Grade Scale
- A+: Never say never
- A: A masterpiece
- A-: A near-masterpiece
- B+: Very good movie
- B: Good movie but some minor flaws
- B-: Pretty good but some flaws
- C+: Slightly above average
- C: Average
- C-: Mediocre
- D: Bad movie!!!
- F: Atrocious, avoid at all cost!
|
|  By Castor | 
 David Fincher’s Se7en is a crime thriller that has become one of my favorite film of all-time. It initially appears as your typical run-of-the-mill serial killer movie but manages to go against all the viewer’s expectations. Fincher crafted an incredibly dark and bleak movie and the absolutely shocking final twist takes you aback like very few movies I have seen have ever managed to do. Since this movie has been released nearly 15 years ago, this review will contain important spoilers, I STRONGLY advise against reading beyond this point if you plan on seeing this movie.
As the film begins, we meet Detective William R. Somerset (Morgan Freeman), a disillusioned and burnt-out homicide detective who is set to retire within a week and only wants to get as far away as possible from this gloomy and decaying city. Alongside Detective David Mills (Brad Pitt), a brash and cocky young police officer who is set to replace him, Somerset investigates a series of murders inspired by the seven deadly sins.
Structurally, Se7en is unlike most movies of its genre. We never witness the acts of violence, only their aftermaths. There is also only one single action scene, a thrilling chase sequence mid-way through the movie. On the other hand, Se7en is very heavy in terms of dialogue and character development and we spend a lot of time getting to know the 4 main characters. Finally, one of the first thing you will notice is the oppressive atmosphere. The interior scenes are almost unequivocally extremely dark, damp, and cramped. You can almost smell the stench of putrefaction. This was achieved thanks to the cinematography by Darius Khondji and the sets design by Arthur Max. They set a dark and gloomy atmosphere for most of the movie and the omnipresent rain on outdoor scenes only adds to that effect.
Fincher repeatedly plays with the viewer’s expectations. Somerset states at one point that John Doe is eventually going to make a mistake and that’s our expectation after having been conditioned by dozens of crime movies where the criminal ends up making a stupid mistake that leads to his own demise. However, in Se7en, John Doe is always in control from beginning to end. He surrenders himself to law enforcement but everything is still under his terms. He is given substantial amount of dialogue and we discover that he is not only a cunning and extremely intelligent individual but also extremely articulate and almost too convincing when trying to explain his”work”.
Morgan Freeman gives an outstanding subtle performance which elevates the performance of his co-stars. This is exactly the type of acting I’m talking about when I speak about conveying a character’s background without the viewer actually having to be told. We get to know Somerset’s life with very little dialogue and this is what makes Freeman a superb actor. We can see his personality evolve as he takes Mills under his wing after a relatively cold beginning to their relationship. He begins as this cynic and tired cop who has seen too much over the years but the layers start to peel away as he interacts with the young Mills and more importantly Tracy, who reminds him of innocence he hadn’t witnessed in so long. Beautiful Gwyneth Paltrow, as Mills’ wife Tracy, provides the few rays of brightness and hopes amid the oppressively gloomy settings and I would have liked to see more of her character.
Brad Pitt gives a somewhat uneven and uni-dimensional performance (I’m harping here, he is fine). His character would have been more likable, had he been infused with another layer of complexity beyond the all-brawn personality he displays for most of the movie. Finally, Kevin Spacey embodies the personality of the most dangerous people on Earth, fanatical individuals with nothing to lose and nothing to gain. Here, he is simply pitch-perfect, giving John Doe an aura of mellow and collected detachment that is incredibly creepy.
A masterpiece of the 90’s, Se7en is an oppressively dark and grisly crime thriller that has aged very well, so far.
A
Notes: Rated R for grisly after-views of horrific and bizarre killings, and for strong language. 127 minutes.
VN:F [1.8.4_1055] Rating: 10.0/10 (5 votes cast)
| By Castor |
 “Is it better to live like a monster, or die a good man?”
Directed by Martin Scorsese, Shutter Island is a psychological thriller based on Dennis Lehane novel of the same name. Despite its relatively commonplace premise of reality vs. illusion inside a mental institution, this is a beautifully crafted film with multiple layers of depth that don’t become apparent until the final twist which we all know is coming. The fun is in trying to figure out what the final twist is and witnessing how the characters get there.
The story is set in 1954 in Boston. US Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his new partner Chuck Aute (Mark Ruffalo) arrive on Shutter Island, home to a psychiatric penitentiary, to investigate the disappearance of Rachel Solando (Emily Mortimer), a dangerous woman who drowned her three children. Oddly, when the two federal agents start asking questions, they often get unhelpful and evasive answers. Teddy believes there is something deeply wrong taking place on the island and sets out to find out. However, he soon starts to question his own sanity…
Scorsese depiction of Shutter Island is Gothic and gloomy and cinematographer Robert Richardson excelled in creating a moody and atmospheric feeling that went a long way toward immersing the viewer. Teddy’s flashback and hallucinations in particular are stunning visuals. Scorsese masterful direction impregnates the movie with an Hitchcockian and mysteriously chilling sublayer but he never uses cheap thrills or loud sounds that have become staples of the horror genre. Numerous clues are left behind that point to the fact that what we are seeing has a double meaning but these don’t become clear until the ending. Why did Chuck, a federal agent, seem unfamiliar with his own firearm? Why are the guards so on edge when in the presence of Teddy? Those are some of the little nagging questions you will try to elucidate as the movie unfolds.
The movie’s main highlight is the incredibly deep cast. Leonardo DiCaprio gives a mesmerizing performance in a tormented and complex role. He is convincing from beginning to end and his emphasis on facial and bodily expressions helps the viewer empathize with his character’s intense inner emotions. DiCaprio continues to mature from the boyish heartthrob he once was to one of the most complete lead thespian in Hollywood. Mark Ruffalo continues his string of excellent turns as a character actor and walks a fine line between patronizing and probing Teddy. One of the deepest and most terrific supporting cast you will see in a movie includes the likes of Michelle Williams, Patricia Clarkson, Emily Mortimer, Elias Koteas, Jackie Earle Haley and Ben Kingsley. The beauty of Scorsese films is that he finds a way to highlight often thankless and small supporting roles into memorable appearances and everyone here shines in his/her respective scene.
An atmospheric, unsettling and Hitchcock-like thriller, Shutter Island is a well-acted, well-crafted, and intellectually engaging near-masterpiece.
A-
Notes: Rated R for disturbing violent content, language and some nudity. 138 minutes.
VN:F [1.8.4_1055] Rating: 9.0/10 (4 votes cast)
| By Castor |
 Deliverance, directed by John Boorman is a thriller based on John Dickey’s novel and starring Jon Voight, Burt Reynolds, Ned Beatty, and Ronny Cox. Four Atlanta businessmen – Lewis (Reynolds), Ed (Voight), Bobby (Beatty), and Drew (Cox) – go on a canoe trip down a river in the Georgia wilderness for a weekend to reconnect with nature by fishing, canoeing and camping. Unfortunately, the fun vacation away from the city soon escalates into a nightmarish quest for survival as the four men encounters the strangely unfriendly and possibly inbred locals.
Even by today’s standard, Deliverance is a disturbing movie to watch and yet simultaneously mesmerizing. From the start of this harrowing movie, some uneasy tension floats in the air. What could have been a charming opening sequence of two men connecting while playing some bluegrass music is instead a creepy and uncomfortable scene to watch as the boy is apparently inbred and leaves without saying anything. Later, in easily the most difficult scene to watch, Bobby and Ed are separated from their other companions and come upon two hostile hillbillies, one of them carrying a rifle. Bobby is raped while forced to squeal like a pig while Ed is powerless, tied up to a tree. Lewis arrives on the scene and kills one of the locals with an arrow but the other one escapes. This unleashes a string of events that leaves the group fighting for its own survival, both physically and psychologically and puts into question the definition of “civilized” and “uncivilized.”
