Quickie: Carlito's Way - Review

"Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in" - Michael Corleone

(Godfather Part III)

Plot synopsis.
Reformed con, Carlito Brigante (Al Pacino) emerges from 5 years behind bars as a history-book legend to a world somewhat changed. Carlito's Way catalogs the chase of a dream; going straight, of a man who knows nothing else but to do it the wrong way. The initially moral-grounded lawyer David Kleinfeld (Sean Penn) becomes Carlito's dead weight, and tempts Carlito back into his old ways, while old flame Gail (Penelope Ann Miller) provides the polar opposite moral compass.

Carlito must choose between honour, debt and loyalty or the American dream in paradise. In a final take similar to The Untouchables (also directed by Brian De Palma), Carlito's way is left dripping in irony.


Mini-review.
After controversial success with Scarface, director Brian De Palma provides Pacino with the lead again as they, this time, tackle a gangster film more "western" than "gangs"; you can't trust your family, friends, loved ones - "...there's only one rule, you save your own ass".
Pacino and Penn are excellent as mirrors of each other and themselves as the tables turn swiftly. It's particularly interesting to watch Penn portray his character's quick self destruct as the slimey lawyer falls deeper and deeper into trouble. Carlito is played with the intensity you'd expect from Pacino, and the sympathy he generates from the audience is not only impressive but believable too. However, for all of Pacino's great work the ending was generally not met with any emotional attachment - something perhaps due to Penelope Ann Miller's portrayal of Gail; there was something missing from it which seemed to emotionally isolate Pacino's character.

3.5 out of 5

A good standing flick about an unoriginal story. Worth a watch if not for the performances alone.

Donnie Darko - Movie/DVD Review

28 days... 6 hours... 42 minutes... 12 seconds.
That... is when the world... will end.

Movies are like dancing; some people are good at it, some are creative and flashy with their techniques, some stick to a step-by-step routine of how to dance, while others will take everything they know about dancing and do something completely different, some dance routines make us cry, others make us laugh, sometimes dancing is pulled off by one individual, where others it is performed by 100s of individuals working together.

It's difficult to put Donnie Darko into one of those categories, perhaps because it does a bit of everything, takes you by the hand, spins you around, - your beliefs, the hero and anti-hero mantras - twirls you around and throws you down to the ground in one last hurrah; a final dramatic play that sees your partner fall to the ground while you look on wonder "but what if..."

First of all, Donnie Darko is not a horror, it is not a slasher, it's not supposed to make you jump, it's not an emo flick (unless you mean emotional film; and surely that describes all movies?) so expecting a guy in a mask to jump out and scare you is going to leave you out in the dark with regard to the true genius of this film. I'm not really sure what happened; it's a bit of an indie film - it's not a blockbuster - but once it was released it seemed to take on it's own life (funded by marketing money men?) which saw it being sold to the masses as something everyone can relate with; everyone has an opinion on slashers/horrors; you either love them or hate them.

The Characters.
Truth is, you can't put Donnie Darko into a neat (generalized) genre box; there's no real good people in this film; no hero or savior (though Donnie [played to perfection by Jake Gyllenhaal] eventually becomes that figure). Likewise, there's no anti-hero; not even fruitloop, fear vs. love Jim Cunningham (Patrick Swayze) running a child-porn ring, or Donnie's little dancing sister (Daveigh Chase), or Donnie's older less wiser sister (played by real life sister, the underrated Maggie Gyllenhaal) who doesn't really know what she wants to be; a teenager or a college-bound woman, or his understanding parents (Rose and Eddie played by Mary McDonnell and Holmes Osborne respectively) whom seem to play second fiddle to their three children; sometimes blindly supporting the bad things in their children's lives and seamlessly allowing people to walk over them in the process.

Supporting Donnie's family is an extremely strong and diverse cast; faces we've all probably seen at some point.
The purdy Jena Malone plays Donnie's love interest, Gretchen Ross, who's a bit missed up herself; new girl in school who had to move (and change her name) because her mothers ex-husband stabbed her mother four times. Gretchen's desire is to see the good things in the world; and to prove to herself that the world can be beautiful. Ironically she sees this in disturbed bunny seeing Donnie, who himself is afraid of solitude, confused, but at the same time curious of the world and it's lies.
Speaking of the Bunny, what can be said? Except that it makes for an unbelievable conclusion; having already seen it before I watched it (er.) again, I knew what was coming and the explanation of "Frank" the demonic dummy (played by James Duval) whom seems to be manipulating and pulling the strings of Donnie; with the promise that it will eventually save the world from destruction.
Trying to prove that this is nothing but utter nonsense and to get to the root of Donnie's problems is understanding shrink Dr. Lilian Thurman (played'eth by Katharine Ross - I had no idea that was her, until I looked it up!).


