2005

Archived Posts from this Category

February 4, 2009

Saw II

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2005, crime, entertainment, horror, movies, thrillers, trailers | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
1 Comment 

sawwww

Perhaps because I’ve been unwittingly trapped by a crazed cancer patient, I’ve decided to check out the Saw films in relatively quick succession. Having already watched Saw a while ago and being moderately entertained, something inside told me that I should take the opportunity to check out the second, third, and fourth instalments of the series as they slid across my desk. Fine.

That means that this whole ordeal begins with 2005’s Saw II. Directed by Darren Lynn Bousman and given that greenish cinematography by David A. Armstrong, this sequel was rushed to completion and finished in 25 days inside one building save for externals. And believe me, it looks like it was done in 25 days. Using characteristically juddering and garish camera tricks and rapid-fire edits that would make most music videos seem cautious by comparison, Bousman and his Armstrong have concocted a movie that looks and feels really unsightly and meaningless.

Saw II opens with some poor unfortunate soul in a trap, of course. It’s a helmet locked around his head that will close up like a Venus flytrap should the bastard not find the key. Of course, the trap’s been set up by Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) and the key is behind the guy’s eye. As the situation ends predictably, we are introduced to Detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) and his son Daniel (Erik Knudsen). Matthews and his son don’t get along, which probably has something to do with the fact that the cop can’t talk to anyone without yelling or flipping over a table.

Anywho, Matthews gets called to the scene of the crime with the helmet guy and he follows some clues to locate Jigsaw’s lair. Once there, he discovers a weakened Jigsaw – he has cancer, after all – and the fact that his son has been kidnapped to play one of the killer’s notorious “games.” Daniel is in a house with a few other people and the place is filling up with gas. Amanda Young (Shawnee Smith) is among the victims, as she’s been through this situation before. The story follows the people in the house as they bicker and try to find a way out. Meanwhile, Matthews and Jigsaw talk to each other about sports, needlepoint, and how the killer came to hold his worldview.

The Saw franchise is a big hit for a reason, I suppose. I’m told it’s because it appeals to fans of so-called “hardcore horror.” In my mind, there is nothing “hardcore” about Saw II. I found the whole ordeal rather tedious, with the dialogue and the performances doing nothing for the prospect of suspense. The encounter between Jigsaw and Wahlberg’s idiot cop was featureless and woolly, with Bell only sometimes reaching levels of interest. Wahlberg’s character’s basically just a tedious dolt and trashing things appears to be his only recourse when he isn’t yelling idiotically.

The character interaction inside the booby-trapped house is just as dim-witted. The characters squabble uselessly with one another, only half focusing on the actual task at hand. It seems that the writers want to portray these people as morons of the highest order and it works. The problem with such a rendering is that I found myself not caring if they got out of the bloody place or not. As if my apathy wasn’t enough, I found myself wishing for a quicker death once the actors really started hamming it up.

Stylistically, Saw II is a searing turd. Not only does Bousman’s direction grass on any actual sense of surprise with brainless cuts, camera pullbacks, zooms, and slash-and-dash editing, but the movie just looks soiled. I realize that part of the aesthetic is to give things a lifeless, shadowy sort of look. But things in Saw II just look grubby and childish, like subway bathroom grubby and childish. It doesn’t help that Bousman’s direction essentially consists of a mould of reaction shot-pullback-other reaction shot-pullback-zoom, either. After a while, I began to predict what he was going to depict next. I was always correct.

For thrills, chills, terror, and legitimate scares, Saw II just doesn’t cut it at all. It is, instead, a meaninglessly unenthusiastic exercise that isn’t even gruesome enough to make up for its weakness. If this is any indication as to the direction the series is going, I might start praying for that damn bear-trap helmet instead…

0.9/10

Trailer:

 

August 11, 2008

Mardi Gras: Made in China

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2005, documentaries, entertainment, movies, trailers | Tags: , |
Leave a Comment 

Most people don’t care where they come from. Most people only care that an effortless pitch of a set of hideous synthetic beads will be returned with the lifting of a shirt and the baring of breasts. The truth behind where the beads were fashioned isn’t of any concern to the thousands of drunken and farcical revelers who frequent New Orleans’ Mardi Gras celebration each year.

The beads have been traced to the Mardi Gras celebration from the late 19th century. The most common form was made of glass and featured many colours. Originally made in Czechoslovakia, the production of the majority of the beads moved to Hong Kong, Taiwan, and finally China after the free market took hold on the mainland.

David Redmon’s 2005 film Mardi Gras: Made in China highlights the assembly of beads for Mardi Gras in a small factory in Fuzhou, China, and contrasts it with the way in which the beads are used in New Orleans.

An impressive look at the effects of globalization, Mardi Gras: Made in China is a documentary that relies on the human stories and highlights inquisitiveness over talking heads. There are no purported “experts” in Redmon’s film; there are only the factual stories of Mardi Gras revelers and Fuzhou factory workers. The contrast is disquieting and discomforting.

This film focuses in on the true stories of the factory workers and offers exceptional access to a bead-making factory. The working conditions are bleak, the lifestyles of the workers are appalling, and the chronic pledge of “punishment” for any bad behaviour on the job is unsurprisingly intimidating.

Factory workers make approximately a penny for every twelve strands of beads they create, while in America the beads vend for about one to twenty dollars a strand. Most of the strands of beads are left behind, done in on the New Orleans streets and swept up by rubbish collectors after Mardi Gras concludes.

Redmon’s documentary spends time with the owner of the Fuzhou factory, a man named “Roger” who seems legitimately proud of what his beads are used for and seems to believe his workers enjoy the conditions and have good lives.

A fleeting look at the workers belies a different story, conversely, as the 15-plus hour days at ghastly wages in the company of perilous machinery and noxious chemicals showcase a less-than-admirable place of work. And a “No Talking” rule, enforced under threat of removing a full day’s wages, seals the deal. Don’t even think about getting together with a member of the opposite sex, as the punishment for that “crime” is a month’s wages.

Contrast the reality in Fuzhou with the actuality in New Orleans: Mardi Gras revelers hop up and down the crowded streets with countless strands of unsightly plastic beads, unmindful of where the artificial crap came from and ready to run from anyone threatening to “ruin their good time.” When Redmon does corner some individuals willing to see the Fuzhou conditions and where their beads came from, the results are often overwhelming.

It’s hard to ignore the terrible contrast between the wounded and bloodied overworked hands of a young Chinese girl and the ostentatious grins of bare-breasted bleached blondes.

Back in Fuzhou, the workers find it hard to believe that the beads they made are being used in such a way. “They’re so ugly,” one worker says of the beads. Other workers chuckle and giggle at the concept that their craftsmanship is being utilized to acquire a second-long flicker of bareness. It all seems so preposterous to them. I can hardly blame them.

But Mardi Gras: Made in China is not about shutting down the New Orleans festival and it’s not about guilt trips. It’s simply about equality. Redmon’s piece isn’t unforgiving or hypercritical; it simply utilizes human stories to expose the truth about the ostensibly capricious plastic beads that are so thoughtlessly tossed and wasted starting on Twelfth Night.

The DVD also contains an “educational version” of the film, which leaves out the boob-flashing. There are some clips from upcoming films, a few deleted scenes, and a worker’s diary from a 16-year-old unidentified worker who recently arrived at the Tai Kuen Bead Factory.

8/10

 

July 24, 2008

Batman Begins

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2005, action, adventure, crime, drama, entertainment, movies, thrillers, trailers | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Christopher Nolan’s sweeping comic book movie saga set the bar pretty high for other films that hoped to tackle similar source material. He collected a slew of A-list actors, wrote the screenplay with David S. Goyer (the Blade series, Jumper), and amassed a rather big budget to shoot the film in Chicago. Nolan’s idea was to do an origin story of the character of Batman and wanted to ground the character in reality, giving him emotions and giving audiences a reason to care. Batman Begins was born out of Nolan’s desire to give Batman back to the masses.

And boy did it work! Nolan and Goyer’s screenplay spectacularly created the Batman universe steeped in realism and darkness. The characters move and work with a sense of purpose and a sense of desire, each one functioning under the umbrella of another. The villains come together logically and Bruce Wayne approaches Batman in a way that makes sense, employing fear and stealth tactics to embrace the darkness that once gave him great terror.

Christian Bale is pitch-perfect as Bruce Wayne. We meet the billionaire as he’s traveling the globe looking for some action. He is seeking the means to fight injustice after the death of his parents and the failure of Gotham City’s justice system to deliver righteousness to the criminal element. Drenched in guilt and drowning in fear, Wayne eventually comes into contact with an elite vigilante group, the League of Shadows. This group takes him in and Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) becomes Wayne’s trailer and confidante. Bruce begins to learn how to use intimidation to fight criminals and learns a lot about himself in the process.

After discovering the true purpose of the League of Shadows and refusing to participate, Bruce returns to Gotham City refreshed as a crime-fighter. He meets with trusty butler Alfred (Michael Caine) and begins to device a symbol with which he can strike fear into the criminal underworld. Bruce’s claims that a symbol cannot be destroyed and can use fear as a weapon is a central theme of Nolan’s approach to Batman. Wayne also becomes reacquainted with childhood sweetheart Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) and uses the services of former Wayne Enterprises board member Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) to help assemble an arsenal.

The beauty in the sequences of the evolution of this great Batman character is that Nolan takes his time. The development of each element of Batman’s character is done with such precision and care, allowing the audience time to soak in the realities of whom Batman is and who he is beginning to become. The formation of the character is among the finest I’ve seen on film and the performance by Bale to capture the evolution of this vigilante icon is spot on.

Batman Begins includes the constant presence of mob bosses and shady characters, including the Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy in a massively underrated performance). Scarecrow is a madman who uses drugs to induce fear in others, making him the perfect foil for Batman’s first legitimate test. And test Batman he does, as Gotham’s hero is reduced to a quivering mass on the backseat of Alfred’s car upon one occasion in one of the greatest scenes of heroic weakness I’ve seen. Batman is not invincible and he can be harmed, badly, at the hands of this criminal element.

