domingo, 10 de noviembre de 2013
So, it has been almost a year after my last blog entry. I know my traffic, if any, is small, but I wanted to give a belated heads-up about me moving to anyone that is following me. Since earlier this year, I've been posting my film and TV opinions on HubPages, a website that allows user to write their own content and publish it, while creating a network of followers. If anyone wants to read more about me, feel free to visit me there. The link is here.
In time, I might come back to this blog, but as of now, I feel really comfortable writing there. Thanks to everyone who read or just browsed or stumbled upon my blog during this last 2 years or so. See you around!
domingo, 10 de marzo de 2013
"I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know."
That statement sparks one of the main arguments of the 1957 film 12 Angry Men, where Juror #8 (played by Henry Fonda) clearly delineates the basis of "reasonable doubt", and its role in the American justice system. The film, set almost in its entirety in the jury room of the courthouse, features twelve jurors with the obligation of determining the fate of a young man accused of murdering his father. If found guilty, the kid will be sentenced to death; if not guilty, he'll be acquitted, but the verdict has to be unanimous either way.
The jury is formed by a hodge-podge of characters from various backgrounds and personalities, meant to be a picture of the America of the day. And therein lies one of the strengths of the film, in the way that Reginald Rose's script and Sidney Lumet's directing manage to establish the personalities of each character seamlessly and without expository dialogues or flashbacks. From the beginning, Juror #8 is portrayed as a thoughtful and patient man willing to go against the flow in an effort to fulfill his duty fairly. He doesn't know the truth, but he wants to prove that neither do the other jurors.
From the initial vote, he is the sole dissenter, against the other eleven. However, he constructs his arguments with caution and common sense against the tide of opposing arguments. Most of the other jurors offer little to their cause. Prejudices, disinterest, indecision, complacency, lack of analysis, bigotry... all of those traits are bubbling inside the other eleven who, for the most part, are unable to counter the arguments of Juror #8. But there's also a disturbing argument being made about how our justice system works, and how swiftly can we gamble on the fate of others, as long as it doesn't interfere with our lives, or just because we didn't give it the thought we should have.
The main antagonistic figure is Juror #3 (played by Lee J. Cobb), who initially appears to be carefully analytical, taking out his notes before saying "I have no personal feelings about this". But as the plot progresses, we can see he brings an emotional baggage that might bias him. The other relevant antagonistic figure is Juror #10 (played by Ed Begley), whose remarks grow more prejudiced and bigoted as the film advances.
The rest of the jurors are a meek banker, a smart and rational stockbroker, a paramedic from the slums, a humble painter, a laid-back and careless salesman, an observant old man, a foreign watchmaker, a chatty ad executive, and the complacent foreman. Through their dialogues, we know enough about the characters without it feeling forced. We find out about their jobs, their backgrounds, their families, and how all that might play a part in their decisions.
But most impressive is the evolution of Jurors #3 and #8 as they continually square against each other, battling arguments back and forth. From bully to bullied, and viceversa, both Fonda and Cobb play their characters masterfully, as they both wag the other jurors from one side to the other, until Fonda declares "You're alone".
12 Angry Men is a unique character study full of excellent performances, a thought-provoking script, and a careful direction. I remember seeing the 1997 TV remake a long time ago and enjoying it, but I think this one sets itself apart quite nicely. Grade: A
(All pictures belong to United Artists, MGM, and its affiliates)
domingo, 24 de febrero de 2013
"This is the best bad plan we have... by far, sir."
If it wasn't based on real events, one could say that the premise of Argo is one of the most absurd ideas ever. And I have to wonder how many probably laughed at it at the CIA Headquarters when Tony Mendez pitched it in. The fact that it really happened only makes it even more impressive. In a way, that reminds me of Compliance, another recent 2012 watch which is improved by the realization that what one saw on the screen actually happened.
The film follows the efforts of the CIA and the government to rescue six diplomats from Iran in the middle of the 1979 hostage crisis at the embassy. The film opens with a compelling, easy-to-follow prologue explaining the background of the political situation of Iran at the moment. I can see how some people might consider it sort of an oversimplification of things; an "Iran for Dummies", if you may. But I think it served its purpose and successfully established the environment in which the film takes place. After that, we see the riots in front of the embassy escalate until hundred of people manage to storm inside forcing the six diplomats to escape into the Tehran streets and into hiding at the house of the Canadian ambassador.
