"Piranha 3D" is an event film for a select audience. Although the 3D was added as an afterthought (something I'm strongly against), this time it seems to have worked very well. Body parts fly across the screen, tequila puke flies into your face, and, as promised, killer piranhas flood the screen. Sometimes it seems muddled (especially when underwater), but when making an event film, you have to give people a reason to see this with an audience. I'm sure that if "Snakes on a Plane" was released this summer, it would go for the same idea, being released in 3D.
I think I'll just spit out the plot and get it over with- a believably extinct race of cannibalistic piranhas are freed from their cave when an earthquake causes a shift. In the meantime, it's Spring Break, and tons of horny frat boys and sorority girls chug whatever alcohol is present and disobey the sheriff (Elisabeth Shue, an often forgotten treat). Also, a sleazy, coke-snorting 'director' of an adult video series called 'Wild Wild Girls' (try to guess the reference) takes the sheriff's son along as a local who knows the area. And there, reader, is your excuse for piranha victims and female nudity.
I was very surprised at how much the movie got away with. Supposedly, 8-9 minutes of footage was cut to obtain an R rating, but it will no doubt show up on the Unrated DVD. People lose many limbs (including the ironic loss of a certain reproductive organ), there is sometimes naked girl-on-girl action (motorboting and kissing, if you were wondering), the body count is probably over 100, and the lake runs almost as red as the fountains in "Kill Bill: Volume 1."
And there you have it- a fun little escapist summer movie that may have some kind of moral in it, but I wasn't paying any attention. Maybe when the sheriff and Ving Rhames tell you to get out of the water because of an emergency, you should. Or wait for the Unrated DVD. Or don't see it at all. It's up to you.
Rated R for sequences of strong bloody violence and gore, graphic nudity, sexual content, language and some drug use.
Check your local theater for showtimes.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Scream 3 - *** out of ****
With "Scream 4" filming at this time, perhaps I should try to get you up to speed about the first three. "Scream" was a refreshing breath of fresh air and a perfect example of a parody by showing you how the slasher genre is done while poking fun at the logical fallacies inherent in the genre. I would give it no less than ***+, and the only reason I hesitate to give it that extra half would be the fact that the movie feels a little dated. Perhaps this is because every slasher movie made since its release uses it as an example, but from the classic opening sequence to the smart finale, "Scream" is seriously fun, quite scary, and tongue-in-cheek hilarious.
"Scream 2" wasn't quite as good, but what saves the film is the brilliant ending twist. It's something you can't predict but seems obvious when you think about it. There's a great kill scene in broad daylight on a crowded campus, a scary 'yell-at-the-screen' opening, and most of all, it features Neve Campbell in her role. I say that it's her role because apart from "Wild Things," I never watched or even heard of a single film she's done. Although she may be making a comeback with "Vivaldi," which is in pre-production, she will always be known as The Scream Actress.
And now onto "Scream 3." I have to say that I was disappointed, otherwise I would be lying to myself. I wanted to enjoy it, but it felt like, as most critics have said, the movie that "Scream" was parodying. There is some great humor in the situations, such as an actress' encounter with Ghostface in prop storage, played well I must say by Jenny McCarthy. There are some throwaway gags (one 'point-at-the-screen' joke involving two comic heroes), but it's really the most fun the less you think about it. I decidedly turned off my brain and just let the movie flow over me, but you know what to expect when the movie shows one single camera shot of something seemingly meaningless or tries to make you think who the killer is. I didn't predict the killer, but I knew what was going to happen at many parts.
Predicting the killer is easy for some people who know the twists. You've watched enough movies to know some of the cliches, including suspecting the person who has the least screentime, the person who is wrongly accused, and the person who may not be quite dead. I won't say who it is in this review, but needless to say, one of those three cliches in the last sentence is true.
"Scream 3" doesn't have any grotesquely gory parts, so if you're hoping to see Casey Becker's guts again, you'll be disappointed. This isn't a flaw within the movie because usually when a movie tries to keep the focus on the suspense, situation, or drama instead of what bodily fluids could be shown, the director wants to say something. Maybe not in every case, but think about it. The main reason people I talk to want to see the new "Saw" movies isn't because of the villain but because of the disgusting ways victims are tortured/killed using unnecessary silly machines. Why would you create a device like a reverse bear trap to shove in someone's mouth? Why would you make a heavy necklace with shotgun shells? Why would you want to show a device that breaks someone's limbs one at a time? I guess someone never heard of Alfred Hitchcock or the word 'subtlety.'
"Scream 3" is worth seeing because of its focus on the people, the past, and the suspense instead of the gore. I do wish some nail-biter scenes were drawn out more, and I would have liked a better surprise ending (if you're going to make an ending that doesn't quite make sense, go for the gold). I feel like a pain complaining about Wes Craven's best work (yes, I liked the trilogy better than the original "Nightmare on Elm Street"), so I'm going to end my review here. It's not the best one by far, but it came with the Scream Triple Pack I picked up, so I watched it. Buy it for the first two, and on a boring night, throw in the third. Maybe if "Scream 4" is fun, get up-to-date.
Rated R for strong horror violence and language.
Buy it here.
"Scream 2" wasn't quite as good, but what saves the film is the brilliant ending twist. It's something you can't predict but seems obvious when you think about it. There's a great kill scene in broad daylight on a crowded campus, a scary 'yell-at-the-screen' opening, and most of all, it features Neve Campbell in her role. I say that it's her role because apart from "Wild Things," I never watched or even heard of a single film she's done. Although she may be making a comeback with "Vivaldi," which is in pre-production, she will always be known as The Scream Actress.
And now onto "Scream 3." I have to say that I was disappointed, otherwise I would be lying to myself. I wanted to enjoy it, but it felt like, as most critics have said, the movie that "Scream" was parodying. There is some great humor in the situations, such as an actress' encounter with Ghostface in prop storage, played well I must say by Jenny McCarthy. There are some throwaway gags (one 'point-at-the-screen' joke involving two comic heroes), but it's really the most fun the less you think about it. I decidedly turned off my brain and just let the movie flow over me, but you know what to expect when the movie shows one single camera shot of something seemingly meaningless or tries to make you think who the killer is. I didn't predict the killer, but I knew what was going to happen at many parts.
Predicting the killer is easy for some people who know the twists. You've watched enough movies to know some of the cliches, including suspecting the person who has the least screentime, the person who is wrongly accused, and the person who may not be quite dead. I won't say who it is in this review, but needless to say, one of those three cliches in the last sentence is true.
"Scream 3" doesn't have any grotesquely gory parts, so if you're hoping to see Casey Becker's guts again, you'll be disappointed. This isn't a flaw within the movie because usually when a movie tries to keep the focus on the suspense, situation, or drama instead of what bodily fluids could be shown, the director wants to say something. Maybe not in every case, but think about it. The main reason people I talk to want to see the new "Saw" movies isn't because of the villain but because of the disgusting ways victims are tortured/killed using unnecessary silly machines. Why would you create a device like a reverse bear trap to shove in someone's mouth? Why would you make a heavy necklace with shotgun shells? Why would you want to show a device that breaks someone's limbs one at a time? I guess someone never heard of Alfred Hitchcock or the word 'subtlety.'
"Scream 3" is worth seeing because of its focus on the people, the past, and the suspense instead of the gore. I do wish some nail-biter scenes were drawn out more, and I would have liked a better surprise ending (if you're going to make an ending that doesn't quite make sense, go for the gold). I feel like a pain complaining about Wes Craven's best work (yes, I liked the trilogy better than the original "Nightmare on Elm Street"), so I'm going to end my review here. It's not the best one by far, but it came with the Scream Triple Pack I picked up, so I watched it. Buy it for the first two, and on a boring night, throw in the third. Maybe if "Scream 4" is fun, get up-to-date.
Rated R for strong horror violence and language.
Buy it here.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Rendition - **** out of ****
"Rendition" is an unusually mindful and well-made thriller as well as a slap-in-the-face to senseless politicians more concerned about their jobs than what they know to be right and wrong. Although it does have a political message, it still has the elements of a memorable thriller. It opens with a mystery. An Egyptian man named Anwar El-Ibrahami (Omar Etwally, a talented newcomer) boards a flight back to America from South Africa but isn't shown to arrive back in the states. As a matter of fact, the record of him boarding the plane vanishes. His very pregnant wife, Isabella (Reese Witherspoon, with determination), shows up at the airport with their 6 year-old son and assume that there is a mix-up. There is, and there isn't.
Isabella comes into contact with the aid to Senator and an old fling, Alan Smith (Peter Sarsgaard, performing excellently once again). Smith works with an older Senator (Alan Arkin, wonderfully cast) who doesn't react well to this news. The two resolve that his disappearance must have been known by CIA Corespondent Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep in a vile-filled role played expertly). These people bring us into the knowledge of several others whose roles would spoil some of the 'fun' of the movie.
I do act as if this thriller isn't fun, but this really belongs in a not easily-distinguished category of serious thrillers. There is some humor in moments, but it's not like we're watching "Serenity" or "Casino Royale." The elements are all in place, but how the material is handled is quite different than many other notable thrillers. This isn't a light-hearted journey either. This is something that needs to be studied and debated.
I'm amazed about how much fire seems to be flowing through my fingers as I type this review. I certainly agree with the politics behind the film against our interrogative tactics, and this is not an issue I take lightly. We seem to have a belief that if you continuously torture someone who might be guilty, then eventually they'll become guilty despite reasonable doubt. I think of this as the opposite of justice because people are presumed guilty when accused of terrorism. And since when is that even a valid excuse? The damage done when we're wrong greatly outweighs what we believe to be done that is good. You can try to call me soft, a sympathizer, and even wrong but I'm sure you wouldn't willfully accept your Freedom Torture.
Movies like "Rendition" are important because they comment on the times in which we live as well as develop a coherent and involving story. I cared for the characters not because they were political pawns or because the movie told me to but because I genuinely did. This is not easy to do, especially in a political piece, but it is done here. There are around a dozen key players and each have their own clear motives as well as wonderful dialogue. Another plus is that there isn't really a twist ending. Sure, it's not quite what you expected, but for this film, it's perfect.
I wonder how many people would think differently about torture tactics if they just watched "Rendition." It becomes clear that these methods are outdated and only produce the results we assign to them. Terrorism is a real threat both abroad and, unfortunately, one that is commonly manufactured by our government and then called patriotic. We're even told how many lives are saved because of them when in reality, the majority of the time it ruins others' lives. Don't people just know that if someone is being cut, drowned, and electrocuted that they will tell you what you want to hear? How woeful and pessimistic this makes me.
Rated R for torture/violence and language.
Buy it here.
Isabella comes into contact with the aid to Senator and an old fling, Alan Smith (Peter Sarsgaard, performing excellently once again). Smith works with an older Senator (Alan Arkin, wonderfully cast) who doesn't react well to this news. The two resolve that his disappearance must have been known by CIA Corespondent Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep in a vile-filled role played expertly). These people bring us into the knowledge of several others whose roles would spoil some of the 'fun' of the movie.
I do act as if this thriller isn't fun, but this really belongs in a not easily-distinguished category of serious thrillers. There is some humor in moments, but it's not like we're watching "Serenity" or "Casino Royale." The elements are all in place, but how the material is handled is quite different than many other notable thrillers. This isn't a light-hearted journey either. This is something that needs to be studied and debated.
I'm amazed about how much fire seems to be flowing through my fingers as I type this review. I certainly agree with the politics behind the film against our interrogative tactics, and this is not an issue I take lightly. We seem to have a belief that if you continuously torture someone who might be guilty, then eventually they'll become guilty despite reasonable doubt. I think of this as the opposite of justice because people are presumed guilty when accused of terrorism. And since when is that even a valid excuse? The damage done when we're wrong greatly outweighs what we believe to be done that is good. You can try to call me soft, a sympathizer, and even wrong but I'm sure you wouldn't willfully accept your Freedom Torture.
Movies like "Rendition" are important because they comment on the times in which we live as well as develop a coherent and involving story. I cared for the characters not because they were political pawns or because the movie told me to but because I genuinely did. This is not easy to do, especially in a political piece, but it is done here. There are around a dozen key players and each have their own clear motives as well as wonderful dialogue. Another plus is that there isn't really a twist ending. Sure, it's not quite what you expected, but for this film, it's perfect.
I wonder how many people would think differently about torture tactics if they just watched "Rendition." It becomes clear that these methods are outdated and only produce the results we assign to them. Terrorism is a real threat both abroad and, unfortunately, one that is commonly manufactured by our government and then called patriotic. We're even told how many lives are saved because of them when in reality, the majority of the time it ruins others' lives. Don't people just know that if someone is being cut, drowned, and electrocuted that they will tell you what you want to hear? How woeful and pessimistic this makes me.
Rated R for torture/violence and language.
Buy it here.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
The Pianist - **** out of ****
"The Pianist" begins and ends with Frederick Chopin's 'Nocturne in C# Minor.' It is interrupted by many bombs, and as Wladyslaw Szpilman (Adrien Brody) runs to be with his family during the beginning of the Nazi invasion of Poland, the piece seems to be the perfect choice. Chopin was of polish ancestry, an expert pianist of the romantic era, and towards the end of his life couldn't afford many practical expenses, including his physician. The 'Nocturne' was published after Chopin's death, and the irony of Wladyslaw Szpilman performing it for Polish radio is that neither Chopin nor Szpilman knew their futures and fates during the period of composition and performance. While these factoids may or may not interest you or have any bearing on your interpretation of the film, I feel that in a movie about someone who only has his music and blind luck, what he is able to turn to in his darkest hours (but alas cannot quite do) is extremely important.
Adrien Brody is a fine actor, and this performance is one of nuance and subtlety, not something exactly emphasized in the 'Transformers' and 'Twilight' days. Why should you spend two and a half hours in such dark territory when there's a new 3D movie showing practically every weekend? The answer to that isn't one that is universal, but you must understand that Roman Polanski intertwines this story with some of his own personal experiences during Nazi rule. This isn't a movie that is designed to make you feel depressed but instead launch you into a state of thoughtfulness. What I left feeling was a bittersweet gratitude, as the one who engaged in the most suffering is able to do what he loves most but someone in a higher position who helped him took his probably fate from him. Perhaps not every single Nazi was as evil as we think. This is touched upon, but what the majority did, as we all know, was beyond deplorable. You ask the question, 'why?' and get answered with a bullet in your brain. You drink mildewed water (if you're lucky enough to find it), eat when and if you find food, family members are murdered in front of you and you cannot grieve until you're left in silence, and you hardly ever sleep in the same place two nights in a row. These things are not, by any means, elements meant for cheap dramatic gain but instead are facts. The drama lies in the character, not the situation.
Any story of survival in this time is worth hearing, but this one isn't filled with a life lesson about survival and staying strong; instead, what leads to Szpilman's survival is mostly his fortunate luck of being in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately, luck is what caused many to survive. Of course, I feel strange using the word 'luck' in a review of a movie about the holocaust.
Szpilman was given the opportunity to join the other side but refused. Perhaps he always knew the Nazi position was temporary, perhaps he didn't wish to leave his family, or perhaps he simply knew right from wrong. Whatever the cause, Szpilman went into the war with everything and left with only his music and his love for music. Many people wish they had as much as Szpilman had.
Rated R for violence and brief strong language.
Buy it here.
Adrien Brody is a fine actor, and this performance is one of nuance and subtlety, not something exactly emphasized in the 'Transformers' and 'Twilight' days. Why should you spend two and a half hours in such dark territory when there's a new 3D movie showing practically every weekend? The answer to that isn't one that is universal, but you must understand that Roman Polanski intertwines this story with some of his own personal experiences during Nazi rule. This isn't a movie that is designed to make you feel depressed but instead launch you into a state of thoughtfulness. What I left feeling was a bittersweet gratitude, as the one who engaged in the most suffering is able to do what he loves most but someone in a higher position who helped him took his probably fate from him. Perhaps not every single Nazi was as evil as we think. This is touched upon, but what the majority did, as we all know, was beyond deplorable. You ask the question, 'why?' and get answered with a bullet in your brain. You drink mildewed water (if you're lucky enough to find it), eat when and if you find food, family members are murdered in front of you and you cannot grieve until you're left in silence, and you hardly ever sleep in the same place two nights in a row. These things are not, by any means, elements meant for cheap dramatic gain but instead are facts. The drama lies in the character, not the situation.
Any story of survival in this time is worth hearing, but this one isn't filled with a life lesson about survival and staying strong; instead, what leads to Szpilman's survival is mostly his fortunate luck of being in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately, luck is what caused many to survive. Of course, I feel strange using the word 'luck' in a review of a movie about the holocaust.
Szpilman was given the opportunity to join the other side but refused. Perhaps he always knew the Nazi position was temporary, perhaps he didn't wish to leave his family, or perhaps he simply knew right from wrong. Whatever the cause, Szpilman went into the war with everything and left with only his music and his love for music. Many people wish they had as much as Szpilman had.
Rated R for violence and brief strong language.
Buy it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
