Review: Funny Games, Goya's Ghosts, Vantage Point (more DVDs)
Keeping this train rolling, here. I'm all caught up after this, so in we go.
Funny Games: Amy recommended this to me after I saw The Strangers. I'd seen trailers for it previously that failed to impress me, but I was still kind of curious, and after she stood up for it I went ahead and rented it. Well, I'm still underwhelmed, but it wasn't as bad as I thought. It starts out entertainingly enough, with our soon-to-be-tormented family- wife, husband, and son- driving home from vacation engaging in pleasant conversation. We keep following them as the credits roll, occasionally going in for closeups on their smiling faces. You would expect this kind of opening sequence to be set to a light, slightly ominous score- but instead, you get thrash metal, which is really funny more than anything else. Once they get home, it's not long before the creepy people show up and begin their campaign of harassment, and it's here that I think the movie makes its first blunder. It's a nice bit of subversion to make the killers preppy, successful white people, and they exude the right amount of overly-polite creepiness to make you think something is definitely wrong, but they drag out the period before anything actually happens for much too long. They just stand around being creepy forever, until the tension is stretched so thin you're beginning to wonder if they're even going to bother with any real violence. Once it does start, however, it's pretty bad (although nowhere near as gory as I expected).
Naomi Watts and Tim Roth (the family) turn in ok performances, but they're not the main characters and thus not much is really expected of them. The killers, of course, are much more interesting, and have much more screen presence. [spoiler time] Odd things to note: I didn't think they would kill the kid, but they did. Violence against children seems to be more and more frequent in genre movies these days- a kid gets killed in this, in The Ruins, and in Doomsday. Just an observation. Also, I wasn't impressed by the little post-modern twists they threw in- I was ok with the killers occasionally turning and addressing the audience to some extent, but the most jarring thing in the movie is about 2/3 of the way through, when the family manages to turn the tables on the killers on and shoots one of them with their own shotgun- the remaining guy freaks out and looks for the remote. Once he's found it, he proceeds to rewind the movie and keep the family from getting the gun when it happens again. I'm sure some people find that clever, but I simply find it annoying. [end spoilers] Anyway, it ends in a fairly predictable manner which I feel no need to reveal since anyone who's watched a horror movie in the last 5 years or so could figure it out prior to watching the movie at all. Final analysis: if you really love this kind of thing (I suppose this could almost qualify as torture porn if there was more blood in it), knock yourself out, but The Strangers is better overall (with the exception that instead of a predictable ending, it has a pointless ending).
Goya's Ghosts: My mom rented this one for us to watch. It takes place in Spain during the time of the Inquisition, and stars Natalie Portman as Ines, a...actually I don't know what she's supposed to be. She's the daughter of a rich merchant, and she ends up being taken in by the Inquistion for being suspected of practicing Judaic rituals. The DVD back copy claims that she is Goya's "muse and inspiration", but they interact maybe twice or three times over the course of the movie and he paints one picture of her. Sure, there's some b.s. about him putting her face on most of the women he draws, but none of that chemistry is evidenced when they're on screen together. Goya is played by Stellan Skarsgard (yeah, there's supposed to be an accent mark in that name and on the name of Ines, but I don't know what the key combination is and frankly I can't be bothered), who was also in the last couple of Pirates movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and Hunt for Red October. A particular priest is involved as well, played by Javier Bardem.
I wasn't too impressed with this movie, and the blame for that falls squarely on the writer, who apparently had no idea what story- or even whose story- he was telling. The focus is split between all three of the lead actors but none of them actually drive the action- they are simply all acted upon by outside forces (and they all have extraordinarily bad luck, it ought to be noted). For a movie called Goya's Ghosts, you would think that Goya would be the main character, but he's just someone who happens to be present for most of the events of the movie. If anything the main character is Father Lorenzo (Bardem), who also gives the best performance of the movie. He really ought to try being in a movie worthy of his acting ability one day. [spoilers ahoy] Further problems with the script: one of the more annoying things a writer can do is play the "x amount of years later" card. There are things you could have done with this time, like develop the relationship between your main characters further (one of them is supposed to be obsessed with the other, after all). At least hit the major notes, instead of just fading to black and fading back in, and suddenly that character has a kid and is insane, that one's now deaf, that one's no longer even a priest, and so on. And while I'm mentioning the kid, I'm going to go ahead and point out that it's bad form to simply reuse the same actress for both mother and daughter. I can see the studio saying "well, why pay another actress to play the nearly irrelevant daughter of our lead actress? We'll just ugly her up for the last part of the movie, then when the daughter's around we'll clean her up and stick her in a wig. We'll stick one line of dialogue to explain our treachery- you know, something like 'My God, she looks just like her mother'- and call it good." I think that should explain the problem I have with it to your satisfaction.
This isn't to say I liked nothing about the movie- as I stated earlier, Bardem's character is pretty great, and Portman and Skarsgard do well also. There's also a scene I really like where the family of the daughter invites Father Lorenzo to dinner in order to plead her case to have her released, and after he tells them that she confessed to heresy after being "put to the question", the father decides to prove that confessions obtained under torture are worthless by putting Lorenzo to the question right there at the dinner table. It's pretty awesome. [quit spoilers] Overall, though, I wouldn't bother seeing it in the first place. If you want an entertaining period piece that can handle the flashforward technique, go for The Count of Monte Cristo instead (the remake is the one I speak of, I haven't seen the original).
Vantage Point: As before, the last movie I don't have much to say about. I wonder if it's because every 3rd movie I watch is basically bland and uninteresting, or if it's because by the time I get to the third of three reviews I'm just tired of writing. Probably a little of both. Anywho, the conceit of this movie is that we get 4 or 5 different viewpoints on the same event (the assassination of the President), with each presenting a different piece of the puzzle. It could have been really interesting, but it doesn't work out in practice. Since you don't have the time to develop any of the characters (and let me assure you, none of the characters are particularly developed) your story had better be damn interesting, and it just wasn't. I pretty much just rented it to see Forest Whitaker, because I'll watch him in nearly anything. He didn't throw out much in this movie however- not really his fault, it's just that when you're telling the story of the same 20 minutes over and over and only a couple of these segments involve him, he doesn't get much opportunity to shine. I would like to put forth the hypothesis that Dennis Quaid is liquid metal, however. He plays a Secret Service agent who clotheslines a guy, gets blown up, wrecks his car at least 3 separate times (same car, even) but comes out the other side with only minor scrapes and bruises. His power level may, in fact, be over NINE THOUSAAAAAAND! Ahem...anyway. It's worth watching if you're looking for a variant on your standard action-thriller movie, but I wouldn't go out of my way.
There you have it, folks. I'd just like to point out at this time that the remainder of this year will be wretched in terms of theater releases. Seriously, have you looked at the next few months? The best we've got is Burn After Reading (a maybe), Choke (hopefully it'll get released here), Quarantine (which probably won't be as good as its progenitor [REC], but I'll see it anyway), Saw V (likely wretched but it's basically my civic duty to go see it), Zack and Miri Make A Porno (hey, it's Kevin Smith), and then in November there's Quantum of Solace (the next Bond movie- hells yeah). So that's two movies that I'm genuinely interested in and don't secretly suspect will suck. Pretty weak. Oh well...
Funny Games: Amy recommended this to me after I saw The Strangers. I'd seen trailers for it previously that failed to impress me, but I was still kind of curious, and after she stood up for it I went ahead and rented it. Well, I'm still underwhelmed, but it wasn't as bad as I thought. It starts out entertainingly enough, with our soon-to-be-tormented family- wife, husband, and son- driving home from vacation engaging in pleasant conversation. We keep following them as the credits roll, occasionally going in for closeups on their smiling faces. You would expect this kind of opening sequence to be set to a light, slightly ominous score- but instead, you get thrash metal, which is really funny more than anything else. Once they get home, it's not long before the creepy people show up and begin their campaign of harassment, and it's here that I think the movie makes its first blunder. It's a nice bit of subversion to make the killers preppy, successful white people, and they exude the right amount of overly-polite creepiness to make you think something is definitely wrong, but they drag out the period before anything actually happens for much too long. They just stand around being creepy forever, until the tension is stretched so thin you're beginning to wonder if they're even going to bother with any real violence. Once it does start, however, it's pretty bad (although nowhere near as gory as I expected).
Naomi Watts and Tim Roth (the family) turn in ok performances, but they're not the main characters and thus not much is really expected of them. The killers, of course, are much more interesting, and have much more screen presence. [spoiler time] Odd things to note: I didn't think they would kill the kid, but they did. Violence against children seems to be more and more frequent in genre movies these days- a kid gets killed in this, in The Ruins, and in Doomsday. Just an observation. Also, I wasn't impressed by the little post-modern twists they threw in- I was ok with the killers occasionally turning and addressing the audience to some extent, but the most jarring thing in the movie is about 2/3 of the way through, when the family manages to turn the tables on the killers on and shoots one of them with their own shotgun- the remaining guy freaks out and looks for the remote. Once he's found it, he proceeds to rewind the movie and keep the family from getting the gun when it happens again. I'm sure some people find that clever, but I simply find it annoying. [end spoilers] Anyway, it ends in a fairly predictable manner which I feel no need to reveal since anyone who's watched a horror movie in the last 5 years or so could figure it out prior to watching the movie at all. Final analysis: if you really love this kind of thing (I suppose this could almost qualify as torture porn if there was more blood in it), knock yourself out, but The Strangers is better overall (with the exception that instead of a predictable ending, it has a pointless ending).
