2 Days in New York
Plot: Things get complicated for Marion (Julie Delpy) and Mingus (Chris Rock) when her folks come to visit. Her father, Jeannot (Albert Delpy, Julie’s real life father) is an eccentric man who speaks little English and her sister, Rose (Alexia Landeau) is a free spirit who constantly criticizes her sister and her children. She even brings along her boyfriend, Manu (Alex Nahon), an ex of Marion’s that’s socially inept and clueless.
Review: It’s a shame there’s so much going against “2 Days in New York”, as there are some really clever moments. Moments of pure ingenuity and heart. Julie Delpy attempts to dissect family and love, but is met with mild results due to script issues and awkward humor. I’ll give her credit for a hearty attempt, but this film isn’t the best showcase for her talents.
The main issue lies in the relationship between Marion and Mingus. While the couple itself is believable on paper, I couldn’t quite buy the two actors as a couple. Both are fine in singular form (especially Rock, who goes against type for the most part), but don’t have much chemistry together. I’d believe them more as good friends than an actual couple in love. Which is fitting, considering the brief moment we see them as mere coworkers is the most believable they are together.
Though that’s the main issue, the most pressing concern that led to discomfort was in the humor. More specifically, the “comic relief” of Rose and Manu. Both are despicable characters that cause one’s eyes to roll more than they do make one laugh. Their intention is to cause humor from awkward situations, but both performers try way too hard (though some of it is to blame on the script). A scene of them smoking dope on an elevator is tired and lazy, as are the sisterly spats between Marion and Rose. Manu’s unintentional racism towards Mingus and his sister is simply painful.
Redeeming these characters to a point is Albert Delpy as Jeannot, Marion’s father. He too is written with awkward humor in mind, but it works due to his indubitable charm. You can’t help but like the character and his actions (such as smuggling sausage and cheese on an airplane) are cute and made me crack a smile. It helps that he’s the real life father of Julie, which gives them actual chemistry (though he works well with Rock too).
Jeannot isn’t enough to raise the film higher than what it is; a well-meaning misfire. Despite the good performances and intention, the film can’t overcome it’s weak script and erroneous humor. For every time I felt emotionally involved in the story, there were at least three times down the road where I’d be rolling my eyes. This causes shaky balance, which leads to the film’s demise.
Final Rating: C+
Episode 50
Plot: Two rival reality television paranormal investigators team up to investigate a haunted asylum. One of the groups are skeptics who use science to debunk paranormal activity. The other are hardcore Christians who believe demons walk among us. Both teams discover they bit off more than they can chew in this investigation.
Review: For me, ghosts are a lot scarier when you can’t see them. I’m more frightened when I can see their actions and the aftermath, but not the actual ghost themselves. It adds to the unease of not knowing who or what is haunting you. Or, in this case, who or what is haunting the characters. Once you show me in full detail their outline and features, the less tension there is.
Maybe I’d be singing a different tune if the ghosts presented in “Episode 50” were more convincing. When they’re not shadowy computer effects statically going in and out on screen, they’re full body apparitions that look like badly done haunted house acts. To give Joe and Tess Smalley credit, they do occasionally make a ghost here and there frightening (the one that creeps up on Andi sent chills up my spine). They’re not enough, however, to salvage the rather humorous apparitions that encompass this film.
Not making matters better is the ludicrous rivalry between the two groups of investigators. The way the two bicker and argue feels like it was pulled straight from a soap opera. It shows that the Smalleys had no confidence in the protagonist group (the skeptics) that they felt the need to make the antagonists religious nuts that endanger those around them for their own cause. Why couldn’t I like both groups? At the very least, the protagonists are all likable (though Jack slowly becomes an unredeemable asshole).
The idea of paranormal investigators catching a groundbreaking and chilling haunting on video, but having it go missing is a rich idea. One that was done pretty well in “Grave Encounters”. I may have had my issues with that film, but it was much more polished and thought out. If the plot of “Episode 50” intrigues you, I suggest you skip this and check out “Grave Encounters” instead. If you’ve already seen the latter, then just skip this.
Final Rating: C
Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai
Plot: A poverty stricken samurai arrives at the house of Iyi in order to perform a ritual suicide. It appears his intentions may be varied, which we learn of through flashbacks.
Review: I’m going to be discreet as possible with my review of Takashi Miike’s latest. It’s one of those films that I feel is best seen going in cold. That way, the emotional drama hits you the hardest. Knowing the situation going in may make it easy to figure out the outcome. Those who do heed this review and check the film out will be surprised at my lack of information, considering it’s fairly easy to piece everything together at the forty-five minute mark. Miike pulls a few tricks out of his sleeve here and there, but it’s relatively predictable (and I say that with the utmost respect).
If that’s the case, why all the secrecy? Simply put, the impact itself hits hard once the story unravels. Even when you begin to piece things together at the forty-five minute mark, you’re still hit with a sudden shock. The only ones who won’t be are those who are familiar with the 1962 original (directed by Masaki Kobayashi), whose only fear going into this is if it holds up. I’ve never seen the original (a crime in certain circles), but I feel I can safely say Miike does the original justice.
