Death Race

Dumb, but fun. What a classic way to describe a film. Does it get better? No, the movie wasn't really that good, but it was fun enough I'll ignore how dumb it was. Well, as funny as it may be, I just described Paul W.S. Anderson's Death Race. There's not much to the film, other than action and mayhem, but knowing Anderson's skill set, that's all I want him to tackle. That said, I still can pick apart the film for its many faults. First, and it is weird to say this, Death Race should be more about the actual racing to the death. It seems an artificial plot was thrown into this "remake" for the sole purpose of appearing like something deeper. Just race and kill. So when the film does race and kill, it does so pretty well. The script does more than it needs to, and Anderson just isn't very good at capturing emotions other than anger and... well, that's it. But Jason Statham is the perfect action star, so his casting was not so much inspired, but necessary. He made the film as entertaining as the action, but make no mistake; Death Race is certainly dumb, but fun.

Genre - Action (2.5)

Screenplay (2)
Acting (3)
Production (3)
Directing (2)

Appaloosa

Now, I'll start out by saying I'm not typically a fan of westerns. Most feel and sound the same, and rarely do they draw me in. If I'm going to watch a western, it usually is the darker, more existential western with brutal violence and sad, lonely characters. It just makes for a good watch. So, is Appaloosa one of these? Not entirely. But Appaloosa is a bit grim, so it gets points for that. Ed Harris, the man behind the script and the camera, brings us conflicted, complicated city marshal Virgil Cole. He is man lost in his work, his only friend found in Everett Hitch (Viggo Mortensen). The duo work well together, enforce their own laws in order to keep peace. But when Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons) and Allison French (Renee Zellweger) get into the mix, the duo become fragmented. Appaloosa is filled with interesting characters and moments of thrilling violence. Which is everything a good western needs, right? The only thing I found myself hoping for was more on the quiet, quick draw Everett Hitch. Mortensen played him perfectly, and he stole every scene he was in.

Genre - Western (3.25)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (4)
Production (3)
Directing (3)

Blindness

Some critics might call Blindness unwatchable (ha ha...), and others will claim it will open your eyes (ha...ha...ha) to the injustice any minority faces. I wont side with either extreme, and simply say Blindness is okay. Now, as GenReview is about avoiding unnecessary comparisons, I will only say the book Blindness is based on is a masterpiece. It blew me away, and has a lasting impact on its readers. But I don't compare the film to the novel, because they are two separate entities. Whether one is good or bad doesn't effect the other. Blindness, as a film, works for the most part. It has the drama, and follows the dark, yet hopeful plot of the novel, almost as if they pulled the some things straight from the pages. And Fernando Meirelles directs the hell out of every frame. He crafts beautiful images out of bleak and sinister scenes, and throughout the film I was hooked on what I was seeing. So what doesn't work? The whole thing feels a bit rushed, and I wish I had more time to observe the results of this fascinating plague of blindness. And the characters, or at least some of them, are not as clearly drawn as they should be. The characters, thrust unwillingly into this new world, should interest me deeply, and only a handful of them did.

Genre - Drama (3)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (2)
Production (3)
Directing (4)

Cube

God, I'm a sucker for movies with isolated characters, trapped and fighting for their lives. Nothing original about, but damn are they entertaining. Saw was great for this reason, but Cube did it first (at least of these two examples). I'll give Cube credit for one thing right off the bat; it tried to be smart. And you know what? It did, for the most part, or at least as far as I can tell. The math seems plausible, and the construction of the deadly cube rings true to me. Not many horror movies put this much thought into their plotting. But fuck math, right? You just want to watch Cube for inventive and violent killings? Well, the movie definitely has those. So in the end, you get a semi-intelligent, quick paced, violent thriller that leaves you hanging. Cube throws a lot of questions at the audience, and answers very few. And while some find that unsatisfying, I loved it.

Genre - Horror (3)

Screenplay (3)
Acting (2)
Production (4)
Directing (3)

In Bruges

Here is a film I expected to disappoint me, and instead ended up liking far more. Colin Farrell has never really done it for me as an actor, and was the reason I had so much doubt. But I heard good things about In Bruges, about its script, so I gave it a try. And people were right, the script is fantastic, and delivers some great humor amidst action and drama. Brendan Gleeson is great as the older hit man, and his relationship with Farrell really sold me on the movie. Martin Mcdonagh, the writer and director, has a flair for interesting visuals and shots, which was just another plus. The story is basic, but filled with enough fun that you don't think about other movies with similar plots. There were only a couple of moments where I wished the action would pick up, but they were few and far enough between that it didn't really matter. I still had a good time.

Genre - Comedy (3.5)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (4)
Production (3)
Directing (3)

The Virgin Suicides

What a richly dark, yet hilarious film, despite being about the suicides of five young girls. The Virgin Suicides is subtle in its humor, but the story is, essentially, a dramatic one. While watching the film, I often found myself smirking at the tragedy of the Lisbon family (particularly the daughters), but still felt saddened by their story. Both the humor and serious aspects of the film, however, made me love it even more. Kirsten Dunst gives a fine performance, and shows she is capable of acting when she wants to (unlike in Spiderman 3). Sofia Coppola penned a hell of a script from a story by Jeffrey Eugenides, and she also made her directing debut with The Virgin Suicides. The promise she showed in directing this film definitely paid off in her later features. A stunning film that will have a lasting impact, leaving viewers with the weird mix of a smile and a frown.

Genre - Drama (3.75)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (4)
Production (3)
Directing (4)

Son Of Rambow

This one caught me off guard. Where I was expecting more of a comedy, I got mostly a drama with sprinkled with comedy. Is that bad? No, not necessarily. Viewed apart from expectations, Son of Rambow was pretty good, but there were areas ripe for improvement. Will Poulter, playing demon child Lee Carter, is the highlight of the film, as is relationship with friend Will Proudfoot (Bill Milner). The relationship between the two boys is the most interesting part of the film, yet Son of Rambow doesn't squeeze all the potential out of them. Watching the two boys direct and act in their own short film, based on the Rambo film First Blood, was where the best comedic parts revealed themselves, but again, the script doesn't give these moments enough time to develop. Garth Jennings, who wrote and directed, started with a wonderful idea, but doesn't fully realize it. That is not to say Son of Rambow is no good, and if nothing the film is shot well, but it leaves you wanting more. It is a film worth watching in any case, if not to appreciate the mismatched pairing of Lee Carter and Will Proudfoot, who each need their views on life altered just a bit.

Genre - Comedy (2.75)

Screenplay (2)
Acting (3)
Production (3)
Directing (3)

Primer

Wow. What can I say about Primer? In short, I loved it. The film is quiet, but intellectually stimulating and fresh. Shane Carruth is the man, literally, behind every aspect of Primer. He wrote, directed, starred, edited, etc. And all on a $7,000 budget. Impressive to say the least. But what on the story? Primer is film about time travel, and how it ties with the idea of causality, without becoming muddled or ridiculous. Sure, Primer is confusing, but I know there is an answer to the questions posed, even if I haven't figured them all out yet. It just goes to show that a film that deals with time travel need not be a science fiction film, or loaded with special effects and silly plots, but can center on a very human, down-to-earth story. Just what the consequences time travel can be, even when only a few short hours are traveled between, which may make the film that much more compelling. I'll need another viewing or two to fully wrap my mind around the twists of Primer, but it will be a pleasure, rather than a chore, to do so.

Genre - Drama (3.5)

Screenplay (4)
Acting (3)
Production (4)
Directing (3)

Duels: Supernatural vs. Slasher Icons

We begin this (hopefully) continuing series with a horror match up. The duel belongs to Supernatural’s Winchester brothers, Sam and Dean, facing off against horror slasher icons. Who are these icons? The masters would be: Freddy Kruger, Jason Voorhees, Leatherface, and Michael Myers.

In Supernatural, Sam and Dean have battled hundreds of baddies, ranging from ghosts to demons to monsters and lived to tell the tale. Sure, there have been close calls, and each brother has died once (so far), but they always come fighting back. They make a hell of a team, and know the lore behind their prey.

The slasher icons each operate in their own unique ways, but all of them are keen on killing. Other than Leatherface, the icons all have at least a little supernatural ability. Freddy is the most magical, but Jason dies and resurrects all the time, as does Michael. And to recap each slasher’s murdering forte; Freddy kills people in their dreams, Jason wields a wicked machete, Leatherface dissects with a chainsaw, and Michael uses a butcher knife.

So who would win in a battle (mind you, the battles would each occur separately, with the Winchester bros dueling one killer at a time)? Let the games begin.

The Winchester’s would win every time. I know that sounds too easy, maybe even blasphemous to some, but the duo are just too good of hunters. Both, Dean especially, have an excellent pop culture knowledge bank, against which the iconic horror baddies would stand no chance.

Freddy must be pulled into the real world from a dream, and the Winchesters would set the trap up far better than a group of moronic teenagers.

Jason would chase and deal a fair amount of damage on the brothers, but they would outsmart him eventually.

Leatherface, being the most human of all the icons, would be quick to take down.

Michael, for a slow moving, Shatner-loving slasher, would prove a slippery little bastard, but would be bested by the Winchester team eventually.

It all comes down to smarts. The victims of the slasher icons are usually dumb teens, who really stand no chance in the first place. The Winchester brothers know how to fight, hunt, and have an impressive set of weapons to combat the icons.

