Mini-Reviews of a Whole Lotta Underrated Movies

The holidays have ended and I'm back at school, but with all that spare time - that I'll no longer have - I watched a whole lot of underrated gems (I saw a couple of these movies way back at the start of December). So in alphabetical order, I'll serve up a few words on Richard Linklater's Bernie, Ralph Fiennes' Coriolanus, Tony Kaye's Detachment, Lee Tamahori's The Devil's Double, David Ayer's End of Watch, and Amy Heckerling's Vamps.

Bernie (2011) / US / Out on DVD now / Directed by Richard Linklater / Written by Richard Linklater and Skip Hollandsworth / Starring Jack Black, Shirley MacLaine, Matthew McConaughey, Brady Coleman / 104 mins

I've already said a lot about Jack Black's performance as convicted murderer with a heart of gold, Bernie Tiede. And there won't be a point for a very long time where I don't champion that performance. Everything just clicks, and usually Black annoys the heck out of me. The movie itself is just wonderful - and I saw it twice in the holidays. I wouldn't say I'm an expert on Richard Linklater's films, but I feel like he is one of the best working directors and no one really realises it. He's just so consistent in his work. This film, all about the Bernie Tiede case where he kills a woman he's been living with (Shirley MacLaine) coz he's had it with her, is mostly told mockumentary style, with real people who were around during the whole ordeal relaying the events for the camera. It feels so real, in a bizarrely unreal way. To be honest, this is the Matthew McConaughey performance from 2012 that I have no trouble going back to again and again. I mean, who really wants to brave Killer Joe a second time? And yeah, Magic Mike wasn't my favourite.
Why see it? The performances. And it is damn entertaining.

My Movie Biography: How It All Started in 2006

In eight days, it'll be my blog's third anniversary, and I decided that I might as well do something special for it. I have three special things planned, but this is the first, which will run right up to the big day. What is the "Movie Biography". Well, it is basically a year by year look at the films that have shaped my love for films. Sometimes there'll be just two films (like there are today), other days there'll be heaps, but I thought I may as well share my inspiring and interesting (haha) anecdotes on how I came to love these films. Because I imagine if I ever got a biography written about me (which is kinda my lifelong goal), the chapters would be in the movies I've watched instead of normal things like "Stevee Taylor becomes an astronaut". Because we all know that's going to happen, which is why people will write a biography on me.

Let's start with my first favourite movie. Technically my love for Racing Stripes all happened in 2005, but 2006 was when I really started loving movies and when I really discovered that I loved this film. First of all, I'm sorry that I wasn't into arthouse movies when I was 11. If you had showed me The Tree of Life when I was that age, I probably would have gone on my Bebo and said "OMG The Tree of Life is my favourite movie!" I'm actually not joking. I used to believe I was cool because I knew of these movies, and even if I didn't understand them, I'd go "I LOVE THAT MOVIE!". Which is why you don't start loving movies when you're 11. Alas, behind that arthouse façade, my favourite movie was one with talking animals that had a zebra as a racehorse. This was for a whole raft of reasons:
-I don't mean to impress you, but my mother and I saw it TWICE. This was a big deal back in the day. I think we saw it our local cinemas, too, which means it was a really long time ago. I also think we saw it a second time because I had two broken arms and I couldn't do all that much. Including eat popcorn like a normal person, but the cinema was dark so no-one would have noticed how stupid I looked with two broken arms. Then again, one of my casts was glow in the dark...yeah, I really thought that out well. Alas, I think the fact that we went to go and see it twice was probably the reason why it was my favourite film.

Cinema - Source Code

or: Eight minutes.

One word to sum it up: "Trippy"

Duncan Jones burst onto the film scene in 2009 with his brilliant sci-fi debut, Moon. I was quite impressed with his first directorial effort...it was much better than I expected from someone who has never handled a feature film before. Of course, after that, Duncan Jones had some pretty big expectations to live up to. So what better to do than make a complicated 'blockbuster' type film starring a lovely Jake Gyllenhaal that causes one to look at the fine line between reality and something out of this world? I gotta be the one to say it: Duncan Jones has the potential to be one of the finest modern movie-makers with his effort in Source Code. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Source Code begins with a train. Just a normal train, making it's way through Chicago as normal. On the train we discover a man who has just woken up, a little bit disoriented and not really sure about what is happening. This man believes he is Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal), who flew planes in Afghanistan. But he thinks something is up when a mysterious woman named Christina (Michelle Monaghan) begins talking to him like she's known him his whole life. He goes to a mirror and discovers that he doesn't look at all like he thought he did, and he is actually known as Sean Fentress. Before he can make sense of what is happening, the train blows up. He wakes up in a 'capsule', with another mysterious woman, Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) talking to him through a webcam. Colter finds out that he is actually part of a 'source code', which allows him to go into another mans body in the last eight minutes of his life. The purpose of this? Colter may be able to find the person who bombed the train he was on and prevent that person from doing another attack. But as Colter returns to the train over and over again, he realises that he doesn't just want to find the bomber, he wants to save the people on the train, which he is told isn't possible.

You'd think that having to relive essentially the same eight minutes over and over again would get boring. No, that's not the case here. Yes, the setting gets familiar, but it never gets boring. That is the first reason why Be Ripley's script rocks. Here he has created something quite elaborate, but hasn't really left many plot holes. In saying that, he also didn't get too caught up in trying to explain things all in one go...we learn as Colter learns. In fact, we go through this movie as if we were Colter. Which is a cool experience, because I felt, to a degree, that I was a part of the source code thing too, and that was fun. The story is puzzling and challenging, always keeping the audience on their toes while still having a good time. There's never really a dull moment. I do admit to laughing quite a few times and even bawling my eyes out crying towards the end. But once the big plot twist was revealed, I felt like I was bolted to the screen, suddenly ready for another whirl. It's a short and snappy film, but my God, I could have taken some more. The way Duncan Jones ties everything up is nice too. He had a really good way of directing this, using some really good editing and small symbols throughout the film for the audience to piece together.

Another reason why this film works so well is the fact that it is a fantastic human drama. Sure, having the little romance between Colter/Sean and Christina helped with that a lot, this film really does question a lot of things. It capitalizes on those minutes before everyone dies. Yet, it still asks the viewer what they would do if they were in Colter's situation. Would you try and defy this 'source code' thing so you could save everyone? Since you know what is going to happen, would you try and change it? And there's the ever-present one: Does everything come down to fate? I'm sure that there are little source code's going on around the world...and I'm now taking extra precautions to ensure that I know that everything just comes the way it is...not because I'm stuck in a source code.

Performance-wise, this movie is very strong. The main cast is very small, but I've gotta hand it to everyone on the train. They stayed on there, with all their different personalities, throughout the whole thing, and managed to hold their characters. Anyway. Jake Gyllenhaal leads the show with his multi-faceted performance. He was compelling, and really provided the movie with the heart it needed in order to succeed. He was a lovable figure, someone I really rooted for in the end, and most of the success of the movie comes down to him, so he did a fantastic job. Michelle Monaghan, though she has starred in a slew of uninspiring films, continues to impress me. She was a cute love interest here, and shows that she is a more capable than most people give her credit for. Jeffrey Wright surprised me with his performance, as he obviously based quite a bit of his performance on the 'mad scientist' myth. He had all of the mannerisms and everything right. But of course, I have to dedicate a small part of this review to the glorious Vera Farmiga. Oh, how I've missed her since Up in the Air. While most of her role is restricted to sitting in front of a computer talking to a webcam, she serves as a great link between Colter and reality. She provides another part of the human touch which went really well in this movie. That human touch which leads me to give this movie a full quota of stars...risky choice, I know, but this movie was damn impressive.

THE VERDICT: A puzzling, complicated premise sprawled out over fantastic script-work from Ben Ripley ensures that Source Code is not only an entertaining blockbuster, but it is a great human drama. Duncan Jones does a marvellous job of directing a really well-performed, exciting thriller.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

Reviews Round Up Part 3: Little Fockers, Burlesque, Love and Other Drugs

Little Fockers

Back in the day, putting such Hollywood heavyweights as Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman, Harvey Keitel and Barbara Streisand in one movie would have equalled brilliance on so many levels. But no, these days it's just a way of name dropping in the hope you might get a few bucks to spend on a new SUV for yourself. You can even add Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Laura Dern and, ah, Jessica Alba, and it still doesn't get any better as a movie, but people will still see it. I swear that people are only possibly excited for this movie because the name sounds like a derogatory term. And let me tell you: if you were expecting a movie focusing on the 'little' Fockers, then you'll be severely disappointed. Those kids are barely even in it. All I got out of the film was Robert De Niro was trying to make Ben Stiller a 'GodFocker', something which I wasn't aware existed, Owen Wilson was in love with Teri Polo and possibly stoned for the whole movie, Jessica Alba was a creepy stalker with the name 'Andi Garcia' (oh hahahahahahaha I get it.), there was some plot line about a sex drug, Dustin Hoffman liked to Spanish dance, and...yeah. It wasn't even funny. If the kids were a large factor of the movie, then it may have been funny. But instead we had to deal with half of Hollywood's problems.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

