Change Your Image
amahlanand
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Lucky One (2012)
A Rare 'Sparkle'
'The Lucky One' struck a chord with me proving that being romantically depressing or tragic isn't the only way to create strong and convincing emotion. Neither is it the norm to have strong or boisterous personalities for the same purpose. Sometimes a sense of subtleness and calm is just about sufficient to be touching. Devoid of this unwarranted melodrama but not compromising on a tone which comes across as beyond some of Nicholas Sparks' other works in maturity, the film is pleasant, easy and gentle sans the intense convolution that naturally appends itself to so many romantic dramas.
However, this is far from an eventful film. It's easy to get bored quickly if you expect widespread politics, drama and love triangles which consume the story and are overbearing in their prominence and occasional ridiculousness. Sparks' stories cannot be upbeat but the hardship and even mild anguish that has to be present is not overwhelming. It simmers constantly without building too much or even culminating instead being overshadowed by the characterisation in the film such as Zac Efron's likability and Blythe Danner's charm. This isn't an intense love story as much as a quiet pleasant story about people having to cope with some element of difficulty in their lives.
I would idealise a returning marine the way that Efron portrayed his character Logan. Reserved and introverted, silently traumatised but noble-hearted, Efron's performance in my mind has elevated him to a higher plane of maturity, shedding the teen image he has been typecast into. He didn't go over the top nor was he underwhelming. And though at junctures he might seem so blank and bland, it all falls within the path forged for the character. He creates a very disconnected, emotionless character but one with an air of calm and kindness that you can't help but be drawn to him, sympathise with him and even admire him. But he communicates a quiet strength in his personality and his performance. Efron has done all he can to dispel the notion that he is still that 'High School Musical' teen heartthrob with the Justin Bieber inspired hairdo. And based on this, I would say his efforts have come to fruition.
I also admired the way Taylor Schilling portrayed her character as well. An ideal balance of strength and weakness but with a noticeable void in her life. You would expect the melodrama to originate with her being so emotionally susceptible but her character is much more down to earth and level headed. The quiet resolve was an analogous trait between the two leads enhancing their on screen compatibility.
It is notable that there are no excessively heroic or tearjerking moments from either Zac Efron or Taylor Schilling that demands 'oohs', 'ahhs' and 'awwws' from starstruck, gaping young teenage girls. I'm not claiming that the film won't prompt these reactions but it does not explicitly encourage them. To me, that alone makes it more appealing to even a more grown up audience. No doubt a Nicholas Sparks penned film adaptation formula has seen plenty of repetitions but this distinguishes itself quite nicely.
Gone (2012)
An incompetent thriller with wasted potential
I sensed a real aura of incompetence about this film. An incompetent investigation which involved connecting dots that didn't seem remotely close to each other. Incompetent policemen who couldn't unearth a petty criminal or apprehend a runaway, ordinary girl (who, mind you, wasn't running very far). An incompetent cliffhanger and criminal. I think you get the message, 'Gone' was fraught with incompetent scripting and plot writing.
The film really failed to grip me in the progression of the investigation. To begin with, it moves very gradually and that can work when you have twists and turns galore but 'Gone' follows a more undeviating path. Yet, it has a propensity for randomness and hastily thought out connections. Plot-holes cast a shadow over the film from early on and it can be nigh impossible to redeem it from that point.
The atmosphere and tone for the film was set very fittingly however. Hazy, depressing and enigmatic, the cinematography was undoubtedly convincing of the desired tone for the film.
Amanda Seyfried was extremely reminiscent of Jodie Foster in 'Flightplan'. The paranoia, franticness and extremity was certainly there albeit she lacked the same mature intensity of Foster. That quality however will nurture itself with experience. Her performance, although by no means glorious, was one of the only praiseworthy elements. Yet, I felt the film did not explore that potential enough. There was so many more possibilities for curious subplots with the character alone, the opportunities for which were disappointingly ignored by director Heitor Dhalia.
I would also have liked to have seen more resistance to the elusive truth, not just in circumstance but also with characters. The auxiliary cast barely influenced the story at all and Seyfried's character Jill wasn't interesting enough to carry the whole weight on her shoulders.
Overall, there were lots of things underused in the film whether talent or ideas. The premise drew me to it but execution wise, it was quite ordinarily done.
A Thousand Words (2012)
Dull x 1000
I think director Brian Robbins needs to be reminded that Eddie Murphy is not Rowan Atkinson, his signature comedy comes from his relentless, excessive verbal diarrhoea rather than goofy, expressionless body language. And he has never been one to allow circumstances to create his brand of comedy. What this leads me to conclude is that the film may not have been a horrendous idea but was the victim of some quite unfortunate miscasting.
However, we still need to face the truth that the whole thing aspired a little too high to the point that it just wasn't particularly funny at all. The supporting cast did little to help this cause, the foremost amongst them being Clark Duke, whose character let alone the personification of this character was punching a bit too far above his weight to little avail. I think he sang to the tune of the film well enough.
The story proceeds in a way in which Murphy's character, Jack McCall's predicament doesn't solicit believable reactions from those who interact with him nor cause plausible events to occur. It felt like the screenplay was just being unravelled word for word without leaving Murphy any space for his spontaneity, the attribute that makes his roles so fun to watch. And even if he had 1000 words to speak, the quota wasn't quite used optimally. There was nothing he uttered that was particularly memorable or even humorous. How many times can you say that you've seen a movie involving Eddie Murphy where he has not been able to say one thing that you would consider funny? I'll put my two cents in and say never.
'A Thousand Words' may have been attempting to convey a more profound message but it was not only clichéd, stock and overused but thrown into a film which was just poorly positioned. It was too difficult to take anything seriously. It wasn't necessarily a comedy and neither befitted a drama yet incorporated too little of either to be an amalgamation of the two. I maybe getting a bit pedantic and should simplify, it lacked an acceptable amount of entertainment, whether crude, refined or even child-like. If I had to sum it up in one word, it would probably be the fittingly ambiguous 'blah'.
Ultimately, this is another addition to the collection of dull, meaningless modern day Eddie Murphy films albeit without some of the cringe of some earlier post- 2000 work. The wait continues for Murphy to emerge from being a shadow of his former self to resurging in a throwback to his glory days.
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011)
This is Everyday India
It is only clear how distinctively English one can be through mannerisms and actions when they are put in Rome and do nothing of what the Romans do. This serves as the icebreaker within the film for something which demands a little serious consideration. Having lived in India myself, I can deem this a film which instructs us precisely the same as what experiences in India do. Embracing old clichés rather than avoiding them like the plague, particularly the one which says to value what you have regardless of how much and what it is. And what a wonderfully warm, pleasant and incidentally humorous way the film chooses to do this in.
