Abduction review

"You're gettig a glimpse behind the curtain. What we're engaged in here is a polite war. It's not about bullets and bombs, borders or territories. The currency of this war is information. Zeroes and ones, Nathan. Data."

- Alfred Molina "Abduction"

Released in 2011 under the direction of John Singleton and distributed by Lionsgate on a budget of $35 million; "Abduction" is a action thriller vehicle meant to pull magazine model Taylor Lautner out of the Twilight franchise and turn him into an action star. But with a screenplay by Shawn Christensen, the frontman for the band stellastarr*, (I have taken the time to hear some of their music and I have concluded that these guys are the hipster equivalent to Creed and Panic at the Disco) the chances of doing so fell hard. Some hope of this film's success came from the reputation of John Singleton, the man responsible for the critically acclaimed "Boyz n the Hood"as well as the critically panned "2 Fast 2 Furious" and the remake of "Shaft." So with a director who's had more misses than successes, a screenplay by a guy who fronts an annoying indie band nobody gives two f*cks about and an actor whose fame comes solely by his lack of clothing, this movie was BOUND to succeed!!…right? Well, since nobody saw this in theaters, let's give it a watch and determine if it should have deserved better.

Plot: 18 year-old Nathan Harper is a guy who, despite some terrible nightmares seems to have it pretty good, (he has an iMac and a Macbook and a motorcycle) but that all changes when a class assignment with high school crush Karen Murphy (Lily Collins) leads him to discover a website of missing children with his face on the site. Questioning this bizarre occurrence, he calls the site's operator, getting the attention of Serbian terrorists and their leader Nikola Kozlow (Michael Nvqvist) who sends agents to his house where the kill his parents. Escaping from them with Karen, he attempts to contact the police but is intercepted by the CIA as operative Frank Burton (Alfred Molina) tells him he's not safe. Before he can collect his thoughts, his psychiatrist Dr. Geraldine Bennett (Sigourney Weaver) picks him up, telling him that he can't trust anyone as she literally has him hit the gowned running to go find a safe spot but not even bother to give him any information or try to comfort him over the fact that his parents are dead. So now he's on the run to find some answers to questions that he could just willingly ask people but instead, gets none whatsoever, forcing him to waste two hours to lead to an ending that lacks spirit.

Okay, I have to admit, this script is a LOUSY excuse to call a thriller. There's so much here that could be fully explored and fleshed out, but it doesn't take advantage of that. We have a CIA operative who is corrupt CIA agent, why is he corrupt? No explanation other that he just is and he has questionable motives. the best way I can describe it is like you took "The Bourne Identity" took a hacksaw to anything that young people won't even comprehend or understand, replace Matt Damon with a teenager for the young people to try to connect to, then just have two young people hook over all because they have to go on the run together; presto, you've got an easy $50 million! It's not like teenager would want to go see something else, like "Conan the Barbarian," "Contagion," "The Killer Elite," or "Moneyball." The movie ultimately lacks a fully-focused drive to make us, the audience, care to see this teenager find the answers this brat is looking for outside of just "his parents are dead" and instead of setting out to avenge them, he focuses on finding out "who he is" and stuff that Doug Liman managed to flesh out better with his thriller in 2002. Usually, the thriller genre is about withholding information from the audience so that we, the audience, can learn what he learns and are invested. But by the time we reach the ending, we already figured out that the evil guy is behind Nathan's nightmares.

Funny thing is, the first 10 minutes of this movie give the impression that the movie could be something else entirely. The whole bit with Nathan discovering that his parents aren't his real parents, that could have become an interesting drama about a young man making the discovery that he was adopted and he tries to find his true father. That has so much potential and I would totally dig it! I would totally get on board for that idea! But no…instead it becomes an action movie…nice going Lionsgate, ruin a potentially interesting drama and maybe actually get Lautner to go against typecast...

Characters:

Taylor Lautner: What's the most important thing a thriller requires? A central character to lead us through the film to confront his or her problem. This guy clearly can't seem to act his way out of a box unless he's beating up people. The closest he comes to actually doing something without any help is taking on one unnamed Russian/Serbian and in a scene that makes me think they wanted to try and do a homage to "From Russia With Love" only without the exploding briefcase. All joking aside, he is awful, really a dull lifeless, whiny f*ck. I just can't connect with this guy at all, he offers me nothing that I could give a f*ck about. He just mugs his way through the movie and does some kickboxing and parker but 80% of the movie is him mugging and running. 

