Change Your Image
ric_pineda
Reviews
Secuestro express (2004)
Film and mirrors: Hostage situation!
There is a potential movie to watch inside SECUESTRO EXPRESS, a truly frantic ride where the action takes center stage. I wasn't so keen on watching it in theaters but to wait for a DVD copy.
I'm fed up with the ads of the next, newly released "best Venezuelan movie ever" tag printed on local newspapers. Franlky, I've never been a follower of Venezuela's cinema. I find them grotesque and with heavy lack of pace. One exception: Alberto Arvelos' UNA VIDA Y DOS MANDADOS, which was fairly nice and... slow (at times). Coming from a action-driven, cop dramas & sci/fi kind of moviegoer, this is a bit of a stretch.
Genre-less as it may be, Venezuelan movies have found since the 70s a solid spot on the protest side. They serve as a mirror/agenda of our corrupted society, dealing with the lower ways of average, almost random citizens trapped in the bitterness of the establishment. Hence, slices of life on celluloid, as the well-known filmmaker Roman Chalbaud (EL PEZ QUE FUMA) expressed some time ago.
SECUESTRO EXPRESS is quite different from the Chalbaud-Cabrujas-De La Cerda days. This is a movie that actually feels a bit more like a standard one. It is slickly made (ala Tarantino cool at times). You'll feel the stress in your surroundings, guts are bound to be wrenched. Laughter is served in most unusual places. A mess out of the situation leaves you wondering whether to be in nervous cheerfulness or turned-off mode. Definitely not for everyone. It jumps and cuts and crashes heavily, and then some. But, at the end, it's nothing. Confussing? Welcolme to "secuestro express" arena, latinoamerican style.
I haven't experienced a most gruesome condition of man towards a fellow being in the form of a film journey since IRREVERSIBLE. Shocking as it is unpredictable, here is where I point out that the movie really worked. An unforeseen presence of leading characters and no recognizable actors whatsoever (a common default on previous productions that is used here as a bonus). Ruben Blades and Miguelangel Landa (cameo) were merely part of the plot outside the scenario. It is the story that takes you everywhere from almost nowhere. Anything could happen. The viewer doesn't have a clue. Uplifting in the process? A happy ending? This is a Venezuelan movie, no expectations attached.
Stopping myself from sounding as part of the positive hype (goverment officials down here are despising the film for showing a negative and allegedly untrue image of the country), I do express disagreement with certain plot points of the movie. The "friendly" Colombian drug dealer twist was too "only in the movies" for the topic in hand. The bad taxi cabbie in the "it's a small Caracas we live in" was insulting, not to say implausible.
Although it dragged the subject of the poor against the rich, criminal against the wealthy, this could have been a much better film without that red hot politically-charged layer. It kills the genre with, yet again, a social commentary beneath. I know kidnaps, drugs, thefts and other acts of violence inflicted on the human body and mind happen here, there and everywhere. It just happens that April 11th, 2002 happened only here in Venezuela.
Is it a movie movie or a movie poster that reflex ourselves as a society? If so, where are the hardworking majority that take a "carrito" or the bus to go to work everyday? No honest or at least clean people in Venezuela? Mixtures like this get lost in the translation.
Whatever the case, this is just a personal comment. I don't regret watching SECUESTRO EXPRESS. It's wild, just don't buy it as a postcard. Miramax backing it is a bonus, hands down. But the Weinsteins disowning that movie company makes one wonder: Who knows what FAHRENHEIT 9/11 leftover they were leaving at Disney? Point is these players can never be trusted.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
More technical-driven than passionate storytelling, but deal with that later.
Long ago (1977, actually) in a collective imaginary far, far away... there was simply STAR WARS, a marvelous popcorn ride that introduced a whole generation of moviegoers to the fantasies, the dreams and the magic of cinema. Then came a superior, much darker and deeper sequel titled THE EMPIRE STRIKE BACK. Still the best of the series, in my opinion. It was the first I remembered "seeing" in a theater as a boy, awakening to the wonders of movies. This was 1980. RETURN OF THE JEDI completed the circle, a necessary conclusion that turned out to be bland (it didn't push the envelope) and was shot by the numbers. Anyway, sci-fi and SW buffs closed the book on this original trilogy and lived to tell the story with a smile.
14 years after 1983, Lucas announced a prequel in the works and renamed the previous blockbusters we grew to admire. Hence, the Anniversary Edition. Now STAR WARS was lengthly titled STAR WARS EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE, it had a terrible song number, Greedo shooting at Solo first, and a Jabba The Hut scene that was plain dreadful. ILM digitally restored and "improved" the looks of the visual effects and sounds, something that ultimately didn't match with the standard raw material. It detached our initial perspective from those familiar images.
It is our problem if we fell in love with the early prints of the first trilogy, said the creator and owner of these films. I swore I wasn't going to watch the final entry of his created galaxy. Guess I did that in vane, didn't I? This doesn't come from a fanatic of STAR WARS but movies in general. Don't get me wrong, I celebrated the arrival of EPISODES I, II & III. At the end, the origins of Darth Vader were more technical-driven than passionate storytelling. The action never failed to my expectations, though. Yes, THE PHANTOM MENACE was targeted for the kids we are no longer. Hated Jar Jar Binks. And, granted, THE ATTACK OF THE CLONES had superior light-saber battle sequences but lacked to cook up a meaty story, let alone an intimate romance. My first impression of THE REVENGE OF THE SITH is that there's no real story besides the connecting elements left to transit the concluding chapters.
In EPISODE III, the plot dealing with the true nature of evil and the effect of making life-turning decisions are, indeed, a force to be reckon with. Sadly, it had to be softened with plot-holes and lame dialogs, undeveloped characters (e.g. Padme Amidala, Chewbacca and a handful of Jedis) and detached emotions shown both in front and behind the cameras. SIN CITY had a similar effect to it. Had Lucas made one single prequel using the key scenes and elements plus the pivotal duels that lead Anakin Skywalker's transformation into Lord Darth Vader... now we're talking. That would have been the real deal! But that is just me asking too much or too little, for that matter.
Either way, I cheered and goose-bumped at the opening credits as always. The space battle scenes were awesome at the beginning, so was the action that followed it. R2D2 was fantastic, too. Honorable mentions goes to Anakin's "made" scene right after a quick but inevitable confrontation between Jedis and the Senator. Also giving me the chills were Yoda and the Emperor destroying the Senate against each other, add an unforgettable knight duel between a master and an apprentice, and, last but not least, the birth of Darth! This is why movies are meant to be seen on the big screen, a total event for fans alike. Flawed? Yes, but deal with that later. It is STAR WARS time!
Some say this is the end. With the marketing background of LucasFilm Ltd., I don't think so. A live TV series in discussion? You bet. A 3-D transfer of the complete saga? Both sound interesting and should be fun to catch up. Personally, can't wait for a edit-the-recent-episodes-the-way-you-want-them DVD in the near and/or possible future. I want a pristine DVD version of the original releases, I mean STAR WARS and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. They're no longer your movies, they belong to Joe the moviegoer. Lucas, you have the final word. Thanks. And time to move on!
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
Will of the free. Scott-Free, that is.
Director Ridley Scott has the power in today's film-making to do whatever he wants. Spielberg, Cameron and Lucas join him in this prestigious selection. No wonder. He is the man behind the great ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER, and enjoyable features such as GLADIATOR and HANNIBAL.
Filmography aside, he gives us KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, an epic story of the Crusades when Catholics and Muslims started the fight over the land of Jerusalem. A two-sided tale of man and conflict, a theme he previously explored in the much superior THE DUELLISTS, his feature debut.
Some has been said about the neutral standpoint of KOH regarding both parties at war in this film. I wonder what an interesting gimmick could've been done with the Muslims leading the story, just for a change. But that is just me.
Scott's craft in films is impeccable and this is no exception. Expect great costume design, set decorations, sound, cinematography and visual effects. Everything is in place. I do have to agree with another comment made in these same pages, though: the editing. It didn't put the story in motion as it was supposed to, there was no rhythm in this movie. A zig-zag of high notes and low ones.
The cast was acceptable. Bloom was OK, nothing great. He has an impressive resume for a young body of work. Good to see Irons back after a while and Neeson is usually welcomed. Ghassan Massoud wore Saladin like a glove. Favorite character to watch: the silver-masked king!
The Crusades can be easily recognized (much more now) as a major influence in Lucas and Tolkien when they were imagining STAR WARS and THE LORD OF THE RINGS, respectively. For moviegoers, history suffers from fiction in this case. Ironic and a bit unfair, but that's the way it is. And, of course, add the aforementioned movies with BRAVEHEART, GLADIATOR, TROY and Alexander. The genre is wearing itself tired and repetitive.
KINGDOM OF HEAVEN is not a bad movie. I found it entertaining and fairly done. Not in the level of what you expect from a much-talented movie-maker, but still a piece that carries his remarkable trademark.
xXx: State of the Union (2005)
Make it Triple B (bad, banal and bogus).
Didn't catch the original when released but saw it on DVD. A matter of hype, if you ask me. Not a fan of Vin Diesel. Rob Cohen? Let me see... Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, Daylight and The Fast And The Furious among his repertoire... I don't think so. Didn't matter they weren't coming back for the sequel.
Bringing Lee Tamahori (007's Die Another Day) was an odd move. It feels like a setback, actually. From the real deal to this franchise imitation? Oops. Ice Cube repeats himself with just movie attitude, no acting really, which is an honest gimmick when bringing a new agent to the latest assignment. Having Samuel L. Jackson back is always a bonus and Willem Dafoe as the baddie adds a certain, albeit familiar, flavor. But what was the outcome, boys and girls?
No Hollywood executive remembered this lesson: Don't make an action sequel with Dafoe as a baddie (Speed 2, anyone?). Never green-light a follow-up without its original hero (Speed 2, anyone?). The Pacifier proved to be a slick hit at the box-office. See Vin. See Vin run.
Besides the first 5 minutes or so (better than the entire xXx of 2002), there isn't anything nice to comment about State Of The Union. This movie is a total flop, it fails miserably in storytelling, casting and production values. It is a shame that a fairly-looking ride like this gets wasted pretty bad. Too much of the same (although "the same" is not a problem for me in the action genre), and overloaded with CGI on every testosterone-implanted sequences. Ice Cube was OK until delivering on-liners nonstop all the way to the end credits. And shamelessly, I must add. Scott Speedman is a total miscast here, beauty Sunny Mabrey was a bore and Peter Strauss gave us the worst movie President in recent memory. It hurts that heavies like Jackson and Dafoe are involved in this crap.
Oh, and Diesel's Xander Cage dies because the agency was ambushed worldwide. Characters only comment about it, like no big deal. No pictures or anything. He survived all the explosions and stunts in the original and gets poor treatment in this next level. Way low!
Finally, the blame goes to Joe Roth and his Revolution Studios. The sub-plot that was dealt here (of a fictitious American president who plans a detour on diplomatic relations with rouge governments, in order to become potential allies of the nation) was plain stupid. Is this a Hollywood company of the politically idiotic? Produce something decent for a change!
Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken (1974)
It'll tear your balls out!
Imagine a film festival dedicated to glorious B-movies of the seventies. I'd pick ENTER THE DRAGON, THE STREET FIGHTER and DEATH RACE 2000 in a heart beat. Out of this pyramid of personal favorites, THE STREET FIGHTER is by far the meanest and nastiest of them all. Reasons? I give you Sonny Chiba!
When you think of Kung-Fu movies there's the protagonist and the antagonist thrown against each other in a good vs. evil mode. You are in for a treat when you meet Terry Tsorugi (amazingly played by Chiba), a mercenary with no apparent boundaries between right and wrong. You just can't decide whether to cheer for him or just feel repulsed by the brutal actions against his instant enemies, from really evil characters to your ordinary good guy from a straight movie.
The jail-house sequence at the beginning (the framing, the cheesy dubbing, the fight in slow motion with exaggerated sound effects to the abrupt movie title) is just brilliant. Cool is the best word to describe the bad-ass retro score. The plot builds itself to almost anywhere, but who cares in this genre? Every setting is the stage for the ultimate battle of this anti hero. Check out the duel on a stormy and rainy night right at the end. This is a rip-roaring flick that accepts no excuses.
Presented in an American censored version back in the eighties labeled by MGM (!) on betamax format, we can now experience the "no holds barred" violence of THE STREET FIGHTER on VHS and DVD. This happened mostly because of New Line's marketing distribution and Tarantino's love for this cheapo, which had a cameo in Tony Scott's TRUE ROMANCE and landed Chiba an acting gig out of oblivion in QT's KILL BILL VOL. 1.
Revenge, double crosses, head splattering, one X-ray super punch, mutilation, castration, litters of fake blood, you name it. A certifiable guilty pleasure of epic proportions!
Sin City (2005)
An extremist exercise in violent based-upon style.
Robert Rodriguez doesn't make movies, he plays making movies. His last effort could have really topped my list along the KILL BILL VOL. 1 section, problem is that VOL. 2 didn't do it for me and the IT list quickly vanished.
Back in the 90s we saw guys like Quentin and Robert having their shot at movie-making. Today they have total access or freedom to do whatever the blip they want. Now that they've made it, it doesn't taste as good as it was supposed to. How come I didn't like this movie entirely?
SIN CITY is based on Frank Miller's graphic dark comics. To tell you the truth, I've never seen any of his printed master work. As if I care! When I go to the movies, it is the frigging movie that matters, not the previous subject that translated into cinema. I mean, I saw BATMAN without caring about Bob Kane, OK? The same goes with the recent SPIDER-MAN 2 and its comic sources.
Full of visuals and insane characters, SIN CITY wants to be more than just a moving postcard. It's black and white with distinguished colors, most notably red: drips of blood, lipstick and a femme fatale dress. Some weird negative image techniques and really repetitive and boring voice-overs proves that it wants to overcome its own self-indulgence so much that you cannot escape two options, that is of becoming a geek freak or just tuning out. Yes, it is that violent and gritty to unbearable extremes.
Everything is background here, only the actors are real. Would this be Rodriguez' PHANTOM MENACE and SKY CAPTAIN statement? The acting is worthwhile, though. It's good to see Rourke involved in such better material, it really fitted him. Owen's and del Toro's chapter was by far the best of the three interconnected stories and they pulled it out really nice. Willis is (almost) always watchable, specially doing a Sonny Chiba's STREET FIGHTER homage here (I hate comparisons, but if it's the Bruce between this or HOSTAGE, I stick with the latter). Jessica Alba still has a long road ahead as a certifiable actress and not just a movie babe. Rosario Dawson was dangerously wicked, representing the movie's extreemness. And, Carla Gugino, oh, I just love you! No one shines here, that's for sure. Don't get me wrong.
Conclusion? Too much Frank Miller, too much comic book. Too much geeky hype. Not enough Rodriguez (he's never given his best, I hope) and not enough cinema. PULP FICTION is definitely the CASABLANCA of this grunge generation. It is sad because I thought these guys were on to become the filmmakers of tomorrow, instead we're facing acclaimed imitators or tracers right here today.
Death Race 2000 (1975)
Bastard brother lost and found.
I am really fond of DEATH RACE 2000 for bringing me back to an unforgettable video childhood experience. Being 9 and a certifiable ENTER THE DRAGON fanatic, I came to own a betamax copy (the one with leather-suited David Carradine and Warner Bros. logo) by reasons that seemed random and with no instant connection whatsoever. Like a monolith in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, I could see the art-covered box but was unaware of its content nor my evolution as a film buff.
Kinky and violent as it was in those days, M decided I was too young to watch this futuristic tale about caricature-like drivers in a near future cross-country race. The rule? To run over as much pedestrians as possible for scoring points and, of course, to come first at the finish line. Too bad I got caught watching that death race too many times, because the video was confiscated for good. Memories could not be taken, though.
Hence, the quest began. Scenes, lines and movie moments of DR2000 haunted my mind: Stallone shooting at the crowd, "What you expect, another pretty face?", the bullfighting, the high-speed roads, Machine Gun Joe's car, the naked ladies, Frankenstein's mask and helmet, the hand-grenade and split seconds of the ending! Not everything stayed in my mind years after, but I dreamed of what the movie could be, or even buying a copy of it (finally!) to wake up realizing it was just a dream. I became obsessed.
Research went by. I came to learn that Bruce Lee was offered the lead in the TV show KUNG FU, but producers picked David Carradine instead. That was it! The repeated viewings of ENTER THE DRAGON surely led my folks buy another karate-themed flick on their way to the States. Assosiating Carradine (of Cain fame) in the cover must have taken an ironic Bruce Lee's bastard brother scenario.
Eventually I bought a VHS copy while in New York a decade ago and nowadays I re-watch a pristine DVD version of it. Visiting this flick is a joy. Carradine is the bad-ass kind. There is no martial arts in it, though. It is a campy Roger Corman production with some wacky ideas and exploitation written all over it. Set in the future with a lame seventies fashion. Its technical and storytelling values, which are almost nowhere to be found in this cult classic, are too close of porn. Laughable dialogs, cheap action and bland acting... What is there not to like? This movie is genius! Definitely a Saturday afternoon feature.
Movies can be made to please crowds, to win awards or to become classics. Films can be the ultimate tool for bigger-than-life directors. And then you have the flicks that are true to themselves, sometimes low budgets that take chances no matter how tacky they might become. DEATH RACE 2000 is all that. It means more than a movie to me. It's about the heart behind making it (Corman, Bartel et all.), the fun that is to come up with something that really turns out at least entertaining. And, on a much personal note, it's about my journey with the movie: watching it repeatedly as a child, then having it taken away only to imagine or remembering the way it was and the search of it until finally experiencing the flick again. This after years of hope and dreams.
Well, guess what? The kid is really much alive and DEATH RACE 2000 still rocks!
Hostage (2005)
As thick as blood.
I'm the DIE HARD trilogy and THE LAST BOY SCOUT kind of Bruce Willis fan. That makes HOSTAGE a rock solid action thriller on my list, primarily because of its leading star return into the genre. It is also a good February-March type of movie opener. The plot may sound familiar but that doesn't handicap the movie. Expect some elaborated turns here and characters that are drawn quite effectively.
You are in it for the ride, already expecting that Bruce saves the day. It isn't flawless, though. The on-screen daughter role was a bit of a bummer, and one or two puzzles were missing in the riddle. I got the feeling certain plot-points were quietly channeled and then not fully developed. Was director Florent Siri planning something more deep or even shocking? Can't wait for a DVD special edition that might answer this doubt.
Anyway, this isn't a mess compared to other BW vehicles (STRIKING DISTANCE pops to mind). HOSTAGE has thrills, laughs and smoking guns! My kind of flick. Come to think of it, this one actually serves as a warm-up to the much anticipated DIE HARD 4.0 (Doug Richardson is writing that baby, too).
Kudos to Willis for stepping back into action territory. Special mention goes to Ben Foster as the disturbed Mars. And Siri is a filmmaker to watch for. Loved the opening sequence. Terrific shots, the manipulated colors and shadows work on target. Recommendable.