The Deer Hunter (1978)

United States, 1978
Cast: Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken, John Savage, Meryl Streep
Director: Michael Cimino
My Rating: **** / ****

If you knew me at all, you know that i'm going to love this film. A three-hour more film about characters development, about war, and its tragedy. Yeah, it's tragic drama, sometimes breathtaking but rewarding in the end which came with a full package of three-hour running time. Yeah, you know i love this kind of film.

Mike (DeNiro), Nick (Walken), and Steve (Savage) were three friends in which this film focused at. They and bunch of other friends lived in a small town where they worked on a steel-mill, spend their night on a local bar, and once in a while go out for Deer hunting. They were unique personality, and during the first half of the film, we're given much of their personality, even on some characters, enough to love him earnestly. My personal favorite was of course Mike, you (who have seen the films) probably scoffs of how i say that Mike was quite a resemblance of my character. The greater part of the hour of this film was spent on Steve's marriage prior of his (with Mike and Nick) departure to serve their country in the war of Vietnam. Now, this marriage scene was a very enjoyable scene to watch, all those costumes, all those tunes, and all those dancings, i loved the grand reception, and i found myself even dancing to the tunes. But it makes me also wonder, seeing how Steve who was unabashedly happy would leave all that behind and went to Vietnam where chances are that he won't be back to his family. All in all, the mood was perfect. The characters were developed nicely as we see how Nick and Mike were the best of friend promising each other not to leave another behind. However, the mood was gradually but surely turns into gray. And at least, i feel the heavy cloud hanging as the mood finally changes. To Vietnam.

Friends of mine who had seen this film all said in one agreement that the Russian roulette scene was fuckingly superb. They were right. The Russian roulette scene was a breath-taking scene and i found myself almost barely able to breath. That scene on the river and of course the final scene in Hanoi. They were violent, brutal, and most important of all, engaging.

The film was clock in at 183 minutes, but not even once i stiffled a yawn (even LOTR: Return of the King has made me yawn), not even once i detered my attention from screen even though that i was hungry at the time, or even though i had several real-life problems to deal with at the time. The length of film was proved necessary and almost enough to develop the characters to where the film was aiming at. It was a study on how war changes one's personality. How one treats love, and how one reacts to the unrequited love he has. And my god, i've seen Christopher Walken like in thousand different movies. But in "The Deer Hunter" he was so freakingly young. Still dancing, still singing, but so young. Eerie. Truth be told, nonetheless, i feel like this was his (Mr.Walken) best. And this film in overall, would be one of the film i liked best. Visually stunning, the film has a very much visible depressing feels which at the end, leaves me troubled. But of course, if you knew me at all, i loved depressing movies.

Superman Returns

No, the movie hasn't released yet. It scheduled to release worldwide on 28th of June. That would be, oh, next week folks. But, on the other hand, i was really fed-up about all this marketing-hype of the Man. Well, okay, it's two weeks away for the promotional team to really pull the hype, but with all these posters, teaser trailers and all, if i wasn't a comic-geek-fan and had a decent access to all i mentioned above, i would really questioned about the quality of the film itself when it's REALLY out.

Anyway, this is my favourite poster, so far.

Random Thoughts

I saw Ed Wood for the nth time last night. I've never did a proper review of the film, mind you for i've never seen the footage oustide the television box which of course, you knew, how much i hated watching films on TV (those commercial breaks, unnecessary cuts). Well, anyway, Ed Wood was a Tim Burton's film which depicted the live of one Edward D. Wood Jr. who many believed (i was excluded, for i've never seen his films) as The Worst Director of All Time. Now that was a grand title to be given to a person. And it didn't just merely said "A Bad Director", but "THE Worst Director" with capital "THE". Just waw.

It was one of the scene on the Ed Wood that actually prompt me to wrote about this random thoughts (what's so random about it anyway?). On one scene, Ed Wood was in bed with his lover, after a disastrous review he had received from his effort on theaterical play he directs. He says to his lover, "I was bad", and she says, in comforting voice all lover always seem to had, "You know, it's just one review". "Well, you know, Orson Wells wrote, stars, and direct 'Citizen Kane' when he was twenty-five and i'm already thirty", was his answers.

I was dumbfounded. Yeah, Citizen Kane a film that has been granted as the Greatest Film ever made by AFI (American Film Institute) was made by a guy whose age was 4 monhts away from my current-age. Immediately, my mind turned to Haute Tension. A 2003 horror film which i thought was one of the best and most original that the genre has seen for about.. oh, a decade? It was made by Alexandre Aja. And he was just twenty-three back then. And oh, its success has brought him to Hollywood where he was given a helmet to re-made The Hills Have Eyes, again, a decent re-make horror flicks if i ever see one.

All this success achieved in such a young age, always able to caught my attention and made me think. Damn! where was i? Where am i fit into this? i was practically going nowhere these last two years. I had so much wasted time. I was too concentrated on what other's think of me, and never thought of myself.. I was giving too much and never recieve any. Makes me really wanted to scream. Focus! Damn it! Focus!

Date Movie (2006)

United States, 2006
Cast: I dont care
Director: I really dont care either
My Rating: 0 / **** (only because i can't give negative scores on my sheet)

First of all, my man, James Berardinelli didn't reviewed this film so i dont put the movie's poster on this review as well. But instead, i grab a picture from New York Times which i think really say what i think about this film, "disgusting".

Once in a while, especially when my life was harsh, and my mind was heavy, i needed a stupid film so i could, you know, contemplating about what had happened to me, but mean-while, at the same time some foreign sounds would snapped my twigs and brought me back from whatever i had in mind before it's blogging my mind into further state of depression. And also, usually, i ended up cursing about the film in question and for a moment could really forgotten what i had in mind. And that was a very acceptable diversion.

Anyway, "Date Movie" was supposed to be a spoof from a several comedy/romance genre films that we've witnessed over the years. But, however, i used to say that a spoof film was worked well when the audience knew what film it spoofed of. On "Date Movie", despite several popular films to be spoofed, Darth Vader for instance, Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers, Kill Bill stuffs, there are few (far too many) references that left the common audience dumbfounded. I was watching this film with a friend of mine, he was a year older than me. He said that the movie was full with useless scenes. While i was fully agreed with him, mine was entirely on different reasons with him. Take this fake orgasms scene. I was surprised when he said, "what's the point of this scene?". That scene was stupid, not funny, and overlong, but i was immediately known that it was taken from "When Harry Met Sally" only the role was reversed. For on "When Harry Met Sally", Meg Ryan (female) doing a fake orgasm, on this film, it was the male (i dont care who he is) that doing a fake orgasm without any apparent reasons, and even without any apparent correlation with the scenes before or after. Hence, stupid, not funny, and overlong. But, alas, i was managed to give a chuckle. Only because i remembered Meg Ryan, not because the scene was actually funny.

