Showing posts with label dina meyer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dina meyer. Show all posts

11.15.2008

LKMYNTS: The Movie Hero.

It’s been a while since I’ve done a Little Known Movies You Need To See, and I figured this would be as good of an opportunity as any. I first saw this movie months ago, though I had missed the first 30 or so minutes. I just got around to seeing it again, this time the entire thing. And now I feel I can write a full review for it.


Most would see Blake Gardner (Jeremy Sisto) as insane; after all, he goes around talking to his ‘audience’ as if he’s the star of his very own movie, and titles other people with generic character names as he meets them. For instance, upon seeing a man in a trench coat with a guitar standing at a street corner, he dubs him The Suspicious Character (Peter Stormare) and basically stalks him to find out what’s going on with him. He ‘hires’ a Sidekick (Brian J. White), and labels his newly given therapist as his Love Interest (Dina Meyer), telling her that she must eventually get over her Doomed FiancĂ© (Carlos Jacott) in order to be with him. But the more that he insists that he has an audience watching his every move, the more he talks to this apparent audience, the more he follows The Suspicious Character and deems him a villain, the more he looks insane.


I have to say, this movie is brilliant. It does get cheesy at times, and some of the acting (especially toward the end) is questionable, but the story and the overall product given is great and fun. To start with the camera work, because that’s the big thing with this film, I have to say that even though the main character looks directly into the camera for the majority of the movie, it works. Every angle of the camera has its purpose. Blake goes into details of why his audience is in a certain place at a certain time (different emotional effects, to avoid boredom, etc.), which, in effect, tells anybody interested in film-making how to use a camera and even setting for different effects.


But the movie would have fallen apart if it weren’t for Jeremy Sisto. This whole movie rides on his charisma and believability as the Movie Hero, Blake. His pure, unwavering devotion to the fact that he has an audience that nobody else can see, along with his brilliant love of cinema and everything it does, makes him a great character, even though the character’s biggest flaw (in the film) is that he has nothing going for him and he’s not the best leading man whatsoever. But Sisto rolls with it all, making what could have been horribly cheesy into great comedy and real fun.


But he’s not the only actor that pulls through. Brian White as Antoine the Sidekick has some great charisma, as well, and he and Sisto pull off some really good chemistry. Dina Meyer (almost indistinguishable from any other recent role) also has some pretty good chemistry with Sisto, knowing when to pull back in emotion and when to go all out. Peter Stormare is a bit over-the-top, and his character adds more of a fantasy aspect to the film, but it works for what it is.


But what I love about the film the most is what I mentioned a couple paragraphs ago, which is its self-consciousness toward film. If a character or scene is being clichĂ©, Blake won’t hesitate to point it out and try to remedy the situation so that his audience won’t be bored or annoyed. If a certain character is having a specified ‘moment’ that occurs in every movie for that type of character, he will make a brief statement to his audience (the camera) before letting it continue. And then, like I said, all the work with the camera as the audience taking different angles, etc., was a brilliant part of the story.


The one part that bugged me a little bit was the inclusion, toward the end, of an actual theater setting for potential audiences. It was slightly cheesy and took me out of the moment. But otherwise, the movie was great. There’s even a great message to go along with it (make the best of your life and do good). I really recommend this film, especially to people who are interested in film-making and/or how films are made in general, because there are huge nods to true fans of cinema.


Photobucket
A Keanu 'Whoa'

10.21.2008

Five Days Of Saw: Saw II.

Warning: This review contains some spoilers, mostly only if you haven't seen the first one yet.

