In 2009, as part of the After Dark Horror series, Zombies of Mass Destruction was released, directed by Kevin Hamedani, written by Kevin Hamedani and Ramon Isao, with no major stars. This movie is a steaming pile of epic proportions.
As the movie starts, I was intrigued by the music. It reminded me of a 60's/70's zombie movie, you know, where they take themselves seriously. But within the first few minutes I was disappointed, and I realized I was in for a long ride. My first problem is that the movie doesn't take itself seriously, which is typical for zombie movies today, but when dealing with heavy themes such as racism and racial profiling, one would hope they'd take at least that seriously. The idea for this movie came up after a discussion about how after 9/11 people of Middle Eastern descent were looked at differently. The idea of this movie is that the zombie disease is actually a weapon from a Muslim terrorist. Throw in some old fashioned rednecks and some religious nuts, and you've got this movie.
Not one moment of this movie can be taken seriously except for when the rednecks are blaming the one girl of Iranian descent of being a terrorist, and the religious nuts who are torturing the two gay guys for fear of turning into zombies. The fact that it selectively points out which groups it's going to be sympathetic to really bothers me. There is no real character development in a normal sense since all the people are caricatures and not real people. The gays, the American-Middle Easterners, and the liberals are the good; and the rednecks, the religious conservatives, and the in-between types are the bad. As much as I enjoy teaching rednecks and religious conservatives a lesson, at least if you're making a movie, try to mix it up a bit. This movie makes the race card a little too obvious. But then again, there's a message about racism in there, but without a serious movie backdrop, how can anyone take it seriously?
Many have compared this movie to Shaun of the Dead. There are similarities, for sure. But Shaun of the Dead is an all out comedy, and meant to be so. This movie isn't sure what it's supposed to be. Comparing it to Shaun of the Dead, in my opinion, is an assault on Shaun of the Dead. In this movie, the acting is poor, the special effects are marginal, and the blood factor is over the top. Is it really necessary to see a face ripped off? Does that really add to the movie? And once again, my least favorite act in a horror movie: why do people go into the dark scary place? They will just die. It's too obvious that you're just trying to get rid of the character. I find it much more interesting if the dumb are enlightened, then die in a noble manner - like trying to save the others. I like it to be a no way out kind of scenario. I don't like my movies predictable... which is all this was.
Survey says: skip this movie if you want to avoid a steaming pile of crap. If you want to torture yourself, then have at it. Seriously, with a tagline like "They're just like you ... only dead", how good could it be?
Here's a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUFjHjU0bK8
Sunday, April 11, 2010
RKO 281
In 1999, HBO aired RKO 281, directed by Benjamin Ross, written by John Logan, based on the documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane, and starring Liev Schreiber, James Cromwell, Melanie Griffith, John Malkovich, and Roy Scheider. This is a short made for HBO movie that will stand the test of time, just like Kane has.
HBO has really always made good original shows and movies. They are more known at this time for shows like Deadwood, Oz, Carnivale, and other gritty shows that are too hot for regular cable. Occasionally they are known for making movies that are great pieces of work. RKO 281 is one of these. It is the story of how Citizen Kane was created, from idea to filming to the controversy, as well as the backlash it created when released. It is also surprisingly accurate for what it shows. The acting is quite good. Schreiber as the pretentious Orson Welles is great. Just like the real Welles, we are left feeling betrayed by him: should we be grateful or angry at him? Should we like him or loathe him? He uses people to get what he wants, but in the end, he gets his movie made. But at what cost? Hearst (playing by Cromwell) offers one warning at the end: "My time on this earth is almost over. It's not my life you are sabotaging; it's yours." Doubtful that those words were actually said, much less that meeting in the elevator, but it is a nice end since Welles never was able to come close to topping his masterpiece.
The only bad thing I can say about this movie is that it is too short for what all really happened. There were court battles and there were lots of hostility and none of it was shown. However, this movie is very tightly written. There is nothing in it that doesn't add to the movie's story. There is either character development, plot development, or borderline documentary recreations of the making of Kane, which only reinforces either plot or character development.
