Seven Pounds
**** out of ****
“Seven Pounds” is a film of patience. One that isn’t concerned with making the motives of its main character Ben Thomas (Will Smith) clear right away. This gives it a more ambiguous feel, which is most welcome considering how formulaic the majority of today’s Hollywood films are becoming. Everything about “Seven Pounds” is shrouded in a veil of mystery right from the start; from its gripping opening scene to its curious title which contains Shakespearean undertones, this is a powerful parable focusing on seemingly simple questions that can have morally defining answers, and it’s also one of the year’s best films.
Will Smith, in an Oscar-worthy performance, stars as Ben Thomas, an IRS agent still reeling from a great personal tragedy in his life. Most of the time, Ben seems either emotionally detached from everything or emotionally unpredictable; for instance, he can be unnecessarily abrupt and cruel one moment, yet caring and generous the next. Ben visits seven various strangers in Los Angeles in order to determine whether or not they are worthy of his generosity. He’s willing to grant each individual person more time to get their affairs in order, or he can burst out in sudden anger if he deems one of them unfit for his gift. Who exactly is this man and why is he so determined to drastically alter the lives of seven strangers? And, more importantly, what is he planning to do that will end up benefitting these people? To answer those questions would be to spoil the movie and with a film like “Seven Pounds”, the less you know about the specifics of the plot, the more rewarding the experience can be.
It’s really good to see Will Smith in a role that instead of requiring him to just be cool and heroic, needs him to be enigmatic and emotionally scarred. It’s certainly Smith’s best performance since his last dramatic turn in 2006’s “The Pursuit of Happyness”, and “Seven Pounds” shares the same creative team behind the camera. This time, Rosario Dawson joins in as Emily Posa, a woman with a terminal heart condition with whom Ben finds himself falling irrevocably and hesitantly in love. Dawson gives a very fine performance here, bringing alive both a sadness that compares with Ben’s emotional detachment and also a bright loveliness that contrasts with it at the same time. But most importantly, Emily recognizes Ben’s inner solemnity and even though she may become impatient with his dodging of the questions about his personal life, she is still able to empathize with him. The two share a very emotional dance toward the end of the film that is filled with so much love, we feel saddened about the conclusion the film is inevitably heading toward. Not only does “Seven Pounds” function as a deeply powerful drama about how we can mold ourselves into better people by just performing the simplest, or sometimes complicated, acts of kindness, it also works as a well-made romance.
The meaning behind the title “Seven Pounds” isn’t something easily understood right away. Without delving too much into the plot, I’ll try to explain the Shakespeare allusions that I mentioned earlier. If you’ll recall Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”, a “pound of flesh” is what Shylock requests and receives as surety for a loan he makes to the merchant Antonio. But when the debt cannot be repaid and after Shylock becomes hurt and insulted by Antonio, Shylock demands literal fulfillment of the terms of the contract. So, “Seven Pounds” alludes to a type of atonement for Ben, as nowadays if someone insists upon having their “pound of flesh” they are asking for repayment of a debt, no matter how much suffering it will bring the debtor. But again, I don’t want to give too much away.
Director Gabrielle Muccino and screenwriter Grant Nieporte purposely pace the picture at a natural speed, which in turn sort of mirrors how these events would play out in real life. They only give clues about Ben’s hidden motive when they think it necessary, never upstaging Ben’s journey with the secrets behind his personal grief. In fact, it’s not until the film’s final ten minutes that Ben’s motives are finally revealed and I thought it made for some of the most powerful final ten minutes of a film I’ve seen in recent years. But I think what I loved most about “Seven Pounds” is that it really is quite original; not once while I was watching the movie do I recall thinking “Oh, I’ve seen this before and it’s tired out,” and if I did, it certainly didn’t matter.
The main problem I had with Smith and Muccino’s “The Pursuit of Happyness” was that it felt emotionally manipulative; some people may find “Seven Pounds” emotionally manipulative as well, but I didn’t this time around. I personally don’t mind being emotionally manipulated as long as it’s done within the context of a good film. In “Seven Pounds”, the more emotional scenes work better because they feel authentic. By the time the film wants us to shed tears, it doesn’t feel like the result of the writer beating us over the head with endless manipulations of the characters’ situations; this time, it feels like life. And most of the time, true poignancy comes from the stark reality of life itself.
Australia
**** out of ****
Adventurous cattle drivers, wealthy and proper English women, greedy land developers and an adventure across the landscape of Australia; it can all be found in the film of the same name, directed by Baz Luhrmann, who has wanted to make this film fo quite some time. “Australia” could draw comparisons between “Gone With The Wind”, given each film’s epic canvas and sweeping romance, and the comparisons are justified because Luhrmann has truly accomplished something special here. As I was sitting in the theater, the movie managed to sweep me up in its lavish storytelling style and I was able to appreciate what was being done, unlike many others who have complained about its overlong running time of 2 hours and 45 minutes. Those are the same people who probably aren’t willing to devote their attention to a story that unfolds at a natural pace and would rather spend their time watching expensive dreck like “10,000 B.C.” and “Speed Racer”. But for those who can pay attention during a near three hour movie, “Australia” is a definite treat and a real epic.
The year is 1939 and Hitler has just invaded Poland. Meanwhile, English aristocrat Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) has come to the Land Down Under because word has it that her husband has been philandering on his enormous cattle station, Faraway Downs. But once she arrives in northern Australia, she is shocked to discover her husband murdered by way of a glass-tipped arrow said to belong to an Aborigine witch doctor, but could it have really been someone else behind the murder? Dressing in clothes obviously inappropriate for the climates of Australia, she arrives at Faraway Downs and becomes acquainted with a rough, tough and grizzled cowboy known as Drover (Hugh Jackman), so named for his trade. Lady Ashley and Drover must team up on a cross-country race to deliver cattle to the port city of Darwin before King Carney (Bryan Brown) can, otherwise Faraway Downs will come under the control of Carney. Of course, Carney has hired his most trusted henchman, Neil Fletcher (David Wenham) to ensure that their cattle won’t be delivered before his.
Of course, during the journey that eventually takes them to No Man’s Land, Lady Ashley and Drover form a bond and slowly fall in love. Drover has never encountered a woman of Lady Ashley’s caliber; he finds her oddly attractive because of her fearlessness in spite of her inexperience with everything that involves cattle ranching and the outback. Lady Ashley is obviously attracted to Drover because of his rugged good looks, his seemingly uncontrollable spirit and did I mention his rugged good looks? Ashley also forms a bond with an Aboriginal boy named Nullah (Brandon Walters), who has come along for the ride. Nullah’s grandfather is King George, the very same witch doctor who’s been accused of the murder of Ashley’s husband and has fled to mountaintops. Together, these three must overcome numerous challenges and hardships in order to save Ashley’s land and survive WWII as it comes ever closer to the country of Australia.
“Australia”, given its runing time, is long enough to combine three genres and that’s exactly what it does. The first part of the film is primarily a Western, as we get the obligatory bar-room brawl within the first twenty minutes and are then re-located to Faraway Downs for quite a while, where the scenery is primarily composed of a barren desert and distant outlines of mountains. Then, it switches over to a romance between Lady Ashley and Drover, and this where the cinematography really becomes noticable and beautiful and, in a way, a character itself. The way in which Luhrmann films not only this portion of the film, but also the rest of it, is simply amazing. The film is certainly worthy of a Best Cinematography nomination, as it is beautiful to look at. Luhrmann’s visual flair that was existent in “Moulin Rouge” is in full swing here, and it solidifies his status as a visionary director. Not many directors can tell a story both visually and through dialogue and characters, but that’s precisely what Luhrmann has managed to do here.
And finally, the third part of “Australia” is a war story, one where each of our three main characters are placed at the center of the chaos that erupts when a wave of planes attacks the locations they are in. Here is where “Australia” gets the most of its emotional weight, and where the acting is at its finest. But that’s not to say that the rest of the film carries more mediocre acting, because it doesn’t. Jackman and Kidman, both Australian natives, are perfect for each of their respective roles; Hugh Jackman embodies the cool, rugged dexterity and the free-strewn nature of Drover almost elegantly while Nicole Kidman captures the tight-knit, distinguished air of a British aristocrat and those two characteristics play extremely well off each other until they finally come together near the end of the second act.
While I am giving “Australia” an extremely positive review, I did have two minor quibs with it. One, is that while I definitely didn’t mind the 165-minute running time, the film did admittedly drag somewhat near the middle of the second act when Ashley and Drover have made it to Darwin and are dealing with the aftermath of their journey to the city. But once it gets going again, it really gets going, so the dragging of its feet is forgivable. Second, the film contains moments of narration by Nullah and for the most part, it’s annoying after a while. I think the film would have still been just as good without the narration, but thankfully, it becomes sparse after a while.
Given the reception that “Austrailia” has already received, you’ll either accept and embrace this type of storytelling, or you simply won’t. Personally, the entire movie ultimately worked for me and I think that’s what it all comes down to. If you enjoy all the different genres “Australia” has to offer and don’t mind sitting through a movie that’s nearly three hours, then I highly reccommend it. For everyone else…find something else to see.
But what I mainly love about “Australia” is that it reminds me of movie-making back during the time of “Gone With The Wind”, and I guess that counts as another comparison between the two.
Eagle Eye
*** out of ****
“Eagle Eye” is the type of thriller that races from all of its action setpieces so fast, you’d think everybody involved in the production got high on speed before filming each scene. It’s the type of movie where, by the time the end credits roll, you may find yourself winded and desperately gasping for air because there’s rarely a moment where the film slows down enough for us to catch our breath. ‘Relentless’ is too modest a term to describe this film; more like incessant. But while that may be a bad thing where most of today’s Hollywood thrillers are concerned, “Eagle Eye” is able to turn that into a strength. Despite not being able to accurately keep track of a high-speed car chase about half an hour in, this is still a vibrantly crafted techno-thriller that’s heavy on fast-paced chases and decidedly light on brains. But in spite of all that, “Eagle Eye” gets its job done, which is to entertain us with implausibility.
“Eagle Eye” is based on an idea which sprang from the head of Executive Producer Steven Spielberg, and that idea is, “What if technology turned against you in every conceivable way?” Think about it for a second, and it does seem rather silly and the big reveal about how this is all being orchestrated against the film’s two main characters is even sillier, but if we have the gall to question reality and deny the impossible within the confines of the story, then we have no business being in the theatre in the first place. Although, the question of how someone can run into the State of the Union disguised as a cop and fire off gunshots about two seconds before a musical note activates a bomb does enter our mind afterwards, with a movie like this, we go along with these implausibilities for the sake of the movie. Call me generous if you like, but I’ll take a little self-indulgence any day of the week.
In a premise curiously similar to 1998′s “Enemy of the State”, “Eagle Eye” revolves around our government being so paranoid when it comes to matters of national security, that technology has been invented which would allow the movements of civilians to be monitored 24 hours every day. And if that technology were ever to be turned against us, it’d be our worst nightmare. That’s precisely what Jerry Shaw (Shia LaBeouf) and Rachel Holloman (Michelle Monaghan) find out when a cold, emotionless female voice calls up each of them on their cell phones, informing them that they’ve “been activated”. The voice demands that they carry out her orders, otherwise people close to Jerry and Rachel will be killed. Exactly how this mysterious woman is able to control their every move is equally mysterious, and pretty soon, she has construction cranes plowing into the building where Jerry is in custody (because this woman has also framed him as a terrorist), sending out messages concerning Jerry’s suspected terrorist ties via cell phone to the passengers on a train he tries to escape on, and manipulating traffic lights in the midst of the aforementioned car chase. Anything’s possible for this terrorist, or could she be something…else? Something…government-funded?
I will give you something like a code name for her: Aria. And amidst Aria’s manipulations, Jerry and Rachel must avoid pursuing FBI agent Thomas Morgan (Billy Bob Thornton) while still carrying out Aria’s orders. But they dare not disobey, especially after witnessing first-hand Aria snapping the lines of a power line and killing someone by way of electrocution.
The film is filled with ideas that are certainly imaginative, from that nifty power line cutting to Aria calling Jerry by way of the cell phone of a sleeping passenger beside him, the level of capability Aria possesses is astounding and may even have some people scared that they’ll hear, “You’ve been activated” the next time they get a call from an unknown number. While I certainly liked the film and enjoyed all these neat tricks, others may find “Eagle Eye” too preposterous to be entertaining, but in a way, it’s entertaining because it’s preposterous.
Sporting a collection of scruffy facial hair that rivals that of Hugh Laurie on TV’s “House” (and myself when I haven’t shaved for a while), up-and-coming star Shia LaBeouf plays Jerry Shaw, the everyday slacker who drops out of Stanford and engages in poker games in the back of the Copying company where he works in order to accumulate some cash. LaBeouf also plays Jerry’s more successful twin brother Ethan, whose recent death may not have been an accident after all. With his performance here, I’m starting to see what Spielberg sees in him; “Eagle Eye” marks their fourth consecutive film together. LaBeouf brings credibility to the character of Jerry, allowing the young star to show off his true acting chops and when you consider that he got his start on the Disney Channel, he’s certainly come a long way. Michelle Monaghan is one of my favorite new actresses, and despite the seriousness of the situations she and Jerry are continually put in, Monaghan is able to bring her usual charm to the movie. I’m definitely glad to see her getting more movie roles and I can’t wait to see what she does next. The rest of the cast is rounded out by Billy Bob Thornton, Rosario Dawson and Michael Chiklis, who plays Defense Secretary George Callister; they all do their best with the material.
The director is DJ Caruso, who also helmed another LaBeouf thriller last year: “Disturbia”. Obviously influenced by similar films of the genre such as the “Bourne” movies, Caruso seems eager to use the shaky cam technique to enhance the tension during the action and the more intense conversations. Caruso also seems capable of staging some pretty fancy and expensive-looking action sequences, action sequences that are so explosive that you won’t believe that this thing cost $80 million to make — it seems like it should have a budget of at least $100 million. Caruso films the action so hyperactively and with so much gusto, it’d make even Michael Bay tired. But tradition dictates that if you have the type of setup “Eagle Eye” has for its story, you gotta inject it with some big-scale action. And while the action of “Eagle Eye” doesn’t induce intense motion sickness like that of “Cloverfield”, the shaky cam does occasionally become too noticable and tiresome.
As far as techno-thrillers go, “Eagle Eye” isn’t anything groundbreaking, and it borders on just plain ridiculous from time to time, but there’s no denying its energy level and on top of that, it’s just a whole lot of fun.
Burn After Reading
*** out of ****
Very few filmmakers in Hollywood these days are able to go from one genre of film to that genre’s polar opposite within the course of one movie, except for those curious and deeply odd Coen Brothers. The list of films they’ve directed during the course of their careeer is a truly mixed bag, with stark and dead-serious dramas such as “Fargo” and seemingly stupid comedies with even stupider characters like “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” The fact that that the Coens can go from a dark, thoughtful thriller such as “No Country For Old Men” to a screwball comedy like “Burn After Reading” with a snap of the fingers says a lot about their storytelling capabilities, so perhaps their winning the Best Director(s) Oscar this past year was something that had been a long time coming; but I can’t say that for sure. With every film of theirs that I’ve seen, it was always clear to me that they knew precisely how to handle their material, and I think that’s one of the best things that can be said about their latest, “Burn After Reading”.
This overall goofy, but entirely dark-humored film which features an ensemble cast which includes George Clooney and Brad Pitt does indeed fall on the opposite side of the Coen spectrum upon which “No Country For Old Men” resides. Whereas “No Country” contained surprising intelligence, that’s precisely what “Burn After Reading” lacks in terms of characters and overall plot, but I think that’s on purpose. This film carries a certain sense of irony in that for a movie centered around the very idea of intelligence and intelligence-gathering, it’s very dim-witted, but in a good way. There’s simply no denying that I enjoyed myself while watching “Burn After Reading”, and while it may not be the great follow-up to “No Country For Old Men” that most people may be expecting, it’s still a good film that could be titled “No Country For Idiotic Men”.
In a wacky plot that’s so all over the map it could have only been conceived by the Coen brothers, we are introduced to a group of people who’re as odd as their names. And in retrospect, you’ll realize upon further discussion of the plot that nothing really happened at all; everything really just served as a locomotive to get these characters from Point A to Point B. Anyway, everything gets started when dumbo gym worker Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) comes across a disk that was obviously left forgotten in one of the changing rooms. This disk contains a series of indecipherable numbers and dates which Chad hastily conclude is “secret C.I.A. s***”. So, Chad and fellow co-worker Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) decide to use the disk to blackmail the person they eventually discover the disk belongs to in order to get a quick buck. Linda thinks the money will be enough to pay for a series of plastic surgeries on pretty much every part of her body. The disk belongs to former C.I.A. analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich), a hot-tempered SOB who was recently fired from the agency for his alcoholism. Of course, Osborne claims that he doesn’t have a drinking problem but on the other hand, isn’t that what they all say? Osborne also happens to be dealing with some marital troubles with his prim, proper and uptight wife Katie (Tilda Swinton). Katie, as it turns out, is having an affair with a U.S. Marshal named Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), whom we later learn is extremely paranoid and gets involved with Linda as well and…oh, you get the point. The main idea is that the lives of all these people somehow intersect in a hodgepodge of events that at more than one time feel like they’ve been brought about by mere coincidence.
But this is a Coen Brothers comedy, after all, so I assume that coincidence justifiably controls most of this movie. However, a movie like “Burn After Reading” isn’t the type of movie that’s concerned about plot, but rather about its characters. And that’s where I think one of the film’s biggest strengths lies, in that these people who become entangled in this web of events literally have no idea what’s going on at any given moment, so in that sense we feel smarter than them. Each character is relatable because the movie spends perhaps the entire first act getting to know them, their likes, dislikes, flaws and everything else. In fact, the film gets most of its laughs by playing on their cluelessness, and rather mercilessly at that. Brad Pitt’s character epitomizes this cluelessness, and steals every scene he’s in, especially during a particular one in which he meets with Malkovich’s character.
“Burn After Reading”, given its cast, obviously has solid performances out the wazoo, and appropriately, with no real stand-out. Clooney and Pitt especially play against type, as they are saddled with the roles of the two goofiest characters in the movie. Frances McDormand actually plays Linda with quite a bit of poignancy and is really strong throughout the film. Her desire for a complete body makeover and how seriously she takes it is a bit overplayed, I think, but McDormand is such a good actress, she’s able to make it work just enough. And then there’s John Malkovich, whose abrasive and profane Osborne Cox is one of the many highlights. Malkovich plays the part perfectly, and his countless bursts of fiery fury make for both hilarious and dark moments.
I think some of the darkness of “No Country For Old Men” has rubbed off on “Burn After Reading”, because at times the movie almost becomes pitch-black with what it does. Another similarity is that both films end rather abruptly, and surprisingly, the abruptness of the ending feels almost natural. But I find it curious, because the Coens’ last two films wrapped up in kind of the same way, but in the case of “Burn After Reading”, it felt like it just ended without much of a real resolution. Perhaps that was intentional, but I hope the Coens don’t start to do this for every one of their movies because it’ll eventually become irritating. And also on the subject of the ending, you’ll realize upon further discussion that nothing was truly accomplished, and that things just happened in the course of this movie.
So, would I reccomend “Burn After Reading”? Yes, but I’d also reccomend walking in with the mindset that what you’re going to get may not make a whole lot of sense, but rather the enjoyment is in the ride.
“The Dark Knight” and “Hancock” Reviews Moved
So, for those of you visiting my blog, from now on you can read my reviews over at:
I’m a reviewer for them, and can’t have reviews here anymore. So, “Hancock” is now there, as well as “The Dark Knight”, which is on the main page.
Get Smart
***1/2 out of ****
By seeing “Get Smart”, you’ll automatically receive a certified license to kill once the film is over.
Would you believe a license to seriously injure?
Would you believe a license to give a warning punch?
How about a license to drive?
Those familiar with the ’60′s television show “Get Smart” obviously recognize that as one of many trademark lines of Agent 86, a.k.a. Maxwell Smart. In the show, he was brilliantly portrayed by the late Don Adams, who brought a casual and confident demeanor to the character that made the show so much fun. The character of Maxwell Smart was someone who convinced himself day in and day out of his natural prowess for executing acts of espionage, but in reality was so bumbling, he was lucky to complete a mission without seriously injuring himself. Adams made Max’s ineptitude so believable, that it brought a refreshing spin to the spy genre. Before Maxwell Smart, never before had we seen a secret agent who caused accidents almost everywhere he went and had a phone built into his shoe. And I suppose that the shoe phone could have been a possible inspiration for the cellphone. Hey, you never know.
I did grow up on reruns of “Get Smart”, which aired on TV Land for quite some time. I grew to love it, and the moment I first heard that they were turning it into a movie, it instantly went on my “To See” list. I’ve been anticipating this movie for quite some time, so I walked into the movie with reasonably high expectations. After having seen the teaser trailer last year, my expectations grew even more; same case when the 2nd trailer was released earlier this year. And within the first ten minutes of this film incarnation, I breathed a great sigh of relief in seeing that the magic of “Get Smart” was still intact. I guess that has to do with the fact that the show’s creators, Mel Brooks and Buck Henry, served as consultants on the film. You know that they must have gotten it right if this final product made them happy, despite some changes. And believe it or not, I wasn’t too upset with the changes, because in the end they make the movie that much more enjoyable.
So the first change made will be recognizable to fans within the first sentence of my plot description. The movie opens with Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell), an intelligence analyst for a secret government agency known as CONTROL whose specialty is decoding the conversations of monitored terrorists. No, Max isn’t already an actual agent when everything begins, but he’s taken the test for a position as a field agent numerous times and he feels like his most recent attempt went well. Max’s very lengthy reports concerning the information he deciphers almost always go unread. Well, at least, read from cover to cover. Max’s idol in CONTROL is Agent 23 (Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson), the field agent who always gets the best assignments. Agent 23 does acknowledge the fact that what Max does is important, and the two have a pretty friendly relationship. But Max’s dream of being a field agent comes true when CONTROL is attacked by the terrorist organization they’ve been working against for years, KAOS. The attack leaves CONTROL with all of its top agents compromised and this leads The Chief (Alan Arkin) to promote Max to active field duty. Max is given the agent number 86 and is partnered with another expert field agent, Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway). Fans will no doubt notice the role reversal here. In the show, it was Max who was the more experienced agent, with Agent 99 being the new recruit; she was originally played by Barbara Feldon.
Max and 99′s assignment is to find stolen nuclear weapons and the man who stole them. That would be the head of KAOS, Siegfried (Terence Stamp), a stoic terrorist who plans to use the bomb to blow up The President (James Caan) when he attends a concert at the Walt Disney concert hall in Los Angeles. Max and 99 bicker with each other during their mission as they work hard to get the information they need. Well, 99 works hard and is successful while Max certainly tries hard, but ends up making matters worse more often than not. The mission takes the team from a dance party hosted by a Russian KAOS operative to a bakery which is really a front for developing high-level uranium. From then on out, if you know “Get Smart”, you know how everything else works out.
Let’s start with the center of this movie: Steve Carell. I will admit that at first I was pretty skeptical about the decision of casting him in the role of Maxwell Smart; but that was before I grew to like him as a comic actor. “Get Smart” comes at the perfect time, after I’ve seen and liked Carell in last year’s “Dan In Real Life” and just as I’ve grown fond of his T.V. show “The Office”. Does Carell work in the role? Absolutely. He almost has the same nasal voice as Adams and perfectly captures Max’s inept yet self-confident state of mind that makes the character so lovable. Whenever Max screws up, we are actually convinced of what we’re seeing because of Carell’s almost natural performance. Not only are we convinced, but we are laughing hysterically.
Carell and Hathaway have surprisingly good chemistry in the movie, and that’s what makes the scenes between them so special. Hathaway is especially good in the role of Agent 99 and she brings a sexual volatility and ferocity to the part that makes 99 very attractive. Yes, Hathaway definitely has great looks, but it’s not because of her looks we attracted to her; it’s because of her character. Her character is sexual; she’s smart, assertive, commanding and beautiful, and Hathaway really pulls it off. And her character makes for a great one for Max to play off of. The silent looks that 99 gives Max whenever he does something Maxwell Smart-ish are alone funny, and Hathaway pulls off that exasperated woman quality perfectly. We can not only sense, but feel the sexual tension between the two, and a romantic relationship between them is more than inevitable. And if you’re concerned about the age difference between the two, an explanation for that is offered on the part of Hathaway: plastic surgery.
