I’ve said it many times before, but I think it bears repeating that I’m a total sucker for a good revenge flick. I emphasize good because for every Man on Fire, there’s a watered-down thumb-twiddler like The Brave One. Revenge films have to walk a fine line between being ballsy and brutal, and having enough mass appeal to even be made in the first place. Since the revenge subgenre is so tried and true, it takes something special to stand out above the pack. (The apex of the genre, for those curious, will always be Death Wish.) Taken had the same generic premise as most others: guy’s mother/wife/daughter is kidnapped, guy goes on hunt to find loved one and save them. It’s not rocket science. I wasn’t particularly impressed with the film’s trailer, but the strong word of mouth it’s been receiving placed it at the top of my current must-see list. I should have know better than to doubt a revenge flick: a) starring an actor I like seeing kick ass (Neeson), b) written by Luc Besson; and c) that comes in at a tight 90 minutes. Taken doesn’t reinvent the cinematic wheel of vengeance, but it does beat it to a fine pulp.
Liam Neeson stars as Bryan Mills, a retired Black Ops soldier who’s trying to live the simple life and rekindle a relationship with his daughter, Kim. That, however, isn’t easy due to her mother’s (Famke Janssen) tenuous relationship with Bryan , not to mention her multi-millionaire stepfather (fantastic character actor Xander Berkeley) upstages him in every way. Kim decides to go with a friend to Europe to follow around U2, though she tells Bryan otherwise, and almost as soon as they arrive they are kidnapped by Albanian sex traffickers. So, naturally, Bryan hops on to the next flight to Paris to find the men responsible for kidnapping his daughter.
I’m glad someone finally decided to make a movie where Liam Neeson kicks major ass, because the guy is damn good at it. Neeson has always been a solid, dependable actor. You never hear “Liam Neeson sucks in this movie”. He has previously kicked ass before, in the unfairly maligned Darkman, but not like this. Here, Liam plays a guy with nothing else in life other than his daughter and a particular set of skills that give bad guys a major headache. What I enjoyed so much about his performance is that you never doubt for a minute that he won’t kick someone’s ass. There’s an intensely subtle moment where, right before unleashing a barrage of fury, Bryan quickly surveys a room full of men to determine how easily he can take them. It’s awesome because you know exactly what he’s thinking, and you know he can pull it off. I was reminded of Charles Bronson’s turn as a bare knuckle street brawler in 1975’s Hard Times; there’s never a moment in that film that you don’t think Bronson will steamroll everyone in his path. Bryan is very much a character cut from the same cloth.
A film this solid and tight is a difficult task for a 2nd time director to correctly pull off without subjecting the audience to lots of needless exposition, and Pierre Morel isn’t to thank for cutting out the fat. That distinction would go to one of the film’s writers, French director Luc Besson. Besson is a fantastic filmmaker and he’s responsible for some awesome films, such as The Fifth Element and Leon: The Professional. Working alongside Robert Mark Kamen, who has written some great films (Gladiator, The Karate Kid) and some total crap (Karate Kid 4?!?), Besson has crafted a simple, tight, effective thriller that wastes no time on bullshit and devotes almost the entire film to watching Bryan beat some ass. This is exactly the kind of kick-in-the-ass film that I love, and apparently it’s struck a chord with audiences, too, since the film is raking it in at the box office.
I want to point out that the version playing in theaters is a toned-down PG-13 cut of the film. The differences between this cut and the international cut are minor, mostly just extended bits during shootouts, fisticuffs and a slight twist on the electrical torture scene. I’d expect that version to show up on the eventual Blu-ray release, but the film’s impact is in no way diminished by having these scenes shortened.
Taken is a quick, hard-hitting film that doesn’t waste a lot of time. If you’re looking for some great entertainment, especially if you like revenge films, then you really can’t go wrong. There’s nothing particularly amazing that makes this film stand out above any other in the genre, but sometimes a film that dispenses with the bullshit and makes good on a promise of unholy vengeance is just what you want to see. The baby Jesus knows I do.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Friday, November 28, 2008
Role Models
I like to think that I'm fairly well-informed of any good-looking new movies coming out in theaters. It's not too often that something awesome slips under my radar, and yet that's exactly what happened when I found out about Role Models. I hadn't heard of it, seen a preview or even knew who was in it - yet I kept hearing from people that it was a seriously funny flick. Based on that word of mouth alone I decided to check it out since good comedies not made by Judd Apatow are a rare thing these days. Thankfully, Role Models is one such film.
Danny (Paul Rudd) and Wheeler (Sean William Scott) work for the Minotaur energy drink company going from school to school espousing the benefits of drinking Minotaur and telling kids to stay off drugs. One afternoon, on impulse, Danny decides to propose to his long-time girlfriend (2008's most ubiquitous actress, Elizabeth Banks) and is promptly shut down. Despondent and unhappy with his career, Danny has a moment of insanity and costs himself and Wheeler their jobs - and because of what he does they face a possible jail sentence unless they can complete 150 hours of community service working as Big Brothers.
As you can probably guess neither of these two guys is fit to be a bigger brother to anyone. Danny is a bit of a loner with a misanthropic attitude toward most people around him, and Wheeler is a party animal whose interests mostly concern beer and boobs. Paul Rudd has seemingly found his niche as the disconcerted, emotionally detached loner. It worked for him in Knocked Up, and he's a lot funnier in that type of role this time around. He's such an incredible asshole it's hard to believe the guy could ever have friends, let alone a girlfriend. It's apparent his character would never be friends with Wheeler, who has a vested interest in partying 24/7 and sleeping with every good-looking woman he comes across. Sean William Scott hasn't really put out a good film in a while, so it's nice to see him exercising his comedic talents in something that isn't called American Pie.
The kids that these two are paired with provide much of the comedic relief throughout the movie. I was impressed the most by Bobb'e Thompson, Wheeler's "little brother", who had some of the movie's funniest jokes and the foulest mouth I've heard on a 10 year old. Most of his antics are fairly standard stuff in a mismatch comedy, but his lines are what will keep you rolling on the floor. Equally amusing, but for a totally different reason, is Danny's appointed kid, Auggie (Superbad's McLovin'). He's a shy loner who only feels like he fits in playing Laire, a group-paticipation Medieval battle royale where other "knights" and nerds congregate to escape real life and fight with styrofoam swords. These two actually turn out to be good selections for Danny and Wheeler since they both mirror their own attitudes more than either of them realize.
I'm convinced the real reason why this comedy worked so well for me is due to the choice of writer and director David Wain. Some of you out there might remember an off-beat sketch comedy show MTV ran in the early 90's called The State. Wain was a member of that troupe, along with Ken Marino, Kerri Kinney and Joe Lo Truglio, all of whom appear in the film. I was a huge fan of The State (and I'm still waiting on that goddamn DVD set), so I was stoked to see some of the lesser-known members getting work. A few of the group's members have found success as part of the Reno P.D. on Reno 911! Wain's approach to comedy is very similar to the Apatow style in the sense that things don't feel forced. I hope that the success Role Models has found will give him to oportunity to direct more comedy in the future.
One more note of consideration to those who may be interested: KISS must be a big part of Wain's life, because they are constantly referenced throughout the film, especially during the finale. As a big fan of the band, it was a cool addition to an already awesome comedy. I just think it's rad to hear "Love Gun" blasting in a theater during a staged medieval battle.
Role Models is one of the best comedies to come out this year. I'm not sure if it's the funniest, as that honor still goes to Pineapple Express, but it's definitely right up there. If you're a fan of irreverent humor then this is your kind of film. I write this review less to give people an idea of what the film is about and more to just tell people it's out there and it's funny. I doubt many of you will be disappointed.
Danny (Paul Rudd) and Wheeler (Sean William Scott) work for the Minotaur energy drink company going from school to school espousing the benefits of drinking Minotaur and telling kids to stay off drugs. One afternoon, on impulse, Danny decides to propose to his long-time girlfriend (2008's most ubiquitous actress, Elizabeth Banks) and is promptly shut down. Despondent and unhappy with his career, Danny has a moment of insanity and costs himself and Wheeler their jobs - and because of what he does they face a possible jail sentence unless they can complete 150 hours of community service working as Big Brothers.
As you can probably guess neither of these two guys is fit to be a bigger brother to anyone. Danny is a bit of a loner with a misanthropic attitude toward most people around him, and Wheeler is a party animal whose interests mostly concern beer and boobs. Paul Rudd has seemingly found his niche as the disconcerted, emotionally detached loner. It worked for him in Knocked Up, and he's a lot funnier in that type of role this time around. He's such an incredible asshole it's hard to believe the guy could ever have friends, let alone a girlfriend. It's apparent his character would never be friends with Wheeler, who has a vested interest in partying 24/7 and sleeping with every good-looking woman he comes across. Sean William Scott hasn't really put out a good film in a while, so it's nice to see him exercising his comedic talents in something that isn't called American Pie.
The kids that these two are paired with provide much of the comedic relief throughout the movie. I was impressed the most by Bobb'e Thompson, Wheeler's "little brother", who had some of the movie's funniest jokes and the foulest mouth I've heard on a 10 year old. Most of his antics are fairly standard stuff in a mismatch comedy, but his lines are what will keep you rolling on the floor. Equally amusing, but for a totally different reason, is Danny's appointed kid, Auggie (Superbad's McLovin'). He's a shy loner who only feels like he fits in playing Laire, a group-paticipation Medieval battle royale where other "knights" and nerds congregate to escape real life and fight with styrofoam swords. These two actually turn out to be good selections for Danny and Wheeler since they both mirror their own attitudes more than either of them realize.
I'm convinced the real reason why this comedy worked so well for me is due to the choice of writer and director David Wain. Some of you out there might remember an off-beat sketch comedy show MTV ran in the early 90's called The State. Wain was a member of that troupe, along with Ken Marino, Kerri Kinney and Joe Lo Truglio, all of whom appear in the film. I was a huge fan of The State (and I'm still waiting on that goddamn DVD set), so I was stoked to see some of the lesser-known members getting work. A few of the group's members have found success as part of the Reno P.D. on Reno 911! Wain's approach to comedy is very similar to the Apatow style in the sense that things don't feel forced. I hope that the success Role Models has found will give him to oportunity to direct more comedy in the future.
One more note of consideration to those who may be interested: KISS must be a big part of Wain's life, because they are constantly referenced throughout the film, especially during the finale. As a big fan of the band, it was a cool addition to an already awesome comedy. I just think it's rad to hear "Love Gun" blasting in a theater during a staged medieval battle.
Role Models is one of the best comedies to come out this year. I'm not sure if it's the funniest, as that honor still goes to Pineapple Express, but it's definitely right up there. If you're a fan of irreverent humor then this is your kind of film. I write this review less to give people an idea of what the film is about and more to just tell people it's out there and it's funny. I doubt many of you will be disappointed.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Quantum of Solace
After a groan-inducing couple of months waiting for something worth watching to hit theaters, James Bond has finally returned to save the box office. While I'll say right off the bat that Quantum of Solace is not as good as Casino Royale, I will say that it is still a very enjoyable 007 film and certainly better than any of Pierce Brosnan's outings. Clocking in at a brisk 106 minutes, Quantum is the shortest Bond film since 1962's Dr. No. but it's also easily the most action-packed. In fact, I felt exhausted after only the first 40 minutes thanks to a high-velocity orgy of action sequences that seemingly had no end. That might be my only complaint about Quantum: it crams 10 lbs. of action into a 5 lb. film, and the plot seems to suffer a bit from the compression. Thankfully, the action is so incredible that it hardly matters once things get going.
Quantum picks up literally one hour after the end of Casino Royale as Bond, with Mr. White stuffed into his trunk, is being pursued by a couple of machine-gun wielding henchman. He manages to evade capture and drives to a hidden location in Italy. There, he and M interrogate Mr. White, who informs them that he works for an organization called Quantum that "has people everywhere". Bond, still grieving over the loss of Vesper, goes on a global manhunt for the people behind this organization and to get revenge for the loss of the only woman he's ever loved.
The opening scene, which, in 007 films, has always been known for outlandish action, is astounding. Seriously, my buddy and I were floored by the insane stunts and white-knuckle driving we were seeing. I've seen all 22 Bond films to date and this was easily one of the best pre-credit sequences ever conceived. What follows it is a non-stop action enema that leaves you feeling physically exhausted once Bond finally stops to get his plans together. As I said that's a minor complaint, but I couldn't help feeling that the film needed a little more room to breathe during the first third. However, that isn't so much a problem for me as much as the style in which they were shooting the action. I know the Bourne films have become extremely popular as of late, but they are a series that is supposed to try to emulate 007, while giving itself a unique style that makes the films their own. In Quantum of Solace, much of the film looks exactly like a Bourne film. The quick cuts, fast-paced editing and nauseous camera work made me feel like I wasn't watching a 007 flick. Even Casino Royale, which was a total reboot of the Bond series, didn't employ these techniques during shooting. I place the blame here on director Foster hiring Dan Bradley, a 2nd unit director on Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum, to do 2nd unit work here. It doesn't bother me a great deal, but it just isn't something I feel I should be seeing. Bond set the standard for action films, so to see this film blatantly cribbing style from the Bourne series just seems wrong.
Shooting style aside, this is a balls-to-the-wall ass-kicker of a movie. Director Marc Foster said he wanted a tighter, leaner Bond film after the lengthy Casino Royale - and that is exactly what we've gotten. I think some of the criticism of Quantum is because of the length and limited room for the plot to grow, but I appreciate what Foster has done here. Since Quantum is a direct sequel to Casino Royale, it's probably best if they are watched back-to-back. Whereas Casino Royale introduces the plot and villains that we can expect to populate the next few 007 films, Quantum eschews most of that information-driven narrative in favor of having Bond go on an international mission of revenge. I'd probably say this film is most closely related to the vastly underrated Bond flick, 1989's Licence to Kill, which has Timothy Dalton (who was a much better Bond than people give him credit for) going "rogue" and seeking revenge against the people who attacked Felix Leiter (his CIA contact, played in Quantum by Jeffrey Wright) and killed his wife. I've always been a huge revenge film junkie – it's one of my favorite subgenres of film – so to have a mega-budgeted action flick, that is ostensibly a slick revenge picture, is fine by me.
