Just in time for Halloween, here is my review for the 1992 horror masterpiece "Candyman"
For children sauntering through the aisles of the video store peeking at R-rated movies they would have to wait an eternity to see, one film in particular likely sends chills down their prepubescent spines: “Candyman.”
The title’s promise of delectable, pleasant mirth is immediately shattered by the film cover's terrifying visual of a blood-red eye with a menacing, man-shaped shadow for a pupil and a solitary bee sitting on the eyelid. The tagline is equally horrific — “We dare you to say his name five times!” — as it creates an insatiable desire to test the declaration while dreading the potential consequences.
In the film, repeating the phrase causes the Candyman (Tony Todd, TV’s “Chuck”) to appear immediately behind the summoner, and he proceeds to hook the person and anybody in the vicinity from “groin to gullet.” But this isn’t just another slasher film with the villain cutting up an endless supply of silly teens who dare test the myth. Instead, “Candyman” serves as an intelligent psychological thriller, examining the impact of an urban legend on the public and individual psyche, while providing enough shocks and chills to be sincerely scary.
Check out the full review here.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Candyman Review
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Cold Souls Review
"Cold Souls" is this art-house existential comedy that you'll probably never watch. But here's my review of it:
“Is your soul weighing you down?” asks an advertisement in the pages of a Yellow Book in “Cold Souls.” For actor Paul Giamatti (TV’s “John Adams”), who plays a fictional version of himself, the answer is yes.
Starring in a production of Chekov’s play “Uncle Vanya,” Giamatti feels that he can no longer separate himself from the intensely melancholic character he is playing, which he thinks is causing him physical and emotional strife. His solution, of course, is to undergo the newly popular procedure to “desoul” the body — literally extracting one’s soul out and placing it into a glass jar. Soon enough, Giamatti wants his soul back, only to realize that it has been stolen by a member of an elaborate Russian “soul-trafficking” operation.
Check out the full review here.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Whip It Review
Drew Barrymore, the Hollywood starlet once infamous for churning out forgettable romantic comedies and flashing David Letterman, has finally crafted a new identity, exhibiting an unexpected knack for quality filmmaking in her directorial debut, “Whip It.” Using a platoon of accomplished stars, colorful characters and a solid indie-rock soundtrack, Barrymore overcomes a fairly banal script and forges a fantastic film.
Ellen Page (“Juno”), suffering from an unfortunate bout of typecasting, stars as Bliss Cavendar, a denizen of Generic Small Town, TX. Her quirky, rebellious nature is suppressed by the cultural limitations of her hometown and her overbearing mother (Marcia Gay Harden, “The Mist”), who is obsessed with entering Bliss into beauty pageants. Bliss eventually finds her calling, however, in the extreme underground sport of women’s roller derby, regularly sneaking off to Austin where she tries out for, and eventually joins, a derby team.
Predictability ensues, as the film follows the conventions of every “follow your dreams, defy authority” narrative. Still, the plot’s obvious points are far from being a detriment to the film — in avoiding a complex, sprawling story, "Whip It" is able to focus on substantially fleshing out its characters and giving insight into nearly all of the film's numerous supporting roles.
Check out the full review here.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Informant! Review
Tales of corporate greed and espionage are rarely as fresh and boisterous as Steven Soderbergh’s — director of “Ocean’s Eleven” — new film “The Informant!” Although the exclamation mark seems a bit silly, it is a necessary addendum to the film’s title, obligatorily expressing the film's inherent zaniness. But don’t let the seemingly lighthearted aura fool you — “The Informant!” contains many layers of depth, delving into the psyche of a compulsive liar.
Matt Damon (“The Bourne Ultimatum”) packs on a few pounds to play the aforementioned fibber, Mark Whitacre, who is a high-ranking executive at agricultural powerhouse Archer Daniels Midland. Despite enjoying the spoils of a cushy career, he begins to tattle to the FBI about his company’s association in a massive price-fixing conspiracy. Whitacre even begins to wear a wire for the feds in hopes of implicating his superiors and taking over the company, but his squealing only snowballs into a never-ending landslide of lies as he perpetually deceives his company, the FBI and even himself.
Check out the full review here.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Whiteout Review
Sometimes, at the Daily I have to review really crappy films. This was one of them.
