|
Reviews
Here are the
show's weekly reviews of theatrical releases and DVD picks. The
films are listed alphabetically by title. Titles beginning with
numerical values (i.e. 16 Blocks) are listed in the Numbers
section. Foreign films are listed according to the American title
under which they were marketed.
H
Hairspray
(2007)
Directed by: Adam Shankman
Premise: Tracy, a plump teenager living in
Baltimore in the early 1960s, dreams of becoming a regular dancer on a
locally produced American
Bandstand-style music show. Defying the odds, Tracy lands a spot
and runs afoul of the station’s program director (Michelle Pfeiffer)
when she advocates racial integration. This begins a movement to
vindicate people of all shapes and races.
What Works: Hairspray is a lot of
fun. The film includes a lot of sharp humor that goes by quickly, one
joke or bit of innuendo piling on top of the other in ways that will
make the film interesting to watch more than once. Many of the jokes
take stabs at racial and gender issues of the 1960s in ways that edge
toward political incorrectness without crossing over to be crude or
exploitative. The design of Hairspray is also impressive, as it
combines the staged look of a musical with the more realistic techniques
and set designs of a contemporary feature film. Hairspray has
nearly constant musical numbers that are performed with energy and gusto
by the performers, especially newcomer Nikki Blonsky as Tracy, although
she is a much better singer than actress. John Travolta, dressed in
drag, stars as Tracy’s mother and he deserves some of the biggest
acting kudos of the film. He sells the character without going to the
silly extremes of men dressed as women in films like Robin Williams in Mrs.
Doubtfire. Although Travolta is over the top in spots, so is the
rest of the film and his performance evens out with the rest of the tone
of the picture. In the quieter moments, Travolta really sells the mother
and makes her relationship with Tracy one of the assets of the film.
What Doesn’t: The cinematography during
the musical pieces is very static and uninteresting especially compared
to the editing and camera work of contemporary musicals like Idlewild
or Dreamgirls.
The story is very thin and despite working with hot button issues like
race relations, freedom of expression, and the tyranny of fashion, there
is little of substance in the film. The film doesn’t risk mussing its
hair by actually saying anything beyond easy affirmations of the values
of diversity. The lack of any real substance hinders Hairspray
from moving beyond popcorn entertainment and that is a shame since the
film is so much fun.
Bottom Line: Hairspray is a nice,
fun picture that seems destined to find a cult following. Stylistically
and thematically, the picture has more in common with the musicals of
the 1970s like Saturday
Night Fever and Grease
than it does with more recent films but it accomplishes its goals. The
film is not very bold and the superficial treatment of serious issues
does not provide the viewer with much to chew on, but in a summer that
is so full of regurgitated formulas and sequels, Hairspray is a
welcome film that will leave viewers happy.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Halloween
(2007)
Directed by: Rob Zombie
Premise: A remake of John
Carpenter’s 1978 horror classic. In this re-imagining, Michael
Myers grows up in a dysfunctional suburban household and is committed to
an asylum after murdering members of his own family. Fifteen years
later, the adult Myers escapes and returns to his hometown to hunt down
his surviving sister (Scout Taylor-Compton).
What Works: The first act of the film is
very good and successfully reinvents the franchise by exploring the
background of Michael Myers. Zombie’s screenplay creates a credible
psychopathology for Michael Myers. The disintegration of Michael’s
personality while he is incarcerated is very interesting and very
grounded in reality, which makes it much creepier. The young Michael
Myers is played by Daeg Faerch and the actor does a good job of
portraying a burgeoning psychopath, selling the madness by playing the
role calmly and using the horror of his actions and the situations to
create the madness. The relationship between Michael and Dr. Loomis
(Malcolm McDowell) is portrayed a bit differently in this version and
fleshing out their relationship helps to illustrate Michael’s growing
threat and aids the ending of the film. McDowell brings a sensitivity to
his role as a failed nurturer that differs from Donald Pleasence’s
Captain Ahab-like take on the character in the original film. Sherri
Moon Zombie stars as Michael Myers’ mother and she really sells the
tragedy of Michael’s descent in monstrosity.
What Doesn’t: After Michael Myers escapes
from the asylum, the film abandons a lot of its innovative ideas and
ends up repeating a lot of the original film but in a faster, watered
down, and far less suspenseful imitation. In House
of 1000 Corpses and The
Devil’s Rejects, Rob Zombie demonstrated his ability to stage
violence in savage and brutal ways, but he comes up short in this film.
Many scenes of violence are poorly staged and edited so that it is
difficult to tell what is happening. On top of that, Zombie still
hasn’t mastered the ability to create dread and tension, which this Halloween
severely lacks. The three female leads are obnoxious, overly hormonal,
one-dimensional characters whose life or death is ultimately
inconsequential and that kills audience investment in the conclusion.
While the remake appears to be trying to separate itself from the cliché
of the virginal Final Girl by making the victims and the heroine
sexually savvy, the result is that the sexuality comes off as redundant
and superfluous. In the third act, this Halloween plays more like
the sequels to the original film than a reinvention and rehashes a lot
of sequences seen before in this franchise and the slasher genre in
general. This is most apparent when Michael becomes an indestructible
killing machine, impervious to bullets and other damage, even though the
whole point of this version’s new approach was to get away from this
pseudo-supernatural and ground Michael Myers in reality.
Bottom Line: The remake of Halloween
is a disappointment, more so because it is a product of Rob Zombie,
whose sophomore film, The Devil’s Rejects, was a brilliant
piece of film. This remake falters because it jettisons the novelty of
reinvention in favor of recapitulating what has been seen before.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Hancock
(2008)
Directed by: Peter Berg
Premise: Hancock (Will Smith) is a man with
superpowers and a bad attitude, spending his days intoxicated and
occasionally using his super human abilities to stop criminals and save
civilians, but with clumsy and often destructive results. He teams with
a public relations executive (Jason Bateman) to recast his public image
and reshape his life.
What Works: Hancock is a very
different take on the superhero genre and a welcome addition to a summer
movie season that is packed with comic book adaptations. The film
follows a similar mold as Superman:
The Movie, Batman
Begins, and Iron
Man, as it tracks Hancock’s growth into a hero, but this film
differentiates itself from other films by adding a lot of humor, some of
it crude, and giving the title character a lot of flaws. Will Smith’s
“Fresh Prince” persona helped build his career in hits like Independence
Day and Men
in Black but it later came to hurt films like I,
Robot where it wasn’t appropriate. Thankfully, Smith departs
from his clean-cut cockiness for the role of Hancock and presents a
character unlike anything else in his filmography. Smith is best known
for his likeability and bank-ability but has not yet been fully
appreciated for his acting ability, which is considerable. Hancock
gives Smith a chance to stretch his acting muscles a bit, much more than
this kind of genre piece generally allows and it helps the film a lot in
its transition into the final act. Hancock is smarter than the
average superhero film. At several points, the film juxtaposes Hancock,
a man with impressive superpowers who is unable to direct them to useful
ends, with Jason Batman’s character, a public relations specialist
pleading with corporate executives to use their power and influence for
constructive purposes. This is sly and smart storytelling and the film
sets up themes about heroism and gives both men the chance to grow.
What Doesn’t: The main problem facing the
film is that once Hancock reforms himself he is a lot less interesting
to watch. While the unshaven and inebriated Hancock is not a very
effective hero, he is a lot of fun and quite different from other
superheroes. The more Hancock rehabilitees himself, the more he
resembles most other superheroes and thus loses his novelty. The other
problem facing the film is its lack of a super villain. Although Hancock
is mostly a foil to himself, he needs some challenge to really measure
himself against and that never presents itself in this film. Hancock
is similar to True
Lies, which played on the spy genre in much the same way that Hancock
plays on the superhero genre, but True Lies did it much better,
balancing the micro and the macro storylines and connecting them
together.
Bottom Line: Hancock is an ambitious
film that poses some interesting ideas about heroism. Some of those
ideas are half-baked and as an action-adventure, the film needs more
work. It’s good but not great; at the very least Hancock is an
interesting footnote in the contemporary wave of superhero films.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Hannibal
Rising
Directed by: Peter Webber
Premise: A prequel to Red
Dragon, Manhunter,
The
Silence of the Lambs, and Hannibal
that explores the back-story of Hannibal Lecter (Gaspard Ulliel).
The young Hannibal tracks down the men who killed his sister and
becomes a monster in the process.
What Works: The film has a look and feel of
its own and as a story unto itself, Hannibal Rising is a slightly
above average film. The acting by most of the cast is competent and the
sequences are often well designed. The early part of the film and
flashbacks to Lecter’s childhood in Lithuania during World War II are
particularly well done.
What Doesn’t: As a prequel, Hannibal
Rising does not really yield new ways of looking at Lecter as a
character or increase the understanding of the character as he appears
in the other films. Due to the disconnected nature in which this series
evolved, connecting the three Hannibal Lecter stories is a challenging
task, but Hannibal Rising does not even attempt to make that
link. As for the development of Lecter, the character comes off less
like a burgeoning serial killer and more like a hit man. Instead of a
monster, Lecter is an action hero who eats his victims. Ulliel is unable
to follow the lead of Anthony Hopkins, which again is a formidable task,
but Ulliel’s performance and the screenplay ignore the most basic
premise of the character, that Lecter is a good man trapped in an insane
mind, and just goes for the madness. The psychology of the story is weak
and Lecter has a very flat learning curve; he goes from boy to genius
with little gradation and little cost for his revenge.
Bottom Line: As a part of the Lecter
series, Hannibal Rising is an underwhelming film. The character
as presented here does not really link to the other films except by
contrivance and the film is unable to reach the level of the other
pictures.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Happening
Directed by: M. Night Shyamalan
Premise: When people on the East Coast
mysteriously begin dying en masse, a high school science teacher (Mark
Wahlberg) and his wife travel across the countryside while trying to
figure our what is happening.
What Works: The Happening is one of
Shyamalan’s better films. The picture manages to sell a fairly
outrageous premise by using a realistic and minimal approach. The unseen
menace of The Happening forces the focus to be placed on the
characters, and it falls to the actors to sell the illusion. It’s a
risky premise but the film makes it work through some great casting and
channeling the exposition through limited media sources. Mark Whalberg
stars as a high school science teacher and he does well playing against
type. Zooey Deschanel stars as his wife, and she has the challenge of
playing an extremely stoic woman but not making her look bored or blank.
Deschanel pulls it off and she and Whalberg’s character have some
effective scenes together. Shyamalan’s films have usually been marked
by twists and turns, and although there is a mystery to be uncovered, The
Happening is much more straightforward than his other pictures. The
story relies on rising drama rather than twists, making this is a much
more mature film than Shyamalan’s other work; the characters have much
more reality to them and the situation has much more weight. The picture
is also well unified; Shyamalan’s films often deal with the limits of
rational thought and scientific inquiry and The Happening carries
on this theme, allowing Shyamalan to do some of his most interesting
work with it.
What Doesn’t: The story of The
Happening is pretty light, especially the finale. The trouble is
that the film is not really building towards a discernable climax and
the ending is rather flat; it does not empower the protagonist. As good
as Whalberg and others are in the film, the story is not really giving
him anything to do except run in the opposite direction of the corpses.
Whalberg’s character development is largely internalized and although
the actor sells it, the story needs something more palatable and
immediate at stake.
Bottom Line: The Happening is good
but not great. The film is for viewers who like to think, more so than
any other film in Shyamalan’s filmography except The
Village, which may be his best work so far. This is certainly
better than Signs
or Lady
in the Water and at the very least it is one of Shyamalan’s
most interesting and original films.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Happy
Feet
Directed by: George Miller
Premise: An animated film about a community
of penguins living in the Antarctic who find their mates through song.
Mumble (voice of Elijah Wood) becomes an object of ridicule when he
comes of age and cannot sing but impulsively tap dances. Labeled as an
outcast, Mumble is blamed for the lack of fish stocks in the local
water, and he sets out on a journey to discover the truth
What Works: Happy Feet is an amusing
mix of March
of the Penguins, Footloose,
and Swan Lake. The animation in the film is incredible in places,
particularly in the rendering of the environments. Some of the sequences
and characters, such as the Killer Whales, look photorealistic and often
complement the music sequences. The songs borrow from the stylings of Moulin
Rouge! and the film is able to do quite well with this, using
the songs dramatically to advance character and plot and using them for
humorous purposes. Robin Williams is featured as one of the voice of
several characters and be brings his manic energy to film, giving it a
boost when the story needs it the most. His fast delivery plays on
double entendres that will speak to the adults but go over the heads of
most of the children in the audience.
What Doesn’t: The story of Happy Feet
is muddled between two narratives. The film starts as an ugly duckling
story in which Mumble attempts to resolve his differences with the
community. Halfway through the film, the story abandons this narrative
line and becomes a hero’s journey into the unknown. Neither one of
these storylines are particularly well done because they are incomplete.
The community’s acceptance of Mumbles deviance is spontaneous and
unearned and the journey that he takes does not have any trauma or
revelation. The ending is a deus ex machina solution to
the conflict that resolves the conflicts through a cop out rather than a
dramatically sound conclusion.
Bottom Line: Happy Feet is not the
best animated film to come along recently, but it is not the worst
either. Adults and their children will probably enjoy the film, although
some of the grownups who are not as easily amused might be a little
disappointed.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Hard
Candy
Directed by: David Slade
Premise: Jeff (Patrick Wilson), a
photographer and a pedophile, meets Hayley (Ellen Page), a
fifteen-year-old girl, in an Internet chat room. When the two meet in
person, the predator-prey roles are turned and Jeff finds himself the
object of torture.
What Works: Hard Candy is an
extremely well done film. Despite its incendiary premise, the film has
more in common with the work of Alfred Hitchcock than the exploitative
gore fests of more recent years. Instead, the picture holds back,
hinting at what has happened and using psychological games to create an
atmosphere of danger and perversion. The visual style is gorgeous and
crafted to support the dramatic action; it has a similar look and feel
of Asian horror films like Audition.
As an entry in the horror genre, Hard Candy has taken the
traditional Gothic premise and flipped it around to play against
audience expectation. The result is a film that is morally confusing and
the audience is bound to find their allegiances shifting from one moment
to the next.
What Doesn’t: Hard Candy is as
controversial and intense as films get. Audiences who expect filmmakers
to deliver prepackaged good and evil in the narrative are going to find Hard
Candy difficult to swallow.
DVD extras: Commentary tracks, deleted
scenes, making-of documentaries, DVD-ROM features.