It is that type of attention to detail that makes Batman Begins so great and far superior to its letdown of a sequel. Gotham City is a dangerous, deadly place and Batman is often over his element in protecting the good people. Chaos looms just below the surface of the city and it takes the impression of fear and panic to unleash it, setting people to the streets in madness. Batman’s attempt to contain the mania as the League of Shadows return to Gotham is immense and epic in every way. The desperation by Batman as he works alongside Sgt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman) to try to contain the threat is remarkable.

Batman Begins is the quintessential Batman movie. It is steeped in emotion, realism, consequences that matter, panic, fear, and darkness. The villains are spectacular in their scope and Nolan’s ability to capture the madness of Gotham as it goes to hell is remarkable. It’s too bad the same sense of chaos and fear was left off of The Dark Knight in favour of posturing and speechifying, but such is life. Batman Begins is phenomenal and is the watermark of the comic book movie. If you haven’t seen it for a while, see it again.

9.3/10

Trailer:

 

May 12, 2008

Sin City

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2005, action, crime, drama, entertainment, movies, thrillers, trailers | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

There is perhaps no greater example of a film intensely close to its source material than 2005’s Sin City. Directed by Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez (as well as special guest Quentin Tarantino), this movie is an ocular feast that recreates the visuals contained on the pages of Miller’s graphic novel series with careful attention to detail and a passionate eye.

Primarily based around three of Miller’s works (“The Hard Goodbye,” “The Big Fat Kill,” and “That Yellow Bastard”), Sin City takes viewers down to the depths and dregs of humanity with relentless glee. The despair, gloom, and lust flows through the streets of Basin City like rainwater through Metro Vancouver and Rodriguez excitedly captures all of the action with his expert directorial vision. I still say he’s one of the best working today for creating visual feasts and intelligent, witty stories. In the case of Sin City, Rodriguez is aided by Miller in the director’s chair.

Miller was reluctant to sell the rights to Sin City at first because he had seen what had happened to RoboCop 3, which he supplied the screenplay and story for. Rodriguez had been a fan of the graphic novels for Sin City for a long time, however, and wanted to make it into a film. He aimed to make a “translation, not an adaptation” of the piece and was eventually able to sell Miller on his authentic vision. Rodriguez famously shot a “proof of concept” adaptation of the storyline “The Customer is Always Right” (which is in the film as the Josh Hartnett/Marley Shelton sequence) and invited Miller to the test shooting. Miller was impressed and Rodriguez invited Miller to be a part of the project as much as possible. The rest is history.

Sin City marks one of the first films (along with the terrible Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow) to be filmed primarily on a digital backlot. Rodriguez used the Sony HDC-950 high-def digital camera and had the actors work in front of a green screen, allowing for artificial backgrounds to be added during post-production. This style of filming allowed for more authenticity on the project, as frames from Miller’s graphic novels were then used as the ultimate prototype to constructing the scenes. Finding natural backgrounds that “matched” the settings in Basin City wasn’t a concern, as Rodriguez could simply create something out of thin air.

The allure of Sin City comes not only because of the incredible visual style, but also from the story. Known for his support of some neo-conservative ideas and his exploration of violence, Frank Miller’s writing has always had a hard edge to it. Sin City is perhaps the ultimate realization of that hard edge, as each story contains brutal violence and a tone of despair and hopelessness. The heroes, if there are any, are drawn from the depths of society and are killers, hookers, and lowlifes. The notion of “sin” in Miller’s Sin City is drawn in just about every scene from the character’s justification for their actions.

The film uses several A-list celebs and packs them into Basin City right next to the hookers and pimps of the stark, wet, bloody streets. Clive Owen, Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Jessica Alba, Devon Aoki, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro, Powers Boothe, Nick Stahl, Michael Madsen, Jaime King, Carla Gugino, Brittany Murphy, Josh Hartnett, Marley Shelton, Michael Clarke Duncan, Elijah Wood, and Rutger Hauer all have significant roles in the film.

Writing about the stories in Sin City in the context of a review is almost senseless, as the stories are merely a part of the whole project and don’t represent what Rodriguez and Miller’s film is about. It’s about the whole, not merely the sum of its parts. It’s about the despair and the almost existential hopelessness that fills the streets of Basin City. It’s about how the characters get lost and never found, about how justice struggles to keep up but never quite gets there, it’s about how the cycle of violence and sin never ends. Perhaps these ideas are all manifestations of Miller’s own personal philosophies, as though he almost realizes that his ideologies have no happy endings. Maybe life has no happy endings…

Regardless of how Sin City is viewed, it is a visual treat and an assault on the senses. Every frame in the film contributes to the overall arc of tone being presented here. There is no wasted shot, no throwaway moment, no verbal diarrhea, and no sparse narrative. It’s all part of the plan for Rodriguez and Co. There are some weak links in some performances and the bleakness can be overwhelming at points, as can the violence. Overall, however, Sin City is one hell of a project and represents a new direction in cinema.

