I WITNESS (a review)

I WITNESS (a review)

Stars Jeff Daniels, James Spader and Portia de Rossi.

The story: a disillusioned human rights worker goes down to Mexico to help workers as they try to unionize in a factory that is trying to fight unionization. While there he becomes involved in two mysteries -- first 22 deaths in a collapsed tunnel that appears to be drug-related and then the killings of two kids on the exact same day -- two mysteries which are very intertwined.

Was it good?

Almost. The first half was VERY slow. The initial stuff of Daniels' character coming down and dealing with workers, etc, was pretty boring to me. It didn't help that Daniels is playing a depressed character so his energy is in the negatives. It feels like he is sucking energy out of you. Yes, it's what the character calls for, but it doesn't make for a great watch. There's also a bunch of stuff with James Spader and Portia de Rossi all of which could be cut out. I guess they are there to talk about unionization and stuff, but they have nothing to do with the central mysteries and so they just make the first half feel very unfocused.

It's at midpoint that the two mysteries become intertwined and that's where the story gets interested. The next half hour is good investigation storytelling. Unfortunately the movie ends on a lame note, needing a death bed confession from a character I'm not sure I had seen before (yes, I commited the sin of double tasking).

*** SPOILER *** There is one scene I still don't understand and it seems like a weird giant plot hole to me, but maybe it is explained and I missed it. At one point Daniels and Rossi are kidnapped and forced to dig their own graves, except they actually uncover the bodies of the two boys that were killed. And then the bad guys have disappeared. So...were those bad guys who had them at gunpoint or were they good guys showing them where the bodies were or was there something else that I missed?

For me, although the second half got better, ultimately the uninteresting first half and the deus ex machina confession at the end made the movie weak. The actual story/mystery wasn't that interesting either and to get all the pieces to connect -- the kids, the people in the tunnel, the factory -- actually takes a lot of things to have happened, so instead of it being something that seems complicated but is actually clever and simple, this is something that seems simple and is actually long and complicated...which is never as satisfying in a mystery. And there isn't any other big insight -- companies are greedy. Gotcha. It was okay, but I need more for a recommend.

**** NOT RECOMMENDED (but not horrible) ****

WHALE WATCHING MASSACRE (a review)

WHALE WATCHING MASSACRE (a review)

(coming soon)

THE COOK (a review)

THE COOK (a review)

Another straight to dvd horror movie, but this has a twist...the director actually is pretty good.

The story: at a sorority house a replacement cook comes in over a holiday weekend where he goes crazy and begins killing all the girls.

Was it good?

No.

It was as ridiculously stupid as you would think, but the difference here is that if you watch the movie you get the feeling that the director is actually good. This is a case where you really, really can blame the script. So why is it that the director seems good and the script seems bad? Well, let's start with how obviously the script is bad. You can hear it in the set up -- a sorority that has it's own cook? And a replacement cook just happens to come in on a holiday weekend? So clearly this isn't going to be a scary horror movie. And yet it's not really a comedy since none of that is actually funny, just stupid/ridiculous. So right away you have a movie that you can bet isn't going to be scary and probably isn't going to really be funny. This is the kind of movie you write when you think horror movies are stupid so just make it as ridiculous as possible because since you think horror movies are stupid clearly the only reason to watch is to see how stupid it is going to be. In other words: it's written by a smart ass who looks down on the audience. And by smart ass, I mean the guy is a dick.

The rest of the movie is what you expect. The girls are all stupid except the boring ones who just want to study all the time. The cook is weird and over the top, but none of the girls notice. Throw in a couple random showers and some lesbian stuff. The killing isn't scary and there's nothing actual funny because the movie isn't about anything other than people playing outrageous stereotypes.

In short: it's crap.

Now that actually might be harsh. After all, I'll admit this would be a fun movie to work on -- some hot girls, lots of blood and is stupid enough that you wouldn't have to worry about anything other than hitting on/eye humping the girls. Some people think these low budget movies are made by socially retarded nerds as a way to meet hot girls and try to get laid. I think this movie proves those people right.* In other words: a pretty fun gig. But if you are actually looking at the script it would be a piece of *%*&#

* I don't actually know that making this movie got anyone laid. But it really is the only explanation.

The director: so if the story is so bad, why do I say the director have talent? Well, it's tough to say. It often is hard to seperate the director from the material. But it's a matter of getting good shots (instead of going to shots you want that you can't pull off), of getting shots that will edit together right and of giving a certain consistant feel to the work. Knowing when to play with the camera angle, when to keep it simple to keep attention on what's happening in the frame. What hampers him the most is the material is just so ridiculous that there isn't much for him to do story and character-wise except embrace it and let the actors go for it. If there were any semblance of a story -- if any of the characters were dealing with anything other than whether or not they should experiment with lesbianism, if any of the characters weren't written as an over the top stereotype -- then you could see how he can handle actual story and charaters. But aside from that it's a question of the shots and how they look (which is also the cinematography) and do the shots build...and in this case they do. From the first aerial shot that gives this very enclosed movie a nice big, open feel, to the character introductions with have a light, comedic feel -- the beginning plays better than the material should...a sign of a good director. Unfortunately even a good director can't overcome bad material and by the 30 minute mark when there hasn't been anything more than the typical B-crapfest that the movie becomes doomed.

Too bad.

*** AVOID ***

VAMPIRES: OUT FOR BLOOD (a review)

VAMPIRES: OUT FOR BLOOD (a review)

A horror movie with Kevin Dillon (Entourage), Lance Hendricksen (Aliens), Vanessa Angel (Weird Science) and Jodi Lyn O'Keefe? It must be good right? Or horrible since no one has heard of it. You always got to wonder when name actors are in horror movies you've never heard of...

The story: a cop who can't get over his ex- and has a drinking problem encounters a weird vampire orgy where he is bitten and begins to turn into a vampire. Except no one belives him. They think he's crazy because there's no evidence and he's talking like a crazy person. But his ex-, who writes books about vampires, believes him and together they try to kill the head vampire, except the ex- doesn't really want to kill the head vampire, she wants to become a vampire herself and so things go bad and then the cops come and they still think he's crazy and his ex- comes back when he's in the mental ward but no one else can see her so he kills her but there's still no evidence and he still seems crazy and then she isn't dead.

Was it good?

No. I mean, seriously, did you read what I just wrote? The amazing thing is that this was good enough to get a bunch of name actors involved. Of course, it could be that the actors needed a job and this was paying. Yikes. Bad script, bad f/x, bad directing, bad camera work, bad edits... If this had been a no budget outsider movie it would have been bad. To have had pros on set and turn out this, yikes!

*** AVOID ***

A BIT OF TOM JONES (a review)

A BIT OF TOM JONES (a review)

A British film with one of the most brilliant concepts for a comedy I've ever heard...

The story: a man in a bar buys the penis of legendary singer Tom Jones from a woman in a bar thinking he will sell it and make some much needed money. Yes, he buys Tom Jones's penis. Of course, selling it is harder than he would have imagined and between finding a seller and failing to find a buyer and getting rid of the thing and then finding a buyer and having to get it back from the police who he thinks has it...well, yeah, it's pretty out there.

Was it good?

No. And it's hard to explain why. Everything about the movie should have been amazing. I love -- LOVE -- the premise, easily the funniest idea for a comedy I have ever heard. And the story, with him trying to sell it and trying to find buyers and then trying to steal it back from the police and getting caught between the various unsavory collectors who want it...all of that should have been gold.

And yet...

It just wasn't funny. I mean, I don't think I luaghed once and I should have been on the floor rolling with this stuff. It just felt like something was off. They say comedy is timing and maybe the timing was wrong or something. Maybe it was the lack of surprises -- for as crazy of a concept as it has the humor was actually pretty tame -- that made it feel too predictable to be funny. Even the old people in fetish gear really wasn't surprising.

I don't know. It's shame because I thought it had amazing potential and I kept watching it thinking this should be funny...but it wasn't.

*** NOT RECOMMENDED (although I wish I could) ***

BUNNY BULL (a review)

BUNNY AND THE BULL (a review)

A strange British comedy about a man who goes on a road trip without leaving his apartment. It is from a writer and star of the British tv show THE MIGHTY BOSH which I've never seen but will not have to check out.

The story: a man who has been a shut in for a year has his routine ruined when mice eat all of his food. Having now to venture out he finds himself reconstructing a road trip he took with an outrageous sex crazed, fun loving pal who was trying to help him get over a woman he loved but who didn't love him.

Was it good?

Yeah, it's a strange, surreal, silly and interesting. It isn't the big laugh out loud, but it's constantly interesting and it does a great job with the characters. Unfortunately, the biggest problem is the main character who is a shut in and whining over a girl for most of the movie, making him incredibly annoying. It's basic to the character, but still these sorts of characters make it hard to embrace a movie and it would have been much better to find some way to let the audience like him more.

Also worth mentioning is the visual style of the film. The transitions from his apartment to the road trip and his recreations of the road trip are all wonderfully inventive and yet don't overwhelm the character or the story. This visual whimsy adds a wonderful touch.

*** RECOMMEND ***

POPCORN (2007) (a reivew)

POPCORN (2007) (a reivew)

No, this isn't the 1991 horror movie with Jill Schoelen (whom we all remember from the original STEPFATHER with Terry O'Quinn). This is a 2007 British teen comedy.

The story: awkward guy falls for total hottie who doesn't notice him and so he does lots and lots of outrageous stuff trying to win her love. In this case, he takes a job where she works (local movie theater) and then after several failed attempts starts using schemes from movies to win her over, including as a final scheme pretending he is in love with another girl and getting her help so that they can be together and she will get to know him and want to jump his bones. Along the way there's also stuff with the manager and others stealing and someone from corporate undercover at the theater trying to figure out who it is.

Was it good?

Kind of. Maybe it's because it's British so some of the humor didn't come across. There's a lot to like here (even though my synopsis doesn't really capture it). The idea of the hopeless geek using movie advice to win a girl while working in the movie theater is pretty good and the girl he falls for is interesting -- pretty but not the empty headed girl most of these movies are about where sure they look hot, but after five minutes of her yammering you don't care if he gets the girl, you just hope you get to watch him bone the girl.

The problem with the movie is that it is just all over the place. It isn't focused enough and there isn't any feeling of stakes. For instance, the guy gets a job at the movie theater but it turns out it's the hot girl's last day...except there isn't much made of the fact that this is his last chance. Then there's a party but why have it at all? Why not make him connect with her on that last day instead of having this extra chance for him? And then the love triangle -- when he is pursuing one girl while pretending to be in love with another -- is good, but more could have been done with it. In fact the concept that he is falling movie advice could have been used a lot stronger too. That really is the problem with the movie -- there is a lot of good stuff and the cast is pretty nice, but it just always feels like it's at half speed. Of course, then, because it isn't Hollywood it has to avoid the kind of happy ending you really want after following these characters, so even there it's a bit of a let down. Maybe they thought they were being clever, but I would have liked a more fulfilling ending instead.

Still...there's a lot to like here, especially if you go into it knowing it feels more like an indy comedy than a Hollywood comedy (although I would have liked the HW version more).

*** RECOMMEND ****