Fright Night was released on August 19, 2011, and is a remake of the 1985 horror film, Fright Night. It was written by Marti Noxon, original story by Tom Holland, directed by Craig Gillespie, and stars Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Imogen Poots, Toni Collete, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
I haven't seen the original version of this film, and didn't know of its existence, until I heard about this film. I didn't watch it, mostly because of a lack of interest. So, going into this film, I knew nothing. I probably wouldn't have seen this film, until I learned that David Tennant was in it, playing Peter Vincent (an obvious reference to horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price). I'm a big fan of Doctor Who, so that was the main reason why I wanted to see this film.
Overall, I'd have to say that this film was good, but unnecessary. I didn't really see the point in remaking it, as they didn't really add anything different. I read the plot of the original on Wikipedia before watching this, and they really didn't change anything, aside from the addition of some comedy. Now obviously, I can't compare the two, so I must judge this film on its own merits.
The role of Jerry, originated by Chris Sarandon, was played by Colin Farrell, a talented actor. Some people were worried that he couldn't quite do this film justice, but I can safely say that he did. He was perfectly creepy, and cool at the same time. He looked like he was ready to seduce you, as opposed to eating you. On the note of seducing, that seemed to be the way they treated vampirism in this. Whenever Jerry bit a new victim, he panted, enjoyed himself, licked the blood very sexually. A very interesting way to look at vampirism. Twilight, take note, this is a good way to do vampires, not overtly moody.
While Colin Farrell was rather splendid, for me, the show-stealer was David Tennant. Take away my love for Doctor Who, and you still have a phenomenal performance. He was perfectly funny, despicable, and cool, all at the same time. He had the best lines, the best scenes, and whenever he wasn't on screen, I missed his presence. Now, he doesn't show up until halfway, and then reappears in the last third. While I did miss him, the scenes without him were still good. The beginning was particularly enjoyable, mostly due to Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who is only in the beginning and the end, but is notable enough to be a starring performer. He was usual Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and by usual, I don't mean nerdy, and pathetic, but still likeable, like Superbad. I mean all those qualities, combined with assholeism, and villainry. (SLIGHT SPOILERS) He was a villain in Kickass, and he was a villain here. It's becoming his usual role, and it works. You don't think of him as the villain, because he's so pathetic. And with each villain role I find him in, he becomes more of a villain. One day, perhaps, we will see this young actor performing villain roles like the Joker, or something of the like. Here's a thought. If the Riddler were ever to come back to screen, get Christopher Mintz-Plasse to play him. It seems likely that Christopher Nolan won't be doing that, but perhaps, in 15 years or so, someone else will reboot the series, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse could very well be the Riddler. Just a thought.
There's an interesting subtext about vampirism in this film, mostly shown through the character of Evil Ed, Christopher Mintz-Plasse's character. Becoming a vampire is a sexual awakening, and in Evil Ed's case, he realizes he's gay. In the beginning of the film, Evil Ed and Charley (Anton Yelchin), our main character, are ex-friends. Charley doesn't want to be friends with Evil Ed, and Evil Ed misses Charley. Charley stopped being friends with Evil Ed to have a girlfriend, and Evil Ed refuses that. He wants to be with Charley, but Charley doesn't want to be with him. Evil Ed soon confronts Jerry, the resident vampire, who convinces him to turn. It's an emotional scene for Evil Ed, and it can be seen as giving into who he really is, a gay man. When we later see him, as a vampire, he openly expresses his desire to have Charley be a vampire with him. He wants to be with Charley, and is now free to do it. Also, interestingly, whenever a character is converted into a vampire, it's highly sexualized. Girls jump on top of guys, guys kiss girls. I did enjoy this subtext quite a bit, as it added an interesting depth to the film.
The rest of the cast was good, but nothing special. Slightly forgettable, but that's probably because of the grandiose nature of Farrell, Tennant, and Mintz-Plasse. The writing was enjoyable enough, and the directing was sufficient enough. The stand out moments for the film had either Farrell, Tennant, or Mintz-Plasse on screen, but whenever they weren't on screen, this film was just okay, nothing particularly special.
