Archive for October, 2004

Melinda and Melinda

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted October 29, 2004 at 5:47 pm

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Rating:Rated PG-13 for adult situations involving sexuality, and some substance material.
Starring:Will Farrell, Rahda Mitchell, Amanda Peet
Directed By:Woody Allen

Final Grade:

Few people can capture the humor of the everyday lives of human beings. Last year we watched Alexander Payne as he showed us the lighter side of life with Sideways, the story of two complete opposites who go on a bachelor party road trip to wine country. Payne did a fantastic job, but for my money, I can usually count on director Woody Allen to keep me laughing at life’s abnormalities better than any other director in the business. That’s why even though I was a bit skeptical, I was excited to see Melinda and Melinda. The story of Melinda and Melinda begins in a restaurant, as two playwrights are discussing if a comedy or a tragedy is a better art form. One of the other guests begins telling a brief tale of a woman named Melinda, who appears unexpectedly as a houseguest to a young couple. From there he asks, is this tale the makings of a comedy or a tragedy in each writer eyes. The two writers begin telling their take on the “Melinda” story and back and forth they go creating both a tragedy and a comedy out of the Melinda story.

Director Woody Allen is very hit and miss with this film. In his later years, the Annie Hall director has found himself faltering. Films like Hollywood Ending, Anything Else and now Melinda and Melinda remind us that Woody Allen deserves the acclaim he gets, but all “good” things eventually have to come to an end. Some people sit and reminisce of sports dynasties past, like the Lakers, The Chicago Bulls, The Atlanta Braves or the Dallas Cowboys. Movie geeks sit and reminisce of great directors and actors past, like Woody Allen, Robert DeNiro, Dustin Hoffman, Tony Scott and Jimmy Fallon. (Oh wait Fallon doesn’t fit in there at all) None the less Woody Allen does. Snippets of Allen’s humor dances about the script but it just feels too forced. It’s sad to see an old director try to rehash the same ideas over and over again just trying to stumble upon the pulse of a truly great script.

What Allen does do right is pick up a fun cast for his story. On the comedic tale of Melinda he chooses Will Farrell to be the stay at home husband and Amanda Peet as the feminist movie directing wife of Farrell’s. The two play off of each other perfectly, Peet as the power hungry woman and Farrell as the neurotic, nervous, timid, stuttering and stammering husband. In an amazing feat in the movie business, Amanda Peet manages to keep her shirt on the entire film and for once does not look like a coked out whore. Amazing! Farrell does a nice job of essentially being the “Woody Allen” Character of the film. In the past Woody Allen would have played this character, but it’s nice to see the director doesn’t try to fool himself anymore. Perhaps by now he has realized that no one wants to see him with a wife who could be his daughter in comparison. (Too bad he didn’t realize that in real life as well).

Stylistically the movie flows nicely between the two tales and for a minute you almost have to remind yourself that this is the same tale, just being told from a different person’s perspectives. The story does a nice job of being different and yet the same all at the same time. The film falters though because it really feels as though it doesn’t go anywhere in either tale. When Farrell isn’t on the screen the film feels as though it is fizzling, and jut leaves this all around bland taste in our mouth. Top that off with the film ending as abruptly as it starts and the film just plain misses the mark.

In the end, Melinda and Melinda is not a “bad” film by any means. Problem is it isn’t a “good” film either. If you were not a Woody Allen before, this film will not change your mind. And if you were a Woody fan prior to this the film will leave you salivating for something far more that this film can offer. Perhaps it’s because Woody has already given us all he can offer us, or maybe it is because it is a different time and a different place in the world today. Maybe the man’s words just aren’t the same as they used to be. None the less Woody’s new film will quickly leave theaters as unnoticed and unannounced as it came in to theaters. No one will know it existed and those who did will quickly not care.

