Change Your Image
writerdirectorX
Reviews
Border to Border (1998)
Misplaced blame... but not such a bad flick
After reading the review above, and seeing the film first hand at the Las Vegas Film Festival a few years back, I'd like to point out a few things. Firstly, if you are going to blame the Writer(s) then you should really blame the solely listed writer, Cory D. Miller as `story by' credits are often handed to writer's who's original work has been re-written past recognition. Just for curiosity, however, I checked the WGA database and found that only Pifer and Johnson's names appear on the original script (I wonder what kind of script it was, as the story itself seems interesting. Whelan clearly just put his name on the `story-by' credit - as seen on the film itself - because he thought he contributed to the original story idea, but clearly by the WGA database, not the original script. A common megalomania occurrence in Hollywood, I'm sorry to say). The film itself seems to have suffered from many film blunders (like huge plot holes, like the two men are supposed to be `in a race' but the better cyclist often stops and waits for his supposed `opponent' to catch up, and many others), but from the list of producers (7 listed in the credits!) it would seem the primary blunder was the `too many cooks' problem that plagues and has plagued Hollywood from its inception. Overall it's a decent effort from first time film makers and Neil Mather's performance does indeed steal the show (the other performances - Gorrence and O'Connell - were decent as well) with an extra stand out performance by Rick Hoffman (Terry Loomis of TV's `Philly') as a convenience store clerk who's been on the job for too many hours and is losing touch with reality. Many of the scenes (the one with Johnathon Silverman - `Weekend at Bernie's' fame - for instance) seem to have been thrown in just because the actor was available or someone had a `good idea' (which often happens when too many fledgling film makers get together on their first project). The ending is creative and interesting, but the fact that the villain (O' Connell's character) kills two people and gets away with $2,000,000 in stolen cash, makes you wonder what values the filmmakers were trying to promote (again, I wonder if that was in the original script.)? I personally would not recommend the film for this last reason alone, but, overall for what seemed to be a shoestring budget film shot ON LOCATION and on the road, it's an impressive achievement.
Fight Club (1999)
Comedy? I think not... But an excellent film!
In watching the DVD version of `Fight Club' with the commentary `on' I was astounded to learn that the creators of the film thought it would be seen as a comedy. They hid behind the thin veil of the term `Dark Comedy' which I personally define as: `A comedy that isn't funny, but if you say it isn't then 'smart' people will frown at you.' During the commentary Edward Norton says something to the effect of `only those people with no senses of humor will think this film isn't a comedy.' Well, Edward, I'm a Comedy writer/director and I'm here to tell you, you and your cohorts have not created a comedy. What clearly happened on the set of `Fight Club' has happened on many sets that I've been apart of, that is, a small group of people got together and agreed upon some `creative vision' and then forgot that it was their JOB to transfer that vision to the audience. I can imagine the discussions: `This is too campy, we should play it straight; I heard that the best comedy is played dramatically. etc. etc. etc.' Or something like it. This was clearly a case of `group dynamic', the same impulse that allows `gangs' of people to commit acts that no individual would do on their own. It is the story teller's FIRST job and (in my opinion) ONLY job to translate the story to an audience that DOES NOT have the benefit of knowing your twist ending OR your `inside jokes'. `Fight Club', while clearly being played tongue in cheek in many scenes, forgot that its subject matter (the decline of modern society to commercialism and the generation of `lost souls' it created) was far too serious a subject matter to be EXPECTED to be seen as funny by the mass viewing audience. Add to that the very violent fight scenes, and `humor' is NOT the first word that comes to mind. It is ironic to me that the director of this film would often misquote Buddhist doctrines to the cast while creating a film with a huge Karmic debt (I have personally witnessed a group of teenage boys creating their own `Fight Club' on the front lawn next door to mine). All this being said, this story (and yes this film) is a VERY excellent one. I was very impressed by the film on the first viewing, though the first thing I said to my wife during the end credits was `You know, there will be groups of teenage boys creating 'Fight Clubs' across America.' (How ironic I was vindicated months later by what I stated earlier.). Overall, this was a cinematic masterpiece, but maybe the bulk of the praise should go to the original author. One useful byproduct of the `group think' it seems was that having the actors think the entire film was a `lark' was actually useful for Brad Pitt's character, who, felt that way about life anyway (an interesting Director's tool I've seen used purposely and for great effect by the way, that of misdirecting an actor's understanding of the `message' of the film so that they play their character more accurately). All this being said, I think the film is one of the best to come around in many years and deserves a deep and repeated viewing by film lovers everywhere. Lastly, a quick hat's off to Arnon Milchan for producing another breathtaking and edgy film (like `Brazil' and and MANY other controversial and challenging films [check out his credits to see what I mean]).