bruddah_man_matt Reviews

Deja Vu (2006)

Tony Scott's Visual Flash and Panache Give This Average Story A Kick In The Pants

[8/10 · 4 December 2006]

Despite the fact that many folks seem to embrace Ridley Scott's grandiose directorial style, they often refer to younger brother Tony's work as "amateurish." I on the other hand can't help but be wowed by Tony Scott's flashy, in your face, kinetic editing style. Deja Vu would have been "just another thriller" had it not been for Scott's trademark touches. That being said it's Scott's style coupled with some solid performances that are the only things holding together what otherwise probably would have been just another dumbed down Bruckheimer explosionfest helmed by Michael Bay.

Storywise I have to say that I was let down. The initial trailer for this film had me all hyped as I thought it would be a deep psychological thriller that actually dealt with something that at least remotely resembled Deja Vu and not "I got to see stuff that happened 4 days ago on a giant flatscreen... that's kind of like Deja Vu right?" Wrong. Figures as it's a Bruckheimer production. In a nutshell the basic premise behind Deja Vu is that the government has found a way to see 4 days into the past and with that came my first question which was "how the hell did this screenplay sell for $5 million dollars?" Things don't really get ridiculous until the last 20-30 minutes though. Throughout the film we're told "we can't send anyone back in time, we can't change the past, it can't be done" and yet somehow toward the end of the film, someone is sent back through time. It's at this point that the main protagonist figures out what we as the audience knew all along and after all is said and done we get a slap in the face in the form of a cheesy, predictable, happy go lucky ending which totally doesn't fit with the tone of the film, especially after the protagonist and antagonist share a conversation about sacrifice and patriotism. Perhaps I was expecting too much? In my opinion the term "Deja Vu" was used as nothing more than a gimmick here. You might as well call this film "4 days ago."

The performances from the leads were solid all around. Denzel is of course... well he's Denzel. When he rants and raves on the big screen he commands the attention of the other characters as well as the audience. Val Kilmer's performance is pretty straightforward, but the performance I was both most impressed and disappointed with was Jim Caviezel's. As much as I was wowed by his character I was so intrigued by him that it made me angry that he got such little screen time. True they did describe in brief what motivated him to do the things he did but it all felt so rushed as he only showed up as the film was hitting it's stride.

And then there's Tony Scott's direction. Simply put, if you enjoyed how he shot Enemy of The State and Spy Game, you'll most likely enjoy Deja Vu. Think similar cinematography (i.e. flashy and techy but more restrained than Man on Fire and Domino), but with a government conspiracy screenplay that's also part science fiction. Scott pulls out his familiar bag of tricks by employing things like quick flashes, zooms and edits during the scenes where the characters see into the past. All touches that add to the feeling of confusion and put you smack in the middle of the action. And when things heat up and Denzel takes off after Caviezel in a Humvee, things get really impressive. Using a helmet that basically allows Washington's character to see into the past, Denzel drives around New Orleans with one eye looking straight ahead at the road, and the other eye focused on a screen showing the same road 4 days ago. One shot has his character looking at the screen that shows him the past as he ignores the threat of a semi coming straight at him which the audience can see in plain sight. Then all of a sudden... well I won't spoil it but talk about slick direction. Of course you have your slow motion crashes and water shots as well as Scott's trademark aerial pans around the city which help to immerse you in the environment. Some might dismiss these techniques as cheap tricks but simply put, I like the way he chops things and edits them back together.

In the end it's these flashy details that help to save what is really a mediocre script. The idea of a story where destiny supposedly has a plan for a character and where said character thinks he's changing things when in fact he's acting in accordance with whatever plan destiny has for him in the first place has been done in the past in films such as Minority Report and The Matrix, yet the style of direction is almost enough to make Deja Vu feel relatively fresh. Definitely not the deep thinker of a thriller I was hoping for, but a flashy, showy take on a concept that's been done before that overall makes for an entertaining popcorn flick. True the only Deja Vu you'll experience during this film is Scott's kinetic style, but if you're a fan of his work it's worth a viewing. 7/10.

Casino Royale (2006)

One More Franchise Rescued By The Reboot

[9/10 · 25 November 2006]

With the recent success of Batman Begins and Superman Returns, Hollywood is quickly learning that the blunders it's made over the past decade or so with established franchises can in fact be remedied or buried by rebooting a series from scratch (or in the case of Superman, its last well respected installment). By placing a talented visionary in the director's chair, casting for the role as opposed to slapping a big name onto a poster, substituting the work of computers for the work of real stunt-men (minimizing CGI), and placing a greater focus on character development and story rather than mindless action, production companies are fast learning that if they get back to basics and focus on making movies over money, (or at least making movies in addition to money) the theaters will fill themselves.

Casino Royale is further proof that reboots of franchises work when done properly. This is a darker, grittier and more "real" Bond than any of us have ever seen and I flat out loved it. Sure it had it's flaws, but director Martin Cambell pulled out all the stops here and reminded us why folks often refer to Goldeneye (which he also directed) as the best of the Brosnan Bonds. From the opening parkour/free running scene, to the gritty hand to hand combat, this was Bond exactly how I've always wanted to see him on the big screen.

Anyone who's still whining about Daniel Craig being cast as Bond is either in denial or hasn't seen the film yet. In terms of getting the right guy to play 007, so he might not have looked the part at first, but he sure as hell acted the part on screen. With the studio deciding to take the 007 franchise down a more sophisticated and less campy path, Craig fits the part like a glove. Once you get a sense of where they're taking Bond you think to yourself "now I get it. Now I get why they cast him."

