Look who's back! I've been working hard these past few weeks on the 26th Annual Big Muddy Film Festival. It runs from February 20th to the 29th. I'll be giving this site the exclusive scoop on the events and films that are showing. Anyone in the area of Carbondale, IL should come and check it out. Visit www.bigmuddyfilm.com for more information. I'll be posting reviews for as much as I can, including a look at some of the shorts which may not be reviewed anywhere else. Stick with us. As for now, here's my review for Monster and You Got Served. You Got to come back and see what I'll review next.
Monster
Review by Jon Waterman
***
The movie tells the story of Aileen Wuornos, a prostitute turned serial killer. It gives a brief general background and then throws us into the point in the timeline where it all started. She meets a girl named Selby and finds herself dealing with a brand new set of emotions and problems. Based on a true story, the movie takes us inside the mind of this confused individual.
For the most part, the script is relatively basic. However, I liked how Aileen was portrayed. Most serial killer movies don’t attempt to make the audience sympathize with the mass murderer. Movies like “Hannibal” sometimes get you to like the person, but not feel for him. In “Monster,” writer/director Patty Jenkins provides insight into how and why she turned into a killer. This is a sharp contrast from traditional films that assume people start out bad or mentally unstable and fall deeper into the abyss they’ve lived in all their life. Jenkins shows how Aileen got started in selling herself and lets us follow her life as she meets Selby, tries to leave the streets and eventually falls into the abyss through circumstances beyond her control.
Besides the unorthodox way in which the subject matter is approached, the script doesn’t offer much. The dialogue is pretty standard and predictable as are several of the situations. Now, I know this was taken from real life, but there are still ways to present old material in a more interesting manner. Jenkins has characterization skills, but dialogue and direction still need more practice. It seemed to me that more attention was given to the acting of Charlize Theron than with the ensemble cast and with the visuals of the film. It was very easy to follow the film, but once again, I have to use the word “Standard.” I saw no real inkling of a particular style, nor did the locations or cinematography really add anything to the mood of the piece.
On the other hand, the work with Ms. Theron paid off. I never thought she was capable of immersing herself into a role like this. Even in “Cider House Rules” she still reminded me of the actress I saw in “2 Days in the Valley” and “Reindeer Games.” Theron earns herself a lot of credibility with this film. No longer will I scoff when I see her name in the credits. Congratulations, Charlize. You now have a respectable career. Don’t blow it. The rest of the actors do a decent job, but nothing extraordinary. They don’t seem to play off of Theron’s jittery, desperation in the appropriate way. The lines are delivered – sometimes with force – but in the end, they’re still lines on a page. Never do they become words spoken from a mind, except when coming from Aileen.
I seriously doubt this will go in the annals as a magnanimous film. I don’t even think it should be in the top ten. It’s a typical movie made good through the performances. So, if you’re looking for an actress to prove you wrong, or if you’re a fan of serial killer movies, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.
++++++++
You Got Served
Review by Jon Waterman
Half star
Do you like dancing? Do you long for the days of movies about hip-hop dancing? Well, then put your “Breakin’” tape on pause and go see “You Got Served.” It combines the fad films of the 80s with the hip-hop dancing culture of today!
What a horrible piece of crap this turned out to be. I can’t really say I’m surprised, though. Remember all of those sports movies from back in the day like “Rad,” “BMX,” “Skateboard: The Movie,” etc.? They were obviously made to capitalize on the surge of popularity of those sports. They completely abandoned any thought or production value in favor of what I can only assume was a quick release date. The same type of stuff is happening again. What do you think “Grind” was all about? I personally don’t know how popular this dancing is or was, but centering a film around such a non-theme as that only perks my curiosity more. Where “Grind” failed; “You Got Served” succeeded – kinda.
This film actually got real dancers to perform and showed us some real dancing. Most of the steps obviously required a lot of hard work and skill to execute. I wish it wasn’t so chopped up so that it would be even more impressive. The biggest problem with the dancing, though, is that the best stuff is used up in the beginning. The opening scenes are all about dance battles and in order to draw the audience in, they tease us with all of this fancy stuff. Little do we know that they’ve just blown their wad. The end climactic confrontation gives nothing too incredibly interesting or unique.
Of course, the dancing is the best part of the movie. The acting, the script, the everything else is wretched. I don’t think I’ve used that word before to describe a film, but it’s true. It’s a giant showcase of members of the group B2K and they dropped the ball.
One of things that got to me most was that these people don’t have real jobs. They make all their money through dance battles. Normally that wouldn’t be such a big deal, but when that’s not enough, they go to this guy named Emerald and run illegal stuff to wherever. So, their lives consist totally of dancing, basketball and crime. Is that really the image to portray? Granted it’s not taking it to the extremes, but it still seems like they’re promoting this as natural and reasonable. Not to mention that in some respect, the movie became about black versus white dancers without actually saying so.
