« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »

Hard Candy

So we all know that meeting people over the internet and then in person can be risky, yes?
We're no longer living in the Single White Female age, but instead the times of Myspace hook-ups with related crimes and other modern horrors of the world wide web.
I myself know of this first hand : around the Columbine times, someone in an AOL music chatroom I frequented explained their plan to blow up a high school somewhere I had never heard of. I contacted the police, and after speaking with the FBI, it turned out to be a bored middle-aged man making up false claims. The internet can be a dangerous place to meet people, and HARD CANDY doesn't want us to forget it.

Hayley (the luminous Ellen Page) is meeting Jeff (the clean-cut, sharp eyed Patrick Wilson). Hayley and Jeff have been chatting for about three weeks, both being quite eager to meet the other, which they do in a coffee shop. Jeff is impressed by Hayley, and vice versa. Both of them trade off their equal likes and dislikes, discussing music, literature, as well as Jeff's career as a photographer. Soon after, Jeff is driving Hayley to his house so that he can let her listen to a Goldfrapp bootleg, and shoot her with his camera.

What Hayley knows about Jeff however is something she soon wants to expose us to - his lifestyle, home, and art are questionable, disturbing, but still safe to the untrained eye. Hayley is both the prey and the bait - she suspects that Jeff has committed crimes against girls her own age, having full intent of giving Jeff what he deserves. But through the entire process of Hayley getting back at Jeff, he almost never relents with the conviction that he is innocent. Patrick Wilson's performance is convincing and expertly questionable - do we sympathize with him or not? Are there two sides to his life or is he who he is to outsiders? Ellen Page's Hayley is equally amazing, but really gives the film bite, force, and fury where needed - she never, ever lets her guard down, infusing her character with wit and brain power almost no character her age on screen has ever had previously.

But with great conviction does come questions : is Jeff the person Hayley is sure he is? And is Hayley even fit to take on the situation she has pulled herself and Jeff into?
Director David Slade pushes the envelope with believable context making Hard Candy seem authentic and realistic, despite the out of the ordinary complexity of the two leads. The film is as tight and gripping as the subject matter, as well as the presence of Ellen Page. The pieces of this film fit together so extremely well, I can't help but feel satisfied by the intent and execution.

However, after I left the film I felt strangely aware that I had seen this movie before. Back in 1994, Roman Polanski's Death and the Maiden hit the screen with a similar complexity in a set place. Sigourney Weaver's character in that film was convinced that the abusive past she suffered was at the hands of her sudden house guest Ben Kingsley.. or was it? A similar situation of torture and trial was presented in that film - which to me is an amazing achievement in emotional acting with force and strenuosity. Is it a coincidence that Ellen Page sort of emulates a young Sigourney Weaver in appearance and performance ? Probably. Despite the fact that both films are quite similar, separate they do not need each other to be successful in their own right. Hard Candy is a film that begs to be seen and pleases, with the devastation and fear for a victim and the predator in a seemingly controlled situation.

Posted by madamczyk at 09:54 PM | Comments (0)

The Devil and Daniel Johnston

According to the documentary The Devil and Daniel Johnston, Mr. Johnston was once a musical genius who unfortunately suffered various mental and psychological breakdowns. Although you and I probably only first heard of Mr. Johnston from viewing the trailer or hearing the title for this movie, Daniel Johnston is a familiar, telling tale of a human being capable of so much but unfortunately was his own worst enemy.

I once came to my own personal conclusion that it was very hard for a documentary to be bad. I found this recently broken with the film Enron : The Smartest Guys in the Room, which was extremely interesting but together unsatisfying. The Devil and Daniel Johnston sort of lingers in the area of dissatisfaction with the constant reminder that Daniel was musician whom people were captivated by. When the camera is set upon Daniel himself with various home movies and performances, we don't need to hear the others comment on his well-being or career - Daniel Johnston is a human being who has had a lot of awful things happen to him and his mental state which can ultimately be the reasoning for him not being a household name today. You can see the years of pain and suffering in his eyes - if the film had let Daniel be more of a voice for himself, it could be flawless. But unfortunately the film suffers from one-to-many summarizations from friends and family, even though they play such a major role in his life so far.

With my own issues of interview put aside, The Devil and Daniel Johnston is a worthwhile venture into the mind of a now music savant. The average person may not like his music upon a first listen, but through his pain and creativity, Daniel created a sound his own full of descriptive, poetic lyrics - the key to his music was only found through his voice, which isn't exactly the most beautiful thing in the world, but has a passionate tone which is organic and somewhat refreshing.