No Comments
Filed under: Comedy, Drama, Movies

Saw

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted at 2:21 am

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:RATED R for Violence, Disturbing Imagery, and Danny Glover
Starring: Cary Elwes, Danny Glover, Leigh Whannell
Directed By: James Wan

Final Grade:

It’s been a big year for bad endings in the horror genre. First there was the Ashton vehicle The Butterfly Effect, which lost its focus in the last half-hour, only to be shown up by an even worse ending on the director’s cut DVD. Then, the MTV-ized remake of Dawn of the Dead almost ruined itself with a series of scenes intertwined with the credits that took away from the extraordinary climax that had preceded them. Even horror related films like Van Helsing and Hellboy took missteps in closing their plotlines adequately. And let’s not even mention The Village.

As if that weren’t enough, this fall’s three biggest horror releases, The Forgotten, The Grudge, and now Saw, have ended with much less than a bang. It’s almost to the point where I’d be forced to say that the best horror ending of the year belonged to the uber-B-movie Anacondas. That’s sad.

The point, as I see it, is that horror writers of late are too caught up in the build up and not involved with how to finalize their story. Atmosphere and intensity throughout the film have become first priority, but have also led to the fact that an ending that can top the rest of the film’s momentum is rarely possible. Gone are the likes of Rosemary’s Baby and Halloween, when a slow burn to a killer finale is what audiences received. And yet, despite this trend, I fully admit that I looked forward to Saw as the film that would stand out from this trend. The premise was too good to lose itself.

Sadly, it did. After a great hour and a half of flashbacks and intriguing development (not to mention a few sadistic and original kills), Saw, like its genre mates, delved into a labyrinthine “whodunit” twistfest. Each twist got more and more absurd, and raised more questions than it did answers. It’s kind of funny that a film that claims that every piece has a puzzle ties itself together so loosely.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot I love about Saw. James Wan’s film is stylish and dark, providing some great scenes that are more reminiscent of Se7en than the Texas Chainsaw Massacre style film I was expecting. The plot is inventive, and the final act gets points from me for its intensity, even if it doesn’t hold water after some thought. When you can turn off your brain and enjoy a man sawing off his own foot is when you can get the most out of this film.

I managed to make that connection, even though I was quite disappointed by the final turns of events. There’re a lot of missed opportunities in this Saw’s final cut, but it still makes for one of the more enjoyable and original horror films of recent memory. I’m also sure that, with its expectations lowered on repeat viewings, Saw should become a staple of any horror fan’s recommendations, at least as a great horror for group viewing. Because, let’s face it, we all get a kick out of watching people walk into obvious and sadistic traps. In that aspect this Saw’s pretty sharp, even if it’s realism is a little dull.

No Comments
Filed under: Horror, Movies

The Assassination of Richard Nixon

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted October 22, 2004 at 11:30 pm

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Rating:Rated R for language and a scene of graphic violence. 
Starring:Sean Penn, Don Cheadle 
Directed By:Niels Mueller 

Final Grade: 

After working at the varsity long enough over the last few months, I have heard 7 out of every 10 people that look at the poster for this film say, “But I didn’t think Richard Nixon was assassinated.” Good news history buffs! He wasn’t! The title of this film is a bit deceiving. So don’t go home worried that you missed the day in history class where they told the story of another assassinated president. Instead this film called the Assassination of Richard Nixon tells the tale of one of the most ridiculous assassination attempts that is hardly ever told.

Based on the real life story of Samuel Bycke, who attempted to hijack a plane with plots to crash it into the White House, Academy Award Winner Sean Penn recreates the tale of this madman. Penn plays Sam, a man whose life is crumbling around him. Sam is opinionated and finds that his opinions make his life miserable. Although Sam doesn’t see it this way, his antics have messed up his previous jobs, his marriage and his current career as a salesman As Sam unravels he begins to blame his troubles on the government’s control on its nations inhabitants. Vowing to make a difference Sam eventually begins to formulate a plot to hijack a plane and crash it into the White House, proving to everyone even the littlest of people in the world can change history forever.

