Movie Review: AMERICAN PSYCHO

AMERICAN PSYCHO

2000

NC-17

"I like to dissect girls. Did you know I'm utterly insane?"

-- Patrick Bateman

American Psycho is a 2000 satirical thriller directed by Mary Harron that serves as a film adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis's novel of the same name. It tells the story of a young Wall Street executive named Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) living the yuppie culture of the 1980s. Believing himself to be better than his peers, he delves into materialism and greed so that he can stay ahead of the curve, all while trying to "fit in." He admits that his emotionless lifestyle leaves him very bored, and that has led to a sort of nighttime blood-lust that's slowly creeping into his everyday activities. His homicidal desires reach a peak when a colleague named Paul Allen (Jared Leto) proves himself to be better-off than Bateman is, and in retaliation, Patrick crafts a plot to murder him. This experience only goes to further Bateman's string of psychotic episodes, leaving him in a state where he can't quite determine what's really and what's imagined.

My first interaction with American Psycho came with Bravo's television special "30 Even Scarier Movie Moments," which aired in October 2006 and served as a sequel to their original mini-series, "The 100 Scariest Movie Moments." The 2006 special included the scene where Bale's Bateman murders Leto's Paul Allen, and that little snippet of a scene managed to hook my interest. I soon hunted down the film and gave it a view, and I was instantly confused about what it all meant. It was quite a bit to take in, and over the years, I've managed to see the film on a few other occasions. And yet, even after this particular viewing, I don't quite know what's going on during American Psycho.

At its core, the film is truly a satire about the materialistic and greedy culture of the 1980s. We see a number of Wall Street businessmen doing their best to stay ahead of the curve their colleagues set, all the while delving into basic carnal needs to satisfy their lives' emptiness. Bateman does the same, but takes his methods of satisfaction to an entirely different level with his need for violence. For the first half of the film, all that seems fine and dandy. However, as soon as Bateman goes through with his plot against Allen, we see the strings of his sanity start to come a little bit loose. He's not sure exactly what's real in his life anymore, and by association, we as the audience aren't quite sure either. It all leads up to a very vague finale that's probably leaving the interpretation open and on the table. I can honestly say that three-quarters of the way through the film, I'm sure I know what's going on, but as soon as the final scene fades to the credits, my ideas have changed, and I'm not sure at all.

What is grounded in reliable fact is the strength of the central performance from Christian Bale. While the film offers strong, albeit small, roles from familiar faces like Justin Theroux, Josh Lucas, Reese Witherspoon, Chloë Sevigny and Willem Dafoe, this is really Bale's vehicle, and he's the one who demands all the attention. Even in the more mundane scenes, where we see Patrick going through his every morning routine, you can't help but be encapsulated by Bale's character. At times, he manages to show absolutely no emotion on his face, and given that's the character's biggest identifier, I have to say I'm always thoroughly impressed. As Bateman spirals into insanity, however, Bale becomes a little more over-the-top, but never so much that he becomes unbelievable. As strange as the character may seem today to today's audiences in 2012, Bale always makes Patrick Bateman believable.

At the end of the day, I'm not quite sure what the real drawing power of American Psycho proves to be. Bale's performance is enough to keep me watching, but I think it's the open-endedness of the ending that will keep bringing most viewers back. I've heard many a fan argue both sides of the spectrum, and I have my own ideas as well, but I'll refrain from going into detail about them here. From the outset, American Psycho was toted as a big deal: at its debut at Sundance in 2000, it was hailed as the "next Fight Club." And while I don't think it quite measures up to that 1999 masterpiece, I do think that, given enough time, American Psycho will be held with the same such clout and respect.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

Status: Must-See

Movie Review: THE BOONDOCK SAINTS

THE BOONDOCK SAINTS

2000

R

"Whosoever shed man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."

-- Il Duce

The Boondock Saints is a 1999 dramatic action film directed by Troy Duffy that tells a vigilante tale set in the streets of Boston. After brothers Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy MacManus (Norman Reedus) kill two Russian mobsters in self-defense, they have a joint spiritual vision that tells them to rid the world of its evil and corrupt men. The two begin to murder a string of Russian and Italian mobsters, which brings federal detective Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe) onto the case to solve the mystery of the seemingly connected incidents. As the feds and police work through the crimes, the MacManus brothers enlist the help of their friend Rocco (David Della Rocco), a package boy in the Italian mafia, to point out their next hit. As the body count continues to climb, the brothers gain more and more enemies, but they might even start to gain friendship from the ethically-torn authorities.

