Death Sentence

Almost everyone's heard of the game '6 degrees of Kevin Bacon'. If you haven't, it's basically a kind of trivial pursuit in which any actor in the world can, in 6 degrees of separation, be connected to Kevin Bacon. Does this have any relevance to today's review? No. So why am bringing it up? Because I felt it was a good way to introduce the star of today's flick, Death Sentence.

A relatively young film, only released in 2007, Death Sentence features the directorial talents of James Wan, who brought us the clever, tense, and often horrifying thriller Saw. It stars Kevin Bacon, Garrett Hedlund, Aisha Tyler and John Goodman, and concerns a man taking revenge on a thuggish gang who killed his son. It's pretty much every revenge flick you've ever seen, but what Hell, lets check it out anyway.

Nick Hume (Bacon) is a mild-manner guy with, annoyingly, the perfect life. He has a well paid, executive job, a nice home, a beautiful wife, and 2 sons with ambitions and potential. Why is this annoying? Because this is basically a recipe for disaster isn't it? We know he has everything he want, which means we know he has a everything to lose, making for a pretty blatant set up.

When driving with his eldest son Brendan, his school's star hockey player, they make a fuel stop, and while in the shop, a group of dangerous reprobates turn up and Brendan is killed by one of them as a gang initiation. Wow, the beloved son of an opulent father who has the world at his feet has met an early demise, who'd have seen that coming?

If that surprise wasn't enough, get this. When Nick consults his lawyers, he discovers that the criminal would only go away for up to 5 years were he to be presented before an judge and jury. Unsatisfied with this injustice, he takes the law into his own hands, and goes after the gang himself. Unfortunately, after killing the member of the gang who murdered his family, Nick attracts the attention of the Detective who has been following his case, Jessica Wallis (Tyler), but more pertinently, the wrath of the gang leader Billy Darley (Hedlund), who declares a 'Death Sentence' on the rest of Nick's family.

When the officers assigned to protect Nick's family are killed by the gang, imagine that, he, his wife and his remaining son are attacked. His wife dies in hospital, his son is left in a coma, and Nick, after purchasing a gun from Billy's father Bones (Goodman), heads out to take out the rest of the group.

                                                   Man it's tough being an executive!

You may have noticed that I've been laying into this film quite a lot during my plot synopsis, something haven't really done before, perhaps with the exception of SBIG September. I guess I just thought I should bring up the criticisms as I went along, because the movie plays very much like a typical revenge flick. Person suffers a loss, declares revenge on the one who caused the loss, is advised to forgive and forget, takes revenge anyway. As a result the plot is paper thin, the dialogue is riddled with cliche and the outcome is completely predictable. It follows a tried-and-tested formula without bringing anything new to the table.

So what do I like about it? Well first of all you have Kevin Bacon, one of the most prolific and yet still under-appreciated actors around. Even in films as silly as Hollow Man he is always fun to watch, and this movie is no exception. He gives a convincing performance as the despondent hero, the guy who fights against all the odds.

Most of all thought, I love the action scenes. Much like other recent revenge movies such as Harry Brown and Law Abiding Citizen, it's something you've seen before, but they way it's pulled off is slick, enjoyable, and delightfully over the top. The film itself was criticised for being over-violent, and i guess it is. But watching Kevin Bacon using a revolver to blow a gang leader's fingers off, you just gotta laugh.
As Internet celebrity Noah 'Spoony' Antwiler once said, 'A movie doesn't have to be good to be awesome' and this movie is somewhat of a perfect representation of that. It's cheesy, farcical and completely gratuitous, but that, in all honesty, is what is so good about it.

Three Kings

A few years ago the American Government expressed concern that the Middle East conflict was going to become their new Vietnam, leading to speculation that a whole host of new war movies were going to be released. Arguably the most famous of these is the 2009 Best Picture Winner The Hurt Locker. Others include Brothers starring Tobey Maquire and Green Zone starring Matt Damon. Today's movie also takes place in Irag, though technically it is set during the Gulf War. I present to you, the 1999 movie Three Kings.