Goya's Ghosts: My mom rented this one for us to watch. It takes place in Spain during the time of the Inquisition, and stars Natalie Portman as Ines, a...actually I don't know what she's supposed to be. She's the daughter of a rich merchant, and she ends up being taken in by the Inquistion for being suspected of practicing Judaic rituals. The DVD back copy claims that she is Goya's "muse and inspiration", but they interact maybe twice or three times over the course of the movie and he paints one picture of her. Sure, there's some b.s. about him putting her face on most of the women he draws, but none of that chemistry is evidenced when they're on screen together. Goya is played by Stellan Skarsgard (yeah, there's supposed to be an accent mark in that name and on the name of Ines, but I don't know what the key combination is and frankly I can't be bothered), who was also in the last couple of Pirates movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and Hunt for Red October. A particular priest is involved as well, played by Javier Bardem.
I wasn't too impressed with this movie, and the blame for that falls squarely on the writer, who apparently had no idea what story- or even whose story- he was telling. The focus is split between all three of the lead actors but none of them actually drive the action- they are simply all acted upon by outside forces (and they all have extraordinarily bad luck, it ought to be noted). For a movie called Goya's Ghosts, you would think that Goya would be the main character, but he's just someone who happens to be present for most of the events of the movie. If anything the main character is Father Lorenzo (Bardem), who also gives the best performance of the movie. He really ought to try being in a movie worthy of his acting ability one day. [spoilers ahoy] Further problems with the script: one of the more annoying things a writer can do is play the "x amount of years later" card. There are things you could have done with this time, like develop the relationship between your main characters further (one of them is supposed to be obsessed with the other, after all). At least hit the major notes, instead of just fading to black and fading back in, and suddenly that character has a kid and is insane, that one's now deaf, that one's no longer even a priest, and so on. And while I'm mentioning the kid, I'm going to go ahead and point out that it's bad form to simply reuse the same actress for both mother and daughter. I can see the studio saying "well, why pay another actress to play the nearly irrelevant daughter of our lead actress? We'll just ugly her up for the last part of the movie, then when the daughter's around we'll clean her up and stick her in a wig. We'll stick one line of dialogue to explain our treachery- you know, something like 'My God, she looks just like her mother'- and call it good." I think that should explain the problem I have with it to your satisfaction.
This isn't to say I liked nothing about the movie- as I stated earlier, Bardem's character is pretty great, and Portman and Skarsgard do well also. There's also a scene I really like where the family of the daughter invites Father Lorenzo to dinner in order to plead her case to have her released, and after he tells them that she confessed to heresy after being "put to the question", the father decides to prove that confessions obtained under torture are worthless by putting Lorenzo to the question right there at the dinner table. It's pretty awesome. [quit spoilers] Overall, though, I wouldn't bother seeing it in the first place. If you want an entertaining period piece that can handle the flashforward technique, go for The Count of Monte Cristo instead (the remake is the one I speak of, I haven't seen the original).
Vantage Point: As before, the last movie I don't have much to say about. I wonder if it's because every 3rd movie I watch is basically bland and uninteresting, or if it's because by the time I get to the third of three reviews I'm just tired of writing. Probably a little of both. Anywho, the conceit of this movie is that we get 4 or 5 different viewpoints on the same event (the assassination of the President), with each presenting a different piece of the puzzle. It could have been really interesting, but it doesn't work out in practice. Since you don't have the time to develop any of the characters (and let me assure you, none of the characters are particularly developed) your story had better be damn interesting, and it just wasn't. I pretty much just rented it to see Forest Whitaker, because I'll watch him in nearly anything. He didn't throw out much in this movie however- not really his fault, it's just that when you're telling the story of the same 20 minutes over and over and only a couple of these segments involve him, he doesn't get much opportunity to shine. I would like to put forth the hypothesis that Dennis Quaid is liquid metal, however. He plays a Secret Service agent who clotheslines a guy, gets blown up, wrecks his car at least 3 separate times (same car, even) but comes out the other side with only minor scrapes and bruises. His power level may, in fact, be over NINE THOUSAAAAAAND! Ahem...anyway. It's worth watching if you're looking for a variant on your standard action-thriller movie, but I wouldn't go out of my way.
There you have it, folks. I'd just like to point out at this time that the remainder of this year will be wretched in terms of theater releases. Seriously, have you looked at the next few months? The best we've got is Burn After Reading (a maybe), Choke (hopefully it'll get released here), Quarantine (which probably won't be as good as its progenitor [REC], but I'll see it anyway), Saw V (likely wretched but it's basically my civic duty to go see it), Zack and Miri Make A Porno (hey, it's Kevin Smith), and then in November there's Quantum of Solace (the next Bond movie- hells yeah). So that's two movies that I'm genuinely interested in and don't secretly suspect will suck. Pretty weak. Oh well...