Theatrical Review: Predators (Nimród Antal, 2010)

For the avid fan like myself, who has spent countless hours exploring the Aliens vs. Predator universe, be it through novels, comic books, or video games, a proper Predator sequel has been a long time coming. When the film first entered the spotlight, many - myself included - were skeptical due to the odd choice of casting Adrien Brody as the lead, as well as giving the project to a first-time director (despite the fantastic news that Robert Rodriguez would produce). However, I am happy to report that - a few nagging details aside - the fans should be satisfied (though still hungry for more). Predators is not a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination as far as blockbuster action flicks are concerned, but it is fun, deliciously violent, and definitely one of the better releases in the genre thus far in 2010.

The film opens with Brody's character, Royce, falling from the sky. Shortly before he hits the ground, a parachute opens in the nick of time to provide a slightly less painful landing. Moments later, others follow suit, falling in the same manner. Eventually, after a few testosterone-filled stand-offs and misunderstandings, all of the fallen individuals come together. Most of them are members of various special forces units throughout the world, except for one convict and a doctor (Edwin, played by Topher Grace). Moreover, all of them have been dropped in the middle of a jungle on what they quickly realize is not Earth, and are armed to the teeth, the idea being that they were abducted while engaged in combat somewhere (except for the convict, who only has a makeshift knife, and Edwin, who is unarmed).


There is a bit of exposition along the way, and after being toyed with a little too much by a pack of ferocious dog-like creatures covered in spikes, the band of hardened killers decides to take the initiative and track down whatever is apparently hunting them. So, they eventually find a campsite where a Predator is tied up (apparently there are two different kinds of Predators, and this one was being held prisoner for some reason. Worth noting, too, is that the costume of the captive Predator, as a little throwback to the fans, is actually that of the Predator from the original 1987 flick starring Arnold Schwarzenegger). One of the group, Isabelle (Alice Braga), recognizes the alien, recollecting an encounter with one some years ago. The mindful fan listening to her story will realize that she is recounting the events of the '87 film, and appears, as far as I could tell, to be the very same woman that Arnold saved (though her name was Anna). Shortly after Isabelle puts things in perspective for the rest of the group, three Predators return to the camp and all hell breaks loose as the humans make their escape, regroup, and scheme to defeat their newly identified hunters and get off the foreign planet.

A few surprises are in store throughout the remainder of the film, some of which do not make much sense when one stops to think about them, but fortunately it does little to detract from the film. There are (sometimes drastic) leaps in logic, some of the characters' actions make little sense in relation to how their personalities are established, and there a few comedic moments here and there that are awkward or dull more often than actually humorous, but the overall package is a worthwhile effort from a competent director and a talented cast. The only real gripe I had leaving the theater was with the ambiguous ending of the film. The final moments, though obviously pointing towards a potential sequel, felt oddly out of place in a film that almost left the viewer demanding for closure. However, given that it took twenty years for a new Predator film to arrive, I am patient enough to wait a few more for a sequel that (hopefully) continues the story of the surviving characters.

B+

Theatrical Review: A Nightmare on Elm Street (Samuel Bayer, 2010)

More often than not, horror remakes are abysmal failures with critics and moviegoers alike. The trend in Hollywood plaguing the genre for the past several years has resulted in an older generation disgusted with the debauchery of the original films and a younger generation whose initial experience with the iconic characters of these classics has been with the many haphazard remakes. There are a few noteworthy exceptions, but A Nightmare on Elm Street, the subject of the latest re-imagining, is not quite one of them. While it is not a downright abomination as was the case with the remake of Black Christmas, it fails to live up to the expectations levied by the many hopeful fans.

I believe part of the reason this remake is being received so poorly, and why I personally walked away unsatisfied, is due to the fact that Wes Craven delivered a near-perfect update on Freddy in 1994 with Wes Craven’s New Nightmare. Deviating from the excessive satire and shoddy screenwriting that plagued many of the later sequels, Craven returned to his creation and reinvented it. Freddy was given a whole new appearance, including a new glove, which complemented the more ominous nature he exhibited in the original film. Furthermore, the narrative was given much-needed originality, taking place in the real world where Heather Langenkamp, who played Nancy in the first and third films, becomes increasingly concerned with her son, Dylan, who is being tormented by Freddy in his dreams. That’s right: Freddy Krueger has entered the real world. After seeking the console of Robert Englund, John Saxon (who played Nancy’s father), and even Wes Craven himself, Heather struggles to fill the role of Nancy one last time in order to vanquish Freddy once and for all.

(From left to right: Freddy in 1984, 1994, and 2010. Click image to enlarge.)

