Dredd: Judgment time

 

Set in the future, Dredd presents a bleak outcome for humanity. Crime is rampant and law enforcement officers called Judges are given the power to dictate sentences swiftly in the scene of the crime. The lead character, Dredd (Karl Urban), is an emotionless, but effective judge. "THE Judge Dredd", as he is called by one of his peers in the film. He is assigned the supervision and assessment of a rookie, Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), who is sought by the Hall of Justice, mostly for her psychic abilities. Their first assignment together has to do with a triple murder inside a 200-story slum tower called Peach Trees, which is controlled by Ma-Ma (Lena Headey), a ruthless drug lord. Soon, Dredd and Anderson find themselves trapped inside the building and fighting for their lives.

I don't even remember if I saw the 1995 version starring Sylvester Stallone, but I gave this remake a watch this week. For the most part, the film is an entertaining action film, full of violence. IMO, its biggest flaw is its similarity to the Indonesian film The Raid: Redemption. Dredd follows the premise of law enforcement officers trapped in a highrise building controlled by a druglord down to a T, which isn't bad in and of itself. But having seen one deflated the effect that the other might have had. Plus, I think that limiting the scope of the film to an enclosed location hindered the possibilities.

The opening act does a good job of establishing the setting, the post-apocalyptic world full of crime and poverty, and its main character. But once the metal doors at Peach Trees close in on the Judges, the film's possibilities are as trapped as the characters. I think it would've been interesting to see more of the world they were living, but instead, the plot is simplified to a shoot-em up with hordes of nameless thugs running at our heroes. I felt that the source material had possibilities for a better and deeper film. There was a moment near the end where I was actually surprised, and thought that the film would go somewhere, but a futuristic medical kit took that away as well.

That isn't to say that the film wasn't good. I thought it was still entertaining, but not much else. I liked some of the directorial choices of Pete Travis (this is the first film of his that I see). Some of the establishing aerial shots were great, and his use of slow motion to illustrate the effects of the "Slo-Mo" drug were inventive. As far as performances go, Karl Urban does what the script asks of him and he delivers, with an emotionless, stoic performance, but there's nothing much one can say about that. Thirlby and Headey were both solid as the rookie Anderson and the druglord Ma-Ma.

Overall, the film is pretty formulaic, but still fun to watch, so my sentence is a B.

(All pictures belong to Entertainment Film Distributors, Lionsgate, and all its affiliates)

Dead Poets Society: Seize the day!

 "Carpe diem. Seize the day, boys. Make your lives extraordinary."

That's the ethos that Robin Williams' character, Professor John Keating, tries to instill on his students in Dead Poets Society. The feeling that life is short, and that we should make the best of every opportunity we can. After several years, I gave this wonderful film a rewatch recently, and it was as great as I remembered it to be.

Set in the super-conservative Welton Academy for Boys during the late 50s, the film follows a group of students, who are inspired by Keating's teachings. Keating, who is a former student of Welton, arrives as the new English professor, and his impassionate lectures serve as a catalyst for some of the boys, who decide to follow Keating's footsteps and revive the titular "clandestine" group. The Dead Poets Society meet in a nearby cave to drink and smoke, but most importantly, to share poetry.

Aside of that, each of the boys is inspired and encouraged individually in different ways by Keating. Knox Overstreet (Josh Charles) gets the courage to "woo" a girl she has fallen in love with, even though she has a boyfriend. Charlie Dalton (Gale Hansen) becomes more free-spirited and liberal, albeit not necessarily thinking of the consequences, Neil Perry (Robert Sean Leonard) is encouraged to audition for a play, defying his father orders. And finally, Todd Anderson (Ethan Hawke), who is the most introverted of the group, is inspired to come out of his shell and explore his talent for poetry.

