce" him, but then when we actually see footage of him interacting with a child outside a store, it becomes clear that he is the predator in the situation and that the child wants to leave, but in the interview after that scene, Leland STILL describes it in terms of the child "flirting" with him. The film makes clear that these people can only live with themselves by constructing an elaborate fantasy world.