Henry Saw: Devil

And wishes he hadn't...



A brief note on one of the most forgettable films I've seen in quite awhile. Contrary to what you might have heard "Devil" is not a "pleasant" surprise, and fails to make good on a relatively fun concept. "Devil" is not remarkably bad...that would at least make it memorable...and instead just sort of happens. When you leave the theater you are unimpressed, shrug your shoulders, and forget any details of the movie by the time you hit the sidewalk. This is the epitome of a movie you can just go ahead and skip.

The premise of "Devil" is that 5 total strangers are stuck in an elevator together after it breaks down in a major office building. Being watched via monitor by two security guards, who are later joined by two cops, the group in the elevator soon realizes that there is something far more serious going on than a faulty switch. Soon, the five people in the elevator start dying one-by-one (Agatha Christie style) in more and more disturbing ways. Is there a killer among them...or something worse?

Here's a clue: the name of the movie is "Devil". "Devil" is the first of "The Night Chronicles", a series of films that will be "from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan", but directed by up and coming directors. John Erick Dowdle directs this one and he brings very little to the proceedings. He fails to make the elevator feel claustrophobic or menacing, ignores the need to flesh out the characters so that we care about them when they die, and doesn't even try to create a sense of atmosphere or dread. It's a miserably directed film.



The acting, from a bunch of "that guys" is passable. No one is bad, or irritating, but they all fail to make an impression. I can't even credit the film for being short, as it's kind of boring, thus negating that usually welcome attribute.

Again, it's not awful. It does keep you guessing - I had no idea how it was going to end - even if the movie kind of cheats with its reveal. There are one or two nice visuals, including a fantastic opening credits sequence that simply shows the skyline of Philadelphia flipped upside down (kind of like Inception) that is very unsettling.

But skip it. Could it pass as a barely entertaining airplane film? I guess. But it's really quite bad. So congrats M. Night...you are responsible for TWO (Devil and The Last Airbender) of the worst movies of the year! This movie could have used a lot more wacky Al Pacino as the Devil



At least that was awful in a fun way. "Devil" is just awful.

Grade: D+

Best Scene: The Opening Credits...

Henry Saw: Never Let Me Go

A flat and uninspired film...but it does have some solid performances



A quick review of an utterly forgettable but elegantly made movie.

Never Let Me Go, directed by Mark Romanek and based on the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, is not a warm picture. Despite having a love story at its center, and a emotionally wrenching plot, the audience is not allowed to connect with the three main characters. Instead, we study them and try to understand them, but we never really feel for them. Despite the best efforts of the talented cast, and a script that wants our hearts to ache, I left the film thinking, "Well...that just happened."

From Fox Seachlight: As children, Ruth, Kathy and Tommy, spend their childhood at a seemingly idyllic English boarding school. As they grow into young adults, they find that they have to come to terms with the strength of the love they feel for each other, while preparing themselves for the haunting reality that awaits them...



Never Let Me Go is anchored by Carey Mulligan and her character Kathy. She is our narrator, our point of view, and the most sympathetic character in the story. She also is the best actor in the film. Mulligan, who I was so impressed with in An Education, proves that she's not a one-hit wonder. All that works about Never Let Me Go is tied into her performance, her arc, and her ability to get across the tragedy of Kathy's life.

Kiera Knightly and Andrew Garfield are less convincing. Kiera Knightly, who plays the beautiful and conniving Ruth, never sells the character. You can always tell that Knightly is playing at something and not fully inhabiting someone. Unlike her strong work in The Duchess or Pride and Prejudice Knightly's acting style is very obvious in this film and she consistently takes us out of the movie. Andrew Garfield is solid as Tommy, I now understand why Sony wanted him as their next Peter Parker, but his character is given the least to do. Even though he is the object of both Kathy and Ruth's affection, the film treats Tommy as an afterthought, and I did not care as much about him as the movie wanted me to.



The plot is fairly derivative, one critic wisely called it The Remains of the Day meets Logan's Run, but I won't spoil the details. It has a tasteful approach to the sci-fi material, but is frustratingly vague, and I did not buy that the characters would not be more rebellious. Why are they so willing to face their ultimate fate? It's something the script, written by Alex Garland, and the director never answer. Mark Romanek, who made One Hour Photo which I hated, adds nothing to the movie and completely fails to leave his mark on the film.

Never Let Me Go is not terrible, though it is quite boring, and is not nearly as good as it seems to think it is. This is one of those movies that clearly had awards in mind, and hell it still might win some, but otherwise never declares any purpose to exist. The novel was plodding and over-wrought, and sadly so is the film, and I recommend you skip Never Let Me Go...

Grade: C+/B- (Without Mulligan it would be in the D range...)

Best Scene: The final moment between Mulligan and Garfield...

Henry Saw: A Pair of Documentaries About the War On Terror...

Neither film is perfect but, if you only can see one of them, see...




These are two recently released documentaries that are both about the wars started following 9/11. Restrepo, directed by Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger (The Perfect Storm), follows one platoon, over the course of one year, in one of the most dangerous combat zones in Afghanistan. The Tillman Story, directed by Amir Bar-Lev (My Kid Could Paint That), shows how Pat Tillman's family clashed with the government and the military in order to find out the truth about Pat Tillman's death.

Restrepo:



From the film's website: "RESTREPO is a feature-length documentary that chronicles the deployment of a platoon of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley. The movie focuses on a remote 15-man outpost, "Restrepo," named after a platoon medic who was killed in action. It was considered one of the most dangerous postings in the U.S. military. This is an entirely experiential film: the cameras never leave the valley; there are no interviews with generals or diplomats. The only goal is to make viewers feel as if they have just been through a 90-minute deployment. This is war, full stop. The conclusions are up to you."

Restrepo is a very interesting movie. Whether it's hearing real soldiers recount their war stories, or seeing footage of soldiers being shot at, or just watch them killing time, Restrepo is filled with original footage and discoveries. Unfortunately, and though this might sound terrible, I have to admit that I found the whole thing...forgettable. Each soldier blends into one another, no one story is unique, and the battles scenes, as awful as this might sound, are just not that memorable.

I am in no way trying to diminish what these soldiers go through, the sadness they feel over a comrade's death, or the risks that Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger faced in order to make this movie. Restrepo does an excellent job of capturing, and presenting, what a soldier's life is like in Afghanistan. I just didn't connect with it. With no main plot-line, and relatively uncompelling leads (no one soldier stands out), the movie fails as a feature. While it's well made, and is about a fascinating subject, it never quite comes together as a film.



The Tillman Story:

"Pat Tillman never thought of himself as a hero. His choice to leave a multimillion-dollar football contract and join the military wasn't done for any reason other than he felt it was the right thing to do. The fact that the military manipulated his tragic death in the line of duty into a propaganda tool is unfathomable and thoroughly explored in Amir Bar-Lev's riveting and enraging documentary."

The Tillman Story is a very well done documentary. The movie's main focus is on Pat Tillman's family, especially his mother Danny, and their quest to find out the truth about their son's death. The Tillman Story is a movie that will touch you, and enrage you, as you see how the government did everything they could to get the Tillmans to fall in line with the heroic narrative they created around Pat's death. The fact that the Tillmans are determined to find out the truth, and not let Pat be painted as an idealized martyr, is an amazing testament to the love and respect they had for Pat.

One great moment from the movie is when Amir Bar-Lev shows us footage from Pat's funeral. Following eulogies from his fellow soldiers (who knowingly lied to the Tillman's about how Pat died), and Maria Schrebier who says that Pat is in a better place, Pat's brother Richard takes the podium in a t-shirt and with a beer in his hand. He says that Pat, who was an atheist, would not want people to think he's in heaven. "He's fucking dead," Richard says, and you can see how angry and sad Richard is with this whole procession.

There are times where Amir Bar-Lev does not go far enough in his interviews and fails to ask questions that seem ovbvious to the viewer. Also, in a film that is partially about how much the Tillman's want Pat remembered as a man and not a saint, Bar-Lev certainly portrays Pat Tillman as a pretty super-human guy. At one point the narrator (Josh Brolin) says that Pat was faithful to his wife until the day he died...how would he know that? It's an unnecessary and unsubstantial throwaway line.

Still, despite the small flaws, The Tillman Story is a great movie and covers a story I did not know nearly enough about. It's harrowing, and will make you even more cynical about the government and the media, but is also a great portrait of a loving family. If you assume that Exit Through the Gift Shop is not really a documentary, and more of an art project, then The Tillman Story is the best documentary of the year.

Grades:

Resrepo: B-

The Tillman Story: A-

Henry Saw: The Girl Who Played With Fire

How does the sequel to The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo compare to the first film?


...Not so well as it turns out. I really enjoyed the first film. Made in Sweden in 2009 by Niels Arden Oplev, and released in the United States earlier this year, the movie was incredibly engrossing despite its flaws. It felt rushed , and lacked the scope found in the novel, but I thought that The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was a very entertaining adaptation. This follow-up, directed not by Oplev but by Daniel Alfredson, brother of Tomas Alfredson (who directed Let the Right One In), is a step-down for the series.

IMDB's plot description: After spending a year abroad, Lisbeth Salander returns to Sweden. She calls on her court-appointed guardian to remind him, in her own way, of his promise to submit satisfactory reports on her behavior. Mikael Blomkvist continues as a editor of Millenium magazine and they are onto a major story about prostitution and trafficking in women from Eastern Europe. When the investigative journalist working on that story is killed, the police announce that Lisbeth is their prime suspect. Lisbeth and Mikael work independently trying to find who is behind the murders. They not only learn the identity of the culprits but also some of Lisbeth's family secrets.



Part of the flaws of the film can be traced back to the source material. Steig Larson's second book is the worst of the trilogy. Keeping our two main protagonists apart for most of the novel was frustrating but in the movie it is maddening. Noomi Rapace continues her strong work as the vaguely-titular Lisbeth. While not given as many intricacies as the character in the novel, she infuses each moment with depth and personality, and keeps The Girl Who Played With Fire above water. Alternately, Michael Nyqvist struggles to hold our interest as the actual main character Mikael Blomkvist. It's not really his fault, the script completely lets him down, but Nyqvist just is not that captivating a presence. He's muted, detached, and just seems bored, which is not how I imagine Blomkvist as written in the novels.

The movie also makes changes to the book which are surprising and damaging. One of the key moments in the book is the confrontation between Miriam Wu, Paolo Roberto, and the villainous Ronald Niedermann. What was an extended fight for survival, the fight between Roberto and Niedermann being one of Larson's best pieces of writing, becomes a shortened and ineffective section. Instead of a brutal and prolonged boxing match between Roberto and Niedermann for Wu's survival, we get a rushed and awfully "kicky" "fight scene", and then a needlessly different ending to the whole sequence.



The entire plot is all set-up for the far more satisfying The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest. Though the book and film give us a satisfying climax, one that makes us yearn for the next installment, the rest of the plot all feels like set-up. Where the film version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was tight and focused, much of this film is introducing new characters, and the movie sags under the weight of the bloated narrative.

The Girl Who Played With Fire is not awful, Rapace is still very good, the movie is always moving forward and is never boring, and it does an okay job of making reading computer screens almost interesting. It just does not live up to the first film, and feels completely disconnected, outside of keeping the same cast. I can't see how someone unfamiliar with the books could follow T.G.W.P.W.F., but then again my sister (who hasn't read the books) liked it, so what do I know?



I guess I recommend the movie, it is still a step above your average crime thriller, but I was definitely let down. I nonetheless eagerly await the third film even though I'm saddened that Alfredson is directing that one as well. When I first heard that David Fincher was remaking these films for an American audience I was confused, the first film was so strong and I did not think it could really be improved upon. Well...after seeing this second film in the series...I'm curious to see what Fincher can do.

Grade: C+

Best Scene: The final confrontation between Lisbeth and "Zala"...

Henry Saw: Piranha 3D

A very (very) quick look at Piranha 3D...



This movie is...exactly the movie that it wants to be. Sea, sex, and blood says it all. Filled with 3D piranhas that act like sentient monsters, gratuitous nudity, and a ridiculous amount of tasteless violence. While I didn't exactly like the movie, and there's no question it's bad, I do have to admire a film that accomplishes precisely what it set out to do.

IMDB's plot description (like you really need it for this kind of movie...): After a sudden underwater tremor sets free scores of the prehistoric man-eating fish, an unlikely group of strangers must band together to stop themselves from becoming fish food for the area's new razor-toothed residents.

Piranha 3D has an amusing and electic cast. Richard Dreyfuss, Ving Rhames, Elisabeth Shue, Adam Scott, Christopher Lloyd, and Jerry O'Connell. Also featured is English model Kelly Brook, who's breasts are director Alexandre Aja's favorite character. Needless to say, outside of Christopher Lloyd, the cast is basically just showing up for a paycheck. Well, so is Christopher Lloyd, but it was just fun to see him on screen again.



The piranha action is all fairly standard, though surprisingly gory, and involves a lot of body parts being bitten off. There is one extended sequence in which the piranhas attacks a spring break party that is populated by hundreds of good-looking potential victims. I heard one critic rightly say it was like the D-Day sequence of Saving Private Ryan but with pirahnas, boobs, and Ving Rhames using a motor boat engine as a weapon. It's a ridiculously big and long scene and you have to give Aja credit for it's silly grandiosity.

The 3D in this movie is what you'd expect for a cheesy horror film. Lots of things coming out of the screen at you (though not too much), some vomit being splattered on the camera, and of course big 3D breasts. It might sound like I'm mentioning mammary glands a lot but this movie is about 35% breasts.



Pirahna 3D has some fun to offer, some clever kills, and is quite proud of what kind of movie it is. Still, it's just not that good, or that enjoyable, and you forget everything about the movie the minutes it's done. I have a feeling you already know if you would like Pirahna 3D or not, I can confirm it's exactly what you think it is, but I sadly am not one of the movie's fans.

Grade: C

Best Scene: The massive Pirahna attack scene I spoke of...

Henry Saw: Two Kinda Weird Movies...with a similar key word...

Two different movies...with one common theme...


Let's do this chronologically...



Suddenly, Last Summer: So...this happened.

Uh...have you seen this movie? Or do you know the premise? Or ever even heard of it? Because it's pretty insane...not only for 1959...but for any era.

I am going to spoil the film in this little review, because it was reading about the "reveal" in this movie that made me want to see it, so skip ahead to the next review if you don't want to know anything about Suddenly, Last Summer.

Still here? Okay...so in this movie from 1959, directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz (All About Eve), and written by Tennesee Williams and Gore Vidal, a character gets eaten alive because he's homosexual. And it was nominated for three Academy Awards, including two nominations for Best Actress.

Again...1959, Mankiewicz, Vidal and Williams, gay, cannibalized, Oscar noms.

IMDB's plot summery: A wealthy harridan, Violet Venable (Katherine Hepburn), attempts to bribe Dr. Cukrowicz (Montgomery Clift), a young psycho-surgeon from a New Orleans mental hospital that is desperately in need of funds, into lobotomizing her niece, Catherine Holly (Elizabeth Taylor). Violet wants the operation performed in order to prevent Catherine from defiling the memory of her son, the poet Sebastian. Catherine has been babbling obscenely about Sebastian's mysterious death that she witnessed while on holiday together in Spain the previous summer.

Hepburn and Taylor were both nominated for Oscars (they lost to Simone Signoret for Room at the Top). It was Clift's first role following his car crash that turned him into an alcoholic and drug addict. It was one of Clift's last leading roles, a part that touched a bit close to home (Clift was a closted homosexual), but he was protected by his co-stars (he and Taylor were very close and Hepburn spat at Mankiwicz for how he treated Clift).

I can't say that Suddenly, Last Summer is a good movie. It's limited in scope, strictly edited and limited, and contains only histrionic performances...but it's kind of a must see. It's just so...bizarre. How did this movie get made? And by a major studio? Any fan of film, especially the stars of yesteryear, should seek this one out. It's...notable.



