Redacted(dir. Brian De Palma)
Reminiscent of The Fountain, it's a film that remains compelling because of it's conviction even when it goes sort of braindead every now and then. Telling it's story through different types of media isn't really all that involving since De Palma uses it in such a nice and neat way in order to progress his narrative where all the media being shown focus on the characters or events in the story so it never truly widens the scope to any real degree, which would have made much more sense. Like many reviews have stated, the acting isn't so hot especially the actor who essentially plays the "hero," but he was forced to act in a criminal investigation scene that was absolutely ridiculous and an extremely melodramatic scene near the end where Brian De Palma's voice asks him to tell him some war stories in a bar and he ends up having an emotional meltdown so he shouldn't get all the flak. The bar scene in particular is probably the best example of how shitty the acting could get since it could have been emotionally involving, but it was sort of cringe-inducing since De Palma's voice almost seems like he's trying to parody all those "patriotic" Americans that think anybody that was involved in a war is a hero and that actor wasn't convincing at all. There's also other touches that seemed a little ridiculous as well like the faux-photograph of the rape victim in the film following images of real victims of the war. What the hell was he trying to do with that? It's almost as bad as Emilio Estevez trying to garner audience sympathy for his fictional characters with the RFK assassination in Bobby. There's also some borderline manipulative stuff found in most anti-war films like a shooting of an innocent that just happened to be pregnant. I don't entirely disagree with what the film is trying to say, but it could have went about it in a more subtle and intelligent way. In a lot of ways, it was much like a supped-up and engrossing TV movie, which might sound like a bad thing, but it remains engaging all the way through except for those specific scenes mentioned above and maybe a few more. I recommend.
*** out of ****
The Nanny Diaries(dir. Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini)
After you get past the first 20 insufferable minutes or so, it's not so bad. There's really no denying that this is essentially fluff and I'll soon forget it, but it was still a good time-waster I guess. This might possibly be her best performance yet, but that's not saying very much. There are some moments like her yelling at the "nanny cam" that show her weaknesses as an actress, but there's no moment as cringe-inducing as some of her more dramatic scenes in Match Point. It's "skewering" of the upper class is about as unoriginal as you can get, portraying them as so self-centered and unaware of other people's feelings that they almost don't appear human. Laura Linney gives a relatively cliched performance as the "bitch" in the picture while Paul Giamatti seems almost too comfortable playing her scuzzy "dick of a husband." The biggest problem that makes this all lightweight is the lack of conflict and narrative drive. It doesn't necessarily get boring, but it's "conflict" is resolved in such a easy way that it shouldn't be considered a conflict at least in comparison to other films. Characters are capable of changing so easily that it's a surprise that this lasts for a whopping 100 minutes. I slightly recommend.
**1/2 out of ****
Flanders(dir. Bruno Dumont)
It's similar to Redacted in terms of narrative, but totally different in tone. Dumont's direction is sometimes clumsy much like De Palma's, but he never gets as passionate or "in your face" as De Palma since that's not really his style. That doesn't mean that nothing horrific happens in this film. On the contrary, it contains a lot more violence in comparison to Redacted, but since it's rather detached and it's difficult to get emotionally involved with the film, it's not really that effective. Redacted implied more than showed and was effective while this film showed more than implied. How they deal with their respective characters and emotions are the opposite, however. Everybody's emotions are essentially externalized in De Palma's film while everybody's emotions in this film are pretty much internalized, which makes it more intellectually stimulating but less so emotionally. I'd go out and say that this is probably his worst so far, but it's definitely not bad. It's just hard film to warm up to. Maybe a rewatch in the future is in order. I slightly recommend.
**1/2 out of ****
Reminiscent of The Fountain, it's a film that remains compelling because of it's conviction even when it goes sort of braindead every now and then. Telling it's story through different types of media isn't really all that involving since De Palma uses it in such a nice and neat way in order to progress his narrative where all the media being shown focus on the characters or events in the story so it never truly widens the scope to any real degree, which would have made much more sense. Like many reviews have stated, the acting isn't so hot especially the actor who essentially plays the "hero," but he was forced to act in a criminal investigation scene that was absolutely ridiculous and an extremely melodramatic scene near the end where Brian De Palma's voice asks him to tell him some war stories in a bar and he ends up having an emotional meltdown so he shouldn't get all the flak. The bar scene in particular is probably the best example of how shitty the acting could get since it could have been emotionally involving, but it was sort of cringe-inducing since De Palma's voice almost seems like he's trying to parody all those "patriotic" Americans that think anybody that was involved in a war is a hero and that actor wasn't convincing at all. There's also other touches that seemed a little ridiculous as well like the faux-photograph of the rape victim in the film following images of real victims of the war. What the hell was he trying to do with that? It's almost as bad as Emilio Estevez trying to garner audience sympathy for his fictional characters with the RFK assassination in Bobby. There's also some borderline manipulative stuff found in most anti-war films like a shooting of an innocent that just happened to be pregnant. I don't entirely disagree with what the film is trying to say, but it could have went about it in a more subtle and intelligent way. In a lot of ways, it was much like a supped-up and engrossing TV movie, which might sound like a bad thing, but it remains engaging all the way through except for those specific scenes mentioned above and maybe a few more. I recommend.
*** out of ****
The Nanny Diaries(dir. Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini)
After you get past the first 20 insufferable minutes or so, it's not so bad. There's really no denying that this is essentially fluff and I'll soon forget it, but it was still a good time-waster I guess. This might possibly be her best performance yet, but that's not saying very much. There are some moments like her yelling at the "nanny cam" that show her weaknesses as an actress, but there's no moment as cringe-inducing as some of her more dramatic scenes in Match Point. It's "skewering" of the upper class is about as unoriginal as you can get, portraying them as so self-centered and unaware of other people's feelings that they almost don't appear human. Laura Linney gives a relatively cliched performance as the "bitch" in the picture while Paul Giamatti seems almost too comfortable playing her scuzzy "dick of a husband." The biggest problem that makes this all lightweight is the lack of conflict and narrative drive. It doesn't necessarily get boring, but it's "conflict" is resolved in such a easy way that it shouldn't be considered a conflict at least in comparison to other films. Characters are capable of changing so easily that it's a surprise that this lasts for a whopping 100 minutes. I slightly recommend.
**1/2 out of ****
Flanders(dir. Bruno Dumont)
It's similar to Redacted in terms of narrative, but totally different in tone. Dumont's direction is sometimes clumsy much like De Palma's, but he never gets as passionate or "in your face" as De Palma since that's not really his style. That doesn't mean that nothing horrific happens in this film. On the contrary, it contains a lot more violence in comparison to Redacted, but since it's rather detached and it's difficult to get emotionally involved with the film, it's not really that effective. Redacted implied more than showed and was effective while this film showed more than implied. How they deal with their respective characters and emotions are the opposite, however. Everybody's emotions are essentially externalized in De Palma's film while everybody's emotions in this film are pretty much internalized, which makes it more intellectually stimulating but less so emotionally. I'd go out and say that this is probably his worst so far, but it's definitely not bad. It's just hard film to warm up to. Maybe a rewatch in the future is in order. I slightly recommend.
**1/2 out of ****
No comments:
Post a Comment