Black Christmas 2006

I begin by noting the difficulty in re-making what has become a cult classic in horror circles. The original title, released in 1974, set the scene for the unidentified stalker films that followed, such as the infamous "Halloween." With that said, the enjoyment of the remake is also difficult.

Part of the magnificence of the original manifested in not knowing the identity of the killer-- much less his/her motivations. In 2006, we know the killer, "Billy." The remake puts more emphasis on his backstory than did the original, which isn't too bad aside from the fact that the remake hides the Billy of the present story. It's like getting the childhood tales of a person we're never going to meet. In the end, it's a little deflating of expectations. Wanting to see a mass murderer, we're delivered a child.

As to the characters, i.e. the sorority girls, they appeared as multiple incarnations of the same person, except the heroine of the story (you can identify her because she's the only blonde). I guess big sisters sponsor based on the lack of acting skills of the rushees, because that's all these characters seem to have in common. Anyway, when they started the requisite terminations, I was slightly confused. Because everyone looked the same, I couldn't really tell who was still breathing, and I really didn't care.

The good part of the film? Well, it tried to remain true to the outline provided by the original, although the embellishments in this case undermined the stalker/slasher intent to create suspense. There were no big-name actresses used (none should ever become big names based on their performances here). And the gore factor increased. The bad part? Well, the abortion sub-plot was abandoned. Bad choice. At least that way we came to know the heroine in the original. The phone calls were coherent and not at all spooky, fear-invoking, or disturbing in the remake. Finally, the story of Billy's origins undermined the development of the characters we needed to feel for in the present story. That made me cheer for Billy.

It at least passed the time, and I enjoyed comparing the remake to the original while viewing, so I give this about a 4 outta 10. If I hadn't seen the original, I may have bumped it to a 5 or 6. But if you really want to see how the film should have been made, watch Bob Clark's 1974 original. Rest in Peace, Bob.

Smoking Aces

Well, I admit my viewing of this flic arose from the thought that Guy Ritchie copycats might use character development and thus out-perform Ritchie's schoolhouse-rock-style. I deceived myself. We have the allure of colorful characters and a convoluted plot, both of which lead to expectations that character interactions, wry wit, and unexpected outcomes (i.e. "character terminations") would yield high entertainment. But the Smoking Aces ("SA") writers were way off base. There really isn't a plot-- there's a goal and a five-minute setup for that goal. Then there are unrelated actions of unrelated parties to which the audience never will relate.

Here we go. Mob guys wanna "off" an insider turning federal witness. The mob publishes a huge payoff for the person who carves out and delivers the witness' heart. Low-rate, unimaginative hitmen (/women) go for the contract. The FBI suddenly realizes they should protect their witness. The competitors race towards the witness and fire weapons. The end.

No one cares for the witness, who seems to be the only antagonist. I'd explain further, but spoilers would naturally ensue. Essentially, the entire movie lacks a hero. The FBI agent we assume to be the hero simply turns out to be an idiot a la Van Wilder (Ryan Reynolds). We never get to know Liotta or Garcia. The other actors play one-dimensional characters. None of the assassins use intriguing methods or invoke any interest. This movie was better suited as a short film. Seriously, this wasn't worth a rental fee. I give it a two outta 10 because I feel sorry for the actors who needed work. Make that a 1.5 outta 10... they shoulda killed the annoying brat (why was that even in the film?!) in Act II. Of course, in this flic, Act II could also be called "an hour of misplaced, useless fill material."

Hot Fuzz

This movie cracked me up! It ROCKS! A big city (London) cop gets sent to the country (Stanford), let the laughs begin. The humor varies. Everything thing from slap stick jokes to more subtle humor. Much of the humor comes from making fun of themselves and the genre Hot Fuzz represents (buddy cop movies). I found references to Lethal Weapon, Point Break, Bad Boys 2, and He-Man! This movie is not just a reference fest. It has a lot of humor as well. The movie also flows better than Shaun Of The Dead (same guys), which I also loved. This movies feels like a movie fan made it. I think that is some of the appeal. You know how Scary Movie is to Scream is to the horror genre? I would put this more towards Scream than Scary movie except towards action buddy cop movies instead of horror movies. In other words, it is funny and original, but not over the top and overly stupid.

Good:
Hilarious. References to other movies.

Bad:
I am sure there is something. Oh, you will want to see it again!

Comments:
Soundtrack rocks.

Recommendations:
Theater! Go see it. It has been a long time (EuroTrip) since a movie has been so good that I wanted to rewind and watch again.

