Reviews

Post image for Buried (Script) — Review

There has been a script going around with a lot of buzz, Buried.
One word to describe it: intense.
This was probably one of the fastest read I’ve done of a script.
It is very engaging despite it’s bleak (even depressing?) aspect.

The movie will star Ryan Reynolds in the title role and will be directed by Spanish filmmaker Rodrigo Cortés. The script was written by Chris Sparling.

As for the story, it’s pretty straight-forward.
A man named Paul wakes up to find himself inside a sealed coffin.
He has been buried alive and only has with him a few precious items, including a Zippo lighter and a cellphone with two battery bars and one reception bar left.
Speaking of, the phone brand that gets a deal to be in the movie will most likely make a killing (no pun intended). Besides its obvious basic call function, the object’s other functions (video, MMS, etc.) are really detrimental to the whole plot.
There are a few other stuff in there that you get to discover with Paul, such as a knife and a candle.

To answer the first question that probably popped into your mind: Yes, the whole movie is literally 90 minutes in a coffin. It’s virtually a one-man show.

At first glance, the story might remind you of a famous 2005 CSI episode directed by Tarantino: Grave Danger.
Although in some ways pretty similar (a few of the coffin components are there, such as the use of fire ants at one point), the two stories are dissimilar in the way they’re depicting the whole “kidnapped and buried alive” plot.
Whereas the CSI episode delves more into the rescue efforts, Buried is a first-person account of a man having actually been buried alive.

Let’s check the script now.
Regarding the downsides, the reason for Paul being down there is almost stereotypical one might say. You find it out early on in the script, and even you can easily guess it by just knowing the country it takes place in, Iraq.

A few moments also made me unintentionally laugh, like some of the dialogues:

JABIR
Breathe no breathe, American? Ah?
Breathe no breathe?
PAUL
What? I don’t know what you’re
saying. Who is this?
JABIR
Infidel American can breathe no
breathe?
PAUL
No, I can’t breathe.

Sounds like a parody for a second.

There was this one Human Resources phone call around the end of the movie that is pretty far stretched as well.

A couple of physics-defying moments were present, such as the phone having reception even though it’s buried in the middle of the desert.
The flame from the candle should also burn oxygen much faster than it does in the movie.

Finally, one thing that a lot of people have noticed about the script is its use of prose-like writing, which is somewhat awkward given the fact that this is, you know, a script.
You get to learn things you’re not supposed to know, and it’s visually/auditorily impossible to guess said facts.
An early example:

He tries to remember the Safe Number he was given.
With the phone open and ready to be dialed, Paul struggles to recall the information.

How are you supposed to convey on screen that he’s remembering not just a phone number, but his “safe number”?
Did I mention that this is the first time in the whole script this mysterious number has been brought up?

Anyway, despite those few quarrels I had with the script, it is really so intense that it makes you overlook those minor mistakes.
The ambiance has kind of a Saw–esque quality to it (the first movie) given its suppressing feel throughout. You’re almost left gasping for air. The film will certainly not be for the claustrophobics out there.

The ending was very strong as well I thought.
I’m not going to spoil if he gets out or not, but there is at least one final gut-punch that you don’t see coming and is, in my mind, even more powerful than what happens at the end.

It will be extremely interesting to see the final result and how all this will turn out on screen.
Though the script doesn’t call for it, perhaps the director won’t be able to resist the urge of making intercuts with the outside world (especially during the phone calls).
If the movie is done without any intercuts nor flashbacks nor any other sceneries than what is written in the script, then bravo.

Ultimately, the script is definitely a page-turner and the movie promises to certainly be as exciting (especially with Reynolds as the lead), as long as no major changes are made and the oppressing feel is kept intact.


Email This Post Print This Post

1 comment

Post image for Inglourious Basterds — Review

It’s been a long time coming, and here it finally is: my Inglourious Basterds review.

Very (in my opinion) minor spoilers throughout (though I don’t know your level of paranoia so don’t hold me responsible if you feel spoiled).

First, some comments about the extremely poor marketing made for this film.

The official description of the movie is something akin to “a bunch of American soldiers go on a rampage by scalping a few hundred Nazis in France during the WW2 Occupation.“
Newsflash: this is not at all what the movie is about.
I haven’t seen a title this misleading since Epic Movie.

