Archive for the John Harvey Reviews Category

« Older Entries

ZERO DARK THIRTY (2012)

Posted in 2013, Action Movies, Based on a True Story, Compelling Cinema, Espionage, Intense Movies, John Harvey Reviews, War Movies with tags , , , , , on January 15, 2013 by knifefighter

ZERO DARK THIRTY Provides a Taut, Heavy Military/Spy Drama
Review by John Harvey

zero-dark-thirty-poster

ZERO DARK THIRTY is on many levels not your average military/spy drama. Let’s start with the fact that we rarely see movies examining such complex, controversial, and historic events in such a short span of time after the event itself—Osama bin Laden’s death occurred on May 2, 2011. Normally, it takes many years, even decades, before we view history through the lens of filmmaking (at least with anything resembling accuracy). At that point, the specifics (and the key players) have aged enough for us to look at how events unfolded with a kind of clinical detachment. If we see things we don’t like, then it’s easy to say, “Well, that was another time.”

ZERO DARK THIRTY, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, doesn’t provide that luxury. Just a hair over 1 ½ years have passed since the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU), more commonly known as Seal Team Six, choppered into Abbottabad, Pakistan, to kill Osama bin Laden. It can be assumed that many of the key players in that top secret operation are still in their jobs and the morally-questionable practices used during the hunt for bin Laden remain … well … morally questionable.

But we’ve apparently entered a time when details of top secret operations get leaked to the major news networks and published in books (written by DEVGRU operators) almost moments after the events themselves have transpired. Like it or not, ZERO DARK THIRTY is likely the start of a trend and not a one-off event.

The movie itself details the journey of a CIA analyst named Maya (Jessica Chastain), a green recruit stationed in Afghanistan who dedicates herself to finding bin Laden with what eventually becomes monomaniacal fervor. The very first scene is Maya shadowing a CIA interrogator named Dan (Jason Clarke … an amazing performance) as he waterboards and humiliates an al Qaeda money handler named Ammar (Reda Kateb). Scenes like this, and others in the film, pull no punches. The torture is brutal, visceral, and hard to watch. Within the narrative of the film, it’s also made clear that while torture didn’t provide US intelligence agencies with the magic key to finding bin Laden, it did provide helpful information.

And here is where you locate the core of the controversy surrounding the film. It’s well known that Mark Boal based his script on first-hand interviews with military and intelligence officials who took part in the search for bin Laden. While the film is still intended to be entertainment and consumed as a work of fiction, it’s a brand of fiction that likely hews close to the truth in areas. Which areas? Well, that’s unknown and that’s why a lot of people are upset.

I have seen news commentaries stating that ZERO DARK THIRTY seeks to capture a “red state” audience by endorsing torture as a means to gather good intelligence. I have seen news commentaries stating ZERO DARK THIRTY seeks to capture a “blue state” audience by portraying torture so graphically that it’s a testimonial against the practice. I have even read a news story stating that Bigelow and Boal cynically steered straight down the middle in a crass effort to capture both liberal hand-wringing moviegoers and fist-pumping conservative moviegoers.

Personally, I think they’re all wrong.

For me, these scenes pose a moral dilemma / question to each audience member.  The question boils down to whether or not you, the person sitting in the movie seat, want to be a citizen in a country that tortures … even if it works … especially if it works. One of the smartest yet frustrating aspects of ZERO DARK THIRTY is that it doesn’t try to spoon feed you an answer to that question. You’re on your own to sort it out during your drive home.

Looking past the torture scenes, ZERO DARK THIRTY provides a taut (though longish … 157 minutes) CIA tradecraft procedural that manages to be suspenseful even though you know how the movie ends. Without being boring, the movie makes you feel the tedium and the drag of time as Maya and her peers sift through data, follow leads, bluff, struggle against bureaucracy and politics, lose friends (sometimes tragically), and do it all to the occasional historic exclamation point of a building, bus, or market being bombed and innocent lives being lost. That’s the first two hours of the film. Roughly, the final 30 minutes details the DEVGRU raid on bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. Again, we know for the most part what happened there (assuming you watched the news anywhere), but via Bigelow’s direction and Boal’s writing, the climax remains tense, suspenseful, and a little unsettling.

That the movie is solidly constructed is not surprising. Boal and Bigelow were the writing/directing team for THE HURT LOCKER (2008), an amazing Iraq war drama that won the Oscar for Best Director. Even if you don’t like ZERO DARK THIRTY for its controversial elements, you can’t deny that Bigelow and Boal have established themselves as a rock-solid presence in filmmaking and storytelling.

All around, the acting is terrific. Chastain’s Maya gives us an obsessive character with a single-minded focus that borders on a mania, but at the moment where you start to think of her as a robot, she reveals a human side that is convincing and genuine. It’s worth noting that Maya is based on a real person (referred to as “Miss 100%” in the book NO EASY DAY by DEVGRU operative Mark Own (pseudonym)).

Another notable performer is Jennifer Ehle as Jessica, a fellow CIA analyst and Maya’s closest friend during the hunt for bin laden. It is in scenes with Ehle’s Jessica and Clark’s Dan that Maya shows her more human and sympathetic side. Without these two characters, Maya’s character would come off as entirely unlikable and inhuman.

And in a movie that is quite nearly bereft of humor, the scant few scenes that provide a welcome chuckle feature James Gandolfini as Leon Panetta (he’s credited as “CIA Director” … but yeah, it’s Leon Panetta). It’s not goofy fun and the movie’s tone remains intact, but Gandolfini’s subtly-played scenes come at a time when the audience needs someone to open the pressure-release valve on all the heavy serious stuff.

ZERO DARK THIRTY is not your typical military/spy drama. There’s no sentimentality and nobody tries to pound a socio-political message into your head. The final mission is not portrayed with a sense of jingoist triumph so much as stark, detached ambivalence. Bigelow and Boal don’t tell us whether or not torture, American policy, or the war on terror is right or wrong. They leave it to us to walk out of the theater and think critically about bin Laden’s assassination and decide if it was worth it in terms of means and ends.

It’s a very good movie, but you know how when you leave a crowded movie theater everyone is laughing and chatting lightly. Yeah, I didn’t see a lot of that as I exited ZERO DARK THIRTY.

I give it four out of five knives.

Rated: R
Runtime: 2 hours & 37 minutes
Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Writer: Mark Boal
Stars: Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Jennifer Ehle, and Kyle Chandler
(Editor’s Note: while ZERO DARK THIRTY was released in a few cities in late 2012 to be eligible for Oscar Nominations, it was not released to the majority of the country’s theaters until 2013.)

– END –

© Copyright 2013 by John D. Harvey

John Harvey gives ZERO DARK THIRTY~four knives.

Leave A Comment »

ALEX CROSS (2012)

Posted in 2012, Action Movies, Cop Movies, Crime Films, Detectives, John Harvey Reviews, Just Plain Bad, Murder!, Prequels with tags , , , , , , on October 23, 2012 by knifefighter

“Alex Cross” … It’s Utterly Unwatchable
Movie Review by John D. Harvey

Sigh …

Honestly, I like movies. I have in the past written positive movie reviews, though I wouldn’t blame you for thinking otherwise based on the skewering that I gave TAKEN II a couple of weeks ago, and now ALEX CROSS in the following paragraphs.

