The previews for Jumper at first looked quite good. It looked like David Rice (Hayden Christensen) would be battling fellow jumper Griffin (Jamie Bell) in a teleporting battle of epic proportions. How exactly the Paladin Roland (Samuel L. Jackson) fit in was not quite clear but the general outline had Rice romancing eye-candy Millie (Rachel Bilson), protecting her from Griffin and maybe Roland working with Griffin to take down Rice.
The movie started out with a tough sell. Rice does a voice-over in which he says, "I was once a nobody...a chump like you" or something along that line but he clearly refers to the audience as chumps. Not exactly a great way to get the audience to empathize with him or root for him as the hero.
Flashback to when he is 15. He makes shy, awkward social gaffs that result in him being first ridiculed by the class bully and then him nearly drowning and accidentally discovering his ability to teleport. He leaves a gift so Millie knows he isn't dead and disappears from her life.
In another voice-over he says something like, "I was 15. What would you have done?" to justify his bank-robbery. So far they have not done a lot to endear this character to us. He has looked by turns arrogant, pathetic, and whiny. Not exactly the makings of a modern day Errol Flynn here. Then again, choosing the guy who made Darth Vader look like a whining, weak character to play your lead may not be great casting anyway...
The next few scenes show him touring the world. Leaving his New York apartment he appears on the clock hand of Big Ben. And this is one of the real problems with the movie.
They have no clearly defined rules for the jump. They say to jump you have to have been to a place before. Can someone kindly explain to me how he could have been on the hand of Big Ben in London? Or on top of the Sphinx? Or... but apparently, if you get CLOSE to a place and can SEE it, then you can jump there...sometimes. But only for certain lengths of jump...and SOMETIMES if something is in the way it will knock you down as the tree does to Rice when he is learning to jump. Oh, and you can also jump after someone who has just jumped by following their jump scar. Or you can jump if...
In other words, they set up the rule you can only jump to a place you have previously been, then get written into a corner or just want a shot of a guy hanging off the Big Ben clock or eating on the Phoenix and add that rule and so forth. So there is no rhyme or reason to when or where they can jump or why they can't jump.
Come to think of it, that describes most of the movie...there is very little rhyme or reason to things. Paladins hate jumpers because they can jump. There is a throw-away line that the Paladins are "right wing religious fanatics" and loose lip service is paid to that by having Roland say, "Only God should have that power" 2 or 3 times...but it is at best a very loose reason to chase Jumpers for hundreds of years. Very, very weak motivation. Yet someone is financing the Paladins as evidenced by their ability to fly around the world at a whim, drive very expensive cars, develop and use prohibitively expensive equipment. Other than having no believable motivation or source of income they serve only to provide foils for the jumpers. Without conflict there is no movie...
So just to hammer home the point that real motivations, believable actions, and coherent plots have no business in this flick Rice returns home to Detroit after 8 years and things pick up right where they left off 8 years previously. Mark Kobold (Teddy Dunn) recognises Rice, calls him names, acts like a high school bully...even though he should now be out of college. Millie, after not seeing him for 8 years, instantly leaves her job in the bar to fly to Rome with him...11 hours after meeting again they are in a hotel room together in Rome.
Now, I am a big believer in suspending disbelief in movies. I happily watched a semi outrun a collapsing freeway, a cab blow up a helicopter, a genius who could shut down the government send out his minions one by one in Live Free or Die Hard (2007) without batting an eyelid...because those things were internally consistent within the movie. Jumper did not bother with internal consistency...or, for that matter, having a likable main character. I would even argue the only LIKABLE character in the flick is Griffin.
After Griffin rescues (for no discernible reason) Rice and Millie from Paladins in the Colosseum and promises to help Rice (during a mad-cap, violent, bizarre car drive through China for no apparent reason other than to offer exposition) against the Paladins, Rice and Griffin separate; Rice to rescue Millie and Griffin to arm himself. Yet another inexplicable thing; in Rome Griffin packed a bat. For this he grabs...wait for it...a flame-thrower. Why would he not carry a gun some times...like, all the time, knowing these Paladins are trying to kill him and he wants to return the favor? The baseball bat was fun but non-sensical. After an interesting battle in his lair with Roland Millie gets captured.
Griffin and Rice then argue over whether to bomb the Paladins into oblivion. Rice seizes the remote, Griffin chases him to get it back and they engage in an admittedly entertaining jump-battle over a remote that has a very strange ending that leaves Griffin theoretically alive, though incapacitated in an electrical transformer. Why does Rice turn on him? Sure, I get the "Millie will die if you set off a bomb" but several possible ways for them to still work together exist...none of which they examine for no apparent reason.
Well, after defeating Griffin Rice heads off to rescue Millie from the Paladins. Despite his skillful defeat of Griffin, he walks into a trap so elementary even Fettermen would have seen it coming. Whatever. He then proceeds to, without explanation, escape the devices that scramble his ability to jump. Again, no internal consistency.
Whatever. The heavily advertised, barely there Diane Lane, playing his mother Mary Rice, turns out to be a Paladin who will give him a head start. Nothing really says love quite so much as a mother saying, in effect, "Oh, I hate you enough to kill you but I will give you a head start in the chase because you are my son and I love you". So at the end of the movie Millie and Rice jump away knowing Mary will chase them, Griffin is probably still alive and will want vengeance, and Roland is still alive. So yeah.,..expect a sequel. Hope it is better than this one. And makes more sense.
Too bad. This could have been a great movie. It nearly was. The only things standing between this movie and greatness are sensible motivations, likable heroes, intelligent plots, internal consistency, good acting, and some relationship between the billing of the actors involved and the amount of screen time they get. Other than those things it was half-way to being perfect.
On the bright side, Griffin is just plain fun, the special effects are fun, and the premise is fun. So there is potential.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Definitely, Maybe
How do you turn the story of a guy getting divorced telling his daughter the story of his pathetic, failure-laden dating history and failed idealistic career that started in politics and ended in newspaper advertising into something interesting for the audience?
Flashbacks. Lots of flashbacks. Now, from time to time the flashback or the using of cuts from a fictionalized story to the "real-life" story can work...it was used to good effect in The Princess Bride (1987) for example. Other times it is just annoying. This had a bit of each. Whenever they wrote themselves into a corner they simply flashed to "real life" and basically reset the movie.
Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) tries to be likable...but it is hard when he puts his career ahead of his college flame, cheats on every girl he is dating, and will give up nothing himself. There are interesting dilemmas such as when his girlfriend writes an ethically correct article that derails the chances for the candidate Will is working for...and he dumps her over it. Right? Wrong? There are several possible answers and Definitely, Maybe (2008) wisely does not try to answer it. Nor does it answer the brilliant question posed by Maya Hayes (Abigail Breslin).
First she asks why Will fell in love in the first place to which he gives a pat answer variation on, "she was smart, funny, and pretty" to which Maya asks something along the lines of "So when and why did she stop being smart and funny?"
There is no good answer to that one, is there? Sometimes I suppose it just happens. The movie never explores it but does come up with a typical improbable yet believable within the framework of the movie solution to make sure everyone goes home happy.
Abigail Breslin is turning into the go-to girl for sad-toned romantic comedies such as No Reservations (2007) and this...but she has the sad, pathetic look to go with it. She turns the mood somewhat more somber than it would otherwise be...though how happy you want a child to appear whose beloved mother was killed (No Reservations) in a car accident or whose parents are divorcing in this one is an open question. She does a creditable job, however.
The story, once broken down from the flashbacks, is pretty mundane and the interest comes primarily from the flashback angle. The acting is okay, with the best scenes coming from Hunter S. Thompson rip-off Hampton Roth (Kevin Kline). The cinematography is fine, not too distracting and overall, it is fine for what it is...a movie intended to make money by being released at the right time instead of by being a good movie.
Flashbacks. Lots of flashbacks. Now, from time to time the flashback or the using of cuts from a fictionalized story to the "real-life" story can work...it was used to good effect in The Princess Bride (1987) for example. Other times it is just annoying. This had a bit of each. Whenever they wrote themselves into a corner they simply flashed to "real life" and basically reset the movie.
Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) tries to be likable...but it is hard when he puts his career ahead of his college flame, cheats on every girl he is dating, and will give up nothing himself. There are interesting dilemmas such as when his girlfriend writes an ethically correct article that derails the chances for the candidate Will is working for...and he dumps her over it. Right? Wrong? There are several possible answers and Definitely, Maybe (2008) wisely does not try to answer it. Nor does it answer the brilliant question posed by Maya Hayes (Abigail Breslin).
First she asks why Will fell in love in the first place to which he gives a pat answer variation on, "she was smart, funny, and pretty" to which Maya asks something along the lines of "So when and why did she stop being smart and funny?"
There is no good answer to that one, is there? Sometimes I suppose it just happens. The movie never explores it but does come up with a typical improbable yet believable within the framework of the movie solution to make sure everyone goes home happy.
Abigail Breslin is turning into the go-to girl for sad-toned romantic comedies such as No Reservations (2007) and this...but she has the sad, pathetic look to go with it. She turns the mood somewhat more somber than it would otherwise be...though how happy you want a child to appear whose beloved mother was killed (No Reservations) in a car accident or whose parents are divorcing in this one is an open question. She does a creditable job, however.
The story, once broken down from the flashbacks, is pretty mundane and the interest comes primarily from the flashback angle. The acting is okay, with the best scenes coming from Hunter S. Thompson rip-off Hampton Roth (Kevin Kline). The cinematography is fine, not too distracting and overall, it is fine for what it is...a movie intended to make money by being released at the right time instead of by being a good movie.
Rambo
Rambo (2008) has a unique feeling to it. That feeling builds if you saw Rocky Balboa (2007). The same paradigm is in effect here. An aging Sylvester Stallone is revisiting his star-making roles as John Rambo and Rocky Balboa to bring closure to them. Rocky was about leaving the character in a place the fans could feel good about. This time he was not helping someone else, he was the centerpiece of the movie and it showed that he was done as a movie character. Now Stallone wants to do the same for Rambo.
In this movie review you won't hear the names of any character or actor other than John Rambo (Rocky Balboa) because they are not important to the story. The missionary girl provides some undefined, tenuous reason for Rambo to dust off his trusty bow and go to war to rescue some other missionaries he doesn't like or care about. Along the way a few political comments are thrown in, mostly to the effect that people trying to do good deeds such as bringing education, religion, or medical help to people without packing guns are not changing anything.
Meanwhile, Rambo himself is a tormented soul unwilling to find out if he is able to go home and clear things up with his family. While he considers it he joins some mercenaries in a rescue of the captured missionaries, blows lots of things up, fires lots of bullets and arrows, rigs booby traps, and basically clear-cuts a few square miles of jungle with bullets and claymore mines.
After the blood it ends with him walking back up the lane to his United States house with the implication he is, at last, able to find peace with himself and at home.
As an action movie there is too much pondering and as a character study there is too much over the top action. As an end to the Rambo series, however, it fits and makes sense. If you are a Rambo fan this is a must-see, if you are an action fan it is a see on a slow night, and if you are neither...well, you won't like this much. Implausible characters, bad dialogue, confusing interactions, and cheap shots at good-hearted people just combine to be too much to overcome.
In this movie review you won't hear the names of any character or actor other than John Rambo (Rocky Balboa) because they are not important to the story. The missionary girl provides some undefined, tenuous reason for Rambo to dust off his trusty bow and go to war to rescue some other missionaries he doesn't like or care about. Along the way a few political comments are thrown in, mostly to the effect that people trying to do good deeds such as bringing education, religion, or medical help to people without packing guns are not changing anything.
Meanwhile, Rambo himself is a tormented soul unwilling to find out if he is able to go home and clear things up with his family. While he considers it he joins some mercenaries in a rescue of the captured missionaries, blows lots of things up, fires lots of bullets and arrows, rigs booby traps, and basically clear-cuts a few square miles of jungle with bullets and claymore mines.
After the blood it ends with him walking back up the lane to his United States house with the implication he is, at last, able to find peace with himself and at home.
As an action movie there is too much pondering and as a character study there is too much over the top action. As an end to the Rambo series, however, it fits and makes sense. If you are a Rambo fan this is a must-see, if you are an action fan it is a see on a slow night, and if you are neither...well, you won't like this much. Implausible characters, bad dialogue, confusing interactions, and cheap shots at good-hearted people just combine to be too much to overcome.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Untraceable
Although outside my normal viewing preferences, the Goose really wanted to see this since it was filmed in Portland. I figured I would go along and try to figure out which cop was helping the bad guy in a "major plot twist". As it turned out the major plot twist was there was no major plot twist. It was just one guy who was the bad guy, the viewers knew who he was relatively quickly, his motivations were known, and who his victims would be were known.
Untraceable follows Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane), an FBI cyber crimes agent in the FBI. Interestingly, she starts out by ordering the FBI to "knock down a door" in Eugene. Interestingly enough, over a credit card stolen online, the FBI feels compelled to take out a SWAT team to high tech no-knock break down the door and scare the family out of their wits. Now, I am no expert on FBI methodology...but that seems pretty aggressive of a reaction for identity theft. Over the top, unnecessary...and it immediately established the heroes of the piece as bullies and over reactors. I do not believe that was the INTENT of the scene...it was meant to show her talent at finding, identifying, and capturing the bad guys....but it was certainly the RESULT.
Not too long after a website called "Kill With Me" is tipped to them. She watches a cat killed. The killing intensifies as more viewers join. She proves unable to track the origin of the web cast. Later, instead of a cat it becomes people.
As the FBI tries to find this guy...missing rather obvious lines of inquiry such as power consumption, by the way...the movie tries to establish camaraderie between Griffin Dowd (Colin Hanks), Detective Eric Box (Billy Burke) and Marsh. It fails miserably. They just seem bored more than anything.
Eventually the rather tenuous link of why these people are being murdered is established and it is just a matter of catching Owen Reilly (Joseph Cross), though of course he first must capture Marsh to provide her a chance to escape his death trap and kill him live on his internet broadcast.
The movie feels more like a piece of anti-sick website propaganda than a movie designed to be entertaining. There are numerous monologues about the evils of disseminating these things but them being viewer driven (thus establishing there are people who, for whatever reason, DO want to see it). Now, I am not into the "torture-porn" type movies. Saw a few minutes of one of the Saw train wrecks and frankly found it stupid and repellent. Never saw Turistas or any of the Hostel series and never felt any desire too. Conversely, a lot of people never felt the need to watch some of my favorite movies either...Surf's Up, TMNT, Transformers, The Simpsons Movie for example...and I have no beef with that. Different people, different tastes. But they also did not feel compelled to make a movie protesting those movies while centering their protest on doing the same thing.
Untraceable makes heavy use of disturbing images. Furthermore, while protesting the dissemination of information and images about deaths it makes heavy, heavy use of them and lets a lot of people know about them. I did not know that there were websites in existence showing people's suicides, for example, prior to this movie. Now I do. Interesting protest...bringing awareness to that which you want people to not know about. It even showed maybe a half dozen or so times the suicide that provides the incredibly cheesy and unbelievable motivation for Reilly.
Memo to Gregory Hoblit; if you don't want people to know about this stuff then don't make it the centerpiece of your movie. Just sayin'...
So let's see; weak, unbelievable story with bad acting, counter-productive dialogue and images, a predictable story arc...I wonder how I will rate this train wreck?
Untraceable follows Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane), an FBI cyber crimes agent in the FBI. Interestingly, she starts out by ordering the FBI to "knock down a door" in Eugene. Interestingly enough, over a credit card stolen online, the FBI feels compelled to take out a SWAT team to high tech no-knock break down the door and scare the family out of their wits. Now, I am no expert on FBI methodology...but that seems pretty aggressive of a reaction for identity theft. Over the top, unnecessary...and it immediately established the heroes of the piece as bullies and over reactors. I do not believe that was the INTENT of the scene...it was meant to show her talent at finding, identifying, and capturing the bad guys....but it was certainly the RESULT.
Not too long after a website called "Kill With Me" is tipped to them. She watches a cat killed. The killing intensifies as more viewers join. She proves unable to track the origin of the web cast. Later, instead of a cat it becomes people.
As the FBI tries to find this guy...missing rather obvious lines of inquiry such as power consumption, by the way...the movie tries to establish camaraderie between Griffin Dowd (Colin Hanks), Detective Eric Box (Billy Burke) and Marsh. It fails miserably. They just seem bored more than anything.
Eventually the rather tenuous link of why these people are being murdered is established and it is just a matter of catching Owen Reilly (Joseph Cross), though of course he first must capture Marsh to provide her a chance to escape his death trap and kill him live on his internet broadcast.
