Weekly Review -- Sexy vs. quasi-erotic

Imagine Me & You (2005) -- Besides boasting the most creative poster I have seen in years, Ol Parker's romantic dramedy is one of the sweetest and most tender love stories of 2005. Rachel (Piper Perabo) and Hector (Matthew Goode) have just married. However, a chance encounter with florist Luce (Lena Headey) makes Rachel question her heart, setting in motion a series of sometimes funny and sometimes heartbreaking events. Right off the bat, I have to say I was impressed by the fact that the film never, ever makes an issue of the the same-sex aspect. The attraction between these two people is obvious; the spark is there; the gender is insignificant. It is how it should always be, but that is a whole other exposé. The chemistry between Perabo and Headey is undeniable. Perabo's wide-eyed confusion is perfectly complimented by Headey's passion; the scenes between these two characters are brimming with genuine emotion and affection. Matthew Goode does a good job as the oblivious husband, but does superbly in the last few scenes. Boo Jackson is a discovery as Henrietta (known as H), Rachel's inquisitive younger sister, while Celia Imrie and Anthony Head provide the occasional comic relief, but also bring deeper feelings to the table, as Rachel's parents. Special mention goes to Ben Davis's cinematography, which gives London a warm, loving glow; the autumn shots especially are a sight to behold. I would recommend this film to anyone and everyone. It shows what true love can do, as well as that it is not measured by society and convention, but by the heart's need for another.

9/10


Basic Instinct 2 (2006) -- I almost feel bad reviewing this poor excuse for a film after the previous gem. I also feel bad knowing that intelligent-sounding sites like FemaleFirst and Art.com have written about Basic Instinct 2. The film's representation of its female lead is despicable and the whole thing is as far from art as can be.

I consider Basic Instinct to be one of the best thrillers of the 1990's. Its portrayal of Catherine Tramell was incredible; I would go so far as to say that her character was revolutionary. Almost never has there been a cinematic female character as intelligent, as enigmatic and sexy as Joe Eszterhas's Tramell (who, if you ask me, should demand for his name to be removed from the credits of this unfortunate sequel). She enjoyed playing games with people's minds, while she herself was the human version of Rubik's Cube, practically impossible to solve. However, you could also tell that she had a heart under the icy demeanor. Manipulation was her middle name, but she was not a soulless sociopath. Sharon Stone was perfect for the part, relishing every moment and seducing everyone around her with a mere cool glance. The film was a hit, and rightfully so.

**POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD** (Still, can this travesty really be spoiled? I do not think so, but hey, I am a nice person.)

On to 2006 and this ridiculous attempt to cash in on the originality of the first film. Tramell has now relocated to London, and is a suspect in the drowning car crash death of a soccer star. The court has appointed Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey) to do a forensic analysis of Tramell. As the case unravels, certain backstories come to light, both from Glass and Tramell's past. Soon, Glass gets caught up in another psychological game, carefully orchestrated by Tramell. Who is guilty? Who is the killer? Does anyone care?

The film is full of forced and crude innuendos. Whereas in Basic Instinct Tramell's verbal come-ons were sexually charged, in this film the character reminded me of a robot programmed to spew out lines that were probably meant to be sensual, but instead are laughable. Transforming a true femme fatale into a female version of Hannibal Lecter did not help. Screenwriters Leora Barish and Henry Bean have succeeded in stripping the character of all her alluring qualities, turning Tramell into a psychotic nymphomaniac. Bad move.

There are huge plotholes. For example, how come the Czaslav case was never made public? Glass is obviously a prominent psychiatrist, and such a judgment lapse would have been sensational and made the news as soon as it occurred, particularly once Glass was supposed to do Tramell's analysis. There is also lots and lots of sex for the sake of sex, idiotic dialogues and supporting characters that have no purpose in the "story". The film tries to have a plot but, whenever it takes a step forward with a potentially interesting event, it takes two steps back with badly constructed twists. As for the acting, Stone is awful, Morrissey deserves a better film, and I have no idea why an actress of Charlotte Rampling's calibre even got involved with this thing.

In conclusion, I want these two hours of my life back and predict this movie will make Razzie history.

2/10
(for Morrissey and Rampling's efforts to make something out of nothing)

Weekly Review -- Superman weekend

Superman Returns (2006) -- Bryan Singer had brought the colorful world of the X-Men to the silver screen in 2000 and 2003. Now he has taken on Superman, with similarly excellent results.


**POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD**


The film starts off with Superman (Brandon Routh) returning to Earth, five years after he had gone to search for what astronomers thought were the remains of his home planet, Krypton. After his alter ego, Clark Kent, returns to Metropolis, he finds some things have changed. Superman's former flame Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is engaged with a child, while his nemesis Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) has escaped from prison. Of course, Luthor does not just sit idly by and is ready to start preparing another bid to conquer the world...

Like the X-Men films, this film has a heart. Singer develops the story patiently, paying attention to the characters' emotional struggles and relationships. I found Routh to be a great choice for Superman. I would hate to compare him to Christopher Reeve, since he is inevitably getting that comparison all the time -- honouring as it is, he cannot be Reeve throughout his career -- but I will say that he has the same kind of twinkle in his eye as Superman and the same lovable klutz aura as Clark Kent, while bringing to the role his own charm and ingenuity. Contrary to many reviewers, I thought Bosworth made for a disarming and spunky Lois Lane, although she is too young to be believable as a mother. Spacey was a very good, bizarrely entertaining Lex Luthor, and it was fun to see his exchanges with Bosworth after having seen Beyond the Sea.

There were a couple of pointless things, though. The beating near the end was enough to make me glance at my watch. It was unnecessary and too violent for this kind of fantasy film, and it went on and on. The parts with the dogs were cruel and ridiculous. All these parts are enough, in my opinion, to make the film inappropriate for children. I did not appreciate the blatant political correctness of the anti-smoking commercial within the film, either. Another thing is -- do we really need to see Superman in the emergency room? I found that this scene did not fit into the Superman backstory at all.

Superman Returns is a satisfying comic book adaptation, with a fun directorial style, good cast and new kind of story. There are a couple of negative aspects, but it is enjoyable overall and a good revival of the franchise.

8/10

(No) remakes galore!

Here we go again. Recently, we had the chance to see the hazy, muddy, all-puns-intended The Fog; soon we will be treated to the Yuletide slashings of Black Christmas, and then Rob Zombie's vision of Halloween. The question is, why is Hollywood constantly updating classics? Horror is what first comes to mind because of the recent genre remakes, but there were films from many other genres being turned upside down in the last few years, becoming films like You've Got Mail, The Mummy and Cruel Intentions.

Let me first say that I am both pro and against remakes. How so, you wonder? Well, I am adamantly against them if the original film is perfect as is, for example, in the case of Rosemary's Baby (1968). First and foremost -- do not go there. Do not mess with it. Leave it alone. I am warning you. The fact is that this film elevated a story from a well written, but still pulpishly casual, novel to a masterpiece of urban paranoia and ultimate representation of evil. No one can ever come close to Polanski's vision of the story, so flawlessly it depicted the characters and atmosphere Ira Levin had created in his novel, so ingrained it has subsequently become in pop culture. The film was such a well made, critically acclaimed and popular cinematic version of a literary work that even the idea of a remake would be a travesty. 'Nuff said.

The case of The Fog (2005) is another one. This time, unfortunately, Hollywood dared to thread on the original. John Carpenter is a director able to create scares with maximum ambience and minimum gore. His characters were human and believable, the scares were well timed and the ghosts were threatening. Rupert Wainwright, director of the remake, is a visually oriented filmmaker whose hectic style did not correspond to the story at all. Add to that a bad screenplay with unnecessary backstories and melodramatic exaggerations, as well as the lead actors' age being lowered to appease the MTV generation, and you have one bad movie on your hands. To top it all off, I was more bored than scared. Do not waste two hours of your life with this flick.

