Devizier Reviews

Gran Torino (2008)

Not good

[2/10 · 1 February 2009]

I watched this film with 36 other people scattered throughout the (mostly empty) theater. Six loudspeakers were mounted on the side walls, three on the rear wall. There were six stage lights (dimmed) in front of the screen. I know this, because I was forced to entertain myself in some fashion during this film's painful two hour duration.

There are absolutely no redeeming features to this film. Poor acting, directing, screen writing, producing, and probably gaffing, key gripping, and makeup too. Everyone involved in this effort should be ashamed of themselves. The only thing that makes this better than a one-star affair is the likely existence of even worse movies, that I have not and hopefully will never see.

August Rush (2007)

I was compelled to watch this against my will

[3/10 · 31 December 2007]

And this is why my will should be more highly regarded. What to say, other than that this is the kind of sappy, melodramatic garbage that's more fit for Sunday afternoon viewing on the Hallmark channel? Let's begin with the plot, which actually doesn't exist. The movie simply rambles aimlessly from one episode to the next, shamelessly invoking deus ex machina when needed. In some ways it feels like something Terry Gilliam might have made in his absolute nadir after downing bottles of fluoxetine.

I suppose you could call this movie character driven, but those characters are depressingly shallow. Some of them, such as the one played by Robin Williams, are severely irritating and detract from little the movie has going for it. There is no point in going into too much detail here, but this brings me to the Robin Williams corollary; the man hasn't been involved in an above-average movie in over a decade. It stands to mention that only a small minority of the past decades' films featuring Williams are even actually average.

So in summary; I want my money back. In fact, I want more than my money back; I considered my time watching this movie as working. It was a truly herculean effort not to walk out. Shouldn't I be rewarded for that?

Thank You for Smoking (2005)

More of a vehicle than a film

[6/10 · 13 May 2006]

Aaron Eckhart delivers an amazing performance as the gleefully obnoxious tobacco lobbyist Nick Naylor. He is so convincing, in fact, that you can actually feel yourself being manipulated by his character's scripted wiles. As for his supporting cast, they fits their roles admirably, knowing not to interfere. No complaints about casting. Unfortunately, this film falls well short of its satirical aim. There are plenty of deserving targets in the debate over smoking, and "Thank You..." takes on all of them, just not very effectively. I don't know if its the outlandish premise of the film or something else entirely, but something about it rings hollow. On final review: mildly amusing, generally harmless, goofball satire.

Lucky Number Slevin (2006)

Mediocre

[5/10 · 7 April 2006]

I saw this movie during a brief stay in London, approaching it with guarded skepticism, given that the mud season is when Hollywood ushers its "second tier" to the markets. The beginning of the movie is promising enough; the opening scene is loaded with atmosphere and brutality, and is followed by some effective set up scenes that outline the plot. That plot, however, turns out to be weak, contrived and predictable. I emphasize the last point, because with a little imagination, the viewer can frame the entire story within twenty minutes of the opener. Not a good sign for a film that relies on twists to entertain its audience.

The weak plot is not the only indictment against this movie. In a deliberate effort to mimic the "cool" of that famous auteur (you know who) of the nineties, the movie relies heavily on irreverent dialogue and subtle pop culture references. Derivative can work - plenty of others have taken the same tact with some success - but in this case it does not. Virtually all of the dialogue is mere filler; there isn't a single memorable line in the movie. The characters, in an obvious nod to Reservoir Dogs, are referred to by (not so) clever nicknames. This attempt at garnering cachet is fitting, because none of these characters amount to more than the vapid stereotypes that such nicknames inform them to be.

That's not necessarily terrible, because a great actor can make such contrivances work. Incidentally, there are certainly plenty of recognizable actors in this film. The problem is, the pieces don't fit, and at no point in the movie are you left with the impression that anyone is trying very hard. Morgan Freeman in particular seems perfectly content to continue the ten year campaign against his acting reputation. On the flipside, Lucy Liu does a credible job as the love interest of someone ten years younger than her, and Bruce Willis is certainly wooden enough for the part of a stoic assassin.

This movie isn't beyond redemption. I didn't walk out of the theatre, and you can kind of enjoy it, so long as you're content to space out for the duration. Its got plenty of flash, but not much else. Its an effectively meaningless exercise and nothing about it changes my impression of spring movies. Just not very good.

The Pacifier (2005)

Just...

