Change Your Image
WynneL
Reviews
Stay (2005)
The critics just didn't get it.
I am mystified by how completely critics seem to have missed the point of "Stay". While I, regrettably, ignored this one because I almost always agree with the general drift of critical opinion (not including the ones who are paid to praise a work to the high heavens) and it got weak scores on the website I visit, I watched it recently and felt like a verifiable horse's backside for not going with my initial feeling about it. Not only does it feature three actors I'd been very fond of for some time--Ewan McGregor, Naomi Watts, and Ryan Gosling--it is well-scripted and full of beautiful cinematography. It's the first film I've ever seen wherein I had to wait until the very end to be entirely sure whom the main character really was. The three most-featured characters are all intriguing in their own way, so that was actually never a negative to me. In fact, it was entrancing.
While I can understand the fact that the Silent Hill movie was maligned, despite my video game background and the slant that comes with it, I still really don't get the critics panning a fabulous film like this one. It may not have been the movie of my life, but it was certainly way up there and I have trouble thinking of bad things to say about it. I won't go into too much detail, but if you've seen Jacob's Ladder, Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway, American Beauty, Donnie Darko, or even just played the video game Silent Hill 2, then the foundations have been laid and you are canny enough to understand the general landscape of "Stay", which similarly asks questions about life and death, and tries to offer new thoughts about the possible answers. But "Stay" takes that premise a step further with an interesting twist at the very end, blurring the lines even more, creating an explorative film which--like most of the above-mentioned works--you may find you have to think about for quite some time after watching it. I would ask the question I feel the film answers, but I don't want to accidentally spoil any readers of this review.
I hope some of those critics who panned this film have watched it again since, and have come to understand it enough to feel like the small-minded idiots they were. I mean, really, so many of you weren't even trying. You had to have watched at least one of the above films in your respective careers, and Donnie Darko is much more obscure about what it means, but it still was positively lauded.
I'm not the type who usually spouts off, "Well, you just didn't understand it!" when something just didn't bother to make sense--on the contrary, I usually want things spelled out for me by the time the curtains are beginning to lower, and yet, I had no doubt at the end of the film what it was about, or what the events within it meant. Critics' complaints didn't even touch on the one reason (its very similarity in the foundational idea to Jacob's Ladder, although it really has its own distinct thoughts and is decidedly no mere ripoff) that would have made sense--simply because, oh, "it wanders and comes to no real conclusion; you'll only walk away bewildered and confused!" Preposterous. The only confusion I felt was in how they could be so deliberately dense. And in case you've heard, it doesn't "glorify suicide"--a person would have to barely glance at the references to think such a thing. The movie is called "Stay" for a reason.
To any reasonable person who happens to stumble across this review--you don't have to be brilliant to understand "Stay". You don't even have to have viewed any of the above works, although in that case it might take a second viewing to truly make it click. You just have to be willing to read between the lines a little, and accept that most of the events of the film are not really what they seem. The end pulls it all together, and when you watch it again you will increasingly appreciate the notions and the details contained within.
Since I refuse to underestimate the intelligence of the average person, I highly recommend this film.
The Grudge (2004)
One of those lost opportunities to make a great horror film.
The three main problems with this movie: its presentation is too scattershot, it defies its own logic, and the characters are only marginally interesting.
There are some really nice ghost moments. I watched this movie alone, and thus it freaked me out a little (and I eat horror for breakfast). Very nice sound, makeup, clothing, acting, etc. on the part of the dead. This was very well done, except perhaps for the sound the ghost made, which sounded like an everlasting belch. Seriously. It's like she couldn't end the burp and that's what killed her. Maybe if somebody slapped her on the back like she wanted then everything would be fine, I don't know.
Surprisingly, Sarah Michelle Gellar isn't as convincing as normal. You just get the sense that she knew the material was weak and couldn't do anything much with it. Ted Raimi is marvelously adorable apparently without even trying. Bill Pullman ironically still has a friendly charm whilst looking as hollow and creepy as I've ever seen him. The girl who plays Yoko is both good and sympathetic. Pretty much all female actresses do a good job of seeming scared or scary. The little boy is quite perfect for his role. It's not the cast or the director that's the problem.
Think of it this way: The Ring ended ten minutes after you expected it to, and that was a GOOD thing. The Grudge ends about five minutes after you expect it to, and this is a VERY BAD thing. Because five minutes ago, you had closure, some vague semblance of sense, slightly suspended disbelief, and a decent scene. Then it gets ruined. I really wish I'd stopped watching after that final object is thrown into a pool of liquid.
The "this is Japanese kabuki and it just operates differently" defense doesn't work--BECAUSE THIS IS A REMAKE. It would have been so easy to keep the feel of the Japanese ghosts and still make SOME kind of sense within its own universe. That's all I ask, is that a movie make sense within its own universe. For example, I can kinda extrapolate the reason for catboy ghost existing, I can believe that a supernatural house can make someone see its past, but I can not see the reason for the last five minutes of the movie to even exist. It went from creepy-and-insensible-but-strangely-cleansing to utterly stupid.
Bottom line, this movie is a lot of polish over a hollow shell. The reason it makes me so annoyed is that if it had presented a decent script and been less scattershot (not even necessarily chronological) so that we could at least sorta follow what the hell was going on, it could have been good.
Silent Hill: The Unauthorized Trailer (2004)
It's a JOKE. Get it? A JOKE. When things are FUNNY and NOT SERIOUS.
"Do you wanna jump down this hole?" "Hell yeah!"
Any Silent Hill fan who has intelligence above the level of a freaking EMBRYO will not have believed for one moment that this was meant to be taken as a serious short. Doesn't anyone remember how ridiculous it was in Silent Hill 2 when James jumped down all these holes that he couldn't see the bottom of? The above quote is an IN-JOKE. This entire fake trailer is obviously a campy fan-made PARODY of Silent Hill. A loving poke in the ribs. And frankly, it's hilarious.
I can't believe how many people took this seriously. Here I thought the average Silent Hill fan had a brain and a sense of humor... too bad to be so disappointed.
Well, at least Zombie D2 has those things. Cheers to the nut-jobs who made this little short; we get it, if no one else.
Seabiscuit (2003)
Enjoyable and well-acted. - Spoilers
Ignore the odd ludicrous comment that this was a propaganda movie--it's nothing of the kind. It never made me think of 9/11 in the vaguest fashion (and the book it was based on was published in March of 2001), Jeff Bridges' character doesn't resemble George Bush in any conceivable way, Christianity has nothing to do with a non-religious hero who sleeps with a hooker down in Mexico, and the view of America is pretty bleak and poignant, nothing like the glowing triumph depicted by a certain commenter who enjoyed making political remarks rather than actually reviewing the movie. The film has basically nothing to do with America; it is just set there. The underlying themes underscore human dreams, and the history lessons (admittedly a bit dry, but interesting) were rather obviously not intended as "the way we should be", but rather, "the way they were". The movie looks back on a more innocent time, when people were brave and exhilarated... and destitute, and sometimes tragically foolish, believing in black-and-white ideals which didn't fit their reality. This America is full of poor people, unpleasant people, silly people, simple people, kind souls, fools, and ruthless bullies.
Anyone who doesn't possess an irrational hatred of America--to the point where they think every American movie is right-wing propaganda used by the evil government to infect the thoughts of a populace which has no ability to think for itself--will probably not regard this movie as anything but a film about hope and bittersweet, broken victories, well-acted and well-scored. The message I got from it was that you can't have a perfect life, but if you keep working at it, you may at least come out of it with something. Obvious, but meaningful nonetheless.
It may seem amusing or naive to those who wish to feel superior, that some of us enjoyed this film... but anyone with a good head on their shoulders, no matter what country they're from, will realize that this is actually a true story. Seabiscuit DID win. Red Pollard lived and married one of the nurses who took care of him after his injury. And that has hardly a damn thing to do with politics, religion, or America. It's about human persistence... and equine persistence, for that matter.
Bang Bang You're Dead (2002)
Immensely true to life.
I went back and watched this movie again, and it struck me all over just how real it feels. The performances are so perfectly spot-on that you could swear you know these people--what could have been a string of cliches or platitudes was instead carefully detailed to look like real life. I've rarely seen anything in the theater or on television that struck so very close to home. What makes it all so effective is that absolutely no one comes across as unsympathetic--not the jocks, not the outcasts, not the parents, not the teachers, not anyone. The casting was that sublime. The mains among the young cast are the most impressive group of actors and actresses I've seen in my generation. The older members of the cast are so good I can't believe I hadn't seen them somewhere before. Even the minor characters make an impression and have a bit of flesh to them. You may not like some of these people, you may be angry at them, but you will see where they went astray and understand. No one seems entirely wrong or right, and that's what makes it so unrelentingly human.