I was once told that life is a process - every experience must be taken in and realized before we can get to the next step. Daniel Johnston took his music and made it no matter what his circumstances were, until his own health go in the way. To me, the true test of a musician is drive. And Daniel Johnston is a talented person who may be forgotten simply because of his own self, which years ago had an intention of being remembered by every soul he encountered. Maybe with this documentary, there will be a future place for Daniel's music and soul - long after his own struggle is lay to rest.

Posted by madamczyk at 01:16 PM | Comments (0)

Friends with Money

After a decade on FRIENDS and just a few films under her belt,
the question is : CAN JENNIFER ANISTON ACT ?

The answer is no. She can't act. And even when she's given a pretty minimal role, where it could have been easy for any other actress to add depth where there isn't, she does nothing but simply speak her lines, either while smiling or frowning. I honestly don't get it - she could hold her own for years with other "friends" and seemingly did a good job in The Good Girl, but somehow, she doesn't have the capability to emote more than a Cabbage Patch doll. Outside of Aniston's meek role, FRIENDS WITH MONEY is just an OK look at three rich friends with one lesser-off friend.

Catherine Keener has a nice role as Christine, who starts to question her marriage to David (Jason Isaacs). Joan Cusack shows up every once in a while to play Franny, who's married to Matt (Greg Germann). Their storyline and characters serve almost no purpose except to be an example of what the other couples want and to aid them in conversation... well, sometimes.
Even though the content of Keener and Isaacs' couple has some good moments, I can't help but feel underwhelmed by almost everything to do with them. It all seemed like it was going somewhere really worthwile, but it was just a cop out in the end.

But the really deep and fleshed out couple is Aaron and Jane (Simon McBurney and Frances McDormand), who are not only interesting, but are individually conflicted people who are trying to deal with the world around them. While Aaron just wants a few adult male friends (leading to some tired quips questioning his sexuality), Jane cannot and doesn't want to take the crap that is thrown at her everyday. She stops washing her hair, confronts a mother of a playmate of her son, and even has a totally justified but abrupt retail breakdown. Her character may be overwrought and off-key with the other female leads, but McDormand makes Jane absolutely enjoyable and hilarious. She tones her down when she needs to, and gives the mostly dull film some refreshing qualities.

Sure, Friends With Money is a really weak effort from Nicole Holofcener (who made the film Lovely And Amazing, which *almost* lives up to its title), but somehow it's still worth seeing because of the relationship between Aaron and Jane. They're continuously honest with each other and make up for the fact that the other characters resort to basic clichés, such as just wanting someone to "care" or the fulfillment of meeting someone "special." We've all seen that before in movies outside of this genre - and even though I could say that Aaron and Jane are in the minority of content, thus, avoid it - I won't because they're a rarity, especially in the film world of married couples in movies for adults.

Posted by madamczyk at 01:54 PM | Comments (0)

The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things

Based upon the novel by JT Leroy and Directed by Asia Argento, "The Heart is Deceitful ... " tells the story of a young boy named Jeremiah who is about to spend the rest of his life with biological mother Sarah (Asia Argento). This idea scares Jeremiah, who attempts to run away from Sarah within the first 24 hours of living with her, since he has spent all of his 7 or 8 years of his life so far with foster parents.

Sarah is bleached-blonde trailer trash, crossed with the absolute worst form of Courtney Love possible. She wants to reclaim her son and raise him, all while without having the slightest idea of what a suitable living situation could be. And of course her plan will be and definitely is damaging to the child. Jeremiah often wets the bed, which could be simply because of the traumatic nature of his current life. He is punished for this numerous times, which causes him to want this abuse because it has become what he is used to.

As Sarah jumps from man to man, her concern for Jeremiah's life is slowly lost. Soon after he is abandoned by her, and he experiences another tragic event, he is found and then taken in by his own relatives who are living in a sort of conservative religious extreme nature, where the boys of the house do chores all day and are dressed in proper suits, looking like junior accountants. Peter Fonda plays Grandfather, the leader of the home, who isn't afraid to give punishment where it's due, especially when Aaron, played by John Robinson, is guilty of leading on Jeremiah for his own pleasure, and also his own personal wrong-doings.
Years go by, and down the line Jeremiah finds himself back in Sarah's care. Now at the age of about 11, Jeremiah is played by twins Dylan and Cole Sprouse, who both emote quite well for being the conflicted, abused, been there-done that soul that their character is.

So much of Jeremiah's eventual connection with Sarah could be more than just their blood relationship. Is it possible that Jeremiah is experiencing the same route his mother did in her own youth? Sure, but it's somewhat debunked earlier since Sarah ran away or was kicked out for being pregnant... I can't remember, simply for the fact that this movie is pretty much forgettable by the end. Does this film matter and does it show anything of significance ? No. Jeremiah's journey is absolutely tragic and filled with many things that could cause a normal person to be suicidal, but this young boy has come to the terms of his environment, unfortunately, and decides to accept it since he has no guidance otherwise.

Although the movie is indeed about child abuse and awful, horrible things that can happen to a person, we never are really graced with graphic situations, nudity, or sex. There are sexual elements, even subtle situations of child rape. But Argento never takes her clothes off all the way or do we witness Jeremiah actually in the state of being abused. It's a pure point of view situation at times, which skirts what's really going on at all costs. I don't know if I should admire the movie for this exclusion of graphic nature or be disappointed - since it definitely could have been shown, and I expected it to, but again, it didn't happen in front of my eyes.

I will say that I didn't hate this movie at all. Sure it's misguided, sloppy, deranged, and trying to be really arty crap, but it wasn't enough for me to competely dislike and discard it. However, I know I did not like this movie, and that's something I'm sure of - it was never supposed to be a happy film. But liking something doesn't mean it has to be positive. It's a marginal dislike of a movie filled with such a purely negative state.

Posted by madamczyk at 05:43 PM | Comments (0)

Basic Instinct 2

Years and years ago, around the time that the original Basic Instinct came out in theaters, MAD Magazine did a parody of the movie titled "Basically, It Stinks." This parody has always been in my mind, especially when I did see Basic Instinct several years ago. It's a devilishly atrocious movie with lots of "erotica" and sexual violence. Surely no movie since has matched its trashy depiction of a femme serial killer with a knack for kinky behavior. . .

Now, about the sequel :

It should be obvious to everyone that this will not be a good movie. How could it be? It's a sequel. Sharon Stone hasn't been in a good film in years. Through lots of meaningless articles and such, this movie has been in trouble. No director. No male star. And finally (or regretfully), at long last, it has come out.

The sequel boom of recent times has totally kicked hollywood in the ass lately. Nobody wants to see something that didn't tickle their fancy the first time around, so you might think that Basic Instinct 2 would be something that would possibly be worth seeing because there would be an effort made behind the camera for your pleasure. But if I can think of one thing in the film that is totally responsible for its utterly hilarious and untitillating downfall ... it's the script. Never before have a seen a movie that was well made in almost all areas, except the very screenplay that it had to go off of. Meaningless plot point after plot point happens - and at nearly two hours long, the movie has so much going on which really had me interested, but at the very same time scratching my head over significance.

However, was the first Basic Instinct something of detail ? No. It wasn't. It got to the point - that was a movie about an evil femme fatale who was possibly knocking off everyone she screwed - Basic Instinct 2 is a movie about this same woman, who instead wants play games and possibly tease us because she's not getting enough action in the bedroom. Sharon Stone's Catharine Trammell may just be jealous this time around, as most of her sexual actions are to just tease the constantly dull-faced shrink Dr. Michael Glass (David Morrissey). He is so completely wrong for this part, it's almost painful. I can only say this about Trammell's actions because the movie does lack the sexual content that it should have, which isn't a good thing, because Sharon Stone is left doing a lot of stupid dirty talk to the doctor, outside of four letter words.

I really have no idea what Charlotte Rampling and David Thewlis are doing in this movie, but for what they've got to work with, they do a pretty good job, despite the now permanent stain on their resumes. The Direction, Editing, and Cinematography aren't too shabby as well - It's basically just the laughable performance by Stone and the lame story which hamper this movie. One funny thing I observed while watching this movie was how willing the very full audience laughed at the dialogue. I did as well, and surely wasn't just one of a few. The fact that people do see the ridiculous nature of this movie does make me feel good - I really only saw this movie just because I like watching trashy movies. But Basic Instinct 2 really let me down. It feels neutered and elongated for depth, but that depth itself is pretty lame. If you're going to make a movie with an actress who has put more effort into her plastic surgery and publicity than her on-screen career, you surely can't make her so disgustingly out of place from the other characters. I highly doubt a character like Morrissey's Dr. Glass would be so intrigued by her. She writes crap books, talks like a prostitute, and oozes VD. I'd almost go as far to say that if anyone who saw this movie thought that Trammell was sexy, they'd be insulting entire female sex. Personally, the one thing that bothered me about Stone's Trammell more than anything was her god-awful weave. I just wanted to wash her damn greasy blonde extensions.

So obvious, yes, I hated this movie. But I had a lot of fun seeing how stupid it was, how low Stone would go, and how completely useless yet another sequel is, long after the original was released. Congratulations Hollywood - you suck.

Posted by madamczyk at 11:05 PM | Comments (0)