Bottom Line: Hard Candy is one of
the most provocative films to come along in some time. Unlike many films
of its type, this film manages to be incendiary without being
exploitative but by genuinely engaging the audience with ideas and
psychological violence. This is a brilliant, subversive film that is one
of the best entries in the genre in a long time.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Harold
and Kumar Go to White Castle
Directed by: Danny
Leiner
Premise: Just like it sounds.
Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) get high on marijuana and decided
to take a short road trip to get burgers from White Castle, a fast food
restaurant.
What Works: Not a whole lot. There
are a few laughs in the picture when it waxes satirical such as a parody
of an anti-drug commercial involving two pot-smoking teens and a
shotgun. There are also some positive moments in which the film pokes
fun at racial stereotypes. Unfortunately, these don't come nearly often
enough.
What Doesn't: The film's attempt
to be a fusion of Dude,
Where's My Car, Road
Trip, and the Cheech and Chong movies falls flat. It is
just not that funny. On top of that the characters are totally
uninteresting and even the drug humor does not work. The film lacks the
poetry of idiocy that Cheech and Chong and Dumb
and Dumber do
so well.
Bottom Line: Cho and Penn seem
like competent actors, but they have been given little to work with.
Even if you are a stoner yourself, give this movie a pass.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Harry
Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Directed by: Mike Newell
Premise: The fourth film
in the Harry Potter series. In this installment, Harry (Daniel
Radcliff) enters a life-or-death interschool wizardry contest.
What Works: Goblet of
Fire is the most impressive of the Harry Potter films in the
way it balances all of its elements. The main characters have entered
early adolescence and the film’s capture of this burgeoning adulthood
is dead on. The reality of the character's struggles with maturity gives
the fantasy a credibility and opportunities for dramatic rises and falls
in emotion. At the same time it has a deeply serious mystery that is
well drawn and has some well conceived twists.
What Doesn’t: The film
has some elements that stretch the story’s credibility, such as the
decision of the adults to allow Harry into the contest and the mystery
that Harry seeks to discover seems over elaborate. Also, the stories
have become a little predictable with the plots constantly locating the
antagonist in the Protection from the Dark Arts instructor.
Bottom Line: The
Goblet of Fire is the best film so far in the Harry Potter
series. It surpasses the previous films in its balance of the serious
and the humorous, in its fuller treatment of the main cast, and the more
complex story.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Harry
Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Directed by: David Yates
Premise: The fifth film in the Harry
Potter series. After the return of Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) in
Harry
Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the previous film, the Ministry
of Magic appoints a bureaucrat (Imelda Staunton) to Hogwarts School of
Magic and she begins to take over the school, changing the curriculum
and denying the return of Voldemort despite evidence to the contrary. In
response, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) rallies his fellow students to
defy the new administration and face the forces of darkness on their
own.
What Works: Harry Potter and the Order
of the Phoenix does its duty as a sequel, bringing the characters
and the conflicts to the next level. This chapter of the Harry Potter
series is more about character development than action, and gone are a
lot of the familiar sequences from earlier installments such as the
Quidditch match or the classroom scenes. Instead, this film spends a lot
of time crafting the conflict between Harry and Dolores Umbridge
(Staunton) and allowing for Harry to grow as a character through the
conflict and through his defiance. The character development of Harry
and his friends goes further in this film in ways that other Harry
Potter films have not. This is a welcome addition and it gives the
film more character depth than has been seen in these series thus far.
The themes and subtext of the story also have more depth as Harry is
forced to contend with the adult world and adult responsibilities.
Corruption, the use and abuse of power, relationships of people in
authority towards those without power, educational reform, and choices
between good and evil permeate this film. It builds upon the maturity of
Goblet of Fire, which gave Harry and friends a textured and
accurate portrayal of adolescence, and they all take a step toward
adulthood in Order of the Phoenix that is very satisfying to
watch.
What Doesn’t: The biggest flaw of Order
of the Phoenix is the lack of pay off. Where Goblet of Fire
was capped by the fantastic resurrection of Voldemort and the impending
sense of danger and gloom, this film does not leave the story with much
of a climax or a cliffhanger. A few new characters are introduced,
namely Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter) but the film does not
do much of anything with her, but these films do have a pattern of
establishing characters or ideas in one film and letting them pay off in
the next, so that maybe where her character is going.
Bottom Line: Harry Potter and the Order
of the Phoenix is very good as a fantasy film, as a sequel, and as a
picture in its own right. Although there is a lot of set up in the film,
there is also a lot of depth and texture to be found. The Harry
Potter film series is quickly shaping up to be one of the best
franchises in the genre.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Harry
Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
Directed by: Chris Columbus
Premise: An adaptation of
J.K. Rowling’s novel, the film portrays Harry Potter’s (Daniel
Radcliffe) first year at Hogwart’s School for Witchcraft and Wizardry.
What Works: The film
captures the spirit of Rowling’s novel and does a good job adapting it
to the screen. The child actors are very competent in their roles but
the film is really given its credibility by the cast of adults, played
by actors such as Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, and the late Richard
Harris.
What Doesn’t: The
picture is very dialogue heavy and there are a few scenes here and there
that seem unnecessary. In particular, the Quiddich match goes on for a
quite awhile but does not have much of a payoff to the story.
DVD extras: The DVD
includes a second disc with bonus material including behind the scenes
material, a tour of Hogwarts, and games.
Bottom Line: Harry
Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone is a fun picture that will satisfy
fans of Rowling’s book but is also accessible to those who have not
read the novel.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Haunting of North 3rd Street
Directed by: Jon Hyers
Premise: A documentary film about supposed
supernatural experiences of the Hyers family at a house in St. Peter,
Minnesota. The film interviews the members of the family and takes their
testimonials while also dramatizing the events with actors.
What Works: The music of the film is very
effective when it’s not too overbearing. The film has a compelling
story to tell and manages to create a credible sense of drama and convey
the growing threat to the family from what they believe to be a
poltergeist.
What Doesn’t: The Haunting of North 3rd
Street is a very modest film and ought to be judged on slightly more
lenient criteria than what is afforded to a well-funded Hollywood film.
But even given this leniency, the film has a lot of amateurish
qualities. The film cross cuts between the documentary interviews and
the dramatization and does not do it very well. The dramatization is
very poor; the acting is wooden, the editing is uneven, the dialogue is
inane, the staging of scenes is mostly dull and stagnant. The
crosscutting also makes the film much worse by dragging things out. The
film slips into a pattern of explaining the events through interviews
with the witnesses and then immediately dramatizing the event almost
exactly as it was just explained. If the film is going to crosscut
between the two components, it ought to do that more tightly,
overlapping the narration with the image. The graphics of the film look
very amateurish, as though they were designed for a PowerPoint
presentation rather than a feature film. Throughout the film there is a
big disconnect between the visuals and the story. The family repeatedly
states that they never saw a ghost or a specter but the film constantly
includes special effects of supernatural beings. The film also claims
that a murder took place in the home, trying to link the haunting with
the crime, but the family members admit that they were never able to
verify that any crime took place. Yet, the film spends an extended
sequence dramatizing a murder. Lastly, as a documentary, the film has
serious credibility problems. It was directed by one of the members of
the family and does not include anyone with an outside perspective.
Bottom Line: The Haunting of North 3rd
Street looks more like a rough cut of a film rather than a finished
product. Although it has some potential, the film needs to be re-cut
before it can be considered a good film and even then the credibility
issue hangs over its head. The film will be interesting for locals but
as a piece of cinema it is simply not that impressive.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Heart is Deceitful Above All Things
Directed by: Asia Argento
Premise: Story of Jeremiah (Jimmy Bennett),
a young boy who is yanked between the custody of various people
including his birth mother (Asia Argento), his grandfather (Peter
Fonda), and foster care. Along the way Jeremiah encounters the darkest
elements of humanity and this shapes his view of love and relationships.
