Change Your Image
LoganPa
Reviews
One Hour Photo (2002)
A quiet little gem
This movie should be viewed at LEAST twice. Without giving anything away, it's just so the audience gets both perspectives.
Truly a modest, yet exquisite piece of work by Romanek who the top music video director out there today. A lot of camera play, you can spot a lot of moves he used on Fiona Apple's "Criminal" in 1hr Photo and a refined taste for colors really give the film a wonderful taste. Most of the characters are one-dimensional but all for the better since the audience needs time and space in order to absorb Seymour Parrish's intricate an confused character.
Robin Williams does a great job at playing Sy, few would have done it better. He is able to creep you out and at the same time make you feel sorry for him. Definitely he is the weird little guy in the street you just can't take you eyes off from.
Romanek was wise to take on such a little project and take care of it with such devotion and understanding, not having many full length movies under his belt, this type of movie is perfect for a "newcomer". Certainly he has made his mark in the music video industry doing the unforgettable videos he did for NIN, Madonna and Johnny Cash. Now he is showing us his potential as a full length motion picture director.
8.5 out of 10
Dune (1984)
A Premature Birth
How many reviews have slapped this movie in the face? Hundreds? Thousands? Well this is not one of them. The problem with this movie is basically that is was done before it should have. First of all Dune is a very intricate novel with plots within plots, expanding into an epic story. It is very hard to condense a novel like Dune into anything less than 5-6 hours and somehow portray what the novel portrayed. The problem with that is that no studio is going to run a six hour movie at a theater, then you would have to release it straight to video or as a mini-series(Sci Fi channel's version), and that would put a heavy constraint on the budget. A movie of this caliber cannot work with a low budget either.
Lynch's movie shows a lot of great vision, beautiful directing and settings, photography was incredible, costume designs...all the aesthetics. But dialogue constrained much of the actors' abilities, and the story just got chopped into pieces as soon as the Atreides arrive on Arrakis.The movie studio forced Lynch to cut down his original 4+ hours of film into a two and a half hour film. This left Lynch with almost no where to fit the huge story. Once in Arrakis the movie's storyline degenerates by the minute, until you are left with a confusing unemotional mush.
I still defend Lynch's work all in all, his directing choices, his vision was spectacular, mostly his taste for distortion was what worked beautifully with the movie's mood and atmosphere.
This movie fails in what Sci-Fi's Dune triumphs, the storyline and acting, but it triumphs where the latter fails, the vision-budget.
A movie such as Dune would have had a better chance of making it if it were made in the present. Special effects are obviously better, cheaper and audiences are adapting to longer, more complex movies these days than the superficial 80's.
A true gem for the Dune fan. Don't see it if you don't know anything about Dune, you'll just get confused.
In a high standard scale of filmmaking I give it a 5 out of 10
Waking the Dead (2000)
Will haunt your heart
Although I have only watched this film twice, once when it came out and just recently(2 days ago) I cannot help but consider it as one of my favorites. I must admit I am a sucker for small movies, because they really bring out the best in the makers and performers.
Waking the Dead is a tale of the spirit, hidden behind the issues of politics and love. The story takes place in the early 70' and early 80's jumping into flashbacks throughout the film.Fielding(Crudup)is an ambitious young man destined to be on the top America's political system. His view on life is that to change a system you first have to get in, risking becoming part of it. He falls in love with Sarah(Connelly)who is a radical activist, believing that the system must be changed from outside, not within. They seem to be a couple who, despite their difference of opinion, are madly in love with each other. Two years later she dies in a car explosion and he continues his career up the political ladder.
Ten years later, about to jump into the senatorial elections, Fielding finds himself feeling that Sarah might be alive, but is she really? Or is it a product of his heart?
The movie point is taking you through a journey of a man's soul, a person who wants to change the world he live in, to do good, to help. After Sarah's death he becomes cold, ambitious, merciless, becoming just like the system he once wanted to change. Sarah's presence in his life was the light of his life, his fighting spirit, and when she died, it died with her. Now that he senses her, or thinks he does, will that re-kindle his old ambitions, his hope of actually doing good and helping people?
Waking the dead has left me with a haunted feeling for days after each viewing. Crudup and Connelly have great chemistry together. The emptiness and painful which he lives during the 80's is well portrayed by the music and atmosphere which Gordon creates.He also masters the difficult and tricky art of using flashbacks.
