Cinemanic Reviews

OLD. NEW. GOOD. BAD. EVERYTHING.

Archive for the category “Romance”

Amour

Review No. 468

It’s difficult not to love “Amour”.

amour

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY MICHAEL HANEKE. STARRING JEAN-LOUIS TRINTIGNANT (GEORGES LAURENT), EMMANUELLE RIVA (ANNE LAURENT), AND ISABELLE HUPPERT (EVA LAURENT). ALSO STARRING ALEXANDRE THARAUD, CAROLE FRANCK, DAMIEN JOUILLEROT, DINARA DROUKAROVA, JEAN-MICHEL MONROC, LAURENT CAPELLUTO, RAMÓN AGIRRE, RITA BLANCO, SUZANNE SCHMIDT, WALID AFKIR, AND WILLIAM SHIMELL. DISTRIBUTED BY SONY PICTURES CLASSICS ON DECEMBER 19, 2012. PRODUCED IN FRENCH BY AUSTRIA, FRANCE, AND GERMANY. RUNS 2 HOURS, 7 MINUTES. RATED PG-13 BY THE MPAA, FOR MATURE THEMATIC MATERIAL INCLUDING A DISTURBING ACT, AND FOR BRIEF LANGUAGE.

AMOUR WAS WATCHED ON APRIL 27, 2013.

“Things will go on as they have done up until now. They’ll go from bad to worse. Things will go on, and then one day it will all be over.” –Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant)

Georges and Anne Laurent are an octogenarian couple living in a Parisian apartment. Both are retired music teachers, and their daughter is abroad. It comes to Georges by surprise one morning when his wife has a silent stroke during breakfast. He tries to live a normal life with her, particularly because she has a fear of being hospitalized, but upon returning from a funeral one night, he discovers that Anne has suffered yet another stroke and is now paralyzed down her right side. Georges is now devoting every moment of his life to taking care of his wife at all costs, but it’s not at all easy. His life has taken a sharp turn from nothing but joy, into a world full of concern, stress, and fear.

Similar to many other films from Austrian director Michael Haneke, it has both visual and audial simplicity as a core technique, and more often than not, it’s used to shocking, suspenseful effect. Simplicity is a beautiful quality. Amour tells a simple story and handles it even more simply: Cinematography is often limited to a few basic shots per scene. Dialogue seems as harmlessly unedited as a casual conversation. A quiet atmosphere is maintained, and as the story progresses, it dissolves from serenity to pure horror.

What’s best rendered in all this is the irony that this is a film about music teachers, yet the closest thing we experience to a soundtrack is a few appearances of “Bagatelles in G minor”. We hear it in the beginning to illustrate the film’s mood, and several times afterward for the same, unsettling effect.

Amour is a film that feels authentic because more than 90% of it is set within the confines of the apartment. Even in a movie theater, it’s difficult not to feel claustrophobic at times. Often times, I would wince as the camera depicted the tiny apartment’s narrow halls or the short distance between the kitchen table and the sink. At other times, you’re as scared as the loving Georges is. There’s a perfect example directly at the midpoint: a nightmare sequence. At the cinema, the scene evoked the sorts of screams you’d expect from a horror movie.

I have to say, I enjoyed the tense build-up that was created in this uneasy atmosphere, even if the “payoff” for the suspense was underworked. Granted, the climactic shock factor was appreciated by many audiences, but to the eyes of this critic, you couldn’t be any more impulsive in trying to subvert an audience’s expectations. But these are merely the climactic scenes, and perhaps the only apparent misstep the film takes. Those moments are redeemed entirely in the ending. The final ten minutes conclude the film with mesmerizing depth and a few creative twists on traditional symbolism. I won’t spoil it, but let’s just say it’s one of the most thought-provoking conclusions since Citizen Kane.

A

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles

Boxcar Bertha

Review No. 460

I’d like to run a boxcar through “Boxcar Bertha”.


Directed by: Martin Scorsese
Screenplay by: Joyce Hooper Corrington and John William Corrington
Based on: “Sister of the Road” by Ben L. Reitman
Boxcar Bertha: Barbara Hershey
Big Bill Shelly: David Carradine
Rake Brown: Barry Primus
Also Starring: Bernie Casey, Harry Northup, John Carradine, Victor Argo

Distributed by American International Pictures on June 14, 1972. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 88 mins. Rated R by the MPAA—mature themes, strong sexual content, violence, nudity, language.

Boxcar Bertha was watched on March 31, 2013.

“Thank you. Yes, I’d just like to say this is a holdup. We’ve come for your money and jewels. So, if you’d just line up against that wall there, Bill, Rake and Von won’t have t’ shoot ya.” –Boxcar Bertha (Barbara Hershey)

My biggest question as far as Boxcar Bertha is, “Why?” No need to finish the sentence. Just a flat-out—“Why?” I remember being told that Martin Scorsese was asked by Ellen Burstyn to direct Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, and although it wasn’t his kind of film, it turned out great. From reading the negative reaction this 1972 flop received, I would’ve guessed its star—Barbara Hershey—had asked Scorsese to direct. But geez. It seemed even he couldn’t make her care about the project.

What surprises me the most is that Scorsese does seem to care about the project when no one else does. Joyce Hooper Corrington and John William Corrington wrote this “based on a true story” movie in what feels like no more than a week. It’s a very dumb, overblown, unrealistic, and unintentionally funny B-movie. I don’t know if this is what I should expect from producer Roger Corman, who is known as a god to fans of the exploitation film genre, but if that’s what I’m supposed to expect, he should be ashamed for trashing celluloid like this.

I don’t think Scorsese would have directed with any style whatsoever if this didn’t have any ties with the crime genre (and damn, are they loose). Boxcar Bertha wants to be one of those crime movies that centers in pairs. You know, Bonnie and Clyde, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Thelma & Louise, etc. The film takes the obvious premise and tries to turn it into something creative. I assume creativity is relative, especially when you can end up with utterly dumb scripts like this one.

A woman named Bertha (Barbara Hershey) is stunned when her father dies during the Great Depression. And she witnesses it. I don’t mean to sound like an ass, but I’m sure this happened to a lot of people in the Great Depression; she doesn’t need to resort to what she did (especially if she’s constantly in her nice-girl state of mind). So Bertha allows herself to get caught up in the world of men. Evil, evil men. As if we haven’t heard that cliché before. And oddly enough, she takes up one of these men (whose name I don’t remember off the top of my head; I shouldn’t need to look it up) to take revenge on the railroad workers whom she believes are the ones responsible for her father’s death. Even though the first three minutes made it very clear that he died in a plane crash.

Boxcar Bertha was Martin Scorsese’s second film serving as director. It goes without saying that he learned his lesson early on. I’ve now seen 14 of his 22 films, and of all the grades I’ve given his canon, this is the first to plummet below a solid B. Hell, it’s a D-plus! In a nutshell, this is by far his worst attempt at a movie. Forget that it’s from one of the greatest filmmakers of all-time. Boxcar Bertha is almost unbearably awful.

D PLUS

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS...

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Jackie Brown

Who’s That Knocking at My Door

Review No. 456

“Who’s That Knocking” this classic?


Directed by: Martin Scorsese
Written by: Martin Scorsese
Additional Dialogue by: Betzi Manoogian
J.R.: Harvey Keitel
The Girl: Zina Bethune
Also Starring: Ann Collette, Harry Northup

Distributed by Joseph Brenner Associates on September 8, 1968. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 90 mins. Rated R by the MPAA–mature themes, violence, nudity, language, infrequent sexual situations.

Who’s That Knocking at My Door was watched on March 27, 2013.

“Well, I’m not used to admitting I like Westerns.” –the girl (Zina Bethune)

I’ve come to notice, recently, that a director’s feature debut rarely represents his or her later work. This isn’t the case with Martin Scorsese. We look at his filmography and notice that a number of the films are all different, but essentially the same.

Many of his films are hardboiled, upbeat, nostalgic dramas; we’re given a likable, male lead and then shown how leading a double-life makes him so easily lose his touch with his surroundings. If you don’t believe me, take a look at Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, GoodFellas, and The Aviator. And, of course, Who’s That Knocking at My Door , the overlooked masterpiece that heads the list.

Who’s That Knocking at My Door centers on J.R. (Harvey Keitel) and an unnamed woman (Zina Bethune) with whom he falls in love the moment their eyes meet. She’s trying to remain unnoticed as she reads a French magazine in a café, despite not knowing a word of French. He approaches her and points out a still of John Wayne in the magazine, leading them to discuss The Searchers. It’s a casual, genuine conversation that makes the couple as lovably amusing to us as they are to each other.

But once J.R. has taken her to his apartment, he finds that he’s hiding something from her. He’s unemployed; he’s a Catholic Italian-American in NYC; he’s taking her money behind her back when he needs it; he’s constantly warning her not to touch his belongings; and yet he has limited spare time with her. Considering the director, a crime aficionado, it may seem obvious that he’s a Mafia member, but it’s shockingly nothing all that obvious.

I thoroughly enjoyed Who’s That Knocking at My Door, and although it’s not as easily recognizable as the director’s later work, it’s a work of genius. The film was independently produced on a minimal budget; it was limited to, most namely, black-and-white footage and lesser known players (this was Keitel’s first appearance on film). Yet the cinematography and performances still manage to greatly enhance whatever J.R. and “the girl” are feeling. Who’s That Knocking at My Door is an authentic psychodrama seen subtly through two pairs of eyes.

Postscript: The film was first released to the Chicago International Film Festival in 1967 as “I Call First”. In 1968, it adopted its most common title, “Who’s That Knocking at My Door”, for its New York premiere. In 1970, a handful of countries overseas began using another alternate title, “J.R.” Regardless, it’s the same movie, and it’s highly recommended.

A PLUS

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Casino

Bottle Rocket

Review No. 454

“Bottle Rocket” is bottle rocket. Real rocket is “The Royal Tenenbaums” or “Moonrise Kingdom”.


Directed by: Wes Anderson
Written by: Owen C. Wilson and Wes Anderson
Anthony Adams: Luke Wilson
Dignan: Owen C. Wilson
Mr. Henry: James Caan
Bob Mapplethorpe: Robert Musgrave
Inez: Lumi Cavazos
Also Starring: Haley Miller, Kumar Pallana, Melinda Renna

Distributed by Columbia Pictures on February 21, 1996. Produced in English and Spanish by the United States. Runs 92 mins. Rated R by the MPAA–language.

Bottle Rocket was watched on March 26, 2013.

“What a lemon! One minute it’s running like a top, and the next it’s broken down on the side of the road. And I can’t fix a car like this, because I don’t have the tools! And even if I did have the tools I don’t know if I could fix a car like this!” –Dignan (Owen C. Wilson)

I’ve said it before and there’s no harm in saying it again. Wes Anderson is a filmmaker and a genre. He’s already convinced me his style is unique and genius, through his quirky assessment of socially awkward, yet downright honest characters. Bottle Rocket was Anderson’s debut feature, and although those characters are present and often humorous, it’d take something of a psychic to identify Anderson as an up-and-coming indie flick mastermind.

I feel obligated to cut slack for Bottle Rocket because of the laughs it offers. It’s evident that you won’t need to dial 9-1-1 from choking on Wes Anderson’s jokes; they’re pleasantly amusing, but not riotously funny. What’s surprisingly good about the film is that it wants to offer more than it deserves or has the energy for. Half the time, comedy succeeds. The other half, it just fails, but it’s still awkward enough to give more definition to its characters.

Anderson typically directs films we can relate with or reminisce on. His atmospheric achievements range from The Royal Tenenbaums–about a deteriorating yet individually egocentric family–to Moonrise Kingdom–about two precocious twelve-year-olds who leave home and concern their parents for the first time. Yes, Bottle Rocket was familiar, but only because we’ve seen it a million times. Neatly crafted characters aside, it’s just a heist comedy featuring a couple of guys in their twenties. There’s no reminiscent quality or atmosphere in that (unless of course you just loved that time you planned several armed robberies in a row).

Bottle Rocket is the first and easily the most uneven screenplay from its duo, Anderson and comic Owen Wilson. If you’ve come across one of their screenplays, you know one thing common with the rest of them: reality is a BIT exaggerated for the sake of humor. Here, it’s merely skewered, and it’s distracting to think that with any realistic touch, the movie would be over before the five-minute mark. There’s one of these scenarios in the first five minutes, in fact. We open with a man trying to escape from a mental hospital by climbing out the window and down a rope of bed spreads tied together. Funny, he doesn’t look like he’d be in a mental hospital (he’s in there because he attempted suicide, apparently); he’s such a “nice guy.” And the doctor’s in the room. He lets the patient out free and clear. Huh?

I’m actually not too happy that Owen Wilson loves his brother, because it harms the screenplay. Sorry, Owen. Keep it in your family, bro. That guy in the beginning was Luke Wilson, and his costar is Owen. It’s unfortunate that Luke gets all the spotlight. He features in a giddy, romantic subplot with a Hispanic housekeeper at their motel. It’s charming and fun to watch, but it occupies at least half the movie. Owen (who you would expect just as much of, considering this is a buddy comedy) gets no spotlight, except for his complaining whenever a third team member comes and goes. What’s worse, when we see them together, their boyish arguments scream, “Hey, guys! We’re brothers!” At least Owen, having co-written, has a good idea of what’s going on.

I wouldn’t say Bottle Rocket is a fully assembled production. Nor would I say I solidly “liked” it, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say I “hated” it. The two things I am sure of are a) that I enjoyed parts that brought out, you know, Wes Anderson. Characters, humor, blend ‘em. And b) that the film is also very flawed. At the most embarrassingly worst, the movie takes outlandish turns toward the end to avoid predictability, and yet it still comes off a bit obvious. You could say that this is a “gentleman’s C,” or a “gentlefan’s C,” if you will.

C PLUS

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Blood Simple.

Broadcast News

Review No. 451

Breaking News: A charming, funny, and well-written (if unoriginal) romantic comedy!


Directed by: James L. Brooks
Written by: James L. Brooks
Jane Craig: Holly Hunter
Tom Grunick: William Hurt
Aaron Altman: Albert Brooks
Also Starring: Lois Chiles, Christian Clemenson, Joan Cusack, Peter Hackes, Robert Prosky

Distributed by 20th Century Fox on December 16, 1987. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 133 mins. Rated R by the MPAA–mature themes, sexual situations, infrequent language.

Broadcast News was watched on March 9, 2013.

“I’ll meet you at the place near the thing where we went that time.” –Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks)

I’m a fan of James L. Brooks’s work. Part of it is because he seems to know his cast, but if I were to pinpoint one key reason, it’d be that the man can actually write and direct a romantic comedy–a candid, authentically human romantic comedy.

In the case of Broadcast News, we’re given that most clearly. The film seems like “chick flick” fare: a TV producer working for the local news is, essentially, torn between two guys, one with brains and one with beauty. One who calls the plot “new” or “surprising” has successfully managed to avoid everything featuring Julia Roberts, Jennifer Aniston, or Katherine Heigl in a leading role.

That’s as close as I can possibly venture to comparing Broadcast News to those films without implicitly insulting it. The screenplay is marvelously written. It doesn’t want to be consistently and bombastically hysterical, something for which I’ve always honored Brooks. He always seems to flawlessly levee his humor for the sake of an equally sincere drama.

And so we care deeply about Holly Hunter’s lead, feeling sympathy for her, in her own pity. She’s constantly neglected by lesser men who see her as a jewel without an inner brain. We love her like we loved Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets, or Debra Winger in Terms of Endearment.

I enjoyed Broadcast News. This is a clever spin on formula, topped off by a strong ending and an excellent cast.* This isn’t a movie for the ages. It’s memorable, charming, and funny, but what takes Ms. Hunter the entire movie could take another woman two to seven minutes in another movie. And the thin plot does give the movie a bit of drag every now and then, but for the most part, it helps maintain a free, lifelike, amusing mood.

*I’d like to add that Jack Nicholson, in his minimal screen time, delivers as much as Joan Cusack, in the lead, but you know very well that I’m biased. For whatever reason, though, his performance went without billing; it’s very much noticeable, and there’s even a joke on his iconic smile.

B

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Almost Famous

Reds

Review No. 447

It bleeds power.

4lnkeEJP4XDjwtirkjs27q3AR1z

Directed by: Warren Beatty
Screenplay by: Warren Beatty and Trevor Griffiths
John Reed: Warren Beatty
Louise Bryant: Diane Keaton
Eugene O’Neill: Jack Nicholson
Louis C. Fraina: Paul Sorvino
Emma Goldman: Maureen Stapleton
Pete Van Wherry: Gene Hackman
Max Eastman: Edward Herrmann
Also Starring: Bessie Love, Ian Wolfe, Jerzy Kosinski, Max Wright, M. Emmet Walsh, Nicolas Coster, William Daniels

Distributed by Distributed by Paramount Pictures on December 4, 1981. Produced in English, Russian, and German by the United States. Runs 194 mins. Rated PG by the MPAA–mature themes, violence, language.

Reds was watched on March 5, 2013.

“Economic freedom for women means sexual freedom, and sexual freedom means birth control…” –John Reed (Warren Beatty)

Reds centers on two Americans: Jack Reed (Warren Beatty), a government associate dealing with foreign affairs, and Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton), a journalist and a protofeminist advocating women’s rights. This seems like the best/worst couple for a movie that begins in 1915-1920, but the focus is not on political matters.

The drama focuses on how the couple’s separate causes brought them together, tore them apart, brought them back together, and tore them back apart. Reds is a movie that realizes several connections between love and war. Considering these are the two most accessible topics in any time period, the film masquerades in authenticity.