I'm resisting going into detail about the plot because I have a future posting planned that will detail the making of Citizen Kane, which is just as amazing a story as the movie itself. The documentary (from which this movie was adapted from) is one of the best documentaries ever made. As I said earlier the performances are great: Schreiber as Welles and Cromwell as Hearst are unforgettable. But the one that always gets me is Malkovich as Herman Mankiewicz; what a great role and great performance. Griffith as Marion Davies was good as was Scheider as George Schaefer. The best moment for me that developed a character was Louis B. Mayer (as in Metro Goldwyn MAYER) at the beginning eating a sandwich and talking at the same time about having Welles literally fail at making a War of the Worlds movie, which will fail but earn them some more money, but kill Welles's career. That moment told me that Mayer was a fat cat, as were all the studio heads (which you get to see them all in one room at one point, including Disney, Selznick, Zanuck, etc.) who were only after making a quick buck then moving on.
My recommendation is to watch this movie. If you watch Kane first, then you will see details in a different way (such as the confrontation between a drunk Jedediah and Kane). If you watch this first, you will appreciate Kane a little more. It's definitely a love triangle: Citizen Kane, the documentary Battle Over Citizen Kane, and RKO 281. And in case you're wondering what the title of this movie means, RKO is the production company and it was production #281. This was industry code for Citizen Kane.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.reelzchannel.com/trailer-clips/25372/rko-281-trailer
HBO has really always made good original shows and movies. They are more known at this time for shows like Deadwood, Oz, Carnivale, and other gritty shows that are too hot for regular cable. Occasionally they are known for making movies that are great pieces of work. RKO 281 is one of these. It is the story of how Citizen Kane was created, from idea to filming to the controversy, as well as the backlash it created when released. It is also surprisingly accurate for what it shows. The acting is quite good. Schreiber as the pretentious Orson Welles is great. Just like the real Welles, we are left feeling betrayed by him: should we be grateful or angry at him? Should we like him or loathe him? He uses people to get what he wants, but in the end, he gets his movie made. But at what cost? Hearst (playing by Cromwell) offers one warning at the end: "My time on this earth is almost over. It's not my life you are sabotaging; it's yours." Doubtful that those words were actually said, much less that meeting in the elevator, but it is a nice end since Welles never was able to come close to topping his masterpiece.
The only bad thing I can say about this movie is that it is too short for what all really happened. There were court battles and there were lots of hostility and none of it was shown. However, this movie is very tightly written. There is nothing in it that doesn't add to the movie's story. There is either character development, plot development, or borderline documentary recreations of the making of Kane, which only reinforces either plot or character development.
I'm resisting going into detail about the plot because I have a future posting planned that will detail the making of Citizen Kane, which is just as amazing a story as the movie itself. The documentary (from which this movie was adapted from) is one of the best documentaries ever made. As I said earlier the performances are great: Schreiber as Welles and Cromwell as Hearst are unforgettable. But the one that always gets me is Malkovich as Herman Mankiewicz; what a great role and great performance. Griffith as Marion Davies was good as was Scheider as George Schaefer. The best moment for me that developed a character was Louis B. Mayer (as in Metro Goldwyn MAYER) at the beginning eating a sandwich and talking at the same time about having Welles literally fail at making a War of the Worlds movie, which will fail but earn them some more money, but kill Welles's career. That moment told me that Mayer was a fat cat, as were all the studio heads (which you get to see them all in one room at one point, including Disney, Selznick, Zanuck, etc.) who were only after making a quick buck then moving on.
