- Alphabetical
- Most Reviews
- Most Views
- Top Rated
- Least Recent
- Most Recent
/</gidiv class="entry-body field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden field-bundle-review"/>/gi
div class="field-items" Most film critics or general movie lovers prefer a film that makes them do a little thinking. There are only so many dumb, predictable films out there already. But on the other hand, it's not much fun when a film requires you to do too much thinking. And you're very likely to feel mentally exhausted after watching Trance . Here is the basic plot of the film, before it goes in a million different directions. Simon, played by James McAvoy , is an art auctioneer who becomes mixed up with a group of criminals trying to steal an expensive painting. The painting gets lost. Simon knows where it is but suffers amnesia after being knocked unconscious during the heist. Since he is the only one who knows the location of the painting, the criminals resort to using hypnosis on him. Rosario Dawson plays the hypnotist hired to help him gain his memory back. From that point on it's hard to tell what's real, what's not, and who's playing who. It is entertaining for a good while... trying to figure everything out and hoping for some satisfying conclusion. Everybody likes a good plot twist. But there are points in the film where you feel one twist has occurred, and then you find out that wasn't the case at all. There's too much blurring between the lines of reality and what might only be in Simon's head. The fact that I'm still not entirely sure what happened isn't exactly fulfilling, and there's already debate between people who've seen it proposing different theories as to what really happened. So credit goes to the film for engaging discussion. Yet I feel that the main reason I'd ever be encouraged to watch it again would be just to figure out what happened. At the same time though, the movie did keep me very interested throughout. But if you're not even sure whether you actually liked the movie or not once it's over, that means it still could have been better.
Some movie plotlines sound too ridiculous to be true. The CIA fakes shooting a science-fiction movie in order to rescue hostages from Iran - that's the plot of the movie Argo . It's based on a factual event though. If it hadn't been, you wouldn't believe it. It happened back in 1979 and was kept a secret until President Clinton declassified the information some 20 years later. When Iranian revolutionaries overtook the American embassy there, six people escaped to hide out at the residence of the nearby Canadian ambassador. When word of this got to the CIA, they had to come up with a plan to rescue them while not endangering the Canadian ambassador's life. Enter Tony Mendez, an exfiltration expert who happens to have some key Hollywood contacts. Ben Affleck, who directed the film, plays Mendez in full 70's mode with an unflattering haircut and beard. It's Mendez who comes up with one idea when no one else can. The Middle East has become a popular area to shoot movies that take place in desert locations. Capitalizing on the success of Star Wars (which was partially shot in Tunisia), he comes up with a scenario of shooting a fake sci-fi movie in Iran as a way to extract the six Americans. The idea sounds a little silly but it's the most feasible one they can come up with. Mendez heads to Iran pretending to be a film producer. This is once he's obtained an actual script for the film and everything. When he meets the American refugees, he gives them aliases and complete fictional background stories. They must learn everything about their fake personas in order to pull this off. One wrong move and they will be killed. As a director, Ben Affleck is good at staging the intensity of such a situation, especially in a nail-biting scene at the airport amidst Iranian security. But he does stretch things in order to make it an entertaining film. There's one of those cliché moments where one of the Americans' plane ticket doesn't work at the airport but then just happens to be fixed at that very second by the CIA. Had the Americans arrived there 5 minutes earlier, it wouldn't have worked and they'd never get through. While Affleck has proven himself behind the camera with films like Gone Baby Gone and The Town, I'd much rather sit through those films again than this one. This is the one that's going to get him all kinds of accolades because those were films that took place in his home town of Boston while this one is a historical account on a national level. But regardless of if those other ones dealt with the area he was most familiar with, they were far more entertaining movies. Nevertheless, Argo is a good film for anyone wanting to know the true story of an American hero and the unique way he went about saving lives.