I’ll say this, though. As much as I disliked TAKEN II, it’s practically a masterpiece compared to ALEX CROSS. With that in mind, if you don’t feel like reading any further than this paragraph, then that’s fine. I won’t be hurt. Just because I lost 90 minutes of my life watching ALEX CROSS, it doesn’t mean you need to lose the next several minutes of your life reading about how much I hated it.

So anyway, ALEX CROSS attempts to reboot a neglected franchise based on thriller/mystery author James Patterson’s novels featuring the brilliant Detroit  police detective/psychologist, Alex Cross (now played by Tyler Perry). Previously, Morgan Freeman occupied this role in ALONG CAME A SPIDER (2001) and KISS THE GIRLS (1997). Directed by Rob Cohen (better known for his THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS franchise films), ALEX CROSS is sort of origin story. But it’s also a police procedural, and a serial killer thriller, and a buddy cop movie, and it even tries its hand at a bit of comedy. Who cares? It is essentially a failure regardless of genre or marketing category.

This time, Cross tracks an artistically-inclined killer nicknamed Picasso (Matthew Fox), who is one of many dimensionless stock characters in this film. There’s also Cross’ loyal, wise-cracking partner, Thomas (Edward Burns); a slick but untrustworthy foreign businessman (Jean Reno); and an oafish police chief (John C. McGinley), who of course, at one point, dismisses Cross from the case at the most critical moment (because we’ve never seen *that* in a cop movie before).

There’s not much of a plot beyond that. Picasso kills someone, and then Alex Cross and his team are on the case, and then they track him down via unlikely, and not clever or original, clues. Honestly, most of what you’ll see in ALEX CROSS is a litany of tropes and clichés that you won’t see in a modern thriller unless it’s an over-the-top comedic spoof. This is not an over-the-top comedic spoof.

As far as the acting is concerned, most of the performances are phoned in, lackluster, and predictable. Tyler Perry’s take on Alex Cross is ham-fisted and incongruous.  Matthew Fox (who had better be happy that he still has LOST checks showing up in the mail) overacts the serial killer role with a twitchy, kooky, psycho-eyed intensity. I mean, this guy couldn’t wait in line at the deli without everyone knowing that he’s got bodies buried in his basement.

ALEX CROSS‘s action sequences are equally abysmal. The fight scenes are particularly annoying because there is so much “shaky cam” (to conceal talentless fight choreography) that it looks more like it’s the cameraman that’s getting beat up.

And finally, there’s the ending, which I suspect was written up on the back of a cocktail napkin at the end of three-day whiskey binge by someone with massive head trauma. It makes no sense. It’s rife with plot holes large enough to accommodate an aircraft carrier. It’s … just … dumb.

In conclusion, don’t see ALEX CROSS. It’s dreadful.

Rating: ZERO KNIVES.

ALEX CROSS
RUN TIME: 1hr 41min‎‎
RATING: PG-13‎‎
DIRECTOR: Rob Cohen
WRITERS: Marc Moss and Kerry Williamson
CAST: Tyler Perry, Matthew Fox, and Ed Burns

– END –

© Copyright 2012 by John D. Harvey

John Harvey gives ALEX CROSS ~ zero knives

Leave A Comment »

TAKEN 2 (2012)

Posted in 2012, Action Movies, Complete Waste of Time, Doomed Tourists, Gangsters!, John Harvey Reviews, Just Plain Bad, Sequels, Unnecessary Sequels with tags , , on October 8, 2012 by knifefighter

TAKEN 2 Takes the Lazy Road to Sequel Money
Movie Review by John D. Harvey

When I posted to Facebook that I was going to review TAKEN 2, Rogan Russell Marshal (who wrote ATTIC EXPEDITIONS (2001) and FREEZER BURN (2005)) posted a comment reading (in part) “Harvey, don’t you think you can review TAKEN 2 just based on the previews and clips? (I’m not really kidding… it’s rare that I think a picture reveals itself so thoroughly, so quickly…).”

What is on its face a cynical, semi-snarky comment turned out to be painfully prophetic, except for the fact that the previews and trailers for TAKEN 2 give one at least a sliver of hope that the movie might be marginally enjoyable even if it’s entirely predictable. You know going into the theater that the first TAKEN (2008) established a formula for any sequel (someone gets kidnapped, Liam Neeson kicks ass, everyone lives happily ever after, roll credits). But, the hope is that along the way the writers and director will deliver some new fun in the form of great action, some smart comedy beats, or perhaps even some new character development that adds a fresh perspective or twist to the formula.

Yeah … so there’s none of that in TAKEN 2.

TAKEN 2 is a shining example of a movie sequel where everyone involved in its making felt solely obligated to filling a 90-minute bag with 90 minutes of lazy crap, collecting their paychecks, and then going home. It’s huge shame, because I (like many people) thoroughly enjoyed the original TAKEN.

The plot (such as it is…) goes like this. In the aftermath of the first movie, Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) goes to Istanbul, Turkey, to work a private security gig for a billionaire. Once finished, he invites his young daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) and his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) to fly over for a few days of sight-seeing. Lenore has recently separated from her husband, thus making it possible for Bryan to get his nuclear family put back together again.

Little do they know that the Albanian crime family/syndicate that Bryan shot to bits in the first movie has also come to Istanbul to seek revenge on both Bryan and his family. Beyond this point exists a series of low-octane, stock chase sequences, choppy fight scenes that look like the cameraman was having some sort of massive seizure during the filming, and plot turns that do not even try to maintain any form of credulity or sense even in the context of a pulpy action/adventure film.

Perhaps one of the silliest sequences (amongst a long list of such…) in the film involved Bryan and his daughter attempting to pinpoint a vital but unknown location within Istanbul via the use of a map, shoestring, the direction of the wind, and lobbing not one but SEVERAL live hand grenades within the confines of the densely-populated city. And, apparently one can set off a bunch of hand grenades in Istanbul without a massive reaction from the local police or military. There’s something you won’t find in a Frommer’s Travel Guide!

As far as the acting goes, across the board everyone dials in their performances. Both the written dialogue and delivery is ham-fisted and on the nose. And the bad guys are nothing to write home about. In the original TAKEN, the Albanians were portrayed as brutal, scary Eastern European thugs, whereas in TAKEN 2 the same enemy has become cartoonish and clumsy. Also, the Albanians’ Muslim faith suddenly gets inserted into the mix, bringing forth a subtle xenophobia that is both lazy and pandering.

The first TAKEN succeeded because it was smartly written, brutal, efficient, and gritty. Meanwhile, TAKEN 2 fails utterly because it is lazy, clumsy, outlandish, and (unintentionally) comedic. I can’t even recommend it as a rental.

Perhaps a good sign is that when Liam Neeson was asked by Jon Stewart on THE DAILY SHOW if there was going to be a TAKEN 3, the actor immediately slashed his hand at his throat in an obvious “no more” gesture. This suggests that even Neeson recognizes TAKEN 2 didn’t do any favors for fans of the original movie.

TRAILER: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpaT8NzkLgE

RUN TIME: 1hr 31min‎‎

RATING: PG-13‎‎

DIRECTOR: Oliver Megaton

WRITERS: Luc Besson (screenplay) and Robert Mark Kamen (screenplay)

CAST: Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Famke Janssen, Rade Serbedzija, and Leland Orser

© Copyright 2012 by John D. Harvey

John Harvey gives TAKEN 2 ~ NO knives!

