Day of the woman indeed…

The H-Bomb: Young, attractive city girl author Jennifer Hills (Sarah Butler) heads out to a remote cabin with her laptop and a ton of booze to work on her book. Unfortunately for her, the quaint countryside is not as serene as it seems, as her arrival has attracted the attention of some local horny hooligans. They sit around and contemplate having their way with her, then one night they decide to do exactly that, bringing along their “pet retard” friend in tow, so he can lose his cherry.

Like a pack of slobbering, hungry animals, they beat, torture, and rape Jennifer over and over (and over) until she is little more than a naked, quivering, bloodied shell of a woman. They even have the audacity (or stupidity) to videotape the whole thing. Then they watch as she jumps off a bridge, plunging into the river below, presumably to her death. They burn all of her things, and eliminate any trace of her ever being at the cabin, but they don’t find her body. More than a month goes by, and the good ole’ boy gang rapists assume it’s all behind them. But then, they find themselves being stalked by someone… stalked in the same way they stalked Jennifer.

The original “I Spit on Your Grave” (aka “Day of the Woman”) was a quintessential trashy, sleazy exploitation flick from the 70’s. As part of a sub-genre dubbed “rape and revenge,” it featured copious amounts of nudity, sex (rape), violence and little else, aside from some half-assed and very skewed theme of female empowerment. It was considerably more explicit than other movies of its ilk, resulting in mucho controversy, angry condemnations from people like Roger Ebert, and ultimately, a cult following. Saying the film is infamous is something of an understatement.

When I first heard that a remake was coming, I figured that Hollywood, the unimaginative fuckheads that they can be, must be truly desperate for material. I mean, this seemed like they were truly scraping the bottom of the scum ridden barrel. Then I wondered if the filmmakers would actually have the big, hairy testes to make it as brutal and hardcore as the original, or if it would pussy out and go all PG-13 on our asses.

Well, as it turns out, these people, from the director to the actors, had the testes, big ones, and they went for it. For better or worse, they went for it, and shied away from nothing. As grueling as the original got, it was super low budget, with some shoddy gore effects, and some amateurish performances that always kind of softened the impact it would’ve had on me. This remake, on the other hand, has a larger budget, with a gritty look, and actors who are totally believable 100 % of the time, causing the violence on screen to have a much stronger effect.

Make no mistake, people, this is totally and completely a “watch at your own risk” affair, and many of you who do watch it will no doubt feel the urge to run straight into the shower as soon as it’s over. “I Spit on Your Grave” is pure, depraved torture porn at its absolute ugliest. The sexual violence contained within this nasty bit of work is so graphic, and so drawn out in places, that for most it will simply be unwatchable. The assault that this woman is forced to endure makes Monica Bellucci’s ten minute long rape scene from “Irreversible” look tame and tasteful by comparison. This sick little bitch pulls absolutely no punches, and I’m sure there are even horror fans out there, ones who dig the gory shit, who won’t be able to stomach this.

Because the content is so potent, many reactions to both the remake and the original have been of absolute disgust and downright anger, causing many to dismiss it as being vile, misogynistic garbage. But I don’t agree, at least not entirely. While I don’t certainly love this remake, and I think it does cross that line from being merely violent entertainment into something worse, I found the way the lead character takes her methodical revenge on her attackers to be oddly fascinating. I know I should feel troubled by what she does, but after seeing what those heinous fucks did to her, I think they deserve nothing less.

It helps that Butler, as Jennifer, is absolutely believable. She is a real discovery. Her character goes from being a normal young woman to being a frightened victim, to being a broken victim, to being her own avenging angel, and she is convincing in all aspects. Also, going through all the things the script put her through in such an uninhibited way really took guts on her part, and my hat’s off.

As far as the cretins go, they’re a bit more stock. We have the ring leader, Johnny (Jeff Branson), his two lackeys (Daniel Franzese and Rodney Eastman), as well as their simpleton tag-along, Matthew (Chad Lindberg). The first three are appropriately boorish and detestable, while Matthew is simply pitiful. There is a fifth member of this rape party who comes along later, but I don’t want to say too much about him.

