The Grouchy Editor

Mother, the new thriller from South Korean director Bong Joon-ho, is being favorably compared to Hitchcock.  This comparison, I believe, is what happens when movie critics see too many films aimed at teenagers; they tend to get all excited when something relatively adult appears on the scene — especially if it has subtitles.

Don’t get me wrong.  Mother is a perfectly serviceable mystery.  Bong (The Host) is a skilled craftsman and he gets fine performances out of Kim Hye-ja, as the mother, and Won Bin, as her feeble-minded adult son.  When the boy is accused of murdering a young girl, Mother’s already heightened maternal instincts kick into overdrive, and the movie becomes a whodunit.  Is the murderer her son, the son’s shady “best friend” … or perhaps Mother, herself?

Despite what some critics will have you believe, the answer to this puzzle is not arrived at in groundbreaking fashion.  In most murder mysteries, the rule is to ask yourself:  Who is the least likely killer?  Could that person be guilty?  Unless the screenplay is unusually clever, nine times out of ten you can guess the culprit.

This isn’t Hitchcock quality material, but Mother does contain some nice surprises, a colorful cast, and a fascinating glimpse at one segment of Korean society.            Grade:  B

Director:  Bong Joon-ho  Cast:  Kim Hye-ja, Won Bin  Release:  2010

Watch Trailers (click here)

© 2010-2024 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

“Though The Men Who Stare at Goats is a mostly entertaining, farcical glimpse of men at war, some may find its satire and dark humor less than edgy.”

Those aren’t my words; that’s the consensus of critical opinion posted by the editors at Rotten Tomatoes, a Web site devoted to film reviews.  Here’s my reaction to that consensus:  What the hell???

“Less than edgy”?  Talk about understatement.  Goats is a dreadful piece of work.  What makes it even worse is the fact that everyone involved with this movie seems so darned pleased  with it, as if they were making the new millennium’s version of M*A*S*H.  Fellows, you were not.

George Clooney, Kevin Spacey, Ewan McGregor, and Jeff Bridges (how many more variations of “The Dude” is this actor going to foist on us?) star in this “wacky” sendup, loosely based on a real government program in which the military attempted to use New Age mysticism, paranormal activity, and the kitchen sink to revolutionize modern warfare.   I’m guessing that a lot of this stuff looked hilarious on paper, what with its spoofs of both the military and hippy cultures.  I’m also guessing that directors like the Farrelly brothers might have somehow added some zing to this mess.

But regardless of who’s at fault, “less than edgy” doesn’t begin to describe how bad this film is.     Grade:  D

Director:  Grant Heslov  Cast:  George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, Ewan McGregor, Kevin Spacey  Release:  2009

Watch Trailers and Clips (click here)

© 2010-2024 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Brothers is a movie I admired but did not much like.  I believe that’s a compliment.

The film is relentlessly grim, and it does not end happily.  But why should it?  It’s about the effects of war in the Middle East on both soldiers and the homefront, and there’s nothing cheery about either.

I can’t help but compare Brothers to its more celebrated cinematic sibling, The Hurt Locker.  The latter film, I’m convinced, will actually encourage some young men to enlist in the armed services.  The Hurt Locker depicts an enigmatic, John Wayne-like hero who becomes addicted to the adrenaline-rush of sniffing out bombs.  In a perverse sort of way, the Jeremy Renner character is glamorous.  And the movie is first and foremost a thriller, dependent on one suspenseful situation after another.

There is nothing glamorous or overtly suspenseful about Brothers.  If it has an upside, it’s that love and family can perhaps lessen — but not eradicate — the horrors of war.  That’s not a particularly pleasant lesson, but then I don’t believe Brothers was meant to be pleasant.     Grade:  B+

Director:  Jim Sheridan  Cast:  Tobey Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal, Natalie Portman, Sam Shepard, Mare Winningham, Bailee Madison, Taylor Geare, Patrick Flueger, Clifton Collins  Release:  2009

Watch Trailers and Clips (click here)

© 2010-2024 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

There’s nothing more frustrating than a movie like Sherlock Holmes.

You watch it, and you’re impressed by all the loving care that went into the art direction, the special effects, the costumes, the musical score, the editing, the direction.  Hell, I was even impressed by the end credits.   And then there is Robert Downey, Jr. and his quirky, entertaining Sherlock Holmes.  Downey is a true talent, and if there’s a sequel, as I’m  sure there will be, I’ll look forward to Downey as Holmes again.

But what grates is that, with all of the millions of dollars and energy spent on the factors named above, the film itself  is only average.  It’s a mediocre movie because, once again, every expensive frill trumps what ought to be the most important element:  a good script.  It seems likely that producers instructed the writers that there was CGI for a shipbuilding yard, and spectacular effects for a bridge across London’s Thames, so be sure to build the story around those set pieces.

Stephen King recently wrote an essay about the merits and demerits of the Kindle, Amazon’s electronic reader.  “There’s a troubling lightness to the [Kindle’s] content … a not-thereness,” King wrote.  That’s similar to how I feel about modern special effects.  They look cool, but you know they’re fake, and so you spend time looking for flaws.  Unfortunately, flaws are also easy to spot in the screenplay for Sherlock Holmes.      Grade:  C+

Director:  Guy Ritchie  Cast:  Robert Downey, Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Eddie Marsan, Mark Strong, Kelly Reilly, James Fox  Release:  2009

Watch Trailers and Clips (click here)

© 2010-2024 grouchyeditor.com (text only)