150W: Melinda and Melinda

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...

Melinda and Melinda (Dir Woody Allen/2004)

Great concept - confused execution. Four filmmakers discuss how tragedies and comedies are not mutually exclusive before proceeding to tell two stories about Melinda (Radha Mitchell). They are the same story initially, but are told as tragedy and comedy. Melinda interrupts a meal, but as the story progresses, the chosen genre dictates a different direction. Unfortunately, the comedy isn’t funny enough (despite a quirky scene, harking back to Woody Allen’s early comedies, as Will Ferrell struggles with a dressing-gown caught in a door), while the tragedy doesn’t have the heart to challenge your emotions. The experimental starting point of Melinda & Melinda demands your attention – but rather than compare, it simply becomes two stories with a similar central character. Attempted-suicide (in the comedy) and murder (in the tragedy) can be comedic or tragic depending on the tone, but in Melinda & Melinda, it isn’t clear what tone to settle upon.

Rating: 4/10

Bad Education/La Mala Educación (Pedro Almodóvar, 2004)

"I think I've just lost my faith at this moment, so I no longer believe in God or hell. As I don't believe in hell, I'm not afraid. And without fear I'm capable of anything."

Introduction

I thought I would start with what is fastly becoming my favourite Almodóvar film. Initially, when I began watching the film I thought it was a little bit ... ahem ... gay. Not that it makes it bad but as I have no personal experience of homosexuality, I was worried it was a film that was effectively targetted towards the gay-audience and that personally I wouldn't really 'get' it. Without putting too fine a point on it, it is a very 'gay' film but ever since I watched the film I have thought more about Bad Education and pondered on the characters, the complexities and relationships intertwined and, eventually, realised how incredible it truly is.

Multi-Layered

The film constantly flicks between one story, and another - beginning with a director meeting a old school lover, Ignacio (Gael García Bernal) who has a script for him to read. He reads this story and we see the story being played out - a story semi-representative of their childhood and their initial love during a Catholic boarding school. We then come back to the director who meets again with Ignacio, who the director eventually finds out is not Ignacio at all - and so we then see how the director then begins a romance with Juan, who still believes that the director thinks he is Igancio. They make the film, which is what we saw when we were shown the story initially - same actors and what not - only to then be confronted by someone, who reveals the actual end of Ignacio. A dark story - Pedro Almodóvar is obsessed with film and you always see so many different aspects within his films to show this and, I think, to some extent this is Pedro Almodóvar's attempt at a Hitchcock - akin to Stage Fright, whereby Hitchcock showed us a flase flashback, only to reveal the truth later on. In a similar way, Bad Education gives us a false-flashback - changing it at the end. The difference being, to some extent, that we are clued into the fictitiousness of Ignacio's/Juan's script - making the film that much more introverted and confusing.

The title credits even evokes Bernard Herrmans scores in the strings and beautfiul orchestral sound - setting the film up in the same vein as Hitchcock's thrillers.

Darkly, Even Black

When the film leads into its final act - showing the murderous ways of Juan, it almost becomes a film noir as themurder plot finale shows Juan/Fr Manola assist in the murder of Ignacio (who has become a heroin-addict/transexual). This adds a further dynamic as we know that Father Manola abused Ignacio as a child - Manola continues his false-identity as he left priesthood and married - but is clearly a homosexual, especially in his fascination and love for Juan, whereby he cheats on his wife with Juan. The film flips and changes direction again, as we see that Ignacio is not the innocent child he was as a pupil in school - Ignacio uses and, to some extent abuses Fr Manola and, more importantly, Ignacio abuses his family - stealing from them to fund his heroin habit. Is Igancio a product of Manola's abuse of him? Should we understand Juan/Manola killing Igancio? The films multiple perspectives - and expectations of you as an audience member - continues to fester in your head as, at different points in the story, the "bad guy" and "good guy" changes. If anything - maybe it is a simple case of "Nobody is what they seem"...

Role-Playing

To conclude - everyone seems to be playing a role: Father Manola and his 'hidden side' abusing children, Juan pretending to be his brother, Ignacio himself, - as a transexual - in an excpetionally false feminine look. These multiple characters make the film irresitably intricate - multiple levels and understandings behind each characters - nobodys motives are clear. Even the director abuses Juan - as he takes advantage of Juan's lies and begins his own romance with him. The various levels to the story show how never is a story simple to tell. The director, searching for an idea, cuts out newspaper articles .... but alas, these are only one side of the story, it is always more interesting to find out every angle, every motive - and every dark secret that lurks behind so many stories of love.

Dead Man's Shows (Shane Meadows, 2004)

"Well you should be. If I were you, i'd get in that fuckin' car and i'd get out of here man. I'd gather them goonies and get whatever you've got comin' mate... 'cause i'm gonna fucking hit you all."

Introduction

Many years ago I watched Dead Man's Shoes and I can vividly remember coming away from the film and thinking that clearly it didn't take much budget to create an incredible film. This was before I knew Shane Meadows and Paddy Considine. I was fortunate enough to have the 'This is Shane Meadows' boxset bought for me as a present (thanks to The Beautiful Game? blogger Richard) after I realised - and he realised - that I may be a Shane Meadows fan - having loved Dead Man's Shoes many years ago, and hailing This is England as a British masterpiece. Put it this way, I am watching more and more Shane Meadows films and this man is a incredible filmmaker and you folk across the atlantic need to hunt him out. The less you know about this film the better and, I would advise, that you hunt the film out before reading further because - like usual - this is more an analysis of specific aspects and this film would be much better without you reading everything before watching it. But, if you are one of the lucky ones who has watched this film - keep going...

A Western in the Midlands

When I watched this recently, a close friend noted that is almost a western as it introduces Richard Paddy Considine) as the 'stranger' who comes to town. If you push this logic further, you can see how the

Saw (James Wan, 2004)

"So are you going to watch yourself die here today, Adam, or do something about it?"

Introduction

I always felt cheated when I watched The Exorcist or Psycho whereby the true horror never really affected me. Apparently people vomited and passed out watching The Exorcist while when I watched it - don't get me wrong - it was scary, but the whole 'ground-breaking' aspect doesn't bother someone who has watched Scary Movie 2 prior to watching it. I watched Saw after it was recommended to me by a friend who worked in a cinema (Mike B). He told me the situations people woke up in - " a girl wakes with a reverse bear-trap on her head, she has 5 minutes to get the key to get it off of her head ... the key is in the stomach of a paralysed man laying on the floor". I was amazed. It sounded incredible. To be honest, I know that my flat mates were unimpressed - many considering my sanity at the time. I think I appeared that little bit too keen - nevertheless, it eventually arrived in Aberystwyth Commodore Cinema and I was ready to go, but was not willing to go. More importantly, no flat mate would join me either. If I recall, Beth was simply horrified by the content and, therefore, this did not impress Alistair much - while Jo, I believe, was watching something else at the Arts Centre cinema (who would think there was any choice in Aberystwyth cinemas?), Rhys J was unimpressed - mostly because his girlfriend was unimpressed - so I was in a sticky situation with no friends to go with. I contacted a different friend - Lawrence - an open-minded semi-Gothic chap who, if he was free, probably would enjoy such a movie. He was free and he joined me. The lucky thing.

Following the movie, I was so scared and, thus, amazed at how scared I was that Lawrence and I had to resort to the local pub and drink. Conversing about how it was made and what was good and bad about it - thus fictionalizing the story, putting our minds at rest prior to going home. In the dark. Alone. I felt that the fear I felt as I squinted my eyes and waited for the flash of the camera to reveal the inevitable enemy lurking in the shadows must be similar to the fear felt by others in a very good horror movie. I had never seen something quite like it - and I was proud to have seen it at the cinema and 'survived'. (Coincidentally, turns out events at Saw III led to people fainting and vomiting akin to The Exorcist -http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6101704.stm)

Saw and its predecessors have remained with me ever since and, prior to the release of Saw VI it seems only fitting to review them all because, seriously, I think the films are - though cheap and fitting for the horror genre - they are also interesting, ethical dilemmas ("What would I do in that situation?" rather than " yeah, Jigsaw is spot on with that one") and gritty, sordid horror movies which - if I may praise such a genre - fully deserve the title of torture-porn. With the dumbing down of certificates, these 18-rated movies, are all thats left of the gratuitous horror that you need to keep well away from the kids - but on a special evening, with the lights down low, with friends or even daring partners, these films give such a rush. A feeling that the fear of the screen and what may be shown may be morally wrong in and off itself.