In a high standard of filmmaking I give this movie a 10(out of 10).
Blue Velvet (1986)
So sick it's good.
What else can be said of one of the greatest movies? I'll just try to add to the magic...
A beautifully directed piece of work by David Lynch,possibly his best, Blue Velvet is a look a the ugly underbelly of a seemingly perfect little town. This movie is like a live canvas for Eric Fischl. It's like lifting up a rock on the grass and looking under it. On top it looks smooth and warm, nothing much to it, but underneath it is full of worms and insects, crawling in humid smelly earth. The dark side of suburbia.
Much like Lynch himself, this movie is a polarized setting. On one side you have the extremely goody-goody characters like Jeffrey and Sandy and on the other you have the sick,demented and sadistic Frank and Dorothy. Everything seems to go ok in each world until the meet each other...then things get messy.
Lynch creates a wonderful world of contrasts, light and dark, so pressed against each other that eventually they start to blend. Goofy good-natured scenes like Jeffrey's chicken walk pinned against Frank's demented sexual attack on Dorothy, just blow your mind away and make you uncertain you are watching the same movie.
As always(Dune was not his fault), great directing by Lynch and great performances by the cast members.You'll keep singing Blue Velvet for days...and never think of it in the same way...a 10 out of 10.
Heist (2001)
Just TOO Much
David Mamet is the king of complex plots, and this is the king of complex plots. There are just too many twists and the characters are too cliche. The dialogue is composed only of witty remarks and hardly develops into a conventional conversation. Devito's character is pulled out of a manual "on how a bad guy is supposed to be" and Pidgeon is just a prop in the background, hardly speaking or changing expressions. The dialogue is completely unbelievable, just too many witty one liners.
The movie starts out fine but the plot just twists, and twists, and twists and then keeps twisting, until it becomes ridiculous. The directing is standard as any Mamet film. Only if he cut down on the material he could've made a good movie, hell, there's enough there to make two movies!
On a high standard of filmmaking I give it a 6 out of 10.
Der Krieger und die Kaiserin (2000)
The benchmark for pretentious filmmaking
It is probably one of the biggest pretentious pieces of filmmaking I have ever seen. Yes, the guy knows what to do with the camera, but that's about it. The movie starts out great, and has a very good premise, but somewhere in the middle it just becomes nonsense and unbelievable. Dreadful dialogue trying to be figurative and metaphorical that comes out to be plain stupid. Not even make-believe characters behave that way, it is just so bad. It feels as one of those MTV-produced movies set in Europe and done in a European style that targets the confused teenaged demographic and ends up being crap. This movie is intended for the emotionally unstable who think they are movie critics and want to recommend it to friends. Garbage, just plain garbage.
Just because the director is a highly capable person and he aimed high, I'm considering this piece as higher standard cinema. In a high standard scale of filmmaking I give it a 1 out of 10.
Virus (1999)
Could have been better
Ok it is implied that the basis for my review is for a silly movie. Virus is an ok film to watch on cable between 1 and 5 am. Any other hour would be a waste of time.
The movie is another Alien "spawn" of some "monster loose in an enclosed area hunting down a group of people one by one" and it is one of the worst. It could have been better, if only it would have been more developed and moodier. The movie just starts and finishes in what feels like fifteen minutes. The premise is plain dumb and the dialogue EXTREMELY cliche. It is such a shame Sutherland was given that stupid, pathetic character. I just wander how he wound up with that part, being an actor of such a high caliber.
As you can see, the movie doesn't leave much to say, if you are thinking about renting it, don't, better go with Mimic or the Relic or go for the original Alien series, just don't touch this one in the video store.
On a low scale of filmmaking I give it a 3 out of 10.
The Relic (1997)
The title refers to the screenplay
Out of all the "Alien" spawn films, this one stands somewhere in the middle. It is not a great movie, nor it is an awful one either. It could have been better if it had more of a personality, but that is where Peter Hyams fails to step in. Hyams is not much of an auteur when it comes to filmmaking. He usually creates forgettable movies such as Sudden Death, Timecop and 2010, which are not REALLY bad, but unfortunately not good either. His movies are characterized by mediocrity and lack of passion, as many movies with "hired" directors are. All that was good in Outland seems to be lost in him now.
