Change Your Image
dylan-cross
Reviews
Cypher (2002)
Definitely a brilliant tale of classic "spy vs. spy"
"Cypher" is a cleverly conceived story about industrial espionage set in America in the not too distant future. While thematically not complex, this film does offer many different perspectives about personal loyalty, ruthlessness, and corporate conspiracy. To a certain extent this film also attempts to represent modern corporate groups and companies as being indifferent to the risks their contract employees take on their behalf.
The film starts off with a somewhat mediocre salary man, Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam), who applies to the Digicorp group to work as an undercover operative. After an initial briefing with Digicorp's Security Chief, Sullivan is then given a new identity (Jack Thursby) and sent to a business conference with the task of recording the speeches given by various spokesmen concerning the marketing strategies of each of their respective companies. Upon successfully completing his first assignment, Sullivan/Thursby is sent on further missions to obtain the same type of information previously gathered. However, on one of his "business trips" he inadvertently runs into a woman named Rita Foster, (Liu) whom he had met on his previous assignment, and from there things go extremely topsy-turvy. The implications of a diabolical conspiracy involving Digicorp's espionage program begin to emerge and Sullivan is forced to go deep cover at one of Digicorp's main competitors, thus becoming a double agent involved in an intense rivalry between the two companies.
((SPOILERS END HERE))
What I liked most about this film was the efficient use of lighting and shadows in a lot of the scenes. Vivid lighting was used in mainly domestic/household settings, while a lot of shadows and dark coloring were used for settings involving deception and cover-up. I was also very impressed with Jeremy Northam. Not too often have I seen him in the lead role, and the fact that he plays a disenchanted married man straight out of Wisconsin was brilliant. Personally, I think he's one of the many under used actors in the industry who hasn't been given more challenging roles. Lucy Liu was also incredible in her part and gave the movie its real cloak-and-dagger tone. Additionally, the rest of the supporting cast did a superb job, however, my only complaint was that some characters could have been explored more to make the plot and closure a little more complicated. For example, I would have loved to see what would have happened if Jack Thursby had developed a more intimate relationship with his second "wife." Overall, this is a cleverly developed cloak-and-dagger story that keeps you guessing to the very end about personal and professional loyalties and whether anyone in the entire film can be trusted. With a smart and stylish soundtrack and great camera work, this film provides a scary look at how corporations might operate in the near future. I'm surprised that I had never watched this "hidden gem" before. This is a brilliant, not-too-overly complicated spy thriller, and therefore I'm giving it a 9 out of 10.
Lucky Number Slevin (2006)
Great crime drama.
What made this a pretty dynamic movie was the quality of acting delivered by Freeman, Hartner, Kingsley, Willis, and Liu; along with a good supporting cast, the actors played their parts well and with the right amount of realism without overdoing things. As far as the story itself is concerned, I was quite impressed by the central plot as it was allowed the chance to blossom into an elaborate network involving murder, manipulation, obsession, and redemption. Without giving away much of the story, this is a movie mainly about revenge, although you don't see that right away until the end.
I'd have to say that my favorite character in the movie was Lindsay (Liu). Amongst all of the violence and seedy corruption, Lindsay was a character that gave different insights into the story itself. To a small but significant extent, Lindsay plays a special role in Slevin's salvation and redemption despite the fact that he's quite possibly an individual with psychopathic tendencies.
Willis does a great job portraying Mr. Goodcat and we see that in addition to being very intelligent and manipulative he has a few redeeming qualities that play significantly within the story.
Although this movie is mainly about good old fashioned revenge, it does a great job exploring the boundaries of its characters and how each character plays significantly in the lives of the other people involved. Clearly this is a character driven movie with great and humorous dialog. I was definitely impressed.
Æon Flux (2005)
Fine-tuned story of battling ideologies...
Being a fan of the original animated series, I was actually quite impressed with the movie rendition of Aeon Flux. More times than not, Hollywood does a pretty thorough job of botching up crafty animated shows by transforming them into commercial garbage and leaving die hard fans utterly disappointed. Fortunately, this is not the case with Aeon Flux.
There are a lot of things going for this movie. It's stylish, sexy, and intriguing just to name a few qualities. As a fan of the series, I really appreciated the subtle references to some of the original TV episodes. Although the movie took the story in new directions, it also inadvertently (depending upon perspective) explains a lot of the inconsistencies observed in the original episodes. I read somewhere that the original stories never followed any linear structure, and the episodes were in no way related to one another; sort of Peter Chungs way of poking fun at contemporary TV drama in the 90s. It was sort of interesting seeing the movie's perspective on this when most of the Breen citizens, Aeon in particular, begin remembering their past lives.
