Categotry Archives: Movie Reviews

(ahem. hello cody.)

whoa. 1996. fer fuck’s sake.

so. in ireland the catholic church set up all these ‘asylums’ for naughty girls/women called the magdalene convent/order/asylum/correctional facility/whatever. and basically they were places of slave labor where the women were forced to work, generally as laundresses. the last one closed in 1996. this movie is set in the 60’s/70’s. (i think. it starts in the 60’s but then they’re in there for quite some time soooo i’m not positive when it actually ends.)

19 fucking 96. insane.

this movie is pretty intense. first off, it follows these girls–4 in particular–who are trapped in the asylum. one is raped by her cousin and sent off by her father, another is in an orphanage and flirts with some boys on the other side of a fence, and the other 2 have children out of wedlock.

they’re beaten by the nuns, one of them is forced to give the priest blow-jobs before sermons. when bernadette tries to escape they shave her head and in the process cut up her scalp quite a bit so that her face is covered in blood and there’s this shot of her eyeball with sister bridget (sadistic old bitch) framed in her pupil while this gooey, congealing blood is clinging to her eyelashes. it’s fucked up. at the same time, even though things are horrible i kept expecting there to be MORE horrible things. i was expecting some serious beatings and some more kinky sex acts. but other than the humiliating scene where the girls are all naked and two nuns are playing a game to pick out who has the biggest/smallest breasts/ass and hairiest pubic area, there’s not that much mental anguish performed on them. well, other than the whole being held prisoner and forced to wash clothes.

i also kept expecting some lesbian action to pop up, but sadly was not rewarded in this hope.

this movie is based on the true stories of these girls and it was moving and semi-frightening in its portrayal of that truth. at times it was more shocking and better at plunging the depths of human emotion, but even the sort of dry sections were good. the nuns acting jobs were superb. the 4 main girls wavered every so often. the one i liked least was actually the best actress.

even though i want to say that this movie is super 8 great and that everyone should see it as a lesson to be learned and a moral fibre/art house gem, i have to admit that cinematically it’s really not that compelling. it lacks a certain sparking essence which would make it great. it’s a little too….both timid in approach and lackluster in true emotion. basically i think it was not directed as forcefully as it could have been and this let down the end product.

have you seen crumb? i saw crumb. i didn’t like crumb. i should have known better than to go see american splendor. admittedly, it was less disgusting than crumb, but it was still kind of boring.

yes. boring. i was bored by american splendor. there’s nothing really bad about it. nor is it a terrible movie. it’s just very slow. and boring.

there’s a lot of comic strip simulated visuals where the camera pans and there’s cuts and various frames. that’s all cool. there’s been a definite rise in that in films lately what with all the comic-made-movies. but i don’t feel it’s gotten old quite yet.

in particular there was this scene where harvey pekar (the actor one not the real one) is giving this soliloquy about phone books and the other harvey pekars who come and go in it while he questions his own individuality/self which i thought was both well written and visually impressive.

i also like how much of an integral role the real harvey pekar played in this movie. he did some voiceover narrator work but then they also did kind of interview scenes and behind the scenes work. there was this one funny part where real harvey and the real toby (his co-worker/friend) are discussing jelly bellies and toby (who is a little giovanni) eats a chocolate one. and the actors playing harvey and toby in the background sitting in set chairs are kind of giggling. well paul giametti (who plays harvey) is chortling. guy playing toby was busy taking off his sweater vest i think.

i’m curious if people who are really into american splendor the comics enjoyed this movie. since i’ve never read one i have no basis for judgment. i think they would like it, but am not sure and cannot make the broad generalization. ah well, onwards and upwards.

i went for the jackie chan. i stayed for the jackie chan.

it is AMAZING how much wire work they do in this movie. you think to yourself, “oh, jackie chan, he does all his own stunts. and he is so cool!” but then it’s all so obviously wires and sped up and i’m like, “shitttttt man.” and feeling a little cheated.

plus….the MEDALLION? and claire forlani? what nationality is she anyway? (apparently she’s british by birth.) her accent is always just a little bit different. although i still love her cat eyeballs. the goofy british guy though was dumb. john rhys-davies’ part was sooooo tiny. and the bad guy was a pitiful toned down version of jeremy irons. the british guy’s asian wife was good though. since she was sporting a secret just like him with his pretending to be a librarian instead of telling her he’s an interpol agent.

somewhere sammo hung was involved in this movie. sammo hung. well. well well well. sometimes he is good. and sometimes he makes cheese. ah-ha. i just looked it up and he was the action choreographer. which makes a lot of sense as to why this was so wire-fu based and cheesy.

on the plus side, nicolas tse and edison chen had tiny cameos as waiters. and they weren’t listed as being in it, prob due to their very small roles, but this is me and upon sight of tse i immediately go gooey. i had to restrain myself from screaming at the surprise. i managed only to tell my mom that the waiter handing jackie chan his bill was nicolas tse and a pop star to which she replied, ‘he’s cute’ to which i said, ‘that is why i know his name.’ and i say to you, also why i own several of his movies. oh man. goo. they have been in a couple of other movies jackie chan produced in china though which is why i’m assuming he’s giving them a tiny chance at breaking into the american movie business where they could make a shitload more movies/money. see, jackie chan is cool AND nice.

this movie though was silly. my mom read some review about how the fight scenes were like “poetry.” i don’t know who could say that with a straight face. some of the fights were good. but the special effects and the music they used and sound effects made them a little too cheesy for me. damn you, sammo hung. but still, it wasn’t BAD by any stretch of the imagination. the kid who plays the chosen one who can use the medallion was good. and jackie chan and claire forlani were good although how anyone could be expected to accept them as a couple. i just don’t know. although the jackie chan naked scene certainly helped me along in reconciling it. anyway, i did enjoy it.

and finally: a picture of nicholas tse (so you can see what i’m drooling over.)

le divorce: a side of paris i’ve never seen. pretty streets and pretty houses and all nice people. mostly. if only kate hudson hadn’t had SUCH a terrible hairdo the vast majority of the movie this would have been much better. but it was well-acted though at times a semi-boring plot. maybe the book is better but i am skeptical. stockard channing was good. most of the males were bad.

american wedding: ugh. disgusting. alison hannigan and jason biggs aside this movie was terrible. not even directed by the original guys and with stifler being more of an ass than ever before this movie was a travesty.

s.w.a.t.: who’s cute here? oh i think it’s colin farrell. explosions! guns! manly bravado! it’s all good fun till someone gets run over by a train.

uptown girls: brittney murphy is hot. and this movie is actually quite touching with the whole father/daughter bonding stuff and the sweetness between murphy and the little girl played by dakota fanning. it’s not great, but it is cute.