Posts Tagged ‘murder’

Shutter Island

Shutter Island

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

This movie is the cause of my complete blockage on the review front as I watched it about a month ago and simply refused to believe it left me so blah and with so little to say. I decided to wait until I was ready to give it a second chance. What can I say? I’m still left completely empty.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s stuff to like here. There’s so much, in fact, that this is almost the reason it frustrates me so to feel so underwhelmed by the whole. I want to love this movie. Scorsese does a Shining-like horror? I’m there! And the movie begins so wonderfully ominous, that stock music, the slightly-fake rear-projection on the boat reminding me as much of Hitchcock’s Vertigo as just a little of the opening of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that thrilled me so.

The first time I watched, I lost interest fast. I think I was gone before the very first concentration camp flashback. I did better the second time, holding on to the plot for a good hour before the same thing pretty much happened again. I think my problem with this movie is that it shouldn’t need so much effort to follow, and I realise that some people will take that as in indication of my general intelligence but I’m still saying it. It’s a B movie through and through and Scorsese seems to know it… so why is it nearly 2 and a half hours long and so convoluted when the best it has to offer by way of resolution is Ben Kingsley with a stick literally pointing at a board that shows all the main characters names are anagrams of each other? (oops… SPOILERS)

After much reading of other people’s various interpretations of the story, I think I finally understood the variety of things I was evidently supposed to feel about DiCaprio’s journey in the movie, but I’m afraid to say I simply felt none. The final flashback revealing what happened between him, his wife and his children hit me harder the second time, I will give it that… DiCaprio’s pain in this scene is hard to bear and it’s the one place in the movie where the madness is truly scary… but it comes in the midst of so much nonsense, all of it seeming to take itself far too seriously, that it still didn’t fully sit well with me. I was more frightened by the implications of the twist at the end of James Mangold’s Identity than anything here, I’m afraid. And I know it’s “missing the point” to say it, but truly, Scorsese can do so much better than this.



Star 80

Star 80

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

This has been on my “to watch” list for probably nearly a decade now, since I first came across Bob Fosse’s All That Jazz and Lenny, both of which instantly added him to my list of favourite directors despite his very short resume (in addition to these, there’s only Sweet Charity and Cabaret). It’s amazing in all that time of procrastinating that I never came across any plot info about the movie, and I’m glad… I came to this movie knowing very little about the real life story it’s based on – only that it had something to do with a Playboy model – and as such I got as much out of its shocking turns as it’s possible to get, so I recommend you do likewise and stop reading if you plan on seeing it any time soon, though I won’t get into too much detail (but don’t look at the tags).

This movie reminded me a lot of two other movies I’ve seen in the past couple of years: Lipstick (which shared actress Mariel Hemingway) and Looking for Mr. Goodbar, with a small (less rollercoaster-ish) dash of Paul Thomas Anderson’s Boogie Nights. I wouldn’t say it’s quite as good as any of these, nor at least three of Fosse’s other works (I’ve not yet seen Sweet Charity, though I hear it’s a pretty straight 60s musical so I doubt it’ll wow me), it’s a particularly slow, procedural build to an electrifying finale that left me emotionally drained. It’s certainly worth a look if you’re into such raw Seventies/Early-80s grit.



The Lovely Bones

The Lovely Bones

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

I was surprised by the emotional path I took through this movie after hearing such a widespread lacklustre response to it elsewhere. I’d been looking forward to it for a long time, since it was announced perhaps, just the idea of Peter Jackson doing a) anything on a “smaller” scale than the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and King Kong and b) something that sounded so tonally like one of my favourites of his, Heavenly Creatures. I was slightly annoyed when Saoirse Ronan was cast in a role that sounded to me (though I hadn’t, and still haven’t, read the book it’s based on) perfect for Dakota Fanning – I don’t even know now if that was a real rumour or wishful thinking from me, lol – in any case, subsequent viewings of Atonement warmed me to her as an actress.

The story’s a simple one, kind of Ghost meets What Dreams May Come: a young girl is murdered and views the aftermath from an “in-between” place between earth and heaven, both her and her family unable to move on. Thoughts of revenge are entertained, the girl able to a point to “touch” the real world and send signals to her father in particular, a boy she fell in love with shortly before the incident, and a fellow schoolgirl who has a kind of sixth sense. The movie deals with grief, loss, and moving on quite beautifully as well as adding (I’m told it’s been added in the adaptation process, anyway) a suspenseful thread of the attempt to identify and bring to justice the killer, played quite frighteningly well by Stanley Tucci.

I gave the movie 4 stars at The Auteurs site immediately after the credits rolled but thought of it as a high 4; however the more I think about it, the higher I think that should have been, I feel I’ve been affected by the strange quantity of negative reviews when I can really see nothing wrong with the movie. There’s a turn the story takes at the end where I felt the ending was going to be crushingly unsatisfying, but even that is fixed (hard to explain without spoiling things). I would put the negativity down to it merely being a bad adaptation and that all these negative opinions are coming from fans of the book but it seems too widespread for that explanation… am I the only person who saw the movie but didn’t read the book?

Maybe it’s that people measure Peter Jackson’s work now with a larger scale. I’m certainly one who tends to compare a great artist’s work with what has come before and rate relatively, but one has to remember that in addition to Heavenly Creatures and The Two Towers, he also made King Kong and The Frighteners, both of which this far outweighs. Maybe it’s just that there have been so many great movies and “must-see” movies in the past year and this one drew the short straw. It goes into my favourites, anyway. Saoirse Ronan is phenomenally haunting in the lead, the visual effects used to portray the in-between a really pleasant surprise (it’s not really much “smaller” in these sections than we’re accustomed to from Jackson lol), and there are other notable supporting performances from the likes of Rose McIver (a Power Ranger, I’ve just read, making her all the more impressive here!) as the girl’s sister, a quite mesmerizing turn by Rachel Weisz as her mother. It is a beautifully haunting, sad, yet ultimately strangely uplifting movie that I look forward to seeing again, perhaps after reading the book. I really don’t understand the underwhelming response elsewhere.



Who Saw Her Die?

Who Saw Her Die?

Thursday, March 5th, 2009

Completing a loose triple bill of last night (I don’t know, children, European, fantasy/horror – lol, I thought they’d be a little closer knit to be honest) … I have a soft spot for anything like this, as I always say just about every horror movie from the Seventies is worth watching because they have some kind of innate tone that never fails. This is really a lesser version of Don’t Look Now, but it has its merits, most of all Ennio Morricone’s score. True, that mostly consists of a short sting that plays whenever the killer is near; but it’s Morricone, so you know it’s a good sting worth repeating. Comments on the acting are kind of redundant as the whole thing is dubbed to death, but this too contributes to that feel these movies had that just, I don’t know, feels right. It’s worth it if you’re having a themed bill or something, but not before looking into Don’t Look Now and the work of the likes of Dario Argento.

Through the Veil



Soylent Green

Soylent Green

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

This is one of those movies which every time I see it’s on TV I wonder to myself, why haven’t I seen that movie yet, and then skip it again anyway, only to then wonder, “why do I always skip it?” – and when I finally get around to watching it, I just kinda look at the TV and think, “oh yeh.” I of course knew the ending to this movie – don’t worry, I won’t spoil it – but I still find myself wondering if that’s really such a shame as it sounds like it oughta be. If I hadn’t been aware of how this movie ended, would I really have got any more out of it? Sadly I don’t think I would. This is a genuinely well-realised vision of the future: production design, visual effects and ideas come together to keep it marginally interesting for the duration, alongside some semblance of a detective story. But you get to the end and realise that’s kinda all these things are there for. At least, that’s how I felt.

All this said, it must be said, it took me until almost half way through the movie to even think to check the IMDb and see if the guy who looked like Charlton Heston really was Charlton Heston, lol (yes: some facts just skip me by, lol), and I was pretty surprised. Heston is not someone I like to watch in movies as much as a lot of other people – I have the same issue with Steve McQueen and used to have it with Warren Beatty, but Heston is like the king of the unwatchables, and yet he is perfectly watchable here. Other than this, what can I say except it just didn’t do it for me.



The Oxford Murders

The Oxford Murders

Tuesday, June 17th, 2008

A major point of reference for a lot of the reviews of this has been The Da Vinci Code so it’s a real wonder I even sat through it in the end, let alone that at best I found it far more enjoyable than the Dan Brown adaptation. It’s still a ridiculous pile of nonsense whose only real conclusion is “nobody knows anything” and which outstays its welcome long after you’ve said, “Yeh, I get it,” thirty times – but I was pretty hooked on the screen for at least two thirds of the duration. John Hurt is typically fantastic (the opening monologue is a true indication of how the rest of the movie will be and it’s down to him alone that I didn’t burst out laughing over it), Elijah Wood is okay outside of a few very weird accent and dialogue slips (he’s actually American in the movie, it should be easy enough, but it’s like the Oxford setting and co-stars are getting to him or something, and not in that believable way that his character has just been there awhile), and I quite liked the music. Nothing special but if you like the genre you’ll no doubt be happy enough.



Lolita [1997]

Lolita [1997]

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008

“She was only the dead-leaf echo of the nymphet from long ago – but I loved her, this Lolita, pale and polluted and big with another man’s child. She could fade and wither – I didn’t care. I would still go mad with tenderness at the mere sight of her face.”

