Style2

Carlito's Way: Rise to Power (2005) (V) Directed by Michael Bregman

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 1:54 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , , ,



It's probably a fact I'm one of the few persons who prefers "Carlito's Way" over the other Brian De Palma directed crime epic "Scarface". In other words; I absolutely love the original "Carlito's Way" and I'm sad to say that this prequel is nowhere in the same league as the first and original movie!

Not just story, character or actor wise but more quality wise! This is a very simplistic, low budget production, that never even was played in cinemas. And rightfully so. This movie has no right to appear in any cinema and it even has absolutely no right to exist in the first place.

It's not like I completely hated this movie but it's simply being such a pointless on to watch. It has almost nothing to do with "Carlito's Way" at all and totally has a different tone and style to it. But also when you look at this movie as just a crime/thriller, it's being a terribly lacking one, that poorly got put together by both its cast and crew.

The cast is most obviously lacking. It consists just out of a bunch of guys, trying to act tough, which does not work out all, simply because they aren't very good actors. They are all terribly unconvincing in their roles, which also really takes away a lot of the tension for the movie and it's being hard to feel involved with anyone or anything in it.

It's not even being a very good 'origins' movie. So supposedly this movie is to show you how Carlito rose to power and gained control over the New York drugs world. But the movie doesn't show you how he slowly rises and gained more and more power and respect but it just simply shows how stuff just happens to him. He doesn't ever come across as a cunning and tough drug-lord, who isn't afraid to steal or kill.

They tried hard though. I mean, there is a scene in which out of nowhere Carlito suddenly shoots and kills a couple of guys. It really came out of the blue, which might sound like a positive thing, ala Michael Corleone in "The Godfather" but it really doesn't fit the character, the moment and just the overall style and story of the movie. It doesn't make sense for him to kill and he never does anything outrageous like that again, later on in this movie, which lets the scene feel all the more out of place and out of character for him. For the rest of the movie he actually comes across as a very nice guy, which probably is being another good indication how miscast Jay Hernandez is in his role. Throughout his career he has always played friendly guys, so why even consider him casting in a tough gangster role, that first got immortalized by Al Pacino, in 1993.

The movie also absolutely tells you nothing about the background or youth of Carlito. In that regard, this movie feels all the more pointless as a prequel. It doesn't tells you anything new, at least nothing interesting and you are obviously way better off watching the original "Carlito's Way" instead and forget about this movie.

But it's not just simply the casting or characters themselves that make this movie a poor and disappointing one. It also really could had used a more tight script, that offered some good moments and surprises and some better storytelling as well. This movie really doesn't get pleasantly told, which makes you feel glad when the movie is finally over.

Bad as a genre flick and even worse as a prequel to "Carlito's Way"!

4/10

Watch trailer

LOL (2012) Directed by Lisa Azuelos

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 1:11 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , ,



Now, I wouldn't call this movie necessarily a bad one but it in fact is lacking a purpose and doesn't make a point or has a clear message in it, in any way or form.

Quite frankly, I just can't understand how adults could be involved with this movie. It's a movie about teenagers, so its set in a teenage world, with teenage rules. It's about the sort the sort of the stuff that only seems to be important when you are still at a young age and far from adulthood. Well, I say teenagers but of course all of them are being played by some 20-year old's, which is something pretty obvious and annoying about this movie as well.

And really, this entire movie seems to about a bunch of non-issues. I just don't see what the big 'conflict' is supposed to be in this movie and there is just never any sense of true drama in the movie. This is mostly what makes this movie such a pointless watch. Crazy thing about the movie is that you can watch just and only the first 5 and last 5 minutes of this movie and you won't feel like you missed anything because of the simple reason that you also haven't done so. The characters and situations are still being mostly the same at the end of the movie. Perhaps they could had still made this movie somewhat interesting by making it a coming-of-age movie but all this movie seemed to be concerned about was appealing to young teens, who perhaps will be able to identify with some of the characters and situations in this movie but I just can't even imaging them being all that entertained by this movie. There is just far too little happening for that.

It's also a movie that confuses and does some stupid things. I swear at first I thought that some of the characters were 'bad guys' but as the movie progressed it suddenly became apparent to me that they were part of the friend-group of the movie and you were even supposed to like these characters. And that's also a problem of the movie. Most of the character aren't really being sympathetic enough to ever care for or be interested enough in.

