Tag Archives: Movie Reviews

Movies

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) a (SPOILERY) review

Perhaps the movie I most anticipated for summer release was Star Trek Into Darkness, the sequel to director J. J. Abrams’ 2009 “reboot” of the original Star Trek franchise.  That film proved to be a big success at the box office and was enjoyed by many Star Trek fans new and old.

I, however, didn’t think all that much of the original film.

Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t hate it.  It just felt like the film after a while devoted a little too much time making references or shout outs to the “old” Trek.  Further, the movie’s story had its share of trouble spots.  For example, I found it hard to swallow the way –waaaaaay– too convenient manner in which the young Kirk just happens to stumble upon the elderly Spock.  I also didn’t like the way Kirk, in the movie’s climax, has the Enterprise fire upon his enemy to kill him, even though at that point the villain is clearly incapable of fighting back.

Despite my somewhat lukewarm feelings for that original film, I was nonetheless cautiously optimistic regarding a sequel.  Like most everyone else with internet access, it was hard not to pick up on bits and pieces of the movie’s creation.  Early word was that Benecio Del Toro was in line for a part in the film, and that instantly created heavy rumors among fans regarding who he was going to play in this film.  Early rumors had it that Del Toro, a latin-American actor, might be playing the best known villain played originally by another famous latin American actor,  Ricardo Montalban‘s Khan.  This superhuman villain first appeared in Space Seed, an episode of the original Star Trek series and subsequently re-appeared as the same character to menace the Enterprise and her crew in what many (including myself) consider the best Star Trek film ever made, 1982’s Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

The rumors regarding Mr. Del Toro’s role picked up steam but the studios vigorously nixed them.  By now, most savvy movie goers were only too aware of a similar stunt pulled by director Christopher Nolan with his third Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises, wherein the identity of Marion Cotillard’s character was kept hidden but the fan base figured out who she was playing well before the movie’s release.

Now, before I go on, even though I suspect most people are by now aware of who the villain of Star Trek Into Darkness is, I’ll nonetheless issue the following…

SPOILER ALERT!

Still here?  All right, you’ve been warned.

Soon after the announcement of Mr. Del Toro being sought for a role in the new Star Trek film came word he dropped out of the project.  Replacing him, curiously enough, was rising British star Benedict Cumberbatch.  Despite this radical change in casting -at least from a standpoint of ethnicity- the rumors the role remained that of Khan persisted.  More denials were issued and some fans, thinking the studios were being sincere in their denials, looked elsewhere for clues as to who Mr. Cumberbatch was playing.  What was becoming clear is that he was playing some kind of superhuman character and two other possibilities immediately sprung to mind to the fans.

First, was it possible this new Trek film would be a remake of the original series’ second pilot, Where No Man Has Gone Before?  Could Mr. Cumberbatch be playing Gary Mitchell, a friend of Kirk’s who assumed God-like power and had to be dispatched before he threatened the universe itself?  In that episode, Kellerman played Dr. Elizabeth Dehner, a character that looked an awful lot like Alice Eve, also in the cast of Into Darkness.

Another possibility…was Mr. Cumberbatch playing Zefram Cochrane in a remake of Metamorphosis?

Eventually, Abrams’ and company issued a silly news “release” stating that Mr. Cumberbatch was playing a character called “Jim Harrison”.  Everyone, and I mean everyone, knew Mr. Abrams and company were indeed following The Dark Knight Rises playbook.

Finally, Star Trek Into Darkness was given a sneak preview in Australia several weeks before the general release in the United States and the rumors were finally confirmed.

And then came the problems.

Because Mr. Abrams’ and company chose to go so secretive with the identity of Mr. Cumberbatch’s character, a backlash inevitably grew.  After all, by using the character of Khan, they effectively were remaking the most beloved of the Star Trek films.

The reviews started coming in and, for the most part, they were positive.  Had Abrams’ and company delivered?

For the most part, I would say yes.

Star Trek Into Darkness is certainly not your old Star Trek movie.  I think those critical to the film as being more Star Wars than Star Trek are pretty much on the money here.  For Star Trek Into Darkness is an unapologetic action film filled with one big set piece after another.  There remain logic flaws in the story and there is at least one scene designed to do little more than offer audiences eye candy (I’m referring, of course, to the stunningly beautiful Alice Eve stripping scene, which Mr. Abrams himself has apparently come to realize was unnecessary).