Diane Keaton’s starring earn is the role of a lifetime. Now I’ve seen her onscreen several times–usually in either Woody Allen movies or recent throwaway comedies–and I never would have imagined her as the lead in a sweeping, historical romance epic. I’ll say my mind has been blown in an intense sense of the word. Warren Beatty gave a performance at least half as dynamic as Keaton’s. Consider this, of course, a huge compliment, especially since the man directed, produced, and co-wrote Reds as well.

Reds features several interview segments. It’s certainly a nice addition, but frankly, the film captured everything that an interview could and could not capture. We get a bona fide glimpse at the “Red scare” as well as at the rickety relationship between Jack Reed and Louise Bryant. I’m not saying the third-party interviews were unnecessary though; they are, in fact, a large step further into the “you are there” feeling that the film so powerfully fortified.

A PLUS

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS...

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

 

Oz the Great and Powerful

A Streetcar Named Desire

Review No. 446

You can shout “STELLA!” all you want, and no one will shout, “YOU FORGOT THE ‘R’!”

streetcar_named_desire

Directed by: Elia Kazan
Screenplay by: Tennessee Williams and Oscar Saul
Based on: “A Streetcar Named Desire” by Tennessee Williams
Blanche DuBois: Vivien Leigh
Stanley Kowalski: Marlon Brando
Stella Kowalski: Kim Hunter
Harold “Mitch” Mitchell: Karl Malden
Also Starring: Nick Dennis, Peg Hillias, Richard Garrick, Rudy Bond, Wright King

Distributed by Warner Bros. on September 18, 1951. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 122 mins. Rated PG by the MPAA–mature themes.

A Streetcar Named Desire was watched on March 5, 2013.

“Stella!” –Stanley Kowalski (Marlon Brando)

Strange. I have so much respect for 1939′s Gone with the Wind. I watched it at the age of 10, and I wasn’t expecting much, just an old, four-hour letdown to even out for Raiders of the Lost Ark, which I had watched just a day before. But I ended up loving it to death in spite of myself.

Yes, the movie is four hours long, give or take a few minutes, but no, I wouldn’t dare call it “long” or “boring.” 1951′s A Streetcar Named Desire clocks in at just over two hours and I found myself checking the time excessively. I guess you could identify which one I felt was marked by a great performance from Ms. Vivien Leigh, and which one featured her as a saving grace.

A Streetcar Named Desire is an all-too-familiar abomination of the romance genre. The most interesting thing about it is exactly what makes it so banal: it’s intended a hot summer feature, and based on a play by Tennessee Williams, but Lorda mercy, it only leave yeh cold.

These characters are nothing but clichés. Okay they have names for the sake of deceptive attraction, but those names are like substituting “James Bond” with “007″ for the sake of secrecy. Shh. We’re just the “bad boy,” the “hopeless romantic,” and the “married woman who seems like she’s in heaven.” A very thin façade.

It’s no secret that John Hinckley, Jr.’s assassination attempt on President Reagan was linked to Jodie Foster’s character in Taxi Driver. Thank God he failed. It’s unfortunate that Nicholas Sparks didn’t when he used A Streetcar Named Desire against the romance genre. He hasn’t admitted it, but if he’s at all honest, he will. It Happened One Night, Casablanca, His Girl Friday, and…I don’t know, maybe Gone with the Wind. These titles have righteously been dubbed as classics. You emulate these Golden Age romance gems and you end up with more recent masterpieces like When Harry Met Sally, Titanic, and Shakespeare in Love.

You emulate A Streetcar Named Desire and you get a theater full of female young adults who will do anything to see a hot guy on the big screen. Because Marlon Brando DOES look suave when he first appears sweating down his front. No that’s not sweat…that’s a good story that’s been melted away.

C MINUS

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Monday Movies of the Mind

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2

Review No. 442

Good news: It’s over. Bad news: See below.

twilight_saga_breaking_dawn__part_two_ver7_xlg-690x1024

Directed by: Bill Condon
Screenplay by: Melissa Rosenberg and Stephenie Meyer
Based on: “Breaking Dawn” by Stephenie Meyer
Bella Swan: Kristen Stewart
Edward Cullen: Robert Pattinson
Jacob Black: Taylor Lautner
Also Starring: Ashley Greene, Billy Burke, Christopher Heyerdahl, Dakota Fanning, Elizabeth Reaser, Jackson Rathbone, Jamie Campbell Bower, Kellan Lutz, Mackenzie Foy, Maggie Grace, Michael Sheen, Nikki Reed, Peter Facinelli

Distributed by Summit Entertainment on November 16, 2012. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 115 mins. Rated PG-13 by the MPAA–violence, infrequent sexual situations, infrequent/brief nudity.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 was watched on March 3, 2013.