This is a film that I advise everyone to have a box of tissues next to them whilst watching. It may be about samurais, but it’s not a sword-slashing affair (outside of the ending, which admittedly dragged). It’s a powerful drama about life and family! I already feel as if I’ve said too much. Yes, this is how discreet I want to be. Simply mentioning the word family has me wrestling with hitting the backspace button and starting all over again.
Alas, I will not. I will trudge on with this review and leave you all one final remark. “Hara-Kiri” is a hard film to watch, but in a good way. It will bring forth tears from the toughest of men and hit you in the gut. It’s not visceral in the way most samurai films are. Here, the damage isn’t done with a sword (necessarily), but with sorrow and remorse.
Final Rating: A-
Bindlestiffs
Plot: John Woo (John Karna), Luke Locktin (Like Loftin) and Andrew Edwards (Andrew Edison) get suspended from school when they protest the banning of “Catcher in the Rye”. To honor the book, they plan on recapturing it’s events. This leads to encounters with a hooker, a homeless woman, drug dealers and a strung out High School security guard who believes they’re going to shoot up the school.
Review: There were two moments in “Bindlestiffs” where I genuinely laughed. The first was when Andrew, the nice guy of the bunch, discovered that his Drama teacher, whom he has a crush on, is a lesbian. His initial reaction is priceless and makes the lame joke work! The other time was when the gang believed that Andrew (the apparent sole source for humor in this film) had impregnated a homeless woman. In deciding if they should abort the fetus, they play a game of rock, paper, scissors to determine their choice.
Other than those two moments, I didn’t laugh during “Bindlestiffs”. I may have chuckled here and there, but I couldn’t even tell you why. The film is so forgettable and forced in it’s humor that it’s a wonder Kevin Smith’s Smodcast productions released this. I understand he’s known for his potty humor, but he’s always injected his story with heart and actual characters. The three leads presented in this film are lousy caricatures that have no personality.
It’s funny that I was slightly praising Andrew Edison earlier, as he’s the one to blame for this atrocity. He’s the director and co-writer (along with co-stars Woo and Loftin), so responsibility falls into his hands. I’d like to go easy on him, given his young age, but other young upstarts such as himself have produced decent to good first films (including Kevin Smith himself). Therefore, there’s no excuse for him.
The best way to describe Edison’s brand of humor is that he watched a few episodes of “The Whitest Kids U Know” and copied them. What he lost in translation was the edginess and with that show had. Everything feels forced here. All of the sexual innuendos, curse words and homophobic remarks (not that I’m calling Edison and company homophobic; their characters are teenagers who would talk with such oblivious disdain) never come across as shocking; only comically deficient. That’s the entire film in a nutshell. Eighty minutes of bland shock humor that never shocks, only bores. There’s not much else that I can criticize.
Final Rating: D
Bullhead
Plot: Jacky Vanmarsenille (Matthias Schoenaerts) is a cattle farmer who’s cutting a deal with an unscrupulous veterinarian to enhance his cattle with illegal hormones and sell them to a shady West-Flemish beef trader. Things go awry when an investigator is murdered and Jacky’s past comes back to haunt him.
Review: When Michael R. Roskam first introduced Jacky’s past into the film, I was weary. I appreciated the character development, but thought it was an unnecessary addition. Slowly, it dawned on me why it was included. Not only was it to tie all of the characters together, but it was used as an allegory on hormones and overuse of them. Sure, Roskam went to the well one to often with the flashbacks (and they could have been trimmed), but they ended up enhancing the story as it went along.
It’s for the best that he did. While the beef trading was interesting enough, it may have run the risk of becoming monotonous. We’ll never know as Roskam wisely focuses more on Jacky’s reactions to the hormone injections he uses. I won’t explain why he must use them, but I’ll warn every man that it’ll make you wince. It’d be too easy to lecture the audience on the morals of using hormones on animals. Showing them the side effects a grown man has to using them is more effective.
Matthias Schoenaerts knocks it out of the park with his performance! Any fears he’d pull a Ben Affleck from “A Body to Die For: The Aaron Henry Story” are quickly extinguished. He approaches the role with a more solemn attitude and the outbursts he has feel more natural and authentic. It should be stated the hormones aren’t the complete blame for his anger. His past (and present) life eat him alive and he’s been taught to bottle it up. Once it comes out, he can be a ferocious man.
There are supporting players here who do their job well, but it almost feels nonsensical to bring them up. This is Schoenaerts show and he pulls out all the punches to deliver. He’s complimented by Roskam, who utilizes camera movements to further convey the emotion in each scene (my personal favorite was the spinning camera at the staircase, symbolizing how the situation was spiraling out of control). It’s a powerhouse drama that delivers!
Final Rating: A-