This is a pretty awesome Sci Fi thriller, and thus I gave it an 8 of 10.
Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)
A very careful look at paranoia and American censorship.
After so many years of watching David Strathairn perform in many supporting roles, it was very satisfying to see him play the lead part of Edward Murrows, a 1950's news commentator who eventually went to take on Senator Joe McCarthy and early American censorship. Personally, I thought the film was very brilliant and a nice portrayal of an America caught on the skids of post-war paranoia. What makes this movie so pivotal is the fact that it presents two key arguments to the viewer: the responsibility of journalists to report on major, meaningful issues and the relationship between the bureaucracy and the media when those issues are brought forth. The movie also serves as a haunting allegory of today's America and the state of paranoia its citizens still find themselves contending with.
The story initially takes off in 1958 when Murrow delivers a speech before an audience of prominent journalists as to the responsibility of the media with regard to investigating and presenting credible stories to the American people. After the opening of the speech, the film jumps back to 1953 and into the days Murrow had while working as a commentator for CBS. Already a prominent figure on American TV sets, Murrow and his producers agree to air one of their first controversial pieces: the story of an Airforce lieutenant forced to resign because of his father's alleged ties to Serbia. While not a direct attack on McCarthy, the piece does place scrutiny upon the US government and its methods. It also poses the question of how well a citizen's rights are protected when certain expressions are deemed unpopular or sensitive. Can a person become a security threat solely because of what they read? Does the government protect our civil liberties only when it serves as a convenience? From this point the film explores the inner workings of the Red Scare and goes to show how vulnerable the media was during that period. Strathairn excels in portraying Murrow as the stern, articulate, and no-nonsense journalist that he was at the time. It also delves into the internal structure of America's bureaucracy and shows how easily the media can be manipulated.
Aside from the arguments put forth in the film, its structure was put together very well. Also of note was the great supporting cast and Clooney's directing talents. One of the best philosophical movies that I've seen in a while. 9/10
Lantana (2001)
A good Australian drama with a bit of mystery.
"Lantana" is a laid-back, relaxing movie featuring an international cast in the lead parts. Leon Zats (LaPaglia) is a homicide detective whose on the brink of losing his marriage and family due to the pressures of police work and his extramarital affair. To make things worse, his mistress also attends the same Salsa class that he and his wife attend.
"Lantana" is a pretty good example of filming given the fact that it is a drama and not a mystery. Incidentally, the biggest mystery of the story is trying to figure out how these middle-aged people lost the passion in their marriages, and secondly, how do they gain their spouses love once more. The flow of the story, motion, and dialog were very fitting, and thus this provided the support for a great drama.
The only bad thing about this film was some of the camera work. The angles and shots were pretty good, however everything seemed "too bright." Also, the story did take some time to develop. Nonetheless, "Lantana" is a good drama with highly developed characters and multiple themes that arise constantly. 7 out of 10.
Crash (2004)
An intense collage of stories set in Los Angeles suburbia.
For the past five years or so, Hollywood has been producing quite a few movies that deal with "character clashes", usually within the backdrop of a large city. In these types of films characters from a variety of backgrounds "clash" together during key points in the film as the result of sporadic, short term conflicts. "Crash" presents a diverse set of characters ranging from street detectives to doctors in a pivotal film that gives us a glimpse of racial tensions and their complexities. The biggest aspect I loved about this movie is that it presented the biases and stereotypes harbored by everyone in Los Angeles without attempting to get at a moral solution to the problem. I think the story specifically attempted to show what people do in unpredictable situations and how they deal with those situations accordingly. By watching this film, the viewer is not subjected to a detailed morality lesson, but instead gets the perspective of all of the characters and how those perspectives conflict with other people in the story.
Among the backdrop of racial tensions, we're also presented with other problems the characters face, and within that context, we seem to understand their motivations a lot better. Some of the main problems presented in the film are of a housewife unhappy with her marriage and herself, a detective that has no idea how to console his mother, and an Iranian family living in the shadow of fear and paranoia.
I'm really glad I got a chance to finally see this because the characters are very impressive in their performances. Also, we see a lot of unexpected twists of fate that turn up at the most inopportune times, thus further fueling the film's effect on the audience. Unfortunately, at the end there were a few obligatory "tear jerker" scenes in the story which I thought were unnecessary and this ultimately identified the film as resembling other Hollywood spawns. However, my final vote is that this movie was gripping, visually impressive, and an awesome work. 8 of 10.
People I Know (2002)
A hundred minutes of useless film.
The only good thing about "People I Know" is that it serves as a perfect example of movies that Al Pacino should avoid performing in. The first big turn-off I had was the way in which Pacino tried to portray a Georgia accent; at times it was weak and unattractive while in other segments it seemed too overdone. Dialogue and character interaction was terrible along with a weak plot. The supporting cast did an extremely perfunctory job in keeping the movie interesting, and within an hour I still saw no signs of a sturdy plot. The story overall is a real bore, and I had to slap myself in the face a few times to keep myself awake.
This movie will surely bore you as well...avoid at all costs.
The Skeleton Key (2005)
Just remember, hoodoo ain't voodoo.
I really enjoyed Kate Hudson's performance as Caroline in THE SKELETON KEY along with the rest of the supporting cast, a remarkable job. Although there have been many films that have explored hoodoo and other forms of black magic, THE SKELETON KEY has a few nice spots in it that are reminiscent of other popular flicks like ANGEL HEART and THE SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW.
Good things: Great acting throughout the movie was what got this story going. The camera shots used throughout the French Quarter and the bayou captured a lot of gritty scenery and produced eerie images that added to the overall fear factor of the movie.
Bad things: Although the plot was executed well, there were a few situations that ended up being quite predictable. Especially with reference to who the sacrificial lamb really was towards the end. Most viewers can probably figure that out within the first 45 minutes.
7 out of 10!
The Untold (2002)
Another reason I hate Bigfoot movies.
Developing movies that are based on actual events involving cryptozoology or the supernatural has always been a challenge for directors and screenwriters. You have to mainly reconcile reported testimonies, conflicting info sources, and Hollywood creativity to produce something the audience can get into. Unfortunately, for SASQUATCH, none of these things seem to take place.
The movie starts out in typical film noir when a research team crash lands somewhere in the Cascades via airplane. From there the research team disappears, and despite attempts from law enforcement officials and local rescue parties they remain missing for some time. While one of the passengers is walking, infra-red-like images are splashed on the screen (a la Predator) which subtly hint that the legendary Sasquatch is the cause of the passengers' fates.
Cue Harlan Knowles (Henriksen), CEO of BioComp Industries and father of one of the crash victims. Knowles puts together his own search & rescue team with the explicit mission of finding his daughter and the rest of the research crew, along with the invaluable technology lost during the crash.
After Knowles' tailor-made rescue team is put together, the entire movie traverses down the path of uncolorful characters, dizzying cinematography, and a totally unoriginal plot line. I literally had to keep myself from falling asleep during this movie as it attempted to frighten me out of my wits. The only member of the cast that held his own was Henriksen, which doesn't make up for the lack of depth presented in all of the other characters. The over-done sound effects were annoying as well; basically, I didn't know if I was watching a movie about Bigfoot or grizzly bears.
Neither was the plot line all that great. It was too underdeveloped as the viewer is mainly subjected to typical fright music found in anything similar of the genre. Obviously you didn't have to be a genius to figure out who would be pulling off all their clothes by the middle of the movie, or who'd be the first unlucky soul to get mauled by Mr. Sasquatch. As far as good points, there are none, and therefore I gave this movie a 2 out of 10.
Gosford Park (2001)
A cinematic portrait of post WWI British aristocracy.
GOSFORD PARK is definitely not a standard "whodunnit" movie with winding plot twists and suspenseful sequences that keep the viewer on the edge of the sofa from beginning to end. Instead, it's a brilliantly produced film that gives a fluid portrayal of British aristocracy circa the 1930s. Viewers expecting a story with a Doyle or Agatha Christie twist could be disappointed from watching this film due to the movie being a complex drama versus a mystery. However, there are two good things about this movie that really captured my attention: 1)the pompous-like British aristocrats and 2) the servants that attend them.
The film itself gives a generally realistic look at upper-class British life through the guise of Lord William and his guests. Secluded from society in a countryside manor, we see the goals and motivations that drive the characters. I guess what really impressed me about this group of characters was the contempt that I felt for most of them. Apart from a few of the guests, the majority portrayed in the film were conceited, vain, and just utterly selfish. I simply loathed most of the assemblage, and I think this is why I particularly admired the quality of the film. Simply, this is a film depicting the lives of these individuals and their interwoven relationships.
