bloodymonday Reviews

The Tracey Fragments (2007)

Review: The Tracey Fragments

[7/10 · 5 May 2009]

Like Mike Figgis's Timecode which presenting the film four frames simultaneously on screen, sometime you just need to admire a person who did it; regardless what is said and done in the story. For their determination for inventing and experimenting something that count as a film, even you knew that you're not having a good time. The Tracey Fragments is the movie that will embraced by people who really into a film-making process, if not just for any regular moviegoers.

In Christopher Nolan's Memento, the film plays with time. It was edited and rearranged backward as if an audience suffered from amnesia like the protagonist. The Tracey Fragments was also heavily edited to represent subconscious of adolescence mind. What's in Tracey's mind is fragmented; reality and fantasy are overlapping with each other simultaneously in each tiny frame presented on screen. It's maybe difficult to catch up from time to time, but it's worthwhile if you're getting the hang of it.

And just like Memento, if you watch it in a perfect sequence narrative, it will be just another straightforward drama that has nothing much to add on. And to make it worse, The Tracey Fragments is suffered from serious lack of decent dialogs. What we've heard are only whining or bitching about society from hormone-inducing teenage girl. And it's even more embarrassing when secondary characters like parents or strangers open their mouth.

But it maybe filmmaker's intention after all, maybe he want to show us how uncomplicated and simple adolescence are. They may speak what's in the heart without processing through the mind. Their tyrantness, lust, and stupidity that end up causing someone else's life, maybe this is the film that trying to show Tracey (By the way, great vehicle for Ellen Page, she's just perfect for the part) a step to embrace her own reality and feeling guilty for the thing she have done.

The running time for this film is only 70 or so minute. It took only 14 days to shoot, but it took 9 months to edit. The Tracey Fragments may not teach you anything, nor give you a good time in return. But for that kind of dedication, you just gotta give it to them.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008)

The funniest Kevin's film to date (but not necessary the best one)

[7/10 · 7 December 2008]

So I'm gonna come right out and say it, I'm Kevin Smith's devotee. He's like a god of Geekniverse (wait, that's mean I'm…..never mind). For what it's worth, he's like my own personal "sensei" who helps me explore world of movies. I've first watched Chasing Amy exactly 10 years ago, which is the third movie under his belt (first two are his break-out, Clerks, and a big mess yet hysterical flick, Mallrats).

Well, needless to say, that movie changed my perspective in life forever. It is the most simplistic yet complicate love story ever. It's a kind of movie that you know exactly what it should be, but then it'll go the opposite way every time. And it achieved by having only characters talk to each other all the time. Hate to say it, but I think he is Woody Allen of MY generation.

I can keep talking about his other flicks all day long, but this is a review of his latest film, so I'm gonna go back on that. I think you guys will know that the pitch of this film just read the title. Yes, it's about a slacker named Zack and his platonic friend, Miri, decide to make a porno together. And it's going to be vulgar, completely down N' dirty. You guys might love what Judd Apatow does nowadays, with his usual shtick to bombard us with F-words. Well, this is the motherload of vulgarity; the one that will make your religion-obsessed neighbor freak out.

This maybe close to Kevin Smith's funniest movie. A reunion scene in the beginning might be one of most memorable scene in this flick, with hysterical cameos by Justin Long and Brandon Routh as Gay couple in porn industry?!?! Dialogs came fast and furious (as usual), which you have to listen carefully to find out that they're so hysterical. They're jokes that sounded like coming from adolescence's mind, but I think this kind of approach is so rare these days, which the genre nowadays dominated by idiotic slapstick and mundane situation comedy.

It seemed Kevin Smith want to reach out to broader audience by borrowing Seth Rogen from Apatow's troop, which I think it improved this flick immensely. Because almost of his flicks, our protagonist often fell into the category of "straight man". It's nothing wrong about that at all, since he surrounded by such a memorable supporting characters. But imagine if he has ideal lead, what would it be? I think Seth filled that blank perfectly. He fully capable to deliver those cracked up dialogs and still able to make this film on his own with his usual earnest and likable persona.

What about our own Miri? I'm kind of disappointed to find out that Rosario Dawson turned down this role (and did Eagle Eye?!). But right now, I can't think of anybody will play this role better than Elizabeth Banks. She's beautiful woman and did not afraid to act silly occasionally. Her comic timing is surprisingly good (watch her in reunion scene, and you'll know what I mean). And when the film require her to be more dramatic, she's just nails it like a piece of cake. In fact, she did it even better!

Watching Zack and Miri Make a Porno is pure entertainment, but in dramatic part, it's still no match with Chasing Amy (which is amusing AND touching). Maybe the movie just didn't give enough time for its two leads to go through various phases of relationship. We're fully aware what's going on in their mind, but it's just damn shame that we didn't have a chance to see them bare all emotion on the plate (only a scene in preparation room toward in end that I found myself stunned with a result). In my opinion, Kevin might want to keep his movie energetic, so when the movie started to slow things down, he decided to inject a new joke immediately.

Beside Zack and Miri, the rest of the crew consisted of former porn star, Traci Lord (nothing to see here, guys), up-and-coming porn star, Katie Morgan who was surprisingly decent in first non-porn role, Apatow's alumni (Craig Robinson), cameraman (played by Jeff "Randal" Anderson) who receive the most disgusting (and hilarious....for certain kind of people) thing ever put on the history of mainstream cinema and...Lester (played Jason "Jay" Mewes) who went "Full Monty" for your own viewing pleasure (he even bend over in front of the camera...urg!!)

As I've said in fifth paragraph, supporting characters are essential to Kevin Smith's films. But they're also poorly used in this film. The great character like Banky in Chasing Amy or Jay & Silent Bob in almost every Kevin's films is nowhere to be found. In my opinion, even though they're quite funny in their own right, but I really don't feel attached like most of characters in Kevin's previous flicks. It didn't make me want to see them more in the future like Chasing Amy or Clerks I & II.

Many people complain why he keeps making the same film over and over and over again. He needs to grow up. He needs to change. He needs to blah blah... I think anyone who said that might think Jersey Girl is his best flick (haha+ of course I'm kidding).

Well, I don't really have an explanation for it. But I think making diverse kind of films doesn't count as grown up (they can be all suck if that filmmaker is no talent hack). Kevin Smith is indeed talented filmmaker and he's in the zone that he feels belong to. If he wants to keep on making these kinds of films, you can count me in any time. But if he wants to reach out for something different, I'll be delight to see them all as well.

Twilight (I) (2008)

Review: Twilight

[7/10 · 5 December 2008]

As soon as the credit rolled, I completely understand what made girls around the globe went crazy for this book series, because Edward is the kind of guy who doesn't exist in real life. He's moody, secretive and utterly handsome young man (who happened to be vampire). For girls, he's an absolute dream guy. And Bella, a naive young girl who fall for his charm, is a character that every women on this planet wish to be in her position.

Well, I adore the concept of "Love Conquer Everything" in cinema. I love every moment happened in Baz Luhrmann's body of work. His masterpiece Moulin Rouge!, for me, is an ultimate love story that will take you for an epic journey of passion. As well as his directorial debut Strictly Ballroom, the movie that didn't really mind for any cause, reason, motive or whatever that will make it at least believable. And yet it worked out just fine and made me root for our heroes every second on-screen.

But that's just me. I know these kinds of films often fall into the category of "cheesy" or "cliché" or "melodrama". So what's wrong? Maybe people confused between good kinds of melodrama and bad one. But what is good or bad anyway? Well, as far as I know, there is no qualification for it. And I think that's great thing about this genre, it's entirely based on your feeling, whether you hate or love them. It's not like an action movie when crappy stunts tend to make you know that it's poorly done.

OK, I haven't said anything about Twilight yet (and it's already three paragraphs). Well, let's just say that I "feel" love for this film. There's a lot of passionate feeling floating around the town of Forks. Everybody in this film seems to know what they should do on-screen. I think what the director, Catharine Hardwicke, achieved was she knows what to offer (and what's not). Every unmentioned gestures, every character's tendencies, made me realize how determined she was.

You simply can't avoid using corny dialogs when you turn this kind of book into film. But with the situation on-screen and their determination, it kinds of made me moved. I didn't fall head over heel like some girls in theater. But considering that those lines are guaranteed cringe-inducing for most heterosexual male, I think they accomplished for whatever they did.

I'm glad to say that two leads are surprisingly effective, Rob Pattinson does not only have the look, but he also embodied the titular character so perfectly. Edward is not real person, and he understands it. His ethereal manners will indeed make most of the girl swoon. His counterpart, Kristen Stewart is also believable. Her narration wasn't deadpan like I expected. Many people complain about why she madly in love with the hunk so easily. Well, if you felt this way, maybe this story is not really for you afterall.

Wait…according to my review so far, you guys must think that I will bestow it as best film of 2008, right? Well, no. Because even though I have a good feeling about it, I don't really think that it is an exceptional great movie. Important scenes like meadow scene was astonishingly bad (poorly edited and that "diamond skin" effect made me feel depressed). And Baseball scene was not as spectacular as it was described by everybody (Have I told you that I haven't read a book?).

And the most important of all, a missing ingredient that made this film fails to be placed with other classic melodrama, is CHEMISTRY. Pattinson and Stewart are looking great individually. But together, they gave some audience (like me) a hollow feeling. It's not like they've a zero chemistry going on between them. But they're just left me want for something more. Anyway, since this thing can be fixed (Sequel is ensured by 70m opening), so I'm eager to see what they will do in the next film.

Make no mistake, maybe it's not quite good (and everybody seemed to know), but this is the film that will shot through your heart (if you're into this kind of thing). For me, the quality of this film will make no different. People will either absolutely love it or loath it. As for me, well, I'll let my review do the talking.

Snow Angels (I) (2007)

Review: Snow Angels

[7/10 · 7 November 2008]

Watching Snow Angel is such a downer, it's a sad film that can left you feel pretty devastated. But watching sad film is not necessary going to be a bad experience. Look what happened to last year's There Will be Blood and No Country for Old Man, they achieved greatness in each of their own way. But can Snow Angel follow the same footstep?

I think I get the point what the director; David Gordon Green was trying to make. He wants to show us a stage in human's relationship. At first, we saw young couple meet and their love began to blossom. Next, we saw married couple on the verge of braking up. Next, a different couple was in a middle of reconciliation. And finally we saw a two people at the dead end, and one of them decided to do some unexpected thing as a last resort. In this film, path of four couples kept crossing each other (but not necessary interacting), and we are one who's going to be an observer.

But getting the point not necessary means that I feel appreciated by it, because most of these characters seem to be poorly developed. There are 8 or more characters that DGG wants us to pay attention for. He tried to achieve what Robert Altman did in his entire career. But since he is not (yet) the man himself, it's might be a little bit over his head for now. And what we have here is a complete main story of Annie and Glenn (Kate & Sam), and three other side stories that will make people satisfied only an outcome. It might be OK if this was intended for a story of two human being, but since he obviously aimed for a bigger proportion, it's real shame that he didn't do them justice.

Perhaps this is not exactly David Gordon Green's territory. George Washington, his break out directorial effort (which I have yet to see), tell a story of group of children in small town. All the Real Girls is an unconventional love story of young couple. It seems he is an expert in exploring what's going on in his generation's mind. But with Snow Angel, it looks like he tried to explore adult's mind for the first time. And I think the story of Michael Angarano and Olivia Thirlby is very cute and comfortable (and belong to his touch), but it really need some turning point, since there's nothing to be found, it did nothing significant to the main story at all.

After she went out killing a bunch of vampires and werewolves, it's always nice to see Kate did some small film. It maybe not the greatest acting I've ever seen, but it's competent enough to make me feel bad for her (in the mean time, I kind of feel that she deserves it). Especially the scene when she received the most horrify news, I was expected to see she does all "Oscar Moment" (which require a lot of screaming and moaning), but instead she just went out to be alone and sobbed. That's surprised me and makes me admire her choice at the same time.

For the answer of that first paragraph; I would say yes and no. Even though this is a well-perceived character-driven drama, but lack of focus in storytelling and unsatisfied closure left me feel pretty cold. Be that as it may, although that erupt ending made a lot of people scratching their head (including me), but it finally made me realize what the meaning of it. It means nothing. Something horrible happened, but people who affected by it didn't have to stop doing what they usually do, life must goes on. Suddenly, it made me feel privilege to see what's going on in their daily life.

Pineapple Express (2008)

Review: Pineapple Express

[7/10 · 24 October 2008]

I'll have to admit, there are plenty "wtf" moments for me in the first 10-15 minutes. But then I realized that I really need to set my perception right. Because Pineapple Express is stoner comedy that made by people who stoned (it's not necessary whether you need to get high or not, but it would be amusing if you do haha+). And you must be able to accept a bunch of meaningless gestures and dialogs that spread around this flick. If you can do that, then you will find that what you've seen so far is pretty friggin' awesome.

Although it has Judd Apatow's watermark all over it (no doubt, since he is a producer), but if you seek out for meaningful lines or intrigue storytelling (movie like Knocked Up comes to mind), then you will likely to be disappointed. Because Pineapple Express is solely aim for laughs, since it's written by Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg. But I would say that their collaboration in this time is a bit letdown from previous effort like Superbad, which is amusing AND touching, whereas PE is totally lack of character's intimacy. Be that as it may, there's a lot one-liners that can guarantee to make you rolling on the floor laughing.

First thing when you heard the director's name, you will have a weird feeling about what the hell David Gordon Green is doing here. He is the man who responsible for thoughtful indie dramas like All the Real Girls, George Washington and recently Snow Angels, which starred by Kate Beckinsale (and which going to be my next review… I guess haha+). But then my doubt was completely gone since he seems to "get" the flick. An awkward male bonding, incoherent action scenes and trippy dialogs, all these ingredients he put into can make this film an absolute stoner comedy.

Seth Rogen might be on the roll now (Knocked Up and soon to be classic Zack and Miri make a Porno), but sad to say that his character in Pineapple Express was pretty uninspired. Maybe it was caused by the fact that he's got "straight role" in this film. And sub-plot between him and his barely legal girlfriend feel pretty half-baked and yet it worsens by inconclusive ending.

On the other hand, James Franco's Saul is totally own this movie. His character maybe the funniest crack dealer ever put on screen. His child-like persona makes me totally forgive that he sells weed for living. For James, people might consider him to be a lovable hunk in movies like Spider-Man trilogy, Annapolis and Flyboys, but I think his true potential is comedy. It's a role that I find him felt comfy and belonged to, I guess fans of Freeks and Geeks (which I haven't seen it yet) tend to agree with me on this fact.

Pineapple Express maybe completely pointless, it also doesn't have any valuable lesson to teach us (don't do weed? Hell no, this film is totally up for it haha+). But one thing that it succeeds is an ability to give you good times. Do you remember simple yet brilliant buddy action-comedies in 80s? (ie. 48 hrs, Lethal Weapon) If you do, then Pineapple Express will give you just the same amount of hilarity.

Rendition (2007)

Reivew: Rendition

[6/10 · 11 October 2008]

"Rendition" came too soft and a little too late. What we've seen in this film was already told so many times (and better). Michael Winterbottom's "Road to Guantanamo", for example, depicted so called "War on Terrorist" so well that you could stunned by its story alone. Whereas "Rendition" fails even to capture both audience's emotion and participation.

Gavin Hood's follows up to acclaimed "Tsotsi" is well intention if disappointingly bland motion picture. The characters are incredibly one-dimensional (well, except one good performance by Peter Saargard). Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally) is an Egyptian who lived in US for 20 years. He married and building an ideal family with Isabella (Reese Witherspoon). Suddenly, he was being charged and captured by CIA on the way back to his home. In North Africa (fake country, of course), there's suicide Bomber that killed a lot of people including one CIA agent. That's leads to another CIA analyst, Douglas (Jake Gyllenhaal), who is a witness to an incident and only agent left in North Africa to supervise the whole "operation" of gaining information from the potential suspicion.

Back to US., Isabella began to wonder why her husband hasn't come home. She began to contact an old friend, Alan (Saargard) who is now a representative for US. Senator. They began to investigate the whole CIA operation of "Extreme rendition" led by Sen. Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep).

It was shame to see such an important debate between Human Rights versus National Security turned into typical Hollywood political-thriller. The director, Gavin Hood and screenwriter, Kelley Sane didn't even bother to go deeper to the subject. Instead, they aimed for good guys vs. bad guys too many times. There's a sub-plot between North African terrorist and his young lover (who happened to be a daughter of chief of polices). It's absolutely unnecessary story that have some clever twist in the end (but completely irrelevant to what we're hoping for)

Anyway, if we didn't look it as we hoped for, and see it as entertaining one. I think you will be satisfied. Even though it make no sense at all in the last 20 minutes (if it true, I think Jake Gyllenhaal's character might be one of the most naïve CIA I've ever seen). If you happened to have zero information about these kinds of thing, well this might be a good choice for you to get a glimpse of the subject. Personally, I would call this movie as "War on Terrorist-for-Dummies"

The Walker (2007)

Review: The Walker

[6/10 · 11 October 2008]

No one have ever doubt in Paul Schrader's capability whose familiar subject is to give a lecture on human nature and how it affected by urban society . Many of his screenplays considered to be the best of 70's and 80's ("Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull", to name a few). However, "The Walker" is a different story. It's kind of movie that can test your tolerance. To all mundane situations and endless dialog that you need to go through, the payback wasn't much as good as you would've expected.

This is Paul Schrader's perfect companion piece to "American Gigolo". Imagine Richard Gere's Julian Kaye got 30 years older, came out of the closet and moved to Washington DC. Carter Page III (Woody Harrelson) is an escort whose job is to companion some aging, high society ladies around town. His best clients are Lynn Locklear (Kristin Scott Thomas), Natalie Van Miter (Lauren Bacall), and Abigail Delorean (Lily Tomlin). But soon after Carter becomes a suspect as murderer to Lynn's secret lover, he realized that how superficial friendship he has is. There might be only him and his boyfriend, Emek (Moritz Bleibtreu), whom he can really rely on.

Made no mistake about it, "The Walker" is a well-crafted film. The production design is neat. Dialogues are sharp and sometime they're mesmerizing. All actors did absolutely good job especially Woody Harrelson who is brilliants as protagonist role. His presence and mannerism really embodied the character he played. And from three women in this film, a Hollywood legend, Lauren Bacall is a standout. Her character is brutally honest and funny to watch.

I can see why people are complaining about the film. They said it's pointless and pretty boring. "The Walker" runs only 108 minutes but it seemed much longer. Well, I do agree. But I have one thing to point out for the audience. I think it was the director's intention to shoot the film. It's an old-school kind of political-drama film used to be in 70's (ie. "Conversation", "Network", "The Parallax View", etc.). What we have here is not a big picture of the whole story but only handful (or one) of character's study.

But, as I said before, the payback wasn't satisfied me. Carter Page III's story is barely intriguing. We knew that he has an issue that he must deal with. But the movie didn't use that opportunity to make us root for him. In the end, it's rather disappointing to see his problems suddenly vanished. I think "The Walker" has strong characterization and witty dialog. So shame that it's destroyed by mediocre plot and sloppy last act.

Shine a Light (2008)

Review: Shine a Light

[7/10 · 10 October 2008]

Many musicians are constantly trying to "reinvent" him/herself. They might try any new angle or new idea in their music career. Well, I don't see anything wrong about that at all. David Bowie changes his style more than chameleon changes color in its lifetime, and he's still a legend. But in the case of history of The Rolling Stone, it's the other way around. Because what we saw in 2008, every bit of energy in Mick, Keith, Ronny and Charlie are exactly the same as 1960's. And that's also made them a legend (To tell you the truth, I'm literally feared for his life when Mick Jagger began to dance like a complete madness on stage. I mean, he's 62 -friggin'-years old for crying out loud).

Who are Rolling Stone? Well, if you really have to ask, then you've got yourself a long history lesson to do. And this concert/documentary might be a good start to experience their legacy. Shooting for two nights at concerts in New York's intimate Beacon Theatre, "Shine a Light" will make your typical night event look like concert in downtown pub. Martin Scorsese and his nine or so cinematographer (all of them are Oscar nominated) create such an energetic camera movement (in fact, dollies are so close to the audience that I thought it would hit them eventually). And between songs, Scorsese decided to put rare footages. Some of them link to the present time in a spooky kind of way (in 1960's one reporter asked Mick whether he can imagine himself doing what he does in the next 30 years, and then Mick said "definitely"). Some of them is just classic (When interviewer asked Keith that between him and Ronny, who's better guitarist? Keith reply "Neither one of us is any good, but together we're better than ten others.")

Even all those Scorsese have done is already masterfully handled. But the real deal is the concert itself. They have mandatory stuffs like "Jumpin' Jack Flash" (what a way to start concert), "I'm Free ", "Start Me Up" (a must for live performance). Unexpectedly good stuffs like "As Tears Go By", "Brown Sugar" (this one got me cheer with joy). And collaboration from the best with Buddy Guy in "Champagne and Reefer", the decent with Christina Aguilera in "Live With Me" (even though it's a little bit creepy to see Mick gets behind her and doing what he does best) and the mediocre with White Stripe's Jack White in "Loving Cup" (They seem to be annoyed by each other). There a bunch of songs that I haven't mentioned, but let me tell you, there's not a single song that will fail by your expectation.

I'm not sure that whether we (Thai people) will have an opportunity to experience in IMAX like we supposed to or not (you wish!). And I would love to see it again on that gigantic screen, because what I've experience so far in my lame ass bedroom television is already made my skin crawl.

Sex and Death 101 (2007)

Review: Sex and Death 101

[5/10 · 10 October 2008]

Do you remember Daniel Waters? He's the guy who wrote Heathers, the greatest (if extremely unpleasant) teen-oriented movie of all time (Yeah, you can quote me; I'm THAT confident haha+). But then he squandered his talent and reputation by writing abysmal films like Hudson Hawk, Demolition Man and even Batman Returns (yeah, that one too). Now he's back with a new film in six years which he wrote and directed.

Just before he's to marry Fiona, Roderick Blank (Simon Baker) receives an anonymous e-mail with 101 names on it; Fiona's is the 29th, the first 28 are women Rod has slept with. The notion that he will have sex with 70 more people sends Rod into crisis mode, especially after three odd men in an aseptic office confirm that a celestial machine has made an error. They suggest destroying the list, but Rod finds that easier said than done. Working his way through it consumes him, plus he realizes that death may await him after #101. Meanwhile, a femme fatal nicknamed Death Nell (Winona Ryder) is putting men into a coma. Are they fated to meet? (Thanks again, IMDb)

I'll have to admit, this is quite interesting premise. And the good thing is, it hasn't gone wasted, since the person behind this film is definitely having a right mind to do it right. It is clever film about crisis of men and their quest to search for sexual fulfillment. Because once you hooked (to sex), even there's a hell right in front of you, you might not hesitate to dive into it. It raised a question about when one woman just wasn't enough, how far could you go? It's also about fate, when there's something that doesn't belong to you, it's just doesn't belong to you. And if you're persistent to have it, then you will lose it forever.

OK, let me stop you right here, before you storm out to buy this DVD. It's just too bad that they did it right doesn't mean that they did it good. Because Sex and Death 101 is the movie that put too much ambition for its own good. In my opinion, Daniel Waters was thinking way too much on this project. It supposed to be good dirty and fun little movie that eventually might create cult following. But what I saw is just such a promising project engulfed by director's self-absorbed vision. It's doesn't sync with audience like his Heathers script, which is like a wake up call for all generation-x who consumed by popularity. In the mean time, Sex and Death 101 was also talking about important subject alright, but it can only be able to educate people about sexuality. It's just can't relate to audience (especially target group like generation-x who probably got older by now).

And when director's vision has gone wrong, everything in this film also has the same destiny. Simon Baker's narration didn't really mean anything, and then it got worse when the story went on to unexpected turn. Also, the story about god-like operation room is pretty unnecessary. Come to think about it, I saw a similarity between this film and Danny Boyle's Life Less Ordinary (because it has something to do with an act of god too!). Although LLO is a flawed film, but it is an entertaining movie where you can almost feel filmmaker's burning passion on the project. But Sex and Death 101 is just cold as ice project where you could feel a touch of isolation miles away.

But it has some redemption moments, especially when the comedy was kicked in. I think I laughed out loud a couple of times (so rare these days -,.-'). There were the scene where Roderick ALMOST sleep with Sophie Monks, and the scene where he vs. catholic girls on school bus (even it's so absurd, but it's just damn hilarious). And also a fine performance by Simon Baker, even if he's not particularly A-list star, but he's charming enough to make me bought him as a striking handsome ladies man (he got to sleep with 101 women, alright?). On the other hands, Winona Ryder is simply dreadful. She supposed to be disturbing femme fetal, but she act like she's on crack or something. Comes to think of it, it's almost ten years since her last good role in Girl, Interrupted, I wish she will comeback real soon.

Sex and Death 101 may have some sharp idea and hysterical black humor moment, but it tried too hard to be something important (and then chicken out in one of the most whimsy ending I have ever seen). I kind of admire the director's attempt to reach out for his royal fans and tried to reignite his good old days with familiar subject. But, sorry Mr. Waters, this wasn't the one yet.

Son of Rambow (2007)

Review: Son of Rambow

[9/10 · 10 October 2008]

Some movies were born with greatness. They are such a classic that will make you stunned just by watching them. But sometime all you can do is to admire, because your heart is simply somewhere else. Son of Rambow wasn't born with greatness, nor it aim for something like that. It's just personal film that happened to be close to our heart. The most important of all, it also has got an ability to rejuvenate your fondness of cinema.

Nostalgia factor is everything in this film stand for. But it's not screaming to your ears that they are one (**For Thai people: Any Thai movies that start their sentence with "Do you remember when…" should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting the genre**). What made it fascinating is they won't tell you anything, and let you experience along with their protagonists first handed. I think the subtlety won't work if the film didn't actually have anything to talk about, but this film uses it effectively. The way they transition through scenes where characters act outside frame more than inside. And when we catch up with them, it's such a privilege just to be there and knowing.

But let me tell you something, there's something much more important than me reminiscing back to that era. It's also touching and coming-of-age story about friendship. I heard that it's almost an autobiography of directors (more about them later), and I think their world was such a nice place to be (just perfect in quirky kind of way). The atmosphere is so rich that you couldn't possibly leave any details that they shot behind. Like that exchange French kid, I think he's the most memorable supporting character all around (not to mention hilarious as hell).

The kids who played Will Prundfoot and Lee Carter are just perfect for the role, I especially like the latter. His first few scenes are extremely unpleasant, because he is a bully that you just don't want to be around. But the more I saw him, the more I understood him. And when it came to the end, he's the best character in this film. And I think we will have to agree that he's the most fulfilled character. Also, Will's mom played by Jessica Hynes (from ultra cool series Spaced which I totally recommend for everyone) is fine. She embodied her emotional constraints and grieves particularly well.

Garth Jennings and Nick Goldsmith (aka Hammer & Tongs) are veteran MV directors (Fatboy Slim's Right here, Right now, R.E.M.'s Imitation of Life, Beck's Lost Cause and etc.). I liked their attempt to bring Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy to life, but I found that everything in that film seemed rush and half-baked (and I don't think they will have an opportunity to do a sequel). But Son of Rambow is another story. As I said before, it's almost an autobiography of their childhood, and no one is going to tell their own story better than themselves. Just like Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous, it's just so easy to let your imagination run wild when you feel attached to the material.

The last part of this film is the best part of all (probably the best ending for quite sometimes). Well, let's just say they were right every step of the way to draw the conclusion. Oh boy, for a long time since I have got teary eyed. I'm just can't help but to stand up and cheer with joy when I saw Will finished his project, and do something like that to his best friend.

If Michel Gondry's Be Kind Rewind is a tribute film for movie lovers all over the world, then Son of Rambow is the love song for movie lovers all over the world. I admire the way Michel Gondry put together his imagination and his usual quirkiness to projectile his idea for the world of cinema. But I love the way Hammer & Tongs pour their body of work into the film. Son of Rambo is an adolescence film that will definitely win your heart, unexpectedly.

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day (2008)

Review: Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day

[8/10 · 10 October 2008]

On a blink of World War II, Miss Pettigrew, first name Guinevere (Frances McDormand) was unemployed. She is a maid and has been sacked too many times because her habit to speak her mind (not an advantage habit for this very kind of job). Now, even a job agency can't promise that they will provide anymore job for her. So she stole a calling card and presented at one of employee's house. Enter Delysia Lafosse (Amy Adams), a wannabe starlet who has an ambition to be famous. And she has a quite exciting morning, since three of her lovers tend to show up at the same time. Of course, Miss Pettigrew came to save her day. That made Delysia's mind to hire her for a job as her assistant. And because of that, it will be 24 hours that will change their life forever.

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day is a screwball comedy, and every bit of energies they owed it to Hollywood golden era, especially Frank Capra's magic touch. One could see a similarity between this film and such a classic like It Happened One Night. It's fast and a little bit of chaotic, but at the same time, it's very well organized. It also depends on chemistry between two lead actors. No one will ever doubt about chemistry between Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert. But surprisingly, Frances McDormand and Amy Adams also has the same vibe (more on that later). In my opinion, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day was a success in what many films tried to imitate the ingredient and failed miserably (see Six Days Seven Night as a failed attempt to revive old screwball comedy).

And it's really nice to see that they tried to live up with the title. As the tile suggest, Miss Pettigrew is really living for a day in this film. Before that day, she's just another pedestrian who barely survive in the great depression era. Until she met Delysia, her life changed. But it's not because of Dylexia. Because Miss Pettigrew lives just the way she was for the rest of her life. She is the same person as before. But it's just a different circumstances and places. Opportunities that usually shut right at her face finally opened. And that's mean she really lives for a day in the first time of her life.

Amy Adams definitely has the best few years of her life. From Junebug to Enchanted and this one should cement her position for "next American Sweetheart" (or next Julia Robert…..or whatever). She is the brightest star in this film. Many critics considered her performance as "one-note" Someone said that it's too cheerful, too perky and even too flamboyant (I heard that someone also said that she's acting like an actress on happy pill). But I think that's the whole reason for this kind of film, isn't it? It's a screwball comedy, for god's sake. It supposed to be fun and wild. And that's really suited Amy Adams kind of role that made her so likable. I think you don't want to suggest that Claudette Colbert was on happy pill too, right? But what made this film as a whole is Miss Pettigrew herself. Always reliable Frances McDormand is the one who responsible for holding this film together. She injected heart and soul into this film. Her character is like the voice of reason to Delysia. But she can be quite quirky and fun just the same. She nailed every emotional requirement in each scene (watch the scene between her and Ciaran Hinds's character dancing, that's the touch of class that you cannot imitate). And every time she and Amy Adams on screen together, it's just bliss to watch. It may sound as corny as it is. But I think Miss Pettigrew is a Yin to Delysia's Yang (yeah, I know, so damn corny haha+)

If I really need to look for a problem, I would say that the script cannot live it up to everything else. It's not the worst script I've ever seen or anything (far from it), but it's just fairly straightforward. The plot and motif about Miss Pettigrew's adventure in one day is marvelous. But if we look into the detail about Miss Pettrigrew's past and any incidents that put her into the place where she didn't belong, it's rather weak by comparison (especially the story about Miss Pettrigrew's past which I think came a little too late).

But what more can I say, I just love this film. It's just damn shame that it didn't do much in US Box Office. Because it's such a great film and it deserves to be seen at least once. It's everything you can find what's missing in George Clooney's screwball comedy Leatherheads. I used to think that only Coen brothers are capable to do this kind of films. I guess I was wrong.

Smart People (2008)

Review: Smart People

[5/10 · 10 October 2008]

There's a different between being intelligence and being smart. Because the people who are being smart doesn't mean they have to be intelligence. On the other hand, people who have intellectual doesn't mean they are going to be smart. And by that, I think Smart People is such a wrong title for this movie. Because characters in this film often showed what they are good of, regardless of right or wrong, and thinking that they are superior to anybody they knew. And because of that, they became pretty unlikable. In fact, if they have something like a contest to submit your own title for this film, Obnoxious People is much more appropriate one.

Lawrence Wetherhold is miserable and a misanthrope: he's a widower, a pompous professor at Carnegie Mellow, an indifferent father to a college student and a high-school senior, and the reluctant brother of a ne'er-do-well who's come to town. A seizure and a fall send Lawrence to the emergency room where the physician, a former student of his, ends up going on a date with him. His daughter, Vanessa, lonely and friendless, whose been bonding with his brother, tries to sabotage dad and the doctor's relationship, but Lawrence is good at that without help. Is there any way these smart people can get a life? Can happiness be pursued beneath layers of irony? (Thanks, IMDb. It's seem I'm more and more lazy to make my own synopsis haha+)

Even though the film packed with witty and funny dialogs, but the fundamental is just simply wrong. I wouldn't say they completely abandoned moral or anything. But I think they're looking from a wrong perspective. Smart People should have been interesting if one can see from an ordinary people's point of view, to look inside what's a deal with an intellectual one. But it didn't, because all we saw is so called "smart" people struggling and whining in their already blessed life. In fact, I think nothing in this film is ever going help audience to love protagonists. Even though we knew that he (and she) is going to learn some valuable lesson in the end, but in my humble opinion, he (and she) just doesn't deserves it.