My recommendation is to watch this movie. If you watch Kane first, then you will see details in a different way (such as the confrontation between a drunk Jedediah and Kane). If you watch this first, you will appreciate Kane a little more. It's definitely a love triangle: Citizen Kane, the documentary Battle Over Citizen Kane, and RKO 281. And in case you're wondering what the title of this movie means, RKO is the production company and it was production #281. This was industry code for Citizen Kane.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.reelzchannel.com/trailer-clips/25372/rko-281-trailer
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The Prime Gig
CAUTION!! SPOILERS ENCLOSED!!
In 2001, a movie called The Prime Gig was released, directed by Gregory Mosher, written by William Wheeler, and starring Vince Vaughn, Julia Ormond, Ed Harris, Rory Cochrane, and small roles for Wallace Shawn, Stephen Tobolowsky, George Wendt, and Amber Benson. This is a movie that some hate and some love. I love this movie!
This independent movie has received much criticism for trying to be a David Mamet type of movie. It is similar to Glengarry Glen Ross in that they are salesmen, and there is a con. But that’s about it. This is a story about a man (Penny, played by Vince Vaughn) who is letting his friend Joel (Rory Cochrane) stay with him. Penny’s job is in jeopardy, and finally implodes. He is recruited to sell gold investment tracts to people by Kelly Grant (Ed Harris) and his assistant Caitlyn (Julia Ormond). Penny isn’t stupid, so he requests his commissions to be cash. Caitlyn then gets a little too close to Penny and convinces him to be her lover, then convinces him to marry her so she can become a US citizen. It is obvious at some point that she feels guilt for what she’s about to do, but not to Penny. Then one day, Penny goes into work and the warehouse they have been calling from is empty, and Grant and Caitlyn are gone, and the commissions of the other callers never go through. Penny goes to check on his bank account where he’s been keeping his cash commissions, and “his wife” cleared it out. The movie ends without music, and a shocked Penny walks out of his apartment and down the street while the credits roll.
This movie I like for many reasons. It’s a simple story, but it’s done well. The dialogue is very good (when Penny hears Caitlyn’s British accent for the first time, he asks “Why do you sound like Monty Python all of a sudden?”) The acting is very good also. For some, the ending may be predictable when Penny requests his commissions in cash, but for most, we just wonder where the story is going. The other thing I like is the opposites of Penny and Joel. When Penny is doing well, Joel is in the gutter, but when Penny has been screwed out of his life savings, Joel wears a dress shirt and tie and is doing well for himself. The interaction between the triangle of Grant, Caitlyn, and Penny is very interesting. What I liked most about the movie is that it doesn’t end on a happy note. Although there are funny moments here and there, this is definitely not a comedy. This ends sadly, and is a sadder type of movie all the way through. Refreshing I think.
Overall, I have nothing negative to say about this movie. I’ve seen it several times, and I think it just keeps getting better. Each time I think that Penny will make it out all right, but it doesn’t happen. I feel bad for him and watching this movie is like watching a train about to wreck. But it’s so worth it.
Unfortunately, I can’t find any working links to the trailer.
In 2001, a movie called The Prime Gig was released, directed by Gregory Mosher, written by William Wheeler, and starring Vince Vaughn, Julia Ormond, Ed Harris, Rory Cochrane, and small roles for Wallace Shawn, Stephen Tobolowsky, George Wendt, and Amber Benson. This is a movie that some hate and some love. I love this movie!
This independent movie has received much criticism for trying to be a David Mamet type of movie. It is similar to Glengarry Glen Ross in that they are salesmen, and there is a con. But that’s about it. This is a story about a man (Penny, played by Vince Vaughn) who is letting his friend Joel (Rory Cochrane) stay with him. Penny’s job is in jeopardy, and finally implodes. He is recruited to sell gold investment tracts to people by Kelly Grant (Ed Harris) and his assistant Caitlyn (Julia Ormond). Penny isn’t stupid, so he requests his commissions to be cash. Caitlyn then gets a little too close to Penny and convinces him to be her lover, then convinces him to marry her so she can become a US citizen. It is obvious at some point that she feels guilt for what she’s about to do, but not to Penny. Then one day, Penny goes into work and the warehouse they have been calling from is empty, and Grant and Caitlyn are gone, and the commissions of the other callers never go through. Penny goes to check on his bank account where he’s been keeping his cash commissions, and “his wife” cleared it out. The movie ends without music, and a shocked Penny walks out of his apartment and down the street while the credits roll.
