The Darwin Awards

The movie was good enough to steer me away from my usual Saturday program but not good enough that it's still not on Wikipedia after approximately 3 years since the release. Let's investigate this shall we?

The cast was fairly noticeable with Winona Ryder as the leading lady and Joseph Fiennes as the main character that this entire plot is consisted of. Put in simple terms it's about a criminal profiler who is kicked off the force due to his comic fear of blood. He finds a job analysing incidents for an insurance company, to decide how the victims really died and whether their families deserve the insurance. It goes on like this making mockery of the combination of stupidity and death and of course through the process Micheal (Fiennes) not only discovers who the serial killer is from his last case at his previous job but also he discovers love. Oh and for some reason they decide to throw in a college student who has gotten permission from Micheal to use him as his subject for his documentary. The filmer has no real purpose in the plot besides the fact he is a good tool for humour in certian scenes.

So the plot is a little pointless but sometimes plot is over-rated. I found the way all the people died hilarious in every way the director intended it and if you keep your eyes open you'll see the guest appearance of those two guys from Myth Busters.

What sucked about this film or what probably doesn't help the film's status is that Winona Ryder was the only actor i recognized (she was after all considered an 80's Goddess) It might just be me but I've never heard of Joseph Fiennes. Another problem was the plot though comedic when it wanted to be was really stupid and ultimately lame. The romance was pathetic and the movie ended ultimately with a cliche'. Now I know this movie wasn't meant to be a cinematic masterpiece. Leave that to movies like Crash or something old school like Rumble Fish but my point is it could've ended with a little dignity.  

And though I am still surprised the film still isn't on wikipedia (thank god I have my back-up site imdb.com) I guess it's for the best. The movie isn't fantastic, just the way some of the people die is this film. So I'm giving it a 6 out of 10. Nothing spectacular, watch if your bored and feel like some clever black humor. But be prepared to have crappy romance and pointless plot flooded over you too.

The Quick and The Dead (1995, not the 1978 racing documentary)

I have to say I ask for true western and I got a true western. To be honest what mainly brought my attention to the movie was the fact Russell Crowe AND Leonardo Dicaprio were in it. I was truly surprised to find Crowe or Leo were not the main characters but a name I hadn't heard of, Sharon Stone. 

The story tells a tale of a young female gunslinger(Stone) who travels to a small town to partake in a quick-draw contest. But obviously she's not just in it for money but a quest of revenge, a real western vendetta to avenge the death of her Father. And the man that shall pay for her father's death is the corrupt mayor of the town running the contest and supplying the reward. Meanwhile a young man(Dicaprio) presumably just out of his teens living in the dusty forgotten and corrupted town also has plans to enter the contest. But in his case it's not a quest of revenge but a quest of recognition and respect. And then believe it or not the plot thickens! Yes, the third vital character to this incredibly layered western is the guy we've been waiting for. Crowe plays "The Preacher" A man who used to be a real bad-ass outlaw who was involved in many schemes with the now corrupted mayor but had a change of heart when certain blood was shed. So these are the three main focal characters of the film and as the plot twists tighter and tighter tension arises as guns are fired and confessions are made.

Sounds corny right? Well fortunately it wasn't. the film just had the right blend of western themes, well known-actors and a fairly decent ending.  The things I was impressed with is though the ending was pretty clear seeing as it is a western there were things that I should've picked up on. you'll notice that throughout the movie there are hints to what happened so many ears ago. I also found the second last duel between people i am not going to name and the outcome of this fight to be relatively unexpected. Sharon Stone certainly pulled off the Gunslinger Bitch look and even though the flashbacks were cliche I guess they were standard for this genre of movie.

The things that I was disappointed in was a lot to do with Crowe's performance. I was hoping for a more bad-ass looking guy. I mean I know he was The Preacher with honorable intentions and a haunting past but I was hoping for something like his vibe in 3:10 to Yuma ( a western film in 2007 where he played the "bad guy") I knew he was playing a man of God but God can be bad-ass too can't he? Maybe it's in the Bible somewhere (laughs at the thought) Anyway, my point is I reckon Russell Crowe could have turned on the western outlaw charm a bit more. Other then that I thought the ending was good but could certainly be better. And when I say better I mean a little more complicated and shocking for all the characters circulating around the conclusion. I just think the ending being summed up with one short flash back after many fragmented flashbacks earlier in the film was too easy. I wanted something so complex that I had to take a minute to process it. Maybe something that even shocked the main character as she realized something that she'd forgotten after all those years. I was hoping for something like her realizing that it was not the mayor but in fact The Preacher who killed her father or anything along those lines. But I will say the ending was good none the less even if it wasn't as mind-blowing as I'd hoped. The third and final flaw that i found more amusing rather then disappointing was the sets. I mean some of those "mountains" in the distance made me laugh out loud. And in the serious moments of heart-wrenching emotion or a few close-ups and zoom-outs the sky just said it all. As if God had put those computerized sunsets and perfect clouds there to command us to laugh. So when your watching it keep an eye out for those. Start bets with your friends as to which sky or cluster of background mountains are real or fake. I say have fun and enjoy film in new ways then ever before. 

But of course I haven't elaborated on my mentioning of Leonardo Dicaprio. Now i know this is completely irrelevant to the current blog I'm typing but Leo looks so old now! I mean I see him in that and he's what? Early to mid 20's? I just caught him in A Golden Globes Award Show and he has the whole beard happening and the hair is darker and more mature and it's just like whoah! I had to get that off my chest now back to the article at hand...

He certainly proved himself right for the role. All I can say is he got the job done. Nothing inspiring or incredible but I can't say he didn't do a good job. I guess there were some emotional scenes with him that were completed quite masterfully for an actor who was at that age (remember it was 1995 when this came out) but it is definitely not his best work. And don't anybody dare say Titanic was his greatest film because shivering and saying I Love You Rose should never be the kind of thing your remembered for. 

So what else is there here for me to say? It was a good worth-your-while western with a great cast and on-screen "spark" that will not disappoint. 8 out of 10 from me and I hope you don't make the mistake that the fact 1950's westerns aren't supposedly "cool" means any other western should not be counted as a decent movie either.