What I reckon...

The first watch, as I recall, was a complete blur. I was overwhelmed with the horror-rush I was experiencing. I was intrieuged to find out the outcome - and the different situations that was presenting themselves. Obviously, how the Doctor and Adam would escape was an interesting reason to pursue watching. I bought the film to go through the experience again and, just the menu on the TV screen gave me chills, and it wasnt long before I 'hooked-in' other friends - Rhys BL, Jo and [at-the-time] my new girlfriend - and on the second viewing I could clearly see some major problems. Namely the acting - which is terrible. Cary Elwes as Dr Lawrence Gordon is simply boring - mundane, monotonous, and uninteresting. While the screen-writer Leigh Whannell played Adam as this hugely annoying, whiney unlikeable photographer. You could argue that this is their 'characters' ... but then you probably wouldn't mind whether they died or not.

Nevertheless, having watched it recently I was also interested at how the flashbacks - that are an important facet to the sequels - is solidly placed in the main feature itself. The only 'escape' from the room Adam and Dr Gordon are stuck in is these flashbacks. It is also a film that has this - not gothic - but 'heavy-metal'-anger tone. As Amanda attempts to take of her head-trap ("think of it like a reverse bear-trap") the camera simply shoots around her - dizzying to watch - while a guitar 'rocks' the soundtrack. Not wholly neccessary put clearly suits the intended audience - an audience that is more firmly established, whereby the soundtrack is more profitable. In Saw the score is entirely created by Charlie Clouser with a stunning string sequence that merges into the credits. From Saw II onwards the films end in silence - only to rock-on with the likes of X Japan and Soulidium and whatever hip-goth-rock band is in fashion to play over the credits. Shame because the strings sounded great over the credits.

Anyway, some funny things to consider when you have watched the other films. Namely how the plausible survival of Dr Lawrence Gordan...

Loads of youtube videos and imdb messages posts and forums talk about this. Apparently there is 'all this footage' scattered throughout the franchise to show that he survived - from limping Jigsaw accomplices (Saw II) through to bloody rags (Saw IV), not to mention the fact that his status on the official Saw website states that he is 'unknown'. I guess that pretty much means a cameo at the very least.

Finally, the film is suprisingly different to the later installments. In one sense, its unsure of the tone it wants to set - maybe not unsure, because it still looks gritty and sordid like Fincher's Se7en - a clear influence. What it seems to do, is have no shame in actually shooting sequences in different settings other than gritty, dingy sets. For example Dr Gordons family live in a very 50's-esque house - with deep reds and a very plush quality to it, which then accentuates the dirty nature of every other set - the 'room', jigsaws pad, etc. Even in the second one, it seems to remain very dark and dirty - horrible police offices and that house falling apart. I question if this simplification in tone in the series may have made them all a little ... how to put it ... too obvious?
Nevertheless, the twist ending floors anyone not in the know and places this film into a category bracket that few horror films achieve, but I question if the completely flawed acting is bad enough to destroy that status in equal measure. Will Saw remain a classic? If anything, the fact that the Saw franchise is the only longest-running, consecutively released franchise - beating Lord of the Rings - currently - by a further three sequels. So, the franchise will go intot he history books at the very least

The scale of Saw is incredibly small - few characters, small situations which affect few people. But the ante was up the following year. We plow on and watch Saw II ...