“About three things I was absolutely positive. First, Edward was a vampire. Second, there was a part of him-and I didn’t know how potent that part might be-that thirsted for my blood. And third, I was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him.” –Twilight by Stephenie Meyer

The good news: the Twilight saga has earned its stars enough dough to retire right now. That means, perhaps these ex-vampires and ex-werewolves can stop lazily bleeding/drooling over Hollywood. That means, maybe the solitude of their own mansions would delight them just as much as their absence from the silver screen would delight us. The bad news: they won’t retire. Sorry to burst your bubble.

The idea of splitting Stephenie Meyer’s Breaking Dawn into two separate films seemed like a cash grab upon my viewing of Part 1, back in 2011. It’s interesting, for lack of a better word, to think that no one in the film industry would pick up the novel itself and realize how uneventfully everything plays out. It’s just an egregious soap opera with three back-to-back narrations. Whereas the first three books were huge elaborations on love, this one has three events, which can be labelled just as shallowly as they are explained/rambled about: marriage, pregnancy, protecting the offspring. The entire novel, as I recall it, could fit well into a ninety-minute feature film. But these producers, they just figure, it’s over seven-hundred pages, so why not split it in two? And now the book marks a total of almost four hours onscreen. Bad acting abounds to try and keep you awake, as does a screenwriter who rusts in so much cornball dialogue, it’s almost certain she hates the series.

Part 1 found Edward and Bella newlywed and unable to take their hands off each other. The interspecies mating (that is, vampire-to-human) causes Bella to become pregnant with a half-human-half-vampire breed. And now he must save her from some sort of strange, possessive, vampiric STD she has acquired. And that’s all there really is to any sort of plot.

In Part 2, Bella is a “newborn,” or a being who has recently endured a transformation from human to vampire. That’s all I can really say of the story, if there was one. Oh yeah, and Bella watches her baby Renesmée mature rapidly, as the Volturi try and kidnap the child.

Breaking Dawn – Part 2 is, under my impression, one of the most elongated ways to say “Life goes on.” Part 1 came so close to reaching the two-hour mark, which all of its predecessors had significantly succeeded.

Just on the way to getting there, Part 2 dies hard. The movie ends up with 115 minutes to use against its innocent audience. A disambiguation of this record short length brings several useless bits that makes the movie feel twice as long. A two-minute CGI opening credits sequence (which wasn’t that bad, but could have been spared). At least nine minutes of closing credits. A grotesquely extended finale that features a montage for the Twihards (still, I’d estimate about 60-70% of them would still be awake by this point). A routine, twenty-minute battle scene featuring the offings of several characters, if you can follow the hyperkinetic camerawork. And to top it all off, one of the most absurdly angled love scenes since the dreamlike one in Fight Club (which was computer generated, for that matter).

I’m not sure how well this follows the novel, since that has left my memory as well, but from what I’ve heard, there are several additives and alterations. All this delivered by “actors” and “actresses” who, although clearly stupid, know how to carry out one common but unpunished crime: that a typical Hollywood audience is the easiest bank to rob.

Proof: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 warranted the eighth largest opening weekend. During its 101 days plaguing the cinema, it managed to roll in nearly $850 million. That’s a lot of people begging for their money back. Worse, Lincoln opened the same day, and I’m not sure how many of those had time and money to fit in a viewing of that dozen-Oscar nominee.

Visuals aside (why is it that this is Hollywood’s easiest means of waking us all up, yet it’s so damn time-consuming a process?), there are two upsides to this production. One: it’s instantly forgettable. It’s so boring that you often forget you were watching it, and the easiest sequences to think back to are those that evoke laughter. For those who have not acquainted with the saga, there are quite a few.

Two (and this one’s slight!): the film’s producers can finally call themselves award-winners. In fact, I’m not sure why “MOVIE OF THE YEAR” hasn’t been branded across the Blu-Ray design. Probably because it hit home video before winning the Golden Raspberry for Worst Picture. Some films that garner that recognition are truly awful but easy to enjoy for their guilty pleasure. Not here. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2, like its title, is long, plodding, and a waste of time to try and finish.

