Change Your Image
patchworkcat
Reviews
Source Code (2011)
High quality sci-fi
In terms of setting, if not style, think Quantum Leap, Groundhog Day, that sort of realm.
Thrown right into the story you can start racking up the genres almost immediately, with elements of mystery, action and sci-fi... as the film moves along you'll get more of them plus some romance and traces of comedy, plus a bit of philosophy to think about if you so wish. The quality of this film, the enthralling strength of it, was clearly marked by the general silence in the cinema. A few remarks early on, such as the face of the body Jake Gyllenhaal inhabits looked to us a lot like Charlie Sheen, and our being reminded of Quantum Leap (TV show where each episode saw Dr Sam Beckett occupy the body of a person in a position to "put right what once went wrong"). In fact the latter is cleverly/amusingly touched on by the fact Scott Bakula (who played Dr Sam Beckett) has a credited significant role in Source Code! But soon and for the rest of the film, nothing but admiring silence.
Well filmed, well written, well acted and with a nice soundtrack, there really isn't much to fault about this film. Some scenes are a little bit cringe and it's not an especially original premise, in a general sense. But small considerations.
Gyllenhaal is very good, Vera Farmiga has a wonderfully enigmatic look in this, looking very similar to Jake's sister Maggie in fact, Michelle Monaghan is fine considering she's not given so much to do or emote.
I also like the overall philosophical dilemma element and the possibilities hinted at by the ending, but for those not interested in such things, no trouble. You'll enjoy the film fine in the time you sit and watch it. It's just a nice bonus that you could end up thinking about some of it's themes and possibilities for some time afterwards.
Lost (2004)
Reasonably entertaining but generic and flawed
As someone who couldn't stand Dean Cain in anything else I'd ever seen him in, I was expecting to have to tolerate his presence here to enjoy what sounded like an interesting film. In fact, for the most part I enjoyed his performance, finding it hard to equate with the sickly Clark Kent I'd primarily known him as. Understated, a decent range of emotion conveyed, perfectly good.
As I approached the film, since my only concern was tolerance of Dean Cain and he came through with flying colours (blue, red and yellow...? ohoho!), you might think, as I did, that settling into enjoying a taught little sleeper with a very good premise to build on would be the order of the day. Instead, I found a few too many generic set-pieces and, worse, a couple of moments of real head-slapping "I can't believe he did that" stupidity.
*****Spoilers: Examples of generic set-pieces and stupidity*****
(1) Generic: Talking badly about a dangerous third-party to a friend/associate who, like you, is in the process of escaping from him, only for it to turn out he's there with that friend/associate. (2) Generic: Possible "salvation figure" (in this case a cop) spotted and approached with intent to confess or give yourself up, their expression fixed, and as you get right to them, it turns out they're dead. (3) Stupidity: Pouring the contents of the food packages along the road, and dropping the bag there - Why not just pull over somewhere and put it all in a hole?? (4) Stupidity: Taking the truck (not to mention leaving the car in plain view). You want to evade the law, whom you've already had a bit of a brush with, but now you're in a stolen vehicle?? (I didn't see him leave any money for it) (5) Stupidity: The height of it, where I really thought the film lost a lot of credibility... Telling plans, in detail, to a basically anonymous person with no reason for "loyalty" to you (the phone navigation woman).
*****End of spoilers*****
I also found the role of Danny Trejo a disappointment... He had high billing and I was expecting/hoping to see the sort of brilliantly menacing performance he excels at but instead we get a lot of his voice and only, to memory, one glimpse of his face in the whole film...
In summary: Didn't feel I'd completely wasted my time, did watch to the end, but quite unsatisfying overall and extremely unlikely to really stick with you.
Comparisons: Not to Phone Booth. "Phone Booth in a car" is a poor comparison. He's being threatened by regular phone-calls but that's about it for similarity there. The most obvious comparison to me is The Hitcher (the original), followed by Breakdown, an element of Duel and any number of "person being chased by villain/s they double-crossed" type chase films before you get to Phone Booth.
Sticky Fingers (1988)
Okay as a vision of the 80s, otherwise...
If you're not a fan of the 80s, and you need to be a particularly strong fan, or of one of the two leads, there's nothing about this film to recommend.
The story, as others have said, is dull, almost an afterthought to the basic notion of the characters and the idea of making a slightly manic comedy. I watched it to about an hour, hoping it would turn a corner, a twist would occur or it would somehow kick into gear but no... It's not unwatchable, it's just dull. It goes by. It goes by with bits of running around madly, lingering shots of feet at strange angles, bits of shouting madly but I didn't get a real feel of energy or manic fun, it just came across as forced. Needless to say also, there was nothing to laugh at particularly. A bit of mild amusement here or there but nothing more.
Don't be fooled by the mention of feminism by the way, all it means in this case is that almost all the principal cast is female. If anything, it's actually cloying... Two female leads, fine, excellent, the drug dealer is female, okay, their landlord is a landlady, alright, their friends are female, okay, the only other person we particularly see who lives in the same building, oh, female... I wasn't on the lookout for that but after a while it felt like a conscious decision had been made to have the film cast that way and it felt, again, a bit forced and cloying.
On the plus-side, if you are a fan of 80s fashions and culture, there is plenty to see and if you're a fan of Helen Slater, she's fun and enjoyable to watch. There's also some screen-time for Carol Kane, which is great, but not enough...
Overall: 3/10. If you're a huge fan of the 80s, Helen Slater and Carol Kane, you could maybe stretch it to a 5 because of them, although there's still the fact it's a comedy which isn't funny, which hinders it substantially. If you're not a fan of those things, you might as well make it 0 because there's nothing much else to enjoy here.
The Comic Strip Presents...: Four Men in a Car (1998)
A few funny moments, one brilliant, the rest a drag
Saw this at the time it was first broadcast. It's not great but the few minutes sequence when the car is in the lay-by is a work of brilliance- 7 years later and I still laugh when I think about. I'll put a bit more detail about that in the message board section to save putting a spoiler in...
There were other intermittent amusing moments but to be honest, the rest was a bit of a drag to sit through.
Extra appeal of course if you were an avid fan of the Comic Strip group but personally, while I am a great fan of Mayall and reasonably of Edmonson, I judge each of these Comic Strip pieces on it's individual merit.
Worth watching if it comes on TV (if only really for *that* moment) but it's not worth going out of your way to find/buy.
Saw II (2005)
Nothing special, trust me
Seriously, I don't know how this has got a vote average above 7, I would think it over-rated at much above 5.
The key question to ask yourself here is "Have I seen Cube?" If you have, don't bother with this - it's got a similar approach with the selection of death-traps to be out-witted or avoided but these are inferior to those in Cube and the characters are significantly more stupid in their approach. If you haven't, don't bother with this - go and watch Cube which does a similar job with a lot more style and creativity.
How creative you view the deaths as here and how you view the "I'm testing people's strength of character, will to survive, making them live" speeches of the gimp running it all will depend entirely on your previous experience of horror (especially psychological horror) films. If you've seen a few, this will not rate highly on your list.
Stupid, illogical characters, pointless aggression and swearing, a tiresome "philosophical" villain (he keeps talking about how people don't value their lives and if they don't, don't deserve to live, but himself didn't appreciate his own until... well, wouldn't want to spoil it, but it makes him hypocritically stupid. And not just in a "he's a flawed person" type way, in a "god this is stupid" way).
I saw it with 2 other people experienced in watching horror films of all kinds, and not one of us had any more reaction than a shrug of the shoulders and "that was a waste of cash". I'm not so hardened that some films don't get to me but this one... Not one death or piece of action disturbed, upset, moved or excited me. There was nothing really clever in it or thought provoking (which is what they seemed to be pressing for with the old guy) or to leave you somehow "cold" or "open-mouthed" which is what they were also blatantly pushing for with the "Usual Suspects" or "Unbreakable" type method of detailing the "twist" ending. The twist is nothing to get excited about really. It's the only genuinely quite clever part of the film, but the final, final part... It isn't really anything more than a cheap set-up for a sequel.
Final point of note: Possibly one of the key flaws of the whole atmosphere This is one of those films done with so much use of filter, quick cuts, overly-stylised angles, etc that nothing feels "real". There is a feeling of detachment created which keeps the whole thing remote and destroys a lot of the potential for getting you to feel like you're there or there's any sort of organic realness to what's happening.
Don't waste your time or money on this.