This movie I like for many reasons. It’s a simple story, but it’s done well. The dialogue is very good (when Penny hears Caitlyn’s British accent for the first time, he asks “Why do you sound like Monty Python all of a sudden?”) The acting is very good also. For some, the ending may be predictable when Penny requests his commissions in cash, but for most, we just wonder where the story is going. The other thing I like is the opposites of Penny and Joel. When Penny is doing well, Joel is in the gutter, but when Penny has been screwed out of his life savings, Joel wears a dress shirt and tie and is doing well for himself. The interaction between the triangle of Grant, Caitlyn, and Penny is very interesting. What I liked most about the movie is that it doesn’t end on a happy note. Although there are funny moments here and there, this is definitely not a comedy. This ends sadly, and is a sadder type of movie all the way through. Refreshing I think.
Overall, I have nothing negative to say about this movie. I’ve seen it several times, and I think it just keeps getting better. Each time I think that Penny will make it out all right, but it doesn’t happen. I feel bad for him and watching this movie is like watching a train about to wreck. But it’s so worth it.
Unfortunately, I can’t find any working links to the trailer.
Monday, April 5, 2010
The TV Set
In 2006, a movie called The TV Set was released, written and directed by Jake Kasdan, and starring David Duchovny and Sigourney Weaver. This is in my opinion, just a movie. Nothing more or less.
This movie is a comedy without much laughs. This movie is spoofed on a recent episode of Family Guy where Brian gets a pilot made, but gives in and they change it. This movie is the story of how TV shows are made, from the audition process to being picked up for primetime. The story follows Mike (David Duchovny) who writes a pilot, mostly from personal experience, about a man who comes home for the funeral of his brother who's committed suicide. Yet it's a comedy. The network execs, mostly Lenny (Sigourney Weaver), change his show from the beginning. They cast the wrong person for the lead role; they want to change the brother's suicide to the mother's death; they want to make it more slapstick; they want to change the title. None of the changes are good changes, and we see Mike's expressions along the way cluing us into that fact. However, at first, we don't understand what's the right choice, except by Mike's reactions. In the end, the network will only pick up the series if Mike goes with the stupid network version, and if they change the name. He goes along with it, and the network plan it to be a huge success of the lineup.
For a comedy, I could count the number of times I laughed on one hand, but to not leave any fingers out, I'd have to be missing some. The best line comes when they are discussing the brother's suicide, and Lenny says: "Ok, get ready for this... what if.. he's not." Other than that, it's not that funny of a movie, it's only creative for it's use of behind the scenes of TV networks, and it's very plain with ordinary dialogue with only brief moments of clever dialogue.
Overall, I'm glad that it's only 88 minutes long, because I don't think I could sit through anything longer like this. There are useless characters that aren't needed, and whole situations that aren't interesting, nor do they add to the story. The premise isn't a bad one, it just wasn't executed that well. The best part was the last shot: Mike staring, sullen, at the recognition that the bastardized version of his script was loved by the network.. everyone laughing and patting him on the back as he shows no emotion.
Basically, I'd say not to waste your time with this one.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://matttrailer.com/the_tv_set_2006
This movie is a comedy without much laughs. This movie is spoofed on a recent episode of Family Guy where Brian gets a pilot made, but gives in and they change it. This movie is the story of how TV shows are made, from the audition process to being picked up for primetime. The story follows Mike (David Duchovny) who writes a pilot, mostly from personal experience, about a man who comes home for the funeral of his brother who's committed suicide. Yet it's a comedy. The network execs, mostly Lenny (Sigourney Weaver), change his show from the beginning. They cast the wrong person for the lead role; they want to change the brother's suicide to the mother's death; they want to make it more slapstick; they want to change the title. None of the changes are good changes, and we see Mike's expressions along the way cluing us into that fact. However, at first, we don't understand what's the right choice, except by Mike's reactions. In the end, the network will only pick up the series if Mike goes with the stupid network version, and if they change the name. He goes along with it, and the network plan it to be a huge success of the lineup.