So that's come to the problem, because the character that Dennis Quaid and Ellen Page played are such an obnoxious characters. And yet it worsens by the fact that they're the key role in this film. For this kind of film, Dennis Quaid's character is supposed to be a lovable asshole (like he did in Great Balls of Fire!). But the more I saw it, I was kind of doubt about "loveable". Because the way he treated people around him is just not very nice. And there's not enough time for an audience to appreciate his redemption moments. For Ellen, I can see a lot of Juno kind of vibe in this film (it's like she's still fascinated by playing Juno MacGuff). But one think that sorely missed in Jono-like persona, is likeness. Because all I got it from her performance is only smart mouth brat that will urge you to strangle her with your bare hands.

With a little surprised in supporting roles, Sarah Jessica Parker is the best thing in this film. Her sympathy performance adds a little heart in this lifeless dramady. Her best scene occurred when she's having a second doubt in her relationship with Dennis Quiad's character. Also, Thomas Haden Church might not do something significant in this film, but he's just damn fun to watch. It reminds me one of his best performance in Alexander Payne's Sideway Smart People may attracts some people who are fond of Woody Allen-like sharp as razor lines. But unlike his films, there's a little heart that poured into this one. It reminds me one of last year frustrating experience that I have in Noah Baumbach's Margot at the Wedding. And just like that film, Smart People is an intelligent film, but it's also dry piece of cinema that will definitely leave a bad taste after you've watched it.

Redbelt (2008)

Review: Redbelt

[8/10 · 10 October 2008]

I'll give my two cents; the audience WILL be misunderstood in the existence of Redbelt. And many people will be disappointed for what it really is. Considering the advertisement and its synopsis, we are expecting Bruce Lee's Enter The Dragon, Jean-Claude Van Damme's Bloodsport or even The Karate Kid for grown up kind of vibe. But everyone who familiar with David Mamet's works will know what they have to be expected.

Mike Terry (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioner and self-defense instructor who imparts upon his students the skills to survive on the street, rather than prevail in unarmed combat sports. A series of circumstances brings Terry in contact with popular movie hero Chet Frank (Tim Allen) and a legion of Hollywood movers and shakers. Terry soon finds himself the victim of a con and, combined with a destitute financial situation, is pressed to enter the ring for pride and profit. (Courtesy by wikipedia)

It's good once in a while that we have so called "action" movie that really took itself seriously. For years, that movie genre has been exploited for an act of vengeance and guilty pleasure. Warrior's "Code of Honor" is no longer has its pride anymore in those film. Redbelt might be another film that talks about it. But that's what they did. They TALKED about code of honor. I heard that David Mamet studied martial arts for years. And it's shown. I'm delighted that all Miyaki-like pseudo-moral code has taken into reality level. Our protagonist in Redbelt didn't just talk and act in the way that will made him respectable. We know that he really lives by it. And that's made us believe that he is indeed a warrior.

David Mamet is the name that couldn't go wrong. His greatness is an ability to carry his characters toward the edge of emotion. The best example is in his talk-fest extravaganza Glengarry Glen Ross where you can see how incredibly detailed and emotional packed that he injected into the script. Even a lesser known like Spartan, Val Kilmer's character is still bad ass without being an asshole. I think what he did in Redbelt, even it's not his masterpiece or anything, is like a breeze of fresh air. And he really deserves a credit for open a new way for action movies.

I think Chewetel Ejiofor should also deserve a special recognition by everyone on this planet by now. He was great in films like Talk to Me, Dirty Pretty Things. And even how less significant in his role sometimes was (Four Brothers, Children of Men), but he's just worth every damn seconds. In Redbelt, his subtlety is the best feature in his performance. He's like a quite warrior who chose not to abuse power that he has. There's one scene when someone told him that he addicted to poverty. It's not that he chose to live in poverty; he just holds on to his belief and let the plot solved by itself. And if the poverty is all he has got, so be it.

As I mentioned, this film is not definitely for everybody. Just like someone said to Jim Jarmurch's Ghost Dog that they were tricked by its advertisement. Redbelt is also live on its faulty advertisement as "pure adrenaline pumping" action movie. But, be that as it may, I think the last act of the film is indeed pure adrenaline pumping (in a totally different reason). And even if it has got one of the most faux-ending I've ever seen, but I think I have to be honest to myself. It just doesn't matter anymore, he DESEARVED it.

The Bank Job (2008)

Review: The Bank Job

[6/10 · 10 October 2008]

A classic caper film is like going to see an orchestra. Even though you are already know what you are going to experience on that evening, but you're still able to be amazed by how well prepare they were. The Bank Job is a caper film alright. But calling a classic one might be out of reach. Although what you saw in the first half is very entertaining piece of storytelling, but I can't really say the same thing on the second half. It's a frustration that caused by various factors (more on that later). In the end, it just really left me out cold.

Formerly known as Baker Street (hands down, far more superior title), The Bank Job follows the true story of crime of the century (as they claim) in 70's era London, England, where a bunch of criminal (led by Jason Statham and Saffron Burrows) dug tunnel into the bank's vault, and then looted all the jewel & cash including items in client's safe-deposit box. A little did they know, there's a bunch of people who desperately need to retrieve those items back including secret photos of disgraced Britain's royal family, serious consequence ensured.

From a starting point to procedure of the caper, I feel really engaged by it. The atmosphere is just simply perfect. They indeed have a right look and mood to that era. In fact, it reminds me of another classic caper film like Rififi. They also have a right leading man; Jason Statham is back to his British's groove once again (as a 'straight guy' in Guy Richie's films). And I don't know that his research is having watched all Steve Mcqueen's films or not, but his persona is really like the man himself. They also cleverly introduced a bunch of characters through inter cut that promise you that they will somehow relate to each other in the end. For me, it's like watching Guy Ritchie's Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels all over again

But after they got away with the crime, suddenly everything that works somehow stopped. I would say a sloppy directing and editing are the main reason behind it. The consequence that affected team members is simply generic. How generic? Let's see, good guys succeed, and then a casualty occurred (of course, some of them dead), and finally it's a payback time. It may be alright if they ran it with a groove that they found in the first half. But all of that didn't have a same energy like they did 30 minutes ago at all. And those sub-plots (about porn king's book and drug lord's photos) are badly executed. The emotion also shifted with no apparent reason. Like characters seem really desperate in this scene, and then they're back to extra cool in the next scene. Come to think of it, in the end, when Jason's partner in crime asked him why police were letting them go, Jason said "How the f**k should I know, just keep walking". I think this sentence is like the joke on itself.

Anyway, as I said before, everything else in this film are more than fine. The look and sound are cool enough to make us feel attached to that era (especially how they chose songs to play in it). In my opinion, good caper film is a rare breed nowadays (if you wanna call Steven Soderbergh & his pal's Ocean Trilogy as 'Caper film', then be my guess, because I prefer to call it as 'Vanity Project'). The Bank Job is the closest thing you can find, and having a right to call themselves as caper film.

Stop-Loss (2008)

Review: Stop-Loss

[6/10 · 28 July 2008]

The word "Stop-Loss" comes from US Military policy that concerning an involuntary extension of a service member's active duty service under the enlistment contract in order to retain them beyond their initial end of term of service date (thanks again, Wiki!).

Imagine what if you have one real good material on your hands, but you don't have any idea how to tell it properly. "Stop-Loss" is the movie with such a great potential. But all they've accomplished was spending times on far less intriguing plot that building around the story. In the end, this is just one big frustrating motion picture that should have …no, must have been excellence.

Brandon (Ryan Phillippe), Steve (Channing Tatum) and Tommy (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are three childhood friends and decorated war heroes who just got back from Iraq. Each of them has a goal in life to fulfill. For Brandon, he thinks he had it enough with the whole war things. But soon he realized that he have been stoplossed that required him to go back duty to Iraq. Against his will, Brandon and Steve's soon-to-be wife, Michelle (Abbie Cornish) decided to go to Washington DC and seeking help from senator. Since leader of the gang like Brandon was AWOL, it's only Steve to take a full responsibility for their group instead. And it's a bad time indeed, since in the most troubled friend like Tommy is about going to lose his grip.

From the sound of this, it should be an important film since this "Stop-Loss" policy obviously has a big loophole. And it's going to be interesting, if they decided to do an expose piece to point out that what went wrong with that policy. But somehow the director, Kimberly Peirce (her second directorial gig since disturbingly masterpiece "Boy Don't Cry") interested in brotherhood and post-war traumatize instead. And bad new is she didn't exactly did such a good job at all. An only three dimensional character I saw was a leading man Brandon (more on that later). In the meantime, his fellow friends are left unexplored (especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Tommy who has not only an absolute caricature character, but also poorly used to create any necessary tension between other characters). And while Brandon and Michelle travel together, there is a sexual tension going on between them. But the film did a poor job depicting it, and that's mean the whole point of that plot structure have gone completely wasted.