D MINUS

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Undefeated

Staying Alive

Day Fourteen of the Two-Week Torturefest

Considering how much trouble I had enduring it, the film has nerve calling itself “Staying Alive”.

staying_alive

Directed by: Sylvester Stallone
Written by: Sylvester Stallone and Norman Wexler
Tony Manero: John Travolta
Jackie: Cynthia Rhodes
Laura: Finola Hughes
Also Starring: Frank Stallone, Joyce Hyser, Julie Bovasso, Norma Donaldson

Distributed by Paramount Pictures on July 11, 1983. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 93 mins. Rated PG by the MPAA–mature themes, language.

Staying Alive was watched on February 3, 2013.

“Who do you think you’re dealing with? Some little groupie who jumps when you call, is this who you think I am? We met, we made it, what do you think it was, true love? And you say I used you but what about you using me? Everybody uses everybody, don’t they?” –Laura (Finola Hughes)

Saturday Night Fever didn’t demand a sequel. In fact, it ended on a note that denied any reason for a sequel. But one day, Sylvester Stallone got severely inebriated and decided to come around as a fourth-time director. He passed out and vomited Staying Alive.

The film has too much wrong with it. Even the Alarm Clocks—I mean, the Bee Gees couldn’t save it, nor could Finola Hughes as an acceptable femme fatale. In Saturday Night Fever, John Travolta played a low-life adult in a teenage body, trying to find his life’s direction. So he did: dancing, specifically disco music.

Now it’s 1983, and traditional disco is dead. We’re supposed to know the year this was made without research, because its predecessor was released 1977. Travolta’s character isn’t unemployed. He has several jobs actually, but none of them he can appreciate, and somehow, none of them occupy his time. They range from working at a women’s jazz club—where his girlfriend also works—to serving drinks at the club. But he doesn’t dance for work anywhere. Note that. And somehow, he still has time to try and find a job where he can dance. Note that. He lives in two homes, too: one a ramshackle apartment, the other a beautiful mansion! Note that!

Is this sounding realistic to anyone? No? Good, I’m not insane. Travolta—whose character’s name is only mentioned a few, very select times—doesn’t look as sleep-deprived as he needed to be. The man works twenty-four-seven, and his eyes are anything but bloodshot. Al Pacino did it well in Insomnia, but that’s because he’s a great method actor. Travolta’s just a guy who is who he is. Why he’s acting, I’m not sure, but I guess that’s what floats his boat. Too bad it’s something of a hand grenade through the bottoms of our boats.

The story here is so thin, it’s mind-numbing. Think the original, but rehashed for a guy years older. I can understand it if a guy’s looking for a job or two that piques his interest, just as long as he takes a permanent leave of absence on the others (which, again, Travolta doesn’t). But Travolta played a twenty-year-old in Saturday Night Fever. He’s twenty-six now, at the very least. And even after he’s brought himself fame from dancing, he’s still searching for his future? I find that quite hard to believe. What’s even harder to believe is that the job he finds is on Broadway.

The assumption Staying Alive makes is that someone who subjects him- or herself to it has already seen Saturday Night Fever. Those who enjoyed that film, though, should have the sense not to watch any sequel. Sylvester Stallone co-wrote the screenplay with Norman Wexler, who wrote the initial work, as well. It becomes obvious just a few minutes through that both Wexler and Travolta never said anything to Stallone, perhaps in fear that he would go all Rocky Balboa on them both. But in that case, I guess I don’t blame them. Never in a million years would I tell someone like Sylvester Stallone “you’re fired” or “you’re doing it all wrong.”

D PLUS

Monday Movies of the Mind

This review was brought to you by…
TWTF

One for the Money

Day Twelve of the Two-Week Torturefest

Ermahgerd. “One for the Money” was, like, totes awful.

one_for_the_money

Directed by: Julie Anne Robinson
Screenplay by: Liz Brixius and Stacy Sherman & Karen Ray and Karen McCullah Lutz
Based on: “One for the Money” by Janet Evanovich
Stephanie Plum: Katherine Heigl
Joe Morelli: Jason O’Mara
Ricardo “Ranger” Carlos Manoso: Daniel Sunjata
Jimmy Alpha: John Leguizamo
Lula: Sherri Shepherd
Grandma Mazur: Debbie Reynolds
Also Starring: Adam Paul, Ana Reeder, Annie Parisse, Danny Mastrogiorgio, Debra Monk, Fisher Stevens, Gavin-Keith Umeh, Leonardo Nam, Louis Mustillo, Nate Mooney, Patrick Fischler, Ryan Michelle Bathe

Distributed by Lionsgate on January 27, 2012. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 91 mins. Rated PG-13 by the MPAA–violence, sexual situations, mild language, infrequent drug use, infrequent/brief nudity.

One for the Money was watched on February 22, 2013.

“An obnoxious way to say ‘Oh, My God’ with strong emphasis on the R sounds. Typically followed by other words with emphasis on the R sounds.”
–definition of “ermahgerd” from urbandictionary.com

What I’ve felt…what I’ve known…never shined through in what I’ve shown. Never free…never me…so I dub thee unforgiven. Wait a moment, I’m done watching? It’s about time I can stop painfully choking out Metallica at the sight of Katherine Heigl in a post-lobotomy outfit.

I mean, ermahgerd. So the title sequence, ya know, it was, like, fab. Absolutelay fantabulous, if ya know what I’m sayin’, and kinda like a James Bond movie, right? But after that…(scoff)…ya know, this movie was just, ya know, crap! It sucked! Ya know what I’m sayin’?

I’ve always believed in a firm and rather direct correlation between the qualities of films and their respective characters. Let me give you an example. John Hurt is so memorable in The Elephant Man, yet all we really know about his character is that he’s constantly chastised for his malformations. It’s sad, but essentially, so is the common anti-joke about the little kid who dropped his ice cream because he got hit by a bus. In other words, it’s because of David’s Lynch’s direction, off an equally moving script, that the film manages to remain one of the saddest movies ever made.

Now let’s go to the opposite pole. Why not an Adam Sandler flick, perhaps Just Go with It? The movie is only watchable for its shallow sense of humor. The main character is a doctor looking for romance, and that’s about it. We hear and visualize his emotions as superficial thoughts (and aptly enough, they’re a bit illegible).

Notice that I’m reviewing a film called One for the Money. If you haven’t heard of it, I’d love to be living in your shoes, but unfortunately, I went as far as watching it. It sounds like someone with a speech impediment saying “run for the money,” and quite honestly, that’s the best I can grab from it, because otherwise it fails to make sense of itself. Wait, that one doesn’t even make sense either, because the movie failed to break even at the box office.

Ermahgerd. We’ve finally got smart moviegoers, and they were willing to give up a collective $36 million for somethin’ else.

My theory, again, is of a “firm and rather direct correlation between the qualities of films and their respective characters.” I think One for the Money rehashes a new term that the two leads in The Producers came oh-so-close to: “success from failure.” It succeeds in one area, which is disproving my theory, but that’s only because “quality” is an irrelevant term here.

If you look at the poster, you’d think this is “one of those stupid, predictable chick flicks,” and what have you. Stupid, indeed, but predictable, no. The plot is so insanely bipolar, it’s almost scary. How it will end is painfully unpredictable (not that anyone with a sense of decency would want to take a guess in the first place), let alone its next action. Stephanie Plum (Katherine Heigl) sits down at dinner one night. She’s failed, among several other things, to trust men ever since she filed for divorce, and she wouldn’t know how to resist an elongated, telenovela-esque, spit-swapping session, regardless if it’s with Bradley Cooper or Jeffrey Dahmer.

Ermahgerd. Just go with Bradley Cooper. For the love of God.

And now, Stephanie decides to tell her mother that she’s unemployed, and has been for six months. She realizes that she needs a job, so she becomes a bounty hunter. Guess who she hunts down? You may be thinking “her husband,” (who else would she truly want to kill?) but, you know, she isn’t thinking, at all. She decides to go after the “hot guy on the block” who wouldn’t commit to a relationship with they made out with each other as seventeen-year-olds at a drunken party.

Now this is supposed to be comedy, and it took five months, but I can suggest true comedy in a matter of five seconds. The woman clearly has no brain, and those unfortunate words are coming from a bleeding-heart feminist. I’d love to see her reflexes go to town with a good old-fashioned face-slapping. We all know it’s a huge movie cliché, so for just a single laugh, I wouldn’t mind bumping my thoughts up a full letter grade per that sudden gag.

Anyway, I digress. Stephanie goes after the one-night stand guy who, despite all the gallons of alcohol, she manages to remember. Realize that “goes after” can be noted with a double meaning. The question throughout the entire film is, Does she want to find him so she can bring him to justice, or so that she can make out with him? Somehow, the plot ends on one of the two (could you guess which one?), but the route to get there is abusively broken. And I’m sure that sometime within the first minute of our long-awaited credits experience, she changes her mind completely and goes with her other option. We just aren’t told, and we shouldn’t have been told any of it.

Ermahgerd. I’d rather take a bath in propane surrounded by a buncha tiki torches, ya know?

F

Alone in the Dark – Uwe Boll, finally!

This review was brought to you by…
TWTF

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 766 other followers

%d bloggers like this: