A Scanner Darkly
Scanner Darkly, A (2006)
★★ / ★★★★
Based on a novel by Philip K. Dick, “A Scanner Darkly” was about a cop (Keanu Reeves) who was assigned to spy on his group of friends in order to capture a guy named Bob Arctor. But it turned out that the main character and the man that the cops were interested in was the same person; Bob, like many people, was addicted to a drug called Substance D which supposedly induced multiple personality disorder. Directed by Richard Linklater, “A Scanner Darkly” is one of those movies that is full of promise but it gets in the way of itself because too many questions were asked but very few (if any) were answered in a clear way so I couldn’t help but feel cheated. For instance, I was curious about the real underlying effects of the drug in question. Some addicts experienced hallucinations such as bugs taking over their bodies, others experienced drunken stupor, while some were always on the verge of euphoria. It then begs the question whether the drugs’ effects were somehow connected to our personalities. I wanted to know more about the science and the effects of the drug in the brain. There were scenes that tackled the drug’s effects on the brain (I liked how it related the whole phenomenon to split-brain patients) but they were superficial at best. Maybe it wasn’t that shocking to me because I’ve seen split-brain experiments in real life. I didn’t care much about the friends (one of which was played by Robert Downey Jr.) acting stupid and asking “insightful” questions that led nowhere. The scenes with the friends made me feel like the movie was way into itself; instead of trying to pull me in, it made me question whether the story was really going anywhere. I do have to say that the animation was enjoyable because it added an extra dimension to the project. Everyone pretty much led their lives half-awake so that lucid tone made me feel like I was one of them. I liked that the animation was there to highlight certain facial expressions and quirks to convey certain truths behind the dialogue so it didn’t feel much like a gimmick. I thought the animation worked especially well in scenes where characters experienced hallucinations. Nevertheless, I wish the movie spent more of its time in engaging us instead of teasing us with its vast ideas. It was borderline pretentious. I felt like there was a disconnect (when it should have been clearly connected) in exploring the relationship between the drug world/addicts and the very same people who wanted to eliminate the drug off the streets. The main character embodied both worlds but the way the story unfolded left me hanging, somewhat confused, and frustrated. It’s definitely a different movie experience but I think it makes a good double-feature with Linklater’s other film “Waking Life.”
Diggers
Diggers (2006)
★★ / ★★★★
Set in the 1970s, “Diggers” was about four friends (Paul Rudd, Ken Marino, Ron Eldard, Josh Hamilton) who dug clams for a living whose lives began to unfold after Hunt’s (Rudd) father passed away. I saw great potential in this picture because all four men were so interesting to watch, but I felt like it came up too short in terms of really exploring their psychologies: the lead character and his father’s death, a friend having way too many kids, another friend’s blossoming relationship with the main character’s sister (Maura Tierney), and another who constantly experimented with drugs. As different as their stories and personalities were, I found it interesting that none of them was not really present or aware with how they were living their lives. That common theme had an innate sadness to it because all of them felt trapped–trapped in where they lived, in their occupations and in their minds. I felt like the movie really captured the 1970s with its introspective style of storytelling and soundtrack. Although I did enjoy the comedic scenes dispersed throughout, I wished the movie was more focused and had a longer running time because I felt like we saw the characters only at the surface. I wanted to see more tender moments between the lead character and his sister, the bond that the four friends had and the lost connection between the father and the son. I loved the metaphor involving photography and digging for clams and how the latter related to the emptiness of their lives. Rudd’s more serious roles are less known in his repertoire (“The Shape of Things” was one of his best) which is unfortunate because I feel like he has the talent to bring real gravity to his characters. In here, he portrayed an emotionally wounded person so well that I forgot that I was watching an actor. The silent moments with just him and his camera had a certain naturalistic feel to them; those were the moments when the picture was really at the top of its game. Written by Ken Marino and directed by Katherine Dieckmann, “Diggers” would have been a stronger film with a bit more alterations in the script in terms of character development. In parts, the movie was good but as a whole it just didn’t quite hold up for me. Nevertheless, I did admire the fact that the movie ended in such a way that it left me wanting more. It did a great job in drawing the line between having a clean-cut ending and having closure.
21 Grams
21 Grams (2003)
★★ / ★★★★
“21 Grams,” written by Guillermo Arriaga and directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu, tells the story of a dying patient (Sean Penn), a mother (Naomi Watts) and an ex-convict (Benicio Del Toro) and how their lives collided in one tragic afternoon. The first time I saw this movie back in 2003, I wasn’t impressed. Seven years later, I decided to see it again because both critics and audiences liked it so maybe I just missed something. Unfortunately, I was right the first time. I’m not much of a fan of movies that try to tell their stories out of order unless they’re done extremely well because I think there’s just an innate narcissism in that technique. Instead of focusing on the story, the audiences become distracted and that’s exactly how I felt as I navigated my way through this picture. I was not convinced at all that the technique was necessary to enhance the experience because I’ve seen the same kind of plot time and again. However, even I have to admit that performances from the three leads were very strong. The actors were successful in implementing layers to their characters and it was great how sometimes their body languages were more expressive than the words they’ve spoken. I was particularly fascinated with Watt’s character: how she dealt with the loss of her family and how she almost regressed to the time in her life when the only way she knew how to cope was to drown herself in drugs and alcohol. I empathized with her character and I wanted her to overcome all the pain she had to bear. I also liked the look of the film because not only did it look like it could take place in the real world but the feeling it had highlighted the characters’ struggles. Their mental states reflected their surroundings such as a dingy hotel room, a house lacking in color, or an impersonal room in a hospital. I appreciated those details because I felt like the writer really put some thought into the material. Unfortunately, I just can’t recommend the film because it got too caught up in its own gimmick. Instead of really honing in on the themes and ironies of the picture, it was too focused on making the precise places where to cut to take us to a different scene and then coming back to it later when our feelings of anticipation have been somewhat diminished. If this had been told in a linear way, I think some of the clutter wouldn’t have been there. I also would have liked it if the film had tackled the issue of 21 grams a lot earlier instead of stapling it in the end. In fact, it almost felt as though it was footnote. “21 Grams” might impress people who haven’t seen a lot of movies like it, but I thought it was just mediocre despite the daring performances.
Trainspotting
Trainspotting (1996)
★★★★ / ★★★★
I loved this film the first time I saw it when I was about seventeen because it taught me that it was okay to take so-called friends out of your life when all they did to you was slow you down as you strived to reach for your potential. With friends like that, who needs enemies? Ewan McGregor, Jonny Lee Miller, Ewen Bremmer and Kevin McKidd star as four friends (three of which were initially heroine junkies) as they fill their empty lives with drugs, sex and violence. They also hang out with a violent older man played by Robert Carlyle who detested drug addicts but, funny enough, kept drinking alcohol to the point where he constantly got in trouble with the law. One of the many things I loved about this film was, unlike the overrated “Requiem for a Dream,” it was not preachy in terms of overcoming addiction to hard drugs. Instead being obvious about its lessons, it simply showed us the circumstances of the characters’ lives and, more importantly, the choices they made that ultimately landed them in either bliss or misery, temporary as they may be. I also liked the fact that it managed to touch upon the issue of the importance of parenting and that parenting doesn’t end when the child turns eighteen. So as hardcore as the lifestyles that were featured in this picture, there undoubtedly was heart underneath it all and it was constantly at the forefront. Furthermore, I enjoyed the fact that the four characters were never really on the same stage of addiction: when one was clean, another one was not, while the other straddled the line between being a slave to the drug and being a master of his life. The film also commented on the dynamics of their friendships. Even though they spent a lot of time with each other because they were getting high, they did not talk about the important things to one another. Each of them felt scared and alone as if they were rats trapped in a maze–constantly living in survival mode and trial-and-error. As serious as the film’s core was, I thought the movie was very witty and very funny. Danny Boyle, the director, made sure that the memorable lines were not just cool in itself but also meaningful and infused with double meanings. Boyle also impressed me with certain shots because the images epitomized the definition of cool and careless disregard. “Trainspotting” will always be one of those films that will stay with me because I was able to extract a lot of meaning from it. For me, its core was not about how drugs are bad for you. It was about the deeper meanings of friendships and having a strong internal locus of control to lead your life the way you want to. Based on the novel by Irvine Welsh, “Trainspotting” is an ambitious and imaginative film that is not afraid to tell the hard truths.
Gardens of the Night
Gardens of the Night (2008)
★★ / ★★★★
“Gardens of the Night” was about a little girl (Ryan Simpkins) who was kidnapped by an older man (Tom Arnold) and a younger guy (Kevin Zegers) on her way from school. In the hands of the sick duo who was running an underground business involving sex and children, the little girl met a boy (Jermaine Scooter Smith) who became her friend for life. Years later, the little girl along with the little boy (now by played by Gillian Jacobs and Evan Ross, respectively) grew up in the streets stealing, doing drugs and prostituting themselves. In a shelter, Jacobs was adviced by a counselor (John Malkovich) to seek her parents. “Gardens of the Night” started off well because the whole experience involving the two guys’ insidious methods of kidnapping a child was so visceral, it almost felt wrong that I was watching the event unfold. I really felt like I was in the car with the kidnappers and in the room with the kids; no matter how much I wanted to help the children escape, there was nothing I could do about it. But when the focus shifted to the whole prostitution and living in squalor angle, it wasn’t as powerful because I didn’t feel like the main character wanted to make her life better. I felt like she had a defeatist attitude despite her longtime friend (who’s in the same situation as her) offering alternative ways of leading their lives. And since I didn’t feel that strength inside of her, I wasn’t as emotionally invested as I was in the beginning. Although the film tried to tackle the issue of redemption with another girl that was about to sell her body for sex, it was so one-dimensional and I could see how it woulld turn out right from the moment that specific character was introduced. I did like, however, the scenes when Jacobs finally decided to see her parents again. However, her reaction to the whole thing angered me because I felt like she had this sense of entitlement–that nobody was supposed to move on despite her absence. I get that the movie was trying to comment on the connection between a child and her parents being no longer there but with such a dark material, the way it unfolded felt heavy-handed instead of natural. It’s as if Damian Harris, the writer and director, did not want anybody to experience a happiness that the lead character so rightfully deserved. “Gardens of the Night” certainly had potential but the second half could have used a little bit more work in terms of pacing and staying true to that poor little girl who was picked up by two strangers on her way home.
Ballast
Ballast (2008)
★★★★ / ★★★★
Written and directed by Lance Hammer, “Ballast” was a powerful film about how three people who lived in Mississippi Delta began working toward a better future after a suicide. Lawrence (Micheal J. Smith Sr.) tried to kill himself after finding out about the death of his twin brother but a neighbor (Johnny McPhail) arrived just in time to call for help. Marlee (Tarra Riggs) was a hardworking mother who desperately wanted to provide for her son James (JimMyron Ross), unaware of his involvement in violence and drugs. As the film went on, Lawrence, Marlee and James had no choice but to be a family and help each other to move forward. I loved the bare bones look of this film because it really got me in the mood to look inside the characters–their motivations, feelings, thoughts and plans for the future. What’s brilliant about this picture is the fact that it’s not just about poor people being poor people and therefore we can’t help but feel sorry for them. It’s about people in poverty who constantly try to provide for themselves even though all hope seems absent. We also got to learn about a certain character’s history with drugs, why Lawrence and Marlee didn’t get along, and why Lawrence was very understanding with James. Even though the movie did not have any soundtrack and had minimal dialogue, when the characters did engage in conversation, the words struck me. I especially was touched by that scene when the mother got fired from her job because of the bruises on her face (and she didn’t have any more sick days so she could take a day off). She said that her appreance shouldn’t matter anyway because she was invisible to everyone else. She had such strength throughout and I couldn’t help but root for her. I’ve heard from people that they were frustrated with the abrupt ending. I had no problem with it at all because it implied that no matter what challenges faced the main characters, they would find a way to overcome them. For me, the picture ended at just the right moment. “Ballast” shows how powerful independent cinema can be. This is not for viewers expecting fast pacing, a defined story structure, or any of the Hollywood conventions. This film is all about the nuances and it was pretty much observing the painful realities that others have to go through from day to day.
