If you want to make a movie like SEVEN, you either have to go all the way or not bother trying. I realize it's not fair to compare other thrillers to what is easily the greatest detective/serial-killer movie of all time, but the opening credits of D.J. Caruso's TAKING LIVES are just begging for comparison. Unfortunately, aside from a few surprises that aren't nearly as shocking, the introduction documenting the killer is as close to SEVEN as this film ever gets.


This isn't to say TAKING LIVES is necessarily bad; it's merely not as good as it could have been, with a screenplay that certainly had a lot going for it and in the right hands probably could've been transformed into something more memorable. There's a big twist (because every movie these days simply must offer a big twist) that turns out to be rather predictable, but the story makes for a fun ride along the way.

What bothered me were several bizarre shifts in tone, from the acting to the cinematography. I don't know what Caruso was aiming for, but the film goes from being hardcore and gruesome to slightly self-aware and over-the-top at times. We even see Angelina Jolie's breasts during a sex scene, beautifully lit in all their glory, which I thought was more than a little bizarre for the lead detective in a serial killer movie.

To its credit, TAKING LIVES features one of the best jump-in-your-seat moments I've ever seen (hands down), as well as a lot of other good moments that help to make up for the inconsistency. On top of that, there's a sequence near the end that at first appears to be totally out of line with the rest of the movie (which I was accustomed to at this point), but by its end makes perfect sense and was clever enough to leave me with a grin on my face.

Posted March 24, 2004 | link | 0 comments

This film came and went last year without much attention, aside from Gina Gershon appearing on the cover of Maxim. There's good reason too -- it's one of those films that's clearly a victim of its own premise. If you ask me, movies about music are one of the riskiest and most difficult genres to pull off, particularly if it's a story about people creating music we've never heard before (so THE DOORS, for example, doesn't apply here because Oliver Stone didn't have to worry about writing original songs and he knew in advance that his audience already liked the music).


Cameron Crowe's impressive ALMOST FAMOUS is definitely towards the top of the list in this genre, as the cast performed original songs that not only matched the tone of the era, but were actually pretty darn good. This was huge when it came to convincing us that the band was of a quality that might cause genuine interest from a magazine like Rolling Stone, and the concert scenes were also convincing for the same reason. Well, the problem with PREY FOR ROCK AND ROLL is that it's about a women's rock band that never really makes it, which also must deal with a tricky catch-22. If the music was outstanding, the whole story would be unrealistic because we wouldn't believe for a second they'd never get signed and the lead singer (played by Gershon) would be some 40-year-old burnout working in a tattoo parlor.

On the other hand -- and this is the path the movie decides to take -- by presenting a collection of songs that aren't awful but are a heck of a long way from being something we'd want to spend time listening to, it's difficult to get into the story and support the characters. Sure, there's a lot more to this movie than music and the band's passion for pursuing their dreams, but in the end these films always come down to the music and it simply didn't work for me. The fact that the story's dramatic elements are severely overplayed didn't help much either. If you love movies about music you still might want to check it out, but outside of that I wouldn't recommend it.

Posted March 21, 2004 | link | 0 comments

I'm not going to say a whole lot about David Koepp's SECRET WINDOW, based on a short story by Steven King, because the film's big downfall comes in the third act and involves one of the most contrived, convoluted twists in recent memory. You know how a good twist (think FIGHT CLUB or THE SIXTH SENSE) will make you think back over the entire movie and appreciate it even more? Well, the twist in SECRET WINDOW does just the opposite; the truth is, I enjoyed the first hour and a half, but because it amounts to virtually nothing it's hard to think back on it with any admiration.

The twist may have worked on the written page (I haven't read the source material, so I couldn't say) but it sure didn't up on the silver screen. Koepp also goes out of his way to throw in some completely unnecessary special effects, in a movie that had absolutely none up until that point. Ultimately, the film is a tribute to the talents of Johnny Depp, as he makes what could've been a terrible movie quite watchable (but still not good) even during the final fifteen minutes.

Posted March 19, 2004 | link | 0 comments

Is anyone else as eager as I am to see the Denzel Washington revenge thriller MAN ON FIRE? This is the first movie so far this year where I feel like I want to be first in line (it's currently scheduled to hit theaters on April 23). One of my biggest problems with KILL BILL VOL. 1 (although this could change in the second half) was that its vengeful spirit seemed to be overwhelmed by style as opposed to throbbing with raw emotion. If the previews for MAN ON FIRE are any indication, Washington portrays a character even more intense than his corrupt cop in TRAINING DAY, and the fact that he's an anti-hero this time around should make it even more fun to watch. During the trailer, when he yells "Piece by piece!" I don't think there was anyone in the theater who didn't buy it.


I know this will definitely be a guy movie as it plays to the generally male-oriented theme of an eye for an eye and all of that vengeful justice stuff, but man this sure does look like a good one. Throw in director Tony Scott (whose work I've always felt was under-appreciated to some degree) and Christopher Walken in the role of the understanding wise-man, and we could have a real breakout hit on our hands. At the very least, expect plenty of stirring dialogue; corny as it is, I really like it when Walken explains that "Gracy's art is death, and he's about to paint his masterpiece." Click here to watch the trailer(s).

Posted March 17, 2004 | link | 0 comments

The reason I've always admired David Mamet is that he isn't afraid to be different. He's got a Pulitzer Prize in his pocket and instead of churning out pretentious art films full of literary references, he likes to tell stories about street-smart hoods and tough guys who like to con for money or walk around with twelve-gage shotguns. His latest film, SPARTAN, is classic Mamet. Great plot, decent direction, solid performances from a group of talented actors, and dialogue that could only have been written by him.


As good as SPARTAN is, I don't think there's a talent in Hollywood more brilliant yet incredibly frustrating than Mamet. In my book, it's really no contest. Anyone who's seen HOUSE OF GAMES, HEIST, or any of his other movies knows the guy is smart, and can throw together a plot so complex and unpredictable it'd make Raymond Chandler's head spin. But then there's his signature staccato dialogue, so sharp it can cut right through reality and place us in a world we know could only be his creation. Don't get me wrong -- most of the lines he writes are brilliant and some of his one-liners are so witty they'll fly right over the heads of most audiences, but his downfall is that almost all of his characters speak in the same crisp style. It's cool when a couple of guys in the know shoot words back and forth at one another like some sort of lyrical poetry, but when everyone starts doing this it becomes more of a distraction than anything else.

On the upside, SPARTAN only falls into this pattern on a few occasions, and there's enough wit involved that I was able to allow the annoying stuff to pass by without taking me out of the story. In fact, the plot moves along at such a rapid pace and is so engaging, it'd be difficult to not stay interested. I'd much rather see a flawed but ambitious film than a perfectly dull one.


If you keep a close eye on the screen you'll notice at one point Val Kilmer (who plays a special-forces Marine-type) walks past a wall with a faded, half-torn poster for the movie SOLDIER. I wasn't a big fan of this Kurt Russell film, but I absolutely loved the offhand reference and the way it relates to Kilmer's character. At the beginning, when he's called in to help get back the President's daughter before the press gets wind of her abduction, he's like a machine that strictly follows orders without stopping to ask why. However, as the story progresses he begins to realize things aren't so simple and that taking action without understanding the reasons can be dangerous and even counterproductive. Sound familiar?

Clearly, the story serves as an allegory for post-September 11th Americans, who have blindly followed the lead of a President without stopping to ask important questions first. At face value, SPARTAN is a simple and straightforward thriller, but its underlying themes about violence and politics are why I was able to walk away feeling so satisfied. Well, that and the fact that most of the action sequences are extraordinarily well done.

Posted March 14, 2004 | link | 0 comments

Last weekend my girlfriend and I sat down to watch the DVD for CABIN FEVER, expecting what was supposed to be a pretty good little horror/suspense movie based on all of the buzz I'd heard about it last year went it was playing in theaters. Then we started laughing. In fact, I can honestly say that not a minute of this film is genuinely scary -- not if you've ever seen a horror movie before. As the story became more absurd and over-the-top gross with blood being spattered left and right, only then did it occur to me: CABIN FEVER is a comedy, not a horror movie. Viewed from this perspective, I found the film to be quite enjoyable despite falling apart at the end.

My question is: who the heck marketed this thing and was the campaign brilliant or short-sighted? On the one hand, by going after the teenage demographic that usually flocks to any movie that involves young people being murdered, they were able to generate over 21 million (domestic) at the box office for a movie that cost only 1.5 million to make. On the other hand, is it possible this film could have been more of a cult hit had they sold it for what it really was?

Posted March 11, 2004 | link | 0 comments

The Oscars were so boring I simply forgot to write about them. Not being a huge fan of THE RETURN OF THE KING, I wasn't expecting to be elated by this year's Academy Awards, but the undeniable dullness of the whole event sure didn't help matters. Not a single upset. There were maybe one or two spontaneous moments the whole evening, and even those moments were hardly memorable. I don't think I've ever seen so many laundry-list thank-you speeches in my life.

Even though I was pulling for a MYSTIC RIVER upset for either Best Picture or Best Director, it wasn't the fact that Peter Jackson and RETURN OF THE KING won for both categories that I found annoying. I may not be a LORD OF THE RINGS fan, but there are certainly more than a few out there and I guess one of the three films taking home the top prize isn't such a bad thing. But what really bothered me was the clean-sweep, particularly in some categories where KING had no business winning.

I'm hard-pressed to believe that even the most loyal fans of the trilogy feel that it should have won for Best Film Editing. For crying out loud, the movie was three and a half hours long and especially towards the end demonstrated a sheer lack of editorial choices. Frankly, this was the most surprising win of the night for me, because I didn't think the Academy as a collective group would be so limited in their scope. I was also very disappointed by the Adapted Screenplay category, as every other nominee was far more deserving. Like the RINGS trilogy or hate it, I think we can all admit the final chapter was more about the direction than the words on the page. At least when TITANIC won eleven Oscars back in 1998, the Academy still had the good sense to award L.A. CONFIDENTIAL for its screenplay and not merely give it to the big dog by default.

As much as I would have liked to see both Johnny Depp and Bill Murray finally win that evasive Oscar, I'm glad it went to Sean Penn. I felt Penn gave the best performance with the widest range, and he's also been nominated four times now. Bill Murray was obviously upset to the point that Billy Crystal thought he might actually duck out early. Mark my words, if the upcoming THE LIFE AQUATIC (by RUSHMORE team Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson) is any good, expect Murray to not only be nominated, he'll probably win unless someone else is so good that voters simply can't ignore the performance. On the other hand, every year it seems like the acting awards are starting to be more and more about paying dues than delivering individual performances (see Zellweger, Renee), which I suppose isn't such a bad thing.

Posted March 10, 2004 | link | 0 comments