Basic Instinct 2

Posted on March 29, 2006 at 12:33 pm

F-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for strong sexuality, nudity, violence, language and some drug content.
Profanity:	Extremely crude, vulgar, and profane language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, smoking, drug use
Violence/ Scariness:	Intense peril and graphic violence, characters murdered
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	2006
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000FS9UKI

Someone should tell Sharon Stone that you can’t step in the same river twice. Or you can’t go home again. Or that for every Godfather II there are a hundred Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloos.

Anything to stop another big, boring mess like this one.

A bit of credit to director Michael Caton-Jones, who knows how to shoot sleeky, sexy architecture, even if his idea of symbolism is to have the office of his psychiatrist leading man in London’s striking, if often jeered-at “gherkin” building. And even if he makes the sets more lively than the actors. Indeed, when one character is supposed to become catatonic, it’s almost impossible to tell the difference.

Stone returns as bad girl Catherine Davis Tramell a “risk addict” whose sensational novels are inspired by her even more sensational life. Before the credit sequence has ended, we see her having sex with a drugged-out partner while driving a car over 100 miles an hour. The car crashes into the Thames, and the man, a well-known soccer star, is killed. Dr. Michael Glass (his name is this movie’s idea of subtlety) (David Morrisey) is brought in to determine whether Tramell is culpable for his death.

Then a bunch more people get killed in scenes that are more static than scary and there are some sex scenes that are more clinical than sultry.

And there is a lot of dialogue with a chasm so yawning between its intention (provocative) and its reality (see previous reference to yawning) that it starts to sound like the adults in Charlie Brown cartoons: “Waughghgh Waughghg Waughghgh”

They may think that if they surround her with people who have English accents it will all seem less shlocky. No such luck.

Marlene Dietrich was once supposed to have complained to her cameraman that he was not making her look as good as he had a decade earlier. “But Miss Dietrich,” he is said to have assured her gallantly, “I was ten years younger then.”

Sharon Stone was fourteen years younger when she made the first Basic Instinct. And so were we. This creates two sets of problems.

First, she can’t surprise us any more. Both actress and character were new to us in 1992; now that famous dress, chair, cigarette, and leg-cross are an icon. At the time, it was all new. She pushed the boundaries. But those boundaries have been shoved another couple of football fields since then, and Stone and her director and screenwriter have not managed the delicate task of finding that precise spot between provocative and gross.

Second, instead of rethinking the character, Stone tries to go back to where she was and it just doesn’t work. If Tramell had actually survived another fourteen years of sex, drugs, and lots of people turning up dead wherever she went, she would be affected by that. Stone’s astonishing, assured performance in the original movie was a model of careful calibration of the power of her sexuality and daring. But the sexual power of a 48-year-old is different from the sexual power of a 34-year-old. Stone, whose portrayal of mature sexiness was breathtaking in last year’s Broken Flowers, is so over-the-top here that Tramell appears to be channeling Cruella De Vil. Or maybe Carol Burnett vamping as “Nora Desmond.” “Time is a weapon,” one character says in this movie. In this case, a lethal one.

Parents should know that this movie has just about every kind of material that is inappropriate for younger viewers or sensitive viewers of any age, with extremely strong, crude, and profane language, drinking, smoking, drug use, intense peril and graphic violence, murders, and general bad behavior in all categories.

Families who see this movie should ask why anyone would be “addicted” to risk. How are we supposed to feel about Catherine at the end of this movie? What is a “masked psychotic” and is there one in this story?

Families who enjoy this movie should see the original. They might also enjoy The Jagged Edge, Sea of Love, Final Analysis, Whispers in the Dark, and Dressed to Kill.

Inside Man

Posted on March 21, 2006 at 11:47 am

A-

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for language and some violent images.
Profanity:	Very strong language including racial epithets
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Tense and scary scenes, gunfire, characters injured and shot
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters, references to racism
Date Released to Theaters:	2006
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000GFLKF8

Spike Lee’s brilliant direction and a clever and surprising script from first-timer Russell Gewirtz provide an ideal setting for four of the most watchable actors in the business in a heist film that transcends and tweaks its genre. It has brains, heart, and a sizzling fireball of sheer star power, and it is a dazzling tour de force.

Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) tells us his story and then we see it unfold from the beginning, with little forward glimpses of post-robber interviews by detectives Frazier (Denzel Washington) and Mitchell (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Four people enter a bank dressed as painters. They take out the security cameras with powerful lights and then tell everyone to lie down. They are there to rob the bank and all of the employees and customers are hostages.

Even though he is dealing with his own problems at the office, including a matter of some missing money that may be a frame-up by an angry drug dealer, Frazier is sent to negotiate with the robbers. The police captain (Willem Dafoe) secures the area. And the chairman of the board of the bank (Christopher Plummer) makes his first call to a mysterious woman named White (Jodie Foster), as silkily menacing when asking a favor, proposing a bribe, or making a threat. Indeed, there seems to be no difference between the three. It seems that the chairman has some very important items in a safe deposit box in the bank that is being robbed. Those contents must be protected or destroyed and he must be assured of compete discretion. So she will have to find a way to negotiate with the robber, too.

Lee drives the film through the twists and turns of the plot as though it was a European sportscar. When he shoots his own scripts, it is easy to forget what a superb director he is because the stories are so provocative they distract from his skill in telling the story. But in this film, every choice of shot, every point of view, every edit serves the story and Lee’s superb control of tone, pacing, and setting are almost another character in the film. And so is the city. Lee’s obvious affection for the city’s structures and people is evident throughout, and many of its brightest moments come from the wide range of characters who are vividly realized even in brief appearances.

Denzel Washington may be the greatest movie star of our time. There is no one who can match him for sheer star power and charisma, and no one who comes close to the way he is as in control of that power in service of the story and the character. His Frazier is a man who takes his time in the midst of chaos to calm a witness, to ask a beat cop about a past experience, to pay attention to every detail and make them part of the narrative and part of the unraveling of the mystery. In their fourth film together, Lee shows once again that he knows how to use Washington’s confidence and natural charm to pull us into the story and the small moments as meaningful as the guns and all those piles of cash.

Clive Owen, who has to do most of his acting behind a mask, has a steely resolve, but in scenes with Washington and with a child who is one of the hostages, he shows self-assured wit that is completely engaging. Washington, Owen, and Ejiofor play off each other as though they are tossing off jazz riffs — it seems effortless and improvised but it all fits together like a jigsaw puzzle with no missing pieces. Only Foster disappoints, waggling her head as an attempt to show gravitas. And maybe the way it all comes together is a little too cute. There are a couple of “wait a minute….” thoughts on the way to the parking lot. Overall, though, it is the most satisying film of the year so far, by far.

Some people will complain that Lee has become an “inside man,” trading his tough, highly individual, fully engaged films about big issues for a genre piece. I don’t agree. What he has done here is show that he knows how to make a mainstream film that works on many levels, one of them being sheer entertainment. If that’s “inside,” so what? Let him take the money and the clout and do something else next time.

Parents should know that this movie has very strong and crude language, including racial epithets and sexual references. There is some violence, including shooting and apparent killing. A strength of the movie is its portrayal of intelligent and capable diverse characters who are honest about bigotry but do their best to work together.

Families who see this movie should talk about how Frazier, Russell, White, the mayor, and Case decide what their priorities are. Who makes the biggest compromises? What will happen next?

Families who enjoy this film will also enjoy other heist movie classics, like $, Die Hard 3, the original Thomas Crown Affair, The Great Train Robbery, The Taking of Pelham 123, Dog Day Afternoon, and the underrated Bill Murray comedy Quick Change.