The movie feels more like a piece of anti-sick website propaganda than a movie designed to be entertaining. There are numerous monologues about the evils of disseminating these things but them being viewer driven (thus establishing there are people who, for whatever reason, DO want to see it). Now, I am not into the "torture-porn" type movies. Saw a few minutes of one of the Saw train wrecks and frankly found it stupid and repellent. Never saw Turistas or any of the Hostel series and never felt any desire too. Conversely, a lot of people never felt the need to watch some of my favorite movies either...Surf's Up, TMNT, Transformers, The Simpsons Movie for example...and I have no beef with that. Different people, different tastes. But they also did not feel compelled to make a movie protesting those movies while centering their protest on doing the same thing.
Untraceable makes heavy use of disturbing images. Furthermore, while protesting the dissemination of information and images about deaths it makes heavy, heavy use of them and lets a lot of people know about them. I did not know that there were websites in existence showing people's suicides, for example, prior to this movie. Now I do. Interesting protest...bringing awareness to that which you want people to not know about. It even showed maybe a half dozen or so times the suicide that provides the incredibly cheesy and unbelievable motivation for Reilly.
Memo to Gregory Hoblit; if you don't want people to know about this stuff then don't make it the centerpiece of your movie. Just sayin'...
So let's see; weak, unbelievable story with bad acting, counter-productive dialogue and images, a predictable story arc...I wonder how I will rate this train wreck?
Sunday, January 20, 2008
27 Dresses
I suppose I should not admit that I enjoy romantic comedies. After all, they are supposed to be "chick flicks". But let's look at some of the benefits of watching them. First off, there is ALWAYS some magnificent eye candy...Jessica Alba (Good Luck Chuck, 2007), Jennifer Garner (13 Going on 30, 2004), Gwyneth Paltrow (Shallow Hal, 2001), and so forth. Bonus; in all the referenced movies the women in question are scantily clad in multiple scenes. Of course, on the downside sometimes you get blindsided by a Jennifer Lopez (Maid in Manhattan, 2002) or a romantic comedy that neglects the comedy like No Reservations (2007) did. It is hard to believe there can be nothing attractive about a movie starring Catherine Zeta-Jones but they managed it.
Well, despite the occasional dud for the most part romantic comedies have a few laughs, a decent story, and some attractive girls in the legal least so they have something to offer. I had not seen a lot of previews for 27 Dresses (2008) but after a stressful week of "vacation" (link coming soon) we needed some time to ourselves and away from the mini-terrorists so we chose that over the horrendous looking First Sunday (2008), Mad Money (2008), or Cloverfield (2008). On the bright side, after the shockingly bad In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007) it would not take much to amuse me and hey...how bad can a movie be when you are allowed to...nay, encouraged to, guided by the camera to look on the lovely Katherine Heigl?
The story has few surprises...it is pretty much a grouping of familiar characters from the cynical, unliked yet attractive soon-to-be boyfriend Kevin (James Marsden), the doting and wonderful father who is still a bit clueless, and the gorgeous, talented, sweet heroine Jane (Katherine Heigl). It also mixes in predictable situations...such as the "oh, we like the same song so we must like each other" scene, the mis-step by the wannabe boyfriend that he needs forgiveness for, the ultimate reconciliation...
In other words, it is about exactly as advertised. There are some pretty good laughs in it, such as when Jane says, "It is like finding out your favorite love song was written about a sandwich" and the scene where she wrecks her sister's engagement party and ends that marriage before the wedding, there are some sexy scenes...I concur with the view that it is hard to find an outfit that looks bad on Heigl...and it entertains from beginning to end. This isn't a movie that will be replayed every Valentine's Day the way A Christmas Story (1983), It's A Wonderful Life (1946) and so forth are every Christmas season...but it is certainly better than most current offerings and quite entertaining.
Well, despite the occasional dud for the most part romantic comedies have a few laughs, a decent story, and some attractive girls in the legal least so they have something to offer. I had not seen a lot of previews for 27 Dresses (2008) but after a stressful week of "vacation" (link coming soon) we needed some time to ourselves and away from the mini-terrorists so we chose that over the horrendous looking First Sunday (2008), Mad Money (2008), or Cloverfield (2008). On the bright side, after the shockingly bad In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007) it would not take much to amuse me and hey...how bad can a movie be when you are allowed to...nay, encouraged to, guided by the camera to look on the lovely Katherine Heigl?
The story has few surprises...it is pretty much a grouping of familiar characters from the cynical, unliked yet attractive soon-to-be boyfriend Kevin (James Marsden), the doting and wonderful father who is still a bit clueless, and the gorgeous, talented, sweet heroine Jane (Katherine Heigl). It also mixes in predictable situations...such as the "oh, we like the same song so we must like each other" scene, the mis-step by the wannabe boyfriend that he needs forgiveness for, the ultimate reconciliation...
In other words, it is about exactly as advertised. There are some pretty good laughs in it, such as when Jane says, "It is like finding out your favorite love song was written about a sandwich" and the scene where she wrecks her sister's engagement party and ends that marriage before the wedding, there are some sexy scenes...I concur with the view that it is hard to find an outfit that looks bad on Heigl...and it entertains from beginning to end. This isn't a movie that will be replayed every Valentine's Day the way A Christmas Story (1983), It's A Wonderful Life (1946) and so forth are every Christmas season...but it is certainly better than most current offerings and quite entertaining.
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
For the last couple of decades there have been numerous movies based on video games. There have been some that were very entertaining...say, Mortal Kombat (1995) and some that were an embarrassment whether they were based on a video game or just completely new...I think Super Mario Bros. (1993) or Street Fighter (1994) would be the leading poster child for that. Then there are some that are in between...Doom (2005) is a pretty good example. The thing is, seldom does the story line make for a good movie. Mortal Kombat has a tremendous storyline for a fighter game...not so much for a movie. People pair off and fight. As a movie, the storyline is basically pit fighter porn. Yet somehow they made it work.
Dungeon Siege is a line of strategy games with a story that seems pretty strong as movie source material. Indeed In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007) has a very strong story line. It has the lost prince, the heroic everyman, the dark and mysterious enemy, the beautiful heroine in peril, the redemption of the downtrodden...and it is able to work within the fantasy setting.
The movie benefited from a very strong cast. Jason Statham, Ron Perlman, Ray Liotta, John Rhys-Davies, Burt Reynolds...they gathered a strong cast. But there was something...off. Statham as Farmer was excellent. Matthew Lillard as the whining, simpering Duke Fallow, on the other hand, seemed out of place. He did not fit the gritty image projected by the backbone players of the movie. Burt Reynolds looked like a community theatre actor. Ray Liotta seemed cheesy and off-kilter. In short, the acting was abominable.
The story itself ended up being full of holes too egregious to ignore. For example, Farmer (Jason Statham) is a far superior fighter to King Konreid (Burt Reynolds) or even his elite Commander Tarish (Brian White), as is Norick (Ron Perlman). Norick is loosely alluded to as having at a long-lost point in time perhaps been a military man, though that is by no means certain, but all agree that Farmer has never had training. Why then is he so good at it?
The story makes too much use of the "Author's Hand" to move the story along. It makes no sense why they need to cross the river on the bizarre rope bridge, for example, though the scene itself is among the most entertaining of the movie. The road show portion of the movie is simply loosely connected adventures with no way of appraising how they contribute to the chase of the Krug, nor to how Farmer, Norick and friends...none of whom mourn the slaying of parents, grandparents, children, friends...know where the Krug are heading with their captives.
The movie also fails in the final duel between Gallian (Ray Liotta) and Farmer. To distract Gallian and allow Farmer to enter the secret lair of the mages, powerfully locked to keep all but mages out, the King's Magus Merick (John Rhys-Davies) battles him in one of the more entertaining wizard duels in the history of cinema where each mage mentally wields 5 or 6 swords simultaneously.
When Farmer sneaks in through a convenient vast "air hole" cave...some wizard lock, guys, well done...he confronts Gallian. Inexplicably, despite having earlier specifically addressed his lack of belief in fair play, Gallian then wields but one sword and goes mano a mano with Farmer. Uh, okay. Nonsensical, completely violates the internal consistency of the movie...but I guess you have to do what you have to do.
This review has really jumped all over the place which is fitting because so does the movie. It randomly reveals vital information mere minutes from the end of the movie...such as the fact that to be able to wield magical power Gallian has to be serving a king, which leads to his having declared himself King of the Krug...a great plot twist except you only find out it is a plot twist about 30 seconds before the twist so it has no impact...never establishes why a powerful magus like Gallian would have anything to do with a simpering dolt like Duke Fallow, forces the action with bizarre journeys, has a final battle that directly contradicts the plan that led to just Merick and Farmer invading the base of Gallian...this movie was a train wreck.
On the bright side, the battle scenes were good. Okay, I said something good about the movie, I am done here.