What makes this story so interesting is that it is based off a true story. When September 11th came about many people talked of how few had thought of using a commercial airplane as a terrorist weapon. Shocking enough, most people didn’t remember that years ago a man by the name of Sam Bycke had already attempted the feat, but didn’t succeed. In fact, Bycke really failed pretty miserably. He didn’t even get off the ground. He actually was gunned down shortly after getting onboard.

This film tries to recreate the story of Bycke and what lead up to his failed plot by showing how his broken home and relationships were all due to what he thought was government control. However, the plot just drones on as a slow driven character study that doesn’t have any real point other than the anti-climatic “Nutbar being killed” scene. At no point did I ever think that Bycke was going to actually succeed in his plans and I spent most of the time wondering why some people didn’t just stop him for a second and say, “Sam, you’re F___king Nuts!” I think I would have despite my fears of him going postal on me.

Sean Penn does a great job in the role, but it just doesn’t really compare to his Oscar Performance Last year in Mystic River. This film feels far to Bland and Penn really doesn’t bring a lot of spice to the flick. You could easily say Penn plays “crazy” pretty well, but it’s nothing to write home about.

I think what I really didn’t like about this film is it borrowed heavily the idealism from “Taxi Driver.” Just like DeNiro in the 1976 film, Sam also has the same deranged views that eventually pushed DeNiro’s character over the edge. In Both films we find characters whom when we first meet them they are slightly deranged, but as their lives evolve they both psychologically decay until they finally snap. Both stories have subplots of political gains, a scene where the main character winds up in a political campaign head quarters and very similar female figures. All in all The Assassination of Richard Nixon almost feels like a middle class remake of Taxi Driver. If you still aren’t biting on this theory, it just so happens that the Writers/Directors changed the spelling of the real Sam Bycke to “Bicke” in the film. Some of you may remember that the character in Taxi Driver was Travis Bickle. Coincidence? I really don’t think so!

In the end, this film is just there. Penn does a decent job, and the film is ok, but it is easily forgettable. When you pretty much remake Taxi Driver for the middle class, it dulls the material. Sure the Elements are there to make Sam Nuts, but it doesn’t feel as real as Taxi Driver did. The characters in this film are too bland, too boring and like I stated earlier as an audience member you never really expect anything to actually go Sam’s way. Never once do you think Sam might get away with his plan, never once do you think that Sam is sane enough to carry out this plot, which makes it hard to stick it out. I wanted to enjoy this flick but I can’t give it a good grade on a solid at best performance by Penn. All in all, save your money, you aren’t really missing much. 

No Comments
Filed under: Drama, Movies

The Grudge

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted at 11:18 pm

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:RATED PG-13 for Scariness, Violence, and Being set in Japan 
Starring: Sarah Michelle Gellar, KaDee Strickland, Ted Raimi 
Directed By: Takashi Shimizu 

Final Grade: 

Takashi Shimizu’s remake of his own Japanese film (the third in the Ju-On series, making this a rare remake of a sequel) is a pleasant distraction. The film skimps on plot and focuses its energy entirely on creating a series of intense and terrifying scenes, proving to be the antithesis of films like The Ring that have focused a lot of energy on building a plot around the terror. To say that I’m surprised it worked is an understatement, as this is one of the most intense horror films released in America in the last decade.

Instead of working as a single narrative, The Grudge unfolds more like a series of episodes. However, the director (and writer Stephen Susco), do a good job of tying each scene to the rest of the film’s events, which makes for an interesting set of predicaments that almost feels like an anthology. No more than five scenes are used to advance the plot without creating a build-up to some type of scare or thrill, giving the film a relentlessness that is at times overpowering.

Granted, it’s not all greatness in Shimizu’s film. The biggest problem, as I see it, was actually in the film’s ghosts. When considering the two main ghosts, I was left thinking the older one was a leftover from The Ring, and the younger was inspired by the comedic creatures of Galaxy Quest. Add in a very unreal CGI ghost early in the film, and I felt extremely let down by the apparitions that kept showing up.

Thankfully, The Grudge doesn’t rely on them to be scary in most of their scenes, only using them to end the tension. When the ghosts are relied on for extended appearances, the fear factor decreases proportionally, ending in a couple of moments that I found to be laughable. But when the film’s at its best (particularly in the segment featuring the adorable KaDee Strickland and her trip home from work), we don’t need to “see” anything to be on the edge of our seats.

Shimizu has a great eye for tension, and despite not having seen his Asian efforts I’m quite impressed by this American version. Though it’s not high art, it’s more aggressive than most PG-13 horrors and carries itself to heights most horror films of the last few years haven’t dreamt of reaching. For pure tension and creepiness, The Grudge is as good as 21st Century Hollywood gets.

No Comments
Filed under: Horror, Movies, Suspense

Surviving Christmas

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted at 6:22 am

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Rating:Rated PG-13 for sexual content, language and a brief drug reference
Starring:Ben Affleck, James Gandolfini, Christina Applegate
Directed By:Mike Mitchell

Final Grade:

Well folks its October 22nd, 2004 (or at least it was on the day I wrote this review) and do you know what that means? It’s Christmas time again! Or at least it is time to start thinking about Christmas. Each year it seems as though Christmas comes a little earlier each and every year. Traditionally in Hollywood the Christmas movies come out in November, this year Dreamworks decided to bring us a hint of Christmas cheer before the kids were even able to go trick or treating.

Ben Affleck plays Drew Latham a very successful but very lonely man who doesn’t want to spend Christmas alone. With no family to spend Christmas with he decides to rent a family for the holidays. What Drew learns is that his plan doesn’t go quite as he had planned and he learns that you can’t buy the Christmas or the family of your dreams.

This film is a perfect example of the type of stuff only a Hollywood computer could crank out. The plot is ridiculous and annoying at times, it’s formulaic and silly from start to finish. This flick was so poorly written at one point I wondered why it was made into a movie after all. I was mildly amused at best when it came to a script. After watching this film, I started to realize the truth behind the Ben Affleck/Jennifer Lopez break up. It wasn’t the failure of Gigli that pushed them apart, or the pressures of being a celebrity couple. It was because Affleck had to have been crazy. After all why would he sign on to a film like this and take up a role that was meant for someone like Ben Stiller instead. (After all Ben Stiller has had a history of “crap” films this last year or so)

Ben Affleck tries to find his humorous side in this flick and fails miserably. Affleck isn’t funny, and somehow only his more annoying qualities stand out in this film. I do believe that Ben Affleck could have some comedic talent, but I have never seen a man stoop so low to get a laugh from an audience as Affleck did in this film. I take that back; I did watch David Spade in Dickie Roberts. But that’s beside the point. The point is this film is a waste of Affleck. Costarring with Affleck is James Gandolfini, who everyone knows as HBO’s Tony Soprano. If you have ever watched Gandolfini in any movie you’ve pretty much seen his performance here. Once again Gandolfini plays the blue-collar character and in this case isn’t really given a chance to be really entertaining. Rumors have it that the film started production without a finished script, and that James Gandolfini refused to come out of his trailer for a couple of days because of some disagreements. This doesn’t surprise me. The film felt like it lacked direction, lacked character and lacked a point.

To be truthful, just like I don’t want to think about Christmas in October, I don’t want to think about Surviving Christmas anymore. It’s not a horrible film, and not deserving of being on everyone’s worst films of the year lists. Simply put Surviving Christmas is mediocre crap. You can’t blame the actors, blame the company that greenlighted this film. It just didn’t work. Surviving Christmas is a Holiday film that is a wannabe “Tim Allen” Christmas flick, which misses the mark.

In the end, watching Surviving Christmas is a lot like opening a Christmas present from your senile old great aunt that you have never met; You aren’t really sure what you’re getting yourself in to, but you are pretty sure you aren’t going to like it

No Comments
Filed under: Comedy, Holiday, Movies
?>