Hey everyone. Sorry I haven't posted in a while. I just recently got over an illness that kept me away from the computer. But I didn't shy from the tv or movie screen, so I have a huge back log to work through. For now, to sort of make up for lost time, I'm bringing you no less than FOUR new reviews. I'll be back with more next week. Promise.
The Ring Two
Review by Jon Waterman
*1/2
Samara is back. Okay…actually, she’s still around. The infamous tape is still circulating and spreading around, because in order to avoid being a victim of it, you must make a copy and then have someone new watch it. Somehow it all gets tied back to Rachel and her creepy son Aidan. However, Samara -- the girl from the tape -- is looking for more than quenching pangs of revenge with them. She wants to inhabit Aidan’s body. Rachel must find some way to keep this from happening. Is it possible, or will we all be doomed?
You know, I was sorta hoping that this movie wouldn’t fall victim to the typical safe sequel trap. But it did. Everything that made the first film so great and fun to watch is missing now. What happened to writer Ehren Kruger between 2002 and now? This effort is still better than the Japanese sequel, however all the intelligence of this film has been drowned (pun intended). It gets so bad that the answer to most of the questions you could ask about the story or the plot (that you shouldn’t have to ask in the first place) is “because she’s dumb!”) Rachel wasn’t dumb before. Blame it on mental instability due to supernaturally attempted murder, but there’s no reason for her to just stop her car for so long while herds of rabid deer chase after it. For that matter, herds of rabid deer shouldn’t have been chasing her car!!! What was that all about?!?
It’s just one of the many things that are left unexplained, or just not dealt with correctly. Please…like she can just walk right into a crime scene house or an ambulance unescorted and have time to perform her lame investigative duties. Ugh. That happened early on, but the rest of the film is equally disappointing. The tape plays a very small role. It’s left on the back burner in favor of a pathetic, unrealistic search for Samara’s mother. The cinematography and directing lose a lot of their mystique and creativity now that Hideo Nakata (director of both Japanese movies) has taken the helm. And you can just guess what having a Japanese director working with English speaking performers did for the acting side of things.
After the success and legitimate goodness of “The Ring,” perhaps I was expecting too much. The majority of the film is uninspired, head scratching (in a bad way), more conventional suspense schlock. With all of that said, the ending (one-liners and eye-rolling dialogue aside) would have made a very nice, appropriate finale. However, a couple of saving grace minutes (with hints of pathetic) can’t blow an audience away without some form of build-up. Simply put, it’s much, much better than it’s Japanese sequel counterpart, “Ringu 2,” but much, much worse than the first US film.
+++++++
Ringu 2
Review by Jon Waterman
1/2 star
Mai is trying to find out more about her boyfriend’s mysterious death. So, she heads out on an investigative mission to see what’s really going on. Along the way she runs into Reiko, who is hiding her son Yoichi, because he’s exhibiting some very peculiar behavior. Even though Sadako’s body was found in the well, is it possible that she’s still haunting? The general public believes so. If you happen to see the widely circulating tape, make a copy and show it to someone else before seven days, or else…you may just die.
That’s about all of the plot points that you really need to know. However, the movie will give you a whole bunch more. I’ve never seen so much filler exposition. By the time anything substantial happens, the credits are practically rolling and everyone’s fallen asleep. And any action or potentially heart stopping sequences are too short to be worthwhile and wouldn’t be exciting to begin with. It’s not just that the film lacks any real element of horror, it’s that it still tries to pass itself off as scary. Even if the story were to be played out as a straight drama, it would still fall just as flat.
Hiroshi Takahashi (who also penned the preceding “Ringu”) can’t quite exude the same vibe or flow this time around. The plot drags out and swirls around several characters that we as an audience have no interest in. I don’t really care about Mai and she doesn’t make me care about her. She’s not really so much a main character as she is in the background while other supporting characters do things. I suppose she has the most lines, but she doesn’t personally move the story along or contribute anything substantial. The others don’t give anything worthwhile either, though.
The acting once again is lackluster, although not as screechy and annoying. Instead Mai (played by Miki Nakatani) gives a “look, this is me being scared” performance. Her facial expressions substitute for dialogue quite often, which is good, because I’d rather not hear anyone in this movie talk.