Truth is, the film doesn’t really center on the self-proclaimed “Inglourious Basterds”, nor Brad Pitt really.
Christoph Waltz, Mélanie Laurent, and perhaps even Diane Kruger, have more screen-time than Pitt.

The trailer also kinda shows you almost all the action in the movie.
I think there was like 10ish minutes of Nazi-killing tops.
That out of a 2h40 movie (the version that will come out in theathers should be around 2h).

Basically, this film is a talkie. And I mean really.
It’s more Kill Bill: Volume 2 than Kill Bill: Volume 1 if you know what I’m talking about.
Expect lots of (I thought great) dialogue throughout.
Some ran a tad long, although I believe this problem will be fixed for the official release.
If you don’t like Tarantino dialogue, this movie isn’t for you.

If you don’t like subtitles, this movie isn’t for you either.
Indeed, I would guess about 70% or more of the film is not in English, rather in German or in French.

I’m sure some of you have read the leaked script from last year, so you might already know that the film is divided into 5 chapters:
1) Once Upon a Time… in Nazi-Occupied France
2) Inglorious Basterds
3) German Night in Paris
4) Operation Kino
5) Revenge of the Giant Face

There are descriptions of each chapter on the web if you’re interested, although the names are already pretty self-explanatory (except maybe the last one or three).

Again, the Basterds are overall a minor part of the plot, and serve more as some big Deus Ex Machina than anything else.
We get to meet them in the second chapter, but their reign of terror is already established.
One might expect the movie to be about how they had achieved such a scare-inducing presence amongst the Nazis, or show them arriving in France and all that.
Turns out, not at all.

On the other hand, what is strongly present is the amount of meta jokes in the movie.
At one point in the film (won’t say when), a French and a German are talking, and the German says: “I ask your permission to switch to English for the remainder of the conversation.“
Also, you’ve probably heard of the final line of the movie.
If not, I won’t spoil it for you, but suffice to say it has a very strong meta-quality to it and one might think echoes Tarantino’s stance on the movie.

There were some rumors going on around that a whole chapter (the third one) was going to be in “French New Wave Black and White” like Tarantino describes it in his script.
Not at all the case.
At one point there is a film-within-the-film (shot by Eli Roth) and therefore in black and white.
Problem is, there’s so much big deal made out of it, it turns out it’s barely shown.
Even worse, it’s not even an homage to the French New Wave but clearly more of an Italian Neorealism-type film.
If you’re going to make references to cinematic movements, learn what they are first.

My favorite chapter is probably “Once Upon a Time… in Nazi-Occupied France” (this time an homage to Spaghetti Westerns, hence the chapter’s name).
I think it epitomizes the movie in many ways.
Great acting (especially from Christoph Waltz), great dialogue, and great shots.

But beyond that, the movie just seems like a long mess leading to a bigger mess (this one literal).

The rushed editing doesn’t help either.
Tarantino and the Weinsteins were obviously trying to finish the damn thing for the festival.
I’m also hoping he changes the opening credits, which was just some basic text using fonts from his previous films (Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, etc.).
As for the music, nothing ground-breaking there either.
I thought the soundtrack was, unlike his other movies, a pretty minor part of the film here and poorly used.

Keep in mind that the version I saw was the one shown at the Cannes Festival and had a 2h40 length.
I’m pretty sure most of these problems (the editing/feel of the movie, long scenes, the music, the opening credits) will be addressed with a 40 or so minutes cut before the official release.

I had read the first chapter before seeing the movie so I kinda knew that the film wasn’t going to really be centered on the Inglourious Basterds.
Ergo, I wasn’t disappointed on that part.
Also, I love Tarantino’s dialogues.

Just don’t expect to see a 2-hour Nazi-scalping film.

I’m looking forward to the more laid-back (and final) version of Inglourious Basterds coming out mid-August.


Email This Post Print This Post

1 comment

Post image for Star Trek — Review

Well, I got to see last Sunday night the new Star Trek movie that comes out in a week and a half.
It was good, entertaining, but I don’t see why people are what all the fuss is about really.

The movie had a short message before it by J.J. Abrams, nothing major was said in it so don’t worry.

I should point out that I’m no Trek fan per se.

For the past few months, I have been watching TOS (The Original Series) episodes as well as a couple of the first movies. I also, just before seeing the new movie, watched a few TNG (The Next Generation) episodes as well as the Nemesis movie to prepare myself for the prequel 4-part comic that came out before Star Trek.
Anyway, given that I knew virtually nothing about Trek a year ago, I wanted to prepare and familiarize myself a bit with the Trek ‘verse.

For the Trek newbies out there, don’t worry, I should very soon make a post about stuff you should know/may want to watch to prepare for the new movie.

I must warn you guys right now: Massive spoilers ahead about the new Star Trek movie (with pics).
So if you want to stay un-spoiled, don’t look!

Now, back to the actual movie.

First, like with Watchmen, the soundtrack choice was somewhat confusing and lame.
Remember this scene from the trailer:


Now add the Beastie Boys’ Sabotage on it and you get the idea.

There’s also a similar weird music choice later in the movie.
I won’t say where just to keep your surprised laugh when you see/hear it.

Speaking of, the product placement was also pretty ridiculous.
A futuristic Nokia dashboard inside a vintage Corvette? Really?

Michael Giacchino’s score however, as always, was epic.

Regarding the actors:
They all seemed to fare fine by trying to emulate their predecessors’ way of speaking.
Quinto pulls off a great Spock while Chris Pine manages to channel the Shatner/Kirk energy.
Anton Yelchin’s russian accent however felt really forced, so I was taken a bit aback by his performance after having seen him play a few years ago Byrd Huff in Huff as well as Zack Mazursky in Alpha Dog.

Also, I really felt the focus of the movie was on Kirk and Spock and certainly not on the rest of the Enterprise crew.
Pegg has 150 seconds of screen time (give or take a few), including this scene:


Cho has a cool action sequence.

And Yelchin saves the day.

Although they all have their moments to shine, they are all really background characters in this movie at best.

Speaking of pointless characters, let’s talk about Spock’s mother for a second here.
Winona Ryder playing the mom was a poor choice. She looks so young she could be Spock’s sister.
Also, her role seems to be more in the realm of a cameo appearance than anything else.
She dies pretty quickly (more on that in a minute), so why hire her for so little time?

As for the movie’s visuals:
Remember how Snyder over-uses his pseudo-cool slow motion shots?
Well lens flares are the new slow-mo shots, only with JJ.
If you’ve seen Fringe you know what I’m talking about: those blue-ish flares that blind you.
Well JJ loves those so much that he uses them almost every scene in the Trek movie.


Abrams even admitted recently that they were “ridiculous”:
I know there are certain shots where even I watch and think, “Oh that’s ridiculous, that was too many.”

Funny how, looking back, the various trailers are incredibly spoilery.
You can pretty much guess everything that happens in the movie based on the two trailers.
Hell, all the pics here are coming from the trailers.

Now, let’s talk about the really major stuff that bothers me.
I’m of course talking about this:


If you can’t guess the planet, it’s Vulcan.

Yup, Vulcan implodes, for good, killing almost every single Vulcan in the process.
Only 10,000 or so of them are left in the entire universe says Spock.
Talk about drastic changes to the franchise…

First, Spock’s mother dies, then his entire race.
Yeah, they’re really throwing the rule book out the window.

The Vulcans going almost extinct and only having 10,000ish of their own left reminded me of another show: Battlestar Galactica.
Future-Spock helping the last Vulcans is also kind of ridiculous in my book, but whatever.

Ultimately, since the movie is an alternate timeline, they can do what they want.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with their new take on the franchise.
What I’m mostly annoyed about however is the fact that all the new Trek movies from now on will be a prolongation of this new timeline.
There is already a sequel on its way, and I’m thinking we might get a trilogy at least, if not 6 movies (like Spider-Man)!
One might even wonder if there’s going to be a new show.
Anyway, looks like it’s gonna have to be Bad Robot/JJ’s way, or the highway.

They said they wanted to introduce Trek to a new generation, but the truth is that the new generation that will first and foremost watch this movie won’t bother seeing all the other movies and shows that came prior to it since those have now become pointless and obsolete due to the drastic changes.

Crossing off everything that comes after James T. Kirk’s birth basically nullifies what came prior to this movie.
i.e.: every single Star Trek movie or show (except Enterprise).

Looks like I hated this movie right?
Actually, wrong.
I enjoyed this movie, it was fairly entertaining (which Bad Robot prods often are).
I also find interesting the fact that this is more or less the only Bad Robot production where there are no major questions/mysteries left at the end.

If you’re looking for a somewhat mindless entertaining movie, then go for it.
I still don’t get why everyone is jizzing their pants over it though.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Post image for The Cabin in the Woods (Script) — Review

I just finished reading Joss Whedon/Drew Goddard’s Cabin in the Woods, described by Wheddon himself as “the horror movie to end all horror movies”.

I don’t know to what extent I agree with that statement and basically to what extent I enjoyed the script/movie.

I wasn’t under-whelmed, but I wasn’t over-whelmed either.

The characters are definitely well-written, well introduced (so is the story for that matter), and the dialogue is sharp and witty.

I loved the white-collar characters of Richard Sitterson and Steve Hadley played respectively by Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford.
Definitely great casting choices.

I highly doubt that IMDb has the correct names associated with the actors. Fran Kranz is most likely not going to play Curt, unless he becomes your stereotypical football player overnight (could still happen though).

It should be noted there are no “twist” to the movie, at least not the way one might think.
This is not The Sixth Sense where at the end you have some epic revelation that changes the scope of the movie and makes you re-evaluate every scene prior.

The only twist here is the genre-twist, and it is pretty straight-forward.
You kind of get what is going on behind the scenes in the first 30 or so pages.

It is therefore not really a spoiler when describing Cabin as The Evil Dead/The Hills Have Eyes meets The Truman Show.

There’s a superior level to that whole “Truman Show” part though which I won’t spoil.

I was actually expecting more regarding said twist/superior level, like a final reveal that changes my whole perception of the story, but that unfortunately didn’t happen.
It looked more like that Neo/Architect scene at the end of The Matrix Reloaded than anything for that matter (without the plot twists).

I don’t really know how to take the end, if I like it or not.
It certainly is reminiscent of other Goddard endings though, so I won’t comment further.

There are also a few open questions and some inconsistencies regarding the rules set-out by the movie/story itself, so that was weird.
Overall, suspension of disbelief is required but no more than for your average Buffy or Angel episode.

Suffice it to say that the movie will definitely be R-Rated as some of the deaths are grueling at best.

Brendon Connelly over at Slash Films says the end is a range of horror movie clichés, but I disagree here as I didn’t see much reference, if at all.
Having a zombie in a movie doesn’t mean it’s a reference to any of those movies. So the same goes for the end of Cabin.
The cabin deaths on the other hand, I can see how they could be considered references (for some at least).

I also disagree with him on how he compares Cabin to Scream, saying that the former tries to be like the latter: pioneer a new line of horror films.
I didn’t get at all that feeling.
If anything, it’s a movie that doesn’t take itself too seriously.

The final product will most likely be a fun 90-minute ride, like Cloverfield was, but there certainly isn’t a revolution of genre here.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment

Post image for Watchmen — Review

I got to see last night a showing of the long-awaited Watchmen movie by Zack Snyder.

Unfortunately, there is no IMAX over here so I had to see it in a shitty movie theatre with an awful screen, horrendous sound and since it was packed, I had a lousy seat at the back. Given the fact that the screen was extremely small already, this didn’t help at all.

I almost fell asleep halfway through, although that might have been because I was tired.

Spoilers galore, so beware.

The acting wasn’t bad at all, even though none of them had no real ground-breaking material to act. I still think Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s Comedian is above the rest.
Matthew Goode’s Ozymandias was also good.
The forced Batman-style voice by Rorschach is truly painful to hear though.

The sex scene in Archie between Silk Spectre II and Nite Owl II was really bad I thought.
It was described as “classy” by the actors but the scene just felt gratuitous and utterly ridiculous. The actors over-acted the actual sex scene and then there was a bad version of Hallelujah (not this one) playing over it. Literally.

Continuing on the music side of things, the soundtrack was described as revolutionary and fitting, but, well…
I’ll just use one word: cliché.

There’s the Hallelujah song of course, yet that’s far from the only example.
We also have the Ride Of The Valkyries playing over the Vietnam war sequence. Yes, seriously.
And there’s also The Sound of Silence for the funeral scene.

Let’s not forget All Along the Watchtower.
Its use was heavily borrowed from the end of Battlestar Galactica’s Season 3, to say the least.
Think Mars instead of Earth and you get the picture.
The shot may somewhat be in the graphic novel, but the way it was handled in the movie suggest rip-off to me.

All in all, far from revolutionary music choices and not really inspired.

I also thought the score was underwhelming at best. Not much of an effort on Tyler Bates’ part.

Regarding the movie in parallel to the graphic novel.
For starters, half of the original graphic novel got taken out, such as all the story about the news stand, or the snow-ball stuff on Mars. Probably nitpicks, but considering what has been left and how it was filmed, the movie suffers.
The Black Freighter will get its own animated film though, so I’m not too troubled by that.

Still, I clocked the movie in at under 2h30 even though a 3h+ version is expected to land on the DVD.
More should have been added to the theatrical release.
The first part of the movie felt rushed as we quickly moved from one scene/storyline/plot point to the next, skipping pages worth screen time and lingering on pointless ones.
Nonetheless, for what it’s worth, the attention to detail (with the props, costumes, etc.) is extremely present in the movie, for the better.

I understand stuff getting cut/shorten out to make for a much simpler narrative, but some questionable choices can be observed as to what made the cut and what changed, like the ending over in Antarctica.
Veidt’s vivarium was changed into pyramids. Again, quite ridiculous and less significant.
Him poisoning his servants was as well much more subtle, shocking, and riveting in the graphic novel than the way it is portrayed in the movie (who didn’t see it coming a mile away?).

As expected as well, the movie was riddled by pseudo-cool slow-mo shots à la Snyder which really dragged out the movie. In the end, that means that we have more time for “cool” visuals than for the actual story; ludicrous considering the original product.

And I haven’t talked yet about all the gore.

Sure, it’s uncensored et al, and it somewhat stays true to the original novel, but it’s still some unnecessary gore for the sake of it, let alone all the useless fight sequences (like in the prison).
For instance, Larry in the prison gets his hands tied behind Rorschach’s cell’s bars. In the graphic novel, he gets finished off by having his throat cut. Quick, simple, bloody. In the movie however, an actual hacksaw enters the picture and his arms are literally cut apart from his body for no reason whatsoever (since they need to cut through the bars, what about all the other ones that aren’t currently being occupied by two arms?).
And this is just one of many examples.
I don’t get why change Rorschach “first kill” from turning his back on a man burning alive to him axing halfway down that man’s head.
More blood? Really?
And since we’re on the subject, why not show us all the bloodied corpses in New York (hell, it’s in several pages of the novel), yet show arms being ripped apart, compound fractures and blood everywhere?
Some of those changes just do not make sense to me. At all.

The film is also full of over-done meta jokes.
I laughed at a couple of them.
Not because they were funny, but because they sucked.
Case in point: At the end, when Ozymandias exposes his evil plan, and Nite Owl asks when he is going to “do it”, Ozy scoffs, saying that he is not some “comic-book super-villain”.
Not particularly subtle.

As for the ending.
Well, first, I called (in my mind at least) the movie’s end way back when the first trailer came out.
Talk about a spoilery trailer!
The nuke(s) story was less ridiculous than I thought it would be but it still doesn’t equal the original ending with the squid.

I don’t want to leave you on such bad notes.
Don’t worry, I enjoyed the movie and some things in it.
The two highlights of the film were definitely the montage during the opening credits setting up the alternate History, as well as Dr. Manhattan’s backstory.

Overall, despite all that you’ve just read, I didn’t feel disappointed by the movie itself as I basically knew all the negative points before-hand, so no letdown on my part.
I am sure though the movie would have had a greater (positive) impact on me if I had seen it in IMAX instead of in some crappy theatre.

Seeing the 3h+ version in HD will most likely be much more satisfactory than the theatrical version I saw last night.


Email This Post Print This Post

Be the first to comment