Storyline.
I like to keep things regarding plot, character arcs when reviewing movies mostly vague as I don't like to spoil and so on, I feel it also helps the review itself - it keeps things objective; so I'll keep it vague. Although the basic premise of this film is an old one (to save the world) that isn't really what this film is about. In fact, it's really about how it doesn't need saving (I didn't italicize the wrong word there), as the film presents the theory that we're all on a unchangeable path. Donnie talks to teacher Kenneth Monnitoff (Noah Wyle) about the theories of time travel; Donnie debates that if you can see your fixed path (and thus your future) you could change it. However, Monnitoff explains that this perspective is a contradiction; if you could see your future you could change your destiny, thus it wouldn't be a fixed path. Donnie hits back by saying that view is irrelevant if you could see "God's path".

"God's path" is perhaps the most obvious of the religious undertones scattered throughout the film; redemption, prophecies, destiny, faith, a higher power, sacrifice; these are all covered in Donnie Darko, but it avoids being pretentious in it's content as it never truly answers the issues it poses, it doesn't force feed a truth or single theory. Instead it merely guides you, like Frank does Donnie, and then asks you to choose, or not as the case may be.

Essentially, Donnie looks at the actions he is performing (dictated by the from the future touting bunny) as a means to that end; to change ones destiny. Donnie is terrified that he will die alone, having little or no meaning to his own existence. Dr. Thurman explains; "If the sky were to suddenly open up, there would be no law, there would be no rule. There would only be you and your memories. If this world were to end, there would only be you... and him... and no one else." Although she means this as more of a if your false reality would end... in the end she is right; "Every living creature on earth dies alone." but the thumb print left by the death of an individual is sometimes greater than we could imagine; the people who we've interacted with (little or small) are all influenced by their experiences with us. The movie ends with that note soaring high.

The conclusion to Donnie Darko, sends you on a roller coaster of realization. The pieces fall into place not just for the audience, but for Donnie himself. He finally realizes why Frank has been hounding him, and in a fantastic montage, everyone else realizes what Donnie meant to them. In essence, they are all given a second chance through Donnie's choice and his ability to see "God's path". Most of the characters are like glasses of water; each of them are exactly half full (half good - half not so much). Donnie's 'choice' allowed for those characters to have full glasses, it also gives them the choice, a new set of cross roads which would not have been there were it not for the actions of Donnie.

5 out of 5


Closing words.
Watch it. Love it. Hate it. But have an opinion on it.

Films like this: American Beauty, The Butterfly Effect, Fight Club (according to imdb)...

The Bourne Ultimatum - Movie Review

I remember... I remember, everything...

Intro.
Bourne is back. And boy am I glad! Seeing Transformers about a month ago had me questioning the Blockbuster; "Can blockbusters still be good movies?" and not just a heavily advertised gimmick and/or big budget let down with the occasional bell and whistle. The Bourne Ultimatum removes any doubt that blockbusters automatically mean brainless eye-candy. Don't get me wrong, everything about this movie screams expensive! but it is the story, and it's brilliant conclusion, that makes this a fun, action packed, clever, simple, enjoyable film.

The film.
This time around, Jason Bourne returns to the US of A to find out who he is, who they are and what they did to him. One of the things that makes this film so great is the accessibility of the story to people who may or may not have seen the original 2 installments; the blanks (fittingly) are filled in via flashes of Bourne's memory fragments; for all intensive and purposes first time watchers of this series will see the film through Bourne's eyes; filling in the blanks when he remembers something - which is clever as it makes this movie, not only a brilliant end to a series but also a fabulous movie on its own.

The action.
Some of the action in this film is similar in technique to Casino Royal released earlier this year; it's raw, bone crunching, but bloodless (so watchable by all the family). The free running, in particular, was very impressive with Bourne running across the rooftops in Tangiers, Morocco to save the life of (this time "Bourne accomplice" and previous movie "bad guy" accomplice) Nicky Parsons (played by the 'sometimes hot, sometimes not' Julia Stiles) from the grasp of a hired drone "asset" (hitman) - the very people who Bourne once was.
Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) and Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) return as the bad guy and bad gal turned good again in this movie and are still hot on the heels of Bourne as they try to cover their own asses and obstruct Bourne from discovering the truth.

