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”.
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.
Iron Man
***1/2 out of ****
Here we are again. The first weekend in May is normally the weekend that marks the start of the summer movie season. This year, our first summer blockbuster also happens to be a comic book adaptation, “Iron Man”. Now, the genre of the comic book film can be a tricky one; however, I’m not really the right person to say that because I’m pretty much a sucker for comic book movies. Heck, this review is being written by the same person who was also one of the few people who thought “Ghost Rider” was enjoyable. I know, I know, how could I have liked a film that was widely panned by most moviegoers? But that’s the honest truth; I considered it to be a fun ride with some rather entertaining elements. I’ve always felt that the comic book genre of film is something with multiple sides. It can produce hammy and fun entertainment, i.e. “Ghost Rider” and the “Fantastic Four” movies, some with pretty resonant themes that add dramatic weight (the “Spider-Man” franchise and the “X-Men” series), and then there are those extremely rare gems that are just downright great: “Batman Begins”. So, having said that, “Iron Man” is a surprisingly good and well-acted comic book film that serves as a combination of dramatically resonant and a lot of fun, but just short of being one of the perfect superhero films.
Instead of giving us a justice-savvy and morally righteous figure as the basis for its superhero, “Iron Man” introduces us to Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), a smarmy and sarcastic narcisist of a billionaire playboy who comes from a long line of weapons manufacturers and donates those weapons to the war effort. Stark is the type of guy who would rather spend his night at the craps tables than accepting an award for his contribution to the technological industry. Stark is the exact opposite of heroes such as Superman and Spider-Man; he’s a guy who has made mistakes in his life and must do his best to correct them after receiving a jolt of reality. Tony Stark isn’t really someone you’d be fond of upon a first impression, but Robert Downey Jr. is actually able to make him into a rather likable guy, once we see his true morals. And suffice it to say that “Iron Man” wouldn’t have worked nearly as well as it does if it were anyone else in the lead role; I’ve always been rather fond of Robert Downey Jr. as an actor and I’m happy to see him get a pretty huge movie under his belt. But, when you get right to it, Robert Downey Jr. is this movie.
Plus, believe it or not, “Iron Man” actually has a certain sense of credibility going for it. Up to a point, you can sort of buy the fact that a billionaire with a vast knowledge of creating advanced weaponry can build a suit of armor that can fly around and store built-in weapons. Now, remember, I said up to a point. Obviously, “Iron Man” isn’t as realistic as “Batman Begins”, but it’s as believable as a flashy comic book movie can be. But the comparison between Iron Man and Batman is rather interesting. After all, both are heroes whose super-abilities come from their suits and they’re both billionaires who dedicate themselves to purging heir society of evil; so, Iron Man is sort of like the Batman of the “Marvel” universe. And, let’s face it, both are far more interesting characters than the outright heavyweights of their divisions (Supeman for “DC” and Spider-Man for “Marvel”).
“Iron Man” opens in a province of Afghanistan, where Tony Stark is casually riding in the back of what he has dubbed “The Fun-vee”, cupping a glass of Scotch on the rocks in his hand. Tony is there to demonstrate his latest creation, “The Jericho”, and following some witty banter with the soldiers he’s riding with, terrorists attack the convoy and take Tony hostage after he’s been critically injured. Turns out that the terrorists want Tony to assemble one of his Jericho missiles, or else they kill him. By this time Tony has discovered that in order to save his heart from being destroyed by shrapnel, another captured scientist developed a sort of battery to protect Tony from the shrapnel, making it the only thing keeping him alive. The battery goes in the middle of his chest and looks like a glowing round piece of metal. Anyway, Tony doesn’t build the missle, but instead constructs a suit of iron equipped with some nifty devices, which he uses to escape his captors.
After that, Tony returns home, renewed with a brand-new set of morals and a fresh new purpose. Tony has seen first-hand the destruction his creations have caused and vows to use his resources for good instead of evil. This new view causes disappointment and anger in Tony’s shady business partner Obidiah Stane (Jeff Bridges), but inspires pride in his long-time assistant, Pepper Pots (Gwyenth Paltrow) and curiosity from his Army friend Col. James Rhodes (Terrence Howard). Most comic book experts know that Rhodes eventually becomes Tony’s partner, War Machine, somethig the filmmakers hint at in the film. Tony’s first priority and project, however, is modifying the suit of armor he previously built to make it more technologically sufficient. And before you know it, Tony Stark is Iron Man, who must confront the person after his suit design for more sinister purposes.
