Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Movie Review: Already Dead

Whenever I watch a movie on FEARnet, I expect it to be a gory, slasher kind of thing. Most people who know me, know that I don't like slasher movies...what I would call gratuitous violence. This is exemplified with all the popular fare that includes some teenager wandering into the dark room, and having their head cut off with piano wire, or a scantily clad blond receiving a railroad spike in her forehead. This, for me, goes over a line. But in the interest of entertainment, suspense, or the elucidation of human nature, i do enjoy watching how writers render the reactions of human beings in challenging and frightening situations. That strikes to the core of who we are as evolved animals....

As a writer, I am familiar with the machinations of story-creation, and I
understand what human nature responds to, even if sometimes it reveals an underdeveloped or afflicted psyche. I am not interested in feeding that group of readers. So when I do watch a movie with graphic scenes, I at least want it to be integral to the plot, and of course, that suggests that there IS a plot. My leanings in this direction are more in the genre of thriller and suspense, then...

Recommendation without giving it away: it's worth seeing. Tense, well-done, with an intriguing human element that gives it real bite.


Review-- SPOILER Alert.
Having said that, I was pleasantly surprised by Already Dead, starring Ron Eldard. He's one of those actors you recognize but can't place and know little about. He is perhaps best known for his roles in Black Hawk Down and ER. In this film, he plays a father and husband, Thomas Archer; a successful architect with an idyllic life filled by a loving wife and an adored son. Archer has suffered through a vicious home invasion, and the story begins by integrating present-time with flashbacks to build the story. At the beginning, we see him traveling via subway with a bag full of money, and periodically taking instructions from a cell phone about where to go to drop the cash. The clever part of this script, here, is that we assume he is paying off kidnappers. What we discover, however, is that he is paying for the ability to exact revenge on the man who killed his son in that home invasion. I was even more interested at this point, because it was setting up to be a movie about vengeance, in the vigilante category. I've always been fascinated by this area of the human psyche. I even wrote a screenplay about it years ago, and have recently been finishing up the novella version of it, both entitled Another Justice. In Already Dead, then, the reference is at first to Archer's son.

Through more flashbacks, we learn that the detective on the case notified Archer that he was being reassigned and the case was going to be dropped, but suggested he see a therapist the department used frequently for officers who had been through traumatic events. Since Archer can find no peace on his own, he goes to see the counselor. After several months of treatment, Archer feels no better and finally, the psychologist, played by Christopher Plummer, informs him of a secret group of men in various positions of law enforcement, who take matters into their own hands, rather than let criminals skirt the system. In this scenario, they offer up his son's murderer for the hefty fee of $500k, so that this grieving father can exact revenge. I would immediately be suspicious of an organization that claimed to be about seeking justice and then charged the cost of a home in an upperclass neighborhood to offer this option to someone who is devastated by grief. But maybe that's a clue to the nature of these men.

After we are made aware that his son was not kidnapped, but killed, and that Archer has accepted the option to exact revenge, we know that the money is to pay for the privilege of doing that. Archer winds up in a room located in an abandoned warehouse-type building. The killer is strapped to a chair with a hood over his head. On a long table in the room is every manner of torture device, to include many power tools. Through the cell phone, he is reassured that the best technology was used, including DNA evidence, to conclude that this is indeed the man who killed his son. There are cameras throughout the building and in that room, where the organization can watch him and monitor the situation.
Archer pulls the killer's hood off and confronts him, eye-to-eye showing him a photo of his son, and asking him if he recognizes the boy. The guy in the chair denies any recognition. Eventually, Archer's grief and anger erupts, and he begins to inflict pain, first with a bat, and then eventually by nailing one of the killer's hands to the chair arm. This is where things get interesting. When he is about to crucify the other hand, he turns it palm up to drive the nail, and sees the guy's arm. He flashes back on the home-invasion, and recalls a tattoo on the invader's left forearm. Archer sees now that this guy he has just abused and nailed to a chair, does not have that tattoo.

Let the hand-wringing begin.

He points to the cell phone so that the guys behind the camera can see him, and they call. He tells them they have the wrong man, that he doesn't have a tattoo. They try to reassure him there is no mistake and that his mind is playing tricks, but he is certain he saw the tattoo that night. Frantic, he asks to speak to the psychologist who hooked him up with this organization, and so the therapist is on the phone, trying to talk him out of changing his mind. He warns that the agreement was made, and the organization cannot allow it to stop, it's gone too far. The job has to be finished. Archer says they can keep the money, but the man must be allowed to leave with him, safely. The doctor intimates that if he doesn't go through with it, his life is in danger. Ultimately, ethics win out over his need for revenge, and Archer refuses to continue. He destroys the camera.

The man in the chair asks for the nail to be removed, and Archer complies, and the removal is every bit as painful to watch as the insertion was.
He answers the ringing cell phone and insists the doctor come to the room immediately. The doctor arrives, still trying to convince him to finish the job, and says that even if this is not the man who did it, this man is a criminal and deserves to be punished just as much as the man who killed his son. The man in the chair says he never killed children or beat women. Archer, of course, only signed on because he wanted to punish the man who took his son from him. He's not okay with being executioner for anyone else. He releases the man, who then hobbles over to a section of wall, knocking on it, suggesting there is a way to escape if they break through the wall. Archer gets the sledge hammer and starts whacking the wall. The doctor says that the men from the clandestine vigilante organization will arrive shortly, and they will not allow Archer or the man to get out alive.

So, Archer and the chair-man start their escape, hearing shots on the room behind them which they are sure is the organization killing the doctor. The next big chunk of the movie, is the two men trying to escape from the pursuing organization of masked men who needs them dead. Although Archer knows this man didn't kill his son, he also knows he's a criminal who probably killed SOMEbody...maybe lots of somebodys. Yet, they are forced to be allies to save their own lives. They do finally make it out, discovering one of the masked men to be the doctor himself. Archer cannot kill him, though he tries to pull the trigger. He says, "I can't kill you. You're already dead." The Chairman (hehe) does the honors, since it's obvious that the only way they will both continue to survive is if all the members of that small organization are dead.


The fait accompli comes in a tag scene where the Chairman opens the trunk of a car, and we see a bound man there, and the tattoo on his arm. This is the man who killed Archer's son. We watch as the Chairman fills him with a few bullets, and closes the trunk.


Overall, quite an engaging movie, and a peek into still another dark corner of the human psyche as well as the often nebulous region of right and wrong.

Thursday, April 3, 2008

KUDZU:Movies You Should Avoid Renting...

...if You can Ignore Critics and Think for Yourself

(this is an older piece, but still useful in the age of Netflix).

I find it amazing how often I am all revved up by the idea of a movie, and how good it’s going to be, and then I find myself checking the marquee or the box to see if it is the same movie I read about. I don’t know very much about the movie industry, but I suspect it is just like any other big business where mega-bucks change hands. Sometimes someone is scratching someone else’s back, and the result has no foundation in truth or accuracy.


BASEketball-
Very rarely, do i stop a tape, or walk out of a movie before the end. I did so, with this lemon. And there wasn't even enough juice in it to make lemonade. The continual puerile, insipid jokes and visuals seem directed at 10 year old minds, yet the equation is confused by the preponderance of sleazy sexual eye-candy, definitely not suited for children. Therefore, the movie has NO audience. Not a smart investment for Hollywood moguls. To summarize very quickly, don't waste your time. The boys from South Park should stick to the cartoon.

Latter Days
This is from memory as I hadn't intended to write a review and already have sent the movie back.

I only give this movie 2 stars and not ONE because it did make me cry in places, (probably because I am an old softie anyway)and it portrayed gay men at least attempting to have something between them besides empty sex.

That aside, this movie really is a sad, clichéd and predictable attempt to inject some meaningful content into the cinematic reflections of gay life. It has been untenably difficult to discover a gay-themed movie that is certifiably GOOD (I hold up Desert Hearts and Better Than Chocolate as two that come to mind). It means nothing to hear that so many gay gatherings watched it and thought it was fabulous. The gay community is hungry for movies that accurately reflect gay life in a positive light, and so I think they see what they want to see. As a writer, I've managed to move past that and I think I can be more objective.

Latter Days wanted to be a good movie, and it tried to be a good movie, but it simply didn't try hard enough. The dialogue was largely forced, one-dimensional, and clichéd. The situations were so contrived and so staged, I could predict every single thing that was about to happen, while groaning as it did.

One example is the scene where Christian cuts his hip on something (the location near his ass--CONTRIVED) and then faints from--what? blood loss? squeamishness? Wherein Aaron rushes over to help him walk inside--half carrying him as if he had just lost a finger instead of gotten a nasty scratch. Then Christian stands at the sink and has Aaron nurse the wound, with a full view of his ass inside the thong--or shall is say the thong inside his ass--and then goes to lie down because the cut is so traumatic, and then develops a sudden fever so that he simply MUST remove his shirt and lie on the bed almost naked while Aaron brings a cold cloth to him, to soothe his fevered brow. (CONTRIVED! CLICHED! oh my god, please, tell me this is not going there!)

The sentiment in the film was forced overall, and way too melodramatic when it should have just been raw and real. That Mormon kid would never have moved from being helpful to deciding he was going to have SEX that quickly. Didn't buy it. Not for a second. The relationship between them did not develop sufficiently enough to make the interplay plausible or credible.

I was actually ashamed of Jacqueline Bisset's performance... especially out on the hospital park bench where she broke down in front of Aaron. Bad acting from someone who should be seasoned enough to know better. There were only a few scenes that were worthy of praise: one of them, the kitchen confrontation between the fallen-from-grace pariah Aaron, and his Mormon mother.

This scene was not enough to save the performance scene by his roommate, however, wherein she held the microphone like a kitchen spoon; If she had been a real singer, she would have known the proper way to sing into a microphone. (I'm a singer, and have had two bands, so I think I can say that with some degree of confidence). Same goes for the scene where she is playing the electric guitar. Real guitar players can't play like that with long fingernails, and besides, there was always something blocking her so we couldn't see that it was merely a prop, but it was painfully obvious (a finer example of realism can be found in Prey for Rock and Roll, wherein, they actually PLAYED their instruments). And all the hoopla about the songs and the lyrics had no credibility, since there was nothing special or unique about any of it.

I watched the bonus features that had interviews with participants, and when I heard one person say the script was "brilliant" I almost laughed out loud. It was a lot of things, but "brilliant" was not one of them. They even bragged that the movie had been shot in 20-something days. People! it showed. And while they interviewed several individuals involved in the soundtrack, not once did they give credit to Toad the Wet Sprocket, for the song "Windmills," which was by far the highest quality song in the film.

I appreciated the subject matter, and the intent of the movie: it's a subject that needs to be addressed on film more often. Fundamentalist and extremist religions that teach fear and intolerance have no useful purpose in a loving society, and the things that go on behind religious closed doors these days are nothing short of reprehensible. I just wish this film had been what it could have been, rather than what it was. I'm not sorry I saw it; I'm sorry it wasn't done better.

In a nutshell, Latter Days, could have been the best gay movie ever made; all the elements were there. But it was ultimately a really bad gay soap opera, with more cheese than Kraft--and I mean that in the most double-entendre way.


The Flowering of Human Consciousness: Eckhart Tolle
There seems to be a pack mentality in the spiritual milieu, which prevents spiritual, thinking people from admitting it when a pretender to the throne arrives to wave a magic enlightenment wand. More over, though I consider myself a highly spiritual person of above average intelligence, and have studied and followed the teachings of Deepak Chopra, Wayne Dyer and many other modern gurus for many years, it was patently obvious to me that this "lecture" was nothing more than the nonsensical meanderings of crazy person.

Eckhart Tolle presented himself as someone on a mind-altering drug. After about five minutes of listening to his babbling, i was thinking, "oh, kill me now!" He said nothing enlightening, and his content was wholly a disjointed form of gibberish with no redemption. It was an exercise in The Village Idiot speaking to other village idiots who had convinced themselves that his message was somehow illuminating. I have never in my life heard such an example of wasted space, money, and film. While I have not read this man's book, i can't imagine it's any more valuable than his verbal presentation. It was absurd, and by far the sorriest and most insipid example I've ever seen of supposed spiritual edification. I kept waiting for him to jump up on his chair and shout, "Live! from New York! It's Saturday night!"

Come on, people, not every self-described guru is really enlightened.