Roach's Reviews

Movie, Book, Music, and other reviews by the Roach.

3.09.2006

CRASH :: Academy Award Winner, Best Motion Picture

Personally, Crash is one of the best movies that I have ever seen. I saw it long before the hype of the Oscars was on it - to be perfectly honest, I saw it in the theatre (I think it should be rereleased). Unfortuanately, Crash is one of the few movies that falls into a you either love it or hate it category.

What made me love Crash is simply the screenplay. I love writing like this that Paul Haggis brings to the film. I learned to love the "full circle" type of writing by watching shows such as House, Bones, and exposure to the miniseries Taken.

The film tells the story of racial tensions in LA.

You will be deeply touched by Crash.

Trailer

CRASH :: Academy Award Winner, Best Motion Picture

Review by Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times

"Crash" tells interlocking stories of whites, blacks, Latinos, Koreans, Iranians, cops and criminals, the rich and the poor, the powerful and powerless, all defined in one way or another by racism. All are victims of it, and all are guilty it. Sometimes, yes, they rise above it, although it is never that simple. Their negative impulses may be instinctive, their positive impulses may be dangerous, and who knows what the other person is thinking?

The result is a movie of intense fascination; we understand quickly enough who the characters are and what their lives are like, but we have no idea how they will behave, because so much depends on accident. Most movies enact rituals; we know the form and watch for variations. "Crash" is a movie with free will, and anything can happen. Because we care about the characters, the movie is uncanny in its ability to rope us in and get us involved.

"Crash" was directed by Paul Haggis, whose screenplay for "Million Dollar Baby" led to Academy Awards. It connects stories based on coincidence, serendipity, and luck, as the lives of the characters crash against one another other like pinballs. The movie presumes that most people feel prejudice and resentment against members of other groups, and observes the consequences of those feelings.

One thing that happens, again and again, is that peoples' assumptions prevent them from seeing the actual person standing before them. An Iranian (Shaun Toub) is thought to be an Arab, although Iranians are Persian. Both the Iranian and the white wife of the district attorney (Sandra Bullock) believe a Mexican-American locksmith (Michael Pena) is a gang member and a crook, but he is a family man.

A black cop (Don Cheadle) is having an affair with his Latina partner (Jennifer Esposito), but never gets it straight which country she's from. A cop (Matt Dillon) thinks a light-skinned black woman (Thandie Newton) is white. When a white producer tells a black TV director (Terrence Dashon Howard) that a black character "doesn't sound black enough," it never occurs to him that the director doesn't "sound black," either. For that matter, neither do two young black men (Larenz Tate and Ludacris), who dress and act like college students, but have a surprise for us.

You see how it goes. Along the way, these people say exactly what they are thinking, without the filters of political correctness. The district attorney's wife is so frightened by a street encounter that she has the locks changed, then assumes the locksmith will be back with his "homies" to attack them. The white cop can't get medical care for his dying father, and accuses a black woman at his HMO with taking advantage of preferential racial treatment. The Iranian can't understand what the locksmith is trying to tell him, freaks out, and buys a gun to protect himself. The gun dealer and the Iranian get into a shouting match.

I make this sound almost like episodic TV, but Haggis writes with such directness and such a good ear for everyday speech that the characters seem real and plausible after only a few words. His cast is uniformly strong; the actors sidestep cliches and make their characters particular.

For me, the strongest performance is by Matt Dillon, as the racist cop in anguish over his father. He makes an unnecessary traffic stop when he thinks he sees the black TV director and his light-skinned wife doing something they really shouldn't be doing at the same time they're driving. True enough, but he wouldn't have stopped a black couple or a white couple. He humiliates the woman with an invasive body search, while her husband is forced to stand by powerless, because the cops have the guns -- Dillon, and also an unseasoned rookie (Ryan Phillippe), who hates what he's seeing but has to back up his partner.

That traffic stop shows Dillon's cop as vile and hateful. But later we see him trying to care for his sick father, and we understand why he explodes at the HMO worker (whose race is only an excuse for his anger). He victimizes others by exercising his power, and is impotent when it comes to helping his father. Then the plot turns ironically on itself, and both of the cops find themselves, in very different ways, saving the lives of the very same TV director and his wife. Is this just manipulative storytelling? It didn't feel that way to me, because it serves a deeper purpose than mere irony: Haggis is telling parables, in which the characters learn the lessons they have earned by their behavior.