Shank
Shank (2009)
★ / ★★★★
I thought this movie, directed by Simon Pearce, was quite emotionally bankrupt despite the sadness and despair presented on the outside. Cal (Wayne Virgo) is a gang member who hides his sexuality from the rest of the group and uses other unsuspecting men (Garry Summers) for occassional hook-ups. Cal is also attracted to Jonno (Tom Bott), a fellow gang member, but the feeling never seems to be reciprocal under the watchful eye of the angry and vengeful Nessa (Alice Payne). When the gang attacks a fellow homosexual (Marc Laurent), Cal jumps in to save him and the two soon develop a romantic relationship. However, that relationship costs him his place in the gang. I thought there was way too much violence in this movie. I get the fact that Pearce was going for realism but that technique could have worked if the picture was sensitive in its core. I felt the director trying to grasp at the real sadness of the various characters but it never reached that level because there were too many distracting elements. Instead of heart, we get these extended scenes of sex which I thought were really unnecessary. For a movie that runs for less than nintety minutes, I expected it to be as effecient as possible. Instead, the first twenty minutes consisted of sex, drugs and violence. Perhaps another reason why I never warmed up to “Shank” was the fact that I just don’t understand the mindset of gangs. From what I read from literature and learned from the classes I’ve taken, there was supposed to be this sort of kinship or sense of family within the group. But in here, I thought they were just really cruel to each other. I seemed like one little slip was enough for one to be kicked out of the group. I felt like everyone was divided so the film never reached some sort of balance or harmony when it comes to both its characters and tone. I even failed to recognize the chemistry between Bott and Laurent. I’m sorry but I just have trouble accepting the fact that a tough silent type like Cal would fall for a flamboyantly feminine guy like Olivier. They were too different; and even if they were, the director did not really explore their potential similarities (interests, point of views, et cetera) other than the fact that they were gay. It’s all too obvious and shallow for me to be really absorbed into the lives of these characters. At the end of the day, I regretted watching “Shank” because the premise had so much potential but the execution was so lazy and typical. If you’re looking for meaning, you won’t find it here.
The Informers
Informers, The (2008)
★ / ★★★★
Set in the early 1980′s Los Angeles, “The Informers” based on the novel by Bret Easton Ellis, was about the emptiness of multiple characters who would rather try to escape their problems in hopes that they would eventually go away rather than tackling them head-on. Although there were five to six storylines, only about two or three worked for me. I wished that Gregor Jordan, the director, instead focused his energy on those three and really explored why the characters chose to make certain decisions. Kim Basinger, Billy Bob Thornton, Mickey Rourke and Winona Ryder are the big names who I thought would elevate this picture. However, their storylines were so uninteresting, they might as well not have appeared in it. What did work for me was Jon Foster as a rich twentysomething who seemingly had it all but he chose not to use his priviledges to his advantage. Instead, he decided to deal drugs and hang out with people who really did not care about him–people who only cared about drugs, sex and living the luxurious life. I was really engaged with his scenes because little by little he realized that he was just being used, especially how his girlfriend didn’t care about him as much as he cared for her. I also liked the dynamics between Foster and his sister and how they felt about their parents’ (Basinger and Thorton) decision to move in together after they’ve been separated. Unfortunately, that bit was very underdeveloped. Lastly, I thought the scenes in Hawaii with Chris Isaak and Lou Taylor Pucci–father and son, respectively–was pretty well-done. It was somewhat humorous to me because it was a classic desparate father-son bonding where everything pretty much went wrong. But it could also be seen through a dramatic lens because the son hid this true hatred toward his father since the father only cared about himself. I really believe that critical adjustments such as a different director, sharper and bolder writing, eliminating storylines and expanding others (like the rising unknown disease now known as AIDS), this movie could have become a totally worthwhile experience. After all, the material was based on the works of a writer a really enjoyed such as “American Psycho” and “The Rules of Attraction.” “The Informers” could have provided insight on how it was like to live life without any sort of internal locus on control and how that manner of living could drive us to the ultimate levels of boredom, unsatisfaction, and madness.