Lilly Collins: Ironic that early in the film, Sigourney Weaver advised Nathan to just ditch her, while she is just advising that he work alone, I think she was really warning him to get rid of this incompetent bitch because she offers nothing to the narrative but just a cocktease of a sexless sex scene and an excuse for Nathan to confront the evil Siberian terrorist guy. She just whines and complains and reminisces about she and Nathan in 8th grade and why they weren't dating after that, which is stupid. She doesn't really offer anything of value outside of annoyance; you should have taken Sigourney's advice and ditched her when you could have spent more time by yourself exploring yourself and developing your character.

Alfred Molina: Was there some debt he owed to Lionsgate or did he get caught trying to leave Indy in the temple again? As a character, he has more motivation to do the things he does, but he doesn't fare much better than any of the other actors in this film. He just comes off as a creepy pedophile, at least he does to me.

Michael Nyqvist: Whooooooo, I'm the evil eastern-european terrorist guy who killed your parents!!! WHOOOOOOOO SOOOOO EVILLLLLL!!!!!! Yeah, this guy is an okay actor, nothing I can brag about. He's evil and he plays evil well enough, but he lacks depth and appeal. He's just evil because he's a terrorist who wants some files of CIA or whatever. Remember his performance in the Swedish "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" film? Far more fleshed out and memorable a character than in this film.

Sigourney Weaver: She just sprouts exposition and then she's out of the movie until the end. That's all you'll get out of it.

Acting is somewhat competent enough, but nothing really memorable. Not much I can really touch on.

Production: You know, this is a little too standard a thriller. A Suburban house? An Amtrak? A cafe in what looks like the cheap man's Bronx? A baseball stadium? That's really the most interesting the cinematography even gets, practically not even leaving the East Coast, sure they try to go to Nebraska but they don't even meet the guy they're supposed to meet, but since Pennsylvania underwent a tax credit program, Lionsgate took advantage of this, that way, being able to stay under budget. The editing competent to at least show the action scenes, the costumes are nothing to brag about, the soundtrack is mixture of whatever's popular, from Train to Black Stone Cherry, with additional scoring by Edward Shearmur. I wish I could say more, but there really isn't much to say considering that for a thriller involving Serbian terrorists, the film feels very limited to one designation, which, for a conspiracy thriller, you would think it should be more spread out, like, maybe go across the Atlantic Ocean perhaps? Or wait…dang it, I'm thinking too much about "The Bourne Identity" again. 

Bottom Line: After watching this movie, I can see why nobody saw this film. The best way I can describe it is think of "The Bourne Identity" but give away the ending an hour into the movie, make Matt Damon whinier and uninteresting and give the character a weak and barely explored motivation as a reason for him to go through the mystery. This movie is an example of how not to make a thriller; sure, it has the outline of a thriller, but the execution is a poor effort. It's hard to really support the protagonist and learn what he knows when we are given more information than the protagonist is, we come to the conclusions faster than he can, which almost begs the question, if we already know the answers, why are we still following this guy? The acting isn't the worst I've seen, but it ranks up there with Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes," the acting is that bad. One final thing I have to stress, why is this movie called "Abduction?" Nobody getting abducted or kidnapped, so it's really a poor choice in the title and perfect representation for the confused narrative of the movie. There's a lot here that I can at least give the director credit for, but there isn't enough here that I can't recommend a second watch.

Final Rating: 2/5

Until next time, I'll be here stoking the fires for when we burn through celluloid.

Rear Window Review

Well folks, I hope you all had a good August 13th. I know I did, I celebrated by watching some of the early stuff after feeling really sweaty from doing yard work, but I felt it was good to commemorate how he got started- oh? What's that? You didn't celebrate August 13th? Well then, I suggest you get the hell out of here and go watch something less demanding to your intelligence: 

Well, okay, maybe that's harsh, perhaps I should explain.

 August 13th is the birthday of filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock. If you claim to be a movie buff and yet you've never seen a single film by Hitchcock, then I suggest you hang up your badge and never see a movie again for as long as you live.

