4 Reviews: After.life, The Wolfman (2010) and more!
After.life (Wojtowicz-Vosloo, 2010)
1.5/10
To describe After.Life as a redundant mess only begins to cover how bad this film is. Not only does director Agnieszka Wojtowicz-Vosloo have no idea what her film is about; she cannot even muster up her conflicting goals to delve into any meaning or point. On the one hand it is supposed to explore the idea of someone looking back on their life as they travel between life and death. On the other hand, the frankly annoying mystery put at the center (whether or not Anna (Christina Ricci) is alive), cancels out almost all of the time that could have been put towards making us care about whether or not she is dead.
Vosloo could have packed a lot more into this but instead she misuses her time, creates about three different scenarios and gives us a variation on one of those over and over. First we have Anna denying that she is dead and running around like a moron. Then we have Paul (Justin Long) running around trying to figure out what is going on. Then there is Eliot (Liam Neeson) doing cryptic things that constantly contradict each other in the efforts to create a completely implausible character and mystery. None of it is interesting and it gets very boring very quickly. Add to this Christina Ricci’s performance, one of the worst in recent memory and the visuals which come off as student work and we have ourselves a disaster. The concept is worth exploration and very well could have made for a decent film that actually needed and wisely used all of its running time. However, this script and its repetitions could have so easily been condensed into 40 minutes; that is how plodding it gets. Not even Christina Ricci nudity could do anything to save this film. I repeat: not even Christina Ricci nudity could do anything to save this film. That is a bad sign. There is nothing good to say about After.life which is the worst I have seen this year so far along with Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland.
Tales from the Script (Hanson, 2010)
6/10
This consistently interesting if ultimately unremarkable documentary on screenwriters in Hollywood gives some nice insight into a unique job that leaves the work itself essential to the filmmaking process but has the screenwriters’ themselves barely treated as people; easily discarded, replaceable and useless. Screenwriters are anything but; however this is how they are treated. Producers control everything, directors interpret differently, other screenwriters come in and change everything and actors have ideas of their own. We hear about all of the injustices done upon the occupation in the cutthroat world of L.A. It certainly is frustrating to get any insight into the absurdity of the Hollywood industry. They come off as chickens running around with their heads cut off.
At the same time the film has people complaining for an hour and a half only to have the last 10 minutes be about this false kind of affirmation of the occupation. The film clearly wants to discuss the injustices rather than spend a little more time focusing on the craft of screenwriting and their different processes. The other complaint about the film is that some of these screenwriters interviewed have credits that are pretty embarrassing to say the least. The idea that maybe some of these people just cannot write all that well is never even discussed but from my perspective there is a reason some of these people have trouble getting work made. Other than these complaints, it is always rewarding to hear about the trials and tribulations of screenwriting and how out of whack Hollywood is.
Sidenote: Guinevere Turner (who seems like the coolest woman ever) talking about Bloodrayne was the highlight of this film.
The Wolfman (Johnston, 2010)
2.8/10
An updated version of The Wolfman was a good idea. Since the 1941 Lon Chaney Jr. incarnation, cinema has changed radically, making a new interpretation of the work potentially worth of the effort. Unfortunately the result is a remarkably bland and dull affair that has very little to offer. Benicio Del Toro is the film’s only saving grace. It’s not a performance worth mentioning but the reason I do is because his casting is so random that he becomes interesting to watch in this role by default. The film is not dreadful but it is executed in such a lifeless manner that all one can come out of it with is disappointment. In particular, Joe Johnston’s direction is painful to endure and he has no idea how to effectively stage a scene. The makeup is quite good and the scenes that show Del Toro as the Wolfman could have been so much worse than they are. Overall though, not of the atmosphere or pathos inherent in the story show themselves resulting in a film that one forgets the minute after it ends.
When You’re Strange (DiCillo, 2010):
5.9/10
This is not a documentary that reveals anything substantial about The Doors. It is entirely comprised of footage which is accompanied with narration by Johnny Depp. There are no interviews or present day footage. The impressive thing that writer/director Tom DiCillo does is the way he uses Jim Morrison’s 1969 short film HWY: An American Pastoral which, until this film’s release, had never before been seen to this degree. Overall DiCillo’s use of footage is mostly successful and at times quite effective at creating a surreal atmosphere for the narration to pair up with. The narration itself is blandly written but the film’s purpose is really to give a brief overview of the band’s lifespan. There is no insight to be had here with the exception of some of the raw footage of which there is a lot to choose from.
The film does focus on Morrison of course but the real success of the film was the way it made one appreciate everything that Robby Krieger, Ray Manzarek and John Densmore did for the band. Each brought their own influences to the table, creating a unique sound with no bass. Krieger wrote many of the hits and each band member’s patience with Morrison is incredibly admirable. Also, when Morrison did anything controversial the entire band got blamed for it. They had to learn how to improvise as each time Morrison would go on stage, an entirely different concert would be performed based on his mood. It does nothing to make Morrison seem like a hero even though the film itself clearly worships him. His talent is undeniable but unfortunately it never delves into the reasoning behind his downfall. He comes off as an immature talent who merely puts up with the existence of others but at the same time truly enjoys people and needs them to a point.
The last third of the film gets lost and hazy as it heavy-handedly puts songs of the band's to footage of late 1960's events as if theirs is the only music that really said something about the time (during a time where most music was saying something about the time). When You’re Strange is worth seeing for some of the footage and the way it is used but overall it gives no real insight into the band and is mostly a mediocre outing.
Horrorphile
Bloodrayne???? Holy crap.
My reviews:
After.Life
The Wolfman (2010)
I might have to have a squizz at Cillo's The Doors flick, I'm a big fan of them.