rburson

This movie is a blatant ripoff of a book I read years ago called "Man Plus" by Frederick Pohl, written in 1976. In the book, the science was cyborg related versus gene splicing, and the planet was Mars instead of the Jupiter moon Titan, but the premise is the exact same. The clincher is the end scenes in both stories are virtually identical. The re-engineered human, the "Man Plus", is standing on Titan/Mars as if coming home for the first time. Yet, there was no mention of the book in the credits. As far as I'm concerned Arash Amel ripped off Frederick Pohl's work without giving him due credit.

I got this movie because I wanted to see Shannen Doherty in a different element from 90210 and Charmed to determine if she could really act. The answer is: No. She displayed absolutely no emotional range in the character, hardly any visible change from a constant dead-pan expression, and no deviation from a monotone delivery of dialogue or narration. The one obvious opportunity to display any kind of emotion was when she discovered that she had been conned by a trusted friend, but no, an expression of anger seemed to be too difficult, so instead we get nothing. I mean Zero. There are numerous actors who get bottled into their TV persona, but eventually break free to prove they are talented. I really was hoping Shannen Doherty would be enjoyable to watch. She wasn't. This movie stunk.

The initial tone of this movie is set with soft music over which Jennifer Anniston's soft voice provides the narration about her empty life. This bland approach is reinforced by blank faces that portray mundane lives. The enjoyable aspect of the movie is brought out as mildly quirky dialogue prompts brief facial expressions that reveal the life still hidden within the characters. These occasional glimpses serve to break the intentional monotony and the overall affect is a sign of good directing. Unfortunately, as the story progresses through the middle of the movie, the camera is pulled back and the subtleties become lost, which is a sign of not so good directing. We're left with flat characters who are just moving around on the screen to the extent that even the love scene between the two main characters is smothered and lifeless, when it should really have been a brash reawakening for both of them. What saves the movie in the end is the excellent cast of supporting actors whose quirky portrayals make up for the bland atmosphere which becomes almost inescapable. The problem is that there are simply not enough interesting sparks to contrast with the underlying monotony, so the movie drags into the finish. Overall, "The Good Girl" is a good movie with good actors, good writer, and fairly good director, but that's about it.

I found this movie haunting, to say the least. After looking at so many of the other reviews, I was more than amazed that so many people hated it, but then I realized that they just didn't get it. Everyone seems to think the story is a romance (the love triangle) or a sports flick (the free diving), and that Jacques obsession with the sea is a mere subplot, but that's completely backwards. The romance and the free diving are just the mechanisms that Luc Besson uses to reveal the real story and to resolve the main character's emotional turmoil. The "subplot" lying deep beneath the other stories (what a brilliant analogy by Besson) is summed up in only a few scenes: the opening sequences that reveals Jacques love and fear of the sea; his admittedly bizarre relationship with dolphins as his family; the myth about the mermaids; the release of the female dolphin from captivity; and finally the end, where he fulfills the myth by proving that his love for the deep sea is pure and sincere so that she takes him away forever (to paraphrase the myth). It was this final image that haunted me for days and drove me to write this review. I agree with many people that the movie was quite long and had unrelated scenes, but so what. Besson's directing is great. The first appearance of the young Enzo, the first appearance of the older Jacques, Enzo's car and flamboyance, the tide of water flowing downward from the ceiling, and the very last scene, all these bold images were fantastic. By the time the movie is complete all that weight from above is focused down to that one instant when Jacques releases the lifeline. Luc Besson clearly demonstrated the art in film. It's a great flick, that's really all there is to it.

This film delivers a scattering of sexually disturbing images among the background setting of a schoolgirl's summer musings. The thin and transparent plot consists of three scenes typical of an old half-hour mystery/suspense. What remains is a lengthy set of vignettes replete with images of an oft scantily clad adolescent having bizarre contemplations of her budding sexuality. While some vignettes were mildly interesting, or even cleverly portrayed, the movie is slow, sometimes tediously so. The cinematography is gritty and the sound seemed poor. At the risk of being a spoiler, the girl's final expression is as impassive as the rest of the movie, which reminded me of a sociopath or bad seed. Even if the end is intended to be a revelation or explanation, the previous scenes remain a lengthy exercise of simplistic perspectives.

