TEFB REVIEW: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2

reviewed by Mark Pezzula


Directed by David Yates


Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint


It doesn't matter if you're a fan of Harry Potter or not; with the final book in one of the most successful series of novels in literary history, J.K. Rowling unarguably nailed the ending of her story, which was first published fourteen years ago. While far from perfect, Rowling's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was pretty much everything a fan could ask for and then some. Despite a middle that drags like an ogre's belly, the seventh and last book of the series tied up loose ends, provided a satisfying conclusion for its characters, and dealt with themes of death and resurrection, redemption, loyalty, friendship, and forgiveness in a thoughtful and entertaining manner. The only question left after fans finished the book feeling fulfilled was this: would the last film in a series of movies just as successful as the books they followed stick its landing in the same way?

The answer is: yes, it does. With reservations, and a caveat that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 does NOT work as a stand-alone film, the final cinematic journey of Potter and pals provides folks who have followed this saga for the last ten years with a finale that makes one's commitment to the series feel worth the time and money put into it. While the film stumbles a bit when its toes first hit the landing pad, by the time the balls of its feet touch down all the shakiness has left its legs.

But first: the aforementioned caveat. The Harry Potter films haven't worked as stand alone pieces of cinema since at least The Order of the Phoenix, the fifth in the series. That's when director David Yates came on board and was hired to finish what Chris Columbus started and Alfonso Cuaron and Mike Newell continued. Those coming in blind to Phoenix and each film thereafter would find the story almost impossible to follow. By that time you were either committed as a fan or not.

It may seem obvious that the second part in this two part film feel like a simple continuation of its predecessor - after all, The Lord of the Rings trilogy recently proved that audiences could handle a continuous story told over three films. But those movies each had three distinct acts, and while you can't watch one without feeling the effects of the others, each film supports itself. Deathly Hallows Part 2 has no beginning. In fact, I don't even know if it has a middle either. After starting off with literally the last scene of Part 1, Part 2 simply continues where the last one left off. At least The Two Towers and Return of the King feature opening scenes reminding the audience of the stakes and, at the same time, allow the viewer to find their footing in the story. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 simply begins like we never stopped watching the one before it. It's disorienting, and the first twenty minutes of the film struggles with an awkward pace. Once it finds its rhythm, though, and the audience gets their bearings, the film becomes engaging, thrilling, and moving, despite its lack of plot.

What little plot there is involves Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) searching for the remaining Horcruxes - trinkets or objects villain Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has injected pieces of his soul into. While the three of them journey into the heart of Hogwarts to find these objects, the rest of the school and the adults who run it are tasked with protecting their beloved institution from Voldemort and the Death Eaters - minions of the Dark Lord sworn to find Potter so their master can kill him.

By the very nature of being a Part 2, Deathly Hallows 2/2 is all pay-off. We witness what comes of Ron and Hermione's passive/aggressive flirting, what became of Dumbledore, and what was really going on with Professor Severus Snape. While the middle films in this series dealt with the hardships any normal student would go through (unrequited love, vicious rumors, stern authority figures), there's none of that here. The stakes are as high as they ever have been, and the lives of thousands of students are on the line. There are no school dances to argue over dates at. Harry doesn't struggle with an increasingly large ego. The only obstacle Harry faces in Deathly Hallows Part 2 is death. The death of his friends, his loved ones, and ultimately of himself.

It's thematically dark stuff, and director Yates ensures a sense of dread and finiteness hangs over the proceedings at all times. The first shot of the film (after the recap of Part 1's last scene) is of a tombstone, and there are some horrific moments of violence in the film (some against characters we have grown to care about).

As much death as there is in the film, Yates shoots most of it as it occurs in the background, or in the periphery of the frame. The battle of Hogwarts (which looks quite gorgeous from a technical standpoint, by the way) takes place around the journey of our three main characters, and they attempt to finish what they've started as they run through pockets of violence that claim the lives of their friends and family. In an odd choice, Yates doesn't dwell on the big deaths, sometimes showing  only glimpses of the bodies of fairly major characters. Where other directors would opt to squeeze tears from every fatality, Yates understands that the audience understands that these characters have paid the ultimate price to not only protect their friend, but to fight a cancerous evil. Their deaths are unwelcome, but honorable.

The effects of these deaths are felt in the performances of the three leads, who have never been better in the series. Daniel Radcliffe began these movies delivering stilted, unconvincing lines and has finished them as a legitimately great actor. Emma Watson and Rupert Grint don't get to do as much in Part 2 as they do in 1, but they still deliver great supporting work, with Grint ending up as the most improved performer over the past ten years.

As many issues as there are with the splitting of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows into two parts (I still believe it was unnecessary), there's no doubt that the past six months have seen a satisfying conclusion to what is the other great cinematic achievement of the last twenty years (the other, of course, being the Rings trilogy). It's a marvel that Warner Brothers was able to keep the same actors around for all eight of these films, recruited solid directors to helm them, and to make sure that, just as the books did, the films grow up with the audience. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 might not be a stand-alone film worthy of revisits by itself, but as a capper to this film series, it works like gangbusters. 

TEFB REVIEW: TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON

Directed by Michael Bay

Starring Shia LeBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Frances McDormand


Let's get the positive out of the way first: the third Transformers film features the most spectacular destruction of an American city (with the most spectacular special effects) ever captured on film. The final hour of Dark of the Moon features awe-inspiring set-pieces and Industrial Light and Magic's most impressive CGI work in quite some time. Possibly ever. That being said, despite the scope of the catastrophe; despite the movie's unrelenting final reel; despite the fact that every single dollar spent on the film can be accounted for on-screen, Transformers: Dark of the Moon completely and utterly fails as an action movie on almost every level. It's not a career low for director Michael Bay (that would be it's ugly, mean-spirited, racist, misogynistic predecessor - Revenge of the Fallen, a movie that angered me so much after watching it I felt homicidal), but it's proof that just because the guy knows how to blow stuff up impressively doesn't mean he knows how to compose a great action scene. (Or no longer knows. His run from Bad Boys to Armageddon is actually quite good).

The ridiculous plot (or whatever it's called - it's really just a series of story points filmed to get to the money shots) begins as the film tells us that the real reason 'Murica went to the moon in 1969 was because an alien ship crash landed on it years previously. This ship contained some planet saving technology needed by the Autobots (the good guys, for the layman out there) to ensure a win against the Decepticons (the bad guys) in a long-engaged war.

Fast-forward to present day, where Summer's most annoying hero Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) is out of college and trying to pimp himself out to various companies in the real world. He needs a job, but no one seems willing to hire him. No one seems willing to believe he's saved the world (two previous times!) either, even though he received a medal from the POTUS and was called on by the US government in the previous film to help them out. If it's one thing this movie features, it's a stupid human race. How do people not recognize Sam Witwicky? None of the characters (even his new girlfriend!) really believe he kept a race of alien robots from destroying the world - TWICE! - and in fact they mostly look down on him. I understand starting the character off at his lowest point, but it's an illogical thing to do considering the events of the last two films, which featured alien robot vs. alien robot action that was only prevented by the actions of Witwicky. .

Anyway, he ends up getting a job at some company run by John Malkovich (the first in a series of unfunny and unnecessary cameos, although Malkovich's is certainly the least offensive one from a lack-of-laughs per minute standpoint) and it's there that he...aw screw it. All you need to know is that at some point, Witwicky is recruited by the government again because...well...I don't know. He's known about the robots for the past four years in another movie and its sequel, I guess.

I know I know. "It's an action movie, the plot isn't supposed to make sense. And besides, we're not supposed to care about it anyway!", you're thinking. Stop it. You're not that stupid. Michael Bay thinks you're that stupid, but you're not. All movies need to have a plot that makes sense in some way or another. Even action movies. And talented directors (James Cameron, anyone?) know how to weave a great story in with great action. Michael Bay has consistently proven (with at least three films in a row, now) that he's either lost the ability to do so or he just doesn't care any more. Slick spectacle that costs 200 million dollars has replaced genuine filmmaking, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon is definitive proof of that. It's the nadir (at least I hope it is) of Summer blockbusters.