Taking Lives (D.J. Caruso, 2004) / Held For Ransom (Lee Stanley, 2000)

"Everything you saw I wanted you to see. "

Introduction

First off, don't worry if you haven't watched the films because I would like to think you never will. The 'quote' I chose is merely in jest. They are really that bad. Anyway, the last few posts were written ages ago and I stalled their 'release' as I was sun-ing it up in Morocco ... checkin' out the souks (markets), snake charmers, deserts and the range of stuff Marrakesh has to offer. Even managed to have a gander at a part of the desert (Ouarzarzate) and beach (Essaouira) whereby Lawrence of Arabia, Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven was filmed. But, alas, this is no travel blog (friends will be able to check out the pictures on facebook soon enough...) and, while at the hotel in Marrakesh we spent the night watching some films on a channel which showed cut films with arabic subtitles. Strangely enough, the aforementioned films were cut - language was not too excessive, nudity was a complete no-go and - I reckon - even a certain amount of violence was cut too. So, in the case of Taking Lives - a serial-killer thriller with sexual-chemistry between the two lead characters - without violence and sex ... turned out to be a weird film without any logic and character depth ... then again, there were enough problems to say that maybe the cut-out violence and sex may have been the only good thing about the film.

What I Reckon...

Both these films were truly awful - funnily enough, the worser one - Held for Ransom - was probably better for the comedic value. We have Taking Lives - an Angelina Jolie, Ethan Hawke and Kiefer Sutherland combo whereby Jolie plays a detective on the hunt for a serial killer who replaces his own identity with his victim. Clearly, money was put into the production and - according to my good friend Richard, whose 'facts' are often suspect - Ethan Hawke chooses films himself on their merits. I can imagine this to be true - Training Day and Linklater's After Sunset and Before Sunrise films are exceptionally well made, and in no small part to Hawke. So, we shall come back to the this question: Why did Ethan Hawke work on this film?

As soon as the film started you know the influence - namely the 1995 flawless thriller Se7en. A film released nearly a decade prior ... you would think if Caruso and co are going to rip-off a movie, they might as well do it well, but they make it so much worse. For one, our first introduction to Jolie is her, lying in a freshly dug grave. I guess she is 'sensing' the killer. Funnily enough, I was reading David Simon's Homicide book during the holiday also so seeing Jolie not play detective and then begin an autopsy clearly is incorrect - and when her and the homicide unit are discussing a recent robbery in Hawkes flat you have to ask yourself this: why the hell does this city not employ Medical Examiners to conduct autopsies and why does the police department not have a robbery unit. Surely they are wasting valuable time focussing in areas that are not their expertise. Well, hey, thats Hollywood.

So, the film starts and the first time we see Hawke he is discussing what he saw as a witness to a murder - though Martinez, a homicide cop, clearly has his suspicions about his credability. Obviously, even at this point we are asking ourselves who is the killer ... go on, guess, who could it be? Especially if you factor in the simple fact that most killers lie ... we shall come back to this movie.

Held for Ransom went straight to DVD in 2000. Starring post-Speed Dennis Hopper playing a kidnapper (Billy-the-kid, where has you dignity gone?) and a much-older Timothy Bottoms (of Bogdanovich's The Last Picture Show) as a girl's step-father. Can you guess the plot? Good looking teenagers are held for ransom by complete hick's. Fascinating how the mighty have fallen! If this was 1972, this would have made alot of money; one year after The Last Picture Show and three years after Easy Rider comes Held for Ransom ... wow ... shame it was made 28 years too late.

Nevertheless, the script was awful with Hopper stating "shut the f*** up" to everyone and anyone who cared to listen. A stupid confrontation as some NYC kid 'stood-up' to a cliche jock. This NYC kid, Dexter (Randy Spelling) is so passionate about it, and the script is so attacking of this jock that you feel a bit awkward - as if you have stumbled into a bit of a personal-attack from the script-writer. Bets on the fact that he was bullied and ribbed at school for being 'only' someone who was creative? To make matters worse, for no apparent reason, towards the end of the film the jock admits to committing a hit-and-run, killing a different pupil. So, if its not bad enough that this American jock is sporty, head of the football team, etc - he is also a murderer to clarify the simple fact that sporty-jocks are basta*ds.