While displaying a collection of pompous aristocrats, the film does a great job juxtaposing that same group with the servants of the manor. I particularly enjoyed the attention to detail that was used in filming the actors that performed as butlers, valets, cooks, maids, and chauffeurs. Through their eyes we see the challenges they faced, both professionally and personally. One crucial scene that I thought was powerful, although brief, was Elsie's flagrant outburst against Lord William's wife in the middle of a dinner party. The timing of that particular dialog was exact, tense, and well placed. Kudos to the director.
There are probably five or six other reasons that I could use in convincing anyone to go see this film. The only negative thing I'd have to say about the story overall is that most of the plot dragged in certain places and was a bit slow-paced. I'd have to give it a 7 out of ten for that, but overall a good film to watch.
The Ring Two (2005)
Add this suspense bunny to the Sequel Graveyard
Even though this movie can actually survive on its own as a stand alone horror film, I got nit-picky and gave it a 4 out of 10 due to it being an extremely terrible sequel. I think a big factor in this sequel not being as successful as The Ring is due mainly to the fact that Gore Verbinski was not on the team this time as director. Instead, direction duties were handed over to Hideo Nakata, and ironically this same individual was the director of the original Ringu.
The overwhelming sense of awe and eeriness that was inspired in the prequel was somehow nonexistent in the sequel. The opening kill scene was anything but scary and definitely needed vigorous improvement. Although the two central characters provided good performances on their parts, the rest of the film was devoid of a good supporting cast. Apart from a rather boisterous deer scene, the rest of the story seemed to be going everywhere and nowhere at the same time. On a further note, I do appreciate an attempt by the script writers at trying to develop a cryptic origin for Samara which may be enough to bring about a third film in the not too distant future.
Instead of providing suspenseful imagery and subliminal splices of madness, this sequel presented itself as just another scare-flick to frighten the kids. Die-hard fans of the first movie will be sorely disappointed upon seeing this sequel.
The Jacket (2005)
A suspenseful tale reminiscent of Hitchcock and so much more.
As soon as I read the brief synopsis on the back of the DVD sleeve, I knew this was a film worth watching.
From the get go, we see life through the eyes of Jack Starks (Adrien Brody), a Gulf War vet stricken with amnesia after being wounded in the Middle East. Starks is sent back to the US where he undergoes minimal medical treatment and is sent off into the sunset with an honorable discharge from the military. After arriving in Vermont, Jack experiences a series of events that later land him in jail for the murder of a highway patrolman. Convinced that Starks suffers from post Gulf War syndrome and amnesia spells, the court rules him to be criminally insane and thus sentences him to a state mental hospital.
The dark and cynical fun really begins when Jack undergoes a series of illegal treatments administered by a seemingly unmerciful yet sanctimonious Dr. Becker. During these treatments, Jack finds a way to master a form of time travel in which he can go both backwards and forwards in time. The eerily beautiful quality of this film is that the "how" and "why" of Jack's time traveling abilities is not addressed, however, it is the choices that he is forced to make while grappling with this unfortunate gift that lie at the main focus. Another good thing to be appreciated is the great way in which all of the characters were interwoven to support a complex and intricate plot.
The simplistic yet tragic portrayal of Starks by Brody lends much to the story. This movie is definitely worth the time and money.
War Stories (2003)
A film meant to depict the troubles and challenges faced by war correspondents.
Although this film was designed with the good intention of presenting the challenges faced by war correspondents in the Middle East, its overall delivery needs great improvement. I should have known what I was getting into when I rented the DVD being that this movie was produced by NBC as a "made for TV film." The first thing that I hated about this film was the opening montage and credits. Although the war photos were gritty and realistic, the quasi "made for TV" rock music that followed killed the entire mood of the movie. It got me to thinking whether or not I was watching a journalistic war movie or a failed TV program from the nineties. After the opening montage, the story takes off at a fairly nice pace when journalist Ben Dansmore (Jeff Goldblum) meets Nora, a green and inexperienced war photographer. The actual relationship between these two characters seemed to be presented very well, however, these are the only two folks in the movie that seem to have any depth and range. All the other characters seem to be missing that essential spark needed to make a movie worth viewing.
Throughout the story, Ben and Nora delve lightly into the world of counter-terrorism politics and espionage as they try to determine whether or not the US Airforce intentionally bombed an Uzbekistani refuge camp controlled by Muslim rebel forces. In typical spy movie fashion, the two learn of plots being conspired by US Forces along with the US backed Uzbek government. Although a good attempt was made to depict corrupt alliances, the plots and other subsequent story elements were poorly portrayed and almost unoriginal. Put that together with a processed, contrived soundtrack and you have yourself one "made for TV movie" not worth watching.