chainsawhand's Reviews

The Hammer (2010)

10/10

Hamill is an important, groundbreaking achievement!

23 November 2010

Hamill is a simple story, well told.

Matt Hamill was born a deaf child in a hearing community. With a powerful mentor in the form of his loving grandfather, played with grit and heart by the wonderful Raymond J. Barry, and a supportive family, he grew up different, fighting (often literally) for acceptance and inclusion, throughout his school career. Matt never truly belonged until he became an adopted member of the Deaf community at the Rochester Institute of Technology, where the film shows him growing as an athlete and a person, leading to an epic and emotional finale.

Audiences will settle in quickly to the traditional biopic formula, but in this case, the formula does not restrict the filmmakers, but rather frees them to use innovative techniques in service to the story. The practice of subtitling the entire film is inclusive, and in and of itself brings the audience together in a shared experience. Multiple layers of commentary are laced throughout the tightly constructed screenplay, bringing issues such as bullying, alienation and angst, and the need for acceptance and inclusion, into the story.

Hamill is, in many ways, the first film of it's type, and has been long awaited in the Deaf community. It's a powerful and moving true story, and we can all see ourselves reflected in it.

12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

10/10

A Rousing 'Revenge'

23 May 2005

"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

These words have appeared at the opening of five previous films. They have come to herald adventure, romance, excitement, drama and intrigue. They have ushered audiences into a world of complete fantasy, a place where children young and old could lose themselves for a time, a place where dreams are born. Star Wars, to many of us, has become the new Neverland. And Revenge of the Sith is our last adventure there.

The first two Star Wars prequels received Luke-warm responses from critics and were met with disappointment from fans. The complaints were many and varied, and the debate is ongoing as to which of the two was better (it's Phantom Menace, in case you were wondering). People began to wonder whether George Lucas could bring back the passion we shared as a culture for his original trilogy. He has.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is a triumphant return to the adventure, romance, and tragedy that have characterized the best of the Star Wars films. This is the story of the downfall of Anakin Skywalker and the destruction of the Jedi order, events that were hinted at but never described in the original films. If Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi tell the story of Luke Skywalker and the redemption of Anakin, then then this new trilogy belongs to Anakin and his descent into evil. It's all been building to this.

To describe the plot is futile, unnecessary and unfair. The parts you know have to happen happen in high style and pack an emotional wallop. The parts you may not know about should simply be seen and enjoyed, without foreknowledge.

What made us accept Star Wars in the first place was the characters. We could relate to them, and the actors embodied their roles and made us believe in them. In Sith, they do so once again. Hayden Christensen's Anakin begins as a brave, strong, powerful Jedi Knight. He believes in democracy and freedom. He also longs for power and recognition, and is plagued by nightmares of his true love's death. He makes us believe his descent into evil, and we feel sad for him even as he makes us hate him. Portman is striking as Padme Amidala, finding just the right tone for her prophetic and broad dialogue, turning obvious, grandiose mythic statements into sad comments. For the first time, Ewan McGregor is not simply doing an Alec Guinness accent and playing some other character; he embodies Obi-Wan Kenobi. His sadness and torment as he watches his friend and pupil betray and destroy all which he has built his life on is strong and real, and shows on screen. The real revelation, however, is McDiarmid. One of the few cast members to reappear in this new trilogy, he is a slimy, underhanded, evil presence, imposing his plans on the Jedi and Anakin subtly and quickly. He has the confidence and the arrogance of the great movie villains.

The effects in the film are some of the best ever created. Everything on screen is utterly convincing. CGI has been more effective only in The Lord of the Rings. Armies of soldiers come to life, weird worlds populated by weird peoples are set in front of us, and fleets of mammoth starships hover in space right before our eyes. The space battle that opens the film is incredible, the digital equivalent of the traditionally created one from Return of the Jedi. The lightsaber duels are fast and furious, the actors so proficient in their swordplay that CG is not needed to enhance the fights, only to provide the surroundings.

This film is the most emotionally involving of the series aside from Empire. The sweeping scale of the events and battles that occur in this chapter never supersedes the importance of the human characters caught up in them. This is the story of Anakin Skywalker, his love, his betrayal, and his turn to evil. A true sense of loss, disappointment, and crippling grief emanate from the film.

Revenge of the Sith is chronologically the third of the six films. In reality, however, it is the sixth in the series, the capstone, the episode we've all been waiting for since Obi- Wan told Luke the truth about his father. This is the crucial moment in the Star Wars mythos. George Lucas has pulled out all the stops, bringing back old friends and enemies, tying all the threads of the Star Wars universe together in a neat bow, and reminding us once and for all why we get goosebumps on our arms when we see the words "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."

2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

High Tension (2003)

7/10

More than meets the eye...

23 May 2005

Warning: Spoilers

Every now and then in the horror genre, a new film comes along that's supposed to "Scare the hell out of you" or "Get under your skin and stay there for weeks.". Or maybe it's supposed to be "Terrifying" or "Unsettling". These are all comments that have been made about the new French horror flick Haute tension.The film has been creating quite a stir on horror websites, and has had US audiences itching in anticipation of it's theatrical release.

Haute tension (or High tension or Switchblade Romance, depending on where in the world you see it) is, at it's core, a gory, simple slasher film. Marie and Alex, college students, take a weekend at Alex's family farm to study. They are warmly greeted by her loving parents and younger brother. Then a trucker shows up and proceeds to brutally butcher the family and kidnap Alex, leaving it up to Marie to rescue her friend (and stay alive herself, natch).

The film is well acted, for what it's worth in a movie like this. Emotions range from scared to dying, or from angry to crazy. Marie (De France) is basically the only character in the film from around the 20 minute point, and she makes for a strong lead, apparently having studied at the Jamie Lee Curtis/Sigourney Weaver/Linda Hamilton School for Horror Heroines.

Is it scary? I'm not sure. It is certainly intense, sure to cause many a boyfriend's arm to be squeezed. It's also chock full of stomach-churning violence (although one can assume the US version will be significantly tamer). The gore is off-putting, but very effective, and it serves to heighten the tension rather than distract the audience from it, which is a trick many recent US slasher offerings would do well to learn.

The film is also stylish and well made, never winking, constantly taking itself very seriously, another lesson US horror could take from it. This is no Scream. Rather, Haute tension hearkens back to earlier Craven and Carpenter, strongly reminiscent of The Hills Have Eyes , Last House on the Left and Halloween. The film takes no prisoners and grants no asylum. It is very well shot, with an eye for the perverse, demented beauty in the images of mutilation, death, and torment it depicts.

SPOILERS AHEAD

For those of you who fall into the "never plan to see this movie" category (and if you know me personally, I'm probably going to try to make you watch it, so this is your last chance to turn back!), the film ends with a bizarre twist: after chasing down the evil kidnapper, and beating him in the face with a barbed wire topped club, then suffocating him, Marie rescues the bound and gagged Alex. Alex immediately turns on Marie, and we realize that the killer was MARIE HERSELF ALL ALONG!!! This raises several issues, all of which I've been mulling over for a week now.

First of all, does the movie hold up? Is it The Sixth Sense, where we can watch it again and see it in an entirely new light? Or is it The Usual Suspects, where the ending negates or makes impossible much of the film preceding the revelation? I think it's a little of both.

I figured out the twist early in the film, and viewed it as a battle between opposing sides of a character's psyche. Marie is obviously a closeted homosexual, and due to whatever social factors, has denied herself her impulses. This denial and self hatred has led to the development of an alternate personality, the embodiment of stark masculinity. For the most part, the actions of both characters can be seen as parts of the internal struggle for dominance within this sick girl's mind. Only once does the film truly cheat: we in the audience are shown a security camera's recording of the trucker, a character we'll soon discover is a figment of his quarry's imagination. How does the camera pick up an image that doesn't exist? Otherwise, the dual personalities don't directly interact with each other (until the very end), nor do they simultaneously interact with any other character. When they are seen as two entities, it is purely in her mind.

A second issue I've been considering is exactly what stance is the film taking on human sexuality. Is it suggesting that repressed sexuality in general leads to destructive brutality? Or is it repressed homosexuality that does this? Is it trying to say that inside every lesbian is a fat, ugly, Carhartt wearing trucker? Or is he inside every woman, period?

How about the film's thoughts on what brings out the rampaging trucker within; does he simply wait for the right moment? Is he brought out by masturbation? if so, that's a more chilling threat than a hairy palm or blindness, any day. Or is it rejection? Is it possible to want someone so badly that only by massacring everyone else around can one have that person?

These questions I don't have answers to. I have thoughts on them, but none clear enough or well defined enough to verbalize here. The film's numeric rating is based on the fact that I don't like the answers I think the film leads us toward. I do, however, give the filmmakers credit for putting these issues out there. It's a shame that the vast majority of the film's audience will see only the surface events, and will spend more time thinking about whether it makes sense than trying to answer the important social questions it's asking.

But then maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe it's just a slasher flick, and a damn good one. And maybe it goes too far at the end, trying to be clever. In that case, same rating.

http://www.thestickyfloor.com/

31 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sin City (2005)

10/10

Sin City is a masterpiece!

2 April 2005

Robert Rodriguez has spent his entire career looking for the best way to deliver stylized mayhem to audiences. He's found it.

His unholy alliance with comic book superstar Frank Miller has yielded a truly great film, a triumph on all fronts. It is beautiful to look at, stimulating to listen to, performed with zest and power by a fantastic cast. Sin City is a ride, a dark journey into the depths of a world first seen in Miller's classic comics.

The film is so faithful to the comics that it feels like a comic book come to life. The characters appearances are so similar to the comic book images that at times it is difficult to tell the difference. But as great as Miller's understanding of comic books and the need for comic movies to be faithful to them is, Rodriguez' understanding of movies rivals it. He knows the technology, he knows the process, and he loves it.

It's this love that comes across on the screen. Sin City cannot truly be described, it can only be experienced. Enjoy!

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

chainsawhand

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed