Last old review post in Missouri...
I leave for Massachusetts for the summer in less than 48 hours. I also have two finals to study for and take in that time, and I haven't even started packing...so I'm going to do an old review post. *grin* It's Tuesday, May 11th, and my final old reviews in the Central time zone are:
Hell Ride
3.5 stars
Maybe I'm shallow, but I liked Hell Ride! Riding with a biker gang vicariously, the interplay between the three lead characters, the flashbacks, the cameo by Dennis Hopper, Vinnie Jones as yet another psychotically fascinating villain, the gratuitous shootings and even more gratuitous half-naked chicks, the bikes, the actual presence of a plot...it didn't suck!
Okay, in this I am shallow. Maybe having lots of people imitating Tarantino isn't the best idea in the world. But that doesn't mean some people won't enjoy their efforts anyway. (Like me.) In all seriousness, I liked this film for many of the same reasons I liked Once Upon a Time in Mexico--which makes sense, considering they have the same director, the excellent Robert Rodriguez. Hell Ride isn't necessarily good, but it's still awesome.
We Own The Night
3.5 stars
It's always interesting to see a well-done period piece. We Own The Night was not marketed as a period piece, sure, but it did take place in the era before the War on Drugs, which lent a completely different tone to it than the tone of The Departed or Pride and Glory. For all the violence and sexual content in this film, it was really the pervasive drug presence that made it stand out--and made it work so well as a period piece. Not to condone intense drug use, but this film was one of only a few serious movies I've ever seen where a "good guy" could use hard drugs and still remain a "good guy."
I was pretty impressed with the performances in this film. Mark Wahlberg is not particularly remarkable here, but he's still watchable and solid. Eva Mendes...she's Eva Mendes, I can't really say much more than that. Robert Duvall is excellent, as he usually is in paternal and commanding roles. And Joaquin Phoenix once again shows his depth as a drug-soaked dilettante who, though pain of loss, finds something worth fighting and turning his life around for. I don't always enjoy watching him (like Cate Blanchett, something about him just makes me want to look away), but about one role in three he will do something powerful enough to make me want to watch him anyway. This was one such role, imho.
This movie suffered a bit in plausibility, simply because police departments don't involve civilians to the extent that Phoenix's character got involved in the cops' investigation. Using him as a witness and putting him under protection, that made sense. Giving him a badge and a gun and letting him accompany them on a manhunt, not so much. But by and large the movie still worked pretty well, if not quite up to the standard of The Departed.
30 Days of Night
2 stars
30 Days of Night is a classic example of a movie whose premise gives potential viewers higher expectations than it should. On the one hand, it's not a cerebral, highbrow vampire movie a la Shadow of the Vampire. On the other hand, it's not an action-packed stake-fest a la Blade. And since it's clearly not a comedy, all that really leaves for it to be is a run-and-hide slasher flick that just happens to have vampires as the serial killer(s) rather than a human psychopath. Think a cross between Scream and Resident Evil, only without all the guns. Because this film was based on a graphic novel, I'm going to go ahead and say that it, like Communism, must have worked very well on paper. But onscreen, its few moments of decent action suffered for being interspersed with a lot of running, hiding, and waiting. My favorite part of the movie was when the "day counter" that served as the film's timeline jumped from Day 12 to Day 27 (or something like that). Moreover, the cast was unremarkable and the ending was pretty contrived. Not a terrible vamp movie, but certainly not up to their usual entertainment standard.
Burn After Reading
1.5 stars
I don't know what it is about the Coen brothers that makes them so hit-or-miss with me. How is it that these guys can come up with No Country For Old Men, one of the better movies I've EVER seen, and then turn around and produce this loud, jumbled, unlikeable train wreck of a film? Especially with the A-list cast they had! Never have I seen this many great actors be so unwatchable. Frances McDormand was whiny, George Clooney was smarmy, John Malkovich was shouty, Tilda Swinton was bitchy, and Brad Pitt was just annoying. I realize that all of their characters were supposed to evince those qualities, but a really good job of acting smarmy or annoying is still just not fun to watch. At all. And then all of these unlikeable characters got tied together in a really confusing way, half by their own infidelities and self-serving actions and half by the CD of random data found in the gym. I really just lost interest in this movie after about half an hour. None of the characters aroused my sympathy, the plot did not hold my attention, and the dialogue did not help alleviate either of those issues. I actually kind of wish I'd rented a different movie.
Chaos
3 stars
In reading other reviews of this movie, I noted a lot of people saying that Chaos equals the sum or combination of several other films, including but not limited to War, The Usual Suspects, Inside Man, and Crank. While I would agree that Chaos has some elements of all of these, and may indeed have drawn inspiration from them, I think that it is intelligent and well-cast enough that it can stand on its own more than the other critics seem to give it credit for.