Other cross-cutting Los Angeles stories come to mind, especially Lawrence Kasdan's more optimistic "Grand Canyon" and Robert Altman's more humanistic "Short Cuts." But "Crash" finds a way of its own. It shows the way we all leap to conclusions based on race -- yes, all of us, of all races, and however fair-minded we may try to be -- and we pay a price for that. If there is hope in the story, it comes because as the characters crash into one another, they learn things, mostly about themselves. Almost all of them are still alive at the end, and are better people because of what has happened to them. Not happier, not calmer, not even wiser, but better. Then there are those few who kill or get killed; racism has tragedy built in.

Not many films have the possibility of making their audiences better people. I don't expect "Crash" to work any miracles, but I believe anyone seeing it is likely to be moved to have a little more sympathy for people not like themselves. The movie contains hurt, coldness and cruelty, but is it without hope? Not at all. Stand back and consider. All of these people, superficially so different, share the city and learn that they share similar fears and hopes. Until several hundred years ago, most people everywhere on earth never saw anybody who didn't look like them. They were not racist because, as far as they knew, there was only one race. You may have to look hard to see it, but "Crash" is a film about progress.

1.25.2006

MOVIE REVIEW: A Huge KONG to the head!

For a movie director with a huge $200 million dollar budget to work with and a wealth of computer technology by your side, it would be likely for them to over do it. This week, Academy Award winning director Peter Jackson’s adaptation of the world famous King Kong film was released. And it is not hard to say that Mr. Jackson over did this one. The world is very familiar with the work of Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings fame) and the classic 1933 film King Kong. Surely putting them together would be a rousing success, but I am going to have to disagree.

In this new adaptation, vastly different from the original, we follow the movie studio of Carl Denham (Jack Black) to the unknown world of Skull Island. The filming of the movie becomes the fight for survival as the crew battles dinosaurs, man eating spiders, and above all, a twenty five foot tall ape, Kong. When the ape captures the aspiring actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) it becomes a long rescue mission. Being the only woman on the voyage, all of the men desperately want her saved, especially playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody).

Jackson, however, may have lost the essence that the old 1933 version brought to the audiences. The graphics in Kong are nothing short of amazing, but there is an element of the film that makes it seem unrealistic. Kong, brought to life by Andy Serkis, is a very real looking and personable monkey that touches your heart and tickles it as well. These graphics look great and are spectacular. Never have I seen a CGI Character evoke so much emotion. But scenes like the dinosaur stampede are not necessary and add to the great length of the film, about 3 hours long.

Naomi Watts does a great job relating to the monkey and her love for the ‘Eighth Wonder of the World’ progresses throughout the episode. Her talent combined with the CGI monster makes for a great on screen romance. The Pianist’s Adrien Brody portrays the artsy playwright Jack Driscoll. His character does not have a lot of depth, but somehow Brody makes the character likeable and seems to portray Driscoll in the right way. Jack Black’s Denham character is the pudgy 1930s filmmaker who always has his camera. Perhaps Jack Black was not the best choice for this movie, as he never shows any sort of emotion and is very monotonous.

Andy Serkis, mentioned above, was cast to make the emotion and acting of Kong possible. While in production for Kong, Serkis had 132 digital sensors attached to his face to pick up nearly every movement, in an effort to make the 25 foot tall ape even more personable. The art directors then used these movements to make the ape using CGI. Production Designer Grant Major and Set Artist Dan Hennah do an excellent job in developing the infamous Skull Island and makeup artist Corinne Bossu recreates the ancient tribe through impressive makeup and accessories.

Many wonder if the remake of the 1933 version was necessary, using the old statement “If it ain’t broke, don’t remake it” in their defense. I don’t see the film so much as a remake of the original but rather a new adaptation of it. Jackson did add tributes to the original film like using a similar score, adding the apple scene and the practice scream scene. Prior to her death in 2004, Fay Wray, the actress of Ann Darrow in 1933, was scheduled to appear in the film to say the famous last line: “Oh no, it wasn't the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast.”


OVERALL RATING: 2.5/4

12.17.2005

MOVIE REVIEW: Kyon Ki

When this movie first came out, people flocked to the theaters in droves to see it, and then began to hear reviews. Kyon Ki, directed by Priyadarshan, starts Salman Khan and Kareena Kapoor on-screen together for the first time, which is probably the only reason to enjoy it. For those of you who have seen Tere Naam, you might know what to expect….

In the movie, Salman Khan plays Anand, a mentally unstable patient in a hospital with others who have disabilities. The movie progresses until we learn of Anand’s history, done through a full-story flashback (typical Bollywood style) that takes place while Dr. Tanvi (Kareena Kapoor) is reading Anand’s diary. With this done, Jackie Shroff’s character Dr. Sunil, along with his fellow doctor Tanvi, try and fix Anand’s problem. The movie involves several mini-plots, and eventually reaches a shaky climax, but just when you think it’s all over, BAM: enter Suniel Shetty

Maybe somewhat typical of Bollywood, this sudden turn caught me by surprise, and about another 30 minutes in, I began to wonder if Priyadarshan was just drawing this movie out. The end, though, will leave you stunned, and the final scene demonstrates an irony so deep, that it is completely unique to this movie.

All in all, the movie is worth seeing. Kyon Ki is a very family-friendly movie; no skin is shown, very decently acted songs, etc. Furthermore, Salman Khan’s acting is brilliant; it seems as if he’s good at playing mentally-ill people on-screen (off-screen, I wonder…). Kareena Kapoor, on the other hand, seems to have been thrust into a role she wasn’t prepared for, or wasn’t paid enough for. Although her acting is fine, I just don’t think she was the right person for the job. My favorite performance in this movie has to be by Jackie Shroff, who, after falling out of Bollywood for a while, still shows that he can lay it down.

One of the taglines of the movie is “Kyon ki it’s Salman and Kareena for the first time.” If not for the madly twisted plot of the halfway-decent soundtrack, see Kyon Ki because of Salman and Kareena. Although the acting isn’t perfect, these two definitely have some chemistry on the big screen.

Plot/Storyline: 7/10 (A little too twisted)
Acting: 6/10 (Kareena…)
Effects/Scenery: 9/10

OVERALL: 8/10

11.21.2005

MOVIE REVIEW: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire does a lot of what the earlier movies did, and a lot of what the earlier movies didn’t do. The special effects are excellent, ranging from animated fireworks to fire-breathing dragons, rendered in awesome color. The plot is well-represented for being based on a book. The one key problem with this movie, though, is the lack of representation of much of the book in general. By my guess, a good third of the book is left out, and even then the movie is a hefty 2 hours and 30 minutes.

As before, the movie stars Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, a boy of 14 attending Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Those of you who have read the books will remember that this one starts a little differently, though. For one, the threat and ever-ominous presence of Lord Voldemort has grown over the last summer away from Hogwarts, as is shown in the first ten minutes of the movie, where Harry, along with friends Ron and Hermione, attend the Quidditch World Cup, only to see a demonstration of “Death Eaters,” or those still loyal to Voldemort. The movie quickly rushes through the first few chapters of the book, and the brilliantly done quidditch scenes that we came to love from the previous movies are nonexistent, as the entire match of the World Cup is skipped over.

Showing how the creators of the film really were rushed, about 20 minutes into the movie, Harry is back at Hogwarts and the schools of Durmstrang and Beauxbatons have already arrived. The portrayal of the two schools makes this movie seem as if it was made for children; when each school enters the Great Hall, they perform a “cheer” of sorts. Durmstrang, all of its members wearing furs and appearing as brutish, march into the hall with magic staffs, doing backflips and the like, and the students from Beauxbatons enter clad all in blue, with magical butterflies hovering about…in my opinion a little overdone.

There is obviously more sexual innuendo in this movie, as is clearly seen when Ron remarks to Harry that he “loves seeing them walk,” referring to the students from Beauxbatons (all girls). Furthermore, the Yule Ball held at Hogwarts displays the trysts of young boys seeking dates, through portrayal of Harry’s “affair” with Cho Chang, who barely appears in one scene in the movie. Along the same lines, Sirius Black has a grand one scene, and then is not even seen in person; his head is seen in the fire of the Gryffindor common room.

Overall, the acting was brilliant. All of the adults complemented their younger stars very well, as has been the case with the previous movies. Alan Rickman (Snape) still makes his presence known, even though he appears in about 3 scenes, and Michael Gambon plays a wonderful Dumbledore. All in all, the movie was brilliantly done. Hats off to director Mike Newell for his wonderful work. Go and see the movie, you’ll like it.

MY SCORE:

Plot/Storyline: 8/10 (Not the hottest interpretation of the book…)
Acting: 9/10
Effects: 9/10

OVERALL: 9/10

And So It Begins...

As the title states, it begins. I have thought about starting a blog purely for reviews for a little while now, and it is finally born. I am still working on changing settings, so don't get ticked off if something doesn't work. Soon to come: Harry Potter IV Movie Review.

Stay Tuned.

-The Roach