Welcome back to...
...the old review post! *cheers, applause, much rejoicing* Now that I'm not working all the damn time, I hope to get back to some regularity with these. It's Wednesday, April 28th, and today's old reviews are:
Appaloosa
2 stars
Given how awesome its cast (and director) was, this movie was surprisingly unexciting and disappointing. Not because anyone in it did a
mediocre job, but because most of them did such good jobs being unlikeable people. Ed Harris' character was futility personified, Jeremy Irons was an arrogant jerk, and Renee Zellweger was a two-faced whore. Only Viggo Mortensen brought any dignity to his role.
The fact that Appaloosa was a rather unconventional Western did not particularly help matters. Although it was probably more realistic than most action Westerns have historically been, its few over-in-seconds gunfights and many long moments of indecision, introspection and self-doubt did not make for an entertaining movie. I'm sure one could write essays about the characterization in this film, to say nothing of its statement on the evolving role of a sheriff in the Old West when faced with modernizing times, but until and unless I take another Film and Literature class, I will leave that writing to others and simply say that this movie left a worse taste in my mouth than a week's worth of New Mexico trail dust.
Also, memo to Renee Zellweger: I don't doubt your acting talent, but the gusto and amorality with which you played a shameless slut in this movie made me lose a lot of respect for you. I hope for your sake you got a good percentage for your onscreen whoring.
Push
3.5 stars
There's a reason that Heroes is a TV show. Trying to work so many people with special abilities, and the ramifications of how they all work together and against each other, into a 2-hour movie, is no easy task--and while Push should definitely be commended for trying, it still could have used a little work.
On the plus side, some of the special abilities were very cool to see produced with special effects--in particular, the gunfight when no one was holding any guns, and the way that innocuous happenings were shown to be part of a chaos-theory-esque turn of events set in motion by one precognitive. Despite wearing clothing borrowed from Britney Spears, Dakota Fanning did a great acting job in this movie (and seeing her drunk was actually very funny, even though I'm probably going to hell for laughing at it), Chris Evans did alright, and Djimon Hounsou made a very strong villain.
On the minus side, much of the plot seemed contrived, and the device of "pushing" thoughts into other people's heads, while initially cool, was overused, and its novelty wore off after the first two or three times it appeared. And the Chinese thugs whose supersonic screams exploded fish in their tanks were just a bit much.
As a whole, however, Push did not disappoint too much. Its foray into double-crossing the double-crossers a la Ocean's Eleven worked much better than I anticipated it would, and the action scenes were solid and thrilling, if a bit heavy on exploding fish. I can understand why it didn't stay in theaters too long, but it would make a good rental for Heroes fans.
Hancock
2.5 stars
So apparently, Will Smith + Charlize Theron + creative coincidence + plot manipulation = a viable superhero-type movie.
I don't buy it.
I have nothing against the first two of those ingredients. Really, I don't. Smith is always solid, mastering both action and comedy with equal aplomb, and Theron can kick ass and turn heads with the best of them. But the third and fourth ones are problematic. After Hancock's well-choreographed rehabilitation, with no real supervillain in sight, you could just tell the movie had nowhere to go. So someone tacked on this unwieldy "there can be only two" paired-superheroes story. Which story, of course, conveniently and coincidentally involved a character that just happened to be right there next to Hancock, married to the very guy who was helping him revamp his superhero image.
Did anyone else find that slightly contrived, maybe a little TOO convenient? I was reminded of the old-school Highlander days, when immortals would mushroom out of the woodwork one or two at a time just for Duncan McLeod to defeat--except even that show's premise was never so expediently tied-up-with-a-bow as the second half of Hancock was. The moment Theron's "female Hancock" revealed herself, the movie ceased to be about the character and growth of a man who happened to have super-powers, and every bit of dignity Smith had previously brought to the role was replace by slapstick and quasi-romance. Was it funny? At times. Was it worth what it replaced? Absolutely not.
Body of Lies
4.5 stars
Okay, I officially can neither dismiss nor ignore Leonardo DiCaprio anymore. Now that "teen heartthrob" is not the first phrase necessarily associated with him (and Titanic" not the first film), I have gradually been more and more impressed with him as a serious actor. Blood Diamond, The Departed, even Gangs of New York--he's chosen his roles very carefully in recent years, and each one of them has turned out incredibly solid. I can't wait to see him in Revolutionary Road.