Gia
Gia (1998)
★★★ / ★★★★
I was deeply touched by this biopic about a supermodel named Gia Carangi (Angelina Jolie) back in the 1970′s and 1980′s. Throughout the picture, I felt that her story was very personal because we got to see her evolve from a rebellious kid who was abandoned by her mother to a stunning supermodel who everyone wanted to worked with. At the same time, we also got to see her cocaine addiction, failed relationships and connection with others, and the eventual decline of her health because of AIDS. I’m glad that this film did not particularly glamorize the fashion world. In fact, I got a feeling that it was almost against it–as if it was one of the main reasons to blame that finally drove Carangi over the edge. Gia was far from a perfect person and therefore not free from blame but she had crucial moments when she took responsibility because she really did want to change. I admired the scenes when Jolie was posing in front of the camera looking extraordinary but such scenes also had voice-overs of what the photographers, the crew, and the other models’ real thoughts about Gia. It shows that something beautiful on the outside doesn’t necessarily reflect what’s on the inside, which I thought culminated when one of the women confronted Gia with such anger during one of the drug addiction sessions concerning the lies–on how to look like, how to act, and how to live one’s life–presented by the glossy fashion magazines. I also enjoyed the fact that Gia’s relationships were highlighted throughout the film: the mother who uses her as an accessory, who’s always there when things are good but almost never there when things are bad (Mercedes Ruehl), the loyal friend she met right before she was discovered and was there with her until the end (Eric Michael Cole), the agent who she saw more as a mother-figure (Faye Dunaway), and her on-and-off girlfriend who always wanted Gia to be the best she could be (Elizabeth Mitchell). While most people I know chose to see this for the nudity by Jolie, I have to say that this film goes beyond issues of the flesh. There’s a very real story and powerful lessons to be learned here; in fact, to be honest, the “sex” scenes are not that shocking to me because I’ve seen all kinds of movies with all kinds of sexual acts. For me, the sole purpose of watching this picture for the nudity is a sign of disrespect for Jolie’s acting abilities and Gia’s memory. Directed by Michael Cristofer, “Gia” is a triumph on multiple levels (especially Jolie’s acting) and should be seen with an open mind and sensitivity.
À toute vitesse
À toute vitesse (1998)
★★ / ★★★★
“À toute vitesse” (also known as “Full Speed”), directed by Gaël Morel (“Three Dancing Slaves”), had an interesting premise but the journey to the finish was too all over the place to earn a recommendation. Quentin (Pascal Cervo) decided to return to his hometown along with his girlfriend Julie (Élodie Bouchez) after his first book was published. He quickly reconnected with one of his best friends from childhood named Jimmy (Stéphane Rideau) but Julie was slowly falling for him. During a night at a club, Quentin spotted Samir (Mezziane Bardadi) and the two decided to be friends despite their awareness of the attraction that they had for each other. However, Quentin was still in the closet and tried to resist every move Samir made which sometimes ended up in violence. At first I thought I could relate with Quentin the most because he was sort of like a brooding artist as he tried to make a life for himself, while at the same time kept others at a distance by building a wall around his true self. I could relate to that because I felt like I was like that once upon a time. However, throughout the picture, I did not see any evolution in his character, no attempt from his angle to realize and change that he was hurting the three people who really cared for him. As arguably the lead character, I felt that he was very selfish with no redeeming qualities so I felt disconnected from him half-way through. Thankfully, what saved this film was the strained relationship between Julie and Jimmy. Even though they were very different, there shared a certain passion for each other that was sometimes very romantic. As for Samir’s obsession toward Quentin, I felt that it was too shallow to ultimately be believable. Samir talked as if he loved Quentin even though that longing was one-sided. To me, his obsession was purely for the sake of a physical relationship because he was lonely and was missing his boyfriend who passed away. I don’t think “Full Speed” was a bad film. It just did not completely work for me because the writing needed more focus and substance. I got a little tired watching the characters doing drugs, having sex, and engaging in meaningless conversations. The characters were in their 20s but they offered no insight that made me stop and think, “Hey, this is actually worth my time.”