Burlesque

I admit, I do love musicals. But I don't like either Cher or Christina Aguilera. I'm sorry, but Cher's voice really scares me and Christina really likes screaming. So, I had rather low expectations for this movie, especially as the story has been done so many times it's not funny. You can't tell me that in real life a 'small-town' girl has a voice as large as that without any specific training, and can suddenly make it big in a burlesque club which is running into the ground anyway. But it seems to happen all of the time in the movies, and this may be the worst offender. Everything is so camp, but it seems to work that to it's advantage. I actually had a good time watching this movie. The dance scenes were absolutely spectacular...no wonder why the club was running out of funds. There was actually a nice balance of dancing and normal dramatic scenes, so it was a pretty easy movie to watch, as opposed to many unbalanced musicals. While the drama certainly wasn't as brilliant as the musical moments, it was bearable, to a point. Christina took such a long time to warm up, as at the start she was too busy walking around like a stuck up actress, but she finally let herself go and stopped trying so hard, and she was actually far better than most musicians-turned-actors. Cher was Cher. Stanley Tucci was nothing short of brilliant as Cher's gay counterpart. Kristen Bell was a stand-out though, bringing out a brunette wig and being a super-bitch. She's so talented, she just needs better roles. Sure, this movie had way too many characters, and it was so predictable I nearly died, but I had a really good time watching it.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

Love and Other Drugs

Okay, okay. I have a list of possible things Love and Other Drugs was trying to be:
-A movie about the early days of Viagra.
-A tragic love story about a normal man and a sick girl with Parkinson's.
-A movie about fuck buddies.
-A love story of sorts.
-A movie about a guy who gradually gets successful leaving his lady friend behind.
-A movie about two people who aren't looking for anything serious but end up getting serious.
-A movie about a man-whore who finds love and everything changes.
-A movie about people who really like their bed.
-Porn.
When a movie tries to be so many different things and fails at everything but the last one, you know you have problems. Besides Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway's brilliant chemistry, it was hard to know what is really going on. One minute, it will try and be something, and the next minute, it will be on a completely different path. As a consequence, it drags on way longer than it needs to, and it basically just keeps changing the characters decisions so it gets really hard to watch. I don't get how Jake and Anne came to be together and how they would be totally in love with each other and be breaking up a few seconds after. It just got really messy. There was so much unnecessary sex in this movie it was actually really hard to picture them having a real relationship. I thought the Parkinson's storyline was great, though, because it was really tastefully done. I actually thought Anne's performance was Oscar-worthy, she depicted the illness really well. The underlying story about Viagra was pretty non-existent, so if you were looking for a movie about that, then this isn't it. What a disappointment.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

Classic--Zodiac

or: Why I love quietly terrifying movies...

One word to sum it up: Terrifying.

I love David Fincher movies. There's just something about them which I love, just like there's something about Christopher Nolan movies which I love. Zodiac is no exception. It's not an all out horror or thriller, but it still managed to scare the crumbs out of me. I swear, I was biting my nails for most of this movie I was so scared.

In San Francisco, beginning in the late 1960's, a serial killer known only as 'The Zodiac Killer', taunts the local newspaper with letters using a cryptic code. Three people become particularly taken by this case: a journalist Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) who is responsible for writing about the Zodiac's killing; Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) who unsuccessfully tries to hunt down the killers true identity; and cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), who takes it upon himself to find the killer, while writing a book about the Zodiac.

While the fact that this film doesn't portray any of the Zodiac's infamous murders and just shows people describing what happened may not appeal to some people, this dialogue driven thriller is definitely worth the watch. It zeroes in on fear and it's reliance on describing the killings in other ways than showing them really scared the crap out of me. Fincher puts you into the film from the beginning; you sit there and listen to the Zodiac breathing down the phone, you are in the car with who might be the killer, you are writing the book with Robert Graysmith. This kind of thing isn't easily done, but I have never found a work to be so compelling over it's slightly long running time and come out of it with all these new fears awoken. Obviously, there aren't any clear answers at the end, which is when you might feel a little cheated, but what the hell? This psychological thriller is one that will mess with your head, just like the Zodiac did to all of those people.

The three main performances from Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr., and Mark Ruffalo were all top notch, and definitely deserve more credit than they got. The fact that our hero, Robert Graysmith was a little on the weak side impacted on the film: his obsession with the Zodiac was like someone who had an obsession with comics. However, David Fincher again makes a masterpiece, albeit a fearsome and challenging one, but definitely captivating. The way he directed the stabbing scene at Lake Berryessa was singlehandedly one of the most disturbing, well-composed scenes I have ever seen.


THE VERDICT: A compelling psychological thriller with amazing performance and fantastic direction from David Fincher. A clear example of why dialogue driven thrillers are more scary than tortue porn horrors.

8/10

DVD--Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

or: No, video games shouldn't be adapted into films.

One word to sum it up: Unsurprising.

Jake Gyllenhaal: Academy Award nominated actor, a critically sought after actor and also a very good looking one. So what the hell was he doing in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time? Was it just an excuse for him to get beefier and get some more lady admirers? Or was it so he could fight a snake (because everyone wants to do that)? Or was it because he wanted to go into unknown and what should be condemned territory: the video game adaption? Because as far as I am concerned, this Jerry Bruckheimer action/fantasy mish-mash should have really been left in the Xbox console.

Adopted from the streets of Nasaf by King Sharaman of Persia, young Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) grows up amongst royalty and quickly earns his place as a mighty warrior and prince. As his brothers Garsiv and Tus plan battle strategies, a spy sends word that the Holy City of Alamut has been supplying weapons to enemies of Persia. Taking matters into his own hands, Tus orders an attack on the sacred city and upon its fall Dastan encounters the beautiful Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton). When King Sharaman dies under mysterious circumstances shortly after, and Dastan is accused of his murder, he flees with the princess on a harrowing mission to clear his name. Learning from Tamina the true motives behind Alamut's invasion, Dastan must embark on a perilous quest to stop an evil mastermind's plot for ultimate power with a mystical weapon that can control the very fabric of time.

Ah...yeah. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time was almost death-defyingly bad for me, only saved by whimsical performances from lovely leads Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton. But even then, Gyllenhaal missed the mark, as in many places his over-blown muscles became the saving grace when his strange British/American/African/Asian accent fell through. This movie was kinda like a generic daytime soap stuck in the middle of a desert a few hundred years ago. Everything said is unfortunately badly written and passes off as something out of a Michael Bay movie. In fact, Michael Bay could have directed this. It was just another summer blockbuster which had money thrown at it instead of true thought.

Remember Clash of the Titans? Well, this movie ain't too unlike that one. It's filled with some 'what-the-hell is happening now?!' moments. It has a fight sequence which involve Jake Gyllenhaal and a snake (I think at this point I was pissing myself laughing. I mean, a snake? Seriously? That kind of stuff is for those outback snake wranglers). It uses sets which are totally computer generated that they still have the glow from the computer screen setting the brightness up a notch. It has Gemma Arterton. One thing this film doesn't have in common with Clash of the Titans is the fact that it is adapted from a video game and therefore doesn't succeed. I will keep this belief until somebody can recommend me a video game adaption which is really good. And that is just about as impossible as making me like Twilight.


THE VERDICT: Gives A Nightmare on Elm Street a run for it's money in being the worst movie of 2010.

2/10

DVD--Brothers

or: Dear John with some better actors.

One word to some it up: Boring.

Brothers should have boasted about it's cast a bit more. Tobey Macguire, Jake Gyllenhaal and Natalie Portman, who in real life are very close friends, turned out in full force with this movie. Shame is, they were barely in the movie enough to even get top billing. I think I was more interested in the kids. What I expected was a steamy romantic drama. What I got was something I could have seen in an episode of Coronation Street.

Sam Cahill (Tobey Macguire) leaves his family once again to go and fight in Afghanistan, and while he is gone he lets his brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) stay at his house after he is released from prison for robbing a bank. Sam's helicopter is shot down and he is presumed dead, leaving his wife Grace (Natalie Portman) and two children alone. Tommy steps in to help with the family, but in amazing circumstances Sam is found alive and returns home to find that his family have changed in his absence.

I haven't seen the Danish original, but I could probably guarantee that it's a lot better than this one. There were a few things I was expecting from this film that just never happened. Like I expected the relationship between Tommy and Grace to be a bit more intense. I wanted it to be a fractured portrait of a family, but it just felt pretty much the same as most movie families. And for one thing, I really admired Tobey Macguire's work at the end of the film, as he managed to pull off that giant hissy fit and still be respectable. If only the rest of the film could have been like that.

Macguire, Gyllenhaal and Portman all pull off marvellous performances and carry the movie with their professionalism and ability. However, nothing really happens in Brothers, and it fails to make use of the good story it has. It just feels to melodramatic and lacks the magic to pack a real punch. The acting is probably the only redeeming feature this movie has, even including the short appearance from Carey Mulligan, who I barely recognized with beautiful long blonde locks.

THE VERDICT: Brothers plays out more like an episode of a soap drama than a true drama, and suffers from a high dosage of Hollywood gloss. Macguire, Gyllenhaal and Portman do make this worth the watch, though.

4/10