Enter Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck), a CIA operative and exfiltration expert, brought in as a consultant by the State Department. As the government scrambles for possible covers to exfiltrate the diplomats, Mendez comes up with the idea of using the filming of a cheesy sci-fi film as the cover. As absurd as it might seem, Mendez worked the logistics of the plan with friend and make-up artist John Chambers (John Goodman) and film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), which includes setting up a phony production company, choose a script, design posters and storyboards, and make public script readings.
As Mendez prepares to travel to Iran, he sets up fake credentials and identities for the six diplomats, who are growing more desperate as time passes by, and the possibility of being captured increases. Affleck successfully builds a tense atmosphere around the events with a tight direction by intercutting different events to get the point that they are not safe. None of the diplomats is fleshed out enough, but still the different actors did well with what little was given to them.
Goodman and Arkin were pretty good, and played well off each other. But I'm surprised that Arkin was nominated for this. His performance, although charismatic, wasn't that impressive to me. He did have the best line of the film though ("Argo fuck yourself!"). Affleck was pretty good as well, considering that his role was more of a stoic operative, and required little emotion. But he did handle well those subtle moments of introspection in Mendez mind.
Overall, Argo is a neatly crafted film in terms of directing. Affleck manages to infuse tension in something that probably shouldn't have, considering that lots of people know the outcome. In a way, that reminded me of Bryan Singer's Valkyrie, which also had a decent amount of tension, despite the fact that we all know what happened. Plus, he does so without resorting to the typical thriller clichés of explosions, shootouts, and whatnot. As the film progresses, the implausibility of all the "close calls" that the group faces start to mount, but I still found it to be effective. Even though I know it was silly, script-wise, to have the Iranians racing the plane at the last moment, I was still on the edge of my seat waiting for the plane to take off. Kudos to Affleck and Co. for that. Another small moment of "forced irony" was when they showed Sahar crossing the border to Iraq in the end. Interesting, but I could've done without that "a-ha!" moment.
In my opinion, Affleck continues to show that he has the skills to be one of the best current directors. Argo might not be a masterpiece, but it was an entertaining and well crafted film. Grade: B+
(All pictures belong to Warner Bros. and its affiliates)
(Although I tried to refrain from SPOILERS, the review might include some)
Once upon a time, in the mid-90s, a young teenager that knew little of film rented a 1993 film called The Vanishing. The film, starring some of the 90s hottest stars (Kiefer Sutherland, Nancy Travis, Sandra Bullock) ended up being a mildly enjoyable, run-of-the-mill thriller that vanished into forgetfulness shortly after. Fast-forward a couple of years after, the teenager started getting more into films, and at some point found out that the film he had seen was a remake of an European film of the same name. Reading more about it, he found out that the American remake had pretty much changed the whole story in favor of a "happy ending". But what made everything weirder is the fact that the remake was handled by the same man that had written and directed the original: George Sluizer. 10+ years after, the teenager, now a 30-something, decided to give the original a try and what a surprise he had.
There's something to be said when you can watch a film that you already know the outcome and still be thrilled by it and enjoy it. That was my case with Spoorloos which, despite following the same premise as its remake that I happened to see first, it successfully managed to stand on its own not allowing to be overshadowed by its "evil twin brother". Whereas The Vanishing ended up being a forgettable, run-of-the-mill thriller for me back in the 90s, Spoorloos was a compelling and dark film that's still in my head because of its haunting ending.
For those that hadn't heard of it, Spoorloos follows a young couple: Rex and Saskia (Gene Bervoets and Johana ter Steege) as they share a vacation trip through France. During a routine gas stop, Saskia disappears, which launches Rex on a spiral of desperation and obsession for the next three years. Rex's obsession, which has rendered him unable to hold a healthy relationship with his new girlfriend (Gwen Eckhaus), also puts him on television where he pleads the kidnapper to just let him know the truth. This prompts the inconspicuous man (Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu) into the inevitable face-off with Rex.
