Wifey's Chick Flick of the Week- Remember Me

Okay, so, Remember Me technically wouldn’t really qualify as a chick flick, but my wife was fooled by the cover with Robert Pattinson hugging the Australian chick from Lost (Emilie de Ravin).  Clever marketing if you ask me.  Anyway, the film is a drama (melodrama) about two characters that have undergone tragedy in their lives meeting and falling in love- all within the perspective of the “bigger picture” as revealed at the end of the film.  I love the concept the film goes for, but, unfortunately, I found it to be too haphazard a screenplay with too little character development to really unlock its potential.

The problems start with the film’s set up.  First, Ally, the child version of the female lead (played by de Ravin), witnesses her mother murdered in the New York subway.  Obviously this is haunting for a child and, as it turns out, her father is the police officer assigned to the case. He simply picks her up and walks off. That’s it. Next time we see her, she’s in college and a normal, well-adjusted girl whose father has become an abusive, aggressive cop. The father’s character makes sense- his wife was murdered, he’s pissed. The girl, on the other hand, makes no sense based on what we saw. How and why is she so normal? As the film progresses, she comes across as a strong, street-savvy woman who can see through Tyler’s tricks (Pattinson) and whose only emotional hang up is taking the subway (which I’d assume would be an issue for many solo young women in New York).

However, that isn’t my biggest issue with the film.  Ally isn’t the main character and, as far as I’m concerned, she shouldn’t even make an appearance until ten to fifteen minutes into the film.  The bigger issue is the introduction of Tyler, the main character in the film.  He is introduced AFTER the flashback to Ally’s mother’s death. This is a big issue for me.  If we’re not going to see our main character first, there better be a very good reason, and, as I said earlier, the flashback scene doesn’t even really explain Ally’s character so how good of a reason is it?  Anyway, once we do finally see Tyler, we see him drinking and having a smoke on his fire escape.  The phone rings and he stumbles inside to answer it after a few rings.  Pop quiz: what do you know about this character?... (my answer:  he’s like 95% of guys his age in New York… we know nothing unique about him).  Next, he’s at a graveyard (the deceased is not revealed until later) and then lunch with his family where his dad’s being a jerk.  Basically, without the necessary introduction to explain who this character is and what he’s all about, we’re left trying to piece together clues (very obvious ones in retrospect) throughout the film as to why he acts the way he does.

As a result of the audience not understanding the main character, everything he does comes across as very melodramatic for at least the first half of the film.  Further, just about everything everyone does borders on melodramatic (except for Tyler’s roommate, who provides much needed comic relief). 

I know I sound harsh right now, but the reason is that this film is very close to being very poignant and very good.  I think if the characters’ motivations are sorted out earlier, and it’s done through action rather than forcing it in through dialogue, this film could have been great.  Like I said earlier, it has a great, romantic premise of two wounded individuals finding each other and finding love when they least suspected it.  There is definitely heart in the film, and, while I’m not a Twilight fan, I’d say Pattinson is effective.  Ditto for de Ravin (I am a Lost fan). Their performances won’t take your breath away, but they definitely have a believable chemistry working on screen. What’s more, the film has a great theme that really would have hit home if it had been set up properly.  Instead, the final resolve seems cheapened to me- like the filmmakers put it in there to manufacture emotion when it really should have worked within the context of the film.

Overall, my review may be overly harsh, but it’s because I see potential in the film that, sadly, I think was lost.  Too many of the beats in the film seem to be a means to the filmmakers’ end rather than explicable actions by the characters. In other words, the characters are underdeveloped and, therefore, their actions seem random and not well defined.  The film is watchable and somewhat enjoyable.  If you like indie, melodramatic types of films, you might want to check this out.  Otherwise, save it for a rainy day… a very rainy day and maybe check out one of my suggestions instead.

If you like this (or want a different suggestion), check out:  Donnie Darko - The Director's Cut (Two-Disc Special Edition) or Across the Universe

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 2

Buy Remember Me

Snatch

Snatch is Englishmen Guy Ritchie’s second feature-length directorial gig and, as with most of his work, deals with the English crime underground.  In this film, gaggles of seedy mobsters find themselves chasing a gigantic diamond, somehow getting mixed up with an unlicensed boxing kingpin, a pair of boxing promoters, and gypsies in the meantime.  As I’m sure you can tell from this description, the movie is a light-hearted (albeit violent) jab at the English organized crime underground.

As with most of Guy Ritchie’s other films (such as Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Rock ‘N’ Rolla), he utilizes a unique directorial and story-telling style.  The story is non-linear, but does involve some symmetry from beginning to end in this convoluted maze of characters chasing a diamond.  Despite its lengthy list of characters, Ritchie does an excellent job of making sure we (the audience) keep everyone straight by using mainly two techniques.  First, he gives at least one character in each group a distinctive trait to set them apart:  the boxing kingpin as the bug-eye glasses, the “Jewish” diamond dealers wear their Yamakas, and the gypsies have their accents (and Brad Pitt). Second, Ritchie makes sure to introduce and reintroduce characters using his first person voice over by the main character (if you could really say there is a true main character), Turkish (Jason Statham).  This technique fits within the style of the film, but is really used to cheat in some dry exposition and explain the story for us- not really great writing, but effective and stylistic nevertheless.

