PaleyFilms

In the throes of passion a woman (Jennifer Beals) bites Peter Loew (Nicholas Cage) on the neck. Over the following days, Peter believes he is transforming into a vampire. His behavior goes from eccentric to erratic, as he spirals downward into a chaotic state of mind.

Vampire’s Kiss is a film that can all too easily be written off as bad. After all, even the plot summary is ridiculous, let alone the movie itself. While its story may be incredibly strange and often, nonsensical, the film works as a bizarre comedy, and contains one of Nicholas Cage’s best performances.

For anyone who, based upon the title, thinks this is a bad horror movie, I ask you to turn to Joseph Minion, the screenwriter. With help from Martin Scorsese’s brilliant direction, Minion was the mastermind behind 1985′s After Hours. Much of the humor here is akin to the humor in After Hours, as it is extremely weird. The only difference with this film, is that its comedy is far more over the top. Cage’s character does some truly wacky things, such as, constantly abuse his secretary (Maria Conchita Alonso), eat a live cockroach, and run around saying “I’m a vampire!”

It is not just the fact that the comedy is strange, that makes it so good; it is how it’s handled. Robert Bierman does a very competent directing job, more so than would be expected for such a movie. He and his crew make the best out of a screenplay that could easily have been botched up. Bierman doesn’t hold back any of the funny moments in order to make them more disturbing or serious. He stretches a rubber band to its maximum length, snaps it forward, and just lets it go wherever momentum takes it.

Easily the most unforgettable part of this movie is Nicholas Cage’s performance. Anybody who found Cage’s acting in The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call- New Orleans to be crazy, must check out this film. His one man-man show in Vampire’s Kiss makes his Bad Lieutenant role seem as understated as Harry Dean Stanton’s in Paris, Texas. This is overacting to the ultimate degree, but it is a good type of overacting. From his accent alone, one realizes that Cage is giving a (somewhat) calculated performance, rather than a bad one. It just works here, and would not have, had a different actor taken his place.

Because of the weight of Cage’s dominant presence, the other actors’ performances are utterly forgettable. Thankfully, this is a very minor issue, as the film works best when its main character is on screen.

I am not entirely sure who to recommend Vampire’s Kiss to. I guess if you are a Joseph Minion or Nicholas Cage fan, you have a good shot at loving the film. If bizarre humor is your thing, give this movie a chance, and it will make you laugh (out loud) constantly. This is probably Cage’s most unleashed performance (maybe one of the most unleashed performances of all time), and a total embrace of Minion’s script. Parts of this film are comic brilliance, while the rest are wholly creative and unique. As an experience, there is nothing like it.

Rob Reiner has never been one to exercise style over substance. For example, This is Spinal Tap, Stand By Me, and When Harry Met Sally are notable more for their screenplays and acting, than for their direction. A Few Good Men is no exception to this trend. Reiner’s direction is pretty standard, while Aaron Sorkin’s screenplay is sharp and witty.

Tom Cruise, who gives an energetic and fun-to-watch performance, plays Daniel Kaffee, a military defense lawyer. When two soldiers are falsely accused of murder, Kaffee takes on their case, as well as all of the tribulations that come with it.

Though it has some cliche and cheesy lines, the fim manages to keep a respectable tone, while still being entertaining. Its greatest asset is Sorkin’s script (his debut screenplay, in fact), which contains surprisingly funny and rapid-fire dialogue. The cast has no lightweights, enabling characters to deliver their lines well. Along with Cruise, Jack Nicholson and Demi Moore have the chops to relentlessly banter back and forth.

While the courtroom scenes contain much of the film’s clever banter, they play out too conventionally. Instead of realistically setting up cases for their clients, the lawyers seem to simply be trying to one-up each other.

Another problem the film has is its attempt at throwing in a romantic subplot. Daniel and his fellow officer JoAnne Galloway seem to be getting into a romantic relationship at one point, which ultimately feels tacked on and contrived. Even worse, though, is the fact that it is brought up in literally one or two scenes, then never mentioned again. It seems as if an entire plot point was written, then excised by the director or studio executives.

A Few Good Men may not be a perfect film, but it sure as heck is damn entertaining. Rob Reiner does not disappoint, nor does he blow the viewer away. This is a fine movie with some great performances and dialogue. Not every plot element is fully fleshed out, but the ones that are succeed on a high level.

Vincenzo Natali’s debut film, Cube, has an extremely intriguing premise. Four men and two women find themselves trapped in a building made of interlocking cubes, with no idea how they got there. Without any food or water, and only their brains as resources, the group must navigate through multiple rooms and attempt to escape the giant maze. Their situation sounds pretty bad as it is, but there is an additional twist: certain rooms are booby-trapped, meaning one false move can cause instant death. The movie has a great opening scene that draws you in right away; however, as soon as any dialogue is spoken, it becomes apparent that the film will not live up to any expectations you have set for it.