Related Tags:

Crime Drama Movies -- format Thriller

V for Vendetta

Posted on March 15, 2006 at 12:02 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for strong violence and some language.
Profanity:	Very strong and crude language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Social drinking, cigar smoking, prescription drug abuse
Violence/ Scariness:	Extreme violence and peril, characters including young teen killed, torture, scenes of prisoners undergoing scientific experimentation, virus kills children
Diversity Issues:	Very strong female character, tolerance a theme
Date Released to Theaters:	2006
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000FS9FCG

“Remember, remember, the fifth of November, gunpowder treason and plot. I see no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.”

Who says good-looking, brawny action flicks cannot also have brains to match? “V for Vendetta,” based on Alan Moore and David Lloyd’s ground-breaking comic books from the late ‘80’s, keeps the source’s gnarly moral issues, amps up the explosions and thins out the subplots to delight audiences looking for two-plus hours of solid entertainment who are willing to do some mental work to get there. Trust the combination of director James McTeigue and screenplay writers the Wachowski Brothers (all three of whom collaborated on the Matrix trilogy) to turn in another example of why monosyllabic action movie protagonists must blow things up to keep audiences riveted but their chatty, if insane, brethren can make the words themselves into explosions.

The plot is a complex knot that requires lots of dialogue to frame the scenes of action, which might try the patience of those looking for simpler, shoot-‘em-up fare. The opening scenes give a helpful but brief sketch of Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Conspiracy and how on November 5, 1605, Fawkes attempted unsuccessfully to blow up the Houses of Parliament. Fast-forward to a near-future Britain locked down under elected-fascist “Chancellor” Sutler (John Hurt), who came to power after biological weapons reduced the country to chaos. Evey (Natalie Portman, delightfully far from her “Star Wars” role) is a young professional, orphaned by the state when the crackdown on political protesters resulted in mass disappearances of anyone the government considered “different” or rebellious, including her parents.

On Evey’s foray into London after curfew the eve of November 5, she happens across government officers who threaten her. Enter a knife-wielding man in black wearing a Guy Fawkes mask (Hugo Weaving) who saves her then treats her to a rooftop view of the fireworks and explosions as Old Bailey, London’s famed criminal court, goes up in smoke. He is V.

The duration of the movie tracks V as he exacts revenge, Evey as she is hunted for associating with V, and the police officers, Finch (Stephen Rea, as circumspect and jowly as always) and Dominic (Rupert Graves) as they try to sort out V’s history and uncover state secrets in the process. Popular television host, Dietrich (Stephen Fry, stealing scenes with ease and humor) tumbles into the mix but the driving force at the heart of the movie is Evey’s relationship with V, the man and the mask. The ticking bomb of a backdrop is V’s promise to blow up Parliament the following November and the growing rebellion that he incites along the way.

Some audiences will not like the political implications, blurred lines between “revolutionary” and “terrorist,” and the horrific means-to-an-end approach taken by government and V alike; however, there is ample beauty, dangerous ideas, special-effects fairy dust, intelligence and wit to transform the story from a “Phantom of the Opera” meets “Brazil” type melodrama into a high-caliber thinking person’s action film. With a goal that ambitious and the style to back it up, this V will be a victor to many fans.

Parents should know that this movie has mature themes including torture, terrorism, anarchy, fascism, intolerance, hypocrisy and demagoguery. Characters are killed, held in concentration-camp like prisons, tortured and persecuted. Scientific experiments are performed on foreigners, homosexuals, protesters and others. There are fight scenes resulting in much gore, scenes of mass burials of emaciated naked bodies, and vomit-stained corpses. A character is threatened with rape, a committed same-sex couple kisses, and a bishop implicitly hires child prostitutes. There is social drinking, cigar-smoking, and references to a character’s addiction to prescription medication.

Families who see this movie have a lot to talk about. Beyond the theme of fascism versus democracy or even anarchy, there is a deeper question here of whether the ends justify the means in the personal and the political realms. V sees himself as a “revolutionary” and a man looking for vengeance; however others use the term “terrorist” for him.

The original comic books were released during Margaret Thatcher’s second and third terms as Prime Minister and were seen as commentary upon the Tory government’s intolerance of dissent or difference. In them, the very common British comic book theme of chaos versus order is played out with a decidedly more sympathetic than usual approach to anarchy. How does this movie fit itself into the current political environment? What do V’s actions reflect and how would you assess his choices? The dialogue where he calls what was done to him “monstrous” and that he became a monster as a result reflects the belief that actions have equal reactions. Do you think this is true? What do you think happens the day after the last scene in the movie?

Families who enjoy this movie might be interested in the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. The drawing and colors now might seem a little dated but this late 1980’s comic book series milestone, along with “The Watchmen” by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon (now in pre-production), catapulted the reclusive Moore to fame and fundamentally shook up the graphic novel world. Parents should know that the graphic novel contains mature themes and is harsher in tone than the movie.

Families might want to see the 1934 version of The Count of Monte Cristo with Robert Donat, which is a motif throughout this movie. They might also want to see Brazil or Nineteen Eighty-Four (also starring John Hurt, only this time as the victim), two British movies delving into the struggle of the one against a futuristic, powerful state where the individual has no rights. Finally, it would be impossible not to mention the Wachowski Brothers and not to mention and recommend The Matrix.

Thanks to guest critic AME.

The Hills Have Eyes

Posted on March 10, 2006 at 12:11 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for strong gruesome violence and terror throughout, and for language.
Profanity:	Frequent very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Smoking, reference to marijuana
Violence/ Scariness:	Slasher-movie violence including extremely bloody deaths, explicit cannibalism, baby threatened, suicide, dog disemboweled, constant peril
Diversity Issues:	Young girl shows bravery and independent thinking
Date Released to Theaters:	2006
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000FAOC2W

If these hills only had eyes, it would be one thing but parents should know that they also have mutants wielding pickaxes which results in a disturbingly graphic movie not suitable for sensitive audiences of any age or species.

Even some horror movie fans might be put off by this graphically violent flick about a mutant band of robbing and raping cannibals that make short work of a vacationing family until they push the family dog and the self-important son-in-law too far and end up in a bloodbath. French director Alexandre Aja, who made last year’s ambitious but disappointing “High Tension”, turns out a solid if not outstanding update of Wes Craven’s “The Hills have Eyes” from 1977, which taught the world that family vacations are just not safe.

The fairly disagreeable Carter family, comprising husband, wife, three children, son-in-law, grandchild and two dogs, are driving out to the coast through the desert to celebrate the senior Carters’ twenty-fifth anniversary. When a conflicted gas station owner tells them about a shortcut to the highway, the bickering family set out across the rocky desert and into a trap. With the truck totaled and the sun setting, the family realizes that they are not alone in the hills and that the others out there give new meaning to the phrase “playing with your food.”

Aja expends little effort on altering the script of the original but instead adds in marginally better actors, a few heavy handed political asides, a ponderous explanation, a lot more explicit violence and a slightly jaunty sensibility that seems intended to pass for humor. This is not a psychological thriller – this is a gore fest, so audiences should not be surprised when supposedly sensible characters act irrationally, such as going off alone, calling out in the dark and not warning others that the family dog has been disemboweled. In fact, the most sensible and selfless behavior of all is demonstrated by a mutant girl and a German Sheppard, which means that many audiences will not care much who ultimately survives the escalating body count.

For slasher fans, Aja’s lush style and loyalty to the original will make this a worthy wander but for all others be warned, do not enter them there hills.

Parents should know that this is a graphically violent horror movie with constant peril and the violent deaths of almost all on-screen characters. Most of a family is slaughtered and bodies are eaten onscreen. Even fans of the original might be disturbed by the extremely graphic gore and the rape scene. Parents should know that a baby is taken away to be eaten, that a dog is disemboweled and consumed, that characters are killed onscreen in a range of explicit deaths, many involving pickaxes, and that female characters are subjected to sexual assaults. Characters swear, smoke and refer to marijuana use. Political jibes and name-calling highlight friction between family members.