Also similar to Guy Ritchie’s other films is the sense of humor.  Despite the story involving multiple murders, feeding human bodies to pigs, theft, arson, cons, and boxing without a license, Ritchie finds a way to make the whole story seem laughable.  He makes the characters so goofy and such Lehman, that we Lehman (the audience) actually can sit back and laugh at their stupidity.  Every ill that befalls the characters seems to be directly attributable to that character’s individual idiocy.  As a result, we laugh at them, just like we laugh at someone who angrily punches a wall and hurts his hand.  It’s funny because they did it to themselves.  It’s not quite that simple, though.  In order to keep this light tone, Ritchie carefully avoids showing anything too gruesome or gory, often not even showing people being killed, but just letting us assume it based on characters’ reactions.  It may seem trivial, but not actually seeing the dead person makes all the difference. Seeing pain and suffering inherently elicits emotion in people. Knowing pain and suffering occurred just doesn’t have the same visceral response- something Ritchie uses to avoid drama and keep the story light.

Another talent of Ritchie’s that shines through in this film is writing very interesting characters with great, quirky banter.  While these characters can all basically be considered similar or the same when you boil them down to their motivations and shake off all their bells and whistles (such as accents, appearances, which group they’re with, etc.), they are still very entertaining to watch.  Mickey (Pitt), the scrappy, gypsy boxer, shines through for me.  His slick, country dumb manner mixed with his hideously incomprehensible accent make every scene he is in both hilarious and challenging (only to understand what he’s saying), and Pitt does a great job in the role. 

Ultimately, though, Ritchie’s films are the type you either hate or you love and Snatch is no different.  It has an interesting, convoluted heist story line that is surprisingly easy to follow, some slapstick humor poking fun at gang related violence, action, and hordes of colorful characters all with similar motivations.  If you’ve never seen a Guy Ritchie film, it’s worth checking one out and Snatch is a great example (although I slightly prefer Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking  Barrels).  However, if you’ve seen a Guy Ritchie film and you thought once is enough or you absolutely detest profanity and violence, then maybe you should pass on this one.

If you like this, check out:  Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Layer Cake, or Pulp Fiction

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 3

Buy Snatch (Widescreen Edition)

Wheez's Vintage Movie of the Week- The Hustler

The Hustler follows “Fast” Eddie Felson (Paul Newman) as he hustles his way through pool halls on his path to become the greatest pool shark in the country by taking on and beating the great Minnesota Fatts.  The film (1961) comes from a different era of filmmaking, which is a bit of an adjustment, but one thing that transfers across any era is great acting and an intriguing character study.

Paul Newman is incredible in this film.  The story follows his character and his bull-headed resolve to become the greatest pool player in the country no matter the costs… and there are great costs.  So, just from the premise alone, you know Newman’s going to be on screen a lot.  Compounding that is the era of filmmaking in which this story takes place.  There are large gaps between cuts and a lot of shots that solely consist of following Paul Newman as he does something as mundane as walking from a train station locker to the bar, ordering a drink, and walking over to a table to sit down.  This type of direction would tend to be boring and would be blasted if it were done today, but Newman is so good and so interesting, that you hardly notice the simple direction when you’re watching.  It is literally easy, better still, preferable, just to watch him on screen rather than cutting away (and I have no physical attraction to the guy, so just think how the ladies must feel!)

Aiding Newman’s great performance is his very interesting character, “Fast” Eddie Felson.  What makes this character so interesting is, ironically, the simplicity of him.  The filmmakers establish early on and very clearly what this character’s need is:  to be the best.  It’s that simple, but knowing that simple motivation allows the audience a window into the character’s mind when he faces a dilemma. We (the audience) know throughout the entire story what drives Eddie so we can understand that every action, every word he utters comes into context with that motivation.  Every mistake he makes, makes sense to us because we know why he does it. We can appreciate his mistakes because there’s nobility in being true to yourself in spite of all the chips stacked against you.  We (the audience) get that and can relate to that struggle, which makes for a very intriguing, interesting character and a great launching pad for character growth.

Despite the great character, the story does stall slightly in the middle, which I attribute to the romance in the story.  I’m not opposed to romance, but it just seems forced in the context of this story.  It seems like the story hops off its linear path and on to a side street to set up this romantic relationship, only to pick up right where it left off and use this relationship as another opposing force for Eddie.  In the end, it pays off, but I think it could have been set up better and more efficiently so as not to pull so much focus from the main storyline.

That small critique aside, the story is written very well.  There is a great arc to it and the character development is fantastic.  In some parts, the story skips ahead in time (mostly from the start of a pool match to its conclusion).  I let this pass for two reasons:  the story introduces what hustling pool is in its first two pool scenes so there’s no need to keep beating a dead horse by showing it over and over again and, also, it’s pool- not exactly a spectator sport, so go ahead and skip some pool to keep the story moving. 

Also, the dialogue is great.  It’s very punchy with many witty quips back and forth between pool sharks or Eddie and his romantic interest.  The only exception to the great dialogue is when some exposition is forced into the story.  There are definitely times when you hear a few lines and just think, “Well, you had to get it in there, I guess you just bit the bullet and spit out all that bland exposition you needed to.” Other than that, though, there's great dialogue that adds to the story and helps build the characters.

Overall, The Hustler is a very enjoyable film about a very interesting and very well acted character.  The subject matter may seem a little dry to some, but the film does a great job of focusing on the characters so as to keep the story entertaining and interesting.  Should you watch it?  Well, it was good enough to warrant a sequel directed by Martin Scorsese (The Color of Money with Newman and Tom Cruise), so what do you think? (Just to be clear, I think you should rent it.)

If you like this, check out:  Color of Money, Wrestler, or Crazy Heart

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4

Buy The Hustler (Two-Disc Collector's Edition)

Seven

Seven is an all-around excellent film.  It starts with a great premise:  what if a serial killer decided to target victims based on the seven deadly sins (as in the sins that early Christianity deemed Hell worthy).  Throw in a well-thought screenplay, great acting, great direction, and a stylistic film noir feel and you have all the makings of a great film.  I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir for many of you, but this film is 15 years old (hard to believe, I know) and is worth revisiting for those of you who haven’t seen it for over a decade or those of you too young to have heard of it.

Director David Fincher (who apparently is a big Brad Pitt fan seeing as how he directed him in this film as well as Fight Club and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) directs an excellent film.  He presents an interesting visual style:  sprinkling in dirty shots (shots in which something is out of focus in the foreground) and interesting angles, particularly with close-ups.  Rather than just filming what you see, he adds some interesting visuals to enhance the story.  He also uses a unique, semi-noir style.  The film cannot be classified as a true film noir since there is no “femme fatal”, however, the film has a bleak, dreary, colorless look to it and several shots have distinctive contrast between dark and light, which are trademarks of film noir.  This very interesting visual style works in accordance with the themes of the film and contributes to its dark mood.

The cast is excellent as well.  As I mentioned earlier, Brad Pitt stars alongside Morgan Freeman (and his voice, I swear I could listen to that man read the dictionary), but the big names don’t end there.  Supporting them are Kevin Spacey, a young Gwyneth Paltrow, and several excellent, recognizable character actors (like Dr. Cox from Scrubs).  Much of the character development of this film (especially Brad Pitt’s character, David) is accomplished through dialogue, which requires good acting to be effective.  Fortunately, that acting is present and the characters’ feelings (mostly those of Pitt and Freeman) shine through conversation (most often through the subtext).

The idea that the characters develop heavily through dialogue in an action/thriller may seem odd, but that is directly attributable to the story being more than just action.  The film has its fair share of suspense and a well-crafted story with several twists, but it’s clear that the murders and action are meant to be more than just entertainment. It’s meant to make you think.  I mean, why else would you choose a premise with such a heavy religious overtone?  Ultimately, as the detectives proceed through their investigation, we are left wondering, ‘Are these the desperate, meaningless actions of an attention-seeking psycho, or can they actually be considered justifiable by even the slightest amount?’ If the seven deadly sins are a direct ticket to Hell, does it give someone the right to stamp that ticket a little early?  These are obviously dark, morally ambiguous ideas, but interesting to consider in a fictional setting. 

Driving these ideas home is the intermittent conversations between the detectives.  Somerset (Freeman) being the one who won’t just write off the killer as being entirely insane and without purpose and David (Pitt) being the detective who cannot find reason or logic in such heinous crimes. Their banter throughout the film helps to raise many of the aforementioned questions, and, just in case you didn’t pick up on the theme throughout the film, its conclusion drives the point home.  While there’s some forced dialogue preceding it, the conclusion is an excellent twist and a great, fitting end to the film.

This film is fantastic.  It executes its premise masterfully and really maximizes the potential of the story in my opinion.  It’s entertaining, but also works on a level beyond shear entertainment, which at times approaches being a little forced but is saved by the acting.  If you haven’t seen this film, rent it. It’s easy to sit down to watch and very enjoyable, regardless of your religious views. If you’re not Christian/Catholic, there’s enough exposition to explain what’s going on, and if you’re like me and you don’t think we should kill everyone who makes a mistake, well, I still liked it, so there ya go.  If you have seen it, maybe it’s time to pop it in your DVD player again for another viewing.  I did, and it didn’t disappoint.

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting If You’re Bored

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4.5

If you like this, check out:  Boondock Saints (Unrated Special Edition) or The Silence of the Lambs [Blu-ray]

Buy Seven (Single Disc Edition)