Like I've said, considering the topic they aimed for, the story itself is really weak by comparison. For the whole time, we saw Brandon travels to get some help. But after the trip came to an end, it kind of makes you feel that it is an absolutely unnecessary trip. Brandon can't get help as he hoped for. And his alternative solution (to run away) is planned and then dumped in a last minute without a proper explanation. Even when something really bad happened that eventually made everybody to re-evaluate their life, its feel shamelessly manipulative and cliché (which end up with unintentional hilarious macho-bonding thing between two lead characters). In fact, an intermission when Brandon visit his comrade who is simply beyond crippled (lose one leg, one arm and two eyes) is more touching than everything else in the movie.

If the cast will make you drool (especially girls), you're not alone. Stop-Loss packed with "next best thing" casts. But only Ryan Phillippe is worth watching (probably the most mature role of his career to date). Brandon is an important character, since he is a centerpiece to the story. It required him to show a lot of layers, anger, frustration, etc. And the good thing is Ryan knew his character so well and did a very good job (by the scene he beat up thieves who stole his belonging, I entirely bought his character already). On the other hand, there's too limited time for Channing and Joseph to start doing something mesmerizing like their leading actor. I don't know that it would be an improvement or not, but it would be really nice if they decide to share an equal screen time for those three young actors.

"Stop-Loss" is yet another anti-war drama like its predecessor (In the Valley of Elah, Rendition, Redacted) that didn't really break into a major audience. I don't really know why those movies weren't successful in United State (in term of box office). My guess (since I'm obviously not one of those people in that "The greatest nation in da world") is they might fed up with the whole war things that they've seen in the media every single day. So why should bother go seeing another one on a big screen? Well, let's just say I'm glad that I'm not thinking about it like them.

The Good Night (2007)

Review: The Good Night

[6/10 · 7 July 2008]

"The Good Night" is what Michel Gondry's "The Science of Sleep" would be like in your typical Hollywood production. It tried so hard to distinguish itself by having A-list cast and extra cool music. But without intriguing script and visual creativity, this story tends to be bland and pretty uninteresting. In the end, it just doesn't really have anything new to talk about.

Gary Shaller (Martin Freeman) is at a crossroads in his life: his job is going nowhere, his wife, Dora (Gwyneth Paltrow), drives him crazy, and he passed his thirtieth birthday four years ago. Add to that his best friend Paul seems to become more successful every time he breathes. Gary is feeling depressed and dejected... until he meets Anna. She's beautiful and smart; she's sexy and funny. Best of all, she's crazy about Gary. Anna (Penelope Cruz) is the girl of Gary's dreams...literally. And that's the problem. Gary can only see Anna in his dream life, so he's got to find a way to carry on the most satisfying relationship of his life, in his dreams. His quest for lucid dreaming techniques introduces Gary to some crazy characters (that is Danny DeVito) who ultimately give him a new perspective on life (credited by IMDb)

Nothing wrong with the story of people in midlife crisis and quest to find their soul mate (even you are already being with one). But, for me, the way they presented to us is pretty uninspired. "The Good Night" invite us to go into a deeper layer by examining a various phases of our protagonists. But once we're already feel attached to it, it just didn't really worth afford. We knew that Gary and Dora are unhappy married couple. He's depressed and she's desperate for something fresh in life once again. And we hope that, in the end, they're going to sort things out (whatever that is). Yes, they're finally sort things out. But it's unraveled in a sense of script-wise. For me, I found a difficult time to believe anything that happened in the last act, when Gary attempted to salvage his life.

Speaking about the casts, "The Good Night" might have one of the best casts in such a small scale production. Martin Freeman and Simon Pegg are just amusing to watch (their jokes are hysterical and their rapport seemed casual). On the other hand, Gwyneth Paltrow and Penelope Cruz are not entirely memorable (Especially Penelope who just having a very thankless role). And the character that Gwyneth (who might do a favor for her younger brother Jake in his directorial debut) played is just so mean and unpleasant to be around. Having she uttered a lot of f-words is completely unnecessary. And the worst part is she and Martin seemed to have zero chemistry (and that's not a good sign for this kind of film).

"The Good Night" may neither break any new ground, nor has a potential to be a great one. But it's seemed harmless to watch. The story is easy to love and appreciate. The casts are just having a good time and it will definitely make you relax while watching it. And that's enough reason to take a look at this one.

The Ruins (2008)

Review: The Ruins

[6/10 · 27 June 2008]

OK, what we have here is the killer vines. Yes I know, it maybe one of the most ridiculous monster you've heard (and that M. Night's killer wind is no different), but the thing is, The Ruins is surprisingly effective. It's like you can't help but laughing at the idea of girl with a machine gun attached to her leg in Planet Terror, but soon you realized that it can literally blow your head off right after you finished laughing.

Like the most of your typical horror movie begin, The Ruins presented four reckless, clueless and absolutely simple-minded American students (Jena Malone, Jonathan Tucker, Shawn Ashmore and Laura Ramsey) who are just having a good time in Mexico. They decided to add a little bit of authentic scent in their trip by accompanying a German (Joe Anderson) to find his brother in some ancient ruin. They know that it's going to be one hell of an adventure. But what they don't know that it's also going to be the end of their precious little life when something evil in that ancient ruin started to terrorize them.

Even it may sound conventional as it is, The Ruins still able to create any necessary tensions that build around characters. The director (Carter Smith) understand his material enough to know that the idea of vile monster crawling around places will not going to sustain the whole running times. So he gives an opportunity to his actors to do their things along the way (more than just be moaning and whining). In your typical horror movies, they normally create cheap suspense by making us curious about who's going to die next? Or how awesome they're going to die? It's good to know that The Ruins was looking at the different aspect, just like a good horror flick The Descent, they made us wondered that who and how are they going to survive? (if any) From what we've learnt so far, The Ruins neither sound like J-horror turned PG-13 Hollywood remade craps where suspense created by editing tricks or how loud the volume were, nor like torture porn flicks that literally tortured humankind who choose to them (Captivity was probably killed the existent of torture porn heyday). But still, it gives you enough gore for just about your average horror flicks. It gives a little bit of skin crawling (no pun intended) moment of vines lurking uninvited into human being. And it also gives us one of the most stomach-churning amputations ever depicted.

But no matter how good on its idea, The Ruins fell short on acting department and their inane dialogs. Especially Jena Malone whose once promising career is now on the crossroad, sad to say she picked a wrong road, because her acting is unwatchable (not to mention irritating). On the other hand, Shawn Ashmore (Iceman of X-Men 2) is unexpectedly good (for this kind of film), but his screen time was cut short when they decided to focus on Jena's character (which I couldn't careless).

What happened in the ending is absolutely bollock (and absurd). To me, it's just another Hollywood ending that will probably make you feel really bad right after the end credit rolled. But beside that, The Ruins is like a breeze of fresh air in horror genre. It packed with considerable amount of suspense and horror that will indeed satisfied you more or less.

Descent (2007)

Review: Descent

[6/10 · 25 June 2008]

It's excruciating experience to see "Descent" in one single watch. It shows how much humanity we sacrificed for the sake of vengeance. Just like a great companion "Hard Candy", this movie can easily teared down your emotion and left it as open-wounded.

Rosario Dawson is Maya, a shy college student who, just like any hopeful young girls, wishes to meet a perfect man. At the party, she met Jared (Chad Faust), a passionate young man. He quickly makes a move to Maya. With all beautiful words and gestures he used, Maya finally let her guard down and completely trust that, this is the man whom she can spend a life with.

Then, horror happened. Maya was brutally raped by Jared. Her ideal world seemed to crumble right in front of her face. Maya delved into the darkness as she spends her life in her own silent world. She works in a clothing shop where she just ignores everybody else. Spending time in dance club where drugs, boozes and stranger intimacy are her new friends.

Months later, the story comes to last act when Maya and Jared meet again in the classroom. As insured, she has a plan. And it's a plan that Jared couldn't possibly think of. Strangely, he plays along with it. What we have here in the last 20 minutes is the most disturbing, depraved, twisted act that anybody couldn't possibly imagine.

One can think of how cheerfulness to see our heroic trio in "Death Proof" got their revenge. The result is comedic-like, ultra-surreal ending that sure to satisfy by fans of exploitation films. "Descent" ignores the whole concept of exploitation thing and stick it firmly to the ground with its truthfulness. It's an act of vengeance in its purest form. And it goes on and on and on and nobody seemed to be happy about it.

First time director, Talia Lugacy did an admirable job to explore this twisted world. One might think that she's overdone with Maya's downfall by putting excessive madness into the protagonist that almost overkill it. But with this powerful opening and ending, It's obvious that she has a rightfulness to tell this story straight.

One can also admire the lead (and first time producer), Rosario Dawson, to put herself into an interesting career path. It's the role that any praises for her acting overshadowed by its controversial. But it's also a role that will re-define her body of work and create a significant part in her life. As she feels that she's capable to do everything from now on.

In the final moment where the film just simply captures at Maya's face, it's effective. As they're both haunting and yet, strangely beautiful. There's not a single moment to show our protagonist satisfied in what she did, even she just thought so. It shows how much we wrong thought about "Revenge is a dish best served cold". Because it's ain't.

Redacted (2007)

Review: Redacted

[7/10 · 25 June 2008]

The definition of Redaction is, a form of editing in which multiple sources are combined and subjected to minor alteration to create a definitive and coherent work (thanks, Wikipedia). The film tells a fictional story which based on real event of the Mahmudiyah killings, the gang-rape, murder, and burning of Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi, a 14-year-old Iraqi girl in March 2006.

"Redacted" is pseudo-documentary that conveys its massage so brutally raw and told in such an interesting way. We've observed the situation via fake French documentary, internet blogs, security cameras, news and most importantly, a candid camera by one of the soldier in Iraq War. This is an intention that the director, Brian De Palma trying to tell his story from all these footages. I found it's appropriate for its time. As we're living in the digital world where everything go past right thru us in every direction (whether we're ready to accept or not). To me, "Redacted" is like a mirror reflections to an early Del Palma's film "Casualties of War" where Michael J. Fox's character experienced the same exact horror.

You may have a question about how exactly this film stays true to the real incident. Well, you're not alone. While watching this film, I repeatedly ask myself whether those particular scenes are actually happened or not. Because they were presented for us in such an overly dramatized kind of way. I understand that those actors need to pretend like they act in front of his friend's camera, so what we have here are plenty of unconvincing acting that came from those non-professional actors.

But I think I get your point here, Brian De Palma. After I realized what is the meaning of the word "Redaction". You see, this is a kind of movie that minor manipulation and alteration that are completely necessary, in order to make us pay fully attention to its massage (and it gains a full impact by De Palma's usual style and his fond of blowing stuff up into gigantic proportion). In the key scene of this movie where 2 soldiers barged into one of Iraqian's house, raped and killed each every single civilian in it. Although this scene is a little bit over the top, but I cannot denied that it's so effective and really making me sick to the stomach. And also in the scene where one of an unfortunate US soldier have his head amputated, it's just so unbearable to watch it.

"Redacted" didn't take any side. It's just present as it might actually happen. They're neither saint nor devil. Just a simple human being who done stupid things in order to revenge for their comrade. And collateral who died along the way. The saddest thing is, it goes on and on and on and on....

I'm Not There (2007)

Review: I'm Not There

[10/10 · 25 June 2008]

"I'm Not There" is Todd Haynes's ode to "the many lives of Bob Dylan". It's a film that reconstructs his body of work in a very idiosyncratic kind of way. While this film is not really about the life Bob Dylan himself, but merely his role that made an impact to American culture. After we've watched it, we might not have a clue who he really is. But please rest assures that we will definitely know what Bob Dylan means to this world.

Truth be told, I ain't familiar with his life and work. And with this ignorance that I have, it's causing me (and people like me) immensely confusion to the film. But that's not is an excuse to not watching this film. Instead, it will enthusiastically encourage people to find out any references that we've seen in the film. In fact, it affected me so deep that I'm ready for prepare Dylan's work in both off-screen and on-screen. There's 1967 D.A. Pennebaker's documentary "Don't Look Back," and Martin Scorsese's 2005 doc "No Direction Home: Bob Dylan" that I have yet to watch.

What succeed in Todd Heynes's "I'm Not There" is that he didn't bombard us with biographical information about Dylan's life. This is not "Ray" or "Walk the Line" (by all mean, those are good movies) which attempted to show us in both the man's life and his myths. "I'm Not There" isn't one of those movies. It didn't really care for the man's life, but only in his myths. Therefore the film is very loose and kind of a free-form to give an opinion about what we've just seen (which is absolutely relevant to the way Dylan lives his life). And it's emphasizing even more when the director employed the total of six actors to play many fractions of one titular character.

Speaking of Todd Heynes, I think he's pure breed of art-house director that has one special talent. And that's he really knows how to bring his artsy films into a mainstream. "Far From Heaven" is not only a film that ode to 50's Douglas Sirk's melodrama, but also explore a hidden gay subtext in those films. "Velvet Goldmine" is his ambition to re-imagine Orson Welles's "Citizen Kane", but with glam-rock extravaganza era. In my opinion, "I'm not There" is probably one of the most dedicated and ambition work so far.

This movie surely will pleased many ardent fans and will create some new fan base (like me). I think it's necessary that you should watch this film for a second times (deservedly experience, I would say). And please, please don't try to make sense with this film whatsoever. Because, in the end, you'll know it's not a point that this film trying to make after all.

Meet Bill (2007)

Review: Meet Bill

[6/10 · 25 June 2008]

Have you ever seen a man who in mid-40s, potbellied, aimless, clueless and living with his wife's wealth? I'm sure you are. But just like seeing those kinds of guys, Meet Bill is awfully uninspiring. In fact, it's a tired, old, cliché "find yourself" kind-of movie that we might have seen a million times before. But, be that as it may, it surprisingly remains watchable; solely because Aaron Eckhert has been singlehandedly salvage this movie with his brilliant performance.

Bill (Aaron Eckhert) hits a mid-life crisis. His everyday life is pretty mundane. He works at his father-in-law's Bank. His wife, Jess (Elizabeth Banks) is cheating on him with a smarmy newsman (Timothy Olyphant). He also has to take a duty mentoring rebellious student (Logan Lerman). With all the pressure he has, he finally decides to change his life upside down once and for all.

Does it still sound familiar? Of course it does. Because everything in this movie happened, we can sensed it miles away before it actually occurred. And the cast are also a bunch of two dimensional-driven characters (of course, except Aaron Eckhert, more on that later) which their only task are influencing our protagonist (in one way or another) to achieve his goal. Hell, even the uber-intelligence student who has incredibly thinking process like a grown man, is acting like every other kid in 2000's era movies (ie. The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys, Art School Confidential, Ghost World and more recently Juno to name a few).

But this is Aaron Eckhert's show. At first 10 minutes, I'm kind of skeptical about his performance. His overboard performance has a tendency to go at campy territory. But then I realized that I was wrong. Because he's just having a hell of good time playing this character, and ask an audience to go along a ride with him. Aaron Eckhert's earnest performance also help filling a hole in the second act, when they ran out of idea and have nothing else for him to do (completely unnecessary scenes like Bill gets stoned in a department store or Bill has a double date worked because of him).

It's easy to love this movie. However it isn't too memorable either (and erupt ending tend to make things worst). Meet Bill have absolutely nothing new to offer. But I really can't say that I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone. Because seeing Aaron Eckhert shines in this role alone, just brightens my day already.

Southland Tales (2006)

Review: Southland Tales

[2/10 · 25 June 2008]

There's a time when you watch some 80+ minutes of incoherent piece of crap and you wondered "What the hell am I watching?" That feeling is not going to stick with you long enough to feel the pain. Because it will be soon over before you know. But at the rate of 140+ minutes, you've got to ask yourself again with a different question. "Why the hell am I watching this?" is more like it. "Southland Tales" will definitely give a chance to you to ask this kind of question.

I'm not going to give you a synopsis of this film, because there's none. "Southland Tales" simply goes all over the place. There's a bunch of character who constantly ranting about their political aspect (seemed like Neo-Marxism versus Conservative). And once in a while, they're described by god-like narrator and one of the character in the movie (played by Justin Timberlake) who keep quote a phase from the book of revelation as if it got something to do with the plot (even if it is, I failed to see it).

Speaking of the cast, their acting are ranging from mediocre to awful. In his first so-called "serious role", Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson tried so hard to prove us that he's capable to do something different from his usual gig. But unfortunately, I think he just didn't really get this film (who can) and end up thinking to himself "what the hell am I doing?" in many scenes. One the other hand, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Sean William Scott and Justin Timberlake are other famous name that completely amateurish by comparison. Especially our own Buffy, Sarah Michelle Gellar who act like this is just her debut or something.

Make no mistake about it, I think the director (Richard Kelly) is indeed intelligent and capable to handle such a complex project like this. His previous film, "Donnie Darko" proves to be one hell of a wild ride that succeeds in so many levels. But maybe his reputation is now succumbed by his own ultra-ego. In 2006, he mistakenly released "Donnie Darko: Director's Cut" which adding a LOT of explanation into already perfect film. The result is not only create a speculation whether he really understand his own work or not, but also an insulting to his royal fans.

And speaking of his fans, it linked to the worst crime that Richard Kelly did to his film, and that is he made this movie entirely for himself while caring less about something called "audience". I can see what massages Kelly wanted to say (post - 9/11 anxiety, desperate act to find substitute fuel, absurdity of teenage generation in TV-programs and etc.), but I don't understand why he has to work on it so hard to explain them. It's like he wants to challenge us to create our own theory (like Donnie Darko), but in the meantime he wouldn't allow us go near the core of his movie. But, in the end, I might have one mutual feeling with a director about one phase in this movie "This is the way the world end, not with a whimper, but with a bang", yes I agree with you, Richard Kelly.

Be Kind Rewind (2008)

Review: Be Kind Rewind

[7/10 · 25 June 2008]

Watching Michel Gondry's works is one hell of an interesting experience. It's like falling into a bottomless pit of imagination. Everything isn't always working, but things that worked always worthwhile. Like his Science of Sleep, if people allowed him to do whatever he wants, be sure to prepare for it. Because Be Kind Rewind is just plain weird, but it's also very fun and spontaneous.

One the verge of closing down, Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover) travels to his friend's house in order to find a way to rescue his rundown VHS store. By letting his royal worker, Mike (Mos Def) and his nutty friend, Jerry (Jack Black) take care of the business, guaranteed chaos right around the corner. As Jerry attempts to sabotage a power plant and end up getting electrocuted, he became magnetic man which it accidentally erased all tapes in the store. In order to save Mr. Fletcher (and their arses), the duo and their leading lady, Alma (Melonie Diaz) decided to re-create a long line of films including The Lion King, Rush Hour, Ghostbusters, When We Were Kings, Driving Miss Daisy, and Robocop.

Strange as it sounds, this film is specifically made for any distinguish moviegoers around the world (and you will feel more attached to it if you were in VHS-era). The best part comes when they're making those home-video blockbusters, even if how innovative as it is, they're best described as quirky and...yes, whimsical (Is there any filmmakers out there who can be more true to that word than him?).

And who could be the best go-to-guy when you want to make a film like this than Jack Black. Be Kind Rewind gives a room for this amazing comic actor to make this movie as his own playground. There a bunch of hysterical moments when he's doing his usual shticks with those movies references. However, his on-screen duo wasn't as good as him. Mos Def is simply confused and most of the time, depressed. It's like his character was holding out for something great in the end (which sadly, never came).

With those all wonderful things happened, it usually counterbalanced by Michel Gondry's old nemesis, himself. His improvised working style works best to an audience when they're just leaving their logical system behind. There are massive amount of plot-holes and stories that remains unresolved (like that romantic triangle with Melonie Diaz's character which he decides not to further ventures into). And something that he (intentionally) left unexplained, like Jack Black's magnetic body which never mentioned again once it's no longer involve with the plot.

Be Kind Rewind slow things down in their last act and ending it with a sweet note. Maybe it is a bit letdown since what prior to that is pretty awesome. However if you have a child soul and live your life for movies like the director, then this movie will definitely reach to your heart.

Drillbit Taylor (2008)

Review: Drillbit Taylor

[5/10 · 23 June 2008]

It ain't exactly a new movie from Owen Wilson. To me, it's more like an alternate universe version of "You, Me and Dupree". Yes, it should be called "Three Nerds and Dupree" instead. "Drillbit Taylor" is PG-13 comedy from Judd Apatow's troop that tastes like stale bread.

Like the most teen-oriented stereotype film begins, we were introduced by the filmmaker to three young heroes, the skinny (Nate Hartley), the fatty (Troy Gentile) and the nutty (David Dorfman) who are ready for the first day of their fresh high-school life. However the mentally-disturbed senior (Alex Frost) has another idea, as he promised to makes their life miserable everyday. In the desperate situation like this, they decide to hire a bodyguard, Drillbit (Owen Wilson) to protect them from any harm. However Drillbit also has another idea as he's willing to take this job.

I can see why it was written a long long time ago by 80's maestro John Hughes (here credited by his semi-retired alias, Edmond Dantes). "Drillbit Taylor" looks exactly like retreat stuff from the 80's, a story about ultra-psycho bullies versus incredibly nerdy protagonists that somehow mellowed into melancholic sweet-natured result. But, what's missing from this film is usual Apatow's touch (uncompromising vulgarity and hysterical dialogs) that supposed to be all over this film (as it was re-written by Seth Rogen and Kristofor Brown).

Although "Drillbit Taylor" failed to generate even one laugh-out-loud moment, it's still unexpectedly charming, mainly because Owen Wilson's earnest performance. In fact, he could easily channel into his ner'-do'well persona with his eyes closed. However that one bright spot was overshadowed by other three unconvincing performances. As main characters, Nate Hartley, Troy Gentile (and sugar OD'ed hyperactive David Dorfman), are trying to act like three young heroes from another Judd Apatow's outing "Superbad" (Michael Cera, Jonah Hill and…of course McLovin'), but without any charm, wit and insightful of adolescence.

I can't say that "Drillbit Taylor" is absolutely unwatchable, because it still has some sweet moments throughout the film (sub-plot between Nate Hartley and that Asian girl is cute, even it's left unsatisfied). However as we're judging it from Apatowniverse's point-of-view, "Drillbit Taylor" got one of the most uninspiring script ever released by them. And that's bad enough for me.

War, Inc. (2008)

Review: War, Inc.

[5/10 · 18 June 2008]

There's is similarity between Richard Kelly's truly fiasco "Southland Tales" and this movie. It's that they're both satire movie that have their head it a right place, but what made them extremely unpleasant to watch is another thing. In the end, "War, Inc." became too aggressive to laugh along with it like we supposed to.

John Cusack, once again, plays a hit man (which seemed like a sequel to "Gloss Point Blank"). After he finished his last job, He receives the next assignment from vice president of US. (cameo by Dan Aykroyd). The mission is to assassinate an oil tycoon named Omar Sharif (one of a running joke that hardly works) who live in recently US. occupied fake country named Turaqistan (Iraq-stand-in ). His cover is to be organizer of an up-coming trade show where Turaqistanian pop-idol sensation (Hilary Duff) will also organize her high-profile wedding. In the mean time, he met free-spirit reporter (Marisa Tomei) who came to do a scoop about trade show but instead getting more than she expected.

I do respect their ambition and gut for doing this kind of story, but sometime things have just blown out of a proportion. Instead of having a nice little satire that will make you re-evaluates about whole things (and still make you chuckle a few times), it seems like they are unintentionally mocking at themselves. In fact, it made me think about watching another crap from two of six writers of "Scary Movie" (you know what I mean, guys who made "Date Movie", "Epic movie", etc). Tell me something, is a tank with advertising banner attached on it supposed to be funny? Or is amputated cabaret showgirls dancing on the stage supposed to be funny? I don't think so.

Acting ranged from barely adequate to downright awful. John Cusack can play this role with his eyes closed (and still pleasant to watch). In fact, he is a few bright spot of this depressing film. Anyway, how can we possible dislike John Cusack playing as himself? For Marisa Tomei, this is a kind of role that can destroy a glimpse of creditability that she made in "Before the Devil Know You're Dead" (and sending her back to Oscar winner Curse's purgatory). And for Hilary Duff, her acting is confined with that horrible accent and moronic story line (I unintentionally laugh-out-loud when I found out the truth about her origin). But I have to confess, I liked her in this film in very weird kind of way (haha+).

While I'm watching this movie, it reminds me of far more superior satire movies like "Wag The Dog" or "The Player", as it both tried to attack the absurdity of political power and media. And whatever it take for people who can do for their personal beneficial, even it will destroys the rest of society. However, just like its predecessor "American Dreamz", "War, Inc." failed to ignite any controversy and end up chasing its own tail.

But it's not completely unwatchable (like "American Dreamz"), "War Inc." has some cracked up idea to offer for almost 1/2 of its running time. Like a piece about war simulator room, that provided for the press who desire to experience in real battle. However, as it turned into incoherent piece of crap in a second half, the movie simply ran out of gas before a finish line. In short, War Inc. will satisfy you long enough, just don't ask for more.