Directed by David O. Russel (The Fighter), Three Kings stars George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube and Spike Jonze. It features a group of soldiers who discover and subsequently plunder a stockpile of Iraqi gold. Well directed, nicely acted, and with some unique and downright inspired cinematic tricks, it's straight-up first class cinema, so lets see what it has to offer.

The movie opens, predictably, in Iraq, where we find 4 soldiers, Troy Barlow (Wahlberg), an office worker with a wife and daughter, Chief Elgin (Cube), an airline baggage handler, Conrad Vig (Jonze) a jobless redneck who idolises Barlow, and Archie Gates (Clooney) a Special Forces Major who is fed up with the war, and keen to leave the army in pursuit of other goals.

While disarming and searching a group of Iraqi soldiers, Barlow and Vig discover a documents that one of the men has stashed in his pants. Having gone to such extreme lengths to conceal it, the men believe the information it contains must be of highly discernible value, so they decide not to inform their superiors, and try to translate it themselves. Unfortunately Gates enters, but does not report them. Instead, he tells them that the map is of Saddam's bunkers, where a myriad of goods stolen from Kuwait are hidden, including millions of dollars worth of gold bullion.

The 4 off them set off for the bunker, where they find the gold. Under the cease-fire instated by President Bush, they are able to 'liberate' the gold without any hostilities. Sadly, as they are about to leave, a woman who pleads with them to help the rebels is shot by one of Saddam's Republican Guard. Unable to simply walk away, a gunfight ensues. None of them are hurt, and during the pandemonium they manage to free a group of rebels and their leader, and escape just as Iraqi reinforcements arrive.

After stumbling into a minefield, the group become separated and Troy is captured. Deciding that simply making off with the gold is not the right thing to do, Gates, Vig and Elgin regroup and set out to rescue Troy, and get the rebels safely across the Iranian Border.

The movie is much like that of Platoon or Saving Private Ryan. It's a gritty depiction of the brutality of modern warfare. What makes this one so edgy is the focus it has on the non-combatants. Yes, we witness soldiers being injured and killed, but we see far more of the repercussions on the innocent victims. Jean-Paul Sartre once said 'When the rich wage war it's the poor who die', and this is exactly what we see here. It's an insight into a country on its knees, and a demonstration of how war truly affects the proletariat. What starts out as a mission motivated primarily by greed slowly become one of compassion and comradeship, where 4 men become an unlikely band of Samaritans. Watching their story unfold is equal parts inspiring and horrifying.

Memento

Christopher Nolan is one of the best directors of this generation. With his movies Inception and The Dark Knight trilogy, he has cemented himself as one of the 21st centuries cinematic titans. But long before those films were released, Nolan directed another movie. It lacked the aforementioned films epic scale and grandeur, but that doesn't make it any less of a great movie.  Today's review, the neo-noir masterpiece Memento.

Released in 2000, Memento is based on the short story 'Memento Mori' by Nolan's brother Jonathan. Chris Nolan adapted the screenplay from this story, as well as handled the directing. The films stars Guy Pearce, Carrie-Anne Moss and Joe Pantaliano. It follows a man with a very rare mental disorder trying to find the man who raped and murdered his wife and take his revenge. It has great acting turns, an engaging story, and one of the most interesting and unique film structures ever witnessed.

As I just mentioned, the movies structure is very outlandish, and while it is very fascinating and creates a very interesting experience, it makes it very difficult to divulge the plot without including spoilers, which I vehemently avoid. The story is told in reverse chronological order, where we see an event taking place, then in the following scene, we see how we got to that scene in the first place. For example, if a character was going to the local shops to buy a newspaper, we would see them buying the paper, then going into the shop, then leaving their house to go to the shops. What is the purpose of this? Basically, it puts us in the same frame of mind as our protagonist Leonard Shelby (Pearce, in one of his finest performances). He has a psychological condition known as anterograde amnesia, which impedes his ability to make new memories, causing him to forget anything he learns in a matter of seconds. Every time a scene opens, he's starting all over again, since he can't remember what he just learned. Many people who watch this movie call it 'confusing', but that's the whole point; we are supposed to feel just as confused as Leonard is, and it allows us to keep guessing right up until the end. Or the beginning in this case.

                                                              'Talk to the photograph'

Leonard is out to catch the man who caused not only the death of his wife, but also the loss of his short term memory. In order to keep track on all his discoveries, he has numerous tattoos and keep notes and photographs, allowing him to record all the people, places and things he has encountered pertaining to his investigation. We are never sure if he is after the right person, if he is following the right leads, or whether the people he encounters are a help or a hindrance. There are 2 principal supporting characters. One is Teddy (Pantaliano), a mysterious individual who seems determined to help Leonard, but for no apparent reason. He acts like Leonard's friend, but our hero keeps his distance.

The other is Natalie (Moss), who is initially hostile towards Leonard, insulting him and his late wife, as well as being unwilling to believe his condition. But as time goes on, she tries to help him, while still not fully understanding him. We are not sure whether either of them are good news, and neither does Leonard, but find that he has to trust one of them.

This is definitely one of the best films of the noughties: clever, original, brilliantly directed, well acted, and one that never gives a thing away. It's not a  film you can sit down and casually view, or tune in halfway through. It requires a great deal of thought to decipher it. Starting a film at the end sound like a pretty dumb idea, but in the hands of Chris Nolan, it works perfectly. So if you're willing to invest a deal of time and brainpower iunto a flick, give this one a look, you won't regret it.

Stir Of Echoes

Kevin Bacon is, undoubtedly, one of the most under-appreciated actors of our time. Like Gary Oldman, he can always be trusted to turn out a solid performance, yet he has never won that holy grail of acting, an Academy Award. Well today I'm going to look at one of his movies, the supernatural thriller, Stir Of Echoes.

Released in 1999 under the direction of David Koepp (Secret Window), and loosely based on the novel of the same name by Richard Matheson, Stir Of Echoes stars Kevin Bacon, Kathryn Erben and Jennifer Morrison. It tells the tale of a family man who begins to experience visions of a tormented soul, and attempts to unravel the mystery. It's nothing exceptional, but it's well acted, well paced, and, at times, is actually pretty unsettling.

Tom Witzky (Bacon) is a blue collar man; normal, regular, completely unremarkable. A loving husband to Maggie (Erbe) and father to Jake, living with his family in Chicago. One night, while at a party at a friends house, Maggie's sister Lisa is talked into hypnotising Tom. Her hope is to make him more open-minded, but in doing so, she opens a 'door' in his mind, which allows mental entities to enter freely. As a result of this, Tom begins to experience visions of a teenage girl on a regular basis, and he is unsure what she wants.

Tom son's Jake, it turns out, has a similar ability, but is far more in control of it. Coincidentally, the girl that he can communicate with is the same one that Tom has been seeing. Her name is Samantha Kozac (Morrison), and one night, while Tom and Maggie are at a football game, without knowing of Sam's existence, they hire Sam's sister Debbie, a babysitter, to look after Jake. But Debbie overhears Jake talking to Samantha, and takes him from the house. Tom 'senses' this event, and runs from the game to rescue him. Tom finds out that Samantha disappeared, and her mother and sister are desperate to find her.

With the incessant hauntings, Tom is driven to madness and obsession, and appeasing the spirit leads him to unravel a grisly crime that has been hidden under his very nose.

The film is a pretty basic psychological thriller. A guy has a weird gift, and it causes him to see weird things. The special effects back them up well, and the struggle that Tom endures is beautifully portrayed by Bacon, and while the supporting characters are never given a lot of screen time, they do a good job. The build-up is always interesting and the climax is a great payoff. It's nothing special, but as a straight-up supernatural movie, it's very enjoyable.

Rain Man

Today, for the first time on my blog, I'm going to review a movie that won the Academy Award for Best Picture. I've tried to stay away from movies that have won this accolade, but since most people I know have never actually heard of the movie, let alone seen it, I'm going to make an exception. The subject of today's review is the 1988 quadruple Oscar winner Rain Man.

Directed by Barry Levinson (who won the Oscar for Best Director) and starring Dustin Hoffman (who won the Oscar for Best Actor In A Leading Role), Tom Cruise and Valeria Golino. The movie follows 2 estranged brothers on a road trip across America following the death of their wealthy father. It has a heartwarming story, spectacular performances, a witty screenplay, some genuinely emotional moments, and became a landmark film in regards to the fictional depiction of mental illness.

Charlie Babbitt (Cruise), a bad-tempered car salesman is forced to travel to Cincinnati, Ohio, after learning of his father's death. Charlie maintained a complicated relationship with his father, but now that he has passed away, he decides he needs to sort out his dad's estate, with the hopes of receiving what he feels he deserves. Unfortunately, he discovers that $3 million dollars from his father's estate has been left to an unnamed beneficiary. Much to his chagrin, Charlie finds out that the money has been left to a man named Raymond (Hoffman), an autistic savant who also happens to be Charlies brother, whom Charlie was completely unaware of.

In order to coax his 'share' of the money out of the mental institute Raymond is living in, which is holding the inheritance money, Charlie takes Raymond out of the institute and drives him to Los Angeles to meet up with his attorney and sort out the matter at hand. During the trip, Charlie becomes increasingly frustrated with Raymond's autistic behaviour, such as his poor communication, constant repetition, and his unwillingness to adapt to different routines.

Their trip across the United States tests Charlie to his limits, since he believes that Raymond's condition is make-believe, and that he is deliberately irritating him and wasting his time. But as time passes, he comes to appreciate, and even empathise with his brother and his handicap.

The real beauty of watching this film is witnessing the bond which forms between our central characters, one of whom is allegedly incapable of standard human interaction. While Hoffman's performance has been recognised as one of the most sensitive and accurate portrays of autism in cinema history, I think Cruise's performance also deserves credit. He starts off brash, arrogant and basically detestable, but over time he comes to appreciate Raymond, and connects with him on an emotional level. It's definitely one of his most under-appreciated roles.

On top of the acting, the movie boasts funny, intelligent and touching dialogue. The movie can swing from funny to facetious within a matter of seconds, and does so on a number of occasions. It's a road movie like you've never seen before. One of the most overlooked Best Picture Winners, and one of my favourites.

Meet The Parents

Remember when Ben Stiller was funny? Couple of years ago, maybe even a decade? You may remember my review on There's Something About Mary, a movie many regard as his finest work. Before that he had a cameo role in Happy Gilmore, and he was hilarious in that too. But in recent times, he seem to churn out nothing but crap. Night At The Museum, Starsky & Hutch, the Madagascar films and the abysmal sequels Meet The Fockers and Little Fockers. The real shame about the last 2 is that they were terrible follow-ups to a genuinely great film, Meet The Parents, the subject of today's review.

Released in 2000 under the direction of Jay Roach (Austin Powers, The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy), and starring Ben Stiller, Robert De Niro, Teri Polo, Blythe Danner and Owen Wilson, the movie is based on that most apprehensive of events; meeting the in-laws. The occasion is hard enough to get through, even when the father isn't The Deer Hunter! It's one of De Niro's only forays into comedy, and one of Stiller's best.

The movie opens with our main character, a male nurse called Gaylord Focker (Stiller), working up the nerves to propose to his girlfriend Pam (Polo). But upon discovering that Pam's sister has recently got engaged after her finance asked permission from her parents, Gaylord (or Greg as he is referred to) decides to do the same. So the 2 of them fly out so they can attend Pam's sister's wedding, and so that Greg can meet and become acquainted with Pam's parents, so he can ask their permission to marry Pam.

Upon arriving at the Byrnes' family house, Greg meets Pam's mother Dina (Danner) and father Jack (De Niro), who immediately begins to question Greg about his life, career, and even the colour of the rental car he is driving. No matter how much Greg tries to impress them, Jack is not taken with him, and appears increasingly suspicious. After unintentionally making an idiot of himself, Greg discovers, much to his chagrin, that Jack is not in fact a retired flower dealer as he was initially informed, but a former CIA agent.

                                              Yes or no, the sequels to this movie will suck?

Upon meeting more members of the Byrnes family, and Pam's ex-fiance Kevin (Wilson), Greg feels even more alienated, especially as his attempts to fit continue to fall flat on their face. Passing from 1 accidental disaster to another, Jack goes from suspecting Greg, to disliking him, to downright hating him.

Eventually, unable to stand the criticisms and scorn any longer, Greg leaves, feeling that, no matter how much he loves Pam, he can't possible hope to fit in with her tight-knit and unwelcoming family.

This movie succeeds the same way There's Something About Mary did, by having a strong comedic side while also having serious and emotional elements. Greg's situation is so easy to identify with, as it's a situation virtually all of us have been in; being introduced to a group of close friends who view you as an outsider, the subject of rejection and ridicule. Struggling through this proverbial minefield, the jokes we are given are brilliant. The more he tries to fit in, the worse his situation becomes, resulting in funnier and funnier scenarios. It works in all the ways the sequels don't. The second and third movies are nothing but forced humour and jokes based solely on degrading Greg. The jokes about his bizarre name are funny in the first movie, but by the time the sequels came out they had thoroughly worn out their welcome. But we still have, and always will have, the original. The best by a country mile.

Scream

In recent times, horror movies have experienced a drastic shift in in tone and content. Originally, the films were built around creating suspense, building a creepy atmosphere, and ensured that what was most scary were the things you couldn't see, as opposed to the things you could. Examples of this include Alien, Halloween and Friday the 13th. But in the last decade, horror flicks have relied more heavily on graphic blood & gore, basically shock-value and exploitation. Examples include Hostel, Freddy vs. Jason, and pretty much every horror movie remake. But in 1996, a film single-handedly reinvented the horror movie genre, while also satirising it. That movie was Scream.

Directed by Wes Craven (New Nightmare) and starring Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Matthew Lillard, and Skeet Ulrich. It follows a group of teenagers (doesn't it always) who are stalked by a masked killer known as Ghostface. It's essentially a huge throwback to the old-school horror films of the 70's and 80's, which pays homage to them, while also making fun of what made them so silly and cliched.

The movie is set in the fictional American town of Woodsboro, where we first meet a girl named Casey Becker (Drew Barrymore), home alone, about to watch a movie. She starts receiving phone calls from a mysterious person (a classic urban legend) who, while initially friendly, eventually threatens her and her boyfriend Steve, who is tied to a chair outside. The situation quickly escalates, and both Casey and Steve are brutally murdered.

The townspeople are shaken by the killings, especially Sidney Prescott (Campbell), who is approaching the 1-year anniversary of her mothers murder. Before long, Sidney finds herself on the receiving end of the killer's wrath, who attacks her in her own home. After he disappears, Sid's boyfriend Billy (Ulrich) arrives to console her, but after dropping a cell phone, Sid believes him to be the killer.

Billy is released the following day, and suspicion falls on Sidney's father Neil, since the calls have been tracked to his phone. As a precautionary measure, school is suspended, and a curfew is instated. To celebrate, Stu (Lillard), boyfriend of Sidney best friend Tatum (Rose McGowan), throws a party at his house. To ensure that the party-goers are protected, Deputy Sheriff Dewey (Arquette) attends, accompanied by local reporter Gail Weathers (Cox).

You can probably imagine where it goes from there. All the teenagers in a remote location, with a killer on the loose. You could actually put bets on who will get iced next. But the fact is, if you've seen a slasher flick, it will all be very familiar. But that's the whole idea. The movie was made to pay homage to slasher films while simultaneously making fun of all the cliches they became known for. All throughout the film, the characters discussed how their current predicament can be analysed by looking at existing horror movies, and the patterns that they follow. The film works by mimicking existing scary movies while making one of its own, and a fantastic one at that. There is suspense, tension, a menacing killer, an unknown motive, and a heavier reliance on being scary rather than gory, which is something modern horror films fail to do.

Scream remains one of the best slasher movies ever made. It breathed all new life into a dying genre by pointing out how flawed and unoriginal it had become. It created a film that was chock-full of cliches and simply had fun with. Clever, intense, and always tongue-in-cheek, Scream remains one of cinemas smartest and most self-deprecating piece of work. If you haven't seen it, delay no longer.