Start with dancing, then add a bad script, a bunch of fresh-faced, inexpensive kids (and one white boy that looks like a cartoon character), a love interest, a sassy grandmother and a celebrity cameo or two and you got yourself a movie. The whole movie is a formula. I guess no one told them the finish product always comes out spoiled. This movie serves itself, sucka.
Monster
Review by Jon Waterman
***
The movie tells the story of Aileen Wuornos, a prostitute turned serial killer. It gives a brief general background and then throws us into the point in the timeline where it all started. She meets a girl named Selby and finds herself dealing with a brand new set of emotions and problems. Based on a true story, the movie takes us inside the mind of this confused individual.
For the most part, the script is relatively basic. However, I liked how Aileen was portrayed. Most serial killer movies don’t attempt to make the audience sympathize with the mass murderer. Movies like “Hannibal” sometimes get you to like the person, but not feel for him. In “Monster,” writer/director Patty Jenkins provides insight into how and why she turned into a killer. This is a sharp contrast from traditional films that assume people start out bad or mentally unstable and fall deeper into the abyss they’ve lived in all their life. Jenkins shows how Aileen got started in selling herself and lets us follow her life as she meets Selby, tries to leave the streets and eventually falls into the abyss through circumstances beyond her control.
Besides the unorthodox way in which the subject matter is approached, the script doesn’t offer much. The dialogue is pretty standard and predictable as are several of the situations. Now, I know this was taken from real life, but there are still ways to present old material in a more interesting manner. Jenkins has characterization skills, but dialogue and direction still need more practice. It seemed to me that more attention was given to the acting of Charlize Theron than with the ensemble cast and with the visuals of the film. It was very easy to follow the film, but once again, I have to use the word “Standard.” I saw no real inkling of a particular style, nor did the locations or cinematography really add anything to the mood of the piece.
On the other hand, the work with Ms. Theron paid off. I never thought she was capable of immersing herself into a role like this. Even in “Cider House Rules” she still reminded me of the actress I saw in “2 Days in the Valley” and “Reindeer Games.” Theron earns herself a lot of credibility with this film. No longer will I scoff when I see her name in the credits. Congratulations, Charlize. You now have a respectable career. Don’t blow it. The rest of the actors do a decent job, but nothing extraordinary. They don’t seem to play off of Theron’s jittery, desperation in the appropriate way. The lines are delivered – sometimes with force – but in the end, they’re still lines on a page. Never do they become words spoken from a mind, except when coming from Aileen.
I seriously doubt this will go in the annals as a magnanimous film. I don’t even think it should be in the top ten. It’s a typical movie made good through the performances. So, if you’re looking for an actress to prove you wrong, or if you’re a fan of serial killer movies, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.
++++++++
You Got Served
Review by Jon Waterman
Half star
Do you like dancing? Do you long for the days of movies about hip-hop dancing? Well, then put your “Breakin’” tape on pause and go see “You Got Served.” It combines the fad films of the 80s with the hip-hop dancing culture of today!
What a horrible piece of crap this turned out to be. I can’t really say I’m surprised, though. Remember all of those sports movies from back in the day like “Rad,” “BMX,” “Skateboard: The Movie,” etc.? They were obviously made to capitalize on the surge of popularity of those sports. They completely abandoned any thought or production value in favor of what I can only assume was a quick release date. The same type of stuff is happening again. What do you think “Grind” was all about? I personally don’t know how popular this dancing is or was, but centering a film around such a non-theme as that only perks my curiosity more. Where “Grind” failed; “You Got Served” succeeded – kinda.
This film actually got real dancers to perform and showed us some real dancing. Most of the steps obviously required a lot of hard work and skill to execute. I wish it wasn’t so chopped up so that it would be even more impressive. The biggest problem with the dancing, though, is that the best stuff is used up in the beginning. The opening scenes are all about dance battles and in order to draw the audience in, they tease us with all of this fancy stuff. Little do we know that they’ve just blown their wad. The end climactic confrontation gives nothing too incredibly interesting or unique.
Of course, the dancing is the best part of the movie. The acting, the script, the everything else is wretched. I don’t think I’ve used that word before to describe a film, but it’s true. It’s a giant showcase of members of the group B2K and they dropped the ball.
One of things that got to me most was that these people don’t have real jobs. They make all their money through dance battles. Normally that wouldn’t be such a big deal, but when that’s not enough, they go to this guy named Emerald and run illegal stuff to wherever. So, their lives consist totally of dancing, basketball and crime. Is that really the image to portray? Granted it’s not taking it to the extremes, but it still seems like they’re promoting this as natural and reasonable. Not to mention that in some respect, the movie became about black versus white dancers without actually saying so.
Start with dancing, then add a bad script, a bunch of fresh-faced, inexpensive kids (and one white boy that looks like a cartoon character), a love interest, a sassy grandmother and a celebrity cameo or two and you got yourself a movie. The whole movie is a formula. I guess no one told them the finish product always comes out spoiled. This movie serves itself, sucka.
<< Home