FILM RELEASE
OPENING FRIDAY
SPOTLIGHT
|
A phenomenal ad campaign and stunning creative work made 2st Century Cat's 'Los Angeles' (produced by studio head Dominatin MVP) an enticing prospect indeed. I am unaware of the novel, and having never read it, will be grading the movie solely as a movie and not an adaptation. That doesn't discount the fact that right off the bat, 'Los Angeles,' is compelling. With it's sufficiently quirky and interesting premise kicking in right away, the movie is an exercise in subtlety, the type of movie that once you see it again, every little red herring that points towards the doozy of an ending becomes abundantly clear. While 'Los Angeles' isn't a great film, dragging in sections, the movie is a superbly made, and well thought out motion picture that falls squarely within the realms of the director's other efforts, most notably 'Fight Club.' Slick, stylish, and mysterious in an 'LA Confidential' way, 'Los Angeles' is a film worth checking out. James Caviezel headlines the film as Angel Veronchek, a reclusive albino male who keeps himself confined to his dank, filthy apartment, adopting a working screenwriter/ vampire lifestyle, staying behind closed shutters all day with his DVD of 'Blade Runner' on an endless loop, and only going out at night. That is, until a woman named Angela moves in next door, and instantly captures Angel's trust, and heart. The two began a whirlwind love affair, that ends when Angela goes missing: her choked uttering of his name the last thing Angel ever hears from her. So, naturally, he embarks on a desperate search for her, and discover that she isn't exactly what she seems. The film is a modern noir tale that eschews endless sheets of rain and darkness to fashion an old fashioned mystery flick in the bright, sunny, and pollution filled 'Los Angeles.' The film seels itself on its titular location, and brilliantly underscores the seedy underbelly of the city which Angel drags himself through. And while Angel isn't the most sympathetic of characters, it's hard not to get caught up in his quest to recapture the one causative of happiness he's ever had in his life. Subplots to prop up the film's forward narrative aren't all that strong, and often detract from the main storyline (the monster in Angel's dreams, his relationship with his father, a Michael Bay-ish director, and his relationship with his father's attorney, who may or may not be in on the whole thing) but are solid enough to keep things chugging along. The film is driven by Caviezel. Every single tick, squint and expression on his face is perfect, and thoroughly engrossing. It's a phenomenal role to play, but translates superbly onscreen. The supporting cast, led by Thandie Newton, is solid if unspectacular. Michael Douglas' performance as Frank, is probably the strongest one in the film next to Angel's, and he portrays enough sleazy menace to recall his mesmerizing turn in 'Wall Street;' with shades of 'greed is good,' seeping through, Douglas portrays enough menace, mystery and sympathy to keep the rest of the film together, after all, Caviezel works miracles, but with so much of the film sagging with unnecessary subplots and extraneous characters, that if not for Douglas, the whole production would've fallen apart completely. The real star is the cinematography. Los Angeles isn't just treated as a location, so much as it is another living character, breathing with the actors, and the vivid, descriptive writing brings it to the fore. Fincher's direction is flashy at points, but muted in others. And with Caviezel and Douglas leading the pack, the film works. 70/100 Note: This review was written by a guy who recently was given a great gift by the producer, and technically, the reviewer is reviewing his own studio's film. Thus, the review's status in regard to the overseas box office is fully in the hands of whoever works those decisions. However, the reviewer implores you not to take this review as biased for that reason... he just loved the damn movie, and would like to give it a review for the writer's benefit.
"Los Angeles"... the biggest city in America. Hell of a place to lose track of a person you care about. Hell of a place to be lied to. Jim Caviezel (mispelled? You bet!) stars as Angel in a movie where a man gets a healthy shot of both loss and untruth... and has to deal with the unsettling machinations of his own mind as he hunts for Angela (Thandie Newton), a beautiful young woman who had recently become his girlfriend. His search takes him deep into the confines of his own life, from seedy strip clubs to the Hollywood Hills. Somehow, this missing woman involves the downright-evil Frank (Michael Douglas), in a chilling turn. Exellent casting in the three leads!
David Fincher seems a good choice to direct, with the films moody atmosphere. The way he shot "Fight Club" is clearly a plus when any shots of Angel's sad existence come into play. And just as the absense of light fuels many of Fincher's movies (And destroyed Panic Room), here his use of it literally burns up the screen, creating a beautiful painting of the orange city.
The role of light, by the way, is enough to guarantee this film best cinematography next time the awards roll around.
But when it comes to casting... I sort of got confused. Several speaking roles went uncast (the dangerous Lester, the very important Victor) while roles like "Marcel"-a non-speaking role-went to people like Elijah Wood. Kate Beckinsale, well, if she could act worth a shit I'd say she was wasted, but she just got to stand around and be eye candy, so I'll give her a bye. Gimli/Sala was excellent as Angels potentially gaseous, dying father. You've got to love that guy. Sigourney Weaver was great in her small role as Angel's long-gone mother, victim of a vicious "monster" who's identity might seem a little too obvious.This was one of the very few flaws in the film, and now that thats out of the way...
The film's atmosphere was unbelievably well done. Angel's existence... surreal as it was in his apartment with "Blade Runner"... to a later hospital scene you've got to read to believe... it was all a slam-bang exercise in building the world of a movie, unparalelled by anything short of "The Sweet Forever". The dialogue was excellent as well, and there are moments (particularly involving Lester) that literally cause one to be weighed down by dread. I literally could not look away from this movie once I'd started... I had to finish. And that, dear readers, is what makes a movie good: when you can't get up and walk away even if you literally have to.
The ending twist is utterly heartbreaking, and you'll think you've seen it five times until it actually hits. And when it hits, you'll keep reading, hoping its just another mistep of the guy's mind...
...well, I won't spoil it for you. Read it. It'll be winning lots of awards, and you'll want to know why.
88/100
“Los Angeles” is Dom’s latest film here at HTG. Much like his other film, “The Giver” it is based off another novel, both with psychological aspects to the film. This film though was interesting in it’s own way. PLOT: The plot of this film has Angel (Jim Caviezel) living in Los Angeles. One day he meets his neighbor, Angela (Thandie Newton) and falls deeply in love with her. He soon finds out that there are things about her that are really mysterious and nothing is what it seems. She goes off missing and Angel goes searching for her. His father’s lawyer, Frank (Michael Douglas) tries to hide him away from Angela and tries to help him from a bad fate. Angel however keeps digging deeper and deeper and finds himself in to deep. Events start to foil out and it turns out that everything that has been happening to him, he’s been writing in a script called “Los Angeles.” This guy is seriously out of his mind. As he is digging deeper, he discovers that Frank was a monster that he thought he was dreaming about who killed his mother. The plot switches you back and forth and there are so many twists and turns. I was expecting more from the ending though, but there is a lot about this film to like, even though you’re a bit confused at times. FINAL PLOT GRADE: 80/100 DIALOGUE: The dialogue isn’t too bad for a psychological thriller/drama. The dialogue between Angela and Angel though at times seems quick and you really don’t buy into their relationship. Other than that the dialogue seems fine and flows right. Whenever Angel and Angela aren’t together, the film also seems to be at it’s most interesting points. I think that there could have been more thought into the dialogue but in a film like this, you just might even more confused. FINAL DIALOGUE GRADE: 65/100 CHARACTERS: Besides Angel, Frank and Angela, the characters are just there to make sure the film flows just right. I think that Jim Caviezel does an amazing acting job as Angel and the characterization for Angel and Frank was great. Angela to me sidelined too much out of the story and really was just a distraction to what was going on around them. She to me was a pretty weak character but essential to the storyline. The other characters like I said, were simply just there and really didn’t have much to contribute. FINAL CHARACTERS GRADE: 65/100 CASTING: The casting was pretty good for this film, for parts of it at least. Parts of the casting really bugged me. Jim Caviezel, Michael Douglas, Thandie Newton, Sigourney Weaver and John Rhys-Davies are perfectly cast for their roles. It’s the other parts of the casting that really bugged me. While Gary Oldman was just fine as Dr. Silowicz, it seems like it would have been better if this role was played by a lesser known talent. Packing in high talent players does not automatically make a film good. I had this same problem with the casting of Kate Beckinsale and Elijah Wood. They are to big of names to be in this roles. They do not receive enough screen time and would be better if another person was cast in these roles. Michael Mann is great at directing Los Angeles style films but I still wouldn’t have picked him for this role. The whole confusing psychological aspect of this film screamed David Lynch and I think that he would have been the perfect choice for director. Lynch has showed some great deal of detail and passion for Los Angeles in his psychological thriller/drama with his film “Mullholland Drive” and it really bugs me that he wasn’t chosen to direct this film. Mann was probably chosen because he has a higher TS than Lynch, which really bugs me. While Mann is a fine choice for director, I feel that Lynch would have been better. FINAL CASTING GRADE: 60/100 PACING: The pacing was pretty good for this film, even in it’s confusing aspects. The film is more centered on the characters, especially Angel and Frank, which is great. The film made it seems though as if Angela had a bigger role than what she had, which in the end turns out not to be true and part of the confusing part of the film is the fact that you’re being sidelined by her to what the main part of the story is about. The pacing remains to be character driven throughout the whole film and sets up the psychological mood well for the film. FINAL PACING GRADE: 80/100 ADVERTISING: The advertising for this film was great, but I’m not sure that Thandie Newton should have had her own poster, I’m still debating that. The posters though had the Los Angeles colors, which were great for the setting and it just fit the film really well. The posters were incredibly well made and I liked most of them. The website was pretty well made, but not as well made as the posters. I think that the advertising for the film was one of the best parts of the film. FINAL ADVERTISING GRADE: 80/100 WRITING: The writing of the film overall was great. I didn’t notice too many spelling or grammatical errors, which is always good for a viewing experience. The psychological aspects of the film really helped the writing of the film. I think that Dom is great at adapting novels, but I would like to see him write another original piece. That’s my only complaint about him. I think that he has great potential and shows it in his writing. Most everything about this film all comes together to make a great experience. The pacing and characters are great and the film ends out really nicely. FINAL WRITING GRADE: 85/100 FINAL OVERALL GRADE: 74/100 BANKHOLIDAY Reviews LOS ANGELES Peter Moore Smith's novel 'Los Angeles' was a post-modern reality-bending work than garnered generally positive reviews. The story is about Angel Veronchek, the son of a thriving producer (a director in the adaption). Angel lives a reclusive life in an apartment, penning a screenplay (entitled 'Los Angeles, in a massive wink to the audience), while 'Blade Runner plays infinitely on his DVD player. He falls in love with a stripper called Angela who lives in his apartment building. It's an odd choice for a film adaption, and I have to say that David Fincher has a lot of guts for taking it on. Angel is certainly not a cookie-cutter protagonist, and the story jumps around in a way that makes Sliding Doors look like kid's stuff. Unfortunately though, I think the novel's twisting and turning just outstrips the screenwriter's skill, and that is something Fincher can not change. It's not entirely their fault though. Unless they're in very good hands, these convoluted plots just do not translate well to screen. The film moves far too fast and becomes confusing unless you're watching very intently. This 'mod-noir' type of thing is Fincher's specialty, but it just doesn't work here. Now to the cast- Jim Caviezel performs admirably as Angel, and is almost perfectly suited to the character. Michael Douglas does a fine job in a supporting role, but I just do not agree with Thandie Newton's casting. I simply can not understand why she has been given such an important role, and rather than appearing as a multi-layered character (as she was in the novel), she comes off as painfully obvious sex appeal and just another boring vixen. As for the rest of the cast, there are just too many big name celebrities. Kate Beckinsale, Sigourney Weaver and Elijah Wood turn what should have been an intriguing film into something of a magazine. While I'm sure this film will receive acclaim and awards, I did not enjoy Los Angeles, but I don't believe my criticism should reflect on the director or the screenwriter. In the end, it's just a case of biting off more than you can chew. SCREENPLAY: 50/100 PLOT: 70/100 CASTING: 30/100 OVERALL: 50/100
|
CRITIC'S
CORNER STAFF
BlackSmith Ritchie Steven DISCLAMER "The Critic's Corner" is a fictional review website from the game "Hollywood: The Game". None of these movies are real and as such, you cannot watch them or purchase them on DVD. Also, we will not release your movie for you or take reviews of actual films. We don't have the power to do so, see? Any use of actors, logos and other names is purely for an entertainment purpose. This is a non-profit webiste and no profit is gained through the use of the names. No copyright infringement is intended. We recognize the original companies as owners of the names. This site and everything you see here is false. It's all lies. Even the things that are true are lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is no. |