By the end of the movie, you’ll be scratching your head at the strange litmus test of a solution. Questions will go unanswered, but you won’t even care that they aren’t. You’ll just want it to be finished. Don’t go into this expecting suspense or horror. Expect a whole lot of extremely boring talking, shots that look like they were taped on a pixelvision camera, and some of the same situations you came across in the first film. Honestly, it’s just not worth going back to this well. It dried up long, long ago.
+++++++
Hotel Rwanda
Review by Jon Waterman
***
During the civil unrest in Rwanda, the Hutu militia began to take over. To enforce their power on the streets, they started to kill off the Tutsis, a group that they refer to as cockroaches. With times growing ever more desperate and the Hutu’s plans for genocide becoming more of a reality every day, the Tutsis needed a place to hide. Their refuge came in the form of an international hotel, which technically sits off of Rwandan soil. However, they may not last long there, either. Foreign aid and soldiers are retreating and the UN can’t possibly hold the Hutu off at their base and at the hotel at the same time. Will help come in time?
If you want to feel horrible about being American, then boy do I have the movie for you. These people didn’t get the manpower that they needed, in part because we didn’t care enough about the story. If we don’t care about the story, then it doesn’t get covered on our news and we don’t start asking our government to help them. Granted we’re not the only country that retreated or neglected them, but it’s still amazing that our perception and attitudes of such situations matter. You can also easily blame the media and the government for their lack of involvement as well. What this is all boiling down to is that the film makes you greatly aware of the fact that while you’re lounging about at home, flipping through the channels or watching the news, there are human beings in need hundreds of miles away. This film puts many faces to the problem.
Two standout faces belong to Don Cheadle (hotel manager Paul Rusesabagina) and Sophie Okonedo (his wife). This is mostly because they are the most prominent figures in the film. They carry the weight on their shoulders, and once again make the audience feel horrible for not bearing some of the load. I don’t think the movie could be any more emotional without making the entire audience suicidal. It’s laid on thick. These people didn’t get a break from their exponentially sad, destructive, frightening lives and you don’t get a break from watching it. The tension is so thick that it’s nearly unbearable to watch and completely unthinkable to imagine living through. As a result, “Hotel Rwanda” is an amazing story well worth telling and well worth sharing. However, it’s also one that is at times too shaming and heartbreaking for its own good.
++++++++
The Birth of a Nation
Review by Jon Waterman
**1/2
The Civil War was a time of great turmoil where once friendly families began fighting each other to the death. The film focuses on two such families, Cameron and Stoneman, as they attempt to deal with post-war society. This is Reconstruction told from the point of view of the Southerners. Their whole world is being flipped upside down as blacks become free and the North starts imposing its laws and rules. Dun Dun Duuuunnnnnnn!
“A PLEA FOR THE ART OF THE MOTION PICTURE: We do not fear censorship, for we have no wish to offend with improprieties or obscenities, but we do demand, as a right, the liberty to show the dark side of wrong, that we may illuminate the bright side of virtue - the same liberty that is conceded to the art of the written word - that art to which we owe the Bible and the works of Shakespeare.” Looking at this opening title card, it’s evident the film is prepping itself for the inevitable controversy. The “dark side” they speak of is the North and the virtuous “bright side” is the Confederate South. If this sounds like anything you couldn’t bear to watch, even to learn from this gross ignorance, then consider yourself warned and move right along.
Despite the horrible message of the movie (to give you a small clue as to where the filmmaker’s mindset is at, all black characters that have to interact with whites are played by white people in blackface), it is an incredible piece of filmmaking. Director D.W. Griffith puts together a silent epic tale that is actually pretty easy to follow (even without the program). What helps the audience out the most is the recognizable locations. Every set is shot from one angle. This way, when you return to the scene later on in the film, you remember that particular set-up instantly. The locations show off great depth. There’s almost always some level of background action, and the detail of the interiors actually make them look like rooms rather than sets.
The film very much acts like a historical text (biased as it is). To emphasize the portrait in time aspect, some of the opening scenes will introduce the characters and then close in a vignetted frame that looks like they’re posing for a painting. Also the movie includes several historical reenactments (complete with cited sources) to tie everything together in a more concrete timeframe and emotional context. Usually this works, except for the excruciatingly long Civil War battle scenes. Any time a soldier dies, it’s just plain funny.
In fact, all the acting is laughable. It’s too exaggerated even for the stage. And the whole film is unbearably long. There’s a sequence where we spend about two minutes watching a squirrel until it runs away. Shots drag on like this all the time. Sure you can follow the story line, but don’t be surprised if you drift asleep or feel like running away yourself. The visual impact of the film is immense, but it’s not enough to counteract the unbearable pace of the three-hour running time inundated with pro-slavery trite.
The Ring Two
Review by Jon Waterman
*1/2
Samara is back. Okay…actually, she’s still around. The infamous tape is still circulating and spreading around, because in order to avoid being a victim of it, you must make a copy and then have someone new watch it. Somehow it all gets tied back to Rachel and her creepy son Aidan. However, Samara -- the girl from the tape -- is looking for more than quenching pangs of revenge with them. She wants to inhabit Aidan’s body. Rachel must find some way to keep this from happening. Is it possible, or will we all be doomed?
You know, I was sorta hoping that this movie wouldn’t fall victim to the typical safe sequel trap. But it did. Everything that made the first film so great and fun to watch is missing now. What happened to writer Ehren Kruger between 2002 and now? This effort is still better than the Japanese sequel, however all the intelligence of this film has been drowned (pun intended). It gets so bad that the answer to most of the questions you could ask about the story or the plot (that you shouldn’t have to ask in the first place) is “because she’s dumb!”) Rachel wasn’t dumb before. Blame it on mental instability due to supernaturally attempted murder, but there’s no reason for her to just stop her car for so long while herds of rabid deer chase after it. For that matter, herds of rabid deer shouldn’t have been chasing her car!!! What was that all about?!?
It’s just one of the many things that are left unexplained, or just not dealt with correctly. Please…like she can just walk right into a crime scene house or an ambulance unescorted and have time to perform her lame investigative duties. Ugh. That happened early on, but the rest of the film is equally disappointing. The tape plays a very small role. It’s left on the back burner in favor of a pathetic, unrealistic search for Samara’s mother. The cinematography and directing lose a lot of their mystique and creativity now that Hideo Nakata (director of both Japanese movies) has taken the helm. And you can just guess what having a Japanese director working with English speaking performers did for the acting side of things.
After the success and legitimate goodness of “The Ring,” perhaps I was expecting too much. The majority of the film is uninspired, head scratching (in a bad way), more conventional suspense schlock. With all of that said, the ending (one-liners and eye-rolling dialogue aside) would have made a very nice, appropriate finale. However, a couple of saving grace minutes (with hints of pathetic) can’t blow an audience away without some form of build-up. Simply put, it’s much, much better than it’s Japanese sequel counterpart, “Ringu 2,” but much, much worse than the first US film.
+++++++
Ringu 2
Review by Jon Waterman
1/2 star
Mai is trying to find out more about her boyfriend’s mysterious death. So, she heads out on an investigative mission to see what’s really going on. Along the way she runs into Reiko, who is hiding her son Yoichi, because he’s exhibiting some very peculiar behavior. Even though Sadako’s body was found in the well, is it possible that she’s still haunting? The general public believes so. If you happen to see the widely circulating tape, make a copy and show it to someone else before seven days, or else…you may just die.
That’s about all of the plot points that you really need to know. However, the movie will give you a whole bunch more. I’ve never seen so much filler exposition. By the time anything substantial happens, the credits are practically rolling and everyone’s fallen asleep. And any action or potentially heart stopping sequences are too short to be worthwhile and wouldn’t be exciting to begin with. It’s not just that the film lacks any real element of horror, it’s that it still tries to pass itself off as scary. Even if the story were to be played out as a straight drama, it would still fall just as flat.
Hiroshi Takahashi (who also penned the preceding “Ringu”) can’t quite exude the same vibe or flow this time around. The plot drags out and swirls around several characters that we as an audience have no interest in. I don’t really care about Mai and she doesn’t make me care about her. She’s not really so much a main character as she is in the background while other supporting characters do things. I suppose she has the most lines, but she doesn’t personally move the story along or contribute anything substantial. The others don’t give anything worthwhile either, though.
The acting once again is lackluster, although not as screechy and annoying. Instead Mai (played by Miki Nakatani) gives a “look, this is me being scared” performance. Her facial expressions substitute for dialogue quite often, which is good, because I’d rather not hear anyone in this movie talk.
By the end of the movie, you’ll be scratching your head at the strange litmus test of a solution. Questions will go unanswered, but you won’t even care that they aren’t. You’ll just want it to be finished. Don’t go into this expecting suspense or horror. Expect a whole lot of extremely boring talking, shots that look like they were taped on a pixelvision camera, and some of the same situations you came across in the first film. Honestly, it’s just not worth going back to this well. It dried up long, long ago.
+++++++
Hotel Rwanda
Review by Jon Waterman
***
During the civil unrest in Rwanda, the Hutu militia began to take over. To enforce their power on the streets, they started to kill off the Tutsis, a group that they refer to as cockroaches. With times growing ever more desperate and the Hutu’s plans for genocide becoming more of a reality every day, the Tutsis needed a place to hide. Their refuge came in the form of an international hotel, which technically sits off of Rwandan soil. However, they may not last long there, either. Foreign aid and soldiers are retreating and the UN can’t possibly hold the Hutu off at their base and at the hotel at the same time. Will help come in time?
If you want to feel horrible about being American, then boy do I have the movie for you. These people didn’t get the manpower that they needed, in part because we didn’t care enough about the story. If we don’t care about the story, then it doesn’t get covered on our news and we don’t start asking our government to help them. Granted we’re not the only country that retreated or neglected them, but it’s still amazing that our perception and attitudes of such situations matter. You can also easily blame the media and the government for their lack of involvement as well. What this is all boiling down to is that the film makes you greatly aware of the fact that while you’re lounging about at home, flipping through the channels or watching the news, there are human beings in need hundreds of miles away. This film puts many faces to the problem.
Two standout faces belong to Don Cheadle (hotel manager Paul Rusesabagina) and Sophie Okonedo (his wife). This is mostly because they are the most prominent figures in the film. They carry the weight on their shoulders, and once again make the audience feel horrible for not bearing some of the load. I don’t think the movie could be any more emotional without making the entire audience suicidal. It’s laid on thick. These people didn’t get a break from their exponentially sad, destructive, frightening lives and you don’t get a break from watching it. The tension is so thick that it’s nearly unbearable to watch and completely unthinkable to imagine living through. As a result, “Hotel Rwanda” is an amazing story well worth telling and well worth sharing. However, it’s also one that is at times too shaming and heartbreaking for its own good.
++++++++
The Birth of a Nation
Review by Jon Waterman
**1/2
The Civil War was a time of great turmoil where once friendly families began fighting each other to the death. The film focuses on two such families, Cameron and Stoneman, as they attempt to deal with post-war society. This is Reconstruction told from the point of view of the Southerners. Their whole world is being flipped upside down as blacks become free and the North starts imposing its laws and rules. Dun Dun Duuuunnnnnnn!
“A PLEA FOR THE ART OF THE MOTION PICTURE: We do not fear censorship, for we have no wish to offend with improprieties or obscenities, but we do demand, as a right, the liberty to show the dark side of wrong, that we may illuminate the bright side of virtue - the same liberty that is conceded to the art of the written word - that art to which we owe the Bible and the works of Shakespeare.” Looking at this opening title card, it’s evident the film is prepping itself for the inevitable controversy. The “dark side” they speak of is the North and the virtuous “bright side” is the Confederate South. If this sounds like anything you couldn’t bear to watch, even to learn from this gross ignorance, then consider yourself warned and move right along.
Despite the horrible message of the movie (to give you a small clue as to where the filmmaker’s mindset is at, all black characters that have to interact with whites are played by white people in blackface), it is an incredible piece of filmmaking. Director D.W. Griffith puts together a silent epic tale that is actually pretty easy to follow (even without the program). What helps the audience out the most is the recognizable locations. Every set is shot from one angle. This way, when you return to the scene later on in the film, you remember that particular set-up instantly. The locations show off great depth. There’s almost always some level of background action, and the detail of the interiors actually make them look like rooms rather than sets.
The film very much acts like a historical text (biased as it is). To emphasize the portrait in time aspect, some of the opening scenes will introduce the characters and then close in a vignetted frame that looks like they’re posing for a painting. Also the movie includes several historical reenactments (complete with cited sources) to tie everything together in a more concrete timeframe and emotional context. Usually this works, except for the excruciatingly long Civil War battle scenes. Any time a soldier dies, it’s just plain funny.
In fact, all the acting is laughable. It’s too exaggerated even for the stage. And the whole film is unbearably long. There’s a sequence where we spend about two minutes watching a squirrel until it runs away. Shots drag on like this all the time. Sure you can follow the story line, but don’t be surprised if you drift asleep or feel like running away yourself. The visual impact of the film is immense, but it’s not enough to counteract the unbearable pace of the three-hour running time inundated with pro-slavery trite.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home