As for my pro-remake reasoning, I am always aesthetically fascinated by seeing another director's vision of a certain film. You've Got Mail (1998), for example, was a modern re-telling of The Shop Around the Corner (1940). It transferred a love story with a twist into our era and worked because it a) kept the essence of the story, b) had the indelible chemistry between Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks and c) offered innovative updates and additions such as e-mail. 

Contrary to Rosemary's Baby, The Shop was not a pop culture phenomenon; it did not have a notoriety attached to it that would rightfully prevent a remake. Sure, it had the rustic charm of a bygone era's subtleties, but I feel that this mood could have been translated with the right cast, screenplay and cinematography, which in turn I feel Ephron has achieved.

Some remakes have managed to impress me more than the originals. Yes, believe it or not, it is possible. I thought Gore Verbinski had managed to pull off The Ring's (2002) atmosphere of intrusive terror more effectively than Hideo Nakata with Ringu (1998). I appreciated the reserved chills of Nakata's vision, but felt that Verbinski's film was more effective with its darkness and gloomy urban settings.

One of the Ring's many clever aspects was the melancholy atmosphere of rainy Seattle. A sunny, happy place would not have done the trick for this mystery. The anticipation of the unexpected is another important part. From the very first moment, you have no idea what is about to take place; after the opening scene ends, you are aware that the sleepover has ended badly, but you are still not sure what happened. However, something feels off, something feels darkly wrong, and it is this sensation of ominous chaos that draws you into The Ring. I should also say that the tape in this film scared me more than the Ringu video, since I found the images on it much more surreal and bizarre; the very sound of it is enough to keep you up at night. For successfully adapting the elements of the original mystery to the Western atmosphere while retaining the horror and emotion of the story, Verbinski reaches a high spot on my list of extra-talented directors.

Another story altogether are films that offer new takes on the original material, with 'new takes' signifying new sets of cultural values and circumstances. Roger Kumble's Cruel Intentions (1999) is a fantastic example of this trend, translating Pierre Choderlos de Laclos's 18th century aristocratic decadence into contemporary New York City's nouveau riche society. Amy Heckerling's Clueless (1995), on the other hand, places the titular heroine from Jane Austen's novel Emma into mid-nineties Beverly Hills, creating a collection of phrases along the way that are now an essential part of last decade's pop glossary. These directors have proved to be creative in their approach to these narratives, adding a post-modern twinkle to the already vivacious stories.

My final thoughts on the subject are related to the necessity, or lack thereof, of remakes. I believe that film fans should make an effort to seek out original films whenever possible, particularly when scholars and critics consider a work to be part of the cinematic canon. As for remakes, sure, sometimes it is fascinating to see a new perspective on an old story, but sometimes a story is better off left alone. It all depends on the filmmaker's good judgment and style; mostly, however, it is up to his or her creative instinct to make the idea their own. It is creativity that brings good, bold works to the silver screen and that, my friends, is the sign of a true original.

Weekly Review -- (Not so good) comedy week

Failure to Launch (2006) -- This languid romantic comedy is one of those cinematic curiosities that have all the pieces -- charming leads, quirky characters and an original premise -- yet these pieces somehow do not connect. Tom Dey's film is watchable and mildly entertaining, but fails to satisfy as a charismatic romantic comedy.


**POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD**


Tripp (Matthew McConaughey) is a carefree and hard-working individual, who has a good job as a boat salesman, a sense of humor and taste for adventure. What is the trouble, you ask? It turns out that 35-year old Tripp still lives at home with his parents (Kathy Cates and Terry Bradshaw), who seem to be getting tired of his slacker ways, not to mention the numerous girls he regularly brings home. Enter Paula (Sarah Jessica Parker), whose vocation is never made clear, but who is some kind of developmental psychologist, as it appears. She and Tripp start dating and things soon get serious. Will she make him finally fly the coop? McConaughey's Southern charm is perfect for his dandy character, while Parker's Paula is a distanced researcher unable to escape the loveable qualities of her subject. When the film deals with Paula and Tripp's relationship, as well as Tripp's relationship with his parents, things move at a smooth pace, injecting humor into romantic entanglements and family settings. The problems start with overdoses of wannabe slapstick humor, unnecessary additions to the script -- am I the only one who did not see the point of the mockingbird part? -- and ludicrous situations, like the whole shooting range episode. Also, I do not know why so many comedies try to spice things up with low-level humor; I guess some filmmakers think it sells. This part of the screenplay constantly hampers the above-mentioned good aspects of this movie, much to the detriment of the audience. Even the great character additions like Paula's kooky roommate Kit (Zooey Deschanel) and Tripp's prove-to-be-brilliant friend Ace (Justin Bartha) are stuck with quite a few lines with no merit. It is a pity, since the film would have been an appealing comedy without attempts at teen-geared humor. As it is, I would not necessarily recommend it, but it makes for good Saturday night viewing.