For a comic book film, “Iron Man” certainly has a pretty impressive cast. And while each supporting actor does some good work here, all of them are overshadowed by Robert Downey Jr. Gwyneth Paltrow provides some good counterweight fo Downey Jr.’s character, leading to some quick and funny dialogue between the two. Their romance is another element only hinted at in this movie, but is something that’s sure to be explored in the inevitable sequel. Terrence Howard does the best with what he’s given, but his character is yet again a “soon-to-be-developed” element for the second film, I think. And then there’s Jeff Bridges, who actually plays a character who isn’t the sort he usually plays, and the end result is quite good. As the sneaky and crafty Obidiah Stane, Bridges is muscular, bald and has that ever-present dark glint in his eye that works for the character.
The director of “Iron Man” is Jon Favreau, whose previous directing credits include “Elf” and “Zathura”. Favreau is relatively new to the action genre, so those scenes could have used some improvement in just a few places, but overall the action is pretty well-handled. But on the flip side, Favreau does handle the character-centered aspects of the story almost naturally. In fact, I was surprised at how character-driven “Iron Man” was. Other than the initial action in Afghanistan, the explosions and CGI don’t really kick in until well after the first hour, whch is about the same amount of time it takes for the movie to reveal Iron Man himself in all his red and gold armor glory.
Just like “Batman Begins”, “Iron Man” works not only as an entertaining summer blockbuster, but also an interesting origin story. Like I just said, we don’t get to see the real Iron Man until well into the movie, but the build-up makes it all worthwhile.
“Iron Man” also has the benefit of feeling like an actual movie, and not just a translation of a comic book to the screen. While it may have those more flashy elements, it also creates well-developed characters and a believable atmosphere. Although it’s not quite in league with “Batman Begins”, “Iron Man” is still one of the better comic book movies to come out in recent years. I think it’s safe to say we’re kickin’ off the summer movie season right here.
This is a movie with an iron punch and a heart of gold.
Vantage Point
***1/2 out of ****
Ever wonder what a particular event would seem like from a different perspective with a different vantage point than your own? Such as, what would a casual observer think if they saw you in a questionable situation with, say, a beautiful woman? What would your best friend think? Your parents? Your girlfriend? As you can imagine, a certain situation can take on multiple meanings if you consider every possible perspective, and each perspective can tell the same story but in a different fashion.
That’s the basic idea behind the new suspense-thriller “Vantage Point”, in which the shooting of the President is told from the points of view of about eight people. Each one of these eight people possesses a piece of the puzzle, if you will, and when you piece together each piece the end result is a picture; this particular portrait involves a conspiracy behind the assassination of the President of the United States. This idea has been the selling point of the film in its trailers and television commercials, and it winds up being a clever way to execute a fairly standard action-thriller story. And even though “Vantage Point” does end up becoming the type of action procedural we’ve seen a million times, it still works well because of its style of storytelling used for at least the first two-thirds of the film. Yes, once you look past the gimmick of the plot you realize that “Vantage Point” uses the same basic formula of all action-thrillers dealing with an assassination conspiracy, but the way to critique a movie like this is by asking yourself if it uses the formula effectively, and in that sense the answer is yes.
So, the basic story of “Vantage Point” is that while attending an Anti-Terror Summit in Spain, the President of the United States is shot the moment he steps up to the podium. After that, we go through this one event over and over again by witnessing it from the vantage point of eight strangers. The first point of view, which the movie opens with, is from the perspective of Rex Brooks (Sigourney Weaver), a television producer for the news network GNN who’s in charge of the coverage for the President’s visit to Spain. The on-scene reporter named Angie Jones (Zoe Saldana) is offering her personal political views on the situation, which perturbs Rex. After Rex chastises Angie and orders her to ”not get distracted by the side show”, the President is suddenly shot by a sniper, creating mass panic right before not only a distant explosion but also the detonation of a bomb under the stage. It’s at this point when the film literally rewinds back 23 minutes, where we meet Secret Service Agent Thomas Barnes (Dennis Quaid). Barnes is part of the detail escorting the President to the Summit, along with fellow agent/partner Kent Taylor (Matthew Fox) and Barnes has been out of active duty ever since taking a bullet for President Ashton (William Hurt). We follow Barnes and Taylor as they arrive at the Summit and set up security checkpoints and whatnot. Now, right before we see the President getting killed again, Barnes notices something in one of the surrounding apartments.
Next, we meet a Spanish police officer (Eduardo Noriega) who’s attending in order to make sure nothing happens to the Spanish mayor and after we get his point of view, we are introduced to an American tourist named Howard Louis (Forest Whitaker), who is videotaping the Summit to show his kids and films a few seconds of what could possibly be used as a clue. The next vantage point is that of President Ashton himself, and this is where we learn that Ashton was actually not shot at all; his double was. And before you accuse me of giving away a plot twist, this is something that is shown in the trailers for the film. And this is where “Vantage Point” really becomes the usual action-thriller of the 21st Century, but it still manages to retain a genuine level of suspense. And we also get the points of view of the terrorists behind the attack, plus we see firsthand the rest of their plot, in addition to getting plenty more twists and turns in the story.
Each puzzle piece of “Vantage Point” offers up more of the overall story and we learn more about everything and everyone as the story evolves. I was consistently engrossed by everything that was happening on-screen, and for the first time in quite a while, I was truly on the edge of my seat and overcome with suspense. The film manages to pace itself well, mostly due to the extremely tight script by Barry L. Levy. But I believe the most surprising thing about “Vantage Point” is how well-developed the characters of the terrorists are. In fact, they might be more developed than the American characters, all of whom are admittedly cookie-cutter characters. However, cookie-cutter characters are the types required for such linear action pictures such as this.
The acting, given the type of movie “Vantage Point” is, is for the most part acceptable. No one offers a performance that is really groundbreaking in any way, but the performances we do get help us get absorbed into the story and its twists and turns.
But the main thing to discuss here is the action in the film, which is pretty exciting. The producer of “Vantage Point” is Neal H. Moritz, who has previously produced frentic garbage such as the “Fast and the Furious” franchise and the two “XXX” films. But “Vantage Point” is infinitely better than all of those movies combined. Most notable is a car chase toward the end of the film, which seems to have been inspired by the chases seen in the “Bourne” trilogy. This sequence is fast-paced and exciting, but it’s unbelievable how Dennis Quaid’s character doesn’t have a scratch on him or least some of his hair messed up after what his character’s car goes through. Thomas Barnes may be good, but he’s no Jack Bauer.
My only complaint is how predictable and standard the film gets in the last 15 to 20 minutes. For the first hour and and twenty minutes or so, “Vantage Point” makes a point of being creative in its execution and to have it come to a close in the same old way most films of its kind do is sort of a letdown. Part of me was expecting one final twist, but no.
Bottom line, “Vantage Point” is a truly effective and gripping thriller that comes up with a unique way to spin its story. While it may not be anything groundbreaking and sort of loses its flair for the frentic finale, it’s certainly a cut above the majority of action-thrillers released in this day and age.
There Will Be Blood
***1/2 out of ****
“I have a competition in me,” admits Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) well into “There Will Be Blood”, the most talked-about film nominated for Best Picture. “I want no one else to succeed. There are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking.”
While watching “There Will Be Blood”, a certain sense of irony swept over me in the sense that there is hardly ever any bloodshed on-screen. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining about that, but I’m merely making the statement so that the people cautious to see this grand and engaging film because of the promise of violence the title makes can change their mind. In my eyes, the title “There Will Be Blood” is a metaphor that refers to internal bloodshed, meaning that the film’s main character is virually killed on the inside by his overpowering sense of greed. Daniel Plainview is ultimately undone by his insatiable thirst for oil; one moment, he’s a ferocious, cutthroat monster of the oil business but the next moment he’s a suffering man struggling with the repercussions of his various actions. “There Will Be Blood” is not only a character study of a man who slowly deteriorates into someone wallowing with the ghosts of his past, but also an interesting commentary on American capitalism; that theme is personified by Plainview himself and symbolized by the uncontrollable surge of oil in the film’s Texas-like setting. And the film also throws the idea of religion into the mix, and that is personified by the film’s most religious figure, but we’ll get to him later.
As you may have guessed by now, “There Will Be Blood” is a tale of the quest for oil in Texas during the early 1900′s. Daniel Plainview starts off as a silver miner who one day stumbles upon a source of oil and quickly takes advantage of the fortune that comes with that discovery. Plainview soon becomes well-versed in the topic of oil and establishes himself as the person to seek out whenever you find a river of oil underground. One day, Plainview is visited by a man named Paul Sunday (Paul Dano), who claims that his family is sitting upon a rich supply of oil. Deciding to investigate, Plainview and his son/business partner H.W. (Dillon Fraesier) head over to this location and find out that there is indeed an ocean of oil underneath that soil. Plainview calls in reinforcements to assist him with the drilling, culminating in many sudden upsurges of the black substance. But the revelation that that barren stretch of land in a rural portion of California holds that oil ocean will forever change everything.
Meanwhile, Plainview must deal with his sometimes-rival and sometimes-ally Eli Sunday (also played by Paul Dano in a performance that truly stays with you), a local pastor whose evangelistic practices and sermons make Daniel Plainview even more embittered toward him. The two especially begin down a road of hatred for each other after Plainview purposely chooses not to let Eli bless the first oil well. But the real conflict for Daniel Plainview comes from himself; his hunger for power and oil will ultimately destroy him, leaving him forever scarred by the impact of how his greed has ruined countless lives.
In a time when the majority of movies seem to follow basic formulas and go by certain guidelines, it is truly refreshing to see a film that breaks the mold by being truly unpredictable. It is impossible to try and figure out where this film is going, but I think that helps it to become more of the portrait of a greed-fueled individual rather than simply a movie about him. There was never a single moment during this film where I was certain that I knew where it was going…and I liked that because we get less and less of those types of movies as each year passes.
But of course, the one thing to truly praise in “There Will Be Blood” is Daniel Day-Lewis’ uncompromising and downright unforgettable performance as Daniel Plainview. Day-Lewis is an actor who has the ability to transcend the mold and break it at the same time; his Oscar nomination for this role is certainly no surprise as he is capable of portraying this outlandish figure but still retain a sense of humanity. Day-Lewis’ performance as Bill the Butcher in the 2002 Martin Scorsese film “Gangs Of New York” is the role that first alerted me of this man’s incredible talent and in “There Will Be Blood”, his portrayal of Daniel Plainview may even be greater. Daniel Day-Lewis is an actor who reminds us exactly what the profession is all about. I now find myself conflicted between who I want to see win the Oscar this year: Johnny Depp for his haunting portrayal of the demonic barber Sweeney Todd or Daniel Day-Lewis for this equally resonant and unforgettable role. But one thing’s for certain: the Best Actor race is truly between the two aforementioned actors.
As great as the messages and Day-Lewis are here, “There Will Be Blood” is not quite what I would call a perfect film. For example, the ending, instead of showing the wider picture of Plainview’s actions, contracts into a sort of psycho-drama about him that is ultimately disappointing. What I mean by that is the film turns into a sort of exorcism of Plainview’s inner demons and I especially felt a final scene between him and Eli Sunday somehow felt strange in the context of what happens during that scene. And that brings me back to Paul Dano’s performance as Eli Sunday, which I thought was distracting and overall weak. Whenever Eli goes into evangelist mode, it’s hard not to break out laughing. And the film itself, at times, becomes too epic for its own good. Roger Ebert hits the nail right on the head when he says:
”There Will Be Blood is a film that is easily called great. And in its imperfections (its unbending characters, its ending, its relentlessness) we may see its reach exceeding its grasp. But that is not a dishonorable thing.”
Nonetheless, Daniel Day-Lewis will astound you, the score by Johnny Greenwood will singe your ears, the cinematography will make your eyes widen, and director Paul Thomas Anderson will leave you breathless in the sense of his masterful skills. “There Will Be Blood” is a movie most assuredly worth seeing, despite its few flaws.
Charlie Wilson’s War
***1/2 out of ****
Let me clear the air right away by saying that politics is not one of my stronger topics of discussion. Sure, I’ll pay attention to things that happen during Presidential Elections but on the whole, my interest in politics amounts to a glutton’s desire for dietary foods. I’m not one who searches for the hidden meanings behind a politician’s carefully crafted speech, however I am someone who can sleep peacefully in knowing that the country is in good hands. People always say that politics is perception, but my personal perception of politics is that the topic is just a way to get annoyed easily. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be in a peaceful state of mind than ticked off at the people who live in the place where taxes originate.
That being said, I really enjoyed “Charlie Wilson’s War”. Directed by Mike Nichols and scripted by Aaron Sorkin (“The American President”), “Charlie Wilson’s War” is a movie that shows us all the political backtalking that occurs behind closed doors, and does it well. It’s a movie that begs the question, what makes a patriot? Someone who gets shipped off to war, machine gun in hand and devotion to serve their country firmly planted in their mind or a person who advocates policies and ideas that they believe can help shape the country for the betterment of our future society? Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson, an ostenatious man with a passion for a good whiskey in one hand and the desire to have his other arm wrapped around the shoulders of a beautiful woman, could certainly be considered a patriot under the latter of the previously listed qualities of a person who loves their country. In the 80′s, Wilson represented the residents of Texas, namely the 2nd District, and was elected to the legislature and soon thereafter to Congress for over 35 years. Wilson’s flashy style of politics soon earned him a reputation among his peers, but nonetheless he was a man with an unwavering sense of dedication to uphold the Constitution to the best of his abilities.
But Charlie Wilson’s most note-worthy act of patriotism was the fact that he used his position in the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to covertly acquire billions of dollars to lend Afghanistan U.S. military assistance for the many groups fighting to defeat the Soviets. During a time when the Cold War was at its peak and a direct form of opposition to Moscow would have had most politicians quivering in their recently polished shoes, Charlie Wilson was a sign of courage as he firmly stood up for a cause he believed in. The way Wilson did this was by discovering a backdoor way of challenging the Communists. He formed a bipartisan coalition to aid the fighters in Afghanistan. Charlie Wilson and his team eventually accomplished their goal of supplying sufficiently powerful weapons to these Afghan fighters and in 1988, the Soviets finally began to withdraw from Kabul. And that helped lead to the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Well, I pretty much just described the plot of the film in a nutshell, as it follows Charlie Wilson’s (Tom Hanks) progress to bring a halt to the Soviet attacks in Afghanistan. But allow me to fill in some of the blanks. Charlie is first convinced to fight for this cause after he sees an amateur documentary on the subject, speaks with a former lover (Julia Roberts), and witnesses firsthand the callous blow that the Soviets have delivered to the Afghans. Charlie soon gets the help of a blue-collar CIA operative named Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and together, both of them start down the road to a ceasefire between two foreign countries. But that journey down that particular road is a bumpy one; they encounter all sorts of snags and politicians who must first be negotiated with, and of course there’s the matter of convincing Congress to fund all of it.
Tom Hanks is without a doubt one of the most talented actors ever to grace cinema screens. He’s portrayed an AIDS patient, a mentally challenged and optimistic observer, a military captain, a man stranded on a remote island, a Harvard professor and now a showy Congressman. Hanks’ range is fantastic, as his ability to flawlessly play countless types of roles. Tom Hanks, like Johnny Depp, is another actor of these times who proves that versatility is something crucial in having a successful career. Philip Seymour Hoffman is perfect in the role of Gust Avrakotos; Hoffman brings a wry sense of humor to the character that seems to match the smug wit of Hanks’ Charlie Wilson and the two have many great scenes together, none of which I’ll spoil here. Julia Roberts may mave a relatively small role, but she still does a pretty good job.