Three Dancing Slaves
Three Dancing Slaves (2004)
★★★ / ★★★★
Directed by Gaël Morel, “Three Dancing Slaves” was about three brothers who tried to cope from the death of their mother. The story started off with the middle child (Nicolas Cazalé) who got caught up with drugs and thugs who want their money. They wanted payback in the most cruel way possible. Also, his ever-growing lack of respect toward his father began to shake the foundation of the family. The middle portion of the picture was about the eldest son (Stéphane Rideau) who recently got out of prison. Unlike the middle child, he was done with partying and hanging out. He actually wanted to turn his life around so he could serve as a model for his brothers and ultimately be proud of himself. Last but not least was the youngest son (Thomas Dumerchez) who tried to keep his secret hidden. He seemed tough at first glance with all his tattoos but he actually turned out to be one of the most sensitive characters. I’ve read a number of critiques about this film and a lot of them mentioned its potential but it didn’t quite deliver. I disagree; I think it did deliver by showing us what each of three characters were going through at specific periods of time. In a nutshell, this was another one of those slice-of-life pictures that most people find difficult to get into because its seemingly lack of strong consistent storyline. It worked for me because it had an emotional core: the death of the mother and how the three brothers responded to it. They may have had other things going on in their lives but it never lost track of that center. I also liked that the tone changed whenever it switched its focus from one brother to the next. The first one felt enigmatic and dangerous, the second felt both depressing and hopeful, and the third felt sensitive and reflective. And justifiably so, the respective tones matched each of the brothers’ dominating personalities. I just wished that the third act could’ve been explored more because it was the shortest. I’m giving this film a strong recommendation because I was interested in it from start to finish. I thought the direction was insightful and I was happy that not everything was spelled out for the audiences.
Cowboys & Angels
Cowboys & Angels (2003)
★★★ / ★★★★
The premise of “Cowboys & Angels,” directed by David Gleeson, was a shy and a bit naive 20-year-old (Michael Legge) who moves into the city because he wishes to have more excitement in his life. While looking a place to live, he gets paired up with a gay fashion student (Allen Leech). I’m glad this did not turn out to be one of those movies where the main character meets someone gay and realizes that he, too, was gay. In fact, I’m glad that this film wasn’t just about one thing. There’s something very modern about it; I felt like I watching a movie from the perspective of a real twentysomething. It was able to balance several subplots with ease: Legge’s frustration with being laughed at by girls whenever he shows interest in them, his inner conflict between being a civil servant or a student in an art school, his blossoming friendship with Leech, his unattainable crush (Amy Shiels) who has a history of dating women, and his temptations toward drugs to soothe his loneliness. Right from the get-go, I was interested in getting to know the lead character because he seemed to have this inner charm that most people failed to see (maybe it’s because of his lack of sense of style?). I thought the best parts of the film were the scenes when he would try to make a connection, sometimes to the point of borderline desperation, to the point where I just felt bad for him. I remember thinking, “Aww, I’ll be your friend!” because it was easy to tell that the constant rejections were eating him from the inside. I also enjoyed the scenes between Legge and Leech just hanging out in their apartment. They had this sort of bromance going on and it was really cute. That scene when Leech told Legge, “I’m going to do to you what I’ve always wanted to do ever since I laid my eyes on you” (or something along those lines) was really funny. I thought this film was going to be one of those thoughtless LGBT films but it turned out to be pretty unpredictable. If you enjoy LGBT films, see this movie if you can because it just might surprise you.
Fast & Furious
Fast & Furious (2009)
★★ / ★★★★
Vin Diesel and Paul Walker return for the fourth installment of “The Fast and the Furious” franchise. The two find a common enemy but with completely different motivations. Diesel wants revenge for the death of the woman he loves (Michelle Rodrigues), while Walker, now working for the FBI, is assigned to arrest the ringleader of a drug importer in Mexico. I actually was less interested in the story and character development (though there was barely any here) and wanted to see more intense car chases. Whenever a scene doesn’t focus on the chases, the characters manage to talk like robots consisting of lame and laughable one-liners. The one that really made me laugh was when Jordana Brewster and Walker were talking in a cafe. Brewster tried to be insightful by saying something like, “Ever think of the possibility that you’re really a bad guy pretending to be a good guy?” Walker responds by saying that he does, pretty much all the time. I couldn’t help but roll my eyes (and laugh) because I felt like I was watching a really bad soap opera. I would’ve liked this movie a lot more if it took the “Transporter 2″ route and embraced its cartoonish nature instead of trying to pretend like something it’s not. I came into this movie expecting exciting car sequences and I got just that. And it was nice to see Walker and Diesel team up once again because they really do have an interesting brotherly chemistry. But I’m not recommending the movie because the writer (Chris Morgan) and director (Justin Lin) tried to inject too many banal scenes where characters are moping around and wasting time. Brainless teenagers will most likely enjoy this flick because it’s undeniably a lowbrow entertainment that features nothing more than insightful than fast cars and big explosions.