6/10

Weekly Review -- Comedy week

The Devil Wears Prada (2006) -- It is a scientific fact that Meryl Streep would give an awesome performance if she were reading the phone book. The woman is a powerhouse of acting, and we see nothing less in her latest film, which is an intelligent story about success, goals and integrity. Fresh out of college, Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) comes to New York in hopes of becoming a journalist. She soon scores a job for prestigious magazine "Runway" as an assistant for editor-in-chief and ice queen extraordinaire Miranda Priestly (Streep). Unfortunately, writing is 0 % of the work, since Andy's new job turns out to be a collection of neverending errands and impossible tasks for unforgiving Miranda, such as bringing the new Harry Potter book for her twins before it is published... well, before anyone has even seen the manuscript, really. Soon, Andy starts trying to blend into her fashion-conscious and rather shallow environment, which brings about clashes with her laid-back boyfriend and friends, as well as her own doubts about herself. The two leads both do an admirable job, creating a wonderful contrast between demanding Miranda and idealistic Andy. Hathaway holds her own with Streep, which says a lot. She is sweet, intelligent and charming as Andy, always doing a balancing act between pleasing her boss and sticking to her guns. Streep is terrific at showing all of Miranda's nuances, giving all her scenes with Hathaway a touch of certain warmth underneath the frost. I was occasionally annoyed with the characters of Andy's boyfriend and friends, though, since it seemed they had no understanding of Andy's job and the pressure she was under. The screenplay is good, although some lines do sound a bit preachy; still, it is a well written piece with excellent female characters. Overall, the film is an entertaining watch and clever story about the role of principles in our pursuit of happiness.

8/10

Happy Canada Day!!

I hope everyone is having fun! Long live the Maple Leaf!

Weekly Review -- Past reflections on a dying future

The Trench (1999) -- Films that deal with depictions of wars and other milestones of military history had again become popular in the 1990's, after a bit of a 1980's lull. This is partly due to natural human fascination with history and partly to the state of our world. As I started writing this review, the TV was blaring with a report about yet another explosion in Iraq, which managed to kill more than 70 people; afterwards, the news turned toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is in the context of such bloody daily events that we should see The Trench. The film, set in 1916, tells a story of a group of British soldiers waiting to go into what would become known as the Battle of the Somme, one of the most brutal battles of the 20th century. Among the men are disillusioned Sgt. Winter (Daniel Craig), naive Pte. Macfarlane (Paul Nicholls) and intellectual Pte. Daventry (James D'Arcy). During the proceedings, the group try to make some sense of their situation by exchanging stories about their backgrounds, sharing dreams and generally hoping against hope for the best outcome of the forthcoming battle. There are many touching moments throughout the film, like Winter's conversations with Lt. Harte (Julian Rhind-Tutt) and the soldiers' stories about their lives before the horrors of war. The acting is excellent. Craig is memorable as the group leader, who is aware of the emotional toll of letting down his defenses. Nicholls gives a touching performance as an 18-year old boy whose life is in danger of ending before it has even begun. Film fans will also recognize Cillian Murphy as one of the soldiers. The bleak trench setting creates a claustrophobic, sick feeling and serves its purpose to place the audience in the middle of the characters' anxious waiting game. The film encapsulates a feeling of youthful idealism all but annihilated by hopelessness. It reminds us of despair that only war can bring through destruction of life; through attempts to preserve our past while destroying our future.

8/10