istareatthesun Reviews

Radiant (2005)

Radiant

[8/10 · 17 September 2005]

After reading the other reviews on this site, I wonder if I saw the same movie as everyone else.

Radiant is about four people, three of which are accidentally infected with a man-made virus with the purpose of purging the body of all other viruses. However, all of the prototypes of the virus up to this point have behaved in unpredictable ways, so no one is exactly sure what it does. When the characters are suddenly forced to make a decision between spending the rest of their lives as government lab rats or fleeing they choose to escape into the desert and allow the disease to run its course without infecting others.

At this point I'd like to agree with everyone else who has posted on this film: Radiant is indeed slow, but not in a bad way. The film deliberately takes its time to breathe in order to extend to the viewer the unease and eeriness that the characters are experiencing (think Wim Wenders on digital video). As each of them are waiting in extreme tension to see what happens so is the audience.

But the film is more than merely waiting. As the story unfolds, we begin to know the characters on an extremely intimate level. For all that they know this disease is going to kill them and as they all prepare themselves for that possibility they bond with each other in an unique and powerful way which the audience experiences too. And when it comes down to it that is what Radiant is about--connection. It explores human relationships in an original and in depth manner that left me speechless.

Radiant is a patient, very cerebral, deeply human film that deserves to be watched with an open mind. Kudos to you Steve Mahone for a remarkable and moving first effort.

Mystic River (2003)

Simply a bad movie.

[26 October 2003]

Mystic River is a bad movie. There is no denying it. It is a poor movie in all its glorius aspects. The script is nothing to write home about and tends to drag and leave important aspects of the story untouched. It is shallow and never delves into the true psychological nature of the characters and their situautions. The directing is also, as I have sad before, bad. Eastwood does little to entice the audience and will go down in history as the only director ever to pull a bad performance out of Sean Penn. As for acting, well I have already mentioned Seany-boy, but as for the rest: Tim Robbins is simply horrible, Laurence Fishburne is poorly utilized and Kevin Bacon... well, lets just say that if you have the previous three actors in a movie and Kevin Bacon comes out on top with the best performance, you got a heck-of-a-lot of problems. Unless you go to the movies to pay no attention to the movie entirely, skip this one.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Quentin Tarantino tells Titus Andronicus.

[26 October 2003]

At the very begginning of the movie I was already disturbed by the extreme close up on the battered face of Uma Thurman, who usually looks like a godess among humans. However, the impact of her uttering the words "Bill... its your baby..." followed directly by the bang of the gunshot hitting her in the head made me jump out of my seat. I was shocked, to say the least, and I knew that I was in for a delicious film to fill my ravenous appetite.

Kill Bill Vol. 1 is one of the best movies I have seen in recent years. It is a must see for anyone who can stomach it. It is a classic example of Quentin's staple to take borrowed methods and put a modern twist on them. It is a tightly woven revenge story told with many obvious allusions to Shaw Brother's martial-arts films, spaghetti westerns and anime, and like all other Tarantino films has a wonderful throughline explored in extreme depth.

I can not wait for the story to be finished in Volume 2, but I was not dissapointed with the cliff hanger ending. Tarantino ended Volume 1 exquisitely, unlike the ending to the Lord of the Rings movies and Matrix Reloaded.

Kill Bill is extremely violent but the violence is never without purpose. In this way I liken it to Titus Andronicus (by the Bard, for those of you who are not familiar with it), which is also a entricate story about revenge that is extraordinarily violent. Tarantino fans and indifferent movie fans I think will both enjoy this movie a lot. Heck, even people who just like a film with grand action and hot babes will like this one.

Identity (2003)

Exactly what you might expect...

[25 April 2003]

This movie was written by the same man that conceived and wrote the Jack Frost movies (you know, those b-movie, no budget, slasher-flicks about the reincarnated serial killer that comes back as a mutant snow-man) and it shows. There is nothing in this picture worth sitting through, it has no redeeming qualities it is simply a waste of time.

James Mangold keeps disappointing me. He did Heavy, his first film, and it was a really good movie and he followed it with Cop Land, one of my favorites (he even got a good performance out of Stallone), then there was Girl, Interrupted, not as good as Heavy or Cop Land but still a decent film. Now he's doing Kate and Leopold and this! It's awful! James! Where'd the art go man!?

This is a terribly predictable film that does not even utilize the element of suspense well. Don't see it if you're expecting a smart, or even just thrilling thriller. You will be disappointed. And for you true fans of really good films, just leaves this one alone. It isn't worth any amount of your time.

Phone Booth (2002)

It's a pity Schumacher ended up with this premise

[25 April 2003]

Schumacher always seem to end up with interesting concepts and good ideas but when they fall into his lap he doesn't know what to do with them. The problem with Phone Booth isn't Colin Ferrell, who delivers a wonderful performance, or the script, which has some very nice literary moments, the problem is bad directing.

Schumacher doesn't do this story justice in the least. First off, he's no good with suspense so many scenes that could be exciting, tension building scenes end up dull and dragging. The only times this movie moves quickly and excitingly is when the script is chock full of suspense itself. Schumacher quite simply brings nothing to this script.

However, the movie does have some interesting themes behind it and I think it is worth seeing for those and for the wonderful performances by Ferrell and Sutherland. Forest Whitaker gives an okay performance that I feel lacks substance, but the other two main guys are great.

Road to Perdition (2002)

Good film! Almost great.

[24 July 2002]

Without a doubt The Road to Perdition is a movie full of great performances and stunning visuals and a story that is well worth paying inflated movie prices to see, however it is a shame that this movie is so good without being great. This movie is like driving on a rough and worn road through the most exquisite scenery.

Perdition is about a man corrupt by violence learning how to be a father and trying to prevent his son from entering the same corrupt world he is in. It's a classic love over violence story and it's technical side displays a true understanding and mastery of visuals (probably due to Conrad Hall, arguably the best cinematographer of all time, and Sam Mendes, a true visionary and artist). However, this piece seems to wallow too much in vision and not enough in heart. The tone of the piece comes off as a bit pretentious. The vision of the piece consumes all else and doesn't really make room for enough true humanity.

Despite Hanks and Newmans excellent performances, I never really felt particularly attached to either one. Instead I felt distant from them. In most good movies I'm drawn into the film. It feels more like I'm experiencing it instead of just observing it. I never felt like more that an observer in this movie. It heavy handedness just kept pushing me away.

However it's still good, it's just not great and it's definitely not the best gangster movie ever. But I do believe that all should see this movie and the bigger the screen you get to see it on the better.