The documentary wagon rolls on with this sassy chronicle of events surrounding the violent ‘peacekeeping’ gangsters of Cité Soleil, a district of Port-au-Prince in Haiti. This vast precinct of despair exemplifies the words ‘slum’ and ‘dysfunctional’: it’s filthy, dilapidated beyond belief and inhabited by some of the most destitute (and violent) people in the western world.

Danish director Asger Leth takes us back to 2004 and into the living rooms of this godforsaken place. His film focuses on brothers Bily (baby-faced, jovial but prone to bouts of heavy-duty violence) and 2Pac (seemingly wiser and more tolerant but equally unpleasant). Both are gang ‘chiefs’ of the local Chimeras (‘ghosts’). Intoxicated with restorative smoke, 2Pac talks about nothing but killing, death, respect and how much he supports the country’s leader, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Hardly surprising, since Aristide enlisted these thugs and their well-armed followers into his civilian police force. This is a dog-eat-dog world with no ethical guidance from anyone, save for a young French relief worker called Lele who falls for both Bily and 2Pac’s gangster charms while trying to instill some basic morals into them. Maybe an impending coup will persuade the fractious brothers to call it a day.

Leth’s gritty, haphazardly edited film plays like a music video, with jagged rap sequences interlaced with urgent handheld Super 8-style footage and a stonking shanty-blues soundtrack. It’s an uncomfortable film to watch, not least because of its seeming glamourisation of gang violence; some more delving into its subjects’ psyches wouldn’t have gone amiss. You feel its audience will fall into two camps; those who admire their violent lifestyle and those who abhor it.

Adaptation of Mordecai Richler’s serio-amusing novel about a whizz-kid’s no-wait-for-thoughtfulness dash for the top, with Dreyfuss, playing Duddy like the kid we were all at school with who was already working on his inception inflammation, confirming his earlier promise in Dillinger and American Graffiti. Set in the Jewish community of 1948 Montreal, the film has everybody parading their obsessions up front in a behaviour that too often makes for cosy pigeon-holing (voice-of-conscience grandfather, torn Christian girlfriend, etc). Such characterisation serves the film’s comic intentions better than its message, most notably in the performances of Denholm Elliott as the drunken English video gaffer requisitioned by Duddy to pic Bar Mitzvahs, and Randy Quaid as an innocent simpleton.

Edward (John Cusack) verður fyrir því óhappi að keyra á óvarinn
vegfaranda á fáförnum vegi og vegna slæmrar
færðar komast þau ekki á sjúkrahús. Eitt
óhappið rekur annað, sem leiðir til þess
að ferðalöngunum er nauðugur sá kostur að
gista á ódýru vegahóteli, þar sem þau
hitta aðra seinheppna ferðalanga, sem sitja
þar fastir af ýmsum ástæðum.
Fjöldamorðingi fer á kreik og ómögulegt
virðist að hafa hendur í hári hans. Þá
upphefst gríðarleg spenna sem snýst um líf
eða dauða og enginn er óhultur.
Agreement er
sannkallaður spennutryllir. Myndin fangar
athygli áhorfandans strax í upphafi og heldur
henni óskiptri til loka. Fyrri hluti
myndarinnar einkennist af svörtum húmor, sem
minna ber á þegar líður á myndina. Spennan
nær yfirhöndinni þegar morðinginn fer á
kreik. Hver áhorfandi semur sína kenningu um
framhaldið en endalokin eru algerlega
ófyrirsjáanleg.
Persónurnar í
myndinni er margar og fjölbreytilegar. Með
helstu aðalhlutverk fara John Cusack (High
Fidelity og Being John Malcovich), Ray Liotta
(Unlawfull Entry, Goodfellas og Hannibal) og
smástirnið Amanda Peet (The Whole Nine Yards
og She's The One). Öll komast þau vel frá
sínu og er ágætur leikur þeirra, ásamt
minnisstæðum endi, það sem einna helst
einkennir myndina.
Identity er
miklu meira en stundarafþreying sem menn gleyma
þegar þeir yfirgefa kvikmyndahúsið. Ég
ætla að sjá hana aftur.
-

A young realistic designer becomes entangled in London’s criminal underbelly when a friend does him a favor in “Out of Depth,” a slim yarn based on a true-blue story that could force made an OK TV drama with a decent script and better actors. As a low-budget, bigscreen article, however, this fails to make the slightest sparks, signaling a shallow commercial future.