All in all, let me back to where i started. This film was fake, stupid, and disgusting. I must warn you, only, just only if you were on my state (with weary mind, and harsh day) you should really consider of watching this movie. Hell, even Scary Movie's 2nd installment was better executed. And if you knew me, though Scary Movie series were my guilty preasure, to think about Scary Movie 2 always succeed in giving me shivers, and spat. Damn these stupid teenagers movies... i dont know, if this film was meant for teenagers, how come that there were several scenes that spoofed from the films that was made when they were still in their diapers, or worse yet, when they were still in their mom's womb, or still hinted on their pop's sperm... *what the hell am i talking about?*, *nudging head on the walls*.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

United States, 2006
Cast: Tom Hanks, Audrey Tatou, Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany
Director: Ron Howard
My Rating: ** / ****

I was one of those guys who happened to think that Da Vinci Code (the book) was highly over-praised. Not over-rated mind you, just over-praised. Everytime people say that "Whoa.. the book was superb!" i was immediately going into disgusted state and tried to shown how much i disliked the book. But again, not entirely disliked but simply because i dont think that the book was priviliged to recieve such praise. Truth be told, i wish to be distinguished from the common-folk by spotting the tiny holes in the book and turned it into a bigger hole yet.

Well, now let's talk about the movie. As a purist, i was usually read the book before i went to the movie which adapt the book in question. And so was the case with DVC (the film). I went to the cinema with full knowledge of how the story would evolve and the secret hidden under its sleeve. You may think that it would made my judgement to the film would be biased. But, again, i'm not the one who paid any mind for being spoiled.

The Da Vinci Code (the film) was meant to be a mystery / thriller. Easily judged by the way they executed the credit title, the way they bought the atmosphere, and the way they put those creepy sounds (which actually at some point really-really annoys me) all around. But as it turned out, too much expositions was spent between the thrills. Well, i know, it was inevitable for such things to happen. Mr. Howard was however, wanted to put as much essence from the book's story into 2:29 hours of movie time. And with many jargons and technical stuffs, it was actually pretty understandable to built the plot in such manner. However, i found that the plot was a little bit overlong. I dont know why. Maybe it was because none of the characters and their chemistry raised my interest beyond those 'controversy' that has been talked about since the book hit the world-wide shelves several years ago.

Even though led by superb actors / actress whose some of which are happen to be one of my favourite, they weren't given enough time to develop their characters from beyond the thin-paper the book gives. I sometimes winced when Sophie (Tatou) and Langdon (Hanks) doing their conversations. Mr Mc.Kellen however, gave a rather enjoyable performance. If i was about to mention my favourite scenes of the movie, i would certainly mentioned the scene where Teabing (McKellen) explains to Sophie about "The Last Supper" as one of those scenes.

But well, my take was, if you haven't read the book, you may enjoy this film (even though i could easily point out several people who hasn't read the book, but found the film was equally boring). If you have, by the way, you may also found the film (as i was) rather boring.

All in all, i would remember this film. Not because the film itself, but the situation that enabled me to watch this film (at theater, by the way, which something i haven't done in quite some-time).

News Flash

I'm in Love. i'm in Love. i'm in Love.

Quick Report

March 2006:

A History of Violence (2005) ***1/2 / ****
A pleasant departure from what many believed as a director who specialized in horror and disturbing pictures, David Cronenberg. A little bit dragging in the middle, the ending scene was moved. Best performance, in so far, from Viggo Mortensen. Clearly, one of the most under-appreciated film in 2005.

All About Eve (1950) ***1/2 / ****
It's a dog eat dog world... er.. i mean, girl eat girl world. In showbiz, one's innocence couldn't be held for what it is. As was Eve Harrington's innocence. From what looks like an innocence village girl who wanted to be a star to a wicked witch with many dirty schemes under her sleeve, Eve has it's all, and it's All About Eve. Also check Marlyn Monroe's quick performance. I never thought that she was THAT beautiful before.

The Seventh Seal (1957) *** / ****
A Knight came home to his castle from the Crusade. Only to come to a land where black plagues haunted every village and every living being. What make it worse, a grim reaper, a Death itself came confronted him in a game of chess, the very last game he was about to play. Packed full with subtlety and symbolism, this film was clearly not for everyone. Only recommended if you wanted to know what does Ingmar Bergman's take on religion, death, and god.

Mulholland Drive (2001) **** / ****
My first Lynch. I love it from start to finish. The haunted music, the surreality in Naomi Watts' expressions (and not to mention when she cried in the end of the film), the shocking twist, until the "what? why? and how?" questions that surely would surfaced after you finish the film and you see the end-credit rolls itself, you'd found yourself wanting more of this film, and thinking about it for days. Believe me, i do thinking about it, even after days.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) **1/2 / ****
Well..

Brokeback Mountain (2005) ** / ****
I dont understand about all the fusses about this film. It's about cowboys. It's about gay-thing. Sure, the cinematography and the soundtrack was beautiful. But, it doesn't give me what i want. The film was given too much attention on the unrequited and forbidden love between Heath Ledger's character and Jake Gyllenhaal's character. I found myself wanted to know more about Michelle William's character's take on the whole affair that befell on her husband. And when the film didn't give me what i want, i felt disappointed.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (2005) * / ****
Bla... bla.. bla... zzzzzz... what? what? huh? the film has ended? oh, well... i've read the book, i dont like it. I didn't expect anything from the film, and i didn't get anything except a good nap with earphones tucked on my ears.

City Lights (1931) ***1/2 / ****
My first Charlie Chaplin's. The story was well known, because i've seen it rehearsed or represented in various ways in recent modern cinemas. A poor guy fell in love with a blind flower girl, by some mischief and luck, this poor guy found enough money to cure the flower girl's blindness with somethin more to start a store. But when he comeback (with no intention to reveal his true identity to the girl) as a homeless, even poorer guy, the girl doesn't recognized him (of course). That is until, she hold his hand. Ow.. what the heck... i cried at the end of the film.

April 2006:

12 Angry Men (1957) **** / ****
I've always loved a film that situated in a single time-frame or a single set. This film has both. Twelve jury are about to decide a fate of the convicted murder. In order to do so, the jury must have anonymous vote regarding the fate (guilty or not guilty). I got hooked right from the first when the vote was 11 guilty and 1 not guilty. Superb dialogues. Superb chemistry between these 12 guys (who mostly only known as jury #1, jury #2, jury #3, and so forth).

Just Like Heaven (2005) *1/2 / ****
Too... many... in... consistent... logic... help. Hey, but Ms. Whiterspoon is quite a looker.

Saw 2 (2005) **1/2 / ****
I'm enjoying it, a tad better than the first one in fact. I liked the executions idea and methods, and i liked how this Jigsaw character held all the cards even before he was asked to play the game of cards.

Paths of Glory (1957) **** / ****
Of all the Kubrick's filmography that i've seen, i enjoyed this film the most. It's about human's greatest lust of power that even cheapen the life of other human being. When an ambush going awry, a general in charge decides to pull random men from his command to get executed as an example. What intriguing was, we the audiences clearly knew that the attack, the ambush was impossible even if the attacking forces were doubled. So, what happened to the wicked general? what happened to the men who deemed 'guilty of cowardice' and about to be executed? It's for you to find out. It's quite provoking, and emotional film in itself.