However, what mainly makes “Charlie Wilson’s War” so good is the smart script by Aaron Sorkin. Sorkin previously penned what has to be one of my favorite movies ever, “The American President”, and his sense of understanding of the political universe is noticeable here as well. I read an interview conducted with Tom Hanks and the real Charlie Wilson before I wrote this review, and I feel obliged to quote Hanks on something he said: “In movies, you always have to see progress, and in politics you don’t always get progress.” That rings true for this film; the pace at which the events unfold doesn’t quite match the pace of a movie like, say, “Transformers”, but I guess this is how politics plays out in real life. And screenwriter Sorkin, along with director Nichols, does a good job of capturing the mood and atmosphere of a political location.
And in addition to portraying the mood of politics superbly, the filmmakers are also able to get how the system works spot-on. “Charlie Wilson’s War” may not be one of the best movies of 2007, but it’s really very good.
But coming back to the film’s authentic portrayal of the government’s overall attitude to aiding Afghanistan during this crisis, I think another quote from the actual Charlie Wilson sums it up:
“Once the Russians marched out, we came home. We should have stayed and built schools, hospitals, roads and an electrical system. All the things that America does so well, we could have done for a song. The people who were the most infamous triumphed because we didn’t do anything at all.”
Shoot ‘Em Up
***1/2 out of ****
Willing Suspension Of Disbelief – The ability to believe an action or series of actions throughout the course of a film that would be virtually impossible to accomplish in real life.
Never before have I seen an opening action sequence quite like the one in “Shoot ‘Em Up”. The scene involves all manner of gunplay that we are used to seeing in many of today’s overwrought and overexaggerated action pictures. More often than not, these action movies of which I speak turn out to be garbage. But what sets “Shoot ‘Em Up” aside from all the rest is the mere fact that it accepts that it is garbage, and has fun with its completely over-the-top action sequences. The key to enjoying a movie like “Shoot ‘Em Up” is to leave both logic and your brain at the door. It may be nothing more than an hour and a half of shootouts, but by God is it entertaining.
The plot, when you think about it, is certainly laughable however that is precisely what the story of a continuous shootout needs to be. “Shoot ‘Em Up” opens with the carrot-munching Mr. Smith (Clive Owen), who is sitting on a bench in a bad part of town. It is made abundantly clear to the viewer right off the bat that this Smith character is your typical no-nonsense, trigger-happy action hero because after a very pregnant woman runs by being chased by gun wielding hitmen, Smith reluctantly jumps into action; his reluctance is conveyed by two simple words: “Bloody Hell.” We are then shown Smith’s vast talents with a gun by way of the previously mentioned memorable opening action scene. I certainly do not want to give away any of the cool tricks that Smith performs, but I will say that I will never look at a raw carrot the same way ever again; the raw carrot actually seems to be a weapon of choice throughout the picture.
After delivering the woman’s baby, in the midst of a crazy shootout mind you, Smith severs the umbilical cord with a gunshot and finishes his job. Now, because the mother is shot (go figure), Smith is forced to take care of the baby and protect him from many other mysterious hitmen out to kill both the baby and Smith. These hitmen are led by the teeth-gnashingly evil Mr. Hertz (Paul Giamatti) who claims that “guns don’t kill people…but they do help!” The reason why Mr. Hertz needs to kill the newborn child is admittedly laughable and a bit convoluted, but hey, we still go with the flow. Soon, an Italian prostitute named Quintano (played by Monica Belluci in appropriately skimpy clothing) becomes involved in everything. She is an old lover of Smith’s and is also thrust into everything against her will. So, the firing and loading of guns persist right until the final scene, never letting up.
The easiest way to describe “Shoot ‘Em Up” is to say that it is like “Die Hard” on steroids. Every single shootout in this movie is wildly inventive and bursting with a vivacious energy that makes movies like “Transformers” seem sluggish in comparison. Sure, the action will have you muttering “yeah, right!” and “they’d be long dead by now!”, but it is all good fun. Action junkies, I can safely say, will love this movie. One shootout in particular, which takes place in the air (yes, you read correctly) will leave people who appreciate this type of stuff wide-eyed.
“Shoot ‘Em Up” does not really have time for character development or exposition scenes, in fact, the only thing it actually does have time for is the action; that is mainly because of its breezy 87 minute running time. But still, Clive Owen and Paul Giamatti provide juicy performances and clever one-liners that keep us occupied in between each action scene. Also, writer/director Michael Davis has a great time setting up each action scene, but even more fun executing them. And that is all “Shoot ‘Em Up” is…great R-rated, testosterone-fueled fun that is the most ambitious action movie in quite some time.
Michael Bay, eat your heart out.
Ratatouille
***1/2 out of ****
The combination of Disney and Pixar has yet to produce a bad movie. Their last great film was “The Incredibles” back in 2004; last year’s “Cars” was good, just not quite on par with Pixar’s previous outings. “Ratatouille”, the newest entry into the Disney/Pixar family is one of their greatest movies, almost as good as “Toy Story”. And just like the 1995 classic, “Ratatouille” has a refreshingly original setup: a rat who possesses unique cooking skills attempting to do so in a restaraunt, where rodents are never welcome. And what’s more, the restaraunt is in Paris; the city where food is seemingly a way of life.
“Ratatouille” more than makes up for this summer’s other computer animated film “Shrek The Third”, which was sorely disappointing. Unlike the latter, “Ratatouille” concerns itself with the story more than making pop culture jokes every five seconds. It is a film with well-developed characters, a cohesive storyline, and a good moral, which incidentally, is delivered by a gaunt-faced and stoic critic who writes in a coffin-shaped office. “Ratatouille” is better than “Cars”; it is well-paced, genuinely funny, and meticulously crafted. It is one of the best animated films in recent years.
“Ratatouille”, of course, centers around a rat named Remy (voiced by Patton Oswalt). Remy lives with his family in a colony somewhere out in the distant French countryside and has an innate gift for sensing all of the savory flavors in human food. Remy is upset that his fellow rodents are content with scrounging around in the garbage in order to find something to eat and dreams of putting his special talent to good use. He inadvertantly is presented with that opportunity when he is suddenly separated from his colony and winds up in Paris, the City of Lights. Remy is guided through the city by his conscience, a rather corpulent chef named Gusteau (voiced by Brad Garrett) and eventually arrives at the deceased chef’s restaraunt.
Meanwhile, a young American man named Linguini (Lou Romano) who is down and out with his luck has recently received a job as garbage boy at the same restaraunt, although he aspires to be a cook in the kitchen. But Linguini spies Remy adding his personal touch to a soup, and when he is forced to dispose of Remy, Linguini simply cannot do it because he just knows that Remy made that soup better. Linguini figures that Remy can help him hone his skills as a chef, and so he takes Remy in and gets the rat to help him become a great chef even though it is really Remy doing all the work. At the same time, Linguini becomes infatuated with a fellow chef at the restaraunt named Colette (Janeane Garofalo), who is reluctant to help Linguini learn the tools of the trade in a French kitchen. However, she soon unwittingly is Remy’s rival in winning Linguini’s allegiance. But problems soon arise in the forms of a conniving head chef, less than helpful fellow cooks, a hapless health inspector, and a sourly sophisticated food critic (voiced by Peter O’ Toole).
The ingenuity of a Pixar film is ever-present in “Ratatouille”. The animation company has cleverly given life to dolls and cars, shed new light on the worlds of insects, monsters and sea creatures, and now they have even made rats interesting; who knew? The strength of a film like “Ratatouille” really comes from the vibrant images on-screen and the inspired voice-overs by the actors. Writer/Director Brad Bird seems to be too good to be concerned with only animated works. The dialogue is witty, sharp and clever, providing more laughs in five minutes than “Shrek The Third” offered in fifteen. Brad Bird, with “Ratatouille”, has created a computer animated film that seems to be geared more toward adults more than kids; the characters in the movie constantly discuss cooking and the history of it, what makes it so great, etc. Kids will no doubt find this type of stuff uninteresting, although there are still enough gags in the film for them.
“Ratatouille” is really a tale about simplicity. The movie itself much resembles a classic recipe given new life by creative and simple execution. It is a modern form of old-fashioned storytelling, where the story and characters come before anything else. I was certainly surprised by how much I liked the film, and it is one that I’m happy that I had the opportunity of seeing. In fact, everyone should try to see this heartwarming story of taking chances and living your dreams.