I had heard about this film time and time again over the past ten years, but it wasn't only until the last few years that I had a chance to watch it. The Boondock Saints proved to be right up my alley, and although I've continually found a few flaws here and there, I still find it to be one of the more entertaining and thought-provoking films I've seen. This is a little strange to me because it's rare that my personal film tastes are so stark in comparison to the general consensus of other film critics. This is the case with The Boondock Saints, however. The film currently holds only a seventeen percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, which offers the following critical consensus:

A juvenile, ugly movie that represents the worst tendencies of directors channeling Quentin Tarantino.

Those are some pretty harsh words, to say the least. However, there is a massive disparity between critical thoughts on the film and the feelings that audiences have had. The film's page on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) claims that the film has achieved a user score of 7.8 out of a possible ten points, meaning that it is on the higher end of scored films. I don't know whether I've ever seen this large of a difference between critical and lay audience feelings on a film.

But enough with all of these facts. Let's get into the reasons as to why I personally love The Boondock Saints. For starters, I'm relatively in love with the cast. Although the majority of our actors aren't necessarily bringing forth the greatest of performances, everything seems to fit accordingly with the film and its overall tone. I think that Flanery and Reedus were the perfect choices to portray our vigilante brothers, and the chemistry they have within the film is pretty spot-on for what you might imagine. For all we know, they could've been brothers in a past life, and this film only serves as an outlet for them to express their brotherly feelings. In addition, I think we're getting a career-best performance from Willem Dafoe. Sure, he's had some great parts in films like Platoon, The Last Temptation of Christ or, more recently, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, but there's a powerful force behind his performance in The Boondock Saints that can't be denied. It's also easily the most quotable of his characters, and that alone makes his Paul Smecker a more memorable character. We're also getting a good bit of comedic relief from David Della Rocco, and be sure to be on the watch for smaller roles from the likes of Billy Connolly and Ron Jeremy.

And now, for the screenplay. After watching the film today, I realized that the screenplay actually answers most of the questions I had ever had about the storyline. If you pay close attention, it actually answers all the questions it poses and leaves the audience satisfied. You're not left wondering why certain things happened, and although there's a few scratch-your-head moments, they're merely at points where you wonder why a film might even go in that direction. The movie is over-the-top, but it still manages to work because it never once lets off the gas. When an outrageous film attempts to bring it down a little bit, we usually have disastrous results. However, if a film can aim for over-the-top and keep the pedal to the metal throughout, then you should be in for quite a treat. That's what The Boondock Saints does, and it does it well.

The real meat of the film's screenplay comes with the question of ethics that it proposes. As with any story of vigilantism, there are going to be those who are for and those who are against the idea. In terms of the cinematic landscape, I'm not sure if there has ever been a film that takes the idea to the extremes that The Boondock Saints does, but the basic question that it poses is still one that we can all think about and ponder. One of the best scenes in the film actually comes as the credits roll. In the scene, we see a faux news segment where a reporter asks a number of average Joe citizens how they feel about the vigilante justice that the aptly-named "Saints" have brought to the city of Boston. As one can imagine, we see both sides of the argument, and although the scene is obviously staged, it still proves to be a fascinating - and probably accurate - look at how the public might react to such a situation. I've found the scene for your viewing pleasure, so I hope you can enjoy it:

I also liked a lot of the stylistic choices that director Troy Duffy made in shooting the film. Most of the action sequences are shown in flashback as Agent Smecker tries to work through what might have happened, and at times, he inserts himself into these playbacks, adding a bit of dramatization to them. I think that the Rottentomatoes.com consensus is right in calling the film Tarantino-esque, and you can see that Duffy was attempting to bring forth something similar. The film definitely has a pseudo-Tarantino feel to it, but to compare it to a Tarantino film wouldn't be giving The Boondock Saints enough credit. It's nowhere near that level of film-making, but it definitely manages to take the mold and run with it efficiently and effectively.