Moving on, though, the new film is a spirited remake of the original that sports a more realistic-looking Freddy, a more detailed history of how Freddy came to be the boogeyman he is, and little else. There are nods to the original film, as no doubt many have recognized from their presence in the theatrical trailers. Namely, the glove rising from between Nancy’s (Rooney Mara) legs while she dozes off during a bubble bath, Freddy coming through the wall while Nancy lies asleep in bed, and Kris (played by Katie Cassidy; her character was named Tina in the original) being dragged around her bedroom while her horrified boyfriend watches are the most noteworthy throwbacks. Unfortunately, they are executed rather poorly. The claw in the bathtub is wholly expected, and is not nearly as effective as it was in 1984; the CGI used during Freddy’s transit through the wall is lackluster, and Kris is hurled around her room so randomly and rapidly that it becomes laughable in its hyperbolized frenzy, the atrocious acting from Kris doing naught to mend the situation.

The film moves forward at somewhat of a rapid pace, which causes the more intriguing aspects of the narrative to suffer. Freddy is given a more detailed background as a child molester who preyed on Nancy and her friends when they were younger, but unfortunately a good chunk of the film is spent with Nancy and her friend Quentin (Kyle Gallner; the role is essentially the equivalent of Glen, who was played by Johnny Depp in the original) under the impression that Freddy was wrongfully accused of molesting children, though it is never really believable due to the severe logical fallacy it presents. Why would Freddy be killing all of these kids because their parents burned him alive, but then stop to show one of them (Quentin) that he was actually innocent? If he was truly innocent, would it not have made more sense to try and convince several kids of the fact in order to clear his name? Given that it is Freddy proposing that he was innocent while simultaneously offing characters one after another, this portion of the film (which is already much too short) is utterly wasted on such an absurd proposition.

The remake is not without its merits, however. Later in the film, after Nancy and Quentin have been awake for a few days straight, they begin experiencing micro-naps, essentially dreaming while they are awake. During these moments, the viewer is transported back in forth between the real world and Freddy’s, allowing for some truly interesting scenes that unfurl rather nicely. Then there is Jackie Earle Haley, who shines as Freddy Krueger. He is menacing and perverted, but not without a sense of humor – an aspect of his character that is, thankfully, not overdone or abused in its application; what few one-liners he has are both clever and representative of his personality. Some might find his voice to be a bit too similar to that of Rorschach (whom Haley portrayed in Watchmen), but I believe it was fitting and served its purpose of making Freddy more intimidating.

Overall, this re-imagining comes as something of a letdown, perhaps due to the fact that Wes Craven succeeded over fifteen years ago in doing it properly, thus raising the bar even higher than it already had been. It is understandable that in attempting to capture the essence of the original, the changes would not be comparable to Craven’s 1994 update, but this fact winds up serving as the main problem for the film, for what is kept is either overdone or out of place in relation to the rest of the film. Also, the added subject of pedophilia is dealt with at too great of a distance, failing to enhance the characters’ personalities (other than Freddy’s), for better or for worse. Haley is reportedly signed on to portray Freddy in two more films, but I am skeptical as to whether or not they will be an improvement over this effort. Perhaps after Craven is finished with his new trilogy of Scream films, he will return to Freddy one last time and give his sadistic, iconic slasher a final, grand sendoff. One can only dream…

C+

Theatrical Review: Repo Men (Miguel Sapochnik, 2010)

When I first saw the preview for Repo Men, I thought that the premise was bit too similar to Repo! The Genetic Opera (Darren Lynn Bousman, 2008), a film that was based on a play of the same name. Furthermore, I was a bit stunned to learn that the Repo Men is apparetly an adaptation of Eric Garcia's The Repossession Mambo, a novel released in 2009. I wonder if Garcia may have based his story on Bousman's film and/or the play. Does all of that seem a bit confusing? If I have managed to at least get your mind running in something akin to a circle, then you are on your way to understanding how a film like Repo Men works.

Remy (Jude Law) and Jake (Forest Whitaker) are childhood friends and work as partners for a company called The Union, which specializes in providing synthetic organs (called "artiforgs") to those in need at astronomical prices. However, the price tag does little to hinder folks from virtually signing their own death warrant, thanks predominately to the salesman pitch of Frank (Liev Shrieber), who seems to relish in telling his clients that "You owe it to yourself; you owe it your family," assuring them that there are several payment plans available to accommodate any lifestyle. Still, it is virtually inevitable that those who purchase artiforgs will fall behind on their payments, and after a few months of leeway, Remy and Jake are among the Repo Men sent by The Union to repossess them, which typically results in the client's death.

Remy is pretty much the best at what he does, which is a cause for concern within The Union when he decides (in part due to the fact that his wife will likely leave him otherwise) that he does not particularly care to continue his line of work, preferring instead to work in sales. Then, ironically enough, while carrying out his final repo, Remy finds himself in need of an artificial heart thanks to his equipment malfunctioning. So, his wife leaves him (taking their son with her), and now that he has become one of the very individuals he has spent his career hunting down, Remy finds that he can no longer stomach his work. Since he refuses to work, he makes no money, and quickly falls behind on his payments. Eventually, the film turns into both an action flick and a love story as Remy must evade his former co-workers that are now tracking him down, but not without the help of the lovely Beth (Alice Braga), who is more artificial than human thanks to the double-digit number of artiforgs keeping her alive.