One more thing: this film was in 3D. I've grown neutral to 3D, as long as they keep darkness out of the film. Being a horror-comedy involving vampires, there were a lot of dark scenes. This film was very hard to watch, all because of the 3D. I tried to find this playing in 2D, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Why? Why the lack of 2D? This film should've been released in just 2D, because it's a dark film. Shame on you, Craig Gillespie, and/or producers.
Overall, this film was enjoyable, mostly due to Colin Farrell, David Tennant, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Without them, it was okay, nothing special. I highly recommend this film, if only for their performances, and a damn interesting subtext. Overall, I give this film an 8/10.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Attack the Block
Attack the Block is the first film of English comedian Joe Cornish, half of comedy duo Adam and Joe, and was released on May 11, 2011 in the U.K. It was written and directed by Joe Cornish, and stars John Boyega, Alex Esmail, Franz Drameh, Leeon Jones, Simon Howard, Jodie Whittaker, Luke Treadaway, and Nick Frost.
I was lucky to watch the Tree of Life, because it's in extremely limited release, and hard to find anywhere. I'm even more lucky to be able to watch Attack the Block, because of its history. In May, it was released in the U.K., where it was extremely popular. In attempt to secure a release on this side of the Atlantic, producers and film studios were worried that the film wouldn't be popular over here, and not only that, but the film would need subtitles for the characters heavy South London accents. That's absolutely ridiculous, the accents are not hard to understand. The film secured a limited release, only playing in 6 cities in the U.S. initially. I didn't know it was playing in Canada at all, I just happened to be at Yonge and Dundas one day, and saw a poster for that film at the theatre. A few days later, I went to see it.
All I had heard about this film was good reviews, and all of those reviews are right. This is a very good film. Many people have compared it to Edgar Wright's first feature, Shaun of the Dead, which is very unfair. The only things that Shaun of the Dead and Attack the Block have in common is Edgar Wright (he wrote and directed Shaun of the Dead, and was an executive producer on this film), Nick Frost (starred in both films), the fact that they're English films, and the fact that they are films. That's it. Aside from those similarities, these films are quite different. Shaun of the Dead was a comedy with a little bit of good horror as well. Attack the Block is a straight up science-fiction horror, with elements of comedy in it. While Shaun of the Dead wants to make you laugh, Attack the Block wants to make you scared.
In the film, we meet 5 youths (John Boyega, Alex Esmail, Franz Drameh, Leeon Jones, and Simon Howard) who are residents of a typical "block" in South London. In case you're wondering, a block is a building that is part of the projects, a ghetto of sorts. They mug Sam (Jodie Whittaker), a nurse who also lives in the block, and as they mug her, something flies down, and crashes into a car beside them. Sam escapes, and upon inspecting, the boys find that a creature not from this world is in the car, and starts to attack them, scratching Moses', the leader of the group, face. He kills the alien, and takes it to Ron (Nick Frost), the local weed dealer, hoping to store it in his "weed room," as it is the safest place in the block. Shortly after this, more aliens start to come down, more fierce, vicious, and blood-hungry aliens. The gang and Sam have to gang together to defend the block (which probably should've been the name of the film, Defend the Block, but I digress).
Aside from Nick Frost, the cast is filled with mostly unknowns. All these young actors are phenomenally good actors. These kids are scared, but pretend to be tough, in order to survive on the block. They're pretending to be tough and strong, but in reality, they just want to go home, and not get eaten by the aliens. All the kids, particularly Moses and Pest (John Boyega and Alex Esmail), were great actors, and I look forward to seeing their careers advance forward. Jodie Whittaker also did a fine job. She plays Sam, the nurse who was mugged by the gang, but has to join them in order to survive. She does a fine job here, and apparently she already has a career, so I will be checking out some more of her films soon.
The writing is quite good in this film. Going into this film, I was expecting a comedy, something similar to Shaun of the Dead (I know I said they shouldn't be compared, but oh well). But this film is quite different, because it's a science fiction horror first. That's what makes it so different from Shaun of the Dead, in that this film is a horror film, with elements of comedy, and not a comedy, with elements of horror. That's what makes this film so interesting, and so much more funny.
