Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
This is quite possibly one of the best examples you could find of film making at its worst. I managed 35 minutes and the insult to my intelligence could not take anymore. How any of the seasoned actors (and there are a few) who appear in this did not question the shoddy dialogue is a mystery. At first I thought the sound recording was poor - then I realised that its just Curtis 'fiddy cent' s voice is completely monotone - when his mate gets shot, when he gets shot, when he's about to shoot somebody.... it's like he's reading aloud a menu at the drive thru. And whats with the Guy Ritchie stuff - the spinning freeze frame and the cartoon script - not to mention the scenarios pretty much exactly stolen from lock stock and snatch - very lazy. One scene I have to mention is a point where they hijack some Russian gangsters who are digging buried loot from a grave. 50 and another guy literally roll up in a truck, come to a halt, look out of the window and go - 'okay-there they are', then they run over and knock them out stealing the booty. Now I don't know about you, but if I was a professional mobster from Russia who had gone halfway around the world and carved a corrupt empire into a foreign country, I would not let two muppets driving a van into the middle of a cemetery at night with the radio blasting and headlights on 'sneak' up to 15 yards away, park, and then 'surprise' me. I imagine much of the 20million budget of this movie was spent hiring Bruce Willis for one afternoon so they could get his face on the poster.
Day of the Dead (2008)
Similarity to the Romero classic stops at the name. The premise of this 'version' is quite different- the zombie plague breaks out during the course of the film, as opposed to being well established as in the Romero original. Whete the original 'Day' took time to develop characters , suspense and drama using largely unknown actors unfortunately this film rapidly turns into a brainless shoot em up, packed with cliché upon cliché, there are so many ludicrous moments, it is astounding the actors did not stop during filming and question that no one would ever behave in the ways the characters do. Its a shame, because the film obviously cost a lot of money, and the sound, effects and sets are well done, but there is some very dodgy camera work and editing with the zombies being speeded up and given odd behaviour such as being able to defy gravity. Even the usually talented Suvari is just drifting through this film, her face having 'what am I doing here' written all over it. Nick Cannons character is so appalling as to be deeply offensive to anyone with half a brain. The plot holes are just a joke. No one seems panicked at the mayhem taking place, other than the screaming blonde girl with the tight vest, the gun shop packed with untouched automatic weapons that wasn't locked, and so on and so on. A waste of time better spent doing absolutely anything else. This film has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I pity Ving Rhames all the way to the bank.
In the Cut (2003)
Cut above for Ryan...
Not as bad as the reviews would seem.
In The Cut is probably one of the most honest American films in years. The story centers around a thirtysomething english professor (Meg Ryan) whose rambling existence takes a darker turn when she happens upon a couple in flagrante.
Immediately she is drawn into a relationship with the 'rough and ready' detective investigating a bloodthirsty serial killer. The plot continues in a rather typical manner - love interest, red herrings, multiple suspects, grisly murders and so on, but I feel the plot is secondary to the emotional themes drawn by the characters.
Overall I was impressed by the films earthiness - the sexual content, casting, dialogue, wardrobe and set design ar far more realistic than the norm, I have never seen Manhattan presented with such realism as to make me homesick, and not a hot dog stand in sight!
As for Meg Ryan, despite her petulant appearance on the Parkinson chat show, I applaud her choice of this role. She made a brave move in embarking upon such revealing sexual scenes, again, the reality of language and great cinematography preventing them from becoming cheap or titillating. I did feel that the camera tended to linger over the female leads bodies to the point of tedium, but Campion is arousing questions about love and sexuality throughout the film.
+++POSSIBLE SPOILERS+++ The finale seems abit of a cop out, after we were kept guessing quite well, and the film is a littltle over long and not hugely subtle - but good effort if just for the great photography, and wahey - an erection in a mainstream flick - I just hope the 'Sleepless in Seattle' fans in Iowa saw that....