Traffic
Traffic (2000)
★★★ / ★★★★
What I loved about this film the most was its structured storytelling, yet it still felt organic because each of the character involved was like a mouse trying to find the way out of a maze. Steven Soderbergh, the director, presented three main fronts: Michael Douglas as a judge who became a recent leader against drugs in America, unaware of the fact that his daughter (Erika Christensen) is becoming an addict (with Topher Grace as the friend/boyfriend); Benicio Del Toro as a cop trying to catch cocaine shipments in the Mexican border, only to realize later the thin line between an ally and an enemy; and Catharine Zeta-Jones as a housewife who must make a decision on whether or not to aid her recently arrested husband for distributing drugs under the eyes of two cops (Don Cheadle and Luis Guzman) who keep following her everywhere. Each of those vignettes were equally interesting so I was excited whenever the picture would jump from one to another. I also noticed Soderbergh’s excellent use of warm and cool colors. At first I thought whenever the cool colors appeared, it meant that we were seeing the story from a good guys’ perspective and the warm colors meant from the bad guys’. But I was proven wrong just as quickly that it wasn’t that simple because, whenever it came to drugs, the good guys must confront their inner demons and choose the difficult choices over the right choices. The moral implications of each characters’ decisions kept piling up to the point where I was somewhat overwhelmed (in a good way) and it was hard for me to root for anyone for that matter. There’s a sense of realism about these characters and I was impressed because most pictures I’ve seen about drugs themselves or the war on drugs mostly involve crooked cops and gun-wielding, savvy-talking gangsters. In here, Soderbergh let his characters be actual people and there was a certain unpredictability to it. I think with another viewing in the future, I’ll come to love this film that much more. Although there may have been some things that I didn’t understand, such as some of the legal concepts and the intricacies among the hierarchy of drug bosses and henchmen, I can admit that this was a rich, extremely layered picture worth viewing at least once.
Holding Trevor
Holding Trevor (2007)
★ / ★★★★
I’m often disappointed with American indie gay movies and this one is no exception. “Holding Trevor” stars Brent Gorski as the title character who is torn between his druggie first love (Christopher Wyllie) and a doctor he recently met (Eli Kranski). If Trevor was smart, he would’ve chosen the doctor during the first ten minutes and the movie would’ve been over. Obviously, that is not the case because the movie runs for about ninety minutes until he finally makes his decision. Trevor has two best friends: his roommate (Melissa Searing) and a childhood friend who recently moves in with them for free (Jay Brannan). It’s weird because I’m more interested in them than the lead character. Granted, their stories could’ve been tweaked here and there but I saw potential. Searing had the best storyline because she has to deal with her health. On the other hand, Brannan’s character succumbed to the stereotype and he’s pretty much a one-night-stand kind of guy. I wish the film would’ve focused on his music career instead because the scenes when he sang showed depth and talent. I really hated the fact that this movie presented the gay characters in a negative light. Trevor is a narcissistic bitchy queen who subconsciously doesn’t want to be happy; the doctor is a clingy and creepy boyfriend; the freeloader friend sleeps with everyone and doesn’t even remember his lovers’ names the next day (he has a bit of an attitude problem as well); not to mention Trevor’s first love is a dependent drug addict. Usually, I’ll blame the director (Rosser Goodman) but I think she did a pretty good job considering the budget. I think the writer (Brent Gorski) is the one to blame because the script is really weak. It doesn’t really have anything particularly different to offer (not even the obligatory sex scenes). It tries to be insightful during the oddly placed narrations–all of it didn’t work for me. I couldn’t identify with the self-deprecating character (without the humor) at all and I pretty much detested him for being so shallow. This movie was pretty much dead on arrival.