Also an odd thing to see some big name actors in a movie like this. Demi Moore, Thomas Jane, Gina Gershon, Jay Hernandez, all play some quite big parts. Perhaps they were just eager to appear in a Miley Cyrus movie, who is still being a hot young star but isn't exactly known for doing great movies.

Pointless movie, that is pointless to watch.

4/10

Watch trailer

World Trade Center (2006) Directed by Oliver Stone

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 8:40 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , ,




(Review originally written at 26 January 2007)

 *** This review may contain spoilers ***

 The movie sort of has the bad luck that "United 93" was the first major theatrical movie released, regarding 9/11, so of course these two movies immediately got compared to each other. "United 93" is a movie that is far superior in its emotions and in capturing the the mood and emotions of that day. It makes you relive 9/11. "World Trade Center" is a different movie, with a different approach, that is less powerful, though still powerful nevertheless, just in a different way. It's probably the reason why "United 93" got praised way more and "World Trade Center" got based way more, even though it of course is far from a bad movie. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad. I mean, it's not like every good movie about WW II is the same either.

 The movie mostly lays its emphasis on the heroic aspects of 9/11. The sort of message of the movie is 'we'll overcome' and not 'this is our darkest hour'. Maybe America and Americans needed this sort of movie, to heal their wounds and handle their emotions, that are all still fresh, by showing, as weird and disrespectful as it might sound, the positive aspects of 9/11, by showing the individual heroism and how people were brought together through the events and including a 'happy' ending. The movie doesn't ever succeed in capturing the total chaos, confusing and desperation of that day, perhaps only the first few minutes of the movie. It doesn't make this movie the most powerful or relevant movies, regarding the subject, around and my hope is that later Hollywood movies shall succeed better in this, since it concerns a relevant, important subject, that should be continued to be lighted in future movies, to contribute to it that 9/11 shall never be forgotten.

 Let's be fair, in essence this movie is a disaster movie, like so many were made of in the '70's. And lets face it, those movies just aren't the best ones around. My biggest fear was that "World Trade Center" would be just as sappy and over-the-top melodramatic in some of it's moments, like always in '70's also was the case. "World Trade Center" is definitely sappy and over-the-top melodramatic at times but not halve as bad as I had feared. Some of the sequence even work out effective. It are however the emotions of the story work out but not the emotions of 9/11 itself.

 Perhaps the most amazing thing about the movie is that its directed by Oliver Stone. A man who normally likes to handle controversial and provocative subjects and throw in some conspiracy theories. It would had been very easy to put in conspiracy theories in this movie and if one man could do it, it would be him. "World Trade Center" however in now way ever gets predictable or question the actions of the authorities, or anything of that sort. As a matter of fact, if you'd told me this movie was directed by someone else, I would had believed it. Nothing in this movie indicates that this movie is directed by Oliver Stone. Also his trademark of fast cuts and high pace is not notable in this movie. The movie is very natural and mainstream. It also of course means that this movie is also perfectly watchable for his non-fans.

 The time-line is pretty messed up. Hours go by in only on screen minutes time. The movie focuses entirely on 9/11 and the morning after but the movie doesn't ever give us the sense of time, also of course since it mostly is set underground, beneath the rubble of the collapsed tower. It however doesn't always make the story flow well and causes some drags.

 It's a true story and that's really amazing. The story of the two men who got stuck alive beneath the rubble and life to tell the story is pretty amazing, considering how many lives were lost on 9/11 and how many actually survived from the rubble. Yet the movie also decides to put some more characters in the story, as if the two main characters already aren't interesting and in a way symbolic enough for that day. Of course it also focuses on their families, which makes sense but it also throws in some other 'heroic' characters in the movie, that we however never get to known, which make them and the plot lines around them pretty shallow and needless.

 Not sure if Nicolas Cage was the right choice for the role. I mean he has never really played a dramatic or touching role in his career, though I'm definitely not a Nicolas Cage hater. I think a movie like this would had been better off with a completely unknown cast. It would had made it easier to identify yourself with them and would also had made the movie and story work out more realistic and powerful.

 The effects of the movie are really good. The the impact and the all look extremely realistic and is amazingly well done, with lots of respect. So the movie doesn't try to impress with its visuals or make the impact and collapse look spectacular. As a matter of fact, the collapse of the towers isn't even shown on screen.

 See this movie for how well made it is but don't see it for its emotions or for the emotional and touching impact it will make on you. For that, I recommend you watch "United 93" instead.