"Whiteout"
A murder mystery in Antarctica is an intriguing concept, especially considering the sheer originality of its sequestered setting. The lack of a permanent human population and gravely cold temperatures have made the chilly continent mostly extrinsic in cinema circles, save for “March of the Penguins,” but its isolation and hazardous environment are ideal for inciting thrills and placing characters in peril. Yet, “Whiteout” fails to capitalize on its unusual locale, instead becoming a film that relies upon enough genre conventions to leave one scouring for synonyms of the word “cliché.”
Based on the comic book of the same name, “Whiteout” follows U.S. Marshall Carrie Stetko (Kate Beckinsale, “Underworld”), stationed on an Antarctic base, as she investigates the grisly death of a geologist. She is under a severe time constraint— the base is going to be evacuated in three days, before the devastating Antarctic winter sets in. Stetko must confront an important moral dilemma: should she get the hell out of Antarctica and leave the crime to other authorities, or follow her case to the end and be stranded on the base for the next six months. Naturally, our virtuous lead (read: generic) chooses the latter option.
Other characters in “Whiteout” fill a checklist of unabashed stereotypes: the nurturing doctor nearing retirement (Tom Skerritt, TV’s “Brothers & Sisters”), the straight arrow UN officer (Gabriel Macht, “The Spirit”) and the cocky pilot with an unquenchable libido (Alex O’Loughlin, TV’s “Moonlight”). As expected, any sort of development for each lethargically performed character is nonexistent.
This lack of character depth doesn’t hurt the film, as Stetko’s own “dark past” is yet another hackneyed, superfluous element of the story. This backstory, supposedly showing the audience her vulnerability and toughness, unfolds through a series of sepia-toned flashbacks — so you know it was a long time ago. Her character “revelation” is not only predictable, it severely disrupts the flow of the film, often causing it to feel more like a Lifetime Original Movie than a high-tension thriller.
This is unfortunate, as “Whiteout” sets a perfect pace with a marvelous plane crash in its opening sequence. But the filmmakers included too much dialogue, too many extraneous subplots and too little action to maintain the level of excitement.
Among the film’s few bright spots is its clever mixing of genres – Stetko’s encounters with the pickaxe-wielding villain resemble a scene from a slasher movie, with a frenetic camera following the silent, menacing killer as he chases his prey through gale-force blizzards. If the entire film had followed the approach of these well-crafted but sparse confrontations, the result may have been a competent horror movie.
“Whiteout” features several breathtaking shots of the Antarctic landscape (Hopefully they weren’t constructed through CGI, but they probably were). Of course, since there’s little else the filmmakers have to be proud of in the film, these shots are frustratingly overused, contributing to the brutally slow pace of this a poor excuse for an action thriller.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Inglourious Basterds Review
In the near two decades we’ve had Quentin Tarantino as a director, he has become one of the few modern filmmakers with a distinct technique that is carried from film to film, regardless of star-power, budget, or genre. With “Inglourious Basterds” Tarantino brings his approach to the tired, lifeless genre of the World War II epic. Perhaps unsurprisingly, “Basterds,” is a dark, violent saga that’s every bit coarse and distasteful as its incorrectly spelled title.
In trademark Tarantino style, “Basterds” is divided into multiple, eventually converging narratives featuring a bounty of vivid characters. The more-publicized story follows Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and his crew of scrappy Jewish-American soldiers known as the ‘Basterds’ as they scalp and bludgeon Nazis behind enemy lines. Yet, their tale is paralleled by a story of comparable importance, featuring a French woman named Shosanna (French actress Melanie Laurent) who has a burning desire to take revenge against the Nazis. Coincidentally, Shoshana and the Basterds each devise plans to wipe out the German high command at a movie premiere, which ends with bad Italian accents, explosives galore and a hailstorm of bullets.
Brad Pitt’s presence will certainly help to fill the seats, but the real star of the film is Austrian actor Christoph Waltz, who plays Colonel Hans Landa, the milk-chugging, strudel-munching “Jew Hunter.” Unlike the near-caricature of Amon Goeth in “Schindler’s List,” where the Nazi officer was portrayed as a pure psychopath, Landa is a metaphysical polyglot who is paradoxically both barbaric and sagacious. Expect awards-season hardware for Waltz, who coolly alternates between heartless killer and affable Nazi officer.
Alongside the superb characterization of Landa, Tarantino fortunately evolves “Basterds” beyond the copious, clunky World War II action clones. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to call this an action movie at all. The violence, save for the climactic scene, is dispersed in short, brutal bursts throughout the film. In “Basterds,” the customary, elaborate combat set pieces are replaced by slick conversations at dining tables and rollicking, drunken card games in Parisian basements.
Unfortunately, Tarantino doesn’t know when to end these dialogues, which continue endlessly and bring the pace to a dead halt by the middle third of the film. There ‘s a reasonable limit to the amount of discussion about German cinema under the Third Reich one can sit through and this movie undeniably reaches it.
“Basterds” is also hampered by a few questionable casting decisions. There’s the irritating portrayal of Adolf Hitler as a frothing lunatic that would fit better in a Tex Avery cartoon. Most notably, the inclusion of Mike Myers (“Austin Powers”) as a British officer is befuddling. Myers only appears in a short scene, plastered with hideous makeup, but his presence is so jarring that all of his dialogue is drowned out by your mind wondering, “Why the hell is Mike Myers in this role?” Although Hitler and Myers have brief parts, their collective buffoonery is agitating enough to leave long-lasting negative impression.
Quentin Tarantino has yet to make a below-average film, and his record remains intact with “Inglourious Basterds.” Even with his annoying Tennessee accent, Brad Pitt and the rest of the ensemble provide enough laughs and thrills to make this a very memorable movie. In classic Tarantino fashion, expect to be simultaneously laughing and squirming by the shockingly over-the-top bloodshed. Just try to stay awake for the rest of the movie.
3.5 out of 5 stars
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Wolverine Review
It was a great idea to give Wolverine his own "origin" movie. As the shining star of the X-Men trilogy, it would have been ideal to see the man tear it up without the hindrance of Rogue's relationship troubles and the philosophical musings of Charles Xavier. As expected, the result is a satisfying escapade with thunderous action and a merry band of characters, but struggles to overshadow narrative annoyances.
Beginning in 1845 with the first appearance of young James Howlett's bone claws, the film then fast-forwards through James' participation in major wars alongside his brother, Victor (Liev Schreiber, Defiance). This sequence, shown during the opening credits, is energetic and entertaining; enough so that their wartime adventures could satiate an entire film. James and Victor, for some annoyingly inexplicable reasons, stopped aging in their mid-30's and look the same in the present as they did during the Civil War.
Herein lies the paramount flaw of the movie. The title implies an explanation of Wolverine's mutant abilities, but his lack of aging, healing powers, and claws are just thrown at the audience without a lick of clarification. Instead, the film narrates how James ended up as we found him in the X-Men trilogy, with his metal claws and amnesia. It all has to with a confusing series of bloody events and bad decisions, after which James is given an adamantium skeleton by the U.S. military, which proceeds to hunt him down.
The hunter turns out to be Victor, who has the same retractable claws and self-healing powers as James. But the two share a classic sibling contrast: James is calm and detached while Victor is bloodthirsty and insane. Their strained, violent relationship is compelling, but it is sadly abandoned once James gets his metal implants.
It's always a bad idea to think too much during comic-book movies, but the critics need to say something. Wolverine scores with its countless spectacular action set-pieces, from the Alaskan throwdown between the brothers to the breathtaking finale on Three Mile Island, where every mutant gets a chance to showcase their abilities. But there is a new level of expectations after The Dark Knight, which has raised the bar for superhero movies - perhaps unfairly, since every movie can't have its psychological complexities and legendary villains.
Comic book nerds, such as myself, will drool at the sight of various characters from X-Men lore, from The Blob to Emma Frost to John Wraith (as well as a few others that won't be spoiled). Even with the onslaught of cameos, the film manages a tricky balance - pleasing the geeks without confusing the rest of the audience.
Often times,it feels like Wolverine is serving as an "origin" for other properties that will spin off, much like Wolverine did, into their own feature films. There's Gambit, one of the most popular X-Men from the comics, who is bluntly thrust into the story with little cohesion. It's great to see his staff and card tricks in action, but it's obvious that the Cajun charmer was added for the hell of it. The other offender is Deadpool, whose smarmy wisecracks are a perfect fit for the naturally droll Ryan Reynolds. His astonishing sword skills steal the spotlight from Wolverine, and his lack of major screen time is a clear sign that the filmmakers have bigger plans for the character.
Admittedly, I would be first in line to see Gambit and Deadpool movies (already announced!), but next time, let's stick to just Wolverine, so his befuddling questions can finally be answered. Memorable action aside, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is hampered by its narrative banality and lingering inquires, but it's still fun fluff.
*** out of *****
Sunday, March 29, 2009
American Beauty Review
American Beauty is one of those films someone tells you over and over again to see, but you never listen because you're too busy or just don't care. Then, one day, you come across it, watch it, and realize how shockingly good it is. You want to call up the person who told you to watch it, but you can't remember who it was and feel awful for ignoring them in the first place.
So yeah, American Beauty is wonderful. I know I have a tendency to over-adulate, but American Beauty is the real deal. It won five Oscars back in 2000, including Best Picture, and Best Actor (Kevin Spacey). The film launched the career of director Sam Mendes, who won an Oscar for his work and has since brought us Road to Perdition and Jarhead.
American Beauty follows Lester Burnham (Spacey), your typical office drone running into a mid-life crisis. Lester begins to change his entire lifestyle; smoking pot, buying a vintage car, and working out to impress his high-school age daughter's gorgeous best friend Angela (Mena Suvari, American Pie), who he has fallen in love with. This of course, causes him to grow distant from his unfaithful, WASPy wife (Annette Bening, Running With Scissors) and his daughter Jane. Jane has her own important subplot, being semi-stalked by her new next-door neighbor Ricky, who has severe emotional issues caused by his hard-ass Marine father (Chris Cooper).
From the plot summary, you can tell that the characterizations are not particularly new, but they all work due to the strength of the performances. Among his classic roles in Se7en and The Usual Suspects, Kevin Spacey does his best work as Lester. His infatuation with Angela could have been a creepy, Humbert Humbert-Lolita type relationship, but seeing Lester's light up when he sees her for the first time brings everyone back to their first childhood crush. Audiences can't help but feel inspired by the intense exercise regimen Lester adopts, which is similar to the rings one would jump through to attain true love.
Annette Bening also gives a career performance, bringing life to a role that could have descended in to self-parody. Her breakdown into tears after she fails to sell a house (she's a real estate agent) sums up her character without a spoken word. Chris Cooper is one of those actors that's excellent in his every role, bringing vulnerability and depth to a despicable, bigoted Marine Colonel.
Part of the film's brilliance is its willingness to show all life philosophies in a balanced light. Even though Lester is the clear protagonist, the film frowns upon his new free-wheeling attitude as much as it celebrates it. American Beauty never preaches that everyone should become as lackadaisical as Lester in order to "live life to the fullest." It shows the two extremes : apathy and egotism (Lester) versus rigidity and responsibility (the Colonel),allowing the audience to come to their own conclusions on how to live their life.
Sam Mendes doesn't dumb the film down for his viewers. When we are first introduced to Lester's wife Carolyn, he narrates, "See the way the handle on those pruning shears matches her gardening clogs? That's not an accident." Those two sentences say everything we need to know about Carolyn through subtle, witty dialogue. American Beauty is filled with like-minded moments, which rely on delivery and facial expressions to convey characterizations and emotions.
Our generation is more likely to have seen Not Another Teen Movie, so you'll be familiar with the character of Ricky. Ricky is an off-beat kid who films with hand-held camera, chiefly objects that remind him of death and spirituality. One of his recordings is the famous scene involving a plastic bag floating around in the wind, which causes him to choke up with the immortal line, "Sometimes there's so much beauty in the world I feel like I can't take it..." Sure it sounds idiotic, but it works in the context of the film. Ricky's unpredictable behavior leads him to constantly defy the viewer's expectations. You'll find him to be either infuriating or fascinating.
I won't bother you with the incredible cinematography and all that, but just pay attention to the way Mendes frames shots and his use of the color red (especially in the roses) and you'll find a greater appreciation for the movie.
The film closes with a beautiful cover of The Beatles' "Because" by Eliot Smith. This is kind of out of place, but it was perfect.
Watch American Beauty whenever you get the chance. It's an American classic.
***** out of *****
"For you Brad, I have five minutes!"
Friday, March 27, 2009
Fast and Furious Review
I got the chance to see a preview screening of the fourth film in the Fast & Furious franchise. This one has Vin Diesel and Paul Walker returning to the roles that launched their careers.
The original film, The Fast and the Furious, came out of nowhere in 2001. With no-name stars and a small budget, it managed to earn over $140 million. Vin Diesel moved onto bigger (not better) roles like xXx and decided not to return for the sequel. Paul Walker stayed for 2 Fast 2 Furious, but not Tokyo Drift; which had Lil Bow Wow, Ludacris and some guy with a southern accent.
I have to admit, I never watched either sequel, but I did see the original when it first came to theaters. It was a fun blend of high-octane street racing and L.A. gang violence. I loved the characters, becoming invested in that genius hacker guy who could have gone to Harvard and Paul Walker's cop, who has to make a lot of questionable decisions. The open-ended finale was brilliant.
Fast and Furious (that's right no more numbers, subtitles, or "the's") is nothing more than a sub-par retread of the original. The action sequences and street races are fun, but the everything in between is torturous. Vin Diesel was himself, but everyone else is terrible. It doesn't help that the writers feed them laughably horrendous exposition. You know there's something wrong with the script when people are laughing during a funeral sequence.
Vin Diesel was not a good actor when The Fast and the Furious came out. Eight years and seven films later, he's still not a good actor. By now, you'd think that directors would know how to work with him. Give Vin Diesel a few growly one-liners and fight scenes and he'll deliver. The writers of this film choose not to heed this device, unnecessarily bogging him down with emotional, heart-aching scenes.
The same goes for Paul Walker, who quickly realized his career was going nowhere (did anyone see The Lazarus Project.? I didn't think so) and came back to this franchise. Walker is one of the most useless actors working today. He doesn't bring anything to his roles, with deadbeat acting and lackluster charisma. In this film, is presence is phenomenally poor even by action movie standards. A hobo walking onto the set could deliver better lines than Paul Walker (sorry Paul, I'm sure you're a nice guy, but get a new job). I'll go ahead and recommend people to watch this movie for an introductory course in ineptitude. Watch the scene in the diner with Paul Walker confronting Jordanna Brewster's character, his girlfriend in the original film. Even the most casual of movie-goers will be crying with laughter.
Acting aside, Fast and Furious certainly exceeds expectations for its signature car races and shootouts. The trailer showed an extended clip of Vin Diesel and Michelle Rodriguez hijacking a gas tanker in the Dominican Republic, which kicks off the film. It's filled with "Oh My God That's Awesome" moments, complete with popped eyes and dropped jaws. I never thought I would be saying this, but compliments to the cinematographer for beautifully capturing the dry, barren highway strip. After this slam-bang opening sequence, the movie kind of goes downhill, even though the action is always cool.
There's also a parkour-style chase sequence filmed with a shaky camera (that's all the rage these days). The requisite street race feels forced, but is fun nonetheless. I'd really like to know how they filmed the sequence, with the cars moving at high speeds through crowded streets. The finale is grand and exciting, with a chase involving the highest number of participating cars since The Blues Brothers.
The plot itself isn't that bad, with unexpected (well, not anymore) twists. It'll be slightly confusing for those who have seen the original. The relationships established in The Fast and the Furious are crucial. There's also a handful of dialogues that reference actions and conversations from that film, so I'd recommend anybody who hasn't to see it first.
If you walk into Fast and Furious, hopefully you know what you're getting yourself into. Ignore the acting and dialogue, just marvel at how nice it looks to see cars chases and explosions along the US-Mexico border. Overall, I liked it, even though I was ready to walk out at several moments. Fast and Furious is a nice mix of nostalgia (2001 was a long time ago) and diversion, which is exactly what we need for entertainment.
*** out of *****
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Duplicity Review
In a world where most films middlingly muddle within a single genre, “Duplicity” achieves a near-impossible feat: It manages to be a sweet romantic comedy, an intelligent crime-caper and an eye-opening social commentary all at the same time. This inspired genre-balancing, combined with exceptional performances, makes “Duplicity” a tremendously entertaining film.
Check out the full review here.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
D. Because It Is Written
So I finally watched Slumdog Millionaire, and I actually found it better than I expected. Kavi asked me to write a review. I reluctantly agreed, but it will pail in comparison to those of Master Pandey. Oh well, let us begin.
My favorite movie for quite awhile now has been Pulp Fiction, but Slumdog Millionaire is much better in some regards. What makes Pulp Fiction so good is the dialogue, but the heart of Slumdog is the storyline, and oh what a story it is. It brilliantly mixes humor with sadness and love to fully mobilize one's emotions.
The story centers around three souls of the slums - Jamal (the protagonist), his brother Salim, and his love Latika. The Three Musketeers. The audience sees events of their childhoods, their teenage years, and their current lives as young adults. I loved how flashbacks corresponded with questions asked of Jamal.
The best acting was done by the kid actors who played the young versions of Jamal, Salim, and Latika. They were great and totally stole the show.
Continue Reading if you wish, but beware of spoilers. I would suggest you continue only if you have seen the movie.
Three Favorite Scenes:
(1) When young Jamal receives the autograph of his favorite actor. He literally jumps into a pile of human waste to get it. His exclamation upon receiving said autograph is one of pure, uncorrupted joy. The scene was very fun and exhilerating. I felt like I received the autograph along with him.
(2) A group of kids are playing cricket when suddenly they are chased through the streets by police and "the music is pounding" (to quote Kavi). The song, O Saya, is up for an Oscar along with Jai Ho. It is fair to say that the music in this film is outstanding.
(3) Okay, so I am occasionally a sucker for the more romantic parts of movies. Yet few scenes I have ever seen compare to the emotion I felt when Latika picks up the phone when Jamal chooses to phone a friend. What is the name of the third musketeer?
Latika: I don't know. I have never known.
I think somewhere in an alternate universe I wept tears of joy at those words. It isn't the words that evoke the emotion, but the emotion behind the words. Beautiful.
The film ends with a Bollywood-esque dance routine. While it wasn't the best dancing I have ever seen in a Bollywood or Tamil film (which I have actually watched quite a few of), it was probably the cutest due to the transitions from old Jamal/Latika to young Jamal/Latika. I felt it was a good way to end.
To conclude, do I think it will win the Oscar for Best Picture?
Yes, for it is its destiny.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Death by Semi - Duel (1971) Review
(I watched this as a part of my intro to film class)
This is Steven Spielberg's very first feature length film, way before he won your hearts with E.T. and made Jewish people badasses in Munich . Dennis Weaver (Gunsmoke) stars as an ordinary man traveling along the highway who finds himself in a deadly cat-and-mouse game with the driver of a gas tanker. Did it continue in the Spielbergian tradition of rocking my world?
If you've never heard of Duel before, that's because it was a TV movie in the early 70's. The plot probably sounds familiar as the 2003 Paul Walker/Steve Zahn movie Joyride is pretty much a complete ripoff of this. Nevertheless, it's a historic film for introducing Spielberg's immense talents as a filmmaker. The screenplay is from Richard Matheson, who wrote the novel "I Am Legend", which was adapted into the 2007 Will Smith blockbuster of the same name.
Duel is essentially a really long car chase. Dennis Weaver, in all his 70's porn star glory, seriously pisses off a truck driver by passing him on the highway. He spends the rest of the movie driving away from him at high speeds. Spielberg maintains suspense for a while with his uniquely awesome camera placement, but as expected, this grows tiresome. I was on the edge of my seat until the final 15 minutes, when I started to realize that I really wanted this movie to end. There's a limit to how much 80 mph driving a man can stand until he needs to see an explosion. I feel like my mind is numbed from watching intense vehicle carnage in movies like Death Race, so I can't appreciate the simple one-on-one car action seen in Duel .
The only real dialogue in this movie comes from Weaver's internal ramblings. Like any rational person, he can't understand why this driver is so hell-bent on killing him. For a film like this, character development is unnecessary and there's hardly any. There's an interesting interval in a diner which displays Weaver's paranoia. Otherwise, it's just shot after shot of two cars engaging in a modern day Wild West gunfight, complete with tumbleweeds rolling along the ground.
Unless you are a devoted fan of Spielberg, don't bother with this. It has some pretty neat direction but it's nothing more than an above-average made for TV movie.
** out of ****
Enjoy your egg whites.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Growly McRacist - Gran Torino Review
Clint Eastwood's new feature, Gran Torino is beloved by critics and audiences alike. It has made almost $80 million in the past few weeks and most Oscar Watchers (including me!) think that it's going to win a Best Picture nomination.
Gran Torino follows Walt Kowalski, a Korean War vet and retired Ford factory worker living out his retirement in the beautiful ghettos of Detroit. The movie opens at the funeral of Walt's wife. Estranged from his two sons, all he has left now is his dog and his mint condition 1972 Gran Torino. Like every stereotypical old man, Walt refuses to accept the lifestyles of new generations. He hates the fact that his neighborhood is being taken over by minorities, most of them coming from the Southeast-Asian Hmong culture. He also hates "kids these days" who wear inappropriate clothing and behave disrespectfully. Of course, an incident forces Walt to befriend his neighbors, eventually becoming a role model for a teenage boy. Yeah, I'm purposefully being vague. I hate saying more than I have to. Believe me, interesting things do happen, especially with the local gang culture.
How was it? Click the link to find out...
I needed to divide this review into two parts. First, I'll run through the good parts of Gran Torino and why people should check it out. Then, I'll explain why I will always hate this movie.
There's nothing about Gran Torino that's particularly original. It has a straightforward plot with familiar characterizations. But there's something about the charisma of Clint Eastwood which makes the entire film engaging. He's an out of control racist, which make his interactions with the Hmong neighbors uncomfortably hilarious. Even at the ripe age of 78, Clint Eastwood's still a total hard-ass. When he threatens people, there's no doubt in your mind that he is willing to shoot someone in the face. The best parts in the movie involve the growth of the friendship between Walt and his neighbor Thao. Walt essentially becomes a father figure to him, guiding him to maturity and teaching him how to score with women. You have to give respect to Eastwood for casting actual Hmong people in the lead roles. He could have easily picked Asian actors of other ethnicity, and few people would have complained. It's nice to see genuine authenticity in film for a change. Lastly, having Detroit as the setting is perfect. The ridiculously bad economic conditions of the city reflects the helplessness and struggles of the characters.
If I had seen Gran Torino on my computer, or on DVD at home, I would have loved it. But I didn't. I saw it at a theater in Ann Arbor. The town's pretty diverse, but the room was filled with white people. After all, Eastwood has some pretty vocal opponents in the African American community (Clint Eastwood: Spike Lee Should "Shut His Face").
Well, Walt says a lot of racist things in Gran Torino . His racial slurs towards African-Americans and especially Asian-Americans are nonstop, and often pretty inventive. A few include: "spooks", "zipperhead", "gook", "dragon lady", "egg roll", "Click Clack, Ding Dong, and Charlie Chan", "swamp rats", "chink", "fishheads", and "slopes". I'm getting disgusted just typing these up. What Nick Schenk, screenwriter of Gran Torino ? Couldn't use the n-word? Oh no, that would be crossing the line. Yeah, go with calling them "spooks". No one will raise a fuss over that.
I respect Clint Eastwood enough to know that he didn't throw in all these slurs for entertainment. But people in the audience would roar with laughter whenever he used them. Not quiet chuckles, I'm talking hearty belly laughs. At first, I was laughing too, but it was more of the "is this really happening?" variety. After a while, I felt sick. People were taking Walt's creative slurs as humor. As laughter burst out after a Hmong kid was called a "gook" for the umpteenth time, I honestly felt like everyone was also laughing at me.
Again, I feel terrible about hating the movie. I understand the real reasons behind Walt's remarks, and why Eastwood chose to include them. As Krym said, "He's only hiding behind his racism". Which is totally true, and makes Walt into an even stronger character. I would have appreciated all these subtleties more if I was with a different audience. Sorry if you were expecting a more legit review of this movie, but I had to address these issues that are very important to me. Seeing my fellow Asians get torn apart by Eastwood, and on top of that, having the audience laugh at these dialogues really bothered me.
One more thing: The kid's name is Thao, but Eastwood always calls him "Toad". I mean, how hard is it to say "Thao"? It's one syllable for God's sake.
So if you're Caucasian and reading this, you'll like the movie. Not because I think you're a racist, but because I don't feel like the slurs will affect you. It truly is a well made movie. Everyone else, if you see it, I'd like to hear your opinions.
That is all. I'm not giving it a score because
1) I haven't figured my scoring system yet and
2) I don't know what to think about this movie
Ok last thing: I love how the screenwriter (yes, you Nick Schenk) chose the minority group in focus to be of Asian descent, when it could have just as easily been blacks or hispanics. I have a feeling that this movie would find a LOT more controversy if Clint Eastwood threw around slurs towards those ethnic groups. Way to target Asians, you dick.