1 Comment »

THE BOURNE LEGACY (2012)

Posted in 2012, Action Movies, Espionage, Heightened Abilities, Hit Men, John Harvey Reviews, Sequels, Spy Films, Suspense with tags , , , , , , on August 13, 2012 by knifefighter

THE BOURNE LEGACY Weaves Complexity with Great Action
Review by John Harvey

It takes a great deal of chutzpah to create and release a ‘Jason Bourne‘ franchise movie minus Jason Bourne.  The opportunities for failure greatly outnumber those for success, especially when essentially all of the key players (both talent and behind the scenes) who made the previous installments popular are now absent. This is the gamble undertaken by Universal’s THE BOURNE LEGACY a taut, high-octane, but often confusing spy thriller that seeks to (sort of) reboot the franchise in an alternate timeline to the previous ‘Jason Bourne‘ films.

Gone is Matt Damon’s stoic, intense Jason Bourne who drove THE BOURNE IDENTITY (2002), THE BOURNE SUPREMACY (2004), and THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM (2007). Also gone is Paul Greengrass, who directed the second two films (THE BOURNE IDENTITY was directed by Doug Liman).

While this loss of legacy talent is worrying, the replacements are far from being slouches.  Tony Gilroy, who wrote the screenplays for all three previous ‘Jason Bourne’ films, is now both screenwriter and director for THE BOURNE LEGACY. Gilroy has solid suspense/thriller credentials in directing or writing on such projects as STATE OF PLAY (2009), DUPLICITY (2009) and MICHAEL CLAYTON (2007). Meanwhile, stepping into the superspy slot is Jeremy Renner. Renner has been consistently good in films such as THE HURT LOCKER (2008), THE TOWN (2010) and THE AVENGERS (2012).

THE BOURNE LEGACY‘s storyline essentially runs parallel to that of THE BOURNE ULIMATUM, showing the ripple effect of Jason Bourne’s bad behavior in Manhattan. Powerful people in the United States intelligence community (including Stacy Keach and Ed Norton) have been thrown into a frenzied state of damage control as Bourne threatens to blow the lid on their clandestine superspy program. They coldly decide that the only way they can keep secrets and save themselves is to implement a ruthless, scorched-earth protocol. Translation … everyone dies. Well, everyone but them.

Which brings us to Aaron Cross, a member of Operation Outcome, one of the CIA’s other black ops superspy programs. Different from Jason Bourne’s Treadstone program, Outcome provides its agents with green pills that enhance physical abilities and blue pills that enhance mental abilities. The pills are the leash that keeps the agents under control. In LEGACY, they’re also the MacGuffin that drives most of the suspense and action.

Cross is stationed at a deeply remote training facility in Alaska when the powers-that-be send an airborne drone to blow him up with a hellfire missile, having already killed off the other Outcome agents. Cross (obviously) outwits them, but then finds himself running dangerously low on the power pills that keep him going. His desperation to escape death and get a new supply of drugs brings him in contact with Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), a virologist/geneticist who works in a top secret medical lab that monitors Outcome agents. Shearing, having barely survived an assassination attempt at the hands of the previously-mentioned powers-that-be, has no other option but to throw in with Cross and help him score a fix.

Ultimately, the established storylines of the previous ‘Jason Bourne‘ films weigh heavily on THE BOURNE LEGACY, sometimes to its benefit and sometimes not so much. While the filmmakers would have you believe that you don’t need to see the previous films for this one to make sense, don’t buy it. So much of the terminology, code names, characters, and other devices get carried over (or at least referenced) from previous films to this one that, if you’re not up to speed with (at least) THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, then you’ll have several “Huh? What? Hey, who’s that guy?” moments in LEGACY. Also, while it’s pretty easy to tell the bad guys from the good, it’s not always easy to keep track of who comes from what agency or their ultimate motives. With THE BOURNE LEGACY, Gilroy shoots for a dense, complex plot, but in reality the movie is often just plain confusing and a bit frustrating.

On the plus side, the action sequences in THE BOURNE LEGACY are a real treat, with the final set piece being breathless and completely captivating. Unlike goofier, pulp action films (ahem … THE EXPENDABLES), the ‘Jason Bourne‘ aesthetic hews closer to a version of reality where the gun battles, fights, and chase scenes could perhaps be real (…if you squint and smear a lot of Vaseline on the lens). In these films, the action tends to be more suspenseful and have more consequences. Also, with Gilroy at the helm, we get a smoother, polished shooting style (via cinematographer Robert Elswit), rather than Greengrass’ shaky camera style.

In terms of acting, I found Renner’s Aaron Cross to be more engaging than Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne. Where Bourne was almost constantly laconic and mechanical, Aaron Cross is more expressive, affable, and vulnerable. But, when the action starts, his training and chemical-induced enhancements kick in to produce a complete killing machine. As an action hero, Renner provides more texture and nuance than Matt Damon. In addition, while Weisz could have been given the role of obligatory “female in need of saving,” she provides a much more dynamic and dramatic performance.

The bad guy side of the equation is more disappointing. Stacy Keach, Ed Norton, and Dennis Boutsikaris literally fill suits and provide serviceable, if entirely predictable, performances as heartless spymasters from shady government agencies. Renner’s Aaron Cross deserves a strong nemesis. Perhaps he’ll get one in the inevitable sequel.

Ultimately, THE BOURNE LEGACY is a good, but not great, fork from the core ‘Jason Bourne‘ franchise. With a less convoluted structure and better villains, it would have been far more enjoyable. Still, the action is worth seeing on the big screen and I look forward to Jeremy Renner continuing to perform as Aaron Cross.

Official Website: http://www.thebournelegacy.net

Directed by Tony Gilroy
Screenplay by Tony Gilroy and Dan Gilroy
Starring Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton, and Stacy Keach
Running time: 135 minutes

– END –

© Copyright 2012 by John D. Harvey

John Harvey gives THE BOURNE LEGACY~three and a half knives.

2 Comments »

FAST FIVE

Posted in 2011, Action Movies, Cars!, Fast Cars, John Harvey Reviews, Sequels with tags , , , , , , on May 3, 2011 by knifefighter

FAST FIVE Is Good for Cheap Thrills and Not Much Else
Movie Review by John Harvey


When I told people that I was going to review the fifth installment in the THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS franchise, FAST FIVE, a friend emailed me a video clip from The Onion website titled “Today Now! Interviews The 5-Year-Old Screenwriter Of FAST FIVE.’”

If you’re not in the mood to read this review, then watch that 2.5 minute clip (link at the bottom of this review). Though satirical, it’s also 100% spot-on regarding the level of film craft in FAST FIVE.

Starting in 2001, this franchise never aspired to be anything more than eye-candy for teenage boys (hence the PG-13 rating). It is utterly without art, but perfectly crafted for its target demographic. Every installment (including FAST FIVE) focuses almost entirely on car chases, over-the-top fights, and girls in tight clothes. All this tenuously held together by the most fragile gossamer wisps of something that only resembles storytelling if you drink half a bottle of whiskey and squint really hard.

Directed by Justin Lin, FAST FIVE kicks off with former FBI agent Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker) rescuing Dominic “Dom” Toretto (Vin Diesel) from a prison bus in a three-car, one-bus action sequence that is entirely devoid of common sense and respect for basic physics, and also sets the tone for all of the action that will follow. They split up and meet in Rio de Janeiro, where they quickly take a job stealing three DEA-confiscated cars from a moving train. Predictably, the job goes horribly wrong, DEA agents die, and our heroes find themselves on the #$%& list of drug dealer and corrupt businessman Hernan Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida). How could this possibly get worse?  Well, the DEA is none too happy about their dead agents, so they send hulking DSS agent Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and his team of uber spec-ops soldiers to apprehend Dom and O’Connor.

So, the most logical and sensible thing for Dom and O’Connor to do is get the hell out of Brazil while the getting is good. Oh wait, this is FAST FIVE. Hence, what they actually do is invite all of their friends from the previous four films to Rio to carry out a wildly elaborate heist and steal $100 million of Reyes’s drug money from a massive vault housed in a police station. Wackiness ensues …

I’ll admit that some of the chase and fight scenes had fun elements. And it was a kick watching Diesel and Johnson face off as a bald immovable force versus a bald unstoppable object. Also, to be perfectly honest … I’ve got nothing against hot women in tight clothes. But the plot holes in this film are large enough to accommodate a fleet of 1970 Dodge Chargers. Even worse, whenever our heroes are in “trouble,” the filmmaker resorts to cheap tricks and shell games to accomplish miraculous escapes that are really just lazy cheats. And the acting? Cardboard and undercooked all around. Though, I will point out that you can hand Dwayne Johnson the most corny, clunky line of dialogue and he’ll at least make its delivery entertaining. But these are predictable flaws that I knew would be present just by watching FAST FIVE‘s film trailer.

Ultimately, the thing that made this film essentially unpleasant for me was its complete lack of morality. FAST FIVE is set in a video-game world where both the good guys and the bad guys fire automatic weapons in densely packed neighborhoods, drive cars through throngs of pedestrians, and wipe out dozens of everyday drivers in the course of wild car chases. You ultimately realize that EVERYONE in this film is self-centered to the core and a slave to naked greed and brute force. Despite the occasional ham-handed soliloquy by Dom about family and freedom, the truth about this film is that it contains no actual heroes or “good guys.”

Yeah, I get it. It’s a visceral action flick and not a David Mamet drama. But I have the same problem with FAST FIVE as I do with several horror franchises where violence is framed as the only protagonist worth rooting for. It’s shoddy, lazy, and distasteful film craft.

All that said, once you get to the end of FAST FIVE, the average audience member will assume that this is Dom and O’Connor’s last caper and we will never be bothered again by another effortlessly vapid attempt at filmmaking (at least in this series).

Depressingly, there’s a post-credits scene that indicates that this franchise is far from dead. For me, this was the unhappiest of endings.

FAST FIVE
Directed By: Justin Lin
Written By: Chris Morgan
Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Chris “Ludacris” Bridges, Matt Schulze, Sung Kang, and Dwayne Johnson
Run Time: 130 minutes
Rating: PG-13

The Onion’s “Today Now! Interviews The 5-Year-Old Screenwriter Of ‘Fast Five:”  http://www.theonion.com/video/today-now-interviews-the-5yearold-screenwriter-of,20188/

– END -

© Copyright 2011 by John D. Harvey

6 Comments »

SOURCE CODE!

Posted in 2011, Action Movies, John Harvey Reviews, Quantam Physics, Science Fiction, Time Travel with tags , , , , , , , , , , on April 5, 2011 by knifefighter

SOURCE CODE: A Cunning, Intelligent, Science Fiction Thriller
By John Harvey

Director Duncan Jones seems to have found his niche in science fiction films that eschew massive spaceships, menacing aliens and  huge special effects budgets, in favor of character and story development. His only previous feature film credit is the thoroughly enjoyable MOON (2009 starring Sam Rockwell), which provided a more cerebral breed of science fiction.

The difference between SOURCE CODE and MOON, is that SOURCE CODE provides a warmer, more personable tone that is more inviting to the average viewer. Though a wonderful film, MOON’s mood and environment is much more emotionally distant and cold (an intentional effect).

In SOURCE CODE, Air Force Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up on a train approaching Chicago. Across from him sits Christina Warren (Michele Monaghan), a fellow commuter in mid-conversation who obviously knows him well. But Stevens has more pressing problems than nodding off mid-chat with a pretty woman; he doesn’t know who she is or how he got there. His last memory is flying combat missions in Afghanistan. In a panic, he dashes to the bathroom compartment and the mirror reveals a face that is not his own. Stevens’ efforts to discover what has happened to him are cut short when a massive bomb explodes, killing him and everyone on the train.

But not really.

He regains consciousness again in something resembling a cross between a cockpit and a sensory deprivation chamber. Via a small monitor, Air Force officer Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) and an emotionally-distant scientist (Jeffrey Wright) ask questions about the train and the people on it. From here, the film slowly reveals that he is part of an ambitious government science project called “Source Code.” Combining quantum physics and time travel, this technology puts his consciousness into the body of a man who died on that commuter train, but only during the last eight minutes of his life. His mission is to relive those eight minutes over and over until he figures out the bomber’s identity, which will allow authorities to stop a much more devastating attack later that day.

So, let’s get one thing straight here. The “science” in SOURCE CODE is a big steamy pile of horse poo. It’s a blatant MacGuffin that exists solely to allow the filmmakers to explore ideas, move the plot forward and focus on the characters. If you’re prone towards hand wringing when filmmakers don’t display an adequate knowledge of string theory, then this movie will drive you out of your skull. On the other hand, if you can ignore bad or even silly science in a film, then you’ll be fine here.

More accurately, SOURCE CODE resembles what would happen if Philip K. Dick sat down with Rod Serling and said, “Smoke this and then let’s talk story.” It’s mind-bending and taut, while having a distinct sense-of-wonder inherent to old time sci-fi.

But at its core, SOURCE CODE is a thriller with a dash of mystery whodunnit. Every time Stevens repeats those last eight minutes, he competes against the clock to shake clues out of his environment and the other passengers in order to avert disaster. Each trip also forces him form stronger attachments to his fellow passengers (Christina in particular) and ask questions about the nature of his own existence and how he got there. Though the scientists insist that what he experiences is not time travel, but rather shadows from alternate universes, Stevens develops stronger doubts each time he repeats the cycle. Add to that the growing tension as he begins to suspect that his Source Code handlers aren’t telling him everything about his own situation. It’s a deft balance between the mission’s twists and turns and Steven’s own internal struggle.

While concept and plot in this movie work very nicely, it is perhaps at the detriment to character depth (though the acting all around is fine). This is a trade-off to the fact that there’s a lot going on in this film and at a very frenetic pace. Even with these minor flaws, SOURCE CODE provides an original and intelligent story that provides both action and psychological thrills.

And, in the end, SOURCE CODE delivers the goods and wraps up nicely. Though perhaps the ending veers even more sharply away from science into pure fantasy, which may put off some viewers. I got over it and would recommend this film.

- END –

© Copyright 2011 by John D. Harvey

AUTHOR’S NOTE: If you want to hear an interview with SOURCE CODE screenwriter Ben Ripley, then check out the Slice of SciFi’s podcast #309: http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2011/04/02/slice-of-scifi-309/ .

SOURCE CODE
Directed By: Duncan Jones
Written By: Ben Ripley
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, and Jeffrey Wright
Run Time: 1hr 34min
Rating: PG-13

(Editor’s Note: If you’re a fan of John’s columns, do yourself a favor and check out his amazing novel, THE CLEANSING, published by Arkham House Press. I can’t praise this one highly enough).

