Revenge is a dish best served cold, but I don’t think Gerard Butler (Gamer, The Ugly Truth) got the memo. You see, he likes to serve it up boiling hot. In Law Abiding Citizen he portrays Clyde Shelton, a man who is victimized twice. First by the brutes who savagely murder his family right before his eyes, and then again by a misguided justice system, represented by an ambivalent district attorney. Jamie Foxx (The Kingdom, The Soloist) plays district attorney Nick Rice, a prosecutor more concerned with his winning percentage than attaining real justice for Shelton.
Shelton watched helplessly as his family fell victim to a gruesome home invasion, and was nearly killed himself. He’s pleased when the district attorney tells him that one of the perpetrators will get the death penalty, but that relief is short-lived. The other perpetrator who delivered the actual death blows will only serve a few years in prison because he cut a deal. Rice informs Shelton that this is better than going to trial, where acquittal is always a possibility. He actually made the deal without even consulting Shelton beforehand. Feeling ignored and helpless, the wheels are set in motion for Shelton to avenge his family’s murder and his own shabby treatment. He bides his time and then brings the pain in a way that is both horrific and creative. Think Joker in The Dark Knight mixed with Jigsaw from the Saw movies. I’ve told you all that and still haven’t told you anything you didn’t gather from the trailer, so don’t worry. The suspense lies not in what Shelton does, but in how he does it. He allows himself to be apprehended and imprisoned, but still manages to wreak havoc on those with the most tangential connection to the atrocity carried out on his family.
Jamie Foxx is serviceable in this role, but I can’t say he was impressive. I don’t think the role required much, and he did show flashes of charisma, but Butler was a more compelling figure. I also don’t view this movie as a Jamie Foxx vehicle, rather it seems more like this was just a movie that he was in, if that makes any sense. He received top billing and has the hardware to back it up, so I want to be riveted by him, and that was not the case. Nevertheless, Law Abiding Citizen is a movie most will enjoy. It taps into the frustration we have with an ineffective criminal justice system and the vigilante that lies within all of us. Make no mistake though, Shelton is no hero. We all can understand avenging the death of a child, and Foxx’s character even commends him privately for his actions, at first. Things go awry when Shelton begins to target those less directly associated with his family’s murder and begins to kill innocent people to bring down the larger bureaucracy. This made for an intriguing anti-hero dynamic, as it’s unclear for whom the viewer should cheer. Shelton avenges his family’s death, but is still committing cold-blooded murder so you can only root for him up to a point. Rice is supposed to be the “good guy” lawman, but he clearly dropped the ball with Shelton’s case, so you can’t exactly cheer for him either. Director F. Gary Gray (The Negotiator, Set it Off) makes a nice return to the silver screen and is an underrated filmmaker. He has proven adept at sustaining suspense throughout a movie without overdoing the cheap tricks like Michael Bay. A well-placed explosion is great, but the primary focus should be on the story, and Gray steadily advanced the plot. All in all, Law Abiding Citizen is worth the $10, and I give it my stamp of approval.
This article first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/10/law-abiding-citizen/ and was reprinted with permission.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Extract
I saw Extract on the same day I saw Gamer, so that means I was 0 for 2. Extract was the better of the two, but still left a bitter taste in my mouth. Hyped as being brought to us by the creators of Office Space, Extract tricked me with the old bait n’ switch. I thought it would be hilarious, especially when I saw Jason Bateman cough out that huge bong rip in the trailer. The movie had its moments, but overall it didn’t amount to much more than a few chuckles.
The setting is an extract factory owned by Bateman’s character Joel, a regular hard-working guy who has all the trappings of the American Dream but is stuck in a dull, sexless marriage. When a scheming new temp with a checkered past named Cindy (Mila Kunis) begins working at the plant, Joel’s eye begins to wander. His stoner buddy Dean (Ben Affleck) encourages him to make the most of this potential new opportunity. Joel’s a good guy, so Dean devises a plan to get his wife Suzie to cheat first, thereby giving Joel a “free pass.” The scheme is pretty funny, but its execution becomes a little silly. Meanwhile, Joel’s attempt to seal the deal with Cindy never quite comes to fruition, at least not the way he intended. Most of the action takes place at the extract plant, which employs an array of funny characters, including a gossiping busy-body and an incompetent rocker. Creator Mike Judge (King of the Hill) is adept at playing the mundane workplace atmosphere for giggles, but the movie loses its way by making Joel such a bland character. He’s a pretty weak guy who behaves inexplicably. When he finds out his wife has cheated on him he’s angry but he never displays the rage, shock, or disbelief her infidelity warrants. I just didn’t get it. The movie’s plot centers on whether or not Joel will sell the plant, but most of the movie deals with the interpersonal relationships between him and his wife, Dean, and his employees at the plant. Mila Kunis is appealing as the object of everyone’s desire, but she behaves almost as inexplicably as Joel. A con-artist, she begins working at the plant to weasel her way into the life of Step, an employee who was injured in a hilarious freak accident on the job and stands to profit handsomely. With dollar signs in her eyes, she “accidentally” bumps into Step at the grocery store and begins her efforts to become his girlfriend and set up a big score through a lawsuit. Step would rather settle amicably out of court, but Cindy encourages him to milk the accident for all it’s worth. The potential lawsuit threatens to derail Joel’s plans to sell the plant, unless he can get to the bottom of Step’s recent change of heart.
Affleck was funny as Joel’s douchebag sidekick, but Extract’s occasional laughs aren’t enough for me to endorse it. It seems like writers think it’s okay to sacrifice plot and good storytelling just because the movie is a comedy. Joel needed more of a backbone, and a lot of his actions didn’t make sense. Not bad for a few laughs, but Extract never quite reaches its full potential. I’d wait for Netflix.
The setting is an extract factory owned by Bateman’s character Joel, a regular hard-working guy who has all the trappings of the American Dream but is stuck in a dull, sexless marriage. When a scheming new temp with a checkered past named Cindy (Mila Kunis) begins working at the plant, Joel’s eye begins to wander. His stoner buddy Dean (Ben Affleck) encourages him to make the most of this potential new opportunity. Joel’s a good guy, so Dean devises a plan to get his wife Suzie to cheat first, thereby giving Joel a “free pass.” The scheme is pretty funny, but its execution becomes a little silly. Meanwhile, Joel’s attempt to seal the deal with Cindy never quite comes to fruition, at least not the way he intended. Most of the action takes place at the extract plant, which employs an array of funny characters, including a gossiping busy-body and an incompetent rocker. Creator Mike Judge (King of the Hill) is adept at playing the mundane workplace atmosphere for giggles, but the movie loses its way by making Joel such a bland character. He’s a pretty weak guy who behaves inexplicably. When he finds out his wife has cheated on him he’s angry but he never displays the rage, shock, or disbelief her infidelity warrants. I just didn’t get it. The movie’s plot centers on whether or not Joel will sell the plant, but most of the movie deals with the interpersonal relationships between him and his wife, Dean, and his employees at the plant. Mila Kunis is appealing as the object of everyone’s desire, but she behaves almost as inexplicably as Joel. A con-artist, she begins working at the plant to weasel her way into the life of Step, an employee who was injured in a hilarious freak accident on the job and stands to profit handsomely. With dollar signs in her eyes, she “accidentally” bumps into Step at the grocery store and begins her efforts to become his girlfriend and set up a big score through a lawsuit. Step would rather settle amicably out of court, but Cindy encourages him to milk the accident for all it’s worth. The potential lawsuit threatens to derail Joel’s plans to sell the plant, unless he can get to the bottom of Step’s recent change of heart.
Affleck was funny as Joel’s douchebag sidekick, but Extract’s occasional laughs aren’t enough for me to endorse it. It seems like writers think it’s okay to sacrifice plot and good storytelling just because the movie is a comedy. Joel needed more of a backbone, and a lot of his actions didn’t make sense. Not bad for a few laughs, but Extract never quite reaches its full potential. I’d wait for Netflix.
Gamer
I would like my $8.50 and 95 minutes back. Despite its intriguing premise and provocative plot, Gamer fell short of expectations. The potential existed for a thought-provoking exploration of the darker side of human nature; instead I witnessed a hedonistic exercise in depravity.
Gamer takes place in the not-so-distant future, in a world where consumers can take gaming to the next level. Are you familiar with The Sims, a game that allows you to manipulate characters’ lives and create your own society? Well, imagine if that were real. Imagine if you were playing a video game whose characters represented actual human beings. Sounds pretty cool, right? Not so much. Once the movie delved deeper into its premise it exposed an underbelly of humanity that I’d rather not see. Gerard Butler (300, The Ugly Truth) stars as Kable, a prisoner who is forced to compete in a real-life video game called “Slayers.” He is being controlled by a teen named Simon, a rich kid with every expensive toy imaginable at his fingertips. The object of Slayers is to shoot your way of each battle zone and to survive 30 such battles so that you can be released from prison. Obviously no one would do this shit willingly, but the prisoners don’t have much choice. They have been implanted with a microchip of some sort called a nanex, which ensures their compliance. The creator of Slayers, and another Sims-like game called “Society,” is a nefarious Bill Gates-type named Ken Castle, played by Michael Hall of Dexter. Castle is ridiculously rich, profiting from the public’s desire to manipulate real human lives. His game Society allows you to make real people have sex, fight, use drugs – you name it. You get paid for participating in the game as a character, and you have to pay to play. Kable has become a cult hero, a global superstar, because he is only three battles away from being the first character to survive Slayers. He has won 27 battles. Most prisoners don’t win more than 10. Simon, his player, has also gained a high level of notoriety. He is the one controlling Kable, after all. Things go awry when an organized human resistance rises up against Castle, who has larger designs on taking over the minds of regular human beings instead of just the prisoners in his game. Ludacris is the leader of the resistance, an organization called Humanz. Anyway, they hack into the Slayers game and allow Simon and Kable to communicate directly. They also tell Kable that Castle has a secret to keep and will never allow Kable to survive the game the old-fashioned way; he’ll have to escape. First he has to be released from Simon’s control. Kable persuades Simon to release him and begins his escape. Back in the real world he has a wife and daughter waiting for him. First he has to get past another prisoner inserted in the game to kill him. *sigh*
The details are non-sensical and the plot becomes more and more ridiculous. I know that most movies require suspension of belief, but Gamer became over the top. Now that I know it was written and directed by the duo that brought us Crank, I understand the high level of absurdity. Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor obviously like the idea of people behaving wildly violently and sexually without consequences. They don’t portray it thoughtfully or intelligently, they prefer it gratuitous and pointless. Violence for violence’s sake. I personally don’t enjoy that, which is why Gamer was just not my type of movie. A movie like Kill Bill was certainly violent, but it was done smartly. There’s a right way and wrong way to do it. Quite simply, Gamer was all wrong. I wanted to press the re-set button on this game, and I couldn’t get out of the theater fast enough. Gerard Butler ably portrayed Kable, but I found the material to be questionable. Gamer was a disgusting movie that offered nothing of value. The material was ripe for social and psychological commentary, but Neveldine and Taylor obviously had no such designs.
This article first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/09/gamer/ and was reprinted with permission.
Gamer takes place in the not-so-distant future, in a world where consumers can take gaming to the next level. Are you familiar with The Sims, a game that allows you to manipulate characters’ lives and create your own society? Well, imagine if that were real. Imagine if you were playing a video game whose characters represented actual human beings. Sounds pretty cool, right? Not so much. Once the movie delved deeper into its premise it exposed an underbelly of humanity that I’d rather not see. Gerard Butler (300, The Ugly Truth) stars as Kable, a prisoner who is forced to compete in a real-life video game called “Slayers.” He is being controlled by a teen named Simon, a rich kid with every expensive toy imaginable at his fingertips. The object of Slayers is to shoot your way of each battle zone and to survive 30 such battles so that you can be released from prison. Obviously no one would do this shit willingly, but the prisoners don’t have much choice. They have been implanted with a microchip of some sort called a nanex, which ensures their compliance. The creator of Slayers, and another Sims-like game called “Society,” is a nefarious Bill Gates-type named Ken Castle, played by Michael Hall of Dexter. Castle is ridiculously rich, profiting from the public’s desire to manipulate real human lives. His game Society allows you to make real people have sex, fight, use drugs – you name it. You get paid for participating in the game as a character, and you have to pay to play. Kable has become a cult hero, a global superstar, because he is only three battles away from being the first character to survive Slayers. He has won 27 battles. Most prisoners don’t win more than 10. Simon, his player, has also gained a high level of notoriety. He is the one controlling Kable, after all. Things go awry when an organized human resistance rises up against Castle, who has larger designs on taking over the minds of regular human beings instead of just the prisoners in his game. Ludacris is the leader of the resistance, an organization called Humanz. Anyway, they hack into the Slayers game and allow Simon and Kable to communicate directly. They also tell Kable that Castle has a secret to keep and will never allow Kable to survive the game the old-fashioned way; he’ll have to escape. First he has to be released from Simon’s control. Kable persuades Simon to release him and begins his escape. Back in the real world he has a wife and daughter waiting for him. First he has to get past another prisoner inserted in the game to kill him. *sigh*
The details are non-sensical and the plot becomes more and more ridiculous. I know that most movies require suspension of belief, but Gamer became over the top. Now that I know it was written and directed by the duo that brought us Crank, I understand the high level of absurdity. Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor obviously like the idea of people behaving wildly violently and sexually without consequences. They don’t portray it thoughtfully or intelligently, they prefer it gratuitous and pointless. Violence for violence’s sake. I personally don’t enjoy that, which is why Gamer was just not my type of movie. A movie like Kill Bill was certainly violent, but it was done smartly. There’s a right way and wrong way to do it. Quite simply, Gamer was all wrong. I wanted to press the re-set button on this game, and I couldn’t get out of the theater fast enough. Gerard Butler ably portrayed Kable, but I found the material to be questionable. Gamer was a disgusting movie that offered nothing of value. The material was ripe for social and psychological commentary, but Neveldine and Taylor obviously had no such designs.
This article first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/09/gamer/ and was reprinted with permission.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Inglourious Basterds
Yo, I don’t toss around the ‘G’ word often, but Quentin Tarantino might be a genius. The dude is an awesome filmmaker. When I watch one of his movies I appreciate its undeniable coolness but also its subtle brilliance and attention to detail. Inglourious Basterds was a marvelous showcase of all the little touches that make Tarantino’s films memorable, including the intensive dialogue, unabashed female adoration, and even the inevitable hint of racism.
Set against war-torn Paris during Hitler’s reign, Basterds is the story of a young girl’s survival and ultimate vengeance. It also chronicles the exploits of a guerilla military outfit, the Basterds. Helmed by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), the men plow their way through Nazis like a lawnmower through grass. They hack, peel and bludgeon every Nazi they encounter, and they all pledge one hundred Nazi scalps to the Lieutenant. And yeah, these dudes literally peel the scalps off. *shudder* The parallel storyline involves a young girl named Shoshana and the amoral Nazi Colonel that executed her family. The execution is the movie’s gripping first sequence and it was amazing. I love the way Tarantino controls the pacing and the way his characters interact with one another. There is an extended scene where two characters are simply having a quiet conversation over a glass of milk. Sounds harmless right? No, and that is because an invisible air of dread wafted into the scene and settled like dust. You knew something bad was about to happen, you just didn’t know how it would play out. I was on the edge of my seat, hanging on their every word. That’s because Tarantino can turn the mundane into the mesmerizing. Shoshana’s family was executed before her eyes, and she was the sole survivor. She flees the scene of their carnage, her face a mask of terror. At this moment she and Colonel Lander AKA the “Jew Hunter” become natural adversaries, an animal and its prey. Fast forward four years later and their paths cross again.
There were so many great scenes in this movie, scenes that made my heart stop. You’re lucky if you get one of those in a movie, and Inglourious Basterds was chock full. Tarantino managed to inject humor in the oddest situations and made it work. He made a Nazi movie funny, yet Inglourious Basterds cannot be classified as a comedy. It defies categorization, so don’t even try, just sit back and enjoy it. I can’t recount the plot without getting bogged-down with the intricacy of the storyline, but suffice to say that this is a movie you don’t want to miss unless you are impossibly squeamish. It got a little gory at times, especially when one of the Basterds practices baseball with a Nazi’s head. But if you can get past that you’re in for the best movie of the summer. Brad Pitt was excellent as the merciless Raine, and you can tell he had a ball with this role. It’s like I almost expected him to break the fourth wall at any moment, turn to the camera and say, “is this fucking cool or what?” Yes Brad, yes it is.
From the word go until the closing credits, Inglourious Basterds is riveting. Suspenseful, heart-wrenching, funny, and brilliant, it is right up there with Tarantino’s best and solidifies his place in the pantheon of great American filmmakers. Get up on it.
Set against war-torn Paris during Hitler’s reign, Basterds is the story of a young girl’s survival and ultimate vengeance. It also chronicles the exploits of a guerilla military outfit, the Basterds. Helmed by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), the men plow their way through Nazis like a lawnmower through grass. They hack, peel and bludgeon every Nazi they encounter, and they all pledge one hundred Nazi scalps to the Lieutenant. And yeah, these dudes literally peel the scalps off. *shudder* The parallel storyline involves a young girl named Shoshana and the amoral Nazi Colonel that executed her family. The execution is the movie’s gripping first sequence and it was amazing. I love the way Tarantino controls the pacing and the way his characters interact with one another. There is an extended scene where two characters are simply having a quiet conversation over a glass of milk. Sounds harmless right? No, and that is because an invisible air of dread wafted into the scene and settled like dust. You knew something bad was about to happen, you just didn’t know how it would play out. I was on the edge of my seat, hanging on their every word. That’s because Tarantino can turn the mundane into the mesmerizing. Shoshana’s family was executed before her eyes, and she was the sole survivor. She flees the scene of their carnage, her face a mask of terror. At this moment she and Colonel Lander AKA the “Jew Hunter” become natural adversaries, an animal and its prey. Fast forward four years later and their paths cross again.
There were so many great scenes in this movie, scenes that made my heart stop. You’re lucky if you get one of those in a movie, and Inglourious Basterds was chock full. Tarantino managed to inject humor in the oddest situations and made it work. He made a Nazi movie funny, yet Inglourious Basterds cannot be classified as a comedy. It defies categorization, so don’t even try, just sit back and enjoy it. I can’t recount the plot without getting bogged-down with the intricacy of the storyline, but suffice to say that this is a movie you don’t want to miss unless you are impossibly squeamish. It got a little gory at times, especially when one of the Basterds practices baseball with a Nazi’s head. But if you can get past that you’re in for the best movie of the summer. Brad Pitt was excellent as the merciless Raine, and you can tell he had a ball with this role. It’s like I almost expected him to break the fourth wall at any moment, turn to the camera and say, “is this fucking cool or what?” Yes Brad, yes it is.
From the word go until the closing credits, Inglourious Basterds is riveting. Suspenseful, heart-wrenching, funny, and brilliant, it is right up there with Tarantino’s best and solidifies his place in the pantheon of great American filmmakers. Get up on it.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
G.I. Joe
Ok so I heard the buzz about G.I. Joe before I watched it, and opinions seemed to be mixed. This baffles me, because I thought the movie was pretty effin’ dope. Good visuals, lots of action and special effects, and it wasn’t too corny. That’s more than I can say for Transformers 2. I could even follow the plot, which I appreciated. I hate when these types of movies take themselves too seriously with the convoluted high brow storyline. Just blow shit up.
Starring Channing Tatum (Stop-Loss) as Duke and Marlon Wayans (Dance Flick) as Ripcord, the story begins with our soldiers escorting high level weaponry to its destination. The two are not members of the Joes yet, but they are military personnel. The weapons contain agents called nanocytes, little cell-like critters that were first introduced to fight cancer. They can attack metal and level a city within several minutes. They were manufactured by M.A.R.S., a private arms company helmed by McCullen, a European magnate, the last in a long line of military spies. They are ambushed en route, severely overmatched and outnumbered. Taking heavy fire, they are unable to protect the weapons from the would-be thieves, an outfit comprised of highly- skilled soldiers. Enter the Baroness, a leather-clad dominatrix-looking chick with a mean kick. She and Duke have a past, and he refers to her by name. Her lingering loyalty gives her pause, and she spares his life. Meanwhile the G.I. Joes have arrived to intercept the thieves (COBRA). They retrieve the weapons and the stage is set for Duke and Ripcord to join the most elite, covert operation comprised of the best and brightest soldiers from each branch of the military. General Hawk commands the Joes, and is impressed with Duke and Ripcord. After surviving the rigors of training, they are officially “Joes,” and their first task is to protect the weapons and avenge their fallen comrades before COBRA can steal the weapons back. In the mix is McCullen, creator of the weapons but also in league with COBRA, unbeknownst to the Joes.