The film itself definitely takes a few cues from the popular Jason Bourne trilogy and you can tell someone did their homework on recent spy films. With Casino Royale the man comes first, the gadgets come second (or almost not at all in the case of this film). Die Another Day this most certainly is not. I liked how they chose not to include Q or Moneypenny (although I hope to see them both in future installments) and focus on Bond for this film as it's 007's first mission and I felt that we should be introduced to him as if we've never met the character before since this installment differed so greatly from previous installments. Keeping Judi Dench on as M however was a nice touch and she definitely added some very humorous but not overly campy comic relief. "Christ I miss the Cold War." It's clever one liners like these that made the franchise memorable as opposed to cringe inducing clichés like "I thought Christmas only came once a year" - The World is Not Enough.

As a whole this film is almost perfect, however it falls flat somewhere near the middle before it picks itself up again. Yes there are some tense moments during the poker game but damn I didn't know the game itself would comprise some 30-40 minutes of the film. I'd have much preferred if Bond made better use of his stunning Aston Martin DBS rather than rolling it some 2 minutes after he hopped in to run down Le Chiffre. Taking 5 minutes out of the poker game in exchange for 5 more minutes with the DBS wouldn't have hurt the film in my opinion. Add to that the fact that Cambell decided to develop the romance between Bond and Vesper shortly after the poker game, and it adds to the feeling of the film being a bit drawn out. Luckily we're pushed back into our seats with a stunning finale and an excellent closing that has us wanting more in the way of a Bond 22 with Craig returning as Bond.

In the end the small issue with the pacing doesn't compare to everything they've finally got right. Someone like James Bond should be able to keep you on your toes and let's just say there were a few occasions when I found myself thinking "boy I didn't see that coming." From the opening black and white scenes, to the cool implementation of Bond firing toward the gun barrel cam, the witty dialogue, the excellent action choreography and the clever plot twists that keep you guessing until the end, it all fits. Casino Royale is the anti-Die Another Day and I loved every minute of it. Daniel Craig is the new James Bond and he has proved that he is more than worthy and ready to wear the number 007. Bring on 22. 9.5/10

Derailed (I) (2005)

Misleading During Setup And Somewhat Predictable In Execution

[7/10 · 19 November 2006]

There seems to be an annoying trend in Hollywood these days which consists of film studios constantly misleading you regarding a films premise via trailers and previews. Sometimes I end up being pleasantly surprised as a film turns out to far superior to what's portrayed in it's trailer, other times I feel like I should have just stuck with the trailer. Derailed falls somewhere in between these two extremes.

As depicted in its trailers and the first half an hour or so of the film, Derailed is supposed to be about two married business execs who are blackmailed by an outside source while having an affair with one another. The buildup to and about 15 minutes after the affair are pretty solid. Owen and Aniston do a good job at first of convincing you that they are broken and lost as to what to do after they are threatened at gunpoint and it's made obvious that they will soon be blackmailed for their actions.

However following the affair and once we begin to see that the threats are virtually one sided, it becomes pretty obvious as to what the first twist will be. What director Mikael Hafstrom should have done was give us more chemistry between Owen and Aniston. I felt like the film could have been so much better if instead of having Cassel's threaten Owen and disappear for a few months, he'd blackmail Owen and leave until Owen fell in with Aniston again. Instead Vincent Cassel's character comes off as nothing more than a punk who's out to toy with Owen as just when Owen's character thinks he's safe he gets a phone call and a demand for more money than the last time. It's around this time that key plot twists become evident before they're even exposed. The fact that Aniston only claims to have been threatened and we never see said threats along with anything regarding her private life on screen makes viewers suspicious. When we finally see her at gunpoint again, Owen is once again present and one begins to wonder why Aniston only gets toyed with in front of Owen.

It eventually becomes evident that the majority of the film is not about two folks being played by a third party, but rather by Owen himself being played. We see him trying to outsmart the man blackmailing him and it ending in disaster. During this half hour or so of Owen being toyed with I began to lose interest and was almost derailed from this film myself. It's not up until the last 20 minutes or so that the story picks up again. While the plot becomes predictable after the first half hour or so the final scenes help to salvage this picture. We're given a few unexpected twists and although their outcome results in a somewhat questionable (ethically speaking) ending, the film at least closes on a note of satisfaction in that the guy who's been getting screwed over throughout the entire film gets his and learns "not to be the nice guy all the time" by finally standing up for himself and doing what he feels is necessary to survive.

All in all Derailed is a flawed picture that sags in the middle but starts and ends strong enough to at least warrant a rental. Owen gives a great performance here as does Cassel. Surprisingly the RZA and Xzibit also give pretty good performances as well despite their reputations as B Grade actors. However while I was pleased with her performance Jennifer Aniston simply did not get enough screen time to flesh out her character. I was definitely interested in seeing more chemistry between the two leads and wished Hafstrom had better developed the affair between Owen and Aniston as I not only wanted to see more of her on screen, but I felt that it could've helped the story along. In the end Derailed is flawed picture but it's at least worth a rental if you're into the genre. Just be prepared for a story you might not be expecting based on the trailer. 6.5/10.

DOA: Dead or Alive (2006)

Better Than Most Video game Adaptations

[6/10 · 19 November 2006]

I have to say that based on the previews I didn't think this film stood a chance of getting anything better than a 2/10. However knowing that Corey Yuen was directing the picture, I probably should have at least given the action the benefit of the doubt. As it turns out DOA is a pretty rubbish flick in terms of plot and acting but the action is solid. Yuen has a very Ronnie Yu style in terms of how he works the camera and while this film isn't going to win any awards anytime soon it's a solid popcorn action flick.

For the folks who have seen Yuen's So Close which starred Shu Qi and Zhao Wei DOA follows the same formula. Good looking women taking part in some good looking action and whooping on each other's good looking behinds. The plot which is virtually nonexistent simply consists of fighters from around the world being invited to a martial arts tournament. Of course each fighter has his or her own motives and there are obviously some secret agendas going on behind the scenes. Honestly the plot is so paper thing it's not even worth discussing. Women might be put off by this film and immediately assume that it's nothing more than a teenage boy's fantasy but in fact DOA does a better job of appealing to women as well than McG's overly "girl power" Charlie's Angels.

All in all there isn't much to say about this film except that the action and the sporadic humor are the only things which make it worth viewing. That might not sound like much but Yuen's experience with choreographing fights scenes really shows and as mentioned earlier he really knows how to work the camera. In fact he could probably convince you that Steven Segal has something left with his camera work alone. Yuen also knows how to shoot the leading ladies in terms of knowing how to make them look good, and I'm not just talking about the fight scenes. Yes the fighting consists of somewhat over the top wire work at times but it's 10 times better than the amateurish stuff McG tried to put together for Charlie's Angels. The film also makes no attempts to take itself too seriously like Lara Croft: Tomb Raider did at times. DOA compares to the first Mortal Kombat film in that it's kind of a faithful adaptation of the source material and definitely made for fans of the series in that the focus is on the action (although fans of martial arts flicks in general will find plenty to like with DOA).

DOA wont change peoples opinions on film adaptations of video games anytime soon (that task is in the hands of Kojima and his Metal Gear Solid project) but it is a much better popcorn action flick than the previews lead you to believe. The way I see it, if people are willing to pay to watch something thrown together by hacks like Paul W.S. Anderson (and yes I know that he directed the original Mortal Kombat) and McG why not DOA? The fight choreography is much better than anything those two could ever conjure up and the leading ladies are about as good looking as can be. Besides, no one watches a film like DOA for anything aside from the eye candy anyway. Far from great but much better than I had anticipated. 6.5/10.

Babel (I) (2006)

Our Actions Have Consequences That Go Beyond What We Can See With Our Eyes

[10/10 · 13 November 2006]

First things first let's set the record straight. Babel has been unjustly criticized as a "Crash clone" which I assure you it most certainly is not. And even though it's supposedly the final piece in Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu's "Death Trilogy" it differs from Amores Perros and 21 Grams quite significantly in how the story is presented to the audience. Babel differs from the aforementioned films in that most of the characters of the various narratives do not end up meeting one another before the credits roll. Whereas those films set out to show us how unrelated characters come to know one another via their actions Babel instead focuses on the individual lives of the characters of three narratives (two young boys growing up in Morocco who guard their family's Goats with a rifle, a teenage deaf-mute girl and her father living in Japan who gave said rifle to a man in Morocco and a Mexican nanny who cares for the children of Pitt and Blanchett's characters) as a fourth story which connects them (Blanchett's character getting shot by said rifle which belongs to the family of the two boys in Morocco) unfolds in the background. On that note I have to credit Innaritu for showing restraint. As interesting as it is to witness seemingly unrelated characters come together on screen it's a somewhat tired concept that's currently being done to death. Instead we are presented with deep and introspective peeks into the lives of characters who come from the most diverse of backgrounds and cultures.

At first glance the broad story arc which connects the smaller narratives seems to exists only so that audiences don't view the film as a messy hodgepodge of introspective studies of human character and behavior. However, Blanchett's character getting shot is a story in itself despite the fact that the real focus of the film (at least in my eyes) is on the the lives of the characters outside that of the broader arc. By connecting the narratives Innaritu shows us how our personal problems can become global ones under certain circumstances and how our actions can affect the lives of those we'll never meet in our lifetime.

However despite the connections between the narratives the deepest parts of the films come when we dive deep into the lives of the individual characters. Innaritu shows us the world through the eyes of a deaf-mute Japanese girl as she deals with the horror of her Mother's suicide and how she tries to cope sexually (the most powerful of the 4 stories in my opinion) along with a Mexican immigrant who becomes too comfortable with her lifestyle after living in America illegally for 16 years. He also shows us how a young boy must learn to accept the consequences of his reckless actions as well as how a couple go from being distant to remembering all they have after one of them is physically wounded. One of the most interesting moments occurs when we see how the other tourists who were traveling with Pitt and Blanchett's characters react to her getting shot. Some are helpful, others fearful for their own lives and some just plain selfish. Sexuality was also a major theme throughout the film and we get to see how different cultures as well as different age groups deal with the subject.

I don't want to say too much as one should really experience Innaritu's vision on their own but this film touches on life itself. It's hard for me to think of a particular subject that wasn't dealt with here which is why it's so hard to keep this review under 1000 words. Life, death, joy, anger, regret, depression, innocence, responsibility, irresponsibility. This film not only spans the world in terms of it's setting, it also spans a world of topics and emotions. And speaking of the settings, the cinematography was world class. The bleak shots of Morocco contrasted exceptionally well with high tech Tokyo and it's busy skyline. The performances were also nothing short of amazing. You go from hating Blanchett to hoping she'll pull through. You shake your head at Barraza's (Amelia) character for the careless decisions she makes. And while we don't get much from him in terms of range despite being billed as the lead Pitt does not disappoint. However it's Rinko Kikuchi who steals the show here as the troubled teen Chieko. It'll be a crime if she goes unnoticed at the Oscars as her performance here was nothing short of Academy Award winning material.

Innaritu has certainly outdone himself with Babel. In the end it's just too broad a film to sum up in a simple review but I will say that if there's one thing he left out, it was anything that could be criticized. Babel is simply an amazing, eye opening, mind bending film that when it's over, will have you asking yourself "just how many lives have been affected by my actions?" 10/10

Harsh Times (2005)

Ayer's Training Day

[7/10 · 11 November 2006]

With all the hoopla surrounding "Harsh Times" and it being marketed as a sort of "Training Day" clone my guess is that many people might be fooled into thinking that this film is something it's not. In one sense the two films are almost totally unrelated, but on a literal note "Harsh Times" is David Ayer's "Training Day" in that it's the first film in which he's sat in the director's chair. As a writer we've seen Ayer both hit (Training Day and Dark Blue) and miss (S.W.A.T, TFATF and U-571). So how do things pan out when he writes and directs? In terms of the plot Ayer gives us a pretty simple story but it's mixed in with complex characters who face complex decisions. Army Ranger returns from Afghanistan and faces the decision or moving forward with his career, taking up a simple life with his girlfriend in Mexico, or returning to his old gang banger ways.

To tell you the truth this film is nowhere near as explosive as "Training Day" was. I was expecting a lot of "pop pop, bang bang" but instead I was given something deeper. Christian Bale and Freddy Rodriguez both gave outstanding performances and while Bale is more likely to get most of the attention Rodriguez's performance should not go unnoticed. The two complemented one another on screen and their character's contrasting personalities made for some excellent "good brother, bad brother" chemistry. After this film I'd hope that Rodriguez gets the attention he deserves. Eva Longoria also gave a good performance but her role here was much smaller than I had thought it'd be and her name was probably used to draw more fans into theaters. Bale on the other hand once again demonstrates that he truly is one of Hollywood's most versatile and focused actors. Here Bale gives us a horrific look at what war can do to a person. At times he's focused and disciplined willing to do anything for his dream job. Other times he's madly in love with the girl of his dreams and her simple way of life in Mexico, sometimes he's just plain psychotic and toward the end of the film we see a man beginning to break down. The amazing thing is that he gives us such a complex character and all the while we still see him as one man and realize how messed up his life must be for him to go from being madly in love with her, to sticking a gun in his girlfriend's face. Whereas Alonzo in "Training Day" just plain didn't care about anyone but himself and you begin to hate him, Bale's performance here makes certain that you never stop caring about Davis despite the fact that he goes off the deep end on more than a few occasions. One scene where he throws a beer bottle at an elderly man's car had my eyes wide open. Powerful stuff and just plain great acting.

As for Ayer's direction, well it's not always a smooth transition when you go from writing to directing but for a directorial debut this is a pretty solid film. If there's anything he needs to work on it's the pacing and some of the dialogue. There were times when the story dragged on and slowed too much even for me, and I'm generally a fan of directors who include "unnecessary" scenes that give us additional almost excessive insight as to what motivates or drives a character a la Michael Mann films. The pacing would pick up and I'd think "here we go" only to be dragged down as Ayer took me in a completely different direction. As much as I dislike Fuqua as a director, his only good film (Training Day) demonstrated that he had more experience behind the camera than Ayer. As for the dialogue, the overuse of the word "dude" annoyed me at times. Authentic yes, but there comes a point where being too authentic can become a bit annoying. Expanding the character's vocabularies might kill a bit of the realism but it'd probably help on the big screen.

These two flaws however are no match for everything Ayer gets right. The character development in this film is rich and deep. The cinematography immerses you in Los Angeles and gives L.A. that "afternoon dirty orange sky" gritty feel. The shots of the city Skyline inserted into the film here and there really set the scene and the tone of the film. The flashes and filters employed when Bale goes off the deep end really wake you up and put you on the edge of your seat. While the action is spread thin throughout the film when Ayer wants to hit you he hits hard. The opening scene in Afghanistan set to a hip-hop score knocks you back into your seat and lets you know that you're in for a ride. And the extremely well shot shootout at the end uses some stylish slow motion effects and keeps you guessing as to where the bullets are going to end up. Seeing the progression from "Dark Blue" to "Training Day" and now "Harsh Times" is proof of Ayer's progression as a writer. But while Ayer learned to grab your attention as a writer, as a director he must now learn to keep a hold on it. Harsh Times isn't a perfect film but it's a great one nonetheless coupled with outstanding performances from the two leads and a pretty solid first outing for writer turned director David Ayer. Up the pacing, expand the character's vocabularies and give us more of that showy cinematography in the form of a bit more action and the next one could very well be a perfect 10. For now 7.5/10 rounded up to an 8. He didn't score a perfect 10, but Ayer definitely passed his Training Day.

The Prestige (2006)

Nolan's Films Are Nothing Short Of Magic

[10/10 · 30 October 2006]

Cutter (Michael Caine) - Every great magic trick consists of three acts. The first act is called "The Pledge"; The magician shows you something ordinary, but of course... it probably isn't. The second act is called "The Turn"; The magician makes his ordinary something do something extraordinary. Now if you're looking for the secret... you won't find it, that's why there's a third act called, "The Prestige"; this is the part with the twists and turns, where lives hang in the balance, and you see something shocking you've never seen before.

How fitting then that these three acts are exactly what Christopher Nolan presents his audience with in his latest masterpiece "The Prestige." I imagine it must be difficult for critics of Nolan's work to read reviews composed by others where terms like "masterpiece" are substituted for plebeian words such as "movie" or "film." However the simple fact of the matter is that Nolan has a gift for making movies and "The Prestige" is no exception.

Nolan's latest work centers on two rival magicians who set out to steal the secrets of one another's work after a series of unfortunate events have unfolded. But it's not just Nolan who made the film, it was also the cast. Christian Bale continues to reinforce the idea that he is one of the most dedicated and versatile actors of our time. This guy's rise to the top is simply an example of "hard work pays off." He plays his character so well that at times you love him and at others you pity him. The same can be said about Hugh Jackman who goes beyond playing a "mutant with claws." Of course nothing needs to be said of the great Michael Caine but the performance I was most surprised with was that of Scarlet Johansson's. She's come a long way from playing the squeaky and somewhat whiny clone in Michael Bay's "The Island" and succeeded in this movie by passing herself off as both a bright and cheery maiden and a scorned assistant.

The characters themselves stand in a sort of gray area. No one is truly good or truly evil. There is no black and white. This coincided with the idea of "living the act" whereby one of the characters suggests that a true magician is always a magician. On the street, in his home, in front of a crowd or on his own. He must live his entire life as his stage persona if he desires to fool everyone during a performance and with that we are kept guessing as to who the protagonist and antagonist are. "Never reveal your secrets" he says "or they'll never respect you again."

*Spoilers*

I must admit that this film was much darker than I had anticipated. For some reason I felt like the previews led me to believe that I'd be dazzled by magic tricks when in fact the majority of the tricks performed are interfered with by the two on screen rivals. The first words that came to mind when we were presented with a few "truths" behind the tricks of certain magicians were gritty and shocking. We get a first hand look at how magicians were and are often forced to "get their hands dirty" in order to get the standing ovation they seek. This brutal honesty was an effective device employed by Nolan that helped to keep you guessing if they were "going to do that again" as the characters made preparations for their next round of tricks. The film itself is also very thematic often examining the juxtaposition of a pair of concepts. Inventing versus stealing, magic versus science etc..

Cinematographywise enough good things can't be said. The scene where Jackman is standing amidst a field of light bulbs was eye popping and the sets themselves are very convincing. However the most effective trick Nolan has up his sleeve is his signature "flash of memory" shots where as a character speaks of the past we get quick glimpses via rapid flashbacks. Nolan also has a knack for telling stories by placing key plot points out of chronological order and he really pulled out all the stops here. Smart moviegoers may pick up a few things here or there before they are revealed but the entire story is kept well shrouded until the very end.

And what an ending it was. Considering all the praise I've given this film you're probably thinking to yourself "then why a 9 and not a 10?" Well for starters this movie was a tad drawn out. This minor gripe coupled with one other thing are the only complaints I had and that one complaint was the supernatural angle no one saw coming.

I won't go so far as to spoil it completely with specifics, but let's just say that there's a point in the film when the theme of slight of hand versus wizardry or stage magic versus science is meant to be taken literally. This is the film's make or break angle. Once the secret is revealed will you still respect the magician (Nolan) and his trick (The Prestige)? Nolan seems to think so. The ending is great in that it's conclusive or open depending upon your interpretation of the events which have taken place on screen. It is what you make it out to be. It is VERY rare that such an ending exists but the final moments of "The Prestige" are a testament to how conclusions such as these should be pulled off.

According to the film "A real magician tries to invent something new, that other magicians are gonna scratch their heads over." In my opinion the same should ring true for directors and that's certainly the case with "The Prestige." 9/10

Behind Enemy Lines II: Axis of Evil (2006 Video)

Hardcore Right Wing Propaganda Trash

[1/10 · 11 October 2006]

From the opening montage with the Keith David voice-over (who "coincidentally" also does the voice-overs for the US Navy commercials) to the subtitle "Axis Of Evil" coined by none other than George W. Bush I should have known better. In fact I kind of figured that I knew which slant this film would be taking but I gave the movie the benefit of the doubt.

This film is hardcore right wing propaganda trash no question about it. While I don't believe they label her as his Secretary of State, the President of the US in the film has an African American right hand woman. Gee, I wonder who that's supposed to be? Even the President himself appears to be a taller, better looking version of George W. Bush. Combine this with Keith David who is the Navy's current recruiting voice and well... I think you can see where this film is going.

Plotwise the film consists of the US sending a team of Navy SEALs into North Korea to remove a nuclear threat (i.e. disable or destroy a nuclear weapon). They set up the story such that South Korean diplomats come in and favor a full on preemptive strike over a SpecOps operation. Basically if we end up in an all out war with the North Koreans in this movie, the filmmakers want us to see that the President is against it and that it's his "old school, hit em hard" General and the South Koreans who are pushing for war. Somehow the filmmakers are attempting to get viewers to draw comparisons between this film and real life in an attempt to paint the current President in a positive anti-war light. Initially the SEAL incursion is scrubbed in favor of an all out attack but not until after 4 SEALs make their jump from a civilian airliner. Then magically after the South Korean SpecOps locate the surviving SEAL team members the President decides to let them have another go at it? Why scrub a mission you're only going to decide to go with later? I know why, to waste 40 minutes of my life and make the second round feel more meaningful because I've just seen two SEALs die and another two get tortured.

There's also a North Korean General who opposes Kim Jong Il (yet he only refers to him as "our leader") and believes that North Korea's nuclear missile plan is detrimental to the country. This is the filmmaker's sad attempt at trying to be fair to the North Koreans. I'm sorry but to denounce them throughout the entire film and expect viewers to believe you're paying respect to them by depicting one guy as sympathetic to a US/South Korean cause is just flat out preposterous.

The action is also bad. SEALs do not fire from the hip, they don't unload entire magazines at once and since when do they carry AK-47s into battle? The technical inaccuracies are major drawbacks here. The first Behind Enemy Lines also had a handful of inaccuracies but it's bigger budget allowed for more big bangs and therefore many of the inaccuracies were overlooked by it's mainstream audience. Axis Of Evil is also filled with timeless clichés. You know who's going to die, all of the "foreign" South Korean SpecOps guys sans their English speaking team leader are killed and the tactics employed by both sides are just plain stupid. Who fires at 20 guys armed with AKs from the middle of a road anyway?

The reason this movie gets a 3 as opposed to a 1 is because the director tried to be creative with constant freeze frame action shots, zooms and cuts, color filters, a shaky camera and sped up sequences. At first I considered giving this film a 4 for the attempt at being creative direction and cinematography-wise but then...

• The freeze frame action shots get annoying after a while. It gets to the point where whenever someone is shot we get a freeze frame on them.

• The filters are cheesy with a yellowish one used for flashbacks and a greenish, whitish one used for scenes shot in Korea. The rest of the film is shot in full color.

• The shaky camera is too shaky. This was probably done in an attempt to conceal the lack of realism and on screen action. "We can't afford good SFX so instead we'll shake the hell out of the camera and make the audience think things are way more hectic than they are."

• I did however like the quick cuts, zooms, layered shots and sped up sequences though. They seemed sporadic and well timed and helped an otherwise dull B movie along.

In the end it's obvious they used the Behind Enemy Lines tag in an attempt to milk it. The worse part of this film comes as the credits roll though. There is a sad attempt to liken what we have just seen on screen to real life events as the voice of a Korean Newscaster describes the real life situation in Korea. She goes on to tell that there was a good chance that a supposed nuclear explosion which took place in North Korea in 2004 was the result of a SpecOps team successfully destroying a nuclear weapon. It then goes on to further denounce North Korea and attempts to paint the Bush Administration in a positive light. This film is pitiful but IMO if the director toned it down he could take his kinetic style and successfully apply it to other films that hopefully contain much better writing. Next time hire someone familiar with SpecOps weapons and tactics and keep the political BS to a minimum. Is this supposed to be an action flick or a docudrama? I don't know but it's a bad example of both. 3/10

Edison (2005)

Not Nearly As Bad As People Say But Not Perfect Either

[5/10 · 9 October 2006]

From the get go it's understandable why people might think they should avoid Edison. I mean two big Hollywood names and yet it's pulled from theaters? How bad can this film possibly be? The truth is that Edison is not necessarily a horrible film (I have seen much much worse) but it isn't a perfect one either beginning with the cast. The cast of Edison effectively contributes to both making and breaking this film IMO.

First off, whoever came up with the bright idea to cast Justin Timberlake in a political/crime/cop thriller should immediately be fired. The fact that he is a recognizable name in the pop music industry does not help at all. In fact his name in a film like this probably puts off more folks than it attracts. Who goes to see a crime thriller starring one of pop musics pretty boys? Bad, bad move on someones part and a terrible casting decision. Timberlake is not a solid actor at all. He isn't bad, but he's far from great and his pop status detracts from what's on screen. A good actor can hold your attention even if he's been booed by the people in real life. Case in point Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson. But JT is neither. I cannot stress what a bad move it was to cast him in this film.

Secondly, Spacey and Freeman do not have much screen time here, especially Spacey. It's pretty obvious that their names are thrown onto the cover of this film in an attempt to exploit their star status. Their performances weren't bad but because they played such minor roles it's not like they had a chance to dazzle us on the big screen. These two neither detract from nor add to much of what's on screen. The biggest contribution these two make to Edison is being responsible for the hype surrounding this picture in the first place. People hear bad things about this movie and yet they must see it because in their mind there's no way a movie with two names as big as these could be that horrible right?

Finally we have LL Cool J and Dylan McDermott. This is by far LL's best performance to date which really isn't saying much considering his past work. In fact it may well be his only decent performance at all. He plays the role of the good cop fighting the system pretty well and side by side with McDermott he was helped along by the veteran actor. Veteran actor? Yes I referred to McDermott as a veteran actor. Only because his performance was the only one that shined through in this convoluted film. McDermott probably could have dialed back the psycho factor a few notches but IMO he did a great job of effectively playing "Denzel from Training Day" here, only whereas Alonzo was stone cold we see that Lazerov is emotionally troubled. A terrific job on McDermotts part that is almost reason enough to watch this film.

With all of that out of the way we come to the film itself. I won't deny the countless clichés and somewhat tired and messy plot. The film starts off pretty strong but begins to slow down once a certain main character is killed off. Without this character's charisma on screen things quickly begin to fizzle. The plot consists of a young writer (Timberlake) and his boss (Freeman) teaming with a cop (Spacey) and attempting to unearth a sort of corrupt secret police/political faction that essentially controls the city. Along the way one officer reluctantly became mixed up in all of this (LL) and is partnered with the very guy helping to spearhead things on the front line (McDermott). The plot itself becomes convoluted at times and you often end up asking "why is that happening?" or "why would he do that?" or "what's the point?" The answer is simple...money, power and respect. But the fact that you ask these things is a sign that the director is not pointing us in any one direction and that the story is just plain becoming messy.

Things culminate in a shootout that goes over the top. I'm sorry but a flamethrower in a firefight is a big no no in a film that's supposed to have a generally serious tone. I also wish someone would teach these guys how to properly hold their weapons instead of having them fire from the hip. A technical annoyance but still an annoyance nonetheless.

The one saving grace of this film aside from McDermott's performance is the hit or miss cinematography. When it's a hit, it's spot on and incredible. There are more than a handful of narrated or silent time lapse shots of the sky which really help to set the mood. The raid of a Chinese brothel toward the beginning was very well shot and the music fit extremely well. And what is probably my favorite scene was a brief moment showing McDermott walking through the precinct with LL and silently mouthing "F**k You" to Spacey.

But then you couple the good with the bad. The exchange between LL and JT in a bar was an example of terrible writing. I felt like I was watching a cheap imitation of the "Heat" coffee shop exchange between Pacino and De Niro. The cheesy dance club scene also gets negative points as does JT's performance.