 7/10

 Watch trailer

Hostel (2005) Directed by Eli Roth

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 5:01 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 1 August 2006)

This movie is a more than great one for several reasons. It's not also a good refreshing and original horror movie but also a great, subtle social commentary.

Just think about it. Every horror element of horror movies of the past two decades are present here. Hot girls, lots of sex and nudity, graphic horror and a murderous psychopathic villain. Everything is made out extra large and is prominently present here in this movie, with as a result that it becomes almost a parody on these sort of other recent horror-flicks. Watching this movie really made me realize that Eli Roth understands the genre and sees what is wrong with it these days. He's a horror-fan that also happens to direct movies himself. Especially the first halve of the movie is mostly a parody. It's filled with nudity and sex and really feels over-the-top all. It's also filled with some great humor.

Yet this movie is also so much more than just reflection on horror movies of the past 2 decades. It's also a great social commentary. The Americans are portrayed as ignorant testosterone driven persons who are willing to travel halve over the world just to have sex and they also see the world through their own ignorant narrow minded eyes. For instance Amsterdam is filled with willing-girls at about basically every corner and all the city has to offer are coffee-shops. And everyone in Slovakia is poor and does literally everything for money and the country itself is gritty, cold, gray, boring and filled with old fashioned use objects such as cars, televisions and clothing, like time has stopped there during the cold war. And one of the torturers is OF COURSE a German. Some people call it racist but I see it as a great and perhaps even brilliant, subtle brought statement, made by Eli Roth. He shows how ignorant most Americans are about the world around them, by showing us the world through the eyes of the two main American characters. Everything is cliché filled and stereotypical but with a purpose. Not sure if it was done on purpose that every Dutch characters speaks German in this movie. I think it had more to do with budget reasons. It's easier to let an actor learn to speak German than Dutch. Still it feels pretty weird, since Quentin Tarantino, who was involved with this movie and who lived and worked in Amsterdam for a couple of years and always puts some Dutch elements into his movies (also in this one obviously), didn't pointed this out to Roth.

It's also funny to see how most people call this movie a predictable one. If there is a refreshingly original horror movie of the past few years, than it's "Hostel". You don't know who is the killer(s) and why and how things are happening, until like the last 30 minutes when everything becomes FULLY COMPLETELY clear. The movie goes in several directions at times and than suddenly turns the other way around. For instance the movie begins as a tripping, humor filled B-movie, that you can hardly take serious. But after that the movie suddenly becomes darker and mysterious and in the end it also becomes gory. The movie and its style go into several directions at times and the movie takes some great twist and turns. It fools the audience a couple of times. For instance who didn't thought that when they went into the 'torture museum' the main characters would get stuck there and the rest of the movie would be set in there. Or how about it that it's implied several times in the movie that one of the main characters is a homosexual. Nothing is really done with it in the movie but it's a great daring and subtle touch to make the main character look extra vulnerable and sensible. It was not necessary for Roth to put it in the movie, since nothing is done with it in the story but it's obviously put in there to fool us and makes us think that the movie is heading into a different direction with this extra added element.

The movie gets graphic but not until the end, when the movie fully turns into an horror movie. The movie might not be as gory and graphic as expected but it leaves a lot up to your own imagination. But still there are a couple of straight-forward graphic sequences, which are certainly not just for everyone.

The movie is fairly cheap looking which certainly does also add to the unique feeling and atmosphere of the movie. It's style is certainly unique. Although this movie is mostly a horror one, it never looses its sense of humor and is filled with humorous comical situations, dialog and whatever more. It makes "Hostel" above all an entertaining and amusing one to watch, even though it certainly also gets heavy in the end.

Quentin Tarantino calls Eli Roth 'the future of horror' for a very good reason. If there is one person who can bring back the horror-genre back to its roots and to what they were intended to be at the first place, it's Eli Roth. Simple, straight-forward and without a complicated or sensible plot. Hopefully in the next few years more people start to see this and shall this also inspire other directors and movie makers.

Perhaps you have to be familiar with the horror-genre and its movies of the last 2 decades and '70's and perhaps even older, to fully see and understand this movie the way Eli Roth intended us to see it. It's a movie that will most definitely please the fans of the genre, while most casual viewers might probably find this movie nothing more than a formulaic horror movie, with a simple story and just 'don't get' what is so special about it. (also hence the low rating (5.8) on IMDb at the moment.)

9/10

Watch trailer
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Copyright © 2014 Boba_Fett1138's movie reviews
⬆
Top