Families who see this movie might talk about the nuclear testing in the Southwest, which is the back story for the movie and for the rage of many of the characters. Why might the juxtaposition of the 1950’s style family homes and mannequins be an effective horror technique? How does the desert play a part in the story?

Families who are interested in the inspiration for this movie, might like to read more about the legend of Alexander “Sawney” Bean, who supposedly was a Scotsman married to a witch living in the late 1300’s as the head of a cave-dwelling family which survived by robbing English travelers and eating their corpses. The legend is considered by many a boogeyman tale about the Scots, who were in conflict with the English at the time, but generations have been chilled by this bloody story, described in detail down to King James’ manhunt and the ensuing executions of the Bean family.

For families looking for movies with similar thrills and kills, the 1977 original “The Hills have Eyes” helped launch Wes Craven’s fame as a horror-director. Both versions of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” feature people going off the beaten path and being hunted down by a terrifying family.

Thanks to guest critic AME.

Related Tags:

Horror Movies -- format Thriller

Ultraviolet

Posted on March 4, 2006 at 12:23 pm

C-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for sequences of violent action throughout, partial nudity and language.
Profanity:	Brief strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Intense and graphic violence, many characters killed
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	2006
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000FGGE68

This movie hopes that it can distract you from its failure of imagination with the following:

Throbbing techno club music-style soundtrack

Sleek, towering futuristic structures

The toned body of star Milla Jovovich, magnificently displayed in a variety of skin-tight, midriff-baring outfits. She can change the color of her catsuits and hair, too.

Lots and lots and lots of shooting, kicking, swordfights, and explosions

But all of that can’t hide:

Cardboard dialogue that compounds its failures with a lot of repetition for emphasis and faux-seriousness. “It’s just the wind. Just — the wind.”

An unintelligible story line

Dreary performances by everyone in the cast except for William Fichtner as a kind-hearted scientist

A boring bad guy. In fact, a couple of all but indistinguishable boring bad guys.

You know all those fight scenes? Not very exciting, at its best a poor imitation of better movies

Milla Jovovich (the Resident Evil) series plays Ultraviolet, who isn’t kidding when she introduces the story by saying “I was born into a world you may not understand.” It isn’t that it is so complicated; it’s just not interesting enough to pay attention to. She’s a mutant and a part of a rebel group fighting the tyranny of the humans. She infiltrates their compound to pick up what looks like a boogie board-shaped briefcase containing some highly destructive biological agent and is told it will self-destruct if she tries to open it.

So, she opens it. And inside is a child. When she gets back to the rebel stronghold, they decide to kill the child, whose blood contains some, I don’t know, bad stuff of some kind. But Ultraviolet, whose pregnancy was terminated 12 years earlier when she became infected with the mutating pathogen, finds her maternal instincts taking over and she and the boy, whose name is Six (Cameron Bright, continuing a string of awful movies after Godsend and Birth) are soon on the run.

Inevitably, we have the 2/3 of the way through moment of peace and safety that shows up in most action films for all the characters to catch their breath, bond, and show their softer sides. Meanwhile, the bad guys stride through spotless corriders in buildings where weirdly calm disembodied female voices say things like “Switching to emergency backup lighting system.”

If only I could have found the button for the emergency back-up better movie system.

Parents should know that the film has non-stop action violence with a lot of shooting, stabbing, and kicking. Many characters are killed and a child is in peril and apparently doomed. Characters use brief strong language and there is brief non-sexual nudity and some barfing.

Families who see this movie should talk about the risks of bio-terrorism. Why does Violet decide to protect Six?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Blade Runner and The Matrix and Jovovich’s The Fifth Element (all with some mature material).