One thing everyone seems to agree upon is that Daniel Craig continues to prove he was a superb choice to play James Bond. Bond needed a reinvention after Pierce Brosnan started getting a little long in the tooth (and his films began to suck); these days we need a Bond who is more physical and rugged. Times don't call for Connery's smooth, witty sophisticate type, nor do we need the tongue-in-cheek humor of Roger Moore. Craig is, as M so succinctly put it in Casino Royale, "a blunt instrument". Not only is the guy the most physically intimidating Bond yet, but he also performs almost all of his own stunts. That in itself is incredibly impressive considering how death-defying many of them are. I think something like 4 or 5 stunt men were seriously injured making this film; Craig even sliced off the tip off his finger. He knows the importance of making Bond human again, and it shows through in his nuanced performance. It's one of the few Hollywood trends I actually enjoy – taking lofty superheroes (Bond, Batman, Iron Man) and applying their actions to real-world physics. We're in an age where people love to root for the power of a person – man against the odds - and that's being reflected back to us on-screen. Craig recently signed on through Bond 25, so I'm looking forward to seeing what more he plans to bring to the role.
Ok, I forgot that there was one more gripe I had with the film: the villain, Dominic Greene. I was able to look past the fact that he isn't even vaguely intimidating, physically or intellectually, because of his position within the vast and powerful Quantum network, but on his own he is only slightly more fearsome than Jonathan Pryce in The World is Not Enough. He doesn't display any type of physical deformity that most lead villains possess, and he also doesn't have some super-cool nefarious lair where he hatches global crime schemes. Nope, he's just an eco-terrorist hell-bent ..ling the water supply of Bolivia. It's not exactly the most deadly plot Bond producers have come up with, but given the climate of today's concerns with global emissions and natural resources it seems to be the most prevalent. Greene is just one figure among a myriad network of criminals waiting to be introduced to us within this new 007 series' unfolding plot - and that fact alone excites me enough to forgive his shortcomings.
I wasn't nuts about the Bond girls this time around. Olga Kurylenko isn't unattractive, but she also isn't phenomenally good looking. Plus, she doesn't even have a sweet-ass double-entendre for a name. Pussy Galore, she is not. Her character is kind of a mixed bag of emotions, so we're never really sure whether to be on her side or not. At least she isn't completely disposable, as her character is a pretty integral part of the story. Thankfully, we do get one field operative with an amusing moniker: Gemma Arterson as Strawberry Fields. Even though we never learn her first name in the film, it's nice to know the writers did try to have a little fun with things. They may not be as intellectually cunning as Eva Green in Casino Royale, but at least they're nowhere near as bad as the abysmal performance from Halle Berry in Die Another Day.
Oh wait… I almost forgot my final gripe. I swear it's the last one: the theme song. Originally, Amy Winehouse was set to record the theme but, due to the fact that she's snorting enough cocaine to give Tony Montana a run for his money, she had to drop out. Enter Jack White and Alicia Keys, who obviously have no idea how a James Bond film's theme is supposed to sound. Even Chris Cornell's opening number from Casino Royale sounded more epic than this tune. Maybe it could be that I just don't like either of them as artists, but even I feel like a temporarily-sober Winehouse would have belted out a better track. Meh. Maybe next time.
If you're any kind of an action film fan, or a 007 fan, you should just go see this movie. One strong note of consideration, however: watch Casino Royale right before you do. You'll be eternally thankful for the refresher course on the major plot points, because Quantum doesn't provide any information you shouldn't already know. It drops you right in on the action from the first frame, so it's best to be prepared. This isn't a Saw film, so we aren't constantly bombarded by flashbacks to remind us of what's going on. I'm glad the director chose to assume the audience is slightly more intelligent than most directors tend to these days. So, it's good – just not great. Keep your expectations in check and you're bound to enjoy it for exactly what it is: a lean, mean revenge flick.
Quantum picks up literally one hour after the end of Casino Royale as Bond, with Mr. White stuffed into his trunk, is being pursued by a couple of machine-gun wielding henchman. He manages to evade capture and drives to a hidden location in Italy. There, he and M interrogate Mr. White, who informs them that he works for an organization called Quantum that "has people everywhere". Bond, still grieving over the loss of Vesper, goes on a global manhunt for the people behind this organization and to get revenge for the loss of the only woman he's ever loved.
The opening scene, which, in 007 films, has always been known for outlandish action, is astounding. Seriously, my buddy and I were floored by the insane stunts and white-knuckle driving we were seeing. I've seen all 22 Bond films to date and this was easily one of the best pre-credit sequences ever conceived. What follows it is a non-stop action enema that leaves you feeling physically exhausted once Bond finally stops to get his plans together. As I said that's a minor complaint, but I couldn't help feeling that the film needed a little more room to breathe during the first third. However, that isn't so much a problem for me as much as the style in which they were shooting the action. I know the Bourne films have become extremely popular as of late, but they are a series that is supposed to try to emulate 007, while giving itself a unique style that makes the films their own. In Quantum of Solace, much of the film looks exactly like a Bourne film. The quick cuts, fast-paced editing and nauseous camera work made me feel like I wasn't watching a 007 flick. Even Casino Royale, which was a total reboot of the Bond series, didn't employ these techniques during shooting. I place the blame here on director Foster hiring Dan Bradley, a 2nd unit director on Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum, to do 2nd unit work here. It doesn't bother me a great deal, but it just isn't something I feel I should be seeing. Bond set the standard for action films, so to see this film blatantly cribbing style from the Bourne series just seems wrong.
Shooting style aside, this is a balls-to-the-wall ass-kicker of a movie. Director Marc Foster said he wanted a tighter, leaner Bond film after the lengthy Casino Royale - and that is exactly what we've gotten. I think some of the criticism of Quantum is because of the length and limited room for the plot to grow, but I appreciate what Foster has done here. Since Quantum is a direct sequel to Casino Royale, it's probably best if they are watched back-to-back. Whereas Casino Royale introduces the plot and villains that we can expect to populate the next few 007 films, Quantum eschews most of that information-driven narrative in favor of having Bond go on an international mission of revenge. I'd probably say this film is most closely related to the vastly underrated Bond flick, 1989's Licence to Kill, which has Timothy Dalton (who was a much better Bond than people give him credit for) going "rogue" and seeking revenge against the people who attacked Felix Leiter (his CIA contact, played in Quantum by Jeffrey Wright) and killed his wife. I've always been a huge revenge film junkie – it's one of my favorite subgenres of film – so to have a mega-budgeted action flick, that is ostensibly a slick revenge picture, is fine by me.
One thing everyone seems to agree upon is that Daniel Craig continues to prove he was a superb choice to play James Bond. Bond needed a reinvention after Pierce Brosnan started getting a little long in the tooth (and his films began to suck); these days we need a Bond who is more physical and rugged. Times don't call for Connery's smooth, witty sophisticate type, nor do we need the tongue-in-cheek humor of Roger Moore. Craig is, as M so succinctly put it in Casino Royale, "a blunt instrument". Not only is the guy the most physically intimidating Bond yet, but he also performs almost all of his own stunts. That in itself is incredibly impressive considering how death-defying many of them are. I think something like 4 or 5 stunt men were seriously injured making this film; Craig even sliced off the tip off his finger. He knows the importance of making Bond human again, and it shows through in his nuanced performance. It's one of the few Hollywood trends I actually enjoy – taking lofty superheroes (Bond, Batman, Iron Man) and applying their actions to real-world physics. We're in an age where people love to root for the power of a person – man against the odds - and that's being reflected back to us on-screen. Craig recently signed on through Bond 25, so I'm looking forward to seeing what more he plans to bring to the role.
Ok, I forgot that there was one more gripe I had with the film: the villain, Dominic Greene. I was able to look past the fact that he isn't even vaguely intimidating, physically or intellectually, because of his position within the vast and powerful Quantum network, but on his own he is only slightly more fearsome than Jonathan Pryce in The World is Not Enough. He doesn't display any type of physical deformity that most lead villains possess, and he also doesn't have some super-cool nefarious lair where he hatches global crime schemes. Nope, he's just an eco-terrorist hell-bent ..ling the water supply of Bolivia. It's not exactly the most deadly plot Bond producers have come up with, but given the climate of today's concerns with global emissions and natural resources it seems to be the most prevalent. Greene is just one figure among a myriad network of criminals waiting to be introduced to us within this new 007 series' unfolding plot - and that fact alone excites me enough to forgive his shortcomings.
I wasn't nuts about the Bond girls this time around. Olga Kurylenko isn't unattractive, but she also isn't phenomenally good looking. Plus, she doesn't even have a sweet-ass double-entendre for a name. Pussy Galore, she is not. Her character is kind of a mixed bag of emotions, so we're never really sure whether to be on her side or not. At least she isn't completely disposable, as her character is a pretty integral part of the story. Thankfully, we do get one field operative with an amusing moniker: Gemma Arterson as Strawberry Fields. Even though we never learn her first name in the film, it's nice to know the writers did try to have a little fun with things. They may not be as intellectually cunning as Eva Green in Casino Royale, but at least they're nowhere near as bad as the abysmal performance from Halle Berry in Die Another Day.
Oh wait… I almost forgot my final gripe. I swear it's the last one: the theme song. Originally, Amy Winehouse was set to record the theme but, due to the fact that she's snorting enough cocaine to give Tony Montana a run for his money, she had to drop out. Enter Jack White and Alicia Keys, who obviously have no idea how a James Bond film's theme is supposed to sound. Even Chris Cornell's opening number from Casino Royale sounded more epic than this tune. Maybe it could be that I just don't like either of them as artists, but even I feel like a temporarily-sober Winehouse would have belted out a better track. Meh. Maybe next time.
If you're any kind of an action film fan, or a 007 fan, you should just go see this movie. One strong note of consideration, however: watch Casino Royale right before you do. You'll be eternally thankful for the refresher course on the major plot points, because Quantum doesn't provide any information you shouldn't already know. It drops you right in on the action from the first frame, so it's best to be prepared. This isn't a Saw film, so we aren't constantly bombarded by flashbacks to remind us of what's going on. I'm glad the director chose to assume the audience is slightly more intelligent than most directors tend to these days. So, it's good – just not great. Keep your expectations in check and you're bound to enjoy it for exactly what it is: a lean, mean revenge flick.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Zack and Miri Make a Porno
Meh.
I don't even really feel like typing much out for this one. It isn't that its a bad movie - it isn't, really - but that it just feels so empty. I left the theater without knowing how I felt about the film. It bothered me that I couldn't decide how much I enjoyed watching it, or if I did at all. Then it occured to me: the movie succeeded in making me feel absolutely nothing! I really didn't give a crap about anything I had just seen. Now, there were funny parts... but they just felt strung together by a weak narrative that's become typical of Kevin Smith's latest films.
Zack and Miri have no money and mounting debt so they decide to make a porno for cash. Nothing of any further significance happens that you can't guess almost entirely from the title itself.
It might be hard to believe this, but Kevin Smith directed this movie. It won't be hard once you hear some of the inane dialogue, but you certainly wouldn't know it judging by the cast. Kevin Smith has obviously seen the golden goose that lays Judd Apatow's eggs and he needed to satisfy his tendencies of bestiality. Smith is essentially making a Judd Apatow comedy; he's got 3 of his actors in lead roles and the film is marketed like an Apatow film. However, unlike an Apatow film, where actors improv most of their lines, Kevin Smith's actors are bound to the words he himself has written. So the comedy feels forced - like Apatow allowed Smith to direct something he put together. I don't dislike Smith's films. Hell, I even warmed up to Clerks II (after 3 or 4 viewings), but some of his supposedly "real" dialogue is just trite. Maybe it's because I can tend to be one of those people who references obscure film shit all the time, so I don't want to hear someone like me or my friends on-screen, but I'm sick of constant pop-culture bombs being dropped every 5 minutes. It gets old. Family Guy is a great example of that.
Everyone here is pretty funny. Personally, I thought Justin Long (the Mac/PC guy) was one of the highlights as a gay porn star who inspires Zack to produce porn. Rogen is his usual self, but I think the character Smith wrote for him wasn't taken as far as he could have been. The same thing goes for Elizabeth Banks. I guess you don't really need to know a lot about who they are as people, but I felt they were pretty one-dimensional. Craig Robinsons steals another movie as the barista-turned-porno-producer who is in charge if finding new "talent". Jason Mewes does a good job playing someone other than Jay in a Smith movie. The frosted shit scene is pure gold.
So, should you check it out? If you like the people involved then I'd say it worth seeing, but you might just want to wait for DVD or something. I don't think its a rush-to-the-theater kind of flick, you know?
I don't even really feel like typing much out for this one. It isn't that its a bad movie - it isn't, really - but that it just feels so empty. I left the theater without knowing how I felt about the film. It bothered me that I couldn't decide how much I enjoyed watching it, or if I did at all. Then it occured to me: the movie succeeded in making me feel absolutely nothing! I really didn't give a crap about anything I had just seen. Now, there were funny parts... but they just felt strung together by a weak narrative that's become typical of Kevin Smith's latest films.
Zack and Miri have no money and mounting debt so they decide to make a porno for cash. Nothing of any further significance happens that you can't guess almost entirely from the title itself.
It might be hard to believe this, but Kevin Smith directed this movie. It won't be hard once you hear some of the inane dialogue, but you certainly wouldn't know it judging by the cast. Kevin Smith has obviously seen the golden goose that lays Judd Apatow's eggs and he needed to satisfy his tendencies of bestiality. Smith is essentially making a Judd Apatow comedy; he's got 3 of his actors in lead roles and the film is marketed like an Apatow film. However, unlike an Apatow film, where actors improv most of their lines, Kevin Smith's actors are bound to the words he himself has written. So the comedy feels forced - like Apatow allowed Smith to direct something he put together. I don't dislike Smith's films. Hell, I even warmed up to Clerks II (after 3 or 4 viewings), but some of his supposedly "real" dialogue is just trite. Maybe it's because I can tend to be one of those people who references obscure film shit all the time, so I don't want to hear someone like me or my friends on-screen, but I'm sick of constant pop-culture bombs being dropped every 5 minutes. It gets old. Family Guy is a great example of that.
Everyone here is pretty funny. Personally, I thought Justin Long (the Mac/PC guy) was one of the highlights as a gay porn star who inspires Zack to produce porn. Rogen is his usual self, but I think the character Smith wrote for him wasn't taken as far as he could have been. The same thing goes for Elizabeth Banks. I guess you don't really need to know a lot about who they are as people, but I felt they were pretty one-dimensional. Craig Robinsons steals another movie as the barista-turned-porno-producer who is in charge if finding new "talent". Jason Mewes does a good job playing someone other than Jay in a Smith movie. The frosted shit scene is pure gold.
So, should you check it out? If you like the people involved then I'd say it worth seeing, but you might just want to wait for DVD or something. I don't think its a rush-to-the-theater kind of flick, you know?
Friday, October 31, 2008
Saw V
I went into a recent screening of Saw V with the intention of hating it intensely. I felt that Saw III perfectly wrapped up the series since it couldn't have possibly had a more definitive ending. Jigsaw was dead, his apprentice Amanda was dead and there was no way they could have continued on with the series, right? Apparently not so, since Saw IV revealed that Jigsaw had 2 apprentices, the other being Detective Hoffman (D-list actor Costas Mandylor). Obviously after the grosses for Saw III rolled in Lionsgate realized they had allowed their new golden goose to be killed off before it had laid enough eggs, so they needed to find a way to keep the franchise afloat. Their solution: just toss in another apprentice and keep Jigsaw on-screen with the aid of flashbacks. I guess on paper that sounded like it might work, but Saw IV turned out to be a total mess. So, now (of course) they're back with Saw V…
… and it picks up right after the events in Saw IV, which was also taking place concurrently with Saw III. Agent Strahm (Scott Patterson, providing an unintentionally hilarious over-the-top performance) has figured out that Hoffman has taken over for the now-deceased Jigsaw. As he works to prove it, Hoffman learns that Strahm is aware he is the new Jigsaw killer. As these events are taking place 5 people awaken in a bomb shelter, chained together, and forced to "play a game". I'm sure you can figure the rest out.
I'm still on the fence as to whether or not Saw V is any better than Saw IV. I've actually come to appreciate IV slightly more than when I saw it simply because V filled in some much needed pieces to the puzzle. I have a feeling V will work better once VI (you knew it was coming) is released next Halloween. Overall, though, this new Hoffman/Jigsaw trilogy is noticeably weaker than the original Jigsaw/Amanda trilogy. Much of that blame falls on the new writing staff, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan. These guys wrote the retardedly fun Project Greenlight flick, Feast, but tackling a script for this schizophrenic series seems to be a little much for their talents. I'm not entirely convinced these guys aren't just making things up as they go along; either that, or they've got some amazing script lined up for Saw VI that will tie up all the loose ends and blow me the fuck away. For now I'm going with the former.
There are 2 major problems with Saw V: one of them is Agent Strahm; the other is the group of 5 people trapped in the bomb shelter. I'm not familiar with Scott Patterson as an actor. My girlfriend told me he's on Gilmore Girls or some other forgettable shitcom on basic cable. In any case, he sucks plenty here. Luckily, he spends most of the film by himself so we shouldn't have to listen his horrific dialogue with any other cast members as we did in Saw IV, right? Wrong, since Strahm spends the film announcing his findings out loud. No kidding. After learning of Hoffman's involvement in all of the Jigsaw cases, which is made obvious to the audience, he says (out loud, mind you), "So, you were involved in all of the cases from the beginning. That's how you knew so much about the Jigsaw killings", or something to that affect. The point is that the writers assume you are as dumb as their one-dimensional characters, so short of including an on-screen flow chart to explain what's going on, they have a character in the film do it for you. Wow.
Second issue: the 5 people that must work together to escape the bomb shelter. Ok. Why exactly are they integral to this story? I get that they've all done something bad with their lives and Jigsaw needs to make them earn the right to live again, but it really boils down to being an inane subplot in an already convoluted film. Plus, making matters worse is that they're all shitty actors. Every goddamn one of them. Even Julie Benz (who plays Dexter's girlfriend Rita on Dexter) sucks pretty bad. I don't even feel like going any deeper into it other than to say its lame filler for an already short film.
I'll give Saw V credit where it's due: they've managed to move the series away from the "torture porn" (I hate that term) label it was slapped with in the earlier entries. Granted, this one isn't exactly tame by any means, but it's easily the least gory of all 5 films. It's really more of a crime thriller than a horror film this time around. Even the typically grotesque traps are fairly mundane by Saw standards, with a few being downright retarded. One trap finds a man with his head inside a small box which is quickly filling with water, so in order to not drown he administers a self-tracheotomy. If he didn't shit his pants so quickly he might have realized that there was such a small volume of water pouring in that he literally could have just drank it and been fine. I hope they employ some more creativity (and common sense) for Saw VI (which better be the last damn film).
So, yes, Saw V is dumb. Just about as dumb as Saw IV – but there's something inexplicable that keeps me hanging onto this series, waiting for the bitter end. Speaking of which, this film's tagline, "You Won't Believe How It Ends", was crafted purely to draw asses into seats. If you've seen even one film from this series you'll know exactly where it's all going… Straight down the fucking toilet. Still, being an avid horror fan I like to try supporting R-rated horror whenever possible, so if you're in that boat with me just go see the damn thing. I'm sure it beats checking out High School Musical 3. Well, pretty sure…
… and it picks up right after the events in Saw IV, which was also taking place concurrently with Saw III. Agent Strahm (Scott Patterson, providing an unintentionally hilarious over-the-top performance) has figured out that Hoffman has taken over for the now-deceased Jigsaw. As he works to prove it, Hoffman learns that Strahm is aware he is the new Jigsaw killer. As these events are taking place 5 people awaken in a bomb shelter, chained together, and forced to "play a game". I'm sure you can figure the rest out.
I'm still on the fence as to whether or not Saw V is any better than Saw IV. I've actually come to appreciate IV slightly more than when I saw it simply because V filled in some much needed pieces to the puzzle. I have a feeling V will work better once VI (you knew it was coming) is released next Halloween. Overall, though, this new Hoffman/Jigsaw trilogy is noticeably weaker than the original Jigsaw/Amanda trilogy. Much of that blame falls on the new writing staff, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan. These guys wrote the retardedly fun Project Greenlight flick, Feast, but tackling a script for this schizophrenic series seems to be a little much for their talents. I'm not entirely convinced these guys aren't just making things up as they go along; either that, or they've got some amazing script lined up for Saw VI that will tie up all the loose ends and blow me the fuck away. For now I'm going with the former.
There are 2 major problems with Saw V: one of them is Agent Strahm; the other is the group of 5 people trapped in the bomb shelter. I'm not familiar with Scott Patterson as an actor. My girlfriend told me he's on Gilmore Girls or some other forgettable shitcom on basic cable. In any case, he sucks plenty here. Luckily, he spends most of the film by himself so we shouldn't have to listen his horrific dialogue with any other cast members as we did in Saw IV, right? Wrong, since Strahm spends the film announcing his findings out loud. No kidding. After learning of Hoffman's involvement in all of the Jigsaw cases, which is made obvious to the audience, he says (out loud, mind you), "So, you were involved in all of the cases from the beginning. That's how you knew so much about the Jigsaw killings", or something to that affect. The point is that the writers assume you are as dumb as their one-dimensional characters, so short of including an on-screen flow chart to explain what's going on, they have a character in the film do it for you. Wow.
Second issue: the 5 people that must work together to escape the bomb shelter. Ok. Why exactly are they integral to this story? I get that they've all done something bad with their lives and Jigsaw needs to make them earn the right to live again, but it really boils down to being an inane subplot in an already convoluted film. Plus, making matters worse is that they're all shitty actors. Every goddamn one of them. Even Julie Benz (who plays Dexter's girlfriend Rita on Dexter) sucks pretty bad. I don't even feel like going any deeper into it other than to say its lame filler for an already short film.