Hostel (2006) * / ****
First half of the film filled with bunch of eastern European ladies naked. Second half of the film filled with tortures, executions, bloods, fleshes, and gores. Since i watch this film only interested with the second film, i was greatly disappointed. Moreover, i didn't get much from the gore. Disclaimer: Even though i said that the gore wasn't much, a friend of mine had refused to watch the rest of the film after several minutes into the torture scene.

Announcement

I have received several emails complaining about the frequency in which this blog was updated. It was quite a shocker really, since i DONT gave my private email address freely (in order to keep those spams and junks away). So, i bid my thanks and my deepest apology to all of you who (i was still surprised really) had paid attention to this blog and to a puny, so-so, and uninformative reviews that i had written in the last couple of years.

Well, actually, i was about to shut this blog. By next month (May 20th is my word, but alas, never trust datelines given by a software developer. Especially when such deadlines weren't quite that important and advantageous :)), i hope i had an URL address ready, new layouts (that's for sure), new contents, and most important of all, i hope that i had several contributors to write as well, so you wouldn't have to bear to read my pretentious one-sided reviews anymore.

See you soon. Thank you and my apologies.

March 2006 Experience (part 1)

This March, i had a precious chance to broaden my horizon by watching movies that either has become a classic, or came from once legendary directors. Pardon my language, but i had the very first intercourse with Alfred Hitchcock's, Ingmar Bergman's, and David Lynch's. All, in this early two weeks part of the month. This, gonna be a long post. Well, here's what you going to expect from this (series-of) post. By the way it was ordered by the time i've seen the film: North Country (2005), Rear Window (1954), Psycho (1960), A History of Violence (2005), All About Eve (1950), The Seventh Seal (1957), and Mulholland Drive (2001).

1. North Country (2005)
Cast: Charlize Theron, Frances McDormand, Sissy Spacek, Sean Bean
Directed by: Niki Caro
My Rating: *** / ****

Another one of those 'inspired' by the true-event film (not to be confused with based on real-event), North Country portrayed the life of Josey Aimes, a female mine-worker who (again, in this film) the first female worker to ever sue the company where she worked regarding of the harsh-treatment she and her female co-worker received from her male co-workers.

When i read about the premise prior to the film, i had briefly placed myself on a neutral position. And i was very much believe that those won't change even after i've seen the film. Because, naturally the mine was a place where you do dirty stuffs, required more muscle, and within harsh environment where most would be attributed it to the male world. So, i think it's sufficient to say that the idea of a female mine-worker recieving harsh-treatment from her male co-worker was - in my opinion - appropriate on such environment. Further, if i was told to point a finger, I would blame the girl for her job-choice. As if there wasn't any job (with less harsh environment, that is) left out there.

Alas, Niki Caro, being a woman herself, spends a big portion of the movie to deal intimately with Josey's life. More than enough for us to fall in love to her, to sympathize with her conditions, and ultimately to stands in line behind her when she stood for her right. And that's why this film works. However, at the cost of jumbled narrative at the end. For it seems that the movie-makers had just realised that the running-time for this film had exceeded two hours mark and they hurriedly put the conclusions to fit in. But, i'd say again, that the film works. Much thanks to superb performance by Charlize Theron, she was so beautiful, by the way, and Frances McDormand whose previous performance in Fargo made her effort to put an accent at her speech in this film like a walk in the park.

2. Rear Window (1954)
Cast: James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Wendell Corey, Thelma Ritter
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
My Rating: **** / ****

My first Hitchcock's flick. Long story short, if a film made in all its humbleness, simple in execution, but, could provide thrilling entertainment, then that film was either really good, or has been made by superb film director, mastering in thriller. Well, "Rear Window" is both. The entire film was shot in and from one location only. Which is in our main cast's apartement looking through the apartement's Rear Window to the neighboring apartments where the event which was the main interest of this film took place. And, if that wasn't enough, all of the sound in this film is diegetic, which means that all the music, speech, and other sounds all come from within the world of the film.

L.B Jeffries was a photographer. He had been forced to stay at the apartment with one footin in a cast that temporarily put him out of any outdoor activities. So what does he do then? he eye-ing his neighbors through the window of his apartment. Sounds simple? it is. But believe me, it drags you. It sucked you in to Jeff's POV, up to a point where you share his curiousity, believes to his illusion, well, want to believe would be more appropriate, and subsequently turns his experience into ours. As the film progresses, several other characters interact with Jeff. They were either agreed with Jeff, or contradict him, or reminded him (and us) that eavesdropping (or the sort) was naturally moral-wise bad. And therefore, he (Jeff, as with us as well) was a bad person.

But who needs morality when you've got your curiosity? As they say, curiousity kills the cat. And this kitten here should be ashamed that he (guided with Jeff's binocular) chose to ignore the lady whose about to killed herself with a lethal dose of some sleeping-pills over the truth. Over his curious-ness. Alas, this kitten knew the fact, knew that he should be ashamed by doing that, way after the movie hits the gutter.

3. Psycho (1960)
Cast: Anthony Perkins, Janeth Leigh, Vera Miles, John Gavin, Martin Balsam
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
My Rating: *** / ****

I've got a little-problem with the title that even though i've wrote it several times already, i still can't manage to get to write it correctly in the first try. I've always wrote it Phsyco, Physco, or some other before i opened an internet window to see how does "Psycho" spelled correctly. Ah well.

Many considered this flick as Hitchcock's magnum opus. While i cant say whether i agree or not, considering that i've only seen two of many Hitchcock's filmography, i could savely say that i agree that this film was more than enough to give you thrills throughout its film-length. And if someone say that this film was the best thriller film ever made, i wouldn't dare to argue him about it.

When the film was released for the first time, Alfred Hitchcock warn the audiences that they should not share the mystery, the twist on its end to another who hadn't seen the film. Understandable. I mean, most of the people i've met would agree that if you knew Bruce Willis' character was dead for the entire film of "The Sixth Sense" before watching the movie itself, you wouldn't had that much fun comparing to those who hadn't known the truth behind the film. In fact, you wouldn't had fun at all.

On the other hand, i was one of those rare-type-movie-guy who doesn't care shit about spoilers. And so, yeah, before i had the chance to see this film, i've read the script, and know very well the truth behind the mystery. But that doesn't keep the surprise-factor alien from my universe. Not just once, i've shocked twice. I was pretty much sure, that you who have seen the films would agree that this film was shocking indeed, at least (especially) on the two points i fore-mentioned.

Other than that, the films was surrounded by not-too-shabby cast. But the ultimate cast was the one who played Norman Bates. That guy's grin on the end of the film, creeps me out. And while he looks like an O.K man, a kind-hearted man, you would agree that his seclusion and detachment from the outside world were very visible that if you really met him in the real world, you would distanced yourself as well.