I entered with great curiosity having been in a similar sort of situation myself once upon a time. Moving away from the West to a vastly different world that is India is a rude shock to say the least. Being overwhelmed by the rapid progression of life, the strange, the aweworthy and the humanity isn't uncommon. That side of India, the way a local sees it daily, is something worth sharing with the world. No work of Western cinema I have seen has truly succeeded in that endeavour although this has come the undisputed closest. Unlike 'Slumdog Millionaire' which dealt with harsh realities and unfortunate extremes, this iteration of India in Western cinema is more of an amiable recounting of how colourful everyday cultural life in India can be. It certainly differs from the overused 'starkly unique' tag which is often employed when depicting life in India.
Much of the film seems to float away with many of the characters' experience of roaming the streets and assimilating the richness and distinctness from their status quo. Meander it may but it makes you genuinely feel in their shoes, experiencing the delights that our five senses can bring to us. And it is not only the way that the actors absorbed themselves into their roles in this environment but the way in which they blended together as a functional, reputable English cast albeit with colourfully diverse characters, that made the Holy Grail of acting, the ability to allow someone to see the world through your eyes, achievable.
The film certainly takes a dig at some sects of the unfortunately unworldly elderly who have not moved on with the ages. Maggie Smith, for instance, can be terribly funny with some of her racist quips and unwillingness to leave England behind in any sense, not due to a sense of patriotism but moreso a sense of comfort. So too is Ronald Pickup, whose surname gives an idea of his goals despite his hapless lack of success. Yet changing perspectives is very much a flavour of the film. How isn't what I will divulge but know that director John Madden hasn't aimed to be tearjerkingly moving as much as subtly touching, an effect which can certainly be more impactful.
When all is said and done, how we can judge the film is by questioning whether the characters that we can find it so easy to attach to find what they are looking for in their lives. This may not involve a clichéd happy ending but answers to their conundrums. And in some way, shape or form, in a strange, aweworthy or humanely way, India gives them this fulfilment. I may have had the benefit of relating to this through déjà vu, but I can guarantee that this is refreshing, light but simplistic. Moreover, it can be a little instructive but also pleasurably and amusingly illuminating about a whole different side of life.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Nolan's Immortalisation of Batman
If there was an award for the most anticipated film of all time, 'The Dark Knight Rises' would be a clear victor. And what would validate that accolade is the fact that it is another Nolan brainchild which lives up to the hype even if it has to walk in the illustrious footsteps of its now legendary predecessor. The only 'fault', If you can call it that, of 'Rises' was the absence of a performance of the magnitude of Heath Ledger's 'Joker'. That helped 'The Dark Knight' transcend itself. But topping that would be wishful. It begins gradually, curiously taking its time (barring another exhilarating opening though) before substantiating more and more leading towards what is a spectacular finale, a finale which does what no other Batman film has ever done, immortalises the Dark Knight.
Once more, Jonathan Nolan shows an intricate prowess towards his story writing, one which expands the spectrum beyond Batman to a multitude of thematic focuses and people. He utilises Batman oddly sparingly but to the point where every minute of his screen time was compelling. The key difference between 'The Dark Knight' and 'Rises' was the focus, the former being more character oriented, the latter more plot driven. Nolan finds ways to surprise, thrill and keep you on the edge of your seat with the elements of his narrative. Moreover, he writes keeping in mind that this is to be the end of a saga. Make no mistake, this is a mammoth production.
Nolan's conceptualisation of the Batman world is an evolution beyond any superhero realm to graduate to the big screen. His methods and vision for the presentation of this film eclipse contemporary action cinema and the production design, stunts and camera work truly leave you incredulous. Most importantly, he makes Batman's neo-apocalyptic world so realistic.
Tom Hardy described his character aptly with the word 'brutal'. Bane is an intimidating opponent who serves to challenge Batman physically rather than torturing him with his derangement like the Joker. Albeit more analogous to his comic book self, Bane's calculated, scheming approach to creating anarchy did not have the exciting unpredictability and mania of the Joker which constantly leaves you guessing. Whilst the Joker held a city to ransom with manipulation, threat and deceit, Bane declares his own martial law in the most aggressive and direct of manners. Ultimately however, both are distinct characters and our preference of characters should not distract from how well they are enacted. All the same, Hardy creates a magnificent physical presence; menacing, bone-chilling and seemingly unstoppable and all that minus facial expression owing to his mask. This speaks volumes about his ability.
Anne Hathaway's lean, athletic figure created for great aesthetic pleasure and she captured the essence of the femme fatale almost as well as her predecessor. Sly and enigmatic, Selina Kyle is not exactly the feline that people would be expecting but nonetheless, she certainly has claws and a domineering attitude to match.
The chameleon Christian Bale returns to Bruce Wayne presenting him initially as sickly, almost pitiful making his maverick-like motives behind re-adopting the Batman suit after 8 long years in solitude slightly unclear. Nevertheless, like most things in the Nolan world, it all leads towards the film's principal theme, the difference between Bruce convincing himself of his immunity towards what he believes to be the disease that is thanatophobia and acceptance of the fact that he is but a human being with a final purpose and a life beyond. This quest to avert death is something that according to Batman lore is supposed to haunt both Bruce Wayne and Batman eternally and his final acceptance, in this film, of both his vulnerability and the fact that he has given Gotham 'everything', as per the words of Selina Kyle, is what makes this such a fitting conclusion, not just to Nolan's series but to the Batman legend itself.
Christopher Nolan has truly brought the Batman legend full circle and to a worthy conclusion. He stays true to plausibility and pragmatism as in the rest of the series. There is no mention of Lazarus pits, Bane's traditional chemical lifeline, 'Venom', or anything else remotely supernatural. And that, in short, is why he is revered so. 'Rises' is visually incredible and continues to push the limits of Batman, the things that define him, what he is capable of and what he can inspire. It is this reason why Nolan's revival of the Batman epic will be etched in film history as undoubtedly one of the great sagas of all time.
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
Spider Man for Teens
While Tobey Maguire was your 'friendly, neighbourhood Spider-Man', Andrew Garfield is more like your 'hip, juvenile, generation Y' Spider-Man. The kind of superhero unafraid of calling on his mobile phone in a busy New York street corner and the kind of superhero who lies on a self-made web playing video games whilst waiting for his foes to appear. Despite this slightly novel approach, 'The Amazing Spider Man' is just a rehash of Sam Raimi's original 'Spider Man', much of the plot is either similar, identical or along the same lines with a tweak here and there making more than half the film somewhat of an unnecessary recap of sorts.
It was certainly pleasing to have a script addressing the reasoning behind a burning question, why does Peter Parker live with his aunt and uncle? But even this combined with Peter Parker/Spider Man's other traumas in the film don't give us a good enough definition of Spider-Man as a symbol, the motivation behind Peter Parker's graduation from angry vengeance to selfless nobility.
One noteworthy change was the magnificent camera work which puts you up close and personal with Spider-Man through the first-person shots and dynamic angles employed. At times, it felt like a virtual rollarcoaster ride but it was definitely the closest most people will get to knowing what it's like to be the famous web-slinger.
Garfield knew his deal portraying Peter Parker as more of a typical 21st century confused, directionless adolescent but one who seems to be more noticed than what you would expect. He may not have been the less appealing, geeky Peter Parker as earlier personified by Tobey Maguire but where Maguire trumps Garfield was in turning a genuine nobody into somebody whilst maintaining that anonymity.
Garfield's Parker was already garnering the affections of a pretty girl and was operating far from what you would call incognito, a guy quite willing to divulge his secret to a perfect stranger. The contrast between the person and his alter ego defines a superhero and Garfield couldn't really highlight that contrast as effectively. You could connect with him, but unlike his 'The Social Network' performance, he lacked even a slight bit of maturity. The script further failed to deal with social implications transforming him into a public icon. Ultimately, a superhero is naught without public opinion and interest.
Emma Stone fortunately wasn't the constant damsel in distress like Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane but Gwen Stacy's relationship with Peter Parker furthered the sentiment that the film seemed to become too teen conducive. Not that the teen appeal is a completely bad thing, but the lack of maturity in the characters can occasionally be weak in conviction.
I must express my disappointment in the villainous Lizard however as a character which could not invoke as much terror on screen as its terrific design could to viewers. Rhys Ifans was curiously very similar in his character progression as Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin in Raimi's 'Spider Man'. Although Curt Connors was well played, he made you feel as if you'd seen it all before.
Although I still enjoyed it, I think the enjoyment stemmed more from my unwavering appreciation of the comic book character. Nonetheless, with this relatively immature yet respectably enjoyable origin story done and dusted, I anticipate a more complete sequel which can surpass this. More originality may well be a dominant reason.
The Prestige (2006)
Dazzles in its Enigmatic Mystique
Picture this: you're at a magic show and see an impossible but brilliant magic trick. A mix of awe and bewilderment consumes you as you lust after the answer you will not likely get. But here is an unrelenting quest for that answer, a determination to find out how for a cause which is dark, twisted and mystifying. Such is the way 'The Prestige' engrosses you.
A period drama depiction of a unique post-renaissance art, 'The Prestige' shows the lengths to keep, attain and steal secrets, a story about power, pride and mind games with the viewers, the on-camera audience and the characters. We see what was the foundation of modern day magic but the darker, more cutthroat side of it which is both morally and ethically questionable.
The film is based around a piece de resistance and the way in which the illusionary employed translates to treachery. The vicious circle of deceit and obsession for power and respect is mind- boggingly riveting. Christopher Nolan leads you on a path where everybody looks antagonistic and spiteful, he gradually changes your perceptions of people in ways which can be sudden and in others where you watch the morphing process as it unfolds, much like a stage tragedy sans the melodrama.
The title works in such a contrasting manner to the film, the two protagonists aim for prestige but in doing so, seek to destroy one another's. The great shroud of mystique involved in this process is complicated and takes time to grip your mind from believing 'The Prestige' to be just another period drama. It was not a film that captures your imagination from square one even if it may with time. It ambles along in a manner befitting a magician revelling in his trickery but the pace can be frustrating, if only for the sin of curiosity.
Christian Bale presents Alfred Borden as this arrogant, cocky lad but beneath that presumptuousness and pride lies a crafty and wily conniver but comfortably the more intelligent of the two illusionists. Bale shows this so subtly yet with panache through the character's actions which are brief but have wide ramifications. He also brings a sense of irony to the character, one in which he apparently disguises truth from himself making for a strangely compelling personality.
This wild ambition meets Robert Angier's emotion, which drives him to sink to Borden's depths despite being a more astute character. Hugh Jackman's performance is an emotional roller-coaster, the character that Nolan uses to toy with our minds in this wonderfully curious manner, whose descent is portrayed with fervour. The female lead, Scarlett Johansson, is superbly enigmatic. She is the advertisement of the film representing the mystery and unpredictability embodying the story.
The quintessential illusion is described at the beginning and the film plays out like these three acts building to 'the prestige', the big divulgence. Simple but sensational was how it struck me, but each to their own experiences, it depends what questions you desire to be answered. Nonetheless, whether it robs you of your dream reveal or gives it to you, you cannot deny the ingenuity surrounding the mystery ride you've been put on.
I Love You, Man (2009)
'Bromantic' Hilarity
A feel- good, buoyant 'bromance', 'I Love You, Man' typifies the elements that can make a regular, orthodox comedy successful. First and foremost, it does make you laugh owing to great characters and it does add a slightly new spin on things. Sometimes, it does feel like the box office is flooded with comedies not too different to this, but it's the minority that realise characters are the key to giving the audience gratification. 'I Love You, Man' certainly belongs to that minority.
All the same, it follows a simple path which is far from frenetic and completely impromptu a la 'The Hangover' for instance. It's centered around a relatively boring guy and his very contrasting friend and these opposites attract with results that are amusing, good fun and fresh. These two men drive each other toward some juvenile behaviour, Jason Segel being the perpetrator, an adolescent in a grown man's body in many ways. But the humour itself isn't overly immature, neither is it excessively crude or imbecilic but 'bromantically' innocent. There was more focus on this facet than on the romantic aspect of the film, which took a back seat making this far more male friendly.
The free-spirited Sydney Fife as played by Jason Segel, certainly fascinates you. His name makes him sound awful important, but he never seems to work and is perpetually biding his time in his 'man cave' with quite expensive ornaments adorning the walls. At first glance, he occurs to be a jobless grunge but he's fun, pleasure seeking and supposedly, a smart investor, after all, it isn't possible to facilitate such living without some brains. Segel's characters may read like total numbskulls, but he acts them out in a friendly and affable manner.
The protagonist, Peter Klaven, is another of those socially awkward characters that Paul Rudd plays in a manner in which he looks like quite the loser but is associative in a strange kind of way, associative to the point that he becomes humorous.
Another refreshing change was seeing an impactful and useful supporting cast who left no stone unturned and infused their own sense of comedy through their characters making this more than just a show run by Rudd and Segel. Jon Favreau and J.K. Simmons in particular used stronger personalities to juxtapose with Rudd's reluctant character to great effect.
The movie shows that congregating with a bunch of dudes doesn't mean pulling out 'man classics' like 'Die Hard' or 'Happy Gilmore' for the 77th time. 'I Love You, Man' could be a worthy addition to that exclusive list.
Papillon (1973)
The Glamorous Tale of Papillon
Numerous failed breakouts and re-captures, extended sufferings in prison and solitary, an eventual breakout that seems too spontaneous to work and a wild adventure involving scuffles with natives and the monstrous sea. No wonder why people question the authenticity of Henri Charriere's written account, it's an odyssey, but one that appears too glamorous to be believable and the film was no different.
It was the story of a man rather than a group of men and his persistent escape attempts from prison but it ended up very lonesome because of this dearth of focus on the others. The relationship between some of the key characters was more an association rather than true camaraderie, lacking the depth and connection for genuine friendship. The film fails to connect you with these characters on a more emotional level which was important. On the outside, we see Steve McQueen, the gruff, seasoned American hero and Dustin Hoffman, the archetypal, sedate fraudster but little else about the characters of these men apart from what their actions have made them to be. At times, rather than a narrative of the two men, it came across as more analytic although in an unrevealing manner. Charriere, as personified by McQueen, has the endurance but lacks the indomitable human spirit which comes from more than just an ability to withstand uninhabitable conditions, mental torture and a few blotched escape attempts.
This biopic felt like a recounting of Charriere's diary in many ways, such was how close we were brought to the character. But in this, we were made to re-live extended periods which were trivial, such as much of his uneventful, pitiable 2 year solitary period which became monotonous at times but intended to give viewers a more intense experience of his sufferings. Papillon's eventual escape and adventure fails to hold great surprises and twists, it becomes smooth sailing with a few hiccups along the way and that made the film seem extended unnecessarily. I would have liked it to be more bold, more thrilling and more unpredictable to the point where you could look at Papillon at the conclusion of the film and marvel at his experiences to that point. Not the case.
There is plenty happening in 'Papillon' however, it isn't drab. But unlike one of its descendants, the lauded 'Shawshank Redemption', it lacks the connection with the audience to make them curious about the characters. Fact or fiction, Charriere's story has it's moments though.
American Beauty (1999)
The Results of Profound Linearity
'American Beauty' is weird on more levels than one, filled with peculiar people who deeply intrigue you in their strange ways. The filmmakers do the same in their premise for a film so difficult to categorise in its distinctness. The film is an odd, upbeat satire on conventional suburban life, an allegory for breaking away from the 'trap' of normality. However, the intense analytic view the film begs and the ironic tone that encompasses it should not conceal a lack of something genuinely compelling for the average viewer, there's nothing and nobody to admire or sympathise with and little to remember but convoluted messages. There's an abundance of wit in certain elements, but no action, drama which takes a linear route and subtle humour which owes more to situations and circumstances rather than characters.
The film portrays this thematic focus of 'moving away from the status quo' through its protagonist, the trivial and lonely Lester Burnham who begins the film with the monologue, "This is my neighbourhood, this is my street, this is my life" which couldn't be more reflective of the word 'average'. An average family life, average 9-5 lifestyle, a spiteful teenager and a garden loving spouse. Suddenly though, the normality takes a different direction with Lester's uncomfortable infatuation with and fantasies of his daughter's friend, Angela. But, is this really the glorified 'escape' from the routineness of his life? He embraces any chance to break away, juvenile pursuits, these unfeasible obsessions, anything as long as he can envisage himself in a more invigorating realm doing something 'exciting'. He then ensues to have a most untypical mid-life crisis which can be humorous in his deluded, misplaced hopes and desires. He ends up being the catalyst for everyone to break away from the norm and pursue some 'excitement' but it is all just a frivolous exercise.
The aim of the film is to show people acting upon the desire to morph themselves from ordinary to extraordinary but they become abnormal and senseless. The characters are detached from each other and after their initial novelties, become tiresome. The acting was impressive, Kevin Spacey in particular brought his 'rebel' to life extremely diligently, but Lester's life doesn't show him moving away from his unremarkable life in a calculated, sane manner and it just wasn't convincing.
The enduring image from the film is one of a plastic bag floating around, deemed by one of the characters as "the most beautiful thing I've ever seen". It means nothing but demonstrates the pretensions of the film to try and mean something truly profound. But people see things uniquely and that is why I neither recommend it nor dissuade you from seeing this. The supposed moral is that normality is a façade. Possibly true, but it won't drive you towards insanity and inanity as it does here.
Rush Hour 2 (2001)
A Worthy 'Blackinese' Comedy Return
If Chris Tucker's James Carter gallivanting in Hong Kong doesn't sound appealing to you, surely, you didn't see 'Rush Hour'. The dynamic 'Blackinese' duo return and they do so with a bite.
We now have the situation completely reversed with Carter venturing into the unknown and Lee guiding him for the majority of the film. Carter's interactions with the locals and clashes with the more calm Chinese culture compared to his audacious, egocentric personality are really the highlights yet again. As I said, a hardcore African American making his way in Hong Kong is bound to be a laugh.
Yet another stellar script and consistent directing from Brett Ratner help to ensure this sequel doesn't bomb out. A little less realistic, but then again, if you are familiar with 'Rush Hour', realism isn't the first thing on the agenda as much as action work and comedy play. The script was a little less compelling this time and seemed to be driven with a lighter direction in mind although it was interesting to learn a little more of the backgrounds of our two leads.
Chris Tucker's loudmouth antics just about match up to his brilliant show in the original, his dialogue is as fresh, smooth, fast and excessive as ever. Oh, and did I mention as funny? He dominates the screen once again, takes charge and gives you his typical impulsive on-screen persona.
Jackie Chan reaffirms his reputation as one of the world's best film stuntmen. His stunts yet again were terrifically executed and he was well supported by 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' star, Zhang Ziyi. The 'bamboo scene' was comparable in awe-worthiness to the 'convention center' finale scene in 'Rush Hour'. Again as the more sensible and sedate Inspector Lee, his partnership with Tucker is as good as ever and the interplay once again is just plain, good fun.
We also saw a shift in the love interest angle with the introduction of the seductive, sexy secret service agent, Isabella Molina played by Roselyn Sanchez. Her allegiances mysterious, she really sizzles in her role. Now that the duo finally have a beautiful woman to fight over, any guesses as to who wins?
If I don't give this 5 stars, it's simply because in some respects, it's a rehash of the original, in the same way in which you would deem Lethal Weapon 1 better than Lethal Weapon 2 or Beverly Hills Cop 1 superior to its successor. If you did however enjoy the original formula, look into this. As I said, it is the same old thing in some ways, but in others, the Tucker-Chan combination still find ways to surprise and entertain. And yet again, do not miss the bloopers.
P.S. Also don't miss Don Cheadle in surely one of the strangest roles you will see an African American man play. But a credit to him for it, he was outstanding.
Rush Hour (1998)
Welcome to 'Blackinese' Comedy
Police Story meets Lethal Weapon in Brett Ratner's directorial emergence to the big time. A fairly odd couple join forces to solve a kidnapping and what a ride of endless comedy, superior action and crazy entertainment it turns into. We've seen Black movies, Chinese films, but who would have envisaged, as Chris Tucker coins it, something 'Blackinese'? It's so poles apart from convention, but that's the essence of Buddy Cop Comedy and the reason why 'Rush Hour' is a definitive chapter in this sub-genre's history.
This pairing really worked because of the expectation that it was never destined to. Truth is though, this unconventionally bizarre couple sizzled. They fed off each other, giving one another motivation and inspiration for their respective characters and showing each other the ropes as they individually know it. The fun they had was so evident and that feeling came through the screen to the audience.
In general, this was a really well constructed action film script. It had all the ingredients for a solid Hong Kong style action driven movie including a villain which is not just an everyday gangster, 'good guys' who aren't hapless yet are not overly capable either as well as, most importantly, a screenplay with effectively choreographed action sequences but interwoven with bouts of fitting light-hearted humour.
Tucker excels tremendously as the brash and cocky Detective Carter, it was as if the role was made for him. He is gut-bustingly hilarious in his fast talking performance which will no doubt go down as legendary in the field of African - American comedy, a worthy follow up to his famous 'Smokey' in a style extremely reminiscent of one of his idols, Eddie Murphy. He in fact improvises much of his dialogue and it comes across as brilliantly spontaneous, particularly in Carter's interactions with (or otherwise known as his patronising of) Jackie Chan's Lee. He just flummoxes people with an ability to talk utter garbage (similar to the infamous Axel Foley) again and again. He talks and swaggers as if he owns this movie, and that attitude made if feel like he did.
And just how great was his chemistry with Carter's self determined non existent trophy in Elizabeth Pena? They both nailed that, and it begs the query, why do you always need a stereotypical love interest? Pena's character worked wonders in conjunction with Carter the way a regular love interest never would.
Jackie Chan finally brings his fantastic stunt work to the mass Hollywood audience and really forges a future in action comedy. You could really call him the more able sidekick. Much has been made of Chan's relatively shaky English but it is admirable to see a role which required that sort of casting. In other words, they needed the shaky English for the contrast in partners to work. And Jackie Chan makes it a point to let his words flow naturally and not try overly hard to make himself 'too Chinese'. He doesn't hesitate to give some of his own to Chris Tucker, even if he is outspoken most of the time.
Hilarious but not treated foolishly, action filled but not action dictated, if you like African - American comedy, Hong Kong cinema and a bit of prejudice, you'll lap this up. And do hang on for the in credit bloopers. There were always bound to be many stuff ups with this formula, who doesn't find those funny?
Batman Begins (2005)
Batman: Year One
Albeit not containing some of Batman's more notorious foes, 'Batman Begins' really is the most complete Batman interpretation to date. A marked improvement over Joel Schumacher's toyetic, bland take or the campy 1966 'Batman' and an elaboration of the Gothic, dark undertones of Burton's films, Christopher Nolan has created a more contemporary Batman which leaves a far more believable impression.
If not a comic buff, have you ever asked yourself, just as Alfred asks Bruce in the film, 'Why Bats?' We've finally been given that ever so desired backstory. Burton's 'Batman' in 1989 introduced a charged superhero without giving us the reason for his drive. Here, we see the events as they transpire, how Bruce Wayne abridges into the Batman persona and it helps us to better understand the motivations behind Nolan's rebooted Caped Crusader.
Jonathan Nolan deserves much praise for an extremely well penned story which incorporates elements of a corrupt, degrading society and those few trying to rebel against it. The sets are extremely reflective of this notion. The depiction of Arkham Asylum and the shanty town with the more affluent city revolving around it, separated by a small body of water illustrates the fact that the heart of Gotham's problems lies in the heart of the city, a part of the two-tier society but also not a part of it. Tackling issues such as those makes this superhero flick so relevant to today's world that even those who aren't regular superhero fans can enjoy it.
Both villains were embodied with mindsets so true to their comic book namesakes but Ra's Al Ghul doesn't have his traditional superpowers whilst the Scarecrow doesn't utilise anything but simple chemistry. Constructing that DC Comic fantasy world wasn't Nolan's intentions. Unlike Joel Schumacher for instance, his aim was to create a universe wherein Batman and his villains are all human beings set in a real, plausible world.
I really believe this portrayal strikes an excellent balance between Bruce Wayne and Batman and connects the two well. We see both a formidable, complete, physical Batman and a convincing façade as Bruce Wayne. The fact that Christian Bale wasn't a huge, well renowned actor gave him more room to make his mark. He brings out the most admirable and most believable iteration of Batman to be seen in the last couple of decades.
The film also saw the re-introduction and re-characterisation of people such as Lieutenant Gordon, Lucius Fox and Alfred who either had a subordinated role in the earlier films or were not present at all. Nolan makes it seem a travesty that they weren't explored properly previously after how well their roles are thought out and how superbly they are personified by these actors. Katie Holmes' performance however was a bit tiresome and absent of strength in her personality. Rachel Dawes' connection with Bruce Wayne was less than good. But in the end, that's just a Hollywood cliché and necessity. Batman has never really needed a love interest like Superman or Spider Man.
Some of the best Batman stories have dealt with darker, more impactful material and 'Batman Begins' strives for that angle where it succeeds magnificently. I would like to let you in on a post review secret disclaimer in case it hasn't been that obvious: I am a massive Batman fanatic. This spellbinding take on the Dark Knight earns more than just my stamp of approval.
Project X (2012)
Romp of Ages
Before entering the cinema, try and imagine what you would with a title 'Project X'. I can guarantee you, that will enhance your experience. By the end of this, I thought 'now THAT's a party'. Truth be told, it was the wildest, craziest romp, a 'soiree' (as termed by one of the characters) of epic proportions.
Unrestrained and out of control, this 'home video' had everything you've seen in a high school party, plus, everything you haven't. There was no tangible story and it felt like there was no definitive script either, it definitely seemed improvised, like a bunch of random clips put together on a DVD. As if it was very real. It was to an extent, some of the clips were supposedly taken through cast using iPhones and Blackberrys in case they could get footage the cameras couldn't. Yes, it was THAT large and the filmmakers were looking for THAT detail. And I think that director Nimah Nourizadeh's choice to film it like this made it look like quite the blockbuster event.
Without a doubt though, it was hedonistically extreme and just the promotion of hooliganism and absolute debauchery. There's no morals, there's no social acceptability, there's no legality. It's all about a bunch of adolescent teenagers congregating with an intention to create havoc, after all, that's just another way of saying 'having a good time'. I don't know if it was supposed to be inadvertently didactic or a satire on generation Y youth, but it went to lengths which were so extreme that you got that kind of feeling.
But did I like it? Hesitatingly, I will say that I really did. It was just a thrill ride, I won't spoil it but it's just raw, juvenile entertainment. It's insanely different, quite the endeavour for producer Todd Phillips and I'm sure he would feel that this is what he envisaged.
Oliver Cooper I believe has a promising future in the comedy genre. Whether you found his character Costa awesome, despicable or annoying, he was the ringleader and perpetrator of the spectacle/disaster (depending how you want to look at it) and owned his scenes. It was through him that we saw some comedy as well amidst the widespread chaos. I'm not sure that anybody else mattered. It wasn't as much about the people as it was about the bash as a whole.
Ultimately, this would not be for everyone, least of all for more traditional previous generations who would probably find this 'misbehaviour' quite appalling. But if you'd like some comedy and some thrills, rock up to the mysterious 'Project X' and see what you get. If you aren't surprised, I look forward to your 'Project Y' to show me how its done.
Safe House (2012)
Not the Safest Bet
Welcome to Denzel Washington's world of thrillers part umpteen. The report card this time though is quite mediocre. Why? Simply because the script unfortunately doesn't beg to differ from genre convention and makes use of overused and overdone story arcs.
If you ask me, the whole CIA conspiracy thriller concept is just beginning to become stale. There really is limited variation possible. It takes little thinking here to anticipate the next stages and the vital plot points not to mention the people of interest. Films like these tend to promise much and leave you half full. It took eons to ascertain why, what and how and as a result, all you can see on screen for a majority of the movie is people running around helter skelter with no solid reasoning or basis behind it. Just trying to capture someone doesn't tell the full story. It doesn't even reach the threshold of mindless action, I didn't find anything novel and cool about it in any way from that perspective. If the nifty almost intentionally slack camera work was supposed to make it feel different, I couldn't quite see it.
If we saw any dissimilarities from the status quo, it was in all likeliness, in the acting. Seldom do we see 'Mr. Thriller' Denzel Washington in an antagonist role and this time, his character Tobin Frost was a scheming, mind manipulating character rather than the regular crook we've seen in Oscar winner 'Training Day' and 'American Gangster'. He isn't the most extroverted actor, but his skill lies in how he can create a dangerous personality without coming out of his shell. I'd sum up Ryan Reynolds in two words, nervy and shaky. But those characteristics drove an inspired show as the naïve rookie. As a pair, they were okay I guess, but brilliant, no. I always admire Brendan Gleeson's involvement as well in spy, conspiracy thrillers and it was good to see him more heavily used.
Shallow as a conspiracy thriller and devoid of mentionable action, it just didn't have anything to set it apart. Feeble scripting makes it your average joe thriller albeit far from compelling.
21 Jump Street (2012)
Buddy-Teen Comedy Brilliance
I think we've seen the pioneering of a new sub-genre: a merger between a buddy cop and teen comedy film. Who isn't constantly on the hunt for something different? The filmmakers made it clear that they were keen to establish a gulf between the television series and the feature film; indeed, the film takes no more but the fundamental concept and premise from the series and laces it with almost slapstick, though mature hilarity which makes for one of the comedy spectacles of 2012.
The story is definitely stupid but it's made to be that way. That was the storywriters' intentions, one of which was Jonah Hill himself. It's supposed to be exaggerated and have a silly, immature teen, high school wrongdoing element to it. It was like an 'American Pie' meets crime drama. For those raising their eyebrows, I did mention it was unique. Strange the way I describe it but take my word for it, it works superbly.
The sense of humour is very juvenile and far from sophisticated. Any comedy associated with Jonah Hill means that you would be fooling yourself if you expected more refined laughs. I wouldn't say that this would have broad appeal, not least of all for loyal fanatics of the television show who may get the inch that all Tatum and Hill do is slander the '21 Jump Street' name. Hopefully, Johnny Depp and Peter DeLuise's involvement will prevent that. All the same, it's raunchy, occasionally crude but brilliantly thought out with acting that works.
On the note of acting, we do see some typecasting to some extent: Tatum in his stereotypical dimwitted, jock role and Hill in his overdone 'nerd punching above his weight' type role. They form an unlikely, almost unnatural duo representing the yin to each other's yang. Yet, they really surprise you with their fantastic, humorous chemistry; I wouldn't hesitate in saying that I would eagerly anticipate a follow-up with this pair in the hot seat. It's a credit to Channing Tatum that he really took the initiative and showed greater acting prowess in this clichéd role than we have seen from him. Jonah Hill is his usual self although sporting a new, streamlined look. That doesn't change the fact that he is becoming a comedian I would assume is beginning to attract a loyal fanbase. A special mention also needs to be shouted out to Ice Cube who returns to his element with an array of 'Ice Cube moments' which could only be criticised for brevity.
This film is really a hoot, you'll derive some great hilarity from it. Don't however make the mistake of thinking you are seeing the next 'Lethal Weapon' or 'Rush Hour' as much as a derivative of 'The Other Guys' or 'Starsky and Hutch'. And don't watch it for any sort of intricate crime solving or spectacular action. Do however watch it for some juvenile pleasure.
Spy Game (2001)
"It's how the game plays you"
The pressing question which we can address first is, what elevates this above your average espionage thriller? The answer is twofold, it isn't just about the plot, where the backstory involves many angles and frame stories but also, the game being played and the way it transpires; something which is every bit as thrilling from a political perspective as it is physical. This film is a real separation between the people who walk the walk and talk the talk in contrast with those who don't. No doubt who wins.
In one of his definitive modern roles, Robert Redford's playing of the corporate, political game and the means by which his character, Nathan Muir, influences the state of play is the stand out. In many ways, I felt this acted as quite the satire on bureaucracy and corporate politics, driven by Muir, who isn't your run of the mill administrator but a shrewd, wily facilitator and occasionally, cunning manipulator. On one occasion, Muir tells someone in jest albeit with a poker face that the person has something in their teeth. The vigour with which the person checks gives an idea of the man's powerful persuasive abilities but is also a reflection of the way he takes control of the game. Redford is so slick in how he carries this out that you are either chuckling at or left enamoured by his cleverness.
The revolution around the mentor-pupil relationship defines the film. Redford and Brad Pitt function so inadvertently and naturally well. It's all about them within the bigger picture and they are a flawless team. Arguably either a protagonist or deuteragonist, depending on which way you look at it, Pitt takes on this role in a way that he is so dedicated and full of zeal for his craft but his conflicting morals and allegiance enhance both his credibility as a character and commendability for substantiating this into more than a shallow, spy role. Muir's morals may waver but his loyalty and honour do not. And that, on the whole, Is one of the nicest aspects of this movie, attaching a humanely side to stereotypically nameless, faceless people without an identity who belong to an institution of political secrets. Not to mention adding in some enthralling side play along the way.
This probably does overstate the powers and capabilities of a man in such a high pressure, highly strung environment but its entertaining nonetheless leaving aside the acceptable exaggeration. This is as much about people as it is about countries, groups and other larger demographics. It certainly has a more individual touch than you would expect from a spy thriller and scripting which does not employ the usual suspects. It's a mix of action, suspense, politics and sly humour which progresses in a manner keeping you on the edge of your seat.
The Vow (2012)
A Sweet Charmer
Heralded as the new 'The Notebook' and incidentally being penned by the same author whilst including the same female lead, I discovered that 'The Vow' was not as deeply and profoundly romantic as I was led to believe. Nevertheless, I didn't find it hard to like this film in all its naïve, good-natured innocence. I appreciated the differentiation from positioning this as a tearjerking, moving romantic drama or even a standard romantic comedy instead borrowing aspects from both, even if leaning towards the former with some light-heartedness sprinkled on top.
The one key consideration to take into account is that a comparison game will be mounted, particularly due to the similarities between this and Nicholas Sparks' other cinematic feature which has become an essential female charmer. The sweet and light way this story is presented makes it a far more universal and in many ways, a more enjoyable watch. You don't need such heavy intense focus, nor do you, for those who apply, need to worry too much about being emotionally affected. Let's put it this way, it certainly wasn't a Romeo and Juliet inspired tragedy.
The couple and the strength of their connection in their relationship is what a keen eye would be looking out for. The initial meeting and bond was uneventful though, too uneventful for a story with foundations in the relationship. The romantic aspect wasn't absent but was far from overpowering. However, a different scenario emerges and thereon, Channing Tatum carries much of the impetus with the 'connection' when considering the unique circumstances. He is sadly implausible as a suitor to begin with but apart from this sketchy beginning, he acted his sense of discomfort and struggle quite convincingly. He has faltered in being emotionally convincing before but he looked in a new class here.
Au contraire, we had the woman trying to find her identity. As always, Rachel McAdams is most affable in her role and continues to show her versatility as an actress. She doesn't just revert back to 'The Notebook' mode when thrust into a role and with a script that may evoke memories of it. She brings out a new distinct role and diverts your attention towards her in all her confusion. Her familial connection is probably the most suspect part of the film; It did not feel important enough, but in a way, it's a nice change to not have any strong, familial input in a romantic drama.
So, here are the permutations. If you are a male, you would see this with a female partner or female friends. For females, it doesn't really matter. But, for a bunch of guy friends, not likely to be the fitting movie of choice.
Jack and Jill (2011)
The Nadir of Film
0/5
Oh Adam Sandler, how you have degraded. From his glory days of Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison and Big Daddy, this is truly the unfortunate trough in his career. Remember when your parents stopped or discouraged you from watching a screen because it apparently eroded your braincells? Well, here's something that validates that particular nag. Being comfortably amongst the worst if not the worst film I have seen, I'm going to do something I've never done and unhesitatingly award this film zero.
After becoming the talk of the town following its sweeping of the Razzies, the first time a film has ever done so, it attracted my interest. Ultimately, to genuinely appreciate works of art in cinema, we need to be able to identify and understand the flip side. This represents a pin-up example, one of those ill-fated catastrophes where there is nothing to praise in any way and everything to vilify. There have unquestionably been worse premises for comedies but it was execution that let this down miserably. Execution in every possible facet of cinema. The story was lame, predictable and exceeded the limits of senselessness and brainlessness that an individual can tolerate. The dialogue is unintelligibly stupid and unfunny. I couldn't help but disconnect from it. And in all honesty, even if I was paying rapt attention, I doubt I would have found anything that could be remotely termed as comedy.
Adam Sandler is by no stretch of the imagination a poor comedian but this is the nadir of his work. Jack is the bread and butter Sandler character that we just seem to see in every film of his nowadays. Jill, on the other hand, is easily his most calamitous creation yet. She resembles a transvestite and I think that statement conveys my thoughts of the character best. There is just no clear distinction between the two characters Sandler played simultaneously. Playing multiple roles begs the ability to seamlessly absorb yourself into each separate character and forge an identity for each. In a comic context, Mike Myers did this brilliantly in 'Austin Powers'. In this case, without offence intended, all I could see was a cross-dressing Adam Sandler employing a cringeworthy, transsexual sounding voice. Jill eventually does little to dispel these negative perceptions, she's just an annoying, unintelligent pest.
I'm unsure as to how I sat through this cinematic disaster but I did so staring blankly at the screen. I can waffle on about the deficits of this forever but take it from me, nothing redeemed it, nothing helped it and every minute made it even worse. The only reason you'll ever need to see this is to understand the lowest quality of cinematic art.
Puss in Boots (2011)
Innocent Fun with Zorro-Puss
Who can deny it, the Latin-inspired Puss in Boots definitely adds more interest than the traditional version. He's just far cooler in the way he personifies an animated photocopy of Antonio Banderas' Zorro. The slyness, the brash overconfidence and of course, the ability to create havoc; the ingredients are there. He has the savoir-faire of Charles Perrault's character as well as the morals. Though, overall, he distinguishes himself from any other take on the classic character and ends up as being just good, fairly rollicking fun.
As for the production itself, it was just a good little adventure and what was particularly nice was the lack of complication which many animated features, including the later Shrek films which brought this specific 'Puss' into the limelight, had to their detriment. By no means do I imply however that it was an overly simplified, mundane script either, that wouldn't go together with Puss' vibrancy. Although, it probably deteriorated a touch in even animated film persuasion as it went along, culminating in a slightly underwhelming way. It promised better and in that regard, lets itself down.
Once again, similar to 'Shrek', I thoroughly enjoyed the humorous, light-hearted parody of fairytale characters. That characterisation makes the whole thing even more fun. Banderas is unquestionably the right man to voice a 'Latino Puss' despite overdoing it a bit at times and being slightly overbearing. I'm not complaining though, that sort of exaggeration was the essence of his character. The characters of 'Humpty Alexander Dumpty' and 'Jack and Jill' were well thought out and depicted by their respective voice actors and actresses. My only qualms lay with Kitty Softpaws who didn't initiate sizzling enough chemistry with Puss, they seemed slightly detached from one another although engaged in themselves. Her character didn't leave as much of a mark as the others.
'Puss in Boots' is undoubtedly childishly funny but even adults won't be able to resist a few smiles throughout. Ultimately, it may not deserve the superior label of 'swashbuckling' but it was plain, straightforward fun that you cannot go too wrong with.
The Dictator (2012)
Hysteria, absolute hysteria
If you haven't heard of the 'Dictator's' arrival to town, you've been living under a rock. After all, he did apparently pour Kim Jong-Il's ashes on Ryan Seacrest's minty fresh tuxedo at the 2012 Oscars. Sacha Baron Cohen's latest addition to his portfolio of memorable characters stunningly has (wait for it) political inspirations as the man himself admitted during an interview with the BBC (the rarity of his appearances as himself in interviews is pure irony I must add). It fascinated me as to the research he's conducted, whilst most of us focus on the atrocities a dictator commits, he finds the comedy out of it, and it's not necessarily black comedy but things that are genuinely amusing about power abuse. Although not explicitly stated, some of this is inspired by true happenings (or rather, real rumours).
This man has a very twisted sense of humour but you cannot deny that he is a master of creating total hysteria. He continues to be crass, racist and lewd through his latest creation, General Aladeen. Yet, his ability to not only be an all-round comedian not confined to simple 'gross-out' or idiotic comedy but someone who can cleverly integrate and use his jokes in a timely manner is his greatest strength. Though, credit to the man's guts I have to say, even he could have foreseen the calls for his head that would have arisen following this or any other of his films. I can't say that it is difficult for anyone to be turned off by Baron Cohen's infuriating lack of decency and tact in most of these roles, but it is all about the mindset with which you approach this. He makes it very easy to laugh at but moreover, simple to treat in jest and in a mocking and harmless way, as long as you have the capability to do the same.
I felt he explored new territory in the likes of 'Borat', 'Bruno' and 'Ali G' even if it was playing on long-standing stereotypes that have been used so many times before. This did, if anything, feel like a re-hash of stereotypes and jokes to do with America, Arabs, terrorists and the lot (as per 'Borat'). There isn't much that breaks new ground in that sense, although what was refreshing was the way his character took a swipe at both Americans and Arabs simultaneously. And you gotta admit, he has his own original way of making the same old thing still hilarious. Trust me when I say whether or not you wish to, you will remember his gags.