Cruising: An infamous film. Released in 1980, Cruising was supposed to be William Friedkin's (director of The French Connection and The Exorcist) big mainstream comeback after the disastrous Sorcerer. Starring Al Pacino, and based on a 1970 novel by Gerald Walker, the film was hated before it was even released. Gay Rights groups protested the film's production, and even tried to interfere with the filming, because they thought it would paint the "homosexual lifestyle" in an extremely negative light. Cruising was a critical and financial bomb, and was widely forgotten outside of discussions of the worst of Al Pacino's career, and took years to be released on DVD. I'll critique the film first and then address the controversy.

Cruising is not bad. Like, super-duper bad. It makes no real sense, has no emotional tether, and feels like a paint-by-numbers detective film but colored in by a robot. It's detached, choppy, and exploitative. As a serial killer thriller, the movie's main selling point, it completely fails. Al Pacino's performance shows hints of the sad-sack he's become in this decade, no other character is even worth mentioning, and the movie is actively hostile to the audience.

As for the depiction of homosexuals...I can understand why the Gay Community was so pissed off about the movie. Gays are shown in an incredibly negative light, with a few exceptions, and the movie is clearly a product of its time. While not nearly as hateful as some critics would have you believe, Cruising does rely on some ugly stereotypes, and seems completely dated today.

But maybe that's why it didn't seem that bad to me. It is dated, we have moved on from this image of gay men, and I can understand what movie Friedkin was trying to make. That doesn't keep the movie from being horrible, it fails on every other level, but I can't say that the film is totally homophobic.


So there you go...two movies, separated by 20 years and rooted in very different zeitgeists, and both interesting relics of their time. Suddenly, Last Summer is the far better film, better acting, scripting, direction, and weirdness...but Cruising is interesting in its own dated way. See Suddenly, Last Summer, it's worth a viewing, and skip Cruising. Cruising isn't the Mein Kampf of Gay-hate it was made out to be when it was released...it's just a bad movie.

Grades:

Suddenly, Last Summer: B-

Best Scene: When Liz Taylor finally tells us what happened to her cousin...


Cruising: D+

Best Scene: Seeing a young and normal looking Karen Allen...

Henry Saw: Animal Kingdom

There's a lot of cool stuff coming out of Australia these days...


Earlier this year I reviewed an awesome little neo-noir out of Australia called The Square. It was a taut, shockingly funny, and an expertly paced thriller. I was very impressed. I have since learned that The Square was released by a production company called Blue-Tongue Films which was responsible for such short films as Spider (linked in my review of The Square), the popular I Love Sara Jane (featuring a young Mia Wasikowska):



And the Oscar nominated film Miracle Fish.

Animal Kingdom, the latest film import from Australia to hit U.S. screens, is not technically a Blue-Tongue production (though they are mentioned in the credits) but does involve much of the same cast and crew as The Square and those shorts. Written and directed by David Michôd, who wrote I Love Sarah Jane and directed the award winning Crossbow, Animal Kingdom is one of the best crime films to come out in years.

The movie follows a 17 year old boy named Josh who's mother dies of a heroin overdose. Josh goes to live with his grandmother and subsequently becomes involved with his three uncles' criminal activity. Following the murder of their best friend, Josh's three uncles become embittered and paranoid, and Josh realizes just how far his family is willing to go.



This is not a "fun" film. Animal Kingdom, outside of a few awkward moments, lacks a sense of humor. This is a serious movie about seriously disturbed people. Animal Kingdom manages to cover a wide range of subjects and themes, for instance the camera seems to be running too early, or cut too late, so as to uncover the supporting characters' lives and paint the entire world the film.

The film's cast is solid all around, with the wicked Jacki Weaver as the mother of the gang and Ben Mendelsohn as the scariest brother Pope, as the two standouts. The main character Josh, who is played by newcomer James Frecheville, is relatively charmless but that is a conscious choice by Michôd to show how young, damaged, and overwhelmed "J" is.



Like The Square, the movie is filled with genuinely shocking moments, but has a much darker and more artful tone. There is less irony in the violence here, an in a strange way less cynicsym, but offers just as bleak at look at human nature. Only Guy Pierce's character offers any kind of morality in the film and, in the end, he too is beaten down by the nature of his profession.

A fantastic film, a must see, and deserves to have its name mentioned a lot during awards season...

Grade: A-

Best Scene: When we see just how far Mother Cody is willing to go to protect her sons...