One of my favorite “slow burn” films is the 1968 Steve McQueen classic Bullitt. The movie features a dense plot and urges its viewers to pay attention to what’s going on. Steve McQueen himself, as the title character, appears at times to be almost sleepwalking through the proceedings, ever watching and paying attention to what’s going on around him. In the end, we realize he knows only too well what’s happening and has played his cards just right, dealing with his superiors and his superior’s superiors while faithfully solving a perplexing case.
I’ve long maintained that the movie’s one “superfluous” sequence is perhaps it’s best: The justifiably famous car chase sequence through the hilly streets of San Francisco. This sequence didn’t have to be in the film, yet it was there, a cheery on top of the cake, which for a moment made a “day in a policeman’s life” drama into an exciting action film.
To me, all this works to make an absolutely smashing film.
Fast forward forty four years and last night I popped the 2011 version of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (from now on I’ll refer to it as TTSS to save on typing) into my DVD player and gave it a whirl. TTSS is an adaptation of the classic John Le Carre Cold War spy drama and, like the book, is set in the early 1970’s. You wouldn’t think such a work would have all that much in common with Bullitt, a police vs. the mob film from 1968, but you’d be surprised by the elements they do share.
In the case of TTSS, like Bullitt you’re dealing with a thoughtful protagonist who’s called in to solve a sticky situation. Bullitt’s sticky situation involves the mob and a witness who the higher ups want him to protect so that he will get to testify before a jury. TTSS involves a semi-retired spy who is called in to find out who among his closest ex-allies is a Russian mole. The protagonist in both films quietly observes all that goes around him, often realizing more than others realize. Both films also present the material almost blandly, showing us the routine of each day in a mostly realistic fashion.
But while Bullitt held my attention throughout, TTSS ultimately never really catches fire. Years before I recall seeing the original TTSS television mini-series with Alec Guiness in the title role, but I recall very few of the details. What I do remember is that it, unlike this new film, held my attention.
While the acting within this new TTSS movie is uniformly good and the presentation of early 1970’s London is quite spectacular, the direction and pace of the film borders on the outright boring. I suspect the people behind the film were trying their best to make an “anti”-Bourne type spy film, but one wonders why they decided to present virtually everything in such a sedate way.
And, no, I wasn’t hoping for an exciting -though perhaps superfluous- car chase in the middle of the film.
Might have helped, though!
In the end, I simply cannot recommend the theatrical version of TTSS. A real shame, given the talents involved.
As an interesting comparison, here’s a sequence from the original TV version of TTSS:
Heard plenty of good things about The Raid: Redemption, and being a fan of action films, I just had to give it a try.
Filmed in Jakarta, Indonesia, The Raid: Redemption starts out really, really well. In fact, the opening of the film reminded me in a very pleasant way to what I consider one of director John Carpenter’s very best films, Assault on Precinct 13 (the original 1976 version, not the pretty lame 2005 remake).
The plot of The Raid is simple yet very effective: A group of young SWAT officers is tasked to silently enter a fortified building within the Jakarta slums. Their mission is seek out and apprehend the crime lord that runs that building and bring him to justice. However, halfway up the building the hunters become the hunted when the many criminals residing within the building target the SWAT team.
There are a few other plot flourishes I won’t get into but suffice to say the film is a lean, mean action adventure that should satisfy most fans of this type of genre.
If there are any quibbles I have with the film, it is that there are several martial arts-type fights that, frankly, took me out of the nitty gritty nature of the film. Allow me to elaborate. In the movie’s early going, the sense of claustrophobia and the real fear of sudden death lurking behind any corner were very effective. You had a sense that the SWAT members were trapped in a hell where they would have to claw their way to freedom.
However, by the time the remaining SWAT members were down to using their fists and knives against the many villains they faced, the protracted fight scenes unfortunately resembled more typical martial art films and removed me from the more noir elements present up until that point.
Please note, though, that this is a relatively small quibble. There is word that producers in the United States are working on a remake of the film. I’m not terribly surprised. This is the type of feature that should be easily translated for American audiences. There is very little that need be changed.
So if you’re in the mood for a solid action film, you could do far worse than spend some time watching The Raid.
I still have pretty vivid memories of first seeing the poster for a then upcoming film that was scheduled to be released in 1981 called Escape From New York.
Perhaps you’ve heard of it?
Back then in the stone age of 1981, there was a great possibility movies you never heard of at all would suddenly “appear” before you either as posters (as was the case with that film) or via movie trailers. Nowadays, of course, we hear about, and sometimes even see clips of films as they’re being made. The element of surprise is, for the most part, gone.
When I finally saw Escape From New York, I had a curiously paradoxical reaction to it. I absolutely LOVED parts of it, from the clever storyline to actor Kurt Russell’s bizarre Clint Eastwood-talking Snake Plissken. But the film seemed to lose steam as it went along and I felt that as good as certain elements of it were, overall the film didn’t thrill me as much as I hoped it would.
