Reviews

I walked into District 9, Niell Blomkamp's eagerly awaited sci-fi film/apartheid allegory, not knowing what to expect. From the advertising campaign that consisted of Jim Crow-like signs that read: for humans only, to the action packed trailer, I was curious to see if Blomkamp could successfully incorporate both elements. The allegory to the apartheid in South Africa is quite clear for the first hour of the film, especially due to the fact that this all takes place in South Africa. While Blomkamp was successful in creating an interesting allegory, he was not able to make a good, or even interesting film. The first hour of the film is long and boring, features newscasts that tell the audience essential background information, and unfortunately, also tells them what they are seeing. The story is as follows. In 1981, an enormous UFO mothership appeared mysteriously over Johannesburg, and its alien inhabitants, called by humans "Prawns," have since been moved from their airborne craft to a slum, which is controlled by voodoo-practicing African gangsters. The main character is dorky civil servant Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley, in a fine performance), who is put in charge of relocating the aliens away from Johannesburg by the company that he works for, Multi-National United (MNU). These plans go awry, however, when Wikus is contaminated with a black alien fluid, and begins transforming into a Prawn. Thus begins his fight with MNU (which secretly craves his newfound ability to use alien weaponry) and an unlikely partnership with a Prawn named Christopher. While this is a fairly interesting story, District 9 takes a long time to set itself up and loses the audience in the process. After all this exposition comes the action packed second half, of which only some is interesting. One of the film's biggest flaws is its inability to explain why the aliens don't resist the humans when they have advanced weaponry that only they can use. While the prawns and the humans speak entirely different languages, they are able to understand each other. Even more confusing, they aren't always able to understand one another. Sometimes there is miscommunication, sometimes not. It's a pity that this wasn't explained within the first hour. But it's a science fiction film, you say, not everything will be realistic! That's correct, but everything has to be believable. If you can somehow get past these inconsistencies, you'll probably be put off by the gruesome nature of the violence. There are many scenes where people explode, and their body parts collide with the screen, and there are many instances in which lots of close-ups of wounded flesh are paraded around for the audience to sink in. If you can sit through all of this, the ending will leave you disappointed. After almost two hours of exposition and subsequent action, the film's conclusion only resolves a small part of the main plot line. This makes it obvious that there will be a sequel, but the question remains, why should I, as a member of the audience, care enough to sit through another film to discover what I already should've been told in the first film? My answer? You shouldn't.

While watching The Fifth Element, Europe's latest attempt to make Hollywood style films, one cannot help but infer that Bruce Willis knows that this film is a giant cornball, much like the ball of evil that Father Vito Cornelius deems, "Absolute Eeevil." His acting combines a kind- of smug knowledge with a down-to-earth attitude in a way that makes his scenes watch able. That's about as enjoyable in Luc Besson's sci-fi epic gets. The film starts off in 1910, where a few archaeologists are reading a hieroglyph that detail the ultimate weapon against evil: a fifth element. Suddenly, a group of mechanical beings known as the Monascheiwans (try saying that five times fast) come to Egypt and take the fifth element, along with some four stones that somehow represent the other elements, in order to ensure their continued existence. Besson doesn't bother to explain how this weapon works or even what makes the stones so special. He simply whisks us two hundred and fifty years in the future, where life as we know it is threatened by the arrival of Evil, in the form of a black ball flying through space. Only the fifth element can stop the Evil from extinguishing life, as it tries to do every five thousand years. It turns out, that The fifth element is a woman, played by Milla Jovovich as a clueless woman who speaks only a mysterious language and spends most of the film being carried by Bruce Willis' character, Korbin Dallas. This hardly explains exactly what the fifth element is, and why it assumes this form, but Besson isn't interested in explanations; perhaps because Besson knows it makes no sense. The fifth element is helped by ex-soldier, and current-cab-driver Korben Dallas. Dallas is going about his business when he picks up the fifth element in his cab and thus begins the overdone premise of the man who's forced into a situation that he's not supposed to be in, and who becomes a hero in such. Thus is the real influence of Die Hard. For The Fifth Element bars striking resemblance to Die Hard, with the exception that it takes place in the future, in space, and Bruce Willis fights off the bad guys without removing his shoes-oh and it doesn't take place during Christmas. Korbin Dallas is helped by a pop star, and notable queen, Ruby Rhod, played by Chris Tucker. It's hard to say whether Chris Tucker's high-pitched squeal and neurotic character is a result of his strange interpretation or a truly terrible performance. On the opposite end, Evil is being assisted by Mr. Zorg, played as a southern creep with a bad hair cut by Gary Oldman, who seeks to profit from the chaos that Evil will bring. He hires mercenaries, who look like humans with hogsheads, to do all the fighting. If you're having trouble following this, then movie will be no easier to understand. As if this wasn't enough to convince you that The Fifth Element isn't worth a bucket of warm spit, just pay attention to the acting. President Lindberg, played by one of the worst actors to ever appear in a major Hollywood production, Tommy Lister, recites his ridiculous lines with a staleness only found in week-old bread. I could go on and on detailing all the bad acting, but I do not wish to cause as much pain as the casting director does. The Fifth Element would work well as a comedy-that is-if it didn't have moments of great pain. In attempting to find the stones in order to activate the weapon against evil, Korbin Dallas ends up on an inter-galactic resort listening to a solo opera, sung by a blue woman with hoses attached to her head. Suddenly, the opera turns from classical music to disco. It is at this point that the film has reached its painful peak. The Fifth Element may not be the worst film ever made, but is sure in the running. If you've made the mistake of renting The Fifth Element, now would be a good time to find your remote's mute button, or better yet, the off button. F