2 Comments »

CKF ON THE EDGE: THE WOMAN

Posted in 2011, Extreme Movies, John Harvey Reviews, VIOLENCE! with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 31, 2011 by knifefighter

CKF ON THE EDGE
THE WOMAN Is Not for the Faint of Heart
Movie review by John Harvey

THE WOMAN is an extremely disturbing, emotionally-draining film that you should not recommend to friends lightly, or without a great deal of preparation. Even if a particular friend boasts casual ease at viewing franchise extreme horror (think SAW and HOSTEL), you still need to explain to them “Oh no … this is something else entirely.”

On that note, though you probably have not seen THE WOMAN, you might be familiar with the controversy surrounding the film’s premiere at this year’s Sundance Film Festival. In a nutshell, at the tail end of the showing, a man in the audience was so entirely offended by the film’s subject matter that he went a bit nuts and had to be escorted out of the theater. You can see the videos (which went spectacularly viral) here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Frliyp33sM and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3lUAZLB4JY.

Aside from handing the film a massive amount of free publicity, it’s also obvious that this man didn’t get the film at all. THE WOMAN, written by Jack Ketchum and Lucky McKee (who also directed), tells the story about a brutal, sadistic psychopath of the most terrifying sort (one who blends into our society) and the women he abuses and oppresses at home. Outwardly, Chris Cleek (Sean Bridgers) is a successful and well-liked elder care and estate lawyer in northern New England, but it becomes clear pretty early on that he’s not wired like your average upper-middle class husband and father.

Cleek goes hunting near his home one day and encounters a feral Woman (Pollyanna McIntosh in an amazing and savage performance) washing herself in the river.  He’s aroused in all the wrong ways, and quickly forms a plan. Once back home, he “remodels” the root cellar near his barn and cheerily tells his family he’s got a surprise for them. His family also gives off a strong whiff of being completely broken, but hiding it for appearance’s sake. The wife, Belle (Angela Bettis who also starred in McKee’s MAY (2002)), and daughter Peggy (Lauren Ashley Carter) exist essentially as cowed and helpless prisoners. Both actresses give great performances. I’m not sure if this is a compliment, but nobody gives you twitchy and train wrecked like Bettis. Cleek’s son, Brian (Zach Rand), on the other hand is … well … definitely his father’s son.

Once Chris and his family complete modifying the root cellar, Cleek pulls the cover back on his surprise: he traps the feral Woman and manacles her in the basement. Why? The family has a new project. They’re going to “fix her.” Of course, Chris Cleek’s concept of “fixing” has little to do with rehabilitation in any rational sense.

At this turn of events, the film begins to pick up a tone that verges on the absurd. Though not in a winking-at-the-audience, pandering sense. Ultimately, this movie frames the real horror of abuse by magnifying the scale and outcomes by a factor of a thousand. Though, one could point to multiple news stories about men who’ve trapped women and kept them locked up for weeks, months, or even years of torture, and argue that perhaps it isn’t absurd so much as it’s that rare horror movie that actually portrays abuse as stomach-turning and emotionally sickening. As opposed to most franchise extreme horror, where elaborate violence has become light entertainment.

And this is the point in the film where McKee really starts to gradually ratchet up the tension and discomfort levels. And though Chris Cleek is already revealed as a monster and a sociopath, McKee continues to show more and more about his (and his son’s) depravity to the point where it becomes oppressive. Also, it becomes obvious to the more thoughtful viewer that McKee and Ketchum have a feminist streak a mile wide. Though men in the film do horrible things to the women almost continuously, it’s not done with the titillating (and in some cases, just plain dirty) sensibility of the old sexploitation films of the 1970s. Rather, McKee and Ketchum exponentially exaggerate the disparity of power between men and women in this movie, and therefore the crime and horror that sources from that disparity.

The amazing thing is that throughout most of the film, there’s very little gore and flying buckets of blood. Now, be forewarned that this changes drastically in the film’s last half hour. But up until that point, McKee and Ketchum manage to disturb on the most profound level without resorting to the gross-out shots. This may sound odd with regards to a movie that is so profoundly brutal, but it’s an elegant way to make a horror film. Another elegant touch is that the movie manages, in a few strategically-placed scenes, to be distressingly funny. Distressing because, in most films, humor is used to diffuse tension, while in THE WOMAN the humor makes the film that much darker.

It should be noted that if you see THE WOMAN, you may come under the impression that you’ve missed some plot points. The fact is that THE WOMAN is a sequel to OFFSPRING (2009), a film that was also based on Jack Ketchum’s book of the same name. If you haven’t seen or read OFFSPRING, then you won’t have any problems following THE WOMAN, but there’s a few scenes in THE WOMAN that make a little more sense if you’re aware of the story that preceded it.

THE WOMAN is a film that will polarize both reviewers and rank-and-file audience members alike. I’d argue that THE WOMAN is not suitable for wide, general audiences. The fact is that most moviegoers don’t want to be profoundly disturbed and uncomfortable when they leave the cinema. They want to be entertained. And this is why McKee is the first person to admit that he’s got no future in commercial films with major studios. But if you are the sort of person who likes their horror films to adhere to the literal definition of the word “horror,” then THE WOMAN was made for you.

– END –

© Copyright 2011 by John D. Harvey

2 Comments »

THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU!

Posted in 2011, Action Movies, Cinema Knife Fights, John Harvey Reviews, Michael Arruda Reviews, Science Fiction with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 7, 2011 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU (2011)
By MICHAEL ARRUDA & JOHN HARVEY


(The Scene:  A park bench on a busy city street.  L.L. SOARES, unpredictably dressed in a suit and a trilby hat, sits on the bench, speaking into his cell phone.)

LS:  Don’t worry.  I get it!  Michael Arruda has to start his review of THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU before 7:00 AM, and then I get the weekend off.  No problem, I’m on it.  Now shut your pie hole.  Like I’m going to forget.  Nothing distracts me.  (Shuts off cell phone, just as a gorgeous redhead walks past him.)  Whoa!  Wucka-wucka!  (whistles)  (looks at his watch)  Dammit!  It’s 6:59!

(LS gets up and runs towards bus stop, just as MICHAEL ARRUDA appears on the sidewalk carrying a cup of coffee.  LS runs across the street towards MA, but is distracted by a buxom blonde.  While he’s looking at her, he’s hit by an oncoming bus, which sends him hurtling through the air.  MA looks up and notices camera.)

MA (to camera): Oh, hello.  You’re early.  I’m on my way now to meet L.L. Soares to review this week’s movie, THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU.  Why don’t you come on the bus with me and we’ll chat a bit before I begin the review with L.L?

(MA gets on a bus and notices JOHN HARVEY sitting with an empty seat next to him. John looks out the window at the crowd gathering around a horribly injured L.L. Soares.)

MA:  Hey, John!

JH:  Hey! Have a seat.

MA:  Thanks.  Funny bumping into you.  In a big city like this, what are the odds?

JH:  It’s like it was planned or something.

MA:  Yeah, I’m on my way to meet L.L. to review THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU.  It’s weird though.  I’ve been trying to call him all morning to confirm our meeting, and my cell phone doesn’t seem to be working.

(John looks out the window again toward the accident. Off-screen, we hear LS scream “Cool, I can see my own spine!”)

JH:  Yeah … I have a funny feeling that’s just not going to work out. Call it fate.  Hey, I saw THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU.  Maybe I could review it with you.  (points to the camera)  Since those folks have joined you for the ride, maybe we could review it right now, right here.

MA:  That is an excellent idea.

THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU (2011) is the new science fiction movie starring Matt Damon, in which his character is chased and harassed by a mysterious group of men in suits and hats who are hell-bent on controlling his destiny.  It’s based on a short story by Philip K. Dick called “Adjustment Team.”  I suspect a story like this worked better as a short story than a feature length film, because there are lots of holes and questions in this plot which become more exposed the longer it goes on.

In THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, Matt Damon plays hotshot David Norris, an up and coming politician with a bright future ahead of him.  On the eve of his winning a New York Senate seat, a scandal erupts over a published photo of him mooning his friends at a college reunion party.  As a result, he loses the election.  Before he delivers his concession speech, though, he has a chance meeting with a young dancer Elise (Emily Blunt) who he hits it off with immediately.  She has to run since she had crashed a wedding at the same hotel and was being chased by security, but Norris is so captivated by her that he becomes inspired and goes on to deliver the best speech of his career, setting him up to be the front runner in the next Senate election.

Norris joins a private venture capital firm and temporarily leaves politics.  Unbeknownst to him, one morning on his way to work, a mysterious stranger dressed in a suit and hat named Harry (Anthony Mackie) is instructed to make sure Norris misses his bus and returns home before going to work, but Harry accidentally nods off instead!

(suddenly laughs)  I have to stop here for a second.  What kind of a superior being who has the power to control destinies oversleeps on the job?  Is this a comedy?  I thought this was a ridiculous plot point.

JH: It did seem a bit contrived, but they did establish Harry as an “agent” who was both more sympathetic and job weary compared to his peers. It’s thin, but this film was designed around a human story, rather than careful, believable plotting. But go on.

MA: Because Harry screws up, Norris gets on the bus and has a second chance meeting with the woman of his dreams, Elise.  They hit it off again, and she gives him her phone number.

Norris arrives at work on time, which wasn’t supposed to happen, and he finds everyone there frozen in time and stumbles upon of group of men sticking some kind of probe into his friend and co-worker’s head.  Norris tries to flee, but is quickly caught and confronted by the leader of these men, Richardson (John Slattery).  Richardson decides to level with Norris and tells him who they are, a group of beings who work for someone known as The Chairman who spend their time controlling people’s destinies.

Richardson tells Norris he must never reveal what he knows, or else his brain will be wiped clean.  There is one other problem, Richardson says.   Norris wasn’t supposed to meet Elise again.  Their getting-together is not part of The Chairman’s plan, so they must never see each other again.

As you can imagine, this doesn’t sit well with Norris, and he spends the rest of the movie trying to find Elise, while the Adjustment Bureau does everything in their power to stop him.  Why, you ask?  It seems the folks at the Adjustment Bureau want our buddy Norris to become president one day, and he just isn’t going to be that motivated if he’s home and happy in love with the girl of his dreams, Elise, which doesn’t actually make much sense, since she was the one who inspired him in the first place.

I was wary of THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU because I’d heard there had been many rewrites and delayed release dates, which often spells doom for a movie, but I have to say, in spite of the holes in this movie’s plot, I actually found myself liking this one, which certainly surprised me.

JH: I liked it, too. I didn’t love it, but I liked it. I think that I was a lot more forgiving of the plot holes than you were. Also, keep in mind that this was George Nolfi’s first turn as writer, director, and producer of a single film. Before this, he had writing credits on THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM (2007) and OCEAN’S TWELVE (2004), and a few other films. This was a pretty ambitious project for him.

MA: The main reason I found this movie entertaining was I bought into the love story between Norris and Elise, and so while the threat to their relationship didn’t always make sense, I wanted them to be together, and so I was drawn into their story, and as a result enjoyed it.  I was also interested in just who The Adjustment Bureau were, and I wanted to know more about them.  Here, the movie doesn’t do so well.

JH: I’ll agree with you there. I’ve seen so many movies recently where the love story is very contrived and plastic. In THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, you buy into the chemistry between these two. As far as the Adjustment Bureau itself is concerned, I was afraid that they’d tell me too much about what they’re about. In film, this is the sort of device that works better as an unexplained mystery.

MA: I disagree. I wanted to know more about them.

I mean, I like the IDEA of the Adjustment Bureau, a group of beings who plan everything out and control our destiny so we don’t screw up the world, and some of the things they say in the movie ring true, like when they describe their work and talk about people losing keys, cell phones not working, and how we think it’s chance but it’s really them.  This rings true because this sort of thing happens to us all the time, and often we wonder, is there some unseen force preventing me from doing this?

However, the more you think about the concept of The Adjustment Bureau, the less sense it makes.  First off, it seems too incredibly difficult to pull off, to control all our destinies, and that’s what happens in the movie.  These guys screw up left and right, which to me, is the biggest problem in this movie, and that is, the Adjustment Bureau are a bunch of failures.  They should be called the Failure Bureau.

JH: Eh. I didn’t have a problem with that. Mostly because it’s a blatant urban fantasy/romance film. So, I know going into it that everything in the film is subservient to the characters and the love story. If the filmmaker’s spent a lot of time trying to make the Adjustment Bureau seem logical, then they lose their target audience.  This is a date movie with fantastical elements.  It’s not even loosely science fiction or realism.

MA:  Well, I wasn’t on a date.

(ANOTHER MAN IN SUIT and wearing a fedora is suddenly running alongside bus, screaming and hollering at MA through window)

MAN:  Hey! Did you start the review yet? DID YOU START THE REVIEW!?

(JH stares at the man as he runs.)

MA: Do you hear something?

JH: Ummmm.

(MAN IN SUIT runs smack dab into a Stop sign on street and collapses to ground.)

JH (listening):  No. But on second thought, I have to admit that these Adjustment Bureau agents have the same kind of luck as a drummer in SPINAL TAP.

MA:   And they give Norris way too much slack.  They should never have allowed him to get as far as he did.  When Richardson first comes on the scene, he’s powerful and effective. He seems to have special powers, the ability to make objects move, to freeze time, yet later all these strengths seem to be gone and he’s reduced to a slow-moving dimwit.

A higher-up is called in, Thompson, played with dignified menace by Terence Stamp, but the same thing happens to him.  Damon’s Norris walks all over these guys.  The Adjustment Bureau should have been more of a threat.

JH: It did seem a bit easy for Norris to outsmart these guys. On another subject, what I would have liked to see out of Norris is a moment when he contemplates cutting Elise out of his life entirely due to ego and political ambition. It’s a very predictable love story because you know that he’ll always act out of his total and consuming love for Elise. It would have added a little more texture and humanity to the film if one or both of the characters had moments when they are entirely self-centered.

MA: That’s a good point.  Norris is pretty much being handed the keys to his future.  You’d think he’d contemplate the offer a little more seriously, but it’s a classic case of wanting what he can’t have, Elise.

Unlike you, I wanted to know more about the Adjustment Bureau.  It’s hinted at that they’re angels, and the Chairman is God, but if true, this would be disappointing.  They lack passion and purpose.   I mean, why are they doing these things?  I don’t really understand their point.  If they’re so powerful that they can control our destiny, don’t they have something better they can be doing?  Why do they care so much for us?  Do they love us?  With the exception of Harry, who feels sorry for Norris and is compelled to help him, it doesn’t seem that way.  They’re just a bunch of suits following orders.

It would have been cool had they been humans from the future.  That would have explained their interest in helping the human race, because they’d be preserving their life in the future.  But this isn’t the case.  It’s never clearly explained who they really are.

