Scream 3 (2000) Review

Time: 117 Minutes
Age Rating: Horror scenes
Cast:
David Arquette as Dewey Riley
Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott
Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers
Patrick Dempsey as Mark Kincaid
Scott Foley as Roman Bridger
Lance Henriksen as John Milton
Matt Keeslar as Tom Prinze
Jenny McCarthy as Sarah Darling
Emily Mortimer as Angelina Tyler
Parker Posey as Jennifer Jolie
Deon Richmond as Tyson Fox
Kelly Rutherford as Christine
Liev Schreiber as Cotton Weary
Patrick Warburton as Steven Stone
Director: Wes Craven

As bodies begin dropping around the set of STAB 3, a movie sequel based on the gruesome Woodsboro killings, Sidney and other survivors are once again drawn into a game of horror movie mayhem.

Scream 3 is widely regarded as the worst instalment in the franchise, however in terms of worst entries in horror franchises, Scream 3 is better than most. There are definitely some issues, but I had a lot of fun with it.

For a first in the series, Ethan Kreuger is writing the script instead of Kevin Williamson, and you really do feel his absence. The meta commentary is a little mixed, it’s not as smart as the last couple of movies. It takes on certain things like the abusive system and politics of Hollywood. The Stab movies were introduced in Scream 2 but I think Scream 3 utilizes them a lot better in the plot given that it’s set in Hollywood. However, sometimes the commentary is a bit too on the nose and silly at points. There is also a certain subplot that has either aged well or aged poorly in the movie, considering that Scream 3 is a Harvey Weinstein movie. At the very least, it makes the plotline a little more awkward and uncomfortable now. The plot is still entertaining and has good humour, even if they lean into that a little too much at times. The main trio with Sidney, Gale and Dewey as usual were the highlights and I liked how it continued their stories. However the movie does lack the wittiness and cleverness of the movies that came before, and is a very generic affair. It falls into the tropes that it tries to parody, which is never a good sign. There are some questionable story decisions too, particularly with some reveals at the end of the film. However the biggest criticism I have is for a particular aspect that bugged me for the whole film. I can buy that each Ghostface wears the same costume, mask and voice changer that gives them the voice of Roger L. Jackson. However, this Ghostface also has another magical voice changer that makes them sound like literally any character that they want, and I really didn’t like that. With all that being said, I really like how Scream 3 ended the movie with its last scene.

There are some solid performances and enjoyable characters. The main trio in Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette deliver as always, Gale and Dewey are front and center, but I also think this movie really rounds out Sidney as a character too. As for the newcomers, they weren’t really the best, just sort of okay. However, Parker Posey was one of the highlights of the whole movie, playing an actor who was cast as a fictional version of Gale in the newest installment of the Stab franchise.

Wes Craven directs this well, though in terms of direction and technical elements, Scream 3 is probably the worst in the franchise. There are some good set pieces, even if they aren’t on the level of the first two movies. But really, there weren’t many standout scenes, and none of them really bordered on being scary or suspenseful. The music is reliable as ever, with Marco Beltrami again doing well with the score. 

So unsurprisingly, Scream 3 is the worst of the franchise but is still pretty decent. While the meta commentary was very hit or miss and some of the story decisions didn’t work out, the cast and some of the set pieces were solid, and I still enjoyed watching it. Plus it ended on a note that would’ve been a fitting conclusion for the franchise if they didn’t continue it nearly a decade later. At the very least, there’s some enough good stuff here to make it worth watching.

Advertisement

Ju-on: The Curse 2 (2000) Review

Time: 76 Minutes
Cast:
Yūko Daike as Kyoko Suzuki
Makoto Ashikawa as Tatsuya Suzuki
Kahori Fujii as Yoshimi Kitada
Yūrei Yanagi as Shunsuke Kobayashi
Ryota Koyama as Toshio Saeki
Takako Fuji as Kayako Saeki
Takashi Matsuyama as Takeo Saeki
Director: Takashi Shimizu

After losing both her boyfriend and her unborn child in a car crash, Kyoko is horrified to learn that something is still growing inside her.