I'll give Saw V credit where it's due: they've managed to move the series away from the "torture porn" (I hate that term) label it was slapped with in the earlier entries. Granted, this one isn't exactly tame by any means, but it's easily the least gory of all 5 films. It's really more of a crime thriller than a horror film this time around. Even the typically grotesque traps are fairly mundane by Saw standards, with a few being downright retarded. One trap finds a man with his head inside a small box which is quickly filling with water, so in order to not drown he administers a self-tracheotomy. If he didn't shit his pants so quickly he might have realized that there was such a small volume of water pouring in that he literally could have just drank it and been fine. I hope they employ some more creativity (and common sense) for Saw VI (which better be the last damn film).
So, yes, Saw V is dumb. Just about as dumb as Saw IV – but there's something inexplicable that keeps me hanging onto this series, waiting for the bitter end. Speaking of which, this film's tagline, "You Won't Believe How It Ends", was crafted purely to draw asses into seats. If you've seen even one film from this series you'll know exactly where it's all going… Straight down the fucking toilet. Still, being an avid horror fan I like to try supporting R-rated horror whenever possible, so if you're in that boat with me just go see the damn thing. I'm sure it beats checking out High School Musical 3. Well, pretty sure…
Monday, October 13, 2008
Trick 'R Treat
Ah, Halloween… my favorite time of the year. It isn't so much the festivities taking place that excites me as it's the feeling in the air once October comes. That palpable sensation you get seeing jack-o-lanterns grimly lit faces, kids trick-or-treating in the streets and the aesthetics of fall surrounding you slowly giving way to winter. I think it must hold a special place in everyone, if for nothing else but purely nostalgic reasons. Michael Dougherty is certainly one of those people, as is evidenced by his incredible horror anthology Trick 'r Treat. For a holiday that revels in films of a horrific nature, there sure are a scant few of them that take place on the actual day itself. Dougherty's film is the celluloid embodiment of that je ne sais quoi that has made Halloween such an alluring holiday for generations of kids (and adults) alike.
As I said, Trick 'r Treat is a horror anthology which interweaves tales that all take place on Halloween night, similar to such genre classics as Creepshow and Tales from the Darkside. A costumed couple learns to respect tradition… the hard way, a group of girls head out into the woods for a "howling" good party, the local school principal has a (literal) taste for blood, four kids attempting to pull off a holiday "trick" end up becoming "treats", and a cantankerous old man gets a visit from a holiday visitor looking to settle a decades-old grudge.
To say any more than that would spoil the fun in watching the film, as these stories are best digested when viewed on an empty mind. The twists are less predictable than most horror films manage these days; half the fun is wondering just where the hell these characters are going to end up. The one constant throughout the film is a costumed, pint-sized little guy named Sam, who does his best to remind people why they should take great care in adhering to the traditions set forth hundreds of years ago for All Hallows Eve. The film is richly seeped in tradition, reminding the audience of just why we celebrate the fabled holiday in the first place. It manages to be effectively creepy and blood-soaked, yet it never goes over-the-top with gratuitous gore. There is also a very obvious helping of black comedy strewn throughout the film, which thankfully never gives way to the self-parody so many horror films feel the need in which to indulge.
I think the most impressive aspect of this film is the incredible attention that has been paid to detail. Every single shot of the film is beautifully framed and composed, often looking more like a cryptic painting than a frame of film. The austere trappings of Mr. Kreeg's dark house, the ghostly palette of the rock quarry, the incredible shape-shifting sequence around a roaring fire in the woods… everything here is gorgeous. That aesthetic, married with the spot-on performances and realistic dialogue, give the film an organic feel that never relies on cheese or parody to break tension. The cinematography by Glen MacPherson (who also shot this year's incredibly brutal Rambo) is so lush it manages to make you feel like you're a part of the celebration. For someone who is as big a fan of the Halloween holiday as I am, this was especially important to see done right. Too often when a film actually does take place on the holiday it lacks the depth that is presented here.
For such a large ensemble cast, there isn't any one performance that stands out above the rest – everyone here is perfectly cast. I even enjoyed Anna Paquin as the "virgin" of the female group, and she's not always someone I'm crazy about. Perhaps my favorite role is that of Mr. Kreeg, played superbly by veteran character actor Brian Cox. His look was inspired directly by my favorite director, John Carpenter, and there are a couple of well-placed nods to his work that were highly amusing. Also providing great support throughout the film is newcomer Quinn Lord who plays Sam, the little sack-headed minion who "stitches" the film's stories together.
Ok, now here's the biggest problem with the film; the 800 lb. gorilla in the room: there is NO set distribution deal lined up. I was lucky enough to see it at the sold-out opening night screening held at Grauman's Chinese Theater for Screamfest 2008. During the post-film Q&A session Mr. Dougherty informed us that he had no idea what the future held for this film. It was set to be released in Oct. 2007 (?!?), then it was pushed back to Feb. 2008, Oct. 2008 and, finally, has been placed on the shelf indefinitely. I'm thankful that Dougherty got some good studio money to make the film to his exact specifications, but, for the love of all things evil, someone at Warner Bros. needs to get this thing out to the masses! I heard rumblings of a direct-to-DVD release date sometime next year, to which I can only say that would be a travesty for something this genuine and unique. I suppose therein lies some of the problem; since this is generally uncharted territory, the studios are clueless as to how they can market the thing. I can understand some of their hesitation (since a good majority of the film features children either killing or being killed), but there's just no excuse to not give this thing some kind of release – and with an October 2008 release out of the question I don't when they could give it a proper release. This is a film that needs to be seen during the month of October, but it's looking like 2009 is the next likely candidate if that were the case. I just don't want to see this film become the cinematic equivalent to the eternally-gestating Guns N' Roses opus Chinese Democracy (which, oddly enough, actually has a release date… for now).
So, obviously I highly recommend the film, there's just one problem: how do you see it? Unless you happen to live in NY and can catch the upcoming screening I really couldn't tell you. I'd hate to have to wait another year until Oct. 2009 for this to get a proper release, but it's been in the can for so long at this point I think any kind of a proper theatrical release, regardless of when, is merited. I'm sure it'll pop up at the occasional film festival throughout the year; I just hope it doesn't get unceremoniously dumped onto DVD without having the benefit of being screened proper for audiences hungry for good, original horror. This is the kind of film you'll find yourself screening for friends every year on Halloween, becoming as much of a tradition as those the film champions. Everyone knows I'm a rabid horror fan through and through, and I've seen more than my share of shitty flicks – this is absolutely one of the best in recent memory. Do yourself a favor and try your best to catch it if you can.
As I said, Trick 'r Treat is a horror anthology which interweaves tales that all take place on Halloween night, similar to such genre classics as Creepshow and Tales from the Darkside. A costumed couple learns to respect tradition… the hard way, a group of girls head out into the woods for a "howling" good party, the local school principal has a (literal) taste for blood, four kids attempting to pull off a holiday "trick" end up becoming "treats", and a cantankerous old man gets a visit from a holiday visitor looking to settle a decades-old grudge.
To say any more than that would spoil the fun in watching the film, as these stories are best digested when viewed on an empty mind. The twists are less predictable than most horror films manage these days; half the fun is wondering just where the hell these characters are going to end up. The one constant throughout the film is a costumed, pint-sized little guy named Sam, who does his best to remind people why they should take great care in adhering to the traditions set forth hundreds of years ago for All Hallows Eve. The film is richly seeped in tradition, reminding the audience of just why we celebrate the fabled holiday in the first place. It manages to be effectively creepy and blood-soaked, yet it never goes over-the-top with gratuitous gore. There is also a very obvious helping of black comedy strewn throughout the film, which thankfully never gives way to the self-parody so many horror films feel the need in which to indulge.
I think the most impressive aspect of this film is the incredible attention that has been paid to detail. Every single shot of the film is beautifully framed and composed, often looking more like a cryptic painting than a frame of film. The austere trappings of Mr. Kreeg's dark house, the ghostly palette of the rock quarry, the incredible shape-shifting sequence around a roaring fire in the woods… everything here is gorgeous. That aesthetic, married with the spot-on performances and realistic dialogue, give the film an organic feel that never relies on cheese or parody to break tension. The cinematography by Glen MacPherson (who also shot this year's incredibly brutal Rambo) is so lush it manages to make you feel like you're a part of the celebration. For someone who is as big a fan of the Halloween holiday as I am, this was especially important to see done right. Too often when a film actually does take place on the holiday it lacks the depth that is presented here.
For such a large ensemble cast, there isn't any one performance that stands out above the rest – everyone here is perfectly cast. I even enjoyed Anna Paquin as the "virgin" of the female group, and she's not always someone I'm crazy about. Perhaps my favorite role is that of Mr. Kreeg, played superbly by veteran character actor Brian Cox. His look was inspired directly by my favorite director, John Carpenter, and there are a couple of well-placed nods to his work that were highly amusing. Also providing great support throughout the film is newcomer Quinn Lord who plays Sam, the little sack-headed minion who "stitches" the film's stories together.
Ok, now here's the biggest problem with the film; the 800 lb. gorilla in the room: there is NO set distribution deal lined up. I was lucky enough to see it at the sold-out opening night screening held at Grauman's Chinese Theater for Screamfest 2008. During the post-film Q&A session Mr. Dougherty informed us that he had no idea what the future held for this film. It was set to be released in Oct. 2007 (?!?), then it was pushed back to Feb. 2008, Oct. 2008 and, finally, has been placed on the shelf indefinitely. I'm thankful that Dougherty got some good studio money to make the film to his exact specifications, but, for the love of all things evil, someone at Warner Bros. needs to get this thing out to the masses! I heard rumblings of a direct-to-DVD release date sometime next year, to which I can only say that would be a travesty for something this genuine and unique. I suppose therein lies some of the problem; since this is generally uncharted territory, the studios are clueless as to how they can market the thing. I can understand some of their hesitation (since a good majority of the film features children either killing or being killed), but there's just no excuse to not give this thing some kind of release – and with an October 2008 release out of the question I don't when they could give it a proper release. This is a film that needs to be seen during the month of October, but it's looking like 2009 is the next likely candidate if that were the case. I just don't want to see this film become the cinematic equivalent to the eternally-gestating Guns N' Roses opus Chinese Democracy (which, oddly enough, actually has a release date… for now).
So, obviously I highly recommend the film, there's just one problem: how do you see it? Unless you happen to live in NY and can catch the upcoming screening I really couldn't tell you. I'd hate to have to wait another year until Oct. 2009 for this to get a proper release, but it's been in the can for so long at this point I think any kind of a proper theatrical release, regardless of when, is merited. I'm sure it'll pop up at the occasional film festival throughout the year; I just hope it doesn't get unceremoniously dumped onto DVD without having the benefit of being screened proper for audiences hungry for good, original horror. This is the kind of film you'll find yourself screening for friends every year on Halloween, becoming as much of a tradition as those the film champions. Everyone knows I'm a rabid horror fan through and through, and I've seen more than my share of shitty flicks – this is absolutely one of the best in recent memory. Do yourself a favor and try your best to catch it if you can.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Appaloosa
So... it's kind of been a while, hasn't it? I can tell you one thing, it certainly wasn't for lack of wanting to see a film. It's just that there's so much crap out right now (Babylon A.D.? You know it's Fall when shit like this is number 1 at the box office) I haven't really felt motivated to waste my money. The only thing that looks good right now is the Coen Brothers new flick, Burn After Reading, and I'm obviously lagging on that. I heard about a screening at the Arclight in Hollywood for Ed Harris' new Western, Appaloosa, where he would also be conducting a Q&A session after the film. The trailer looked pretty good, full of standard American western fare, so I figured what the hell... Turns out the film is much different that I ever expected it to be.
Ed Harris stars as Virgil Cole, sheriff of Appaloosa, a small, lawless town in need of defense from a nefarious rancher, Bragg (Jeremy Irons, cool and cunning as always). Working alongside Cole is his longtime sidekick, Hitch (Viggo Mortensen). When a woman comes to town (Renee Zellweger, with that turnip-like face, looking like she just sucked on a lemon) the two men are torn between their presumed feelings for this woman, and the feelings they have of mutual respect for each other.
A typical Western film this is not. The trailer for this film conveys the impression that it will be a no-holds barred, intense, steely shooter rife with high-noon duels. The fact of the matter is this is a story about two hard-working men trying to maintain civility in their small town, all while maintaining a unique personal relationship with each other. Virgil is the ying to Hitch's yang; there is a dichotomy that exists between these two characters that is ultimately profound; Virgil needs Hitch to help "complete" him. Anytime Virgil gets out of line Hitch is there to stop him. Whenever Virgil can't think of the proper words to use, Hitch finishes his sentences for him. It's obvious that Virgil needs Hitch much more than Hitch needs Virgil, but it is quite apparent they need each other... for now. I hesitate to say there is an undercurrent of homosexuality present in the script because, while some could say it is there, the fact is that these are two men who have a great mutual respect and admiration for each other. The film never ventures into Brokeback Mountain territory.
Since the film opens and closes with narration from Hitch, and we see events that only Hitch is witness to, it is really his story being told. (Ed Harris also confirmed this during the Q&A.) Viggo Mortensen continues to ooze all kinds of cool on screen here. He is the polar opposite of Virgil Cole. Whereas Cole is brash, under-educated and obtuse in his thinking; Hitch is cool, reserved and level-headed. He seems to have mixed feelings about his work with Cole and the man he is, feelings which are only exacerbated upon the arrival of Ms. French (Zellweger). Hitch is fiercely loyal to Cole, so when Ms. French's intentions are not made entirely clear to either man it creates an uneasy chemistry among the trio.
Speaking of Ms. French, let's talk about how severely miscast Renee Zellweger is here. First off, in Harris' own words he was looking for "a fox" to play the character. Seriously, Ed, what made you think a chick whose face looks to be made out of puff pastry qualified for that role? Not only is Zellweger about as pleasing to look at as week-old diarrhea, she also isn't a very good actress. Oscar winner? Whatever. Anyone seen what Halle Berry or Cuba Gooding Jr. have been up to lately? Exactly. That moniker means nothing anymore. This is a role that would have been better suited for someone like Diane Lane, an older woman that has retained some of her youthful looks but wouldn't come across as your typical Western whore.
Ed Harris is a peculiar man, in person and on screen. Virgil Cole is unlike any character I've seen in a Western before. The only person I could possibly compare him to might be Kurt Russell's Wyatt Earp from Tombstone, but even Wyatt would have exercised a little more common sense than Virgil Cole. Cole is a man that lacks the sophistication he feels a man of his position should have. His lack of education and understanding make him quick to be embarassed when called on it, which usually leads to him beating someone half to death out of the sheer need to display his alpha male prowess. Cole has the citizens of Appaloosa in constant fear of him because of his reckless actions. They hired him to be sheriff because they knew he could protect the city, but at what cost? I'd really like to see Harris make the intended sequel to this film because Cole is such a unique character to be painted on a Western canvas.
The film has a small supporting cast who, outside of Jeremy Irons, are mostly semi-recognizable character actors... with one exception. I have to give credit to the mastery of Lance Henriksen. How this guy doesn't get consistent mainstream work is beyond me. He has proven over the course of his career he can adapt to any genre and he always manages to out-perform most of his co-stars. Here, as a hired gunfighter, he provides one of the film's best supports.
Ok, now here's an area I've got a big gripe with: the action. I'm not sure if it's entirely Harris' inability to shoot action scenes (although he has appeared in enough of that type of film to surely know something) or if he intended to eschew any sense of climactic dread within the film, but it's an odd choice. Having culled my Western knowledge on films such as The Wild Bunch, Once Upon A Time in the West, For a Few Dollars More and High Noon I found it odd that Harris would make very little of the film's gunfights. There are no musical swells, no Morricone-style build-ups to the action; instead the film treats a 4-way duel just the same as it would an afternoon of tea in the parlor. Every time I felt like a climax was building it would be over before you knew it began. Even the final gun battle leaves much to be desired. This doesn't make it a bad film per se, it just gives it a different focus than many Westerns people are familiar with. I think knowing this ahead of time can make viewing it a little easier for those who are expecting something along the lines of Open Range or even Unforgiven.
I'm recommending Appaloosa because it's a good film; it works more as a character study and less as a traditional Western. Ed Harris gives a uniquely crafted performance in the film's lead and Viggo Mortensen is perfectly cast as his sidekick. Even though Renee Zellweger sucks she (thankfully) manages to keep from grinding the film to a halt. I think the most important point I can make is that this is not a standard Western, so anyone looking for Leone-esque squinty-eyed duels shouldn't bother. Anyone looking to watch a Western populated with fascinating characters should be relatively pleased. It's not often that a Western film is even made by studios anymore, so I recommend seeing it just to support a languishing genre that deserves more current entries.
Ed Harris stars as Virgil Cole, sheriff of Appaloosa, a small, lawless town in need of defense from a nefarious rancher, Bragg (Jeremy Irons, cool and cunning as always). Working alongside Cole is his longtime sidekick, Hitch (Viggo Mortensen). When a woman comes to town (Renee Zellweger, with that turnip-like face, looking like she just sucked on a lemon) the two men are torn between their presumed feelings for this woman, and the feelings they have of mutual respect for each other.
A typical Western film this is not. The trailer for this film conveys the impression that it will be a no-holds barred, intense, steely shooter rife with high-noon duels. The fact of the matter is this is a story about two hard-working men trying to maintain civility in their small town, all while maintaining a unique personal relationship with each other. Virgil is the ying to Hitch's yang; there is a dichotomy that exists between these two characters that is ultimately profound; Virgil needs Hitch to help "complete" him. Anytime Virgil gets out of line Hitch is there to stop him. Whenever Virgil can't think of the proper words to use, Hitch finishes his sentences for him. It's obvious that Virgil needs Hitch much more than Hitch needs Virgil, but it is quite apparent they need each other... for now. I hesitate to say there is an undercurrent of homosexuality present in the script because, while some could say it is there, the fact is that these are two men who have a great mutual respect and admiration for each other. The film never ventures into Brokeback Mountain territory.
Since the film opens and closes with narration from Hitch, and we see events that only Hitch is witness to, it is really his story being told. (Ed Harris also confirmed this during the Q&A.) Viggo Mortensen continues to ooze all kinds of cool on screen here. He is the polar opposite of Virgil Cole. Whereas Cole is brash, under-educated and obtuse in his thinking; Hitch is cool, reserved and level-headed. He seems to have mixed feelings about his work with Cole and the man he is, feelings which are only exacerbated upon the arrival of Ms. French (Zellweger). Hitch is fiercely loyal to Cole, so when Ms. French's intentions are not made entirely clear to either man it creates an uneasy chemistry among the trio.
Speaking of Ms. French, let's talk about how severely miscast Renee Zellweger is here. First off, in Harris' own words he was looking for "a fox" to play the character. Seriously, Ed, what made you think a chick whose face looks to be made out of puff pastry qualified for that role? Not only is Zellweger about as pleasing to look at as week-old diarrhea, she also isn't a very good actress. Oscar winner? Whatever. Anyone seen what Halle Berry or Cuba Gooding Jr. have been up to lately? Exactly. That moniker means nothing anymore. This is a role that would have been better suited for someone like Diane Lane, an older woman that has retained some of her youthful looks but wouldn't come across as your typical Western whore.
Ed Harris is a peculiar man, in person and on screen. Virgil Cole is unlike any character I've seen in a Western before. The only person I could possibly compare him to might be Kurt Russell's Wyatt Earp from Tombstone, but even Wyatt would have exercised a little more common sense than Virgil Cole. Cole is a man that lacks the sophistication he feels a man of his position should have. His lack of education and understanding make him quick to be embarassed when called on it, which usually leads to him beating someone half to death out of the sheer need to display his alpha male prowess. Cole has the citizens of Appaloosa in constant fear of him because of his reckless actions. They hired him to be sheriff because they knew he could protect the city, but at what cost? I'd really like to see Harris make the intended sequel to this film because Cole is such a unique character to be painted on a Western canvas.
The film has a small supporting cast who, outside of Jeremy Irons, are mostly semi-recognizable character actors... with one exception. I have to give credit to the mastery of Lance Henriksen. How this guy doesn't get consistent mainstream work is beyond me. He has proven over the course of his career he can adapt to any genre and he always manages to out-perform most of his co-stars. Here, as a hired gunfighter, he provides one of the film's best supports.
Ok, now here's an area I've got a big gripe with: the action. I'm not sure if it's entirely Harris' inability to shoot action scenes (although he has appeared in enough of that type of film to surely know something) or if he intended to eschew any sense of climactic dread within the film, but it's an odd choice. Having culled my Western knowledge on films such as The Wild Bunch, Once Upon A Time in the West, For a Few Dollars More and High Noon I found it odd that Harris would make very little of the film's gunfights. There are no musical swells, no Morricone-style build-ups to the action; instead the film treats a 4-way duel just the same as it would an afternoon of tea in the parlor. Every time I felt like a climax was building it would be over before you knew it began. Even the final gun battle leaves much to be desired. This doesn't make it a bad film per se, it just gives it a different focus than many Westerns people are familiar with. I think knowing this ahead of time can make viewing it a little easier for those who are expecting something along the lines of Open Range or even Unforgiven.
I'm recommending Appaloosa because it's a good film; it works more as a character study and less as a traditional Western. Ed Harris gives a uniquely crafted performance in the film's lead and Viggo Mortensen is perfectly cast as his sidekick. Even though Renee Zellweger sucks she (thankfully) manages to keep from grinding the film to a halt. I think the most important point I can make is that this is not a standard Western, so anyone looking for Leone-esque squinty-eyed duels shouldn't bother. Anyone looking to watch a Western populated with fascinating characters should be relatively pleased. It's not often that a Western film is even made by studios anymore, so I recommend seeing it just to support a languishing genre that deserves more current entries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
