Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
Nice double-header today, man. First up is a look at the DreamWorks remake of a film that many of you are very, very fond of. I think it’s a great concept, and a creepy movie, but certainly not holy writ. I’m rooting for Verbinski to make something effective out of this, so let’s see what our guest pagan has to say:
Hey Mori,
The Wicker Man Cometh.
Have't seen any reviews in yet for a screening of "Ring" that went down recently, so I thought I'd send one in myself. I believe this may have been an early screening, but I'm not sure. I'll try to give a basic synopsis so as to preserve the film's mystery. My understanding was the film is a remake of the well-liked Japanese horror film which I knew little about going in. I went in with some very good word of mouth, and for the most part I was not disappointed. What they have here in this version is a thoughtful, somewhat deeper-than-usual horror story with some very good acting and some pretty disturbing chills. The film has an appropriate grey look (set in Seattle) which fits things just right for this film.
Basically, after a creepy extended prologue, we meet Naomi Watts, an actress who carries this movie very strongly on her shoulders. She's a reporter for the Seattle Post who doesn't spend enough time with her son, a very bright and "intuitive" little boy much like Haley Joel Osment before him. She begins investigating the unexplained death of her niece and finds herself led to a videotape which allegedly kills an individual seven days after it's viewed. Watts is excellent in the film, but credit should definitely go to this little boy, who is outstanding and creepy as hell, and, like Osment, projects a worldly knowledge far beyond his years.
Anyway, she watches the tape, takes it home with her and a friend subsequently watches it. Both immediately realize the tall tale of the tape may be true and for one other unmentionable urgent reason, must proceed to unravel its mystery. That's the basic set-up in a nutshell. I won't go any further. I'll say that along the way there are some surprising twists and turns that I wouldn't have guessed, but the very ending of the movie, with its plot-logic, while interesting, will need some more clarification (since many people I talked to didn't seem to make the connection about that "loophole" the filmmakers were looking for). There are slow spots in the middle where a lot is explained through one too many newspaper clippings, but that's a minor quibble.
And two words for the filmmakers: Answering machine (good call, Frosty).
Now, I do want to say that the film itself, while very, very good, seems to very much want to work in the territory of M. Night Shyamalan's films, as did "The Others" and most of the temp score came from Night's last two blockbusters. In a way it's a testament to how influential Night's work is on people these days. Don't get me wrong, "Ring" certainly has its own wonderful qualities, and it works in spades, but as that great poet of the ring "Macho Man" Randy Savage once said (sarcasm noted), "to be the man, you've gotta beat the man". The studio would be wise not to try and outdo the man, but to emphasize the unique hybrid they've got going between the Shyamalan level of depth and the Wes Craven-esque horror. I'm looking forward to seeing it again for sure.
Melting in the Valley...
The Wicker Man
He also took a look at Soderbergh’s oddball new offering that is getting some really divergent reactions thus far:
Hey Mori,
Wicker Man here, with my review of Steven Soderbergh's "Full Frontal".
Got to screen this one yesterday, although I had really no expectations about it since there really hasn't been much ink on the project. Now many people speculated that Coleman Hough, the film's writer was actually a nom de plume for Soderbergh himself, but in truth she's actually a separate individual and a New York-based poet/playwright at that.
So, what is this thing called "Full Frontal"? Well it's one of these day-in-the-life-of stories involving a group of people who are somehow personally or just loosely connected in L.A.. It's set around the film/film journalism businesses and sort of deals with everybody's struggle for personal happiness and creative fulfillment. In a way, since achieving such things while living in L.A. can be twice the normal level of mind-fuck, this type of attitude sort of rings true for me. I'm fascinated by Hollywood as much as I'm sick of the shit. There is some great dialogue in the film and the situations are interesting and nicely interwoven. I really like parts of "Full Frontal", but overall, as a whole, the film seems to be too blase and almost sedate about its subject matter and the lives of its characters. As a film, the actors are all very solid, and maybe that's the point, but the movie's non-concept concept isn't engaging enough. Conceptually, this sort of struck me as an Altman film shot in the more recent-style of Mike Figgis (i.e. the graininess of "Leaving Las Vegas").
So on to the film's high point, the acting: Everyone's really giving it their all here, although the former Mrs. Stern, Mary McCormack is left with little to do. David Hyde Pierce and Catherine Keener give some brutal performances as a showbiz-oriented married couple in conflict, but my favorite has to be "The Katt". What can you say about Nicky freakin' Katt?!! My god, Steve, put Nicky Katt in every movie, he's pure comedic gold. His actor character steals this movie in every scene, playing opposite Enrico Colantoni (from the NBC's "Just Shoot Me", also starring Laura San Giacomo who you'll remember broke out after "Sex, Lies, and Videotape") doing a really good job and proving he's not just some wannabe-hipster sitcom-line-reader. David Duchovny, who can so easily drift into drowsy-actor mode, also makes hilarious use of his screen time here. Now Blair Underwood. Blair Underwood does some great work here playing a movie star in a career transition (Hollywood, take notice. Why are you not calling this guy, he's been here for years!). I don't know where Blair went, but I'm glad he's back. Finally, we naturally have to talk about Julia Roberts. In all honesty, I think her star power is actually more of a distraction here than an asset. There's something smug about big Hollywood dipping its toes in arthouse waters for kitsch value. Her journalist role is merely somewhat functional, but she's leagues above all the other leads in Hollywood status and in a way that thought stays with you the whole time. Let me add though that there are several cameos. The main one is another Big-Hollywood goofy, recurring cameo that works, but there's also another smaller, recurring cameo that will have Soderbergh-fans grinning from ear to ear.
I'll almost always give Soderbergh the benefit of the doubt. He's that good. I think "Full Frontal" is worth seeing just once and processing, but move on. An interesting, but somewhat failed experiment with some very good actors.
The Wicker Man
Thanks for both reviews, WickerMan, and keep ‘em coming.
"Moriarty" out.