Specifically in Body of Lies, Leo takes on the role of Roger Ferris, a CIA agent who knows his job better than anyone in the world--literally--but whose moves are controlled by the orders of his boss, a man (Russell Crowe) whose high position in the organization and life a world away from Ferris makes him think otherwise. Crowe may be good at playing commanding heroes, but he shows here he is also good at playing self-important administrators. The level of frustration in the dialogue between DiCaprio and Crowe is thick enough to cut with a knife, and Leo expertly mixes capability, adaptability, futility and vulnerability to make one of his strongest characters yet.
Almost as impressive as its lead performances was this movie's setting and characterization of the Middle East--especially the differences between American and Middle Eastern diplomacy. The element of terrorism was present and frightening, but in an informed way, showing the power of terrorism without inducing panic, and giving dignity to the Middle Easterners who were NOT terrorists. The male-female dynamic was an intriguing undercurrent.
There are many parts of this movie that are difficult and terrifying to watch. But along with Rendition, Blood Diamond and The Constant Gardener, it gives an unparalleled look into the culture and workings of an area of the world known far too little by the average American. Strong acting aside, this movie is still very much worth seeing.
Bangkok Dangerous
2.5 stars
Here's what I like: when Nicholas Cage takes on an action role, possibly with moral ambiguity (or just plain evil) involved, and portrays it intelligently, with forethought, articulation, nerves of steel and just a touch of mania.
Here's what I don't like: when Nicholas Cage takes on a romantic role, possibly with moral ambiguity involved, and turns into a whiny, puppy-eyed schoolboy who has no spine, sense of purpose, or apparent intelligence to spare.
Here's the problem with Bangkok Dangerous: it tries to make BOTH of those things happen in the same film--and believe it or not, it succeeds. Cage manages to be both the ice-cold uber-capable killer and the vacillating would-be suitor, and while such double-duty might normally suggest a masterful acting performance and great direction, here it just comes across as muddy. When a film mixes action with romance (as in Lethal Weapon 3 & 4, Rumble in the Bronx, Braveheart, etc), either the romance becomes a reason for the action or the action leads to a situation from which romance must perforce emerge, or both. Failing that, such a movie usually becomes a spoof (Army of Darkness, Big Trouble in Little China), taking the combination in a whole different direction.
Bangkok Dangerous, on the other (third? fourth?) hand, seems to attempt to make its action and romance plots run parallel to each other, intersecting as little as possible, and thus giving neither one much to play off of until the end. The action is still decent, but only because it is much harder to ruin action than romance. The romance, thus, is stilted and contrived (and having no audible communication between the two would-be lovers does not help). And while the explosive ending is not unsatisfying, the good action is really only good enough to show that it could have been better--as much as this movie would love to have been directed and/or choreographed by John Woo or Ang Lee, it quite simply wasn't.
So while this movie certainly has some good moments, and Shahkrit Yamnarm is a strong bright spot as Cage's wannabe protege, the viewer ultimately walks away from the film wondering if half of it was even necessary. Those viewers looking for a Nick Cage fix should probably stick to Face/Off and The Rock.
Superbad
3 stars
Alright, enter the next installment of Judd Apatow. I have to say I was perhaps more skeptical about Superbad than I was about any of the previous ones I tried, if for no other reason than that Jonah Hill had not impressed me in any of them. And unfortunately for my pleasant-surprise trend, he didn't impress me all that much in Superbad, either. His dialogue was (mostly) well-written, his interplay with Michael Cera was clever and touching at times, and he did have many amusing moments, but in all honesty his work as a lead was not all that different or all that much better than his work as a character--profane, childish and attention-grabbing.
While I'm on the topic of sub-optimal, I have to say I didn't really care for Seth Rogen or Bill Hader, either. Both men are funny in many situations, and like Hill, they had some good moments here. But for the most part I questioned why they were necessary to the film at all. I ended up fast-forwarding through much of their screen time. Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Michael Cera were more watchable, but suffered somewhat for having to play off of Hill every single time he was onscreen.
So what DID I like about this movie? Why did I even give it 3 stars? Because, as so often seems to be the case with Apatow's flicks, of its message and its progression. Hill and Cera went through their teenage Odyssey (and don't think there weren't Homeric undertones) under the impression that they had to be something they weren't, but at the end they were successful simply by being themselves. Moreover, the alcohol they went to such great lengths to get, despite making the party more fun for some, actually worked against them. Cera's love interest got so drunk she threw up on him, and Hill found out his did not even drink after he was already trashed--it wasn't until the next day when everyone was sober that the two couples could connect. Now I'm not bagging on alcohol in general, but when a movie essentially acknowledges how extreme intoxication and real romantic connections are mutually exclusive, I have to give it some credit.
So Superbad, sadly, did not quite measure up to the other Apatow flicks I have seen so far, but for what it was, it did not completely bomb. Still to come: Pineapple Express.
That's all I've got for now, but more is coming soon! Thanks for reading.
FBS
Appaloosa
2 stars
Given how awesome its cast (and director) was, this movie was surprisingly unexciting and disappointing. Not because anyone in it did a
mediocre job, but because most of them did such good jobs being unlikeable people. Ed Harris' character was futility personified, Jeremy Irons was an arrogant jerk, and Renee Zellweger was a two-faced whore. Only Viggo Mortensen brought any dignity to his role.
The fact that Appaloosa was a rather unconventional Western did not particularly help matters. Although it was probably more realistic than most action Westerns have historically been, its few over-in-seconds gunfights and many long moments of indecision, introspection and self-doubt did not make for an entertaining movie. I'm sure one could write essays about the characterization in this film, to say nothing of its statement on the evolving role of a sheriff in the Old West when faced with modernizing times, but until and unless I take another Film and Literature class, I will leave that writing to others and simply say that this movie left a worse taste in my mouth than a week's worth of New Mexico trail dust.
Also, memo to Renee Zellweger: I don't doubt your acting talent, but the gusto and amorality with which you played a shameless slut in this movie made me lose a lot of respect for you. I hope for your sake you got a good percentage for your onscreen whoring.
Push
3.5 stars
There's a reason that Heroes is a TV show. Trying to work so many people with special abilities, and the ramifications of how they all work together and against each other, into a 2-hour movie, is no easy task--and while Push should definitely be commended for trying, it still could have used a little work.
On the plus side, some of the special abilities were very cool to see produced with special effects--in particular, the gunfight when no one was holding any guns, and the way that innocuous happenings were shown to be part of a chaos-theory-esque turn of events set in motion by one precognitive. Despite wearing clothing borrowed from Britney Spears, Dakota Fanning did a great acting job in this movie (and seeing her drunk was actually very funny, even though I'm probably going to hell for laughing at it), Chris Evans did alright, and Djimon Hounsou made a very strong villain.
On the minus side, much of the plot seemed contrived, and the device of "pushing" thoughts into other people's heads, while initially cool, was overused, and its novelty wore off after the first two or three times it appeared. And the Chinese thugs whose supersonic screams exploded fish in their tanks were just a bit much.
As a whole, however, Push did not disappoint too much. Its foray into double-crossing the double-crossers a la Ocean's Eleven worked much better than I anticipated it would, and the action scenes were solid and thrilling, if a bit heavy on exploding fish. I can understand why it didn't stay in theaters too long, but it would make a good rental for Heroes fans.
Hancock
2.5 stars
So apparently, Will Smith + Charlize Theron + creative coincidence + plot manipulation = a viable superhero-type movie.
I don't buy it.
I have nothing against the first two of those ingredients. Really, I don't. Smith is always solid, mastering both action and comedy with equal aplomb, and Theron can kick ass and turn heads with the best of them. But the third and fourth ones are problematic. After Hancock's well-choreographed rehabilitation, with no real supervillain in sight, you could just tell the movie had nowhere to go. So someone tacked on this unwieldy "there can be only two" paired-superheroes story. Which story, of course, conveniently and coincidentally involved a character that just happened to be right there next to Hancock, married to the very guy who was helping him revamp his superhero image.
Did anyone else find that slightly contrived, maybe a little TOO convenient? I was reminded of the old-school Highlander days, when immortals would mushroom out of the woodwork one or two at a time just for Duncan McLeod to defeat--except even that show's premise was never so expediently tied-up-with-a-bow as the second half of Hancock was. The moment Theron's "female Hancock" revealed herself, the movie ceased to be about the character and growth of a man who happened to have super-powers, and every bit of dignity Smith had previously brought to the role was replace by slapstick and quasi-romance. Was it funny? At times. Was it worth what it replaced? Absolutely not.
Body of Lies
4.5 stars
Okay, I officially can neither dismiss nor ignore Leonardo DiCaprio anymore. Now that "teen heartthrob" is not the first phrase necessarily associated with him (and Titanic" not the first film), I have gradually been more and more impressed with him as a serious actor. Blood Diamond, The Departed, even Gangs of New York--he's chosen his roles very carefully in recent years, and each one of them has turned out incredibly solid. I can't wait to see him in Revolutionary Road.
Specifically in Body of Lies, Leo takes on the role of Roger Ferris, a CIA agent who knows his job better than anyone in the world--literally--but whose moves are controlled by the orders of his boss, a man (Russell Crowe) whose high position in the organization and life a world away from Ferris makes him think otherwise. Crowe may be good at playing commanding heroes, but he shows here he is also good at playing self-important administrators. The level of frustration in the dialogue between DiCaprio and Crowe is thick enough to cut with a knife, and Leo expertly mixes capability, adaptability, futility and vulnerability to make one of his strongest characters yet.
Almost as impressive as its lead performances was this movie's setting and characterization of the Middle East--especially the differences between American and Middle Eastern diplomacy. The element of terrorism was present and frightening, but in an informed way, showing the power of terrorism without inducing panic, and giving dignity to the Middle Easterners who were NOT terrorists. The male-female dynamic was an intriguing undercurrent.
There are many parts of this movie that are difficult and terrifying to watch. But along with Rendition, Blood Diamond and The Constant Gardener, it gives an unparalleled look into the culture and workings of an area of the world known far too little by the average American. Strong acting aside, this movie is still very much worth seeing.
Bangkok Dangerous
2.5 stars
Here's what I like: when Nicholas Cage takes on an action role, possibly with moral ambiguity (or just plain evil) involved, and portrays it intelligently, with forethought, articulation, nerves of steel and just a touch of mania.
Here's what I don't like: when Nicholas Cage takes on a romantic role, possibly with moral ambiguity involved, and turns into a whiny, puppy-eyed schoolboy who has no spine, sense of purpose, or apparent intelligence to spare.
Here's the problem with Bangkok Dangerous: it tries to make BOTH of those things happen in the same film--and believe it or not, it succeeds. Cage manages to be both the ice-cold uber-capable killer and the vacillating would-be suitor, and while such double-duty might normally suggest a masterful acting performance and great direction, here it just comes across as muddy. When a film mixes action with romance (as in Lethal Weapon 3 & 4, Rumble in the Bronx, Braveheart, etc), either the romance becomes a reason for the action or the action leads to a situation from which romance must perforce emerge, or both. Failing that, such a movie usually becomes a spoof (Army of Darkness, Big Trouble in Little China), taking the combination in a whole different direction.
Bangkok Dangerous, on the other (third? fourth?) hand, seems to attempt to make its action and romance plots run parallel to each other, intersecting as little as possible, and thus giving neither one much to play off of until the end. The action is still decent, but only because it is much harder to ruin action than romance. The romance, thus, is stilted and contrived (and having no audible communication between the two would-be lovers does not help). And while the explosive ending is not unsatisfying, the good action is really only good enough to show that it could have been better--as much as this movie would love to have been directed and/or choreographed by John Woo or Ang Lee, it quite simply wasn't.
So while this movie certainly has some good moments, and Shahkrit Yamnarm is a strong bright spot as Cage's wannabe protege, the viewer ultimately walks away from the film wondering if half of it was even necessary. Those viewers looking for a Nick Cage fix should probably stick to Face/Off and The Rock.
Superbad
3 stars
Alright, enter the next installment of Judd Apatow. I have to say I was perhaps more skeptical about Superbad than I was about any of the previous ones I tried, if for no other reason than that Jonah Hill had not impressed me in any of them. And unfortunately for my pleasant-surprise trend, he didn't impress me all that much in Superbad, either. His dialogue was (mostly) well-written, his interplay with Michael Cera was clever and touching at times, and he did have many amusing moments, but in all honesty his work as a lead was not all that different or all that much better than his work as a character--profane, childish and attention-grabbing.
While I'm on the topic of sub-optimal, I have to say I didn't really care for Seth Rogen or Bill Hader, either. Both men are funny in many situations, and like Hill, they had some good moments here. But for the most part I questioned why they were necessary to the film at all. I ended up fast-forwarding through much of their screen time. Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Michael Cera were more watchable, but suffered somewhat for having to play off of Hill every single time he was onscreen.
So what DID I like about this movie? Why did I even give it 3 stars? Because, as so often seems to be the case with Apatow's flicks, of its message and its progression. Hill and Cera went through their teenage Odyssey (and don't think there weren't Homeric undertones) under the impression that they had to be something they weren't, but at the end they were successful simply by being themselves. Moreover, the alcohol they went to such great lengths to get, despite making the party more fun for some, actually worked against them. Cera's love interest got so drunk she threw up on him, and Hill found out his did not even drink after he was already trashed--it wasn't until the next day when everyone was sober that the two couples could connect. Now I'm not bagging on alcohol in general, but when a movie essentially acknowledges how extreme intoxication and real romantic connections are mutually exclusive, I have to give it some credit.
So Superbad, sadly, did not quite measure up to the other Apatow flicks I have seen so far, but for what it was, it did not completely bomb. Still to come: Pineapple Express.
That's all I've got for now, but more is coming soon! Thanks for reading.
FBS