JH: I completely disagree with you there. If they’d started going into that kind of minutia about the Adjustment Bureau, I would have been disappointed. If it turned out that they’re humans from the future, then I would have been just plain angry. These guys work best as a mystery. As far as I’m concerned, they came to the hairy edge of saying too much.

MA: Really?  I thought they were way underdeveloped.

Another hole in the story occurs when the Team tells Norris that he can never see Elise again, and they say they’re not worried about this happening by chance because without her phone number and last name, it’ll be next to impossible for him to find her again.  I didn’t buy this, because the two met on a bus on their way to work.  Wouldn’t it be feasible to believe that they ride the same bus at the same time every day because they’re going to the same jobs?  Also, he’s a famous politician.  Wouldn’t it be easy for her to find him?  She knows his name, for damn sure!  It’s all over the news!

JH: And if you’d gone to this movie with a date, then so many of these things would matter so much less for you. Because she’d be content and cuddly, and you’d be too busy wondering if she’s happy enough to let you do … you know … “the weird stuff” when you get home.

MA: I’ll die happy if you never bring up “the weird stuff” again. What’s all this date stuff anyway?  Did you have a date?

JH: Of course not. I couldn’t find a date in the candied fruits section at the supermarket. But I may have been a little drunk when I saw this movie. THAT also makes you a bit more forgiving. Anyway, let’s just agree to disagree on how much the plot holes should bother the average viewer.  Let’s talk about other aspects of the film.

MA: Fine.

I thought the acting was decent.  I like Matt Damon a lot, and he’s solid as David Norris.  Damon certainly fares better here than he did in last year’s HEREAFTER.  He’s believable as a young politician, and his feelings for Elise seem real.  I bought the fact that he was desperately in love with her.  He also seemed to have put on some weight here, so when he’s running through the streets fleeing the Bureau baddies, he doesn’t look like super killer Jason Bourne, which is a good thing.

Emily Blunt was okay as Elise, though she was somewhat less effective than Damon.  One thing I didn’t buy was that she was supposed to be this amazing ballet dancer, yet in the scenes we see her dance, she’s anything but amazing.  Blunt played Gwen Conliffe in last year’s THE WOLFMAN.  She was okay in that movie too.  Neither performance blew me away though.

I liked John Slattery a lot as Richardson, the main Adjustment Bureau guy, and he delivered the best performance in the movie.  Slattery has a long and varied resume, and we saw him last year in IRON MAN 2 as Howard Stark.

(Editor’s Note: even MORE people will know Slattery as Roger Sterling from the excellent TV show, MAD MEN)

Anthony Mackie was less effective as the goodie-goodie Bureau guy Harry Mitchell.  I found him a bit too nice for my tastes, and I think the biggest problem I had with his character is I never really understood why he cared for Damon’s character so much.

Terence Stamp as the heavy, Thompson, was sufficiently cold-hearted and powerful, but he would have been much more fun had he actually been successful at being cold-hearted and powerful.

JH: I agree with pretty much everything you have to say about the acting. I’ll add that I think Terrence Stamp was used too little in this film. He brought a level of gravitas to the Adjustment Bureau that seemed to be lacking whenever he walked off camera.

MA: George Nolfi’s direction is okay, as the movie looks fine, but the chase scenes were not very exciting.  They just seemed to be lacking in the suspense department.  Scenes of people running (and there were a lot of these) on their own don’t generate a whole lot of suspense.  THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU doesn’t really work as a suspense thriller, because it’s not that suspenseful nor is it much of a thriller

The script which director Nolfi also wrote works best when you don’t think about it too much.

JH: I thought of this movie as INCEPTION-lite with a love story. It’s a lot more accessible to a wider audience. I think a valid criticism of this film is that it attempts to be a jack of all trades, but master of none. It’s good in many respects, but spectacular at nothing.

MA: I liked the two main characters enough to care about what happened to them, and so when these weirdos in suits and hats start playing around with their future, I wanted them to stop, and I wanted the two lovers to get away from them.

The problem isn’t with the two lovers.  They’re fine.  It’s with the Adjustment Bureau.  They’re an interesting lot, but too little is revealed about them and their motives, and once the going gets rough, they don’t get going.  They fail miserably, which is a huge disappointment.

There are lots of scenes where Damon is fleeing from them, running like hell, and they’re in pursuit—walking.  It’s like, will you hurry up?  He’s friggin getting away!

It’s like Darth Vader finally confronting Luke Skywalker but suddenly realizing he’d forgotten his light saber.  Oops.  Why did I pay all this money to watch this character if he can’t even remember to bring his light saber? Same here.  These guys can’t control one politician and a ballerina? What the hell business do they have then trying to run the world!  Scram!

JH: Really? You’re comparing and contrasting THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU with RETURN OF THE JEDI? You own a set of Captain Kirk pajamas, don’t you?

MA: Damn!  How did you know?

Anyway, I liked this one, and in spite of the weak villains and less than tight story, I found the plight of the desperate lovers compelling and entertaining, enough for me to recommend this movie.  I give THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU three knives.

JH:  For the most part, we agree. We diverge mostly on believability (or rather, the level required to enjoy the film) and exposition regarding the film’s fantastical elements. So, I’m giving it 3.5 knives.

(The bus comes to a halt at the same stop where they started. Michael and John have been on the bus for the whole route)

MA:  Hey, we’re back where we started. I wonder if we’ll find L.L. hanging around? I’m starting to worry about him.

(John looks out the window to see the same crowd gathered around LS’s prone and bloody body.)

JH:  You know, I don’t think that’s in the plan.

LS (gets up, brushing himself off): I’m fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just a little bloody, is all.

(NICOLAS CAGE pulls up in a Dodge Charger and LS gets in on the passenger side.)

MA: I can’t believe he totally blew off this review. (Shakes head as he and JH get off at their stop).

LS (off-screen): Thanks for reviewing this one for me guys. Since I’m a big Philip K. Dick fan, and I hate Matt Damon, I’m sure I would have hated it.

(Dodge Charger squeals as it roars off. MA and JH didn’t even hear him)

JH: Yeah, I suspect he got hit by something unexpected. It’s a funny old world.

MA: I guess. You want to grab a beer.

JH:  Sure. It’s booze-o’clock somewhere.

(They each put on fedoras and head towards a bar.)

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda & John D. Harvey (with a smidgen of input from L.L. Soares)

.

Michael Arruda gave THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU – three knives

John Harvey gave THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU - three and a half knives

Leave A Comment »

UNKNOWN

Posted in 2011, Action Movies, Hitchcockian Thrillers, John Harvey Reviews with tags , , , , , , , , , on February 22, 2011 by knifefighter

Liam Neeson Gives Us “Schindler’s Fist” in UNKNOWN
Movie review by John Harvey

With Harrison Ford mellowing and taking more roles in dramas and comedies, action/thriller fans who like their heroes with a little gray hair should be relieved to see Liam Neeson‘s career shift toward films like TAKEN (2008) and now UNKNOWN.

And Neeson is perfect for these roles. Though he clocks in at 58 years-old, his physical stature (6’5” and a former boxer), his rugged good looks, and obvious acting chops make him believable in action roles. Unlike, say, Bruce Willis who these days requires that you squint and think of John McClane if you want to believe he can fall down a flight of stairs without breaking a hip.

In UNKNOWN, Neeson plays Dr. Martin Harris, a scientist who arrives in Berlin with his age-inappropriate wife, Elizabeth (MAD MEN‘s January Jones), to speak at a major biotech conference. Upon arriving at their hotel, Harris realizes that his briefcase (containing his passport) has been left behind at the airport. So, he jumps in a cab, almost dies in a random car accident, and spends the next four days hospitalized in a coma. When he wakes up, he finds that his wife doesn’t recognize him and another man (Aidan Quinn) has assumed his identity. Baffled and distraught, Harris must figure out why this is happening to him, while alone in a foreign country.

Compared to TAKEN, this film is driven more by twists-and-turns and suspense rather than the visceral and linear action. While it’s tempting to compare UNKNOWN to the various Jason Bourne movies starring Matt Damon, this film leans more toward an Alfred Hitchcock aesthetic. It’s doesn’t always get that aesthetic right, but it succeeds more than it fails.

When dealing with this sort of premise, you have to forgive more than a few improbabilities and impossibilities. Generally, you’ll increase your level of forgiveness proportional to how much fun you have watching the film. Spanish director Jaume Collet-Serra has done thrillers before (ORPHAN (2009) and HOUSE OF WAX (2005)), and provides just enough action and suspense to let the average viewer sit back and enjoy the ride. His directing style leans toward crisp and uncomplicated, which results in above-par car chases where you can actually follow what’s happening and brutal, believable fight scenes.

Written by Oliver Butcher and Stephen Cornwall (the latter being thriller author John le Carré’s son) and adapted from French author Didier Van Cauwelaert’s novel “Out of My Head,” the story and plotting for UNKNOWN is good, but perhaps features a few too many twists, dodges, and red herrings. The biggest trap with movies like this is that the more you paint the protagonist into a corner, the more you expect from the ending. And, more often than not, the more likely you are to be disappointed by that ending. The good news is that while UNKNOWN‘s ending isn’t uber-fantastic, it’s also not that bad. As far as story goes, perhaps the biggest flaw in UNKNOWN is that Dr. Harris takes a little too long to shift into “hero mode” where he’s taking charge rather than allowing himself to be chased around.

From an acting perspective, the biggest flaw in UNKNOWN is January Jones as Harris’ wife. One suspects that she was shooting for an ice queen vibe (à la similar roles in various Hitchcock films), but what she actually provides is a kind of vacuous, high-functioning Stepford wife. Thankfully, all the other performances here are spot-on. Diane Kruger puts in a great performance as Gina, a Bosnian cab driver who becomes intertwined in Harris’ fate. Also, the scene-stealer in UNKNOWN is Bruno Ganz (see author’s note 1), who portrays a former STASI agent turned private investigator whose attention to detail helps to unravel Harris’ mess. And Frank Langella comes in near the film’s end to effortlessly increase the menace factor.

Does UNKNOWN have its flaws? Sure. It’s not air-tight, but still manages to do more right than wrong. This is a fun movie that makes you both pay attention and care about the characters. One hopes that Neeson will put in a few more performances like this before he moves on to other things.

- END –

© Copyright 2011 by John D. Harvey

UNKNOWN
Directed By: Jaume Collet-Serra
Written By: Oliver Butcher and Stephen Cornwall
Starring: Liam Neeson, January Jones, Diane Kruger, Aidan Quinn, Bruno Ganz, Frank Langella.
Run Time: 113 minutes
Rating: PG-13

AUTHOR’S NOTE: Not familiar with Bruno Ganz? Oddly, you’ve probably seen him act many times if you’ve watched any of the popular “Hitler Finds Out…” meme’s on YouTube, where Ganz portrays Hitler in the German-language film DOWNFALL (2004), but with fans splicing in their own comedic subtitles to Hitler’s meltdown toward the end of the movie. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/downfall-hitler-meme

EDITOR’S NOTE: If Ganz seems familiar, it may also be because you’ve seen him in one of his 99 film roles, including such classics as Win Wenders’ THE AMERICAN FRIEND (1977), THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL (1978), Werner Herzog’s version of NOSFERATU THE VAMPYRE (1979) and Wenders’ art-house hit, WINGS OF DESIRE (1987). ~LLS

3 Comments »

THE GREEN HORNET

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Action Movies, John Harvey Reviews, Martial Arts, Superheroes with tags , , , , , , , on January 17, 2011 by knifefighter

The Green Hornet: A Big Mess in All Three Dimensions
by John Harvey


Not all superheroes are created equal. That’s the real charm behind superhero flicks. No matter what your personality might be, there’s a caped-crusader for you. Be it a dark anti-hero (Batman) or an firm-jawed do-gooder (Superman), you’ll find your appropriate poison somewhere within this genre.

Unfortunately, THE GREEN HORNET features a shallow, lazy, self-centered slacker who in a fit of spastic narcissism decides to fight crime. So, if you’re a annoying, over-privileged jerk with the attention span of a moth at a light bulb, then this movie is made especially for you.

This cinematic attempt to capture a 75-year-old comic book, radio serial, and television series falls woefully short of its potential. French director Michel Gondry, who previously directed ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (2004) and THE SCIENCE OF SLEEP (2006), has a talent for whimsy and absurdity. In THE GREEN HORNET, his directing style comes off as a ragged, uneven mess.

The only thing more disappointing than Gondry’s direction is Seth Rogen’s performance as Britt Reid (aka the Green Hornet). I can get behind the concept of an unlikely superhero. That said, Rogen gives us an Apatow-inspired, man-child stoner version of Britt Reid whose only believable act of heroism would be washing his hands after taking a whiz.

In a script (unfortunately) written by Rogen and Evan Goldberg, party animal Britt Reid inherits massive wealth and a Los Angeles daily newspaper when his father (Tom Wilkinson) dies suddenly. Reid then connects with his father’s car mechanic, Kato (Jay Chou), who turns out to be a superhuman martial artist and mechanical genius. Once they’ve become tired of moaning and doing nothing, they decide to fight crime. No really … that’s how it happens.

Their primary foe is Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz), who is supposed to be a menacing crime boss, but comes off as incoherently buffoonish (imagine the 1998 DIE HARD‘s Hans Gruber on nitrous oxide). God love him, you can actually see Waltz struggling to wring a laugh out of a part devoid of workable humor. I loved him in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS (2009). In THE GREEN HORNET, he’s collecting a paycheck.

Also spackled into this movie for no good reason is Cameron Diaz as Reid’s secretary, Lenore Case. Lenore primarily functions as a female Wikipedia entry on criminology whenever our amateur superheroes require a big steamy load of exposition. She’s also the predictable love interest that drives a wedge between Britt Reid and Kato, thus kicking off a bromance sub-plot that made me sigh out loud and often.

In between all of that cinematic flotsam and jetsam, Reid and Kato bumble through a few action sequences that occasionally verge on nifty, but that’s it.  This is because THE GREEN HORNET is less about anything remotely super-heroic and more about too-cool-for-school characters delivering sophomoric one-liners, childish insults, and groin kicks. Gondry needs to watch a few good superhero movies before he tries to direct another one. Rogen needs to separate himself from the role of “clueless slacker schlub,” because at this point it’s getting tedious.

And, by the way, the only thing offered by making this movie in 3D was having to wear uncomfortable glasses.

– END –

© Copyright 2011 by John D. Harvey

THE GREEN HORNET
Directed By: Michel Gondry
Written By: Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, based on George W. Trendle’s radio series
Starring: Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Christoph Waltz, Cameron Diaz
Run Time: 119 minutes
Rating: PG-13 for sequences of violent action, language, sensuality, and drug content.

5 Comments »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers