Faithful (1996)

Directed by: Paul Mazursky

Starring: Cher, Chazz Palminteri, and Ryan O’Neal

Genre: Romance, Comedy, Crime

Rated: R

Maggie (Cher) is a rich housewife suffering from depression. She knows her husband, Jack (O’Neal) is being unfaithful, and on their twentieth wedding anniversary, decides to kill herself. Enter Tony (Palminteri), the professional hit man that Jack has hired to kill her. The film follows the blossoming relationship between captor and captive as they await the phone call signaling Tony to do the deed.

This is a slight twist on the cliché plotline of “spouse-hires-hit man-to kill-spouse.” For one thing, the hit man has issues that need to be explored and has various conversations with his therapist throughout the film. For another, he’s not supposed to be tempted to switch sides. Will he or won’t he?

They really tried to make the character of Tony likable, but I just found him quirky and clichéd. Palminteri overacts a little in places as well, making him a weaker character. I didn’t feel much chemistry between him and Cher either – which could have greatly helped the film. Maggie is a believable character, who becomes more likable as the story progresses and she becomes stronger. Cher gives her a strong presence, which takes talent as the character spends half of the movie tied to a chair. Jack – the husband – has no redeeming qualities, and it feels as though O’Neil didn’t even like the character enough to really portray him. His performance was very wooden – and the appearance of his character in the last third of the film took away from what little the film had going for it.

I really liked how Maggie becomes more empowered and recognizes it as the movie rolls on. She learns that she can be strong and Jack is just a waste of skin. The last third of the film is fairly predictable, but I liked the very ending – it didn’t end like I figured it would, with the typical sappy Hollywood conclusion. That made me happy.

This was an okay film, but some of the performances could have been better. The only character I really cared for was Maggie. Both the scenes between Maggie and Tony and the ending were done well, but the parts with the husband disrupted the flow of what could have been a higher rated film.

5.5/10

The Edge (1997)

Directed by: Lee Tamahori

Starring: Alec Baldwin, Anthony Hopkins, Elle McPherson, Harold Perrineau, and Bart the Bear

Genre: Action, Drama, Survival, Thriller

Rated: R

Billionaire, Charles Morse (Hopkins) and his two companions, Bob (Baldwin) and Stephen (Perrineau) find themselves stranded in the Alaskan wilderness after their plane crashes. With little food or supplies and being chased by a man-eating Kodiak bear (Bart), they soon find they have to lean on each other in order to survive.

Normally, I’m not one for movies that involve rogue animals. However I love Anthony Hopkins and a friend recommended this movie, so I decided to give it a shot. I liked it.

The storyline isn’t the most original, but it manages to work for this film. I think this is because the acting is top-notch from Baldwin, Hopkins and Bart the Bear. There is a nice tension between Charles and Bob due to the underlying conflict that both men are in love with the same woman (McPherson), yet they have to support one another in order to get out alive. Hopkins and Baldwin make this tension very believable. Also, the scenes with the bear chasing the men feel very realistic – and some of the things the bear does makes it seem like an intelligent, calculating predator. (For example: shaking the log Charles is balancing on while attempting to cross the river.) It’s hard to believe that in real life, Bart the Bear interacted with people daily when he appears so vicious in the film. He was truly a magnificent animal. (He died in May of 2000.)

I did see the twist in the plot coming a mile away, however. Whenever a love triangle is involved, the story is always a little predictable. The dialogue was also annoying in places, with Bob using Charles’s name every time he talks to him. It was a little irritating because the audience knows the hero’s name is Charles – we don’t need to be told a hundred times. (Someone on imdb actually counted the number of times his name was spoken – it is literally over one hundred.) Lastly, Bob and Stephen were frustratingly dumb in places. I’m really not sure how you hack your leg open while carving a spear or why you would hang a blood soaked rag in the trees when a highly intelligent person told you to bury it. (Blood attracts bears.) Those were the two most irritating things in the movie that could have been avoided if Charles’s companions were smarter.

Overall: It was a good movie because of the beautiful scenery and the believable performances. The writing could have used a little work, however. There was no need for the level of stupidity exhibited by two of the men stranded in the wilderness.

6.5/10

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

Directed By: Sofia Coppola

Starring: James Woods, Kathleen Turner, Kirsten Dunst, A.J. Cook, Josh Hartnett, Hanna Hall, Chelse Swain, Leslie Hayman, Danny DeVito and Jonathan Tucker

Genre: Drama

Rated: R

Based on the novel by Jeffrey Eugenides

The peaceful air of a 1970s suburb is shaken when, over the span of one year, five teenage sisters commit suicide. Thirteen-year-old Cecilia is the first to take her life, and the story follows the family through the eyes of the neighborhood boys as they deal with the aftermath.

I will be straight with you – when you’re done watching this film, you may say to yourself “What was the point?” The one thing many people dislike about this movie is the fact that it doesn’t give the viewers answers to the questions they have throughout the film. You’re left wondering what the film is trying to say. Some think its anti-religious fanaticism, some think its speaking out against intensely overprotective parents, and some see something much deeper. What you take away from it is entirely up to you.

The movie itself is a faithful adaptation of the novel. The characters are believable and all, in a way, are tragic. The girls and their parents, obviously due to the suicide – but also the boys who tell the story. They put these girls up on a pedestal and idolized them. To these boys, the Lisbon sisters – who seemed like normal girls to everyone else – were mysterious and goddess-like. They believe they love the Lisbon sisters and, when the girls kill themselves, the boys experience a loss of innocence the rest of the neighborhood cannot comprehend.

The film is very artfully done, told from the bystander’s perspective – we only get to know the Lisbon family, especially the girls, from what these boys experienced. The girls only stand out when they are with their peers and away from their parents – which is a rarity. Otherwise they almost fall into the background, as scenes with the parents are dominated – as with their lives – by the parents. Symbolism, like the tree infection and the suffocation motif, is littered throughout.

The cast did a great job with this. James Woods and Kathleen Turner are both easy to dislike and to pity as the overprotective parents of the girls. Kirsten Dunst is the main attraction as Lux Lisbon – the rebellious daughter who fights the rules and clearly embraces her sexuality. Aside from Cecilia, the other sisters pale in comparison because they are quiet and obedient. I believe this was intended. All performances by the girls were done well. Josh Hartnett plays the slightly rebellious football player who becomes infatuated with Lux. He’s the only one who gets close to the Lisbon girls, and he’s the one filled with regret after all is said and done.

Overall: An interesting film that leaves you with a few unanswered questions. It examines the way a tragic event affects a suburban town and the ripple effect touching those around the girls. Not recommended for those who like narrative closure – but both the film and the novel are worth looking into.

7.5/10

Killers (2010)

Directed by: Robert Luketic

Starring: Katherine Heigl, Ashton Kutcher, Tom Selleck, Catherine O’Hara, Kathryn Winnick, and Kevin Sussman

Genre: Action / Adventure, Romantic Comedy

Rated: PG-13

Jen (Heigl), recently single, is on vacation in Nice, France with her parents when she meets handsome Spencer (Kutcher) in the elevator. The two swiftly strike up a romance and marry. Three years later, the two are on the run from a seemingly never-ending number of assassins intent on ending Spencer’s life.

The exact timeline of Jen and Spencer’s premarital relationship is fairly vague. The vacation apparently lasted three weeks, though we only see them together in France twice. Then suddenly he’s home with Jen and her family telling her father he wants to marry her. I also wondered if he just decided to move across the Atlantic to live with her when her vacation ended, or if they had carried on a long distance relationship before he dropped everything and moved to the United States to be with her. I was thinking, “Wow, everything is happening so quickly…” We never see the wedding, and then the plot skips ahead three years (thankfully it lets the audience know this with lower third text) to the happily married couple preparing to celebrate Spencer’s birthday. The relationship felt very rushed to me, and I could not find it believable.

I really thought the writing could have been a lot better than it was. The story was not well-thought out. The person who sent the assassins was pretty predictable, especially since they pretty much tell the audience who it is maybe fifteen minutes before the climax. The characters were fairly stupid in places, and some felt entirely useless. For example – Jen’s mother was nothing but a comedic device, redundantly shown drinking lots of alcohol (multiple glasses of wine, Bloody Marys with the pitcher as a glass, etc.) It made me wonder how Jen could possibly have the “amazing relationship” with her mother that the film claimed she had when her mother was clearly an alcoholic. The ending leaves the biggest question of all: how do you explain away all the dead bodies?

The acting left something to be desired. I never considered Kutcher as an action star, and after this I don’t think he should pursue another job within the genre. He was fairly wooden and hard to believe as a spy. Heigl really didn’t seem to care for her character at all – she’s played in so many romantic comedies, this is old hat for her, and she really didn’t seem to put forth the effort. Both she and Kutcher are talented comedic actors but it really felt like neither one was invested in this project whole-heartedly. Also, the two didn’t have any chemistry together – and that alone can make or break a film. Selleck and his trademark mustache had the best acting as Jen’s overprotective, seemingly paranoid father. As stated above, O’Hara (most notably known for her role as the mother in the first two Home Alone films) was underutilized as her character was little more than a lush.

After all that running around, being shot at, crashing cars, physically fighting with other people, the clothing and actors look pristine. There are no rips, stains, stray threads or lint on these clothes and not a scratch on either of our title characters – highly unlikely. Also, did they really expect us to believe that a woman on the run from assassins would remain in high heels the entire time? Especially when the two stopped off at a K-mart and she could have easily grabbed a pair of cheap flip flops at the very least. At that point, I doubt she was thinking how dorky comfortable shoes would look with her outfit, and probably would have thought that it would not be logical to remain wearing shoes that high. If they didn’t want her to buy shoes, at least have her kick off the heels and run barefoot. So ridiculous.

There are a few things I did like about the movie, however. The scenery in the beginning of the film was beautiful. The fight scene between Kutcher and Kathryn Winnick (“Hannah” from Season 6 of Bones) was fun and it was nice to see her kicking some butt. I also liked the fact that the film seems to be pushing the message that you should always be yourself in a relationship – if you’re meant to be with that person, they will love you for who you are, past actions included. They also push the message that honesty is key. It’s just too bad the film was so poorly written and acted.

Overall: This could have been a fun film, but it was dragged down by a script that wasn’t thought out well and actors that really didn’t seem to care. There are some positive elements that keep it from getting a much lower rating, but overall, I was not impressed.

5/10

The Virgin Spring (1960)

Directed by: Ingmar Bergman

Starring: Max Von Sydow, Birgitta Valberg, Gunnel Lindblom, Birgetta Pettersson

Genre: Drama, Suspense, Crime

Language: Swedish (Subtitled)

Rating: Not rated

I had been very curious about this film for a long time before I finally got to watch it. Knowing that it was the inspiration for Wes Craven’s Last House on the Left, my interest was piqued. So, the other night, after I discovered it on Netflix Instant Watch, I settled in with this well-noted classic. (*Note: I know I would normally lump this in a post with Last House and its remake, but this was never directly remade. Last House is not an official remake of The Virgin Spring.)

The story is set in Medieval Sweden following a small farming family. Karin (Pettersson) and her servant Ingeri (Lindblom) are sent off to deliver candles to the church to celebrate the Virgin Mary. On the way there, the girls have a falling out, and Ingeri stays behind while Karin goes off on her own.  A ways up the road, she comes across a small group of shepherds, and kindly invites them to share her lunch with her. During the meal, the two men attack Karin, raping her and eventually killing her. Later in the day, the men unknowingly take shelter at the home of Karin’s parents – a mistake they will soon regret.

The plot is very similar to that of the film it inspired – though this one focuses more on the characters and less on the horror aspects of the incident. This film focuses heavily on guilt – many characters feel it for different reasons throughout the film. For example, the small boy with the two older shepherds witnesses the crime and wants to tell someone – he can’t eat or sleep and becomes physically ill at the thought of what was done to this lovely girl. He even tries to cover her corpse. Several other characters are also physically and even violently affected by their guilt over the incident and what occurs afterward. The emotion is tangible in many scenes.

The film also deals heavily with religion – specifically Catholicism. Guilt is a factor often associated with Catholics (ex: the saying “Catholic Guilt.”) There is also an emphasis on virginity. There’s the celebration of the Virgin Mary. The family berates Ingeri for being pregnant out of wedlock, calling her a “disgrace” and telling her they never should have taken her in. Karin is celebrated for her purity – she is the favorite among her family. Her virginity and honor are stolen from her.

I also saw a theme of the Seven Deadly Sins within the film – most notably vanity, envy and wrath – and each person possessing this sin is punished. Karin is wearing her best clothes on her journey – wanting to look her best, and she falls victim to men who rob her of her riches, her maidenhood and her life. Ingeri’s envy of Karin is what leads to their fight and Karin going off by herself. Lastly, Karin’s father’s actions toward the end of the film are the epitome of “wrath.” 

The cinematography is beautiful, which gives the film a twisted element. The viewer is sitting there wondering how these horrible things can be done to this young woman in such a beautiful place. It reminds people that something like this could happen to anyone at any time, anywhere. The rape, while not incredibly graphic, is fairly hard to watch – it’s also more brutal than many films of that era. The sets seemed authentic and the costumes believable.

Lastly, the acting was decent. The characters of Karin, her father, and the small boy were played perfectly – you could really feel their emotions. The other actors offered decent performances, but they fell to the background in comparison.

Overall: Though it is not my typical taste in film, it is very good and lives up to its reputation as a classic. Well-shot and acted, with a lot of religious themes laced within, this is worth at least one watch for all film buffs out there.

7.5/10