Overall, this was a very good film, and if you get a chance to check it out, I recommend it, despite the fact that it is hard to find. It's a great debut from Joe Cornish, and I look forward to seeing more of his films in the years to come. I give it an 8.5/10.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Rise of the Planet of the Apes was released on August 5, 2011 (my 18th birthday), and is a prequel/reboot in the famous Planet of the Apes film series. It was written by Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver, directed by Rupert Wyatt, and stars James Franco, Freida Pinto, John Lithgow, Brian Cox, Tom Felton, and Andy Serkis.
I saw the original Planet of the Apes, and Tim Burton's remake. I saw the original when I was very young, and I don't remember much about it, aside from the basics, and of course, the famous twist. I do remember more of the remake, and I remember it to be quite bad. It left a sour taste in my mouth, and I didn't ever really intend to watch the other Planet of the Apes films. The original is on the list, so I will watch that. Aside from that, I had no real intention of watching any of the other films. I didn't even intend to see this film, I just saw it by chance.
I went into this film thinking I would hate it, or at the very least, find it to be underwhelming. However, when I heard good reviews, I was intrigued, but not enough to go see it. And then by chance, I ended up seeing it with a few friends, and came out genuinely surprised at the fact that it wasn't bad, but actually pretty good.
While certainly not a great film, it was a good film. The detrimental points were mostly the uselessness of Freida Pinto (if you take her out of the film, nothing major changes), and the lack of Brian Cox (underused, and not seen in or near the ending). But everything else was actually quite good. The showstealer, obviously, was Andy Serkis, playing Caesar, the revolutionary ape. He played Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (reprising the role again in next years Hobbit), and King Kong in Peter Jackson's remake of the 1933 classic, both roles entirely done in a combination of acting, motion-capture, and CGI. He was brilliant in both of those, and brilliant in this as well. He plays Caesar like a young child, excited in learning new things, and loving his family. However, due to the fact that he is first and foremost, a chimpanzee, he is imprisoned, with other apes. Using his intelligence, he becomes their leader, and starts an ape revolution, by making the apes intelligent. Andy Serkis was not only the perfect choice to play Caesar, he was also the only choice. This is how Andy Serkis makes his career, essentially playing creatures through CGI. He was absolutely brilliant, and while he won't be nominated for an Oscar, he definitely deserves a nomination, or at least recognition.
The other actors were very good as well. James Franco is our lead, and he does good. Nothing special. He wasn't horrible, he wasn't great. Freida Pinto's character was essentially useless, but regardless, she was believable, and relatively good. In my opinion, John Lithgow is a tremendous actor, whether he is a playing a sad old man suffering from Alzheimer's, or television's greatest serial killer. He was the former here, and was tremendous. He made us feel sad, and extremely happy at some points. While Brian Cox wasn't used enough, he was very good, as he normally is, and his presence was sorely missed in the end. It's good to see Tom Felton furthering his career, especially so soon after the Harry Potter films ended. And not only that, but he wasn't half bad in this. Come to think of it, he was one of the best actors in it. He had a career before Harry Potter, and it looks like he'll have one after Harry Potter too. (He also said, "take your stinkin' paws off me, you damn dirty ape!" Well, they had to put it in somewhere.) I'd also like to mention David Hewlett, the angry neighbour. He is a Canadian actor, who has only done Canadian productions (Cube, the Stargate shows), but is a very good actor. While every role I've seen him in, he's usually playing a calm character, he displays sheer anger here. Despite being in a small role, he was my favourite part of this film for two reasons. One, his character was the first to feel the wrath of Caesar, and two, because it is good to see this great actor's career furthering into Hollywood.
The film was able to function on its own, as a film separate of the Planet of the Apes franchise, and that's what makes it so good. The writing of Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver was very good. They were able to shine through Caesar, which is definitely the best part about this film. While I don't know the Planet of the Apes universe, I imagine that this film probably isn't 100% correct in that universe. However, there a good number of references to the original film as well. Aside from the aforementioned famous quote, we sees news reports about the first manned mission to Mars, and how it becomes lost in space. This spacecraft was in Planet of the Apes, and while I don't remember much about the original film, I do remember that.
One more thing I'd like to mention: the CGI. The CGI was not just used for Caesar, but all of the apes. It looked fantastic. From gorillas to orangutans to silverbacks, they all look unbelievably real. In action sequences, they can look a bit fake sometimes, but aside from that, it looks absolutely brilliant. The gorilla was, without a doubt, the best looking of all, looking like a miniature King Kong. We've come a long way from having men wear fake looking ape costumes.