Now that I'm back home from Hong Kong and Yangshuo in Gungxi Province, Mainland China, I've repopulated my Netflix queue, and Elite Squad arrived today. Released in 2007, b Elite Squad /b , or as it was called in Brazil, b Tropa de Elite /b , is about the Rio slums or favelas, and an elite squad of police called BOPE, whose mission is not so much law enforcement as it is the eradication of the drug lords that rule the favelas. br br br br This is not a film for the sensitive or the faint hearted. From the extreme fire-fights in the streets of the favelas, to the brutal interrogation methods employed by the BOPE officers, to the downright excessive boot camp training of the BOPE candidates in which it is a good year if three out the 25 make the cut - the intensity level of this film starts at strong, and soon goes through the roof with hardly any down time at all. br br The main character is Captain Nascimento played by b Wagner Moura /b . He's married, with a kid on the way, and he is one mean-ass cop. He's doing his best and his wife wants him out of BOPE and into a less demanding and less dangerous line of work. Unfortunately, his line of work is more dangerous than almost any other because by the time BOPE is called in - things have already spun out of control. br br He's got two guys who are already cops but they're trying to get into BOPE. Neto is played by b Caio Junqueiro /b , has been assigned to supervise the motor pool after a disastrous night on the streets when his quick trigger finger got another cop or two killed by the drug crew. Only the motor pool is out of funds. One car is cannibalized so another might run, and headquarters hasn't any money for him. So he has to steal a payoff to get some cash to fix the cars. You won't believe who the money that he intercepts is intended for. br br Matias played by b Andre Ramiro /b is a cop and is also trying to become a lawyer. He joins a group of students in a favela, and his girl friend Maria ( b Fernanda Machado /b )is living in the same neighborhood as one of the most brutal of the drug lords, Baiano played by b Fabio Lago /b . He hasn't told her that he is also a cop. Once the secret is out - people will start dying - and in ways almost too brutal to describe. br br Both Neto and Matias make the cut for entrance into BOPE. So there's your set up. Three cops and a drug lord and his minions of street retailers of drugs, look-outs, and the gunmen that back them up. Directed by b Jose Padilha /b , the film is dense, claustrophobic, as well as noisy. There's a lot of action at night, and the dialogues overlap, plus there is a grainy effect at night. Those things along with the jittery hand-held cameras that are utilized during the raids and ensuing fire-fights make the film a bit of work for the viewer. br br But the payoff comes in the tension, the pressure, and the excitement. While some of the police were corrupt and in the pockets of Baiano and his ilk, and the residents of the favelas were living in an area where desperation and danger lurked around every corner created there by poverty, the murderous drug business, and the firefights with the BOPE. Director Padilha has left the beauty of the Copacabana and Ipanema beaches out of the film. We will see Sugar Loaf Mountain only so very briefly, and we don't see Christ the Redeemer standing tall above Rio from his perch atop Corcovado at all. The film isn't about Rio's highlights - instead it about the places where visitors are unlikely, or rather shouldn't go to. br br There was a bit of controversy about this film. Many people felt that the BOPE tactics were as criminal as the activities of those who were their targets. Others said that the film sort of made those BOPE officers heroic while Nascimento was just as good at killing as Baiano and that was hardly heroic. You'll have to see the film yourself in order to decide what is the right answer to that question. br
Duel (Steven Spielberg, 1971) This first film, made for TV, by one of the wealthiest director of its time, and maybe of all-time is a success of Hitchcockian grandeur. The story can be resumed to one line: a rep/seller on the road of California is menaced by a trucker until their ultimate showdown. As for Hitchcock’s The Birds not much is explained here except the fact that the menace is there and we are on the edge of our seat from the first moment until the generic. Do we really have to know why the birds attacked this little Californian town? No! It is the same here, the trucker is never seen and the tension rises gradually until the very end of this confrontation of the man versus the machine. The plot also revolves around the symbolism of the manhood of the two opposite forces. The little red Plymouth Valiant against the truck as a phallic representation of the two males. The impotent car against the powerful all-American truck. It also represents a rite of passage for Dennis Weaver’s character: his relationship with his wife is mentioned in a quick phone call where he demonstrates his inability to be a man, a real man. This event will make him face himself and be a stronger person. However, the qualities of Duel mostly resides in its stylistic beauty and the mastery of its director. The simple plotline could have made this a poor TV-movie that could have been in the shelves and forgotten. Nonetheless, it was released in theatres and applauded. Made in thirteen days, Spielberg shows how he understood moviemaking and how he innovated with few resources. Nowadays, Spielberg has hundreds of millions of budgets and his films aren’t has great has they were in the 1970’s. The mise en scène of Duel deserves its place amongst the great films of its time. The way Spielberg places the viewer into the action, just like the master Hitchcock, is inspired and thoughtful. As an admirer of Spielberg’s earlier work ( Duel, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Indiana Jones original trilogy, even Jurassic Park I loved as a kid) and a detractor of his later work ( War of the Worlds, Munich, The Terminal ) it will always be a tormenting thing when thinking about the filmmaker himself. Nonetheless, Duel is an astounding start for the career of one of the most prosperous director of all-time. http://cinephiliaque.blogspot.com/2011/09/duel-steven-spielberg-1971-this-first.html