Alfred Hitchcock is not just the greatest filmmaker who ever lived, he's THE greatest and most inspiring filmmaker who ever lived. Any filmmaker living today will admit to have taken influence from Alfred Hitchcock; Steven Spielberg applied the Hitchcock method when he was struggling to get the mechanical shark for "Jaws" to work and managed to make what was original supposed to be a creature feature into a summer blockbuster. John Carpenter applied the same techniques Hitchcock used to 'invent' the slasher genre with "Halloween." Hell, a long list of horror films that came after 1960 thank "Psycho" for coming about when it did (though you could argue "Peeping Tom" did the same as it was earlier, but that's a different story). Point is, if there's any pivotal singular person in the evolution of film-making that deserves praise, it's flat-out Alfred Hitchcock.

The things Hitchcock did with the camera, it made the audience part of the film, he was able to make the camera become the eye of character and move as such (done in Hitchcock's traditional theme of voyeurism seen in his movies, "Psycho" and "Vertigo"), the exciting thrills of his plots (whether it was a case of mistaken identity or characters on the run, "North by Northwest" and "The 39 Steps") and not to mention, being able to creative the underused system of editing at the time to build tension in scenes  ("Sabotage," "Strangers on a Train" and "The Birds").

To commemorate his impact on the film industry, I'm going to review a film of his; a task that is easier said than done since he's made more movies than Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen; so it only seems fitting to pick one in particular that has always been my absolute favorite of his: "Rear Window" a film released in 1954 (released the same year as his other suspense thriller "Dial M For Murder") and originally distributed by Paramount (it's currently Universal Studios) on a budget of $1 million.

Plot: An attempted photo shoot of a race leaves photographer L.B. "Jeff" Jeffries (James Stewart) injured and stuck in his snazzy New York apartment, getting visits from his fashion-obsessed girlfriend Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly) and Stella, Jeff's nurse (Thelma Ritter) who checks on him daily. Since there is so very little for him to do, Jeff spends his time looking out his window and looking at his neighbors; a struggling musician, a lonely dancer waiting for her husband to come home, a sculptor and a few married couples; one such couple includes Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr) and his argumentative wife. The next day, Jeff notices the wife is not in the apartment and finds Lars cleaning off tools in his sink, convincing Jeff that Lars Thorwald has killed his wife. Can he convince his friends and loved ones of Thorwald's crime before he gets away with it or is Jeff just being paranoid?

One word can only describe the premise for this film: 

Brilliant.

It's so simple a premise; a guy stuck in his home sees a man acting suspicious and giving hints that he may have committed murder, it's positively brilliant. Made even more so by the restricted limitations of the camera placement; the camera follows the character and since the character is restricted to the room, we, the audience, are also restricted to said room and all information that Jeff learns, we learn. Hitchcock's clever use of allowing us the audience to see through the binoculars and see what Jeff sees may not sound that unique now, but consider what impact that leaves for an audience in the 1950's. It must have really been fresh for audiences to have to see what the character is describing to another. 

There's also a great sense of mystery behind the murder. Jeff tries to convince his detective friend (Wendell Corey) that something suspicious is going on, but the detective looks into it and only finds all these logical explanations to the wife's disappearance, like that she was so sick she had to be taken to the hospital and that he was receiving a large package from the train. These suggest Jeff's observations are possibly exaggerated, something that continues to show the brilliance in this sinister situation.

I do admit, I find the whole relationship problem Jeff and Lisa to be, well, out of place compared to the murder mystery of the main plot. But it adds levity to the suspense and character development to the main character.

Characters:

James Stewart: Jimmy ain't my favorite actor from the Golden Age [cough*cough*Edward G. Robinsoncough*cough*] but his nervous persona always managed to find the right roles that tickled my fancy. I'm impressed how much Jimmy was able to emote being limited the wheelchair like he does for the majority of the film and yet his nervous persona helps to lead into the suspense elements to bring tension, like when he sees his girlfriend being attacked by Thorwald and the look of helplessness in his eyes without he fear of losing her. His nervousona does make the romantic angle more awkward than needed, but that's just something I never particularly liked about Jimmy Stewart in romantic situations. Regardless, he plays it straight and I admire how he acts as a channel for the audience to experience what he experiences, a similar experience I found in "Vetrigo," at least to me.