Overall, this film, while not perfect, was a nice little addition to the Planet of the Apes film series, and it leaves me hopeful and excited for a sequel. Overall, I give this film a 7.5/10. A nice little film with some great CGI and a great performance from Andy Serkis. A definite a-must if you're a fan of the Planet of the Apes film series, but if not, check it out anyways. You'll probably like it.
I saw the original Planet of the Apes, and Tim Burton's remake. I saw the original when I was very young, and I don't remember much about it, aside from the basics, and of course, the famous twist. I do remember more of the remake, and I remember it to be quite bad. It left a sour taste in my mouth, and I didn't ever really intend to watch the other Planet of the Apes films. The original is on the list, so I will watch that. Aside from that, I had no real intention of watching any of the other films. I didn't even intend to see this film, I just saw it by chance.
I went into this film thinking I would hate it, or at the very least, find it to be underwhelming. However, when I heard good reviews, I was intrigued, but not enough to go see it. And then by chance, I ended up seeing it with a few friends, and came out genuinely surprised at the fact that it wasn't bad, but actually pretty good.
While certainly not a great film, it was a good film. The detrimental points were mostly the uselessness of Freida Pinto (if you take her out of the film, nothing major changes), and the lack of Brian Cox (underused, and not seen in or near the ending). But everything else was actually quite good. The showstealer, obviously, was Andy Serkis, playing Caesar, the revolutionary ape. He played Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (reprising the role again in next years Hobbit), and King Kong in Peter Jackson's remake of the 1933 classic, both roles entirely done in a combination of acting, motion-capture, and CGI. He was brilliant in both of those, and brilliant in this as well. He plays Caesar like a young child, excited in learning new things, and loving his family. However, due to the fact that he is first and foremost, a chimpanzee, he is imprisoned, with other apes. Using his intelligence, he becomes their leader, and starts an ape revolution, by making the apes intelligent. Andy Serkis was not only the perfect choice to play Caesar, he was also the only choice. This is how Andy Serkis makes his career, essentially playing creatures through CGI. He was absolutely brilliant, and while he won't be nominated for an Oscar, he definitely deserves a nomination, or at least recognition.
The other actors were very good as well. James Franco is our lead, and he does good. Nothing special. He wasn't horrible, he wasn't great. Freida Pinto's character was essentially useless, but regardless, she was believable, and relatively good. In my opinion, John Lithgow is a tremendous actor, whether he is a playing a sad old man suffering from Alzheimer's, or television's greatest serial killer. He was the former here, and was tremendous. He made us feel sad, and extremely happy at some points. While Brian Cox wasn't used enough, he was very good, as he normally is, and his presence was sorely missed in the end. It's good to see Tom Felton furthering his career, especially so soon after the Harry Potter films ended. And not only that, but he wasn't half bad in this. Come to think of it, he was one of the best actors in it. He had a career before Harry Potter, and it looks like he'll have one after Harry Potter too. (He also said, "take your stinkin' paws off me, you damn dirty ape!" Well, they had to put it in somewhere.) I'd also like to mention David Hewlett, the angry neighbour. He is a Canadian actor, who has only done Canadian productions (Cube, the Stargate shows), but is a very good actor. While every role I've seen him in, he's usually playing a calm character, he displays sheer anger here. Despite being in a small role, he was my favourite part of this film for two reasons. One, his character was the first to feel the wrath of Caesar, and two, because it is good to see this great actor's career furthering into Hollywood.
The film was able to function on its own, as a film separate of the Planet of the Apes franchise, and that's what makes it so good. The writing of Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver was very good. They were able to shine through Caesar, which is definitely the best part about this film. While I don't know the Planet of the Apes universe, I imagine that this film probably isn't 100% correct in that universe. However, there a good number of references to the original film as well. Aside from the aforementioned famous quote, we sees news reports about the first manned mission to Mars, and how it becomes lost in space. This spacecraft was in Planet of the Apes, and while I don't remember much about the original film, I do remember that.
One more thing I'd like to mention: the CGI. The CGI was not just used for Caesar, but all of the apes. It looked fantastic. From gorillas to orangutans to silverbacks, they all look unbelievably real. In action sequences, they can look a bit fake sometimes, but aside from that, it looks absolutely brilliant. The gorilla was, without a doubt, the best looking of all, looking like a miniature King Kong. We've come a long way from having men wear fake looking ape costumes.
Overall, this film, while not perfect, was a nice little addition to the Planet of the Apes film series, and it leaves me hopeful and excited for a sequel. Overall, I give this film a 7.5/10. A nice little film with some great CGI and a great performance from Andy Serkis. A definite a-must if you're a fan of the Planet of the Apes film series, but if not, check it out anyways. You'll probably like it.
Monday, August 1, 2011
The Tree Of Life
The Tree of Life was released May 27, 2011 in the U.S., premiering at Cannes, where it won the Palme d'Or. It was written and directed by Terence Malick, and stars Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, and Sean Penn.
Terence Malick is one of the most interesting directors in Hollywood. He made two films in the 1970s, both highly regarded as some of the best films of that decade, then stopped making films for 20 years, releasing the Thin Red Line, an extremely famous war film, in 1998, famous for containing cameos or supporting roles from almost every major actor in Hollywood at the time. In 2005, he made the New World, which received mixed reviews on release, but has since been regarded as one of the best films of the 2000s. And now, in 2011, he has made the Tree of Life. Now, aside from the Tree of Life, I had only seen the New World. I saw it shortly after it came out, and being 12 at the time, I thought it was ok, but nothing special. Since then, I have learned the history and reputation of Terence Malick, one of the most elusive, compelling, and brilliant directors in Hollywood today, and in the history of cinema.
Going into this film, I wasn't quite sure what to expect. I knew the basic plot, and that was it. I knew of the "creation of life" sequence, the 50s storyline, and the modern-day storyline. I had heard all the reviews, praising this film, and I could tell it would blow me away. However, I was completely worried, mostly because of the "creation of life" sequence. What was it, and what was the point of it? However, I was mostly optimistic. And you know what? This film blew me away.
Now while it did blow me away, after the first hour, the film starts to feel like it drags. Let me explain. the first 10-15 minutes is just a setup of the basic plot. We meet Jack O'Brien, in two different timelines (Sean Penn in the modern-day storyline, and Hunter McCracken in the 50s storyline). I don't really want to spoil the plot, so the only other thing I will reveal is in the 50s storyline, the main characters are Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien (both played brilliantly by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain), but seen through the eyes of young Jack. I imagine that the 50s storyline is partly based off of Malick's own childhood, as the setting of the film, Waco, Texas, is the town he grew up in. And it certainly is interesting, especially in the beginning, as we see the children being raised. But after a good while of that, it can be boring, because we've seen it already. It still is good, but it drags on a bit.
That is the only negative about this film. Everything else is a tremendous positive. Brad Pitt is at his best here. He plays a father who genuinely loves his children, but he doesn't know how to show it. Due to this, he ends up beating his children. Very typical of a father in the 50s. You can see the love he feels for his children, but he doesn't now how to express it, and gets very angry over it. Pitt was tremendous at doing this, and I'd have to say, he has a very good chance at winning the Academy Award for Best Actor. I think Leonardo DiCaprio will blow me away when J. Edgar comes out, but I have hope for Brad Pitt.
Jessica Chastain does just as good, but is playing the exact opposite role. She does genuinely love her children, like her husband, but does know how to express it. For her, it's essentially by being a child with them. She constantly plays with them, and acts like she's more of a friend. She does however remain in the motherly role, by enforcing the rules when they are needed. Jessica Chastain was great in this role, and I'd have to say the same about her as I did for Brad Pitt. Jessica Chastain can act like a loving mother extremely well. She's got a good chance at winning the Academy Award for Best Actress this year.
I'm not exactly sure what Terence Malick was thinking when writing this film. Combining a story about the raising of children with the creation of life is an extremely odd choice. Oddly, it works. It really works. The 50s storyline in particular is rather brilliant, not just because of Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, but because it feels like the 50s. I couldn't help but compare this to Carnivale, a show that used to air on HBO. There are many similar things between these two shows, but the major comparison I found was in the design. Carnivale was set in the 1930s, and looked like it. There were dust storms everywhere, the buildings were breaking down, and the people wore ragged clothes, covered in dust. In this film, it genuinely looks like the 1950s. There are aluminum cups, the kids wear button down shirts, and all the streets are filled with white houses. I think this is more proof that the 50s storyline was based off of Malick's own childhood, because he got the 50s right. He was a child then, so it only makes sense that he would know the 50s.
Now, I'd like to talk about the "creation of life" sequence. The first 15 minutes establish the plot of the film, but the next 20 are this sequence. It's very odd. Essentially, it is a visual representation of the creation of the earth, life, and a basic history of life. It is beautiful, and visually mesmerizing. It makes you think, and ask the questions that we have all asked at one point or another. Why are we here? What is our purpose? What's the point of it all? It's phenomenal, superb, sublime. There aren't enough positive words to describe it. But what is the point of it in the film? What is its relevance?
We see this after Jack O'Brien, the modern-day version, starts to question his life, and remember. Why is this what we see, as opposed to his beginnings? All throughout the sequence, we here Jack, and various other characters, including his parents and young Jack, asking existential questions, the same ones we've asked ourselves. The only reason I can see for it to be in this film is a juxtaposition of his life against the earth, in an attempt to figure out life, and try to find the answers to those questions he has. It's confusing, it makes you think, and most of all, it mesmerizes. It's a truly brilliant sequence, and takes this film from a very good film, to the best film of the year.
Overall, this film is extremely enjoyable, but there are many people who wouldn't enjoy it. If you love film, and love just how brilliant it can be sometimes, this is the film for you. It reminds me of 2001: A Space Odyssey, with the "creation of life" sequence. It's not easy to find (I live in Toronto, and couldn't find it here, I just happened to find it while on vacation in Vancouver, strangely enough), but if you can find it, go see it. This film deserves your money. Let's try to get this in as many theatres as we can. Overall, I give this film a 9.5/10, truly brilliant.
I'm not exactly sure what Terence Malick was thinking when writing this film. Combining a story about the raising of children with the creation of life is an extremely odd choice. Oddly, it works. It really works. The 50s storyline in particular is rather brilliant, not just because of Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, but because it feels like the 50s. I couldn't help but compare this to Carnivale, a show that used to air on HBO. There are many similar things between these two shows, but the major comparison I found was in the design. Carnivale was set in the 1930s, and looked like it. There were dust storms everywhere, the buildings were breaking down, and the people wore ragged clothes, covered in dust. In this film, it genuinely looks like the 1950s. There are aluminum cups, the kids wear button down shirts, and all the streets are filled with white houses. I think this is more proof that the 50s storyline was based off of Malick's own childhood, because he got the 50s right. He was a child then, so it only makes sense that he would know the 50s.
Now, I'd like to talk about the "creation of life" sequence. The first 15 minutes establish the plot of the film, but the next 20 are this sequence. It's very odd. Essentially, it is a visual representation of the creation of the earth, life, and a basic history of life. It is beautiful, and visually mesmerizing. It makes you think, and ask the questions that we have all asked at one point or another. Why are we here? What is our purpose? What's the point of it all? It's phenomenal, superb, sublime. There aren't enough positive words to describe it. But what is the point of it in the film? What is its relevance?
We see this after Jack O'Brien, the modern-day version, starts to question his life, and remember. Why is this what we see, as opposed to his beginnings? All throughout the sequence, we here Jack, and various other characters, including his parents and young Jack, asking existential questions, the same ones we've asked ourselves. The only reason I can see for it to be in this film is a juxtaposition of his life against the earth, in an attempt to figure out life, and try to find the answers to those questions he has. It's confusing, it makes you think, and most of all, it mesmerizes. It's a truly brilliant sequence, and takes this film from a very good film, to the best film of the year.
Overall, this film is extremely enjoyable, but there are many people who wouldn't enjoy it. If you love film, and love just how brilliant it can be sometimes, this is the film for you. It reminds me of 2001: A Space Odyssey, with the "creation of life" sequence. It's not easy to find (I live in Toronto, and couldn't find it here, I just happened to find it while on vacation in Vancouver, strangely enough), but if you can find it, go see it. This film deserves your money. Let's try to get this in as many theatres as we can. Overall, I give this film a 9.5/10, truly brilliant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)