Posts by William O'Donnell

A criminal defense attorney, played by Matthew Modine, has lost all hope after his family dies in an accident. On the brink of suicide, he is called upon for one more case, defending a young man who may face the death penalty on a murder charge.

The story is established very quickly and though each character resists joining forces for the defense, it only takes about a 30 second scene each to convince them otherwise, and then it is straight into the trial (hence the title I suppose).This quick assembly and ever faster exposition makes the story harder to buy. I understand the film only clocks in a bit faster than an episode of Law and Order, but one wonders if it is all necessary if its going to be so hasty.

Ok...here's the pitch! A movie that's just jokes! Dirty jokes! Story? Maybe sure sure, but its all about jokes! We all love dirty jokes right? We have some actors act them out...one after the other...and that's it...the whole movie is jokes!

That is the theory behind this film, and almost verbatim the opening scene. A sleazy looking producer wants to help resurrect a Hollywood production company with his idea for a movie that is nothing but a series of dirty jokes, played out one after the other. And this is exactly what we the audience received. Chapterised with portions showing the filmmakers trying to create and ultimately punished for making this film, we see a gaggle of actors, and a LOT of topless women, act out dirty jokes. The film compares itself to The Aristocrats in the sense that it is just jokes for the duration of the film, but the main difference is The Aristocrats is a documentary whereas Dirty Movie is almost meta-cinema in how self-aware it is in its presentation.

A Wild West overlord is plotting to shrink the world's population. This evil plot is running along smoothly until a shrunken Texas ranger escapes in a whiskey bottle and finds himself saved by a plucky sibling duo named Luke and Lucy, along with their gaggle of wacky friends. The group become honourary rangers and set out to battle evil.

The character design, and over the top sense of adventure, are reminiscent of the Tintin series as these characters are based on those that appeared in Belgian comics under the same Herge banner that Tintin shares. Sadly, the CGI animation takes most all the life out of them with rigid movements and very poor lip syncing. Of course, being originally produced in Dutch, one can forgive some of the mismatched dialogue-to-mouths, but some more work could have been done to smooth it out.

A young couple are drawn into a deadly game of cat and mouse when they investigate a piece of real estate and a psychopath starts to trail them. Brazen Bull is the title of the film and the killer's mantra, which means he acts as if he has nothing to lose, when in fact he's already lost everything.

The first act is a plodding mess of abysmal dialogue and weak acting from everyone. It was a genuine struggle for me to become invested in the story when there was nothing drawing me in. By the time it's poor Michael Madsen's turn to phone in another performance, I could care less about the torture his victims receive. There is something almost tragic about the fact that it was lack of talent that made me so callous to the lives of these fictional characters. A man's hand is slowly sawed off, and I'm yawning.

A Chicago man has a strange genetic disorder that makes him involuntarily travel through time. This film follows the unimaginably complicated romance he has with a woman who he has known since she was a little girl and they never get to age chronologically together, and sometimes share different memories of the past (which might be the future for the other...I know...I told you its complicated).

Based on the extremely popular book of the same name, this film sometimes seems to be more an exercise in adapting a very challenging screenplay than it is an engrossing romance. Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana do glow when interacting, as they make the love their characters share convincing and helps us stay with the story when the time line gets a bit convoluted. Meanwhile, the dialogue doesn't do them any favours and occasionally bogs things down.

In this satire of modern life, Zach Galifianakis plays a man named George Washington Winsterhammerman who has a beautiful wife, a large house, a stable job in the world's most successful corporation, and even a boat. Despite all of this he fears he is showing symptoms (which include dreams) that he might be about to literally explode, a mysterious and unexplained epidemic that is sweeping the country.

This film is jammed very obvious messages and metaphors for how we are living artificiality through celebrity advice books, pills, corporately controlled media and other suppressants for independent thought. The most apparent in the film is when George cannot please his wife sexually she religiously follows the daily advice of her favourite talk show host, dresses and eats just like her in order to change their lives around, and eventually tries to emulate her suicide, that occurred live on her show, when all else fails.

A young man wants to stimulate the economy of his tiny community, mostly for the sake of his parents struggling motel, and inadvertently welcomes what would become the original Woodstock festival into his back yard (literally).

Based on the true origins of this music festival that changed the world, we do not see the happenings of the stars onstage like other Woodstock films might. From beginning to the end, we only witness the muddy setup of the campsites and the infamously congested highway leading to the stage.

Not quite a concert film, not quite a drama. This film follows a young man named Bruno, who sleeps with his life long crush, the night before she moves from Toronto to Paris. On this final night, Broken Social Scene are playing a free show and Bruno uses a connection to get backstage passes as a last ditch effort to win over his crush. All the while, we are treated to a multi camera view of that very same concert, running the duration of the entire film.

Some concert films separate the songs with behind the scenes moments of the band leading up to that same show, but here we are separated from all that with the fictional romance plot. As things progresses, the music does what a soundtrack is supposed to do, and highlights the emotions of the scenes it accompanies, but since we are privy to the live performance of that same soundtrack, the passion of the musicians playing syncs up with whatever the actors are doing or feeling. There is a symbioses between the concert and the drama, making each better than they ever would have been simply on their own.

A young Cambodian boy, named Sokvannara “Sy” Sar, is spotted performing a traditional dance by the film's director and American Dance patron Anne Bass. She immediately takes note of his smooth talent and figures he has massive potential as a classical ballet dancer. Sy is given a rare chance to audition at the School of American Ballet in New York and then proceeds on a unique and fast-paced journey through a new world of dance, in a nation that is completely alien to his homeland.

This film would be interesting simply for the fact that it displays many parts of what it means to train as a professional ballet dancer and student, but is all the more engaging because of S's situation; that being the lone Cambodian to take on such a quest. Sy may come from poor roots, but his is by no means a sob story of an underdog, but that does not make it any less special or rare an opportunity. This film gives us the chance to see more than just his home, family and friends, as well as the many stages he earns a spot performing on, but we are privy to what can happen when chance falls upon the sort of  person who has the passion to take hold of it and elevate themselves in something that was a total unknown to himself and his fellow countrymen.

An ex-con trying to pull one last heist is sucked into a booby trapped house and must face against a madman who is torturing the family within. The makers of 3 SAW films (and not the first three) have ventured into familiar territory of nonsense gore, whisper thin plot, and then even more nonsense gore.

The title of the film, and a couple lines of dialogue, suggest our madman is a collector of people...and perhaps animals (?). How does this fact play into the film's action? It doesn't really. If he is indeed a collector, then he certainly has no sense of “mint condition” as he spends his entire time damaging and removing pieces of the very things he plans to collect. In fact, if the title could change to “The Trapper,” then suddenly the film might make more sense for it is all about the elaborate traps he sets, and how they are designed to horribly maim, and even kill in a couple of cases. He doesn't seem to be collecting anything. Yes, one of his previous victims is kept in a crate, but even that character explains that he's just bait to lure in the types of people he wants. This “Collector” has gone to insane lengths setting up this family's house with booby traps, and seems to want nothing more than to torture and kill, not collect.