The movie is the definition of predictable, maybe if it had come out some fifteen years before it would have made and impact, but now all movies of this type are the same. The characters are typical and the dialogue is way too scripted. The story did seem to be original, but at the end it works out as any "monster loose in a closed/survival film".It does have action and does in a way entertain the audience. It is a great movie to rent whenever there isn't anything else or to watch on cable when you are bored.Hyams could be a great director if he only showed some interest in his work, and he shows potential as making higher standard films.
In a low standard film scale, I would give this movie a 6/10.
Session 9 (2001)
Give me another Session
This is independent filmmaking at its best. Reminiscent of Don't Look Now and The Shining, this movie is the exact definition of creepiness. Set in an abandoned insane asylum, the movie is about a five man asbestos removing crew working as fast as they can to meet a deadline in order to get a bonus. Brad Anderson creates a perfect mood with this picture. The atmosphere is eerie throughout the film and at times it is just plain chilling. It is not by all means a slash horror film, but instead a psychological creep fest that haunts you until the end. The tension is always there, thick enough to keep you guessing right from the opening shot of the movie.
The performances by Caruso and Mullan are exquisite and the dialogue is just perfect. We also see a cast of great actors, most of them commercially unknown, but nonetheless perfect for their roles. The movie's low budget is probably the biggest contributor to its success, replacing state of the art special effects with the art of creating a certain atmosphere which proves to be more effective in scaring the audience and creating suspense. Anderson should teach a class on how to make scary movies, there is enough trash out there to last us a lifetime as it is(i.e. Scream, I know you did last summer, 13 ghosts).
This is high standard filmmaking, I give it an 8 out of 10.
Thir13en Ghosts (2001)
13 reasons why not to watch this film
1.Cheesy dialogue 2.Very poor directing 3.I don't want to see the cab driver from Wings in a horror movie 4.The edition was unimaginative and faulty 5.Twice you can see the movie crew in the picture 6.A very unimaginative concept 7.The acting was embarrassing 8.The lighting was very cliche 9.The ghosts were not scary 10.The makeup and costumes were hilarious 11.The soundtrack just awful 12.Special effects were extremely mediocre(they could've at least relied on that) 13.Shannon Elizabeth is in the film
It just seems to be a sequel to House on Haunted Hill(the new version). Mathew Lillard seems to be a promising actor but he just keeps taking these amazingly stupid roles, he should stick more to his SLC Punk days. The house's design is very cool though, but not enough just to sit through this movie. In the lowest standard of scales I would give this movie a 2 out of 10. (The house design helps, believe me)
Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)
Not that bad
Ok, first of all, let's come down to the level this movie targets. Now, it is not such a bad horror flick considering such titles as 13 Ghosts and House on Haunted Hill or the Haunting and such. I would watch this movie over those any time. Don't think it is a GREAT film, it's just the kind of film one doesn't mind watching late at night on cable or when there is nothing else in the video store. The acting is decent and so is the directing. Berlinger is the type of director this movie needed because of his documentary background. The movie is not as bad as I had heard it was, in fact I was surprised on the film's quality. Now remember, this is a low-standard movie, and in the low-standard scale I would give it a 6 out of 10.
Blood Simple (1984)
Not so Simple
Blood simple is great in many ways, but unfortunately, not in all. The direction is superb. It has that distinctive Cohen taste to it. I loved the use of sounds to create quite a unique mood. The storyline was intricate enough, but the dialogue itself, or the lack thereof was disappointing. The characters are boringly SIMPLE and the filmmakers pretend that the audience will feel for them when there is nothing to feel really. The movie has no heart or drive of itself, it squeaks by with the wonderful shots J. Cohen provides us, but that just doesn't do it for me.
Considering this movie to be the Cohen brothers' first movie, I would say it suffers from a lot of immature moviemaking. For example, Dan Hedaya's character could have been developed into a wonderful character( he's cut out for these roles) but instead he is reduced to pouting and mumbling moody remarks. Also McDormand's and Getz's characters are just moving emotionless through the picture like robots. Walsh's character was the only fully developed and defined character in the film and a very well portrayed too. All of these errors would not have been overlooked by an experienced director or producer. All in all it is high standard filmmaking and somewhat remarkable effort for first-timers.
On a high standard scale I would give this movie a 4 out of 10. All four points attributed to the excellent directing by Joel Cohen.