The brilliance of ending.
There's not really a twist to this movie, as you'll piece together most of it for yourself via information Bourne uncovers and the memory flashes that occasionally hit him. Where this movie really succeeds is in it's realization, on Bourne's part, of what he became and how he became the lean, mean killing machine which also places a moral question on who he was before he became Jason Bourne. And the final scene is nothing more than brilliant; it perfectly rounds up the movie: simple, symbolic and fabulous. Tingle down my spine moments.

4.5 out of 5

The best of the 3 and, amazingly, you're not required to have seen the previous 2 films. Perhaps the most fun film of recent times and certainly my favorite of the summer blockbusters.

Quickie: The Life of David Gale - Movie Review

Ego, desire: a half martyr is no good to us

The Life of David Gale is a drama based around David Gale (Kevin Spacey) and his convicted rape and murder of fellow activist Constance Harraway (Laura Linney). Bitsey Bloom (Kate Winslet), news reporter, is drafted in by Gale not to stop his death sentence, or prove he did not do it, but to find out "why" and to make sure people remember him for what lived for and not for why he died, interestingly it eventually becomes apparent that his reason for living and dieing were the same.

Overall The Life of David Gale is kind of a predicatable film, but it's told very well - and led by the ever brilliant Kevin Spacey, acting his socks of as David Gale. Kate Winslet puts in a decent performance as Spacey's female lead, Bitsey Bloom, and has really made me question her talent (for the better!) as of late. (Although technically, by "as of late" I mean the films I've seen her in and not those she has done most recently.)

The most effective part of the film is that you really feel for Gale right up until the last second when you realise he wasn't doing it to prove a point but because of his ego and, as he describes in his own words about a woman who does the same to him.."(she did it to) Poke her finger at authority, show the powers that be how much smarter she was" - this is not a preachy film about the death penalty, nor should it be advertised as being. Once you see the last scene that will become apparent to you. This film is about sacrificing yourself for your desire because (another quote) "(T)he moment... the second... that you get what you seek... you don't... you can't want it anymore."

It's a good movie, solid. Kate Winslet is Ok, Spacey is a diamond. It's certainly worth a shot, especially if you're a die hard Spacey fan.

3 out of 5

(It's easily a 4 if you're a fan of Kevin Spacey)

Quickie: Transformers - Movie Review

A film in disguise!
(Unless I totally love a film, expect reviews to be about this long)

I have a few gripes with this film. Firstly, the acting - terrible! No chemistry at all - especially between the two lead characters, Mikaela Banes (Megan Fox) and Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), argh, horrible.
Graphically it was amazing, but it was so badly used it was unbelievable - apart from some slow motion shots where you could actually see the detail and care that had gone into the special effects and the fantastic Optimus Prime transforming moments (and the transforming in general) they were really difficult to make out (I saw it at the flicks, not on some pirate by the way :P) whenever there was a battle, it just turned into a mesh of 'robot' where you couldn't distinguish between who and what was fighting - realistic, yeah. Entertaining, not for me...

On a nicer note, it did have some genuinely funny moments, however that took away a lot of the emotion that could have been used. I didn't feel sorry for anyone, nor did I feel like they were afraid it seemed like a joke to them... Maybe that's what they were going for when they wrote it but I believe had they tried to involved the audience emotionally it would have worked a lot better.

Apart from that the best thing in this film is Megan Fox and that's only because she was the least worse thing on show (and looked very, very attractive...)

For all you transformer hardcore fans, you will love it no doubt. My mate couldn't stop harping on about it after but it just didn't do it for me.

On a positive note, I did get to see that awesome trailer for JJ Abrams' new film. It was the best thing about this movie

It gets a very lenient 2/5 from me. (Thanks to Megan Fox - although she can't act for toffee, bless her...)

Please don't make a sequel

2 out of 5

Thank you!!
What can I say, I'm a guy!!

R.U

Movie Reviews: Die Hard 4.0 (2007)

Intro.

Almost 20 years since his first adventure, some 10 years since his last, Bruce Willis returns as John McClane: wise-cracking maverick with a need to shoot and be shot at, wearing his sweaty, dirty wife beater, foiling the bad guys plans and saving the world. And for what? A pat on the back, and multiple gunshot wounds.

All in a days work.

Plot Summary.
This time, McClane is fighting in the digital age - subroutines, modems, the internet, hackers and so on. To begin with, McClane is asked to act as transport for a high-profile hacker: Matthew Farrell (played by Justin Long) - a geeky, stuttering nervous, digital genius, a suspect in the recent unauthorised digital entries into US government networks. However, things turn from what seemed like a routine chauffeuring job to plain, damn, bad as someone tries to remove Farrell from the picture, as well as having already killed several of the other suspects.

After some fantastic action scenes; "killing" a helicopter with a car (pictured below), exploding apartments, and using a fire extinguisher as remote TNT, McClane and Farrell manage to make it back to government headquarters; here it becomes apparent that Farrell has no direct involvement in the current days events; which include the shutting down of power, gas, information flow and so on, but is pivotal to saving the day.
McClane and Farrell bond, with Farrell asking how McClane can be that guy; the hero. McClane then says that he doesn't want to and that if someone else could he would leave them to it. Farrell still can't understand how McClane can be so calm after being shot at so many times, but McClane persists it tends to happen quite a lot. Farrell and McClane compliment themselves extremely well, and in several situations both have to use their talents (Farrell’s brains and McClane’s muscle, as Gabriel (the baddy - played by Timothy Olyphant) puts it: "John, you're a Timex watch in a digital age.") at the same time to overcome a situations; McClane’s face-off with Mia (Maggie Q), while Farrell worked to undo what she had done for example.
It soon becomes a personal vendetta between McClane and Gabriel as McClane kills Mai Lihn, who is also Olyphant’s love interest. Gabriel then seeks out and kidnaps Lucy McClane (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), who has since had a strained relationship with her father and his over protectiveness and spying on her when she's out fraternizing with her boyfriend.
With help from the Warlock (Kevin Smith) they locate Gabriel, it is now a race against the clock before Gabriel shuts down all power across the country and escapes with millions in digital cash. During the persuit Farrell is also kidnapped and McClane takes down a F-14 fighter plane, due to Gabriel’s control of communications and his targeting of McClane’s pursuiting truck.

In a final showdown, McClane, already shot once in the shoulder, is held at gunpoint by Gabriel who proclaims that he will shoot Farrell, Lucy and then McClane himself to add insult to injury. In a final super-bad-ass moment, McClane pushes the gun into his own gunshot wound and shouts "Yippee-ki-yay Motherf***er!" - shooting himself - with the bullet going through his wounded shoulder and into Gabriel. With Farrell stepping up and taking out Gabriel’s final goon, whom was hold Lucy hostage.

The film ends on a nice, rather chessy, note. With Willis acting as the go-between between Farrell and Lucy, as the two ask McClane if he/she "said anything about me". Naturally, McClane recieves little more than a pat on the back, he does however tell Farrell that he is that guy; the hero, that he was so far from at the beginning of the film.

Final Thoughts.
This film is a fantastic action film (suprisingly) brilliantly acted. That's not to say that there are particularly bad actors/actresses in this film, or that the previous Die Hard films were badly acted but, usually, action films leave little or no room for actors to show off their range of talents. Here however, Bruce Willis, Timothy Olyphant, Justin Long and Mary Elizabeth Winstead were all excellent. With Justin Long and Timothy Olyphant shining. The interaction between Long and Willis was very natural - with Long playing the nerdy "why is it happening to me" hacker to perfection and Willis playing a bald(er), although less wise cracking, naturally more mature, John McClane. Some may not like McClane in this movie, he's played different in this film as he was in the first two films, the third showing a transition. But then, that was 20 years ago, and McClane, like Willis, has aged.

Although I'm a little biased toward Mary Elizabeth Winstead, it's not without reason. Yes she's beautiful, but she can act too. Previously, Mary has played the screamer in slasher films - and was even being hailed as the next scream-queen. However, here she was so far from that it was unreal. She really was her fathers daughter. She was like a female version of John McClane in "Die Hard", at one point - when a normal person may be thinking this is the last chance to talk to their father before they die - Gabriel offers the radio to Lucy, asking her to talk to McClane because he can't. Instead of proclaiming her love for her father and saying how sorry she was, she instead tells him that "There's only 5 of them left" - classic.

Action-wise. It's pretty impressive. Also, knowing that Willis performed a high percentage of stunts himself makes the visuals all the more impressive. The most notable being the F-14 sequence, where at one point, McClane is, what can only be described as, surfing the plane as it swirls around. He then jumps off of the plane to which he is chased by an explosion. Great stuff.

Dialogue was also impressive. Everyone was awaiting that famous one-liner, and when it was delivered it was worth the wait. As well as that ever famous like, others returned too; "It seemed a good idea at the time" being a favourite of mine, after he shoots himself to shoot Gabriel.

• Overall, if you want to go to see this movie for realism. Don't go.
• If you go and see this movie expecting to see the John McClane from Die Hard 1 and 2, and to a lesser extent, 3. You may be disappointed.
• If, however, you want to see a brilliantly acted, modernized John McClane - who takes a little longer to get up, is a little older, and has...erm, no hair - then go. And enjoy it for what it truly is.

A fabulous action movie.

4 out of 5

Movie Reviews: The Fountain (2006)

Intro.
Spanning across 3 different time periods – 1500s, 2000s and 2500s – The Fountain is a fantasy-like symbol of (re)birth, living, dieing and accepting the inevitable. Hugh Jackman takes on the lead as Tomas, Dr. Tom Creo and Tommy during the 1500s, 2000s and 2500s respectively. Rachel Weisz plays Jackman’s love interest/wife during the first two time periods (as Queen Isabel/Izzi Creo respectively), and strangely enough a tree in the final 2500s, time period. The film switches between the three time periods extremely quickly at times, so to keep things legible, and to make things a lot easier for myself, I’ve split the film into three sections; covering the three time periods.

Plot.
During the 1500s setting, which is, in fact, the dieing Izzi’s story, Queen Isabel asks Tomas “Will you deliver Spain from bondage?” to which he promptly promises that, on his life, he shall. To be successful Tomas must eat from the Tree of Life, in the garden of Eden, then return to Queen Isabel so that she “can be his Eve”. The story ends, one chapter short, with Tomas being stabbed by Lord of Xibalba a guardian of the Tree and the entrance to Eden who proclaims to the dying Tomas that “Death is the road to awe.”

Mainly, the movies storyline follows that of Dr. Tom Creo’s actions during the 2000s time period. Here, Tom is trying in vain to cure his wife, Izzi, from a terminal brain tumour. During this setting, Tom finding it difficult to come to terms with his wife’s impending death, where as Izzi seems more than ready to let go. Upon looking for a cure to the tumour, Tom stumbles upon a tree which can halt the aging process. Although this discovery, in its own right is phenomenal, Tom realizes this won’t help his already dying wife and ignores its importance. After Izzi becomes hospitalized she asks Tom to help her “finish it”, her 1500s story. Eventually, she dies – leaving Tom in a world of hate and anger. He promises his colleagues that "Death is a disease, it's like any other. And there's a cure. A cure - and I will find it."

During the future setting of the 2500s we see that Tom, who is travelling towards the about-to-explode-and-create-a-star-system nebula, on a small part of land with a Tree, has now reached a higher form of understanding.
It’s possible that the he writes the final chapter of Izzi’s book – which shows Tomas (of the 1500s) survive and eat from the Tree of Life, only for him to die while doing so; plants, flowers and finally a tree sprout from his body, killing him –– to which we are then also shown the final part of the 2000s time line – Tom plants a seed where his wife has been buried, believed to be a seed from the Tree of Life that he discovered earlier – so in this final scene. Tom and his wife’s body (living through the tree) head straight towards the nebula. This is to symbolize the acceptance on Toms part of death, and how it is also the beginning of new life – just like the end of both the 1500s and 2000s time period storylines.

Final Thoughts.
The perspective to which this film can be viewed is open to interpretation, which will either have you annoyed or in awe of the film. Personally, I believed that the 2500 storyline was the present, with the Tom having illusions of his past – either because of his heightened understanding of life and the universe or because he had been alone for so long. The 1500s period was written by Izzi as pure fiction; a way of helping her husband understand and eventually deal with her death. The ending of the book was left blank because that part of the story hadn’t occurred yet; 1500s Tomas being stabbed by Lord of Xibalba was a clever metaphor of Tom losing his wife – and becoming, what it seemed at the time, the end for him.

Jackman was… OK. I’m usually a pretty good fan of his but I wasn’t completely convinced with his obsessive actions nor was I completely taken in by his loss. Rachel Wiesz on the other hand was fantastic during both the 1500 and 2000 time periods. I thought she was extremely diverse to play both the queen and the angelic and playful Izzi.

Visually, this film is stunning. The small portion of land and the nebula to which Jackmans 2500s character spent his time was beautifully created. Also, the throne room for Queen Isabel was extremely effective too, with the halo-like lightening behind her as she spoke, as well as the jagged screen which was used to hide her face, which contrasted well. However, as beautiful as the scene design turned out to be, some of it felt out of place. Because the film flashed forwards and backwards almost several times a second, it would sometimes become disorientating and you would become confused with what, where and when the current scene was supposed to be taking place.

I’ll be honest; I didn’t get this movie straight away, at least, not as a overarching symbol for the circle of life, but it’s such an interesting story riddled with fantastic metaphor which stimulates all the senses. It can, however, seem to be preaching at times and the film is basically a simple idea made rather complicated but other than that it is a highly enjoyable film. I was left a little empty at the end but once I had taken time to digest what it all meant, I was left feeling inspired and content.

Reccomended for those looking for a movie to discuss and one that is open to several different interpretations
4/5