Burt Reynolds, in a rare dramatic role, is excellent as Lewis, the over-confident leader of the group and Jon Voight gives a seemingly effortless performance as Ed, the most hesitant character of the group. Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox are solid in supporting roles as this movie launched their acting career. The hillbillies are played by local people as the movie was shot in South Carolina which gives the movie an authenticity that fill-ins from Central Casting would never have been able to reproduce.
Production values are outstanding. The cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond is oddly beautiful and showcases the overwhelming majesty and isolation of the Appalachians as well as craft this appearance of unease in everything the viewer sees. The sequences on the river are a highlight and accurately depict the thrills of white water rafting.
A minimalistic but superbly crafted movie that succeeds thanks to its intense atmosphere and tension. Deliverance plays on the fear that many people have of going to unknown and untamed places where the unimaginable might happen.
B+
Notes: 110 minutes
VN:F [1.8.4_1055] Rating: 8.6/10 (5 votes cast)
| By Red |
 “I am the best film director in the world,” proclaimed Lars von Trier rather brashly following the debut of his newest film at the Cannes Film Festival. This was immediately after he entered the media room to a shower of boos from critics who had just painstakingly viewed Antichrist, the latest from the Danish director. Much controversy has arisen because of this film, with several groups vying to get the movie banned due to the explicit graphic nature of the film, which is probably an understatement as to exactly how violent this film really is.
The movie starts off with a marvelous sequence that depicts the death of a child who falls out of a window while his parents are making love. This leads to the mother, She (neither main character is given a proper name) enters a state of depression in which she faints at the funeral service and is then hospitalized. Her husband happens to be a therapist, and decides to go against his own preachings and treats a member of his family, much to the chagrin of his wife, who would rather just stay in the hospital and be treated by “actual doctors”. He and She then venture off to an isolated cabin in the woods, known as Eve, to tackle her greatest fear as a way to overcome the grief. What happens then is a series of events that I care not to explain, as each event in the movie adds a new twist to the film, as well as opening another perspective on what the film is trying to say. The film is divided into four parts; Grief, Pain and Despair are the first three, in which all three feelings combine to create the Three Beggars. Each emotion has an animal representative, and opens to the film to new possibilities in each of their respective acts.
Obviously with the title, there are many religious aspects of this movie, but von Trier doesn’t hammer away at the subject, and introduces the majority of the issue in the final acts. There are many who have questioned the Danish director about his interpretation on women in this film. At first, I nearly shrugged this sentiment off as people looking too much into something and trying to stir up controversy. But much to my surprise, the characters themselves bring up the issue, and it adds yet another viewpoint at what is being said. This is one of those films where you almost have to ask another person what they got from the film, because more than likely they came up with something different, because there is no one clear-cut message one can get from the film.
As for the acting, Willem Dafoe is very effective as the controlled husband. But the majority of the movie rides on the character that Charlotte Gainsbourg creates, and she delivers the performance with near perfection. Gainsbourg goes above and beyond to emanate the emotional damage that her character is going through, which is jarring and disturbing. Slumdog Millionaire cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle creates an atmosphere that is pitch-perfect for what the movie is trying say. There are many dream sequences in this film, and they are absolutely astonishing, and help with the overall haunting experience. This movie will haunt you. I would almost bet everything I have that you will squirm at least once, and some people may not be able to stay in their chairs during the third act.
 A movie that can be described in many ways, Antichrist is a riveting movie that defies what people tend to describe as graphic and takes you on a perilous journey through the grieving process. Haunting and downright disgusting as it may be, it is also one of the most artistic movies that you will see in this day in age. I’m not sure if I can ever bring myself to watch it again, but I urge you to watch it at least once.
As far as von Trier’s belief that he is the best film director in the world? This viewer certainly isn’t arguing against that notion.
A-
Notes: This film is not rated, due to the extremely graphic and violent nature, 104 minutes.
VN:F [1.8.4_1055] Rating: 6.7/10 (3 votes cast)
| By Castor |
Mulholland Dr. is one of the most enigmatic and elusive movie of the decade and has left countless viewers feeling confused, baffled, stunned or even cheated and angry. Many have asked how such cryptic piece of non-sense could even be considered as art. Mulholland Dr. is like a puzzle with many pieces that do not fit anywhere. It is a fact of life that David Lynch’s movies are not for everyone: They require multiple and highly focused viewing and simply are too “open” for interpretation for some people. David Foster Wallace stated perfectly why Lynch’s movies are so polarizing:
David Lynch’s movies are often described as occupying a kind of middle ground between art film and commercial film. But what they really occupy is a whole third kind of territory. Most of Lynch’s best films don’t really have much of a point, and in lots of ways they seem to resist the film-interpretative process by which movies’ (certainly avant-garde movies’) central points are understood. This is something the British critic Paul Taylor seems to get at when he says that Lynch’s movies are “to be experienced rather than explained.” Lynch’s movies are indeed susceptible to a variety of sophisticated interpretations, but it would be a serious mistake to conclude from this that his movies point at the too-facile summation that “film interpretation is necessarily multivalent” or something-they’re just not that kind of movie. Nor are they seductive, though, at least in the commercial sense of being comfortable or linear or High Concept or “feel-good.” You almost never from a Lynch movie get the sense that the point is to “entertain” you, and never that the point is to get you to fork over money to see it. This is one of the unsettling things about a Lynch movie: You don’t feel like you’re entering into any of the standard unspoken and/or unconscious contracts you normally enter into with other kinds of movies. This is unsettling because in the absence of such an unconscious contract we lose some of the psychic protections we normally (and necessarily) bring to bear on a medium as powerful as film. That is, if we know on some level what a movie wants from us, we can erect certain internal defenses that let us choose how much of ourselves we give away to it. The absence of point or recognizable agenda in Lynch’s films, though, strips these subliminal defenses and lets Lynch get inside your head in a way movies normally don’t. This is why his best films’ effects are often so emotional and nightmarish. (We’re defenseless in our dreams too.)
It is impossible to talk in-depth about Mulholland Dr. without fully spoiling the movie so please do not read past this paragraph if you haven’t seen the movie yet. If you would like to read my nearly spoiler-free review of the movie, you can go ahead and read my earlier review. In this post, I will delve deeper into the world of Mulholland Dr. and some of the possible interpretations as well as take a closer look at the numerous themes of this incredibly multi-layered movie.
Continue reading 1001 Movie Club: Mulholland Dr. (2001) »
VN:F [1.8.4_1055] Rating: 7.7/10 (6 votes cast)
| By Castor |
The Hurt Locker, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, is a movie that has received considerable acclaim and is widely seen as the leading contender for the Academy Award for Best Picture. The reason I haven’t reviewed this movie earlier is that I wanted to watch the movie a second time and reflect on how much the completely unrealistic premises and behaviors take away from this otherwise very highly entertaining movie.
The film starts with the quote: “The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is drug” and follows US Army Sergeant First Class Will James (Jeremy Renner), Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) as they go about their EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) missions during their deployment in Iraq. James is a new member of the team and immediately rubs the two other members the wrong way. James revels in the adrenaline rush of disarming explosive devices while his colleagues are persuaded he is going to get them killed through his recklessness.
Simply put, The Hurt Locker is one of the most intense movie in recent memory and will keep you at the edge of your seat through the entire movie. The first sequence of the movie is a brilliant introduction to the movie and keeps your heart pounding through one of the most tense and suspenseful scene I have seen in a long time. The movie is highly entertaining and action packed from beginning to end and also manages to sidestep preaching any cheap political message about the war in Iraq. Numerous familiar faces appears in the movie such as Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes, Evangeline Lilly or David Morse. The spotlight, however, rests on the three relatively unknown actors Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty who keep the movie grounded. Renner gives a very good performance as James, a reckless character driven by the adrenaline of combat and numbed by it. Renner shines though when he shows his vulnerable side as a compassionate human being. The movie is truly a character study of SSgt William James. He eventually gets to come home but how does a man, who has put his life in intense life or death situations nearly every day for months, adapt to the passive civilian life again? Mackie gives a solid performance as the methodical voice of reason while Geraghty nails the most emotionally vulnerable character of the trio.