For a comedy, I could count the number of times I laughed on one hand, but to not leave any fingers out, I'd have to be missing some. The best line comes when they are discussing the brother's suicide, and Lenny says: "Ok, get ready for this... what if.. he's not." Other than that, it's not that funny of a movie, it's only creative for it's use of behind the scenes of TV networks, and it's very plain with ordinary dialogue with only brief moments of clever dialogue.
Overall, I'm glad that it's only 88 minutes long, because I don't think I could sit through anything longer like this. There are useless characters that aren't needed, and whole situations that aren't interesting, nor do they add to the story. The premise isn't a bad one, it just wasn't executed that well. The best part was the last shot: Mike staring, sullen, at the recognition that the bastardized version of his script was loved by the network.. everyone laughing and patting him on the back as he shows no emotion.
Basically, I'd say not to waste your time with this one.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://matttrailer.com/the_tv_set_2006
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Primer
In 2004, a movie called Primer was released, written and directed by Shane Carruth, and no notable stars (except for one of the lead characters being Shane). This is an absolutely fascinating movie that you must see if you are in the mood to escape and think a little. This is not a simple movie to watch, yet it's very short - 77 minutes. I think this is a truly amazing movie.
The movie deals with the issue of time travel, but in the glorified sense that Back to the Future does. This deals with the nitty gritty of traveling backwards in time less than a day. It starts out with four friends who are working on projects in a garage in their free time. Two of the friends (Aaron and Abe)discover a way to interrupt the flow of time inside their machine, and even cause the contents to go backwards. It starts out simple enough: they have their vehicle outside, they set the machine at the point where they want to arrive, then they go about their day, at first, holed up in a hotel room avoiding the world but soon checking out which stocks had grown. At some point in the day, they would go back to the machine and enter it, and after about six hours in the machine, they were back at 8:30 am. Having the knowledge of that day, they would buy stocks, bet on sports games, and in some fashion profit off the knowledge.
Where this movie will lose people is that at some point, we learn that they have been experimenting with the machine individually, without the other's knowledge. Because of this, there are unforeseen consequences. At the end, you finally realize that you've been not seeing a straightforward plot, but you've actually seen doubles and triples of each of the characters. Aaron's character in particular becomes an unstoppable monster, going back in time and hiding his past counterpart in closets and attics, causing there to be multiple Aarons at the same time. The moment of truth in the movie is when Abe realizes the full of what Aaron has been doing and he finally separates himself. This is important because you can count on one hand the number of times you see Aaron or Abe in a scene by himself.
All in all, I think it's a fantastic movie that should be seen. It is hard to understand the first time, and maybe the second and third, but it's a wonderful film. The only real bad thing is the acting. It isn't exactly great, but it gives the movie more of an independent feel (and since it is an indie, it fits) and it gives realness to the characters. This isn't exactly a movie that fits in one genre. One can call it scifi if they want, or they can call it mystery, but either way, it's very good.
Here is a link to the trailer (which does the movie no justice):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CC60HJvZRE&feature=related
The movie deals with the issue of time travel, but in the glorified sense that Back to the Future does. This deals with the nitty gritty of traveling backwards in time less than a day. It starts out with four friends who are working on projects in a garage in their free time. Two of the friends (Aaron and Abe)discover a way to interrupt the flow of time inside their machine, and even cause the contents to go backwards. It starts out simple enough: they have their vehicle outside, they set the machine at the point where they want to arrive, then they go about their day, at first, holed up in a hotel room avoiding the world but soon checking out which stocks had grown. At some point in the day, they would go back to the machine and enter it, and after about six hours in the machine, they were back at 8:30 am. Having the knowledge of that day, they would buy stocks, bet on sports games, and in some fashion profit off the knowledge.
Where this movie will lose people is that at some point, we learn that they have been experimenting with the machine individually, without the other's knowledge. Because of this, there are unforeseen consequences. At the end, you finally realize that you've been not seeing a straightforward plot, but you've actually seen doubles and triples of each of the characters. Aaron's character in particular becomes an unstoppable monster, going back in time and hiding his past counterpart in closets and attics, causing there to be multiple Aarons at the same time. The moment of truth in the movie is when Abe realizes the full of what Aaron has been doing and he finally separates himself. This is important because you can count on one hand the number of times you see Aaron or Abe in a scene by himself.
All in all, I think it's a fantastic movie that should be seen. It is hard to understand the first time, and maybe the second and third, but it's a wonderful film. The only real bad thing is the acting. It isn't exactly great, but it gives the movie more of an independent feel (and since it is an indie, it fits) and it gives realness to the characters. This isn't exactly a movie that fits in one genre. One can call it scifi if they want, or they can call it mystery, but either way, it's very good.
Here is a link to the trailer (which does the movie no justice):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CC60HJvZRE&feature=related
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Chain Reaction
In 1996, a movie called Chain Reaction was released, directed by Andrew Davis, written by at least 5 people, principle stars are Keanu Reeves, Rachel Weisz, Morgan Freeman, Fred Ward, Brian Cox, and some minor characters that would be recognized. This is a movie that for a long time was a feel good movie for me, but having revisited it, I still like it.I'm not a big fan of action movies, mostly because of the cliches. There's always going to be explosions, chase scenes, murder, low character development, and a kiss at the end. Well, Chain Reaction is an action movie that has some of these cliches, but not all. There are two big explosions (one that takes up half of Chicago) and the whole movie is a chase. There is murder, there is low character development, but there is no kiss at the end. For once, something is broken!
This movie is the story of a group of scientists and students who are creating a cheap clean energy fuel source from hydrogen. They get it to work, and the party begins, but danger is soon afoot when Keanu's character Eddie returns to the site to get his motorcycle. He discovers someone has killed his mentor and set the hydrogen furnace to meltdown. He escapes just in time for it to blow up half of Chicago. What follows is a non-stop chase from Chicago to rural Wisconsin, to Washington DC, to rural Virginia. Rachel Weisz plays as Keanu's associate on the project; Fred Ward plays as the FBI agent tracking Keanu; Brian Cox plays as the leader of C Systems and the head antagonist of the movie; and then there's Morgan Freeman, who is part of the research team, but he's also with C Systems, and he's kind of good, and kind of bad. The main idea behind this story is ecology. In trying to find a cheap source of renewable energy, the research team is trying to help the world become cleaner. Of course, capitalism won't let something go free, so a corporation tries to suppress the technology by killing off it's members and abducting the rest to show them how it works. The idea was that since America is so dependent on fossil fuels, such a technology would put a lot of people out of business and create a national recession. They would instead introduce the technology slowly, and get rich off it.
I find this movie very interesting for it's message hidden in an action movie. There is a lot more to this movie than just a silly action flick. I believe that if this movie was released today, it would have been more popular than it was in the mid-90's. In fact, this movie bombed upon release. I think it's not a bad flick that's worth checking out. The dialogue alone I think it worth checking out, especially Morgan Freeman's. In fact, the best thing about this movie is Morgan Freeman. I think this movie was a little ahead of it's time for its message not only about ecology, but about the suppression of free energy and hidden government installations that even the lawmakers don't know about. It all adds up to a rather good action movie with an actual meaning.
Of course, it's not all good. The character development is very poor, but that's what action is about. And there are murders, yes, but no more than necessary. There are explosions, but hardly any. And best of all, there is no kiss at the end. Sometimes with action movies, there is this kiss at the end, which is the cliche of cliches. After such a crazy adventure, they have to end it on a kiss, which presumably starts a post-movie romance. But notice in the sequels, the woman is rarely still around. Well, this movie had no sequels, but at the end, there was no kiss, and in my opinion, logically, there couldn't have been one. They were friends, and just associates, so there was no romance there; just a friendship. A kiss at the end would have made this whole movie for me seem unbelievable.
Overall, I recommend this movie. An action movie, but an action movie that's believable (take note Michael Bay!) One thing to check out is the music score by Jerry Goldsmith; at times, it's reminiscent of Thunderball (James Bond movie from 1965). This is a movie with a message, and a movie that one can sit back and be entertained by. A hidden movie from the mid-90's.
(One last note: it's been said that Keanu Reeves elected not to make Speed 2: Cruise Control, and instead chose to make Chain Reaction. It's also been said that he chose not to make Speed 2 because of his band. Either way, I think it was a good choice not to make Speed 2.. cliche heaven!)
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abl-kJfDI58
This movie is the story of a group of scientists and students who are creating a cheap clean energy fuel source from hydrogen. They get it to work, and the party begins, but danger is soon afoot when Keanu's character Eddie returns to the site to get his motorcycle. He discovers someone has killed his mentor and set the hydrogen furnace to meltdown. He escapes just in time for it to blow up half of Chicago. What follows is a non-stop chase from Chicago to rural Wisconsin, to Washington DC, to rural Virginia. Rachel Weisz plays as Keanu's associate on the project; Fred Ward plays as the FBI agent tracking Keanu; Brian Cox plays as the leader of C Systems and the head antagonist of the movie; and then there's Morgan Freeman, who is part of the research team, but he's also with C Systems, and he's kind of good, and kind of bad. The main idea behind this story is ecology. In trying to find a cheap source of renewable energy, the research team is trying to help the world become cleaner. Of course, capitalism won't let something go free, so a corporation tries to suppress the technology by killing off it's members and abducting the rest to show them how it works. The idea was that since America is so dependent on fossil fuels, such a technology would put a lot of people out of business and create a national recession. They would instead introduce the technology slowly, and get rich off it.
I find this movie very interesting for it's message hidden in an action movie. There is a lot more to this movie than just a silly action flick. I believe that if this movie was released today, it would have been more popular than it was in the mid-90's. In fact, this movie bombed upon release. I think it's not a bad flick that's worth checking out. The dialogue alone I think it worth checking out, especially Morgan Freeman's. In fact, the best thing about this movie is Morgan Freeman. I think this movie was a little ahead of it's time for its message not only about ecology, but about the suppression of free energy and hidden government installations that even the lawmakers don't know about. It all adds up to a rather good action movie with an actual meaning.
Of course, it's not all good. The character development is very poor, but that's what action is about. And there are murders, yes, but no more than necessary. There are explosions, but hardly any. And best of all, there is no kiss at the end. Sometimes with action movies, there is this kiss at the end, which is the cliche of cliches. After such a crazy adventure, they have to end it on a kiss, which presumably starts a post-movie romance. But notice in the sequels, the woman is rarely still around. Well, this movie had no sequels, but at the end, there was no kiss, and in my opinion, logically, there couldn't have been one. They were friends, and just associates, so there was no romance there; just a friendship. A kiss at the end would have made this whole movie for me seem unbelievable.
Overall, I recommend this movie. An action movie, but an action movie that's believable (take note Michael Bay!) One thing to check out is the music score by Jerry Goldsmith; at times, it's reminiscent of Thunderball (James Bond movie from 1965). This is a movie with a message, and a movie that one can sit back and be entertained by. A hidden movie from the mid-90's.
(One last note: it's been said that Keanu Reeves elected not to make Speed 2: Cruise Control, and instead chose to make Chain Reaction. It's also been said that he chose not to make Speed 2 because of his band. Either way, I think it was a good choice not to make Speed 2.. cliche heaven!)
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abl-kJfDI58
Sunday, March 21, 2010
11:14
In 2003, a movie simply called 11:14 was released, written and directed by Greg Marcks. Most notable stars are Hilary Swank and Patrick Swayze. This is a wannabe interesting film, but it only has one exception to all others like it, and I'm not saying that it's an improvement.
In the last twenty years, a small niche of films have decided to take the rigid structure of a typical movie and turn it on its head. These movies take several story lines that seem to have nothing in common and connect them by the slimmest of margins to complete the film. The most popular of these include Magnolia and Crash. 11:14 is the same style of movie. Everybody in the movie is connected, even if some of the main characters never see most of the others. This particular type of movie can be very effective in some cases, but at its worst can just be repetitive. I for one love noir movies if they are done well, and this is a type of style that has a small following tracing it too. Noir lasted just shy of twenty years before it became completely cliche and out of vogue with audiences. This style, I believe, is already out of vogue, even though very few have been made.
There is no reason for me to try to explain the plot. I'd just end up retelling the movie. Instead, all I'll say is like all other movies of this type, there involves dead bodies (usually the same one or two that keep popping up, which makes it seem like more), all the events happen around 11:14 pm, and there are moments that make the viewer go "Oh!! I've seen that before! I think I know what's about to happen!" And I find that sad. Once you get into the rhythm of the movie, then it starts to get predictable. Another element which could be positive or negative is the dark humor. I love dark humor as much as the next person (well, maybe more), but I find the dark humor in this movie forced and not natural. It seems to me that this movie isn't sure if it's trying to be a serious movie with all the coincidental factors coming into play or if it's trying to be a satire of that type of movie style.
On the whole, I wasn't a big fan of this one, even though I was really excited about it. I just couldn't like it as much as I wanted to. But that's just me. Unlike Magnolia, or even Memento, this movie doesn't mess with your mind. It's rather straight-forward. In fact, just when I thought "I wonder what happened to the guy from the beginning?".... he showed back up, which neatly wraps it all together with a little bow on it. It may be worth a viewing, but I don't recommend putting too much effort in finding it.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-g6uIyFvow
In the last twenty years, a small niche of films have decided to take the rigid structure of a typical movie and turn it on its head. These movies take several story lines that seem to have nothing in common and connect them by the slimmest of margins to complete the film. The most popular of these include Magnolia and Crash. 11:14 is the same style of movie. Everybody in the movie is connected, even if some of the main characters never see most of the others. This particular type of movie can be very effective in some cases, but at its worst can just be repetitive. I for one love noir movies if they are done well, and this is a type of style that has a small following tracing it too. Noir lasted just shy of twenty years before it became completely cliche and out of vogue with audiences. This style, I believe, is already out of vogue, even though very few have been made.
There is no reason for me to try to explain the plot. I'd just end up retelling the movie. Instead, all I'll say is like all other movies of this type, there involves dead bodies (usually the same one or two that keep popping up, which makes it seem like more), all the events happen around 11:14 pm, and there are moments that make the viewer go "Oh!! I've seen that before! I think I know what's about to happen!" And I find that sad. Once you get into the rhythm of the movie, then it starts to get predictable. Another element which could be positive or negative is the dark humor. I love dark humor as much as the next person (well, maybe more), but I find the dark humor in this movie forced and not natural. It seems to me that this movie isn't sure if it's trying to be a serious movie with all the coincidental factors coming into play or if it's trying to be a satire of that type of movie style.
On the whole, I wasn't a big fan of this one, even though I was really excited about it. I just couldn't like it as much as I wanted to. But that's just me. Unlike Magnolia, or even Memento, this movie doesn't mess with your mind. It's rather straight-forward. In fact, just when I thought "I wonder what happened to the guy from the beginning?".... he showed back up, which neatly wraps it all together with a little bow on it. It may be worth a viewing, but I don't recommend putting too much effort in finding it.
Here is a link to the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-g6uIyFvow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)