Over the years, my opinion of it has changed, albeit slightly. I’ve grown to appreciate more of the film and realized, in retrospect, that much of my disappointment might well have been due to the film’s very low budget. The fact is that most of the special effects are presented at the start of the film while the rest of it features our characters running around dark streets that might well have been anywhere and, as it turned out, most of the city scenes were indeed not filmed in New York!
However, the good stuff stuck with me and when rumors came out that director John Carpenter envisioned making more Snake Plissken films, even one he wistfully (or perhaps jokingly?) called Escape From Earth, I was certainly all in favor of seeing that.
In the end Escape From New York proved something of a box office dud. Given its budget, it certainly made its money back and then some, but it took many more years -fifteen in fact- before Escape From L.A. was released in 1996. Sporting a far greater budget and the same lead and director, Escape From L.A. nonetheless proved a box office flop, earning less than its cost.
And that, it appeared, was that.
Until, that is, this year when producer/writer/director Luc Besson released Lockout. Produced and co-written by Mr. Besson, Lockout is, essentially, Escape From Earth as envisioned by him. Guy Pearce stars as Snow, a somewhat more gregarious version of Snake Plissken while Maggie Grace stars as Emile Warnock, the daughter of the President of the United States. The plot is a mild variation of both John Carpenter Escape films: The daughter of the President goes to an orbiting penal colony, the prisoners manage to escape and take over, and Snake…er…Snow goes in to find and free her. Oh, and the clock is ticking.
When I first saw the trailer for Lockout I was intrigued. My younger, more strident self (as opposed to the more mellow person I’ve since become) might have been furious that Mr. Besson (who is also listed in the credits as having the “original idea” of this film!!!!) would so cavalierly rip off another person’s concept.
Then again, the John Carpenter Escape property is, let’s face it, dead. Kurt Russell isn’t as young as he was before and I suspect he can’t pull off the character of Snake Plissken anymore (there was talk, by the way, of a remake of Escape From New York with new actors in the central roles, so obviously the studios already feel that Mr. Russell may be too old for the part). And John Carpenter, as big a cult movie director as he is, hasn’t made a “big” feature in a very, very long time…and I suspect studios aren’t exactly lining up to front him big money to do another Escape movie.
So when Mr. Besson and his “original” story idea for the film Lockout appeared, I couldn’t be too terribly upset. In fact, I was hoping that Mr. Besson and company captured some of the Escape magic -the good stuff versus the bad- and made some mindless piece of entertainment that I could sit back to and enjoy.
However, early reviews of the film were not very positive. In fact, most of the reviews I read were quite negative (the film scored an unimpressive 37% positive among critics and an almost equal 40% positive among audiences at Rottentomatoes.com).
Still, I wanted to see it. Yesterday, I finally got the chance.
Long story short (if that’s possible at this point): Lockout is a mediocre film. If you’re curious to see someone else’s take on the Escape films, you won’t come away impressed with what’s here, but neither do I think you’ll be begging for the pain to go away.
Guy Pearce is mostly good in the role of Snow, but I felt at times he wasn’t terribly invested in his role. He appeared to be…and I could be guilty of mind reading here…uninterested in most of what was happening. His delivery of lines was one-note and it appeared he was doing the bare minimum required. It’s a tough thing to say of an actor’s work, especially one I happen to like quite a bit (he was absolutely terrific in both Memento and L.A. Confidential, among other films). Maggie Grace, on the other hand, seems to realize the nature of this film and, for the most part, delivers in her role. That’s not to say she saves the film, only that at the very least she stands toe to toe (and sometimes ahead!) of the movie’s actual protagonist.
Unfortunately, where the film mostly fails is in its all too busy plot. Lockout starts with a strange bust gone bad. The action sequences here aren’t quite as terrible as some have stated, yet not enough explanation and context is ever offered to what exactly our hero was doing here…or what it was he was hoping to get his hands on. Even by the end of the film, we’re still not sure what exactly was so terribly important to his character in those early sequences.
When the movie moves to the prison colony satellite, the jail break sequence proves way, way too easy. MILD SPOILERS: Essentially one man gets his hands on one gun and manages to free the nearly 500 homicidal prisoners in minutes. Did the people behind this penal colony not have any decent security designs? And did they really have to put the “Get the prisoners out of stasis” button only a few feet away from an interview room he escapes from?
Very silly stuff.
Once those opening sections of the film are over, however, it does manage to move along decently. It’s a silly affair, but I’m glad I was able to satisfy my curiosity without feeling the need to fling my remote control at the TV set.
Still, it could -it should– have been so much better.
When I first heard about Attack the Block, a quirky British alien invasion/Our Gang mash-up, the word was mighty positive, indeed.
Our Gang eventually inspired The Goonies, which this film is probably a bit closer in theme to Attack the Block than the far more innocent Our Gang shorts of the early 20th Century.
As mentioned, early word was very positive about this film, and it was on that basis alone that I became curious to see it. I think the film is indeed a good one, but it has some issues, particularly in the first fifteen or so minutes of the film, that almost made me want to eject it from my DVD player before going much further.
The problem -at least for me- is that when our “heroes” are first introduced, they’re engaging in something that borders on Clockwork Orange territory (without the sexual assault). I suppose its a bold move to present troubled youth in such an unflinching way early on in the film, but given I’m not sure if giving the audience such a negative first impression was a wise move.
What follows, the meat of the story, is what I mentioned before: An alien invasion. This invasion, too, is presented in a mostly unflinching way. There is blood shed and lives are lost. The alien invaders, while not quite on the scary level of the Alien or Predator creatures, are nonetheless a force not to be trifled with, and the eventual resolution of the storyline is quite clever.
Which is a long way toward saying I recommend this film but urge viewers to stick through the opening act which may make you think you’re about to see a very different film from what follows. Once Attack the Block gets rolling (roughly at the point where our protagonist is arrested), things move briskly, leading to a good wrap up.
Has there been a movie that received as much bad press as 2012’s John Carter?
Based on the 1912 novel A Princess of Mars by author Edgar Rice Burroughs (his most famous creation, of course, is Tarzan), the movie was released earlier this year and proved a massive flop. It cost in the neighborhood of $250 million to make (not including marketing, which I’ll return to in a moment) and its worldwide take was a decent, but far from good considering the costs, $179 million. The losses from this Disney production’s release resulted in the resignation of a chairman within the company.
The fact is that the film appeared doomed almost from the beginning. Word leaked early on in the production that there were problems. There was whispers of dissatisfaction from the studio regarding the work in progress. There was also word of reshoots and rumors that Andrew Stanton, the director of the film who was best known for his computer animated Pixar work, was in over his head with actual human actors.
When the film neared actual release, I had the feeling potential audiences already were poisoned against the movie. These opinions certainly weren’t helped by the film’s very bland title (the studios appeared worried mentioning “Mars” in the title would turn off the already turned off audiences) and a truly inept advertising campaign. In fact, the later may well have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.
Yet as the film was released and proved a financial calamity for Disney, I couldn’t help but notice that despite the massive disinterest shown by audiences, the reviews of the film weren’t all that…awful. True, the film polled at a mediocre 52% among critics at Rottentomatoes.com, but it held a higher 64% among the audiences that bothered to see the film.
So I wondered: Was the film unfairly condemned? Did it deserve a better fate? Were potential audiences wrong in turning their backs?
I was curious to find out. I missed the film in theaters but when it arrived on home video, I gave it a look. So, what did I see? In brief, a good, though not great adventure film.
To begin, John Carter is gorgeous to look at. The visuals are quite impressive and I felt the filmmakers most certainly captured the “look” of the Edgar Rice Burroughs’ novels. The computer generated effects are, for the most part, seamless. The alien creatures look quite real, and Taylor Kitsch looks good as John Carter and Lynn Collins looks equally good as Dejah Thoris, the Princess of Mars.
Unfortunately, that the best thing I can say about them. As handsome as the two actors are in the title roles, they really lack chemistry. I always felt that one of the things that made the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs so successful, apart from the obvious pulp adventures presented, was the sexuality. Both Tarzan and the Mars series featured brawny, swashbucking men’s men and incredibly beautiful women in peril. As readers we longed for Tarzan to get Jane. In the Mars series, we longed for John Carter to marry Dejah Thoris.
But in this film, the sexuality is toned waaaay down. As I said before, part of the problem is that the actors lack chemistry. The other part, I suspect, is that the producers/director really clamped down on the sexuality. For most of the movie John Carter and Dejah Thoris show little interest in each other, it seemed, and certainly nowhere near the sexual tension present between Tarzan and Jane in films from the 1930’s.
There is also so much going on that I couldn’t help but wonder just how much was cut. The character of Sola, for example, accompanies Carter and Thoris for the middle section of the film on but is relegated to being such a minor character with so few lines of worth that one wonders why they even bothered having her in the film at all. The movie features three main “villains”, but once again very little is shown of them and when two meet their fate, one feels little satisfaction that the villain(s) got what was coming to them.
I suspect that John Carter was a victim of a combination of factors, from studio interference to director inexperience to an underdeveloped script. The actors, I felt, did what they could and weren’t bad in their roles, though I suppose an argument could be made that the two leads failed to register enough chemistry between them.
And yet, having said all that, the film is not the disaster audiences suspected it would be. It is a pleasant enough time killer with some good humor and some impressive set pieces but, and its a very BIG “but”, given the film’s costs, it could and should have been so much more. On a four star scale, I’d give John Carter 2 1/2 stars.
Of the films scheduled for release this summer, there were only a couple I really, really wanted to see in theaters. Of those, there was one I absolutely would not miss: Director Ridley Scott’s return to the Alien universe, Prometheus.
In spite of my excitement to see the film, I tried to keep my expectations low, for I knew that sometimes those things lead to a huge let down. In the end, I chose to see the film in as “good” a format as possible: In IMAX and 3D. I sat in the theater and, for the very last time, kept my hopes in check. The film played out…
…and I found myself incredibly disappointed.
A few days have passed since then, and I’ve taken some time to process my thoughts. I still feel this film is a major disappointment, and presents the viewer with too many inept moments and silly character actions, yet I nonetheless can’t help but admire what Mr. Scott and company tried to do, rather than succeeded in actually doing.
Prometheus, as the name should imply to anyone with even a casual knowledge of mythology, relates to the Titan Prometheus, who in the fables created man from clay and stole fire from the Gods. The main theme of the film relates to this as well as the parent/child relationship. On the surface and just below, this film is filled with references to how children and their parents interact…or don’t.
The protagonist of the movie, Noomi Rapace’s Elizabeth Shaw, is presented as a person that is, ironically, both outside and tied in deep with parent/child concerns. On the one hand, she’s an “orphan”, who as a young girl lost her father…yet has strong memories of him and hopes to emulate him. On the other hand, it is revealed that she is incapable of having children of her own, thus of becoming a parent herself.
The two other main characters to follow, Charlize Theron’s Meredith Vickers and Michael Fassbender’s David, have their own parent/child issues, but to go into details about that would involve considerable spoilers.
The symbolism present in the film, I have to admit, has kept me from writing Prometheus off completely, this despite the fact that the film is remarkably -surprisingly- sloppily made, with way too many story holes, paper thin characters, and general stupidity. Further, the film doesn’t seem to know what it wants to be, trying for a “Chariot of the Gods” type story for much of its run time before lurching into horror only in its final act.
I could spend way too much time going over things that didn’t make sense or were muddled in their presentation, but I’ll focus on one specific thing that bothered me more than anything else in the film…and I’ll try to be as spoiler free as possible:
Why exactly did David spike the drink?
There is never a clear explanation of this, though there are hints, particularly David’s talk with Vickers just before. But why was it done? What was the purpose?
Despite some intriguing symbolism, in the end I remain roughly where I was upon walking out of the film. I admire the attempt to create a “deep,” mythical story, but I simply cannot recommend Prometheus. I’ve heard there is a longer “cut” of the film that features at least 20 additional minutes of material not seen in the theatrical release. Perhaps when that version is released, those twenty minutes might explain the whole spiking the drink thing…though I doubt they’ll help make some of the movie’s other problems, including the cardboard side-characters and their fate, any more interesting.
A few days back, when reviewing Haywire, I noted the director of that film, Steven Soderbergh, was some kind of speed demon in the movie industry, releasing a tremendous amount of material since his first movie credits.
There is another movie director/producer speed demon out there, and this one’s output, at least given his fewer years in the industry, is nonetheless running neck and neck with Mr. Soderbergh’s: Robert Rodriguez. While Mr. Soderbergh’s films tend to be more “artistic”, there is little doubt Mr. Rodriguez’s focus is on more crowd pleasing action/adventure films.
In 2010, Mr. Rodriguez’s Toublemaker Studios released two films. In the past couple of days I finally got a chance to see both of them.
First up is Predators, a sequel to the popular alien hunter/killer films. The original 1987 Predator is considered among actor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s best films. The subsequent sequel and “Aliens vs.” versions were considered quite a come down. I read that when Mr. Rodriguez was first becoming a hot commodity in Hollywood, he was tasked with writing a sequel to the original Predator. He did, but the film was never made.
Until now.
Predators, like Haywire, winds up being a pretty terrific film…until you get to the end. Director Nimrod Antal keeps the level of tension going quite well, beginning the movie with a white knuckle sky dive sequence that immediately brought me into the film. As we quickly find, several unsavory people were kidnapped from whatever it was they were doing. When they awoke, the were in freefall and landed in a strange jungle. As they would soon find, they are no longer on Earth. They have been brought here by the Predator creatures as prey.
The movie stars Adrien Brody, on paper a seemingly unlikely choice for action star, as a silent but deadly mercenary who becomes the leader of this group of fellow kidnapped killers. He is intent on survival but is reluctant to care for anyone in this motley group.
As I mentioned before, this film is quite terrific in the early going. The action sequences are damn good and the interactions among the characters are reasonably strong. Unfortunately, by the time we reach a certain “scavenger” character (I’m trying not to be too spoilery here), the movie starts to lose its steam. Worse, the three Predator creatures our protagonists fight are gone for very long stretches of cinematic time. Two of them wind up being dispatched waaaaaay too easily, especially considering what it took to get rid of only ONE of them in the original film.
In the end, I would cautiously recommend the film to those interested in the whole Predator genre. This is a decent enough film that would have benefited from a stronger conclusion.
The trailer for the film, presented below, was the source of some controversy among movie goers. At the 2:03 second mark, note how Adrien Brody’s character is “targeted” by several Predator lasers, implying that an army of those deadly beings have targeted him. In the movie itself, there wound up being one laser targeting him. While I don’t subscribe to the notion that theatrical trailers should give away movie plots, this particular change in what was presented in the film is quite a cheat. Watching this trailer, you get a sense of a far bigger threat to our hero than was actually presented, and it does diminish that scene in the film.
Also released in 2010 was Robert Rodriguez’s “grindhouse” tribute Machete. Appropriately enough, this movie began life as one of the faux movie trailers presented during the intermission of the Grindhouse double feature. A cynical person might say those trailers, and particularly the Machete trailer, were better than either Robert Rodriguez’s Planet Terror or Quentin Tarantino’s Death Proof, the actual films presented in Grindhouse.
I suppose I’m just that cynic, for while both actual films had their moments, to me the most memorable material was indeed in the faux trailers, and the one I found the most humorous of them all was Machete. When the actual film version was announced, I was therefore quite curious to see it. Thanks to home video, I finally did have the chance to do just that.
So, did Machete the movie live up to Machete the faux trailer?
Yes. And no.
The Machete trailer was filled with grindhouse-styled mayhem. There was a great mix of way-over-the-top violence, gratuitous nudity, and a tongue firmly stuck in cheek. The movie tries to stick with this formula while adhering -perhaps a little too closely- with all the scenes present in the original trailer (everything in that trailer winds up appearing in the movie, for better or worse).
What the movie adds are several famous actors, including the likes of Robert DeNiro (!), Michelle Rodriguez, Lindsay Lohan, Steven Segal, and Jessica Alba. There is a definite “wow” factor to seeing so many familiar faces in a movie that gleefully revels in this grindhouse atmosphere…
But what is lacking, in my opinion, is more overt humor.
Let’s face it: Machete borders (no pun intended) on the ridiculous. While we have plenty of bloody action and gratuitous nudity, we have a lot of tongue in cheek stuff but not nearly enough actual gags. In fact, the movie presented only two really, really funny jokes: The “Introducing Don Johnson” movie credit and the line delivered by Machete himself, stony faced Danny Trejo: “Machete don’t text.”
How I wish there were more examples to give!
Further, and most astonishingly, Robert DeNiro hardly registers as corrupt Senator McLaughlin. He is given too little to do and winds up reading his lines and hitting his marks without ever rising above the material. Steven Segal, as the movie’s big bad, is also curiously flat. His big confrontation with Machete at the end of the film is quite ludicrous, but not for the right reasons: We are told Mr. Segal is some expert swordsman, but during that last confrontation his level of swordplay is that of a kid playing ninja in a playground.
Having said all this, Machete is not without it’s bloody charms. To those who enjoy raunchy R-rated blood and guts, you will enjoy Machete for what it is. Others beware.
Director Steven Soderbergh is some kind of speed demon. Either that or he doesn’t sleep. On his IMDB page, he’s listed as having 34 Directorial Credits since his 1985 debut in video documentary (Doing the math, that translates to roughly 1.26 releases per year as director). And that doesn’t include the Production Credits (33), the Cinematography Credits (18), Editor Credits (12), etc. etc. Some are duplicate credits, yet on a whole, this man has had his hand in an incredible volume of works.
As I look over Mr. Soderbergh’s myriad credits and story genres, it appears his 2011 directed movie Haywire represents the first full foray into action/adventure territory. He’s worked in and around the genre before, perhaps most notably in the very successful caper/comedy Oceans 11, 12, etc. films, but, as I said before, this may well be the first time he’s fully hit at this particular genre.
When Haywire was originally released, I really wanted to see it, although for reasons that are unique to me. You see, I released this novel called Mechanic back in 2009 that features a protagonist that, to my mind’s eye, wound up looking exactly like Haywire’s protagonist Mallory Kane, as played by actress and mixed martial arts fighter Gina Carano, someone who up until the film’s release I had no knowledge about. She is the movie’s main draw and is present in almost every scene. This is certainly quite a challenge for a first time actress, especially when you are tasked to not only perform your own stunts (which she handled quite well), but also act with such seasoned veterans as Michael Douglas, Ewan McGregor, Michael Fassbender, Bill Paxton, and Antonio Banderas.
Looking at the film’s overall reviews on RottenTomatoes.com (you can read it here), the movie wound up scoring a very curious split. A whopping 80% of critics gave the film a “thumbs up” compared to a far more anemic 41% approval from audiences. Thus, it appears that Haywire was a critical darling but casual movie goers weren’t quite as impressed.
So what did I think?
To begin, Mr. Soderbergh and Ms. Carano provide a potent mix. If you come into the film looking for some bone crunching fight scenes, I can’t see how you walk away from the movie disappointed. But be aware that this film is most certainly an “old school” type action film. There are no flashy special effects. There are no epilepsy-inducing Michael Bay-like jump cuts. There are no super-heroics. The fights are presented for the most part in long, reasonably realistic takes. There is exactly one car chase, but it too is presented reasonably naturally, with no cars performing incredible leaps or crashes.
Which may explain why audiences which by now are accustomed to big scale action films along the lines of a Fast Five or The Avengers might not react so positively to a movie on a much smaller scale like Haywire. Frankly, I appreciate the effort, even though I think the film, in the end, was simply not as successful as I hoped it would be.
However, during its first hour or so, it most certainly was. I was instantly drawn into the movie’s story and the plight of Ms. Carano’s tough as nails Mallory. Ms. Carano’s performance, the lynchpin of the movie, was pretty damn good. She more than held her own against the seasoned actors she was up against and made for a compelling hero.
But after that first hour, the film simply lost steam. The plot, featuring undercover operative Mallory’s betrayal after a “job”, was pretty standard stuff, even though Mr. Soderbergh gave it as much pizzazz as he could. The film’s greatest sin was its lack of a compelling climax. An action film, in my mind, should build as it goes along. The final act, in particular, should be smashing. Not only did Haywire not have a “smashing” ending, it committed the even greater sin of concluding on a decidedly abrupt note that left me even more unsatisfied.
Ultimately, Haywire is about 2/3rd of a very, very good old school style action film. I just wish Mr. Soderbergh and the screenwriters could have fashioned a more fulfilling and satisfying climax and given us a film that ended with a bang rather than a whimper.
Another post from the past, this one originally appearing on March 16, 2011. It has been mildly edited for clarity…
Don’t exactly know how, but I managed to claw enough free time to see a trio of few films over the weekend. Was the time well spent or a complete waste of time?
First up was the 2009 horror film The Collector. When I first heard of this film, I was intrigued. It seems there are precious few “new” ideas when it comes to modern horror films featuring your standard Bogeyman-type villain. Pretty much everything was locked into place regarding this movie-screen killer in John Carpenter’s original Halloween and since then we’ve seen mild variations of this theme. Sure, some movies have featured better effects, more elaborate “kills” (to the point of being ridiculous) while others have added humor into the otherwise bloody proceedings. But the general blueprint remains roughly the same: A group of people (often movie versions of teens) are targeted by the insane killer and are offed one at a time before the killer is apparently taken out by the hero/heroine. But just before the credits roll, the audience wonders…is the fiend actually dead…or will we see him/her return in a sequel?
I’ve seen this story so many times, over and over again, that despite being a fan of horror films, I’m not really interested in re-visiting this particular sub-genre. However, when I heard about the plot of The Collector;, I took notice because it presented, finally, a pretty interesting new wrinkle to the familiar bogeyman routine.
Yes, in this movie, our killer is a sadistic and almost supernatural being. His “work” involves locking people in their homes and making their familiar surroundings a death trap while he goes after them one at a time. Boring stuff, really.
But then comes that wrinkle: A theif by the name of Arkin (played by the very taciturn Josh Stewart), is a decent enough man who is forced to steal to pay off a debt for his wife/girlfriend before some loan sharks do her harm. He targets a house in which he believes the residing family are gone for the weekend. Instead, he quickly finds that not only are they around, but they are currently being victimized by a demented fiend who has made the house an elaborate death trap. The wrinkle is that the thief’s presence is known neither to the family OR the killer and in short time, the thief/protagonist is forced to play a game of cat and mouse with the killer while trying to save the family from their doom.
As I put the film on, I truly wanted it to succeed. And for a good while, it does, even if almost from the very beginning the film veers into the truly ridiculous. You see, the number of traps our “Collector” has arranged in the victim family’s house are simply waaaay too much. If our killer had a few months to set up all those elaborate traps, it would make sense, but our protagonist is seen casing the house in the morning and breaking into it that same evening. There is simply no way killer manages to get all that work done in one day (How I wish real life contractors were that efficient!!)
Worse, the family members our protagonist eventually tries to save -at least two of them- die in virtually the same manner, running off screaming and getting the killer’s attention when by that point they should know much better.
But the film’s biggest failing is its downbeat (yet cliched) ending, wherein our bogey man does what all these other bogey men do: Rise from the grave (so to speak) and “triumph”. By that point, though, the film’s clever new wrinkle was long past being interesting, and the film lost me completely.
Having said that, I know that a sequel to this film is in the works, called The Collection. Despite the fact that I feel The Collector was ultimately a let down, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t intrigued with the idea of a sequel. Hope (or maybe stupidity on my part) springs eternal…
Next up is the 2005 straight to video release of the Jason Statham, Ryan Phillippe, and Wesley Snipes film Chaos. When I first heard of this film and the fact that it was not released theatrically, I figured at best it was mediocre and at worse pretty terrible. Particularly considering the three leads it had. In the end, Chaos falls more into the “best case” scenario for a direct to video release, maintaining a good level of interest until it fizzled out at the end.
Mr. Statham is Quentin Connors a suspended cop. After a bank robbery in the city goes bad and the people in the bank demand to speak to Connors, he is brought back in for the job. From there, a cat and mouse game between Connors, his new partner (and newbie) Shane Dekker (Ryan Phillippe) ensues. The bulk of the film is an attempt by Connors and Dekker to discover what exactly the thieves were after, and how their actions and interests tie in to Connors’ past.
There are some very clever twists and turns in the film, but ultimately, unfortunately, this is a movie that demanded at least one more turn at the very end…a turn that doesn’t come (without giving away too terribly much, I believe one of the characters should have gotten the upper hand in the end…and not the one that did). Despite that reservation I think this is a film worthy of your time if you have nothing better to do one lazy Saturday afternoon.
Finally, we have the 2011 Matthew McConaughey film The Lincoln Lawyer. Now, I’ve stated before my love of author Michael Connelly’s novels (excluding his biggest misfire, IMHO, 9 Dragons). While The Lincoln Lawyer was one of his most successful novels in terms of sales, I have to admit that, while it certainly wasn’t as outright terrible 9 Dragons, it nonetheless wasn’t, in my opinion, one of Mr. Connelly’s stronger novels (An aside: One of my all time favorites books he wrote, Blood Work, was also made into a film and starred Clint Eastwood. Unfortunately, the film would up being quite mediocre, mostly because of several unwarranted deviations in the film’s climax).
Because the novel was a success, Hollywood came calling and the movie was made. Would it be on the level of the film version of Blood Work? Thankfully, no.
Matthew McConaughey plays attorney Mick Haller, a rather slick, unscrupulous defense lawyer who, from all appearances, has been placed on this earth for the sole purpose of making as much personal gain as he can via his profession. He is provided a “hot tip” on a very wealthy young man who may have assaulted a prostitute and, seeing the possibility of making some big cash, visits the client in jail. The potential client, Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillippe, again!), swears his innocence, but Haller doesn’t seem to care. The temptation of a very big payoff is too great to ignore.
He takes on the case and his investigation of the circumstances of this assault begin. Very quickly, things turn out to not be quite what they seem. Usually, a novel trumps a movie, but here I think the movie trumps the book. Yes, the film follows all the main elements of the book while ditching a couple of aspects (Detective Harry Bosch, Mr. Connelly’s biggest literary creation, for example, is no where to be found in the movie, though he made an extended cameo appearance in the book). Apart from that, the elements that were trimmed from the book actually, I felt, strengthened the movie. And while Mr. McConaughey doesn’t seem to fit the description of the book’s version of Haller, who was described as somewhat overweight and not all that attractive, it proves irrelevant. Mr. McConaughey’s work here is damn good, which proves very helpful considering he is present in virtually every scene in the film. Thanks to his charisma and solid acting we are eventually able to root for a guy that, at first, we should be repulsed by.
Nonetheless, the film is not without some flaws. Marisa Tomei is given far too little to do in the film as Haller’s ex-wife (in the book, he has two ex-wives, but the second one isn’t identified as such in the film). Also, the pressure the police put on Haller when he comes under suspicion for some nefarious doings never becomes as pressing as it could have been.
Having said that, I would still recommend The Lincoln Lawyer to anyone looking for a decent -and twisty- diversion.
Another post from the past, this one originally appeared on March 16, 2011. It has been cleaned up a little for clarity.
Has there ever been a movie that you’ve simultaneously loved -and disliked- at the same time? A film that hits so many good notes, yet stumbles so badly in other ways that in the end, despite so much good, you feel it is difficult to recommend it?
I recall when M. Night Shyamalan released Unbreakable, his follow up to the incredibly successful Sixth Sense, back in 2000. The film was presented as something of a mystery: David Dunn (Bruce Willis) is a man who questions exactly who/what he is after a devastating train accident leaves him the sole survivor. In the end, it turns out (SPOILERS!) that he has the powers of a superhero…and must eventually confront his very own super-villain. While the film was, for the most part, enjoyable, there was a scene in it that just irritated the hell out of me to such an extent that, even today, I can’t help but think of it whenever I think of the film itself.
The sequence in question involved our protagonist and his son in their home’s garage. Dunn has begun to realize he is different from other people, and he and his son are checking out just how different he really is by seeing how much weight he can bench press. Dunn, who previously was a star on the high school football team, states that while he lifted weights back then, he never pushed himself to see just how much he could lift. He does this now, and finds he can seemingly effortlessly lift a considerable, even supernatural amount. This further provides evidence that he is indeed not a typical human being.
Unfortunately, this scene made absolutely no sense and, worse, revealed the director/writer’s ignorance of High School jocks.
You see, it was my experience while in High School and, afterwards, college, that people who actively engaged in sports -surprise surprise!- tended to be very invested in their physical training. They kept track of how many situps, pull ups, or miles they ran each day. And they most certainly knew (and took pride!) in how much they could lift in the weight room. It was not unusual for me to overhear their conversations, wherein they noted how much they lifted that day, how often, and for how long. They took pride in striving to incrementally do a little more, and then a little more than that, for it is in this progress they gauge their physical improvement.
For David Dunn, an alleged football star in High School, to profess in that movie scene that he never knew how much he could lift was simply ridiculous. If he made any effort at all during his football playing years, then he damn well would have kept some track of his physical prowess. This would be a source of pride, not something that he would shrug off. Further, in exploring just how strong he was while in High School, Dunn would/should have come to the realization that he was a super being much, much earlier in his life. Just like that, the entire movie’s premise -that he was blissfully unaware of what he was after all these years-simply fell apart for me.
In Adventureland we have a sweet coming of age dramedy that struck a deep cord within me. No, I never worked at a dodgy amusement park following High School/College to make some money, but the movie took place in a time and featured a cast of characters I could easily identify with. The movie is set in the mid-1980’s and features a cast of characters who are roughly the same age as I was in that same period of time. Like the protagonist, I too was finding my way in the world and, over the course of doing so, met and made friends with people very similar to the various characters, both male and female, presented in the movie. I knew the womanizers, I knew the clueless adults and youths, I knew the potheads, I knew the parties. And, yes, in my youth I also fell for that out of reach “edgy” girl. In fact, I made a habit of it. As someone who often loves reflecting on those sweet feelings of my youth, the movie proved a pleasant nostalgic kick.
Jesse Eisenberg is James Brennan, our protagonist, a nerdy, intelligent guy who comes from a poor family and is looking to leave his roots and head to New York. He’s just finished high school and is expecting his parents to help pay for a trip he intends to make with his best friend to Europe. He’s planned out his post-Europe life: He will go to New York to complete his studies and from there become the adult he wants to be.
All those youthful plans are dashed when he discovers his parents aren’t doing so well financially and thus cannot pay their share of the trip. He is forced to abandon Europe and take a job at a somewhat sleazy carnival/park called Adventureland. It is there he meets Em Lewin (Kristen Stewart, who absolutely nails her role). When they first meet, she seems instantly interested in James.
Why?
There is no real reason. She simply is. As the movie progresses, we find she has a messy home and personal life. She is involved with the park’s resident handsome lothario, Mike Connell (Ryan Reynolds in a relatively small role). Mike is married, but he’s an alley cat who carries on with whatever female he can charm into his bed. In any other film, he might be presented as the movie’s villain but here he is humanized and shown to be yet another person with faults. Indeed, everyone in the film is presented this way…no one is a pristine heroes of a terrible villain. The people in and around the park go about their young lives as best they can, stumbling at times, being let down at others, all while working their way through this summer.
As stated before, I found myself really into the story and even more so into the characters presented because I could sympathize with that epoch. The film really had me, especially regarding the growing love James had for the (somewhat) troubled Em. As the movie progressed, I was expecting it to go bold and give us an ending that was honest and true to life…in as much as a film can be.
Instead, the filmmakers decided to go into a direction that, unfortunately, wound up souring the experience.
SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!
Setting the film in the past already had me as a viewer on alert. As with other films set in the past that wax nostalgic, like the equally sweet but overall better American Graffiti or the more bawdy Animal House, I figured we were headed into a bittersweet “where are they now” type ending.
Young love -at least in my experience- is often filled with hormone infused frustration. Therefore, I was certain the relationship between James and Em was never destined to be. Indeed, when James loses Em and hears she has moved to New York toward the end of the film, he says of his relationship with her: “I wish it hadn’t ended that way”, and I thought that would be it, and that the movie would then shift to the present, wherein we would find an older, wiser James standing before the now crumbling Adventureland park and remembering that one youthful love he had…and lost.
“Where is she now?” he would wonder in my imaginary ending. His youthful looks are marred a bit by the passage of the years, his hair is a little gray. He looks on at this place where the last moments of his childhood played out and walks away. Despite the sadness of losing Em, there is a smile on his face, for he still has those pleasant memories.
Instead, the filmmakers decided to opt for a more standard “happy ending.” Unfortunately, their idea of a happy ending is to have our protagonist travel to New York in search of Em. Like a stalker, he eventually finds her, and, despite the implied passage of time (it is hinted many months have passed since they last saw each other), they instantly, indeed too quickly, rekindle their puppy love and decide that now they can go all the way.
Yes, the movie’s happy ending is that James finally gets to sleep with Em.
As with the problem I had with Unbreakable, Adventureland’s conclusion might not put off other viewers and may be something that bothered me and no one else.
Still, the ending rang hollow and ruined what until then was a beautiful slice of life feeling. I suppose saying I “hated” the movie is too strong a word. Yet despite all the good stuff, despite the fact that this film had me waxing nostalgic with memories both good and bad of my youth throughout its run, that ending proved a real turn off. Too bad.