9/10

Trailer:

 

March 12, 2008

Just Like Heaven

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2005, comedy, drama, entertainment, fantasy, movies, romance, trailers | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Just Like Heaven

2005’s Just Like Heaven is about as typical as typical gets. A standard romantic comedy, Just Like Heaven was directed by Mark Waters (Mean Girls, The Spiderwick Chronicles). The film earned much less than anticipated and was based on the novel If Only It Were True by Marc Levy. There is also a Bollywood version of the film entitled I See You. Just Like Heaven stars Reese Witherspoon, Mark Ruffalo, and Jon Heder in his first film appearance following Napoleon Dynamite.

Witherspoon is Elizabeth Masterson, an overworked and work-obsessed doctor. Work is her whole life and she is coming off of an obscenely long shift at the hospital when she is involved in a car accident. Three months after the accident, we meet David Abbott (Ruffalo). David is a landscape architect turned alcoholic. He’s living in Elizabeth’s old apartment on some sort of rent deal with Elizabeth’s family (not sure how that worked out exactly, but it doesn’t matter).

Elizabeth seems like a normal person, but she can walk through walls and sit on beds. When she meets David in her old apartment, she tries to get her pad back and David starts to think he’s going crazy. As more events occur and more strange dichotomies of what Elizabeth’s form can do and not do take place, David begins to figure out that she’s actually a spirit. Elizabeth’s spirit tries to piece together her life, the accident, and why she’s been alone all of these years. With the help of a parapsychologist (Heder), David and Liz try to get some answers. Eventually, they fall in love.

Just Like Heaven is fluffy like cotton candy and full of empty calories. There’s no logic to the film, which normally isn’t a bad thing, but it starts to get out of hand when Liz can’t touch a telephone but does leave the indentation of her head on a pillow. Strange. The filmmakers change the rules as they go and basically concoct a convenient reason for how David’s the only one that can see Elizabeth. The same joke is made over and over again based on this premise and it wasn’t particularly funny the first time.

There are better ways to do just about everything Waters tried to do here. The direction is all a bit fuzzy, with strange backlighting filling up several scenes with unnecessary fuzziness and fabricated “warmth.” I know people don’t go see a movie like Just Like Heaven for the directorial skill involved, but it was distracting when I had to strain my eyes to see through the glare. Also, the musical manipulation is right on par with other similar films. The score hops and skips when something is supposed to be funny (or when something funny is about to happen) and moans and groans during sad moments. It’s all incredibly contrived.

The chemistry between Witherspoon and Ruffalo is barely there, save for a few moments of legitimate comedy and feeling. Overall, Witherspoon was fighting an uphill battle due to the fact that her brilliant performance in Walk The Line was out at around the same time. Ruffalo, who’s always been average and never been good, is about as bland a protagonist as one can get and is forgettable in every scene. Heder, meanwhile, is put there and expected to be funny because he’s Jon Heder. It doesn’t work, nothing he does or says is particularly funny, unless one finds the repeated line of “righteous” to be amusing in a sort of “ripped from the 90s” way.

It’s hard to muster up a whole lot to talk about when it comes to Just Like Heaven. I can only use adjectives representing boredom and blandness so much. There’s really nothing of note here, but it may prove to be popcorn fun for those in the mood for a forgettable attempt at a ghostly love story. The effects are bad and add nothing to the story, the chemistry is negligible at best, the screenplay is bland and contains very few actual jokes or moments of interest, and the supporting cast is terrible. All in all, Just Like Heaven isn’t the worst movie I’ve seen, but it’s probably the most forgettable I’ve seen in a long time.

2/10

Trailer:

 

March 10, 2008

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2005, action, adventure, drama, entertainment, fantasy, movies, science fiction, thrillers, trailers | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Revenge of the Sith

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is the third instalment in the prequel trilogy of George Lucas’s Star Wars space opera serial. Many critics and fans thought that this film was the “redeeming” film out of Lucas’s prequel trilogy, but it should also be noted that many of those same critics and fans completely missed the point of the prequel and of the idea behind creating a space opera serial. Of course, it’s always possible that I missed the point, but this is highly unlikely. Nevertheless, Revenge of the Sith is a powerful end/beginning in the Star Wars saga and is one of the best movies of the series.

As with the other two prequels and with the re-releases of the original trilogy, I found myself in line waiting to see Revenge of the Sith on opening night back in May of 2005. Sith broke several box office records during its opening week and went on to gross $850 million worldwide, making it the second highest grossing film in the Star Wars franchise. It was the second highest grossing film internationally in 2005, second only to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Revenge of the Sith was the highest grossing film of 2005 in the United States.

Lucas transformed his notes for Revenge of the Sith into a full screenplay during 2003 and 2004, hiring playwright Tom Stoppard to ghostwrite a revision of it and add some polish to its dialogue. Lucas seemed to realize his own weaknesses at this point in the writing department and wanted to take no chances when it came to the script. After the screenplay was submitted, the art department began imagining various ways that the different parts of the Star Wars universe would come alive. Different worlds would need to be created, as Revenge of the Sith was to be the most vast and broad Star Wars film to date. Steven Spielberg was called in to assist the art department in formulating some ideas.

As the opening crawl indicates, Revenge of the Sith opens with Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) having been abducted by General Grievous, the second-in-command of the Separatists. This particular plot point was outlined in the Star Wars Clone Wars animated series, which I happened to watch in between Episode II and Episode III. Nevertheless, two Jedi Knights are dispatched to rescue the Chancellor. Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) head to rescue him from Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) and Grievous. After a battle aboard the ship, the Chancellor encourages young and volatile Anakin to kill Dooku instead of showing him mercy. Anakin does so, feeling instantly disturbed by his desire for vengeance.

When Anakin returns back to Coruscant, he meets with Amidala (Natalie Portman) and finds out that she is pregnant. He becomes overjoyed at the news, but Amidala is fearful that their marriage will be discovered. Later, Anakin becomes troubled with visions of Amidala dying in childbirth and that fear motivates him in some very profound and startling ways. Anakin becomes manipulated by the Chancellor, who tells him that he possesses powers that can prevent Amidala from dying and can grant Anakin eternal life. Anakin becomes embroiled in a plot to overthrow the Jedi order, subsequently becoming the evil Darth Vader and leading right into the legendary events in the original Star Wars trilogy.

As with the other films in the series, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is an epic masterwork of effects and dazzling action sequences. Sith contains some of the best lightsaber duels put to film, including the stunning closing duel between Kenobi and Skywalker on the flaming planet of Mustafar. Another great effect is the character of General Grievous, the droid with lightsaber skills. The fight between Grievous and Kenobi is another astounding highlight in one of the most effects-laden films of the series. As the fights and action sequences escalate to the terror of the film’s final moments, Lucas is at his best conducting the tension from the director’s chair.

The full scope of Lucas’s intentions for doing the original trilogy really come home in Revenge of the Sith, showing that the rising action and subtleties in The Phantom Menace and, to a much greater extent, Attack of the Clones actually had a purpose in building the character of Anakin. When Yoda claims that there is “much fear” in young Anakin in The Phantom Menace, seeing that fear fully manifest itself in Revenge of the Sith is a sweet reward for filmgoers. Sith is about Anakin’s fear and the dominance it has on his life. He is subject to the influence of Palpatine and the Dark Side, committing terrible acts for “love.” In the end, however, it is love that rejects him and hate the forms the immortal character of Darth Vader.

It is a given that Lucas cannot write a love scene, but there are many moments within Revenge of the Sith that do contain some power and poignancy. When Palpatine is on the screen, Ian McDiarmid steals the show with his rhetoric and his twisting of words. His performance is the best of the film, as he snakes his way around the role and provides a very tempting and provoking case for young Anakin. Christensen is probably at his best here, representing the coldness and the hollowness of who Anakin has become. Portman is lacking yet again, but part of that is due to the dialogue. McGregor was always fun to watch as Obi-Wan and in Sith he’s no different.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith draws it all together in a very powerful way, containing one of the most intense closing acts in a Star Wars film and one of the most stunning pieces of filmmaking in the lightsaber duel on Mustafar. Revenge of the Sith packs more action into each minute than any film in the entire series. The effects are more spectacular than any other film in the series and the way they resonate on screen is astounding. Lucas is still ahead of the curve when it comes to effects, but his lack of knack for dialogue often hurts the story overall. Nonetheless, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is a great space opera and provides a powerful introduction to the original trilogy by drawing everything together nicely.

9/10

Trailer:

 

February 16, 2008

The New World

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2005, adventure, biography, drama, entertainment, historical, movies, romance, trailers | Tags: , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

The New World

Terrence Malick is a wonderful director whose work is sumptuous and engrossing. With Badlands and Days of Heaven, both of which I haven’t seen in a preposterously long time, Malick’s lingering tones and rich meticulous shots are fully on display. In his career, which has spanned decades, the gifted American film director has only made four feature length films and one short. Malick’s use of his contemplative and pensive directorial style makes his films captivating and involving in the most inimitable of ways, as he unfolds his stories by involving the viewer in the panorama, the characters and the time period without the suspension of belief. Malick’s films have an opulence to them that is rarely duplicated by any working director today. I look forward with immense eagerness to his next film, Tree of Life.

2005’s The New World is surely no exception to Malick’s trademarks. Encased in the most beautiful naturalistic surroundings, this tale of discovery is one of the best films from 2005. Malick also wrote this tale of the founding of Jamestown, Virginia, and the settlement that is placed there by the English. The New World also highlights the story of Captain John Smith and Pocahontas, treating their love story with tenderness and a sense of adventure. The New World features production design by Jack Fisk and costumes by Jacqueline West. The set design and the scope of the production are incredible to experience and still seem remarkable after several viewings of the film.

The New World is a film about the strangeness and complexities of the arrival of the English settlers to Virginia, first and foremost. Using Pocahontas as its central character, Malick’s film explores these notions with depth and detail as her character becomes accustomed to a new society and becomes slowly and reluctantly assimilated into it. Pocahontas is played by the wonderfully talented Q’orianka Kilcher. Kilcher was fourteen at the time of shooting and some of her scenes caused a great deal of controversy, leading to some editing by Malick of a few scenes between her and Colin Farrell. Kilcher’s Pocahontas is never addressed by name throughout the film.

