Old Favorites (the 5/5s): Donnie Darko by Chris

The time has come. The other kick-ass members of the Crew have given you an “old favorites review.” I will now give you a peek into MY movie brain and tell you why Donnie Darko is my favorite movie of all time! ROCK ME!

Donnie Darko

-Available on DVD (either as the theatrical version or director’s cut)-

IMDB Synopsis:
A troubled teenager is plagued by visions of a large bunny rabbit that manipulates him to commit a series of crimes, after narrowly escaping a bizarre accident.

Chris’s review:
When I hear a movie has the label of “cult film” I am typically weary. That is not to say that I, myself, am not a fan of certain “cult” movies as is evident by me telling you that Donnie Darko is my favorite film. It does make me sad however that this movie has found a following with the Hot Topic crowd only because I think when movies get tagged with the “cult film” label the general consensus is that it is only popular with a certain group for very particular reasons thus diminishing any REAL value of a film. To limit Donnie Darko in that way would be a crime! This masterpiece (believe me, I do NOT use that word lightly) is so deep and rich that it can and SHOULD appeal to a massive audience as varied as the American movie-going public itself!

Ok, enough blowharding…

First off, a brief history lesson. Donnie Darko flew under the radar for quite sometime (mine included, more on that to come). With a botched release, due, in part to the shortsightedness of a studio that originally tried to market the film as “in the vein of Final Destination,” note that is in quotes…they actually said that…good sweet GOD that is a misfire…and also due to the bad luck of having a release date disablingly close to the tragedy of 9/11, most people have STILL never heard of Donnie. I personally owe my little brother PJ a huge high five for turning me on to it about a year and a half after the failed theatrical release. I DO trust PJ’s movie recommendations but I was quite unsure of this one considering the quote above was on the DVD. They seriously tried to push this movie as a teen thriller! Sigh. Anywho, after finally giving in and watching I was blown away.

SO what is so great about it?

Let us do this in sections:

ACTING…
Every performance is spot on. The cast is a melting pot of TV people, up and comers, has beens, and virtual unknowns. Regardless, each actor gives a wonderful performance and maybe even more impressive, they are given room and time to actually show three dimensional characters…even the supporting and supporting supporting players.
It is hard to key in on any one actor because they are ALL so impressive in this film, but let me draw special attention to a couple.
Mary McDonnell, perhaps most recognizable as the suicidal Indian/white love interest from Dances With Wolves, plays Momma Darko. I am hard pressed to recall a more emotionally striking maternal performance than the one given by Mary. The scene in which Donnie’s psychologist is explaining her analysis with the parents is heartbreaking because of her wonderful and subtle crafting of the mother’s response.
Holmes Osborne as Poppa Darko. Briefly I will call attention to the VERY understated and convincing performance of Holmes as Donnie’s dad. Two scenes jump to mind as examples of his excellence: in the hotel room after the “accident” as he remembers a class mate that died his delivery is brilliant as well as the scene only present in the director’s cut with Donnie and Dad on the back porch talking about his troubles at school. Greatness.
Finally, maybe my favorite performance in the film…Beth Grant as Ms. Farmer. BRILLIANT!!! Beth is SO good at playing the hateful, hypocritical, fake BITCH teacher/Christian that we ALL know that you will find yourself hating her and simultaneously laughing out loud because it is so spot on. “Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.”

DIRECTING/CINEMATOGRAPY…
Richard Kelly is a master. Surprisingly enough, this is his first “major” release. He started out as a screenplay adaptor. The feel of the film is both nostalgic (being set in 1988) and eerie. A huge nod should also be sent to Richard for his ability to pull such commanding performance from such a wide variety of actors. I’ll keep this section short because I will gush over Richard more soon enough.

SCORE/MUSIC…
Just quickly, I have to mention the great soundtrack to Donnie Darko. It was done by a guy named Michael Andrews and it is KICK ASS. Be warned though, if you buy the actual soundtrack album it is ONLY the score and the Gary Jules cover of Mad World. They could not afford the rights to release a soundtrack with all of the great 80s music in the movie, but it is still an awesome disc.

WRITING/STORY…
This is where the movie really wins me over. I don’t know where to begin. Richard Kelly said in one of the commentaries that the Donnie Darko script came out of him having 3 isolated ideas that had to be interconnected. I don’t want to give anything away so I can’t tell you what the 3 ideas were, but needless to say they were VERY isolated and to think that he created such a lush story out of them is staggering.
My intense love of this movie comes from the fact that it is successful on so many levels. On the surface it is a sci-fi time travel story. Further it is a coming of age tale (that’s for you Tea). Also it does a great job with exploring the American family. There are great elements about education, suburbia, religion, psychology, and even self help.
What I am getting at is this, Richard Kelly found a way to fit his views and feelings on a wide array of topics in to an interesting and captivating movie plot. That takes a great deal of talent. How many movies do you see that have great action, maybe even cool plot twists and so forth, but have NO substance? Or, what about the opposite? Movies that are trying to say something, they want to make you think, or feel something meaningful but are just boring. Richard found a way to combine the two in a masterful way.

Ok, I have to stop now. I could go on forever about this movie. Just go buy it. I’ll offer you the same offer I gave to my movie buddy Matt: go buy it, sight-unseen, if you watch it and don’t like it I’ll buy it from you for what you paid for it and give it to someone else. I’m that confident.

28:06:42:12

Brick 4/5 reviewed by Ben

I didn’t hear about this movie being in theatres, although I think it was briefly, but it’s recently been released on DVD.

This movie is simultaneously simple and yet very complicated to describe. It’s basically a hard-boiled Crime Noir detective story, that takes place in a modern-day High School, and all the characters are 17-18 year old students. It’s certainly a weird combination of genre and setting that I never would think could work without being really cheesy, but shockingly, it comes across wonderfully, becoming a fun combination of homage and inventiveness. Like most detective yarns, I can’t tell you too much of the plot without giving away everything, but here’s the basic tale: The opening scene is a dead girl, being watched by a curious kid named Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Back up a few days, and we see that this girl, Emily (Emilie deRaven) was involved with him at some point in the past, and is now in trouble, and in need of Brendan’s help. Brendan sets off on a hunt for clues and gets caught up in complicated social circles, plenty of brawls, and a pile of scandals that make you constantly ask: “Who is this kid—thinks he’s Sam Spade?”

The story is gripping, and wonderfully layered. Writer and Director Rian Johnson gives you just enough clues to string you along, but keep you guessing. At the same time, everything fits into the classic mold of an old fashioned crime noir tale. There’s the beautiful, seductive, yet untrustworthy dangerous girl, the quick-thinking, flawed hero who does what he has to (including getting the crap beat out of him) because he believes in something and someone, and the authority figure who keeps pushing the hero, the tough guy, the crime boss, the bizarre yet compelling informants (durggies, whores, and straight-up smart nerds).

Even the dialogue is spoken with that quick, sharp Raymond Chandler/Dashiell Hammett edge—it makes you think we’re back in the 1940’s, and the lone trumpet wailings on the soundtrack reinforce it. This Gordon-Levitt kid convinced me that he was the bastard love child of Humphrey Bogart and Jack Nicholson (as he was in Chinatown). The directing is also superb. The fact that this director is coming out of nowhere like this (the only other movie listed on imdb is a project he did in film school) is shocking, ‘cause this guys knows how to use a camera. Every shot is used specifically and intentionally for maximum impact. Carefully placed angles that create tension, or calm—well-timed jump cuts… Yeah, this guy knows his stuff.

What’s so weird is that the whole time you’re thinking to yourself—wait—aren’t they like, 18? Isn’t this like, a High School in sunny California? Well, yeah, and it’s what makes the film endearing. The weird setting allows the film to really ride the line between dark, disturbing crime story, and light-hearted, "isn’t this cool?" fun. If you replaced all the characters with adults, and changed the setting, this would be a great noir Private-Eye story—but it’d be just another one on top of a pile of others. As it is, it stands apart as a fantastic tribute and love letter to the genre, while simultaneously being inventive and able to hold it’s own.

See This Movie If:
-You like Hard-Boiled Detective Noir stories
-You like any of the following films: Chinatown, LA Confidential, Columbo, The Maltese Falcon, Sin City, etc.
-You like movies with a puzzle, and want to follow a string of clues and want to try and figure out what’s happening before the protagonist does.

Don’t See This Movie If:
-You have a hard time following really complex plots that are never spelled out
-You can’t keep up with fast-talking, slag-filled dialouge that asks the audience to connect the dots
-You’re in the mood for a romantic comedy

Corey's Favorites: 28 Days Later

Just so you guys can get a taste of where I'm coming from, and so I can make sure that all two of you that haven't seen it already make sure and give it a try, I've decided to go ahead and give you an example of one of my 5/5 movies.

There was an indie movie picked up by Fox Searchlight that was shot for about 5 million pounds (9 million dollars) and brought in 45 million dollars through a limited release (fewer than 1,500 screens in America). This film is THE indie dream: both exponentially profitable and critically acclaimed. It was directed by a relatively unknown (at least to the masses) director, Danny Boyle. And he's never made anything like it.

This film is 28 Days Later, and it's on sale right now at Wal-Mart for $7.50.

28 Days Later will become a modern classic in multiple areas: an independent success story, a strangely deep drama that will undoubtedly be (incorrectly) lumped into the horror genre, and a compelling step in the right direction for modern cinematography.

It's a frightening film, but don't be mistaken: it is NOT a zombie flick. This is no Night of the Living Dead, Land of the Dead, Office of the Dead, whatever the heck we're on now. The film comes off much more unsettling than it does scary and you should start noticing it from the very beginning. After the chaotic opening, Jim (Cillian Murphy, who everyone wishes we saw more of in Batman Begins) finds himself in a deserted hospital room, which becomes a deserted hospital, which becomes a deserted London. Let me say something here. Don't miss it.

See this movie if for no other reason than the few minutes after Jim wakes up. He wanders around London, completely empty and devoid of all life. You will probably never see anything like this on film again. It is simply mindblowing to see a city normally so busy become a ghost town. You have to see it. There are stories in the UK showings where audiences left within the first ten minutes absolutely terrified, because they had never seen their streets so lifeless.

Through events that unfold in a very chaotic opening sequence, we learn that a man-made virus known as 'Rage' has been introduced on the public. The virus is highly contagious and can be spread by as little as a drop of blood in the mouth, or an open wound. Within seconds, the "Infected" become unbelievably aggressive and violent.

The acting is great, the story is sprinkled with tones of humanity and melancholy. The revelation in the fortress shouldn't come as a shock, but it does. I will never forget the first time the camera panned up in the church and I saw what was written on the wall.

What's more is that nearly the entire movie was filmed by digital video, a large majority of it using a handheld camera. The grainy look works wonders for the action scenes and enhances the movie in a way that would not be possible with the clarity of a standard lens.

It just has to be seen.

This is not a horror movie. I'm saying it again because I still haven't convinced some of you by now. Too many morons will throw it into that category because it has scary eyes on the front and Rolling Stone called it "the scariest movie since The Exorcist" or something like that. Jim Travers is one of the aforementioned morons. It's strangely tame as far as blood and gore, considering the movies it will be sitting next to at Blockbuster. Still not for the faint of heart, but it's less gory and less "scary" than you're thinking it is. I guarantee it.

The DVD features make a purchase even more enticing. There's an unfilmed ending that is stunningly different than the original, told through voiceovers and storyboards. That's worth the seven bucks alone if you've seen the movie already. If you're into film at all, it's definitely something you should check out.

It's $7.50. Go tell your friends. A stunningly intelligent movie under the disguise of a zombie horror flick, an independent success story and a model for directors to come, 28 Days Later is as 5/5 as they come.

And I just realized I blanked on it in my Top 20. My apologies. It deserves to be in there.

Crank 3/5 reviewed by Corey

Crank (starring Jason Statham and Amy Smart)

3/5

Hey. I'm Corey. I'm new. I like movies. Let's dispense with pleasantries and get to the review.

Let me get one thing straight right off the bat: Jason Statham is awesome. Like almost any actor, he's taken some bad deals. I try to forget about the two Transporters. But hey, with Snatch and Lock Stock under his belt, he's gotta be up to something. He was even pretty good in The Italian Job. Which is an amazing summer blockbuster that you've all seen way more times than you should have. Anyways, I digress.

Crank is an action movie in that neo-noir style that's becoming popular. If you've seen Lucky Number Slevin or Sin City, you'll know what I mean when I say they're familiar. The gritty violence, the bleak comedy, the overly complex back stories that don't really matter. It's all here. The good thing about Crank is that it never intends to be something it's not. It's an action movie dripping with creative flair and style. From the on-screen text to the way the directors use Google Maps to show the general direction the mayhem is taking, everything in Crank is there to do one thing: make a fast, fun popcorn flick.

The story, as simple as it is, is really rather creative: Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) awakes to find that he's been drugged by a vengeful crime lord. It's described as nothing more than "The Chinese Cocktail" and the only way to delay Chelios' inevitable death is to keep his adrenaline pumping at unhealthy levels. As is fitting, the movie begins with a bang. Chelios is up and running about 5 minutes into the movie, and doesn't stop until about 80 minutes later, when the credits roll. The pacing works wonders for a movie like this, one built around fast action and faster editing.

Which brings me to my first and only legitimate gripe. I guess suddenly it's cool to go with the really quick editing style. This stuff is ridiculous. It doesn't ruin the movie the way that it did Bourne Supremacy, (Dear God: please give Ultimatum to Doug Liman. Amen.) but it's definitely noticeable. At least it wasn't directed by Tony Scott. Then I would have been forced into many an epileptic seizure while I STILL couldn't figure out what was going on. It's cut too quick. Some will argue that, for this type of movie, it works. I still think the camera could have been a little more productive.

Jason Statham does a good job at being ridiculous. He's yelling most of the dialogue in the movie, so his acting isn't really even worth questioning, but I couldn't help but root for him. Amy Smart is a girl and she fills the girl quota. She plays a small role, as well she should, and doesn't take any screen time from Statham.

I've got a feeling Crank will flop in the theatres, if it hasn't already, but I'm hoping that a lot of people get word that it's definitely worth a weekend rental. Get some guys together and see it in the theatre for a fun night. Be warned: it's not for the kids and it's not a date movie. The language, violence, drug use and sexuality is all graphic.

If you just woke up...
+ stylish filmmaking
+ cool, dark humor
+ Amy Smart doesn't do much
- hyperactive editing
- forgettable after the credits

SEE this if...
- You've got some guys and need something to do on a Friday night.
- You thought Snatch was sickly humorous.
- You liked Lucky Number Slevin, but thought it was too slow.
- You've got two hours to blow.

DONT SEE this if...
- You're sneaking in. I'm not kidding. It's graphic.
- You hated Man On Fire and Domino.
- You think it looks a lot like The Transporter.