What Works: The performance by Jimmy Bennett is
truly amazing. It is easily one of the best performances by a child
actor since Jodi Foster in Taxi
Driver in
that he conveys the innocence of a child but does not underestimate the
intelligence of the character. The extent to which the film pushes
Jeremiah and the ways Bennett portrays his corruption are extremely well
done. Director Argento is fearless in placing the child protagonist in
some of the worst situations imaginable and has a keen sense for how to
communicate horrendous abuse in ways that will horrify but are also very
creative and tasteful. Argento also stars in the film as Jeremiah’s
mother. She, along with Michael Pitt as Jeremiah’s cousin, form very
interesting relationships with the protagonists that shape his
development.
What Doesn’t: As a result of the kind of
story this is, The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things becomes
very episodic. Each segment is well done, and the relationship between
Sarah and Jeremiah comes back enough to provide consistency in the
narrative, but at the conclusion of the film, the story ends rather than
reaching much of a climax.
DVD extras: Commentary track, featurette,
trailers.
Bottom
Line: The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things is brave
filmmaking, the kind of picture that deals with difficult subject matter
and finds ways of making it accessible without watering down the topic.
Although it is flawed, it does make a very interesting viewing.
BACK TO THE TOP
Hellraiser
(1987)
Directed by: Clive Barker
Premise: Julia, a restless and unfaithful
wife (Claire Higgins), is reunited with Frank, her lover and
brother-in-law (Oliver Smith), but finds that he is a zombie living the
attic of the family house, having recently been resurrected from the
beyond. Julia begins to murder people and feed them to Frank in order to
restore his body and gradually loses her grip on morality and sanity. At
the same time, a group of supernatural torture artists led by Pinhead
(Doug Bradley) begin to track Frank down.
What Works: Despite being two decades old, Hellraiser
remains a solid film. The story is an interesting combination of
Biblical stories, slasher films, urban legends, and fairy tales. The
film balances these elements and disguises them so well that most will
be invisible to the audience without careful analysis but they are there
and these archetypes are used intelligently to create a horrific fairy
tale in an urban setting. Hellraiser is best known as the film
that introduced Pinhead to the world, but the film does not give itself
over to the character the way some other franchises did, namely A
Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday
the 13th. In Hellraiser, the focus stays on
the family drama as Julia becomes increasingly psychopathic and she and
Frank threaten her husband (Andrew Robinson) and her stepdaughter
(Ashley Lawrence). Higgins gives a very strong performance as a woman
who loses her way and the character of Julia is an unusually well
written female role, both within the horror genre and across American
cinema as a whole. That said, Pinhead is one of the great characters of
horror cinema and that is to do with Barker’s writing, Bob Keen’s
makeup, and Bradley’s commanding performance. Beyond Pinhead, the
visual style of Hellraiser is unique and builds into the themes
of sadomasochism and forbidden desire, achieving a balance between the
gory and the gorgeous. This allows for the film to deliver unique
visuals, some that have not been equaled in the genre since.
What Doesn’t: Some of the dialogue was
dubbed over to Americanize the British accents of a few characters.
Despite the staying power of this film, this has never been corrected.
Also, some of the optical effects in the film have not dated very well.
These are kept to a minimum but they do stick out.
DVD extras: The 20th anniversary
edition of Hellraiser includes a commentary track, a documentary,
interviews with actors Andrew Robinson, Ashley Lawrence, and Doug
Bradley, and composer Christopher Young, poster and still galleries, TV
and radio spots, and the screenplay.
Bottom Line: Hellraiser
is one of the great horror films to come out of the 1980s. The film is
one of the rare demarcation points in the history of genre. Like Psycho,
The
Exorcist, and Scream,
Hellraiser opened the genre to new possibilities and twenty years
later its influence can still be seen in contemporary films like Saw.
BACK TO THE TOP
Hero
Directed by: Yimou Zhang
Premise: A nameless assassin (Jet Li)
recounts how he defeated three other assassins.
What Works: This is a beautiful looking
film, even more so that Crouching
Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It is heavily formalistic and its
fight scenes are incredible but these elaborations on the form are done
in ways that support the narrative. The story design is very interesting
as well; the stories are told multiple times and with each telling the
audience learns something more about the characters and about the nature
of war and heroism. There is a huge scope to the look of the film but it
has a strong emotional center based on interesting human relationships.
What Doesn't: Some portions of the story
move slowly. While this fits with the tone and style of the picture, it
sometimes feels like it needs to pick up. There is an interesting theme
about the nature of war but a lot of it comes only at the very end.
Bottom Line: Hero is a gorgeous
looking film that is done on the scale of some of Hollywood's biggest
event pictures, but it never loses sight of the intimate human
relationships.
BACK TO THE TOP
High
Tension
Directed by: Alexandre Aja
Premise: A woman (Cecile
De France) plays a cat and mouse game with an Ed Gein-like killer
(Philippe Nahon) after he murders her friend’s entire family.
What Works: This is a
very grim picture. It utilizes extreme violence mingled with sexuality
to create an atmosphere that is very uncomfortable. It eschews plot or
character development to rattle the viewer and shake them out of any of
the comforts of a traditional narrative. The film becomes more
disorienting and far more effective this way.
What Doesn’t: The film
inserts a reversal in the last fifteen minutes that does not work at all
because it betrays the audience’s understandings about the drama and
does not further our understanding of the events. While the horror genre
tends to reject traditional narrative form, High Tension carries
it too far and opens up too many holes in the preceding footage.
Bottom Line: High
Tension is one of the most violent and savage horror films to come
along in quite awhile but this is actually quite refreshing, especially
after a lot of the disappointing PG-13 horror films released this
spring. Fans of The
Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Wes Craven’s early work, and other
1970s exploitation films will want to see this. Mainstream audience and
sensitive viewers should be aware of the film’s level of violence.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Higher
Learning
Directed by: John Singleton
Premise: Multiple
storylines of students entering a university and dealing with gender and
racial conflicts.
What Works: The film
balances its characters very well, and genuinely explores the
character’s lives and how they interact with each other. Rather than
isolating the storylines, the character’s stories interact and each
one complicates and informs the others. What is most interesting is the
way the film balances out the characterizations. No one in the picture,
including the white supremacists, are totally devoid of goodness and
each carries some responsibility for another character’s misery.
What Doesn’t: Like Crash,
the film’s characters present fairly extreme positions on race. While
these storylines are well drawn, the positions do not present a cross
section of racial and gender tensions, which are typically subtler than Higher
Learning portrays them.
DVD extras: None
Bottom Line: Few films
have seriously questioned racial and gender conflicts as directly as Higher
Learning. While the film does not always succeed, it does ask some
of the right questions and makes for stimulating viewing. It’s also
something of a swan song for director Singleton, who started his
promising career films with films like this and Boyz
‘n the Hood but has recently gotten into making prurient and
stupid action films like 2
Fast, 2 Furious and Four
Brothers.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Hills Have Eyes (1977)
Directed by: Wes Craven
Premise: In Wes Craven’s original film, a
suburban family on its way to California gets stuck in the middle of the
desert on a deserted back road. The suburban family soon finds that they
are being preyed upon by a family of savages living in the surrounding
hills.
