Change Your Image
Bzazi
Reviews
The Gambler (1997)
Below par biography, poor adaptation of the novel
This movie was very disappointing. The scenes which were adapted from the novel were brief (none lasted more than three minutes) and gave NO details. Had I not read the book, these scenes would have made no sense at all. Even having read the book, they were worthless to the overall film, especially since they lacked Dostoevsky's narration which is probably even more important to the novel than the bare sketches of the scenes.
As far as the biographical scenes, which made up most of the film, they were decent enough but not good in any sense of the word. The dialogue was limited and a bit contrived. The acting was unnatural and mediocre.
Another reason this movie was bad is the casting. Gambon, especially without Dostoevsky's trademark beard, was pretty unsuited to the role. Polly Walker, Jodhi May, Dominic West and Luise Rainer were good, but the rest of the actors just didn't seem well-suited to their roles.
Finally, the sound was poorly done. One minute they'd whisper and I'd have to turn the volume to 25, the next they were shouting so loud I had to turn it to 7. The music also was too loud compared to dialogue.
Overall, a poor film. If you're a fan of the novel or Dostoevsky, this movie is horrid. If you're looking for an introduction to Dostoevsky, this movie gives the entire wrong impression.
P.S. What was up with the panty-sniffing scene? That was so not in the book...
Orphan (2009)
Starts out good, but gets progressively worse
This movie had a lot of potential, but ultimately did not live up to my expectations. The cinematography was excellent, and the director did a wonderful job arranging the lighting, house, etc to give it just the right feel. Also, the start of the movie was very promising and good. It developed slowly and dramatically, and was based on actual suspense and not just cheap thrills. All of this changed, however, somewhere in between Esther throwing the girl from the slide and burning the tree house down. It's hard to pinpoint a definite time that the shift occurs, but rather it happens gradually in this time frame. By the time the tree house burns down, a lot of the suspense is missing and there are more cheap thrills and nonsense. By the time of the hospital scene (which I will discuss in a bit) all the way to the end, the movie gets increasingly ridiculous, over the top and cheap. By that point, all of the suspense is killed and the movie turns into a typical cheap horror film.
The hospital scene completely annoyed me. Both of my parents and two of my grandparents have worked in hospitals, so I've been in and out of them my whole life, and even the cheapest, rinky-dink hospitals have so many doors with key-coded locks that there is no way in hell that Esther could have gotten from the waiting room area into the son's room, especially if he were in an intensive care unit like he was. Also, the pulse metre on his finger would have begun beeping and flat-lining the minute she took it off of his finger. But she's somehow able to take it off of his finger, smother him to death and then put it back on his finger before the machine starts flat-lining. Also, his blood pressure reading was so patently fake that it made me want to choke somebody. The hospital scene in general makes me want to punch a poodle in the face just to spite the filmmakers.
The one thing keeping me from giving this a lower rating is the fact that the beginning was so strong. Had it lacked such a strong beginning before eventually fizzling out, I probably would have given this a much lower rating.
Approaching Union Square (2006)
This film has no plot and poor dialogue
In short, it's got no plot and rather poor dialogue. Unlike fairly plot less films such as Man Bites Dog and Clerks which have loads of great dialogue, memorable scenes and capture the zeitgeist of an era, this film is simply boring and a little self-righteous.
The acting was pretty good, and the technical production of the film was flawless. However, the plot (or lack of) and script were just very below the bar. The script doesn't do enough to lure the audience into the world of the characters except for a few of the vignettes (notably Silvio's, which is probably the only really good vignette of the whole film). Also, like I said earlier, the dialogue was just too uninteresting. It had no quirky charm or appeal like Coffee and Cigarettes did, and it wasn't intellectually deep enough to make some sort of statement. It was just rather like going into a restaurant and eavesdropping on what the people in the next table are talking about.
In the end, it's just not interesting.
The Hammer (2007)
Better than I expected
After watching quite a few newer comedy movies from the older 1990s crowd (Grandma's Boy, Balls of Fury, most anything recent by Sandler) and all of those really crappy movies made on the coattails of the 40 Year Old Virgin, I was glad to find a comedy movie that was actually funny and not just stupid.
This movie has aptly been described as being a "tweener" (ie. not a comedy or drama), and that categorisation really does fit. It's got plenty of comedic moments, and it's fairly light-hearted, but it's not a barrel of laughs and no one dies in it, so it's sort of in the middle. Still, it's a good movie.
Sure, there are probably better movies out there than this, but when compared to all of the crap that's been produced by Hollywood since the 1990s (both comedy and otherwise), it's nice to see that at least some good movies can get made without having to go to England to film them and wait a few years for it to be released in America.
Burn After Reading (2008)
Okay film, but disappointing for a Coen Brothers work
Burn After Reading was an okay film in some regards. The plot was very intricate and thought out, and the film had a lot of potential, but I personally thought it fell a bit short in actually delivering what it could have.
The characters weren't very well-developed. Compared to the Coen Brothers other movies, in particular the Big Lebowski, most of the characters in Burn After Reading (especially Osborne Cox) didn't get enough time on the screen for their character to blossom. Instead, it's like we just caught a glimpse into the characters without actually understanding every little nuance of them.
Also, there were a few scenes which weren't filmed but mentioned in the scenes where the two CIA officers discuss the situation as it is unfolding. Some of these scenes, such as Pfarrer's flight to Venezuela and Cox's pseudo-death could have made for very interesting scenes, but were simply ignored outside of casual references at the end. Like I said earlier too, a lot of the characters seemed underdeveloped, and quite a few extra scenes could have definitely been scripted.
That leads me to the script, which wasn't that great. It had its moments that were okay, but in general the script didn't have the same uniqueness of other Coen Brothers films. It lacked a lot of their originality and quirkiness, and really I can't think of any truly great quotes from it the same way as I can films like the Big Lebowski.
In short, the plot was sort of quirky and funny; the script and characters had the potential to be so, but in the end they just weren't. After watching it, I feel like I tuned in late and missed part of the film or just saw a really long trailer. I don't feel like I really saw a completed Coen Brothers film.
Nine Out of Ten (1997)
Not what I expected
For me, Nine Out of Ten just doesn't deliver. The back of the DVD case said the film was satire and listed a number of antics which, to me, suggested farce, dark comedy or some other absurd, zany antics in the style of Monty Python or Mel Brooks. Also, given that the film is supposed to be satire, I was expecting something intellectual like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. However, as other have said, the DVD case was misleading as to the contents of the film.
Instead of something intellectual, satirical and dark, I found this to be a rather dull, methodic approach to a cliché plot (mild-manner man decides to break the Ten Commandments). There was nothing satirical or intellectual about the film, and the plot is decent enough for a cheap, low-budget comedy film, but it's not what I felt was promised by the DVD cover, so I feel cheated in a way.
Anyways, to the actual plot itself, it wasn't entirely boring, but it wasn't that unique either. The script itself wasn't as bad as something like Manos: The Hands of Fate, but it's not particularly praise-worthy either.
The acting wasn't horrible, but it was a notch or two below par. For the most part, the acting just didn't seem very naturalistic, and it seemed too often like the actors were just reading from a manuscript and not getting into character.
Also, as someone else said, the audio wasn't quite so good at times. When the credits ran, I only saw one person listed as a boom operator, so I can only assume they used a single boom mic for the entire movie. This worked in the medium shots, but for the wide shots they could've used a few well-disguised lavalier mics as well.
In all, the plot, acting and script are nothing special, and David Stepkin's performance as the eccentric uncle is the only thing that holds the film together and keeps it from being even more obscure, but it's a fairly decent attempt at making a true independent movie, so I'd give it a 6/10, which is a far cry short from the 9/10 the directors were obviously hoping for.