At the end of the day, I personally think that The Boondock Saints is a fine film, and it's easily an entertaining one even if it's not necessarily the most profound. Despite its initial trouble gaining an audience, the film has managed to become a cult favorite over the past twelve years. It even garnered enough of a following to give Duffy a reason to create a sequel, which was released in 2009. It wasn't quite as good as the first film, but it managed to continue the story rather well. However, it owes a lot of credit to this first film, which is so much better than most critics will ever give it credit.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS

HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS

2000
PG


"One man's toxic sludge is another man's potpourri."
-- The Grinch

How the Grinch Stole Christmas is a 2000 comedy film directed by Ron Howard that serves as a live-action version of Dr. Seuss's classic Christmas tale. The town of Whoville is jubilantly preparing for their Whobilation celebration on Christmas, spending their time buying as many gifts as they can possibly buy for their friends and family. However, all of the emphasis on the material possessions starts to bother a little girl named Cindy Lou Who (Taylor Momsen), who wonders if that's really the true spirit of Christmas. She learns of a mysterious creature called the Grinch (Jim Carrey) who lives on Mount Crumpit just outside Whoville who hates Christmas and the Whos. Cindy doesn't believe anyone should be left alone on Christmas, so she nominates the Grinch to be this year's Holiday Cheermeister, and after some persuasion, he reluctantly agrees to attend the ceremony. However, Mayor Augustus Maywho (Jeffrey Tambor), who had past tiffs with the Grinch, humiliates the Grinch during the ceremony. As payback, the Grinch decides to ruin Christmas for the entirety of Whoville.

I was twelve when this film was released, and at the time, I was in quite a pro-Jim Carrey swing. While I still love him as an actor, I think he's lost a tiny bit of appeal from my younger days. However, when I saw How the Grinch Stole Christmas, I thought it was one of the funniest movies I had ever seen. Eleven years later, I can see that's a rather lofty platform on which to place this film, but it still has quite a bit to like.

Ultimately, this is a film that's really going to pander toward Carrey fans. Director Ron Howard gives Carrey a lot of free reign to run with the Grinch character, and he takes it as far as he possibly can with a PG-rated film. I do admit that his manic presence does go a little too far at times, but there are a couple handfuls of gems in terms of his one-liners. Whether they were ad-libbed or written into the script, I don't really know, but either way, there's plenty of laughs to be had at the Grinch's expense. The rest of the cast fills out rather nicely, but it's tough for any of the other characters to shine when they're being upstaged by Carrey's performance. Momsen plays a convincing, wide-eyed girl looking for the beauty in the Christmas holiday, and compared to her adult co-stars, she goes above and beyond. We get some okay bits from the likes of Tambor, Molly Shannon and Christine Baranski, but as I think I've made clear: this is Carrey's film and his film alone.

However, I think what makes this film so good is the storyline. While the screenplay isn't by far the greatest in the world, the basic story that Dr. Seuss laid down with his original story is simply fantastic. Yes, you could just as easily read the book or watch the original 1966 animated version to get the overall message, but it's good that someone took the time to reinvigorate the story for a more modern audience, especially considering how how materialistic society has become. The basic moral of the story is that Christmas shouldn't revolve around the presents and the material possessions on which we place so much importance; rather, the holiday should be a time of happiness and joy that we spend with our family, friends and loved ones. This film does a great job showing us that's how we should be spending our holidays rather than engaging in rampant over-spending to satisfy our desire for earthly possessions.

At the end of the day, the message should be enough to get you to like this film. As I previously stated, this is going to be a film most loved by fans of Jim Carrey, so if you're not into his brand of comedy, this one might not be for you. However, if you love him - or can at least tolerate him - I think you'll be in for quite a treat with How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Don't expect anything brilliant, lest you be terribly disappointed. Just go in expecting a straight-forward, heart-warming tale, and you'll be doing just fine.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B+
1.5 Thumbs Up

DVD Challenge #19: MEMENTO

Memento
2000
R
Run-time: 1 hour, 53 minutes

Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Guy Pearce, Carrie-Anne Moss, Joe Pantoliano & Stephen Tobolowsky



The first time I heard about this film was during my freshman year of college at UC Santa Cruz. One of my roommates owned the DVD and had left it lying around our apartment's common room. The unique DVD case caught my attention, and I figured I'd give it a shot. At the time, the only Christopher Nolan fare I had seen was the 2005 film Batman Begins, so I wasn't entirely sure just what I was getting myself into. Two hours later, as I tried to peel myself off the floor, I thought about the experience I had just endured.

I think the easiest and best way to describe Nolan's Memento is to call it innovative and imaginative. He took a difficult medical condition - anterograde amnesia, which prevents those afflicted from creating new memories - and crafted a film around the condition that can only be called a masterpiece. Based on the screenplay alone, there's enough to love about this film. In line with the main character's thought process, the film moves in reverse, starting from the "end" and slowly working its way towards the "beginning." That may sound a little confusing, but those of you who have seen the film know exactly what I'm talking about. Because we have a reversed timeline, watching Memento is a movie-watching experience unlike any you have ever had.

To add to the originality of the screenplay, Nolan offers a number of twists and turns that would shock us were we moving in the proper direction in time. The audience is literally guessing until the very final moments of the film, and the ultimate pay-off brings one of the better film endings that I've ever had the privilege to see. I'd also like to take a moment to compliment some of the scene cuts and editing that Nolan utilizes to hint towards that ultimate pay-off. There's one particular scene where Leonard (Guy Pearce) is explaining the effects of anterograde amnesia on a man named Sammy Jankis (Stephen Tobolowsky) that holds a scene cut that I never noticed before today's viewing, but it offers a major clue towards the film's climax. Also, there's a moment in the climactic scenes where the film transitions from black-and-white to color in such a seamless fashion that I had to rewind the film to see exactly where the change occurred. It was just that smooth. So, kudos Mr. Nolan. Your brilliance knows no bounds.

In addition to the fantastic screenplay, we're also getting some great performances from the small but stellar cast. Pearce is a revelation as the film's lead, going as far into the role as is humanly possible. He's completely convincing as a man with short-term memory loss, and it's so easy to fall into his character. In the past, I wasn't sure whether I was too fond of either Pantoliano or Moss's characters, but after watching tonight, I've come around. In comparison to Pearce, there's really not much to say, but they definitely bring much-needed depth to their characters despite the lack of screen-time. We also get fantastic brief appearances from Tobolowsky and Harriet Sansom Harris, so be on the lookout for them.

Still, the actors would be nowhere without the brilliant screenplay that Nolan has brought to this film. The screenplay is what carries the film from start to finish, and I can guarantee you that it doesn't disappoint. If you haven't had the opportunity to watch Memento, I strongly recommend doing so. It's one of the defining films of the early 21st century, and it should be considered a near-masterpiece.

Rankings
Best All-Time - #57
Best Drama - #22

Awards
2000: 7 nominations, 4 wins

Previous DVD Challenge: THE ORPHANAGE (2007)

Movie Awards: BEST OF 2000

Throwing up another post of retro awards. We're taking it back to the turn of the millennium with the films I thought topped the charts back in 2000. These awards are comprised of the 52 films I have currently seen from that calendar year, so we should have a relatively nice selection. I hope you enjoy the nostalgia!


Best Visual Effects
Nominees:
CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON
THE PERFECT STORM
RED PLANET
SPACE COWBOYS
X-MEN

Winner: THE PERFECT STORM

----------

Best Original Song
Nominees:
"Dorado," by Elton John from THE ROAD TO EL DORADO
"Fever Dog," by Stillwater from ALMOST FAMOUS
"I Am a Man of Constant Sorrow," by the Soggy Bottom Boys from O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?
"A Love Before Time," by Coco Lee from CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON
"My Funny Friend and Me," by Sting from THE EMPEROR'S NEW GROOVE

Winner: "I AM A MAN OF CONSTANT SORROW"

----------

Best Original Score
Nominees:
Elton John for THE ROAD TO EL DORADO
Hans Zimmer for GLADIATOR
James Horner for THE PERFECT STORM
John Williams for THE PATRIOT
Trevor Rabin for REMEMBER THE TITANS

Winner: JAMES HORNER

----------

Best Cameo or Brief Appearance
Nominees:
Benicio Del Toro in SNATCH.
Benjamin Bratt in TRAFFIC
Carrie Fisher in SCREAM 3
Philip Seymour Hoffman in ALMOST FAMOUS
Stephen Tobolowsky in MEMENTO

Winner: PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN

----------

Best Young Star
Nominees:
Anna Paquin in X-MEN
Frankie Muniz in MY DOG SKIP
Hayden Panettiere in REMEMBER THE TITANS
Patrick Fugit in ALMOST FAMOUS
Taylor Momsen in HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS

Winner: HAYDEN PANETTIERE

----------

Best Couple
Nominees:
Ben Stiller & Teri Polo in MEET THE PARENTS
Billy Crudup & Kate Hudson in ALMOST FAMOUS
Charlize Theron & Matt Damon in THE LEGEND OF BAGGER VANCE
Diane Lane & Mark Wahlberg in THE PERFECT STORM
Helen Hunt & Tom Hanks in CAST AWAY

Winner: BILLY CRUDUP & KATE HUDSON

----------

Best Villain
Nominees:
Alan Ford in SNATCH.
Christian Bale in AMERICAN PSYCHO
Ian McKellen in X-MEN
Jason Isaacs in THE PATRIOT
Joaquin Phoenix in GLADIATOR

Winner: CHRISTIAN BALE

----------

Best Hero
Nominees:
Bruce Willis in UNBREAKABLE
Hugh Jackman in X-MEN
Mel Gibson in THE PATRIOT
Russell Crowe in GLADIATOR
Yun-Fat Chow in CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON

Winner: RUSSELL CROWE

----------

Best Voice Acting
Nominees:
John Leguizamo (as Gune) in TITAN A.E.
Kevin Kline (as Tulio) in THE ROAD OF EL DORADO
Max Casella (as Zini) in DINOSAUR
Mel Gibson (as Rocky) in CHICKEN RUN
Patrick Warburton (as Kronk) in THE EMPEROR'S NEW GROOVE

Winner: KEVIN KLINE

----------

Best Supporting Actress, Comedy
Nominees:
Amanda Peet in THE WHOLE NINE YARDS
Blythe Danner in MEET THE PARENTS
Frances McDormand in ALMOST FAMOUS
Hayden Panettiere in REMEMBER THE TITANS
Holly Hunter in O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?

Winner: HAYDEN PANETTIERE

----------

Best Supporting Actress, Drama
Nominees:
Carrie-Anne Moss in MEMENTO
Catherine Zeta-Jones in TRAFFIC
Chloë Sevigny in AMERICAN PSYCHO
Helen Hunt in CAST AWAY
Jennifer Connelly in REQUIEM FOR A DREAM

Winner: JENNIFER CONNELLY

----------

Best Supporting Actor, Comedy
Nominees:
Brad Pitt in SNATCH.
Bruce Willis in THE WHOLE NINE YARDS
Marlon Wayans in SCARY MOVIE
Robert De Niro in MEET THE PARENTS
Tim Blake Nelson in O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?

Winner: BRAD PITT

----------

Best Supporting Actor, Drama
Nominees:
Benicio Del Toro in TRAFFIC
Heath Ledger in THE PATRIOT
Joaquin Phoenix in GLADIATOR
Kevin Costner in THIRTEEN DAYS
Ryan Hurst in REMEMBER THE TITANS

Winner: BENICIO DEL TORO

----------

Best Actress, Comedy
Nominees:
Anna Faris in SCARY MOVIE
Elizabeth Hurley in BEDAZZLED
Kate Hudson in ALMOST FAMOUS
Lucy Liu in SHANGHAI NOON
Teri Polo in MEET THE PARENTS

Winner: KATE HUDSON

----------

Best Actress, Drama
Nominees:
Charlize Theron in THE LEGEND OF BAGGER VANCE
Connie Nielsen in GLADIATOR
Diane Lane in THE PERFECT STORM
Ellen Burstyn in REQUIEM FOR A DREAM
Michelle Yeoh in CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON

Winner: ELLEN BURSTYN

----------

Best Actor, Comedy
Nominees:
Ben Stiller in MEET THE PARENTS
George Clooney in O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?
Hugh Jackman in X-MEN
Jim Carrey in HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS
Patrick Fugit in ALMOST FAMOUS

Winner: GEORGE CLOONEY

----------

Best Actor, Drama
Nominees:
Christian Bale in AMERICAN PSYCHO
Denzel Washington in REMEMBER THE TITANS
Guy Pearce in MEMENTO
Russell Crowe in GLADIATOR
Tom Hanks in CAST AWAY

Winner: CHRISTIAN BALE

----------

Best Screenplay, Comedy
Nominees:
ALMOST FAMOUS
O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?
THE ROAD TO EL DORADO
SCREAM 3
SNATCH.

Winner: SCRATCH.

----------

Best Screenplay, Drama
Nominees:
AMERICAN PSYCHO
MEMENTO
REMEMBER THE TITANS
REQUIEM FOR A DREAM
TRAFFIC

Winner: MEMENTO

----------

Best Cast, Comedy
Nominees:
ALMOST FAMOUS
HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS
MEET THE PARENTS
O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?
SNATCH.

Winner: SNATCH.

----------

Best Cast, Drama
Nominees:
GLADIATOR
MEMENTO
REMEMBER THE TITANS
REQUIEM FOR A DREAM
TRAFFIC

Winner: MEMENTO

----------

Best Sequel
Nominees:
SCREAM 3

Winner: SCREAM 3

----------

Best Foreign Language Film
Nominees:
CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON

Winner: CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON

----------

Best Animated Film
Nominees:
CHICKEN RUN
DINOSAUR
FANTASIA 2000
THE ROAD TO EL DORADO
TITAN A.E.

Winner: THE ROAD TO EL DORADO

----------

Best Horror/Thriller
Nominees:
AMERICAN PSYCHO
SCREAM 3

Winner: AMERICAN PSYCHO

----------

Best Action/Adventure
Nominees:
CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON
GLADIATOR
THE PATRIOT
THE PERFECT STORM
X-MEN

Winner: GLADIATOR

----------

Best Comedy
Nominees:
ALMOST FAMOUS
HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS
O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?
SNATCH.

Winner: SNATCH.

----------

Best Drama
Nominees:
CAST AWAY
MEMENTO
REMEMBER THE TITANS
REQUIEM FOR A DREAM
TRAFFIC

Winner: MEMENTO

----------

Best Picture of the Year
Nominees:
AMERICAN PSYCHO
MEMENTO
O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?
REQUIEM FOR A DREAM
SNATCH.

Winner: MEMENTO

----------
Final Tallies:
Most Nominations: 9 (Almost Famous)
Most Wins: 4 (American Psycho; Snatch.)

----------
Other Awards:
2010 (Best) | 2010 (Worst) | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001

Movie Review: CAST AWAY

CAST AWAY

2000
PG-13

Cast Away is a 2000 dramatic film directed by Robert Zemeckis that centers around a man stranded on a deserted island. Chuck Noland (Tom Hanks) is a hardcore FedEx executive who's known for his all-business attitude in running his shipments. He's a bit of a stickler for remaining on schedule and can easily be said to be married to his job. This causes a little bit of a strain with his girlfriend Kelly (Helen Hunt) as they constantly have to re-work their schedules in order to see one another. Such an event happens during a Christmas dinner, and Chuck takes a late flight towards Asia. However, somewhere over the Pacific Ocean, the plane experiences turbulence and a massive explosive sends it spiraling into the sea below. Through a miraculous escape, Chuck finds his way to the surface in a life raft and slowly floats to a remote and deserted island. Chuck accepts his fate and does everything he can in order to survive.

I'd go into more detail in terms of Chuck's time on the island, but part of the experience of watching Cast Away is seeing just how he goes through that time. I don't want to throw too many spoilers out there, and the more I say, the more likely I am to give away the film's final resolution; ergo, I'm going to leave you with that. Now let's get into my actual review.

I'd like to start with the film's acting before I get into the screenplay because that bit could take a little while to talk about. Obviously, the acting centerpiece is the performance delivered by two-time Oscar-winner Hanks, who also garnered an Academy Award nomination for this particular role. Although I wasn't entirely impressed by the performance as a whole (his scenes away from the island are pedestrian at best), the stranded Chuck Noland is pitch-perfect and, considering that's the man we see for the majority of the film, Hanks can be deemed a success. He brings a subtlety to the role (that's definitely shown in the script - more on that momentarily) that you wouldn't necessarily expect with a man who's slowly going mad as a result of being away from civilization. Had this film been made closer to 2011, I wouldn't be surprised to see an over-the-top performance in the lead role rather than the one Hanks brings to the table. He's damn-near flawless when he's on the island, so kudos, good sir.

Because Hanks is the main person we see for at least ninety percent of the film, it's almost not worth mentioning the supporting work at all. However, we do have a decent performance from Oscar-winner Hunt, so I suppose she's worth noting here and now.

And now for the film's screenplay. Like Hanks' performance, I think the script works best while we're on the island. In fact, the film's execution on the island is so good that it probably would've worked perfectly on its own. Sadly, we're book-ended with some off-the-island moments that prove to be ridiculously cliché and much too cheesy and sappy. The off-the-island scenes were so bad that they almost ruined the film for me. Fortunately, the island was simply brilliant. Going into the film, I thought we'd be getting an in-depth look at Chuck's life on the island, chronicling his every movement and every emotion as he tried to figure out how he was going to survive. That's not what Cast Away gives us. Instead, we get a series of snippets of his life that doesn't really give the audience an opportunity to get too emotionally involved with Hanks' character. Normally, that wouldn't be a good thing, but here, it works perfectly. If they had shown every minute struggle he had to face, it would've been an overwhelmingly emotional flick. By showing the little moments without any real sense of segue from one scene to the next, the audience creates a bit of an emotional distance. That's not to say that the film isn't emotional - in fact, it has some extremely heart-wrenching scenes. However, because we're not getting the constant stream of emotion, the scenes of true emotion are all the more powerful because we're not really expecting them to happen. Because they're few and rather far in-between, the power of each of the scenes is truly punched home.

The island is where the film succeeds - everything else is excess fluff that keeps Cast Away from reaching the ranks of brilliance in my books. If they would've cut out the final thirty minutes of the film, this movie would easily have skyrocketed onto my list of greatest films of all time. Unfortunately, it falls just short of scratching that particular surface. Still, it's definitely worth a watch if you've got a little over two hours to kill.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: B+
1 Thumb Up

Movie Review: UNBREAKABLE

UNBREAKABLE

2000
PG-13

Unbreakable is a 2000 dramatic mystery film directed by M. Night Shyamalan. The film opens on David Dunn (Bruce Willis), a married man on his way home from New York on a train that derails, killing everyone on-board - except him. Somehow, David walks away from the crash unscathed, causing everyone around him to wonder just how he managed to do so. After leaving a memorial service for all those killed in the crash, David finds a note stuck under his car's windshield asking him how many times he had been sick in his life. The question quickly becomes an obsession, and with the help of his wife Audrey (Robin Wright), David realizes that he had never once been sick in his life. He traces the note to a special art gallery where he meets Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), a man who was born with a type of brittle bone syndrome. After conversing for a little while, Elijah believes that David may be "unbreakable," in that he cannot be injured. He starts to attempt to convince David that the world may need a person like him - a protector, so to speak. David shrugs off the notion, but as time goes by, he starts to wonder whether Elijah may actually be correct.

Now, I watched this film last night but was too tired afterward to write the review, so bear with me if this sounds a little jumbled. I had been meaning to watch this film ever since I watched The Sixth Sense because many people had told me it's actually good Shyamalan fare. And in comparison to some of his recent efforts (i.e., 2008's The Happening and 2010's The Last Airbender), Unbreakable is damn near brilliant. However, compared to the annals of the rest of film history, it simply falls into the "quite good" category. I had a very interesting viewing of this film, considering it's one of the only Shyamalan films I've seen in which I did not know the ultimate twist going into watching it. The Sixth Sense and The Village (which I have yet to watch) were both spoiled for me before I had the chance to see them, so they proved to be a little lackluster (although, the power of The Sixth Sense still ranks it at #142 on my all-time list). That being said, let's get to the actual review of the film...

We actually have a pretty good screenplay, although it literally makes you wait until the very last scene to punch everything home. This seems to be Shyamalan's sole purpose in making film - to make the audience wait until the final moments to garner some resolution. I have to say that I wasn't entirely expecting the final outcome, but as I thought about it as I drifted off to sleep, I realized how obvious it had been. I should have picked up on it a lot sooner, but perhaps I was tired from a long day of movies (in case you didn't notice, check out my other review from yesterday: Insidious; Source Code; Win Win). We've basically got a superhero story on our hands here, but it's not really packaged as such throughout the film. The story really focuses on Dunn's inner struggle as he tries to figure out just what's "wrong" with him. In a way, I guess you can say this is like an origins story of a superhero. The fact that it's all encased within this comic book universe that Elijah so craves makes it all the more dashing. My only real issue with the screenplay was that it moved so slowly that it never lets you properly hook into what's going on. Again, that could've just been me trying to watch it as I slowly succumbed to the wonders of dreamland - maybe I'll have to give this one another view on a fully functional day.

The acting is good, in a very subtle sort of way. I loved Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense, and I wanted desperately to love him here as well, but I came away merely liking the character. However, his collaboration with Shyamalan helped to bring out the actor in Willis, rather than the comedic action junkie we had all grown to know and love. His roles in both The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are so glaringly different from roles he's taken on in the past that it's a little awkward to see him as such. That doesn't take away the fact that he is a very good actor, though. Aside from Willis, there's really no one else to talk about except Samuel L. Jackson. It took me a little while for his character to grow on me, but eventually, I was able to fall into his warped sense of reality. Jackson plays him well, with an outward subtlety that almost masks the manic energy floating around inside Elijah's skull. It's quite a sight to behold, actually.

I'd also like to take a moment and give credit to James Newton Howard, who composed the score for the film. Although it's not quite as good as his composition for The Sixth Sense, it's still quite good and fits the film very well. Here's a little taste of the score, in case you're curious to hear it:

Overall, I think I'm going to have to go back and watch Unbreakable again in a few weeks. The more I think about the film, the more I like it, but I might want to give it another go just to prove that my feelings are warranted. In a day and age when Shyamalan has become a bit of a laughing stock in Hollywood, everything he does has to be taken with a grain of salt. However, Unbreakable might actually be one of his better films, and although it's not quite reaching The Sixth Sense, it could very easily come close.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: B-
1.5 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: SCREAM 3

SCREAM 3

2000
R

Scream 3 is a 2000 horror-comedy and the third film in Wes Craven's Scream franchise. We once again pick up on a series of murders related to Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) and her troubled past. When Cotton Leary (Liev Schreiber) is murdered after taking a role in the upcoming film Stab 3 - fans will recognize this movie-franchise-within-a-movie-franchise - talk of a third recurrence of the Ghostface killings surfaces. Enter Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) who both want to solve the recent string of murders that's leaving actors in the upcoming film lacking the spark of life. When Sidney comes to Hollywood to help the investigation, she once again puts her life in danger.

You can probably imagine the rest of the storyline, especially if you've seen any of the films in the Scream franchise. My plot synopsis probably sounds a little tired and repetitive, and the movie is basically that. However, I still found myself completely entrenched with the story. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised by the final reveal of the killer, something I hadn't had since partially having it the first time around. There's still a little bit of bite left in this third installment, and screenwriter Ehren Kruger channels Kevin Williamson pretty well.

The acting from our big three (Campbell, Arquette and Cox) is on the same level of the previous two installments in the series, so there's not much to talk about there. Nobody is really wow-ing the audience in this one, but there are a few pleasant surprises in the cameo and supporting role departments. Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy), easily the most entertaining character in the Scream universe, sends a message from the grave to explain the rules of a horror trilogy, and boy was I stoked to see him again. We've also got appearances by Patrick Dempsey, Jenny McCarthy, Emily Mortimer, Parker Posey and Patrick Warburton. Oh, and there's a few cameos that deserve special mention: Carrie Fisher - most famous for playing Princess Leia in the Star Wars films - plays a small role, and everyone's favorite stoners Jay and Silent Bob (Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith, respectively) even find their way onto the set.

Sure, this one's missing a little bit of the horror aspect of its "horror-comedy" seating, and even some of the comedy falls a little flat. However, Scream 3 is not much of a step down from its immediate predecessor, and as I said earlier - the ending took me by surprise. It's a very good addition to the Sidney Prescott story, and now I can't wait for the newest installment (Scream 4) due out this April. Oh yeah, it's a new decade. You know there's gonna be some new rules.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: B-
1.5 Thumbs Up