With Jim Carrey’s thriller The Number 23 coming out this Friday, I thought you might like to feast your eyes on this exclusive new movie feature trailer. See the psychological thriller’s feature here.
Directed by Joel Schumacher, actors Virginia Madsen & Danny Huston assist Carrey in trying to make this film believable. Good luck with that one, I say.
The Number 23 focuses on a middle-aged man (Carrey) whose life begins to unravel when he comes into contact with a book entitled, “The Number 23”. As the character reads more of the obsessive book he finds himself further convinced that it is based on his life. So, the movie is kinda like Stranger Than Fiction, except it’s not too funny, but then again Will Ferrell’s Stranger wasn’t very much either.
{Source}
Breach (2007) – Review
Check it out, another political conspiracy suspense thriller movie that’s, surprise surprise, based on a true story. Okay, okay, so it may not be anything particularly inventive, but to my astonishment, “Breach” was actually pretty interesting. I mean, it’s not something I’d grant a repeat viewing or go out of my way to purchase, but I don’t find myself regretting the $8.25 I spent on the ticket.
Eric O’Neil (Chris Cooper) is a young hot shot, looking to make FBI agent. He is assigned to watch a fellow government employee, Robert Hanssen (Ryan Phillippe); an assignment he at first considers beneath him. It would seem that Hanssen is a sexual deviant and the FBI is looking to catch him red handed. However, as O’Neil works closer with Hanssen, he discovers the man he’s gradually coming to respect is something much worse: a spy. Hanssen may very well be the worst spy in United States history and O’Neil has only a few months to catch him in the act before he retires and gets away scott-free.
“Breach” is a bit textbook, I have to admit. The very first scene of the movie makes it perfectly clear that Hanssen is caught and exposed. But then, this was based on a true story which happened only six years ago, so I suppose secrecy about the film’s ending would be a bit futile. Nevertheless, when you know how a story ends, you can’t help but feel the “suspense” aspect of this “suspense film” take a slight plunge.
Anyhow, if you can get that out of your head, “Breach” is rather thrilling. There are no explosions or car chases or high octane max the envelope thrill ride banzai extreeeeme action sequences; “Breach” is grounded very firmly in reality. This works well, as you feel a stronger connection to the characters knowing they’re all real and that their actions have actual consequences. You have to be in to this kind of movie, though, otherwise you might get a little board. Still, I never considered myself a big fan of the political conspiracy thriller genre, yet I had a perfectly entertaining time.
I suppose what really ails the movie hasn’t anything to do with the story or acting (both the leads, Cooper and Phillippe, deliver excellent performances), it’s just that the movie is very…unremarkable. A bit like that film “Arlington Road” which came out some years back; it seems destined to be forgotten. Still, a nice low-key thriller such as this makes for a refreshing diversion from most of the other so-called “suspense thrillers” being released these days; films that have more in common with “Fast and the Furious” and “Under Siege” than other films from their genre.
Also, while it was probably the fault of the projectionist at my theater, I could see the freaking boom mike through-out the entire film. It drove me insane and almost killed the movie. If this happens, go get the manager and tell him/her to tilt the projector up a little more. Believe me, that is no way to watch a movie.
Grade: B
Hannibal Rising – Review
To me, I find that Hannibal Lecter is a character best used sparingly. Of the three films within the original “Hannibal Trilogy” (though I’m loathed to call it that), “Red Dragon” and “Silence of the Lambs” are my two favorite installments, both of which only feature Hannibal as a supporting player with limited screen time. I found the third installment, aptly named “Hannibal”, to be the least appealing. Well, “Hannibal Rising” is a prequel to that series, focusing completely on the title character. While that didn’t exactly appeal to my pallet, those of you who want Hannibal, Hannibal and more Hannibal will most likely enjoy this offering.
The story begins in Germany, 1941, at Castle Lecter. Young Hannibal (Aaron Thomas) and his family are forced to flee to a secluded shack in the wilderness to hide from bombarding Nazi forces. Hannibal’s parents are killed by enemy fire and he and his infant sister, Mischa (Helena Lia Tachovska) are left alone in a horrible blizzard. They are soon taken prisoner by a group of Nazi war profiteers, who go mad with hunger and eat Mischa. Fast forward 8 years, and Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel) is now a disturbed young orphan who goes to live with his Aunt, Lady Murasaki (Li Gong). She trains him in the ways of the Samurai and Hannibal uses these skills to hunt down the men who killed his sister, gradually losing his grip on reality in the process.
I liked Hannibal better when all I knew about him was that he was an intelligent, professional man who went nuts and ate people. I found him much more chilling, believing he was relatively normal. Then this movie comes along, explaining he was once the heir to a wealthy family and then became a Samurai and turned into a serial killer, etc. As I said before, when it comes to Hannibal Lecter, less is more.
But that’s just me. I know there are plenty of people who want as much Hannibal as possible. Well, here’s your movie. And from that perspective, it honestly isn’t half bad. Hannibal’s origin is rather intriguing, if a bit over-the-top. I really could have done without that ridiculous Samurai bit, which I felt was the stupidest part of the entire film. Adding to that, the face mask of the Samurai armor just happens to look like the face mask he wears in “Silence of the Lambs” while all trust up at the asylum…ugh.
Ignoring that bit of idiocy, the main plot of Hannibal seeking vengeance upon those who ate his sister is very intriguing and fulfilling. There’s a subplot where a French detective, Inspector Popil (Dominic West), tries to find evidence to put Hannibal away, and while it adds some tension to the film, it takes a backseat to all the stuff Hannibal is doing. Also, with this being a prequel and all, you pretty much know how well Popil’s chase is going to go.
For a movie consisting mostly of unknowns, the acting is surprisingly good. Grutas (Rhys Ifans) portrays a very frightening villain, who feels no remorse for the things he did or the things he’s still doing. You find yourself rooting for Hannibal, which is strange, since you know he’s just a sick and twisted badguy-himself. Gaspard Ulliel was okay as the title character. At times, I felt he resembled Crispin Glover from “Back to the Future” more than he did Anthony Hopkins. His acting was a bit stiff and his line delivery could range from fine to cringe-worthy, but he carries the role well enough as not to ruin the movie.
Overall, “Hannibal Rising” isn’t a bad film, but from my point of view, an unnecessary one. Still, many would disagree, and for those who want to know everything there is to know about Hannibal Lecter, its right up your alley. I hope you enjoy the Samurai bits.
Grade: B-
Casino Royale (2006)
It has been eleven years since Goldeneye, the last good James Bond film, in my honest opinion. While the other Pierce Brosnan offerings had their moments, they felt more like generic over-the-top action films with the character of James Bond shoe-horned in as an after-thought, to the point of feeling like a self parody. It’s almost as if the various directors and writers had a checklist of James Bond-related clichés and were marking them off as they went along.
Casino Royale changes all that. After a decade of mediocre Bond installments, Casino Royale gets back down to the basics, and by that, I mean the very first Ian Fleming Bond novel and the genesis of the character.
M (Judi Dench), the director of MI-6 (England’s Secret Service) has just appointed a new Double-O Agent, James Bond (Daniel Craig), and is already regretting her selection. There’s a mysterious terrorist organization out there and MI-6 need to bring one of their henchmen in alive. Not an easy task, considering the terribly green 007 keeps botching his assignments. However, after getting something right, Bond is paired with the lovely Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) and sent to the Casino Royale in Monte Negro. There, Bond will engage the underground banker, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikklesen), in a high-stakes poker game where the pot is over one hundred million dollars. If Bond can best the professional gambler, Le Chiffre will be rendered broke and forced to divulge his secrets to MI-6 in exchange for protection from his enemies. If Bond loses, the money will go to the mysterious organization and England will have directly funded terrorism.
This is a very different sort of James Bond film and all the better for it. Despite the required high-octane action sequences, this is decidedly more low-key than most Bond films. There’s no ruthless supervillain out to take over the world, no doomsday devices…just Bond playing Poker with an evil French banker. And it really works, I must confess. After years and years of Bond being played up as a superhero, Batman in a tuxedo, it feels so refreshing to see the series get back down to legitimate spy-novel intrigue and suspense. There are plenty of thrilling action sequences and mind-blowing stunts, so don’t worry, Casino Royale is most certainly not just two hours of Europeans playing poker.
I don’t want to call this film a “prequel” since, in all honesty, it really isn’t. Although Judi Dench reprises her role as M from the Pierce Brosnan series, Casino Royale most certainly doesn’t fit in any timeline in regards to previous Bond adventures. If anything, it’s more along the lines of a “reboot” or a “fresh start”, reintroducing the character of James Bond to a new crowd and paying much better attention to his characterization from the original Ian Fleming novels. Casino Royale had been adapted once before in 1967, but that was as a parody film starring Woody Allen; few even consider it a “real” James Bond installment. So I wouldn’t go so far as to call this film a remake, either.
With this being touted as “the first James Bond adventure ever!” the audience is of course going to expect some sort of origin for the character. Just don’t be anticipating any sort of detailed history about Bond’s childhood or anything of that nature; this movie simply covers his first assignment as a Double-O Agent and the events which molded his character into the James Bond we recognize. So, as a result, this is a different sort of James Bond. He’s a whole lot meaner, getting his hands pretty dirty, and also tends to lose his temper over and over. He’s more personal, particularly with Vesper, and a lot less emotionally detached from humanity. His attraction to Vesper seems genuinely sincere, unlike Bond’s other female relationships where he’s basically just a “man-whore”. Bond also isn’t the Mr. Perfect we all come to view him as. He messes up. A lot. It’s really rather entertaining, seeing James Bond learn from his mistakes and gradually turn into the super-agent pop culture depicts him as.
Daniel Craig is a pretty good James Bond, all things considered. He plays Bond as a real character with faults and emotions, and not as a stereotype or self-parody. He does seem a little…”old”, though, considering Bond is supposed to be rather green in this film. Craig is 38 years old, so he’s not really that old, but he isn’t particularly young, either. I enjoyed his performance and I look forward to future offerings.
Casino Royale is definitely the best Bond film to come along in a very, very long time. It’s noticeably different than previous installments, but in a franchise that has become so stagnant, that’s honestly a good thing. I’d definitely recommend it to anybody with even a remote interest in James Bond. And if you aren’t interested in Bond, then I recommend you see the film, anyway, as it’s a fresh start and a good point to jump right in.
Grade: B+
Rosemary’s Baby (1968)
A very influential horror/suspense film of its day, Rosemary’s Baby is a pretty entertaining film if you’re willing to have the patience to watch it. Rosemary’s Baby is a very slowly paced movie, taking a full 2 hours to build-up to the finale. It’s a bit like a puzzle, with all the pieces given to you at the right time, but not coming together until the end. And done well, might I add.
Guy and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) Woodhouse have just moved into a gorgeous new apartment in New York City. The happy couple plan on starting fresh and raising a family. They soon meet their new neighbors, the elderly Castevet couple, who are very nice but excruciatingly nosey. Guy quickly befriends the Castevets, much to Rosemary’s chagrin, and immediately meets new success in his stuggling acting carrer (though it is success at the expense of his competition). Guy then wants to have a baby, much to Rosemary’s delight. However, Guy has Rosemary go to a doctor recommended by the Castevets who gives her some unorthodox advice. Rosemary begins to feel uneasy, as she can tell there is something wrong with the baby. Rosemary investigates the Castevets and uncovers a terrible secret.
Rosemary’s Baby, her actual baby, does not show up until the very end of the film; the last 15 minutes. And, as you’ve probably heard, you do not get to actually see the baby-itself. Some complain about this, as they find it weakens the ending, but personally, I think the less-is-more approach is appropriate. Can you imagine how goofy this movie would have been had they shown some cruddy, rubber demon puppet at the end? It would have completely killed the film. The exact same thing happened to the original Thing from Another World, where they showed the mysterious monster at the climax and it looked like a pro-wrestler in a Frankenstein costume.
The 2 hours leading up to the birth of the baby is more like a suspense-thriller film than a horror movie, requiring a certain level of patience and attention from the audience. The only real moment of “horror” during the film is the rape-sequence. It’s the most frightening/disturbing portion of the film, as Rosemary is drugged and hallucinates that she is being raped by a strange beast: the Devil. It’s a very shocking, surreal moment, as she mixes reality with a bizarre nightmare while being throttled by this hairy monster.
Rosemary’s Baby is, well, kind of boring. Its old fashioned filmmaking for certain, which isn’t exactly a bad thing, but it does stretch things out a fair bit too long. After you’ve seen it once you’ll feel proud that you’ve finally watched it, but you’ll most likely never want to see it again. Rosemary’s Baby is a good, old fashioned suspense movie, but not something you’d watch during a night with friends or a horror movie marathon.
Grade: B