At the end of the film Michael Clayton , just after George Clooney 's Michael Clayton character has gotten Tilda Swinton 's character to make a statement, with the police eavesdropping, that would get her and her boss played by Ken Howard , sent to prison, Clayton leaves the building. Upon hitting the street, he hails a taxi cab. He climbs in, shuts the door and says nothing. We then get this exchange: Taxi Driver: So what are we doing? Michael Clayton (peeling off some bills and handing them to the unseen driver): Give me $50 worth. Just Drive.... Just Drive. Haven't we heard that so many times before? We've had films about taxi drivers, and race car drivers. We've had actors whom we may not have been familiar with at the time of the film, who went on to become well known actors. Case in point - Robert Duvall as the cabbie who drove Steve McQueen 's Detective Frank Bullit t around back in 1968. We've had car thieves like Nicholas Cage in Gone in 60 Seconds , and we've had untold, unnamed, and uncountable faceless wheel men who drove the getaway cars in a zillion criminal ventures that happened on screen. We've had a film about a chauffeur ( Morgan Freeman in Driving Miss Daisy ). To make a long story short - we've had men, and women, driving something on screen, since there were films and since motorized vehicles like cars, boats, or even planes and trains started to show up in the movies. Now we have a film called Drive . Ryan Gosling has the role of the Driver. We never do get his actual name. He does stunt driving for the movies, works as a mechanic, and on the side he drives getaway cars in heists. He has no back-story. We know nothing about him other than that he's cool, calm, and studies maps of LA every day, the same way we read a newspaper on a regular basis. The film opens with a heist, and our Driver has already told us and the guys he's driving for his rules: If I drive for you, you give me a time and a place. I give you a five-minute window, anything happens in that five minutes and I'm yours no matter what. I don't sit in while you're running it down; I don't carry a gun... I drive. There we are once more. He just drives. He has a police radio scanner, so he can hear what the police are doing. So right away we need him to show his stuff. Only as the scene plays out, we can see that it is different - it is more of a cat and a mouse, than chase and race. The driver outsmarts the cops by hiding in alleys, garages, and even under an elevated highway to avoid detection by the eyes in the skies, ie - the police choppers. So we know straightaway - he's good at what he does - he adjusts on the fly - and he's smart. Later we will see some higher intensity auto chases. But what really escalates in the second half of the film is the man to man violence. I'll give you a verbal shortcut here rather than describing said violence. This is not a film for the squeamish. Directed by the Danish helmsman Nicolas Winding Refn , Drive is set up as action film, and for sure it has action, and bloodshed, and villains galore. But what it has, and in spades, is Style; yes that's right - style with a capital 'S'. Refn is at once unique and yet you do notice, or at least consider, that the film may have borrowed from some notable film icons - Gosling's driver is kind of an Eastwood-esque man with no name. Strong, silent (speaks only when asked a direct question). He's not invincible by any means, and definitely not heroic - but he is interested in doing the right thing, and he's tough as nails and fearless. But to distinguish himself as not being an 'eastwood character', Gosling avoids the squint and the gravelly voice. You might also see this film as being something along the lines of being Scorsese-lite. What I mean by that is you've got the minor Martin Scorsese strokes, but none of the grand flourishes. At the same time - you might be reminded of Michael Mann's Heat . Only without the gun-play. Maybe it was the music and or the sound track which seemed to heighten the tension as well as reminding me of Mann's flick. But despite Gosling getting the majority of the screen time - there's a terrific supporting cast around him. Bryan Cranston plays Shannon, who is at once the Driver's employer, agent, and source for automobiles. Shannon is an awful man when all is said and done - but Cranston plays him wonderfully. Ron Perlman plays Nino - he owns a pizza shop, but he's not an Italian, despite coming off as one. He may look like a goombah , complete with snarls and growls, but beneath that track-suited Bensonhurst facade, he is simply a vicious Jewish gangster . His partner is Bernie Rose played by comedian and comic Albert Brooks . Be warned, Brooks' character isn't about being funny. He just might achieve a niche as one the most terrifying gangsters ever in this film. His portrayal of Bernie Rose is downright scary. When Bernie is telling The Driver: "Any dreams you have, or plans for your future - I think you're going to have to put that on hold. For the rest of your life, you're going to be looking over your shoulder" - it's simply chilling. We have two women of note. Carey Mulligan plays the Driver's neighbor and love interest. She really doesn't have many speaking lines - her role is mostly to convey vulnerability, fear, and anger and all of it is done superbly without her saying a whole lot. Christina Hendricks plays a woman involved in a heist. She and the Driver have to go on the run after a heist went south. As the heist goes down - and it is off screen - we know nothing about her. But she and The Driver have a bag of evil money that others will kill to recover. By the time the film ends we will know all about what she's made of. I think Drive is both fresh and familiar. It is seriously more of a visual piece of film action than a film driven by its plot. The story or plot isn't new either, but has enough strength to support the story. In that sense, this film was made by a European, and it had a decidedly Euro flavor to it despite its totally So-Cal setting and it's American cast. I think this film is a 'must see'.
Cowboys and Aliens is a cross genre film based off a graphic novel, starring Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig. Craig’s character wakes up not knowing who he is, or how he got a strange metal object attached to his wrist. He soon gets captured and learns he was a wanted outlaw. As he’s about to be taken away spaceships fly through the night sky and start attacking the town and abducting people. At this point he realizes the device on his hand can fight the aliens, and joins the townspeople in trying to get their loved ones back. The neat thing about this movie is it’s a cowboy movie first, and a science fiction film second. It has all the tropes of a western, Cowboys, Indians, bandits, saloon brawls, etc. It also has the beats of the UFO phenomenon, alien abduction, lost memories, cattle mutilations, but also the aliens methods (they basically lasso people to abduct them) and their overall plot fit in perfectly with western mythology. Along the way there are nice character beats for the various townspeople, including the dorky saloon owner and his search for respect. Despite the somewhat goofy title the premise is played completely straight. My sole complain is that, while it has some suspense, it should have/could have been outright scary. One really interesting thing to me was that, unlike most movies of this type, it left no room for a sequel. It has a definitive ending, and is a neat experiment in cross genre film. 8.5 out of ten.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a reboot of the 5 film series of the 1960s/70s, which in turn was based off the 1963 French Novel. This film sets out to tell the very beginnings of the Ape revolt. It starts with San Fransisco scientist Will Rodman researching a cure for Alzheimers, which has stricken his father (John Lithgow). He tests a drug on apes made to repair brain cells. Through a series of circumstances Will ends up raising a baby monkey at home who displays heightened intelligence. Will’s father, who was a cultured man in life, names the monkey Caesar. Years later, the course of events lead Caesar to being kept in a shelter with other monkeys, where he is not accepted at first. He’s very depressed and lonely, until he comes to attain leadership among the captive apes. Unlike what’s considered “typical” summer franchise flair, Apes is primarily a character piece. We follow Will and his despair over his ailing father, who Lithgow plays wonderfully. We also see his ethical struggles and the conflicts that come from the business side of medicine. The strongest part of the movie is Caesar himself. We follow him through his joys and his despair, share his concern when he wonders to Will if he’s a pet, and ultimately cheer for the Apes as they revolt against, well us. Rise of the Apes is perhaps the only movie with a CGI character (not counting full CGI movies like Toy Story or Shrek) that I truly cared about. He was definitely a better character than say, any of the Transformers or Star Wars characters of the last ten years. Action comes at the end as we see the Apes outsmart the humans on the Golden Gate Bridge. It’s a great scene that shows in one shot why Caesar will become a mythical hero to be remembered by the Apes for all time. It’s interesting to see that the Apes don’t intend to rule the planet, (In fact even in combat Caesar is purposefully non-lethal) and that it’s not necessarily the Apes that wipe humanity out. For Easter egg specialists one of the humans who mistreats the Apes says that line “Get your hands off me you dam dirty Ape,” which is what Charlten Heston said in the original film. Also there’s passing reference to the Icarus space ship, which is from the films and original novel. Apparently in this movie it had a manned mission to Mars and gets lost. That’s all I know of as I haven’t seen the old films. Rise of the Apes is one of the better reboots made, which hopefully will lead to a great film series. 9.8/10.
Screenwriter/Director/Producer/Auteur Luc Besson is no stranger to armed and dangerous females - we've seen his participation wearing those mantles in such films as Leon: The Professional , la Femme Nikita , and The Fifth Element . We know Director Olivier Megaton from his previous film Transporter 3 as a guy who can deliver high octane action. Well these two have partnered up and have brought us Colombiana which opened today. Starring Zoe Saldana ( Avatar ), Colombiana has a simple premise: a 9 year girl (played by Amandla Stenberg ) witnesses the drug cartel's assassination of her mother and her father in Bogota, Colombia. In an excellent chase sequence, nearly as good as any you've seen in the Bourne films, young Cataleya manages to barely escape from the hired thugs. She has a passport to freedom using the info her father provided for her and by turning this over to CIA station chief in Bogota. Her father also provided her with some family connections in Chicago who will take care of her. 15 Years later, Cataleya, now played Zoe Saldana is now a kick-ass hired gun. She can shoot, rig explosives, make parkour moves, and can outthink, outsmart, and outfight any of her targets or pursuers. She's as close to invincible as it gets. She does contract killings but along with that she's been finding and doing in, one by one, the gang that killed her parents. Her name might be Cataleya, she's been named after a specific orchid flower, but beyond her name, she is a warrior. She's driven by revenge and she's very fierce. If you thought last winter's Hanna was the latest and best of the new action heroines you'd be right. Cateleya is Hanna now all grown up with an even bigger chip on her shoulder. As was once said about a certain Terminator - Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. Well, Catelya is an upgrade over the robotic Terminator in terms of looks, and she's human. Other than that, the motivation is almost the same. Okay - I hear the protests - another female revenge film, ho-hum. Another film where shell casings accumulate like overturned buckets of pop-corn. Been there. Another film with a female action hero that must have her strip down to bra and panties. Done that. What else is new? Just because it isn't new doesn't mean it can't be good people. Besson and Megaton have given us an exciting film that may not have any new ideas - but the trade off is that it does a extremely good job of being exciting and pays homage to some of the best action films ever. Cataleya - Jason Bourne: same/same Final attack sequence at the drug lord's mansion. We saw that in Scarface. You see it again here. Bullet Ballet? First we had John Woo's Hard Boiled , then we had The Matrix . Now we have Colombiana. Parkour chase scene/Rooftop chase: The District 13 films, Bourne chasing across roof tops as he did Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry and now we have a chase to equal that with a little 9 year old fleeing for life. You want more: cartoonish cops, over-the top villains, a heroine who always seems to have necessary passports, arms, and munitions at her disposal, a smarmy evil CIA operative, and oh yes - one good cop. There's not much in the way of humor, and there is a hand to hand fight sequence which was hurt by the intentionally choppy editing, but was just as fierce as the fight Bourne had with the 'asset' in Morocco. There's even a knife through the hand that I believe we saw in Black Rain , among others In summary: it is a trade off - you'll have to live with the nothing new aspect of Colombiana, and the fact that there's really not a lot of suspense, but the pay-off is that you get an movie that is has plenty of thrills and lots of superb action set pieces which you definitely will admire and enjoy.