Malick’s The New World strips away all of the fantasy and lore about the arrival of the settlers, choosing instead to see the events through the eyes of Kilcher’s character as the freshness and naturalistic setting of her world suddenly has some very new, very strange visitors. The settlers begin to construct a fort with immediacy as Captain John Smith (Farrell) heads out to explore on his own. He meets Pocahontas and a bond is instantly formed after she saves his life from certain death. The English, especially Smith, are as awed as the natives with the sumptuousness and the strangeness of this new predicament. We explore communications, customs, and ways of life through the eyes of the natives and the English, with neither side being portrayed as villainous or wrong. With Malick’s lens, we all are simply observers of the foundation and exploration of newness, strangeness, and the romantic notion of discovery.

The film works so well because it imagines how these two separate people groups would communicate and how they would interact. As the English become paranoid and a bit fearful, nonsensical events begin to occur that threaten the once-peaceful bond between the natives and the settlers. The contrast between the ways of life of the natives and the English is also explored, as the natives live and flourish because they are involved with the land and nature, whereas the English nearly die because of their arrogance and their unwillingness to learn and understand. There is a meekness here that is imposed by the grandeur of nature, leading to a keen exploration that invokes the senses through Malick’s expert direction. We explore these lands as the characters explore these lands.

As Pocahontas grows up, her life changes and her internal reckonings also change. Smith’s roguish existence gives way to the stability and kindness of settler John Rolfe (Christian Bale). The stories being told here are rather well known and I will allow the viewer his or her own discovery of the details, except to say that the contrast amid Pocahontas’ eventual journey to the lively allure of London and her homeland is immeasurably and magnificently explored. The performances aren’t so much about the art of performances, but rather natural extensions of people existing and being in these places. Malick’s films tend to have occupants rather than actors, so The New World is no different.

There are, of course, two new worlds in this film. One is what the English discover as they approach Virginia for the first time. The other is what Pocahontas discovers in the realm of love and emotion. Malick explores these moments tenderly and with such incredible tact that certain wordless scenes, of which there are many, are simply explosive in their tenacity. In Kilcher is an extraordinary performer and her ability to play this part is unquestionably incredible. When we see her, we recognize her without being told who she is. Kilcher embodies who Pocahontas would have been and who she should have been, helping tell the story properly and with romantic realism, efficiently burying the dull weight of Disney-esque folklore with an affectionate rendering.

The New World is a fantastic film that could be discussed for several hundred more words. The best way to experience a Malick film isn’t by talking about it, however, but rather it’s by seeing it and letting it into your senses. Scenes in The New World impose their will upon the viewer with their engrossing nature, often coming across like an unsullied breeze from the water or through the trees. The New World looks so real and so lavish that the film almost has an aroma of freshness and distinctive romance. It is an important film, a precious film, and a tenderly crafted one.

10/10

Trailer:

 

February 8, 2008

Why We Fight

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2005, documentaries, entertainment, movies, trailers, war | Tags: , |
Leave a Comment 

Why We Fight

Why We Fight is a stunning 2005 documentary that outlines the relationship between war and the United States of America. The title of the film is an allusion to the World War II-era newsreel propaganda films of the same name which were commissioned by the United States government to help justify their decision to go to war against the Nazis. First screened at the Sundance Film Festival in January of 2005, Why We Fight won the Grand Jury Prize for Documentary. The film only received a limited theatrical release and found most of its popularity in the home video market and through viewing online.

Why We Fight outlines the rise and eventual maintenance of what is referred to as the military-industrial complex. The military-industrial complex is composed of the nation’s armed forces, weapons suppliers, and the civil government. President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously referred to the military-industrial complex in his farewell address in 1961, saying “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” The film uses Eisenhower, as well as his son and granddaughter, to discuss his farewell address and the implications of having a standing army in the United States.

The documentary’s main focal point is the military-industrial complex’s role in the continued involvement in wars by the United States since Eisenhower’s famous address. The focus is particularly put on the invasion of Iraq, although Vietnam and other conflicts are also examined. Why We Fight alleges that, in every decade since World War II, the American public has been lied to in order to add fuel to the military-industrial complex. War profiteering and American dominance in the world is questioned and addressed by experts from both sides of the debate, making Why We Fight an even-handed and compelling documentary. The film incorporates real stories and experiences into the interview segments, driving it all home and making the focal point more real.

Why We Fight was directed by Eugene Jarecki, who also directed the critically-acclaimed The Trials of Henry Kissinger. Jarecki, along with his directorial work, is also the founder and executive director of The Eisenhower Project, an academic public policy group. The Eisenhower Group aims to study the forces that shape American foreign policy in the spirit of President Eisenhower. Jarecki’s admiration for Eisenhower is abundantly clear in the documentary, as he often uses the President as a measuring stick for all that is right and wrong with American global affairs. This serves to give the documentary piece a grounding point and helps keep a solid focus when many other documentaries wander of course. Whether one agrees with Jarecki or not, the documentary is a well-crafted piece of film.

Why We Fight is important because it raises questions that every single person in the world with an interest in global affairs needs to have answers for. With American pressing on as the world’s only superpower and acting, seemingly, in its own terms in global conflict after global conflict, it’s important to have an even-handed understanding of what this means and why this might be taking place. Why We Fight looks at both sides of the argument and examines the strengths and weaknesses of the angles to provide a clear picture. This approach enables the audience to make up its own mind and give the facts and figures within this excellent piece some even thought.

The film features a myriad of experts on the topic, too, which bolsters the film’s credibility. John McCain is used and it is amusing to see how his moderate stances in the film have evolved through time to turn him into the Republican candidate he is now. Military historian Gwynne Dyer (whose books I highly recommend) is used, as is political scientist Chalmers Johnson (also an excellent author on the topic of foreign policy). Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is shown, as is William Kristol, one of the co-founders for the alarmingly dangerous Project for the New American Century. Gore Vidal is featured, as are the two pilots who dropped the first two bombs on Baghdad in the 2003 Iraq War. The film features more experts and civilians than I can list and the information and discussion they are able to generate is fascinating.

Jarecki’s film holds the tone throughout that allows the audience the grace to think for itself, which is a great departure from Michael Moore’s style of documentary filmmaking. Whereas Moore’s films are more “edutainment,” Jarecki’s film is designed to provoke honest thought and exploration. The facts are staggering and the filmmaker’s willingness to express them without a gloss or veneer is a courageous move. Why We Fight is one of the best documentaries on the subject I have ever seen and should be required viewing by all with an interest in global policy, whether American or not.

10/10

Trailer:

 

February 6, 2008

Inside Deep Throat

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2005, documentaries, entertainment, movies, trailers | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Inside Deep Throat

Inside Deep Throat is a weird and woolly documentary about Deep Throat, the famed adult film from the 1970s. Inside Deep Throat, from 2005, was directed by Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato and produced by Brian Grazer for HBO Films. The documentary was rated NC-17 for explicit sexual content, which is actually explicit sexual content from scenes from Deep Throat. Inside Deep Throat was the first NC-17-rated feature to be released by Universal since 1990’s Henry and June. There is an edited version of the documentary available, too, which garnered an R-rating.

Inside Deep Throat drudges out people like Hugh Hefner, Deep Throat director Gerard Damiano, Gore Vidal, Deep Throat star Harry Reems, and even Gore Vidal to tell us how important Deep Throat was in terms of a “sexual revolution.” American’s obsession with having a sexual revolution and the importance that places on sex is examined through the thoughts and words of several senior citizens and the end results, quite frankly, aren’t pretty. Inside Deep Throat discusses the issues brought about by the release of Deep Throat by treating the release of the adult film as though it had major societal impact. While that might have been true, the hyperbole of that impact wasn’t lost on me as the various interviewees discussed what they deemed to be the cultural watermark of Deep Throat.

The documentary takes us on a long, boring ride through the various ins and outs of the creation of Deep Throat and the subsequent backlash. The interviews are interspersed with all sorts of news footage and strange shots of objects, like theatre counters, as if to show us just how old-timey everything was back in the “better days” of the 1970s. The people being interviewed in the documentary represent the viewpoint that everything done in the 1970s was done out of the purity of exploration and rebellion, that the puritanical government and religion combination needed to be overthrown and sex needed to be treated with maturity. While I agree with the former, I’d argue that there was nothing particularly “mature” about the plot ideas within Damiano’s Deep Throat.

The hilarity within Inside Deep Throat is contained with the bizarre interviews and the bizarre way of shooting those interviews. Scared, one interviewee’s wife keeps interrupting the proceedings by yelping something from her place at the kitchen table in the background. An argument erupts and we begin to feel like we’re witnessing a real-life version of Frank and Estelle Costanza. Of course, minutiae like this shouldn’t take away from the real point of the film, which was to show how Deep Throat defied a generation of non-believers and created a new generation of people who were proud of their sexuality. Luckily, it only took a film featuring a woman of “unique talents” to do that. It’s no small wonder we’re behind the rest of the word sexually when we still need titillation from the smallest, most idiotic details.

I have a subscription to Playboy magazine and have discovered that the tone of the magazine is actually very conservative and archaic. Fighting the censorship debate within the pages and telling its readers about the oppression of the times, Playboy documents sexuality for a new generation. The ideas within the average issue of Playboy in the modern age are closely identified with being fairly rooted in an ideology that has missed all of the good stuff and is simply picking up on the scraps. Inside Deep Throat is a lot like that. Often, the film feels like an eavesdropping session on old-timers’ night in The Grotto at The Mansion. With old men sitting around discussing how important sex used to be in purer times, the results are yawn-inducing and oddly bizarre.

Inside Deep Throat is not a predominantly compelling documentary and, at times, it is repugnantly mind-numbing and prosaic. With such potential to create a gripping documentary, the makers of this one instead fail at every turn and instead give us no effervescence or life. Inside Deep Throat lacks the grit and bite of even the most boring PBS documentaries. Instead, it trots out every single old, toothless individual who ever had anything to do with Deep Throat and gives us their life stories. Lenny Camp, the guy that did something to do with something, rails on about everything and nothing all at once and we end up sitting through what feels like the ranting of an uncle who has long since lost it. Inside Deep Throat is like Thanksgiving dinner at the senior’s complex.