What Works: As a piece of cinema, The
Hills Have Eyes is a great piece of entertainment that is engaging
as a horror film and as a survival film. It is tightly directed by
Craven, savage in its violence but also smart in its direction. The film
is frightening with plenty of jump scares and an ongoing sense of
tension that increases as the film goes on. Despite the far out premise
of the story, the film is able to sell it with solid performances all
around, but especially by James Whitworth as Papa Jupiter and John
Steadman as Grandpa Fred, who gives a speech about the origin of the
hills family that rivals Robert Shaw’s Indianapolis speech in Jaws
for creepiness and intensity. The original Hills Have Eyes is a
great survival story that mixes contemporary storytelling sensibilities
with classic frontier myths. The attacks by the savages on the
family’s motor home mirror the tradition of stories about Indians
attacking White settlers. What Hills does remarkably is to make
the film a commentary on these kinds of stories and explore the
implications of what it takes to survive and conquer the west. Unlike the
2006 remake, the original Hills Have Eyes explores the family
dynamics of the suburban family and the feral family. The result is more
frightening because both sides are drawn well this and works towards a
climax that undermines a good versus evil binary. In this film,
conquering savagery requires that the civilized people become as violent
as their attackers, a point punctuated in the climax, and blurs the
moral line between the civilized and the savage. In the context of the
film’s original release, just after the end of the Vietnam War, the
Manson Family murders, and in the wake of the cultural revolution of the
1960s and 70s, The Hills Have Eyes is a look into a culture that
was fighting itself and discovering that its sense of moral
righteousness was more rickety than it realized. Watching the film
today, in the context of the Iraq War, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal,
the Columbine massacre, and other events, the film still has social
relevance.
What Doesn’t: Some may laugh at the MacGyver-like
ending of the film. It is a theme repeated in Craven’s early work like
Last
House on the Left and A
Nightmare on Elm Street and this plays into the frontier myths
of ingenuity and resourcefulness. In the end, however, this cleverness
is ultimately undermined by the use of barbaric hand-to-hand combat.
DVD extras: Anchor Bay has put together an
impressive 2-disc DVD set that includes a documentary on the making of
the film, commentary tracks, an episode of The
Directors spotlighting Wes Craven’s career, as well as
trailers and an alternate ending. The film has been cleaned up
considerably, as proved by a restoration demo. The DVD features the
original uncut edition of the film.
Bottom Line: The Hills Have Eyes was
only Craven’s second directorial feature, but it remains one of his
best. Like Romero’s original Night
of the Living Dead, The Hills Have Eyes is a critique of
a civilization at war with its own savage heart.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Hills Have Eyes (2006)
Directed by: Alexandre Aja
Premise: A remake of Wes
Craven’s 1977 film. While on vacation, a suburban family gets
stuck in the middle of the desert and becomes prey for a family of
cannibals living in the hills.
What Works: Aja is
talented director with an original vision. The editing and
cinematography are great and the film introduces some new elements to
the story that give the it more weight. The film is well cast,
particularly Ted Levine (best known for playing Jame Gumb in The
Silence of the Lambs) as the white bread Republican father. The
family dynamics are very authentic and the film has a lot of great
“jump” moments. Fans of the genre will be pleased that this film
uses brutality and nastiness and will not let the audience off the hook
with simple, painless violence.
What Doesn’t: Despite
having successful scares, The Hills Have Eyes struggles to create
an ongoing sense of tension. When it comes to remakes, comparisons to
the original film are inevitable and in this case the original is a more
successful film because it cut between the suburban family and the feral
family much better and managed to characterize both which created
greater drama, tension, and menace.
Bottom Line: This version
The Hills Have Eyes hits far ahead of the curve compared to most
horror films such as the recent film, Hostel.
While I would encourage viewers to rent the original picture, this
version has been made to appeal to the contemporary audience and they
should find it satisfying.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Hills Have Eyes II (2007)
Directed by: Martin Weisz
Premise: A sequel to the
2006 remake of Wes
Craven’s 1977 film. A group of National Guard trainees are sent on
an impromptu rescue mission when scientists disappear in a remote desert
army base. The trainees find themselves in a struggle to survive when
they are attacked by mutants.
What Works: The Hills Have Eyes II
is a nasty horror film and that is to the film’s benefit. It does not
soften the violence or the gore and that gives the story a sense of
gravity. The picture takes a harder action approach and its decision to
center the film around a group of soldiers borrows an angle that worked
well in films like Predator
and Aliens.
It also avoids repeating the story of the first film by providing new
characters and new situations.
What Doesn’t: The Hills Have Eyes II
exacerbates the flaws of the 2006 film. The remake had copious amounts
of gore, but was strained to create an ongoing sense of tension or
terror. This film is even more wanton for scares, even in its jump
moments. Also like the remake, Hills II is missing what made the
original such an effective and disturbing film: characterization of the
people in the hills. That ingredient is central to the terror of the
original story, as villains were compared and contrasted with the
suburban family of the first film and this gave a sense of who and what
was out there. While conventional wisdom tells us not to show the
monsters, storytellers do need to define the threat to our protagonists
and this film does not do that. Where both versions of the first film
did have some effective characterization of the human family, Hills
II lacks characterization of the soldiers, and they come off mostly
as stock war clichés and few have any traits that make them stand out.
The film also suffers from repeating a lot of the same themes from the
previous picture but does not take them to the next level. Instead, Hills
II just effortlessly repeats what has already been said and does not
do it nearly as well.
Bottom Line: The Hills Have Eyes II
is a disappointment. The film is better than The
Hills Have Eyes Part II from 1985, the direct sequel to
Craven’s original film, but that is not saying much. This Hills II
lacks purpose, creativity, and even scares.
BACK
TO THE TOP
A
History of Violence
Directed by: David Cronenberg
Premise:
A small town shop keeper (Vigo Mortensen) gains national attention when
he foils two violent criminals. The fame attracts the attention of
underworld figures who believe he is a former competitor.
What
Works: The film is about where violence comes from and explores the
tensions between nature and nurture and between impulsive action and
conscious action. Mortensen is very good in his role and successfully
plays the character's multiple sides in ways that give him a rich
texture. The film is almost stolen by Ed Harris, who plays a scarred
gangster with a score to settle with Mortensen. The entire picture has
an understated quality to it. The soundtrack does not use much music and
the cinematography of the film is very restrained, capturing scenes of
brutal violence without over the top flair. As a result the violence has
a very real dimension and a strangely beautiful quality.
What
Doesn’t: The ending is uncertain, which fits the tone of the film
but audiences who are looking for a final statement on the subject of
violence may feel left in the dark.
Bottom
Line: A History of Violence is one of the best films of the
year. It’s a film that is artistically and intellectually engaging but
never loses sight of its dramatic center. This film reaches new artistic
heights for director Cronenberg, whose films have often combined
violence with intelligent inquiry.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Hitcher (2007)
Directed by: Dave Meyers
Premise: A remake of the
1986 film. Two college students (Zachary Knighton and Sophia Bush)
pick up a hitchhiker (Sean Bean) with disastrous results.
What Works: The opening act of the film
works well enough to create a sense of the relationship between the
couple and Bean is competent as hitchhiker John Ryder. Bean possesses
the kind of ambiguous charisma that makes the character believable and
frightening.
