Jenova_Project Reviews

It's Dark Here (2013)

Potential To Be Really Effecting But Comes Off as TV-Movie-ish

[4/10 · 1 October 2016]

I saw this a while back, and I thought the subject matter was really interesting: our closest family members can be struck in the middle of the night with a mental illness and can be lost to us so fast. The movie had the potential to be so moving, but I thought the filmmakers did a really bad job at depicting the Tennies' story.

First of all, the performances did the movie no favors. William Mapother and Illeana Douglas do so little to make the Tennies look like likable, concerned parents. Most of their interactions with other characters are incredibly hostile and stilted. Even Bubba Lewis, who I normally like, can't convincing play a schizophrenic character without making it cheesy and funny. Sorry, there needs to be more nuance in depicting someone who has visual hallucinations-- not someone who is completely off the wall.

Maybe I'm too harsh-- the script didn't help the actors. I can go on and on about all the moments I hated: When Mom Tennies had that huge cry towards the end that was way over the top, when Jason had that hallucination of the TV, lines like "I feel compelled to mention that he has a black belt." Aye-yi-yi. Those type of moments you would expect out of an lifetime movie. Furthermore, I get and understood that Jason Tennies was a kind, interesting young man who was taken away too soon, but it doesn't help anyone to constantly weave in flashbacks that don't really have any connection to the present story. It just makes the movie feel disjointed.

Honestly, if this wasn't a true story, I'd probably give the movie a 2. Since it was, I am empathetic to the Tennies' loss and the need for them to tell his story. However, I felt the filmmakers should have done a better job for them in depicting him as a heroic, sympathetic figure-- not some over-dramatized mental illness indie drama.

Shanghai Calling (2012)

A nice sweet movie that is unremarkable

[7/10 · 1 October 2016]

I like this movie. I don't love it, I don't hate, I don't regret watching it, but I don't really remember it until I watch it the next time. That's the best I can tell you, and I think that's unfortunate because with the stars in the movie, the location, the cinematography, and the score, it should have been so much more. But it's slightly above average and that's frustrating.

First off, the story is the movie's biggest fault. There's just so little stakes-- nobody is living or dying. It's just very inconvenient for all those involved. It draaaagggs the movie down so much because every time we are taken away from a character moment or a comedic scene to focus on the plot, the movie gets boring. Secondly, the movie foremost wants to be a travelogue that will get you to movie to Shanghai. Since it doesn't accomplish the first thing very well, it doesn't accomplish the second thing very well either. If they had just tried to tell a compelling story instead of forcefully hinting at the charm of Shanghai, maybe it would have been more effective.

So, why did I like it then? Everything else is pretty stellar. The comedy writing is great. There's a lot of lines ("DOES ANYBODY HERE UNDERSTAND THIS GUY?") that are funny and a lot of character interactions ("Pretty Chinese girl!") that land very well. Like I said, the cinematography is nice. Shanghai is beautiful and the landscape photography really makes it pop. THE ACTORS. Daniel Henney is so charming and likable even when he is doing bad, unethical things. Eliza and Zhu Zhu are great as the "love interests" and bring a lot out of the secondary characters. Bill Paxton is a step down from his best films, but he has some general charm too.

Whenever we're given a moment to sit with the characters, the movie lands. It's just a shame that the story is so subpar. I heard through the grapevine that the movie was at one time considered as TV show, and I think that would have been a way better option since having a compelling narrative would not be as important. Instead, it kinda just serves as a nice DVD that sits on my shelf for whenever some friends come over, and we don't wanna go out.

Act Naturally (2011)

Nice, pleasant film, nothing more nothing less

[5/10 · 28 August 2012]

With all the films in Hollywood that glorify nudity as sexual, it's nice to watch a film that has more in common with the innocent Doris Wishman movies of the 60s than modern day porn flicks. I just wish that the film itself was as interesting as its premise.

The story itself is quite low-key, and even boring at times given that stakes are quite low: Leah and Charlie want to sell the nudist resort, but the nudists want to keep it, so they try to convince them otherwise. They live fairly comfortable lives before they arrive, and the character arcs in which they go are quite contrived.

The characters are all quite diverse, and the actors are all convincing in their parts. Yet, this doesn't yield as much drama as one would think. Leah and Charlie are both quite different characters, yet the actresses don't seem to have much chemistry together, and despite their different philosophies on life, don't particularly have interesting scenes together.

In terms of technical specs, the cinematography and sound are satisfactory. It's an indie pic, so the low budget look of the film falls more in line with a hipster music video, which certainly aids the film's flat, laid-back feel. It's just a shame a location that is not typically seen much in film is not filmed to be more interesting.

Above all, I think what really weighs the film down it that it's not particularly funny even though it's a comedy. The lines are not zingers (even with a gay character!), and it's hard to really laugh at the same joke over and over again. They're naked! The girls are uncomfortable! But, in the end, it's hard to be completely mad at the film. It's tone is quite pleasant, and the performances are pretty good. Just don't expect anything really earth shattering, given the subject matter.

Ted (2012)

Everything Comedy This Summer Will Be 21 Jump Street's Little Brother

[7/10 · 20 June 2012]

Saw the movie last night at the Arclight in Hollywood. If you enjoy Family Guy, you'll more than likely enjoy the movie. If not, you definitely won't.

From top to bottom, the humor and structure is similar to what you would expect from MacFarlane: lots of cultural references (that figure into the plot), plenty of crude toilet/violent humor (much tamer than Family Guy, though), cutaway gags, and a lot of heart. Even the music has that weird happy-go-lucky Family Guy twist to it.

The characters are performances are what largely keep this movie grounded. Wahlberg does an OK job, but MacFarlane's voice acting and Kunis' performance anchor the film and make you care for the happy ending for these characters.

Surprisingly, the movie has a lot of emotional moments. The problem is that unlike Family Guy's sharp wit, the humor is not nearly as sophisticated or fast, and a lot of zingers fall flat. Overall, it's a good, not great comedy with great dramatic elements, but given the strength of '21 Jump Street,' the writing and pacing of the jokes could have been a lot better.

Hancock (2008)

A Good Superhero and A Very Bad Superhero

[4/10 · 27 June 2008]

I just saw an early screening of Hancock last night, so it's safe to assume the version I saw will be the closest to what will actually be on film. "Hancock" promotes itself to be a different type of superhero film, but by the end of the film, and especially by the last 30 minutes, it degrades into nothing more than a typical summer blockbuster cliché. The script does so many contrived turns that it becomes a little hard to believe, even for a summer superhero film. Here's the lowdown of what I think: The Good: - Will Smith is always golden as an actor. It really does become impossible to hate Hancock because Smith injects him with a certain level of charm; additionally, Charlize Theron at least adds a little bit of marginal tension; she's pretty easy on the eyes in all her movies, and this is no exception - The beginning action scene and another one in the middle of the film; since the film really doesn't have that great of a CGI job, the action scene really have to play up for humor; most of them are flat, but the beginning one where he chases a car on the freeway, and another one in the middle where he is engaged in a tug-of-war with another character (I won't say who) is pretty funny and engaging -AWESOME score. At times, the melodramatic nature of the film is saved by the fact that the score is really epic and sweeping; it's pretty easy to get lost in the film -A really funny scene in the film where a national pundit chews Hancock out; I'll let you see it to get the full laugh -A cool twist that happens 45 minutes into the movie that actually adds about 20 minutes of intrigue The Bad: - A load of contrivances that are really convenient. Like the Superman films, Hancock needs to make a lot of hard-to-believe turns. Hancock really does not pull it off well enough. - Bad CGI. Despite the $150 million price tag, the version I saw had a lot of unfinished or really bad-looking CGI - The cool twist. As good as it is, it takes a load of time to get to it, and whatever happens before it just feels like its treading a lot of water - A horrible third act. Don't be fooled by the trailers. It's a summer film; not a P.T. Anderson film. Of course it's going to end with a nice little bow on top. - Although Justin Bateman was a pretty fun character in Peter Berg's previous film "The Kingdom," he's pretty much dead weigh here. Don't get me wrong. I love him, but he feels necessitated by the plot and his character is really one-dimensional next to everyone else. - Dumber than dumb villains. Instead of giving Hancock a strong antagonist, they rely on a couple of prison hoodlums and common crooks to fight Hancock. Without a really good central villain, there is never much worry that Hancock will be challenged against these guys. - Cheesier than Cheddar ending. The ending is so vomitingly saccharine (with horrible CGI) that I really have to call the filmmakers out on this. So, by the end of the film, I just thought "Hancock" was superficially entertaining with only a few moments of truly redeemable good times. Like most of Will Smith's films, it's a great idea. It just wasn't executed very well.

Wellness (2008)

Beautiful Story of An Ugly Movie

[7/10 · 26 June 2008]

As a film school student, I am constantly reminded of how important technical and production values are. Film stocks, lighting, and sound are always emphasized in favor of truly great storytelling. While I always feel that a great story was the most important thing, "Wellness" is prime example of how in fact my film school motto has a glint of truth.

"Wellness" follows Thomas Lindsey, played brilliantly by Jeff Clark, who is selling a miracle product known as Wellness. Unbeknowst to Thomas, Wellness is actually a pyramid scheme, and the entire movie chronicles his trouble selling the drug to people.

The story is intriguing. From the very onset, something appears very wrong about the situation, and every customer Thomas goes to only serves to add more tension to see how damaged Thomas will truly get by the experience.

Jeff Clark is wonderfully funny as an incompetent salesman. The best bits are usually when he babbles about the benefits of Wellness. Clark turns Thomas into a likable character, and the film, despite being frustrating at times, never becomes to overreaching because of how much we root for Thomas.

However, what nearly caves the movie in is its glaring technical issues. Numerous scenes are coupled together from different takes, which Mahaffy admits were taken from hours apart. Every time an editing mistake occurs, it immediately breaks the flow and calls attention to itself.

Additionally, lighting and cinematography choices are extremely frustrating. At times, the camera is far too close in someone's face and shakes more than a Jason Bourne movie on acid. The common indie audience might say that it adds style as the movie has a documentary feel to it, but it comes off as rather unprepared. During one scene in the film, Thomas and his boss are pitching to a couple in an apartment, and the lighting is so dark that any of the reactions of the actors are obscured.

"Wellness" is a great example of how interesting storytelling really buoys a common indie film. I guarantee you won't dislike Wellness after you leave the theater. You just might feel a little sick, however.

America's Got Talent (2006– )

Guilty pleasure; pure mindless entertainment that makes no bones about it

[6/10 · 29 July 2006]

The past couple years have seen a lot of competition show a la "American Idol" and America's Got Talent attempts to replicate the magic of the show, and in a way only seems to draw because of pure curiosity as opposed to actual talent. Unlike "American Idol", "Talent" has more of that antagonistic, demeaning feel to it, which is odd considering the brutality of Simon Cowell on his main show. "Talent" seems to want to showcase acts less for the merit and more for the sheer novelty.

That said, it does have it's magical moments like "Idol" does. Moments such as where 11-year-old Bianca Ryan sang like a black woman and when the Quick Change Artists completely screwed with our minds on how they changed so quickly really bring a lot of color to a show that is otherwise sinister to concept. The format of the show is also not nearly as polished as some other shows as the quick and vast eliminations (10 at a time, I believe) reduce the credibility of the show and makes it hard to really be attached. And frankly, the admission of some acts (Dave the Horn Guy? Kenny Shelton?) over more worthy competitors and the frequent Pier Morgan channeling Simon Cowell just reduce a show that lacks a lot of charm anyway.

So, in the end, I'm mixed about America's Got Talent. Watch it for just a little laugh of a show to indulgent and silly for its own good. But if you are expecting something more legit, there's always Amazing Race.

Naked Jungle (2000 TV Special)

Funny little show

[8/10 · 29 July 2006]

A lot of people whom view this show particularly judge it as a piece of pure unadulterated trash, unfairly in my opinion. British game show networks are known for being original, and I thought the idea of nudists performing tasks based upon a popular children's game show at the time was a decent concept. I can say I myself do support nudism (not as much as I practice it, however), and the show never particularly tries to be exploitative.

It's just a fun one-off show that has a good time with itself. The games themselves are benign yet the contestants and Chegwin himself make it enjoyable. Contestants rarely ever perform tasks that relate to nudism (finding fig leaves, but that's pretty much it). Dismiss it as terrible television, but American television has really deemed nudism in a negative light (Surreal Life anyone?) and it is refreshing to watch a show that makes it normal and fun to watch.

Just don't watch it with the kids, ya hear?

Chappelle's Show (2003–2006)

A refreshing and intense comedic show

[11 March 2005]

I will readily admit that I have not seen a comedic show that is as original or hilarious in recent years as Dave Chappele's Show. It is an extremely politically incorrect show that pokes fun at stereotypes and contemporary aspects. For a casual viewer, Chappelle's Show is too racist, but for anyone else, Chappelle's Show is a smooth program to jump into.

That said, I would have to say that it is a bit put-off a bit too often. The "racist"(as a lot of false pretentious people say) jokes are a bit too cogent sometimes and Chappelle's jokes really push themselves to be too cynical towards whites.

Don't be fooled by the last paragraph, though. Jokes like those do make up a bulk of the show but aren't nearly heavy enough to drag down this show.