Director Steven R. Monroe does a nice job of giving the film a grimy look when the story gets to the ugly stuff, and he manages to avoid the lagging pace issues that the original film had, despite working from more or less the exact same plot. I’ll also compliment him for not wimping out on anything, and making us feel the violence. It wasn’t necessarily enjoyable, but he accomplished what he set out to.

One aspect where I think Monroe dropped the ball was in the transition of Jennifer’s character. In the original, we see her recovering from her attack, then struggling internally on how, or if she even should, take revenge. In the remake, we don’t see any of this. The first time we see her after the rape, she’s already transformed into a female terminator looking to jam a shotgun up someone’s ass. Also, it didn’t fix a problem the original had, in that her revenge schemes are carried off perfectly, without a single hiccup. So much for adding suspense.

At the end of the day, I do think this is a better film than the original, but I don’t quite like it, and I can’t quite recommend it. This is a movie that pulls zero punches and leaves very little to the imagination. Is it provocative? Some will say it is, others will say it isn‘t. Is it entertainment? Most will answer that question with a resounding “Fuck no!” I’m sure some of you will now be curious to see it, and you’ll go and do just that, just please don’t send any hate mail my way afterwards.

Gnomeo, Gnomeo, wherefore art thou Gnomeo?

The H-Bomb: Oh my, what would the Bard make of this? You see, this is normally the part of the review where I explain the set up of the plot, but in this case, the title says it all. This is “Romeo & Juliet”, except with garden gnomes as the star crossed lovers. Well, more or less. There are other differences, such as; very little of Shakespeare’s wordplay is featured, there’s a lot more humor in the story, it’s geared to a much younger crowd, it’s animated, the tragic ending has been… tweaked, and… oh yeah, Romeo (oh so cleverly re-named Gnomeo) and Juliet are a couple of freakin’ garden gnomes!

Throughout the whole movie, I couldn’t stop wondering what the thinking behind it was. A children’s film based on (what I guess is) Shakespeare’s most famous play? Was this some kind of attempt to introduce younglings to his work, so maybe they can develop an appreciation for it before grad school? I highly doubteth it. Could it instead be a shameless plundering of source material for an industry bereft of new ideas? Maybe. Some struggling screenwriters with severe insomnia watching the Leonardo DiCaprio “Romeo + Juliet” as the second half of a double bill with “Amelie“? Most likely.

I must admit though, given that I had less than low expectations going in, there is a quirkiness to Gnomeo & Juliet that kept me amused and interested early on. The Montagues and Capulets (or in this case, the Blues and the Reds) holding lawnmower races to prove who was the best and sneaking into each others yards to destroy various prized plants, much the way that typical feuding suburban neighbors do, made the film more clever than the desperately dumb kiddie flick I was anticipating. But, as the pic wore on, the cleverness wore off (around the time the plastic pink flamingo with the Latino accent showed up), my interest began to wane, and eventually I was just waiting for the dang thing to end. (Dang? Freakin’? Since this is a children’s film; I decided to soften my own language so Swift doesn’t do it for me.)

As far as my likes, the animation is nice and vibrant, though the 3-D is a big, fat nothing. James McAvoy and Emily Blunt lend their voices to Gnomeo and Juliet, and they are both decent, though their best work . . . this ain’t. However, there are some gems in the supporting vocal cast. Jason Statham, who I was just talking about in my previous review (The Mechanic), has a fun turn as the villainous Tybalt, as does Ozzy Osbourne (!!!) as his sidekick, a plastic deer. Michael Caine, Maggie Smith, and Patrick Stewart as the voice of Bill Shakespeare’s statue (actually listed in the frackin‘ credits as Bill Shakespeare) can also be heard, but the highlight for me was none other than the vocal cameo of Hulk Hogan, who voices over a commercial for a lawnmower on steroids. Listening to him, I thought to myself, “Is that who I think it is?” When I checked IMDb after the movie, lo and behold, it was!

At the end, “Gnomeo & Juliet”, while hardly a great Shakespeare adaptation, is cute entertainment for kids, and I think most adults will find it bearable, as well. Also, if you happen to be an Elton John fan (and honestly, who isn‘t?), you might want to check it out for that alone, because his songs are featured prominently on the soundtrack. As to what “Bill” Shakespeare would think, I imagine him sighing and saying something to the effect of, “Well, at least it was better than the DiCraprio version.”

Review by Alyn Darnay

Directed by: Alister Grierson

Starring: Rhys Wakefield, Allison Cratchley, Christopher Baker, Alice Parkinson.

Merriam-Webster defines a “Sanctum” as 1) a sacred place, and 2) a place where one is free from intrusion, and that certainly applies to Papua New Guinea’s Esa-ala Caves. It is the unexplored and least accessible cave system in the world, and it serves as the location of this new 3D film from executive producer James Cameron and Australian director Alister Grierson.

If you’re claustrophobic or queasy about small places, this film is not going to sit well with you, but if you’re up for a minor underground/underwater 3D adventure, you’ve found your “el dorado”. The cinematography is so beautifully executed and the 3D envisioned so skillfully, you’ll actually get the feeling of being there with the actors, in the caves, in the water, disoriented and desperate. It makes you forget that there’s only a sliver of a story here and enough melodrama to knit a sweater with.

Inspired by a true story, “Sanctum” relates the tale of a daring underwater cave diving team whose expedition to map the world’s last remaining frontier, inner earth, is jeopardized when a fast moving weather front closes in unexpectedly and their way out is blocked. To save themselves the team is forced deeper into the cave system in an attempt to find another way out before the cave totally floods and they all drown.

The film itself is just above average, without the 3D, I doubt the story would stand up as much. I never felt connected to the characters, the dialog was clichéd and at times insipid, the twists and turns were all predictable, and eventually it didn’t matter who lived or died. The cast of Australian actors, however, did the very best they could with the embarrassingly poor writing presented to them.

“Sanctum” is the kind of film you have to get lost in. If you just lay back, take it in for the beauty of it, and lose yourself in the experience you’ll enjoy it. If you want a great action/adventure film, this ain’t it.

Cheri, bombed

Swift shot:  Rock and Roll reveille!  Sadly devoid of poignant dramatic relevance.  Worthy of a cult-following, Fanning loyalists may find chagrin with her portrayal of Cheri Currie.  This was my least favorite performance out of the young actor to date.

Two fists pumped way the hell up in the air for Michael Shannon (World Trade Center, Boardwalk Empire) who sprayed maleness into every scene as Kim Fowley, like a Tom Cat marking his turf with a scent few will forget.  This flick was more about sticking it to the man, whilst whoring for the man, but it offers a nice behind the beef curtains glance at The Runaways, the in-your-face piss on your guitar all girl rock band that jump started the world of feminine rock and roll with arrogance and grimy glam.

The Runaways are, in no particular order, Joan Jett (Kristen Stewart), Cheri Currie (Dakota Fanning), Lita Ford (Scout-Taylor Thompson), and Sandy West (Stella Maeve) – together they are The Runaways!  But, that is kind of the problem, we only ever find out why one of them is a “runaway” and only one of the characters is completely fleshed out, Cheri.  Even Cheri’s sister has more of a back-story than the Wild One – Joan Jett.  Essentially, we are meant to believe Jett is just a wild creature, roaming the streets, hell bent on breaking down mores and standards with her innuendo driven existence – but this film won’t tell you squat about why she is that way and never attempts to develop the other members of the band.  Maybe, in that regard, the film is goading you to do just that, don’t like it?  Tough shit – look it up!  Granted, the plot is ripped from the pages of Cheri Currie’s bio “Neon Angel: The Cherie Currie Story”, so the heavy Cheri slant is to be expected.

The film follows the creation, duration and demise of the punk rock pussy patrol, The Runaways.  It doesn’t have any cohesive message, other than to tell the story of Cheri Currie and her brief existence as THE Cherry Bomb.  A girl once declared to be bigger in Japan than Godzilla!

What I liked most about this flick was that I didn’t know crap about The Runaways when I started watching it; I knew to strap in and enjoy the ride, and overall it was a fun ride, but I just couldn’t get into the characters – and I blame one of my favorite actresses for that, Dakota Fanning.  I have raised the bar for her from now on, because I have seen how talented she can be – but quite frankly, her Cheri was painful to watch as you could see she was trying so hard . . . too hard, to become Cheri.  It just never happened; the whole time I was painfully aware I was watching a talented actress pretending to be a big girl, and step out of her childish roles, with what she assumed would be a “coming out” role.

And, I was incredibly shocked by how well Kristen Stewart did, given almost no exposition for her character.  I am by far not one of her biggest fans, but she impressed me with her Jett.  If you are into these kinds of rock and roll, how they started, almost a Behind the Music, flicks – this is for you.  If you are looking for an intelligent, interesting, thought-provoking film – you might want to steer clear.  Overall, the message appeared to be, with fame comes sacrifice.  In Cheri’s case, the sacrifice was her integrity, giving up who she was to be “cool”.  Jett didn’t have that problem, and I get the feeling her life story would have been a little more interesting – like, just what the hell made her “The Wild One”?  It’s a decent Netflix instant viewer.

The power of Christ is not that compelling…

The H-Bomb: Young seminary student Michael Kovak (Colin O’Donoghue) is having doubts about joining the Priesthood (and about his belief in God in general). So, he is sent to Rome to take a course in Exorcism, where he, being the pragmatic fellow that he is, makes no attempt at hiding his skepticism. His professor Father Xavier (Ciaran Hinds), assigns him to study under practicing Exorcist Father Lucas Trevant (Anthony Hopkins).

Michael soon finds that Trevant is rather unorthodox in his methods as he observes him perform an Exorcism on Rosaria, a 16-year old pregnant girl who is believed to be demonically possessed. At first Michael is unconvinced, believing that the girl, and later Trevant himself, are simply nuts. But as time wears on, he sees and hears things that he simply cannot write off with scientific explanations, and after someone close to him dies, Michael finds his own spirituality re-awakened in time to fight the demonic force that has now targeted him.

Inspired by true events (bullshit alarm sounding!), “The Rite” is a film that I’m a little torn on. On one hand, I’ve always found stories about demonic presence or possession to be intriguing in an unsettling way. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a devout agnostic, but there’s just something about this subject matter that has always gotten under my skin, and as such, there are many moments in the film that I thought were legitimately creepy.

At the same time, I found this overly familiar “Exorcist” clone to be exactly that… an overly familiar “Exorcist” clone that, despite an interesting twist late in the story, follows an all too traveled path to a foreseeable ending that, for me, diluted the potential power that its many unnerving moments could have had. The story tries to get around this by having Trevant make a joking reference to spinning heads and spitting pea soup, but the scenes featuring the possessed Rosaria do nothing but conjure up memories of Regan MacNeil.

Another problem the film has is during it’s climax, which goes way over the top and allows Hopkins to chew up the scenery like it’s nobody’s business. Where the movie should be at it’s most powerful, it just becomes downright silly. Sometimes less is truly more, guys. This is especially true in horror films.

Also, it seemed to take Michael a little too long to come around and accept that there was something supernatural happening. He’s able to dismiss Rosaria’s sudden ability to speak English and her excessive strength with practical explanations, but when the possessed girl actually starts to tell him details of his past that she couldn’t possibly know about and he’s still not willing to believe that something out of the ordinary is going on, I stopped believing in this character.

Mikael Hafstrom (“1408”) goes the stylish route with his direction and manages to shape some rather eerie scenes, it’s just too bad the script is so “been there, done that.” As far as the performances go, relative newcomer O’Donoghue is very solid as the conflicted Michael. He has a strong presence and gives the character a lighter side when appropriate, which helps in him coming across as a naturalistic, rounded character.

Hopkins, when he isn’t hamming it up, shows us that he’s still one of the best in the business. Unfortunately, when he does kick in to overdrive, oh dear… just be prepared to laugh at times when you know you’re not supposed to be laughing. “Silence of the Hams”, anyone? If only hams would be silent.

As for everyone else, Ciaran Hinds and Toby Jones are wasted in throwaway roles. Rutger Hauer has a few fleeting scenes as Michael’s father, I just wish he had more. Alice Braga shows up as a reporter researching a story on exorcisms. She does fine, but aside from being a confidant and potential love interest for Michael, the character wasn’t really needed.

On the scale of Satanic movies, I’d say that this doesn’t even hold a black candle to “The Exorcist”, but it’s far superior to all of the “Exorcist” sequels and prequels, which ain’t saying a whole hell of a lot, but… well… it ain’t saying a whole hell of a lot. “The Rite” did have moments that were truly chilling, but again, the story is very old hat, steeped in demonic cliché, and I can’t really recommend it. Watch “The Exorcist” again, instead.

We’d like to thank guest writer, Alyn Darnay of Chaos Films for sharing this review for our readers.  -Swift

Check out our friends at Chaos Films, here.

Directed by: Gareth Edwards
Starring: Scoot McNairy (In Search of a Midnight Kiss) and Whitney Able (All the Boys Love Mandy Lane)

I grew up on Sci-Fi, reading every book and seeing every movie I could find, and loving most of them. Then, I developed a taste for what I considered the best of the genre. Unfortunately, for me, Monsters is not one of those great ones I can enjoy. Yes it has all the requisite elements, including the bandied around ‘auteur’ title given to new director Gareth Edwards at SXSW, but ultimately I found it dull and more than a little boring. If you don’t mind wading through a non-love affair while traveling through a dense jungle, during a neatly conceived alien invasion for something to happen, then this is definitely your film.

The story goes like this; Six years ago NASA launched a probe to collect samples of a possible life form, which crashed upon re-entry over Central America. Suddenly, a new alien life form began to appear and started destroying everything around it. Portions of Mexico were quarantined and labeled an INFECTED ZONE. During this completely off screen destruction, the story centers on an American Photo Journalist, Andrew (Scoot McNairy) who begrudgingly agrees to escort his boss’s daughter, Samantha (Whitney Able), a scared American tourist, through the infected zone to the safety of the US border. What happens next amounts to nothing more than, scared looks, one semi interesting attack on a convoy, and a lot of no chemistry between the two main characters as they make their way through “Hostile Territory.”

The film tries to be part alien invasion, part road movie and part love story, either which alone might have made for a better film. It should have been much more entertaining than it was. I found it a kind of throw back to the B-grade films of the 50’s, with its tentacled, bioluminescent aliens, rather than say a more contemporary “Cloverfield” style film, which generated more thrills and suspenseful moments.

To the director’s credit, and I shout that loudly here, making an Indy film like this is a Herculean task on no budget (the estimated budget was around $15,000); especially doing it while backpacking across Costa Rica, Guatemala, Belize, Mexico and Texas with two actors, a boom operator and a camera, then editing and creating CGI effects by yourself. Just the fact that he was able to create all this basically on his own, is a testament to his huge talent, I applaud it and expect some great films from him going forward. This first film is a noble try, but it just misses the mark.

If you want to see “Monsters”, my suggestion, wait for the DVD, it’ll be along very soon.

Behind the scene images here.

Limacher Low Down: The Kids Are All Right gives a greater insight to the nuclear family of the 21st Century, or at least that was the attempt. The movie tried to blend a good mix of comedy and drama, but it didn’t come across that way – in fact, to me, it was more like a tale of two movies. Sure, it had funny parts, but by the time the credits started rolling I was left pondering what the fuck was THAT? The movie had this great build up only to let me down more than when they opened Al Capone’s Vault! (Anyone remember that?) The acting was good; the story helped define the characters, but there was something about how it ended that just makes me wonder . . . why?

The Kids Are All Right begins with us meeting the family, the Lesbian Couple of Nic (Anette Benning) and Jules (Julianne Moore) and their two kids Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and Laser (Josh Hutcherson). Yes, Laser.  We quickly learn that much like every family they all have their quirks, but they stick together through everything. Laser wants to learn the identity of the man who donated the sperm that his mother, Jules, was inseminated with. It just so happens that Nic was inseminated with the same donor’s sperm a few years before to have Joni. Joni being 18 is of legal age to attempt to locate the man, but is reluctant to at first. Enter Paul (Mark Ruffalo) who is a successful small business owner and somewhat of a womanizer as well. Paul receives a call from the sperm bank and agrees to talk to the person who is seeking him out.

Joni quickly calls Paul and sets up a meeting for Laser and herself to their potential father. The cliche questions from the test-tube children get asked, and there are a few awkward moments between the kids and their donor father. The kids quickly start to enjoy the company, but agree that their moms can NEVER find out. Guess what?  After a unique scene between the mothers and son, the moms find out that Joni and Laser actually met Paul. The moms agree that they too want to meet Paul and see the man whose sperm they used to have their children – insert obvious turkey baster dinner humor here.

The family all convenes and we learn more about each person from one of the more humorous scenes in the movie. Nic seems to be more reserved about Paul, but Jules really takes to him and that leads us into the roller coaster that is the rest of the film. The story takes a turn when Jules, who has just started her own landscaping architecture company, agrees to come and work on Paul’s recently acquired house. One thing leads to another and Paul and Jules become attracted to each other and start a torrid love affair that no one knows about. This all seems to beg the question of “when did this turn into ‘Chasing Amy’?”

And, all that leads to the end of the film where all the possible questions could be answered, but still left me frustrated and wondering why the film-makers built such a strong foundation only to have everything collapse at the end. I enjoyed the first half of the movie and then got really let down with the conclusion. I will say that the movie had a great amount of upside, and the trailer really grabbed my attention and made me want to see this but at the end of the movie I was just left questioning so many aspects. The humor came quick and dies out way too soon, and the drama seemed a little over the top at times as well. The movie might be great for some, but not for all and I fit in with the latter!

The H-Bomb: Larry Gopnick (Michael Stuhlbarg) is a mild-mannered Jewish physics professor who has been having it rough lately. In fact, to say he’s been having it rough is a bit of an understatement. To put it more accurately, Larry’s life is systematically going to shit around him. He’s being simultaneously bribed and blackmailed by a student who got an “unsatisfactory” grade in his class. His dysfunctional brother (Richard Kind) lives in his house and is always getting in trouble with the law. He’s having a property line dispute with his redneck neighbor. His son is getting stoned and listening to Jefferson Airplane when he should be studying Hebrew for his Bar mitzvah. He’s up for tenure at his university, but someone has been sending the tenure committee libelous letters about him. And, to top it all off, his wife is divorcing him for another man and wants him to move out of the house. Poor Larry, what can we say? When it rains, it pours.

The Coen Bros.’ resume is a mixed bag for me. Most of the time the critics will almost unanimously declare their movies brilliant, and in many cases, I’ll agree (“O’ Brother, Where Art Thou?”, “Fargo”, “Barton Fink”, “No Country For Old Men” are all great films). Sometimes though, I’ll see a movie of their’s being praised up the ass, and when I finally get to watch it, I’ll think to myself, “There’s a bad case of ’The Emperor’s New Clothes’ going around here.”

As far as I’m concerned, that’s entirely the case with “A Serious Man.” Many consider it their latest masterpiece, but I do not. This one is more on par with “The Man Who Wasn’t There” and “Burn After Reading”. It features many colorful characters such as Rabbis, Lawyers, Doctors, Jewish Housewives, a number of scenes that range from interesting to amusing, and the Coens drawing from their own experiences growing up in a Jewish household in the 60’s suburban mid-west, which gives the film an authenticity. It has the Coen Bros.’ signature flair for dark comedy, and it’s never dull and often entertaining. But sadly, at the end it just didn’t add up to much.

When the closing titles abruptly came up, my first thought was “Huh?” and my second was, “What was the point?” It does seem to be making some point about life in general and how you have to take the good with the bad and how it has its ups and downs… okay… and? It’s as though the Brothers Coen made this movie simply to amuse themselves by seeing how all the pretentious, art film types will scratch their heads as they ponder its “meaning.” If that’s the case, then wouldn’t the film ultimately be meaningless?

Or maybe that is the point. That the movie’s meaning is meaningless, and thus saying that life itself is meaningless and that bad things happen to good people for no reason and… ah fuck, I’m walking right in to that trap. The films’ prologue, set in 1800’s Europe with dialogue spoken in Yiddish, is seemingly disconnected from the rest of the movie and only adds another layer of confusion.

And another thing, the Coens are Jewish, and in a sense I can admire their ability to poke fun at their own. But the film is filled to the brim with so many Jewish stereotypes, most of which are shown in a truly unflattering light, that I can’t help but think that if this movie were made by a gentile, many of the critics who have praised it would instead be calling it one of the most offensive, anti-Semitic pieces of crap ever made. In other words, if Mel Gibson had directed this film, the overall critical reaction I think would have been considerably different.

That aside, “A Serious Man” is not a total wash. Far from it, in fact. As I said, the Coens’ oddball sense of humor is very much present here, Roger Deakins’ cinematography is as lush and gorgeous as ever, and the actors are very enjoyable in their various quirky roles. There is a lot to like and admire here, I just wish that when the Coens were stuffing their film with all the eccentricities they could imagine, that they had remembered to include a discernible point. “A Serious Man” is far from their most inspired work. It’s worth a rent, but nothing more than that.

Needs Salt!

Behind the scenes stuff here

Swift shot: Average, not spectacular, not as clever nor coy as Director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck believes.  Under-cooked, left me wanting more, made me pine for Europe – but a film needs more substance to stand out as better than decent.  Doubt it will leave a mark.

Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie star in this postcard of Europe, set against an intriguing international game of cat and mouse with a sly, albeit, somewhat predictable end-game.  Depp stars as Frank Tupelo, an American tourist who lives on spy novels and has recently faced a personal tragedy in the U.S.  Determined to leave those memories behind, he visits Europe and happens to be on the wrong, or right, train headed from Paris to Venice where he meets Elise Ward (Jolie).

She is on orders from her lover, Alexander, whose last communique with her was to pick someone on the train that looks like Andre to throw the authorities off his track.  See, Alexander has done something really stupid, he stole 2.4 billion dollars from a vicious gangster, Reginald Shaw (Steven Berkoff) and both Interpol and Shaw want him for different reasons.  One thing no one knows is what Alexander looks like, so picking The Man With One Red Shoe (for those familiar) he hopes to keep the pursuers at bay and keep tabs on Elise from a safe vantage point, essentially baiting the mouse trap with some other cheese, hapless Frank.

Depp and Jolie manage to feed off of each other fairly well, but because they are such big stars, at times the back and forth had no real emotion.  I have to say, Depp pulled his weight better than Jolie, who at times looked like a little girl playing pretend, not acting.  I think she is a fine actress, her performance in Changeling still impresses the hell out of me, so maybe this role just wasn’t for her.  Acting is a fine art, as is casting, too much spice in the sauce and no one wants to eat the meal, Depp and Jolie are gonna put butts in seats, and the story is fine but not spliced together to create an overall great film.

The film has a nice romantic feel to it overall, nothing too over-the-top, it was getting close a few times but not quite roll your eyes hoaky romance, subtle enough to be obvious that the director’s intent was to place you in a romantic setting without rubbing your nose in it.  But, where the film really flat-lined was in the overall cohesion of the characters.  Bits and pieces were tossed into the pot, but, you don’t get a beautiful meal, it’s like a good meal that needs a little more seasoning.

If you are really into Jolie or Depp or absolutely love international mysteries, check this one out, but if you are wanting to see a great film and really want your money’s worth, I say rent this one in a few months.  The cinematography is grandiose at times, but the film won’t suffer anything being viewed on the small screen.