All of the performances are pretty good, but I was mostly surprised by Bervoets, who manages to convey Rex's feelings of desperation, obsession, and curiosity successfully, thus making the climatic moments more believable. Donnadieu is also pretty good as the kidnapper: common man Raymond Lemorne, who plays the man with a creepy banality to it, without turning him into a "demon". Their eventual meeting even hints at how similar, or how common, they both are.
The ending was pretty dark and haunting. I think that what happens there is one of the worst fears any of us has. The fact that it mirrors both Saskia's, and then Rex's dreams only makes it more haunting. Yet another haunting thought that passed my mind in the end was, why would someone want to completely change the ending, let alone the same director, in a remake? Sure, I know that in the 90's the studio probably wanted a "happy ending", but then why remake a film if you're going to ax the whole point of it? It's baffling and I have to wonder why Sluizer went with it.
All in all, a very intense watch and a perfect portrayal of what Mark Kermode referred to as the "banality of evil", and the dangers of obsession. Similar portrayals that come to mind are Jake Gyllenhaal's in Zodiac and Gary Oldman in Romeo is Bleeding. Grade: A-
(All pictures belong to Argos Films and its affiliates)
domingo, 17 de febrero de 2013
(Although I tried to refrain from spoilers, this review might include some light ones)
His name is Captain William "Whip" Whitaker, and he is an alcoholic. The premise of Robert Zemeckis' 2012 film Flight lies in whether Washington's character can acknowledge his problem. Whitaker is a skilled, veteran pilot with a troublesome life. He is divorced, his teenage son doesn't want anything to do with him, and he drinks and uses drugs regularly. Like most addicts, Whitaker seems to be able to handle himself fairly well while keeping his problem conveniently under the rug. However, it is all put into evidence when, during a routine flight from Orlando to Atlanta, his plane suffers a mechanical malfunction that forces him to crash-land the plane in an open field.
When he awakens in a hospital, Whitaker finds out that only six out of 102 people died in the crash. He finds himself considered a hero, while experts label his bold flying maneuver as the reason that there weren't more casualties. However, a routine toxicology report taken while he was unconscious reveals that Whitaker was both drunk (0.24 of alcohol level) and high on cocaine. While airline owners, union representatives, and lawyers scramble to get an upper hand, Whitaker has to come face to face with the fact that he might have a problem. Was the alcohol in his system the cause of the crash, or was it the reason why he was able to maneuver the plane so boldly? If he had been clean and sober, would there have been more or less casualties?
Those are some of the questions that Flight breezes through. However, the answers to those questions aren't what the film focuses on. Instead, it focuses on Whitaker's psyche as he struggles to acknowledge and face his addiction. Denzel Washington has received numerous award nominations (including an Oscar) for his performance, and deservedly so. His performance as Whitaker is both powerful and poignant. He manages to infuse the character with that false strength that he wears as a vest, to hide his true, weak nature. Washington's Whitaker goes from a confident and authority-filled pilot to a vulnerable, guilt-ridden man in a believable way.
However, for everything the film has in its lead actor, it seems to lack on everything else. It's a shame that a film with such a powerful and interesting premise is dragged down by a weak script, some formulaic plot developments, and a few odd directorial choices. For example, most of the film's middle act is devoted to a relationship that Whitaker develops with Nicole (Kelly Reilly), a fellow addict he met at the hospital. Although Reilly does a fine job, the relationship feels forced, and ultimately adds little to the film. Nicole is mostly a plot device to walk Whitaker through a stretch of the path.
Another problem I had with the film was with John Goodman's character of Harling Mays, Whitaker's best friend and drug dealer. Goodman's performance felt mostly out of place, but it is more noticeable during a climatic scene when he is contacted to help Whitaker before a hearing. Zemeckis directed a scene that was supposed to be powerful and tragic in such an awkward, almost comical way, that it took me out of the film completely. Co-stars Bruce Greenwood and Don Cheadle also have little to do in the film, and their interaction with Mays in this scene only made it all more awkward.
Granted, after all that, you might think I hated the film, but I can say I mostly enjoyed it. But it's far from a great film. If it had been given a better treatment by the director and screenwriter, it could've been great. In the end, it all lies on Washington's shoulders, who delivers with his performance regardless of the faults of those around him. Grade: somewhere between a low B- and a high C+.
