Saw III (2006) October 29, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Darren Lynn Bousman
“If it’s Halloween, it must be Saw”. That’s the proud declaration that sits on trailers for the currently on release Saw IV, and never more have I agreed with the sentiment. But maybe not in the positive way that the tag line hopes is implicit, but in a rather more jaded, here-we-go-again statement of obvious dismay: “Oh, Halloween is it? I guess that means another one of those Saw movies then?” Of course, in my typical style of being almost exactly one year behind, I recently caught up with the third instalment in the trilogy: the rather aptly titled, Saw III.
Before we get started, I’d like to make it known that I’m not completely down on the series. I thought that the original movie had a lot of inventiveness amongst its liberal smattering of pain and gore induced horror. That inventiveness has since been turned into formula by the yearly sequels since 2004, but it hasn’t stopped the creators giving their low budget tension-flick a whole universe and mythology for fans to follow and unravel. Saw II [review] was a notable step down, adding a misjudged group dynamic reminiscent of bad teen-slashers and dropping the gritty traps for more explicit nastiness. It also pulled a similar twist-laden third act, although not all the twists played well for the story, leaving me to question what the point of it all had really been.
Which brings us to Saw III; a film that picks up exactly where Saw II left off, with detective Eric Matthews chained in his confinement cell. The film is not about him though, quickly turning its attentions to Jeff, a father who lost his son in a road accident and has dreamt of revenge ever since. He’s about to play a game – one that involves a series of nasty traps and challenges that are supposed to allow him to forgive the man who killed his son. All of this has been engineered by the Jigsaw killer, who is now nearly dead but being sheltered by his apprentice Amanda. They kidnap Dr. Lynn Denlon in order to play a slightly simpler game – if Jigsaw dies, she dies too. Both players face their personal challenges as each tries to get out alive.
By far the most interesting thing about this movie is the way that it immerses itself so wholeheartedly in its own mythology. I love any attempts to use sequels to reinvestigate the events of previous films and show them in a new light (hence my love of the Back to the Future movies) and that’s exactly what happens here. In fact, this is so true that Saw III will completely alienate anyone new to the series right from the get-go, as little is explained about who the old characters are and what their previous involvement was. Only Amanda (played by Shawnee Smith) gets analysed in any detail since half the story is about her in one way or another, but even she is left slightly under-explained.
The story continues a trend that was established in the second film of spending more time with the villain than almost anything else. It’s a split narrative, just like last time, with half the movie dedicated to following the sequence of traps and games that Jeff is experiencing, while the other half shows us John (the infamous Jigsaw killer), on his death bed. It almost feels a little odd giving us so much of the villain when there are no ‘good’ characters tracking him down - although for side-stepping the ‘elusive bad-guy’ cliché I guess the film could be applauded. However, in the original Saw, if you remember, he was that elusive cliché and it worked very well. Acceptance that he’s going to feature heavily in this movie comes mainly from the fact that we saw so much of him in the second film that he has lost any chance of being mysterious again.
Also slightly bizarre is the choice to include previously central characters such as Dina Meyer as Kerry (a feature of both previous films) and Donnie Wahlberg as Eric Matthews (Saw II’s good-guy lead), in roles which mean that they barely appear. Their side-note appearances come off as acknowledging their existence without letting them get involved in any meaningful way. Meanwhile, writer / director Darren Lynn Bousman (who has allowed himself to become the ‘Saw guy’ despite having no involvement in the original), directs in a style that was dictated by the first film, with lots of exposure-play and fast-cutting shots to heighten the confusion of the situation. His script, co-written by Saw trilogy-scripter Leigh Whannell, is merely functional, which is all that it needs to be.
Luckily, the tortuous traps (the real focus for most viewers) have reinstated a much-needed level of grittiness while still giving the audience their required gory payoffs. Once again we are treated to a finale that reveals a late hand and is supposed to turn the whole thing on its head, but not since the first Saw has this final wind-up been a complete success. The ‘reveal’ moments at the end of Saw III are maybe the most predictable and the least exciting yet – the real twist this time coming from what actually happens as opposed to what has already happened.
Of course, you can’t argue with the numbers: the last three opening weekends have been $18m, $31m & $33m, from budgets of $1.2m, $4m & $10m, respectively. If fans continue to come out for more, even if only in the first week, the studio is going to keep funding these flicks. The release of Saw IV this year is a slight disappointment, as this third instalment rounds out the story nicely and works much better than I had expected after such a lacklustre second part. Nothing is sacred when there’s money to be made though, so the Saw train rumbles on with its hit-and-run yearly production strategy. I only wonder how long it’ll be before Saw becomes such a staple of the season that Halloween can start advertising itself around being on at the same time: “Halloween 2008: coming Saw V”?