Even though there are some scenes of gore, a bit of action here and there, and a romantic interest that comes in to play in the second half of the film, Repo Men is a dark comedy at heart. At most times, it is cleverly satirical, especially in the first and third acts. There are two key twists that occur in the last act, one of which is predictable to some degree, and another that caught me almost completely by surprise. The latter of these two, when reflecting on the film during the credits, was something I came to admire due its function as a proper explanation for the utterly bizarre (and somewhat incoherent) nature of what transpires in the last thirty minutes. I had a lot of questions during that time, and one simple revelation answered all of them while simultaneously accentuating the sardonic aspects of the film. Some viewers might be turned off by it, but I thought it was fitting, especially for a film laden with twisted humor. Repo Men deals with a particular something (it would be cruel of me to spoil it) that, in my experience, is rarely seen in film, and even more of a rarity is to see it executed effectively, as I believe it is here.

B

Theatrical Review: The Last Song (Julie Anne Robinson, 2010)

The Last Song (Julie Anne Robinson, 2010):

I have never read a Nicholas Sparks novel. I have never seen a film based on a Nicholas Sparks novel – until now. I was invited by a dear friend of mine to see the The Last Song tonight, and decided to brave the throng of giddy teenage/college women and sit through it. Generally, I check Rotten Tomatoes and read a handful of reviews before committing to see a film I am not particularly interested in, but since it was a spur-of-the-moment ordeal, I neglected to indulge in that habit. So, upon exiting the theater and returning home, I was curious to see how the film was fairing with the critics. To my astonishment, the general consensus seems to be that The Last Song is terrible. After briefly skimming the list of reviews, I was even more dumbfounded to discover that the major qualm most reviewers had with the film was the performance given by Miley Cirus.

First of all, I quite enjoyed this film. Sure, it was predictable and ridden with clichés, but there were also moments of originality, and certain events were handled in unexpected ways that saved the film from being ridiculous or overly dramatic. Granted, I have not seen very many chick flicks, but I still found the story engaging. The performances, too, were a pleasant surprise. I generally do not care for Greg Kinear (which really has nothing to do with his acting ability, but that is another story), but I thought he was superb. Unlike most critics, I also believe that Miley Cirus gave a rather solid performance.

The story, for those unfamiliar with the novel (like myself), follows Ronnie (Miley Cyrus), who is fresh out of high school, her younger brother Jonah (Bobby Coleman), and their father Steve (Greg Kinear) as the trio spend the summer together at Steve's beach house. While Jonah could not be happier to spend time with his father, Ronnie is still spiteful over her parents' divorce - the anger being directed at her father. Though she is an incredibly gifted pianist (taught by her father), she has refused to play since the divorce and refuses to go to Juilliard, to which she was accepted. This slowly changes, however, when she meets a boy named Will (Liam Hemsworth), as she lowers her defenses and eventually falls in love. During this time, her relationship with her father also gradually improves. But things are not quite what they seem. Both her father and Will are keeping secrets from Ronnie, which when brought out in the open have devastating effects on her. The nature of these secrets lies with the story of a local church that caught fire the previous year, for which her father is rebuilding a stained glass window. So as not to reveal too much of the plot, even though it is fairly straightforward and conventional, I will say no more.

Ultimately, The Last Song is a story of love and forgiveness, both with romantic and familial relationships. It is a story of learning to accept the fact that nobody is perfect - especially those closest to you. Everyone makes mistakes, even those we would least expect to; those whose faults have the potential to hurt you the most. I feel that this would have been more effective in the film if more of the screen time had been devoted to exploring certain aspects of the pivotal characters' lives. For example, why did Ronnie's parents get divorced? A proper explanation is never given in the film. While conversing after the film with my friend, who had read the novel, she informed me of several relevant tidbits that were not translated to the film (which included the explanation for the divorce). After hearing all that was left out, my initial opinion of the film dropped somewhat, as it seemed almost inexcusable that certain elements of the story - some of which were of crucial significance to those unacquainted with the novel - were missing, for it detracted from the overall emotional impact. Had some of this information been incorporated into the script, the characters would have not only had much more depth, but it would have also served to draw the viewer deeper into the narrative. Instead, I was constantly waiting with waning patience to learn certain things about the characters that were never to be revealed. It is not that this kept The Last Song from being an engaging film, but rather that it had to potential to be effective on a much greater level.

B-

Theatrical Reviews: Legion (Scott Stewart, 2010), Valentine's Day (Garry Marshall, 2010), and The Wolfman (Joe Johnston, 2010)

Legion (Scott Stewart, 2010):
Many viewers who witnessed the trailer for the film this past Summer and Fall in theaters were likely reminded of The Prophecy, fans of the Christopher Walken vehicle perhaps wondering if this peculiar flick might be worth a gander. I was one such individual, venturing to the theater upon release in order to satisfy my curiosity. What I walked out with, unfortunately, was a bit short of satisfaction. The premise, for starters, is a bit too generic. Apparently, God has lost his faith in mankind, so he has sent all of the angels down to earth in order to bring about the Apocalypse. One of his angels - Michael (Paul Bettany), however, does not agree with His order to exterminate humanity, so he descends to Earth in order to protect a pregnant woman who is on the brink of giving birth to humanity's only hope for survival.

