Amelia (Review)

     The main problem with true stories or biographical films is that you are limited to what actually happened.  Embellish too much and your story can be unbelievable or cliche.  Stick to the facts and you risk being dry and sounding like a textbook.  "Amelia" leans slightly toward the dry side yet manages to be a not unenjoyably portrait of a unique woman and how she lived a unique life.

     "Amelia" is, of course, the story of legendary pilot Amelia Earhart.  Hilary Swank plays Earhart and Richard Gere plays here husband and publicist George Putnam.  The movie begins, more or less, with their meeting and is, really, more the story of their life together, mainly from Earhart's point of view, making this less a full fledged biography and more a tragic love story. 

     Swank and Gere's performances are believable enough, but there really isn't anything special about either.  The story is, as far as I know, historically accurate, but there really isn't any tension and not nearly enough emotion.  This is the life of an American hero, a truly unique and special woman who inspired generations of women to pursue their dreams and believe in themselves, a woman who refused to live by the rules of a society that told her she couldn't, or shouldn't even try, to be whatever she wanted to be, and it has all the feeling of a made for T.V. movie.

     "Amelia" isn't not worth seeing, but it also isn't likely to inspire any future generations.

P.S.

     While standing in line to see "Titanic," which I was tricked into seeing, I upset a few of people by repeatedly saying, 'In the end, the boat sinks.'  (Sad, really.)  So, on that note, she doesn't quite make it all the way around.  Sorry if I spoiled it for you.

The Box (Review)

     I have never seen any of Richard Kelly's other movies and I am not that familiar with the play "No Exit," however, I am very doubtful that my enjoyment of "The Box" will increase any if I were better versed in these works.  I understand stories that are supposed to raise moral and metaphysical questions and make you ponder these types of things for yourself rather than making conclusions for you, however, "The Box" fails to do either. 

     "The Box" stars Cameron Diaz and James Marsden as a couple who get presented with a choice; they can press a button on a box and they will get a million dollars and someone they don't know, will die, or, they don't press the button and well, this eventuality isn't discussed, but you are meant to assume that nothing will happen.  This choice is presented to them by a mysterious and deformed man played by Frank Langella.  From there, the movie devolves into a messy mix of conspiracy/mystery movie and not quite metaphysical and almost science fiction story that tries very hard to leave you wondering about the fate of humanity and the if we deserve to live on as a species, but ultimately fails to raise any questions. 

     "The Box" fails on many levels.  With the exception of Langella, the acting is really not very good.  Saddling the main characters with vaguely southern accents was not the best of ideas.  The directing isn't bad, but the movie does seem to become lost in its self in the middle, then there are far too many revelations about this mysterious force that's controlling everything, and, from there, the ending is very slow to come and doesn't really leave you with any questions to ponder, except, if the people pushing the button don't really believe that anything will happen when they push it, is it really a test of humanity's altruism?  This might have been a better story if it had been left to the realm of the metaphysical by telling us nothing about the force behind everything, but the suggestion of alien intervention really throws the whole thing into an almost cheesy science fiction area that really doesn't work.  One family's personal Hell, I could work with, but a succession of people being controlled by less than perfect aliens doesn't really make me ponder humanity's inherent worth.  Perhaps if they had left the alien connection for the very end, and shortened the whole thing to ninety minutes, it might have made for a better mystery, but once the Mars judges humanity reference comes out, the mystery is completely deflated and we are left with aliens judging humanity, one case at a time, with rather flawed methods.  Even the threat that humanity might not pass the test, as a lingering question, is defused by the fact that the movie takes place in 1976, so either the aliens are taking their sweet time about judging humanity's worth, or we were deemed worthy at some point in the last thirty-three years and no one bothered to mention it to us. 

     "The Box"  is long and tedious, its secrets are shallow and obvious, and the only thing it leaves one to ponder is, "Why didn't I believe the critics on this one?"  If you can, personally, find some meaning in "The Box," I'm happy for you, but please realize that that meaning is purely a personal one and nothing that is inherently suggested.  (That or you are just claiming to find meaning where there is none because you like to make people think that you are smarter than you actually are.  Sorry if that sounds bitter, but I was really disappointed.)

Dead Alive or Braindead (Review)

     I'm always looking for new, or new to me, zombie movies, so my Netflix queue is ripe with potentially disappointing, less than B-movie grade, suck fests.  I had slightly higher hopes, however, for one of Peter 'Nerd of the Rings' Jackson's early works, "Braindead" or "Dead Alive," as it is known in the US, and I was actually surprised at how bad a lot of this movie wasn't, and very surprised at how bad other parts were.

     Written and directed by Peter Jackson, "Dead Alive" is a lot of plot and the goriest, bloodiest, and sickest ending I have ever seen.  After watching this movie, I sincerely hope that Peter Jackson has since gotten some serious, psychiatric help. 

     "Dead Alive" is about a timid man, living with his (s)mother.  The mother gets bitten by the worst special effect in the entire movie, a stop motion, cursed, Sumatran rat-monkey, and she slowly degraded into an undead, zombie like creature.  She then kills her nurse and turns her into a zombie as well, and we are halfway through the movie with very little action and almost no zombies.  Another quarter of the way in, and we have three more zombies and an hint of the twisted depravity to come in the form of a newly born zombie baby, which is the product of zombie 'love.'  (Really Mr. Jackson, really?)  The last quarter is a non stop blood bath with unspeakable atrocities being committed upon zombie and human alike.

     Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not opposed to a good blood bath, and I understand that we are not supposed to be taking this movie seriously.  Any time that a zombie's intestinal tract spills out on the bathroom floor, and then begins to pursue the main character, taking on a distinct, zombie persona of its own, I realize that this is not a serious horror movie.  The problem that I had with "Dead Alive," however, was that it seemed like every single kill, of any type, had to be unique.  The entire last quarter of this movie was almost like a neglected child, crying out for attention, and when he does not get any, he commits ever increasingly, disturbing acts in the hope that, surely, they won't be able to ignore this or, even worse, like there is no one there to control Peter Jackson's imagination and he is feeding on himself, trying to outdo every kill with the next kill, with no limit to just how depraved it might become.  There is no one to say, "Hey, maybe we shouldn't have the zombie explode and liquefy as it hits the ground" or "Hey, maybe they shouldn't keep kicking the upper half of that guy's head around" or even, "Hey, maybe we don't need to shred zombies in a lawnmower."  Once again, normally, I wouldn't have a problem with any one, or even some of what happens in the last quarter of "Dead Alive," however, with each zombie kill more gruesome and bloody than the previous ones, it rapidly reached a point where I had had enough, and Peter Jackson, it seems, was just getting warmed up.

     On a more positive note, I do have to give Mr. Jackson credit where credit is due.  For an extremely low budget, campy, gore-fest, the story is better than it should be, the characters are better than they should be, and the special effects, while completely disgusting, are better and more realistic than B-movies with much larger budgets.  Peter Jackson is a talented movie maker, and it shows in this early work.  (He's also one sick puppy.)

     Fans of disgusting splatter-fests and gore will want to see "Dead Alive" again and again.  Everyone else, I'd suggest you just skip it, or self medicate first.  (Don't do drugs, kids, and don't watch "Dead Alive.")

The Men Who Stare at Goats (Review)

     I've wanted to see "The Men Who Stare at Goats" ever since I saw Jon Ronson's interview on "The Colbert Report," although I could have sworn it was "The Daily Show."  (I LOVE YOU SARAH VOWELL!!!)

     "The Men Who Stare at Goats" is an odd, little dark comedy, about a secret Army program in the 1980's called project Jedi that tried to create psychic warrior monks who could prevent wars with the power of their minds.  Did I mention that this is supposed to based, at least in part, on real events?

     Ewan McGregor plays Bob Wilton, a recently jilted reporter who goes to Iraq to prove himself.  There he meets George Clooney, who plays Lyn Cassady, retired Jedi warrior.  Together, the two embark on a journey of self discovery and redemption that, in many ways, mirrors the Star Wars movies.  (And they borrowed heavily from Shakespeare, like everything else does.)

     There is a lot of subtle humor along the way, and some not so subtle, along with just enough drama to develop the characters and move the story along.  "The Men Who Stare at Goats" isn't going to win a Best Comedy Oscar (and not just because there isn't one), but it is an amusing film that fans of dark, subtle humor will enjoy.

The Fourth Kind (Review)

     I attended a matinee showing of "The Fourth Kind" because I didn't want to risk paying the full night/weekend ticket price on what might be a less than stellar movie.  I still paid too much.  I want my money, and that hour and a half of my life, back.

     "The Fourth Kind" is Hollywood's (failed) attempt to make a 'found footage' movie.  It's a mix of movie footage and so called 'real' archival footage.  I actually thought that this technique would have made "Paranormal Activity" a much better movie, and it might have.  "The Fourth Kind", however, only manages to make the entire movie seem completely unreal by constantly trying to convince you that it is real.

     The movie begins with Milla Jovovich breaking the fourth wall and lying to the audience by telling them that the archival footage in the movie is real.  It quickly becomes apparent that it is not.  Jovovich plays Dr. Abbey Tyler,(who is not a real person, despite what faked web sites tell you,) a psychologist in Alaska, who is continuing her late husband's work with people having sleep problems.  She quickly stumbles into the possibility that these people are being abducted by aliens.  Under hypnosis, her patients discover the truth of what is happening and begin to go nuts.  This is where the movie lost me.  We are treated to, so called, actual dashboard camera footage of a standoff in a house where one of these abductees is holding his family hostage.  In poorly shot, grainy footage, we see him shoot his wife, both children, who are across the room, and himself, in a matter of seconds, and the police don't manage to fire a single shot.  If this had actually happened, it would have been all over the news.  The cable news outlets would have been giddy over actual footage of someone killing three other people and himself.  Of course, this didn't really happen, but the movie is so incredibly persistent in trying to convince you that it did all actually happen, that one simply loses the ability to suspend disbelief.  We are continually treated to split screens of movie footage and 'real' footage, audio tape recordings where the actors and the tape are heard almost simultaneously, and barely audible, subtitled audio, all in an attempt to get you to believe that it's all real.  "The Fourth Kind" beats you over the head with with it's attempt to make you believe that the found footage is real but it only manages to destroy any illusion of reality that might normally be created by a movie.  The acting is poor, the direction is poor, the story goes nowhere, the characters are unbelievable, and the plot is based entirely on you believing that what you are seeing is, somehow, actual reality.  On top of that, there is nothing actually scary about anything that happens in this movie.  The 'taped' evidence is not scary.  There is no tension.  When something happens on tape that might be frightening, the tape, conveniently, goes out.  Of course, they even fail at the tried and true method of, what you don't see is scarier than what you do see, by actually showing you a bit of something completely unbelievable as the tape is flickering in and out.  They show you just enough so you can't believe what's happening, but not enough to actually create any fright.

     The only way this movie is scary is if you actually believe that aliens really are abducting people, nightly, all over the world, and everyone, except for a handful of people in Nome, Alaska, are blissfully unaware.  If you believe that, then this film might actually frighten you, (and you might actually frighten me,) otherwise, it's an hour and a half of bad movie making and oversell of a poorly thought out concept.