Archive for liam neeson

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 »

CKF COMING ATTRACTIONS for October 2012

Posted in 2012, 3-D, Action Movies, Based on a Video Game, Coming Attractions, Demons, Ghosts!, Horror with tags , , , , , , on October 5, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT – COMING ATTRACTIONS:
OCTOBER 2012
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(The Scene:  Halloween Night.  A residential street filled with lots of little trick-or-treaters and their parents.  Among them walk two big trick-or-treaters, MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES, who are not in costume.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I just love Halloween.  It’s fun seeing all the trick-or-treaters.

L.L. SOARES:  I guess.  I’d rather be home answering the door, scaring all the trick-or-treaters.

MA:  No can do.  We’re going to a Halloween party this year.  Besides, you don’t have to be home to scare the little tykes.  You can do that right here on the street.

LS:  Good idea.  I might even get some of their candy.

MA:  You wouldn’t stoop that low, would you?  Stealing Halloween candy from trick-or-treaters?

LS:  Of course not!  But when they drop their bags onto the street as they flee in terror, I can’t just leave it on the ground.  That would be littering! (laughs).

(A group of trick-or-treaters approach.  LS growls at them, but they don’t run away.)

BOY DRESSED AS VAMPIRE:  Cool, mask, mister!

LS:  Mask?  I’m not wearing a mask!

GIRL DRESSED AS PRINCESS:  I like your ghoul mask.

LS:  I’m not wearing a mask!  This is my real face!

MA:  Scary, isn’t he?

LS:  Boo!

(Kids run away screaming.)

LS:  That’s more like it.  Although they didn’t leave any candy behind.

MA:  Let’s get to our first movie.  Up first this October is not a horror movie, but an actioner, the Liam Neeson sequel TAKEN 2 (2012) opening on October 5.  I’ve become a big Neeson fan of late, so I’m disappointed that I have to miss this one.

LS:  Yep, our very own John Harvey will be reviewing this one, since he’s our go-to-guy for action movies. I actually did see TAKEN, and I liked it, but I’m not all that eager to see the sequel, so I’m kind of relieved that John stepped in.

Our newest staff member, Sheri White, will be reviewing a movie this weekend, as well: Tim Burton’s FRANKENWEENIE.

MA:  I’m not disappointed I’m missing FRANKENWEENIE.

On October 12, we will be reviewing a horror movie, which is appropriate for the month of Halloween, and it’s also the first of three in a row, which is pretty cool, since it seems there haven’t been many horror movies on the big screen of late.  Anyway, on October 12 we’ll be seeing SINISTER (2012), a horror flick by the same people—specifically the same producers— who brought you INSIDIOUS (2010), a film I liked.

This one looks good too, although one problem I do have is the trailer is pretty extensive and it seems as if they give a lot of the plot away.  I’m not sure what’s left in terms of surprises.

It stars Ethan Hawke, who was decent in the vampire flick DAYBREAKERS (2009).

It’s written and directed by Scott Derrickson, who wrote and directed THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE (2005), an OK exorcism movie that was nothing to write home about.

LS:  Yeah, I have no idea what to expect with SINISTER. I’m not a big Ethan Hawke fan, but this one looks like it might have potential. I hope it’s at least as good as INSIDIOUS, which a lot of people really seemed to like.

Then on October 19, we’ll be reviewing PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 4. I know it’s a sequel, but I always have fun at these movies. They’re well made for what they are—and the audiences are always very interactive, in a way that actually enhances your enjoyment of the movie. I’m definitely one of these people who hate it when people talk or make noise during a movie, but with the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY series, it’s all part of the experience.

MA:  I have to agree.  I’m looking forward to this one too, because the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY movies have definitely grown on me.  They’re scary, and seeing them in a packed theater with lots of people screaming and yelling out jokes to ease the tension is a lot of fun.

Originally, I didn’t enjoy them as much, since I didn’t feel their stories were all that great.  I still feel the same way, but I can’t deny that the experience of seeing them in a packed theater is a lot of fun.

LS: If you rent one of the PARANOMRAL ACTIVITY movies and watch it at home, there is no way you’re going to fully understand what’s so good about them. These movies are best experienced in a movie theater.

MA: And we finish the month with a review of SILENT HILL: REVELATIONS (2012).  It’s a sequel to SILENT HILL (2006), a film I didn’t like.  I saw it on DVD and really struggled to get through it.  I found it dull and confusing.
That being said, the trailer for this movie looks pretty good, so perhaps this will be a case where the sequel is better than the original.  We’ll see.

It’s written and directed by Michael J. Bassett, and he wasn’t involved in the previous movie, so the fact that it’s someone completely different at the helm this time bodes well for the production.

Our old friend Malcolm McDowell is in it, and hopefully he’ll be better here than he was in the Rob Zombie HALLOWEEN movies.  And it’s in 3D.  Nuff said about that!

LS:  I actually thought the first SILENT HILL was one of the better video game-based movies I’ve seen. Since that was made back in 2006, I figured it didn’t do very well and there wouldn’t be another one. It’s strange that it took them six years to make a sequel, but you’re right, it looks like it might be good. I’m looking forward to it.

MA:  So, that takes care of October.  At least we’ve got some horror movies to look forward to.  That’s something.  And none of them have the word “Saw” in the title.

LS:  I’m looking forward to the day when we can add the words RESIDENT EVIL to that list of franchises that decided to stop making movies.

MA:  Hey, we’ve reached the party.  Let’s put our masks on.

(MA & LS put on masks of SISKEL & EBERT.)

LS:  I refuse to say “Two thumbs up!”  Real men use knives!

MA:  I agree!  Well, at least this way people will recognize us as film critics!

(They enter the party.  Someone shouts, “Hey, look, it’s ABBOTT AND COSTELLO!”)

—END—

Leave A Comment »

BATTLESHIP (2012)

Posted in 2012, Aliens, Based on a Board Game, Cinema Knife Fights, Outer Space with tags , , , , , , , , on May 21, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: BATTLESHIP (2012)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE: A beach. On the ocean in the distance, a massive battleship is battling an even more massive alien spaceship. On the beach, MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES sit across from each other on beach chairs, with a table between them, playing the board game BATTLESHIP. They seem oblivious to the commotion on the sea behind them.)

MA:  A-1.

LS:  Steak Sauce!

MA:  This isn’t a quiz!  A-1.

LS:  Miss.

MA:  Miss?  Where the hell are your ships?  I haven’t hit one yet!  Are you cheating?

LS:  I never cheat!  You’re just not very good at this game.

MA: What’s to be good at?  You just call out letters and numbers, and eventually you’ll hit some ships.

LS:  That’s why you’re losing. You don’t have any strategy.

MA:  Really?  What’s your strategy?

LS:  I hide my ships well.

MA:  Yeah, like off the board!  (There is a massive explosion on the ocean, and for a moment MA & LS turn their attention to the sea battle.)

LS:  Those guys are still going at it.

MA: It gets boring after a while, doesn’t it?  Kinda like this week’s movie.

LS:  I take it you didn’t like it?

MA:  No.

LS:  Care to tell us about it?

MA:  Not really, but since I’m losing this game, anyway, I might as well.

Today we’re reviewing BATTLESHIP (2012), the new movie based on the Hasbro game BATTLESHIP. There’s been a lot of joking about this one for months now, since its plot—a story about the navy battling aliens from outer space—has nothing to do with the board game.

LS:  As you folks can see, there are just battleships on this board. No space ships.

MA:  Not yet anyway. I kept thinking during the movie that the marketing department will come out with a new version of the game which will include alien spaceships.

LS:  That’s not so far-fetched. If this movie is a hit, I bet that new version of the game will be coming out next week!

MA: All joking aside, I had hoped that this one wouldn’t be bad. After all, it’s about battleships battling alien space ships. How bad can it be?  Very bad, as it turns out. But I’ll get to that in a moment, maybe even in half a moment, since the plot synopsis isn’t going to take long.

BATTLESHIP is about Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch), a young man with no direction, unlike his older brother Stone (Alexander Skarsgard) who is very responsible and in the Navy and looks out for his younger brother. When Alex tries to impress a sexy woman at a bar, in a comedic sequence that is embarrassingly awkward and out of place, he ends up afoul of the law and hits rock bottom. Stone put his foot down and tells Alex—in order to pull his life together—he has to join the Navy.

LS (shouting): Chicken Burrito!

MA: That’s not funny.

LS: I dunno, I saw Liam Neeson crack a smile at it in this movie.

MA: AAARGH!

(Suddenly, a loud Disco beat can be heard getting louder, and someone is chanting “The Navy, The Navy, The Navy.” Suddenly, the VILLAGE PEOPLE appear on the beach, in costume and dancing around on the sand)

VILLAGE PEOPLE: IN THE NAVY!

YES, YOU CAN SAIL THE SEVEN SEAS!

IN THE NAVY!

MA: No, no, no! Reviewing this movie is bad enough. I will not be subjected to disco music as well!

LS: I kinda like it.

MA: Go away! Now! All of you!

(The VILLAGE PEOPLE look dejected as they stop singing and dancing and walk away)

LS: Spoil sport.

MA: We have a review to do. We don’t have time for that stuff. Anyway, where was I?

Of course, it turns out that the woman in the bar, Samantha Shane (Brooklyn Decker) is the daughter of Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson)… who is, of course, a big wig in The Navy…

(The VILLAGE PEOPLE come back, singing and dancing)

VILLAGE PEOPLE: IN THE NAVY!

YES, YOU CAN PUT YOUR MIND AT EASE!

IN THE NAVY!

MA: No, no! Go away! Go away!

(The VILLAGE PEOPLE skulk off)

MA:   Samantha, of course, immediately falls madly in love with Alex—why?  I don’t know—and they want to get married, but first he has to ask permission from her father, the hard-assed Admiral. Again, we have to suffer through some awkward cliché comedic moments.

Meanwhile, scientists have built a communication network to communicate with other earth-like planets in the universe. Suddenly, the signal is answered as NASA tracks a group of ships descending towards Earth. These ships get here in a few minutes. They must have some pretty fast ships!

As you already know, ships land, aliens emerge with more fighting machines, and it’s up to the Navy to protect the Earth. More specifically, it’s up to Lieutenant Alex Hopper to prove that he really is a good officer, because it’s his ship that has to battle it out with the aliens, and it’s Alex who suddenly finds himself in command. Well, that’s believable!

Unfortunately, the good Admiral Shane and the rest of the Navy are blocked from the action by a gigantic wall of energy that prevents them from getting through to the battle, which means Liam Neeson disappears for the bulk of this movie.

LS: Lucky for him! I bet that was in his contract! “I’ll appear in this huge piece of dog crap if you give me lots of money and I get to disappear for most of the movie!”

MA: Not only does Alex get to save the world, but he has to worry about his girlfriend, because Samantha is also in harm’s way, in another dull clichéd storyline that I won’t even get into here.

LS: Yeah, it is pretty dull. I didn’t care about her storyline at all. But I guess I did kind of like Gregory D. Gadson as Lieutenant Colonel Mick Canales, who appears in her part of the movie. Gadson was a real-life soldier and a double amputee. His role isn’t very well written and he’s not a great actor, but the man does have charisma on a movie screen. I just wish they’d done something more interesting with him

MA: So, how does it all end?  Let’s put it this way: “Aliens from outer space, we hardly knew ye!”

There is so much wrong with this movie, I don’t know where to start. I hated this movie. I was bored within the first ten minutes, and this is a two hour and ten minute movie. It was a long night at the theater.

By far, the worst part is the writing. It’s so obvious that the screenplay by Erich Hoeber and Jon Hoeber was thrown together for the sole purpose of marketing a movie based on the game BATTLESHIP. It’s not like they had a real story to tell and set out to tell it. They had a script to write based on a game. There’s a HUGE difference. There’s nothing stimulating or moving about this story. It doesn’t connect at any level. It’s an insult to our intelligence as moviegoers.

This movie is so full of clichés it’s nauseating. The loser hero who must make good, who has to prove to his potential father–in-law that he’s good enough for his daughter, who has to set aside all his doubts and prove that he can lead. There’s more, but why go on?

I didn’t like any of the characters. The performances for the most part are fine, but everyone’s stuck in this dreadful story, and so none of the players come close to saving this one. The only guy who could have saved this movie is Liam Neeson, but his character is off-screen for the bulk of the action. Had this film pitted Neeson’s Admiral against the aliens, I’m sure I would have liked it better. It would have at least given me a character to root for.

LS: I agree. Neeson as the movie’s hero would have probably improved things a lot.

MA: Taylor Kitsch plays Alex Hopper. Kitsch, as you might remember, played John Carter in JOHN CARTER (2012). I didn’t like him in that movie much, and I didn’t really like him here, either. A big part of the problem is Kitsch comes off as so laid back, as if he should be carrying a surfboard on a beach like this. I didn’t really buy him as a Navy officer.

LS: See, this is where I start to disagree with you. I like Kitsch a lot. He’s no Liam Neeson—-.

MA:  I’ll say!  He’s more like Ashton Kutcher.  Ugh!

LS:  NO FRIGGIN WAY!  Aside from one awful performance in X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (2009), where he adopted a horrendous Cajun accent to play Remy LeBeau (aka Gambit), in a role he was completely miscast for, I’m actually a big fan of Kitsch. I was a big fan of his long-running TV show, FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHT (2006 – 2011), where he played high school football star Tim Riggins. And I still say that JOHN CARTER was one of the best movies of this year so far. I was really bummed out when Disney proclaimed the movie a flop and even fired a few executives who had greenlit it. I think the movie is terrific and I bet it goes on to become a full-fledged cult movie.

In BATTLESHIP, however, I just felt sorry for him. The guy has charisma, and can actually carry a movie, but this is a completely thankless role. I just hope that if TRANSFORMERS—er, I mean, BATTLESHIP—is a flop, Kitsch won’t get part of the blame again, because he does the best he can with a completely horrible script.

MA:   I dunno.  I didn’t like JOHN CARTER all that much, and I certainly didn’t like BATTLESHIP, so as far as I’m concerned, in recent movies, the guy’s 0 for 2.

LS:  What do you know?  I really hope he gets a chance to redeem himself in the upcoming Oliver Stone movie, SAVAGES.

MA: Okay, that one looks good, so maybe he’ll win me over yet.

Brooklyn Decker is beautiful as Samantha Shane, and she’s okay for the most part, but again, she’s stuck in a role that we’ve seen countless times before. The rest of the cast is the same. No one is able to lift this movie to a better place.

LS: That’s true. I actually liked a lot of people in this cast, but nobody could have saved this flounder. By the way, Brooklyn Decker was okay, but I wasn’t sure what the fuss was all about. She’s a model-turned-actress, and she’s not horrible here. And she is pretty. But she’s no Megan Fox!

MA: She’s pretty close.

LS:  Not really.

MA:  Yeah, I thought she was pretty hot.

LS: She’s hot, but she’s no Megan Fox. And I didn’t care all that much for her character. I was much more interested in singer Rihanna as Petty Officer Cora “Weps” Raikes. She was one tough cookie, and she fought right alongside the men. Sure, she her role was a complete cliché, just like every other role here, but the lady has more charisma onscreen than Decker.

MA:  Nah!  She kinda annoyed me.  I thought she was a Michelle Rodriguez wannabe.

LS:  Hey, I like Michelle Rodriguez, too!

I also liked Alexander Skarsgard as Alex’s older brother, Stone Hopper. Actually, “liked” is the wrong word, since I don’t think his character amounted to much, either. More like it was cool to see Skarsgard in this movie, even if he was just filling space. Fans of the HBO series TRUE BLOOD will recognize Skarsgard as the vampire Eric Northman. He is one of the best things on TRUE BLOOD, but his movie career hasn’t been too impressive so far. Roles in that awful remake of STRAW DOGS (2011) and this pile of dog crap don’t help. But it’s still good to see him. Someone give this man a decent movie role already!

Fans of Taylor Kitsch’s TV show, FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS, will also be happy to see Kitsch reunited with another actor from that show, Jesse Plemmons, who played Landry Clarke on FNL. Here he plays “Boatswain Mate Seaman Jimmy “Ordy” Ord.” Who the hell came up with these names?? Plemmons is good at playing comic relief-type characters, and he does what he can here with, once again, an underwritten character. There sure are a lot of those in this movie!

MA: Director Peter Berg includes lots of CGI battle scenes, but why was I bored throughout?  Because I’ve seen scenes like this a hundred times before—take your pick, from WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005) to BATTLE L.A. (2011).

LS: I actually like Peter Berg, too. He started out as an actor on the TV series CHICAGO HOPE (1995 – 1999), and then went on to direct the funny but flawed VERY BAD THINGS (1998). Since then, he’s directed more high-profile movies like FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS (2004) —he was also the Executive Producer of the TV series version, see a pattern here? —THE KINGDOM (2007) and HANCOCK (2008). Needless to say, not everything he’s done has been great, but I like him, and I think this movie was a waste of his talents.

But you’re right; BATTLESHIP is an awful lot like BATTLE: LOS ANGELES. There’s nothing new here at all.

MA: Yep, BATTLESHIP offers nothing new.

This one plays like a Roland Emmerich movie, but worse!  His stories are actually better! What this movie really reminded me of was the dreadful G.I. JOE: RISE OF THE COBRA (2009) movie, another film based on a toy. That was another movie with tons of action and adventure, with a plot thrown in as an afterthought. Please, stop making movies based on games and toys!!  They’re horrible!  Unless, of course, you actually have a decent story to tell.

And how about those aliens?  We know nothing about them. They’ve come here to invade, obviously. I guess so, anyway. They just land and start shooting at us. But maybe they’re not invading. Maybe they just want us to stop playing our music so loud. Or perhaps they worship chickens on their planet and are horrified at the way we treat the fowls. I don’t know, because the movie doesn’t tell us!!  Even the alien ships are disappointing, as they look like TRANSFORMERS.

LS: This isn’t TRANSFORMERS, it’s BATTLESHIP!

MA: I know that. I was making a comparison.

LS: Oh…I don’t know. I didn’t think the aliens in BATTLESHIP were all that amazing, but I didn’t completely hate them, either. With their weird, oversized hands and human-like faces, I thought they were at least interesting to look at.

MA:  For about ten seconds, yeah, but as soon as it became apparent that they weren’t actually going to do anything, I lost interest.

LS:  But the ships, yeah. These aliens definitely went to their local TRANSFORMERS dealership.

MA: BATTLESHIP is so fake, phony, forced and contrived, it’s painful. It also has a cookie-cutter ending that will amaze you in its simplicity. If we can dispose of bad-ass aliens this easily, no one’s ever going to invade us again!

LS: Yep, I have to agree. The ending is sappy as hell and completely lame.

MA: BATTLESHIP is a horrible movie. Stay away from this one so the powers that be will get the hint that turning board games into movies is a bad idea.

I give it 0 knives.

LS: Wow, you really hated this one. I can’t say I blame you. It’s dumb, the script is awful, there are big chunks that are boring, the CGI seems like a retread of TRANSFORMERS, and the entire concept of a movie based on a board game is kind of insulting to people plunking down ten bucks for a movie ticket.

But I didn’t hate it as much as you did. Mainly, because there were a few people in the cast who I liked, who kept me from nodding off completely. And I still say Taylor Kitsch has a lot of potential to become a big movie star. He’s just had awful luck so far. JOHN CARTER was a great movie that got a bad rap. And BATTLESHIP is just plain bad.

For the cast alone, I’ve got to give this one ~ one and a half knives.

But that’s not to say I like this movie at all, or that I’m recommending that anyone go see it. If you want to see this thing, wait until it comes out on DVD and rent it. Like Michael said, we do not want to encourage Hollywood to keep making bad movies based on board games! Hasbro, go back to the toy store!

You know what really makes me angry? I reviewed the trailer for this movie back in August 2011 in my TRASHING TRAILERS column, and even back then I could see it was a complete dog. I’m angry that I had to actually sit through this movie. I could have reviewed it based on the trailer alone and saved myself ten bucks and over 2 hours of my life!

MA: There you have it, folks. It looks like this BATTLESHIP is dead in the water.

LS: You know my other big problem with this movie? When I saw it, there was a commercial for The Navy beforehand, and I swear, there were times in BATTLESHIP when I couldn’t tell the difference. I thought I was watching the commercial all over again. And I’m sorry, THAT’S NOT ENTERTAINMENT!

MA:  You’re right.  This movie was a lot like a bad commercial, one that unfortunately lasted 2 hours and 10 minutes!  (LS and MA both groan really loud)

(VOICE from off-screen shouts)

VOICE: What did you say it was a commercial for?

LS: The Navy!

(The VILLAGE PEOPLE suddenly reappear on the beach, singing and dancing to a loud disco beat)

MA: Oh my God, not this again!! I’m getting out of here.

LS: Suit yourself. (He gets up and dances along with them)

THE END

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives BATTLESHIP~ ZERO knives!

LL Soares gives BATTLESHIP ~ ONE AND A HALF knives!

Leave A Comment »

Quick Cuts: NICOLAS CAGE VS. LIAM NEESON

Posted in "So Bad They're Good" Movies, 2012, Action Movies, Campy Movies, Just Plain Fun, Liam Neeson Movies, Nicolas Cage Movies, Quick Cuts, Suspense, Thrillers with tags , , , , , , on February 17, 2012 by knifefighter

QUICK CUTS:   NICHOLAS CAGE OR LIAM NEESON?
Featuring a Panel of Cinema Knife Fighters

#  #

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Today on QUICK CUTS we ask our panel of Cinema Knife Fighters, “If you had to choose between Nicholas Cage or Liam Neeson, which one would you rather see in a movie?”

We pose this question because both these guys have carved out niches for themselves of late, starring in a string of successful action movies. And because they both make a ton of movies, they each have had their share of misfires.

 

CHALLENGER # 1 – NICOLAS CAGE

 

So, Cage or Neeson?  Does anyone have an opinion on this?

GARRETT COOK:  Hell yes, I have an opinion on this!

L.L. SOARES:  I should hope so!  You’re on the flippin panel!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  We might as well start this one off with a bang.

L.L. SOARES:  So, what’s your opinion?

GARRETT COOK:  With the exception of his roles in DRIVE ANGRY (2011) and KICK-ASS (2010) Nicholas Cage makes me want to bite him until he dies every time he plagues my screen with this vomity acting, slow talking, and stupid, stupid face.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Wow, I guess you do have an opinion! Is “vomity” even a word?

GARRETT COOK:  You know what I mean.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I certainly do. And I can’t say I disagree with you.

L.L. SOARES:  Well, I disagree, but I’ll wait a bit before I prove you wrong.

MARK OSNPAUGH:  Ouch!

GARRETT COOK:  Liam Neeson is a street-smart man-god, who kills white slavers and was the best character in GANGS OF NEW YORK (2002). I forgive him for his involvement in STAR WARS EPISODE I – THE PHANTOM MENACE (1999).

Neeson over Cage.

L.L. SOARES: Actually, Daniel-Day Lewis was the best thing in GANGS OF NEW YORK. In fact, I thought he was the only thing memorable about that movie.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  My turn.

While I love the goofball eccentricity Cage brings to his roles, I find myself thanking God every day he was not Superman…

(The panel rises in unison and cheers, except for L.L. SOARES, who boos)

L.L. SOARES: Cage would have made an excellent Superman!

MARK ONSPAUGH: I’ll pretend you didn’t say that. Also, if the there was a chance to see either one in a kick-ass movie, then I would go with Neeson—his voice is awesome (witness the voice-overs for Star Wars: The Old Republic commercials) and he brings a certain gravitas to his serious roles… Was he not a major bad-ass in TAKEN (2008)? And let’s not forget he was DARKMAN (1990), Gawain in EXCALIBUR (1981), Kegan in KRULL (1983), ROB ROY (1995), Zeus in CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010)… AND freaking Ras Al-Ghul in the Nolan Batman trilogy…

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  While I liked him as DARKMAN, I can’t say I was ever too excited by those other roles.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Plus, he’s proved he can have fun in popcorn fare like THE A-TEAM (2010). I don’t know if it’s his training or his tragedy (probably both), but I “buy” Neeson much more than Cage… Did I mention he’s Aslan in NARNIA?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Nope, and I wish you hadn’t!

CHALLENGER # 2 - LIAM NEESON

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Now, the real question—how about the two together as in-laws?

L.L. SOARES:  Well, for the record, I have to admit, I love them both.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Hmm, maybe we should be considering Cage, Neeson, and Soares as in-laws?

L.L. SOARES:  Huh?  Wait, how many in-laws can a person have?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  All three of you could be brothers-in-law.

L.L. SOARES:  Too confusing.  Let me just make my points.

When Cage brings his over-the-top lunacy to a movie, it can turn a mediocre film into a campy treat. But there was a time when he was a serious actor. Back when he won the Oscar for LEAVING LAS VEGAS (1995), and had roles in WILD AT HEART (1990) and KISS OF DEATH (1995).

But by the time he started appearing in action fare like THE ROCK (1996) and CON-AIR (1997), he had already become a parody of himself. Then something weird happened. He took that parody version of himself and pushed it all the way through to the other side.

Now in stuff like BAD LIETUENANT: PORT OF CALL NEW ORLEANS (2009), and DRIVE ANGRY (2011), he’s turned his eccentricities into an art form.

GARRETT COOK:  Yeah, bad art!

L.L. SOARES:  Even though I look forward to most movies Cage is in, I won’t see everything. I still haven’t seen his NATIONAL TREASURE movies, nor do I plan to.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Smart move. You’re not missing much.

L.L. SOARES:  I can also live without seeing FAMILY MAN (2000) and THE SORCERER’S APPRENTICE (2010). I just have no desire to see Cage in any kind of “family” film.

Neeson is the more serious of the two, but even he has had his low points. As Garrett mentioned, he was Qui-Gon Jinn in STAR WARS EPISODE 1 – THE PHANTOM MENACE, a character who just did nothing for me. And he was a ho-hum Zeus in the awful CLASH OF THE TITANS remake. But even in bad movies and less than stellar roles, he seems to rise above the crap and maintain his dignity. There is an air of authority and gravitas that Neeson brings to every role, so he’s always watchable, at least. His more recent action fare with TAKEN, UNKNOWN (2011) and THE GREY (2012) have been a lot more entertaining than they have any right to be, and I can’t wait to see more of this “new” Liam Neeson.

Neeson's latest film is THE GREY.

But at this point, I look forward to any new movie either of them puts out. Even if they’re in bad movies, they’re still more entertaining than 90% of the rest of the actors out there.

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  I’ve liked Nic Cage in a handful of movies—.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Nic Cage?

MARK ONSPAUGH:  I’m adding Colleen to the in-law list with Cage, Neeson, and Soares.

L.L. SOARES:  Huh?

MICHAEL ARRUDA (laughing):  Yeah, she’s the sister in-law.

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  As I was saying, I’ve liked Nic Cage in a handful of movies, like LEAVING LAS VEGAS (1995), WILD AT HEART (1990), RAISING ARIZONA (1987), and MOONSTRUCK (1987)—but for the most part I think Cage “phones it in”.

L.L. SOARES:  I don’t think so. I think he hams it up in a fun way, and sometimes people miss that in his performances.

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  Well, in my opinion, Liam Neeson is just a better actor, regardless of the movie role.

L.L. SOARES:  I agree Neeson is the better actor, but Cage won an Oscar! That said, they’re both doing their best work in movies that many people might consider beneath them. Well, beneath Neeson at least…

GARRETT COOK:  We’re talking too much about Cage. Someone hand me a barf bag!

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  Well, that’s my answer.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Liam Neeson or Nicholas Cage?

L.L. SOARES:  Yeah, that’s the question, you dolt. Are you going to answer it or repeat it again?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  For you, I might just repeat it, but since we have an entire panel here tonight, I’ll let it go. But now it’s my turn.

Up until a few years ago, I wasn’t a fan of either one of these actors.

Way back when, I did like Neeson in his early roles, in films like SUSPECT  (1987) and THE MISSION (1986), and of course, he was outstanding in SCHINDLER’S LIST (1992). But surprisingly he failed to impress me in LES MISERABLE (1998), and then came a string of roles that just didn’t wow me, starting with STAR WARS EPISODE I – THE PHANTOM MENACE and including such movies as BATMAN BEGINS (2005), the NARNIA movies, and CLASH OF THE TITANS. Of course, I didn’t see everything Neeson made during these years, but what I was seeing wasn’t doing much for me. I mean, he was fine in these films, but he wasn’t outstanding.

However, I’ve really enjoyed Neeson lately in films like CHLOE (2009), UNKNOWN and THE GREY. He’s been excellent in these movies.

L.L. SOARES: I liked CHLOE a lot, too.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Cage always seems to grate on my nerves.

GARRETT COOK:  Would you like a barf bag?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  No thanks. He never made me want to throw up, but he does get under my skin.

Like with Neeson, I did enjoy some of his early movies, like RAISING ARIZONA (1987) and MOONSTRUCK (1987)

L.L. SOARES: MOONSTRUCK? That’s what you consider to be a good Nicolas Cage movie? Gimme LEAVING LAS VEGAS and WILD AT HEART over those any day.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I think he’s pretty darn good in MOONSTRUCK, but as his career went on he appeared in movies I either didn’t like or wasn’t interested in seeing. His appearance in THE ROCK (1996) began a stretch of action movies I wasn’t crazy about.

Also like Neeson, I’ve enjoyed some recent performances by Cage, in such movies as SEASON OF THE WITCH (2011) and DRIVE ANGRY 3D (2011). However, the big difference between the two is Neeson’s recent roles have left me wanting to see whatever he’s doing next. I can’t say the same for Cage.

Nicolas Cage's new movie GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE comes out this weekend!

So, Liam Neeson or Nicholas Cage?

L.L. SOARES:  Are you repeating the question again?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  That’s my gift to you.

Anyway, I’m going with Neeson.

NICK CATO:  Here’s my two cents.

L.L. SOARES:  Hey, Nick!  You’re here!

NICK CATO:  Yep, I’m here.

L.L. SOARES:  You’ve been so quiet, I hadn’t noticed you!

DANIEL KEOHANE:  I’m here too. Waiting patiently, while you guys continue to dominate the conversation.

L.L. SOARES:  Quit whining!  We’ll get to you!

DANIEL KEOHANE:  I’d like to think you’re saving the best for last.

L.L. SOARES:  You can think that all you want, but it’s not true!  (laughs).

MARK ONSPAUGH:  I could add you to the “in-laws” list if that would make you feel any better.

GARRETT COOK:  How about a barf bag?

DANIEL KEOHANE:  No, no. I’m good. (Feigns a pouty face.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  How about your two cents, Nick?

NICK CATO:  I’ve been a big Nicolas Cage fan since seeing him in RAISING ARIZONA (1987).

While there’s no denying Liam Neeson is a great (and better) actor —I especially liked him in KINSEY (2004) —a lot of roles he chooses simply don’t interest me. Cage is always over the top, comical, and while a lot of people don’t care for it, I love his constant neo-Elvis persona (his role as Sailor Ripley in David Lynch’s WILD AT HEART (1990) was priceless). Regardless of who is directing him (be it Lynch, Werner Herzog, or the Coen Brothers), Cage always makes these unique roles his own.

L.L. SOARES:  I think a lot of people don’t get Nicholas Cage.

GARRETT COOK:  I get him. He just makes me sick!

DANIEL KEOHANE:  Is it finally my turn?

L.L. SOARES:  Yes, it’s finally your turn!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Go for it.

DANIEL KEOHANE:  The way they each approach their roles is completely different. Cage takes on more “Everyman” characters caught in larger-than-life situations. Neeson, though also in predicament-type movies, seems more bent on suspense films vs. Cage’s science fiction/fantasy/action roles.

And Neeson carries a more—if this makes any sense—literary air about himself.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Yeah, I know what you mean. There’s an intellectual presence in his roles. He almost carries himself like he’s a college professor

L.L. SOARES:  Yeah, a college professor who kicks some serious ass!

DANIEL KEOHANE:  Cage does more of a comic book kind of thing.

Or here’s an even worse metaphor: Neeson is multi-grain to Cage’s Wonder Bread. I like them both, depending on my appetite.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I don’t see Cage as Wonder Bread. He’s more like Beer Bread.

L.L. SOARES:  What the hell is beer bread?

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Bread made with beer. It’s good. But if you eat too much of it, you won’t be feeling too good. Kinda like watching Nicholas Cage.

Well, thanks everyone for taking part in tonight’s QUICK CUTS column. For what it’s worth, the voting tonight went LIAM NEESON – 6, NICHOLAS CAGE – 3, so this panel clearly favored Neeson.

On behalf of Garrett Cook, Mark Onspaugh, Colleen Wanglund, Nick Cato, Dan Keohane, L.L. Soares and myself, Michael Arruda, thank you all for joining us, and we’ll see you next time!

—END—

Leave A Comment »

Cinema Knife Fight: THE GREY (2012)

Posted in 2012, Action Movies, Animals Attack, Cinema Knife Fights, Disaster Films, Man vs. Nature with tags , , , , , , on January 30, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE GREY (2012)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE: A vast snowy wasteland. L.L. SOARES is warming his hands by a crackling fire, while a wolf turns on a spit. MICHAEL ARRUDA looks disgusted)

MA: Do we really have to eat a wolf? It smells awful!

LS: Are you kidding? I’ve got a bottle of STUBB’S Real Texas barbecue sauce right here. It makes any meat taste great.

MA: How’s it on skunk?  Anyway, what are you doing with a bottle of barbecue sauce in the middle of Alaska? Are we doing commercials now?

LS: Hell, I bring it everywhere! Makes meat taste better. You’re lucky I’m not eating YOU after that big plane crash.

MA: And that’s supposed to make me feel better?  Just make sure you fill your gut with plenty of wolf meat so you satisfy that voracious appetite of yours.

LS: I dunno.  This cold air is making me plenty hungry.

MA:  That’s what I’m afraid of.  We’ll just find you a nice supply of berries, nuts, and pine cones.

LS:  I’m not eating that crap!

MA:  Put some of that magical barbecue sauce on it, and it’ll taste just fine.  You said it makes everything taste great.

LS:  No, I said it makes any meat taste great!

MA: Anyway, how about we get off the subject of food, and you take a break from cooking and start our review of the new Liam Neeson movie, THE GREY?

LS: Okay.

THE GREY is a movie about a team of guys in Alaska who are working for an oil drilling corporation. Liam Neeson plays Ottway, a guy who was hired to shoot wolves if they get too close to the workers. He and a bunch of other guys take a plane to Anchorage for some R&R and it crashes.

MA: Yeah, that crash scene is pretty intense.  I loved the way it was shot, entirely from the inside of the plane, so you’re feeling like you’re right there with the passengers, and we’re spared any potential fake-looking CGI planes crashing into the ice.  It’s a riveting sequence that takes full advantage of people’s fear of plane crashes.

LS: Yes, it is rather intense, isn’t it? I thought the crash was very well done.

Anyway, after the crash, Ottway wakes up in the middle of nowhere, covered in snow. He goes over the next hill and sees the plane in pieces and only a few guys alive after the crash.

There are bodies everywhere, and Ottway, being an expert in the local animals, takes charge and instructs everyone in what to do to stay alive. Some of the people question his authority, until the wolves start hovering around.

The movie becomes a quest for survival, as Ottway and the rest of the survivors struggle to stay alive. Knowing that the chances of a search party finding them are slim, they decide to keep moving. This entails not only keeping an eye out for vicious wolves, but also struggling to stay warm in sub-zero temperatures, and trying to maneuver through knee-high snow (with blizzards on the way). It’s rough going, and even though these guys survived the plane crash, there is no guarantee they are going to live to see civilization again, especially with those wolves constantly on the edges of the darkness, waiting to pick them off, one by one.

I really like Liam Neeson, and he’s been on an action movie roll lately, with starring roles in films like this one, and TAKEN (2008) and UNKNOWN (2011). Neeson is starting to become a one-man industry all by himself, regularly turning out interesting action movies. Sort of like another entertaining actor, Nicolas Cage.

MA:  I tend to enjoy Neeson a bit more than Cage, but I think you’re dead-on about Neeson becoming a one-man industry.  People I talk to always cite Neeson as one of their favorite actors, and I know the theater I was in last night was packed.  I’m guessing they were Liam Neeson fans.  It’s not like this movie had a lot of hype or an amazing trailer.  If anything, the trailer was rather boring.

LS:  Yeah, I didn’t think much of the trailer for THE GREY and I was bummed out that we had to see this one. I went into that theater with zero expectations.

MA:  Me, too.  I was ready to call THE GREY, “The Blah.”

LS:  I just expected another by-the-numbers action movie. But I was completely wrong. THE GREY was something completely different. And it captured my imagination.

MA:  Ditto.  I really didn’t think I was going to like this movie, but I ended up liking it a lot.  And again, I have to agree with you about it capturing the imagination.  That’s what made this movie work so well.  It really was a step above your standard action movie, thanks largely in part to a well-written script by Joe Carnahan, who also directed, and Ian Mackenzie Jeffers, based on a short story by Jeffers called “Ghost Walkers.”

LS: Carnahan is a pretty interesting director. He gave us some quirky action/crime flicks in the past, like NARC (2002) and SMOKIN’ ACES (2006). He also directed the recent movie version of THE A-TEAM (2010)— which also featured Neesom in the ensemble cast. Carnahan does a terrific job with THE GREY.

(FROSTY THE SNOWMAN approaches the guys)

FROSTY: Hey guys, I’m really c-c-cold out here. Mind if I come sit by your fire?

LS: Sure thing, Frosty, take a load off.

MA: Is that really a smart idea?

FROSTY: What do you mean? Are you trying to say you don’t want me to join you guys?

MA: No, no, not at all. It’s just that you’re made of snow and….

FROSTY (sits down next to fire): Ahhhhh! This is the life.

(FROSTY promptly falls asleep.)

MA: You know he’s not going to last the night.

LS: Are you kidding. He won’t last the hour! I just added a lot more kindling to the fire. Frosty isn’t the brightest bulb in the tulip patch.

(MA and LS laugh)

MA: Ultimately, THE GREY is about death and how we face it.  As you would imagine, in a movie about a small group of plane crash survivors stranded in the brutally frozen Alaska wilderness, hunted by a pack of wolves that are upset because these survivors have landed too close to their den, there’s a lot of death scenes in this movie, and so there is ample opportunity to address how people deal with death.

It gets into faith in God vs. faith in the here and now, and a recurring theme is not being afraid of death.  It’s about meeting death on your own terms, because you know what?  It’s inevitable.

LS: It also washes over you like a warm wave, if Neeson’s character is to be believed. He tells a character this early on who is about to die.

MA: Yes, early on in the film, there’s a scene where one of the survivors is bleeding out, and Neeson’s Ottway tells him straight out, you’re going to die. Ottway then guides him, in the gentlest yet confident way, to his death, asking him who he loves and telling him to let that person take him to where he’s going.  It’s a poignant scene, and sets the stage, thematically, for the rest of the movie.

LS:  It is a poignant scene. And not what you’re expecting when you sit down to watch an action movie. I have to admit, that I really started to care about these characters, especially Ottway, as the movie continued.

Another thing about Neeson is, the movie opens with his character trudging through the snow at night, and a voiceover where he’s talking to us. Normally, I hate that kind of thing, but when Neeson does it, it’s strangely reassuring. Like “this is a Liam Neeson movie, and you’re in good hands now.”

Along with Neeson, there are some great performances by Frank Grillo (some people may remember him from TV shows like PRISON BREAK and he was the father on the short-lived, but pretty good, supernatural series THE GATES)—in THE GREY he plays a hard-ass ex-con named Diaz who is Ottway’s nemesis for a lot of the movie, and he steals several of the scenes—and Dallas Roberts (from shows like THE GOOD WIFE and the AMC series RUBICON) as Hendrick. The supporting cast is actually quite good here, but it’s clear from the start that Neeson is the main attraction.

MA:  I liked those two guys a lot, too.  I also enjoyed Dermot Mulroney as Talget.  The scene where Talget, a man who is afraid of heights, has to cross a high cliff on a wire to reach the tall trees for safety, is another exercise in intensity, well-executed by both the actor and the director.

LS: That is a great scene. This movie is full of them. Scenes that could have been generic action sequences, but because of character idiosyncrasies or fears, they’ve been turned into something more personal.

MA: Joe Anderson is also memorable as Flannery, a guy who seems to have a negative comment about everything and quickly gets on his fellow survivor’s nerves.  Anderson was even more memorable as Deputy Russell in THE CRAZIES (2010).

I liked that for the most part, these actors were unrecognizable.  It added to the believability of this tale.

LS: Yeah, I really could not identify who they were until the end credits rolled. Aside from Neeson, nobody looks very familiar here.

MA: And speaking of believability, I agree with you that Neeson is the main attraction, mostly because he is so believable.  After the crash, Neeson’s Ottway immediately takes charge, and like the audience, several of the survivors initially question why Ottway is qualified to lead them. Ottway professes his knowledge of wolves and survival, and Neeson makes us believe every word and action that comes from this guy.

LS: Yeah, at first some of the other guys are like, “Who the hell are you to tell us what to do?” But it’s gradually clear that he’s the only one who really knows what he’s doing, and Neeson does seem like a natural born leader.

MA: There’s a great scene where Diaz challenges Ottway, and Ottway decks him and knocks him on his ass, and he gets in his face and tells him straight out that he is not going to put up with his crap.  It’s a commanding moment, and Neeson pulls it off without a shred of doubt.

LS:   Yeah, not only is Ottway the smartest guy in the group, he can also kick ass when he needs to.

My one complaint about THE GREY is that the movie does move a little slow in spots. A few scenes seem to last a bit longer than they should. But, as it progressed and developed its own odd rhythm, it really won me over.

MA:  Yep, there were some slow parts.

LS: Even the way it’s paced isn’t like a normal action movie.

I found the odyssey of these guys in their struggle for survival to be really compelling. I also found some of the more personal moments involving Neeson’s character to be especially moving, since they deal with the character’s loss of his wife, something that Neeson experienced himself not too long ago in real life (his wife, actress Natasha Richardson, died in 2009 after a skiing accident). The scenes where Neeson thinks back about his wife really have a strong kick to them. You believe that he is a man in pain. In fact, at the beginning of the movie, before the plane crash stuff even happens, Ottway contemplates suicide. And yet, when they’re struggling to stay alive in the aftermath of the crash, Ottway is also the one guy who most desperately clings to staying alive.

As the movie progressed, it drew me more and more into the story of these characters. And by the end, I really grew to like this movie a lot.

MA:  Same here.  Like you, I really enjoyed  Ottway’s personal story, and I thought Neeson handled this terrifically.  Although I liked Neeson in UNKNOWN a lot, I thought his performance here was better, deeper, and richer.  He makes so many movies we tend to forget just how good an actor this guy can be.

As much as I liked the entire package of THE GREY, I found myself liking Neeson the most. But the whole film is great.  Director Joe Carnahan creates several memorable scenes in this movie.  The aforementioned crash scene is about as riveting a crash scene I’ve watched in a long time.

I loved the sequence where they have to cross over the cliff to the pine trees on a makeshift line. The scene where Hendrick falls into the river is another nail-biter.  And then, pretty much any scene where the wolves were involved.

LS:  The scenes with the wolves are well done, and suspenseful. You never know when they are going to strike. They almost take on a supernatural aspect as the film progresses, as if they’re everywhere.

And that scene with Hendrick in the icy river – man! That might just be the most intense scene in the whole movie.

MA:  I liked the look of the wolves in this one.  They looked much better than the CGI werewolves we’ve seen in the movies the past few years.  Sure, one of the reasons they look so good is the scenes they’re in are so damn scary, but another reason is we hardly ever see them clearly.  We see them at night, or in the snow, or in a mist, and this isn’t a cop-out, but an effective use of special effects to really make the wolves a credible threat in this movie.

LS: Yeah, you won’t soon forget those glowing eyes in the darkness. And you’re right. The wolves in this one are scarier and more threatening than anything in the TWILIGHT Saga, or the latest UNDERWORLD flick we just saw. This is the way scary wolves should be done!

MA: The wolf scenes are genuinely unnerving.  I really believed the men’s lives were in danger from these animals, and I found myself looking behind these guys, expecting a wolf to come out at any moment.  The wolf scenes in this film were that good.

(Behind MA & LS, run a pack of WOLVES followed by a SHEEP.)

SHEEP:  Wait up guys!  Are we there yet?

WOLF:  It’s right around the corner.

SHEEP:  I’m starving. What’s on the menu?

WOLF:  You— I mean, you’ll see.  (to LS):  Hey mister, can we borrow your barbecue sauce?

LS:  Are you kidding me?  Have you seen what I’m roasting?

WOLF:  Gulp!  Forget I asked.

(WOLVES flee, followed by the SHEEP)

SHEEP:  Wait up guys!  Hey, was that man back there roasting a wolf?  That sounds good!  (Looks at camera and smiles, revealing rows of mega-sharp silver teeth.)  What?  You think all sheep are herbivores?  Think again!  (Exits)

MA: That was freaky.

LS:  Well, it’s time for us to give our ratings. By the end of this film, it had won me over completely. I give THE GREY ~ three and a half knives.

MA:  I liked this one a lot too, and enjoyed it from beginning to end.  That being said, I wasn’t overly crazy about the ending.  It was a little bleak.

LS: There you go again with your “I can’t stand bleak endings” attitude.  What a wuss.  Here.  Put these on.  (Puts a pair of Mickey Mouse ears on MA’s head.)  Go smile and wave at little kids.

MA:  I didn’t hate the ending.  I just wasn’t crazy about it.  I’d go on, but I don’t want to give anything away.

LS:  That’s good, because I don’t’ want to talk about the ending too much either, but I will say that what happens stays true to the movie up to that point. This isn’t an easy movie where everything magically falls into place. There’s a certain honesty to it—another thing that sets it apart from your typical action movie. And the ending harkens back to a poem Ottway’s father had written when he was a kid and that he knew by heart.

A lot of the movie was like this—little powerful moments spread out throughout the journey—just a really good script.

MA:  And the title of the movie, THE GREY, aptly describes the tone and themes of this film.  THE GREY is rather gloomy, albeit exciting.

But all in all, like you, I liked THE GREY a lot, and I’m giving it three knives.  I almost gave this one three and a half knives, but the dreariness factor prevented me from doing so.

LS:  I still say you’re a wuss, Mickey.  Anyway, we done?  I’m hungry.

MA:  Yeah, we’re done.  How’s that wolf coming along?  Well-done enough for you?

LS:  Dammit!  I got so carried away with the review I forgot to check on the wolf.  It’s burnt!  Oh well, lucky thing I got my STUBB’S.

MA (steps in a puddle): Where did this come from? I almost slipped in that mud.

LS: That is our good friend Frosty!

MA (laughs): Here, have a pine cone appetizer (tosses him a pine cone)

Well, folks, that’s it for now.  We’ll see you next week with a review of another new movie.

LS:  I wonder if you can smoke this thing?  (Lights pine cone and takes a puff.)

Not bad!

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives THE GREY ~ THREE knives!

LL Soares gives THE GREY~THREE AND A HALF knives.

Leave A Comment »

CKF COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR JANUARY 2012

Posted in 2012, Action Movies, Cinema Knife Fights, Coming Attractions, Pagans, Vampires, Werewolves with tags , , , , , , on January 6, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT – COMING ATTRACTIONS
JANUARY 2012
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(The Scene: A giant tree on a hillside. A group of pagan worshippers proceed towards the tree, chanting. Awaiting them, MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA (to LS): Aah, your followers, come to worship you.

L.L. SOARES:  What can I say? When you got it, you got it!

MA (shaking head): You got it all right. By the looks of that crowd, you better hope we don’t get it! They look like they’re in the mood for a good old-fashioned human sacrifice.

LS: What’s wrong with that?

MA: Nothing. As long as we’re not the sacrifice!

Anyway, let’s start our CKF COMING ATTRACTIONS column for JANUARY 2012. Nothing like being excited about a movie that I’m most likely not going to see. I’m talking about THE WICKER TREE, which opens to a limited release on January 27, meaning most likely I will not get a chance to see it.

LS: I’m not sure when it will open around me, either, but I’m sure as hell going to see it when it does.

MA: THE WICKER TREE is the long awaited sequel to THE WICKER MAN (1973), the classic movie from the 1970s, starring Christopher Lee, Britt Ekland, and Edward Woodward. It features one of my all-time favorite performances by Christopher Lee. THE WICKER MAN was directed by Robin Hardy, and Hardy is at the helm again here for the sequel. He even wrote the screenplay based on his book, COWBOYS FOR CHRIST.

This is one is definitely the most exciting movie release in January, as far as I’m concerned – and I would really like to see -  but I have a feeling it won’t be playing anywhere near me.

Anyway, we’re getting ahead of ourselves here.

LS: You can say that again. Can you believe it’s 2012 already!!

MA: We’ll kick off January by reviewing two movies for you. L.L. here and Nick Cato will be reviewing the new exorcist thriller, THE DEVIL INSIDE, and I’ll be reviewing the Dennis Quaid “evil mortician” thriller, BENEATH THE DARKNESS. (to LS) Since you’ll be reviewing THE DEVIL INSIDE, why don’t you tell us a little bit about that one?

LS: Well, based on the trailers, this one looks like another fake documentary-style film like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, but about demons and exorcisms. Just like another recent exorcism movie, THE LAST EXORCISM. I liked that one a lot. And I hope this one is even half as good. The trailer has promise.

MA: As I said, that same weekend I’ll be reviewing BENEATH THE DARKNESS, a movie that looks pretty silly. The only thing I’m looking forward to is Dennis Quaid being cast against type as the psycho bad guy. He’s usually the goodie-goodie hero, so it might be refreshing to see him play the villain for a change.

Other than Quaid, it’s got a primarily young cast, a bunch of twentysomethings playing teenagers, which unfortunately makes me think this one might play out like some of those dreadful recent Wes Craven movies – MY SOUL TO TAKE anyone? Ugh! Let’s hope it’s better than this!

LS: I’m surprised you didn’t want to review THE DEVIL INSIDE. It looks good to me. But I don’t know anything about BENEATH THE DARKNESS. Hope it’s at least entertaining for you.

MA: Well, it’s not like I refused to see THE DEVIL INSIDE. The trailer just didn’t do anything for me. It made it look like yet another EXORCIST rip-off. I liked THE LAST EXORCISM too, but that was the exception to the rule. And since we have two movies to cover, and you and Nick really wanted to see THE DEVIL INSIDE, I went with BENEATH THE DARKNESS.

On January 13, ( John Harvey and) I will be reviewing the new Mark Wahlberg thriller CONTRABAND, while L.L. here will be at home entertaining his followers.

(Pagans start skipping and dancing around the tree.)

LS (smiling): Life is good.

MA: Anyway, I’m looking forward to CONTRABAND. It looks like a hard-hitting, gritty action thriller, a story about a former smuggler—Wahlberg—battling a drug lord to protect his family. Could be cliché, but in the right hands, this one could also be very compelling.

I like Mark Wahlberg a lot, and I’m hoping this will be another in his line of notable performances, along the lines of THE FIGHTER (2010) and THE DEPARTED (2006).

LS: What about THE HAPPENING (2008) and the PLANET OF THE APES remake (2003)?

MA: Nobody’s perfect! CONTRABAND also features Kate Beckinsale, who we’ll also be seeing in the latest UNDERWORLD movie this month, as well as Ben Foster who was so memorable in 3:10 TO YUMA (2007) and was also in 30 DAYS OF NIGHT (2007).

LS: Foster was also really good in 2011’s THE MECHANIC, with Jason Stratham, too.

On January 20, we’ll be reviewing the latest in the UNDERWORLD series, UNDERWORLD: AWAKENING. I haven’t been too impressed with these movies so far. They’re basically about gangs of vampires and werewolves (they’re called Lycans here) who are at war, with humans caught in the middle. And the way they’re filmed, the emphasis is on action, not horror. In this sequel, a hybrid child is born and everyone’s nervous what that will lead to. It stars Kate Beckinsdale, who I normally like. But I haven’t liked her much in this series. Still, at least it’s not TWILIGHT.

MA: I’m not looking forward to this one either. I haven’t seen the previous three movies. I kept away because they all looked pretty dumb. Maybe I’ll check them out on DVD before we see this one.

Also coming out on January 20 is the new thriller HAYWIRE, a story about a female super soldier seeking revenge against the folks who betrayed her. This one’s got some star power behind it, as it’s directed by Steven Soderbergh, who just directed the disappointing CONTAGION (2010) but whose long impressive resume includes early hits like SEX, LIES, AND VIDEOTAPE (1989) and ERIN BROCKOVICH (2000).

The impressive cast includes Ewan McGregor, Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas, Bill Paxton, and Michael Fassbender. Gina Carano plays the lead role of the female super killer. It looks like an adult version of last year’s HANNA to me. I liked that one. I’m hoping I’ll like this one too.

LS: Yeah, I haven’t heard much about this one, either. But it sounds like it has potential.

MA: On January 27, it’s the limited release of the aforementioned THE WICKER TREE, so limited that, most likely, I won’t be seeing it.

LS: Well, I hope I get to see it.

MA: What I will be seeing will be the Liam Neeson thriller THE GREY. THE GREY is the story of plane crash survivors who find themselves stranded in the Alaska wilderness having to fight for their survival against a pack of hungry wolves. I can’t say that I’m overly excited about this movie, but it might be good.

LS: Yeah, I’ve seen the trailer for THE GREY a few times, and it doesn’t look all that great to me. Plane crash survivors trying to stay alive in the frozen north with hungry wolves hovering nearby. This one could go either way, I guess.

MA: I usually like Liam Neeson. It’s just that he’s made so many movies, there’s been a decent number that I haven’t liked as well. Recently, I liked him in the thriller UNKNOWN (2011), as that was a fairly entertaining movie. And I liked him in CHLOE (2009), but he was forgettable in CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010). But, then again, he can be forgiven for this since everyone was forgettable in that movie.

This is the guy who played Oskar Schindler in SCHINDLER’S LIST (1993). It’s been a while since I’ve seen Neeson do something as memorable as that.

And I guess I find it hard to get excited about a movie called THE GREY. It’s like THE BLAND. Or THE VANILLA. It’s just not doing it for me.

Well, that about wraps things up for us here.

(The crowd of pagans begin to grow loud.) Uh oh. The natives are getting restless. (to LS) Why don’t you do something to quiet your minions?

LS: Certainly. Hey, everybody shut up and listen! We’re done here. Go home!

MA: That was tactful. (The crowd starts to throw things at MA and LS.) This isn’t good. Well, I suppose we should be grateful they’re not into human sacrifices.

(Several in the crowd begin setting up an altar.)

MA: Then again, I think it’s time we leave.

LS: Hey, look, they’re setting that big tree on fire! That’s pretty!

MA: Run!

LS: You always spoil the fun!

MA: Stay if you want to, but I’m going home.

(The pagans start to smear their faces with lamb’s blood, and passing out weapons)

LS (suddenly seems nervous): Well, we do have those movies to review.

MA: Okay folks, we’re outta here. See you next week at the movies!

(LS & MA flee, as the Wicker Tree goes up in flames.)

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

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 A-TEAM!

Posted in 2010, Action Movies, John Harvey Reviews, TV Show Movies with tags , , , , , , , on June 16, 2010 by knifefighter

Back To The ’80s with THE A-TEAM
by John Harvey

Ahhh … 1980s action adventure flicks. How I long for them. The ridiculous stunts, explosions that should change the Earth’s orbit, guns with unlimited bullets and heroes with limited vocabularies. These were films where you could easily forgive a total disregard for physics, reality and logic, simply because everything was so cool. You know the movies I mean: ALIENS (1986), PREDATOR (1987),  LETHAL WEAPON (1987), DIE HARD (1988), and the list goes on.

While we’ve left the 1980s far behind us, the 2010 feature film revision of the 1980s TV series THE A-TEAM fits neatly into that genre of thoroughly mindless-yet-enjoyable, popcorn-chomping action romps.

Directed by Joe Carnahan, THE A-TEAM (PG-13) reminds you that in some cases a feature film remake is worthwhile. THE A-TEAM does a great job at paying tribute to the TV series without being a slave to the original material. In this updated version, the film delves into the origins of a framed crack special-forces unit including Col. Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson), Templeton “Face” Peck (Bradley Cooper), Bosco “Bad Attitude” Baracus (Quinton “Rampage” Jackson) and “Howling Mad” Murdock (Sharlto Copley). After getting set up by mercenaries and shady government operatives, the team must break out of prison, recover stolen treasury plates and attempt to regain their good names through copious amounts of violence, mayhem and not a few hokey gags.

While THE A-TEAM does not have the same rabid fans as, say, STAR TREK, there are still many (primarily male) folks who remember the series well and fondly. Major missteps would have been noticed and potentially deadly considering the critical mass of pop culture icons, quotes and action figures that originated with this property.

Of course, the lynchpin for this movie is the characters and the actors who portray them. Okay … we’re not dealing with David Mamet character treatments here, but we are dealing with characters that give off a very specific tone and swagger that established fans remember vividly.

Casting for the central characters was mostly spot-on. My only beef lies with Bradley Cooper’s take on Templeton “Faceman” Peck, whose performance landed a bit flat. Though some of the blame may reside with the screenplay, which did not give Cooper nearly as much room to chew the scenery when compared to Neeson, Jackson or Copley. Cooper also had to do much of his acting opposite Jessica Biel (playing love interest and Army operative, Charisa Sosa), whose performances are almost always flat. This movie is no exception.

Speaking of scene chewing, you really have to hand it to Copley (a semi-obscure South African actor whose only major credit is DISTRICT 9) and Jackson (a UFC mixed martial arts fighter) who stepped into two of the most iconic, over-the-top roles with great success. It could be argued that their performances regularly upstaged film veterans Cooper and Neeson.

Plot is the other critical consideration in this movie. No … I’m not being ironic. Though intelligent storytelling does not float to the top of most minds when it comes to action/adventure flicks, there is a balancing act. If the plot is too simple, then it’s dull and predictable. If it’s too complex, then you spend too much time trying to decipher who’s doing what to who and where. In addition, tthis script also had to contain enough empty space to fit key moments and material from the original TV series.

In THE A-TEAM, the plot becomes a bit too haphazard about halfway through the film and takes far too many beats to sew things up. This is why the movie clocks in at two hours long while most tightly-written action films just barely nick the 90-minute mark. Rumor has it that THE A-TEAM screenplay passed through no fewer than 11 screenwriters before becoming a shooting script.

If it’s true … it shows.

Despite flaws in THE A-TEAM‘s script-by-committee, the movie still manages to capture the adolescent, superficial joy that came exploding from the TV screen starting in 1983. Make no mistake. THE A-TEAM is an utterly mindless movie. Still, it’s a good action movie.

- END -

© Copyright 2010 by John Harvey

LINKS OF INTEREST:

A-TEAM Movie Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z93AADd2Dpo

A-TEAM Movie Website:
http://www.ateam-movie.com

3 Comments »

CHLOE

Posted in 2010, Art Movies, Campy Movies, LL Soares Reviews, Remakes with tags , , , , , , , on April 20, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: CHLOE
By L. L. Soares

(THE SCENE: a diner. LL SOARES sits at a table near the back. A blonde woman sits down across from him)

BLONDE: Do you have the pictures.

LS: Sure (takes out a large envelope)

(He spreads out several photographs across the table top. They are all of a man golfing)

BLONDE: What’s this? You were supposed to get me evidence that he was cheating.

LS: Nope. No cheating. He’s just been golfing.

BLONDE: Dammit (Gets up from the table) I could have sworn he was cheating on me.

(She pays him and leaves, not even bothering to take the photos with her. LS puts them back in the envelope)

(Cell phone rings)

LS: Oh hi. Yep, I did damage control. Now what about that party you were going to invite me to? (LAUGHS)

(MICHAEL ARRUDA enters and sits down at his table)

MA: Who were you talking to?

LS: Nobody. It’s about time you got here.

MA: I wasn’t able to see the movie this week. It was only playing a week in my town, and it’s already gone. Looks like you’re going to have to do this one alone.

LS: No problem.  A lot of times I feel like I’m reviewing these things alone, anyway.

MA:  I wish I could say that!

(WAITRESS COMES OVER)

LS: Order some breakfast. I’ve got a movie to review.

CHLOE is the new movie by Atom Egoyan – an arthouse staple and the filmmaker responsible for such quirky films as THE ADJUSTOR (1991) and EXOTICA (1994), as well as one Oscar-nominated film, THE SWEET HEREAFTER (1997).

He’s also dabbled in horror themes a few times, including FELICIA’S JOURNEY (1999), featuring Bob Hoskins as a caterer who watches videos of his mom’s old cooking show when he’s not trying to lure women into a lethal trap.

MA: So is CHLOE a horror movie?

LS: Not really. If anything, I think it would fall into the “quirky” category. But you did say you wanted me to review it for some reason.

MA: I said I wanted US to review it, because it sounded like a cool movie.  It just didn’t last long enough for me to catch it.  Anyway, go on.

LS: CHLOE is a remake of a French film called NATHALIE (2003) starring Emmanuelle Beart.  And it’s kind of a variation on FATAL ATTRACTION (1987), but without the boiling bunny. The storyline is actually very simple.

MA:  No boiling bunny?  How horrible!

LS:  Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) thinks that her husband David (Liam Neeson) is having an affair. Devestated by this realization, she desperately wants to catch him in the act. That’s where Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) comes in.  Chloe is a young call girl who works in the neighborhood where Catherine, a gynecologist, has her practice. She often stares out the window between patients, watching Chloe going about her daily routine.

After David misses his surprise birthday party under suspicious circumstances, Catherine goes to the nightclub where Chloe meets customers and hires her to seduce her husband. Actually, she doesn’t want  it to go as far as sex – she just wants Chloe to temp David and prove that he’s interested in other women. Catherine pays her and waits for the results.

Chloe goes to the diner where David has his breakfast each day, and asks for the sugar. They exchange glances, and Chloe later reports to Catherine that he did indeed take the bait, but is taking it slow, because he says he’s a married man. Catherine hires Chloe to meet with her husband a second time. This time Chloe relates a story of increases intimiacy, and sex in the back room of a greenhouse.

Meanwhile, a kind of sexual chemistry begins to stir between Catherine and Chloe. As Chloe tells her stories of sexual encounters, Catherine feels a strange connection with the husband she loves, but whom she feels has drifted away from her after so many years of marriage. The connection between them is Chloe. But as things get more heated, Catherine retreats, and says that she doesn’t want to continue their arrangement.

That’s when things get complicated. Chloe doesn’t want to let go and is hurt that she is suddenly being dismissed from the case. She begins a relationship with Catherine’s teenage son Michael (Max Theiriot), to stay close to Catherine, and things just get creepier from there. And there are a few unsettling revelations as the story unfolds.

The acting is very good. Julianne Moore is always an extremely watchable actress. And Neeson, who has a rather thankless role, does what he can with it. Seyfried continues to impress. Her career has mostly been in television so far, in shows like VERONICA MARS and HBO’s BIG LOVE. But she gave a stand-out performance in JENNIFER’S BODY (mostly because she acted circles around Megan Fox), and is actually on the edge of real stardom with mainstream films like the recent love story, DEAR JOHN Her acting career continues to bloom, and CHLOE certainly doesn’t do anything to stop that momentum. But CHLOE is a small, indie film, that only got limited release, so it’s not going to do a lot to increase her exposure, either.

(MEGAN FOX is sitting at a nearby table and taps on the formica loudly)

FOX: Come on now. I am a GREAT actress. How dare you say otherwise.

LS: Well, I will admit I’m a fan. I’m just not sure it’s for your acting.

FOX (waves statue): Look, I even got an Oscar.

LS (eyes bulge): Where did you get that?

FOX: I stole it! But I’ll win one of my own soon enough. TRANSFORMERS III will be out before you know it.

MA: Enough chatting with the other customers. Back to the review.

LS: Sure thing, bossy. There is a real heat between Moore and Seyfried in this movie, though, and those sexual sparks are exactly what make this movie work. The script isn’t exactly a work of art.  As you watch CHLOE, you’ll find the plot twists predictable, and the dialogue often absurd. There are key scenes that come off as almost silly, and this is no doubt why many critics gave it negative reviews when it first came out.

However, I saw CHLOE as kind of a guilty pleasure. It certainly isn’t Egoyan at his most profound, but it’s a lot of fun. It didn’t matter that the script wasn’t always convincing, the actors take this flawed material and run with it, making it very entertaining.  Since this one is probably gone from most theaters at this point, I’ll have to suggest people check it out on DVD when it comes out. It’s not brilliant, but you might get a kick out of it. I know I did.

MA: I just ordered us some pie. You wanted blueberry, right?

LS: Sure.

(AGENT DALE COOPER looks up from his cup of coffee)

COOPER: The pie here is wonderful. I haven’t had any this good since I left Twin Peaks.

LS: Well, our time is up. I guess I’ll take that pie to go.

MA: Until next week! See you then.

LS: Maybe next week you’ll actually see the movie.

-END-

© Copyright 2010 by L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers