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: JOHN CARTER

JOHN CARTER

2012

PG-13

"When I saw you, I believed it was a sign that something new can come into this world."

-- Tars Tarkas

John Carter is a 2012 science-fiction action film directed by Andrew Stanton that serves as his first major directorial foray into the realm of live-action cinema. Based off the first novel from Edgar Rice Borrough's Barsoom series, the film tells the story of Civil War veteran John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), who finds himself mysteriously transported to an unknown world called Barsoom. Upon his arrival, he is captured by a race of strange creatures known as the Tharks, led by a creature called Tars Tarkas (voiced by Willem Dafoe). After proving his warrior merit, Tars Tarkas admits John into his tribe and claims that he will help the Tharks defeat their enemies. Never one to fight for a cause, Carter tries to back out of the duty but is swayed after saving a young woman named Dejah Thoris (voiced by Lynn Collins). She explains to John that Barsoom is what he knows to be Mars, and that her world is slowly dying. The constant struggle between her home city of Helium and the enemy city of Zodanga has brought the world to its breaking point, and she believes that John is the man who can make a change. Although he initially avoids the fight, John finally decides to battle for the good of Barsoom.

When Disney prepared to release John Carter, they had expected it to be their next big franchise. With a $250 million budget and an accomplished director at the helm, who was to say that it wouldn't be a smash hit? Still, in the months prior to its release, I don't recall seeing many trailers for the film, and I don't think it really got as much publicity as it needed. Added to the mixed reviews it received from the critical community, and John Carter simply did not perform at the box office. Ultimately, the film barely made back all the money it cost to make, and it finally settled for a tiny $30 million profit. Still, I had every desire to see the film but never had the chance to do so while it played in theaters. And so, to RedBox I went.

The first thing you're going to notice about John Carter is that it's mildly confusing. Now, I've seen plenty of movies with screenplays that make little to no sense, and this one definitely doesn't rank amongst those dregs. However, from the very get-go, you're going to be scratching your head wondering exactly what's going on. We get the basic idea: a man is transported to Mars, where he is captured and all that jazz, but there's little things going on in between that make for a little bit of confusion. It's almost as though we're feeling the same confusion that the John Carter character must be feeling upon his transport, and if that was Stanton's aim, then kudos to him. As the film continues along, however, it ultimately falls into a rote action flick that becomes very predictable very, very quickly. The breath of imagination quickly leaves the film, and I was left wondering how the man who wrote and directed both Finding Nemo and WALL-E could bring forth something so pedestrian.

One thing I did like about the film's storyline, however, was the parallels between the Barsoomian people's war and the American Civil War in which Carter himself fought. We're seeing two opposing cities (a la the North and the South) do battle against one another while a more rudimentary culture (a la the Native Americans) stands by and watches from the side. In that sense, the film does bring something rather interesting, but it serves more as a basis for Stanton's entire concept than as a plot point itself.

The cast in the film does a serviceable job throughout, but I wasn't really overly impressed by anyone in particualr. Kitsch, whose biggest claim to fame is his role on TV's "Friday Night Lights," does well with the role, but it doesn't seem like there was a lot to go with. He has the necessary physique for the action sequences, but with only a small bit of intelligent dialogue, there really wasn't much for him to do. Collins falls into the same category, bringing out the character but not bringing anything overly fantastic. We do get some nice vocal performances from the likes of Dafoe and Thomas Haden Church (in a small bit), as well as some slightly stronger live-action roles from the likes of Mark Strong and Dominic West. And there's even some very small roles from people like Ciarán Hinds, Bryan Cranston and Daryl Sabara, but they're here and gone relatively quickly.

The one thing that John Carter does have going for it is its special effects which are sure to dazzle. Although I'm not quite sure it's anything truly spectacular, I'm sure seeing this Barsoomian world on the big screen was quite a sight to behold. After the visual brilliance of a film like WALL-E, I'm glad to see that Stanton didn't lose sight of his visual performance, even if the rest of the film doesn't quite measure up.

At the end of the day, John Carter is a relatively uneven action film that falls into standard cliché very quickly. Still, there's enough to keep you engaged throughout the film, even if you're going to be a tad bit confused from time to time. Viewers beware: this one runs a bit longer than two hours, and the film starts to overstay its welcome around the ninety-minute mark.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: C-

Status: Don't Need to 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: THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST

THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST

1988
R


"God loves me. I know He loves me. I want him to stop."
-- Jesus

The Last Temptation of Christ is a 1988 drama directed by Martin Scorsese that's based off Nikos Kazantzakis's novel of the same name. It paints a very different portrait of Jesus (Willem Dafoe) than has been depicted in other films relating to the Gospel story. The film starts with Jesus trying to deal with God's voice in his head as he tries to live his life as an ordinary man. As time continues to pass, however, he begins to accept the path that God has laid before him. He joins with a man named Judas (Harvey Keitel) and begins to recruit his disciples and apostles. The group makes their way into the desert where Jesus meets John the Baptist (Andre Gregory), who sends him into the desert to wait for God's direction. While there, Jesus is tempted by Satan a number of times, but Jesus is able to deny him time and again, returning from the desert with a renewed fervor as he starts his ministry. As more time passes, however, Jesus realizes what his true fate will entail, and he and his apostles begin to prepare for his imminent crucifixion.

While I've known about this film for quite some time, I figured today (being Martin Scorsese's birthday) would be as good a day as any to finally take the time to give it a view. I had heard a little of the film's controversy, but I didn't know just how controversial it had been upon its initial release. A lot of the issues with the film stemmed from Christians' belief that it strayed too far from the four Gospels represented in the Bible; however, the film does offer the following disclaimer at the opening:

"The dual substance of Christ - the yearning, so human, so superhuman, of man to attain God... has always been a deep inscrutable mystery to me. My principle anguish and source of all my joys and sorrows from my youth onward has been the incessant, merciless battle between the spirit and the flesh... and my soul is the arena where these two armies have clashed and met." - Nikos Kazantzakis from the book "The Last Temptation of Christ"

This film is not based upon the Gospels but upon this fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict.

So, if you are able to take that into account, you can see that the filmmakers have at least given themselves an "out" in terms of Christian concerns with sticking to the letter of the Bible.

As a Catholic, watching this film was a rather interesting experience. While I wasn't taken aback by some of the "controversial" subject matter, it did come off as a little bit strange considering how I was raised. Because I know the Gospels' story so well, I was able to follow along with the basic storyline while focusing on the changes they were trying to emphasize. I do admit that seeing some of the sexual aspects of the film was a tad bit off-putting considering my upbringing, I have to applaud Scorsese and Dafoe for making Jesus a very human character. I think I've always had a slightly different image of Christ than is often placed before us. I think he's been conveyed as more feminine than the real Jesus would have been. I mean, the man was a carpenter - at the very least, he must have been an impressive physical specimen. I think that The Last Temptation of Christ found that masculinity and exploited it, bringing a very different image of Jesus than contemporary audiences had ever seen. In his review for the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert stated that the filmmakers have "paid Christ the compliment of taking him and his message seriously, and they have made a film that does not turn him into a garish, emasculated image from a religious postcard. Here he is flesh and blood, struggling, questioning..." I think that's what I loved most about this film. Most other films about Christ emphasize the divinity of Christ, but we have to remember that he was also a man and must have struggled just as much as other men have for all of human history.

To talk more structurally about the screenplay, I thought they did well in making it come full circle. While I did think there were a couple "Hollywood" moments that seemed a little out of place, the fact that the film delivers on the basic premise alluded to in its title is a huge plus for me. My only real issue with the screenplay was that of dialogue. As my readers will know, I'm a bit of a stickler when it comes to a film's screenplay. For a screenplay to be good, it has to have a legitimate storyline and plot while balancing it with great dialogue. The issue with the dialogue in The Last Temptation of Christ isn't so much what they're saying but how they're saying it. It sounds a little too contemporary, and while this is a more modern retelling of the Gospel story, it was so colloquially American that it started to take me out of the film after a while. It made the characters (including Jesus) just a tad too unbelievable. Now, I don't think they should've gone The Passion of the Christ with it and have spoken in Aramaic, but something a little more period-friendly might have been more effective.

I did have a little bit of issue with the acting in the film, however. While I have no real qualms with Dafoe's performance (it's typical Dafoe, although it's definitely one of his better roles), there were a few acting decisions that left me scratching my head. First and foremost was Keitel's casting as Judas. I don't know about anyone else who's seen this film, but I just couldn't place him in this film at all. I kept seeing him in Reservoir Dogs, and he proved to be a bit of a distraction as a result. His dialogue was the most prevalently colloquial, and I don't think that really helped his character. We do get a few good performances from supporting characters. For example, Barbara Hershey does well as Mary Magdalene, and David Bowie made a fantastic cameo appearance as Pontius Pilate. We even get a decent, albeit minor, performance from Harry Dean Stanton as Saul. However, this is truly Dafoe's vehicle, and it should be treated as such. While it's not the most brilliant performance I've ever seen, it's still strong enough to warrant your attention.

Overall, The Last Temptation of Christ is a strong, albeit slightly strange, film that's probably not for everyone. If you have strong Christian convictions, I can be reasonably sure that you've going to find issue with some of the film's scenes. However, if you can look past that, then you'll find there's a very strong film with a very strong message to be learned. Is this film going to change my personal view of Christ or religion? Of course not. At the end of the day, it's one individual's personal opinion, and it happened to make it to the screen. If you want something straight from the Bible, watch the aforementioned Passion of the Christ. However, if you want something a little bit different, give this one a chance. You just might be surprised.

Movie Review SummaryGrade: A-
1.5 Thumbs Up

Happy Birthday, Willem Dafoe!

We've got a pair of birthdays to celebrate today, but the first shall go to the bigger name in Willem Dafoe, who turns 56 today. Dafoe is one of those actors who's instantly recognizable, both for his looks and for his voice. He may not be the best-looking man out there, but he has a very distinctive look about him that's hard to mistake. However, that voice is the real selling point, and whenever I heart it, I instantly turn towards the nearest screen. There's a very strange appeal about this man, and I can't quite figure out what draws me to Willem Dafoe as an actor. He's proven that he has some chops - he's a two-time Academy Award nominee - so maybe that's what makes him all the more appealing. So here we are, counting down my five favorite Dafoe roles. I hope you enjoy it!

5. Det. Donald Kimball
American Psycho (2000)


----------

4. Norman Osborn / Green Goblin
Spider-man (2002)


----------

3. Klaus Daimler
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)


----------

2. Sgt. Elias
Platoon (1986)


----------

1. Paul Smecker
The Boondock Saints (1999)


----------

Awards
1999: Nominee - Best Supporting Actor, Drama
2002: Nominee - Best Villain