Ethan Hawke as Todd Anderson

Despite the prominence of the characters of Keating and Neil, it is in Todd in which the film focuses more. It is his character arc the one that the film follows from his arrival to Welton and him meeting his future friends, through his struggles in class, with his friends, and in writing, and finally how he reacts to the climatic events of the film. Hawke shows early on his career why he went on to become a star, an Oscar-nominated one at that. He plays the shy, introverted Todd perfectly, and his transformation is completely believable. The actors that play the rest of the boys are pretty good too, most notably Sean Leonard as the conflicted Neil, and Hansen as the controversial Charlie (or "Nwanda").

But the showiest role belongs easily to Robin Williams. Not because he overacts it; quite the contrary, his performance as Keating is very subtle, at least by his own standards. But he owns the best lines, and he delivers them with such an endearing confidence that makes you want to be in that classroom for a whole semester. Despite having a spotty reputation because of some film choices, Williams has proved his talent repeatedly, from his comedic and improvisational skills (Good Morning Vietnam, Aladdin) to his more dramatic turns (Good Will Hunting, One Hour Photo). His performance as Keating is, like Good Morning Vietnam, a comfortable middle ground between drama and light comedy. His performance is not over-the-top showy, but can still make you chuckle. His emotions aren't forced, but subtle. His Oscar nomination for this role was well deserved, IMO.

The film is directed by Peter Weir who, ironically, would go on to direct The Truman Show, which I rewatched about a week ago. I wasn't even aware of this, so I was surprised to see similar themes in both films. Both films present characters that are encouraged to break away from their "pre-programmed" paths to make their own destiny. The characters in both films are afraid to explore life away from what they already know or what its expected of them, but are inspired to walk away from that road and find their happiness in their own terms. 

I hadn't seen this film probably in a decade, so I'm glad to say it was as good as I remembered it. Great performances from everyone involved, and a solid, inspiring script. As a teacher myself, I can only hope to have an iota of the impact that Keating has in the film on my own students. Grade: A  

(All pictures belong to Buena Vista Pictures and its affiliates)

The Truman Show: Fate or Freewill?

  

"If his was more than just a vague ambition, if he was absolutely determined to discover the truth, there's no way we could prevent him." --Christof

Are we slaves of our fate, or are we free to create our own paths? That is the underlying question posed by the 1998 film The Truman Show. Directed by Peter Weir, the film follows the life of Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey) who, unknowingly, is the star of a hit reality show which follows his life around the fictional town of Seahaven. Truman, who was born of an unwanted pregnancy, was adopted since birth by the corporation behind the show, and has lived all his life growing up inside the domed city that serves as the set for the show. All this, under the watchful eye of show creator, Christof (Ed Harris). Now, with 30 years, some events lead Truman to question his reality, his marriage to "Meryl" (Laura Linney), and all his life.

The question of whether we, as people, have a designed fate in our future, or the free will to shape it, has been present almost since primitive times. Almost every religion or existential belief poses the question, one way or the other. Although the film doesn't shy away from religious references - some more obvious than others - it presents the same question from another perspective. Truman's whole life has been orchestrated by Christof, and the people behind the show. The "death" of his father was staged to instill in him a fear of the sea, his "best friend" (Noah Emmerich) is a paid actor who receives dialogue cues from Christof through an earpiece, his marriage to "Meryl" was staged since college, and the studio is aiming towards the first "live conception" as they try to coerce Truman into having a baby with Meryl.

So, on the surface, Truman's life is an example of fate, already planned and predisposed by a "higher power" (Christof and the studio executives). But still, Truman shows increasing signs of free will, as several unforeseen events lead him to break away from the path that has been established for him. Even Christof acknowledges in the above quote that Truman has control of his own destiny, if he really wanted to. Truman's most notable "stray" is him falling in love with an extra, Sylvia (Natasha McElhone), during college, instead of Meryl. Although Sylvia is fired from the show, and Truman ends up marrying Meryl, he still cherishes Sylvia's memory and makes efforts to find her.