Ju-on: The Curse was an interesting movie, it was very flawed especially on a technical level, but it ended up being a very effective horror film. So with the follow up Ju-on: The Curse 2, I just expected more of the same and in some ways that is what it was, mostly for the worst.

Something that needs to be noted going into the film is that the first 30 minutes of this movie is the last 30 minutes of the previous film. It wouldn’t be so bad except that the runtime is 76 minutes long, meaning that this movie has 46 minutes of actual new footage. Unless you forgot the ending of the first movie, you’d be well advised to just fast forward through this section, which is easy enough. That being said, there’s still issues with it. The new story we get here is pretty much just more of the same, almost like they used up all their best ideas in the first movie, and what we see here is just leftovers. Given the short runtime it doesn’t really get to jump around to different characters like in the first movie and instead mostly follows a realtor who can’t sell the murder house (which was the subject of the last movie). It’s not as interesting and the story being so similar to what came before played a big part in that. The 46 minutes certainly doesn’t help, its needed a longer runtime to develop things better. There’s not much of substance here and its fairly forgettable. The eeriness just isn’t as strong and the carefully built atmosphere isn’t as effective. That being said, there are some memorable sequences, mainly near the end.

The direction from Takashi Shimizu is about at the same level as the first movie; lower budget and fairly standard, but sometimes that can add to the atmosphere. However, it doesn’t seem to have the same level of doom and dread that its predecessor had generated. Then again, part of that had to be with the first movie’s slow build up over the course of the runtime, where it quietly sneaks up on you. As I said before though, The Curse 2 is less than an hour long.

Even if you discounted the first 30 minutes, Ju-on: The Curse 2 has a lot of similarities to the first movie except its shorter, and not as good. If it’s possible to check out an edit with the two movies spliced together into a longer movie, that would be the best option, even if the stuff in 2 isn’t as good as in 1. Otherwise, if you enjoyed The Curse 1 then I think 2 is worth checking out (provided you skip the reused footage). I am glad I watched it at the very least.

Ju-On: The Curse (2000) Review

Time: 70 Minutes
Cast:
Yūrei Yanagi as Shunsuke Kobayashi
Chiaki Kuriyama as Mizuho Tamura
Hitomi Miwa as Yuki
Takako Fuji as Kayako Saeki
Takashi Matsuyama as Takeo Saeki
Director: Takashi Shimizu

In a jealous rage, a man kills his wife and son in their home, and everyone who visits falls prey to a terrible curse.

I had seen the American remake of The Grudge many years ago, so I was interested in watching the original Japanese film. However, I found that Ju-on: The Grudge is actually the third film in its series. So I started with the first two Ju-on movies first, they are direct to video and I ended up watching them on YouTube. Those films clearly have their issues, but they had enough to them that it was worthwhile checking them out.

Ju-on: The Curse is not exactly a conventional horror movie. The story is split into six separate stories, each of them building upon the previous parts. Not only that, but the film jumps all over the place in time, with each segment being out of order in a way that doesn’t make immediate sense. That being said, I don’t think it would be more compelling if it was just placed in timeline order. I do like the idea of the story, with it centering around a curse that comes into existence and ties itself to a specific location which affects multiple people. That being said, it didn’t exactly start out the best. It wasn’t interesting early on, and for two thirds of its runtime it doesn’t quite work. The characters are hard to care about, there’s not much of a drive to each of these sequences, and it just felt underwhelming to watch. Ju-on was very much going for minimalist horror instead of shoving jumpscares in the audiences’ faces, and I respect that. However, the scares felt cheap and didn’t really work. At a certain point however, it really picks up. As it approaches the last third, it builds on itself and the atmosphere escalates and becomes claustrophobic. At this point, the minimalist horror actually becomes effective here. The movie is very short at 70 minutes, and while on one hand it seems like a decent length for this kind of story, it does feel abrupt with the note it decides to end on.

Takashi Shimizu is the director, and his work here is a bit of a mixed bag. This has mostly to do with the technical elements and the low budget; the cinematography is crude, the production level is poor, and the soundtrack is generic. It doesn’t help that I had to watch these first two Ju-on movies on YouTube, but if anything, this made the home video feel and aesthetic even stronger, and it felt more eerie and cursed. As a consequence of the lower budget, the visuals seem real with only a small amount of CGI. The scares don’t always work, but are simple yet effective with not much jumpscares or gore, and are stronger because of the budget limitations. Not all of the technical elements work, but it is commendable nonetheless. For a low budget straight to video release, it is actually decent.

Ju-on: The Curse has its issues for sure. The budget and direction limitations are definitely felt, much of the movie can be uninteresting, and a lot of the scares aren’t that effective. Yet there are some good aspects which do work. The low budget and limitations help to convey an eerie atmosphere, and the messy nature made it feel unsettling. I can understand people not liking it or even skipping it to go straight to The Grudge, but I am glad I checked it out at least.

The 6th Day (2000) Review

Time: 123 Minutes
Age Rating: contains violence & offensive language
Cast:
Arnold Schwarzenegger as Adam Gibson
Tony Goldwyn as Michael Drucker
Michael Rapaport as Hank Morgan
Michael Rooker as Robert Marshall
Sarah Wynter as Talia Elsworth
Robert Duvall as Dr. Griffin Weir
Director: Roger Spottiswoode

In the distant future, human cloning technology falls into the destructive, corrupt hands of a multinational corporation. But one man refuses to be a pawn in this deadly conspiracy.

I have been meaning to check out The 6^th Day for some time, I knew it as another Arnold Schwarzenegger action sci-fi movie. However from what I heard going into it, its not exactly one of his most beloved movies. It definitely has a lot of problems, but I liked it overall.

The story of The 6^th Day definitely has some holes and issues; it starts off intriguing but becomes less interesting as it progresses. I liked the slightly futuristic setting with the technological advancements, some of those predictions are even accurate to today. It also raises some interesting ethical questions, especially about cloning. However, the movie is not clever enough to do anything interesting with those ideas, like its in completely the wrong movie. As a result, it is all over the place tonally, it has dark and disturbing implications with the future but has plenty of silly moments. However there is a charm to the movie, ,and I think The 6^th Day does work better as a silly Schwarzenegger film with sci-fi elements than a serious sci-fi movie about cloning. The movie definitely succeeds when it has fun with its premise, and it definitely has those moments. While the overall plot isn’t memorable, there are some individual sequences which are. It is also a funny movie and has some great one liners.

Arnold Schwarzenegger leads The 6^th Day, and this is definitely not one of his best movies or performances. However, he’s as enjoyable and charismatic as ever, handling the action and the one liners with ease. Robert Duvall has also done much better in other movies, but he’s decent in his screentime here. The villains aren’t anything special but work well enough for this plot, from Tony Goldwyn as the main antagonist, to Michael Rooker as one of his henchmen.

Roger Spottiswoode directs The 6^th Day, and his work here is fine. Some of the CGI is very early 2000s and is dated, but it can be enjoyably silly. There are some entertaining sequences, and I liked the futuristic setting shown in the movie, especially with the technology and weapons. The action isn’t fantastic but between the laser shootouts and car chases, its fun and well shot.

The 6^th Day is not a good movie, despite an intriguing premise and ideas, it really doesn’t utilise them to their fullest. Out of Arnold’s action movies, its not one of his best. That being said, I still had fun with it. The cast are decent, and the action was at least entertaining. It’s definitely no Total Recall, but if you’re a fan of Schwarzenegger, then The 6^th Day has enough to make it worth checking out.

Joint Security Area (2000) Review

Time: 110 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence
Cast:
Lee Young-ae as Maj. Sophie E. Jean
Lee Byung-hun as Sgt. Lee Soo-hyuk
Song Kang-ho as Sgt. Oh Kyung-pil
Kim Tae-woo as Pvt. Nam Sung-sik 
Shin Ha-kyun as Pvt. Jung Woo-jin
Director: Park Chan-wook

Two North Korean soldiers are killed in the border area between North and South Korea, prompting an investigation by a neutral body. Sgt. Lee Soo-hyeok (Lee Byung-hun) is the shooter, but lead investigator Maj. Sophie E. Jean (Lee Young-ae), a Swiss-Korean woman, receives differing accounts from the two sides. Lee claims he fired in self-defense after getting wounded, while a North Korean survivor (Song Kang-ho) says it was a premeditated attack — leaving Jean with her work cut out for her.

Joint Security Area was one of the last Park Chan-wook films that I needed to get around to watching. All I knew about it was the director (and it’s one of his earlier movies), and that Song Kang-ho was in it. I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from it, but it was better than I thought it would be, genuinely great.

Joint Security Area is one of Park Chan-wook’s least extravagant movies in terms of plot, but this might actually be one of his best scripts and overall narratives. At first the movie starts as a murder mystery where the goal is to find the explanation for a killing where the perpetuator is known but the motive is missing. The setup starts off being pretty familiar outside of the setting and circumstances, but after the first 20 minutes it stops seeming procedural and the focus starts to shift to some flashbacks to the events leading up to the incident. I won’t go into too much depth about what it gets into because I went in not knowing what to expect and was surprised when I found out what the movie is really about. The movie takes place in the Joint Security Area in the Korean DMZ which separates North and South Korea. The representation of both North and South is actually even handed, especially with the characterisation. It isn’t the deepest or politically charged film but it is quite thought provoking. It gets at the heart of the pointlessness of war, and particularly reflects on the generational battle between the North and South. Like most of Park’s movies it is filled with humour, even the darkest of his films. However instead of dark comedy, this time its more innocent and pure. The story is surprisingly emotional and hits hard particularly at the end, but it’s also a very moving and hopeful movie. The move is slower paced but that didn’t take away too much from it, especially once it went into the flashbacks. The movie does have its issues. Some of the investigation scenes could have been a bit more interesting or stylised in some way. The flashbacks leading up to the event were definitely holding my interest more and when it cut back to the present-day scenes, while I didn’t dislike them, I wanted to go back to the other storyline.

The acting is also great, you feel the level of emotion in this movie because you care about the characters and the relationships between them are believable. The main cast are rather well known South Korean actors in Song Kang-ho, Lee Byung-hun, Lee Yeong-ae and Shin Ha-kyun. All of them play their parts really well but for me the two standout performers were Song Kang-ho and Lee Byung-hun as they portray North and South Korean soldiers respectively. Song was particularly fantastic in his very nuanced performance, and he elevates any scene that he’s in. In terms of flaws, Lee Yeong-ae is good in her part, though it does feel like her character doesn’t get much to do in this movie despite playing the role of the lead investigator looking into the central incident of the movie. It’s likely because like much of that plotline, she’s overshadowed by the flashback sequences.

This is one of Park Chan-wook’s first movies, and he already showed himself to be a great director with this one film alone, even before the revenge films that really made him known. The direction is snappy throughout, he manages to get a lot from a fairly straightforward story here. Everything on the technical level is great, the cinematography is great and its well shot, and the production design and costumes are top notch.

Joint Security Area is another great film from Park Chan-wook. Along with the excellent direction and the superb acting from everyone, the story was surprisingly emotional and easy to get invested in, as was the characters it follows. Definitely check it out, especially if you like any of Park’s other movies.

Barking Dogs Never Bite (2000) Review

Time: 106 Minutes
Cast:
Lee Sung-jae as Ko Yun-ju
Bae Doona as Park Hyun-nam
Kim Ho-jung as Eun-sil
Byun Hee-bong as apartment maintenance man
Director: Bong Joon-ho

Frustrated with loud barking, an academic (Sung-jae Lee) wages war against dogs in his apartment building.

Barking Dogs Never Bite was one of the movies from writer/director Bong Joon-ho I had left to catch up on. Out of those few movies however, this one didn’t look that interesting to me. One was a monster movie (The Host), another was about a hunt of a real life serial killer (Memories of Murder), another was a murder mystery (Mother), but this one seemed to be something involving dogs, I just didn’t really know what it was supposed to be. I wasn’t really expecting much, and having seen it I can confirm that Barking Dogs Don’t Bite is by far Bong’s weakest movie, not necessarily bad, just okay.

To put things bluntly, if you don’t like seeing bad things happening to dogs in movies, don’t bother watching Barking Dogs Never Bite. Now the violence towards them is quite clearly fictionalised but nonetheless if that sort of thing bothers you in movies, it’s not going to work for you, and you’re not going to last long with this one. The writing is a bit of a mixed bag. There are aspects that are good, and it was good enough to have me willing to watch from beginning to end. It just didn’t interest me all that much, and it’s quite a while before you figure out what this movie is really all about. I also wasn’t invested with any of the characters, least of all the protagonists. The fact that they’re not particularly likable wasn’t necessarily a problem, but they just weren’t very interesting people to follow. Even some of the supporting characters outshone them, though they weren’t great either. With that said, Barking Dogs Never Bite does have its moments, you can see glimpses of elements that would later appear in later Bong movies, mainly with the themes, the dark humour and the dialogue.

As I said previously, the characters aren’t all that interesting, especially the leads played by Lee Sung-jae and Bae Doona, however both actors do what they can in their roles and give good enough performances. The supporting cast with the likes of Kim Ho-jung, Byun Hee-bong and others also do fine enough on their parts.

The biggest strength of the movie is of Bong Joon-ho’s direction. Even for a debut film, his work is pretty strong here. Now it’s not on the level of all of his other movies, and it’s a little rough around the edges, especially when it comes to the editing. However, on the whole it’s quite well made, with some unique creative choices that really stood out. Barking Dogs Never Bite is very clearly an independent and smaller movie, and while you definitely feel the lower budget, some of the filmmaking techniques still managed to shine through at points, and there are a few sequences that are quite good.

Barking Dogs Never Bite is one of those debut films from critically acclaimed directors that you might check out if you’re a big fan of their movies. Outside of people interested in Bong Joon ho’s movies though, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it to other people. The cast are decent, and it’s directed quite well (with that being the one aspect that was carrying this movie), but I just couldn’t get into the story or characters, and it was mostly a drag to watch. Overall, not a bad movie, but just okay enough.

Snatch (2000) Review

Time: 104 Minutes
Age Rating: contains violence & offensive language
Cast:
Jason Statham as Turkish
Stephen Graham as Tommy
Brad Pitt as Mickey O’Neil
Alan Ford as Brick Top
Robbie Gee as Vinny
Lennie James as Sol
Ade as Tyrone
Dennis Farina as Cousin Avi
Rade Šerbedžija as Boris the Blade
Vinnie Jones as Bullet Tooth Tony
Adam Fogerty as Gorgeous George
Mike Reid as Doug The Head
Benicio del Toro as Franky Four-Fingers
Director: Guy Ritchie

Illegal boxing promoter Turkish (Jason Statham) convinces gangster Brick Top (Alan Ford) to offer bets on bare-knuckle boxer Mickey (Brad Pitt) at his bookie business. When Mickey does not throw his first fight as agreed, an infuriated Brick Top demands another match. Meanwhile, gangster Frankie Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro) comes to place a bet for a friend with Brick Top’s bookies, as multiple criminals converge on a stolen diamond that Frankie has come to London to sell.

Guy Ritchie is a director that I’ve noticed some people are a little mixed on, however most people can agree that his gangster movies are great (or at least his best work). His first movie Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels definitely established him as a director to pay attention to. However, Snatch showcased the best of Guy Ritchie’s talents more than any of his other films. His writing and direction are just on point here to deliver on creating a great movie, made even better by the performances.

Guy Ritchie’s writing has never been better than with here. Snatch has a ton of characters with multiple intersecting storylines, and while I remember not being able to follow everything when I first saw it, on a second viewing I can say that they are all weaved together really well and the whole thing doesn’t feel messy or convoluted at all. The comedy here is really great, it’s a hilarious movie, and on the second viewing there was a ton of things I picked up that time. Snatch has some really witty and clever dialogue, so much of it is quotable as well. At an hour and 45 minutes long, it’s really entertaining throughout.

With the large amount of characters, there is a long cast list, but there’s some standouts. If there’s a lead character in this movie, it would be Jason Statham, giving one of his best performances. Statham is known for his action roles but he really excels here in a different role. Brad Pitt steals every scene he’s in as an Irish boxer. You’re definitely going to need to watch this movie with subtitles, because he does this very hard to tell accent (according to people who use this accent though, Pitt nailed it). The other memorable characters include Alan Ford as a ruthless gangster, Rade Šerbedžija as a Russian arms dealer, Vinnie Jones as a bounty hunter, Benicio Del Toro as a professional thief and gambling addict and Dennis Farina as a gangster-jewler. Really everyone does a great job in their roles.

Guy Ritchie’s direction was really good for Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, but he perfected it with Snatch. The whole movie is very stylised, however it’s done in a way that genuinely works and it’s edited perfectly. There are plenty of quirky crime comedies that try so hard to be stylish and fail, chances are they tried to replicate what Ritchie did with Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

Snatch is definitely Guy Ritchie’s best movie. The style and direction that he brought to this film, as well as his exceptional writing just made the whole movie entertaining and hilarious from start to finish. On top of that, the talented cast play their unique and memorable characters perfectly. If you love entertaining, hilarious and stylised crime movies with dark comedy, Snatch is definitely a must see for you.

Maelström (2000) Review

Time: 108 Minutes
Cast:
Marie-Josée Croze as Bibiane Champagne
Director:

Bibiane (Marie-Josée Croze), a wealthy part-time model, questions her seemingly perfect life after she has a traumatic abortion. She succumbs to substance abuse and, while driving drunk one night, strikes a pedestrian and drives off. The next morning, she learns of a man who died after a hit-and-run. Wracked with guilt, she attends the man’s funeral. There, she meets his son, Evian (Jean-Nicolas Verreault), and the pair begin a romance. But Bibiane is afraid to tell Evian her dark secret.

As I was working through Denis Villeneuve’s filmography, the ones I knew the least about was his first two movies, August 32nd on Earth and Maelström. I knew next to nothing going into Maelström, outside of that it was some kind of drama. I don’t love it like Villeneuve’s films Polytechnique and onwards and it’s got some issues for sure, but I think it’s got enough good elements to it that make it worth a watch.

There is a lot going for Maelström, with it being more of a character study of the lead character Bibiane (Marie-Josée Croze), a troubled woman who is dealing with a lot of issues in her life. Much of the movie was tackling the themes of guilt, grief and regret and most of it worked really well. While there are definitely some interesting elements to it, much of the intrigue was sort of deflated by some of its shortcomings.

Whereas his previous film August 32nd on Earth feels like a standard movie for a directorial debut, Maelstrom is Denis Villeneuve getting experimental, some of it really works, other parts not so much. The movie is very slow moving, and while the lead character works well (and the performance carries everything really well), it doesn’t necessarily keep your attention all the way through. An aspect that distracted from the movie was (and it’s not really a spoiler) narration by a talking fish. It’s definitely the most disturbing part of the movie, given that it’s telling a story while being chopped up by a butcher. I know that fishes do play a symbolic part in the movie but the whole narration part doesn’t really add much to anything to the movie outside of that, and didn’t really fit in with the rest of the film. It really just takes you out of the movie more than anything, and doesn’t belong in the movie at all. The ending isn’t quite satisfying either, I guess it sort of concludes the story in a fitting way but by the end I sort of felt indifferent to it.

There isn’t a whole lot to say about the acting, with the cast being limited. Marie-Josée Croze however is the lead and with the movie being a character study, much of it was riding on her, and thankfully she delivered very well and performing as this complicated character. The supporting actors of the cast like Jean-Nicolas Verreault and Stephanie Morgenstern played their parts well enough.

Denis Villeneuve’s direction is one of the highlights of Maelström. It’s not quite as polished as Villeneuve’s later work with Polytechnique and onwards and he’s still crafting his own distinct style but it’s nonetheless one of the best parts of the movie. It’s very much an independent movie but the technical aspects like the cinematography and everything just fitted the movie quite well, and while it’s still early stages for Villeneuve, you can still detect aspects of his style here that eventually would make its way into his future movies.

Maelström despite being a little rough and having it’s issues for sure is still a solid and somewhat intriguing movie. If you are a fan of Villeneuve, I definitely recommend you checking this out (as well as the rest of his filmography). It has some interesting aspects to it that make it worth a watch even though not all of it works.

Memento (2000) Review

Time: 113 Minutes
Age Rating:
Cast:
Guy Pearce as Leonard Shelby
Carrie-Anne Moss as Natalie
Joe Pantoliano as John Edward “Teddy” Gammell
Director: Christopher Nolan

Leonard (Guy Pearce) is tracking down the man who raped and murdered his wife. The difficulty, however, of locating his wife’s killer is compounded by the fact that he suffers from a rare, untreatable form of memory loss. Although he can recall details of life before his accident, Leonard cannot remember what happened fifteen minutes ago, where he’s going, or why.

Memento is the movie that launched Christopher Nolan into the spotlight as a talent to pay attention to, even 5 years before his Batman reboot with Batman Begins. I already really liked it when I first saw it some years ago, it’s a psychological mystery thriller so effectively made on pretty much every level, truly something incredible to watch. On a more recent viewing though, I loved it even more. 20 years later, Memento remains an extraordinary piece of filmmaking.

Much of Memento is very difficult to talk about, if I talked in too much depth about the plot it would be so easy to spoil, and for this movie particularly I want to keep spoilers to a minimum. I can talk about some things though, first of all with the structure. This movie is told over two timelines, one taking place at the end of the story working backwards and the other at the beginning moving forwards. On a first viewing, it’s very likely that this’ll be a confusing watch for some, for me though I was very intrigued throughout, even if I wasn’t entirely sure what was happening until it all came together at the end. It’s actually incredible that they made this structure actually work for the story, and not make it feel like a gimmick, it really fits in with the lead character’s condition. I also get the feeling that it doesn’t hold up as well when watching the movie with the scenes in chronological order, and this storytelling method actually works excellently. When you watch the movie on a second viewing however, it’s a whole difference experience as you know generally what it’s leading to. It’s been a while since I first saw it, but I had a vague idea about the story, and that made me see every scene completely differently. I can imagine that my opinion of this film will only improve the more I rewatch it.

Guy Pearce gives probably one of his best performances of his career in the lead role of Leonard, who has this memory condition. It’s a very complex and layered character that Pearce plays excellently. Carrie Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano are the main supporting actors and they do well, playing prominent characters in the plot that you’re not sure whether you or Leonardo should trust or not.

Memento is Christopher Nolan’s second film, and the difference on a technical level between this film and his directorial debut with Following is vast. Even from this one movie you can clearly tell that he’s a master at his craft. It’s not one of the expansive blockbusters that he’s been making since the late 2000s, but that’s not the type of story Memento is going for, and his work here is outstanding. It’s very well shot by Wall Pfister, the black and white for the older storyline worked effectively too, especially for distinguishing itself from the other storyline.

Memento is a fantastic neo-noir mystery thriller, well acted, and excellently written and directed by Christopher Nolan. It only improves from repeat viewings, and still holds up as an incredibly impressive film. If you haven’t seen it, it’s a film to see as soon as possible without knowing too much going in, and if you’ve only seen it once, definitely see it again at some point. As it is, it might be one of Nolan’s best movies, and that’s saying a lot considering how great most of his films are.

American Psycho (2000) Review

Time: 101 Minutes
Age Rating: contains violence, offensive language & sex scenes
Cast:
Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman
Willem Dafoe as Detective Donald Kimball
Jared Leto as Paul Allen
Josh Lucas as Craig McDermott
Samantha Mathis as Courtney Rawlinson
Matt Ross as Luis Carruthers
Bill Sage as David Van Patten
Chloë Sevigny as Jean
Cara Seymour as Christie
Justin Theroux as Timothy Bryce
Guinevere Turner as Elizabeth
Reese Witherspoon as Evelyn Williams
Director: Mary Harron

In New York City in 1987, a handsome, young urban professional, Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale), lives a second life as a gruesome serial killer by night. The cast is filled by the detective (Willem Dafoe), the fiancé (Reese Witherspoon), the mistress (Samantha Mathis), the coworker (Jared Leto), and the secretary (Chloë Sevigny). This is a biting, wry comedy examining the elements that make a man a monster.

With it being just after its 20th anniversary, I thought it was worth watching American Psycho again. I liked it when I saw it, it’s a great movie. I’d probably now consider it to be one of my favourite films of all time. While it was a little polarising upon its release, it became quite a cult classic over time, and is now widely held in high regard. Dark, satirical, over the top and hilarious, it has become one of my favourite movies.

Now on the surface, it seems like a disturbing horror thriller about a serial killer. You really can’t watch this movie as a straight up thriller however, because it’s not that at all. This film is a dark comedy and has some over the top ridiculous moments, so you can’t take this movie too seriously. It’s very much a satire, especially of 80s Wall Street Yuppie Culture. With viewings after the first one however, it works much better as you pick up even more details that the movie has that you didn’t realise on the first viewing. The ending is a little ambiguous and is easily debatable. I know of a couple of different interpretations of the movie, and without going into it, both versions give the movie layers, making it more than just a darkly funny movie about a narcissistic serial killer. The use of voiceover is pretty much pitch perfect, showing Patrick Bateman’s innermost thoughts, often to hilarious effect. The writing is very strong, and has incredibly quotable dialogue. From what I heard, the book written by Bret Easton Ellis was way more violent and controversial than what the movie showed, and based on some things I heard about it, writer/director Mary Harron and co-writer Guinevere Turner managed to get the right material from it and make the best movie possible. At an hour and 40 minutes long, I was entertained from beginning to end.

Christian Bale gives possibly his best performance to date as lead character Patrick Bateman. He brought this character to the big screen excellently, and completely embodied him. He was absolutely hilarious and absolutely magnetic on screen. The movie is very reliant on him being great, as he’s at the front of the movie from beginning to end, from the deliveries of lines, the comedic timing, and he definitely brought it. Taking on this role was such a big risk for Bale at this point in his career, in fact he was advised that playing it would be career suicide. However, the risk paid off, and it launched his career even further. It’s basically impossible picturing anyone else in the role of Bateman. There was a case where Leonardo DiCaprio nearly replaced Christian Bale, and as great of an actor that DiCaprio is, I can’t see him or really any other actor delivering what Bale did here. Other actors like Willem Dafoe, Reese Witherspoon and Jared Leto do well in their supporting roles.

Director Mary Harron directs this movie and she did an excellent job. She managed to capture the feeling of the 80s really well with her direction, especially when it came to the excess. Speaking of the 80s, the music choices were fitting and the use of it in the movie worked perfectly. The violence is bloody and over the top but often times its cartoonish, and most of the time is easily funny, especially when watching much of it on multiple viewings.

American Psycho is a movie that gets better the more you see it. A dark comedy, excellently written and directed, with a career best performance from Christian Bale at the centre of it, it’s one of my favourites. 20 years later it still holds up quite well. If you haven’t seen it, check it out, especially if you are a fan of dark comedies.