[2/10 · 1 August 2005]

I had the good fortune of watching this movie on a Greyhound from New York to Boston. Since the sound is piped in, there's no way to avoid experiencing the movie of their choosing. Anyhow, I did my best to make some observations about the movie. What can be glaened from a movie starring Vin Diesel, icon of bald knuckleheads everywhere? "Adam Shankman" must be a bad director's pseudonym, like "Allen Smithee". Consequently, I'm wondering if there's a "bad producers" pseudonym, and whether Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum have considered using it. Generally speaking, I don't mind the playing of movies on the bus, as even some of the worst movies tend to help the time pass. Unfortunately, the Pacifier had the opposite effect. For the duration of the movie, I heard maybe one or two stifled bouts of laughter, and that may have been from the clearly insane person riding the bus (there's always one).

Anyhow, some months ago, I recalled that the METRO, not exactly the pinnacle of journalism, concluded that this movie "Just Sucks." What more can be added to such an astute observation?

The Barbarian Invasions (2003)

What the...?

[2/10 · 22 December 2004]

This movie bears all the hallmarks of a manipulative melodrama; death, oppressive institutions, broken family, and drug abuse. Someone remind me if I missed anything. In any event, this particular melodrama fails to generate empathy for any of its characters, which is its death knell right there. The characters are bland and unreal. The dialogue is horrible. The plot is nonexistent. Lush cinematography and cleverly placed advertisements might deceive someone into believing that this is a sophisticated movie. Don't be fooled; its no more sophisticated than your average gore flick. The only difference exists in the target demographic. Simply put, this film sucks. I couldn't make it past the first half hour.

Capturing the Friedmans (2003)

The outline of Hysteria

[8/10 · 14 June 2003]

Outstanding documentary, which demonstrates how quickly life can fall apart for anyone. The center of attention, of course, is Arnold Friedman, a pedophile whose personal issues create a firestorm that destroys his own life, but more tragically, the lives of his children. There are so many facets to this documentary that it amazes me that they could all be captured in the film's running time. Several important issues are highlighted; front and center is the hysteria surrounding pedophilia that emerged in the late eighties. Amidst the background of the McMartin and "Little Rascals" trials and the culture of quack psychology (repressed memories, hypnotic suggestion) emerged the case of Arnold Friedman.

The most interesting aspect of this case was that Friedman was a pedophile - there is no doubt about that. The question is whether he was guilty of the crimes charged, more than 300 charges of child abuse. Furthermore, could his son and assistant, Jesse, also be guilty? The filmmaker does not force out any answers to that question, but the testimonies of his accusers and the incompetent buffoonery of the police involved in the case lead one to conclude that the answer is a resounding "No."

The crimes are only part of the story. The true story lies in the destruction of the Friedman family. Arnold, the eccentric intellectual and apparently loving father turns out to be feeble and a pedohpile, a man crippled by guilt. Elaine, the "loving wife and mother" who is frozen out by her family turns out to be a weaker human being than her husband, bowing under pressure to administer horrifying "advice" to her youngest son. The brothers, lead by the eldest, fight a losing battle to save their family. One of the most tragic and moving pictures I have seen in ages.

Election (1999)

Amazing...

[9/10 · 23 May 2003]

Election is successful on several levels. It is very funny in a dark, subversive way and, on another level, it is tragic. However, the hidden value in Election is that it achieves what no movie has ever done before. Election is simply the single most accurate portrayal of the horrible experience known as high school - and the type of people that populate it - ever to appear in a movie. Amazing.

Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)

Awful!

[1/10 · 14 August 2002]

When the original Austin Powers came out, I was pleasantly surprised. The movie was amusing, the parodies were well executed and the comedy was spontaneous. Most importantly, the movie had a sense of flow. Watching the second Austin Powers was more of a chore, with lots of uncomfortable lags and plenty of holes (Heather Graham was terrible in that movie).

When the previews came out for the third installment, I was reluctant. After all, I had remembered how bad the second movie was, and the casting of Beyonce Knowles sent up all sorts of alarms off in my head. However, I was swayed by the positive reviews from the mainstream critics. I put aside my prejudice, paid my $7.00 and saw the movie. Boy, I wish I could have that $7.00 back.

This movie was so slow and beyond unfunny, I was in a state of disbelief for about two hours after it ended. I couldn't believe that someone could allow such a rancid product to hit the movie theaters. People can defend this movie left and right, but the fact is, no one in the theater was laughing. I can't imagine anyone who isn't ridiculously biased could have possibly enjoyed this movie. I suppose it is all about money. I wonder how many critics the studio bought with all those product placements.

My grade: 2/10