Change Your Image
sheycavin
Reviews
Fracture (2007)
Horrible
Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. You mean to tell me that the Anthony Hopkins character didn't understand the charge against him in the first trial was attempted murder? And that by removing his wife from life support that he could then be charged with murder if new evidence turned up? After EVERYTHING he did. All the planning, plotting and scheming he overlooked THAT?!?! Is he a genius or a retard? He can't be both.
Gosling's new boss at his new law firm (who made senior partner at 25 somehow) is sleeping with him, her new employee, and she's schooling HIM on ethics?!? I liked the Ryan Gosling character better the first time when his name was Jake Brigance in 'A Time to Kill.' I liked the Anthony Hopkins character better the first time when his name as Hannibal Lecter in 'Silence of the Lambs.' This movie is for people in the 80 - 100 IQ range who like to pat themselves on the back for 'figuring it out' even though they beat you over the head with the 'twists' the whole time. You actually see him swap the guns around in the hotel and at his home. You know why you figured it out? Because THEY SHOWED IT HAPPEN! I understand there is a difference between mystery and suspense. Unfortunately, this movie doesn't.
1/10 because there is no zero on the scale.
Grindhouse (2007)
Rodriguez 1, Tarantino 0
The popular opinion seems to be that Tarantino trumps Rodriguez in this one. I've read a lot about how Tarantino has entered that pop icon phase where he could release a film of a 4 year old's birthday party shot on super 8 and it'd be accepted as genius. On one hand I think that's unfair to artists who find themselves in that situation. On the other, Tarantino's effort here may in fact add some fuel to that fire.
If "Death Proof" is reminiscent of anything it's "Sex and the City" with clips from a great action movie mixed in. The 20 - 30 minute discussions by the ladies (both sets) is mind numbing and, frankly, annoying. A good editor, like Rodriguez, could cut this into a fantastic film.
If there's one knock I have on Tarantino it's that all women, especially black women, are the same character in his movies. They are sexy, tough, hardboiled, fast talking tom boys who could whip a man's ass any day that ends in "y". And four of them sitting around a table all talking at once is a bit more cliché and sch-tick than I can stomach.
I also found myself cringing several times at how repetitive Tarantino has become. "Death Proof" contains so many samples from his earlier works that I began to wonder if he had any original ideas left at all. It's one thing to make subtle references to events and places in the worlds you've created as a director (Big Kahuna Burger for example), but it's another to rehash scenes, themes, and entire characters over and over and over.
Rodriguez on the other hand shines here with an incredibly fun and entertaining zombie movie that holds its own against any horror film ever made. While being a tribute to all zombie movies that have come before, it's also very original in its story, characters and elements (see: Rose McGowan's machine gun leg). And you have to love how the end reveals the whole thing to be a result of the Iraq War and, ultimately, George Bush's fault. Very clever.
Maybe Rodriguez is just better at this genre or maybe Tarantino is really out of new ideas or didn't feel like thinking of any. Regardless, "Planet Terror" gets a solid 7/10 while "Death Proof" squeaks out a 4/10.
21 Grams (2003)
If you like Traffic....
This is a very intelligent movie. There's no way a studio could open this film on 2,000 screens on Memorial Day weekend and expect to rake in $50 million. It's just not that kind of movie. But having said that, I'm very grateful to the makers of this film. My chest tightened, my lips smiled, and my eyes watered throughout. In other words: it was moving. Without getting into the "it's sucks" vs. "it's great" debate, I'll just say that movies, like every other product, are made for target audiences. Some are refined to a very small target, some are refined to a very large target. I'd say 21 Grams had a pretty small target. A short list of films to compare would be: Monster's Ball, Taxi Driver, Traffic, and Momento. If you enjoy these, then 21 Grams will appeal to you, more than likely. I'm quite sure there are people like me out there who will fall within the target and be blown away by it, but I can't promise it's you. I don't even know you! :-)
My only complaint about the film would be the same complaint I have about every film I've seen in the last seven years: it's too long. I'd guess that's a result of supply and demand. Good directors are in short supply and high demand, so their value (power) is way up. Most directors hate leaving scenes in the cutting room so less is getting left out these days. Overall, 21 Grams gets 9/10 from me.