Winner: Sam and Dean Winchester

Friday The 13th (2009)

It seems, in my humble opinion, that the slasher genre is often misunderstood. Which is odd, figuring how mindless a genre it typically is. Audiences and critics just don't seem to get how these slice-and-dice films work. The formula is simple: a killer murders victims (young and often half-dressed) in inventive ways that lead to tons of bloodshed. Sure, they can be more than that, but often this is what you get. When will people understand this?

But, to get back on track, does this work for Friday the 13th? I say yes. While some may label me a heretic, I will say that the original Friday the 13th left me underwhelmed. It is the only Friday movie I've seen, and it didn't make me care enough to seek others. And Jason wasn't even in it. But this new, sleek, Jason-filled Friday the 13th reboot is a blast. It starts quick, and the violence and nudity continue until the credits roll. What more could you ask for? The film is fun, never takes itself too seriously, but wisely chooses not to mock itself. Some things seem outlandish (duh, slasher movie), and that is due to uninspired screenwriting. But the directing and technical aspects are fantastic. A worthy entry into the slasher genre.

Genre - Horror (3.25)

Screenwriting (2)
Acting (3)
Production (4)
Directing (4)

GenReview Awards: Best in Miscellaneous

Here are the category of the scattered remains.

Best Animated Film: Wall-E

Hands down, the finest Pixar film to date (perhaps tied with The Incredibles). But this robot-centric film is sweet, sad, and acts as a warning for unchecked human behavior of wasting. An incredible film.

Best Documentary: Religulous

Some will find it biased, others will call it mean, others too soft, but you are bound to get a reaction out of Bill Maher's religious documentary. It challenges all faiths, and calls for reason and evidence. Whether you agree with Maher or not, this is a film to see, because it will test your beliefs and reveal how important they are to you.

GenReview Awards: Best in Horror/Thriller/Sci-Fi

The category that blends multiple genre's. Here goes.

Best Picture: Let The Right One In

The Swedes have shown up America in the battle royale of the horror genre. The film is about perfect, and by the end you'll have found yourself so engrossed in the characters lives, it is hard to leave the theater. Definitely the best horror of the year.

Best Screenplay: The Ruins

Scott Smith, the writer of both the screenplay and novel that preceded it, created quite the flick with The Ruins. The film is fun and atmospheric. The acting is great, and the situation is dire, without being ridiculous. It is a horror film that will stay with you.

Best Acting: Lina Leandersson (Let The Right One In)

She owned the role of vampire Eli. The task would have been difficult for an adult, but Lina was only twelve when playing Eli. And it shows how to make a kid creepy without resorting to the typical cliches.

Best Production: Cloverfield

This would also win Best Marketing Campaign, but alas, no such category exists. But Cloverfield, a product of J.J. Abrams brain, Drew Goddard's writing skill, and Matt Reeves eye, is a modern age monster movie, much like Godzilla (though not the shitty American one). Cloverfield is fast and intense, with a great monster to boot. And there is no silly explanation of the creatures origin, just plain old cat-and-mouse between it and the humans of New York City. It all looks, and feels, real.

Best Director: Bryan Bertino (The Strangers)

Say what you will about the actual film (which I say is great ol' horror), but it is hard to deny that director Bryan Bertino doesn't have an eye for the genre. The Strangers is a mean, creepy bastard of a film, and god damn does Bertino know how to play with atmosphere. Every knock, smash, and skipping of records will have you sinking into your seat. A great film.

GenReview Awards: Best in Action

You know the rules. Here goes the action category.

Best Picture: The Dark Knight

The undeniable winner. It blended action and drama/noir in a way no other comic book film ever has. The Dark Knight was action packed, but also thoughtful in telling its story. It may be awhile before the world of cinema is treated to something like The Dark Knight again. And props to any movie that almost dethrones Titanic as the highest grossing film of all time.

Best Screenplay: Iron Man

Iron Man would have been the best action/comic book movie if it weren't for The Dark Knight. But despite not being the best picture overall, the award for best screenplay suits Iron Man. The film was funny, fresh, and quick. It would be an easy movie to ruin, but instead turned out to be one of the finer films of the year, and of the genre.

Best Acting: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)

Does this need to be explained? Ledger created one of the finest villains to grace the silver screen. Enough said.

Best Production: Quantum of Solace

James Bond is a bad ass, so it is important the film he leads look the same. Quantum of Solace has a sleek, but dark, image that mirrors the infamous spy's emotional state. Every city and exotic location Bond travels to rings true to the audience.

Best Director: Chris Nolan (The Dark Knight)

It has to be. He had a vision and executed it perfectly. Nolan is a true master, and is the man who made Batman more than an iconic childhood hero.