This is where my qualms with the film begin. While character motivation is explained quite clearly, it is never really apparent why the birth of this one child holds any significance, or why giving birth will stop the angels who are trying to kill the child. If, per chance, the child is born, then why can the angels not simply kill it? How is this supposed to stop the Apocalypse? I may be being a bit too critical of this aspect of the film, as there is some slight form of explanation proffered that stems from the conflict between Michael and a fellow angel, Gabriel (Kevin Durand), which is told through flashbacks of the two conversing in heaven, but it was just not enough for me.

Not long after the film starts, the soon-to-be mother, Charlie (Adrianne Palicki), is holed up in a diner with her father (Dennis Quaid), best friend, Jeep (Lucas Black), a cook and a few customers. Naturally, they all sense that something is amiss when an innocent-enough elderly lady enters the diner and soon turns out to be a rather malevolent demon (or angel, I suppose). Michael shows up soon after the encounter, though, just in time to prep everyone for the onslaught of angels heading towards the diner. Eventually, Gabriel is sent to deal with Michael personally, since a virtually limitless number of angels is not enough to get past him and kill one human. This climax is where the film truly falls apart, resulting in a finale that, while commendable in its content, is atrocious in its execution - the same of which can be said for most of film as a whole. The only thing that really kept me entertained throughout the ordeal was Paul Bettany's performance as Michael - which was outstanding. Maybe if Christopher Walken had somehow reprized his role as Gabriel (not that Kevin Durand performed poorly - quite the opposite actually) and the character had been given more screen time, I might have left the theater satisfied. Sadly, such a luscious fantasy was not to be.


Valentine's Day (Garry Marshall, 2010):
I am not going to exhaust myself in this review by mentioning all of the character names or the actors/actresses that portrayed them. There are far too many, and the trailer makes sure to cue you in as to who they all are. In using the term "star vehicle," this film is a double-decker bus. Set on - you guessed it - Valentine's Day, the viewer follows a ridiculous number of individuals as they go about the holiday. You have one man who has just proposed to his girlfriend, who says yes but seems a bit hesitant; another couple that has been dating for two weeks seems to be connecting, though the female is obviously hiding something as evidenced by the obscene phone calls she keeps having; yet another couple is as happy as could be, probably because the female does not know that her lover is actually married; and finally there is a little boy who is on a mission to get flowers for the girl he loves. That is far from it, though. There are also several supporting characters: a pro football player trying to decide if he is going to retire, his agent who hates Valentine's Day and throws a party on the holiday in condemnation of it every year, a frustrated reporter who also loathes the holiday, a pair of strangers who meet on a flight and hit it off, and at least a half dozen others I am neglecting to mention.

Confused yet? Well it gets even better. All of these individuals are connected to one another in some manner. When the viewer picks up on this fact fairly early in the film, when the first few connections are made, it becomes a predictable mess that the word "cliche" cannot even begin to describe. There are a few surprises, however, that do manage to fall out of expectations, but only because they make absolutely no sense whatsoever (ie. characters whose actions are wholly unnatural). By the time the credits were rolling, I almost had tears in my eyes because I was so glad it was finally over. There is still some enjoyment to be had in movies that are predictable, but not this convoluted mess that takes unoriginality to such absurd extremities. I could go into truly exhausting detail of my extreme distaste with Valentine's Day, but to spare you (and me) of that option, suffice it to say I am baffled that such tripe ever gets green-lit. Coming from the man who gave us Pretty Woman and Overboard, this is truly appalling.


The Wolfman (Joe Johnston, 2010)
Ah, finally! A film that is not atrocious. I had been eagerly awaiting the release of this flick for quite some time, hoping to see a werewolf film that might just be on par with Silver Bullet. While my aspiration was not quite met - in fact I was rather disappointed - that does not necessarily mean that this was a bad movie. The production was top-notch, and the all-star cast performed exceptionally well for the most part (especially Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving, the latter of whom stole the picture). The story is simple enough: set in Blackmoor, England during the late 19th century, stage performer Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) returns home after his brother Ben is reported missing. Upon his arrival, his father John (Anthony Hopkins) informs him that Ben's mutilated body has been found. The viewer already knows that a werewolf was responsible since Ben's murder is shown in the opening scene, but Lawrence is not privy to such information so he promises his late brother's fiancee, Gwen Conliffe (Emily Blunt) that he will find out who killed Ben.

Shortly into his investigation, Lawrence encounters the beast that tore his brother apart and is bitten, which leads to his eventually becoming a werewolf himself. There is really nothing else to explain without spoiling the latter portion of the film. An inspector from Scotland Yard, Abberline (Hugo Weaving), suspects that the Talbots are hiding something, as does everyone else in town, but his and the townsfolk's efforts to whittle out the truth do little to prevent the eruption of violence that ensues during the full moon. The transformation Lawrence undergoes is a sight to behold courtesy of modern CGI, though it is a mixed bag as some of the effects are quite bad, but the final result sports some truly impressive cosmetics.

What drags The Wolfman down, though, is its reliance on jump-scares. There is never any moment of real tension or horror; no suspense is ever really built. The only frights to be found come from split-second jolts highlighted by a hammering note of music and a quick flash - usually of violence and/or the werewolf. Moreover, the story seems to drag at times due to so-so exhibition that fails to really establish a sensible relationship between Lawrence and Gwen, making it hard to believe that they actually fall in love with one another. Still, there is a bit of fun to be had here. The performers are lively and pleasant to watch for the most part, and the package rounds out to an almost-solid B-movie. It is just a shame that more could not be done to elevate The Wolfman a bit higher, though I suppose the nature of the tale makes that a bit much to ask for.



In sum, to attribute a letter grade to each film:
Legion: C
Valentine's Day: D-
The Wolfman: B-

Park Chan-wook's Vengeance Trilogy: yet another update (and other news)

In all honesty, I came across a bit of news a few weeks ago, but in the time since my review of The Limits of Control, I have been incredibly busy with classes/exams, work, and going home to see family. And last week saw the release of BioShock 2, a game I have been anticipating for quite some time. Thus, what little free time I could muster specifically during the past week was devoted predominately to playing it.

Anyways, the news concerns the release of Park Chan-wook's Vengeance Trilogy. Apparently Best Buy has secured exclusive rights to the March 16th release, which will be coming in the form of a collector's tin (likely the same kind used for the collector's edition of Oldboy or the series Band of Brothers). Furthermore, as the link in the title mentions, the set will be on blu-ray. I think this is actually going to be a DVD/Blu-ray combo set, but I am not quite sure. In any case, the boxed set will be released in other stores on June 15th in standard packaging. Being both impatient and a collector, I will be acquiring the Best Buy limited edition and drafting a review as soon as possible upon its release.

In other news, I finished reading Roberto Saviano's Gomorrah and have had a chance to finally watch the film. I plan to watch the film a second time and explore the special features on the Criterion Collection release before I write my review. Before then, however, I will be writing brief theatrical reviews for Legion, The Wolfman, and Valentine's Day sometime within the next 48 hours.

Finally, I was browsing the upcoming releases for the month of March on Amazon.com the other night and noticed that John Woo's Red Cliff was among them - another film I have been anticipating for quite some time (since early 2008). Having actually devoted a great deal of time to studying the Three Kingdoms Era of Ancient China, I am a bit disheartened to hear that the film is not quite as historically accurate as one would hope, but then again most historical epics rarely are. The film's focus, as the title suggests, is on the Battle of Red Cliff (a.k.a. the Battle of Chi Bi).

It will be released March 23rd on DVD and Blu-Ray in two different versions: the 148-minute U.S. Theatrical cut and the 288-minute International (Original) cut. Naturally, I have my sights set on the latter.

Here is the U.S. trailer:

The Limits of Control (Jim Jarmusch, 2009)

 After several failed attempts to watch The Limits of Control, the latest from Jim Jarmusch, I was finally able to sit down at 1:30am a few nights ago and get through the film in its entirety. I now find myself troubled, as it begs for a repeat viewing - due primarily to its shear peculiarity. The plot is not hard to follow, as there really is not a whole lot to it. A great majority of the run-time is devoted to watching an unnamed protagonist (played marvelously by Isaach De Bankole) walking, riding in some form of transportation, or simply sitting and waiting - typically at a cafe and with two espressos in separate cups. This lone man is incredibly patient, always sharp, and rarely speaks at all. These would appear to be qualities that - when combined - strike the impression of a man who in absolute control.

Throughout his established day-to-day routine, this mysterious man encounters several unique but equally stupefying characters that seem to require special attention - a task that is not too arduous considering just how slowly the film toddles along. While it is not quite clear until near the end exactly what this lone man is on a mission to do, it is fairly easily inferred that he is an assassin en route to a target. What is not so readily understandable is why this man must go through such a ridiculously complex series of exchanges with so many peculiar individuals before finally reaching his ultimate destination.

I suppose that within these encounters lies the profound idea that Jarmusch constantly reaffirms throughout the entire film: everything is subjective; reality is arbitrary. The viewer can interpret these meetings and their significance in whatever way he/she chooses. In all truthfulness, the convoluted journey this man embarks upon in order to complete one (arguably) simple, brutal task is so extraordinary that it is plausible that the various figures he encounters are not real at all. Much of the narrative information is left entirely to the perspective of the individual viewer, including whether or not it occurs in reality and its significance.

The finale of the film puts this ideology to masterful use as the lone man stands before a heavily-guarded compound. Breaking with viewer expectations, Jarmusch does not show how the man manages to infiltrate the building. Instead, a simple cut is all that it takes for him to be sitting on a couch inside, waiting with inhuman patience. Shortly thereafter, a man - his target - enters the room and, after noticing the lone man's presence, asks: "How the fuck did you get in here?" The reply is quick, cool, and precise: "I used my imagination." Given the nature of the film itself, the viewer is inclined to accept this as the literal truth.

Whatever the case may be, it does not particularly matter. The only motivation behind the assassin's slaying of his target stems from what he is told in the beginning of the film before tackling his mission: "He who thinks he is bigger than the rest must go to the cemetery." There is no clear reason for murdering this man, nor is there any indication that it will make any difference in the world. Just like everything else in the film, these aspects are entirely subjective. You - the viewer - must decide.

It should be said that The Limits of Control is not a film that will appeal to everyone. It is slow, cryptic, and asks for a great deal of participation on the part of the viewer in order to be appreciated. At the same time, there is no grand message waiting to be extracted from the entire ordeal. Any and all meaning that the film has rests entirely with the viewer. Certainly this is a tricky concoction for a director to toy with, but I believe Jarmusch does it rather well. Regardless of what feelings one has by the time the credits roll, I do not believe it can denied that - as a spectator - being the one calling all the shots is both original and interesting. Like the lone man, the viewer maintains a control that knows no limits.

Theatrical Reviews: Daybreakers (Michael & Peter Spierig, 2009) and The Book of Eli (Albert & Allen Hughes, 2010), and other news

I decided to review both of these recent theatrical releases together due to a particular commonality between the two, and because the write-ups will be rather short in comparison to my other reviews. So, let us begin with Daybreakers

The film takes place in 2019, thrusting the viewer into a world where a plague has stricken humanity, turning the vast majority of the population into vampires. Faced with the dilemma of a rapidly-dwindling supply of blood due to the fact that the human race is on the verge of becoming extinct, a hematologist by the name of Dr. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is trying to develop an alternative, artificial blood supply to ensure his species' survival. Should he fail, all of the vampires in the world (which is pretty much everyone) will slowly mutate into grotesque, mindless monsters. Of course, he is not just in it for the vampires, as he cares for humans, too (and he does not drink human blood). His boss, Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), however, does not share his sympathies, and neither does his brother, Frankie Dalton (Michael Dorman). This causes for quite the problem when Edward decides to help a group of humans escape capture (and thus 'harvesting' in which they are placed in a machine that keeps them alive as long as possible while constantly draining their blood).

Basically, Edward ends up on the run with the humans after discovering that there may very well be an actual cure for vampirism, thus negating the need for an alternative blood supply. This key to the cure lies within human-turned-vampire-turned-human Lionel 'Elvis' Cormac (Willem Dafoe), and has to do with getting a mild sunburn. There really is not a whole lot to spoil, but I will not divulge any more of the plot lest it ruin what fun there is in viewing the film - and it is a fairly decent one at that. The performances are fantastic, the premise is interesting and thought-provoking, and the nighttime world of the vampires is quite a marvelous spectacle to behold. Unfortunately, Daybreakers suffers from one glaring fault that stops it short of being an outstanding film: the ending. The final half hour of the film is riddled with horrid pacing, ludicrous turns in the plot that seem only to serve as an excuse to push the R-rating as far as possible with blood and gore violence, and it culminates in a finale that is wholly unremarkable. The lack of any punch in the closing scene is pretty much due to its ambiguity, which is a characteristic that - in this rare case - is just not quite admirable. Still, I believe it is worth seeing for the originality and Sam Neill alone.


Moving on to the The Book of Eli, a post-apocalyptic western starring Denzel Washington as Eli (of course), Mila Kunis, and Gary Oldman. Eli is a wanderer traveling west in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. He was been traveling west across America for thirty years. I hope that last sentence raised a few eyebrows, as it certainly baffled me as to how the hell he has yet to reach his destination. Anyways, leaps in logic aside, Eli is carrying with him a book (which, if you cannot guess from the trailers alone, is a copy of the Holy Bible). In a world where almost all religious texts have been destroyed and mankind has been without them for a few decades, it comes as no surprise that a man such as the ruthless Carnagie (Oldman), the ruler of a town Eli stumbles upon, is seeking just such a text so that he may use it to expand his power. Naturally, Eli is not about to let the book fall into the wrong hands, and so with the help of a girl named Solara (Kunis), he tries to continue his journey west.

There are a number of gorgeous fight scenes throughout the film - one near the beginning in which Eli dispatches a group of cannibals in silhouette stands out as particularly exquisite, and suspense is built quite effectively all throughout. As usual, Gary Oldman shines in his performance, and the rest of the cast is excellent as well. The premise is one that is not quite as original as it could have been, but it is nonetheless one that is captivating in its mystery and the unraveling therein. Similar to Daybreakers, however, what is left after all the secrets are revealed is lackluster at best. There is a profound twist that is not very surprising at all, nor does it really seem very logical. Furthermore, the end of the film provides no real catharsis; nothing is quite solved - at least not to the degree that it makes much difference in the world one way or the other - and this is topped off with a final scene that is almost impossible to take seriously.


Finally, a tidbit of news, as I neglected to mention it earlier: Five Minutes of Heaven, the Liam Neeson flick I mentioned that I have been waiting to see, has had a DVD release date announced: April 27th, 2010. Here is the trailer for the film:

Thirst (Park Chan-wook, 2009)

It is certainly no secret that I am quite the admirer of Park Chan-wook's work. Oldboy is one of my all-time favorites (right behind V for Vendetta and American Beauty), and the other two films in his acclaimed "Vengeance Trilogy" are fairly high on the list as well. So naturally, I was eagerly anticipating his latest effort from the very moment I learned of it. Unfortunately for me, I was unable to seek Thirst out in its highly limited theatrical release, and thus had to bide my time until the DVD finally hit shelves on November 17, 2009. I am ecstatic to say that it was well worth that long, arduous wait; every last second. Let me be as up front as possible: Thirst is an extraordinary film.

The film begins with the introduction of Sang-hyun (Song Kang-ho), a Roman Catholic priest who brings peace to the terminally ill, assisting in the plight and uncertainty that comes with passing from this life to the next. Growing tired of the grief that comes with watching patients die, Sang-hyun decides to volunteer for an experiment in which he will serve as a test subject for curing a deadly virus. At first, he seems to be just another failed effort among the batch of volunteers, but shortly after flat-lining he miraculously returns to life thanks to a blood transfusion, becoming the only survivor thus far. Shortly thereafter, he takes shelter with a childhood friend, Kang-woo (Shin Ha-kyun), and his family. Here he meets Kang-woo's loving mother, Lady Ra (Kim Hae-sook), and his wife (whom Sang-hyun also knew during his childhood), Tae-ju (Kim Ok-bin), who completely despises her husband, and with good reason.



Also of importance during this time is that Sang-hyun quickly learns that he is a vampire. Of course, being a priest, he is not one to begin stalking helpless victims in the night. Instead, he gets blood from unconscious patients at the hospital he works at (primarily from a man in a coma named Hyo-sung, a gentle soul who delights in feeding the needy - so Sang-hyun does not feel guilt in the act).



Sang-hyun simultaneously takes a romantic interest in Tae-ju - a mutual feeling, as she longs for him to rescue her from the life she lives (indeed she even confides that she has loved him since they were children. He is reluctant at first, as perhaps a priest must be in abstinence, but he does not put up much of a resistance before indulging in carnal desires with Tae-ju. Not wanting to hide his condition from her, Sang-hyun reveals to her that he is a vampire, which initially terrifies Tae-ju, but she quickly embraces the fact with a playful adoration, even wishing to become a vampire herself.



Through various means, the two allow their love to flourish and Sang-hyun does all within his power to give Tae-ju a happier life. However, he understands all too well that his illness leaves one teetering on the edge, holding firmly to a minuscule thread of humanity. The film focuses a bit on both Sang-hyun and Tae-ju struggling with the moral quandaries presented to a vampire, but remains first and foremost a rather tragic (yet often comedic) love story. As is the norm for the director, the narrative is not without its share of quirkiness and flair - to the extent that the unaccustomed viewer may well be scratching his/her head at some of various happenings that take place in the latter third of the film's two hour and fourteen minute run-time.

Thirst is a splendid tapestry of romance, comedy, and occasional horror. Cleverly-conceived dialogue, erotic (albeit sometimes bizarre) scenes of intimacy, and buckets of blood are all present with marvelous execution. While it is doubtful in my mind that Park Chan-wook can ever hope to deliver a film quite as perfect as Oldboy, this latest effort is definitely not to be missed. If I were to make any complaint about the film at all, it would have to be with the DVD release itself, as it sports no special features whatsoever. While this fact is disappointing, it is not too troubling, as I find it likely that a double-dip will be released sometime within the next year or two, likely containing (at the very least) a commentary track and some behind-the-scenes featurette(s). Unfortunately, until that hopeful day arrives, this humdrum release will have to suffice. Still, poor DVD aside, I must say that Thirst is quite the nourishing film, though I will always have room for more of Park Chan-wook's work in the future as well.

World's Greatest Dad (Bobcat Goldthwait, 2009)

For me, 2009 was a year that consisted predominately of both colossal disappointments and pleasant surprises. Thankfully, Bobcat Goldthwait's World's Greatest Dad, starring Robin Williams, is one of the latter. I was intrigued merely by Williams' starring in the film as well as the overwhelmingly-positive critical reception. Unfortunately, the film slipped under the radar and was confined to a limited theatrical release. In the midst of all the other films I had my eye on at the time, I admittedly forgot about it entirely. It even managed to avoid an extensive list of upcoming DVD releases that I maintain. A week after it was released, I noticed it on the shelf at MovieStop and snagged a copy once my memory of film resurfaced. Sadly, this sort of thing seems to happen every time Robin Williams takes on a more serious role. That is not to say that World's Greatest Dad is necessarily a 'serious' film, however. To the contrary, it is a dark yet strangely hysterical movie (ie. dark comedy). Furthermore, it is well-written, well-acted, and succeeds at establishing an extraordinary emotional connection with the viewer; one that is rather uncanny, but it works. Though there are several films from 2009 that I have yet to view, World's Greatest Dad is above and beyond the best I have seen thus far.

The story revolves around Lance Clayton (Williams), a failed author in the sense that he has not been able to get any of his work published. Moreover, he is a high school poetry teacher whose class enrollment is so low that the course is in danger of being removed from the curriculum. To make matters worse, he is becoming increasingly uneasy in his secretive relationship with a fellow teacher, Claire (Alexie Gilmore). Finally - and most significantly - his son, Kyle (Daryl Sabara - whom you may recognize from Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween, in which he plays a bully that is beaten to death by a young Michael Myers), is a twisted, strikingly perverted miscreant. Kyle is obsessed with pornography and masturbating (and literally nothing else, it would seem). This obsession teeters on the edge of the extreme due to his fascination with exceptionally vulgar things (such as German Shiza pornography) and his experimenting with asphyxiation while masturbating. What is worse is the fact that his obscenity is far from limited to these (mostly) private endeavors, as he is a complete jerk to everyone he encounters - even his father and his "best friend," Andrew (Evan Martin).

Unfortunately for Lance, all of these dilemmas seem to be heading collectively towards a certain eruption of chaos. He is jealous of a fellow teacher, Mike Lane (Henry Simmons - whom some may recognize from the short-lived [yet phenomenal] television series, Shark), who was able to publish the first piece of literature he submitted. The fact that Claire also seems to be increasingly drawn to Mike does not help the situation, either. Combined with a dull poetry class that is nearly empty and a son that is spiraling further and further out of his control, Lance is stressed beyond all reason. A slight beacon of hope occurs during a dinner he has with Claire and Kyle, but it is incredibly short-lived when, in the following scene, he finds Kyle dead in his bedroom as a result of choking to death while masturbating. Not wanting his son to be remembered in such a disgraceful manner, Lance makes it appear as if Kyle hung himself, forging a suicide note to solidify the plan. It works, but not quite in the way Lance expects.

Everyone at Kyle's school becomes obsessed with the dead degenerate that treated them all like trash, all as a result of the school newspaper leaking the poetic suicide note that Lance had written. All of the students and faculty begin believing that Kyle was a poor, misunderstood soul that was really sweet at heart and immeasurably intelligent; that was simply a brilliant mind struggling to find his way in a mundane environment. Lance fuels this belief, going so far as to draft an entire journal for Kyle and have it published. Beauty lies within the irony that Lance finally has his work published but it is attributed to his son instead of himself. Though the entire ordeal is not particularly humorous when narrowed down to its most basic details, the various happenings both before and after Kyle's death are utterly hilarious in their presentation and execution.

I will say no more for fear of spoiling the fun entirely, but let me summarize by saying that this is a serious film that does not take itself seriously. It is over-the-top, ridiculous at times, but never boring. It is constantly entertaining, and sure to inspire a peculiar assortment of feelings all throughout. The ending, too, is one of the most effective I have seen in quite some time - partially due to its subtlety. It seems that fewer films nowadays are capable of such effective endings to the narrative, but World's Greatest Dad has one that, while it could have potentially been better, is wholly admirable. I believe it goes without saying that I strongly recommend viewing this film. However, it should be watched with an open mind. Try not to take it too seriously and, more importantly, do not be afraid to laugh.

Update: The Vengeance Trilogy, and Jan/Feb DVD releases

Upon checking DVDActive.com today for updates, I noticed that The Vengeance Trilogy was among them. Seeing as how the site is a phenomenal source of information regarding upcoming DVD releases, I found it odd that they had no coverage of the set until now, as I was under the impression that it had been released on November 24th, 2009. Well, as it so happens, there is a rather simple explanation: the boxed set has been delayed until March 16th, 2010. Therefore, instead of waiting until I have the set to review Thirst, I have decided to go ahead and review it separately.

Also, here is a list of forthcoming DVD releases (through February) that are of interest to me. A "*" indicates that I am considering writing a review of it at some point in time:

1/12/10
-Moon*
-In the Loop*
-The Hurt Locker*
-Onimasa*
-Departures*

1/19/10
-Pandorum*

1/26/10
-This is It
-The Donner Party
-A Touch of Spice*
-Paris, Texas (Criterion Collection release)*
-Saw VI*
-I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell*
-Whip It*

2/2/10
-Zombieland
-The Wolfman: Universal Legacy Series*
-New York, I Love You*
-The House of the Devil*

2/9/10
-A Simple Man*
-The Real Wolfman (History Channel special)

2/16/10
-Halo: Legends*
-Goodfellas 20th Anniversary Edition
-Revanche (Criterion Collection release)*

2/23/10
-Flame and Citron*
-The Vicious Kid*
-Howard's End (Criterion Collection release)*