Not only does not one minute of story work in the film, but there's also a plethora of unfunny, relentlessly ham-handed cameos in the film. Normally hilarious (in small doses) Ken Jeong shows up for an eye-stabbingly awful ten minutes, playing a coworker of Witwicky's who is in on this whole "alien takeover of Earth" thing the Decepticons are planning. If you think a small Asian man yelling "Deep Wang! Deep Wang!" at Shia LeBeouf while pulling his pants down is gut-bustingly hilarious, then this movie is for you. John Turturro returns as a bat-crap insane conspiracy theorist featured in an incredibly stupid one-on-one with Bill O'Reilly. Also back are Sam's mom and dad, played by Julie White and Kevin Dunn respectively, and while White doesn't have anything nearly as asinine to do as tripping on pot brownies like the last film, they're still the world's most annoying movie parents, and not in a "wow it's funny because it's true" way. If I had Sam Witwicky's parents, I would kill myself. And Alan Tudyk turns up for some reason as a gay German cyber-hacker of sorts. Again, not funny. Michael Bay knows how to blow stuff up. He does not know comedy.

Speaking of blowing stuff up - as previously mentioned, this film blows more stuff up and blows it up better than any film I think I've ever seen. Except it doesn't matter. The amazing pyrotechnics, the jaw-droppingly gargantuan size of the climactic battle, and the latest and greatest computer generated imagery don't mean one darn thing. Besides Bay not giving a crap about his characters (and, by extension, us not giving a crap either), he simply no longer cares about shooting a logical, geographically understandable action scene. Characters start in one place to confront an obstacle or a foe, overcome it, end up in another place, wash, rinse, repeat. There's no reason for why and how these characters do what they do - or at least no logical reason, anyway - they just do it, and in the process Bay throws some indiscernible group of robots at them to fire advanced weaponry at. Most of the time it's impossible to tell who's fighting who or why they're fighting. Bay fills the screen with lots of explosions and metal and screaming people, but that's it. It's mind-numbing, and it's all the complete antithesis of what makes a great action movie. Sure there are a few moments of absolute brilliance (a tower collapse uses both practical, Inception-like set work and some fantastic CG, and a sky-diving scene featuring base jumpers flying around the city is genuinely thrilling), but these moments are context-free and can't fully be enjoyed because they don't engage in being anything other than technically impressive.

During the last hour of Dark of the Moon I kept thinking back to James Cameron's Avatar, a film that also features state-of-the-art technology to depict a massive battle scene. Cameron, first and foremost, makes sure we care about the characters involved. However, he also makes sure to delineate sides - instead of robots who all have an excessive amount of unnecessary features (making them all look the same), we have the Na'vi, with their primitive weaponry and battle tactics, and the humans, whose machinery is practical and not overwhelming to the eye. Characters have motivations and reasons, we know where they are geographically and why they're there, and the action beats compliment the story. None of that is true in this film.

I could go on and on about how annoying Shia LeBeouf is in this film (but to be fair, he does play quite an unlikeable character) or how empty Rosie Huntington-Whitely is as Sam's girlfriend Carly (any Maxim Hometown Hottie has more depth in one glossy photo than Bay gives Carly in the entire running time of the film), but I've already wasted too much space on this film already. Folks, these Transformers movies aren't good. They're soulless, poorly constructed, downright stupid pieces of entertainment. You're better than them. You deserve better than them. No seriously, you do. 

TEFB REVIEW: THE TREE OF LIFE

Directed by Terrence Malick

Starring Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCraken



There is more emotional honesty about adolescence in ten minutes of Terrence Malick's new film The Tree of Life than in the entirety of JJ Abrams' most recent supposed nostalgia piece Super 8. While they are two wildly different movies, both explore the mysteries of adolescence and coming of age. Abrams film strives hard to appeal to the inner child in us all, but in the end fails (although just barely) because his young characters are only truly relatable to those of us who are in love with the art and magic of filmmaking. While this is great - and certainly recognizable (cool, the kids like to make movies and there's a Dawn of the Dead poster on the wall!) - to the movie geek in the audience, it's this specificity that keeps the experiences Super 8's cast from truly connecting on a larger and more meaningful level. The few times the film is successful in this regard, it's mainly due to the performances of the two lead actors more than the work of the screenplay or direction.