Not only does “Get Smart” work as a comedy and a buddy movie, it also works as an action movie. Curiously, I didn’t find the action here to be routine but rather exciting and entertaining. “Get Smart” has action sequences that are clearly inspired by and executed in the style of the James Bond pictures and it all ends up working. The way the filmmakers are able to make the audience laugh at jokes that occur in the middle of an action sequence without it feeling forced or contrived is pretty darn good. Granted that this film is being released in the year 2008, the action definitely has been raised to today’s standards, with the elaborate finale involving planes, trains and automobiles. In any other movie, this finale would have felt redundant but in “Get Smart”, there’s always a sly edginess to this and every other action scene that the Bond films obviously lack. I rarely found the action boring, mainly because I was waiting to see what Max would do next, and how it would often prove beneficial for our two main characters.
“Get Smart” is a surprisingly strong movie with crackling performances, entertaining action and satisfying comedy. In a summer where films like “The Incredible Hulk” make loud noise for no good reason, it’s a breath of fresh air to see an action movie where everything makes sense and where the action is ultimately good. It’s my favorite straight-up comedy so far this year.
I hope this movie does well at the box office so we can get that sequel entitled “Get Smarter”.
The Happening
*** out of ****
In the land of suspense thrillers, a genre overpopulated with screaming teenagers and bloody axes, writer/director M. Night Shyamalan is someone I can always turn to. Shyamalan is a filmmaker who’s more patient in his storytelling and one who never lets the creepy elements of his movies overshadow his characters in any way. He also knows how to create a truly creepy atmosphere that allows his films to really get under your skin more than not. His last two films, “The Village” and “Lady In The Water”, both were movies that were unjustly panned in my opinion. Complainers nagged about story issues and incoherentness, something I still can’t understand. Before I go on to review Shyamalan’s newest film “The Happening”, I would like to take a brief moment to defend the two aforementioned titles. First of all, “Lady In The Water” was a fantasy tale, so something like the characters discovering hidden messages in something as mundane as a crossword puzzle isn’t all that hard to go along with considering what type of story it’s in. I personally found all those elements to be completely understandable and easy to accept, given the rest of the movie. Shyamalan concocted a very unique fantasy story with “Lady In The Water”, which is one of the reasons I liked it so much. As for “The Village”, I think that film works best as a character piece, which is what I think it’s meant to be. The suspense there, in my opinion, purposefully takes a backseat to everything else while we become caught up with his characters. And it also features some very understated but very good acting.
I want to take a moment here and defend M. Night Shyamalan himself because starting with “The Village”, he has repeatedly received critical hatred. It’s like every critic has a personal vendetta against him. C’mon, the guy isn’t a bad filmmaker at all; he’s a very competent one who knows how to pace his films and hold our attention. “The Sixth Sense” got the attention of everyone, as it introduced the general public to a filmmaker who wasn’t concerned with CGI, explosions or cheap thrills. The thrills in “The Sixth Sense” were authentic and not formulaic; Shyamalan knew how to frighten an audience, and his attempts proved successful. His next film was “Unbreakable”, which I cannot comment on because I haven’t seen it yet, although that’s soon to change. In 2002, Shyamalan released “Signs”, which I consider to be the best film of his that I’ve seen to date. And then there was “The Village” and “Lady In The Water”, both of which I obviously consider to be very underrated.
Now onto “The Happening”.
Is it as strong as Shyamalan’s previous efforts? Not quite, but it’s still really good despite a shaky start. “The Happening” has proven something to me, that being that even on a decidedly lesser work, M. Night Shyamalan still remains one of our foremost storytellers. At least, that’s this critic’s humble opinion. I already know that I’m in the minority who actually liked this film, but I’ve got to be honest; I couldn’t help getting caught up in “The Happening”. In a time of year where most movie theater screens are occupied by dreck such as “The Incredible Hulk”, I find it refreshing to see a summer movie that’s more quiet and character-driven. In fact, that’s how all of Shyamalan’s movies are and while “The Happening” may be not as instantly engrossing as “Signs” or “The Sixth Sense”, it nonetheless proves to be a pretty effective apocalyptic suspense thriller. “The Happening” takes its time with the story, but that works and its 90-minutes virtually flew by for me.
“The Happening” opens in Central Park, which is full of pedestrians going about their everyday routines. But suddenly, with a shift of the wind, everything becomes silent and everybody comes to a complete standstill before walking backwards. Then, people calmly and quietly find violent ways to kill themselves. Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, high school science teacher Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg) is giving his class a lecture and obtaining theories on why the world’s bee population is disappearing. However, he is soon interrupted and taken to a gathering of the other school teachers, where Elliot learns of the events in Central Park. Naturally, they all assume that it’s a terrorist attack, so the school is dismissed and Elliot goes home, where his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel) is waiting for him. The two quickly pack up and leave after learning about more events like Central Park occurring, and they get on a train with Elliot’s colleague Julian (John Leguizamo) and his young daughter (Ashlyn Sanchez) to flee the spreading attacks.
Unfortunately, the unknown event has spread all around them already and is closing in fast. So Elliot and the others must find a way to outrun this event before it finds them.
Let me start with the negatives of the film, so they can be out of the way. To begin, the movie does have a shaky start, story and acting-wise. For the first 15 or 20 minutes, I was seriously worried that Shyamalan had indeed gone downhill, but once everything picked up, I found myself wrapped up in this picture just like Shyamalan’s previous works. Yes, the acting isn’t up to the standards of the actors themselves, or even Shyamalan for that matter because I think of him as an actor’s director. However, part of me feels like the acting is that way because that’s how the characters were written. In circumstances such as the one portrayed in the film, people would normally be very confused and panicked, sort of hammy since they would all be like “Oh my God! We have to get out of here!” So in that sense, the acting is fairly decent. It kind of has that same understated and almost muted vibe that Shyamalan’s other movies had. However, there is one performance that I definitely found to be annoying. That being the hermit-like elderly woman that Elliot and the others encounter somewhere near the film’s third act. This part is played by the veteran actress Betty Buckley, and the character is a very strange aspect of the film that just comes across as odd in that bad way. One other small problem has to do with logic where certain characters’ actions are concerned. It is figured out that the event affects large groups of people, so the group led by Elliot is appropriately small, but the second group is bigger. Wouldn’t you want to avoid death if you could? Plus, a certain character does something at the end of the film, something life-threatening, and they don’t even take the neccessary precautions that would protect them.
But those negatives were outweighed overall by the positives. First off, Shyamalan has once again created a very chilling, very effective atmosphere in which his story seems to unfold naturally. Most other people may not like this, because they’ll think it makes the film drag. But I find the deliberate pacing of “The Happening” to be something that really helps it. Plus, the pacing is punctured effectively throughout the film by some pretty shocking moments of violence. The advertising campaign for “The Happening” has made a point of focusing on the fact that this is Shyamalan’s first R-rated picture, and justifiably so. At one point, the suicide scenes even go so far as to show an affected man willingly let his limbs be devoured by a mountain lion and another lying down in the path of a lawnmower. These images are very intense and disturbing, so the squeamish may want to heed the R-rating here. I’m glad to see that Shyamalan still can surprise us with his shock value, because there was one particular moment in this film where I saw something major coming only two seconds before it happened and it really jarred me. That type of shock value is key in creating a good suspense thriller, and that’s what Shyamalan captures effectively yet again in this gradually absorbing film.
The cause of this wave of suicides in “The Happening” is certainly not something that I’ll spoil here, and while it is admittedly a concept that is out there, I nonetheless bought it for the sake of the film. However, if you pay attention to the movie’s trailers and T.V. spots, then more likely you’ll be able to guess it. But I personally thought it worked in the film’s context.
Is “The Happening” as awful as everyone is making it out to be? No way. I’ve seen absolutely awful *cough “10,000 B.C. cough*, and this is far from it. “The Happening”, while it does have its flaws, is still another solid film from M. Night Shyamalan, a writer and director who has yet to disappoint me. I hope this guy has another hundred movies up his sleeve.
The Incredible Hulk
*1/2 out of ****
Five years ago, director Ang Lee released his film version of “Hulk”, the adaptation of the Marvel comic with a big pissed off green giant as its main protagonist. It starred Eric Bana as Dr. Bruce Banner, the mild-mannered scientist whose exposure to gamma radiation caused a funky accident with his molecules and allowed him to transform into The Hulk whenever he got extremely angry. “Don’t make me angry…you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry,” is the trademark line everyone who knows the history of the Hulk associates the film, comic and T.V. show with. Now, Hulk fans weren’t particularly pleased with Ang Lee’s more ponderous take on the green guy, so Marvel and Universal Studios decided to retrace their steps and give the fans the movie they wanted in the first place. “The Incredible Hulk” is a reboot, not a remake, much like “Batman Begins”. It replaces Eric Bana with Edward Norton, Jennifer Connelly with Liv Tyler (which is like an insult to Connelly), and Sam Elliot with William Hurt. Clearly the people involved with this picture put forth a great deal of effort to ensure that Hulk fans get more bang for their buck, but that’s exactly the problem with “The Incredible Hulk”: it spends too much time on the bang.
I think a more appropriate title would have been “The Uninteresting Hulk”, because there is absolutely nothing incredible or even interesting about this film. I think Ang Lee’s “Hulk” is easily the most morose and dry adaptation of a well-known comic book character to date and while “The Incredible Hulk” is more action-packed and fast-paced, I think I actually prefer the 2003 version to this mess. Yes, a Hulk movie does need to showcase some extreme action, but there is a fine line between using those sequences where need be and overusing them. It’s like both “Hulk” movies are opposites; the 2003 film spent too much time on exposition and boring subplots, and this 2008 reboot becomes bogged down in so many overdone action sequences it all becomes repetitive by the third major setpiece. But not only is the action drawn out, it’s also pretty cartoonish, even for “Hulk” standards. One scene in particular, which involves the military launching an all-out attack on the Hulk in a grassy area located near a college never has a sense of credibilty going for it. The reason for that is because everything that explodes during this scene doesn’t look any different than the kinds of explosions which occur in video games.
“The Incredible Hulk” opens in Brazil, where Dr. Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) is living incognito after secluding himself from his life in the States and everyone he cares about. By the time we catch up on him, we discover that Bruce has spent five years hiding from the U.S. Military after his first transformation into the Hulk ended with considerable damage done. Bruce is now working in a soda factory and taking special breathing lessons that he hopes will come in handy if he ever gets too excited, because this movie says that Bruce will turn into the Hulk not just because of anger, but because of too much excitement in general; if Bruce’s heartbeats become too quick, then in all likelihood he’ll turn into the mean green fighting machine. While Bruce is not doing either of those things, he spends the rest of his time attempting to create an antidote to counteract the damage done to his molecules. He goes back and forth with another scientist by way of e-mail in order to determine the proper way to go about making an antidote.
One day, however, Bruce pricks his finger and some of his blood accidentally falls into a soda bottle which is then shipped out to the United States. Back in the U.S., the evil General Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross (William Hurt) gains wind of this and sends in one of his Special Forces teams to capture Bruce. Turns out that Ross wants to use Bruce’s blood to perfect a sort of “Super Soldier” serum, which he will then use to create an army of Hulks. There’s a problem I have with that plan that I’ll get to a little later. Back in Brazil, Ross and his team arrive to take Bruce into custody, inspiring the film’s first and only enjoyable action sequence, which is a footchase through the streets and across the rooftops in Brazil that seems to have been inspired by “The Bourne Ultimatum” Here, the handheld camera technique is employed, which further solidifies the comparison to “Bourne”. After this chase ends in Bruce turning into the Hulk as a result of his quickened heartbeats from the chase, a violence-crazed soldier of Ross’s named Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) wants a rematch with the green-skinned beast. So, Ross decides to give Blonsky a bit of the experimental portion of the Super Serum made from Bruce’s droplets of blood, but Blonsky gradually becomes hooked on the Serum.
Meanwhile, Bruce is forced to return to the U.S. and eventually meets up with Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), daughter of the General and longtime crush of Bruce himself. The location of their reunion? Why, in a huge rainstorm of course. Flimsy, see-through blouse for Betty during this scene? Check. But as you can guess, their reunion is eventually interrupted by heavy firepower, explosions, and the overconfident Blonsky returning for Round Two. And after this confrontation ends yet again in Blonsky’s bone-breaking defeat, he demands a higher dose of the Serum and becomes a Hulk-esque monster referred to as, well, The Abomination.
“Iron Man” set the new standard for Marvel’s films last month. That movie contained really good acting, interesting characters and action that wasn’t overdone. “The Incredible Hulk” has none of these. Edward Norton is the only interesting thing about this picture, with everyone else giving some pretty mediocre if not bad performances. Let me tell you something, when a good actress like Jennifer Connelly is replaced by Liv Tyler, you better switch casting directors. That’s not to say Tyler can’t be good, but there is no denying her profoundly one-dimensional performance in this movie. It’s my theory that her audition for the part mainly consisted of the filmmakers seeing how many different ways she could scream “Bruce!”, or how unemotional she could be when delivering most of her lines. William Hurt has his moments where he goes into full teeth-gnashing mode, but for the most part he seems to be bored and phoning it in. Tim Roth is also very one-dimensional, as we never find out anything about his character other than that he likes to win his fights. How many times have we seen that caricature in a villain?
Another thing that really hurt this film for me is the fact that compared to superheroes such as Batman and Spider-Man, the Hulk isn’t that interesting of a character. The Hulk’s biggest dilemma seems to be smash or destroy? Hmmmm.
Anyway, about that problem I had with General Ross’s plan for the serum, here it is: how can Ross be sure that he’ll be able to control his army of Hulks? If Bruce is any indication, they’ll more likely be violent rampaging beasts with absolutely no concern for civilian safety. You’d think an Army General would have thought about that.
And did I mention the film’s action overload? Well, it has that especially in the climatic final battle between Hulk and Abomination, with that sequence stretching on forever. Now, I don’t mind testosterone-fueled action like that, as long as the film doesn’t switch over to autopilot while doing it; something “The Incredible Hulk” does with every one of its action scenes. And these scenes aren’t helped by the poor CGI either; these images come as close to video game animation as a live-action film can. And the movie never slows down enough so that we can come to care about these characters; something Ang Lee’s version took the time to do.
I actually wanted to like this film, and I was fairly entertained for the first half hour or so. But after the footchase in Brazil, my problems with the film kept piling up so high that I finally gave in and accepted the fact that this was a bad movie. “The Incredible Hulk” looks good enough, but it’s just good-looking crap. Do we really need another movie about the Not-So-Jolly Green Giant? No. Two is more than plenty.
Face/Off (1997)
***1/2 out of ****
In the genre of the action film, there are now very few tricks left in the bag. By now, every single huge Hollywood blockbuster has used, and in some cases overused, the cliches that we’ve come to anticipate from them. In fact, it seems as if the majority of movies released these days are action films and more often than not, they follow the exact same formula. But that’s not the point. The point of action movies is if they can find a way to make that formula work. After receiving countless forms of dreck such as “The Fast And The Furious” and those corrupt cop films, we’re always on the lookout for an action movie with interesting characters, a unique story and some decent acting to balance everything out. If movies such as “The Bourne Ultimatum” are one end of the action spectrum, then movies like “XXX” are the opposite end. And in between are those films with extreme action and acceptable talent, i.e. “Mission: Impossible”, “”The Kingdom”, etc. But what makes an action movie like “Face/Off” so special is that even though it has the appearance of your standard mindless action picture, it contains acting and character development that make the movie that much more interesting.
“Face/Off”, directed by Hong Kong’s John Woo, is an actor’s dream. The story calls for its two lead actors to not only switch identities, but also to switch faces. Yes, you read right and no, I’m not kidding. The two lead actors of “Face/Off” are John Travolta and Nicolas Cage, both of whom clearly have fun imitating each other, right down to their small mannerisms. This allows for some thoroughly entertaining interludes between the film’s elaborate action set pieces, making it more than just a shallow shoot-em-up piece of celluloid.
John Tavolta and Nicolas Cage play Sean Archer and Castor Troy, two mortal enemies whose endless pursuit of one another has caused serious damage in their personal lives. Archer is an FBI agent who spearheads a covert anti-terrorism team dedicated to bringing international criminals like Castor Troy to justice. Archer has relentlessly been hunting Troy ever since Troy killed Archer’s young son in an assassination attempt on Archer himself. Six years after that tragic incident, Castor Troy has obtained a deadly biological weapon and planted it in an undisclosed location. And during the film’s first major action setpiece, which takes place in an airplane hangar, Castor Troy is seriously injured and subsequently goes into a coma. The location of the biological bomb is still a mystery, and the FBI knows that the only person who knows where it is aside from Castor is his brother Pollux, who’s currently a prisoner in a maximum security prison. So how can Archer coax the information out of Pollux when Pollux won’t talk to anyone but his brother? The solution is simple: become Castor Troy himself.
But in order to do that, Archer undergoes a secret government surgery where Special Ops doctors can actually remove the faces of individuals and replace them with the faces of the people whom federal agents need to impersonate. That’s in addition to having their physical characteristics being altered to further help maintain the illusion. So, Archer successfully transforms into Castor Troy and is placed inside the prison where Pollux is in order to get the location of the bomb. But what everyone didn’t count on is the real Castor Troy actually waking up from his coma and demanding that the doctors put Archer’s face on him. And so that there will be no evidence of the switch, Castor then kills everyone who knows about Archer’s face transplant and gradually starts to take over Archer’s life. But the real Archer, who discovers this upon Castor visiting him in prison, won’t give up so easily; he then breaks out of prison and starts to fight to regain his life.
This setup for the movie is completely original and it’s a wonder that no one else had done it before the film’s release back in 1997. There is enough plot in “Face/Off” to make a whole television season out of it, but this detailed plot allows for some very good exposition between each action sequence. It really is fun to watch Travolta and Cage emanate each other, but especially Travolta, who has Cage down-pact. Travolta perfectly captures Cage’s speech patterns and little quirks and when we see Troy-as-Archer for the first time, we truly believe that the two actors have traded faces. Nicolas Cage is very good here too, but I really did want to see more of him in the role of Castor Troy before the face-switch, mainly because I found it fascinating to see Cage play the bad guy for a change, and one whose personality called for Cage’s trademark quirky mannerisms. But really, the acting here is surprisingly strong and is one of the main reasons to see the film.
Not only is the story of “Face/Off” refreshingly original, it is also deeply interesting. It presents some pretty resonant themes of loss, revenge and redemption while at the same time adding some interesting dynamics to everything. During the course of the movie, both Archer and Troy are forced to view one another through each other’s eyes. Both of them see not only the side of the other that are enemies, but also the sides that show their humanity. One scene in particular has Castor-as-Archer and Archer’s wife visiting the grave of the couple’s dead son, whom Castor shot six years earlier. Even though Castor Troy is a man who has killed countless people, this scene gives us a hint that there may be times when Troy regrets what he has done in his life; just maybe. Meanwhile, Archer-as-Castor plants himself in Castor’s life and discovers that Castor has people in his life who actually care about him; a girlfriend, in particular. The way the screenplay lets these things unfold makes them that much more believable and in a way, that much more powerful. Archer and Castor are both people with broken lives and against their will, they are both placed right in the center of those lives.
However, “Face/Off” is an action-thriller first and foremost and the film is very good at that, too. Director John Woo has an almost natural ability for staging, executing and filming elaborate action sequences. There are numerous energetic ones here that involve speeding boats, cars chasing an airplane down a tarmac, and a lot of shootouts. The action will certainly satisfy any fan of the genre with its inventiveness and energetic nature. And because of its good combination of action, drama and character development, “Face/Off” is without a doubt one of my favorite action movies of all time.
You see? Special effects extravaganzas don’t have to be dominated by such overshadowing elements.
Blood Diamond (2006)
**** out of ****
If you were to combine the brutal, realistic violence of “Munich” with the narrative style of global corruption that exists in “Syriana”, then the end result would be something along the lines of Edward Zwick’s “Blood Diamond”. But unlike “Syriana” this is a story not about oil, but the dirty business of diamond smuggling that still exists in war-ravaged Sierra Leone, but this film takes place in the late 1990′s; this is an uncompromising view of that world with powerhouse performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou. I know that I’ve already given the title of Best Movie of 2006 to “The Departed” and then “The Good Shepherd” most recently, but after seeing “Blood Diamond” there’s no doubt in my mind that it quite literally blows the competition away. In fact, the only word that escaped from my lips as the credits began to roll was “Wow”.
“Blood Diamond” could have easily been overly preachy about the corruption of the diamond industry and the many lives that it costs, but in the hands of director Edward Zwick, it winds up being a powerful movie experience that will make you look down at the stone on your finger and consider how it came to be there. As a character says well into the movie: “People wouldn’t buy a ring if they knew it cost somebody else their hand.” And indeed, the hands of child labor workers are lopped off early on in the film. “Blood Diamond” may turn some viewers off with its preachy exposition scenes, but it also sports more gunplay than a Michael Bay film and bone-jarring action sequences that will make you both squirm uncomfortably in your seat and make you wonder exactly how the scenes were filmed.
The year is 1999 in Sierra Leone, where many Afrikaners are captured by rebels and forced to work in the diamond fields. Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) is a fisherman who’s captured and soon discovers a small pink diamond during his labor. But after he buries it in a safe spot, he is then re-captured by another group of rebels and taken to a prison. Meanwhile, Danny Archer (DiCaprio with a strong South African accent), a diamond smuggler, is arrested for cleverly smuggling diamonds under the fur of goats. He’s taken to the same facility as Solomon, and Archer can’t help but overhear Solomon’s rants of a pink diamond he discovered. After both men are released, Archer finds Solomon and offers to help him find his kidnapped family in exchange for the diamond; Archer wishes to discover the stone so that he can use its value to pay off a debt he owes to a warlord.
Of course, Solomon is hesitant at first about getting Archer’s help, but he’s forced to work with him because Solomon soon realizes that he’ll need all the help he can get if he wishes to get his family back. They are soon joined by an American reporter named Maddie Bowen (Jennifer Connelly). Maddie has come to Sierra Leone to investigate the story behind conflict diamonds, or “blood diamonds”. As in many other wartime dramas such as these, we always get moments where we catch our breath and are teased with the possibilty of a romance between the two main characters, in this case Archer and Maddie. One of the best scenes is one of the film’s rare quiet moments in which Archer and Maddie sit beside a campfire at night and each of them shares important memories of their life.
“Sometimes I wonder if God will ever forgive us for what we’ve done to each other. Then I look around and I realize…God left this place a long time ago.” Archer’s words ring true as we see Sierra Leone surrender to inescapable madness during the film’s many gritty action scenes. And even though we’re not supposed to really enjoy the uncomfortably realistic action, we are still able to realize that those scenes are all a work of brilliantly orchestrated chaos. Our three characters must survive that chaos in order to get what they want.
“Blood Diamond” is what I like to call a thinker-thriller; one where the explosions and hard-hitting violence are joined by a more distinguished story and three dimensional characters. It immerses you right away with the dark reality and human drama of the real world. And the conviction of the actors combined with a solid story structure make for a rare type of action film: one that is gripping in the usual fashion, and emotionally. When you walk away from “Blood Diamond”, the film will have certainly left its mark on you.
DiCaprio has been on fire recently with October’s mob epic, “The Departed”, and now this. DiCaprio becomes Danny Archer, complete with a short, scruffy beard and thick South African accent. Hounsou gives a powerful performance as Solomon Vandy, and most of the film’s more poignant moments involve him. Both DiCaprio and Hounsou inhabit these fictional people effortlessly.
Each action sequence is filmed with a gritty, documentary-style authenticity that places us right in the center of all the explosions, gunfire, and panicky villagers. At times, the film is a little tough to sit through due to the very reason mentioned above. In no way does “Blood Diamond” sugarcoat the violence; on the contrary, it shows everything to you as if the footage were taken from actual photographs. “Blood Diamond” has truth in its title, in the sense that there is much bloodshed; and the worst part is knowing that all this may have actually happened, and all over the shiny stones that attract our eye almost every day. Director Edward Zwick puts us right on the edge of battle scene fatigue with one intense scene right after the other, but the end result is the most realistic, emotionally powerful and draining movie of the year that’s also a contender for Best Picture. “Blood Diamond” is the work of cinematic excellence, plain and simple.
But still, look past the gritty realism of the violence and the unflinching view of this true conflict that still exists today, and you’ll see the most powerful, moving, and intensely entertaining film of the year that is also the most important movie of 2006.