Paul Nixon (Sean Maguire) is a cocky young designer who vows revenge on a barroom thug for beating up and urinating on his mom (Rita Tushingham). An old school friend, Steve (Danny Midwinter), who has “connections,” persuades Paul to let some hired muscle do the job instead, and introduces him to ruthless gangster Lenny (Nicholas Ball, in pic’s sole notable perf), who later demands payback in the form of a drug run. Lame, expletive-riddled dialogue and unremarkable production values result in a movie that ambles along pointlessly to an uninvolving ending visible from six reels away.

A Film Scrutinize by James Berardinelli


Of one mind Kingdom, 2005


U.S. Release Date:

10/7/05 (wide)

Game Length:

1:25

MPAA Classification:

G

Theatrical Aspect Correspondence:

1.85:1

Cast (voices):

Peter Sallis, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham-Carter, Peter Kay


Directors:

Nick Park, Steve Box


Producers:

Claire Jennings, Peter Lord, Nick Park, Carla Shelley, David Sproxton


Screenplay:

Nick Park, Mark Burton, Bob Baker, Steve Box


Cinematography:

Tristan Oliver, Dave Alex Riddett


Music:

Julian Nott


U.S. Distributor:

Dreamworks

After a 10-year absence, Aardman Animation's foundation characters, Wallace & Gromit, have returned. The clay man and his dog, who were featured in three animated shorts between 1989 and 1995, were left out in the cold when Nick Park and his crew made their feature-length debut with 2000's acclaimed


Chicken Run


. At the time, fans pondered Wallace & Gromit's fate, and Park was quick to reassure them that the dynamic duo would be front-and-center for his next movie. Five years later (it takes a long time to make these stop-motion films), Park has kept his word.

Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

gives mainstream audiences their first opportunity to meet the pliable characters with a cult following.

Wallace (voice of Peter Sallis) is a cheese-loving, chatty inventor living in a small village in rural Great Britain. His lone companion is his impossibly intelligent but always silent canine, Gromit. When

The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

opens, these two have formed a PETA-friendly animal removal service called "Anti-Pesto." When rabbits threaten garden vegetables, in come Wallace & Gromit (armed with a giant vacuum cleaner) to save the day. It's their job to ensure that everyone's carrots, squashes, peppers, and melons are ready for Lady Tottington's (Helena Bonham-Carter) annual Giant Vegetable Contest. However, just when Wallace and Gromit appear to have everything under control, there is a new arrival - a fearsome brute of a creature with an appetite to match its monstrous size. It is a were-rabbit, and no one is sure how to deal with it. Wallace and Gromit devise a trap. Lady Tottington's would-be husband, Victor Quartermaine (Ralph Fiennes), loads his gun with gold bullets (the only thing that will kill a were-rabbit), and the rest of the townspeople arm themselves with pitchforks and shovels from the Mob Supply Store.

British humor isn't like American humor. The emphasis is more on wit and slapstick, and those qualities feature heavily in

Wallace & Gromit

. The film offers a bounty of chuckles, but not many belly-laughs. That's its nature. In an attempt to fit in with mainstream animated fare, Park has made a few minor adjustments. An obvious one is the inclusion of double entendres. We have an


Austin Powers


-inspired scene with a pair of melons and an amusing note ("May contain nuts") on the side of a carefully positioned crate. But there are no major compromises.

Wallace & Gromit

looks like an 85-minute version of

Wallace & Gromit

, not the latest chapter of the


Shrek


saga.

In terms of plotting and character development,

Wallace & Gromit

falls a hair's breadth short of

Chicken Run

. This episodic movie feels more like several shorts cobbled together than a cohesive whole. And the first 20 (or so) minutes provides a newcomer's guide to the main characters, essentially re-creating moments from the earlier shorts. These aren't necessarily bad things, but they're worth pointing out. The tone, although darker than that of the average American animated movie, is still perfectly suitable for family viewing. However, it's my guess that

Wallace & Gromit

will develop a stronger following among older viewers (as opposed to children). One wonders if kids will "get it."

For those who think 3-D digital animation looks too perfect, the style of

Wallace & Gromit

offers a welcome change. CGI is used sparingly; most of this movie was put together in an old-fashioned way - by moving the clay figurines fractionally for each frame. It's the same process that was used in classics like


King Kong


.

Wallace & Gromit

looks wonderful - a surreal fantasyland where dogs may not speak, but outthink their human compatriots. Don't let the apparent primitiveness of the animation fool you -

Wallace & Gromit

is as smooth and pleasing to the eye as any computer generated imagery.

The latest trend in animated movies is to assemble a vocal cast comprised of big-name stars. This can be a double-edged sword. While "star appeal" can boost box-office receipts and elevate a movie's visibility, it can be distracting. Park doesn't rely on prominent names. Wallace is, as always, voiced by Peter Sallis. (Gromit doesn't speak.) Helena Bonham-Carter (in her second animated outing of the year) and Ralph Fiennes are recognizable "guest stars" but, unless you know about their participation beforehand, it's unlikely that you'll recognize them. Fiennes in particular has disguised his voice.

Wallace & Gromit

has a lot of good-natured fun lampooning conventions from old horror movies (both those from Universal and Hammer). A scene where lightning punctuates every pronouncement is one of many examples. There's also an extended homage to

King Kong

that's apropos when you consider that both movies use the same special effects technology.

Wallace & Gromit

is one of the better offerings to be found in a year that has seen a drop-off in the quality of animated films. Along with


Corpse Bride


(also filmed using stop-motion), it's one of 2005's few non-live action feature capable of engaging all members of the family.

© 2005 James Berardinelli

Reviewed by Dennis Schwartz

A supposedly accurate historic story of the 1839 revolt by Africans
on the slaveship Amistad and their capture and trial in New Haven, Connecticut.
Much of the story involves a court-room drama featuring the slave Cinque
(Djimon) who led the revolt. The plight of the slaves was intelligently
presented; even though, at times, the film was static and seemed to have
no legs to get it going in the direction it wanted to be going. Yet, it
still turned out to be a forceful movie.

It is hard to be critical of the stand for morality and piety the
film makes; but what saved this picture from being the “holier than thou
self-righteous bomb” I thought it might have been, were the presence of
John Quincy Adams (Hopkins) and Cinque. Hopkins gave life to the story
by his status and ability to articulate. Cinque represented the black man,
whose viewpoint was seen through his massive physical strength and pride.
He gave authenticity to the events. Without their human emotions: one by
his words, the other by his facial expressions and physical stature, the
film would not have been as impactful as it was. There could be only so
much that one can take from watching the misery of others, until it would
become overbearing and defeat all its good intentions.

The exploitation scenes of the slaves being captured by nets in their
homeland and then chained on ships and some being thrown overboard to drown,
were truly malevolent acts. Thankfully that was kept to a minimal portion
of the film’s time. Or else, the film would have been a very difficult
one to watch.

For the trial of the slaves, the abolitionists hire a self-promoting
real-estate lawyer, Roger Baldwin (Matthew), to take their case. He, at
first, does not realize the importance of the case he is taking on, thinking
all he has to do is treat it as an ordinary case of a property dispute.
But he soon realizes that this is a very important civil liberties case.

Roger presents this question in court: Were they born as slaves–on
a plantation, say, in the West Indies– or, as free men in Africa? If it
were the later, he would win freedom for his clients because free men are
allowed to resist being taken by force, according to the constitution.
He eventually gets Cinque to speak through an interpreter and tell the
story of his African Mende tribal people. Cinque’s tribe was captured by
rival tribesman and sold to an illegal Portuguese slave ship and eventually
put aboard another ship, La Amistad, in Havana, Cuba. Cinque also tells
of the part he played in the revolt and of his taking over of the ship,
and then being tricked by the two surviving Portuguese seamen into taking
them to America instead of Africa.

Spielberg is the master of telling a visual story, and here he is
in top form. The carnage and cruelty aboard the slave ship are shockingly
and revealingly shot, giving one enough of an idea of what the slave had
to endure. That gives the film the force and importance that is needed
for it to make its moral point. The final moral point is made in front
of the Supreme Court with John Quincy Adams saying: “If these men are not
set free, you might as well start the Civil War now.” He, then, proceeds
to rip up a piece of paper to symbolize the death of the Declaration of
Independence.

Who ever said being a fashion was elementary? In The Eighteenth Angel, lovely aspiring teen model Lucy Stanton (Rachel Leigh Cook) is pegged by a league of crazy Etruscan priests as the sublime “angel” due to the fact that their demented plan to authorize Lucifer to restitution yield and for the most part on Earth. The cover-wearing Etruscans are led by the equally demented Father Simeon (Maximilian Schell), who was excommunicated by the Church for dabbling in militant genetic research. Simeon’s delineate for the “ultimate confederation between body of knowledge and Satan” is a little hard to on at times, but it is garnished in pseudo-fastidious tattle in an attempt to soften the blurry factual edges.

Lucy’s father Hugh (Christopher McDonald) is, of course, the only one suspicious of the Etruscans, which probably has something to do with the actually that his old lady took a suicidal plunge out a roof after interviewing Father Simeon. McDonald, who will always be Requiem for a Dream’s Tappy Tibbons to me, has the unenviable task of creeping through graveyards, breach crypts and skulking ’round in dark monastery caverns on his crusade to learn the genuineness. And boy, will he be pathetic.

The Eighteenth Angel was written by David Seltzer, the for all that chap who penned one of the premier indemnification-of-Satan films, the 1976 timeless The Omen. Sure, he’s written multitudes of other mainstream works (Dragonfly, Punchline, Bird on a Wire) but he longing always be the guy responsible for bringing Damien to dash. It’s unfortunate that with this latest have, it seems that Seltzer is more content to vaguely recycle his past, kind of than re-imagine the genre. I suppose the genetics angle of this one could be looked at as a puncture at modernizing the storyline, but the low-down that it is sort of convoluted in its presentation severely waters down that element.

Director William Bindley stages a troublemaker of fine sequences, notably the unnerving scene where a character is dragged by the neck between two galloping horses, and overall The Eighteenth Angel looks quite unspoilt, though it is alarmingly goreless. There are eerie Italian monasteries, dark caverns and of progress plenty of creepy thunder and lightning. But looking for a film so seeped in Lucifer, there are remarkably insufficient (if any) genuinely scary moments that occur. We get evil cats, mutated rats and even a four of arbitrarily e deux peelings, but all of the spooky-sounding choir music in the exceptional alone won’t make a film shocking.

Braveheart
(1995)

Does "epic" correspond to "overblown?" That's the question to deliberate over while
watching BRAVEHEART, Mel Gibson's relocate stint behind the camera after
THE CUFFS WITHOUT A NOTWITHSTANDING (1993). In his committed attempt to expertise a
SPARTACUS-calibration spectacular out of a 14th-Century Scottish legend,
Gibson serves up a revenge fantasy of epic proportions. Forget Liam
Neeson's weakened fuming in ON ROY, here's an actor toting a chip the
square footage of Scotland. Gibson's character is out cold to avenge *everyone*: his
padre, his helpmate, straight the whole of the Highlands themselves. What a
bargain!
Ignore the impassioned speeches and the hair extensions, it's the
greedy, grisly battle scenes that shouldn't be missed. No limb goes
unhacked, no gut goes ungouged; and it's all enhanced through the magic
of Dolby-surround sound effects. Yikes! The legend needs work, though,
as there's about twenty-minutes too much of it. C'est la strive.
BRAVEHEART looks like it cost a zillion dollars, and that buys actually a
bit of bang for the buck.
So what if the heart feels a wee bit stretched to the bone?
Grade: B+
Copyright 1995 by Michael J. Legeros

Originally posted to

triangle.movies