Smoking Aces

I had high hopes for this movie. I was thinking Godfather with Pulp Fiction style. Man, was I WAY OFF. Smoking Aces is a crime movie about a hit taken out on a "wanna be" mobster/turn coat. Here is the basic problem. The movie is focused on a bunch of hit men that come together in a hotel. It is like a race to get to this guy. The whole movie wraps around this point. The rest of the movie is just there as filler. The mark is just there as a plot device, you don't feel invested in it at all. I didn't care if he lived or died. This is part of the problem with no investment, I was just like, "Blah, I just wanna see something go boom"! The mob mystery really just bookends the movie. I can hear the conversations now.

Hollywood Exec 1: "Oh crap, we have this center of a movie that we have filmed with these neat characters, and now we better make up something to go around it".

Hollywood Exec 2: "Ooo, I know we'll get some big name actors and pepper them through out the movie and it will all be okay"!

Another words the talents of Andy Garcia are wasted, along with Ray Liotta. Seems like this was done for the paycheck. Heck everyone's talents were wasted. Not to mention an aside in the middle of the movie at a trailer with a hyped up kid. The one thing I liked was the style and the cool characters. You could literally just watch 10 or 15 minuted in the middle and be done with the movie.

The Good:
Stylized action peppered with unique characters.

The Bad:
The plot, time line, you just don't care. The movie is basically there to show off some neat assassins.

Comments:
One other thing, there are a lot of survivors. If a sequel is in the works, please spend some time on the plot. This could have been something great.

Recommendations:
Rent it. Sit with the Fast Forward Button. Watch the sh*t hit the fan. Return!

Prestige

What is not to like? The cast of Batman Begins, Magic, David Bowie, are you kidding me, this movie is going to rock! POOF? What happen? The acting was great, the subject matter was great, even the story wasn't bad, two competing magicians. The real trick is how they made this movie so predictable and boring.

First the GOOD:
The acting was great. The subject matter was great. I never felt like turning it off, so I was engaged. I loved the rivalry and how the stakes kept building. I love the tricks. I also loved the settings. Last David freakin' Bowie! I love Bowie. I don't think he does enough movies. That was a great surprise. He didn't even play that big of a role. Somehow he is always engaging.

Second the BAD:
No misdirection. I know this sounds funny coming from a movie about magic, but honestly I saw the whole thing coming. The apifiny came when the hats were found. I kind of suspected anyway. I don't want to ruin it. I put the whole thing together then. The only secret was the Bale's tutor/trick master. Which was given away because they never showed his face. I knew it was... ...well I don't want to spoil it. The ending should be shocking. It probably could have, had there been more misdirection in other areas. Honestly, the hat thing, if you left that out, I probably would never have seen it coming. Well maybe, part of the problem is that it was a movie about magic and I am looking for the misdirection. The problem lies in the way the story was told, not the story, not the direction, not the acting, just the procession of events.

Comments:
I don't want to say that it was a bad movie. I just felt like it was missing something.

Recommendation.
Rental. I think it is entertaining to a point. Don't expect any magic from this movie. Maybe even wait for HBO. It is an entertaining yarn, just not worth buying.

The Prestige: "Watch closely..." or better yet watch without expectations.

Did you read the title of this post? Then when reading the rest of this review, you should not expect any twists! That is the downfall of the film. But allow me to jump to the middle, much as the movie believed leaping between parts of the story added to the unfolding of the plot.

I expect there will be two forms of critiques by the movie-going audience. First will be the GED crowd that claims the complexity of the movie will challenge the audience to discover the plot-twists-- but they amazingly figured it out! These viewers normally delight themselves by opening packages and using products without first reading the directions. "I plugged in my lamp without reading how to plug in my lamp! Aren't I amazing!?" The second form of critique shall be issued by the literate who realize those directions are for those just mentioned. These viewers can not help but scoff at the film, which tells only a story about itself and divulges the "twists" in the beginning.

So, here we go. I dislike those films with simple stories that take sections of an otherwise linear plot and blend them for the sake of "effect." That is what The Prestige attempts. It fails. I also dislike a film that gives what one stretches to call "hints" ad nauseam. "Look how clever we are!"

The Prestige is an adaptation of a novel by the same name authored in the mid-90's by Christopher Priest. The story follows the adult lives of two magicians as portrayed by Christian Bale ("Borden") and Hugh Jackman ("Angier"). The setting is the Victorian era of the late 19th century to the early 20th century, although the film denotes 1887 for the scenes set in its present. The two main characters of Borden and Angier are proclaimed magicians, better described as illusionists, whose competition leads to obsession.

The first failure of the plot is the inability to discern a protagonist. One easily assumes the brash, lower-class Borden will be the underdog protagonist as easily as one assumes he could be a spiteful antagonist, as well. The problem lies in that the audience is never given the opportunity to sympathize with the character. Neither are we given the opportunity to recognize blatant and conscious evils performed by the character in order to identify him as an antagonist. Similarly, Angier can neither be liked nor disliked as his character never develops. He remains static throughout the film, although one may easily attribute this to the acting abilities (or lack of abilities) of Jackman. When a character played by Jackman is angry, he raises the volume of his voice. When sad or regretful, he lowers his voice. Sometimes, if he finds the right motivation, he will blink. So, where are all his oscars? …waiting for him on daytime television.

Where were we? Oh yes, non-linear plot devices. These aren't confusing, yet they never worked to hide the ball in the film, so the viewer isn't astounded as they would be in a Kubrick or Lynch classic. Instead, The Prestige viewers are simply bored. The movie drones on just over two hours. This means the audience discovers the "twist" in the beginning, hops around for two hours, then sees the “twist” they were expecting. Where's the gripe? Well, a director should be restricted when calling something we all expect a “twist.” For instance, if you know young Bobby fell, then you expect him to have reached the ground (read “ground” as a general term for anything that stopped his act of falling). You could begin with the fall, then describe the rock that set in motion the act of falling, and relate that Bobby was aware of the rock beforehand, but you still know Bobby hit the ground. There's no twist or surprise there. This is especially true when every other line and parallel reference alludes to that ending. If this was an emotional or, in some way, spiritual story where we were held clueless to the motivations of the characters, the scene-leaping may have remained neutral. In The Prestige, it only proved annoying.

Misplacement and the poor portrayal of Tesla also proved annoying. Just as a comment, the only members of the audience that would recognize the parallel reference to Tesla would be those already familiar with Tesla's life and relationship with Edison. The three minutes we spend with Tesla on the screen is a disservice. We can only assume this was an effort by the director to sustain Tesla’s reputation as an enigma. First, in 1887, the time given by the film, Tesla had yet to make any claims regarding teleportation, and he never claimed the possibility that human cloning existed. That arose through the steampunk comics. Second, Tesla only stayed in Colorado Springs from 1899 to 1900. Finally, although bad blood existed between Edison and Tesla, neither sabotaged the other. The only character for whom I sympathized in this film was Tesla, and that constituted a bleeding heart weeping for Bowie-- was he duped into playing the role? Generally, I felt a degree of righteous indignation on behalf of the real Tesla… even if I disagree with his opinion of relativity.

As stated earlier, the non-linear format will not confuse the audience or lead to the failure of the film in itself. However, the alternating points of view when leaping between times and the experiences of the characters leave something to be desired, especially when one must tolerate the rampant use of voice-overs. In the end, this is not a film intended to elicit suspense, and one could hardly label it an “action” film, so the slow pace is forgiving of these overly-exploited tools. Apparently, the Nolans simply remained too committed to Priest’s novel, and in doing so took advantage of literary tools better omitted from screenplays.

As to the cinematography, the costumes and sets were exquisite in their accuracy and use, save minor exceptions (apparently Tesla used tape almost 30 years before it was invented—would that be electrical tape? Hahaha). I do reserve one caveat: I grow tired of the constant under-lighting in films generally. The gloom, if one can call it that, has grown trite and hardly conjures anything resembling a foreboding atmosphere. In the case of The Prestige, the Victorian setting allows the lighting to add to the realism of the sets. Edison, after all, did not produce a practical incandescent bulb until the 1870’s (No, he didn’t "invent" the light bulb). Anyway, the dim atmosphere added a touch of realism. The bad aspect is that Nolan always uses the same lighting technique! The idea should amaze us that every theatre, alley, restaurant, bedroom, and so on all look the same! Just like every Nolan film!

If you have an entire Sunday (the movie is just over two hours in length), and you enjoy a simple drama, this is a movie for you. Don’t expect amazing twists, and be prepared for a movie of such pretentiousness that it makes references to its ending throughout. I will say that the reference to science as the new magic of the second industrial revolution was accurate. All in all, the film will pass the time, and since success is a relative term, you may rest assured that this film is better than many of its counterparts. Overall, I give it a 6/10… because I’m a fan of Bale and, naturally, Caine.