Latest Movie :
Recent Movies

REVIEW: Basic Instinct 2


A little bit of Film History 101 for those for whom cinema-consciousness doesn't extend back to 1992: The original "Basic Instinct" was the nominal high-point in a pair then-booming Hollywood trends: The "erotic thriller" (read: murder mystery with lots of nudity) and "neo-noir" (1940s-style crime/detective dramas transplanted into modern settings.) When it went into production, the "big deal" was that screenwriter Joe Esterhaz had been paid a then-astonishing $3 Million for his work, helping touch off the L.A. screenwriting "spec boom." When it was being marketed, the "big deal" was that seemingly every major starlet had turned down the aggressively-sexual lead role, instead seeing it go to Sharon Stone, at the time a B-lister. When it actually came out, the "big deal" was that gay-rights activists were protesting the film due to the "plot twist" that had Stone's character as a bisexual (this make shock those of you under the age of 16, but circa-1992 "girl-on-girl action" WASN'T something you were garaunteed to see in every sexually-explicit movie; and this is the flick that helped fix that grave injustice.) Oh! Um... it was ALSO kind of a "big deal" that you could see Sharon Stone's bare pussy when she uncrossed her legs in the film's most famous scene.

Finally, when the film had come and gone as a boxoffice-igniting smash-hit, the "big deal" was that Stone aggressively turned on it, declaring that the starmaking role had "typecast" her as a seductress. Eventually, she went so far as to claim that director Paul Verhoeven had "tricked her" into the now-legendary crotch-flashing scene. She placed herself in the public role of the victimized actress, ignored for her talent and exploited for her body by Hollywood... unlucky for her, America treated this role the same way it treated every single role she had had other than Basic Instinct: Namely, it didn't give a damn.

Now, here we are, FIFTEEN YEARS LATER, and the "big deal" is... no longer Sharon Stone. So, now, likely hoping to inject some life into a career that has, sadly, gone pretty ice cold, she's "made up" with the "Instinct" franchise and stepped back into the role of seductress/murderess Catherine Tramell... and she's hit the talk-show circuit hard on it's behalf, touting the positives of the role she not-that-long-ago fled at the mention of. Turns out, yesterday's "exploitation" is today's "celebration of the sex-appeal of the older woman." Who knew?

Hate to break it to you, Mrs. Stone, but if "Basic Instinct 2" works as a celebration of anything, it's as a celebration of how lucky we were that "Basic Instinct 1" turned out as good as it did. This sequel jettison's everyone and everything from the original save for Stone and her nudity, and the result serves as an ultimate rebuttal against the argument that said original rose and fell by said nudity alone: She's doing the same routine, and she's just as naked, but without Paul Verhoeven's considerable directorial flourish or Esterhas' functionally-lurid imagination, and only a sampling of Jerry Goldsmith's excellent score, this sequel is even more useless, empty and uninspired as one might've guessed. The characters are blanks and the "mystery" is uninteresting; it's just an expensive stage from which a one-time sex symbol pleads for our attention.

There's really nothing to see here. The much-touted "explicit" scenes are almost-nonexistant, no doubt waiting to see light on DVD. The new London setting provides little excitement, save the fun of seeing reliable Brit talents like David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling try very earnestly to pretend there's a worthy film in here, somewhere. Not so lucky is Brit TV mainstay David Morrissey, stuck in the thankless role of a psychiatrist who diagnoses Tramell as a "risk addict," only to find her slinking her way into his already-messy personal and professional life.

As for Sharon Stone... look, it'd be both easy and churlish to point out that a film that primarily exists as a showcase for a "still sexy past 40" female physique, but... the phrase "ridden hard and put away wet" leapt to mind a few times, which would sound flattering given the genre until one remembers that phrase refers to improperly-groomed racehorses. Stone is, no question, a lovely woman, but that's a bit of a leap from the "sex goddess" the film asks us to accept her as. What's more, her overall acting ability (never really her key selling point to begin with) hasn't improved... in fact, she seems to have forgotten even how to act sexy. Her Tramell still has a perky-pair and a potty-mouth, but the sexy-swagger has been supplanted by a kind of phony desperation that comes off as, well... skanky. And that's a big problem when the entire film hinges on Morrissey's character being driven (literally) mad with desire.

It's a foregone conclusion that you can find infinitely more explicit "erotic thrillers" than "Basic Instinct 2" lining the DVD shelves or cropping up on Cable. But it's surprising, and a little alarming, that most of them will also be better overall films as well.

FINAL RATING: 3/10

REVIEW: Inside Man

With this film, Spike Lee finally steps outside himself and the result is arguably the first of his efforts since "Malcom X" not to buckle under the added weight of it's maker's obsession with identity politics. This is a movie about a clever bank robber (Clive Owen) executing a self-declared "perfect" heist, the tough-but-calm hostage negotiator (Denzel Washington) on the other end... and that's it.

Well, alright, not quite. This is still, after all, Spike Lee; and the usual creeping irritants of his ouvre still poke their heads out from time to time: New York is still fetishized, a lead actor still glides on a dolly-rig, a jarring pullback-from-closeup still reveals characters to be standing in front of a wall plastered with messagery and Jewish-American characters are still played for obvious caricatures; alongside a really moronic aside for a commentary on violence (and, of course, racism) in video games and Jodie Foster as an amoral ice-queen "fixer" who seems to have the entirety of NYC under her sway and is name, yes... Miss White. Cute.

But those little half-slivers of annoyance aside, overall Mr. Lee has put his stature as poster-boy for self-important message-mongering aside and let his skill as a filmmaker take the spotlight. The result: A cracking-good thriller.

The setup you know going in, anything else you shouldn't know and won't here from me. Suffice it to say that writer Russel Gerwitz has written a solid mini-marvel of a heist movie with a great collection of characters and a corker third act, and Spike Lee has directed the hell out of it. What you've heard is true: Spike Lee has FINALLY made good on his early promise and graduated from political-essayist to filmmaker.

And it's about damn time. Well done, and reccomended.

FINAL RATING: 9/10

Sideways 2... or not

ANYTHING can have a sequel if you just try hard enough :)

And in case the below video STILL doesn't play, here's the direct iFilm link:
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2713959

"Stay Alive" out today...

In honor of cheezy-looking haunted-video game movie "Stay Alive" opening today I here present it's trailer... slightly improved-upon :)

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2709242

Enjoy!

REVIEW: The Shaggy Dog (2006)

In historical terms, Walt Disney's original 1959 "Shaggy Dog" holds a place of some significance as the first live action family hit to come out of the House of Mouse and, per the Disney model, establishing the template more-or-less adhered to for the majority that were to follow: A safe, family-friendly comedy, heavy on visual gags and slapstick but located tonally within the same realm as most television sitcoms at the time, and usually "tweaked" by the addition of some fantastical element, either magical or science-fictional in nature.

The story revolved around a magic ring, somehow tied to the Borgias of old Italy, that was cursed so as to afflict any who donned it with periodic transformations into a sheep dog. The "victim" in that case was a young man, the rest of the plot had him putting his "powers" to use thwarting Soviet spies, and the directing chores fell to Charles Barton, a reliable journeyman director who had previous experience in comedies of the supernatural as helmer of "Abbot & Costello Meet Frankenstein," the first and perhaps greatest of all monster/comedies.

The legion of Disney live-action comedies that followed essentially replayed the same concept with new characters, settings and fantasy-twists, and an official sequel arrived MUCH later in the form of "The Shaggy D.A." and another even later for television. Now, in 2006, we have and "official" remake to reboot the franchise once again, with Tim Allen now in the lead as a man (a D.A., no less!) who finds himself turning into the titular pudgy sheep dog.

Overall, the new film is about as functional and likable as the original, which is to say that it is inoffensive, charming and frequently hillarious, providing that you regard (as I do) the spectacle of Tim Allen behaving like a dog (or giving voice to a dog, depending on the scene) as funny in and of itself. Beyond that, the film is more interesting as a case study in how much the world, and thus, the movies we use to escape from/comment on it, has changed.

Just for starters, there's the hero: In the original, teenaged Tommy Kirk had the title role, (all told, the film resembles nothing so much as a family-skewing cousin to the then-popular "I Was A Teenaged Werewolf",) and the magi-comical hijinks were suggestive of typical teen confusion (title character is freaked out by sudden physical changes, prinicipally involving hair? Hm? Anyone?) At the time, that was the basic dynamic of family comedy: Teens were funny because audiences presumed a universal awkwardness and tendency to foul up humorously as they navigated the transition from child to adult.

That was then, this is now. And NOW, we all know, teenage-hood is worshipped in as the only clear-thinking time in life, and the automatic slapstick heroes of the family comedy are fathers: Dad, the reliable goofball who can always be counted on to have lessons to learn and hangups to be spun into comedy gold. It goes without saying that Family Comedy Dad is a workaholic who's lost touch with his family, especially the kids, and thus requires the aid of mystical intervention to help. To that end, Tim Allen leads as an assistant D.A. preoccupied with his "starmaking" prosecution of a teacher/animal-rights activist accused of sabotaging the lab of a giant pharmacuetical corporation where, he claims, unethical animal experimentation is taking place.

Saying otherwise is the company's slimy chief scientist (Robert Downey Jr. in an underhyped but inspired comedy turn,) but you can be forgiven for guessing that he's lying. You probably ALSO didn't have to guess that the 1959 films' Russian Spy baddies are here replaced by the New Millenium villian's of choice: an unscrupulous mega-corporation. (I think we can safely assume that not even a Disney scriptwriter could think of a plausible reason for Al Qaeda to be involved with magical sheep dogs.) Sure enough, the big business bullies are holding captive and experimenting on a mysterious dog.

Why? Seems this time around the sheep dog is a sacred animal from a Buddhist monastery (where else?) who's DNA may hold the key to the fountain of youth. How? We're told that a genetic mutation has inverted the dog-years/human-years equation, allowing "Shaggy" to age seven times slower than a human being. Folks, I want to shake the hand of the fake-science black belt who thought that up. In any case, in order to harvest youth-serum the baddies have "viralized" the furry one's blood, meaning that when he bites Tim Allen about ten minutes in the plot-proper breaks out: Suddenly the no-nonsense work-addict has heightened-sense, embarassing canine personality ticks and the bad luck to transform into a dead-ringer for Shaggy at inoportune times. Will this help him reconnect with his family? Realize he's defending the wrong side? Help save the day and thwart the scientists? Yeah, I wonder...

But when it works, it works. The slapstick is funny enough, Allen remains a natural talent for such fare, and the animal gags are uniformly amusing. And the film gets just the right amount of mileage out of it's built-in "awww"-factor: Allen, transformed into a dog, finds himself privy to his family's various unspoken (to humans) problems with life and himself in particular. His wife feels she's losing him to work, teenaged daughter wants acknowledgement for all the hard work she puts into her interests, and young son is suffering through football to impress dad but really dreams of landing the lead in the school production of "Grease." There's something to be said for a movie that can evoke genuine emotion from the image of a sheep dog standing at the window of a ritzy restaurant, carrying an anniversary boquet in it's teeth. All together now: Awwww...

FINAL RATING: 7/10

REVIEW: V For Vendetta

"V For Vendetta" adapts comic book icon Alan Moore's seminal graphic novel of the early 1980s. As with prior films based on his work, it's forced to work out a cinematic solution to Moore's ultra-literary, action-lite (in comic book terms) prose. In this regard, it's more successful than prior adaptations of "From Hell" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen." At re-tooling the material's distinctly Cold War era setup to the current world situations, it's significantly less successful. But good effort.

The basic premise remains: An England of the near future has been overtaken by an Orwellian fascist government that oppresses it's citizenry through information control and secret police. Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman) a secretary at the state-run news media, finds herself rescued from danger by a self-proclaimed freedom fighter named "V," (Hugo Weaving,) who has superhuman strength and wears the mask of Guy Fawkes (the British folk icon who tried to blow up Parliament.) To her and soon to all V reveals his mission: To blow up landmarks and assassinate Party officials in order to bring down The System. Evey finds herself pulled along for the ride, and is troubled by a pair of slowly-unveiling truths about her "savior": Namely, that his mission may be borne more of personal vengeance than of populist anger and, more immediately, that "right" or not... V is a madman.

Weaving does the heavy lifting as V, asked to turn in a fairly complex character performance with no facial expressions (V never removes his immobile Fawkes mask for our benefit) and elaborate pantomime. That he frequently appears more silly-looking than menacing is kind of the point, though I wonder how such is really going to play to audiences expecting an action hero... particularly those with little or no frame of reference for what the mask means as a symbol from a British perspective. Portman, by design, spends most of the film being either frantic or confused until a 3rd Act twist allows her to affect a shell-shocked icy madness. Ever a fine actress, she manages to make it flow.

A fine assortment of British bad-guy specialists assemble as the Party Members opposed to V, with John Hurt standing out in the plum but thankless role of High Chancellor Sutler; the Big Boss who spends approximately 98% of his screentime as a giant head on giant TV screens, 1% waxing the Hitlerian in flashbacks and the remaining moments as... eh, you'll see. Steven Rhea brings his grumbly A-game as Finch, the cynical detective who's investigation into V leads him to a spooky cover-up conspiracy and may (or may not) be just another part of V's master plan.

Most of this works, preserving the source material's overall effect of a standard 1984/Brave New World/Fahrenheit 411 dark-future fable re-imagined with a superhero lead and tweaked with the "oh by the way" implications that the "hero" may be nearly as twisted as those he strikes against. The re-working of the Evil State from a crumbling Hitlerian/Stalinist beaurocracy to a ruthlessly efficient Christian Fundamentalist theocracy is a little creaky, but it squares appropriately with the kept-from-the-book dwelling on Nazi-esque persecution of gays.

Less functional are specifics added to definitively remove the action from Cold War cautionary tale to War on Terror parable. Nevermind that V is technically a terrorist, thats the point. Another, less-violent protester keeps vintage anti-Iraq War protest signs and a banned Koran under glass as part of his banned-works collection; which strike a curious note by being at once "gutsy" in inviting MORE controversy but also seem a bit out-of-place given later revelations. More pointedly: Enemies of religious fundamentalism are collecting religious texts... why, exactly?

MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW. TURN BACK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW KEY PLOT INFORMATION.

To it's credit, the film keeps the book's morally troubling "gotcha!" as to the extent of V's madness: At about midpoint, Evey gets abducted and tortured past the point of insanity by shadowy "government" figures. When it becomes apparent that she's so far gone as to be untroubled by death, her tormentor is revealed to be... V, (whom we're told became what he is via similar torture and medical experiments,) staging an elaborate torture regimen in order to make his protege' as crazy as he is so that she'll "understand." So thats the gag: What the characters (and the film) play as an awakening to revolution is actually a descent into insanity. V is a terrorist, and a monster, and while he may be a nominal protagonist he's no "hero." Whether audiences are going to process this (the film's early critics, calling it "pro-terrorist," certainly didn't) is another matter, the proof is onscreen that the filmmakers are aiming for debate and moral complexity.

All this doesn't exactly "rescue" the film from it's bigger flaws: It's a little too short for all of it's twisting and mystery, it's a little TOO talky for it's own good, and final reveals about "whats really going on" (a kind of conspiracy/business scam involving a staged WMD attack made to look connected to the U.S. war on terror) lands onscreen like a convulted last-minute detail. And while it won't unseat "Equilibrium" as the ultimate New Millenium negative-utopia actioner, it's at least smarter and more ambitious than we usually get from the genre.

Reccomended with reservation.

FINAL RATING: 7/10

REVIEW: Failure to Launch

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.
 
Support : Creating Website | Johny Template | Mas Template
Copyright © 2011. Izmovies - Watch Full New Movies movies Youtube - All Rights Reserved
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Proudly powered by Blogger