Half Nelson (2006) October 26, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Ryan Fleck
The indie hit. A calling card for cool and independence of spirit that can launch actors, writers and directors into the big leagues so that they can start making films with much bigger budgets and (often) much less heart. Half Nelson is a perfectly pitched example of this: a small budget flick, based on a short film by an up-and-coming writer / director, with a story that focuses heavily on its characters and isn’t afraid to split open its chest and show the truth inside. But what is unique, revealing and honest to some, is downright boring to others, which led to a variety of critiques for this awards favourite ranging from “masterpiece” to “misery”.
It starts as the story of Dan Dunne (Ryan Gosling) who teaches history at an inner-city school in Brooklyn with his own unique lecturing style. But his life outside of the school is empty and he turns to drugs as a way to escape the reality of his situation. One evening after coaching the girls basketball team, he is caught smoking crack in a bathroom stall by Drey (Shareeka Epps), who chooses to keep Dan’s secret and forms an unlikely relationship with her teacher. Drey is the child of an overworked single mother and so understands Dan’s loneliness – but with outside pressures pushing her to run drugs for a friend of her jailed brother, Dan is forced to face his problems as he tries his best to keep Drey away from a dangerous world he knows only too well.
The mood of the piece is, admittedly, mostly downbeat, although this may be a product of the slow pacing and narrow story arc. It does have an optimistic message behind it however, and gives the film a resolution that at least signifies there might be hope. What really stands out from the movie as a whole is how much the tone of the picture fits alongside Dan Dunne’s life – being slow, tiring and empty is not a lack of content or inspiration, but a conscious choice that reflects Dan’s mood on to the audience.
This effect is shown more explicitly through the use of unstable camera work during the scenes of Dan’s drug use, with plenty of shots that play with the focus and framing to give you a blurred-vision perspective of the moment. Most of the film is shot handheld in fact, but that’s actually more of a strength than a weakness in such a personal tale and it stops any sign of the ‘distance’ that standard Hollywood sheen presents you with.
Ryan Gosling gives a powerhouse performance here and can truly be attributed with a large proportion of what makes the film such an engaging watch. His drug-fuelled highs and lows are fully on display, but they’re shown through a subtler range of emotion than the normal drug-fuelled archetype. Meanwhile, co-star Shareeka Epps is also very convincing as the high school kid with tough choices to make about where her allegiances lie. The movie hinges on the lead’s relationship, but the balance of friendship and uneasy silence is conveyed brilliantly by this duo.
While mentioning silence, it’s worth noting how writers Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden haven’t crammed the film with dialogue, but allow quiet to inhabit the scenes where relevant. There’s very little spoon feeding in terms of plot either, which allows the viewer to piece together certain events, like the movements of Dan during his off-hours. My main criticism of the film though is a lack of fleshing out in some situations that are introduced but never really developed – the scene with Dan and his parents is a perfect example of this. Also, when the instigator of change finally occurs (Dan’s teaching of opposing forces and change is leading up to this moment throughout the film), I didn’t think enough emphasis is placed on what an important moment it really was. It should be a revelation, but it plays as more of an acceptance of guilt – the knowledge that what each party is doing is wrong.
So then, masterpiece or misery? Well it’s a little of both and yet neither at the same time. The misery is entirely part of the atmosphere and a necessary evil in a story that does, eventually, show the prospect of hope. As for being a masterpiece, there’s a slight lack of compassion, even with the characters we are supposed to feel close to, that stops this film becoming an all-time great. But for honesty and fantastic performances, you can’t go far wrong with this. We can only hope that the success achieved by the filmmakers and cast on this project won’t be rewarded by a heartless follow-up. Some people just suit independence much better than dependence.
Who Killed The Electric Car? (2006) October 23, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , 3 commentsDirected by: Chris Paine
With environmental issues creeping into the headlines ever more over the past few years, it’s no surprise that campaigners are utilising all varieties of media to get their message across. Be it CO2 emissions, natural resources, or energy conservation – there are newspaper articles, internet sites, forums, and TV programmes all dedicated to the subject. Despite this, it would take Al Gore’s shock-tactic production An Inconvenient Truth to prove that there’s an audience for this kind of material in cinemas and demonstrate that the issue-lead film documentary can still be a powerful force.
This film takes some of the issues from An Inconvenient Truth [review], but distils the subject matter down to one very defined topic: the electric car. Or more accurately, finding out who is responsible for the massive failure of electric cars leased in the late ‘90s. The most interesting point that the documentary makes up-front is that electric cars are not something distant or futuristic, but actually a product of the present day – if only available for a limited time. There’s no reason to doubt the existence of these models, as we are introduced to a variety of them throughout the course of the story.