Despite having been a girl and not facing many of the physical tortures portrayed in the film, the sense of humiliation and utter isolation resonates very closely with my own grade school experience. If you weren't ever in that place, if you were popular or normal in school, you may watch this film and think the suffering within was exaggerated, that no one really goes through that... let me tell you, it's not an exaggeration. You may feel like it's normal for kids to get teased, and maybe it is... but there's a tremendous difference between getting teased by your friends and getting messed with because you're regarded by the general population as a thing. You can't make friends when everyone is afraid that hanging around you will cause them to be exposed to the kind of ridicule and torment that you're going through. You have no one to tell, your parents don't understand, you are completely alone in your world, and it feels like that will never change. Every moment of every day is spent waiting for the next gallon of gasoline to be thrown on the flames of your living hell. No, it doesn't look that bad when you're on the outside... it's just somebody getting shoved or laughed at or whispered about. But when it's you actually going through it, you end up either wanting to die or wanting to kill someone. That's exactly what this movie addresses--what leads a young person to that place. If everyone around refuses to empathize and understand, tragedy is the almost inevitable result.
Gormenghast (2000)
What a waste of a great book and a stellar cast.
My full agreement with the fellow who said "the scriptwriters should be executed".
Perhaps the worst thing about Gormenghast is the horrendous, galling waste of what could have potentially been the best movie ever made. Look at those actors! Anyone who can say "the movie was faithful to the book" is either comparing it to the most outlandishly unfaithful adaptations of all time or simply did not read the same novels I read (and I read them before the movie, so you know I'm going to be riled... although I am generally very open-minded and don't expect a movie to match a book exactly, I )
Some of the warpings are forgivable and understandable, but far too many are appalling. Most notable is the way that they tore the heart out of Fuschia's chest and stuffed it into Steerpike's, ruining what is perhaps the most captivating aspect of Mervyn Peake's generally spellbinding fiction--that is, besides the gothic beauty (which ended up as campy bright pastel fantasy castles in the movie).
In the books, Steerpike is not a 'nice guy deep down' who just goes wrong because he isn't loved by the foolish, selfish woman. I suspect the scriptwriters were misogynists. No, in the books, Steerpike is perhaps the most compelling and hideous villain ever concocted... exactly what makes him so unique is that he is at once ~entirely sympathetic~ and ~entirely wicked~. No, wicked is not the word... more like soulless, heartless, devoid of any human emotion. He values... ~things~, not people. That Mervyn Peake has written him so it takes you nearly the entire series, up until the VERY end to finally hate him with a black passion that will never die, is quite a marvel. How brilliantly the author sets you up.
Fuschia, in the movie, is nothing but a brat who never grows into a woman--in fact, she worsens into a brainless child with no willingness to choose love over safety. This is flagrant reversal of the true character.
Fuschia was THE most sympathetic character in the entire book. At the end, I literally felt like all the beauty had gone out of the world. I cried my heart out as if my own sister was lost to me. She would never have rejected Steerpike, NEVER! She would have sooner cut her own throat! She was bored with the stuffiness and suffocated by the traditions and so full of loneliness and heartache deep down. She was smart and had a good heart, but she had no real pride--she was just brought up in nobility, and her prejudices were an idiocy she grew out of. She longed for someone to care about and love her... the reason she rejected Steerpike in the end was because despite how high she held her torch for him, some part of her always knew that he had no soul underneath that charm. When he spoke to her in anger and was violent with her, that was the last straw. Good for her. A brave and true heroine, if a tragic and slightly pathetic one.
There are good points to the movie, but the fact that they are present in such a chaotic caricature of the true story just makes it all the more painful. It is upsetting to me that it started out rather well but became unbearable towards the end. There were also some bad actors (including the bore of a snore who butchered Fuschia), particularly whoever did grave injustice to Sepulchrave, who in the book was not a tubby unprepossessing white-haired man which you would remember with a snort as 'the hooting loony'. Below I will list those that made the film bearable.
I actually liked all three Tituses. Very similar to the way I pictured them, and though young, I found them quite talented... and surprisingly, I liked Titus himself ~better~ in the movie than the book. The only difference, but still, one good thing I can say.
Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is utterly spectacular. I was so thrilled when I heard he was playing Steerpike; I knew only he could do the role. Sadly, he was not given the chance, as he was handed a fake, watered-down/dumbed-down version of that role.
Gertrude was the one perfect point. Not only did they not really butcher her character, but everything about her in the movie was frighteningly similar to my imaginings, indeed, beyond my wildest dreams and too a spooky degree. Every gesture, every detail, her physical appearances, her apparent moods, her facial expressions, her hair, her size, her voice, EVERYTHING was perfect.
Flay, Christopher Lee as we know him, was of course brilliant. Not quite how I would have imagined Flay looking, but he acted Flay so well that I didn't really care, and he is the right height for it. Just beautiful.
I suppose on the whole I would still recommend the movie for these fine performances... but please, DON'T just say to yourself "I'll watch the movie first." It's not worth it. A good number of the 'actors' are putrid, and the sights and sounds of this miniseries will ruin all the lovely mental images Mervyn Peake could have created in your mind. Better to have them established ~before~ you see it, so that afterwards, you can more easily pick and choose as you like.