The film is about rich-kids kidnapped by socially-excluded country hicks, and strangely enough there is no comment on society ro anything - its simple. Poorer people envy rich people, and that is why some are violent and commit crime - such as kidnapping. I have a feeling that Lee Stanley not only hates sporty jocks, but is also quite rich - no praise for the working man. Even the 'twist' at the end (c'mon, you're not going to watch it are you?) whereby one of the kidnapees step-fathers (Timothy Bottoms) is responsible for the entire thing to pay off a gambling problem he has. Why couldn't this step-father be her actual father? I assume because how on earth could anybody within that affluent part of society concoct such a plan, let alone have such addictions - the only way such a thing is possible is if they are somehow, shockingly, married into the lifestyle. I am quite content with assuming I am looking into it too much but, if i didn't, I would simply be saying it was sh*t. Full-stop.

The final issue is the cut scenes from both films. My good friend Richard done a little research into Taking Lives and found a few stills from the sex-scene we missed when watching the film - a scene whereby Jolie and Hawke have some sex while the room is decorated in the pictures of the victims of the murders and, to some extent, we assume they both got off a little bit to it. Messed. Up. I felt it was only neccessary (ahem) to hunt down the scene and managed to watch the full sequence on youtube (I'm not going to post the link - find it yourself ...) and, dont get me wrong, I am all for cutting unneccessary sex-scenes from films but this sequence was clearly quite important. Not only have we been watching the relationship brew between Hawke and Jolie for the whole film without seeing any finale to this, we also don't see how screwed up both of them are - passionately gazing at the photographs from the case on the roof of a four-poster bed, establishing the corrupted characters we see at the end. Nevertheless, it does answer the question as to why Hawke 'chose' to be in such a film. ("Yo Ethan, I got a really bad script"/"i'm not doing it"/"it has a sex scene and Jolie is attached" /"oh, ahem, you can never guess what films are successful can you. I had better have a gander at that script then"). Lastly, I reckon even if the film was 'uncut', it would only get 2/10 rather than 1/10 because it ends as Hawke stabs Jolie in her pregnant belly (fake or not, no-one wants to see that!), only for her to reveal that it was all a plan to capture him (see chosen quote... hmmm). To be honest, when he was fighting with her - nearly strangling her, it looked like things weren't going to plan. Would have been a better idea to let the FBI know of her plan.

Held for Ransom on the other hand had a semi-rape scene cut from our arabic-subtitled version. The worst editing in the world too. The girl goes into the lake-area whereby a different hick tells her to take off her clothes and, seconds later he is hit round the head (she has suddenly changed from wearing clothes wearing very little, covering herself) and then, cut again, and suddenly Hoppers girlfriend is holding a gun at them as the two lay on the floor (how did they get on the floor??) potentially making out. What was clearly a long, possibly 10 minute sequence, reduced to seconds of head-hitting and gun-aiming. Looking at the trailer for the film on YouTube, there seemed to be a chase where the girl ran through the lake-area in her underwear - clearly, we missed the best bit. The whole sequence made no sense - but then again, alot of the film seemed pointless.

Another classic bit was when Dexter is shot and Jesse is trying to help him - she takes off his top to find, shock, he has serious burn-scars across his body. We cut to another sequence and then when we cut back to Jesse and Dexter, he starts the scene by saying "stop staring" (for the whole of the sequence prior was she just staring at him? thats weird) to which she doesn't even respond to him, simply kissing him instead. Why does burn-victim = potential-relationship. I mean, I wouldn't hold burn-scars against anyone, but its possible the burns were caused by some thick-as-shit situation which would make me consider whether he/she is the type of person for a relationship.

To finish, never watch these movie unless you are drunk, whereby Held for Ransom is simply so bad, its good. Taking Lives is shit, and if you are buying it for the Jolie/Hawke sex scene - without it, the film is worth buying just to personally destroy - then, (a) you can find it on its own on the internet and (b) why buy a bad two hour film with one sex scene (possibly two? three? I mean they were all cut out in this version) when there is such a thing called pornoraphy, that - if thats your thing - you could simply watch a 2-hour long sex scene.