(All pictures belong to Paramount Pictures and its affiliates)
sábado, 9 de febrero de 2013
The early 90s was a tough time for heavy metal. Granted, the rise of grunge music pushed away lots of crappy acts, but other worthy ones got lost in the shuffle of musical trends. Bad 4 Good could count as one of this victims. The band was formed under the guidance of guitar virtuoso Steve Vai, and consisted of four talented teenagers from 11 to 16 years old. Lead singer Danny Cooksey was known for his 2-year stint as redheaded kid Sam McKinney in Diff'rent Strokes, while guitarist Thomas McRocklin had appeared as "Lil' Stevie Vai" on Vai's video "The Audience is Listening" (see it here).
|Refugee's album cover|
There's also an interesting song called "Terminate" with lyrics that seem inspired by the Terminator films. The song includes lyrics like "built like a hearse, seven times Mr. Universe" and "he's crying tears of metal in the 21st century" or "he'll look you in the eyes and tell you that he'll be back". Considering that Cooksey had a small role as John Connor's friend on Terminator 2, which was released the same year as the album, it's possible that the song was intended to be sold for the soundtrack, but didn't make it.
Despite the seemingly cliché and formulaic nature of the lyrics, the boys more than make up with their talents. Cooksey has a strong, grave voice that lends itself perfectly for screams and wails, but also for strong vocals, while McRocklin, who was a Vai protege, shows how much he learned from his mentor. Bassist Zack Young and drummer Brooks Wackerman aren't left behind either. Although evident in most of the songs, these talents are better showcased in the instrumental headbanger "Tyre Kickin' (Ya Makin' Me Nervous)".
Bad 4 Good disbanded shortly after the album release, and their members moved on to other ventures. Cooksey has become a prolific voice-actor, Wackerman is playing drums for Bad Religion as well as other bands, Young has played for several bands like A.I., while McRocklin quit the business allegedly "fed up" with the industry. But still, as a perennial lover of 80s heavy metal, this is an album I gravitate towards a lot. If you are a fan of 80s metal, the album is a must to listen to; and even if you're just a heavy metal/rock fan, period, you should give the album a try. Grade: A-
(All the pictures belong to Interscope, its parents and affiliates)
domingo, 3 de febrero de 2013
Some films are fun to watch, while others are a thrill, edge-of-your-seat experience. A few, however, are just too tough to watch, because of the subject matter or the way it is handled (Requiem for a Dream comes to mind). Compliance falls in this last category, not because it is a bad film; far from it. But because it is done so well, that you can feel the uneasiness of the characters involved.
Compliance follows a prank call that goes too far, involving Susan (Ann Dowd), who is the manager of a fast-food restaurant and Becky (Dreama Walker), one of her young employees. The prank caller pretends to be an officer investigating a theft that might involve Becky, but also hints at a possible bigger bust involving her brother as well. As the prank goes on, the situation gets more out of hand until its tragic consequences. Now, it may sound like a simple premise, but the film turned out to be one of the most uncomfortable watches I've had recently.
The film successfully establishes Susan as a meek, insecure woman which makes the caller's manipulations more believable. Dowd's performance is nothing short of great, but she's not the only one. Pat Healy is disturbingly good as the caller. His cold, carefree performance makes it all the more unnerving and creepy; and Bill Camp, who plays Susan's fiancee, is equally great. Finally, kudos to Dreama Walker for another great performance in such a tough role. She held her own and managed to make Becky's descent into a scared, confused, and vulnerable victim a believable one.
As the film reached its climax, it begins to push the boundaries of plausibility. But after reading the events it was inspired on and realizing it all happened almost as it was seen on the film, it puts things in perspective and only makes it harder to stomach. As I told my wife in the end, reality is scarier than fiction. One starts to wonder "What would I have done if I were in that situation" and, the way things are presented in the film, one can understand why things went as far as they did. Most people are condemning the manager for allowing this to happen, but as they say, hindsight is 20/20.
Overall, a really good film with great performances all-around, but one I don't see myself rewatching anytime soon. Grade: A-
(All pictures belong to Magnolia Pictures and its affiliates)