What Doesn’t: Despite a promising start, The
Hitcher quickly descends into stupidity, starting with the
introduction of a police lieutenant (Neal McDonough) who is too campy to
be taken seriously and too obnoxious to be an interesting character. The
film becomes a collection of random scenes that do not advance story or
increase conflict, but just showcase violence and ridiculous stunts for
no purpose other than showmanship. As the hitchhiker pursues the couple
he mysteriously disappears and reappears in ways that defy logic or
dramatic cohesion. Ryder has a shell of a motivation for his actions,
but the film has no real idea of why he behaves as he does, and the
result is contradiction passing for character. The relationship between
the couple is similarly incomplete, as their relationship remains
unchanged through the ordeal. The voguish nihilism that The Hitcher’s
aims for (as though that were not a perfect contradiction) is as forced
and insincere as the film’s attempts to be scary.
Bottom Line: The Hitcher is an
example of good material suffering from bad filmmaking and a lack of
vision. While the actors show competence and the technical elements are
certainly there, it doesn’t add up to anything.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
Directed by: Garth Jennings
Premise: An adaptation of
Douglas Adams cult science fiction novel. Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman)
becomes a galactic hitchhiker when Earth is destroyed by an alien
construction crew making way for a space freeway.
What Works: The film
features very self-conscious, ironic humor that ought to appeal to the
fans of the book. It has the unusual distinction of being a science
fiction comedy, which is refreshing for a genre that often takes itself
too seriously. Hitchhiker’s Guide is gorgeous to look at. The
aliens and locations are some of the most original and interesting
creations science fiction has seen in a long time.
What Doesn’t:
Unfortunately, the film’s characters, both human and alien, do not
actually do much, besides getting yanked from one corner of the galaxy
to the other for no apparent reason. The film lacks a narrative drive or
purpose and this weakens the drama. As an adaptation, the film borrows
too much from its source. The use of near constant voice over narration
is very intrusive and gets obnoxious.
Bottom
Line: Although being hit and miss in places, the film is a worthy
effort. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is a funny film
that ought to appeal to fans of Mystery
Science Theater 3000, Mel Brooks comedies, and 1950s science
fiction.
BACK TO THE TOP
Hitler:
The Rise of Evil
Directed by: Christian Duguay
Premise: The story of Adolf Hitler’s rise
to power from his childhood, through his failed attempt to be an artist
and his time as a soldier in World War I, culminating in his takeover of
the National Workers Party and consolidation of power.
What Works: Hitler: the Rise of Evil
is a very ambitious production and more often than not it accomplishes
its goals, attempting to explore Hitler’s background and provide some
insight into the man’s motivations and methods. The film has some
great production values going for it, especially for a made-for-TV
production, such as Hitler’s attempted coup in Munich. The Rise of
Evil has some very good performances by Liev Schreiber and Julianna
Margulies as Hitler supporters Ernst and Helene Hanfstaengl, Peter
Stormare as SA leader Ernst Röhm, Matthew Modine as anti-Nazi
journalist Fritz Gerlich, Peter O'Toole as President Hindenburg, and
Robert Carlyle as the adult Adolf Hitler. Carlyle gives one of the great
performances of the Fuhrer every committed to film, on par with Bruno
Ganz in Downfall,
and he portrays the man as a flawed but charismatic sociopath and an
adept politician. The film’s exploration of the man’s past does not
excuse his later crimes against humanity and the film does a nice job
with the relationship between Hitler and the German people, showing how
one affected the other. As a piece of historical cinema, the picture
does a great job summarizing half a lifetime of material into a single
film and presents historical material in ways that are relevant to our
contemporary period.
What Doesn’t: The ending of the film is a
bit flimsy, concluding in a coda that feels out of place and rather
forced. Also, the one glaring historical element that is left wanting is
the film’s portrayal of Hitler's relationship to Joseph Goebbels and
Goebbels importance to the rise of Nazi popularity in Germany, both of
which are under emphasized.
DVD extras: Trailer, documentaries.
Bottom Line: Hitler:
The Rise of Evil is a terrific historical film, and it will appeal
to history buffs as well as mainstream viewers. The film has its flaws,
but it does so much right that it is a worthy addition to the pantheon
of World War II films like Patton
and television series Band
of Brothers.
BACK TO THE TOP
The
Hoax
Directed by: Lasse Hallstrom
Premise: The true story of Clifford Irving
(Richard Gere) and Dick Susskind (Alfred Molina), two writers who
created a false autobiography of Howard Hughes and sold it to the McGraw
Hill publishing company in the mid-1970s.
What Works: The
Hoax is a smart and fun story about the snowballing effect of lying
and the slippery nature of truth in the act of nonfiction storytelling.
The movie is able to explore ethical dilemmas and create an atmosphere
of paranoia while at the same time be very entertaining and surprisingly
funny. Richard Gere gives his best performance in years as Irving, a man
who quickly finds himself drowning in the lies he has created. As
Susskind, Alfred Molina matches Gere’s performance. The two are quite
a pair, as Irving depends on Susskind for a sense of conscience, but at
the same time Irving works to undermine Susskind’s ethical orientation
in order to give himself the freedom to sink lower in fraud. The arc of
the characters is both funny and touching as their personal and
professional relationships are poisoned by the lie of the book and by
their need to keep on lying to maintain the illusion. The first act of
the story gives Irving some credible motivation for fabricating the book
beyond just greed, and this sets him up as a likeable protagonist
despite the havoc he will inevitably cause in his life as well as the
lives of the other characters. As The
Hoax moves through its second act, the scenes in which the
manuscript is assembled and passed off as authentic are charged with a
sense of humor, mischief, and energy that makes them a great deal of fun
to watch, and as the lie becomes becomes mixed with some dirty truths
about Howard Hughes’ relationship with then-President Nixon, what
began as a lie mingles with facts and the two become so entangled that
it is difficult to tell what is true and what isn't. This aspect of The
Hoax gives it some very engaging substance as the lies end up
exposing a greater truth and Irving attempts to justify his deceitful
means with an intended end.
What Doesn’t: The film is at its best
while Irving and Susskind fabricate the book because of the
well-developed sense of drama and their playful sense of mischief.
The Hoax runs into some
trouble in its final act, because the story simply does not have much of
a climax or resolution.
Bottom Line: The
Hoax is one of the best films so far this year, a picture of
substance and a solid piece of entertainment.. In the age of reality
television, the newfound popularity of nonfiction literature and
especially biographical texts, and contemporary obsessions with
historical accuracy, this is an extremely relevant film.
BACK TO THE TOP
Hollywoodland
Directed by: Allen Coulter
Premise: A dramatization
of the death of Superman actor George Reeves (Ben Affleck). The
narrative alternates between the investigation by private eye Louis Simo
(Adrien Brody) and the story of Reeves’ romantic relationship with
Toni Mannix (Diane Lane), the wife of notorious MGM head Eddie Mannix
(Bob Hoskins).
What Works: Hollywoodland
takes on one of the great mysteries of Hollywood and picks apart the
event to make a modern film noir picture that borrows appropriate
elements of the classic noir pictures of the 1940s and combines it with
contemporary aesthetic sensibilities. In taking on the mystery, the film
acknowledges all of the potential culprits and scenarios, including the
possibility that Reeves was just an unhappy man who gave up on life.
Beyond the mystery story, Hollywoodland has some other things
going for it. The film nicely gives a sense of what the Superman
television show meant to the youth of America at that time and the power
of television and portrayals of heroism. This occurs in contrast to the
film’s portrayal of the Hollywood system and a subculture that is rife
with corruption and deceit.
What Doesn’t: As a film
noir mystery, Hollywoodland comes off as fairly formulaic and a
little clichéd. Because the film is based on a true story it will get a
pass on originality from most viewers, and with its smart approach to
the subject matter, Hollywoodland makes up for most of its
recycled content.
Bottom Line: Hollywoodland
is a fine film that has much more going for it that the usual Hollywood
celebrity tragedy. Despite the film's clichés, the script cuts so well
between the storylines and the intelligence and depth of its themes are
so good that this is a film worth seeing, and one of the best films of
2006.
BACK TO THE TOP
Horton
Hears a Who!
Directed by: Jimmy Hayward and Steve
Martino
Premise: An adaptation of the Dr. Seuss
book. Horton, (voice of Jim Carrey), an idealistic elephant, discovers
the microscopic world of the Whos living on a spec floating on the wind.
Horton takes it upon himself to place the Whos and their world in a safe
place while being pursued by those who think he is a menace.
What Works: Horton Hears a Who! is
an excellent adaptation. The world of Dr. Seuss fits with the computer
animation used by the film, and it is the best translation of Dr.
Seuss’ work to the screen. The story includes narration of the
original children’s book but expands on the plot and uses it to full
effect, adding a lot more humor and filling in the characters and the
conflicts. Jim Carrey voices Horton and uses his talents for imitation
and character creation to make the silly elephant a full-fledged
character on par with Marlin, the parental clownfish from Finding
Nemo. Steve Carell voices the mayor of Whoville, bringing his
own talent for fast-talking, awkward characters and it plays well into
the existential crisis that the mayor finds himself in. The story
manages to make the danger to the Whos very real and concrete and this
pays off in the climax, which manages to be gripping while consistent
with the tone of the rest of the picture. This film also successfully
taps into the satirical subtext of Seuss’ work, elevating it in ways
that will be thought provoking for adult audience as well as for
children, and remains true to the original text.
What Doesn’t: A few moments betray the
film’s tone with Carrey trying to do some the same kind of pop culture
humor that Robin Williams provided in Aladdin.
It doesn’t quite fit here, but these moments are few and far between.
Bottom Line: Horton Hears a Who! is
the best feature length adaptation of a Dr. Seuss book and one of the
best animated films of the past few years. It’s a great example of
what animated features can achieve when they do indulge their source
material and commit to characters and story.
BACK TO THE TOP
Hostel
Directed by: Eli Roth
Premise: Three hedonistic
travelers (Jay Hernandez, Derek Richardson, Eythor Gudjonsson)
backpacking across Europe find themselves involved in a gruesome
situation when they check into a Slovakian hostel.
What Works: In the second
half of Hostel, as Jay Hernandez’s character begins his search
for his friends, the film gets much better. Aside from a few moments,
the mystery unfolds well in the tradition of the Gothic terrible
discovery. There is a great irony in the story that pays off very well
if the viewer is paying attention; the themes of exploitation and
objectification are central to the film and it explores these issues
with extreme sexuality and violence. The scenes of violence are some of
the most gruesome seen in recent horror films and will please gore
hounds but for the most part they do serve a larger purpose and are not
merely appealing to the prurient interest.
What Doesn’t: The first
half of Hostel is a chore to get through. It is a rehash of gags
that were done much better in films like EuroTrip.
In places it comes across as a late night cable soft-core porn film and
as that it is not very well done. When the film switches gears into
horror, things are revealed too quickly which kills the atmosphere. As a
result, the film can only be gory, not scary, and diminishes the
film’s ability to deliver on its promise.
Bottom Line: Ultimately, Hostel
is mixed bag. It desires to be The
Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and with that goal it falls short; its
themes are too muddled and its first and third act are too clumsy. It
does succeed more than similarly intentioned films such as Blood
Sucking Freaks or even Pier Pasolini’s Salo:
120 Days of Sodom. There is a daring about Hostel that
makes it worthwhile for hardcore horror aficionados but mainstream
audiences will struggle with it.
BACK TO THE TOP
Hostel:
Part II
Directed by: Eli Roth
Premise: Sequel to the
2005 film. In this installment, three female American travelers
(Heather Matarazzo, Bijou Phillips, Lauren German) come across the same
Slovakian hostel from the first film and become fodder for rich thrill
killers.
What Works: Hostel: Part II is the
rare sequel that surpasses the original film. Where the first Hostel
was marred by a stupid first half that featured obnoxious characters and
scenarios right out of Eurotrip, this film is much smarter. The
three female travelers are credible and their interaction with the
European countryside is more sympathetic and credible than the male
travelers of the original film. The three women are distinct, individual
characters, inasmuch as the genre allows, and their fates are more
frightening and dreadful as a result. This film also has the distinction
of characterizing the villains more fully, focusing on two Americans,
one who is experienced and eager (Richard Burgi) and who initiates his
more timid friend (Roger Bart) into the subculture of murder. This is a
fascinating storyline that parallels the journey of the female
travelers. Where the main redemptive quality of the first Hostel
was its smart but subtle indictment of Americans exploiting other
cultures, Part II delves into white male misogyny in a brief but
penetrating way that raises some interesting ideas about violence
against and exploitation of women, the men who do it, and the systems
that support it. Further, both Hostel films can be viewed as
commentary on post-Cold War politics and culture in Eastern Europe, and
particularly the influence of America and capitalism in this part of the
world. Once again, this second film expands and improves on these
themes.
What Doesn’t: Hostel: Part II does
not provide many story surprises along the way. Like Friday
the 13th Part 2, the film repeats a lot of the
structure of the original film and in many ways does it better, but
viewers who are looking for a fresher Hostel experience won’t
find it here.
Bottom Line: Hostel: Part II is a
very good horror film. Fans of the original film will be very pleased
but Hostel: Part II is a film whose crossover appeal may be
limited by audience member’s tolerance for gore, which is more extreme
in this film than in any other R-rated splatter film in years.
Otherwise, Hostel: Part II is a great horror film made for both
gore hounds and serious film aficionados.
Note: Look for a cameo by Cannibal
Holocaust director Ruggero Deodato credited as the "The
Italian Cannibal."
BACK TO THE TOP
Hot
Fuzz
Directed by: Edgar Wright
Premise: London’s most decorated police
officer (Simon Pegg) is transferred to the sleepy town of Sandford. Once
there, he is paired with an local officer (Nick Frost) and the two
discover that a series of recent accidents may in fact be the killing
spree of a local madman.
What Works: Hot Fuzz is a successful
spin on the action genre, and especially buddies-in-action films like Lethal
Weapon and Bad
Boys. Like Shaun
of the Dead, the previous film by the same talents, Hot Fuzz
is able to simultaneously satirize these films and work as an
outstanding example of the genre. Fans of these kinds of films will have
a good time playing spot-the-reference and Hot Fuzz will play
well on repeated viewings as audiences are able to pull back all of the
inter-textual references. On a technical level, Hot Fuzz is
excellent. The editing in the film is outstanding and the film is able
to deliver big laughs along with rousing action sequences. At the same
time, co-writer and actor Pegg demonstrates an understanding of how to
go about this kind of film. Hot Fuzz has solid characters and the
relationship between Pegg and Frost’s characters has a lot of weight
to it and develops nicely from a mentor-pupil relationship into an
egalitarian relationship.
What Doesn’t: Although it is satirizing
action films, the ending of the film gets a bit silly, especially in a
tagged on sequence at the end that disrupts what has otherwise been a
satisfactory conclusion.