Jarhead (2005)

United States, 2005
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Brian Geraghty, Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper
Director: Sam Mendes
My Rating: *** / ****

I was one of those kids who in his youth was mesmerized with John Rambo. I mean, who wouldn't anyway? I think that it is safe to say that every kids of '80s would at least catch a glimpse on who is Rambo regardless if he has already seen the film or not. I was one of those who hasn't seen the film but had enough feed on Rambo. Enough that sometimes, i'm re-enacting his actions. A muscular guy with a huge machine gun, taking down a whole army of Vietnamese all by himself, fight for a righteous act, wicked looking combat knife, and of course, that red bandanna. But then again, when i really had the chance to see the film in question (part II, not part I) years later, i decided to dislike it, entirely.

Now, aside from that, since that moment i had a solid concept inside my head about a war movie. That every war movie is different, yet every war movie is the same. Ow, wait, that sounds exactly like the voiceover at the end of this film, Jarhead, which i was about to write.

Over the years, as i grow older, and digested more movies than it's allowed, i learnt of an anti-war movie which is a film that instead of putting the weight on its deliverance upon patriotism-issues (which was a turn-off for me, since i was often at odds against the protagonist's patriotism. Take "Pearl Harbor", or "Black Hawk Down" for an instance), it often, if not always put the word war before a question mark. Such as, "why war?". Take "Full Metal Jacket", or "Appocalypse Now" as an example. Okay, you may disagree with my analogy. But that's how i viewed the anti-war film.

"Jarhead" was undoubtedly was those among the anti-war films. It told about the Gulf war, the first Gulf war, by the way, when Iraqi soldiers tried to "re-capture" Kuwait. But, of course, it didn't justified the war, or taking side. It viewed and told the war from a perspective of a "Jarhead" (which is a jargon that branded to the Marine Corps). A young soldier, Anthony Swofford (Gyllenhaal) who had undergone a harsh basic training only to be sent to the desert with almost nothing to do. Swofford and his fellow-mates must wait for a war that it turns out, never come to the tip of their rifles. And during those wait, their 'personal-war' begun.

Well, unlike most other anti-war film that i've seen, this film doesn't questioned the need of war, nor deal with the soldier's humane perspective in killing others. This film is simply dealt with the soldier who had been trained to kill, trained to love their rifle, trained to make their rifle into the part of their body, trained to believe that they were there to serve their country only to find that their training had been taking its toll more than they could give. "At least, let him kill the man", someone said. And that's how one could summarized Jarhead in short words. Their in-ability to kill, not their guilty-conciussness after the kill that led them questioned the war.

On the other side of coin, this film was like any other war film that i've seen because there were almost no variety to the characters. We see the same kind drill-instructor, we see the same kind mind-insane team-mate, we see the same kind of lead actor, and we see the very same kind leader (who also gave personal speech that was delivered by any other war films only with different style). But, if anything, though it's a little bit too long for me.. (at some point, i wondered if i should turn off the film and sleep instead), i enjoyed Jarhead with its absence of patriotism-issue that could make me slap myself on the temple. I enjoyed the handy camerawork and cinematography (though, what do you expect from desert environment? green mountains?). And, had to admit, even though i never liked Jake Gyllenhaal, i dig him in this film. And this film was among the top 10 of my best-of-2005 films list.

Well, not much of a review, but hope it helps.

Intermezzo

It's been a month, i know. But, check out this blog.

http://www.cinematical.com

This blog had a LOT of gimmicks and tidbits about movies and current gossips.

New Job, Old Faces

Title.

Transporter 2 (2005)

France / United States, 2005
Cast: Jason Statham, Alessandro Gassman, Amber Valetta, Katie Nauta
Director: Louis Letterier
My Rating: **1/2 / ****

My friends had been commenting on my appearance lately. Well, i've been fucked up lately, that's for sure. I think it's because: 1. I haven't take a bath in like 48 hours, 2. I haven't had a decent sleep for like a week?, 3. I've got this guest who calling himself FATE who keep knocking in my door? (eh, forget this one). Aaaaanyway, one thing for sure is that my mood had been on a greyscale lately. No damn color visible. Everything was either gray or little darker. Gloomy, bleak, it's the color of death. And death, is suck.

But as any situation darker per se, there's absolutely nothing that couldn't be solved by watching some mindless-fuck movie just to let the brain-janitors to clean the aftermath of mind war that had been going on my brain. That's my prescription, by the way, it may not worked on everybody.

So, i prepared several movie that i deemed to be a light-watch, a movie i could enjoy without thinking as much, without even care about the characters or lines of dialog. Transporter 2 was (i think) would be one of the such.

I have told everybody who cared on this site, that Jason Statham is one of those actors that i could enjoy without caring much about his character. Seeing him for the very first time in Snatch, recognize him in Transporter, for me, almost every character that he played had somewhat emanates more than enough charisma to make-up what lacking in almost every aspect of the film he currently in. Remember Mean Machine? he plays as a wicked-mean goalie whose presence provides fear. A real fear. *Shudders*.

Of Transporter 2 case, the film was lacking almost anything. It lacks logic, it lacks characters, it lacks plot, it lacks whatever-you-name-it. Now that's a pretty bad shite. I wouldn't give it a 2.5 rating if i was in my best of shape. But again, i need movie that could made me giggle, not a movie that requires me to think and forced me to watch it again *pointing downward* and so, even though it was that quick to make me respond to the movie with something like, "Oh shite, that's soooo not possible", i could dig the movie. It means to be mindless-fuck-actions and it gave me actions. The movie-makers and director were aware enough that they didn't tried to make a logical action movie that they were concentrated on how to deliver the action. And you know what? they were pretty good at it, i give you that. And Frank, he was this kind of hero / anti-hero protagonist that had a cool fashion that even James Bond looks like a high-schooler. Hell, he even had an extra suit tucked on a waterproof plastic in his car's trunk just in case the suit he wore smeared from blood and/or explosions. If that's doesn't make you smile, i dont know what is. And he doesn't even crack a smile, even though that i was scared a bit when they revealed at the beginning of a movie that instead of a hot-girl (some may not like it, but yeah, i think Hsu Chi is hot. She was the babe in the first Transporter film anyway), Frank was protecting a little-child (i was afraid that it was going to be like Man on Fire stuff, which is though good, but not really the kind of movie that i'm looking for from a mindless action like Transporter). And yeah, Jason Statham delivers.

The action sequences were well taken, given my eye enough delicacy to chew upon, and - the one thing of importance, IMO, for this kind of movie - never stops. The intermission between actions were long enough to spill the bean a little bit on the plot, but never too long to bother itself on explaining the plot. Which is non-existant anyway. One thing to praise upon this film is, that the movie-makers behind this film knows what he's doing. He wants to entertain his viewers. He wants to make a good action-flicks which everybody could enjoy (well, not everybody anyway, since there's this trigger-happy machine-gun girl who wears lingerie everytime she's on screen. That's weird). Long story short, he knows how to made a good action movie. And that was just about what i could say about this film.

This film works best when you're watching it in a cold night, in a dim-lit room, on a wider-screen, with your feet slouching on a couch or somewhere, and with a warm tea or something else you fancy in your hand.

