Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Canyons (2013)
9/10
Great movie, typical Ellis - detached and cruel
4 August 2013
I think that a lot of the criticism of "The Canyons" is missing the point. All of Ellis' stories have a detached quality in them which makes them hard for audiences to relate to, especially on screen. They seem "unreal".

A constant theme in Ellis' work is the existential "ennui", the boredom and emptiness of life, the absence of deeper meaning. His main characters feel that something is missing, but they can't pinpoint what it is. As an audience, we know what they are missing - connection with themselves and others, and genuine emotion. This is why there is so much disconnect between the protagonists and the viewers.

It may be that the choice of Hollywood as a backdrop for this display of existential emptiness is an unlucky one because few people can relate to wealthy Hollywood life on a personal level.

However, I applaud the filmmakers for at least having the guts to try. The people in this movie are all choosing materialism over personal connection, and mechanical sex instead of intimacy, an orgasm is for them a reflex just like sneezing. Neither money, sex, nor social status provide happiness for those who get it in abundance; only those who don't have it in abundance think they will bring happiness. The values that popular culture upholds are devoid of value.

In addition, I think James Deen does a perfect job playing a narcissistic, controlling, emotionally empty vessel on the verge of snapping, and Lindsay Lohan (this is her first movie I've seen, and given the bad press, I'm positively surprised) does a great job playing a woman despairing from choosing hell in physical luxury, while starving emotionally.
91 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Well made but hard to figure out
17 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Serious spoilers ahead !

This is a very well-made thriller. After first watching, it seemed not to make any sense at all to me, and I got quite angry at it.

But then, I went back to it, and patiently went through some of the scenes again to catch the detailed hints. Man, it sure isn't easy to figure them out ! Hollywood thrillers are very in your face with plot hints. This one is far more subtle, and the viewers have to really catch the details themselves.

Since there are many negative comments here because of the impenetrable plot twists, I will list what I found out so far (it's really more of a puzzle than a straightforward thriller, think "The usual suspects"):

At the beginning of the film, the detective removes a button from the dead body of a boy who fell out of a window; the other one is missing. The missing button is the one he sees Chae put into the drawer in the video towards the end of the movie. When he gets into the room 702 where the victims were dissected, he imagines how she pushed the boy off the window. She does it because the boy had been spying on her. Without this link, the detective wouldn't know Chae was in that place, so it is crucial.

On the photo, there are the two women, Chae and Seungmin Oh, together will all the male victims, each holding a bottle with fish, similar to the one that Chae gave to the detective before she left for Paris towards the end. They are standing in front of a water tank. When the detective first went to the home in the woods where Chae was hiding after being attacked, this tank was briefly shown. It was not recognizable as such, but the metal corners were standing out. The detective remembered it from the photo.

The tools that were packed and removed from the room 702 where the detective's partner was killed were found in Seungmin Oh's apartment by the police (before the scene at Tower records). Therefore, she was the one who killed him.

The body missing the head inside the tank is Chae's father's. His head was in the freezer that the detective's partner found just before he was killed. Over the phone, he informed the detective that the head was Chae's father's. His killer (Seungmin Oh) removed the head from the freezer before leaving.

This implies that both women were using the room 702 for the killings. They were partners in those crimes. Seungmin Oh has burn scars on her legs (shown before she leaves for Tower records). She is Chae's childhood friend who set the house on fire. Chae was lying when she said that friend was a boy, in order to cover up Seungmin Oh (her partner in crime).

The men were all former boyfriends of Chae, according to what she said. However, they are shown united on the photo, together with Chae and Seungmin Oh. They are standing in front of the tank that contains Chae's father's dead body, in celebrating pose. This implies they must all have been complicit in killing him. Her father was the first victim, and contrary to the others, his body was kept hidden. From the way he was portrayed, the former boyfriends must have had reason to hate him; also, she must have manipulated them in wanting to murder her father.

The plastic bag that led back to her father was placed to make her father the main suspect for the killing of the young men. Presumably the two women killed them in order to stain Chae's father's reputation (he is a very famous artist). Things went wrong with this plan when the detective's partner discovered her father's head in the freezer just before he was killed, and informed the detective about it. Knowing that her father was dead, he wasn't a suspect any longer for the police. This was the point where Seungmin Oh understood that their plan was unraveling.

The person in the car who was attacking the detective in the rainy night, after he finds one of the victim's place, is Seungmin Oh. The police (towards the end) identify her as the owner of a car that was caught speeding on that night.

Seungmin Oh knows that the police has tracked her down, after seeing them at her workplace. To draw attention away from Chae, she spills the blood in the bathtub, and makes it evident that she is the murderer. She still wants to cover Chae.

Chae's call to the detective telling him she will meet Senguin at Tower records is a setup. She says "just because I was thinking of you", which is not typical for her. He was supposed to kill Seungmin, this was the plan of both women.

There is an enigmatic short scene 30 min before the end where Chae and Seungmin Oh meet for dinner, together with some young men (just after the killing of the detective's partner). Seungmin asks Chae "Did you really go to the hospital to die ? You are not the suicidal type." It looks rather like a memory, and the men present at the dinner might have been the victims. It might imply that the women were ready for suicide, but that Chae wanted out, and that Seungmin was ready to take the blame, in order to give her an alibi.

All in all, it started to make sense to me after moving through the film back and forth on my ipad. This is the first time I had to do this to understand a movie. While it was frustrating at the beginning, this is all looking a lot more interesting now.

Finally, the original title is "Telmisseomding", and was translated to "Tell me something". Much rather, it might mean "They'll miss something".
26 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Nasty and stupid
2 January 2007
This movie is a real nasty stinker. Instead of being amused, I'm p***ed off by its rotten message. Put bluntly, the story is as follows:

A guy (Dillon) working in a low-level position of a big scale architecture firm marries the daughter (the Hudson character, an elementary school teacher) of the millionaire owner and boss of the company (Douglas). They live in a really nice, big house no person of their age and profession could afford unless it's her daddy's gift. He is trying hard to get her father's respect while not losing too much of his integrity, and to honestly earn the money necessary to maintain their high level lifestyle. Therefore, he works a lot, and often overtime. She is unhappy with the overtime part, and doesn't notice the fact that he is trying really hard to please her.

Usually, the job of an elementary school teacher is hard and tiring, but she (Hudson) always looks fresh and energetic. She does not understand the concept of having to work one's butt off - how could she, she grew up a spoiled princess adored by daddy - and the general message of the movie is that the working guy has made the wrong decision in life.

This is made concrete as follows: After their wedding, his best buddy (Wilson) from older days pops up - a guy who tends to lose his jobs, and is a real parasite. He lives in other peoples' homes, and tends to get into people's private lives. His mantra is that one should be sufficiently relaxed, and be oneself. He causes chaos in their lives - which is supposed to be the funny part, but it isn't.

So now it's the unemployed buddy flirting with the wife (who works, but has the option to drop the job and live on daddy's money if she gets bored with teaching), teaming up against the guy who works his butt off to be able to offer his wife the high living standard she believes she is entitled to without having to resort to her daddy's money gifts too much.

Her daddy makes this goal of his really hard to achieve, and in one main scene, he loses control, and attacks his parasite buddy. The rest of the film is about how he can apologize to her that he lost control, and how he can win back her love. He believes that she is the best thing that ever happened to him.

I don't know who might be the target audience that could potentially enjoy this movie. I think that no person in a mutually halfways respectful relationship, not terribly wealthy, but working hard for a steady income will enjoy it. The movie spits with contempt into the face of such people. Its message is that wealth should be acquired by gift, and not by work. If one doesn't have it, working hard to achieve it will p**s off the wife if she grew up a princess.

Oh - I think I get it now who is the target audience. It makes me want to vomit.

Most characters in this film have profoundly rotten personalities.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A profound look at human nature
16 March 2006
Kubrick analyzes the Human Condition, and has a very Darwinistic point of view. This film is amazing. Its statement is profound, true, and not so easy to swallow if one hasn't thought about it before.

The beginning of "2001 - a space odyssey" recounts that we have evolved from apes and cavemen into a species of great technological finesse. In comparison with other lifeforms on this planet, we possess great intelligence, and high powers of mental abstraction.

However, much of these mental powers were, are, and will be used for the development of weapons needed to satisfy that part in us which is still monkey and caveman. On our evolutionary path, we are not as far from our primitive origins as we would like to believe. Our societies are still pretty barbaric - we haven't overcome violence; we have only succeeded in containing violence by organized force and violence through our governments.

"A clockwork orange" makes the statement that stealing a person's brutality is inhuman. In doing that, one steals an integral part of what makes us human. No matter how obscene and extreme the violent part of a person is, eliminating the ability of being violent it is deeply immoral.

We humans tend to believe that animals are very far below us on the evolutionary ladder. However, the fact is that an integral part of us has remained completely primitive and barbarian. Human history has not only given us opportunity, but has forced us to learn how to channel our aggressions into more civilized activities (competitive sports, career, etc), and in civilized times, we tend to forget about our potential for utter violence.

However, in times of chaos, political and otherwise, our innate brutality is allowed to erupt without inhibition. Usually, humans will then immerse themselves passionately into genocide and murder, as is well recorded in human history. The moralists try to think deeply about it, and ask: What went wrong ? The answer given in this film is: Nothing went wrong - we are a violent breed, it is our nature. Only the mechanisms containing our violence have broken down.

Alex in "a clockwork orange" is that brutal, raging monkey buried inside of us by the nature of our genes, in some deeper than in others. The bottom line is that society, civilization, morals, ethics, and religion all serve as tentative mechanisms to contain the destructive, sadistic devil inside us without which we wouldn't be human.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed