Red State is Kevin Smith's newest film, and his first horror film. It premiered at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival, before getting a very odd release, that involved many different release dates on many different forms. It was written and directed by Kevin Smith, and stars Michael Parks, John Goodman, Michael Angarano, Melissa Leo, Kerry Bishe, Nicholas Braun, and Kyle Gallner.
Kevin Smith is my favorite director of all time. Clerks, Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Hell, I even liked Jersey Girl and Mallrats. Most people think that he started to slip with Zack and Miri Make A Porno, and I'd have to agree. That film was merely okay, nothing special. And then he made Cop Out. An odd film, and certainly not a good one. An interesting thing I've noted about the film though is that people that love Kevin Smith hate the film, and people who don't know who Kevin Smith is loved it. Cop Out is his worst film, because it's not very funny, it tries to alter the basic film formula for the sake of comedy, and screws up the film entirely. Overall, it was a below average script that Kevin Smith should've stayed away from.
Now, we have Red State. It's not as bad as Cop Out, I certainly enjoyed it more, but it's much more perplexing. I have many a great problems with Red State, and I'm going to tell you them.
1. This isn't a horror, it's a comedy with elements of horror. Kevin Smith constantly stated that this was not his typical film. It would be horror, and a damn good one at that. That's why nobody bought it at Sundance, and Smith had to buy it himself, cause it was too good for normal studios (in case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic). However, this film proves that Kevin can only write comedy. Are there scary scenes? Yes, there's a few, and they certainly are scary. But overall, this film is a comedy. But even in the horror, I feel like there is comedy to be found in that. Some of Michael Parks scary scenes involve him playing with kids, and joyfully singing hymns, the latter in particular being quite funny. Also, many characters do funny things. A sheriff (Stephen Root), right after killing a teenager, falls down on his way to the car, in a funny moment. And it is funny! That's the thing, Kevin Smith can't write a straight up horror, because at his heart, he's a comedy writer! Some directors loved the film, including Richard Kelly, who said, "I have never seen a filmmaker reinvent himself the way you just have." (http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2010/12/29/neil-gaiman-and-more-inspired-by-advance-screening-of-kevin-smiths-red-state) This isn't a reinventing, this is a filmmaker's desperate attempts to stay relevant.
2. The lack of a clear protagonist. The film starts out with these three teenagers, and we believe one of them (Michael Angarano) is the protagonist. However, by the time they're captured, the protagonist has become another one of the kids (Kyle Gallner). For a little while, it seems that the sheriff (Stephen Root) is the protagonist, before the film attempts to settle on John Goodman's character, ATF Special Agent Keenan, as the protagonist. However, the film also tries to return to Kyle Gallner as the protagonist for a short while. I was reminded of the Phantom Menace, as that film also didn't have a clear protagonist. Without a protagonist, we have no character to identify with, and thus, no way to connect to the film. Considering how this is supposed to be a horror film, it's extremely important that we identify with the characters, because we then connect with them, and don't want them to die, thus making the film horrifying when they do die. Once again, just like Cop Out, Kevin is trying to alter the basic film formula, but I feel like he's doing it here for the hipster crowd, simply because they might find the basic film formula "too mainstream."
3. Despite frequently saying his characters are essentially the Westboro Baptist Church, in the film he specifically points out how these people, the Five Points Church, are much more worse then the Westboro Baptist Church. Remember, this is the guy who counter protested the Westboro Baptist Church. They would protest something, and Kevin Smith would show up to counter-protest them (in my opinion, the only good form of protesting: counter protesting the Westboro Baptist Church). So, you'd imagine he has no fear of them. And yet, here he is, attempting to protect himself from a slander/libel charge from the Westboro Baptist Church. Come on Kevin, grow a pair. You once made a film where Chris Rock was a black apostle, Salma Hayek, a stripping muse, and Alanis Mourisette was God! I think you can live with a bit of controversy.
4. The ending, when compared to the original ending. I'm not gonna spoil the ending of this film, but I will spoil the original ending. Basically, the rapture happens. Everyone dies, except for John Goodman's character. He sees an angel with a sword, sees says "shh," flies away, and the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse descend on the scene. THAT, would've had made me forgiven the film for all of its misfortunes. However, an interesting idea would be instead of having some random angel there, how about instead, Smith put God there, played by Alanis Mourissette? Make this a sort of spiritual sequel to Dogma. That would've been genius.
Kevin Smith needs to stick to comedy, particularly the View Askewinverse. What we need is a Clerks 3, to see Jay and Silent Bob again. We need to return to New Jersey, the Quick Stop, Mooby's. That is Kevin Smith's best stuff, and it's what makes him work. I feel like he's angry at the View Askewinverse, because that's how he made his career, but it never made him extremely famous. Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen come along doing the same thing, and they became extremely famous for it. I feel like Kevin hates this type of comedy, because it didn't make him famous, when it did to other people. And it's a damn shame it didn't, because he is genuinely talented.
The fans love you Kevin, including me. Like I already mentioned, you're my favorite filmmaker. I know you want to make Hit Somebody, but how about scrapping it, and making something for us fans? Hell, don't scrap it, but put it in the View Askewinverse. We'd love you forever. Why do you need fame when you've got us? We come to your Q&A's, we buy all your stuff, we see your movies, and listen to SModcast. We love you, and don't forget it. If you keep going down this path, we might not be able to follow you.
Overall, I give this film a 6/10. After a hectic release starting in January and going to October of 2011, it's now on DVD, as well as OnDemand and iTunes. Check it out if you're interested.
P.S. Kevin, I'll be at the Vogue Theatre on December 7. Maybe if I'm lucky, I'll get to ask you about this.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Moneyball
Moneyball premiered at TIFF 2011, before being released on September 23, 2011. It is based on Michael Lewis 2003 book of the same name. It was written by Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian, with story by Stan Chervin, it was directed by Bennett Miller, and stars Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Chris Pratt, and Casey Bond.
I don't really follow sports, let alone baseball. Being a Canadian, I of course have at least a slight interest in hockey, but's that as far as my interest in sports goes. However, I was quite excited for this film. Despite my lack of interest in sports, even I knew the story of the Oakland A's. A mediocre team with little money, who started using a radical baseball theory, becoming one of the best teams in the league, and changing the way the game was played.
An epic story requires an epic film, and that's what we have here. With a script by both Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian, both Academy Award winners, and a cast of Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, and the director of Capote, we have epicness in the making. I would say that this film is this years Social Network. The film that should win the majority of Oscars this year, but won't, probably losing to some sort of historical biographical drama (either J. Edgar or The Iron Lady, I imagine). Arguably, this is the best film this year.
Let me start with the cast. Brad Pitt, one of the best actors in cinema nowadays, does a fantastic job as GM (General Manager) on the Oakland A's, Billy Beane. We see his rise (short it is) into baseball, and his fall, eventually reaching the Oakland A's, and being promoted to GM. After losing the last season, he attempts to find a new way to win the World Series. He runs into Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a composite character, mostly based off of Paul DePodesta, a young Yale grad with radical ideas about baseball. Beane is inspired, and adopts this idea, called sabermetrics, also known as moneyball, to his team, coming into conflict with Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the manager of the Oakland A's. Brad Pitt does a fine job here, easily earning a Best Actor nomination. Jonah Hill also does a superb job, coming from mostly comedy work into drama. It's an interesting career move, and one that works well for him. This is his best role to date, and I hope to see him do more dramatic roles. Perhaps he will get an Oscar nomination as well. Philip Seymour Hoffman does splendid, as usual.
The writing behind this film is an interesting story. Steve Zaillian wrote this film originally, with Steven Soderbergh directing. However Soderbergh was fired, apparently for using odd tactics for the film, including interviewing the actual players for the film. Bennett Miller was hired to direct the film instead, and Aaron Sorkin was hired for a rewrite. Due to Zaillian's credit on the film, I imagine that Sorkin just touched it up, and added a bit of his own style to it, as you can see from the first line in the trailer above. I imagine that this film will win Best Adapted Screenplay in a few months time, and both will collect the award.
Overall, a fine film, one of the best of the year. I give it a perfect 10/10. You've probably already checked it out, but in case you haven't, go ahead and check it out.
I don't really follow sports, let alone baseball. Being a Canadian, I of course have at least a slight interest in hockey, but's that as far as my interest in sports goes. However, I was quite excited for this film. Despite my lack of interest in sports, even I knew the story of the Oakland A's. A mediocre team with little money, who started using a radical baseball theory, becoming one of the best teams in the league, and changing the way the game was played.
An epic story requires an epic film, and that's what we have here. With a script by both Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian, both Academy Award winners, and a cast of Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, and the director of Capote, we have epicness in the making. I would say that this film is this years Social Network. The film that should win the majority of Oscars this year, but won't, probably losing to some sort of historical biographical drama (either J. Edgar or The Iron Lady, I imagine). Arguably, this is the best film this year.
Let me start with the cast. Brad Pitt, one of the best actors in cinema nowadays, does a fantastic job as GM (General Manager) on the Oakland A's, Billy Beane. We see his rise (short it is) into baseball, and his fall, eventually reaching the Oakland A's, and being promoted to GM. After losing the last season, he attempts to find a new way to win the World Series. He runs into Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a composite character, mostly based off of Paul DePodesta, a young Yale grad with radical ideas about baseball. Beane is inspired, and adopts this idea, called sabermetrics, also known as moneyball, to his team, coming into conflict with Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the manager of the Oakland A's. Brad Pitt does a fine job here, easily earning a Best Actor nomination. Jonah Hill also does a superb job, coming from mostly comedy work into drama. It's an interesting career move, and one that works well for him. This is his best role to date, and I hope to see him do more dramatic roles. Perhaps he will get an Oscar nomination as well. Philip Seymour Hoffman does splendid, as usual.
The writing behind this film is an interesting story. Steve Zaillian wrote this film originally, with Steven Soderbergh directing. However Soderbergh was fired, apparently for using odd tactics for the film, including interviewing the actual players for the film. Bennett Miller was hired to direct the film instead, and Aaron Sorkin was hired for a rewrite. Due to Zaillian's credit on the film, I imagine that Sorkin just touched it up, and added a bit of his own style to it, as you can see from the first line in the trailer above. I imagine that this film will win Best Adapted Screenplay in a few months time, and both will collect the award.
Overall, a fine film, one of the best of the year. I give it a perfect 10/10. You've probably already checked it out, but in case you haven't, go ahead and check it out.
Monday, October 17, 2011
The Thing (2011)
The Thing is a prequel to the 1982 film of the same name, by John Carpenter, which itself was a remake of The Thing From Another World, by Howard Hawks-Christian Nyby. It was released on October 14, 2011. It was written by Eric Heisserer and Ronald D. Moore (who was uncredited, apparently), based on the story Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell, directed by Matthjis van Heijningen Jr., and stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, and Eric Christian Olsen.
Let me just say this right off the bat; I haven't seen John Carpenter's version. (Post all insulting and mean comments below.) My apologies, but for this film, I think this works out in a good way. I can judge the film entirely on its own merits.
This film was average. It wasn't horrific, it wasn't phenomenal. It wasn't terrible, it wasn't great. It wasn't bad, it wasn't good. For every good thing about this film, there's a bad thing. And for every bad thing, there's always a good thing. For instance, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, our lead, does a pretty good job. She's playing a female lead in a horror film, who doesn't panic. She keeps her head, and thinks her way through all the crazy stuff happening around her. It's nice to see a strong lead this time around. However, the rest of the cast is nothing spectacular. While I do love Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Mr. Eko on Lost, Simon Adebisi on Oz, one of my favorite tv shows), his role is minimal, and the film could've survived without it. And it is nice to see Joel Edgerton continuing his career, but this film shows nothing special from him, as well as an odd moment for him in the end.
The writing has these nice little moments where it actually makes a good film, particularly a bonus scene shown during the end credits. That was arguably the best part of the film. However, something that is the fault of the writers is the lack of an insane human. Think about it. If a creature were to break free and kill everyone in a base, and could impersonate anyone in the base, don't you think that one of the people there would go crazy? Also, a lot of the side characters remain completely undeveloped, being there only be bodies.
One thing I have constantly heard about Carpenter's version is how spectacular the special effects were, and that not only were they good back then, but they were also good now. The special effects of this film, like the other parts of this film, are both good and bad. The good? The two-headed thing. It looked not only real, but terrifying as well. I was genuinely frightened when this thing was on screen. The bad? The final thing, with its human face. Absolutely fake, and laughable when it first appears. It does lose the face soon enough, but we don't see enough of it, in my opinion. The Thing works best when we see distorted humans, turned into an odd creature. The thing itself, in this film, looks fake and uninspired.
Without spoiling it, I'd like to talk about the one good thing in this film that has no bad thing to counter it: the scene shown in the credits. We get a small amount of character development for one of the better side characters, an interesting, and tense scene (which I imagine directly leads into the original), and something that made me think, "I didn't just waste two hours."
Overall, this film was completely average. I really came out of it thinking "meh," aside from the credits scene, of course. Due to this scene, instead of giving this film an average score of 5, I will give it a slightly above average score of 5.5/10. I recommend this to you if you liked the original so much, that you wanted to know the story behind it. Only in that case, though.
Let me just say this right off the bat; I haven't seen John Carpenter's version. (Post all insulting and mean comments below.) My apologies, but for this film, I think this works out in a good way. I can judge the film entirely on its own merits.
This film was average. It wasn't horrific, it wasn't phenomenal. It wasn't terrible, it wasn't great. It wasn't bad, it wasn't good. For every good thing about this film, there's a bad thing. And for every bad thing, there's always a good thing. For instance, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, our lead, does a pretty good job. She's playing a female lead in a horror film, who doesn't panic. She keeps her head, and thinks her way through all the crazy stuff happening around her. It's nice to see a strong lead this time around. However, the rest of the cast is nothing spectacular. While I do love Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Mr. Eko on Lost, Simon Adebisi on Oz, one of my favorite tv shows), his role is minimal, and the film could've survived without it. And it is nice to see Joel Edgerton continuing his career, but this film shows nothing special from him, as well as an odd moment for him in the end.
The writing has these nice little moments where it actually makes a good film, particularly a bonus scene shown during the end credits. That was arguably the best part of the film. However, something that is the fault of the writers is the lack of an insane human. Think about it. If a creature were to break free and kill everyone in a base, and could impersonate anyone in the base, don't you think that one of the people there would go crazy? Also, a lot of the side characters remain completely undeveloped, being there only be bodies.
One thing I have constantly heard about Carpenter's version is how spectacular the special effects were, and that not only were they good back then, but they were also good now. The special effects of this film, like the other parts of this film, are both good and bad. The good? The two-headed thing. It looked not only real, but terrifying as well. I was genuinely frightened when this thing was on screen. The bad? The final thing, with its human face. Absolutely fake, and laughable when it first appears. It does lose the face soon enough, but we don't see enough of it, in my opinion. The Thing works best when we see distorted humans, turned into an odd creature. The thing itself, in this film, looks fake and uninspired.
Without spoiling it, I'd like to talk about the one good thing in this film that has no bad thing to counter it: the scene shown in the credits. We get a small amount of character development for one of the better side characters, an interesting, and tense scene (which I imagine directly leads into the original), and something that made me think, "I didn't just waste two hours."
Overall, this film was completely average. I really came out of it thinking "meh," aside from the credits scene, of course. Due to this scene, instead of giving this film an average score of 5, I will give it a slightly above average score of 5.5/10. I recommend this to you if you liked the original so much, that you wanted to know the story behind it. Only in that case, though.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The Ides of March
The Ides of March premiered as the opening film of the 68th Venice International Film Festival, before receiving a wide release on October 7, 2011. It was written by George Clooney, Grant Heslov, and Beau Willimon, based on the play Farragut North, by Beau Willimon, directed by George Clooney, and stars Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei, Jeffrey Wright, and Evan Rachel Wood.
I like politics. I think it's an interesting topic, one that everyone should have at least, the slightest interest in. I love film. I think it's one of the most interesting things in the world, that everyone can and does enjoy. So whenever the two are combined, I'm very happy. Films about Presidents, monarchs, I absolutely enjoy. And it's the same with this film, I did enjoy it. But here's the thing about this film: it's very standard.
The film has a fantastic cast, as well as a very good director. Ryan Gosling, one of the best young actors nowadays (yes, he's 30, but oh well), George Clooney, just a damn good actor, Philip Seymour Hoffman, one of the best supporting actors of all time, and Paul Giamatti, one of my favourite modern actors, make up the main cast. Ryan Gosling is Stephen Meyers, a junior campaign manager for Governor of Pennsylvania and Democratic Presidential candidate Mike Morris (George Clooney). Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is the Governor's senior campaign manager, and Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) is the senior campaign manager for the rival, Senator Ted Pullman (Michael Mantell), of Arkansas. We see Morris, an idealistic Governor, attempting to become President so he can fix America, and put them on top of the world again. And what's more? He looks like he could do it. Meyers is a young campaign manager who is extremely idealistic, and believes that Morris will truly fix America. The one thing these two have in common? They refuse to play dirty. By the end of this film, both of them are playing dirty.
The main problem with this film is just how standard it is. It's easy to predict the next move, and before the mid-point of the film, I knew exactly how it would end. Hell, I even knew what shot it would end on. Watching the trailers, I believed this would be an extravagant political thriller. When instead, it was just a good political thriller. Now, this doesn't mean it's bad. It's good. If you weren't expecting a great film, you will be surprised. However, if you were expecting a great film, like me, you'll be disappointed.
The acting, without a doubt, is the best thing about this film. The 4 leads are spectacular, but I'd have to say the best were Gosling and Giamatti. Giamatti wasn't in the film a lot, but he drove a lot of the plot, and brought power to every scene he was in. Hoffman and Clooney were terrific, but felt outshined by the power of Gosling and Giamatti. Evan Rachel Wood was also quite good. I haven't seen a lot of her work, so it was nice to see her do a good film. Gives me a good impression of her.
Being adapted from a play, the writing features many monologues, all of which are brilliantly written. I don't know which of the 3 writers deserve credit for that, but I'm going to go with Willimon, because he wrote the original play. The monologues, particularly those from Giamatti and Hoffman, were my favourite parts of the film. Clooney's directing is also to be commended. I wouldn't say it's worthy of an Oscar, but still very good. He's a good director, and I do genuinely enjoy his films. I wish he'd do some more in the following years.
Overall, I can only recommend this film if you're looking for a standard, but good, political thriller. It's not bad, it's just predictable. Overall, I give this film a 7.5/10.
I like politics. I think it's an interesting topic, one that everyone should have at least, the slightest interest in. I love film. I think it's one of the most interesting things in the world, that everyone can and does enjoy. So whenever the two are combined, I'm very happy. Films about Presidents, monarchs, I absolutely enjoy. And it's the same with this film, I did enjoy it. But here's the thing about this film: it's very standard.
The film has a fantastic cast, as well as a very good director. Ryan Gosling, one of the best young actors nowadays (yes, he's 30, but oh well), George Clooney, just a damn good actor, Philip Seymour Hoffman, one of the best supporting actors of all time, and Paul Giamatti, one of my favourite modern actors, make up the main cast. Ryan Gosling is Stephen Meyers, a junior campaign manager for Governor of Pennsylvania and Democratic Presidential candidate Mike Morris (George Clooney). Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is the Governor's senior campaign manager, and Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) is the senior campaign manager for the rival, Senator Ted Pullman (Michael Mantell), of Arkansas. We see Morris, an idealistic Governor, attempting to become President so he can fix America, and put them on top of the world again. And what's more? He looks like he could do it. Meyers is a young campaign manager who is extremely idealistic, and believes that Morris will truly fix America. The one thing these two have in common? They refuse to play dirty. By the end of this film, both of them are playing dirty.
The main problem with this film is just how standard it is. It's easy to predict the next move, and before the mid-point of the film, I knew exactly how it would end. Hell, I even knew what shot it would end on. Watching the trailers, I believed this would be an extravagant political thriller. When instead, it was just a good political thriller. Now, this doesn't mean it's bad. It's good. If you weren't expecting a great film, you will be surprised. However, if you were expecting a great film, like me, you'll be disappointed.
The acting, without a doubt, is the best thing about this film. The 4 leads are spectacular, but I'd have to say the best were Gosling and Giamatti. Giamatti wasn't in the film a lot, but he drove a lot of the plot, and brought power to every scene he was in. Hoffman and Clooney were terrific, but felt outshined by the power of Gosling and Giamatti. Evan Rachel Wood was also quite good. I haven't seen a lot of her work, so it was nice to see her do a good film. Gives me a good impression of her.
Being adapted from a play, the writing features many monologues, all of which are brilliantly written. I don't know which of the 3 writers deserve credit for that, but I'm going to go with Willimon, because he wrote the original play. The monologues, particularly those from Giamatti and Hoffman, were my favourite parts of the film. Clooney's directing is also to be commended. I wouldn't say it's worthy of an Oscar, but still very good. He's a good director, and I do genuinely enjoy his films. I wish he'd do some more in the following years.
Overall, I can only recommend this film if you're looking for a standard, but good, political thriller. It's not bad, it's just predictable. Overall, I give this film a 7.5/10.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
The Skin I Live In
The Skin I Live In (La piel que habito, in Spanish) is Pedro Almodovar's new film. It premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, before being released in Spain on September 2, 2011. It was written and directed by Pedro Almodovar, based off of the novel Tarantula, by Thierry Jonquet, and stars Antonio Banderas, Elena Anaya, Marisa Paredes, Jan Cornet, and Roberto Alamo.
This review will be quite short, simply because I can't really talk about this film without spoiling it.
I've never seen any of Almodovar's (as he's commonly known) movies before this. So, I went in completely blind to his style of filmmaking. I unfortunately knew the plot of this movie going into it, which was a big mistake. To anyone that wants to see this film, do not, I repeat, DO NOT, read any plot summaries of this film. Did knowing the plot of this film ruin the film for me? No, but all I can think of now is how I would've reacted watching the film blind.
The film is superb. Remember how I said Drive was the best film I've seen this year? This is better. (Also, it has a better ending, I'd argue, but I won't say anything else about this.) The plot, at it's most basic, concerns a plastic surgeon (Antonio Banderas, in one of his finest roles to date) who has created a synthetic skin, and also holds a young woman (Elena Anaya) captive. Antonio Banderas needs to do more serious dramatic roles. In this film, we see how far he can go, and he goes far. It's hard to tell if he's obsessed with his projects, or just plain insane, but Banderas does a tremendous job leaving us stupefied. Anaya is also extremely good, but to talk about her role is a spoiler in itself. Let's just say, in her character's situation, Anaya shows true intelligence, and depth. The rest of the cast is also very good, but nothing compared to our two leads.
Almodovar is a terrific writer and director. He has won two Oscars, among countless other awards. He deserves the Oscar for Best Foreign Film this year, but I don't believe this will be nominated, due to its extreme material, and the Academy's idiotic nomination process for Best Foreign Film. From this film, I've noticed that Almodovar has a dark humour, but is also very intelligent with the way he handles his characters.
Overall, watch this film. Not only does it get a 10/10, it also gets the Seal of Brilliance. This is a brilliant film. For my fellow Vancouverites, it is currently playing at VIFF, and it also gets a limited release across America and Canada on October 14. I'll be seeing it again then, and I highly recommend that you see this film as well.
This review will be quite short, simply because I can't really talk about this film without spoiling it.
I've never seen any of Almodovar's (as he's commonly known) movies before this. So, I went in completely blind to his style of filmmaking. I unfortunately knew the plot of this movie going into it, which was a big mistake. To anyone that wants to see this film, do not, I repeat, DO NOT, read any plot summaries of this film. Did knowing the plot of this film ruin the film for me? No, but all I can think of now is how I would've reacted watching the film blind.
The film is superb. Remember how I said Drive was the best film I've seen this year? This is better. (Also, it has a better ending, I'd argue, but I won't say anything else about this.) The plot, at it's most basic, concerns a plastic surgeon (Antonio Banderas, in one of his finest roles to date) who has created a synthetic skin, and also holds a young woman (Elena Anaya) captive. Antonio Banderas needs to do more serious dramatic roles. In this film, we see how far he can go, and he goes far. It's hard to tell if he's obsessed with his projects, or just plain insane, but Banderas does a tremendous job leaving us stupefied. Anaya is also extremely good, but to talk about her role is a spoiler in itself. Let's just say, in her character's situation, Anaya shows true intelligence, and depth. The rest of the cast is also very good, but nothing compared to our two leads.
Almodovar is a terrific writer and director. He has won two Oscars, among countless other awards. He deserves the Oscar for Best Foreign Film this year, but I don't believe this will be nominated, due to its extreme material, and the Academy's idiotic nomination process for Best Foreign Film. From this film, I've noticed that Almodovar has a dark humour, but is also very intelligent with the way he handles his characters.
Overall, watch this film. Not only does it get a 10/10, it also gets the Seal of Brilliance. This is a brilliant film. For my fellow Vancouverites, it is currently playing at VIFF, and it also gets a limited release across America and Canada on October 14. I'll be seeing it again then, and I highly recommend that you see this film as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)