As the story moves along we are introduced to various figures from the cartoon series, and I always get a kick out of the real-life depiction of an animated character. They even threw in the corny one-liners from the show like “knowing is half the battle.” It kinda worked but I had to roll my eyes when I heard it. Anyway, I have to say that from a visual standpoint, G.I. Joe was a treat. I got that same feeling I had when I saw the first X-Men or the first Spiderman: that I was witnessing something pretty damn cool. The movie didn’t make the mistake of taking itself too seriously. Nothing based on a cartoon should ever be held up as a paragon of cinematic storytelling, but it was very good movie, and if you go into it with reasonable expectations I don’t think you’ll leave disappointed. This is the second movie based on an 80’s cartoon, and I think it was certainly as good as Transformers, and even better than the sequel. There was a delicate balance between plot and action, and everything was expertly explained, whether through flashback or exposition. Particularly compelling was the back-story between Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes. They trained side-by-side as adoptive brothers until a jealous, evil act permanently tore them apart. Oh yeah, and good guys wear black and bad guys wear white in this movie. Gotta love that. Regarding the performances, as I said there was some corny dialogue but for the most part the movie was sharp throughout. Channing Tatum is a one-note actor, but again – he’s playing a cartoon character. How seriously can I take him? The movie boasts a pretty decent cast that includes Dennis Quaid as Hawk and Sienna Miller as the Baroness. They actually allowed Miller to fill out her leather pantsuit rather than adopt the waiflike appearance she’s sported in past movies, another nice touch. I get tired of looking at someone the size of Angelina Jolie and being expected to believe that she can kick someone’s ass. Both the Baroness and Scarlett looked like real women rather than toothpicks, which I appreciated. Cool toys? Check. Ass-kickin’? Check. I can’t wait for the sequel.
This article first appeard at http://poptimal.com/2009/08/g-i-joe/ and was reprinted with permission.
Starring Channing Tatum (Stop-Loss) as Duke and Marlon Wayans (Dance Flick) as Ripcord, the story begins with our soldiers escorting high level weaponry to its destination. The two are not members of the Joes yet, but they are military personnel. The weapons contain agents called nanocytes, little cell-like critters that were first introduced to fight cancer. They can attack metal and level a city within several minutes. They were manufactured by M.A.R.S., a private arms company helmed by McCullen, a European magnate, the last in a long line of military spies. They are ambushed en route, severely overmatched and outnumbered. Taking heavy fire, they are unable to protect the weapons from the would-be thieves, an outfit comprised of highly- skilled soldiers. Enter the Baroness, a leather-clad dominatrix-looking chick with a mean kick. She and Duke have a past, and he refers to her by name. Her lingering loyalty gives her pause, and she spares his life. Meanwhile the G.I. Joes have arrived to intercept the thieves (COBRA). They retrieve the weapons and the stage is set for Duke and Ripcord to join the most elite, covert operation comprised of the best and brightest soldiers from each branch of the military. General Hawk commands the Joes, and is impressed with Duke and Ripcord. After surviving the rigors of training, they are officially “Joes,” and their first task is to protect the weapons and avenge their fallen comrades before COBRA can steal the weapons back. In the mix is McCullen, creator of the weapons but also in league with COBRA, unbeknownst to the Joes.
As the story moves along we are introduced to various figures from the cartoon series, and I always get a kick out of the real-life depiction of an animated character. They even threw in the corny one-liners from the show like “knowing is half the battle.” It kinda worked but I had to roll my eyes when I heard it. Anyway, I have to say that from a visual standpoint, G.I. Joe was a treat. I got that same feeling I had when I saw the first X-Men or the first Spiderman: that I was witnessing something pretty damn cool. The movie didn’t make the mistake of taking itself too seriously. Nothing based on a cartoon should ever be held up as a paragon of cinematic storytelling, but it was very good movie, and if you go into it with reasonable expectations I don’t think you’ll leave disappointed. This is the second movie based on an 80’s cartoon, and I think it was certainly as good as Transformers, and even better than the sequel. There was a delicate balance between plot and action, and everything was expertly explained, whether through flashback or exposition. Particularly compelling was the back-story between Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes. They trained side-by-side as adoptive brothers until a jealous, evil act permanently tore them apart. Oh yeah, and good guys wear black and bad guys wear white in this movie. Gotta love that. Regarding the performances, as I said there was some corny dialogue but for the most part the movie was sharp throughout. Channing Tatum is a one-note actor, but again – he’s playing a cartoon character. How seriously can I take him? The movie boasts a pretty decent cast that includes Dennis Quaid as Hawk and Sienna Miller as the Baroness. They actually allowed Miller to fill out her leather pantsuit rather than adopt the waiflike appearance she’s sported in past movies, another nice touch. I get tired of looking at someone the size of Angelina Jolie and being expected to believe that she can kick someone’s ass. Both the Baroness and Scarlett looked like real women rather than toothpicks, which I appreciated. Cool toys? Check. Ass-kickin’? Check. I can’t wait for the sequel.
This article first appeard at http://poptimal.com/2009/08/g-i-joe/ and was reprinted with permission.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Taking of Pelham 123
Denzel Washington rejoins director Tony Scott (Man on Fire, Deja Vu) in The Taking of Pelham 123, the movie adaptation of a novel I vaguely remember reading as a kid. Scott likes to blow stuff up, and neither Washington nor co-star John Travolta is a stranger to the summer action flick. Sounds like a formulaic recipe for success.
Washington plays Walter Garber, a hard-working “everyman” employed by New York City’s public transportation system. His job is to oversee the subway line from the control center, which contains maps and electronic grids of the underground system. His day seems like any other, until he crosses paths with John Travolta’s character, a loose cannon who calls himself Ryder. Ryder gets the bright idea to hijack a subway car and hold its passengers hostage until the city agrees to pay him 10 million dollars. He is communicating with Garber at the control center and gives him an hour to come up with the money, or he will begin killing hostages for every minute the money is late. And dude is not playing. The unique thing about the movie was that it didn’t fall into the Hollywood trap of following the “happy ending” rules. I’m not revealing whether or not the movie ends happily, just that conventional methods are not followed here. Innocent people die, a marked departure from traditional summertime popcorn movie formula. Scott effectively captures the atmosphere of the city, with lots of panoramic shots overlooking Manhattan. The writers kept the action and dialogue between the two leads, and didn’t focus the storyline on any passengers too heavily, which effectively dumbed the movie down, in my opinion. I enjoy a good action thriller as much as the next person and I think the best ones manage to entertain while still throwing in a twist or two. That didn’t happen here. There was no intriguing reason for Ryder’s decision to hijack the train. Nope, just good old-fashioned greed. That’s fine, but it would have been interesting if there were more gray area or plot twists regarding corruption or secondary unexpected implication of another character.
Working with what we have, the movie was fairly decent and entertaining. No movie with Denzel Washington is ever actually bad, and this one was better than his last pairing with Tony Scott, Déjà vu. He effectively conveys Garber’s reluctant heroism, and he and Travolta have a couple of good scenes together, which is no small feat since they don’t actually come face-to-face until well into the movie. For me personally, Travolta is beginning to creep into Nicolas Cage spaz territory. He is almost becoming an Al Pacino parody of himself. The gesticulation, the spazzing out, it’s becoming comical. He says MF a lot too, which he seems to enjoy. Alas, I digress. There’s nothing to dislike about The Taking of Pelham 123, and thus I give it my tepid endorsement. The script could have been a little smarter, but it was entertaining and straightforward, never trying to be more than it was: a summertime action thriller for the masses.
This review first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/06/the-taking-of-pelham-123/ and was reprinted with permission.
Washington plays Walter Garber, a hard-working “everyman” employed by New York City’s public transportation system. His job is to oversee the subway line from the control center, which contains maps and electronic grids of the underground system. His day seems like any other, until he crosses paths with John Travolta’s character, a loose cannon who calls himself Ryder. Ryder gets the bright idea to hijack a subway car and hold its passengers hostage until the city agrees to pay him 10 million dollars. He is communicating with Garber at the control center and gives him an hour to come up with the money, or he will begin killing hostages for every minute the money is late. And dude is not playing. The unique thing about the movie was that it didn’t fall into the Hollywood trap of following the “happy ending” rules. I’m not revealing whether or not the movie ends happily, just that conventional methods are not followed here. Innocent people die, a marked departure from traditional summertime popcorn movie formula. Scott effectively captures the atmosphere of the city, with lots of panoramic shots overlooking Manhattan. The writers kept the action and dialogue between the two leads, and didn’t focus the storyline on any passengers too heavily, which effectively dumbed the movie down, in my opinion. I enjoy a good action thriller as much as the next person and I think the best ones manage to entertain while still throwing in a twist or two. That didn’t happen here. There was no intriguing reason for Ryder’s decision to hijack the train. Nope, just good old-fashioned greed. That’s fine, but it would have been interesting if there were more gray area or plot twists regarding corruption or secondary unexpected implication of another character.
Working with what we have, the movie was fairly decent and entertaining. No movie with Denzel Washington is ever actually bad, and this one was better than his last pairing with Tony Scott, Déjà vu. He effectively conveys Garber’s reluctant heroism, and he and Travolta have a couple of good scenes together, which is no small feat since they don’t actually come face-to-face until well into the movie. For me personally, Travolta is beginning to creep into Nicolas Cage spaz territory. He is almost becoming an Al Pacino parody of himself. The gesticulation, the spazzing out, it’s becoming comical. He says MF a lot too, which he seems to enjoy. Alas, I digress. There’s nothing to dislike about The Taking of Pelham 123, and thus I give it my tepid endorsement. The script could have been a little smarter, but it was entertaining and straightforward, never trying to be more than it was: a summertime action thriller for the masses.
This review first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/06/the-taking-of-pelham-123/ and was reprinted with permission.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Obsessed
This was an interesting movie to review. On one hand it didn’t break any new ground, but on the other hand it was immensely entertaining, if the audience in my theater was any indication. Idris Elba (Rock n Rolla) and Beyonce Knowles (Cadillac Records) star in Obsessed, a cross between Fatal Attraction and Disclosure. The fact that I can readily reference those two movies is an indication that Obsessed is a rip-off of more substantive films of the same genre. Whereas Fatal Attraction established the standard for the genre, Obsessed will wind up being another forgettable addition. If there was an award for eye candy, Idris Elba would win quite easily. Unfortunately, I think any other accolades will prove elusive, at least for this role.
Elba plays Derek, a handsome type-A executive with a lovely wife named Sharon and an adorable infant son. The pair has just purchased a new home and seems to be very happy. Their blissful existence is short-lived, as a new temp at Derek’s company makes her presence felt. Lisa (Ali Larter) is assigned to fill in for Derek’s assistant, and begins to drop hints that she’d like more than a professional relationship with him. She’s attractive and aggressive, but Derek remains committed to his wife and rebuffs her advances repeatedly. The broad is really crazy, it’s like she’s delusional, or hard of hearing. She starts with subtle, inappropriate hints and eventually escalates to downright sexual assault, even drugging Derek at one point. She corners him in a bathroom stall and practically forces him to physically restrain her. Things come to a head when the police get involved after an incident. I don’t want to give away too much, suffice to say that by this point Derek and Sharon are living in fear. Here’s my problem with Obsessed. It was not a smart movie. It was formulaic and derivative. There was never an explanation offered for Lisa’s crazy behavior. There was no basis for it, considering that she and Derek never actually slept together. Not that I wanted them to – but I found it hard to believe that it would go as far as it did since they never “sealed the deal.” Derek was the picture of class and fidelity, but we see that some questionable decisions lead to trouble for he and Sharon. The movie ends predictably and happily, as I suspected. The performances were fine, but I don’t believe that either actor was challenged much by the material. Been there, done that – and it’s been done better. Obsessed was an average movie that had its entertaining moments, but it hardly stands out as a cant-miss summer movie. Bring on Wolverine
This review also appears at www.poptimal.com and was reprinted with permission.
Elba plays Derek, a handsome type-A executive with a lovely wife named Sharon and an adorable infant son. The pair has just purchased a new home and seems to be very happy. Their blissful existence is short-lived, as a new temp at Derek’s company makes her presence felt. Lisa (Ali Larter) is assigned to fill in for Derek’s assistant, and begins to drop hints that she’d like more than a professional relationship with him. She’s attractive and aggressive, but Derek remains committed to his wife and rebuffs her advances repeatedly. The broad is really crazy, it’s like she’s delusional, or hard of hearing. She starts with subtle, inappropriate hints and eventually escalates to downright sexual assault, even drugging Derek at one point. She corners him in a bathroom stall and practically forces him to physically restrain her. Things come to a head when the police get involved after an incident. I don’t want to give away too much, suffice to say that by this point Derek and Sharon are living in fear. Here’s my problem with Obsessed. It was not a smart movie. It was formulaic and derivative. There was never an explanation offered for Lisa’s crazy behavior. There was no basis for it, considering that she and Derek never actually slept together. Not that I wanted them to – but I found it hard to believe that it would go as far as it did since they never “sealed the deal.” Derek was the picture of class and fidelity, but we see that some questionable decisions lead to trouble for he and Sharon. The movie ends predictably and happily, as I suspected. The performances were fine, but I don’t believe that either actor was challenged much by the material. Been there, done that – and it’s been done better. Obsessed was an average movie that had its entertaining moments, but it hardly stands out as a cant-miss summer movie. Bring on Wolverine
This review also appears at www.poptimal.com and was reprinted with permission.
State of Play
I was mildly excited about State of Play, as it looked like the type of smart political thriller I typically enjoy. I thought it would be in the same vein of the classic Three Days of the Condor or at least as good as 2007’s Lions for Lambs. While it was a fairly decent movie, it was not as good as either of those I just mentioned.
Russell Crowe (American Gangster) stars as an investigative reporter who is looking into the death of a congressman’s mistress. Ben Affleck (Hollywoodland) gives a turn as the congressman, Stephen Collins. Helen Mirren (Shadowboxer) plays Crowe’s editor at the newspaper, and Rachel McAdams (Red Eye) is a fellow reporter. My problem with the movie was that it went out of its way to present one situation when the truth ended up being with another scenario that was obvious all along. I know that sounds vague, but the gist is that the movie seemed disingenuous and anti-climactic. Despite boasting an above-average cast, State of Play was not the smart thriller I’d hoped. Russell Crowe was fine, as was Ben Affleck, but it just wasn’t enough. Obviously the congressman will be implicated initially when news breaks that he was having an affair with the young woman who was killed. If you are going to eventually expose him, then don’t go out of your way to make it seem like he is innocent. That feels like a bait and switch to me. State of Play is a solid pay-per-view or Netflix choice, but if you’re looking for the next great political thriller, I’d suggest you keep it moving.
Russell Crowe (American Gangster) stars as an investigative reporter who is looking into the death of a congressman’s mistress. Ben Affleck (Hollywoodland) gives a turn as the congressman, Stephen Collins. Helen Mirren (Shadowboxer) plays Crowe’s editor at the newspaper, and Rachel McAdams (Red Eye) is a fellow reporter. My problem with the movie was that it went out of its way to present one situation when the truth ended up being with another scenario that was obvious all along. I know that sounds vague, but the gist is that the movie seemed disingenuous and anti-climactic. Despite boasting an above-average cast, State of Play was not the smart thriller I’d hoped. Russell Crowe was fine, as was Ben Affleck, but it just wasn’t enough. Obviously the congressman will be implicated initially when news breaks that he was having an affair with the young woman who was killed. If you are going to eventually expose him, then don’t go out of your way to make it seem like he is innocent. That feels like a bait and switch to me. State of Play is a solid pay-per-view or Netflix choice, but if you’re looking for the next great political thriller, I’d suggest you keep it moving.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Knowing
I broke my Nicolas Cage rule to check out Knowing last week. My Nicolas Cage rule is pretty simple. I basically don’t pay to see movies that feature him heavily. I find him to be rather annoying and rarely worth the ticket price. It’s a personal thing. His quirks and mannerisms just get under my skin. Fortunately, I found him to be tolerable in Knowing, a movie that both intrigued and disturbed me.
Its premise was an interesting one. In a small Massachusetts town in the 1950s, an elementary school class buries a time capsule. 50 years later the capsule is uncovered, its contents distributed to a new generation. Among the items is a mysterious piece of paper with several series of numbers. Nicolas Cage plays John Koestler, a widowed college professor. It is John’s son Caleb who ends up with the numerical code. John decodes the numbers, and discovers its chilling meaning. The code represents an accurate catalogue of every global disaster over the last century. All of the events have happened in the past, save for two that are supposed to happen in the future. The code features the date and number of fatalities associated with each event. John is unsure about a certain portion of the code and contacts the adult daughter of the code’s author, a woman about his age with a daughter close in age to Caleb. How convenient. The woman is unhelpful, but John discovers the remaining numbers’ meaning on his own when he unwittingly witnesses the next disaster. While on his way to visit the woman he witnesses/experiences a plane crash from the ground, fulfilling the code’s prophecy. He realizes that the remaining numbers provide the events’ location. In the midst of all this, Caleb is being visited by random creepy, pale, trench coat-clad people who whisper to him. Coincidentally, the “whisper people” also visit the daughter of Nicolas Cage’s new lady friend. In a truly frightening scene, one of the whisper people reveals a chilling scene to Caleb. He shows Caleb a world being destroyed by the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Trees and animals burn beneath an orange sky, with no human beings in sight.
John tries to reveal the last portion of the code, which was unfinished. He wants to prevent the last tragedy, which as it turns out, is going to wipe out the rest of the planet. The whisper people are actually trying to help Caleb rather than harm him. He and the girl have been chosen to be part of the group that will re-populate the Earth after its initial destruction. This is where the movie got weird and abstract, and a little corny. I don’t mind happy endings, but it just got strange to watch the whisper people morph into aliens and transport the kids up into space. I apologize for the spoilers, but this was a strange movie. The premise was eerily intriguing, and there were some awesome special effects, but I can’t give Knowing much more than a tepid endorsement. The Nic Cage annoyance gauge remained pretty low – which was good – but the movie was just silly enough at the end to dampen my enthusiasm. It was worth seeing but is definitely not a “must see.”
Its premise was an interesting one. In a small Massachusetts town in the 1950s, an elementary school class buries a time capsule. 50 years later the capsule is uncovered, its contents distributed to a new generation. Among the items is a mysterious piece of paper with several series of numbers. Nicolas Cage plays John Koestler, a widowed college professor. It is John’s son Caleb who ends up with the numerical code. John decodes the numbers, and discovers its chilling meaning. The code represents an accurate catalogue of every global disaster over the last century. All of the events have happened in the past, save for two that are supposed to happen in the future. The code features the date and number of fatalities associated with each event. John is unsure about a certain portion of the code and contacts the adult daughter of the code’s author, a woman about his age with a daughter close in age to Caleb. How convenient. The woman is unhelpful, but John discovers the remaining numbers’ meaning on his own when he unwittingly witnesses the next disaster. While on his way to visit the woman he witnesses/experiences a plane crash from the ground, fulfilling the code’s prophecy. He realizes that the remaining numbers provide the events’ location. In the midst of all this, Caleb is being visited by random creepy, pale, trench coat-clad people who whisper to him. Coincidentally, the “whisper people” also visit the daughter of Nicolas Cage’s new lady friend. In a truly frightening scene, one of the whisper people reveals a chilling scene to Caleb. He shows Caleb a world being destroyed by the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Trees and animals burn beneath an orange sky, with no human beings in sight.
John tries to reveal the last portion of the code, which was unfinished. He wants to prevent the last tragedy, which as it turns out, is going to wipe out the rest of the planet. The whisper people are actually trying to help Caleb rather than harm him. He and the girl have been chosen to be part of the group that will re-populate the Earth after its initial destruction. This is where the movie got weird and abstract, and a little corny. I don’t mind happy endings, but it just got strange to watch the whisper people morph into aliens and transport the kids up into space. I apologize for the spoilers, but this was a strange movie. The premise was eerily intriguing, and there were some awesome special effects, but I can’t give Knowing much more than a tepid endorsement. The Nic Cage annoyance gauge remained pretty low – which was good – but the movie was just silly enough at the end to dampen my enthusiasm. It was worth seeing but is definitely not a “must see.”
Monday, January 26, 2009
Notorious
Sometimes it takes a certain type of viewer to appreciate a certain type of film. We all have our own personal tastes and biases which color the way we perceive things and movies are no exception. Having said that, I enjoyed Notorious more than I thought I would, but that’s probably because I’ve been listening to hip hop since I was in the first grade and the Notorious B.I.G. aka Biggie Smalls aka Frank White was my favorite rapper.
The movie opens with young Christopher Wallace reciting some lyrics with a buddy in the schoolyard. The late rapper’s real life son plays him in the movie, and does a wonderful job capturing his father’s burgeoning love for hip hop. Angela Bassett (Meet the Browns) portrays his mother, Voletta Wallace. She and Christopher have a loving relationship, and share a tender moment when she consoles him about his father’s apathetic approach to parenthood. As Big enters adolescence he yearns for the nicer things in life, and earns a reputation as a fearsome neighborhood emcee. Intelligent but bored with school, he starts hustling. When his mother discovers his illegal activity she gives him the heave ho. Rhyming on the corner one day, he encounters one Kim Jones, who would go on to become the infamous Lil’ Kim. I’ve heard that she was none too pleased with her depiction in the film, and I can’t blame her. She comes across horribly - like a clingy, desperate, and raunchy woman. Her lone redeeming quality (aside from being a gifted lyricist) was her undying loyalty to Big. Unfortunately that loyalty also made her a little pathetic. Faith, in sharp contrast, was depicted as more of the type of woman you wouldn’t mind taking home to meet your mother.
This is a movie for hip hop fans. If you can’t remember rocking to “Juicy” back in the day, or “One More Chance,” you might not appreciate the movie as much as I did. The movie was a revelation in that it showed a side of Christopher Wallace heretofore hidden. I had no idea he was such a caring individual. In his own words he was “black and ugly as ever,” but he never lacked female companionship. The movie illustrated how it was possible for women to fall in love with him, something I never quite understood before. He was funny and charming, both with Kim and Faith. Another aspect of the movie I appreciated was its chronological depiction of his musical career, including the inspiration for his music. I loved one particular scene showing his initial reaction to Puffy’s suggestion that he sample the 1980’s classic “Juicyfruit.” Puff had to convince him to use the beat, and the song went on to become a classic. Little tidbits like that are insightful, and only a hip hop fan can appreciate a detail like that, in my opinion. It also captured Big’s frustration and disappointment with his deteriorating friendship with Tupac, which led to both of their untimely demise.
Notorious is a must-see for all the hip hop heads out there. You can add it to the catalogue along with Belly, Krush Groove, etc. The casting was fantastic, especially when you consider that Jamal Woolard (Big) had no formal acting lessons before this movie. Derek Luke (Catch a Fire) effectively captured Puffy’s hunger and ambition, though his dancing was comical at times. Come to think of it, Puffy’s dancing is comical too, so that actually works. My only criticism of the movie was that some of the dialogue was too expository, and thus a bit contrived. Other than that, there wasn’t much room for improvement. The movie goes a long way in cementing the incredible legacy of one of the best to ever hold a microphone.
This review first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/01/notorious/ and was reprinted with permission.
The movie opens with young Christopher Wallace reciting some lyrics with a buddy in the schoolyard. The late rapper’s real life son plays him in the movie, and does a wonderful job capturing his father’s burgeoning love for hip hop. Angela Bassett (Meet the Browns) portrays his mother, Voletta Wallace. She and Christopher have a loving relationship, and share a tender moment when she consoles him about his father’s apathetic approach to parenthood. As Big enters adolescence he yearns for the nicer things in life, and earns a reputation as a fearsome neighborhood emcee. Intelligent but bored with school, he starts hustling. When his mother discovers his illegal activity she gives him the heave ho. Rhyming on the corner one day, he encounters one Kim Jones, who would go on to become the infamous Lil’ Kim. I’ve heard that she was none too pleased with her depiction in the film, and I can’t blame her. She comes across horribly - like a clingy, desperate, and raunchy woman. Her lone redeeming quality (aside from being a gifted lyricist) was her undying loyalty to Big. Unfortunately that loyalty also made her a little pathetic. Faith, in sharp contrast, was depicted as more of the type of woman you wouldn’t mind taking home to meet your mother.
This is a movie for hip hop fans. If you can’t remember rocking to “Juicy” back in the day, or “One More Chance,” you might not appreciate the movie as much as I did. The movie was a revelation in that it showed a side of Christopher Wallace heretofore hidden. I had no idea he was such a caring individual. In his own words he was “black and ugly as ever,” but he never lacked female companionship. The movie illustrated how it was possible for women to fall in love with him, something I never quite understood before. He was funny and charming, both with Kim and Faith. Another aspect of the movie I appreciated was its chronological depiction of his musical career, including the inspiration for his music. I loved one particular scene showing his initial reaction to Puffy’s suggestion that he sample the 1980’s classic “Juicyfruit.” Puff had to convince him to use the beat, and the song went on to become a classic. Little tidbits like that are insightful, and only a hip hop fan can appreciate a detail like that, in my opinion. It also captured Big’s frustration and disappointment with his deteriorating friendship with Tupac, which led to both of their untimely demise.
Notorious is a must-see for all the hip hop heads out there. You can add it to the catalogue along with Belly, Krush Groove, etc. The casting was fantastic, especially when you consider that Jamal Woolard (Big) had no formal acting lessons before this movie. Derek Luke (Catch a Fire) effectively captured Puffy’s hunger and ambition, though his dancing was comical at times. Come to think of it, Puffy’s dancing is comical too, so that actually works. My only criticism of the movie was that some of the dialogue was too expository, and thus a bit contrived. Other than that, there wasn’t much room for improvement. The movie goes a long way in cementing the incredible legacy of one of the best to ever hold a microphone.
This review first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/01/notorious/ and was reprinted with permission.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Valkyrie
Excuse my language, but this is not some shit that I would normally see. My love affair with Tom Cruise (The Last Samurai) ended after he went crazy about three years ago, so he’s not a good box office draw, at least not for me. But I was in the company of a handsome gentleman, and this was what he wanted to see – so I went with the flow.
Valkyrie is the story of a failed attempt to overthrow Hitler, and is factually-based. So, on a positive note, I can say that I actually learned something from the movie, and that’s a good thing. What wasn’t good was the overall vibe of the movie. Despite boasting an inherently exciting premise, something about Valkyrie felt lackluster and uninspiring. Cruise portrays Colonel von Stauffenberg, a rouge soldier in cahoots with other Nazis to oust Hitler for the greater good of Deutschland, and so as not to be remembered on the wrong side of history as an enabler of the most monstrous figure of the 20th century. Cool, I’m with that. Even sounds exciting, right? It should have been, but it wasn’t. Writer Christopher McQuarrie and director Bryan Singer are responsible for one of the all-time great movies (The Usual Suspects), but I think they struck out with this one. Cruise’s Stauffenberg seems stoic and resolute, but not especially heroic in that movie-star sort of way you’d expect. I felt my eyelids get heavy on more than one occasion and had to fight to keep them open at one point. I have a pretty good attention span too, so this is a reflection of the movie rather than any narcoleptic tendencies on my part. Valkyrie is as boring as it looks, so I suggest you skip it unless you’re some weird history buff. My handsome companion was also underwhelmed. Booo Valkyrie!! LOL
Valkyrie is the story of a failed attempt to overthrow Hitler, and is factually-based. So, on a positive note, I can say that I actually learned something from the movie, and that’s a good thing. What wasn’t good was the overall vibe of the movie. Despite boasting an inherently exciting premise, something about Valkyrie felt lackluster and uninspiring. Cruise portrays Colonel von Stauffenberg, a rouge soldier in cahoots with other Nazis to oust Hitler for the greater good of Deutschland, and so as not to be remembered on the wrong side of history as an enabler of the most monstrous figure of the 20th century. Cool, I’m with that. Even sounds exciting, right? It should have been, but it wasn’t. Writer Christopher McQuarrie and director Bryan Singer are responsible for one of the all-time great movies (The Usual Suspects), but I think they struck out with this one. Cruise’s Stauffenberg seems stoic and resolute, but not especially heroic in that movie-star sort of way you’d expect. I felt my eyelids get heavy on more than one occasion and had to fight to keep them open at one point. I have a pretty good attention span too, so this is a reflection of the movie rather than any narcoleptic tendencies on my part. Valkyrie is as boring as it looks, so I suggest you skip it unless you’re some weird history buff. My handsome companion was also underwhelmed. Booo Valkyrie!! LOL
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
There is mad buzz surrounding this film, with Brad Pitt (Babel) being nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Actor, and the movie getting serious Best Picture consideration. I have to agree with the other critics that this is all much ado about SOMETHING, because I thought that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was an absolutely enchanting film from start to finish. Bolstered by a high-concept story, the movie also features truly great special effects, as the titular character ages in reverse. If you’ve been under a rock and are unfamiliar with the unique premise, let me fill you in. Benjamin Button, as an infant, displays all the signs of a man at the twilight of his life. He is wrinkled, afflicted by cataracts and osteoporosis. Curious indeed. Benjamin’s mother died in childbirth, and his father is unequipped to deal with the aftermath of raising an obviously special child. He rips the baby from a midwife’s clutches and runs through the New Orleans streets, hurtling to and fro. He abandons the infant on a doorstep, and it is this home that will prove to be a wonderful haven for Benjamin the rest of his life. Discovered by Queenie, a domestic and innkeeper of sorts, Benjamin is embraced and loved as if she birthed him herself. He grows younger as he gets older, viewing the world through the eyes of a child while the world perceives him as an elderly man. I found this story to be simply fascinating and touching as Benjamin is impacted by the world around him. His physical deformity renders him much more emotionally attuned than a normal child, and he and Queenie, who is Black, share many tender moments. Taraji P. Henson (Hustle & Flow) as Queenie has easily surpassed anything she’s done up to this point, and I hope this role provides her with more opportunities. Pitt is reunited with Cate Blanchett (they were both in Babel), and they have very good chemistry as they portray two star-crossed lovers. The easiest thing for me to say is that the movie just made me feel good. It was heartwarming, funny, sweet, and simply fascinating. It may seem cool to age in reverse, but it’s actually tragic to watch your loved ones precede you in death, to grow younger while everyone else grows older – and for it to be assumed that you have knowledge and experience that you actually lack. Benjamin is forgiving and appreciates the beauty in life and in people, allowing his father to make amends for the cruelest betrayal by willingly developing a relationship with him. I can see this movie taking home a whole slew of accolades, including ones for the script, performances, make-up – you name it. It will all be well-deserved. Director David Fincher (Seven) has outdone himself, and the pairing of he and Pitt almost rivals the nice rapport Scorsese has developed with Leonardo DiCaprio, though obviously Fincher and Pitt are less prolific. If you can’t tell, I liked it LOL. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a must-see movie.
Slumdog Millionaire
Alright, now that 2008 is over, I can say with certainty that Slumdog Millionaire was damn near the best thing I saw last year. I guess I’ll have to put it behind The Dark Knight, but it’s a close second. It reminded me of the classic City of God in its portrayal of impoverished youth running wild. I don’t want to reduce it to that superficial comparison though. It was a love story, a drama, and coming-of-age tale rolled together.
The movie begins against the backdrop of the game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Young Jamal is poised to win the top prize and has aroused the judges’ suspicion. He has to explain how he became so knowledgeable, since it’s very difficult to actually advance that far in the game (duh). What follows is a series of flashbacks to his youth, and the movie unfolds as he is asked each successive question and recounts the life experience that yielded the particular knowledge. He and his brother Salim are forced to fend for themselves after their mother is murdered in a raid on their small village, or whatever you call it. The film is set in Mumbai, but the boys live in a destitute little enclave teeming with other “slumdogs.” When their mother is killed the boys begin a life of begging, stealing, hustling, and surviving by the skin of their teeth. They come across another street urchin named Latika, and the three become fast friends. At various times throughout his life Jamal becomes separated from her, but she’s never far from his thoughts. When he and Salim escape the hands of a predator who exploits orphaned children by forcing them to beg in the streets, Jamal is heartbroken that Latika was unable to flee with them. Salim is dismissive, preferring not to compete for his brother’s attention and affection. The actors portraying Salim and Jamal were a revelation. They were adorable, and excellent actors to boot.
The movie was enthralling, masterfully written and executed – from the title to the cast and story. I enjoyed the filmmaking style, which really made you feel as if you were on Jamal and Salim’s journey with them. As a viewer, I was particularly invested in Jamal’s outcome. He and Salim’s paths diverged as Salim, more reckless and daring – falls in with a local kingpin, but it is his heroism and abandon that saves his brother’s life. I’ll leave it at that, an obvious ringing endorsement. This joint is like an instant classic, a real gem.
The movie begins against the backdrop of the game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Young Jamal is poised to win the top prize and has aroused the judges’ suspicion. He has to explain how he became so knowledgeable, since it’s very difficult to actually advance that far in the game (duh). What follows is a series of flashbacks to his youth, and the movie unfolds as he is asked each successive question and recounts the life experience that yielded the particular knowledge. He and his brother Salim are forced to fend for themselves after their mother is murdered in a raid on their small village, or whatever you call it. The film is set in Mumbai, but the boys live in a destitute little enclave teeming with other “slumdogs.” When their mother is killed the boys begin a life of begging, stealing, hustling, and surviving by the skin of their teeth. They come across another street urchin named Latika, and the three become fast friends. At various times throughout his life Jamal becomes separated from her, but she’s never far from his thoughts. When he and Salim escape the hands of a predator who exploits orphaned children by forcing them to beg in the streets, Jamal is heartbroken that Latika was unable to flee with them. Salim is dismissive, preferring not to compete for his brother’s attention and affection. The actors portraying Salim and Jamal were a revelation. They were adorable, and excellent actors to boot.
The movie was enthralling, masterfully written and executed – from the title to the cast and story. I enjoyed the filmmaking style, which really made you feel as if you were on Jamal and Salim’s journey with them. As a viewer, I was particularly invested in Jamal’s outcome. He and Salim’s paths diverged as Salim, more reckless and daring – falls in with a local kingpin, but it is his heroism and abandon that saves his brother’s life. I’ll leave it at that, an obvious ringing endorsement. This joint is like an instant classic, a real gem.
Seven Pounds
*Sigh* It’s happened again. I’ve been bamboozled into wasting my money on another sneaky tear-jerk movie. I don’t do sad, sappy movies, and Seven Pounds was a somber, heavy film that won’t see you crack a smile.
Starring Will Smith (Hancock) as a benevolent man on a mission, Seven Pounds tells the story of Ben Thomas, an IRS agent who decides to drastically change the lives of seven strangers with the ultimate sacrifice. For the first 30 minutes or so it’s pretty tough to figure out just what the hell the movie is about and what is going on. Eventually we learn that Ben lost his fiancé in a tragic accident that also claimed the lives of six other people. Hence, the significance of the number seven, which is repeated a few times throughout the movie. I don’t want to give away the plot, but suffice to say it was an intriguing, well-acted film that will make you look at your own life and whether or not you’re a good person, but it was too much of a downer for my taste though. When it was over my face was ashy from all the crying! No thanks. Will is nice to look at it, and Rosario Dawson turned in the best performance from her I’ve ever seen – but Seven Pounds is just not my type of movie. From talking to others, I’m not alone in my opinion. All in all, skip this one. Total buzzkill.
Starring Will Smith (Hancock) as a benevolent man on a mission, Seven Pounds tells the story of Ben Thomas, an IRS agent who decides to drastically change the lives of seven strangers with the ultimate sacrifice. For the first 30 minutes or so it’s pretty tough to figure out just what the hell the movie is about and what is going on. Eventually we learn that Ben lost his fiancé in a tragic accident that also claimed the lives of six other people. Hence, the significance of the number seven, which is repeated a few times throughout the movie. I don’t want to give away the plot, but suffice to say it was an intriguing, well-acted film that will make you look at your own life and whether or not you’re a good person, but it was too much of a downer for my taste though. When it was over my face was ashy from all the crying! No thanks. Will is nice to look at it, and Rosario Dawson turned in the best performance from her I’ve ever seen – but Seven Pounds is just not my type of movie. From talking to others, I’m not alone in my opinion. All in all, skip this one. Total buzzkill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)