“Ratatouille” is a movie with great taste. It is just short of being perfect because I personally thought that 110 minutes was about half an hour too long for a story such as this, and for a while, it did feel like the filmmakers were stretching it out just a little bit too much. But still, in the end, “Ratatouille” will definitely satisfy anyone’s craving for a truly enjoyable comedy. MY RATING: ***1/2 (out of four stars.)
1408
***1/2 out of ****
“1408″ is a breath of fresh air compared to all of the other horror films that are constantly pedaled out by studios these days. Although I do not think “1408″ really falls under the category of “horror”; the film is essentially a psychological thriller at the most, with elements resembling a horror film scattered about here and there. But it certainly is creepy, after all, what would you expect from a movie adapted from a short story by Stephen King?
But what separates “1408″ from all the other blood-soaked and gross-out horror pictures is that it has a message. The movie says that what we should really fear are bad memories, instead of ghosts and goblins. Bad memories plauge our consciousness if we allow them to consume us, and if we let them, then they will haunt us for the rest of our lives. This is what author Mike Enslin (John Cusack) faces in the film, and he must face the trauma of his past, or be destroyed by it.
When “1408″ opens, we meet Mike Enslin, a horror author who is skeptical about the notion of ghouls and demons inhabiting desolate locations. Enslin travels to many reputedly haunted houses and hotels, debunking the myths that plauge them. He does not believe in the afterlife, but wants to because of the tragic loss of his young daughter.
“Nothing would make me happier than to experience a paranormal event,” he says. So when Mike receives a postcard one day from the infamous Dolphin Hotel in New York warning him not to stay in room 1408, he jumps at the opportunity to stay there. After researching the hotel room’s notorious past, Mike travels to New York with every intention of becoming the latest tennant of 1408. Mike meets first with the hotel’s manager, Gerald Olin (Samuel L. Jackson), who is adamant that Mike does not stay in the room. Olin tells Mike about the 56 deaths that have occurred in 1408, 22 of them natural. But, Mike will not be convinced, and takes the key to room 1408, discovering shortly thereafter that he should have heeded Olin’s warnings.
The dialogue between Cusack and Jackson is part of a magnificent build-up to Cusack actually entering the room that comprises most of the film’s first half hour. And when Mike Enslin finally enters the “evil f***ing room”, as Olin so bluntly puts it, we enter as well with no hopes of an escape any time soon. “1408″ certainly delivers plenty of jump-in-your-seat moments, but the thrills and chills are not so “Stephen King-ish” as you might expect. “1408″ mainly works because it confines itself to one location, one that is truly terrifying because it feeds off your fears. The fright of this movie is mainly psychological; Cusack’s character starts to lose his mind gradually during the course of the movie, and he takes us with him.
Cusack, a truly wonderful actor, is given the task of carrying most of the movie by himself, and he succeeds tremendously. Cusack brings a wry sense of humor to Mike that makes him seem more human and definitely more vulnerable. Another interesting quirk of Mike Enslin is that he repeatedly makes narrative observations into his trusty tape recorder, something that a real writer would do. And when the strange goings-on begin to happen in room 1408, it makes the movie all the more effective because we have spent time getting to know Mike by that time and actually care about what happens to him. This is certainly unfamiliar territory for Cusack, but he proves that he knows what he is doing.
The only thing restraining “1408″ from being a truly great psychological thriller is that at times, the film does become a little predictable. But I must commend it for being so unpredictable for most of its 1 hour and 34 minute running time. Indeed, there’s a moment in the movie where you think everything is over, only to be jerked back into things, something I was most grateful for. Instead of blood and guts, “1408″ relies more on the fear evoked from the deepest, darkest corners of our minds; something that makes the film all the more engrossing.
I must admit, “1408″ does parallel another recent Stephen King adaptation, “Secret Window”, in the sense that they both center around authors who are going insane. But “1408″ is satisfyingly creepier than “Secret Window”, even though that particular Johnny Depp vehicle is still very good. “1408″ succeeds because of a tight script, an amazing one-man performance by John Cusack, and some genuine chills.
“1408″ is definitely worth checking into.