Much of that has to do with a gamble this film took--the gamble of juxtaposition. Chaos took Jason Statham and Wesley Snipes, actors arguably best-known for their action roles, and gave them some actual acting to do--some serious and some even a bit comedic. Similarly, it took Ryan Phillippe, a fairly low-rent teen-drama actor, and asked him to do action. And the best thing about this gamble, of course, is that it actually worked. I enjoyed watching Phillippe in a high-adrenaline foot/bike chase, and I enjoyed Statham and Snipes taking their characters seriously. And the movie was really quite suspenseful...even those viewers who saw the ending coming might not have seen exactly how it happened. So say what you will about this film's potential sources and influences, it still did some things well.
Unfortunately, it suffered because there are just so many other films out there doing the same things, many of which (including Inside Man and Ocean's Thirteen) were contemporary enough to Chaos to overshadow it. If Chaos' casting was a gamble that paid off, its timing was a gamble that failed--as was, perhaps, its release directly to DVD. It's a Lion's Gate picture, and direct-to-DVD films are something of a trademark with them, so I can see the logic. But sadly, that logic didn't help a good film get better dissemination.
Hogfather
4 stars
Okay, let's get one thing straight first off: You do kind of have to be a fan of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels in order to enjoy this movie fully. If you are not a fan because you just haven't read these books, you will likely be a bit confused, as the movie assumes a certain level of familiarity with the books' characters and institutions. If you're not a fan because you have read them and didn't "get" them, this movie is not for you.
That said, for the discerning (or even the semi-discerning) Pratchett fan or fantasy fan, this miniseries-length movie made from the novel Hogfather will probably go over quite well. It benefits from being (a) one of the Discworld novels that most closely mirrors an aspect of the real world (in this case, Christmas and the myths of childhood like the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus) and thus one of the most generally accessible to all audiences, and (b) one of the closest novels Pratchett wrote to being a nonserial standalone. (Within the Discworld series are several subsets of books, each focusing on a different group of characters, such that in order to follow a later book involving those characters it is very helpful to have read the earlier ones. Hogfather is not a member of one of these subsets, though characters in it have also appeared in other Discworld novels.) It also features Death, one of Pratchett's best-loved and most easily recognizable characters. Moreover, it's funny, the characters are well-crafted, and the plot ties itself together in a very clever Dickensian fashion.
Really, there's only one problem with this movie: it's LONG. It doesn't lack excitement or drag its feet over its 3+-hour length, but unless you're doing an extended Lord of the Rings, 3 hours in one sitting is just a long time to be watching a movie. As with Tin Man, I'd recommend hitting this one in two nights, as it was when released for TV.
Alright, now I will actually study and pack. Promise. *cough*
Also, soon I will get to see medeaschild ! And hopefully meet jesatria ! So, definite excitement there. Just get me through the next 40 hours...
Thanks for reading.
FBS
Hell Ride
3.5 stars
Maybe I'm shallow, but I liked Hell Ride! Riding with a biker gang vicariously, the interplay between the three lead characters, the flashbacks, the cameo by Dennis Hopper, Vinnie Jones as yet another psychotically fascinating villain, the gratuitous shootings and even more gratuitous half-naked chicks, the bikes, the actual presence of a plot...it didn't suck!
Okay, in this I am shallow. Maybe having lots of people imitating Tarantino isn't the best idea in the world. But that doesn't mean some people won't enjoy their efforts anyway. (Like me.) In all seriousness, I liked this film for many of the same reasons I liked Once Upon a Time in Mexico--which makes sense, considering they have the same director, the excellent Robert Rodriguez. Hell Ride isn't necessarily good, but it's still awesome.
We Own The Night
3.5 stars
It's always interesting to see a well-done period piece. We Own The Night was not marketed as a period piece, sure, but it did take place in the era before the War on Drugs, which lent a completely different tone to it than the tone of The Departed or Pride and Glory. For all the violence and sexual content in this film, it was really the pervasive drug presence that made it stand out--and made it work so well as a period piece. Not to condone intense drug use, but this film was one of only a few serious movies I've ever seen where a "good guy" could use hard drugs and still remain a "good guy."
I was pretty impressed with the performances in this film. Mark Wahlberg is not particularly remarkable here, but he's still watchable and solid. Eva Mendes...she's Eva Mendes, I can't really say much more than that. Robert Duvall is excellent, as he usually is in paternal and commanding roles. And Joaquin Phoenix once again shows his depth as a drug-soaked dilettante who, though pain of loss, finds something worth fighting and turning his life around for. I don't always enjoy watching him (like Cate Blanchett, something about him just makes me want to look away), but about one role in three he will do something powerful enough to make me want to watch him anyway. This was one such role, imho.
This movie suffered a bit in plausibility, simply because police departments don't involve civilians to the extent that Phoenix's character got involved in the cops' investigation. Using him as a witness and putting him under protection, that made sense. Giving him a badge and a gun and letting him accompany them on a manhunt, not so much. But by and large the movie still worked pretty well, if not quite up to the standard of The Departed.
30 Days of Night
2 stars
30 Days of Night is a classic example of a movie whose premise gives potential viewers higher expectations than it should. On the one hand, it's not a cerebral, highbrow vampire movie a la Shadow of the Vampire. On the other hand, it's not an action-packed stake-fest a la Blade. And since it's clearly not a comedy, all that really leaves for it to be is a run-and-hide slasher flick that just happens to have vampires as the serial killer(s) rather than a human psychopath. Think a cross between Scream and Resident Evil, only without all the guns. Because this film was based on a graphic novel, I'm going to go ahead and say that it, like Communism, must have worked very well on paper. But onscreen, its few moments of decent action suffered for being interspersed with a lot of running, hiding, and waiting. My favorite part of the movie was when the "day counter" that served as the film's timeline jumped from Day 12 to Day 27 (or something like that). Moreover, the cast was unremarkable and the ending was pretty contrived. Not a terrible vamp movie, but certainly not up to their usual entertainment standard.
Burn After Reading
1.5 stars
I don't know what it is about the Coen brothers that makes them so hit-or-miss with me. How is it that these guys can come up with No Country For Old Men, one of the better movies I've EVER seen, and then turn around and produce this loud, jumbled, unlikeable train wreck of a film? Especially with the A-list cast they had! Never have I seen this many great actors be so unwatchable. Frances McDormand was whiny, George Clooney was smarmy, John Malkovich was shouty, Tilda Swinton was bitchy, and Brad Pitt was just annoying. I realize that all of their characters were supposed to evince those qualities, but a really good job of acting smarmy or annoying is still just not fun to watch. At all. And then all of these unlikeable characters got tied together in a really confusing way, half by their own infidelities and self-serving actions and half by the CD of random data found in the gym. I really just lost interest in this movie after about half an hour. None of the characters aroused my sympathy, the plot did not hold my attention, and the dialogue did not help alleviate either of those issues. I actually kind of wish I'd rented a different movie.
Chaos
3 stars
In reading other reviews of this movie, I noted a lot of people saying that Chaos equals the sum or combination of several other films, including but not limited to War, The Usual Suspects, Inside Man, and Crank. While I would agree that Chaos has some elements of all of these, and may indeed have drawn inspiration from them, I think that it is intelligent and well-cast enough that it can stand on its own more than the other critics seem to give it credit for.
Much of that has to do with a gamble this film took--the gamble of juxtaposition. Chaos took Jason Statham and Wesley Snipes, actors arguably best-known for their action roles, and gave them some actual acting to do--some serious and some even a bit comedic. Similarly, it took Ryan Phillippe, a fairly low-rent teen-drama actor, and asked him to do action. And the best thing about this gamble, of course, is that it actually worked. I enjoyed watching Phillippe in a high-adrenaline foot/bike chase, and I enjoyed Statham and Snipes taking their characters seriously. And the movie was really quite suspenseful...even those viewers who saw the ending coming might not have seen exactly how it happened. So say what you will about this film's potential sources and influences, it still did some things well.
Unfortunately, it suffered because there are just so many other films out there doing the same things, many of which (including Inside Man and Ocean's Thirteen) were contemporary enough to Chaos to overshadow it. If Chaos' casting was a gamble that paid off, its timing was a gamble that failed--as was, perhaps, its release directly to DVD. It's a Lion's Gate picture, and direct-to-DVD films are something of a trademark with them, so I can see the logic. But sadly, that logic didn't help a good film get better dissemination.
Hogfather
4 stars
Okay, let's get one thing straight first off: You do kind of have to be a fan of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels in order to enjoy this movie fully. If you are not a fan because you just haven't read these books, you will likely be a bit confused, as the movie assumes a certain level of familiarity with the books' characters and institutions. If you're not a fan because you have read them and didn't "get" them, this movie is not for you.
That said, for the discerning (or even the semi-discerning) Pratchett fan or fantasy fan, this miniseries-length movie made from the novel Hogfather will probably go over quite well. It benefits from being (a) one of the Discworld novels that most closely mirrors an aspect of the real world (in this case, Christmas and the myths of childhood like the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus) and thus one of the most generally accessible to all audiences, and (b) one of the closest novels Pratchett wrote to being a nonserial standalone. (Within the Discworld series are several subsets of books, each focusing on a different group of characters, such that in order to follow a later book involving those characters it is very helpful to have read the earlier ones. Hogfather is not a member of one of these subsets, though characters in it have also appeared in other Discworld novels.) It also features Death, one of Pratchett's best-loved and most easily recognizable characters. Moreover, it's funny, the characters are well-crafted, and the plot ties itself together in a very clever Dickensian fashion.
Really, there's only one problem with this movie: it's LONG. It doesn't lack excitement or drag its feet over its 3+-hour length, but unless you're doing an extended Lord of the Rings, 3 hours in one sitting is just a long time to be watching a movie. As with Tin Man, I'd recommend hitting this one in two nights, as it was when released for TV.
Alright, now I will actually study and pack. Promise. *cough*
Also, soon I will get to see medeaschild ! And hopefully meet jesatria ! So, definite excitement there. Just get me through the next 40 hours...
Thanks for reading.
FBS