For starters, the screenplay is poorly written and often feels contrived. Certain characters in the film are “conveniently” important, only as necessity calls for them. For example, one of the women is a student who uses her math skills to attempt to figure out the cube’s mystery. Even if that is somehow possible (and it does not feel at all believable here), it literally takes seconds for her to come to a conclusion. Later in the plot, there is an attempt by the filmmakers to bring up the weighty themes of paranoia and desperation, which ultimately lacks subtlety and solidifies the film’s contrived nature. Additionally, interactions between members of the group play out in unrealistic, and often laughable, ways. The dialogue is pretty atrocious, and is not enhanced at all by the film’s acting.

If there is one thing completely wrong with this movie, it is its actors. Understandably, the film was shot on a low budget, making name-performers out of the question. Unforgivable, however, is the fact that whoever did the casting for this movie must not have shown up to supervise the auditions. This is easily some of the worst acting I have seen in a very long time, and not just from one or two actors. The cast gives uniformly terrible performances, especially the two women. Bad acting does not usually bring a film down so much, but this is a special exception; it really takes you out of the movie-watching experience.

To be fair, it is the screenplay and actors which are to blame here, not Vincenzo Natali’s direction. With real actors and a decent script, I can imagine Natali making good films. Along with pretty cool set design (essentially one set which repeats itself over and over), his direction is the only thing that makes this movie somewhat bearable. Natali has a crafty imagination that a lot of filmmakers today are lacking. While he is not enough to save this movie, one can see he is on the right track.

If premise alone is enough for you to like a movie, this is right up your alley. On the other hand, if what you look for in a film is good acting and writing, forget about this one. Cube is a movie full of ideas, but bursting with poor execution. Far better directorial debuts have been made for less money (e.g. Christopher Nolan’s Following, or Darren Aronofsky’s Pi), making you wonder what this would be like with a better cast and script.

Not only is Hollywood notorious for making unnecessary remakes of foreign films, they are also known to frequently botch up the projects, by essentially “American-izing” the source material by watering down the stories. When it was announced that Matt Reeves would be remaking Tomas Alfredson’s 2008 critical hit Let the Right One In, many fans of the original were outraged at such an idea. After all, the film was only two years old, and people were scared that the remake would be far too mainstream to be anywhere nearly as good as the original. I must admit that I enjoyed Let the Right One In quite a bit, in fact, more so than its remake, Let Me In; however, in no way can I say that the remake fails. It certainly does not dumb down for the audience, and remains true enough to the original to satisfy even hardcore fans.

Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a young boy growing up under harsh conditions. His parents are in the midst of getting a divorce, and he is cruelly bullied in school, day after day. One night, Abby (Chloe Moretz), a seemingly normal girl, moves into the apartment next door with her father (Richard Jenkins). Fairly soon, it becomes clear that Abby is a vampire, and needs to consume blood to survive. After they meet one evening on a playground, Owen and Abby strike up a tender friendship, dramatically changing both of their lives.

Those who have been convinced by trailers that this is simply a horror movie, will be gravely mistaken. Instead of being a generic slasher movie, it is, at its heart, a touching love/friendship story between two young children. When the film does contain any violence, it is generally handled in a beautiful and moving way. Any time somebody is killed for their blood, one can see that Abby is not happy or proud of what she or her father (he initially kills people and brings home their blood for his daughter) has done. It is simply something she needs to survive, and she never relishes that fact.

The two child actors are very good. Smit-McPhee is pretty heartbreaking, and it is nice to see the talented Chloe Moretz (fresh off of Kick-Ass) getting more mature and emotionally complex roles. Richard Jenkins gives a touching performance as the old father who is getting less and less competent with age, at bringing home the life-juice his daughter requires. Though most of the supporting characters are one-dimensional, the leads are strong and competent enough to counteract them.

Matt Reeves’s previous project was the super-fast, shaky-cam Cloverfield. Knowing this fact makes his direction here even more impressive than it already is. The tone of this film is meandering and the direction is well though out, creating a uniquely melancholy mood throughout. The cinematography is stayed and beautiful, rather than jittery and all over the place. A director that can shift so well from super-quick to super-slow must be a very good filmmaker.

Although I do like how this version of the story changes the original’s Stockholm setting, by making it American, certain conversions feel a little unnecessary. There are multiple 80′s songs playing throughout, as well as television broadcasts featuring Ronald Reagan. Though they do serve to drive the setting into the audience’s head, this film isn’t one that would function any differently in a different time period. This story can work anytime and anywhere, and would still be just the same. It seems the 80′s setup is thrown in to the film for no real purpose or reason, and can sometimes be distracting.

The special effects just don’t work. Every time Abby goes lusting for blood, she begins to move in a sped-up, clearly CGI fashion. Out of all of the film’s touches, this is the only one that feels a little like it’s pandering to mainstream audiences. Thankfully, there are not too many of these scenes, and the rest of the violence is moody and touching.

The character development is supposed to be slow paced and meandering; though, in a few sequences scenes simply go on for too long. Along with the previous two flaws aforementioned, however, this is a minor criticism, as the film’s tone mostly succeeds. Like Let the Right One In, it rarely sacrifices plot or character progression for audience-pleasing antics.

Let Me In is a rare Hollywood remake that works. I recommend watching Let the Right One In first, followed by Let Me In, to see all of the remake’s clever nuances and changes. Based upon what he has made in the past, Reeves’s direction is nothing short of astounding, as are Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz’s (hopefully) career boosting performances. Despite some minor flaws in execution, the movie is a good remake, and a fine standalone work.

One sequence in Atonement involves a young Briony Tallis (played by three different actresses over three time periods) accidentally witnessing a liaison between her sister (Keira Knightley) and her sister’s pursuer (James McAvoy). Briony misconstrues this situation, causing a terrible series of events to play out. Over a period of several decades, Briony learns the consequences of her actions, and attempts to atone for her misdoings.

There is a lot to like here. Joe Wright’s direction is incredible, as is the art direction and cinematography. Wright pulls off a 4-5+ minute tracking shot on a beach, similar in vein to something you would see Martin Scorsese or Paul Thomas Anderson do. In fact, all of this movie’s shots are framed in a very cinematic way, making the film as a whole visually interesting. Acting all around is solid, especially that of Saoirse Ronan, who plays a 13 year old Briony. Dario Marianelli’s score is nothing short of brilliant, cleverly blending clicks from a typewriter into some pretty epic music.

The themes the film presents are very ambitious, particularly those regarding the long lasting effects of seemingly simple misconceptions, and different points of perspective. These themes are so ambitious, yet don’t fully succeed, making the film kind of disappointing.

At the heart of the movie is a love story between Knightly and McAvoy’s characters; however, it is a very unconvincing relationship. Not once did I buy that Briony’s sister would fall for the guy she does. In fact, the situation that brings them together is unrealistic as is its result. It seems that Knightly’s character’s motivations are inconsistent and unfounded. As later acts in the movie show, the central love story is greatly affected by events that transpire earlier on. If we cannot buy the relationship, how can we invest in or feel suspense in the story?

Another problem with the film is its pacing. The first act is truly excellent, with a great amount of theme setups and character development (minus proper chemistry between Knightly and McAvoy). Even the second act is decent, though far below the quality and interesting premise of the opening. By the time the final lap comes around, not much is left to latch on to. Things begin to feel weighed down, without actually being emotionally interesting.

Atonement has enough pluses to be highly recommendable, but too many flaws to be a great film. Just for the direction and cinematography one should see the movie, though there is some pretty solid acting, as well. Whether it is the fault of the screenplay or simply its source material (Ian McEwan’s novel of the same name), the main love story is pretty weak, and only hurts the plot. While the ambitious themes work well in the first act, they never succeed on that level in the rest of the film. Interest can only be stayed as long as something worth telling is being shown. Ambition can be a powerful thing, but can also be the downfall of an art form; here it is somewhere in between.

David Fincher certainly is a malleable director. Some of his most popular movies include Fight Club, Se7en, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; three completely different films, in both genre and tone. The Social Network, however, is arguably his freshest and most ambitious work thus far. It is a dramatic reenactment of the creation of the multi-million dollar social networking website, Facebook. To many people, the premise of this film may sound somewhat unappealing and unnecessary; however, those people are wrong. What Fincher has on his hands here is a tremendous work of cinema, and one of 2010′s greatest movies.

Jesse Eisenberg gives an utterly fantastic performance as Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s best known co-creator. Though on the surface Zuckerberg comes off as a very unemotional and often antisocial person, Eisenberg brings a lot of depth to the character. A great deal of scenes simply focus on his face for several seconds, and just from his eyes one can see how Zuckerberg is both lonely and proud at the same time. He doesn’t really interact well with people and rarely stops using his computer as his main medium of communication, but also takes pride in his achievements. Zuckerberg faces many issues throughout, such as being sued by various people who claim the idea for Facebook was stolen. Even his only friend, Eduardo Severin (a co-creator of Facebook) sues him. By the way, Severin is played here by Andrew Garfield in a tremendous supporting role. The rest of the cast does well, too, especially Justin Timberlake, who plays the founder of the online music service, Napster.

David Fincher’s direction is top-notch, as he criss-crosses the tale between multiple time periods and various characters. The film’s structure is impeccable and flows stunningly well, due to some of the best editing you will see all year (yes, even better than that of Inception). To add to its smooth pacing, the film contains a very lyrical and rocking score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, of Nine Inch Nails fame.

As good as all of the acting, technical mastery, and direction is, the most enjoyable aspect of this film is Aaron Sorkin’s brilliant screenplay. Adapted from Ben Mezrich’s novel The Accidental Billionaires, this is the best written script to make it onto the screen since last year’s Inglourious Basterds. In fact, I cannot remember a movie from recent times that has such fast paced, witty dialogue. From the opening scene (where Zuckerberg’s girlfriend breaks up with him) we can hear how well this screenplay moves along. The audience is never disrespected; technical jargon is not explained for the film-watcher’s benefit (and yes, there is a lot of it), a cliche that would be used in most other films to “dumb it down”. This is also one of the few rare movies where not one moment is wasted; there are no contrived shifts in tone, nor pauses in the dialogue’s breakneck pace. Sorkin has made something that can be compared to the screenplays of classic films such as His Girl Friday or Bringing Up Baby (though this is a lot darker and more serious than those screwball comedies).

The Social Network is a huge success of a film in every way. It is a character study and an ensemble at the same time, and uses some of the best cross-cutting you will ever see. The script is as good as they come, and is surely a shoo-in for the Best Adapted Screenplay category, come Oscars season. Virtually the whole film consists of talking, but is gripping and involving throughout. This marks a huge step up from David Fincher’s previous movie, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and is one of the best films to come out in while, period. If you have interest in any kind of cinema, “friend” this movie at a theater near you.

At first glance, David Cronenberg’s The Fly seems deceptively like a standard horror/sci-fi romp. On a closer viewing, however, one realizes there is so much more going on under the surface. Instead of simply making a really good film in a specific genre, Cronenberg takes an idea based around horror and science fiction, and turns it into a tragic love story.

Jeff Goldblum plays Seth Brundle, a scientist who convinces journalist Veronica Quaife (Geena Davis) to come to his home and see a new device he has made. It is a “telepod,” which is essentially a teleportation device that can transport objects from one side of a room to the other. While the device is groundbreaking and potentially worth millions, it has one major problem that needs to be sorted out; it cannot transport living matter. After Seth begins a relationship with Veronica, his creative mind becomes fully unleashed, and he successfully figures out how to modify the machine for use on living creatures. Seth ultimately tests the device on himself, but doesn’t realize that a fly flew into the telepod during the teleportation process, attaching its own DNA to that of Seth’s. Over a period of time, Seth experiences a series of bizarre, disturbing, and often gross transformations, becoming less and less human every day.

A lot of credit should be given to Mr. Cronenberg for handling his subject matter so well. Yes, there is gore and slime in this movie, as well as disgusting appendages that grow from Seth’s body. However, the director chooses not to focus too much on the horrific aspects, and sets his sights on making this a story of a romance that is tragically torn to pieces over these transformations. The movie refuses to be sentimental, doesn’t dwell too much on the violence (though the scenes of it are pretty gruesome: beware!), and yet still manages to have tremendous character development. At just about an hour and a half in length, the narrative never drags, contains a consistent tone, and is an edifice for non-stop entertainment. The screenplay doesn’t hurt the film, either. While this is a remake of a 1958 movie of the same name, the dialogue is pitch-perfect, and always services its characters.

Along with Cronenberg’s direction, Jeff Goldblum’s performance pulls this movie through. It is very rare to have such great work from an actor, in a role that would have been performed as a stereotype by most other people. Instead of simply being the creepy scientist/nerd, Goldblum plays Brundle in a very human way, something that makes the tragic story even more heartbreaking. Geena Davis also does very well in the role she is given, and expresses the “normal” half of the couple’s muddled relationship. The only performance I didn’t care for was that of John Getz, who plays Stathis Borans, Veronica’s annoying ex-boyfriend. Though Getz is a very good actor (just check out the Coen Brothers’ Blood Simple!), he feels very underwritten here, and doesn’t deserve any of the redeeming moments he has. Thankfully he isn’t in too much of the film, and doesn’t substantially hurt it.

What could have been another shallow entry into the slasher-film genre, is handled here with extreme care, and given emotion by David Cronenberg. Instead of being a violence driven movie, The Fly is run by its character arcs and storyline. At its roots this film is an oddball tragedy that may just make your eyes bug out.