All in all this movie is a mixed bag. It doesn't deserve any awards but it doesn't deserve the slew of 1s people are giving it here at IMDb either. My guess is that majority of those folks never even saw the film or have no idea what a 1/10 film looks like (i.e. Rollerball). I'd give Edison a 5/10 simply because I'm a sucker for showy cinematography and McDermott really won me over.

The Departed (2006)

Scorsese's Touches Give Us A Very Different Take On Infernal Affairs

[10/10 · 9 October 2006]

The first thing people need to realize about The Departed is that it is in fact a remake of a Hong Kong film called Infernal Affairs. Specifically the first film of a trilogy. The basic plot involves a mole in the police department and a mole in a gang. Both guys end up discovering that the other exists and that his job is now to flush him out before getting caught himself. An interesting premise that both films bring to the big screen in their own way. With that out of the way, let's look at Scorsese's latest.

Wow. Just wow. This film was simply incredible. I watched Infernal Affairs a few days before The premier of The Departed just to refresh my memory and all I can say is that the naysayers really have nothing bad to say about Scorsese's latest film IMO. He adds so many of his typical yet effective touches that The Departed in essence becomes it's own film. It really is Scorsese's if you ignore the fact that the basic plot elements were ripped from a Hong Kong film. This is a remake I am very glad Hollywood decided to do because it differs from the original so much that it effectively keeps the great elements of the original and mixes in more than a few new colors to give audiences an effectively brand new take on a 4 year old plot.

The original Infernal Affairs had a sort of dark crime/noir Michael Mann feel. Scorsese was smart and changed things up quite a bit by adding a lot of Boston flavor to the story. The A-list cast doesn't hurt either. The humorous one liners in The Departed really make this an American film. It differs so much from the original that it stands well on it's own two feet and the scenes that were shot for shot recreations from the original (like Damon pretending to be a lawyer or DiCaprio showing one of his buddies how to correctly spell a word) end up feeling more like homages rather than plagiarism.

Moving off of comparing these two films lets look at that A-list cast. This is the first time in a long time that ALL of the A-list actors signed here live up to their reputations. Jack Nicholson was terrific in this film. It's been a long time since he's played a bad guy but The Departed is proof that he still has it. Leonardo DiCaprio proves that he is a great actor in this film and if you still think he's nothing more than a pretty face after his performance here I don't know what movie you went to. Mark Whalberg reprises his bad mouthed, slick talking persona he introduced to us in The Italian Job and polished to perfection in Four Brothers. I also also impressed with Vera Farmiga who I was introduced to in Running Scared. Matt Damon, Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen also do very well in their respective roles. Then again it'd be hard for them to mess up with such great lines written for them.

I don't know who wrote these one liners but please promote the man or woman responsible for the dialogue in this film. The best way to describe the exchanges between characters here is "honest." The dialogue sounded genuine and real in that you know they'd be making fun of each other's Mamas in real life.

Scorsese hit the nail on the head with the score and the direction. He utilized his freeze frame action shots during a shootout that I really like and did a great job of making New York look like Boston. However certain scenes did feel a bit campy at times. When Sheen's character is killed I thought the manner in which he dropped in front of DiCaprio and the way the blood splattered was a bit cartoonish and campy. I think everyone kind of wanted to laugh but was too shocked from the scene preceding it which depicted Sheen falling through the air.

Aside from a few confusing (as in I didn't understand if Scorsese wanted me to be shocked or laugh) moments I was impressed. THIS is how to properly do a remake. Scorsese did alter the ending but I didn't mind too much. With the large differences in culture between America and China I felt that the ending to The Departed fit just as well to this version of the story as the original ending to Infernal Affairs fit the Hong Kong version. An excellent film and by far the best film I've seen this year. 10/10. I'd give it a 9.5/10 for being a remake but because it differs from the original so much and IMDb don't give out half points I'm rounding up here. Go watch this film as you will not be disappointed and then go rent the original and see how similar yet different the two are. Kudos to Scorsese for teaching Hollywood a thing or two about remakes and for making The Departed his own.

Flyboys (2006)

This Film Is An Example Of Why People Wait For DVDs

[2/10 · 9 October 2006]

First let me just say that I originally had no plans to see this film on the big screen. I had just watched the premier of "The Departed" earlier in the day and one of my friends flew into town and was like "hey lets all catch a movie." So he recommended we all see "Flyboys" since none of us had seen it before. Little did I know that I'd be wasting $8 of my money.

This movie was just plain bad. Convoluted plot, boring action and acting that was painful to watch. Whoever decided that it was a bright idea to try to tell a love story between two people who can't even communicate to one another because they speak different languages should be fired. This was a very bad idea for what is supposed to be a war epic. The whole love story should have been removed from the plot. This was supposed to be a 90 minute film but the director tried to be cool and turn it into a WWI epic which this film definitely was not. The plot is your typical "America saved the world" all over again. The action was filled with about a billion clichés. How many times do we need to see the guy who is too scared to fight in battle show up at the end to save the day? Gee I've never seen that in a film before. With regards to the death toll, anyone with half a brain could see who was next to die. The obnoxious amount of time spent trying to convince the audience how terrible racism was added 20 minutes to a film which was already too long for it's own good. Some sequences were just plain ridiculous and I swear I inadvertently rolled my eyes and moaned and groaned out loud in the theater at least twice. Something I never do at the theaters. The acting was so atrocious that the few people in the audience laughed when they were supposed to be speechless. The plot was all over the place and jumped from love story to air battle without a moments notice. There were no smooth transitions from one plot point to another. In fact I'm not even sure if this film had a plot. And now for the really disappointing news.

• 70% of the aerial battle sequence shots consist of close ups of the pilots with their guns firing toward the camera. OK I get it. When they squeeze the trigger the guns work. Now can I please see something from another angle?

• Someone actually thought it'd be cool to depict one of the good guys tearing off a wing from a bad guy's plane using his wheels.

• The part where the guy lands his plane to save some other guy and is running through a trench battle = give me a break. And why didn't the guy who had his hand pinned in what appeared to be dirt dig under his hand?

• With regard to my last complaint I'm pretty sure they wrote the script such that a pilot lost his hand so they could attempt to get a laugh out of the audience by having Captain Hook take out a plane. Who writes this stuff anyway?

• Apparently during WWI pilots often stared each other down in midair. I never knew that.

• The final battle consists of the main protagonist flying up next to the main antagonist and shooing him with a handgun. This was it for me. What the hell was that? Did I really just see that on the big screen?

I'm sorry but now I know why no major movie studio wanted to bankroll this horrible picture. I'd feel sorry for the producers and investors who conjured up the supposed 60 million to make this film if I actually enjoyed what I saw on the big screen but this was total trash. This is why people get upset about going to the movies and choose to wait for DVDs. I regret having agreed to see this film a few hours after having watched the premier of Martin Scorsese's "The Departed." Flyboys was so bad that it totally ruined The Departed for me. 2/10 rather than a 1/10 because they blew up a Zeppelin.

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)

As A Genre Film, This Is How You're Supposed To Do It

[8/10 · 2 August 2006]

Chicks, cash and cars. Lots of cars. Lots and lots of cars. That about sums up this film. If you're a car fanatic be it a drag racing fan from Texas or a West Coast drifter this film is for you. Plenty of automotive eye candy for everyone and Justin Lin really worked the camera to give the audience what they came for... some women, some money and a whole lot of cars.

If you despise anything with 4 wheels then stay away from this film, otherwise this movie really is nothing more than an automotive nut's dream. I won't even talk about the paper thin plot or the B grade acting. The cameos were a nice touch and a slick little nod to fans of the drifting scene as well as folks who saw the first film in the series.

All in all this is a pretty short review but it should be for a film that doesn't try to make things more complicated than they have to be. Kudos should be given to Brian Tyler for his pumping musical score and again to Justin Lin for his smooth work from the directors chair. If the first film in the series had been this simple and straightforward it probably wouldn't have gotten as bad a rap as it did. Tokyo Drift is the best installment of the series IMO because it doesn't try to be something it's not. A simple movie for simple car guys. 5/10 on any normal day of the week but I bump that up to a 7/10 because I'm such a huge car fanatic and the 1970 GTX at the end of the film had me salivating.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Spectacular Action That Disgraces History

[4/10 · 2 August 2006]

Oh Michael Bay. How the world loves to bash your films for being devoid of plot, character development and anything which could be remotely described as intelligent. So why a 4 and not a 1? I'll explain that in a minute.

First let me say that I love Michael Bay films for what they are. Mindless action movies that you can unplug your brain to. If I wanted to see great character development I'd pick something from the Michael Mann collection. If I wanted to see awesome martial arts, I'd make sure Yuen Wo Ping was the fight choreographer. If I wanted a great story... well you get the idea. When I want explosions devoid of plot, I turn to Michael Bay. This is why when I heard he was directing Pearl Harbor I immediately became sick to my stomach.

Michael Bay, you have disgraced history, disgraced anyone who fought off the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, disgraced anyone who survived the incident and you did it all to make the explosions look prettier. To alter the incidents which took place at Pearl Harbor and expect people to respect you is asking for it big time. Would you do the same with a film about the World Trade Center Twin Towers? When it comes to making movies regarding events in history that involved a great loss of life, people demand that you stick to the facts.

This is where Pearl Harbor fails miserably. Disregarding facts to increase the length of action sequences was a bad move. Things like playing chicken with P40s? Give me a break. Playing chicken and successfully taking out 4 Zeros in the process? Embellishments like increasing the death toll where it counts in order to further the emotional impact is also a big no no. I'm referring to on screen death of a Navy Nurse.

The actors themselves seem out of place and miscast. Whereas Hartnett was excellent in Black Hawk Down as Sgt. Eversman he seemed like a lost 12 year old kid here who was more afraid of Afflecks accent and acting than the Japanese. Affleck...well...Affleck. Kate Beckinsale is a looker but she has no place in a film like this. In fact the whole love triangle has no place in a film like this. Hollywood needs to understand that good films fill seats and that relying on big names will only work for so long. Time to start casting the right people for the right role.

Plot wise and with regards to accuracy, this movie is garbage. Typical Bay fanfare. Someone didn't do their homework as Mitchel Field was spelled with two Ls. Hartnett's line "I think World War II just started" when WWI was still referred to as "The Great War" in those times. Factual inaccuracies like this are inexcusable. More importantly, World War II did not begin with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was preempted when Japan invaded China in '37 and began in '39 when Germany invaded Poland. Why does Hollywood assume history always revolves around the United States?

Now with all of that being said, you're probably wondering again why I gave this film 4 stars. In my opinion Michael Bay has succeeded in creating what are arguably some of the finest action sequences ever, despite the fact that they are horribly inaccurate. Because it's Pearl Harbor I have no tolerance for ignoring history. It's a shame really. If Bay had stuck to history, this movie would have won academy awards left and right. The action was amazing (aside from the occasional X-Wing handling capabilities which I didn't know MEs, P40s, Spitfires and Zeros possessed). Because of the fantastic direction regarding the action, I gave this film an extra 3 stars. But this doesn't excuse the horrible plot and blatant disregard for the facts (geez how many times have I said that). In the end, Pearl Harbor is a pitiful Hollywood trash film with explosive but unrealistic action sequences that pay no attention to history.

Michael Bay, you make wonderfully entertaining popcorn action flicks, but for the sake of mankind please stay away from history.