Laid out in a simple way, the film opens by explaining the history of electric and alternative vehicles, right up to the point where GM is ready to release its own, first-of-its-kind, electric car: the EV1. From here, the documentary explores the take-up, expansion and subsequent destruction of the EV1 fleet, talking to industry and GM representatives, EV1 project team members, electric car owners, and even some heavily dedicated EV1 ex-drivers and protestors. The second half of the film concentrates on lining up the suspects, from oil companies to consumers, in order to answer the central question – who killed the electric car?
Obviously, there’s no single blame to be placed here, but even with the documentary’s obvious siding with the EV1 supporters (there’s a sequence where a funeral is held for the car – it’s partly a joke, although one person does cry), the film still manages to prove some interesting points about how development was sidelined and how the political influence of car manufacturers has clearly had an effect in what is still touted as a ‘lack of public interest’.
From a technical standpoint the documentary is well put together; the interviews are well shot, the editing keeps things moving and it’s a well judged length at just over 90-minutes. There’s little to complain about except to say that the subject matter itself may not be so interesting to those who aren’t quite as into their cars – not because it’s a car enthusiasts film, but because it’s not an environmental film. I think it wants to be, and the subject of car emissions is naturally a focus for some contributors, but really it’s about the group of people – EV1 supporters – who decided that what GM were trying to do by pulling the cars off the road, was wrong. These people loved their cars, and they would do anything to fight for their existence.
It might sound strange, but if you watch the film I think you’ll understand what I mean. And it’s not necessarily a bad thing to link the topic to a more human story, although I fear that this particular example may be slightly difficult for people to relate to. Overall it’s still an interesting piece of work that highlights plenty of the political issues surrounding alternative fuels, as well as the way large manufacturers can be self serving, even when they want to be seen as doing the right thing. If you enjoyed previous business-focussed documentaries such as The Smartest Guys In The Room, or The Corporation, then this comes recommended.
Rendition (2007) October 20, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Gavin Hood
Licensing topical news stories for films often elicits a range of public reaction, especially when the issues are of a political nature. Some will be for, some will be against, and, maybe most contentiously, others will agree with the points being made but feel that using movies as a source of awareness trivialises the real issue. War, corruption, terrorism – we have seen many examples of statements made about these topics, especially since 2001, and there are plenty more coming in the near future. But they are often heavily American films, shot with purpose and motive by American directors, for American audiences. So what could Oscar winning South African director Gavin Hood have to say on the matter? Rendition is the answer.
Triggering the plot is the disappearance of Anwar El-Ibrahimi, an Egyptian-born US green-card-holder, who is suspected of involvement in an act of terrorism. He is picked up at an airport and subjected to the covert process of rendition, whereby he is sent to a secret base off US soil and tortured for information. Newly appointed CIA analyst Douglas Freeman is forced to take the role of observing the process, conducted by a known Arab target named Abasi Fawal, but soon starts to feel uncomfortable in his involvement. Meanwhile, Anwar’s wife uses her own political contacts at home to try and track her husband down while Abasi has family problems of his own as he worries about his missing daughter.
The story is actually not as complex as the above summary makes it sound, and while there is a bit of jumping around between the various locales, the film flows very nicely and it’s never confusing. If anything, the narrative sometimes seems a little slow, especially during the sequences with Freeman as he ponders his new job and the situation it has put him in. All credit to Gavin Hood, director of the Oscar winning Tsotsi [review], for keeping a film with such an abundance of storylines both visually interesting and generally engaging. His skills certainly surpass his experience here.
Jake Gyllenhaal takes the lead as the CIA agent out of his comfort zone, but actually doesn’t get a great deal to do. Praise for his role is worthy, but not as much as for Yigal Naor who plays ruthless family-man Abasi Fawal with tremendous intensity, or Peter Sarsgaard, whose investigation of the case and eventual concern for himself is very true to life. Also in the mix is Reese Witherspoon giving a solid performance as Anwar’s pregnant wife, 
Meryl Streep in a nasty, biting role that she makes her own, and the always enjoyable J.K. Simmons. Rounding off the film are two young actors in Moa Khouas and Zineb Oukach, whose relationship and involvement in the plot start out as trivial, but become increasingly important as the story rolls on.
Of course, this being a politically focussed movie there is the inevitable moral standpoint which must be established. It is Gyllenhaal who gets to give the anti-torture speech that is such a necessity of this film, although luckily it is short and not too overstated since the content of the movie more than pushes its point. Interestingly, there is some balance introduced into the subject, with arguments proposed for both sides on the subject of torture for information. It’s still clear where the filmmaker’s intentions lie in terms of their final message, but just to hear the pro-rendition argument from Meryl Streep (who, admittedly, is the ‘evil’ character) 
is to question what kind of priority you put on national security. For every moment of genuine insight however, there is a matching moment of political denial, including the self-preservation of a senator’s own interest and a reprisal of the “United States does not torture” line that maybe didn’t need to be in a film that wants to be smarter than most.
There’s certainly plenty going on in this movie; more so on reflection than it actually seems like at the time. Structurally, it’s an interesting piece of work, not least because it actually makes you think about structure rather than take it for granted, which cumulates in a mid-third-act turn that is both intriguing and welcomed. That is Rendition’s high-point for me, not its emotional punch which is just a little too flat to really be considered effective. The plot is going to cause discussion of course, but just because you’re telling this story doesn’t automatically make it affecting. For that you need to be part of the characters motivations and part of their emotions, whilst I found the film forces you to remain a little detached from both. It’s still a worthy piece of drama though and undoubtedly a movie with an important message. Whether people are prepared yet to take that message from a dramatic interpretation on film, is another matter.
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) October 17, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Justin Lin
The Fast and the Furious franchise has always baffled me slightly in terms of its continuing popularity and if there’s a more knowingly teen-male-targeted movie out there, I’m yet to see it. After a mildly enjoyable first film we were forced to endure the significantly weaker sequel with a name so full of txt-speak that nobody over 25 could decipher it (or under 25 for that matter – what could ‘Too Fast Too Furious’ even mean?). Now it’s back, but this time transported to Japan and with none of the original cast or characters. Futile doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Sean Boswell (Lucas Black) is a rebellious high school kid who is sent to live with his estranged father in Japan after his street racing addiction gets him into trouble in the US. Once there he quickly finds his way into a new kind of underground racing circuit: drift racing – a highly skilled variety of driving that takes place illegally in Tokyo. Sean’s nature means he quickly makes a rival of expert drifter DK (Brian Tee), whose links to the Japanese mafia make him a dangerous foe. But Sean also finds a crew of his own, headed by DK’s partner Han (Sung Kang), where he learns to drift so that he may take on his rival and maybe win the heart of the beautiful Neela (Nathalie Kelley) at the same time.
Right from the off we’re introduced to the two main elements of this plot: wild stereotypes and completely unrealistic situations. The set-up itself involves the classic high school jock racing the kid from the wrong side of the tracks, while I find it rather convenient that a car enthusiast could move half way around the world and then manage to find himself in the centre of a giant car ‘meet’ within 24 hours. It goes on and on like this: with apparently every high school kid in Tokyo driving a car that they probably couldn’t afford if they combined their savings, and of course, there’s always someone with a link to the Yakuza – this is Japan after all!
The most annoying detail however is actually in the title: I know it’s called Tokyo Drift and everything, but did they really have to talk about ‘drifting’ quite so much? According to this movie, if you go to high school in Japan then all you live for is the art of drifting a car round corners – no other driving techniques have made it out there yet. Characters talk about drifting, they argue about drifting, your ability to drift is the social currency and one girl even reminisces about drifting with her friends when she was younger. It’s practically parody at times and words alone cannot emphasise how ridiculous and grating it becomes.
With all the above evidence it’s quite easy to conclude that the plot is totally lazy and will allow anything to happen in order to advance the story where it needs to go. The final showdown between Sean and DK is laugh out loud stupid as Sean goes to a member of the Japanese mob to propose, not a truce, but a race (which mostly consists of drifting, obviously) in probably the writer’s clearest admittance of an “I don’t care” attitude. Even the characterisation is bad, with an unconvincing romantic thread and a main character who, forced with the decision about behaving himself or being sent home to prison, chooses to keep recklessly driving and picking fights for no other discernable reason than: he’s an idiot.
There may be something to enjoy in the cinematography, although it’s mostly so fast that you really don’t get a chance to take it in. Some reliance on CG to create the more demanding shots also left me slightly cold as it does nothing we haven’t seen before. And if you’re a fan who argues that all of this doesn’t matter because the Fast and the Furious movies are all about the cars, then prepare to be disappointed further, as this film doesn’t really focus on the cars in the same way as previous outings. Sure, they’re there, but show little detail for real car enthusiasts to take in – just lights and decals for the easily distracted teenage mind.
All this negativity and I haven’t even mentioned Lucas Black’s rocky performance, or the painful final moments as the film tries to forge a link with its previous instalments - it doesn’t work, the link is tenuous at best, and it all comes way too late. It’s blindingly clear that this is a generic racing movie that has had ‘The Fast and the Furious’ tagged onto it in order to sell some tickets which, unfortunately, is a marketing tactic that almost certainly worked. There’s nothing redeeming about this vapid throttle-fest though, as plot, characters and even the moral implication of glamorizing street racing are glossed over by the bright sparkle of headlights against the Tokyo skyline. Please let this be it: 4 Fast 4 Furious, we don’t need.