Grace Kelly: I find it ironic that Hitchcock was married to a redhead and yet he used blondes in his movies the most. I confess, I never found Grace Kelly to be as drop-dead gorgeous as film buffs and fans of this film say, but then again, I've never really been into blondes (blame genetics; a majority of my family members are blonde and or blue-eyed, I'm the odd one of the bunch). Regardless, I find her acting to be a mix of great next to all right. The great parts of her performance come when she's invested in the mystery, she especially adds to the tension when she climbs into Thorwald's apartment to search for the body and Thorwald comes back to find her; that is suspenseful and intense. The parts I find her okay are her love moments with Jeff and how they are trying to sort them out to be, well, uninteresting to me. I dunno, compared to the relationships Hitchcock established in films like "Notorious" or "Vertigo," the relationship doesn't feel all that natural, but they are a couple with a relationship on the rocks, so I guess it's just as appropriate.

Raymond Burr: This guy is really, really creepy. The way he stares at Jeff near the end when Jeff looks at him through the extended camera lens,  it sends shivers down my spine every time. It's quite an eerie performance, all of which he does physically with little dialogue. Most instances, he plays it unassumingly, almost casually. Near the end of the film, he practically becomes a monster when he approaches Jeff's apartment and slowly makes his way over to Jeff as Jeff uses his flash bulbs to distract him long enough, he's no Norman Bates but oh man he really creeps the hell out of me in this movie. Thorwald really set up the casual and unassuming killer that Hitchcock would integrate into "Psycho," but he's a little too obvious, I guess it's his face. The first time I watched this movie some odd years back, I could tell this guy was going to be a murderer and what do you know, I was right. Still, the demeaning presence he gives off in this film is enough to still give me goosebumps, well done Mr. Burr.

The side characters are all right, nothing all that Oscar-worthy to me, but still, when you're watching a Hitchcock movie, it's rare to find an actor giving a bad performance and nobody gives a bad performance in this movie.

Production: I still find it brilliant how simplistic the setting itself is; apartment buildings surrounded around this small area that includes a garden. Because of how close together the windows are to Jeff's own window, the neighbors themselves have interesting stories of their own and are wordlessly explored as the movie goes on. The cinematography isn't anything as expansive as "North by Northwest" or "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" (if you're thinking of the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie film was based on this, no, you'd be mistaken) but it's close neighborhood setting really adds to this sense of peril to being surrounded by all these people and yet nobody could hear or pay attention, it's just as terrifying as being int he same room with a murderer grabbing your arms. The music? Franz Waxman really creates the vibe of New York on a summer day in the right scenes and finds ways to make the music tense when it calls for it. The jazz really helps in the more subtle and calm parts of the film but also elevates the tension during said tense moments, namely this scene where Stella and Lisa sneak down to the flower garden to dig up the body, but find nothing. The jazz really plays with the scene, giving some sense of security but the imagery suggests otherwise.

Oh, by the way, if you're ever watching a Hitchcock film, play "Find Hitchcock," it's so much fun. Here's how it works; because Hitchcock's fans loved seeing him cameo in his films, it became a regular thing for him to do. So, the next time you watch a Alfred Hitchcock film, keep your eyes peeled for this famed director (hint, he'll be wearing a night robe) good luck!

Bottom Line: Just like Hitchcock's many many other movies, with each viewing, they seem to get better and better every time. "Rear Window" is, to me, Hitchcock at his prime, the direction is incredible, the camera-work is superb, the acting is solid; this whole film is perfection, perfection, perfection. I love this film so much, I even got a poster of it and had it framed in my bedroom right on the opposite wall of my bed, every morning when I wake up; I wake up to find James Stewart looking at me with those binoculars in his hands while Grace Kelly watches on. I won't argue and say his other films like "The Man Who Knew Too Much" or "The Lady Vanishes" or "Rope" aren't as good, because they just as amazing movies. For me, it comes down to taking something so simple and identifiable as being stuck in one place and looking over your neighbors and getting the idea that something is amiss with that one guy across the street or that angry woman who lives next door. Point is, I loved this movie the first time I saw it and it grows on me more and more every time I watch it. Oh yeah, this film was remade in 2007 going under the name "Disturbia," well, it was a good update for modern times, but nowhere near the master's original work.

Final Rating: 5/5 Magnifico!

Until next time, I'll continue to stoke the fires for when we burn through celluloid.

Brave Review

"The ancients spoke of it. It is the heart of this fierce land. it is carried in the wind. Born of our legends and when we are put to the test, it is the one thing that we must always be."
-Billy Connelly "Brave"

Released in 2012 under the direction of Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman and distributed by Disney on a budget of $185 million, "Brave" (formerly titled "The Bear and the Bow") is an animated fantasy film created by the beloved animation company Pixar, the company responsible for "Toy Story," "Finding Nemo," "The Incredibles," "Ratatouille," "Wall-E,"and the deepest Pixar could have possibly gone, "Up." Last year, Pixar released "Cars 2," a sequel to the cash cow known as "Cars," while it was a financial success for Disney, it left critics cold with it's lack of depth, overabundant slapstick humor and alienated adults from it's juvenile tone (well, it did for me). There was promise and hope that Pixar's newest film would bring back the same emotional challenge that "Up" and "Toy Story 3" brought that left adults just as emotionally invested as adults. So does"Brave" do so or is it marking a decline in their efforts to be for adults just to appeal to kids?

Plot:
A long time ago in the magical Kingdom in Scotland called DunBroch where Christianity is never mentioned (after "Snow White and The Huntsman,"I was practically expecting religion!), a curly red headed princess named Merida (v. Kelly Macdonald), daughter of King Fergus (v. Billy Connolly) and Queen Elinor (v. Emma Thompson), is set to betroth one of the sons of the Lords of the Scottish factions, Macintosh (v. Craig Ferguson though I'm certain he's a PC user), MacGuffin (v. Kevin McKidd and no, he does not serve as the film's macguffin) and Dingwall (v. Robbie Coltrane who may be more of a Dingbat). Because Merida opposes the forced marriage, she creates a conflict with the factions and runs away from home, discovering a woodcarving witch (v. Julie Walters) who makes a deal with her for a spell to change her fate and her mother's opinion on the ordeal. The result, however, does not work to as Merida expected as he mother turns into a b…a bear?…Really? A bear? That's what all the trailers have been building up to? A Pixar version of "Brother Bear?"

So yeah, sorry to spoil it all for you, but this was apparently what all this was building up to. I don't even get it, why a bear? Going back to the film's original title "The Bear and The Bow," at least that told you what to expect, with something like "Brave," I'm expecting something where the main character has a fear of something and must find bravery inside her to overcome her fear. Here? She climbs a f*cking mountain just to drink from a waterfall Does that suggest any need to overcome fear and hence find a need to be "brave?" Not at all.
I find the humor in "Brave" to be a little too low-brow for Pixar. I know they have pushed buttons before but good Lord, this film has scottish ass! SCOTTISH ASS DAMMIT! Good God, I would expect that out of Dreamworks, but Pixar? Oh and to rub in the low brow humor, the movie has a small baby bear jumping into a woman's cleavage. If I could bitch slap somebody, it would be the Pixar company. At times, the comedy defiantly feels like jokes Pixar would make, others, such as cleavage diving….no, just no….
Pacing, so I've heard, is a problem with this film. I disagree. Sure, there are it's quiet moments, but I find these moments set up mood, character interaction and let the audience take the time to admit the work done on the landscapes. But the story overall? Let me tell ya, I saw this film with a 10 year-old and and a 13 year-old and BOTH of them leaned over to me practically predicting what would happen next. If kids younger than me and lacking the film training I've taken can predict the ending, you're really falling short. If there is anything that pulls the film down, it's the comedy aspect, which seems to outweigh the more subtle moments of the movie, which is probably why critics pan it's pacing, hence why I found myself bored near the end since the film was constantly throwing comedy when they could have used those moments to be more dramatic and emotional.

Characters:

Kelly McDonald: For someone who's in their 20's, I was really convinced she was a teenaged girl. For someone who's being marketed as "Pixar's first strong female lead" I find her to be more whiney than being strong. So she can fire a bow and arrow? We already saw Jennifer Lawrence do that early in the year and everyone praised her for being a "strong female lead character." My point is, this is nothing new. We've already seen this character for the last 20-30 years and the fact that people are STILL being impressed with seeing strong female characters, it says a lot about the continuous thriving sexism in the film industry. People, we got over racism in film since the 60's with blaxplotation and Sidney Poitier, now, seeing strong black characters or token supporting characters is as common as rain in Seattle or wind in Chicago or Spike Lee making a film that has people pissed off about ethnic stereotypes. wait….My point is, this is NOT the first strong female lead character. Belle beat Merida to the punch 21 years ago, Chihiro, a girl even younger than Merida, got to the punch 11 years ago. If the only thing we can remember about her is that she's a "strong female lead character" and nothing else about her, that doesn't speak about her characteristically, just by label. With that out of the way, allow me to say what I thought of her.
She's pretty much the spoiled whiney brat that wants "something more than this provincial life." and she shoots arrows, gives a bad attitude, she argues with her mom that ends up turning her into……a bear…..f*ck man….to me, she's more interesting when she and her mom actually start to get along, using little dialogue between the two since one cannot communicate verbally with the other. This mother/daughter relationship, was the only thing I could buy into because it felt real, her being this "badass" is not. She just felt whiney than realistic.