First thing that must be said here is how much funnier this is than I ever remember it. The two adaptations of Vladimir Nabokov’s novel are usually separated quite cleanly as “Kubrick funny and Lyne serious” but it’s really nowhere near as simple as that. There are tons of laughs in this version, particularly early on as the game begins in the Haze household. “Is she keeping you up?” Charlotte asks Hum after his and Lo’s first intimate moment, and later, “Just slap her hard if she interferes with your scholarly meditations.” This humour continues throughout the film, usually undercutting any potential discomfort caused by the underage sex etc. (the sleeptalking at the Enchanted Hunters, eg.). The movie kind of snaps in two at the moment when Humbert tells Lo about her mother and the first scene of her crying (some of the most gutwrenching crying ever put on film, I might add, I can hardly bear it no matter how many times I watch the movie) – but even after that the laughs are horrifyingly infectious – the riotous start to the “road trip” portion of the story, for instance, with Lo flinging hairgrips and such at Humbert from the back seat makes one entirely forget just exactly what is going on and indeed what just happened.

Ennio Morricone’s score (it’s the tragic atonal notes that kill me), Jon Hutman’s production design (and/or Chris Shriver’s art direction – I’ve never been able to differentiate between the two roles, lol), Howard Atherton’s cinematography, and Judianna Makovsky’s costume design all deserve individual mention – the production design in particular, though. It’s the motels that stand out of course (“Children under 14 free!”) but the details of the props, from whiskey glasses to the Magic Fingers to the whole damn interior of the car are amazing too, everything has a weighty, tangible believability to it. Lyne’s imagery is virtually flawless, it’s certainly a leap from his 80s thrillers anyway; the introduction to Lolita in the garden is just as arresting as that in the ’62 movie, and that’s really no mean feat to accomplish. Such things as the grotesque shot of Quilty’s hand “fingering” the dog leash jar occasionally but it all contributes to the uneasy balance of light and dark. Looking at the nominations for the 1998 Oscars (or even ’99, when the movie was nominated for some more minor accolades), it’s a genuine shame that this movie ultimately got such a messy release, because in the minor categories it could’ve had a serious shot (I’m always amused, however, when I’m reminded that Dominique Swain and Jeremy Irons were nominated for Best Kiss at the MTV Movie Awards :) )

Unlike many (and I’ve said this many times before, hopefully I’m not boring anyone with repetition) I’ve a huge place in my heart for both Lolita adaptations. They’re just entirely different films as the novel is a different work too. I have no great desire as some do to see it done “correctly” or from Nabokov’s own screenplay (which I have but haven’t yet read) though of course I’d watch such a thing in a flash and probably build yet another cavern of love in my chest for that too.

I have to include just one more quote in this review, I could honestly fill a page with them though – it’s the one that ends the movie and what always brings me back to regarding it as every bit as good an adaptation as Kubrick’s no matter where it may stumble along the way:

“What I heard then was the melody of children at play. Nothing but that. And I knew that the hopelessly poignant thing was not Lolita’s absence from my side, but the absence of her voice from that chorus.”

Both quotes are almost straight from the novel, albeit shortened; both are beautiful and really get to the heart of why Lolita is so much more than it’s often unfortunately mistaken for. It’s been too long since I actually read the novel, I read it almost every year for a while but I can’t seem to find the time to read these days. Watching this, however, not to mention searching an e-text for those particular lines and finding the glorious expanded versions of them, definitely made me want to find time. Anyone who hasn’t read it at least once should feel even more compelled.



Sisters [2006]

Sisters [2006]

Wednesday, March 19th, 2008

Hmph. Figures. I thought this was gonna be the old Brian De Palma movie but it turns out to be a remake thereof that I’ve never heard of lol. I watched anyway since the cast list includes Chloe Sevigny and Stephen Rea, and to be honest there are a lot of moments here where I could easily have been convinced – especially considering his recent output prior to Redacted – that it was at the least a much older movie, and at best directed by De Palma himself. I haven’t seen the original so I don’t know if it’s one of his movies that displays the stylish Hitchcock homagery he shortly thereafter became known for, but that’s what I’m referring to here at least. This is all well and good, and makes for an interesting 90 minutes … but I’m just left wondering exactly what the point of it was.

In any case, it’s better than a piece of crap – any time I find myself gasping, “Oh my god“ over the gore content of a scene is always a good thing. To be perfectly honest, the ending of this thing feels more like the good old Seventies than anything I’ve seen outside the decade itself, right down to the Rosemary’s Baby ish score. I’ll happily watch it again – though after I get around to seeing the original, I promise.