Junebug (2005)

United States, 2005
Cast: Embeth Davidtz, Alessandro Nivola, Benjamin McKenzie, Amy Adams, Celia Wetson, Scott Wilson
Director: Phil Morrison
My Rating: *** / ****

There were times, when I wrote my reviews, a moment where I don’t know how to begin, what to tell, and how to wrap the review. When such times occurs, I would usually give a simple sentence as a whole opinion and writing some bla-bla-bla, yada-yada-yada that based and centered on it thus made my review had a little sense of pretentousness and pointlessness.

It usually happens when I had no idea on what to wrote as the movie itself didn’t gave me anything to start off. There were no apparent crap to bashed upon, nor apparent beauty to praise upon. Everything is just seem so subtle that I had to dig further into my consciussness to find the hidden message the film had for me. If, at anytime, I failed to find the hidden message, then it’s because simply the movie sucks, and really really had nothing to offer.

Fortunately, that’s not the case with Junebug. I had watched it twice (yes, twice) in the last four days – editor note: he tried to be less than the late Pauline Kael who believes that the first movie impression is the foremost important thing in order to made a honest review – to catch the glimpse of meaning from this slow-paced character-packed family drama.

Like most film that entirely dependent on character developments, Junebug is a magnamous slow-paced that it would leave most of the audience simply impatient (oh yeah, I had my impatience) with it. Medeline (Davidtz) was an art dealer. One day, she met George (Nivola) and they fall in love and married soon after. Six months later, while in the vicinity for business purpose, the couple decided to drop on George’s parents’ place. Wonder, how many films already that came out based on this fact alone (in-law visits).

Here is the family that Medeline had to deal with: Peg (Watson), the mother, criticizes everyone, second-guesses every decision, and never wrong (of course, according to her). Eugene (Wilson), the father, always in silence, in solitude, and most of his time are spent in his basement wood-carving. Jhonny (McKenzie), George’s younger brother, newly married to his high-school sweets, Ashley (Adams) which is pregnant.

Jhonny was a desperate young man, he feels like everybody around him overwhelmed him, pitying him (maybe because he didn’t have a high-school diploma?), thus, he responded everything with his usual, withdrawing, not talking, and find something to busied himself with. Ashley was a sweet, chatty, cheerful, optimistic, and supportive. She’s the one we could fall in love with, but in my point of view, she’s the one who suffer the most in this film. Even I almost cried for her tragic moment on one scene (not telling) in both viewing, worse at the second viewing.

Okay, I could talk on and on and on about how each characters intertwined and developed. But at the very least, the above three pharagraphs could cover the surface.

Many of people on RT (rottentomatoes.com) named this movie as their one of best of 2005. Understandably. I would too, if I was a Northern-American. As some of the reviewers put it, this film is great because it’s true. Well, I guess, it’s true to those who had lived their life in Northern-American. For I, who had spent his entire life so far in Indonesia, found a considerable difficulty in connecting with the situation. Not with the characters, but situation. Nonetheless, I was fascinated with the characters and how they dealt with the problem.

The problems portrayed in this film, I think, were common in families. All the problems that could be attributed to one basic problem. Communication. Hell, I used to suffer from my relationship because of the shite communications thingy as well. But, unlike many of its Hollywood counterparts, these problems are not solved during the short visit, just in time for the film to end. We didn’t see Ashley takes comfort on George, or Medeleine breaks into Jhonny's solitude by sleeping with him, even though the chances are there. And, this is the best, even though we didn’t see Ashley and Jhonny as a perfect couple you can get, we didn’t see ‘divorce’ shadowed their relationship.

Amy Adams as Ashley won last year’s Sundance film-festival for her performance. And I couldn’t agree more with it. Ashley’s character was a joke-potential. We see love, we see cheerfulness, but we should see tragedy, and sadness as well, and if the actress behind it doesn’t had the talent to deliver such dicotomy, we would laugh and dismissed the character entirely. It’s a win-all or lose-all situation. And of course, on this case, Amy Adams wins it all. The rest of the actors also came great. At least, none of the important characters (Medelene and George’s family) fall short on the acting department. Thus, made this film into an enjoyable joy-ride of characters’ study.

All in all, family’s problems go on and on, and they aren’t solved, they’re dealt with. Now, that’s leave me with a problem, should I watch this movie again? Because I feel like I haven’t seen it enough. And giving it a mere 3 rating won’t do justice. Ah, well…

Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)

United States, 2005
Cast: David Straithairn, Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Ray Wise, Frank Langella, Jeff Daniels, George Clooney
Director: George Clooney
My Rating: **** / ****
David Straithairn’s act really took my breath away. Particulary when he says his closing statement, “Good Night, and Good Luck”. The expression of his face, the way his eyes wanders like he doesn’t really wants to end and said something more, the tone of his voice, and the way George Clooney captured the scene. All of them captivating me, led me to a state of pure intense that – again – literally took my breath away.

“Good Night, and Good Luck” is one of the five best drama of 2005 according to Golden Globe awards. For me, it’s one of the five best film of 2005 that I’d already seen. Not without a reason. This film is a second film in a relatively short-interval that I watched and told about the live of newsies and delivered in a black/white picture. The difference was of course the quality of the picture – physically. “His Girl Friday” shot in 1940 where color in film was yet implemented and “Good Night, and Good Luck” was intended to shot in a grayscale tone.

In a sense – wait, not just in a sense, but it just IS – “Good Night, and Good Luck” is a docu-drama (part documentary, part drama, and oh, throws a little bit of thriller in it, because that’s the way I see it) about public war between Edward R. Murrow, a journalist from CBS with Senator McCarthy about the senator’s policy against those people who in his opinion solely (that is, without further physical or publicly released proof) un-American. Right. He’s an anti-Communist senator. And Murrow attacks his policy which is just appropriate through his show “See it Now” which he co-produced with Fred Friendly (Clooney). But if you think about it, you could easily put the situation into modern days where we’d change the “anti-Communist” to “anti-Terrorist”. But that of course, is beyond the scope of this review.

This movie is easily a thrill-ride. The reporters involved in “See it Now” show were literally put their heads on a chop-block when they’re started to attack Senator McCarthy policy. It could easily be observed from the office’s shot, from the meetings prior the show, from executive decisions, and ultimately, I held my breath when all the crew, right after Murrow said his closing statement, waiting for the phone to ring. Now, that’s what I call thriller. And the climax was rewarding.

But of course, the star of the show, the spotlight of it all, was David Straithairn who played Edward R. Murrow. I can’t quite remember it rightly, but the last time some actor put me in awe by his act is when I saw Daniel Day Lewis in “Gangs of New York” back in 2001. That’s leave me wondering how was Phillip Seymour Hoffman does act in Capote as he is the winner of the last Golden Globe Award for Best Leading Actor in Drama whereas David Straithairn was only become a nominee. But his performance alone, is enough to keep me entertained, keep me hooked up to the story line, sometimes keep my breath away (which actually a good thing, in this case), and leave me in awe after this thrill-ride approaches its end. The actors selection for this film is nowhere near good. Is wayyyy above good. Even though the only “star” on this film was George Clooney who comfortably put himself on the bench, the actors chosen in this film were chosen based not by their stardoms but by their roles and that’s what made this film easily one of the very best of 2005. And if you want to know what’s my opinion of good film and good acting, consequently on what base my reviews are upon, you ought to watch this movie, and tell me what you think. “Good Night, and Good Luck”.