Emma Thompson: Again, the parts where she's a human are believable to me. The scene where she talks to her husband what she wants to say to her daughter, I buy that. The part where she throws Merida's bow onto the fire only to shortly and quickly take it out upon the realization what she's done and regret it? Perfect, she didn't even need to say "I'm sorry Merida" under her breath, that scene said it all. The part where she becomes….a bear…is where I scratch my head. I guess it makes sense seeing how the woodcarver would carve bear stuff, nevermind, I'm looking too much into that.
Either way, the parts of her reconnecting with her daughter, I buy that, when she acts overly mother; I believe it. It's all the parts with the….bear….that it feels too whimsical…

Billy Connolly: He doesn't carry the story so much as he's just here to serve as comic relief. He's funny, he has his day in the sun moments but he's mostly just there to be a running gag and to hammer home the "communication is key" moral. I'll always remember him as Il Duca (if you get this reference, you win +30 Awesome Points).

Everyone else mostly just serves as comic relief or, in the case of Mor'du, serving as a plot bridge and a last-minute antagonist who has little depth outside of just a metaphorical reflection on broken ties. family ties. The other Scottish Lords are just there to hammer in the "fix the broken ties" theme I mentioned and to continue to provide over-abused comedy. The three little brothers are pretty much the twinkie henchmen from"Despicable Me," small, cute, mischievous and act silly but do so little to propel the plot outside of just doing visual gags. Some characters work, others are just there and don't do anything outside of comedy.

Production:
Being that this is a Pixar film, there's really no point in trying to discuss the visuals since Pixar always brings their A-Game to breathing life to the visuals. I won't deny that the visuals on the landscapes are breathtaking and the lighting effects they make from the candles and torches are well-done, the fur and hair effects are really good, especially from Merida's fiery curled red head and the fur from the….bear….riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight……

Music-wise, well, this is where I'm a bit more critical. Being that this is scotland, of course there will be bagpipes but the songs that are sung at certain points in the film feel out of place and rather thrown in just to tell the audience what to feel, like "Oooooooh Merida is stronger then she looks ooh aaaaaaahhhh" or "ooooohaaaaaaahhhh Merida and Elinor are working on their relationship by going fishing, whooooo." These songs felt like rejected Enya or Loreena McKennitt songs that were so lazy that Pixar just picked them out of the garbage and added them just to bring "authenticity." Other music tracks aren't too bad and they give the feel of the scottish highlands, but it's the songs that really take me out of the movie.

Bottom Line: Really, the only positive thing that this film never ruined was it's visual presentation. But when a company has shown again and again that it make outstanding visuals, what else is there to focus my criticism on but on the story and characters. The story is predictable, the characters have so much potential but the comedy just keeps pushing away any potential for going really ballsy and stays safe. The comedy is amusing but there's only so much I can take before I get tired of it when the story is trying to have depth. This is the same problem I had with "Toy Story 3," it has this really mature and deep idea about growing up and haven to give up the items that defined your childhood and yet it was hard for me to be emotionally invested when they are satirizing prison escape movies. If you want to make a comedy that spoofs other movies, fine, just have a point to it and don't try to throw in this deeper story when the comedy is distracting you. Imagine it like this; you go to a party and there are all these really loud and obnoxious women trying to get your attention and yet you see this one girl in the room that catches your interest and you desperately try to go to her but the obnoxious women keep distracting and trying to pull you away. They keep this up until the girl has to go home and the most interaction you got with her was just her being able to see you but she doesn't know your name or what you do for a living…..not that I know this from experience….but you get my point right?

This really isn't Pixar's worst film, but I can't help but feel disappointed by it. I was hoping for more depth that it really had all the potential to give, but it just never hit that right mark for me.
As for the kids I saw this film with? Surprisingly, to me, it was the youngest one who didn't like it because she told me "I could sorta tell it was gonna be a happy ending." but she said she liked the comedy. The 13 year-old I brought? He agreed with her and said it was equally as funny and even pointed out that this film was a Pixar version of "Brother Bear" (hence why I brought it up earlier; thank you very much for mentioning that Nick). This is a fair movie for kids, it'll entertain them for 2 hours, but that's really all I can recommend the film for, just something for kids.

