(From Insomniac Mania)
A milestone movie for me, as this is the only film that I have walked out of (well, I only missed about 4 minutes though, so I got the general idea and can still review it). I didn't walk out because it was a bad film, I just couldn't take it anymore. This is one of the most horrific, deppressing and disturbing films I've ever seen. Its basically about the ever increasing problems of a group of drug addicts. The problem is, seen as it is obviously an anti-drugs film, the whole idea of the film is to make their lives seem so horrific, it scares you away from drugs, so in theory this is a very good film in terms of serving its purpose. However, as entertainment, I couldn't even sit through the whole thing, so my problem is how to review it. Aronofsky's directing and the editing is fantastic, as the whole film has a very well constructed crescendo effect, where the problems build and build, up to a horrifying finale. This is also a very stylish film, and has some good performances, especially from Jennifer Connelly and Ellen Burstyn. Summing it all up brings me the biggest dilemma; what rating do you give to a film that was well made and obviously powerful, but as a result made you feel physically ill? God knows. I just won't bother.
Road Trip is obviously a cash in on the popularity of last years teen gross-out flick American Pie, but it still delivers the goods in healthy (or usually unhealthy) doses. The same gag tactics are used with bad taste heavily on the menu, and it is very funny in parts. The fresh-faced cast also turn in some spirited performances, especially MTV's Tom Green as the films narrator. It does have a few small problems - sometimes a little bit of schmaltz creeps in when it's not wanted, and the script isn't as quotable as say Animal House or American Pie; more emphasis seems to have been put on set pieces rather than written jokes/puns etc. However, this is still enjoyable stuff and certainly would go down well with a bunch of lads before a night out. Be warned though, don't take your gran to see it. 6/10
A true story about a serial killer running riot in France, Roberto Succo is a surprisingly subdued and more surprisingly often humourous film that coldly examines Succo and methodically follows the French police as they try to find him. This is a very well made film that hardly ever tries to manipulate the audiences feelings for any of the characters, but simply presents the facts to us and shows us scenes of Succo only when he is with an eyewitness. Succo is excellently played by Stefano Cassetti, never making him out to be a purely evil person, or ever over-blowing it. You find yourself often being drawn in by the character's charisma, but his intensity can also be quite frightening. Watching this is a very different experience to watching most serial killer films, there's no obvious dramatic build up, no twists, not even any grisly murders are fully shown, except for in some horribly realistic crime scene photography. All of this gives the film a very realistic quality alongside the naturalistic shooting style and minimal use of music, and makes the film ever more chilling, reminding you that this actually happened. As I said earlier though, this is funny at times, if often uncomfortably so. The humour comes mostly from Cassetti's character strangely enough, as he can be quite charasmatic, but also some of the bizarre things that he does, suggesting Succo may have been in some way insane, can be quite funny. All in all this is what we need to see more of in American and British cinema, an original, finely crafted film that will stay in your memory long after watching it. 9/10
(From Insomniac Mania)
Its about time America brought Roger Dodger out. The last couple of years the US independent scene has been quite dissapointing (either that or I just haven't been to the arthouse cinemas enough, which is more than likely), and this (added to Buffalo Soldiers which I watched a week earlier) has helped me regain a bit of faith in it. In a similar vein to Neil LaBute's first two films (In the Company of Men and Your Friends and Neighbours), Roger Dodger centres around a misogynistic 'man's-man' (the titular Roger, brilliantly portrayed by Campbell Scott) who believes he's gods gift to women. In this film however, he has his 16-year old nephew in tow who comes to his uncle Roger for help in being a hit with the ladies. While this sounds like a pretty weak idea for a feature film, the stunningly good script and Campbell's powerful performance turn this into a truly great piece. Jesse Eisenberg also impresses as Roger's nephew Nick, and we really get to see the strengths and weaknesses of the two lead characters through their interactions. Roger's egotistical facade gradually crumbles as we begin to see him for what he really is, quite a weak and sad person. While it has powerful moments (but never anywhere even approaching schmaltz) and some painfully relateable scenes, this is also very funny at times, albeit a very bitter and dark humour. Its in-depth view of the predatory male says as much if not more about modern masculinity than the more in-your-face Fight Club does. I could go on, but I'm running out of space. Basically, just watch it (although I think men might get more out of it than women would, but i might be wrong). 9/10
While being far from excellent, Rules of Engagement is better than I thought it would be. The plot is pretty hammy (retread of Courage Under Fire and A Few Good Men territory) and most of the dialogue is terrible. However, the team of Samuel L Jackson, Tommy Lee Jones, Guy Pierce and William Friedkin lift this would-be-straight-to-video effort into something watchable. Also, although it's packed full of cliches, there are some surprises, as some of the courtcase leads are dropped as red herrings (or just forgotten about, I'm not sure), and it was a nice touch in not telling the audience whether Samuel L Jackson was actually telling the truth or not until nearer the end. Friedkins hand in all of this can be clearly seen, as the war wounds of civilians (especially children) are shown in graphic detail throughout the film, you half expect some of their heads to spin round and vomit to come flying at the screen. Overall, this is a tired old boot of a movie, which has had the spit and polish treatment by some top performers. 5/10
This is basically just a retread of the first Rush Hour film, but in my opinion, refines the formula to create a similar, but more fun version. Theres more Jackie-Chan action, and Chris Tucker is even allowed to join in some of the fights. The humour, although far from subtle, and slightly racist in parts (?!), is a little more effective too. Its still just another 'mismatched cop duo' flick in the end though, and suffers from an overwhelming sense of been-there-done-that. Its probably one of the most thoroughly over-done and lampooned genres ever created on the silver screen, and its high time it was sealed away for ever. This is one of the better examples though, and fans of the original certainly won't be dissapointed, unless they wanted to see something fresh happen to the franchise (lets face it, it made enough money in America to make at least one more after this). Definately worth renting on video alongside a six pack and a take away pizza. 6/10