Malick's film succeeds where Abrams's doesn't because it's simply more earnest in it's endeavor. While Super 8 at times caters to a certain audience, making sure the kids are always doing something some folks in the audience may identify with, The Tree of Life is more concerned with relating universal childhood experiences and responses . While the former film does an admirable job of attempting that, only the latter truly evokes recognizable feelings and emotions.


The Tree of Life doesn't tell a straight narrative story rather than give glimpses of moments in time, usually with very little (or no) dialogue. It's standard Malick - he's been making films that operate this way since Days of Heaven, although never to this extreme. After a quick introduction to the family documented in the film (headed by patriarch Mr. O'Brien - played by Brad Pitt and his wife (Jessica Chastain)), the film suddenly begins to display a series of visually breathtaking images showing the beginning of life in the universe, from the big bang to the extinction of the dinosaurs. After this twenty minute segue, we see the birth of Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien's first son Jack. The film then spends it's main portion following the life of young Jack (a wonderful Hunter McCraken), focusing mainly on his transition into puberty. Jack butts heads with his stern but loving father, and falls in love with his doting mother. He fights with his two younger brothers, he plays with his friends. He learns the finality of life after witnessing his first death, and the cruelty of God after his father loses his job. He becomes rebellious and feels a first twinge of regret. Witnessing these times in Jack's life, we come to realize that the creation of the universe that we saw before is every bit as dramatic and wonderful as the birth and first dozen or so years of one's life. This comes into focus even more as the film jumps ahead to show older Jack (Sean Penn) a man reflecting on those years and coming to terms with how much they shaped who he is.

Throughout the film, Malick shoots with a handheld camera, capturing every confused flick of Jack's eyebrow, every frustrated twitch of the mouth. Many times, the film seems to wander int a scene where something is about to happen, then cuts out. Very rarely does Malick stop to explain something or give a few minutes for the narrative to move forward in any recognizable way. It can be a frustrating experience for some viewers (the film jumps around chronologically as well), but it's Malick's statement (a perhaps obvious one) that adolescence (and life, to be completely honest) is recalled only in fragments. It's the details in the periphery of the experiences one seems to recall more than the experience itself. It's a color, a shape, a movement, a look on someone's face. Malick is is more concerned with creating moods and textures, evoking feelings, and loosely tying together themes than he is of giving a traditional throughline to the film.

If there's one reason to see The Tree of Life it's this: it's arguably the most visually breathtaking film I've ever seen. The effects detailing the big bang and beginnings of life on Earth are spectacular and gorgeous, and while the CG dinosaurs aren't quite rendered to perfection, the micro-photography (showing the division of cells and the fetus of some early Archean-era creature) is stellar, and combined with the grandiose celestial imagery of the legendary Douglas Trumbell (who also worked on 2001: A Space Odyssey - a film that I believe is very much a companion piece to The Tree of Life) makes for a jaw-dropping experience. If anything, The Tree of Life is a showcase for old-school special effects and proof that imagery created by computers is no match for the power of tangible, in camera effects work.

As magnificent as it is, though, The Tree of Life, perhaps because of it's unconventionality and ambitiousness, is not without its faults. The scenes with Penn - cut into the film mostly as book-ends - stick out in particular. I believe I understand their meaning, as previously mentioned, however, old Jack is given nothing to do but stumble around his office building dazed. And when he's not stumbling around his office dazed, he's wandering through the desert just as dazed. Penn is given even less dialogue than the other actors, and I don't think Malick ties these portions of the film in successfully with the hour and a half or so in between.

Minor quibbles aside, I don't think there will be another film this year filled with so many questions about life but ultimately joyous about being able to live it. The Tree of Life is an amazing emotional experience for those willing to endure it's sometimes ponderous pace and meandering narrative. It's demanding, yes, but fulfilling and (although I hate to use the word) profound. One might be sick of Malick and his penchant for whispers and long takes of nature, but never has an existential film like this felt so warm and inviting.

TEFB REVIEW: ANIMAL KINGDOM

Directed by David Michod


Starring James Frecheville, Ben Mendelsohn, Jacki Weaver



In both his narrative (Aguirre: The Wrath of God) and documentary (Grizzly Man) features revolving around nature, Werner Herzog presents the axiom that nature is cold, cruel, and incapable of emotion. As animals aren't sentient, they care not about such things as empathy and compassion, they only seek to perpetuate the survival of their species. Broken down even further, every family in each species seeks simply to fight for the survival of the clan. Outsiders are shunned, and if a member of the clan is wronged or a life in the clan ended, the head will do everything in his or her power to protect the rest.

Taking this general rule of wildlife on planet Earth and applying it to a family of Aussie thieves, first time feature filmmaker David Michod has crafted Animal Kingdom, one of the best crime dramas in recent memory, and a film that's incredibly intense, tight, and emotionally involving. There are parts of Animal Kingdom that will be very recognizable to anyone who has seen any of the many hundreds of crime-family centered films of the past few decades, but the whole of the movie adds up to something not quite seen before.

After his mother overdoses on heroin, stoic teenager Joshua (James Frecheville) contacts the only family he knows of: his grandmother Janine Cody (Jacki Weaver). It's been years since grandson and gram have seen each other, but she welcomes him into a side of the family he barely knows with a aspartame smile and open arms ready to pull him in and suffocate him, should he get out of line. Arriving at her house, Josh is reintroduced to his uncles, all criminals specializing in stealing things with weapons: Barry (Joel Edgerton) is the logical, strong-willed glue that keeps the brothers in line; Darren (Luke Ford) is the sensitive, unsure one; Craig (Sullivan Stapleton) is the trigger-happy loose canon; finally, there's Andrew (Ben Mendolsohn), the semi-psychotic - scratch that - fully psychotic older brother, on the run from Melbourne's Armed Robbery police squad.

It's these early scenes in which Animal Kingdom seems poised to be just another by the numbers crime film. With the introduction of Craig - a character who does such cliched things as light up a cigarette in a non-smoking diner just to piss off the wait staff - I assumed I'd be able to predict every single beat the movie was going to hit. I couldn't have been more wrong.

The main action in Animal Kingdom kicks off when the aforementioned Armed Robbery squad, tired of failing to capture the wanted Andrew and suffering from budget cuts to the department, take matters into their own hands and decide to break up the family by taking out one of its members. This has the desired effect, as the remaining members of the Cody family exact revenge on the police force, and end up in the arms of the law with only Joshua standing between them and years behind prison bars.

Michod has chosen to shoot Animal Kingdom with that oft-used gritty, hand-held look. However, Animal Kingdom doesn't have the documentary feel of, say the recent Gomorrah. Instead, Michod and his cinematographer, Adam Arkapaw, have lit the film classically, giving it a very cinematic feel. Michod has made the right choice by not shooting the film as in-your-face and cinema-verite as others may have. Animal Kingdom knows it's a fictional drama, and one that intends to turn screws and tighten your chest with each passing minute.

And that it does, very, very well. Michod executes the film with a precision not usually seen in first time feature-film directors. By tweaking our expectations with every other scene, Michod ensures that we become fully involved in the drama taking place throughout Animal Kingdom. Sure there are recognizable and familiar aspects to almost every minute of the film, but the director has such a sure-handed way of playing with these aspects that we're never quite sure what's going to happen, and by the time we realize Josh's life is really in complete and utter danger, we feel just as scared as he does.

Of course, Michod gets quite a bit of help making sure things stay unpredictable with a stellar cast. Josh is, at his core, an annoyingly non-verbal weakling. He's the kind of kid you wish would become either enraged to the point of ridiculousness about something or completely over-joyed with it, no matter what it was, instead of just standing there, shoulders hunched, mute. As ingratiating as it would be to spend time with this person in real life, though, James Frecheville's performance is interesting to watch as the movie unfolds. Josh internalizes his emotions, and Frecheville is surprisingly good at showing his character's changes in little ways through facial expressions and eye movements.

Joel Edgerton as well gives quite a great performance as Barry. We're told that Barry is a bad-ass but never actually see it - that's okay, though, because Edgerton makes us believe it's so. There's an intensity behind his eyes and a confidence in his strut that exudes authority. But he's also warm and surprisingly kind. A man's man if there ever was one, Barry is the father you don't want to disappoint - not because he would knock you out with one left hook to the face (although he could), but because he would shame you with one look and a few admonishing words. Edgerton will be seen in the upcoming Warrior

Impressing the most, though, are Jacki Weaver and Ben Mendohlson. Weaver was nominated for a Best Supporting Actress award at this year's Academy Awards, and by all means she deserved it (the nomination, if not the award). Quite possibly the most dangerous person in the film, Janine comes across as the grandma you wish you had one moment, and the person you least want to be related to the next. And the attitude is changed with only a slight change of voice and a raise of an eyebrow. She's super-sweet and completely and utterly venomous.

Mendohlson almost single-handedly walks away with the film. At first coming across as slightly neurotic and shifty, Andrew evolves into a complete and total psycho by the end of the film. Not the kind of psycho that runs around stabbing nude girls in the shower, but the kind of guy who sends chills up your spine with just a look. It's a performance that makes a viewer antsy whenever the character is onscreen. Creepy and shockingly intense, Mendelsohn presents Andrew as an un-empathetic lunatic. It's great work.

I had a few issues with the way Animal Kingdom handles its third act - for all the complaining I do about films that need to be shorter, this one could benefit by actually being fifteen to twenty minutes longer. Some more time with Guy Pearce as a police detective would have been nice, and the film feels as if it's rushing towards the end just to end at a certain point in the film.

That nitpick aside, Animal Kingdom is a wonderful, engaging movie. Intense to the point of being cathartic (when the film ends it feels as if a load is being lifted off of your chest), it's a great first feature-length film from a very promising director.

NOTE: The trailer below is the only time Air Supply will ever be cool Ever.

TEFB REVIEW: I SAW THE DEVIL

review by Mark Pezzula


Directed by Jee-woon Kim


Starring Min-sik Choi, Byung-hun Lee

Contrary to the laws or society is built on - that justice should be carried out by those with the authority to do so and that revenge exacted by those directly affected by a criminal's actions is frowned upon - we live in a culture that believes in the "eye for an eye" adage more than we think we do. Ask any parent what they would do should their child be molested by someone and they would most likely tell you they want unspeakable things to happen to the perpetrator. Ask a husband what they would do should their pregnant wife be chopped into bits by the most reprehensible human being imaginable and he would most likely go one for hours about the numerous and sickeningly creative ways to pay the monster back.

Believing in "eye for an eye" and actually practicing it are, obviously, two different things. Most folks, when pressed, wouldn't be able to personally act in a vengeful manner, no matter how disgusting the crime. We would like to think all criminals (and especially the heinous ones) are Evil and, therefore, impervious to pain and suffering. Criminals, though, (even the heinous ones) are, in fact, human, and most folks don't tend to like to see other humans suffer, even if that other human has committed crimes that would keep Henry Lee Lucas up at night.


I Saw the Devil, directed by Jee-Woon Kim, takes on the subject of vengeance and displays, with stunningly violent clarity, that revenge is a dish best not served at all. And when it is served, says the film, it's a meal that poisons not only those who serve and consume it, but those who aren't even in the restaurant.

Min-sik Choi (the Korean Daniel Day Lewis) is Kyung-chul, a serial killer who has no M.O. other than making sure his victims are dead. "Cold blooded" is a kind term for Kyung-chul, whose empathy gap is wider than the Grand Canyon, and who treats even people trying to help him with contempt and hatred. As the film opens, we find Kyung-chul viciously beating and murdering a young woman stranded on the side of a snowy Korean road. Believing he's gotten away with it scot-free, Kyung goes back to his day job - driving around school children.

Meanwhile, Kim Soo-hyeon (played by Byung hun-Lee) is the husband of the young murdered woman, and he has vowed to his dead wife that the killer will feel the same pain she has. Using his contacts in a secret agency (the name and purpose of which is left unclear - it's obvious, though, Kim Soo-hyeon is a pretty bad ass trained assassin), he hunts down Kyung-chul to begin a game of cat and mouse with the deviant. Becoming just as sadistic as the killer, Kim tortures Kyung-chul only to let him go, capturing him again and again, torturing and releasing every time.

If I Saw the Devil sounds violent and disturbing, that is because it is. Director Jee-woon Kim lets the camera linger on head-beatings, a cheek piercing, an Achille's heel slicing, stabbings, and other vicious acts. But this isn't a Hostel or another American "torture-porn" film, where the audience roots for the main characters to be killed in all sorts of fun and creative ways. I Saw the Devil pushes the audience to actively want the mayhem to stop. As gorgeously shot and well choreographed as the movie is (and it is indeed beautiful, with tense set-pieces that bring to mind De Palma, Hitchcock, and Tarantino), it's not a *fun* movie to watch in the least. Imagine if the intensity of the Mr. Blonde/cop-torture scene in Reservoir Dogs lasted two and a half hours, and you'd have a good idea of what it feels like to watch I Saw the Devil.

As fun as it isn't, there are many reason to see this film, in addition to the practically perfect direction and cinematography. The two lead performances being at the top of the list. I referred to Min-sik Choi as the Korean Daniel Day Lewis before, and that's not hyperbole. Most American audience know Choi from the film Oldboy, in which he played the lead character Oh Dae-su, a drunk, loser of a man seeking revenge after being kidnapped and locked in a room for fifteen years. His work as Kyung-chul is iconic. With slicked back hair and a slight pudge, Kyung-chul brings to mind Robert De Niro's portrayal of Max Cady in Cape Fear, although without the ability to be halfway charming. Kyung is completely and utterly socially inept. Every single person he comes into contact with understands immediately that this person is off, perhaps even dangerous. Choi plays Kyung-chul as if he's the most evil person to have ever lived, and he does it while still managing to make us feel slightly sorry for him during the most brutal scenes. It's great work.

Not to be outdone, Byung-hun Lee is magnificent as the shattered husband. Kim Soo-hyeon is always on the verge of emotionally breaking down for the first third of the film, and director Jee-woon wisely lets his actor's face stay in front of the camera for long stretches of time to convey just how broken this man has become. It's a powerful performance, and one that gives the film a deeply emotional and moving layer that was quite unexpected.

The other star of the flick is the director himself. The film veers from terror, to deep heartbreak, so shocking violence, to dark comedy, then pinballs between all of these throughout its excessive running time. While never forgetting that the subject matter is deeply serious, Jee-woon always remembers that film needs to entertain as well, and he keeps remarkably accomplished control over all of the emotional beats the film hits. The film is stylish, to be sure, but the director balances the in-your-face wow moments with old-fashioned tension building. (A stabbing scene in a taxi cab, for instance, ends with a wildly stylized spinning camera, but builds up to the shot with careful editing, designed to up intensity.)

For a film that deals with such violence, depravity, and serious subject matter, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed I Saw the Devil. It's a taxing film, and one that left me completely drained after I viewed it. It's a film that whole-heartedly supports structured justice, and one that frowns upon individual retribution. Nothing good comes of Kim Soo-hyeon's revenge. I Saw the Devil is ultimately a sad and distressing film, but it's one that will force you to look at where you stand on vengeance, and may (nay, SHOULD) change your mind about it.

TEFB REVIEW: SOMETHING BORROWED

review by Gina Muscato



Starring Kate Hudson, Ginnifer Goodwin, John Krasinski


Directed by Luke Greenfield


How do you choose between the love of your life and your best friend since childhood?

In the movie, Something Borrowed, unhappily single Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin) is faced with this dilemma after she drinks too much at her 30th birthday party and winds up in bed with Dex (Colin Egglesfield), her crush from law school who just happens to be engaged to her BFF Darcy (Kate Hudson).

Although Rachel feels guilty and initially commits to putting the one-night affair behind her, she discovers that she has genuine feelings for Dex. In fact, he just could be the love of her life. As Darcy’s wedding nears, Rachel is caught between loyalties to her best friend and to her heart. A consummate good girl and generous friend, Rachel has always allowed Darcy to “win” … but should she let her win Dex too?

Meanwhile, Ethan (John Krasinski), Rachel's constant confidante, is busy evading the advances of Darcy's love-struck friend Claire (Ashley Williams), particularly during the group’s weekend escape to the Hamptons. The trips also provide chances for the charming Marcus (Steve Howey) to lust after Rachel -- as well as any and every other women he fancies.

The movie is based on the chick lit novel, of the same title, by author Emily Giffin. Without the benefit of having read the book, I don’t know if there are glaring differences between the two, though there usually are one or two. Whether the differences are beneficial or detrimental to the movie, you’ll have to be the judge.

Either way, this story is supposed to make audiences think about right and wrong, and how the lines between the two can be blurry. But during the course of the movie, we find out that Darcy herself has made some serious mistakes in her own relationship with Dex. Therefore, the lines aren’t as blurry as you might think – or as intended.

The movie’s main flaw is that it’s too long. I found myself irritated that Rachel, and even Dex for that matter, lacked the chutzpa to make a decision about the relationship. It seemed as if a resolution would never come. Finally it did, but not before making the audience restless and the film too long. 

Goodwin is very well cast in the role of the hard-working Rachel, who is often in the shadow of flashy, sometimes selfish Darcy. The usually-solid Hudson played Darcy well enough, though her performance was mired by having to portray such a plastic character. Darcy was always drunk and completely self-absorbed – so much so that you really wonder why Dex hadn’t left her long ago.
Krasinski is perfectly cast as Ethan, who provides some much-needed comic relief, particular during one of the movie’s funniest scenes, in which the characters play badminton on the beach and reveal secrets with every point scored. Williams also provides some comedy as Claire, though her over-the-top personality was almost too much, nearly making her more annoying than funny.

Bottom line: Wait for this movie on Netflix or Movies on Demand. It’s not worth the $10 to see it (thankfully, I had free screening passes). And under no circumstance should boyfriends or husbands be forced to watch it with you. This one is for girls’ night only.

Awesome guests you won't want to miss!

The Everything Film Show has some really fabulous guests planned for its listeners in the weeks ahead. Just look who will be swinging by to chat with the crew!

• 4/21 - Producer, actor, and director Michael Gleissner will be joining the show to discuss his new film "Deep Gold 3D", which will have been released just a couple days prior in Los Angeles, with expansion to other select theaters the day just after the show. He is also a partner with Bigfoot Studios and oversees operations of the International Academy of Film and Television, which he founded.



• 4/28 - Writer, director, and producer Eduardo Sanchez joins the show for the 100th episode celebration! Most of us got to learn of his talent through "The Blair Witch Project." Tune in to learn what future dark visions he has in store...



• 5/05 - Matthew J. Evans is a fresh-faced actor who will appear alongside celebrities in the Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake, and Jason Segel-fronted film "Bad Teacher" coming out this June. He is also is an award-winning filmmaker whose short film “Poetic Justice Project” debuted just days ago at the Newport Beach Film Festival.



• 5/12 - You've most recently seen the following actress in the hit television series "Smallville," but there is nothing small about the prospects for award-winning actor Allison Mack. Acting since she was four and having racked up hundreds of television episodes and other projects, there is no telling where the future will take her.

As you probably know, The Everything Film Show airs live every Thursday at 7:30 p.m. PST/10:30 p.m. EST. We hope that you will join us!