Inside Deep Throat aims to take us back to a time when the sexual revolution was dawning and women were aware that they could, too, experience orgasmic bliss. The importance of Deep Throat lied in the reality that it showed women that they deserved to be treated with respect and dignity or so we’re told by an embarrassingly out-of-touch Hugh Hefner (remember, I read the articles). Instead of showing us any social importance behind Deep Throat, all Inside Deep Throat does is create realization to just how off-the-cuff the production of the film was (according to one interviewee, Damiano made the film to get laid) and just how meaningless everything was to the people who made it and how meaningful it all became when they realized they could stretch it out for much longer than ever intended. It’s funny how we’re supposed to buy that type of thing as a sexual revolution, but hey, this is America and that type of thing happens all the time.

1/10

Trailer:

 

January 25, 2008

Havoc

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2005, crime, drama, entertainment, movies, trailers | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Havoc

Anne Hathaway’s attempt at getting away from her Disney image is 2005’s Havoc, a straight-to-video release that explores the lives of affluent teenagers who attempt to break out of their boredom by getting involved in a gangster lifestyle. Directed by Barbara Kopple, who is primarily a documentary filmmaker, this film was shown at several film festivals but never made a theatrical release in the United States. Havoc went straight-to-video on November 29, 2005. Havoc also stars Bijou Phillips, Shiri Appleby, Freddy Rodriguez, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Havoc is probably most notable for being the subject of a lot of internet rumours after Anne Hathaway, the film’s star, participated in several nude and sexual scenes. Before Havoc, Hathaway was primarily known for roles in family-friendly Disney comedies, including The Princess Diaries and Ella Enchanted. Hathaway allegedly took the role to distance herself from her family-friendly image, which is certainly important for an actress with image issues. The idea behind taking on the role was awkward and that’s about how it plays out on screen in Havoc, as Hathaway has a discomfited energy that caustically invades each scene she’s in like somebody who’s trying too hard.

Sometimes a transition to “older Hollywood” is seamless, as in the cases of Claire Danes, Jodie Foster, and Kirsten Dunst. In other cases, watching someone grow up Hollywood-style can be a little more painful, as in the case of the Olsen twins and Lindsay Lohan. With Hathaway, the process was immediate and radical. Hathaway plays Allison, a spoiled rich brat from Los Angeles. She lives with her parents, who don’t talk to her very often and supply her with all of her affluent needs to support her “lifestyle.” Her lifestyle is that of a pseudo-gangster-chick, as she hangs out with other pseudo-gangsters in her ‘hood. Eventually, the inexorable escalation of flirting with danger takes over and Allison is in a whole heap of trouble with a Latino drug dealer and his set.

Havoc boasts a screenplay by Stephen Gaghan, who worked on Traffic and wrote and directed Syriana. No stranger to bad screenplay territory, however, Gaghan also wrote 2004’s The Alamo and 2000’s Rules of Engagement. He worked through the original screenplay for Havoc, which reared its ugly head in 1993 as a piece by then-17-year-old Jessica Kaplan. It’s likely that Kaplan’s original screenplay may have been more compelling back in the mid-90s when this stuff was more pertinent and honest, but alas the film was passed upon briefly after being picked up. Off it went to Gaghan, years later. Gaghan’s screenplays have a way of being very disaffecting in the wrong hands and, sadly, with Havoc his screenplay is most assuredly in the wrong hands. While director Barbara Kopple has shown a steady hand with directing documentaries and even won some big awards for her work, here she shows an innate desire to misconstrue and muddle just about every scene.

The main focal point of the story is supposed to be how Allison’s faux gangster girl persona is a put-on and how she’s really not like that in the “real world.” Unfortunately, Kopple’s film suffers from a lack of character build and direction, leaving Hathaway to stumble around mercilessly from stereotype to stereotype. While it’s partially the point to have Hathaway as a fish out of water, if real life wasn’t imitating art so much, the film would have been more effectual. A big part of the problem is that it becomes so obvious that Hathaway is slumming it and the film starts to seem like a film version of a girl posing for Playboy to piss off her parents.

The other performers are relatively invisible, save for Freddy Rodriguez as the Latin drug dealer who somehow invokes curiosity in Allison. His character is certainly the most entertaining on the screen, yet something about him in the role is strangely awkward as well. Much like the film categorizes kids in over their heads, the casting seems the same way as the actors struggle to adapt to roles that certainly weren’t tailored for them. Instead of seamlessly invoking the flaws and balance within what could have been very naturalized characters, Rodriguez, Phillips, Hathaway, and everyone else in this picture simply inhabit the skin. The result ends up sucking the life out of the material, which wasn’t very good to begin with, and leaves the viewer flat.

So there you have it. There’s really not much more to say about this release. Havoc will likely interest those that want to see Anne Hathaway’s boobs, but it doesn’t hold much other value. It’s surprisingly slow, stunningly clunky, awkward, and silly. Hathaway’s desperation to ditch Disney collapses in a heap, which is too bad for this gifted actress. Luckily, she’d have better things on the horizon than this stinker.

2/10

Trailer:

 

Next Page »