The Devil's Double

Here's a movie that's been out for a while (it's streaming on Netflix now), but I just got around to seeing it last night. Basically it follows the "true story" of Latif Yahia who was a childhood friend of Uday Hussein (Saddam's eldest son) whom Uday forces to be his body double for dangerous public appearances during the original Gulf War. And let the hilarity commence! No, actually, it's a drama punctuated by some action, a few funny moments, a few gruesome scenes, and several scenes of nudity (both male and female). I think I can get away with this one pretty spoiler free, so feel free to read it before watching.


The Devil's Double (2011)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270262/

Technical (4.5) - Pretty well done for approximately an $18 million budget. It has a little bit of that independent feel, but that's what it is: an independent. The director, Lee Tamahori, is used to bigger budget action movies like "Along Came A Spider", "Die Another Day", and "XXX: State of the Union" which makes it so refreshing that he can do so well here. The sets just show how extravagant the Husseins lived without being too over the top, the music and props are all time appropriate (that's really how you know which war this is during early on), and the doubling of Dominic Cooper (and the man who plays Saddam), who plays both Uday and Latif,  is done almost seemlessly. I have to dock a half point for a little bit of an editing issue concerning a cut to a wedding that leaves you in the "Where did this come from? Who are these people?" mode for a bit. Sure this could have been a screenplay issue, but I think it was edited that way for time. That half a point also is for a scene where the seemless doubling is wrecked for a frame or two. It still is remarkably done in such a low budget film, considering just a few years ago, one of the two would stick out like a sore thumb as "added" or the whole scene was done so the two never touched or crossed paths. Here they do and in a very real and believable way.

Dialogue/Story (3) - Since it is a supposed "real" story (allegedly, since it has been contested) you can't really dock too much for it being fairly formulaic in it's setup, it is still fairly well presented. The dialogue is somewhat predictable for the most part, but does have some bright points where it doesn't go quite as you expect. I mean, this concept has been a subplot of many movies as the villain tries to dupe someone, but rarely does it show it in a realistic sense like here. Everyone behaves in a fairly rational manner (except Uday, who is not just psychotic, as Latif calls him, but a clear sociopath) and speaks in pretty logical terms.

Acting (4) - Here's where the movie shines and also falters a bit. This is clearly Dominic Cooper's movie. He creates such a dichotomy of the two characters. It isn't just the dialogue or script. Their mannerisms, speech patterns, and facial expressions are completely different. They kinda added a hair gimmick to it to help you know who was who, but it really wasn't necessary. They look alike, but they don't act alike. I didn't know Howard Stark had it in him, but he really is a terrific young actor! I had to dock another point for most of the rest of the cast. They're...ok. His adviser is decent, as is Saddam, and the stylist, but other than that they're all just meh. Not so bad that you roll your eyes at the laugh-ability, but not good enough that they're entirely believable all the time.

Tilt (5) - I really enjoyed the movie. I love movies with a really good strong performance by someone I'm not really expecting it from. Also, I like how it shows some of the crap that was going on over there and justifies us disposing of that family, no matter what the reasons we went there for were. It isn't going to cost you a dime to see it, so please do!!!

Total Score (4.13)

The Hunger Games

Right off the bat I'm gonna tell you I haven't read the books, so this is in no way going to influence my views on the movie other than a allusion to what might be in the books.

Based on a book written by a television writer (which explains some things) about a dystopian future where there has been a civil war and, as punishment, a young girl and boy from each of 12 Districts must battle to the death in a heavily controlled woodland environment and it's all broadcast on TV. That's about it from a setup point and I will throw up a SPOILER ALERT from here on in because there is no way I'm gonna be able to discuss this movie without spoilers.

Onward and upward.

The Hunger Games (2011)

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/

Technical (3) - Everything here is not too bad considering you're talking what should have been a high budget movie made for only $78 million. It has a distinctively SyFy movie feel to it that I just couldn't shake for most of the movie. It was all pretty passable. Nothing spectacular, nothing too detrimental other than the clothing styles of the people of the Capital which were pretty distracting and just plain odd. I understand it was supposed to accentuate the dichotomy between the rich Capital and the poor Districts, but I don't understand why they had to do all that craziness with the garish makeup and clothing that made me think they should have been doing The Time Warp instead. Not everyone was so crazily dressed. Harrelson, Kravitz, Sutherland, and Bentley all showed their elitism without going way over the top. I can see guys wearing glittered eye shadow and trimming a crazy beard (he claims it was real and he had to wear it in public when not shooting...), but not a woman wearing makeup like a damn clown (I'm looking at you Banks). Otherwise the CGI works but isn't remarkable, the set pieces are pretty sparse, the music is mostly forgettable, and the camera work does it's job (except I will be glad when "Blair Witch" cam finally dies out).

Dialogue/Story (1) - Here's where the whole thing takes a dive. It pains me to see a writer not only allow their work to be butchered, but actively participate in that butchering. I can only see it that way because what I assume was sort of central in the novel is nowhere to be seen here. Bella has Jacob at home, but is out gallivanting around on TV with Edw...oh...wrong names. You get the picture though. I can't imagine that the internal conflict of the boy at home (which is never clearly defined as her love interest in the beginning) and the boy who seems to be just using her as a means to an end isn't a central theme. Another issue is that there seems to not be an over-arching story that goes beyond this one. It's alluded to at the very end, but they really didn't establish the gravity of the situation. That seemed to be a problem with the whole story! They didn't establish much in the way of relationships (we're not given time to "get" the older/younger sister thing with the girl from District 11 before she's dead which takes away from the emotional impact the scene should have had), of the history (Were the Districts there before? How are these Districts divided? Why are some so much poorer than others? Why were the black kids from the poorer district?), and even of the structure of this mythos (Was Harrelson a winner from District 12? Who the hell was Banks in all this? Other than obviously being a stylist, did Kravitz really have a purpose in sending her off?). SO many questions and not in a good way like "Donnie Darko" where you really want to discuss them, more like questions that frustrate and that you're not even given a crumb to go on. I'm absolutely SURE most of this was more detailed in the books (I'm gonna read it, I'll let you know). Dialogue was fairly predictable too.

Oh and I don't feel like looking up their character names in the movie, so deal with it.

Acting (4) - Stellar cast here. Only Hutcherson was a little bit of a let down. Otherwise, everyone was really on their game. Tucci is over the top, but in a good way for what his character requires. Banks is reaching just a little, but it wasn't so bad that it detracted from the movie. It kinda showed how detached emotionally she was from the idea of a bunch of kids trying to kill each other. The rest of the cast perform admirably, with no one really standing out too much which I think in this kind of a movie is good.

Tilt (3) - I didn't hate it. I didn't LOVE it, but I didn't hate it. I enjoyed it as a popcorn movie and nothing else. I'm trying not to dissect it too much, because the more I do, the more it falls apart (did we completely forget about the cannons for all the middle of the movie???). The more I think about it, the more it should have had something to say. Futuristic dystopian movies should all contain a lesson and the only lesson I can glean is "stay out of the way and everyone will pretty much kill each other and then you can pull some sort of bullshit out of  your hat at the end and win...pretty much pissing everyone in power off.

Total Score - 2.75

Overall not a bad movie, per se, but definitely had the potential to be so much more.

How (and Why) I Rate

Ok, first off, if you came here for an objective review of ANYTHING you're fooling yourself. No such thing when it comes to movies and games (heretofore known as media). For one thing, the person reviewing may value one aspect of the media more or less than you. Their mood that day and inclination toward the media in the first place can have a heavy influence. Hell, factors that have nothing to do with the media whatsoever can sway opinions one way or the other. So before you get your panties in a bunch because I say something you love is complete garbage or vice-versa, remember that this is my OPINION. And you're an idiot.

In order to mitigate this being my opinion, I break up my movie reviews into 4 scores followed by a cumulative average score. I do this so you can focus on what you value most in a movie. Here are the explanation of each with examples of the good and bad:

Technical - This is a sum of Directing, Editing, Art Direction, Cinematography, Special Effects, Music, Sound, etc. Basically all the Academy Awards no one gives a tinkus cuss about. I kid, but it's kinda true. I hate to lump all these together, but then again, it makes sense. Either all of these things work together and make the movie better or they fall apart and make it worse. The only instance that this area really doesn't matter much to me is Comedies. If it's funny it's usually because of the next two areas, not this one. Example of good technical making an ok (or in this case "bad") movie better: "A Clockwork Orange". Think about it, it's depravity at its finest and arguably Malcolm McDowell makes it better on his own, but a movie like that teeters on the edge the whole time which takes a deft hand to manage. The opposite is true of something like "Darkness Falls" or most modern horror. The story and acting isn't horrible, but everything else is just so awfully done it drags the whole movie down.

Dialogue/Story - This one is fairly explanatory. Both the overarching story and the actual dialogue between the actors is what is scored here. To me, this is the most important part of a movie. So popcorn crap like "Transformers" loses alot of ground in this area. Predictable stories and dialogue are the biggest anchors when you look at this score. On the other hand, any movie by Tarantino is fantastic because of how he writes. Perfect example: "Jackie Brown" is not his best from a technical aspect, but it is elevated to one of my favs because of the dialogue (especially Ordell's) and story.

Acting - Again, very self explanatory. I have to believe them in the role and not feel like they're overacting or that I'm always aware that they're "acting". A little hard to explain, but take almost every performance by Katherine Hepburn. You can almost see her reciting the other person's lines in her head and counting how long the pause should be before she speaks. Or when they desperately try to make Tom Cruise an "action hero"...I just don't buy it. Back on the other side is "Doubt", a movie that is not particularly well put together or written that well, but the performances of Meryl, Amy, Viola, and Philip (who I normally don't like) brought it up to a high caliber level.

Tilt - This last category is where the intangibles lie. This is where any sense of objectivity that was there in the previous categories goes out the window. Sometimes a movie can be hitting on all the other cylinders, but it will just leave me flat (like "Monster") or a movie can be not particularly good in any of the other areas, but I love it (like "Empire Records"). I really don't have a distinct set of criteria here, just how I really felt about the movie.

So that's about it...and as far as games, it's a little harder to do a review with a score to me. I think that will be more of a pros and cons discussion followed by a recommend or not. This one is even more subjective than movies, especially because I only like certain types of games, but can appreciate almost any movie.

So long for now. I'll probably have an actual review up either tomorrow or Monday. I need to watch "The Hunger Games"...don't know how I feel about that.