Other than its symbolism, The Truman Show presents us with strong performances from most of the cast. Both Linney and Emmerich play Truman's counterparts perfectly, as we see in interviews about the show the duality of their lives, enslaved to playing a character all the time. They are as trapped as Truman, only they are aware of it, and are complicit in the scheme.

But the real standouts are Carrey and Harris. The Truman Show is one of the first films that gave Carrey the opportunity to shine away from his usual comedic schtick. Here, he plays Truman with an earnest exterior that hides feelings of insecurity and self-doubt. Sure, he has moments to "let himself loose", at least a bit, but his best moments are the intimate ones in front of the mirror, or in the emotionally charged ending. Harris' performance is no different, in that he plays Christof with a confidence and an assurance that makes him feel God-like. The way he parades around the studio, monitoring everything, gives him a feeling of power. But underneath it all, there is a sadness, highlighted by a moment where he watches Truman sleep or, like Carrey, in the ending. I couldn't believe Harris was a last-minute replacement (Dennis Hopper was the first choice) because he was perfect.

The final act is perhaps one of the most emotionally charged that I've seen on film, with Truman defying expectations and triumphing over his fears. The intensity with which Christof unleashes the weather on him is the same with which one would think a deity would threaten a servant that walks out of the way. The final conversation puts the creator face-to-face with his "creation", ultimately giving him the choice to decide what life he wants, thus highlighting the free will that Truman has.

I remember seeing this back in the day, and being somewhat underwhelmed because I was obviously expecting a more "conventional" Jim Carrey film. But as time passed by, it has become one of my favorite films of all time, and certainly my favorite of 1998. Grade: A

(All images belong to Paramount Pictures and its affiliates)

Killer Joe: A bizarre and twisted tale of murder

The first film of 2013 couldn't have been more bizarre. Killer Joe walks a fine line between a dark comedy and a sick thriller.

The film follows Chris (Emile Hirsch), a young Texan drug dealer who, after falling in debt with some thugs, decides to murder his alcoholic mother to collect the insurance money. He then recruits the help of his father, Ansel (Thomas Haden Church) and his current wife, Sharla (Gina Gershon). Although they try not to involve her, Chris young and naive sister, Dottie (Juno Temple), also agrees to the deed. To achieve their goal, they hire the titular character, Joe Cooper (Matthew McCounaghey), a detective whose side job is as a contract killer. When Chris can't come up with Joe's $25,000 fee up front, Joe asks for Dottie as a retainer. And from there, the plot unravels in what ends up being a chaotic mess.

I have to say, I rented this expecting it to be more of a suspense/thriller. I never thought the film would end up being what it is. And what a bizarre and twisted film it ended up being. I'm still not sure what to make of it, but it sure wasn't boring. The film gloats in its own chaotic and messy nature, as if there were no bridles to hold it back. Depending on what you expect, or how receptive you are, this might be good or bad.

For starters, during the first hour or so, I thought most of the acting was uneven. Everyone from Hirsch and Haden Church, to Gershon interacted and behaved in a sort of self-conscious way, screaming in what seemed to me as unnatural or awkward. Now, on hindsight, I wonder if it was part of the darkly comedic tone of the film. Temple was the only one of the lead family that was pretty good from the beginning. Her performance as the innocent and childlike Dottie was pretty good, without limiting herself to the usual crutches of this type of characters.

But either way, the standout of the film is Matthew McCounaghey as the titular character. McCounaghey completely owns the role of Killer Joe in what I think is one, if not the best performance I've seen of him. His character is a contradiction, in every single way. A police detective, who happens to be a contract killer on the side. A murderer who sometimes investigates his own murderers. A man of order in the middle of the chaos, that which sometimes he is a part of. McCounaghey gives so many layers to Joe, as we see him charmed by Dottie one moment, and then intimidating Chris and Ansel. As reprehensible as his actions might be, he maintains a sense of order in everything he does: his punctuality, his manners, the way he talks. His "employers", in the other hand, are a total mess in all those same aspects.

The climatic scene of the film is a tense dinner at the trailer of our characters which brings to the surface some of this contradictions. In this scene, all the characters collide in one of the most twisted and intense scenes I've seen recently, as Joe confronts the intentions and motivations of each of them. Again, we have to wonder, who is the bad guy then? who is the killer? Despite all the serious ramifications, there are moments in the scene where I was just chuckling and asking myself "WTF?", highlighted by the awkwardly anti-climatic ending. But even if you chuckle or shake your head at it all, I think it was worth it.

Initially, I wasn't sure what to think of the film and didn't grade it. But as time has passed by, I can say I really liked it. I think it's worth a watch for anyone who's ready for something odd, or for a great performance from an underrated actor. Grade: B+

(All pictures belong to LD Entertainment and its affiliates)

2012: The Best and Worst For Me

2012 is about to finish so, despite the fact that I haven't seen a lot of films, I figured why not make a list of the best and worst for me? First, lets get the films I haven't seen out of the way, so you won't start wondering why this or that didn't "make it". Some of the ones I haven't seen are: The Avengers, Skyfall, Django Unchained, Lincoln, Les Misérables, The Hobbit, Life of Pi, Argo, The Master, etc. etc. As of today, I've only seen 15 films from 2012, so here are my best and worst.

The Best

To this day, I hadn't really seen anything spectacular. Casually, the one that I would consider the best 2012 film I've seen so far is Chained, which I saw this last week. It is a little known thriller starring Vincent D'Onofrio. Neatly acted and overall well done. The rest of the best that I've seen tend to fall more in the B-grade range, but entertaining nonetheless. Films like Savages, The Sound of My Voice, and The Hunger Games, among others, were all entertaining films, albeit not spectacular.

The Middle of the Pack

Not far from the last three I mentioned above, are a group of films that were also entertaining, but leaning more towards average. Films like Prometheus or The Dark Knight Rises could be considered disappointments, but they were far from awful. Other films that would fall in the middle would be Haywire, The Grey, Safe House, and The Raid, among others.

The Worst

Just like I haven't seen anything spectacular or mind-blowing, I haven't seen a truly awful 2012 film. The one I would probably consider the worst would be The Raven. Overall, a mediocre film with pretty good directing, but uneven acting and a mediocre script. After that, I would probably say that Chronicle was very disappointing. I thought the premise was pretty good, I felt the approach was inventive, the acting was solid, but the use of the "handheld camera" ended up being annoying and distracting, and the final act ended up being a mess.

Maybe later, as I end up watching more 2012 films, I'll add more to this entry. But as of now, that would be my feeble list of 2012 best and worst.

Chained: Surprising little film

(Although I tried to refrain from spoilers, there might be some light ones.)

Chained is a little-known film from director Jennifer Lynch with a disturbing premise. A 9-year old kid and his mother are kidnapped by a cab-driving serial killer. After dispatching of the mother, the killer forces the kid to work as both his servant and helper on his secluded home, which goes on for years. I hadn't heard of this film before renting it this week. It was mostly filmed and shown in Canada, and then released directly to video in the US. After watching it, I have to say it was a pleasant surprise.

The role of Bob, the serial killer, falls on the hand of Vincent D'Onofrio. IMO, D'Onofrio is one of the most underrated actors out there, and I just can't understand why he hasn't had more success, or at least more exposure. His performance is disturbing, chilling, scary, but at the same time, he manages to give the character certain levels of humanity. The role of the kidnapped child, who Bob calls Rabbit, belongs to both Evan Bird (9 years) and Eamon Farren (17-18 years), and they both excel in it. They both portray the complexity of Rabbit's relationship with Bob perfectly, as well as the fear and insecurity that an isolated child might feel.