I puzzle over why any actor would want to be involved alongside Baron Cohen in his films. As hilarious as they are, bad publicity coming their way is just about as inevitable as death. Supposedly, 'Borat' even caused a permanent fracture in Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock's relationship because of the former's involvement in the film ('Borat'). Supposedly. But being involved in this is something different and you will be recognised for having the gall to do it. And my respect and admiration goes out to both Ben Kingsley and Anna Faris for that.
Expect to smack your forehead a number of times in fits of laughter. I saw the trailer and said to myself, 'this is on my bucket list'. I suggest everyone do the same and decide whether they feel similarly before showing up at the box office.
Goon (2011)
Not for the easily offended
I can't claim to be an ice hockey fanatic as much as plead ignorance toward anything ice hockey related but I discovered that very little knowledge of the sport is needed to understand and enjoy something as fundamentally albeit stupidly entertaining as this. The film picked up the worst, most notorious aspect of ice hockey, the fights and the role of the aptly named 'enforcer' (basically, the guy responsible for knocking the opposition out) and centers an entire story around it. And that's the method through which the best comedy is born. By finding something within a broader subject to wittily exaggerate and create some idiotic humour out of.
Surprisingly, all this lunacy is based on a true story. Who would have picked that? All the same, regardless of its origins, I found the script original, enlightening for a hockey 'noob' like myself but smartly written and employed to create an R-rated comedy. The plot does eventually evolve from arbitrary madness involving bloody but relatively less cringeworthy violence to something a little more civil and mellow but remained amiable all the same, certainly a story worth following.
I really believed and liked the diverse cast and characters. These kinds of movies can really fail miserably if this isn't the case. Jay Baruchel, also one of the co-writers, is the 'Stifler' here, or, to put it into context for non American Pie fans, the foul mouthed, lewd, attention seeker who in all his excessiveness, can be quite funny. The usual 'Stifler' and protagonist, Seann William Scott is pretty boneheaded by contrast, a thug albeit one with surprising sensitivity. Though, as he does with most of his wide-spanning roles, he still makes himself reasonably humorous. Undoubtedly though, this is the most likable character I have seen him play. We've seen the two aforementioned actors in numerous R-rated comedies but Liev Schrieber hasn't been a regular feature in the genre. Yet, he made his niche superbly and it didn't necessarily involve carrying on like a jerk. He just simply fit the profile set out for his character and played the role with conviction. Isn't that the key to good acting in any genre?
Most of this is fairly dim witted and quite indecent. Crudely entertaining though for sure. Although, refrain from bringing ice hockey aspiring youngsters.
American Psycho (2000)
"Do you feel fulfilled... in your life?"
This was the sort of film that I doubt will garner universal approval, I wasn't sure myself of whether it registered with me or not. It was a unique take on mental psyche which can delve deep but seem on the surface like a straightforward slasher film. Though, I admired its blend of thriller and satire where it doesn't take itself too seriously yet doesn't descend to a comically inept level by maintaining a certain level of tension.
'American Psycho' gives no importance to anything else but for one man who would be satisfied with the attention: Patrick Bateman, a narcissistic, patronising yuppie who is presented in a most enigmatic fashion, a man who has a high flying life yet idealises something more out of the ordinary. His character paints a picture of blatant and oftentimes comical irony. He shows how self obsession can drive you off an edge, how your mind can be the instigator of absolute insanity and emotions ranging from depression to prime aggression without the need for external influence which Christian Bale portrays starkly well. Simultaneously, he acts as quite the paradox as he acknowledges his plunge into insanity and does little to help himself. The greatest irony though is how, after all his attempts, the story comes full circle where his life is just normal, regardless of what he does.
For him, his nocturnal, sociopathic tendencies are all just a game, a simple transgressive indulgence he feels he is entitled to. His motives however are a prime example of the black comedy in the film, they can probably be likened to a young kid throwing a tantrum because other kids have more than him and possessions better than his own. Except Bateman's obsessions with superiority are never too little to kill for.
I've never seen a more confused and directionless character, one conflicted by so many emotions and so intricately complex. I can't imagine an author expecting more out of such an absorbingly curious character than Christian Bale brought out in this pinching satire on personal fulfilment and domination.
"There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman" his self monologue claims and it's left up to you to examine what you see and decide what it is all about, real or imaginative. Don't expect him to give you a determinate answer though. If provoking thought isn't a show of acting mastery on Bale's part and deserved of honours, I'm not sure what is. Yet, even provoking thought needs to have some sense. Yes indeed, this is deep and elaborate. But good cinema.
I Love You, Beth Cooper (2009)
Just Another Teen Movie
I acknowledge that I haven't read the book, but this cinematic adaptation made Larry Doyle's novelisation of high school life seem ridden with teenage clichés as well as an unrealistic glimmer of hope for geeks. After all, a valedictorian and a lead cheerleader don't often end up being an item of any sort and the film didn't challenge you to believe it. That being a foremost example, the lack of even faint viability of plot (as impracticable as teen movies tend to be) certainly weighed it down.
I would class this coming of age flick as a nerd comedy albeit so cheesily geeky that it became a bit mindless really. A better way of categorising this film would be from a relative perspective by terming it a poor man's 'Superbad' minus the presence of characters who you'll remember. Unlike that particular take on high school society, the nerd element didn't quite translate into comedy. Were there really any gags in it? Of this, I honestly wasn't overly sure. I was definitely expecting a low grade standard of humour which wouldn't tickle everybody's fancy but the geeky infusion just didn't deliver much on that front.
It was not rather hard to believe in Hayden Panettiere as the 'it girl'. Let's face it, she looks every bit the part. On the same note, Paul Rust wasn't particularly hard to believe either at face value. Yet, he was a picture of disappointing monotony. His performance resembled a punching bag which absorbed the hits that came his way whilst being lifeless and uncontributing. Speaking of punching bags, the senseless 'fight scenes' in this movie definitely seemed out of sync with the concept of teen comedy. Rust didn't do much to create an impression opposing that sentiment.
Profound it may not have aimed to be, but the film does deliver a 'don't judge a book by its cover' message. Doubtful it would be taken too seriously though.
Nutty Professor II: The Klumps (2000)
Too much of a good thing..
How much can you really expect of a film containing giant hampsters, naked grannies and Eddie Murphy behaving like a dog (literally)? Unfortunately, most attempts at humour were crude to the point of evoking disgust, offence or substandard raunchiness, the combination of which isn't all that funny.
The repeated heavy focus on Eddie Murphy meant it needed a remarkable solo effort to steal the show but 'The Klumps' was devoid of the charm and Murphy dazzle of its predecessor. The makeup remained the one admirable point. The more time the camera revolves around the rest of the Klumps has you appreciating the brilliance of the makeup, which adds to each character in its own individual way.
The bantering and squabbling between the mother and father and even the grandma at times, overshadows the main relationship between Murphy and Janet Jackson's characters which is fraught with standardism and monotony. Though, on this occasion, grandma's mutterings don't hold as much value as they did in the first film and become hit and miss in the humour stakes at best.
Apart from the odd brief section here and there, it was an asinine attempt at humour which bordered upon facetious at times.