RATING 6.5/10 Bottom Line The story on offer in this film is quite engrossing, but the uninspired direction and slow build-up make this a bland thriller capable of much more, despite some genuine performances from the cast led by a convincing Russell Crowe. The Good Russell Crowe plays John Brennan, a college professor married to Lara (Elizabeth Banks), who is convicted of murdering her boss after an altercation. John becomes obsessed with the idea of breaking her out of jail, and after getting advice from a former escaped convict (a sublime Liam Neeson), John begins to hatch an elaborate plan that consumes his life. John’s conviction is deftly portrayed by Crowe, and he simultaneously emotes his insecurity about what he is doing, particularly when he has some violent altercations with the criminal underworld to obtain fake passports, identification, and in the end money. Three scenes that stood out in particular were John’s aborted attempt to rob a bank, John almost being caught at the prison trying to use a specially designed bump key to activate a lift, and the final moment between John and his father (Brian Dennehy); the two men never talk, but the moment where John’s father knows what he is going to do and says ‘goodbye’ to him is quite powerful. The final act of the film is quite engrossing as John hatches his plan, but manages to stay ahead of the police despite some setbacks which threaten to throw his delicately laid plan out of kilter. “The Next Three Days” is a different kind of thriller that plays against type and creates a more realistic world of every-day characters that you could know in every-day life. By watching this film, you could believe this happened for real. The Bad The film takes a long time to get going, and it is only so we can see the anguish that John goes through as he digs himself deeper and deeper in to nefarious territory while organising his escape plan for Lara. Although there are moments of tension as John makes different attempts at the jail, and has some nasty run-ins with criminals, there is not much attempt to capitalise on this tension to make it thrilling. As a result, the ‘thriller’ aspect of the film is more bland than it should have been. Also, instead of structuring the escape as the climax of the film, it perhaps should have come half way through the film so that there would be more time to explore the couple on the run. Liam Neeson’s escape convict character goes to great lengths in his one scene to explain the difficulties of life on the run, yet the film conveniently shirks this issue by ending the film just as this begins, even though the chances of the authorities catching up with them is virtually zero given John’s elaborate planning. This further exploration would have been welcome, instead, the structure was designed to give the film a happy ending; that’s very Hollywood, but not necessarily the most potent finale.
RATING 7/10 Bottom Line ‘Limitless’ is an intriguing thriller with a great concept and likeable cast, but the lack of logic in places, constant voice overs, loud soundtrack and over-use of certain visual styles stop the film from becoming something great. The Good Eddie Moora (Cooper) is a struggling writer, who is dumped by his girlfriend Lindy (Cornish) at the outset. With his life going nowhere and seemingly becoming worse, he has a chance encounter with his ex-brother-in-law who supplies him with a pill that enhances his brain. Suddenly, Eddie is able to focus, and is able to turn his life entirely around to the point where he is able to make millions day trading in record time. However, his life becomes complicated when powerful businessman Carl Van Loon (De Niro) offers him a job, and the side effects of the drug start to manifest themselves. This concept is great for a thriller, as it taps in to the notion that by taking a pill, the possibilities that you can create for yourself become ‘limitless’. Any one who drinks a cup of coffee in the morning to get themselves motivated would love this drug. The cast lined up for this film are likeable and hold their own very well. Bradley Cooper is allowed a change of pace for himself and he proves to be quite a likeable star, moving from one pitfall to another as he uses his newfound abilities to change the world. Robert De Niro does his usual best; he’s not a gangster but he’s ruthless. Director Neil Burger manages to infuse an elaborate visual style that is very unique, and in some cases, quite inventive. A number of scenes show multiple versions of Moora in the same shot, stylistically portraying how much more capacity he has in achieving so many tasks. “Limitless” will hook you in to its concept, and will ensure that you want to stick around to see how it ends. The Bad Despite the great concept, there are a few lapses in logic displayed here. The most obvious one relates to the loan shark character. You can buy Eddie’s motivation to get quick cash from a Russian thug, but after he earns more than twenty times this money back on the stock market, you would think he would pay him back immediately, and also remember to do so given his brain is working on overdrive; but he does not. This is the only reason given for the loan shark character to stay in the film, and the lack of logic in motivation here does make his character seem arbitrary, particularly when the loan shark’s villainy could have been quite easily given to Robert De Niro, who would have no doubt pulled it off. The previously mentioned visual styles are quite fascinating when you first see them, but after a while, they tend to become irritating. Combined with a loud soundtrack and a reliance on Eddie providing uninspired voice overs, the mystery and thrilling aspects of the film become undermined and are nowhere near as strong as they could be.
RATING 8/10 Bottom Line Smart, engaging, with a touching human story, “Source Code” is riveting sci-fi thriller, even though its ending perhaps goes a bit too far and is maybe too smart for its own good. The Good From the outset, Source Code throws you in to the shoes of Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) who appears on a train, but with people recognising him as Sean Fentress. Disorientated and confused, he spends the next eight minutes trying to figure out what is happening, and then the train explodes. Stevens wakes up in a capsule, and discovers he is part of a military experiment which allows him to transport in to the last eight minutes of the mind of a passenger on a doomed train that was subject to a terrorist attack that has already occurred. His mission is to find out who planted the bomb so the terrorist can be stopped in the future. It would be pointless to describe more as the story becomes somewhat more complicated as it goes along, with not everything appearing as it seems. Jake Gyllenhaal puts in one of the best performances of his career as the driven Stevens, who forms a bond with fellow passenger Christina (Michelle Monaghan), and Captain Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) whom he sees on a computer screen in his source code capsule and is his direct link to the real world. Despite all the tech jargon and high-brow concepts, the film has a very human core at its heart, as the stories of Stevens, Christina and Captain Goodwin all intertwine to uncover a very tragic, but then uplifting narrative. Much of this film feels like Groundhog Day in that Stevens is continually sent back in to the same eight-minute world of the train, but director Duncan Jones is extremely adept at keeping everything interest and fresh. What pushes everything along even further is the eventual discovery of Stevens situation, and whether or not he has the capacity to alter the events he is witnessing on the train. The film then delves in to concepts of parallel universes and dimensions, some of which is fascinating. “Source Code” is a smart and engaging thriller, a fantastic piece of science-fiction, and a film that does not lose sight of its touching human story. The Bad There is a point in the climax, and you will know when it happens, when the film should have ended. Given the amount of time spent discussing how the events on the train could not be changed, and the eventual revelation of Stevens predicament, it was only fitting that the film should end on the freeze frame where Stevens kisses Christina just before the bomb explodes. Given the inevitability of the train’s fate, and Stevens’ all-but-dead existence, there was something very poignant about that moment where the picture freezes on the couple. A few moments later however, the story starts up again, and despite it being very clever, and throwing a number of new intelligent layers on to the idea being presented, it just does not feel right. Yes, it gives Stevens a happy ending, and yes, it opens up your mind to alternate dimensions and whatever else, which is a perfectly plausible aspect to show, but it seemed more powerful that the film should have ended on that freeze frame. In the end, Stevens sends a message to Goodwin saying how ‘source code’ can do more than you ever imagined, a somewhat lame excuse to explain the ending.
The Hangover - Directed by Todd Phillips, starring Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis - Rated R The Kurgan loves movies about debauchery. The Hangover, despite a slow start, is a downright hilarious comedy that is a welcome change from all the big summer movie fare. This movie doesn’t pretend to be anything it’s not. It is an R-rated comedy about a bachelor party gone wrong in Las Vegas. You can imagine the glorification of debauchery that ensues. It all starts with Doug (Justin Bartha of National Treasure fame) getting fitted for a tux with his off-balance future brother-in-law, Alan (Zach Galifianakis in what is sure to be a breakout role). Doug and Allan then head off to pick up schoolteacher buddy Phil (the hilarious Bradley Cooper) and dentist pal Stu (Ed Helms). The four head off to Vegas for a drunken, but well intentioned bachelor party. So you have to wade through the expository stuff, like how Stu is afraid to stand up to his controlling girlfriend, Allan could be a problem if he drinks too much, and Phil can’t wait to get out of school and forget he has a job or a family, so you can get to the best part: the morning after the party. That’s when the guys lose the groom. This turns the film into a funny detective film. Phil, the assumed leader of the trio, even takes down notes as they try to backtrack their steps from the night before. The detective aspect is what sets this film apart. I found it hilarious as the guys bribed witnesses and questioned bystanders to try and figure out such mysteries as why they have a tiger and a baby in their hotel room and why they came back to the hotel in a stolen police car. I don’t want to go into any more details than I have already since parts of this film (such as the taser scene) lost their luster for me since I had seen the preview so many times. But this is not one of those movies where every funny scene is in the previews, though one or two of the funniest moments are in the preview. There are consistent laughs throughout the film and the story is actually interesting, which is a bit rare for a comedy of this nature. Of course the jokes are only as funny as the people telling them and this cast handles them all well. I must reiterate how funny Galifianakis is in this. This is a comedian who knows how to sacrifice his body for comedy. His jutting gut and bushy beard make him a funny sight, and it helps that he can act as well. Ed Helms, he of the prominent missing tooth, makes full use of his sight gag by regularly giving a big toothy smile which makes the gap blatantly obvious in each scene. He looks so unaware of the missing tooth that the joke never got old for me. Bradley Cooper is the one holding it all together and he has a certain charisma that really gets the audience rooting for these guys to find their lost friend. I need to say something about the makeup department for this film as well. I normally don’t pay attention to this type of thing (unless it’s a zombie movie), but they did an amazing job in roughing these guys up. Just by looking at the three of them when they wake up in the trashed hotel suite you can tell that they have had a very long night. It adds to the hilarity of the film when you can just look at a character’s face and chuckle a bit. The makeup is not the only sense of style in this film, though. Director Todd Phillips (Old School) manages to squeeze in a few of his trademarks: the band from Old School that performed the curse-laden version of “Total Eclipse of the Heart” makes an appearance, the song choice is dead on and very funny at times, and the director himself makes his obligatory mustachioed cameo. Phillips also manages to throw in a few amusing references to other Vegas-based films like Casino and Swingers. Aside from those slight examples of style, this is your basic raunchy comedy, but it doesn’t make apologies for that. Instead it embraces it, and that’s what makes The Hangover so funny.
Knowing - Directed by Alex Proyas, starring Nicolas Cage and Rose Byrne, rated PG-13 [quote][quote]Even with the bad acting, this visually jarring sci-fi film really struck a chord with me. And Chigurh enjoys disaster sequences. [/quote] Knowing, the latest film from Alex Proyas (The Crow, I, Robot) almost delves into M. Night Shyamalan territory (it does feature a main character much like Mel Gibson’s character from Signs) but it saves itself with an entertaining science fiction plot and some of the best disaster sequences I have ever seen. The story starts off in an elementary school in 1959 with a class drawing pictures of what the future might look like for a time capsule. But one troubled girl, Lucinda, writes a series of mysterious numbers instead. Cut to the present when John Koestler (Nicolas Cage) obtains the paper from his son. Koestler discovers that the numbers are actually dates and death tolls of disasters from 1959 to the present, save for three more events that Koestler must investigate and, of course, see for himself. Koestler has to see the events so that we, the audience, can witness them as well. Proyas could’ve cut to these events and have Koestler watch them on the news, but by placing the character in the events, it adds a bit of realism to each event. I don’t want to give away what the disasters are since the shock of the first one is so great, but I will say that Proyas knows how to handle a massive, CG-filled catastrophe. He uses quick zooms and a shaking effect that allows the viewer to see everything clearly, but not focus on it enough to see the rough edges of computer effects. It also helps that the sound becomes blaring at each event, adding to the chaos of it. The disasters themselves are enough to warrant the price of admission for this film and that’s important because this film features some awful acting and plenty of awkward dialogue. Cage does a good job of looking completely dumbstruck during the action scenes, but he’s useless when it comes to showing emotion. The character is supposed to be disconnected due to the death of his wife, but Cage takes it too far. Koestler’s son is supposed to be extremely important to him, but Cage makes each scene between father and son so awkward that you never get the sense that these two even know each other. And the alcoholic aspect of his character was unnecessary, unless it was placed there to use as an excuse for Cage being so wooden in each scene. When you throw Rose Byrne into the mix as Lucinda’s daughter it gets bad…The Happening bad. Byrne, who does a great job in her TV series Damages, is miscast here. She is even less convincing than Cage when it comes to parenting and when she starts yelling in the third act she becomes laughably bad. The finale of this film might rub people the wrong way as well. It turns into a full bore science-fiction film with biblical connotations in the end and those elements were not necessarily there in the first two acts. There are hints to it, of course, like Koestler’s lack of faith and the mysterious people that stand in the background of many scenes and seem to be stalking Koestler and his son, but I think some people will be surprised with how far into the sci-fi genre this movie goes. I liked it, though. Proyas, who also directed the excellent Dark City (check it out if you haven’t seen it, and keep in mind that it came out before The Matrix) can make some truly thought-provoking sci-fi. The ending is different and interesting, which is something that is lacking in a lot of film endings today. Knowing has its flaws. The acting is abysmal at times and the score can be a bit overwhelming, though that is probably because Proyas realized that he needed musical cues to tell the audience how to feel because the actors couldn’t convey it. But those problems are dwarfed by the amazing visuals during the multiple disaster sequences and the interesting sci-fi conclusion. So struggle past the acting, because Proyas more than makes up for it in action and story. Now for my additions upon watching the film on DVD: I still feel pretty much the same about this movie and I actually like it more now that I've seen it again. Cage and Byrne are still bad, but after that first viewing I guess I got used to their bad acting and it didn't stick out to me as much as before, but it's still pretty bad. My main concern was whether or not the CG in the disaster sequences would hold up. I saw this the first time in a non-digital theater, which helps CG out at times. (I can recall being amazed by the Neo vs. hundreds of Smith fight in The Matrix Reloaded when I saw it in the theater, but when I saw it on DVD it looked like a cartoon.) The CG is a bit more apparent on DVD, but it didn't ruin anything for me. The first disaster I mention above (which is a plane crash and is in no way a spoiler anymore since previews for the DVD show and nearly every promotional picture I can find shows Cage standing in front of a crashed plane) is still great and if you have a decent speaker system it's downright awesome. Not sure why I didn't mention it the first time, but that plane crash scene is effective not only because of the shaky camera and everything, but also because it's one long take, which is odd to see when massive CG is involved. It's a jarring scene and makes this film worth a rental at least. I mention near the end that the music is overwhelming at times in the original review. I don't know what I was talking about now. The score has this old school sci-fi sound to it that completely worked for me. Maybe they just cranked up the volume in the theater or something the first time I saw it, but it certainly didn't overwhelm me this time around. I want to get into SPOILER territory here to discuss some of the vague sci-fi/biblical elements mentioned in the original review. This movie basically takes a turn into Christian belief when the children are taken to a new planet at the end (by "strangers" who happen to have what look like angel's wings) and set up in an Adam and Eve type situation. This is because the world actually ends. So even though the previews promised some a Day After Tomorrow type disaster movie, the viewer actually got a religion fueled science fiction revelations story. That is very interesting to me. What's most interesting, though, is that people see this ending differently than I do. The commentary track with the director hammers this home as a moderator asks many questions assuming the same things that I do and Proyas completely disagrees with the guy (for the record, Proyas sounds pretty much like a jerk throughout the commentary). I have listened to podcasts and read other reviews that have different ideas for this film as well. That shows me that this film, with all its flaws, requires a bit of thought and that is what good sci-fi is all about with or without the religious aspect. (continued SPOILERS) I also enjoyed the end of the world scene in which Cage drives through the hectic and decimated city set to Beethoven's 7th Symphony. And seeing the entire world basically catch on fire was pretty cool as well.
Hanna is an action thriller directed by Joe Wright that opens in the artic wilderness. Hannah, a young girl, is being trained in combat and survival by her father Erik, played by Eric Bana. Saoirse Ronan plays Hanna. They have apparently lived in the wilderness for years, with him training her and teaching her language and other information through encyclopedias. One day, for reasons not entirely clear, they must seperate, and arrange to meet in Berlin. Erik is apparently an ex spy, and forces are after Hannah (and Erik) for reasons not clear. Most of the narrative focuses on Hannah’s journey, as she is out in the world for the first time. Humorous moments occur as she has immense encyclopedic knowledge but no sense of how the real world works. Along the way she travels with a family, including a girl her own age and a little brother. These could have been stock characters but unfortunately rise above that. Near the end of the story we learn the story of Hanna’s parentage and why people are after her. It’s a story we’ve seen before but it’s done well and it works because you don’t know at first. The action scenes are good and tense, there were a few scenes that looked like music videos which took me out a little bit but overall the direction was good. Good European electronic soundtrack, countries we don’t see often, if ever, in American film, good cinematography, and a nice connection from the beginning scene to the end. Overall this should be a surprise hit, and will probably be one of the better movies I see this year. 9.25/10
The good old Asian monster flick genre has been on hold since the Japanese decided to stop making Godzilla features. Well, the whole King Kong concept has been exploited since the beginnings of the special effects in Cinema. Gigantism is a very Japanese and especially American complex. With the more recent remakes, the Jurassic Park franchise, Cloverfield, etc. The monster genre was a little tired lately. The Host, a Korean monster film opens similarly to Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later, a scientific incident. In the British film it's the infected apes that spread the disease while in the Korean film it's the toxic substance thrown in the river that created this fish-like monster. Besides, the horror/action angle of the film, the story implies a funny 21st century family of a lazy lunatic dad in his thirties, his yuppie cum little criminal brother, his athlete sister, his smart daughter and his good will father. Each of these characters will learn and overpass his weakness to survive to the passage of the wild creature. Tinted with moments of pure horror using the classic codes of the genre while injecting a great dose of humor and just a tint of sentimentality this crossover of genres is a very hip movie. It's a crowd pleaser. The kind of film that can easily become a cult film among young film lovers. The mix of genres may irritate the purists of the horror genre and maybe some older cinephiles will feel that it's too "cool" or too young... The colors of the film are superb and like many Asian films they are a little saturated but it balances itself with an extraordinary cinematography. We are in the presence of an eye candy looking picture; read here in the most positive way. Despite some very interesting moments and many twists, I got bored by the whole thing. I think that the story lacked of tightness in its final thirty minutes. However, The Host is a very good movie.
» = New Post(s)