 

As the film progresses, and the years go by, we see dozens and dozens of women dragged into the house by Bob only to end up dead and buried under the house. Meanwhile, Bob assumes the role of paternal figure to Rabbit in his own way. He tries to "educate" Rabbit by giving him a book of anatomy, while forcing him to keep scrapbooks of the news of his kidnappings. In their free time, they "play" with the drivers licenses of the deceased which they both have memorized.

As Rabbit grows older, Bob tries to teach him his "craft", which brings up the question. Will Rabbit grow up to follow Bob's footsteps? Even though Bob removes his chains at one point, is he still "chained" to this fate? The film doesn't necessarily offer an answer, but the ending revelation surely took me by surprise, and made the film feel yet more twisted and sad.

Overall, a surprisingly good little film, with some great performances. Despite its subject, Chained doesn't fall into the slasher genre, and becomes more of a psychological thriller/character study. I fully recommend it. Grade: A

(All pictures belong to Anchor Bay Entertainment and its affiliates)

The Dark Knight Rises: The End of Nolan's Batman Trilogy

(This review includes spoilers for the film)

This week I finally saw The Dark Knight Rises, the last chapter of director Christopher Nolan's trilogy on Batman. First, to put things in perspective, I'll share some quick thoughts about the two previous films. Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are solid, entertaining films. I remember seeing both in theaters and enjoying them. Regardless of this, the first one has been somewhat forgettable to me, and I haven't felt compelled to rewatch it. The second one is only elevated by Heath Ledger's flawless performance as the Joker. But other than that, the film is far from great. I have many issues, particularly with the last act, but that's a matter for another entry.

Now, for the third installment, I tried to keep my expectations in check, considering my thoughts on the previous two films. In the end, I can say I was satisfied with it. The Dark Knight Rises is a solid, entertaining film, but not that different from its predecessors in that it never reaches excellence or greatness. Some of its assets are its performances, most of which are good, but none spectacular. I really liked Joseph Gordon-Levitt performance as John Blake. I thought Christian Bale did a better job here than he did in the second one. And Tom Hardy was pretty good as Bane, considering he had to fill Ledger's shoes. Another asset would be the direction. Nolan does a good job handling the camera for the most part and the action sequences are neatly shot.

Now for the stuff that wasn't that good. First, I thought the dialogue was at times too clunky and preachy. Some lines felt as if they were written just for the sake of having a "quotable" quote there. Some for the "epicness" of it, others just for the "coolness". 

Second, I know it's a superhero film and as such requires a bit of suspension of disbelief, but I had some issues with most things concerning The Pit. From the narrative symbolism of it, to the time issues having to do with Wayne's recovery and the time that Gotham spends in chaos. About the symbolism, I would've preferred a bit more subtlety to the "rising" of the Dark Knight. And all that stuff about being able to jump the ledge and walk out, it just didn't work for me. And then, we are supposed to believe that a whole city will remain in this chaos for months without the government doing something? I just didn't find Bane's plan either plausible or coherent.

My third and final issue would be with both of Bruce Wayne's relationships in the film. IMO, both felt forced and unnecessary. With Miranda Tate more so. I don't think that it added anything to the conflict within the Wayne Board of Directors or in the climax of the film. Plus, the fact that Tate's secret was all spoiled through the Internet, even before the film opened, ruined all the surprise that the ending revelation might've had. So when she revealed her true nature, there was no edge to it, and then, the script dispatches of Bane, the villain we've been following all the film, rather easily and unceremoniously.

But despite everything I've written, like I said above, the film was still entertaining, albeit a bit overlong. And considering all the bad third installments we've seen among comic book films (Superman III, Spider-Man 3), I suppose this was as good of a closure as one could wish. In the end, I don't think this was neither worst nor better than the first two films. All of them, decent and enjoyable efforts, but nothing great (aside of Ledger in The Dark Knight). Grade: B

(All pictures belong to Warner Bros. and its affiliates)