Bottom Line: Hot Fuzz is an
exceptional film. Like Scream,
the film is conscious of genre conventions and uses them in the story
and in the assembly of the film to make something that is both familiar
and fresh.
BACK TO THE TOP
Hotel
Rwanda
Directed by: Terry George
Premise: A hotel manager
in Rwanda (Don Cheadle) takes in over a thousand refugees during the
1993 massacre.
What Works: The film
works as a humanitarian plea for help without ever wagging its finger at
the western audience. Don Cheadle is very good as the manger attempting
to protect the Tutsi refugees from the Hutu militia. Nick Nolte gives a
very empathetic performance as a United Nations general who is powerless
to stop the massacre. Most impressive is the film’s intensity. It
never gets over the top, but does create a very real sense of danger.
What Doesn’t: It could
be argued that the film does not go far enough in portraying the
violence. Where Schindler’s
List took its audience into the death camps, Hotel Rwanda
keeps a lot of the brutality just out of sight. Viewers can debate
whether or not this is to the film’s credit.
Bottom Line: Hotel
Rwanda is an important film and it deserves a lot of attention.
Despite its grisly subject matter the film finds the humanity in the
situation and puts that on display in contrast to the brutality of the
environment.
BACK TO THE TOP
The
House of Flying Daggers
Directed by: Yimou Zhang
Premise: In ancient
China, an underground resistance group called The House of Flying
Daggers begins to oppose the corrupt government. A police deputy
(Takeshi Kaneshiro) follows Mei (Ziyi Zhang), a dancer who may have ties
to the resistance’s leadership and he falls in love with her.
What Works: This is
another gorgeous and emotional film from Yimou (Hero)
Zhang. It has lots of rousing action but balances that with a smart
story and a strong human center. The film’s action sequences are
longer and more elaborate than anything recently seen in this genre. The
cinematography is incredible but takes a more realistic approach than Hero’s
very formalistic style.
What Doesn’t: There are
a few fight scenes that seem to go nowhere or do not move the plot
forward. The story is intimate but takes place against a bigger
background but the two are not adequately connected. In Akira
Kurosawa’s films, for example, the drama of the intimate storyline is
influenced by the happenings in the background story. House of Flying
Daggers does not acknowledge this background or make it a part of
the complication of the story.
Bottom
Line: While not possessing the narrative mastery of Hero, The
House of Flying Daggers still comes in ahead of the curve in terms
of action films. It is able to be very entertaining but also smart and
engaging because of its strong human center.
BACK TO THE TOP
The
House of Yes
Directed by: Mark Waters
Premise: A mentally
unbalanced young woman (Parker Posey) flips into a murderous rage when
her brother (Josh Hamilton) returns home for Thanksgiving and reveals
he's engaged.
What Works: The House
of Yes is a great example of dialogue. Adapted from a stage play,
the film features snappy, rhythmic speech that drives the picture along.
Unlike some stage adaptations, The House of Yes translates well
because it successfully adapts the material into a cinematic
presentation. The performances are great all around, but especially
Parker Posey who is able to take the highly stylized dialogue and sell
it.
What Doesn’t: There is
little push and pull between Posey and Hamilton’s characters. While
the film moves along, more direct conflict leading to the climax would
have driven the film to a more shocking finale.
DVD extras: None.
Bottom Line: The House
of Yes is one of those early Miramax gems that hopefully more people
will discover as time goes on. It is successful as an adaptation and as
a film in its own right. Fans of Wes Anderson and early Quentin
Tarantino films ought to check this out.
BACK TO THE TOP
The
Hunting of the President
Directed by: Harry Thomason and
Nickolas Perry
Premise: A film that
outlines the attempts to undermine the presidency of Bill Clinton.
What Works: The film
manages to summarize ten years of material within ninety minutes very
effectively. It includes interviews with some of the principle
characters involved and its examination of how the Washington press core
was lead astray is very interesting and unnerving.
What Doesn’t: The film
skims over a lot of material and never seems to answer the one key
question: Why did these people want to bring down Bill Clinton so badly?
Also, some of the insert shots and archival footage is rather lame. The
film clearly has a point to make and in doing so it ignores balancing
Clinton’s responsibility in these affairs.
DVD extras: Trailer,
President Clinton speaking after the premiere.
Bottom Line: The
Hunting of the President is like many of the books that have been
written about Clinton; it has a clear point of view and political
agenda. The viewer should not assume that this documentary—or any
documentary—was made under from some kind of objective point of view.
That said, this film is an effective political text that reveals
important political issues and problems, such as the power and
fallibility of the news media, that are larger than the parties
involved.
BACK TO THE TOP
The
Hunting Party (2007)
Directed by: Richard Shepard
Premise: A newbie journalist (Jesse
Eisenberg), a seasoned cameraman (Terrence Howard), and a disgraced war
correspondent (Richard Gere) travel across Sarajevo in search of The
Fox, a wanted war criminal from the Bosnian civil war. What begins as an
unlikely search for an interview becomes an increasingly dangerous foray
into boiling post-war tensions.
What Works: Like Blood
Diamond, the film is able to tell a highly entertaining story
while taking the audience through one of history’s recent man-made
hellholes and giving a look inside of it. However, the way The
Hunting Party is told makes it quite different from any recent film
about wartime injustice. The Hunting Party is unique as a piece
of film; this is essentially a war film that takes place in the post-war
period. The three journalists are like a small platoon on a mission and
the men bond together in the tradition of a buddies-in-action film.
While touring the Serbian countryside, the film has the guts to include
humor in the story as the journalists meet the locals and encounter
dug-in tensions left over from the war. The story skips around the
timeline, getting into the background of Richard Gere and Terrence
Howard’s characters and how their war correspondence experience has
shaped them. Jesse Eisenberg, the least exposed and youngest of the
three leads, does a great job keeping up with these two established
actors. As the men get closer to their target the tension rises and the
film switches gears from a fun attempt at an interview and into a
frightening foray into a violent world. The journalists find their own
livelihood in question as their lies and manipulation become real and
the distance from the events they enjoyed as reporters dissolves as they
become the story.
What Doesn’t: The ending of the story is
a little sketchy and stretches the credibility of the film.
DVD extras: Commentary track, deleted
scenes, featurettes, Esquire article, interviews with the real
life journalists.
Bottom Line: The
Hunting Party is a bold and fun film that takes the viewer on a tour
of post-war Bosnia and the complex moral and ethical issues presented to
war journalists.
BACK TO THE TOP
Hustle
and Flow
Directed by: Craig Brewer
Premise: A small time
pimp (Terrence Howard) has a midlife crisis and begins to record a rap
album and redefine his life.
What Works: This is
actually a very interesting film because of some well-drawn and original
characters. Most interesting is Terrence Howard as DJay. His performance
and the screenplay take a character that could easily have been over the
top and really makes him human by exploring the frail side of the
character. There are some very strong performances in the supporting
cast, such as Taryn Manning as Nola, one of DJay’s prostitutes, and
Anthony Anderson as Clyde, the self made music producer.
What Doesn’t: In the
middle of the story, things come a little to easily to Howard’s
character and the ending leaves something to be desired because it wraps
up some ends too neatly and leave some others resolved.
Bottom Line: Hustle
and Flow is an original film that deserves to be seen. It is not
perfect but it is gritty and has a lot more reality to it than many
other hip-hop films. Fans of 8-Mile
ought to check it out.
BACK
TO THE TOP
|