Final Rating: 3/5

Until next time, I'll keep the fires stoked for when we burn through celluloid.

Saw III

"Hello Jeff. If you are listening to this, that means that the confrontation you so long dreamed of...is finally unfolding. In your head, he is a cipher. A symbol of your life changing. A symbol of death. I present him to you now, as a simple human being."
-Tobin Bell "Saw III"

- -

Released in 2006 under the returning direction of Darren Lynn Bousman distributed by Lionsgate on a budget of $10 million, "Saw III" was the third film of the saw series and the last one to have the original creators James Wan and Leigh Whannell involved in the writing process of this Saw franchise (well, Wan did co-write the Saw video game). I don't know the exact details, but I can probably imagine that Wan and Whannell were appalled by what a poor carbon copy "Saw II" was and decided that it was probably best to stop before this franchise got out of hand, hence why Bousman is not the writer this time but Wan and Whannell are. Don't think I wrote a typo because yes, this was supposed to be the LAST Saw film but, as we all well know, I'm not that lucky. Let the game begin and let's see how much this movie really wanted to stop.

Plot: The Jigsaw Killer (Tobin Bell) is dying from cancer in his brain. In an attempt to save him, Jigsaw's apprentice Amanda Young (Shawnee Smith) has kidnapped emotionally distressed doctor Lynn Denlon (Bahar Soomkeh) to perform surgery on his brain to remove the cancer, or else a collar placed around her neck will detonate, blowing her head off. Meanwhile, her depression-stricken husband Jeff Denlon (Angus Macfadyen) must undergo a series of tests where he confronts the people responsible for the death of his son; the witness who saw it, the judge who sentenced it and the man who killed his son. As he undergoes these tests, he must overcome his vengeance and his hate and learn to forgive these people and let his pain go or else, everything he loves will be destroyed. Will Jeff succeed and can Lynn properly save Jigsaw to keep her alive? Either way, somebody's getting a buzz saw to the neck.

I previously described "Saw II" as being a cold carbon copy of the first one, clearly, James Wan and Leigh Whannell wanted to do something completely different here and thankfully, they succeed, for the most part. I admit, on the surface, it's no different than the last two films, involving a prisoner trapped in this building where they go past traps, people get killed, the cops look over the scenes of the people that died and run into a twist ending. Yep, mm, yeah.
What makes this different than the last is that there is a central focus to it all. Jeff is being forced to look at his life of hating everyone he blamed for his son's death and asking him to let it go. The film makes it clear to establish that this couple is suffering- oh wait, I forgot; they wait at least a half hour to show us detectives looking at a victim who died a horrible death and then this one character they brought in from the last movie gets placed in a trap that doesn't even make sense HOW anyone could escape from it (hooks put into your ribcage, this and you expect a key to be the only way to get out of it in the short amount of time?) is just proof that they wanted an excuse just to kill people for the gore hounds. It's after those 30 minutes does the film finally bring the real characters that we follow. Is it as clever as the first "Saw"though? Not really, but it's such a breath of fresh air to see the film take a different change of pace than "Saw II" and it's attitude towards forgiveness over vengeance I find to be a neat idea, but not explored as well as I would have liked for it to be. Still, I'm happy I got something different this time around.

Characters:

Tobin Bell: I think I can finally see what Tobin Bell is trying to do here. I believe Tobin is trying to channel Hannibal Lector, something that he sorta did in the last film and he kinda channels this calm and intelligent serial killer but shows more mortality than he did in the last film. In the last film, even if her was killed, he still had everything under control. Here, it defiantly feels like he is living on borrowed time and he is truly not in control. Amanda's paranoid distrust and Jeff's unpredictability really shows his life barely holding onto a thread. We even get a brief moment where we get to see a loved one in his life; moments like that make this Hannibal Lector-wannabe more human, but also further distances the scariness of this killer.

Angus Macfadyen: Jeff is a complete asshole! Right from when we are introduced to him, I felt no sympathy for him, no support for him to overcome his tests, nothing. It's established that he's suffering from depression because of the death of his son, but he takes it out on his daughter after she takes ONE little bunny doll from her deceased brother's room and her father, while carrying a gun no less, barges in and berates her for taking the doll. Oh but it gets worse. When he's given the chance to save the people who were, not directly, responsible for his son's death, he just mocks them for being cowards and for letting his son's killer get away. HE MOCKS THEM!! Feeling bad for this jerk is impossible when he makes it so hard to feel bad for him when he is willing to let them die. Well, he does have a change of heart and tries to save them, but by the time he's decided to save the first victim, she's already dead. He manages to save the judge guy, but he barely survives for long. When he finally does meet the killer of his son, he also f*cking hesitates to do anything while the trap becomes active. You can argue it's because of the bitterness he pent up for years hating the people responsible for his son's death. If that's the case, why then does he take out his anger on Jigsaw at then end, who had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEATH OF HIS SON!!!! Sure his wife gets injured and Jigsaw WILLINGLY offers to call 911 to save her, but nope, he still gets pissed at Jigsaw and just slaps his hand away. Oh my Lord, I hate this guy! It's impossible to care about him and his plight when he is such a schmuck to everyone around him.

Everyone else is, once again, hit or miss but they fail to leave much of an impact. Soomkeh is all right. She was the only sensible one in this Goddamned movie. Smith was just obnoxious, the people in the traps were the usual screaming and wailing "Oh God please get me out of here!" sort of pathetic. Nothing much lost and nothing much gained from the performances...

Production: Remember when I described how the last film felt the need to show off it's budget and kill someone off immediately? Well, this film opens up with that rude idiot cop from the last film breaking his foot. I don't see why since he kinda got what he deserved if you ask me, I don't see why you have to show what happened to him outside of just making this thin bridging between this and the last film since they are practically never brought up again except with this one flashback and this female detective who gets caught in one of Jigsaw's traps and gets killed off in an over the top brutal way. Just like before, the traps themselves resemble things that can be made out of everyday items. But these traps continue to be a little too elaborate to have been made by one guy. The ribcage trap looked way too advanced for a dying old man to have made if you ask me. Also, the first trap with this Trent guy just seemed like a random excuse just to show off gore, guess what, doesn't affect the plot whatsoever. Yep, just like the last movie where the opening trap had no real emphasis on the plot and was never brought up again, well, same here.

First two traps of this film have no real emphasis not he plot other than to get rid of this character we already forgot from the last film as well as to show off it's budget with the blood and gore. If anything, I do have to praise the makeup effects for this really cringe-worthy scene where Lynn performs an operation on Jigsaw and she opens his head to relieve pressure in his head and she uses a drill and a buzz saw to cut up a section of his skull. It's brutal and it makes you squirm and, best part, it's integral to the plot. I would have preferred it if they had just used the sound effects to get the idea across and let your mind create the image but, eh, who am I to judge?

Music is, once again, a mixture of industrial music to fit with the industrial feel of the factory the majority of the test is set up in as well as songs from other artists, like "Guarded" by Disturbed, "Walk with Me in Hell" by Lamb of God, "The Wolf is Loose" by Mastadon and "Burn it Down" by Avenged Sevenfold. While I'm a proud metal-head, I have to admit some of these songs felt really out of place at times and the use of songs from popular metal artists as just another excuse to show off it's budget.
If anything, the production has done it's job. But I can't help but miss the "less is more" concept that Wan and Whannel used in the first film. If you prefer bigger budgets, then that's your call.

Bottom Line: This wasn't the breath of fresh air that I expected it to be, while I'm glad that it played out a totally new concept of forgiveness over vengeance, I felt it wasn't explored as deeply than it could have. This comes at the fault of the actor playing Jeff, who makes him come off as a complete twat instead of a guy that we can root for. Jigsaw is still interesting, but he's no longer menacing or scary but still far more sympathetic than Jeff or Amanda, you even reach a point where you find yourself agreeing that people should die or wait, is that just me wishing they would all die just so the movie could end sooner? hmm.

While I still prefer the original one, while this one is considerably better than the last one, it suffers from the sins of the previous one by giving us a character we don't feel any sympathy for and the reason for his rude behavior only make shim out to be a complete douche instead of an average joe that we should root for. The gore is still a spectacle to watch and they upped it again for the gore hounds, which might appeal to the sick-minded but I still prefer the "less is more" technique applied to the original. This should have been the real follow-up to the first "Saw," it still continues the metaphorical symbolism of the traps but this time gives a focus instead of being random. It's not too bad, but it's not amazing.

Final Rating: 3.5/5

Until next time, I'll continue to stoke the fire for when we burn through celluloid.