By far the biggest issues with the movie are the distracting and absolutely unrealistic situations as well as the lack of credibility from the main character, SFC James. I’m not talking about minor nit-pick offense but major problems. First of all, it is extremely unlikely that an EOD team would ever ride alone especially if they are composed of only three members. They would ride only with heavy escort in a large convoy with at the very least a full infantry platoon to back them up. You will also see numerous times Sanborn and Eldridge trying to secure no less than a couple city blocks all by themselves while the main character goes about his business. This is utter and complete horseshit as this would never ever happen in real life. Again, that heavy escort that is supposed to ride with the EOD team would create a wide perimeter and possibly evacuate the entire neighborhood. Nevertheless, it does make for some highly suspenseful scenes which is probably why Bigelow decided to go that route. The cardinal sin however comes late in the movie when our three characters decide to pursue suspected bombers deep into the city in the middle of the night. Yes… all three of them and without telling anyone. Even better, the three come upon a bifurcation and they decide to split. Yes you read that right dear reader! Each of them goes down his own alley in the middle of the night and in the middle of an extremely hostile city. There is so many hard-to-believe sequences that I have to make a list:
- First scene of the movie: The C4 has to be minutiously placed on the bomb (using the robot’s “hand”) to minimize collateral damage to buildings and people. Hence, the use of the cartwheel is only a plot device to get the guy killed.
- Half a dozen grunts abandoning their Humvee and huddling together in some type of concrete cave with no view whatsoever of what’s around them. Completely unrealistic and downright disrespectful of the men serving abroad
- The smoke sequence: I don’t even want to say anything
- Same sequence, a little later: A dozen grunts all standing around and huddled together watching while a potential suicide bomb car suddenly appears and accelerates toward James: Again complete and utter BS. Soldiers would never just stand around in the middle of the street, doing nothing but watch the EOD guy do his job while in a hostile city. In real life, they would have set up a defensive perimeter, have marksmen on overwatch and soldiers ready to intercept any suspect cars or people getting too close to them. In real life, that car would have been been riddled with bullet within 100 meters and never made it past them unscathed. Again, another plot device to have James in a tense situation.
- That priceless sniping scene: EOD bubba just picks up a Barrett .50 cal and starts killing people like he went through sniper school. Extremely unrealistic.
- James goes AWOL in the middle of the night and sneaks into the city by himself. Not only does he not get killed, but he gets to come back through the front gate with no consequences whatsoever. In real life, no one would ever even dare venture outside the gates, and trying to sneak in or out would most likely result in one’s death
- Near the end, a Vietnam era UH-1 helicopter is used to evac Eldridge. I thought this movie was about the Iraq war?
- A man strapped to a metallic cage with a bomb inside and all of that, against his consent??? I will have seen it all.
How unrealistic was SFC James behavior in the movie? Let’s just say that in real life, a guy acting like he does would eventually get himself killed and not necessarily by enemy fire (something hinted at in the movie). That’s how unrealistic his behavior was. Bigelow really sacrificed any semblance of realism to extract every single ounce of cheap entertainment she could get. Is the movie entertaining? Yes but at what cost?
A thrilling, tense and action-packed war movie from beginning to end. I have to dock off at least two full grades though because the movie is utterly unrealistic just for the sake of cheap thrills.
B+
Notes: Rated R for war violence and language, 131 minutes.
VN:F [1.8.4_1055] Rating: 7.4/10 (7 votes cast)
| By Castor |
Cache (US: Hidden) is a critically acclaimed mystery thriller directed by Austrian director Michael Haneke and starring French actors Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche. Georges Laurent (Auteuil) is a successful TV host of a book-club type show while his wife Anne (Binoche) works for a book publisher. They have a 12-yr old son and seemingly happily live in a cozy book-lined upscale apartment. The obviously well-to-do family starts receiving sinister videotapes of themselves and are perplexed by the meaning of those. Someone is watching them and they don’t know why. The threat slowly grows as the Laurent go through their daily lives. One day, the family starts receiving disturbing drawings of blood coming out a child’s mouth.
Haneke builds up the suspense patiently and methodically. The Laurent continue to live their life but it progressively starts to take a toll on them. Georges and Anne starts having fights because she thinks he knows something that she doesn’t know. He has a hunch about who is sending those tapes and doesn’t want to tell her. The viewer knows as little as the couple itself so we become detectives trying to solve this creepy riddle. Even as the plot unfolds it never becomes clear who is actually tormenting the Laurent. The film is ultimately a subtle political commentary on responsibility (here France toward Algeria) for past and present action. Let’s just say that Laurent did something bad to someone else when he was only a 6-yr old kid and willfully let himself off the hook because he was so young after all. However, this is now coming back to haunt him decades later.
Haneke intentionally leaves the ending open-ended and highly open for interpretation with many questions left unanswered. Some viewers will not mind, I personally felt I needed to know who sent those tapes but only because of that uncomfortable feeling of personal violation and not knowing who did it.
The cast performs on a high level. Daniel Auteuil slowly evolves from a smug and slightly blazed character at the start of the movie to a more introspective character who can lose his temper quickly. Juliette Binoche gave a strong performance as well in a supporting role. The movie features no musical score which gives it a quiet and sinister atmosphere.
A disturbing, unsettling and haunting psychological thriller that plays it close to the vest. Highly recommended especially if you like Hitchcock.
B+
Notes: R-rated for strong violence, 117 minutes
VN:F [1.8.4_1055] Rating: 9.3/10 (3 votes cast)
| By Castor |
Having a fervent fascination for time travel stories, my quest to find a decent time-traveling movie has been met mostly with … nothing. Where are the time-traveling movies Hollywood? Yes, there was the moving The Time Traveler’s Wife back in August but it was more of a romance movie with less emphasis on the sci-fi and then after that, we basically have to go back to The Butterfly Effect (2004) and Donnie Darko (2001) for some decent time-travel brainstorming. It is thus needless to say that I was giddy to discover Timecrimes (Los Cronocrimenes), a Spanish sci-fi thriller directed by Nacho Vigalondo.
 Look honey! A topless babe over there! The movie has a simple plot and it starts innocuously as Héctor (Karra Elejalde), a paunchy middle-aged man, is sitting on a lawn chair outside his mansion and scanning the countryside with his binocular. He glimpses a beautiful woman taking her top off in the woods behind his house and he feels the urge to go investigate as any faithful middle-aged husband would. When he gets to that location, he is stunned to see the woman (Bárbara Goenaga) laying unconscious on the ground and completely naked. As he approaches her, he is suddenly stabbed in the arm and he runs away in terror. Thinking that he is pursued by some psycho in the middle of the woods, he ends up stumbling into a time-traveling machine which brings him back a couple hours in the past. To his despair, there is now two versions of himself. Will he be able to fix this screw-up or will he only make it worse?
The movie touches on many themes common to time-travel stories such as fate/free will and the universal desire to go back in the past and fix some things up. Unlike most time-travel movies, there is no obvious fallacy to Héctor’s temporal adventures. There is only four characters in the movie. Karra Elejalde gives a solid performance as Héctor and his character changes subtly throughout the movie as the plot unfolds. We also get good performances out of Candela Fernández who plays Héctor’s wife, Bárbara Goenaga who is… gorgeous, and Nacho Vigalondo himself who plays the scientist responsible for getting Héctor in his predicament (or so you think).
An entertaining low-budget time travel movie
B+
Note: R-Rated for some nudity and violence
VN:F [1.8.4_1055] Rating: 8.0/10 (3 votes cast)
| By Castor |
 Directed by Academy Award nominee David Finch, the hauntingly creepy Mulholland Dr. is a dark psychological thriller/mystery which catapulted Naomi Watts to stardom. I waited a long time to watch this movie which most people would deem as not making sense whatsoever. What I love about this movie is that it is completely open for interpretation: There is about as many interpretations/theories about the movie as there is people. Punctuated by very macabre sequences and erotic scenes of lesbian intimacy, the film is full of cryptic dialogues and seemingly unrelated sequences. The fact that the movie was initially shot to be broadcast as a TV series for ABC probably added to the disconnected and confusing feel of the movie. I really don’t blame ABC for backing off this project, there was no way this would ever make it to your average prime-time national TV slot.
The movie starts with a stunning dark-haired woman (Laura Elena Harring) escaping from a murder attempt on Mulholland Dr. when the limo she is in is hit by another car. Apparently shaken and confused, she walks toward Los Angeles and hides inside a house which an older red-haired woman just vacated moments earlier. Starry-eyed and perky aspiring actress Betty Elms (Watts) just arrived in LA from a small town in Ontario and enters the apartment, finding the dark-haired woman, who calls herself Rita, confused and suffering from amnesia. Blonde-haired Betty agrees to help Rita find out her real identity and the two women are soon intertwined in a twisted mystery that will challenge the very notion of fantasy and reality as well as obscure the space and time continuum of the movie. Several seemingly unrelated parallel stories also interject the main plot of the movie among which one in particular is unspeakably terrifying and really FREAKED me out (I won’t even say anything, just that’s it’s there). This is all I’m going to say about the plot of the movie. Not only would it spoil the movie, but it would be nearly impossible for me to explain what I saw, it’s a personal experience that one only gets by seeing the movie.
Mulholland Dr. has a non-linear narrative order which is itself open for interpretation. Simply put, the movie is like a dream put on film. Every single detail in the movie from objects that appear on the screen to what the characters say are little pieces of the puzzle that can be used at some point in the movie. As Mulholland Dr. makes less and less sense, it becomes more and more engaging and exhilarating. What in the movie is real and what is fantasy? There is no definite answer of course but it is fun to try to make sense of it all. The movie is not all dark and creepy and features an hilarious cameo by Billy Ray Cyrus for example. Naomi Watts gives a strikingly amazing performance as Betty/Diane. She shows excellent control inhabiting Betty and Diane, two distinct and completely different characters, to great effect. Better than that, she purposely plays below her capacities (a Lynch staple) only to explode when you least expect it: For the first half of the movie, she is mechanical, a bit forced and apparently gives a sub-par performance. Then comes the audition scene which is a blueprint of great acting as she takes horribly banal material and turns it into a fantastic scene. Then, in an instant, it is all gone: She is Betty again. That single scene is an incredible showcase of acting talent and I was completely blown away. Laura Elena Harring is strikingly beautiful (she is a former Miss USA after all) and does a solid job as Rita/Camilla. The two actresses have great chemistry together and there is serious sexual tension between the two especially once they get romantically involved. The movie is beautifully shot with a retro-like recreation of Hollywood as a nightmarish place to be in , a place which according to Finch, attracts naive and innocent people with dreams of fame and wealth and spits them out as disillusioned people who were the coy of a town with a beautiful facade but an ugly back-alley. Finch masterfully creates a dark and oppressing atmosphere where you expect something creepy and macabre to hit the screen at any moment. As the tone of the movie changes in the last third of the movie, the warm and fuzzy locations leaves place to stark and cold sets. Angelo Badalementi’s musical score is haunting and highly effective.
 My interpretation (Spoiler Alert):
Ok, theories and sub-theories abound and mine isn’t better than anyone else’s. Never-ending mobius-strip, parallel universes, fantasy, reality, split-personalities and what not, my theory is the most traditional and widely accepted one. To me, the entire first two thirds minutes of the movie are a dream by Diane Selwyn, a struggling actress who came from a small town in Ontario, Canada. Diane being the present and real person while Betty is Diane’s version of herself in the dream when she first arrived in LA as a naive aspiring actress. In my opinion, Betty and Rita/Camilla met early in their careers but Rita/Camilla went on to become a successful actress while Betty/Diane did not which would explain her disillusions toward the end of the movie. Diane blames the way Hollywood works for her failure and believes she would have gotten a big role instead of Camilla if not for some behind-the-scene conspiracy. I believe the lesbian relationship between Diane and Camilla is real and because Diane can’t take the humiliation at the party from seeing Camilla in the arms of the director, so she decides to pay a hitman to have Camilla killed. Before the end, she has horrible remorse and dreams of what could have been. The thing is this interpretation could be reversed, with the beginning as reality and the ending as a nightmare. That’s the beauty of this movie. There is literally dozens and dozens of potential interpretations to suit your taste!
Weirdest and most complex movie I have seen in a long time. Mulholland Drive is a very artsy and surreal movie from the wildly twisted vision of David Finch which is best seen at night and in the dark (like every Finch movie!). It blew my mind away but requires multiple watches to build a coherent interpretation of this movie. Just like dreams and nightmares though, there is no real explanation or end destination for the movie. Definitely not for everyone! If you need everything to be clearly laid out for you, this movie is not for you!
A
Note: R-rated for (hot) sexual content, some violence and disturbing sights
VN:F [1.8.4_1055] Rating: 9.0/10 (4 votes cast)
| By Castor |
One Hour Photo is a psychological thriller directed by Mark Romanek and starring Robin Williams as “Sy” Parrish in a role that is very unlike your usual Robin William’s fare. Sy has been running the one-hour photo lab at SavMart for the last 10 years and is very attentive and meticulous that “his” customers receive the best service possible… and he should because he has nothing else going on in his life: No companionship, no kids, no friends, nothing at all. Sy knows most of his customers but none interest him more than the well-to-do Yorkins which he believes is the perfect family and whose life he lives vicariously through the picture he has developed for them over the years. There is picture-perfect mother and wife Nina (beautiful Connie Nielsen), husband Will (Michael Vartan) and son Jake (Dylan Smith). There would be nothing wrong being a little envious but Sy is downright obsessed, keeping copies of all their pictures which he pasted onto a wall in his apartment. Sy thinks he know them so much that he vicariously thinks of himself as Uncle Sy and begins to stalk the family without noticing. His attempt to befriend the Yorkins are gently rebuffed but everything starts to go downhill when he is fired from his job and he discovers that the Yorkins’ life is not so idyllic after all.
You think this is creepy? Well just watch the movie because it is uncomfortably creepy at times as the director has the viewer become Sy’s accomplice. Nevertheless, the movie does a good job threading that line without going into the macabre and there is something about Sy that make you almost sympathize with him. That same feeling of sadness and melancholy that you get when you meet someone who has nothing to look up to in life. This is how powerful Robin Williams is in this movie which is, I believe one of his best performance of his career. Sy is a fully developed character with complex motives, matching bland attire and inner voice-over. The supporting cast is solid but the Yorkins family is underdeveloped which hurts the movie as a whole. We don’t get any background on why they would be dysfunctional in the first place and there is no good explanation for Nina’s and Will’s behavior. Nielsen and Vartan do a nice job of cautiously but gently rebuffing Williams creepy kindness but that’s pretty much all they are asked to do. Nina gets the most screentime of the Yorkins family but yet, Sy goes after Will who is apparently a douchebag anyway. It would have helped to develop their characters much further so the audience can feel more apprehensive for them or have Sy go after the wife or the kid instead of the adulterous husband. The cinematography is solid, contrasting Sy’s bland surrounding (the SavMart, his apartment, even his car) with the colorful pictures of the Yorkins’ family while the musical score is your average thriller-type fare. The main problem of the movie is the ending which is a bit rushed after the relatively slow building of the first 70 minutes as well as unrealistic and just not so thrilling. We also know right away that Sy is an obsessed creep so the first 30 or 40 minutes feel like they were wasted as the characters barely develop beyond what we already expect, it may have worked better if he was a little less obvious especially at the beginning of the movie.
Enjoyable creepy movie solidified by a great performance by Robin Williams. Disappointing ending and lightly written roles make this movie merely good.
B-
VN:F [1.8.4_1055] Rating: 7.0/10 (2 votes cast)
|
|
David Fincher’s Se7en is a crime thriller that has become one of my favorite film of all-time. It initially appears as your typical run-of-the-mill serial killer movie but manages to go against all the viewer’s expectations. Fincher crafted an incredibly dark and bleak movie and the absolutely shocking final twist takes you aback like very few movies I have seen have ever managed to do. Since this movie has been released nearly 15 years ago, this review will contain important spoilers, I STRONGLY advise against reading beyond this point if you plan on seeing this movie.
Loading ...
Most Popular