Another in a long line of flicks made by people who think that knowing how to operate a camera is the same as telling a story. Within 15 minutes, the entire premise is laid out in just a few lines, so there is absolutely no mystery, which eliminates a whole facet of the suspense. The only half-way competent actor is killed 10 minutes into the film, so we're left with stupid characters running around doing stupid things. Low budget films can't afford expensive special effects, so the CGI portions are unsurprisingly unimpressive, but were at least a valid attempt. The creature suit is terrible, as seen when it falls to the sidewalk, and the director keeps emphasizing the eyes, which aren't even the red color shown in mirror shots. The dialogue is clumsy and uninspired, with some lines reminiscent of Aliens or Terminator. The last action sequence takes place in a police station, also a rip-off from Terminator, with everyone hiding in the one glass lined office that the Darkwolf doesn't smash into. In the end, the girl calls the hero "a good Protector", but he gets both his partners, the original Protector, and at least three other civilians, not to mention a dozen cops, all killed without getting a decent shot off, in spite of an arsenal of silver bullets and a submachine gun. But here's the real clincher for bad writing: They could have killed the beast right after the beginning credits when it was holding the stripper while flashing its red eyes. Instead, they took it into custody?!?

This movie is terrible. "Five floors, five girls, five hours." Thankfully, it only lasts 90 minutes, which is about 60 minutes too long. The back-story about the sanatorium is a rip-off of "House on Haunted Hill", which has better actors and a much better story. Even the over-stylized flashing montage of clipped images in pale or burnished tones is a rip-off. On the other hand, there are five scantily clad co-eds running around to spark your interest, but forget that too, because there is only one nude scene that lasts about 10 seconds. About half-way through, the half-baked premise is dripped out using insipid dialogue that insists on telling us things we already know and to reveal a confused rationale for staging the "initiation". The epitome of bad is the dead girl who has a shard of glass in her neck, but look again, the glass shard is in the hand of the other girl that killed her. (By the way, later on, the same dead girl is obviously breathing as Ritchie approaches.) The entire film is indicative of the writer/director's artless comprehension of continuity. There are camera's everywhere, but who's watching? Other ghosts are wandering around, but who are they? The ghost with the gurney is the root of the evil, but who was he? At the risk of being a spoiler, I'll tell you the premise is that the lead doctor reported cures to keep the grant money while sending the dead out the death tunnel, but that's backwards. He should have hid the cure to keep the grant money coming in by showing occasional successes, then the end would have made sense and a stronger storyline could have been developed. Redeeming qualities? The cinematography isn't bad, the lighting's OK, and some of the make-up is good, though there is a propensity for Nickelodeon goo.

If you like French existentialist movies (which in this case is also a perverse "coming of age" movie), this is one of the better ones; if not, don't bother. The first half is slow and cumbersome with the scenes more like vignettes to reveal the Son's naiveté, while the Mother remains inaccessible until the very end. While the second half remains cumbersome through choppy editing, it is more interesting with the introduction of Hansi and Loulou. Most people seem to get hung up over the Libertine attitudes portrayed through deviant sexual activities, but what I took away was the idea that the psyche of willing participants, and particularly the young or immature, can be damaged by any emotionally charged experience, be it sexual or religious. The struggle is to rise above it. The one scene of particular interest revealed the blurred distinctions between dominant and submissive personalities (Hansi & Loulou), with the Sadist revealed as a Masochist by the emotional damage they were inflicting on themselves through the physical damage inflicted on someone they cared about. The Sadist/Masochist roles are easily reversed as seen through Loulou's comment when he throws himself in the pool in the deleted scene.