Dungeon Siege is a line of strategy games with a story that seems pretty strong as movie source material. Indeed In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007) has a very strong story line. It has the lost prince, the heroic everyman, the dark and mysterious enemy, the beautiful heroine in peril, the redemption of the downtrodden...and it is able to work within the fantasy setting.
The movie benefited from a very strong cast. Jason Statham, Ron Perlman, Ray Liotta, John Rhys-Davies, Burt Reynolds...they gathered a strong cast. But there was something...off. Statham as Farmer was excellent. Matthew Lillard as the whining, simpering Duke Fallow, on the other hand, seemed out of place. He did not fit the gritty image projected by the backbone players of the movie. Burt Reynolds looked like a community theatre actor. Ray Liotta seemed cheesy and off-kilter. In short, the acting was abominable.
The story itself ended up being full of holes too egregious to ignore. For example, Farmer (Jason Statham) is a far superior fighter to King Konreid (Burt Reynolds) or even his elite Commander Tarish (Brian White), as is Norick (Ron Perlman). Norick is loosely alluded to as having at a long-lost point in time perhaps been a military man, though that is by no means certain, but all agree that Farmer has never had training. Why then is he so good at it?
The story makes too much use of the "Author's Hand" to move the story along. It makes no sense why they need to cross the river on the bizarre rope bridge, for example, though the scene itself is among the most entertaining of the movie. The road show portion of the movie is simply loosely connected adventures with no way of appraising how they contribute to the chase of the Krug, nor to how Farmer, Norick and friends...none of whom mourn the slaying of parents, grandparents, children, friends...know where the Krug are heading with their captives.
The movie also fails in the final duel between Gallian (Ray Liotta) and Farmer. To distract Gallian and allow Farmer to enter the secret lair of the mages, powerfully locked to keep all but mages out, the King's Magus Merick (John Rhys-Davies) battles him in one of the more entertaining wizard duels in the history of cinema where each mage mentally wields 5 or 6 swords simultaneously.
When Farmer sneaks in through a convenient vast "air hole" cave...some wizard lock, guys, well done...he confronts Gallian. Inexplicably, despite having earlier specifically addressed his lack of belief in fair play, Gallian then wields but one sword and goes mano a mano with Farmer. Uh, okay. Nonsensical, completely violates the internal consistency of the movie...but I guess you have to do what you have to do.
This review has really jumped all over the place which is fitting because so does the movie. It randomly reveals vital information mere minutes from the end of the movie...such as the fact that to be able to wield magical power Gallian has to be serving a king, which leads to his having declared himself King of the Krug...a great plot twist except you only find out it is a plot twist about 30 seconds before the twist so it has no impact...never establishes why a powerful magus like Gallian would have anything to do with a simpering dolt like Duke Fallow, forces the action with bizarre journeys, has a final battle that directly contradicts the plan that led to just Merick and Farmer invading the base of Gallian...this movie was a train wreck.
On the bright side, the battle scenes were good. Okay, I said something good about the movie, I am done here.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Charlie Wilson's War
I was not hugely interested in seeing this movie. First, it has the over-rated, annoying Tom Hanks starring in it. Second, it continues the vast wing conspiracy to pass Julia Roberts off as attractive. Third, it is a history based flick about events that somewhat revise what happened. However, traffic considerations and free popcorn at Regal conspired to lure me in. Well, that and withdrawals...I had not seen a flick this year.
It started poorly. Lots of drugs and strippers which Congressman Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) somehow is uninterested in while being fascinated by a televised report on Afghanistan by Tom Brokaw. If he was indeed the drunken lecher portrayed in this movie that is internally inconsistent. Of course we as movie viewers know it is poetic license to show both sides of his personality but still it set my teeth on edge.
Enter Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the CIA guy whose career is being crushed by his new superior. We first meet Gust having an expository yet hilarious blow-up with his boss. As a result he ends up on the Afghanistan desk.
Enter Texas wealthy woman Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts). She summons Wilson to a party she is having to raise awareness of the plight of Afghanistan, manipulates him into going to Pakistan to meet their president who convinces him to view an Afghan refugee camp. This gives Wilson motivation to help the Afghan rebels.
When he discovers the U.S. officials on the ground in Afghanistan don't care he heads home, demands and appointment with the CIA and meets Gust. Together with the influence of Herring they gain funding for the rebels, put together an unlikely coalition of Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to change the money to guns and transport them to Afghanistan. With that weaponry the rebels drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
At the celebration party there is perhaps the greatest moment in the movie. Gust is trying to convince Wilson to maintain funding to Afghanistan, now for schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. When Wilson seems more interested in returning to the party he says "You need to listen to what I am saying to you." and then pauses as the sound of airplanes drones off behind them.
You are intended to connect the dots. The angry orphans of Afghanistan became the foot soldiers of Al Quaeda who flew planes into the World Trade Center. In that way the film seems to be arguing our job in Iraq is to make sure the infrastructure is rebuilt in Iraq before we leave...that they have schools, roads, hospitals, jobs...that they know we were their friends when Hussein was killing his enemies at will. Will people make that connection? I doubt it. Too many people have a blind, unreasoning hatred of Bush and anything he does they will critique and take the opposite stance regardless of what makes sense. At the same time, the U.S. has repeatedly shown we have no clue how to deal with Middle East politics.
The movie was surprisingly entertaining. Seymour stole the show with his quips and one liners (in response to a question about Afghan policy he replies, "Well, strictly speaking we don't have one. But we're working on it." "Who are?" "Me and three other guys." His droll delivery turns it into a hysterical moment and he does so many other times throughout the movie.
The sly references to Wilson's attractive and provocatively dressed female staff as "jail bait" also receives a chuckle.
Really, the movie only leaves one question up in the air: able to choose between Bonnie Bach (Amy Adams), "Charlie's Angels" (Wynn Everett, Mary Bonner Baker, Rachel Nichols and Shiri Appleby), and Herring (Julia Roberts), who in their right mind would pick Roberts? It is obvious Wilson was near-sighted...
It started poorly. Lots of drugs and strippers which Congressman Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) somehow is uninterested in while being fascinated by a televised report on Afghanistan by Tom Brokaw. If he was indeed the drunken lecher portrayed in this movie that is internally inconsistent. Of course we as movie viewers know it is poetic license to show both sides of his personality but still it set my teeth on edge.
Enter Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the CIA guy whose career is being crushed by his new superior. We first meet Gust having an expository yet hilarious blow-up with his boss. As a result he ends up on the Afghanistan desk.
Enter Texas wealthy woman Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts). She summons Wilson to a party she is having to raise awareness of the plight of Afghanistan, manipulates him into going to Pakistan to meet their president who convinces him to view an Afghan refugee camp. This gives Wilson motivation to help the Afghan rebels.
When he discovers the U.S. officials on the ground in Afghanistan don't care he heads home, demands and appointment with the CIA and meets Gust. Together with the influence of Herring they gain funding for the rebels, put together an unlikely coalition of Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to change the money to guns and transport them to Afghanistan. With that weaponry the rebels drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
At the celebration party there is perhaps the greatest moment in the movie. Gust is trying to convince Wilson to maintain funding to Afghanistan, now for schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. When Wilson seems more interested in returning to the party he says "You need to listen to what I am saying to you." and then pauses as the sound of airplanes drones off behind them.
You are intended to connect the dots. The angry orphans of Afghanistan became the foot soldiers of Al Quaeda who flew planes into the World Trade Center. In that way the film seems to be arguing our job in Iraq is to make sure the infrastructure is rebuilt in Iraq before we leave...that they have schools, roads, hospitals, jobs...that they know we were their friends when Hussein was killing his enemies at will. Will people make that connection? I doubt it. Too many people have a blind, unreasoning hatred of Bush and anything he does they will critique and take the opposite stance regardless of what makes sense. At the same time, the U.S. has repeatedly shown we have no clue how to deal with Middle East politics.
The movie was surprisingly entertaining. Seymour stole the show with his quips and one liners (in response to a question about Afghan policy he replies, "Well, strictly speaking we don't have one. But we're working on it." "Who are?" "Me and three other guys." His droll delivery turns it into a hysterical moment and he does so many other times throughout the movie.
The sly references to Wilson's attractive and provocatively dressed female staff as "jail bait" also receives a chuckle.
Really, the movie only leaves one question up in the air: able to choose between Bonnie Bach (Amy Adams), "Charlie's Angels" (Wynn Everett, Mary Bonner Baker, Rachel Nichols and Shiri Appleby), and Herring (Julia Roberts), who in their right mind would pick Roberts? It is obvious Wilson was near-sighted...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