----------------


What happens when you take a good premise and add a new director/writer to its sequel? In my opinion, you get one of the weakest installments in the series. Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) is still on the loose, though not due to a lack of trying from Detective Kerry (Dina Meyer), Detective Rigg (Lyriq Bent), or Detective Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg). This time, however, Jigsaw’s newest victim brings Detective Matthews to the forefront, teasing clues in front of his face until he decides to come and find him. And when he finally does, Jigsaw reveals not everything is as easy as just taking him in. In fact, in another room are some security monitors that show a select group of people locked inside a dilapidated old house including previous victim/survivor Amanda (Shawnee Smith) and Detective Matthews’ son, Daniel (Erik Knudsen). The people in the house have three hours until the front doors open; unfortunately, they only have two hours to live with a deadly neuro-toxin coursing through their bodies, though the antidotes are spread throughout the house (within various traps). But if Detective Eric Matthews wants to see his son again, all Jigsaw wants him to do is sit and have a little chat. It’s too bad the detective has a bit of an anger issue and finds that a bit harder than anticipated.


As I said, I feel that Saw II is one of the weakest installments in the series thus far. And when most people think of the Saw films, their minds always seem to think more along the lines of this movie than the first. The reason for that is because this movie deals more with the traps and gore than it does with plot and character. Each character in the house, with the exception of Amanda and to an extent Daniel, is a very flat character with no real given story. Detective Matthews is at least somewhat complex, or else he would be had he not continually resorted to violence over and over again and had no real character growth (though, technically, that’s the entire point, so I can’t really fuss on that). I think the only reason the movie is still enjoyable is because Leigh Whannell stuck around as a co-writer and executive producer/advisor (I believe former director James Wan stuck around as an executive producer, as well).


And even though this movie is far more disturbing/bloody than the previous, its traps are still only few and far between. All the traps shown are really just the opening Venus flytrap, the gun, the furnace, the needle pit, and the hand trap (and in essence, the house itself and its inhabitance could also be considered traps). The only one to show any blood are the first two and the last one (and the coughing caused by the toxin, but that’s nothing), and even those are relatively mild due to zippy editing. Though there is a bit of weaponry used, too, but still…


And speaking of editing, this movie still does it very well, even with a new director. In fact, this new director makes use of even more interesting camera transitions and whatnot, where an actor can start on one set and end up on another without the camera cutting. I know he tries to do it at least a couple times in each movie, and I think that’s really cool. However, on the brief subject of music, I think the Saw theme wasn’t used to its advantage here and was used in the wrong spot of the film.


And then there are the twists. There are three of them in this movie, and I remember figuring out two of the three in theater. The one that I thought was the cleverest (because it’s the one I didn’t figure out) was the one involving Daniel, but I won’t go into specifics, just in case.


I know I’m speaking quite negatively about this one, but I don’t hate it. The acting is good, especially with Tobin Bell. He acts circles around everybody else in the entire series, and I think the whole thing would fail epically without him. I just think that the movie should have focused more on character and plot, like they did in the first film, instead of focusing on the traps and gore. Fortunately, there was a Saw III to fix this up… but until then, I was stuck with Saw II.


Photobucket
I Am McLovin!

Other reviews:
Here is a review by a fellow blogger who shares my sentiments (and more) on this film. Be cautioned, though... his review is a lot more spoilerific than mine, as it's along the lines of a comedic summary: Invasion of the B Movies: Saw II.

The following segments involve spoilers:


Questions Raised Thus Far:

- What's with all the pig stuff (Saw and Saw II)?

- Who the heck was the guy in the drill-to-the-neck trap and what did he do (Saw)?

- What the heck ever happened to Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter (Saw)?

- What the heck ever happened to Dr. Gordon (Saw)?

- As such, now that we know he turns survivors into apprentices, will he do the same with Dr. Gordon (after all, the -surgeon- in the video at the beginning was -limping-) (Saw II)?

- What the heck happens to Detective Matthews now (Saw II)?

- What the heck happened to Danny Matthews (Saw II)?

- How is Obi connected to Jigsaw, as he helped him gather all the people into the house (Saw II)?



Questions Answered Thus Far:
- Does Jigsaw just let Amanda go live her life now that she survived?
(He turns her into his apprentice)
- Does Adam just die of starvation, dehydration, and/or blood loss?
(We know he dies, but are unsure how).