If I had any major beefs with the film, it is in that despite all the well designed action and great effects, the movie’s script could have been so much more than it was.  For example, in the opening segment, wherein Kirk violates the prime directive, wouldn’t it have been so much more interesting (and fun!) if instead of on a planet filled with very primitive peoples, the crew were on one of the more interesting “alternative” worlds as presented in the original series?  How about the same basic premise (needing to do something to help a humanoid race not be extinguished) but instead have the crew deal with what look like 1920’s era gangsters?  Or a world that emulated Nazi Germany?  Or the Roman Empire?

Wouldn’t that have been far more interesting than the primitive people they encountered?

Ah well, it is what it is.

Star Trek Into Darkness, while an enjoyable action film, is nonetheless less creative and “heavy” than most of the good Star Trek features.  When Kirk and Spock confront each other at the tail end of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, those scenes carry an emotional weight this new Trek simply cannot achieve…though they certainly try to copy.  Still, the movie remains an enjoyable feature, certainly to my mind better than the first Star Trek film from the same company.

Movies

The Outfit (1973) a (very) belated review

Having just seen Jack Reacher the other day and noting Robert Duvall in a small role within the film toward its end, it was intriguing -in a time travel sort of way- to subsequently see a much much younger Mr. Duvall in the starring role in 1973’s The Outfit, based on the third novel in the popular (and many times filmed) “Parker” series.

For those unfamiliar with the Parker character, he first appeared in the Richard Stark (a pseudonym for Donald Westlake) novel The Hunter.  That book would go on to be filmed and released in 1967 as Point Blank and starred the tough-as-nails Lee Marvin.  Author Donald Westlake, for whatever reason, didn’t want the movies to use the actual name “Parker” and therefore in Point Blank Parker became Walker.  Many years later the film would be re-made with Mel Gibson as the Parker character, this time named Porter, in Payback.

The third book in the series, The Outfit, is the focus of this 1973 film.  In many ways, The novels The Hunter and The Outfit are bookends.  They tell a larger story between themselves, one which was trimmed a little to make this film version.

When the The Outfit, opens, we follow two hitmen who find and kill a man.  We then shift to Macklin (Robert Duvall), who is in jail and is in the process of being released.  He’s picked up by Bett Harrow (Karen Black, looking absolutely stunning), who we find is more than a little nervous about being with Macklin.  She has good reason to be, as we quickly find that the man killed at the beginning of the film was Macklin’s brother and the mob wants to get rid of Macklin as well.  In fact, the mob put considerable pressure on Bett -including torture- to pick up Macklin when he got out of jail and had her set him up for a hit.  The mob is upset that Macklin and his brother’s last job, a bank robbery, targeted one of their banks.  Needless to say, the outfit will not tolerate such impertinence.

What follows is an intriguing cat and mouse game between Macklin and the mob.  With the aid of Bett and old friend Jack Cody (Joe Don Baker), Macklin intends to not only put pressure on the mob to call off the hit, but to also force them to pay him and make amends for killing his brother!

The Outfit features plenty of intriguing and familiar faces.  Legendary screen femme fatales Marie Windsor and Jane Greer pop up for a couple of scenes, as do familiar faces such as Richard Jaeckel, Sheree North, Elisha Cook Jr., Joanna Cassidy (in an early, early role), and, as the movie’s main bad guy, Robert Ryan.

The story flows well, never slowing too much and always moving toward its resolution.  If the movie has one big fault, to me it’s the character of Bett Harrow.  While I felt Karen Black delivered a great performance in the film, her character’s story arc was disappointingly small once all was said and done.  Early on in the film Jack Cody states that he and Macklin could do what needs to be done against the outfit without Bett.  Macklin disagrees and she stays in the picture but the movie essentially proves Cody was right.

It’s a minor gripe, to be sure, and while I still believe the best “Parker” film ever made remains Point Blank, to me the director’s cut of Payback (avoid the theatrical cut like the plague!) and The Outfit are neck and neck in second place.  Recommended.

And, just for the heck of it, trailers for Point Blank and Payback…

Movies

Jack Reacher (2012) a (mildly) belated review

Tom Cruise is…Jack Reacher.  Jack Reacher, of course, is the protagonist of a several books by author Lee Child.  When it was announced Mr. Cruise would play the titular character in a feature film, there was much teeth-gnashing among fans of the novels.

Jack Reacher, as described by Mr. Child, was a mountain of a man, tall and strong, and Tom Cruise…wasn’t.  Isn’t.  So, understandably, fans were incensed that he should be given the role.  I can honestly say the last time I saw that much controversy about the casting of a famous actor in a role familiar to legions of book fans might well have been Tom Cruise again, this time as the vampire Lestat in Interview With A Vampire.  In that case, the author of that book, Anne Rice, was at first just as seemingly aghast at the casting of Mr. Cruise as the fans were, though later on she considerably tempered her words and even acknowledged he did a good job in the role, something I agree with.

In fact, I don’t have much of a problem with Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher, either.  He eschews much of his trademark smiling/smirking and instead takes on the role as if he were doing a Clint Eastwood type imitation.  There is very little levity to this particular character, after all.

The story starts with a mysterious man driving his van to an upper level in a parking lot, pulling out a rifle, and shooting five people across the river from his position.  The authorities are quickly on the case and find considerable evidence that points them directly to an Iraq war vet who has a dark past.  The evidence against him is so airtight that, after arresting the suspect, they demand he confess to his crimes to avoid a quick (and harsh) judgment.

The suspect doesn’t, instead asking for ex-military police officer Jack Reacher.  However, before that request is heard by Reacher, he sees the news of the crime and goes to the city it occurred in himself, intent on…well, that is never really made all that clear.  I suppose he went there to rub the subject’s guilt in his face or something.  For you see, Reacher and the alleged sniper had a history in Iraq.  The sniper never killed anyone in combat and when he was very close to the end of his tour of duty he went rogue and took out a group of contractors.  As it turned out, the contractors were criminals and because of that it was decided by the higher ups to hush the entire matter.  Jack Reacher, however, knew the suspect had committed a cold blooded crime and wanted him to meet his justice.

However, upon hearing about the suspect’s request for him and after being convinced by the defense attorney (a lovely blonde played by Rosamund Pike, natch) to take on the case, Reacher decides to investigate.  Soon, he realizes the “airtight” evidence might be just a little too good.

I won’t go into too many more spoilers regarding Jack Reacher, but suffice to say the film is a solid if not outstanding effort, a decent way of passing time but a film that doesn’t reward careful scrutiny.  After the horrific events in the first part of the film, the crime itself recedes into the background and the story becomes a typical good-guy-versus-fearsome-bad-guys drama.

At one point in the film, after an extended car chase, Reacher ditches his car and merges into a group of people waiting at a bus stop.  Many, many police cars come roaring in to surround the abandoned car and –extremely improbably given the horrific sniper deaths the city has just gone through- the waiting passengers don’t point out Reacher to any of the police.  One of them even gives him his baseball cap so that he can hide.  (This scene can be found below, toward the end of the film’s trailer)

Good thing the citizens of Boston weren’t quite that willing to accept a total stranger in their midst while witnessing a massive police hunt.

Still, the main problem with Jack Reacher and what keeps it from rising from being a good action film to being a truly great one is that there is never a point you don’t feel like you’re watching a movie.  There is an artificiality to the product, from the suspect whose case is so completely airtight against him -yet who you know is innocent- to the lovely foil to the stalwart strong and silent type hero to the despicable (and ill-defined in terms of their actual end game) villains to the…I could go on and on, but what’s the point?

As I said, Jack Reacher is a good action film that moves well and gives you plenty to see. Just don’t go in there expecting to have your socks knocked off.

Movies

Street People (1976) a (very) belated review

First, sorry for the dearth of posts the past two weeks.  Couldn’t be helped as I’ve been remarkably busy…though now it looks like things have calmed down just in time for summer.

Now then, the 1976 film Street People (the film is also known as Sicilian Cross).  Never heard of it?  Neither, frankly, had I.  That is, until I spotted it on Netflix the other day.  The film features Roger Moore as Ulysses, a suave -yet outwardly very honest- mob lawyer who, on the side, is really a two-fisted fixer who, along with his partner Charlie Hanson (Stacy Keach) makes sure that all the crime bosses behave and if anyone engages in any skullduggery, even if they’re his close relatives, they will meet their justice for any crimes.

My review of the film is brief:  If you enjoy 1970’s era Roger Moore, Street People is a passable diversion, though it is far from the most coherent or exciting thing you’ll ever see.  I suspect most modern audiences, especially those not as aware of Roger Moore’s oeuvre, will find little worth seeing.

But me, being something of that 1970’s era Roger Moore fan, was intrigued to find this movie even existed, yet it fit into a pattern of the type of movies Mr. Moore appeared to be pursuing: Films where he shared the screen with other well known movie/TV stars.

Perhaps the genesis of Mr. Moore’s interest in sharing the screen with other well known actors began with the short lived 1971-72 TV series The Persuaders.  In that show, Mr. Moore shared the title role with Tony Curtis.

The same year that Street People was released came the Roger Moore/Lee Marvin pairing in Shout at the Devil.

Two years later, in 1978, Mr. Moore would join a larger cast, including Richard Burton, Richard Harris, and Stewart Granger in The Wild Geese.

The next year, in 1979, Mr. Moore shared the screen with James Mason and Anthony Perkins in the terrorist drama Ffolkes.

That very same year, Mr. Moore was part of a large ensemble cast that included Telly Savalas, David Niven, Claudia Cardinale, and a whole host of others in Escape to Athena.

The year after that, in 1980, Mr. Moore starred with Gregory Peck, David Niven (again!), and Trevor Howard in The Sea Wolves.

Am I making my point?  Well, let me add just one more film:  In 1981 Mr. Moore played a small -yet arguably the most humorous- role in a movie featuring a very large cast and starring Burt Reynolds.  Who can forget….The Cannonball Run?

Ok, so I’ve gone an awful, AWFUL long way to make this point:  I have a feeling Street People (remember that film?  You know, the one this blog post was allegedly reviewing?) features Stacy Keach in a role that looks an awful lot like it was originally tailored for…Burt Reynolds.

In fact, I’m positive the “good-ol’ boy race driver” role that Mr. Keach played in Street People had to have been originally intended for Mr. Reynolds.  As proof, I offer the following clip from that movie:

Much as I like Mr. Keach as an actor, every time he appeared on screen in Street People I couldn’t help but wonder if the film would have been better had Mr. Reynolds played the secondary role.

Perhaps.

Regardless, I doubt he would have made the film all that much better than it eventually was.  Still, an intriguing bit of what it…if nothing else.

Movies

John Dies At The End (2012) a (mildly) belated review

Way, waaaaay back when, perhaps late 1979 or early to mid-1980, I got my hands on a betamax tape that carried a copy of the recently released horror film Phantasm.

There was an eeriness to the proceedings, of the story involving a young boy and the strange encounters he has with the supernatural.  It was almost as if the movie presented a particularly twisted version of a fairy tale, complete with a very scary “witch” in the form of the “tall man” and his deadly spherical weapons.

The film, quite frankly, scared the living shit out of me.

Watching the film again many years later, it was obvious the original Phantasm was a no-budget work that featured some rather rough (ahem) acting and effects that weren’t all that good.  While I suspect modern audiences may find the whole thing too slow and too cheesy, way back when Phantasm was a kick to the gut.

The years passed and sequels to the movie appeared.  I wasn’t as into them as I was the original, but then in 2002 I heard about an oddball sounding horror-comedy called Bubba Ho-Tep.  The plot certainly sounded intriguing:  Elvis Presley is not dead but in an old age rest home along with a black man who believes he is John F. Kennedy.  Together, the two old men face off against…a mummy’s curse?!

Clearly, one of the more…original…concepts out there.  Even ten years later.

The best part of it all?  Bruce Campbell was playing Elvis!

The film proved a delight, and it was only after doing some research on it I realized the director of that film, Don Coscarelli, was also the director of Phantasm, its sequels, and a few others, including the cult flick The Beastmaster.  Since then, Mr. Coscarelli has been on my personal radar, and when I heard about his latest film, John Dies at the End, well, it was a must see.

Alas, the film appeared to have, at best, a very limited release.  In fact, I don’t think it showed up at any of the theaters around my neck of the woods so I had to wait for Netflix to get their hands on it and, yesterday, I finally had a chance to give the film a look.

To put it simply:  If you enjoyed Bubba Ho-Tep, you’ll probably love this film as well.  However, Bubba remains the superior product.

Having said that, John Dies at the End (JDE from now on) is well worth your time.  The movie concerns two friends, Dave (Chase Williamson) and John (Rob Mayes) who, while at a party in which John sings with his band, stumble upon a strange drug known as “soy sauce” which grants its users some extraordinary abilities…and may lead to the destruction of Earth as we know it.

The story is told in media res, with the drugged out Dave talking to reporter Arnie Blondestone (Paul Giamatti) about the series of strange events that have led to this point in time.  The movie begins on a potentially ominious note, but quickly establishes the tongue in cheek attitude that was prevalent in Bubba Ho-Tep, delivering each scare with an armful of chuckles.

What the film lacks, however, are the stronger stroy concepts and established actors that helped push Bubba Ho-Tep into being something truly special.  This is not a knock against JDE’s young principals, but their characters are lacking when compared to following such historical figures as Elvis Presley and John F. Kennedy.  Further, JDE plays out like an extra weird two-part episode of the TV show Supernatural rather than a self-contained film.

Still, and despite these knocks, I still highly recommend John Dies at the End to anyone who enjoyed Bubba Ho-Tep.  When all is said and done, nothing may ever surpass the clever lunacy of Bubba Ho-Tep.  However, while Mr. Coscarelli is still in the game and swinging, I’ll most certainly be around to watch.

Movies

Argo (2012) a (mildly) belated review

The two big films in the hunt for the Academy Award for motion pictures released in 2012 appeared to be Argo and Zero Dark Thirty.  I find this fascinating because both films share much in common.

There’s the obvious fact that both are based on real events that involve the United States and our dealings with the Arab world.  From a story standpoint, both films follow similar patterns.  In Argo, we start with a primer on the United States’ relationship with Iran and how all this lead to the eventual taking of the U.S. Consulate in Iran.  In Zero Dark Thirty, we start with eerie sound from the tragedy of 9/11.

Both films then introduce us to our protagonist and the job they devote themselves.  In both cases, our protagonists are intelligence agents.  In Argo, we follow Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) as he puts together a phony movie to use as a front to get six American who escaped the U.S. Consulate and are hiding in the home of a Canadian diplomat stationed in Iran out of the country.  In Zero Dark Thirty, we follow the more mysterious agent Maya (Jessica Chastain) as she spearheads the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.  Both movies climax with the end of their respective missions.

The tone of the two films presents the biggest difference between them.  While Zero Dark Thirty was serious and mostly grim, Argo manages to insert considerable humor into the proceedings (mind you, the film is NOT a comedy) which play out like a real life Mission: Impossible episode, minus all the masks and sophisticated equipment.

The events in Argo took place in 1980 while the events in Zero Dark Thirty took place in 2011, some thirty one years later.  And while both films are highly recommended and are equally enjoyable on their own merits, I found it sad to compare and contrast them and realize that after all these years between the events depicted in the two movies we are still caught in a vortex when it comes to the Arab world.

Perhaps one day, hopefully sooner rather than later, we will finally, finally make a peace between our peoples.

Movies

The American (2010) a (mildly) belated review

Perhaps the most fascinating things about 2010’s The American is how skewed audience reaction was.  If you head over to Rotten Tomatoes’ summary of the film, you’ll find that critics, for the most part, liked it (66% approval) while regular audiences pretty much hated it (only 37% approval).

I found these statistics after seeing and digesting the film for myself.  My conclusion?  The results don’t surprise me.  I suspect The American is simply one of those divisive films that one is either going to love (or at the least like) or hate.

For The American is something of a throwback of a film, a 2010 film that nonetheless feels as if it is trying to evoke the moody character studies present in films of the late 1960’s and into the 1970’s.  For my money, there’s nothing wrong with that.  For others, the idea of following a dark, emotionally distant hitman over the course of nearly two hours with very little actual “action” may be simply too dull a trip to take.

Count me in the former category…though with one very big caveat.

The American begins with our main character, the mysterious hitman (George Clooney) in a small wooden cabin out in the middle of a serene snowy tableau.  He has company, a beautiful woman whom he is clearly intimate with.  They go out for a walk and, suddenly, the hitman realizes someone is targeting him.

Without giving too much away, our hitman is separated from the woman and is forced to leave this seemingly idyllic home.  He contacts his superior who sends him to a small Italian villa to cool off while he “looks into” the people who are after the hitman.  He also offers him a job.

The bulk of the film follows our hitman as he navigates two small Italian villas while working on the creation/modification of a silenced weapon.  Three times he meets his actual (Thekla Reuten), who, we know, will use this weapon for an assassination.  During this time we become close enough to our hitman to get a taste of his growing sense of paranoia.  Are the killers who nearly got to him at the start of the film still on his trail?  Is his client and/or his boss out to get him?  And, when he starts seeing a prostitute named Clara (the absolutely stunning Violante Placido), is she more than she seems…?

By the time the film reaches its climax, most of my guesses as to what was going on turned out to be true and, therefore, I have to say the plot of The American is -to me anyway- rather predictable.  It is this very predictability (the caveat I mentioned above) that keeps me from giving The American a hearty endorsement.  The movie is, nonetheless, a good slow burn thriller which features some incredible cinematography and acting (and, as mentioned before, the stunning Ms. Placido).  While it may not be as successful -at least from a story standpoint- as I hoped it would be, you can do far worse than spend your time with The American.  On the other hand, don’t expect a truly stunningly original and/or unpredictable story.

(Maybe one of the other reasons audiences were turned off by the film is that the trailers, like the one below, made the film look like more of an action/adventure/thriller than it was.  There are action sequences, but for the most part the film is a character study.  You have been warned!)

Movies

The Naked City (1948) a (ridiculously) belated review

“There are eight million stories in the naked city…this has been one of them.”

So concludes the narrator/producer Mark Hellinger at the end of 1948’s The Naked City, the justifiably famous film noir/police melodrama that features a fascinating -and prolonged- glimpse at the New York City of the then present but for us distant past.

I’ve seen the film before and was riveted by the sights and sounds and people presented in the movie, many of them little more than faces in the crowds.  The movie’s look at New York City circa the late 1940’s should appeal to all history buffs, but the story is equally interesting.

We begin with the city itself, late at night, and we are presented with various places that are, for the most part, deserted at this late hour.  Then, the meat of the story:  Two thugs in a blonde woman’s apartment have subdued their victim using chloroform.  Their reason for being in the apartment is not immediately clear, but their intentions with the beautiful woman are:  They decided to place her in the bathtub, to “make sure” she doesn’t live the night.

The next day, her body is discovered and the investigation begins.  We follow the police, principally Detective Lieutenant Dan Muldoon (a typically delightful Barry Fitzgerald) who sifts through the evidence and interrogates suspects and Detective Jimmy Halloran (Don Taylor) who does most of the case’s foot work.

Without giving too much away, the case has its ups and downs and the protagonists have to deal with witnesses both good and bad and, in an especially poignant scene, the parents of the victim.  All the detective work leads to a fantastic climax that in many ways is reminiscent of the climax of King Kong (!!!!).

So, if you’re a fan of mystery films and/or are curious to get an extended, loving look at a New York City that for the most part no longer exists, I highly, HIGHLY recommend checking out The Naked City.

A couple of bits of Interesting trivia:

The movie eventually led to Naked City, the popular television show that ran from 1958 to 1963 and featured an amazing array of them up and coming actors.

Don Taylor, one of the two main protagonists in the film, went on to have a fascinating career as a director.  He was responsible for several interesting 1970’s to 1980 era sci-fi films, including (but not limited to!) Escape from the Planet of the Apes, The Island of Dr. Moreau, Damien: Omen II, and The Final Countdown.

Movies

The Day (2011) a (mildly) belated review

I first heard about 2011’s The Day from an interview of Dominic Monaghan, arguably the most recognizable star of the film and one of its producers.  Unfortunately, Mr. Monaghan gave away a rather large spoiler regarding the film which ruined what was surely one of the bigger surprises the filmmakers wanted to unload on audiences.

Afterwards, I heard almost nothing of the movie.

The Day received a limited U.S. release and, for all intents and purposes, became another in the endless string of (in this case almost) direct to video releases.  Then, a couple of “Movies you should see but didn’t” type reviews re-ignited my interest in seeing it.  So I did.

The Day is, essentially, a zombie flavored siege type story, only without zombies.  We have a group of five people, three men and two women, who are cautiously hiking through what we quickly learn is very dangerous territory.  The weather is cold and rainy and one of them is very sick.  When the group finds an abandoned home, they decide to camp out there until the rain lets up, unaware that the building is more than it seems.

As mentioned, this is a siege type story, with the villains turning out to be cannibals.  In this post-apocalyptic future, “regular” humans are few, animals are for the most part extinct and farming is a thing of the past.  Thus, there is no food source other than scavenging for scraps from the past (in the form of canned edibles) or joining cannibal clans on the hunt for other humans to feed on.

This is a low budget film, but the movie does manage to build up a nice head of steam and provides audiences with several interesting characters.  Of particular note is Ashley Bell’s portrayal of Mary, one of the group of five who, we find, has some very dark secrets of her own.  She is effectively the movie’s protagonist, and shines the brightest among the other characters as the stoic, tight lipped ass-kicking protagonist.

Having said that, the film is not without its problems.  Unfortunately, the makers relied on some very substandard computer generated effects for some of the more grisly scenes.  While I think computer generated effects can be used well in movies, when they are used to portray blood or injuries to the body they can be unrealistic to the point of being distracting.  In the case of The Day, the filmmakers probably would have been better served trying to use practical effects rather than the computer generated ones.

The movie also spends a little too much time, in my opinion, with the villains of the piece.  The movie might have worked a little better if those villains had been kept a little more obscure, a la John Carpenter’s 1976 Assault on Precinct 13, my all time favorite siege film.

Still, for a low budget and for all intents and purposes direct to video film, The Day delivers a decent amount of thrills and chills and a fascinating protagonist.  It may not be one of the best siege type films ever made, but it is far, far from the worst.  Recommended for those who like this type of movie.

Movies

The Five-Year Engagement (2012) a (mildly) belated review

I’m not a big fan of “romantic comedies”.  It seems just about all of them follow the same basic formula:  Guy meets girl and often they are attracted immediately (in which case they are often involved with other girl/boyfriends) or initially hate/despise each other.  Over the course of the movie, they realize they are meant for each other, but then in the later acts comes the “big split” and the couple go their separate ways and it seems love will lose out.  But in the movie’s climax, something makes them realize they were meant for each other regardless of whatever problems they just went through, and the movie ends with the two in each other’s arms or at the altar and on their way to living happily ever after.

In the case of The Five-Year Engagement, much of that first section of of the story is truncated (though it does appear in flashbacks) as the movie starts with the proposal between Tom Solomon (Jason Segel) and Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt).  She accepts, of course, and the film then proceeds to pull the couple through many obstacles on their way to the altar, including the inevitable split up and equally inevitable reconciliation and (believe it or not he says with more than a hint of sarcasm) climax at the altar.

Despite finding the whole romantic comedy formula rather obvious and not being a big fan of it, I don’t necessarily hate romantic comedies either.  When the formula is really subverted, as in the case of the razor sharp Grosse Point Blank, it can be quite delightful.

But despite some genuinely hilarious bits (and there are quite a few) in The Five-Year Engagement, what ultimately does the film in is its waaaaaaay too long run time.  Incredibly, the movie clocks in at just over two hours (124 minutes, according to IMDB) in length and, frankly, the screenplay by Jason Segel and director Nicholas Stoller needed a thorough going over and -yes- paring down.  If not in the screenplay stage, then certainly in the editing phase.  There were several scenes and sequences that could have easily been cut from the film without impacting the story in any noticeable way.  Two of the more egregious ones involved Tom’s near-infidelity with a fellow worker which resulted in him losing a toe (don’t ask, but it was neither funny or pushed the plot forward in any big way) and Tom’s subsequent relationship with a much younger woman (ditto).  No offense to either of the actresses involved in those sequences, but the film would have been perfectly fine without those -and a few other- scenes at all.

The bottom line is that there’s a perfectly good one and a half hour (at most!) romantic comedy hiding in the bloated two hour-plus The Five-Year Engagement.