Showing posts with label Marc Forster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marc Forster. Show all posts

September 8, 2020

Monster's Ball.


Review #1530: Monster's Ball.

Cast: 
Billy Bob Thornton (Hank Grotowski), Halle Berry (Leticia Musgrove), Heath Ledger (Sonny Grotowski), Peter Boyle (Buck Grotowski), Coronji Calhoun (Tyrell Musgrove), Sean Combs (Lawrence Musgrove), Mos Def (Ryrus Cooper), Charles Cowan Jr. (Willie Cooper), and Taylor LaGrange (Darryl Cooper) Directed by Marc Forster (#384 - Quantum of Solace, #542 - World War Z, and #883 - The Kite Runner)

Review: 
"She came in and said ‘I know you guys don’t want me in this movie. You think I’m just a big pretty face, but I want this part.’ And she proved everybody wrong who thought that maybe she couldn’t do it.”

It can be a wonderous thing for a film to come together if the parts all sum themselves together to one good whole. The genesis for this film came from actors-turned-writers Milo Addica and Will Rokos. The two had written a draft by 1996, with the intent of finding interest from people they knew in the business while also angling for a small part themselves. The following five years was a parade of studio and writer struggles - while it attracted various stars in interest such as Sean Penn, it was mired in development over potentially lightening the script (including having one of the characters live rather than die) while the writing partnership between Addica and Rokos ended due to creative differences. Despite this, the film eventually came along with Lionsgate Films that had Lee Daniels (formerly a casting director and manager) as first-time producer. This was the third career work of Forster, raised in West Germany and Switzerland before deciding to do his studies in film with New York and its state university. Loungers (1995) was done on a cheap budget at the age of 26, but it was Everything Put Together (2000) that received attention from festivals and Daniels that helped Forster get his break.

"Monster's Ball" apparently refers to an old English term about a condemned man's old meal and his last night before execution in which his jailers threw him a "ball". But titles aren't everything in a movie, particularly when it comes to a film about desperate people and the bond that they share with each other despite all the odds, whether that means a cycle of violence or something else lurking deep in the surface. It is a dreary movie filled with people that nevertheless live in their surroundings with spoken and unspoken pain that does well with small-scale settings for raw intimacy that very much seems like it came from a novel of tragedy. It won't exactly hit all of the high points with emotional depth for everyone, and it may very well push itself to the limit at 111 minutes, but I generally liked what I saw in how it sticks to uncompromising melodrama with a fairly dynamite cast to go alongside it. Thornton leads the film quite well, weary and involving in a progression that hints at some form of redemption without necessarily becoming a caricature, instead finding himself wrapped between regret and moving on from it. Berry proves just as capable in delivering range of vulnerability and raw energy that makes for a great performance, one that invites a pondering of the soul in terms of what it means to be compelled to feel again, or to just feel something more than what has been felt before. Ledger doesn't have too many scenes, but he does make the most of it with tenderness that make a striking punch with Thornton, which make for a neatly wrapped ball of anguish. Boyle provides venomous conviction with his moments on-screen that work to where the film needs to go with a wince for what we don't see. What we have here is an executioner's song of nuance and hard-grained efficiency that touches upon what it means to lose someone and find something to reach upon without becoming infused with sentiment or movie hokum. This is especially true with the ending, which closes some of its loose ends while weaving an end for the audience to interpret for themselves in its true meaning. As an accomplishment for independent filmmaking, this is a stark film that one can't go wrong on if one is in the mindset for what it aspires to show in drama, complete with a well-picked cast to make things happen with honesty.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

December 5, 2016

The Kite Runner.


Review #883: The Kite Runner.

Cast:
Khalid Abdalla (Amir Qadiri), Zekeria Ebrahimi (Young Amir), Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada (Young Hassan), Homayoun Ershadi (Agha Sahib), Atossa Leoni (Soraya), Shaun Toub (Rahim Khan), Saïd Taghmaoui (Farid), Abdul Salaam Yusoufzai (Assef), and Elham Ehsas (Young Assef) Directed by Marc Forster (#384 - Quantum of Solace and #542 - World War Z)

Review:
The Kite Runner (based off the novel of the same name) manages to be satisfactory in the simplest sense of the word, but I feel that this probably worked better as a novel than as a film. It's not so much that it lasts over two hours (128 minutes, to be precise) as it feels a bit stilted in drama. The first act of the film (with the children) is neatly crafted in drama and it manages to create some atmosphere, while having a shocking development that is carefully executed. The kite running is something that manages to evoke wonder and fun, in part because I hadn't heard of kite running before. The child actor are fairly entertaining as well. Though technically an American film, Dari is used for a great portion of the film, which is noteworthy. It seems there is a good amount to like (and that is true), but I feel the flaws lie a bit with the second half. Once it gets to adult Amir, I feel that it isn't as compelling, feeling more like it is going through the motions of melodrama without a real sense of fulfillment. It's not so much the movie doesn't have enough emotion, it just doesn't seem to have the right amount of connection. It doesn't run out of steam, it just comes off as faint where it really could have registered as something more. The main cast (Abdalla, Ershadi, Leoni) are pretty compelling in their own ways, though I find Ershadi's character more relateable that Abdalla's to care about. On the whole, it doesn't so much drag as just move a bit slow, but it is somewhat entertaining with a fair amount of impact, even if it isn't as good as it could have been.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

February 12, 2014

Movie Night: World War Z.


Review #542: World War Z.

Cast
Brad Pitt (Gerry Lane), Mireille Enos (Karin Lane), Daniella Kertesz (Segen), James Badge Dale (Captain Speke), Ludi Boeken (Jurgen Warmbrunn), Matthew Fox (Parajumper), Fana Mokoena (Thierry Umutoni), David Morse (Ex-CIA Agent), Elyes Gabel (Andrew Fassbach), and Peter Capaldi (W.H.O. Doctor) Directed by Marc Forster (#384 - Quantum of Solace)

Review
Talking about the book the movie was "adapted" from is pointless, only because it apparently took only the name of the book, with no relation to the book's plot, thus the way the movie adapted the book means nothing in the rating of this film. World War Z has an interesting premise, a war between humans and zombies...at least I thought it was that before watching it. In reality, it's a thriller that sometimes has action, but maybe not enough action. Pitt is at least entertaining, and the cast isn't bad (*insert your Peter Capaldi is the 12th Doctor joke here*), the movie isn't undercut by the cast, it's just not always interesting. It's an okay film, and the zombie attack on the plane is at least interesting to watch, but the zombies to me, while at least quick (slow zombies could be killed really easily), seem to growl really silly, which sometimes undercuts the terror. I'm still wondering why there were no tanks around, but I probably missed that reason for a vehicle that could crush the zombies. The "twist" ending is sort of clever, though admittedly, it could be regarded a plot hole as well. SPOILER ALERT: Sick people are apparently immune to zombies. Why? Zombies don't even have brains, why are they so selective? Regardless, the movie isn't bad, it's just underwhelming, and the ending feels sort of rushed, but I digress. It's an okay movie, but there are probably better zombie movies around. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

May 23, 2013

Movie Night: Quantum of Solace.


Review #384: Quantum of Solace.

Cast
Daniel Craig (James Bond), Olga Kurylenko (Camille Montes), Mathieu Amalric (Dominic Greene), Judi Dench (M), Gemma Arterton (Strawberry Fields), Giancarlo Giannini (René Mathis), Jeffrey Wright (Felix Leiter), Anatole Taubman (Elvis), David Harbour (Gregg Beam), Joaquín Cosío (General Medrano), Fernando Guillén Cuervo (Carlos), Jesper Christensen (Mr. White), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), and Paul Ritter (Guy Haines) Directed by Marc Forster.

Review
I liked Casino Royale (#285), I liked how it could be gritty but have excitement and a fairly decent love story reminiscent of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Daniel Craig was good and I wondered if the sequel would be better. And...it's like this. If Casino Royale was like OHMSS (#279), than Quantum of Solace is like Diamonds Are Forever in the sense both are only terribly okay. The sad thing this tries to continue from the last film, but even when it does try it manages to be disjointed and feeling rushed as well. Craig is alright, but his supporting cast isn't much help. Kurylenko is an okay lead actress, but the main flaw is the two (Craig and Kurylenko) have no chemistry together. I get it, Bond is meant to be scarred from the last film, but does that mean the film gets dull for it? Even the idea of Bond going rouge has been used before with Licence to Kill, and this doesn't have the excitement of it. Even the villain isn't that memorable. Admittedly, Bond villains can either be memorable for being evil enough or for some deformity (Dr. No, Largo) of such. Greene is neither. He doesn't have much threat or even a plan that makes sense. Come to think of it, Quantum is not really any better than SPECTRE because at least SPECTRE didn't have easy to spy on meetings. Quantum of Solace is an odd title that barely has any meaning, and the only things I liked were Giannini and Judi Dench. Sadly, Jeffrey Wright is given not much screen time to do anything to better his performance from the last film. The action is okay, but sometimes I wonder if you could make a drinking game on the many, many cuts in the action scenes. The film seems rushed at times and aside from boasting many locations in filming, it only barely manages to capture any spirit of Casino Royale, and that's sad.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.