Lord of War (2005)

United States, 2005
Cast: Nicolas Cage, Jared Leto, Bridget Moynahan
Director: Andrew Niccol
My Rating: ***1/2 / ****

“That’s one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other eleven?”, Yuri Orlov (Cage) matter-of-factly saying right before one of the best opening sequence of the year in what I think is the most underrated movie of 2005. Why, even James Berardinelli hasn’t reviewed this film yet.

The rest of the film is told in flashback, with voiceover by Orlov, starting in 1980 and end to where he is now.

Yuri Orlov and his family came to US from Ukraine when he was a young boy. They runs and owns a restaurant. And Yuri, with his brother Vitaly (Leto) were part of the business. Until one day, a turn of event led Yuri to what later become the profession he’s best at. An arms dealer.

A sensitive issue, a bleak comedy, a grand visual, a great performance, oh, make it plural, great performances, a strong-witted script (came from Andrew Niccol who also wrote “The Truman Show”, “Gattaca”, among others), and an appropriate ending, made this movie a clean swift land on a top 6 / 7 of my shortlist on best of 2005. I even wondered myself, how come that there weren’t much attention given to this film. And why’s all the love to that gay-thingy “Brokeback Mountain” whilst none given to this movie? Okay, Brokeback may be better but not by this much of margins. Well, I guess everybody’s entitled to his / her own comment. And mine is, I enjoyed “Lord of War” a great deal.

To say that this film is a kind of a bleak comedy maybe a little bit off by some people’s standard. But it was a satiric comedy as we see Yuri made his way through the arms business ladder, dealing with cold-hearted dictators (or rebels) as a customer, rivaling with equally (if it isn’t more) cold-hearted business-rivals, but at the same time squeeze his way moral-wise by rationalizing his crimes, his denials that his business is actually killing-off people (“it’s not our wars”, he said), and his pretention to live a double-life in front of his family.

Yuri’s narration througout the movie was quickly became the center of this movie. It would of course needed a hand of a good scripter to deliver such narration in order to brought this movie to its highest point. Andrew Niccol was clearly up the par with the high expectation. Yuri’s narration was able to give a satyrical feel to otherwise blatant and pretentous political-war drama, Hollywood-style.

This film, as Yuri’s narration recapped his 20-years of gun-dealing career, dealt closely with various war-zones all-over the world (most often shown, was his dealing with his best customer, a dictator ruling Liberia, Andre Baptiste) and of course, by doing so, shown how cruel a thing the war is. We see a child executed military-style in Lebanon, a child not more than 12 wielding an AK-47, listed as a soldier, a real-soldier not just a mere citizen wielding a gun, a dead men lying on the street while a nazar bird digested on his remains, a mother stabbed and killed by several men, a shot through the head, with brain tissues and blood sprayed nicely (nice?) behind him. As far as Yuri’s morality issues concerned, he’s been on every scene I mentioned. But, he made an excuse to himself, justified his action by saying, “it’s not my war”. One particular scene even involved Yuri’s customer went only several hundred meters downhill from where the deal took place to made a massacre upon refugee camp consisting mainly of women and children in Sierra Leone right after his customer made purchase. And what does he say? “there was seven massacre more on Sierra Leone that week”. Will he be able to get out of the industry, as it started to creep on his family? Will he realize that his business is actually killing people, and like it not stained his hands with blood as well? Will he realize, as his counter-role, a rare-breed officer (since he couldn’t be bought) Valentine (Hawke) states that the longer he’s in custody, the more lives could be saved? I leave those questions’ answers to you.

Nicolas Cage as Yuri gave a superb performance up to a point where we can’t easily imagine someone else on his seat. But, the other supporting characters were less developed. Especially his nemesis. The one that supposed to be his arch-rival, his counter-role, the one that obsessed with him, to brought him down, to justice, an interpol officer Valentine. Tough he’s described by Yuri as his arch-nemesis, I’m barely able to see his obsessions.

One point of interest though, the movie ends with a statement that even though there are many private arms dealer like Yuri, the biggest arms dealers in the world were US, UK, Russia, France, and China which all five were permanent member of UN Security Council. Well, it wasn’t something entirely new. Everybody knows it already. But to made a statement in a commercial entertainment-product such as film? Well, that’s new.

Santa's Slay (2005)

United States, 2005
Cast: Bill Goldberg, Douglas Smith, Emille de Ravin, Robert Culp
Director: David Steiman
My Rating: 1/2 / ****

“Joy to the World”, a rather famous Christmas song was playing as we see the house in a midst of a light snow-rain. We then joined a family about having dinner. A formal dinner with Turkey, and a guest. By seeing this sequence, we expect something funny about this movie. Plus, one of the cast of the family was a familiar face – and squeak – Fran Drescher, better known by her role at “The Nanny”. So indeed, after a joke or two being thrown, light preambule to the dinner being opened, and a pre-dinner pray being said, suddenly, the chimney rattles and “bump” we see a familiar grandpa with red overalls and oversized belly, oh my, it’s Santa. He’s real after all… Not! Even before the shock had passed, our Santa rolls on the table and literally nails both of the family’s father’s palm to the table with a pair of dining knife, he then sets the family’s mother’s head into fire, kick the guest’s until he flew backward and crashed the cupboard as he goes, throws a star ornament of a christmas tree to the back of one of the daughter, smack the aunt’s head with a table’s foot with nail portruding out of it, and made one of the other daughter fell into a furniture resulting in the girl’s neck penetrated by the furniture. He even throws the family’s dog into rotating fan.

As this is one of those movies that I watched before actually made any information-gathering regarding of what kind of movie it is, who was the actor / actress of this movie, and ultimately, what it is all about. So, my jaw dropped on the floor due to the opening sequence. Alas, more because of my surprise and the hillarity of the irony than the horror-ness or gore-ness of that scene.

Right, I guess that’s all I can say about this movie. It’s an obvious meaningless and pointless B-grade slasher horror flick. And the first 7 minutes were unfortunately the only watchable part of this movie – Aw, it was even a powerful introduction. The rest? Ah, boring is the best to describe it. I mean, after that fast-rate butchery on the first 7 minutes of course I would expect that some more bodies would get butchered, slaughtered, tortured, or whatever. But do I get it? A big NO. Even boring was giving it too kind of a review.

Not enough sympathy to the devil albeit, it was probably the best casting of this movie (Bill Goldberg as Evil Santa). Not enough reason for the devil to hunt our heroes, not enough blood to call it a would-be cult-classic, not enough slaughtering to call it a slasher-flick, not enough dramas nor characters to keep us hooked to fill the blanks whenever Bill Goldberg aka Evil Santa is out from the screen, even not enough jokes and ironies to call it a satyrical horror/comedy and the ultra-cheesy conclusion which almost made me puke. The half star (actually it was a little less than a quarter, but half-a-star was the lowest grade I could give to a movie which actually had its moment) I give would solely granted because of the first 7 minutes and Hulk Hogan-ish Evil Santa portrayed by Bill Goldberg.

My Newly Added Movies Collection

In no particular order:

• The Brother's Grimm
  
• Four Brothers
  
• The Cave
  
• Underclassman
  
• Hide and Seek
  
• Crimen Ferpecto
  
• Hustle & Flow
  
• The Constant Gardener
  
• A Sound of Thunder
  
• Flightplan
  
• Pretty Persuasive
  
• Thumbsucker
  
• The Man
  
• Doom
  
• Junebug
  
• Lord of War
  
• Down to the Bone (2004)
  
• Death to the Supermodels
  
• The Fog
  
• Wedding Crashers
  
• Good Night and Good Luck
  
• The Chumscrubber
  
• Two for the Money
  
• Half Light (2006)
  
• Looking for Fidel (2004)
  
• Mozart and the Whale
  
• Lonesome Jim
  
• Tamara
  
• Kronk's New Groove
  
• Fourth World War
  
• Moolaade
  
• Lila Says (2004)
  
• Stranger In My Bed
  
• Um Tiro no Escuro
  
• Bad News Bears
  
• Peaches (2004)
  
• Nine Lives
  
• American Pie's Band Camp
  
• Kings and Queens
  
• Red Eye
  
• Into the Blue
  
• Must Love Dogs
  
• Cry Wolf
  
• The Exorcism of Emily Rose
  
• The Great Raid
  
• Santa's Slay ---> Now, this is a very very stupid but hillarious horror. Gore but humorous as well. Happy Holiday! Here comes Santa.. ha ha ha.. wicked sick.
  

Otherwise mentioned, all the movies were released in the year 2005

I know, some of the movies are bound to be junk, but, i could expect much from Junebug, Good Night, and Good Luck and several foreign films. The rest? ow well, some mindless fucking stupid movie once in a while won't hurt. I'd be writing short on Santa's Slay later on, man the movie is soooo stupid, that even it felt so good.

His Girl Friday (1940)

United States, 1940
Cast: Cary Grant, Rosalind Russel, Ralph Bellamy, Gene Lockhart
Director: Howard Hawks
My Rating: ** 1/2 / ****

Turn on your time-machine, and let’s go back in time. To a world where a raging war that took live of millions was just a nightmare yet to come and not a bloody-ink on a book of history.

It’s 1940 where this film was one of the first, if not the first film that features character’s dialog overlapping each-other and not just taking turns as it used to be. With a script that could easily made a three-hour long film, this film delivers its kicks, its wits, and its non-stop comedy in a rapid-fire. One of the most important film in American history that even one could easily argue that someone cannot learn about American film history without including this film in its syllabus.

Based on a play about live as a newspaper reporter, the trio main-cast on this movie were involved in a some kind of a bizarre love triangle. Hildy was a known reporter for her brilliance, but has recently quit her job as she tries to become a less obsessive person and become more like a commoner. Her editor, Walter Burns – also her ex-husband – doesn’t want her to quit, of course (or for that matters, doesn’t want her to divorced him, either). So when on one day, she went to the “Morning Post” where she had her reputation built nicely around her to meet Walter, he doesn’t waste a time to lure her back into his office, and his home. But, it was only to find that she brought a news in which he doesn’t like nor he has been prepared for. She was getting married with someone else with less enthusiastic in life (read: led a boring life). And so, for the rest of the film we see him trying desperately to win her back. Both her heart, and her old-enthusiastics on Journalism, in a roller-coaster joy ride of hillarious comedy ever made by Hollywood delivered – as I had stated earlier – in a rapid dialog show-down. I had to focus rather hard to catch the dialog, often rewind to had a better understanding since I watched it without subtitles.

The movie wasn’t that great, I’ve seen better (well, of course since it’s an 1940 movie with black and white pictures, and monotonous sound), it manages to hook me right after Hildy and Walter walks out of Walter’s office to greet Bruce, soon-to-be Hildy’s husband. With dialogues that slapping one another, providing a sense of irony as well as sarcasm, the movie was able to keep the pace up until which I think is the best scene in a movie where Hildy, who has finally found and obey her true instinct, Journalism, doing as frantic as an addict could be to type the story she had covered, while Walter as an editor, instructs his employees to change the headlines of tomorrow’s editon, while Bruce was desperately trying to persuade Hildy to go with him. *SPOILER* This three-way monolog was created beautifully, that even if you had sympathy with Bruce, we knew right from the start of the News Room scene that Hildy cannot turns her back from her life-calling which is Journalism, you would simply be smiling. Especially when Hildy made a ‘stupid’ remarks before the end of that scene, “Where’s Bruce? I thought I heard him a while ago?”. This ‘stupid’ remarks made me laugh heartily, a thing that after so many movies had become a rarity.

Though I didn’t understand some of the dialogs delivered, further, the movie also incorporates several “in-jokes” which make things went even deeper into the haze. But, I’ve got more fun by merely seeing the gestures made by the characters, or most importantly the chemistry between Hildy and Walter. Now, that’s what I call chemistry. It was hillarious, romantic, and warm. I felt so envious to them, and that’s the proof of how effective this duo turns out to be. And if you were watching movies, it was appropriate that you at least enjoy the movie. Not necessarily understand, which I think is secondary (well, that’s why after a while, I re-watch a particular movie), but enjoyment is the first and the foremost important things when it comes to movies. And that’s what I had.

PS: This film has become a public property. You could easily downloaded it, copy it, even alter it without violating any copyrights out there. See Archive.org for more info.

Ryoko Hirosue

Isn't she a babe? around the same age as i am, it was to no one's wonderment that i had a crush on her. Well, actually i had a certain favor to girls with small eyes. But usually, i never cared much of them (read: i never intentionally look for their info on the net).

On Hirosue, i first laid eyes on her not a week ago when i watch a movie on local televesion entitled "Wasabi" with French actor Jean Reno. My affection toward Jean Reno was similar to that with Jason Statham. I had a tendency to enjoy the movie they played even though that the movie turns out to be a crappy ones (such as this one (Wasabi) or The Transporter 2) so i stood my ground, only occassionally change the channel (there's nothing good on the other TVs anyway) and watch the movie until end.

Wasabi told about a French policeman who happened to had a lover in Japan whose for one reason or other lose any contact with her. Now imagine his surprise when he found out that his lover died and left him with a hefty-sum of money to his beneficiary and also a daughter. Hesitantly though, he flew to Japan to met his daughter, and maybe, just maybe claim his lover's heritage. Note: He should be excited to had that much of money. But his character demands that he shouldn't be to excited. Bah! Pretender!

Now, before the daughter made her appearance, i had almost lost interest to this movie. But when the daughter made her presence (known as Yumi), i fell in love. And the rest is history. I would love to see another movie that starred by Ms.Hirosue. What a lovely smile she had.

P.S: I had to go to Japan. I really do. As a student, perhaps? *thought wanders* ~~~~

Weekly Box Office Report

How's the long weekend? I've got a superb one. Though, of course, i won't going into details here.

Well, here comes the last weekend Box-Office report for the past week.. aw, all right, i know that it has been several days past. But everybody wants a holiday.

In several weeks, the battle for the audiences are still between the big gorilla and his affection blonde, and the bunch of kids led by a lion who fought against the white witch. And of course, being a cute-ish family movie for a holiday-season, so far, Aslan and the kids were the victor of the battle.

But, the first week of a brand-new-year wasn't a PG movie, but an R-rated movie. Hostel - quoting its official plot - Two adventurous American college buddies, Paxton and Josh, backpack through Europe eager to make quintessentially hazy travel memories with new friend Oli, an Icelander they've met along the way. Paxton and Josh are eventually lured by a fellow traveler to what's described as a nirvana for American backpackers--a particular hostel in an out-of-the-way Slovakian town stocked with Eastern European women as desperate as they are gorgeous. The two friends arrive and soon easily pair off with exotic beauties Natalya and Svetlana. In fact, too easily. Initially distracted by the good time they're having, the two Americans quickly find themselves trapped in an increasingly sinister situation that they will discover is as wide and as deep as the darkest, sickest recess of human nature itself--if they survive.

I took the poster from the Chinese-version simply because i liked it more than the other poster out there. Brandished by "Produced by Quentin Tarantino", this cheap-budgeted horror flick was written directed by Eli Roth and distributed by Lions Gate Films who both has been established themself as an horror-specialized movie-men. They (who had watch it) said that it had similar shock to Saw (a Lions Gate Films as well), only better. In Saw case, i really didn't expect it to be that good, so i guess it was enough reason for me to wait for this movie. There's a one-minute clip available on the net that depicted what to expect in this movie. Though i really must warn you. If you didn't dig for the 'gore' scenes, never watch the clip, let alone the movie. This is a 'gore' movie that doesn't soften itself like Saw or Texas Chainsaw Massacre (remake). The statistic says it all. Sixty-five percent of the weekend audiences (in the U.S) were under 25, and 60 percent were male.

Random trivia: The movie was written, produced, directed and released theatrically all in a twelve month period, which is three times faster than the average Hollywood film.

Another two new releases for this week, however, weren't that good. They didn't even made top-10. Adam Sandler produced movie (which of course, packed with his cronies), Grandma's Boy falls on #13. And Uwe Boll's latest disaster, Bloodrayne, as expected came on #19 with lousy 900+ theaters opening averaging for US$1,573.

My take, i never cared about Adam Sandler's works (unless if he's teamed ON SCREEN with Drew Barrymore), and i believed that somewhere on this site i had a statement, a fair-warning that everyone who doesn't liked to waste their money should Never seen anything from Uwe Boll if it was an adaption from video-game. Might as well flush the money down the toilet. And that statement shall holds true again. Some random guy even said that Bloodrayne was every film professor's nightmare and some other guy said that it was so UN-tertaining that made having cancer seem fun.

Quick links:

• Hostel
  
• Grandma's Boy
  
• Bloodrayne
  

Boiler Room (2000)

United States, 2000
Cast: Giovanni Ribisi, Vin Diesel, Ben Affleck, Jamie Kennedy, Scott Caan, Ron Rifkin, Nicky Katt, Nia Long, Taylor Nichols, Tom Everett Scott
Director: Ben Younger
My Rating: *** / ****

"Reco!"
For Seth Davis (Ribisi), a 19-years-old college-dropout, a job promising tons of cash would surely had its appeal. Seth had run an illegal casino in his house, and it makes profit but it has made the relationship between him and his father (Rifkin), an allegedly legal attache - which is bad already - worsened. And so, when Seth offered to become an on-job-training in a stock-consultant firm company, JT Marlin.

What he doesnt' know was that everybody who worked on JT Marlin were on a boiler-room. Usually, people who worked on such firm would work no less than 18 hours-a-day to boost their client's portfolios whilst in so called "Boiler Room", the employees work over the phone, promising an untold-riches, providing confidential "tips", and ultimately preying on the customer's greed and fear of missing one hell of a chance. In short, what they're doing is nothing more than just a scam.

Our hero, Seth, of course doesn't aware at first to the business-practical that the JT Marlin had done on a daily basis. All he ever knew was that whenever he found a potential stupid rich man who would blindly investing his money to something unknown and unheard of (they called him "pope"), he would scream out of his lunge "Reco!!!!!" and that's when every senior broker would run to his desk to made the final 'sell'.

Curiosity kills the Cat
A talented salesman to begin with, Seth was quickly raised the ladder. He made a good money, up to a point where he doesn't need to open his casino anymore (it loses money anyway), his relationship with his father was getting better, and to add more drama to it, a cupid had decided to come to his side. But that's when curiosity kills the cat.

At first, he's just simply curious as to how come the comission on JT Marlin was higher than those of the opposing firm. He only utters his curiosity to one fellow-worker who he trusts best Chris (Diesel), who happen to takes a liking to Seth. Well, he'd be more like a brother to Seth in the end. And then a series of unfortunate events follows. And the truth was emphasized by the fact that his father knows about JT Marlin and gave his son an ultimatum, "Dont talk to me again, ever!". And that's when the world crumbles beneath his feet.

Talk is Cheap
This movie involves two of my favourite things to happen on a movie. 1. It relies heavily on dialogue. I always love movie that relies heavily on talk, instead of explosions. And this movie owned a lot - since its frightening resemblance - to David Mamet, my second favourite screenwriter (only second to Charlie Kauffman). And that was all the reason it needs. 2. It's about scam. Nothing intrigues me more than to see people getting double-crossed, people getting scammed on the screen.

It also had an effective deliverance of the emotion that came to Seth. One particular shot was when Seth involved greatly on one customer he thought as a "pope" at first but it turns out to be just a regular poor-guy. We were brought to the poor-guy family, and how does the scam that had been done by Seth was literally took the family apart. So intense.

And on the end, the movie's conclusion was nothing sort of great.

Scene Stealer
I've got no problem whatsoever with the casts. Vin Diesel gave a more than decent performance here, as Seth's "big-brother". And Giovanni Ribisi thought that this movie was his first adult-performance, it delivers, even though it rather hard to accept Ribisi as JT Marlin's brightest star at the second-half of the movie. But, i've got to admit that the scene stealer on this movie was Ben Affleck. He took the role that Alec Baldwin's took in a David Mamet's Glengarry Glenn Ross. Ben was on screen for only two scenes. And he could really convince me on both scenes. And if i was on a Seth's shoe, i would definitely be moved on by his speech and took the opportunity to work on a scam JT Marlin blindfoldedly. Really, this is his best performance that i ever saw of him.

Happy New Year

My New Year's resolutions:
Watch more movies, Read more books (yeah, like that's a news), Really start my own business (i had an investor ready, the only question left would be wether i could make him really convinced of the prospect in the business i had been proposed to him, or not. And that would be decided by the time i took him to do some market-survey later this week. If everything goes as planned, in a two months or so, three tops, my so-called-and-hopefully new business would be up and walking - not yet running), and maybe, settling down.

All in all, Happy New Year, may it brings only good things.