Angels & Demons, in relation to The Da Vinci Code, is respectively like turning in a C paper instead turning in a D paper. Better, but still not good. In terms of the sequels' improvement, the acting is decent all around, although nothing stands out. "It's a thriller" say Ron Howard. His definition of a thriller, at least how he displays it in Angels & Demons, seems to include the words boring, talky, and overlong. Good thrillers are short on words, long on action and convey plot points, locations, and identities visually. In Angels & Demons, Howard lays out a map, shows us Robert Langdon's destination, tells us how he's going to get there, and then shows us, in long sequences, what we were just told. Doing so bores the audience; why do we want to see something happen when we we've just been told the same information? There is no element of surprise or suspense. Howard also shows us Robert Langdon begging for entrance to Vatican Archives, walking into the archives, with a sign clearly marking them, and then flashes "Vatican Archives" on the screen. Almost every major location, all of which were made clear in the dialogue and/or the visuals, is told to us with little white subscript. Howard's direction in Angels & Demons is the opposite of Hitchcock's; Instead of wringing suspense from the story, he sucks it out in his attempt to explain the convoluted narrative. Angles & Demons, like most commercial 'thrillers,' is predictable. It is obvious that the crux of the story, that the Illuminati have hidden anti-matter that will explode upon colliding with matter, (at-you guessed it-midnight!), will not come to pass and everything will be all right in the end. You don't have to read the book to know that some Cardinals will die (watch the trailer) and that Vatican City will remain standing. The narrative's believability starts on thin ice and ultimately, with the final twist (the good guy is really behind everything!) falls through. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that Ron Howard's film spends most of its time talking to the audience. With such a historically derivative film, much needs to be explained, but no one goes to a movie theater to be lectured at. A least there's a plot? Well, in essence, Angels & Demons is a repetitive gimmick; Robert Langdon looks at a symbol or statue, explains the complicated meaning he quickly derives from his glance, and then hurriedly whisks off to his next location. Repeat. At least Langdon got rid of his mullet.

J.J. Abrams' reboot of the Star Trek series is a nice departure from the talkiness and corniness of the previous Star Trek films. Abrams had done a good job of making this Star Trek more exciting, filming more action and less debate about intergalactic policy. Also, the aliens are not men in alien suits (see the original TV. show). The look of the film has been updated to feature sharp white modern architecture and slick costumes. The acting is quite convincing and the cast is new (with the exception of Leonard Nimoy's cameo as future Spock, more on that later). Spock's logical reasoning is balanced nicely with the bluntness of Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and the humor of Scotty (Simon Pegg). The film isn't heavy handed, nor is it philosophical. It's not dark like The Dark Knight; instead it's a pure, feel-good action flick. That's not to say the film is devoid of problems. While J.J. Abrams may have a good sense of visuals, and a better sense of action, his sense of pacing is not as well polished. The opening scene, which sets up Kirk's motivation to join Star Fleet, feels clichéd and odd. The set up is quite familiar; the main character's motivation comes from having recognized their father's sacrifice and the son tries to live up to his father's legacy. The first act, and part of the second act of the film is not that interesting because Abrams spends most of that time introducing us to characters that we know are coming. This problem may be inherent to a franchise reboot (see Batman Begins), but Abrams spends too much time with introductions. It is only the third act that shuffles between the very exciting and the averagely entertaining. In an unexpected turn, romance enter the narrative, and although giving this aspect too much focus would be bad (kudos to Abrams for recognizing this), a certain attraction between two very unexpected characters that is shown but never explained at all, is distracting. Leonard Nimoy makes a cameo appearance as Spock from the future, in a hard to understand turn that seems to function only to solve a plot hole. (His introduction is preceded by a pointless scene of action) Star Trek's real problem is that it keeps the audience at an arm's length. We never really get close with any of the characters and I did not feel any involvement. While the CGI was very well done, the film's glossiness and futuristic feel are alienating to the viewer and the film makes little impression once it's over. Star Trek is no The Dark Night, but it is a mildly satisfying feel-good action film. Star Trek seems geared towards a sequel, and let's hope that J.J. Abrams returns; hopefully he takes a page from Christopher Nolan's book (see The Dark Knight) and not the Wachowski brothers' book (see Matrix Reloaded).

Peter Docter's UP is an animated film only in the most basic sense, for it is like no other animated film ever made; it is equal parts action, adventure, drama and comedy. The film combines all these elements so successfully that you will put aside your preconceived notion that animation is for children's films. You know, silly films with uncomplicated plots and G- rated adventure. UP is about an old man, Carl Fredricksen, who dreamed of going to Paradise Falls like his hero, the famous adventurer, Charles Muntz. He promised his wife, who he met as a child and who shared the same dream of adventure, that together they would move to and live in Paradise Falls. But life, and all its problems got in the way, and Carl and his wife never take said adventure. After she dies and Carl accidentally injures a man working on the construction that is occurring next to his home, Carl is forced by a court to give up his house and move into a retirement center. Instead, he attached thousands of balloons to his house and flies away. The characters are hardly stereotypical heroes: an old man, a talking dog, and an overweight Asian boy scout who just want his last merit badge. These characters are believable and they make the film feel realistic. UP features great visuals and stunning color sequences. It is beautifully directed, with shots of great beauty and scope. Docter uses the visuals as his main tool of communication, for example, explaining Carl's life story without any dialogue, and it is obvious that he took great care in framing the characters within the shot. As a result, the film feels authentic and engrossing. The emotional elements of the story are heart-wrenching and make the audience feel a part of Carl's journey. This is also an adventure story where people and indeed their animal accomplices do perish, granted all of this is implied without any details. There are many suspenseful turns in this film and it keeps you on your seat and interested throughout. The mood is constantly being lightened by numerous comedic moments. The dog that follows them on their journey, Doug, whose collar allows him to talk, fills the film with much laughter, as well as being an involved character in the story. The film manages to strike the right note at every turn and is a joy to experience. UP is quite simply a lot of fun and is a comedic adventure that will appeal to all audiences. UP is the best film of the year so far, and is worth any ticket price.

Even with lots of hand-held camera work, Glee manages to avoid the documentary feel of The Office, but it starts to feel as slick as Lie to Me. The opening shots of the cheer leading squad at practice is quite an odd choice, as if the creators needed to assure us that this is a typical high school. The rest of the opening scene, up until the scene with the gay singing teacher, works pretty well. This part of the opening is supposed to explain how Bill becomes leader of Glee club, after the singing teacher is fired; but the director makes it unclear what relation the singing teacher has to Glee club, and thus confuses the audience. We're suddenly thrust into the faculty break room and are introduced quite efficiently to the characters, especially the interest one of the female staff members who takes a love interest in the married protagonist Bill. Sue, the sharp witted cheer leading coach, played quite well by Jane Lynch, seems present only to provide comic relief. Many scenes begin with an unnecessary reveal that showcases a comic portrayal of every day high school life before getting to the crux of the scene. This effect feels as if they needed a way to fill time. Many of the intimate scenes between two characters are filled with philosophically deep ideas that are expressed in such a way that makes them shallow and unrealistic. Our introduction to the students comes as we see their Glee club auditions. The characters are familiar high school misfits, the fashion obsessed gay boy with a great high voice, the over achieving, egotistical and unpopular talented pretty girl, The big black girl with sass and an Aretha Franklin style-voice, the Asian girl with her own odd sense of fashion, a shy crippled kid who is picked upon, and the athlete, who has a great singing voice but feels like a misfit (and, SURPRISE! who's dating the head cheerleader!). They are the underdogs and as expected, we are supposed to root for them against the more talented and better-rehearsed team form Carmel High. When their faculty leader is forced to leave with the news of his wife's pregnancy, the egotistical girl takes over and runs the club her way. In another predictable turn, the athlete is picked upon for joining Glee club. The usual touchy and emotional dialogue is present, in the right places, along with the pithy dialogue from the minor characters. There is nothing different, or interesting about any of the characters, or frankly, about anything in Glee. It's a clichéd and corny show, with the music to back it up. The standard emotional choices are constantly present, with the characters forced between doing what they love (what they will always choose!) and the more financially secure option. The final scene (and its companion song) is as expected as possible, and highlight the mediocrity of the pilot. Hopefully Glee will find an original path. If not, Glee will lose funding fast.

As my friend Jeremy Fassler says, the film Three Monkeys "would be much better if it had some actual monkeys". In fact, from the title, one expects a Pixar film about three monkeys that have some kind of adventure. At least that would be an enjoyable way to spend 109 minutes. The set-up for Nuri Bilge Ceylan's Three Monkeys is indeed an interesting one; a politician in the midst of an election runs over someone and pays his driver to take the blame. The action seems to have a potential for a thrilling film, but Ceylan only explores this conflict for the first half hour. Ceylan doesn't explore anything of interest to the audience and wastes rolls and rolls of film on the minutia of everyday life, filling the screen with people constantly sitting and doing things that have no meaning. He places different conflicts throughout the film, but they are never fully explored and are few and far between. For example, at one point in the film, the son of the driver who took the blame for the car accident comes home bloodied and bruised. His mother simply looks at him. There is no explanation of what happened and why. Even at the end of the film, the audience has no idea who the characters are, what there backgrounds are, and what their mutual history is. What Ceylan has created here is a slow and boring look at everyday life. Ceylan seems willing to let the story be told by having his actors sit, and stare. He fails to realize that watching other people do unimportant things does not make for an interesting film. Ceylan's direction isn't bad, but it isn't good either. At times he just turns the camera on and he cannot figure out how to involve the audience in the film. The shots he uses are nothing special and nothing sticks out. The cinematography gives the film a very distinct look. But every shot in the film looks the same, and after a while, it stops being interesting. The only part of the film that works is the acting. All the performances are good, but because Ceylan doesn't explore any of the characters, there is nothing for the actors to convey to the audience as a way of involving the viewer. As a result, the audience feels alienated from the characters and doesn't care what happens. Three Monkeys attempts to be an intense and involving character study. Instead it comes off as pretentious and flat. Ceylan tries to milk as much drama out of Three Monkeys, but this cow is all dried up. This is evidenced by the final shot of the film; the main character, seen from afar, stands outside as it begins to rain. Ceylan is wrong director for this film (regardless of the fact that he co-wrote it). He seems interested in emotional drama and doesn't realize what type of film Three Monkeys needs to be. A film with a plot like this can go either one of two ways; it can either explore the conflict the main character creates and the direct consequences, or it can show what happens when all the dust settles. Unfortunately, Nuri Bilge Ceylan's Three Monkeys takes the latter. C+

In Watchmen, Zack Snyder paints a pretty picture, but after a while the paint chips away, and instead of revealing something deeper, what's left is nothing but blank canvas. It is easy to see why Alan Moore, the author of the graphic novel has disowned the film (he had his name removed from the film). True, the way Snyder frames the shots and the stylized action sequences are enjoyable and a nice departure from most action flicks, but this isn't enough to save Watchmen from becomes a boring and empty film. Whereas the novel is more than an action story (so I am told by friends who love the novel, for I have never read it) the film is simply that. So, why don't I feel at least satisfied about the fact that it's just a good action film? Because it is not. It is overlong, 2 hours and 42 minutes, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Snyder stuck close to the material and the novel's thick narrative requires this length. In order to justify the length the film must be interesting almost throughout. But Watchmen is not. Having absolutely no clue what it was about, the film felt endless. I thought I knew when it was going to end, but it kept going. Glancing at the glow of my watch was an occurrence almost as frequent as it was while I was sitting through Appaloosa (2008). In terms of a film's most important aspect, narrative structure, Watchmen is uneven. At times it is interesting, and to Snyder's credit, the film shows the heroes, with the exception of Dr. Manhattan, as humans effectively. However, often times the film is slow and overly gruesome. This type of film needs violence but overt severing of limbs? What purpose does it serve? To show Rorschach's insanity? We understand his psychosis without these scenes, yet they are included anyway. A graphic novel is not a film, and in Synder's eagerness to stay true to the source, he forgets what medium he is working in, fails to entertain and makes Watchmen a waste of time. C

This short film had an interesting premise. It starts with a black man, Clay and a white woman, Lula on a subway. They flirt with each other but Luna acts very strange, she laughs, makes fun of Clay and seems never to stay on topic. She pretends she knows a lot about Clay and talks about his life and his family. She teases him about what they'll do together and says he is a murderer. She continuously eats apples and constantly sys she lies and that he will lie to her after sex. Later in the film, many people get on the subway and Lula starts laughing bumping into people, wanting to rub bellies and other weird activities. Finally, Clay gets really upset and starts shouting about her lunatic behavior. He begins to chase her around the subway and attempts to get her to stop. When she doesn't, the subway goes dim and she stabs and kills clay. Next we see her on a subway with another black man and we know that she will do the same again. Let me be frank: this movie sucked. It was terrible because the conversations dragged on and on and on, with no point. I had no clue what was happening and only understood it at the end. Sometimes, understanding a film at the end is good but this time, I was bored and tired of the movie in the middle. The movie made no point concerning race relations and even if it made a clear one, by the end of the movie, I didn't care. Grade C-