The Ring (2002)
Disturbing
I'm not going to get into the whole thing about it being a remake and all of that. If you're a smart person working a job and looking for a good scare, see this movie. I grew up watching Freddy and Jason and every episode of "Faces of Death" hundreds of times. I've seen all of the classic horror films from "Night of the Living Dead" to "Exorcist." I even watched the original "Ringu" as well as "Ring", the Korean remake of "Ringu." But this movie scared and disturbed me more than anything I've ever seen or read.
Maybe it was the theater environment or maybe even the mood I was in, but this movie freaked me out. Driving home wasn't easy and I'll have to see how I do going to sleep tonight. And like I say, I grew up on gore and violence so it's not like I'm sensitive or anything. Get some friends, head to this movie and watch grown men scream along side thirteen year-old girls. It's a lot of fun. 9/10.
PS: Notice how many people are more disturbed by what happens in the ferry scene with the horse than the fact that four teenagers died. You can waste all of the humans you want, but don't mess with the animals. I love Americans.
Monster's Ball (2001)
Artistic and thematic
This is a very brave movie. Not because of the racism or the sex or the execution, but because it trusts its viewers. It does not insult us by making the characters chatter for hours beating the themes into the ground until even the most simple-minded viewer "gets" it. The screenwriters (like William Faulkner and Hemingway and Welty before them) understand that they won't reach most of the population. They teach to the top of the class by entrusting the theme to a few well-placed, well-acted lines. In a culture where few people have ever read a novel, much less a good novel, much less a great novel, this movie is brave enough to be literary. It challenges the viewer to draw from his or her own emotions and life experiences to meet it half-way. Most aren't willing to do that. They take their movies like they take their food, fast and easy. But for those of us looking for more, this is art. 10/10
John Q (2002)
Suspenseful, but cheap.
I saw John Q Saturday night. Not what I expected. Had I wanted to know more about socialized medicine, I would have read the brochure. Instead, the writer of this movie read the brochure for me and encapsulated it in an emergency room scene in which the "hostages" discuss the woes of health insurance in America. An extremely unnatural and preachy scene, to say the least.
Also, this movie doesn't really tackle the issue of Americans not donating organs. It makes it seem that the reason people die waiting for transplants is because big mean insurance companies won't pay for them. When in fact, more often than not, it's because a compatible donor is never located.
SPOILERS in this paragraph. The movie is filled with tear-jerking, emotion-manipulating, cheap suspense scenes. The gun's safety being on when he lies down to kill himself at the end is possibly the cheapest bit of writing a I've seen in a movie of this budget. The movie leads you to believe that he killed himself just as the news of his son's new heart arrives. My first thought was, "That's awesome. This movie is truly a tragedy." But no. He's alive. Hollywood, no matter how brash a political statement they are trying to make, will not kill a star. His son has a new heart and is up walking around and flexing for his dad (ala John John's salute to his father in 1963) a few months after the operation. Good old John Q gets a couple of years in jail. Violence is the answer once again. The movie never mentions the various charities that help people raise the money for transplants of this nature. And are we to believe the news agencies wouldn't run a story like this? Would a little boy broke and dying and in need of a heart transplant not pull in ratings unless his father holds an ER hostage?
All in all, I think the makers of this film had the best of intentions. But to blow an opportunity to bring attention to the need for organ donors in this country is a crime. And while films like "Cider House Rules" and "Traffic" address social issues, they don't tell which side you should be on. Our government has been known to spend $50 on hammers and $300 on toilets. Do we really want them running our hospitals? Isn't $15 enough to pay for an aspirin?
I give it a C because the acting is great and some of the suspense is genuine.