paxatron Reviews

War (2007)

Trite and pointless, yet still fun

[25 August 2007]

I saw this movie with completely lowered expectations. All I wanted was some blood, sex, shooting, stabbing, and face-kicking. And I got all of that. Jet Li stars as a nameless assassin referred to as Rogue, whose plan is overly obtuse but involves killing a lot of people. Jason Statham is some sort of FBI Agent, but his role is limited almost entirely to seeing the aftermath of Jet Li's actions and making wisecracks. When we do get to see him in action, it's unforgivably brief. Unfortunately there's also a ridiculously overly complicated plot about Triads and Yakuzas and stolen gold horses, which would be fine as a MacGuffin but it detracts way too much from the action. There are long, pointless scenes of dialog and awkwardly staged character development, such as where Rogue connects with the family of a drug kingpin. Speaking of Jet Li, he apparently left his acting abilities in his other pants, because he (and most everyone else) is painfully bad in this movie.

But that's not why you see a movie like "War" anyway. You see it for the action, which is plentiful, bloody, and highly stylized. This is the sort of movie where a character uses a sword to kill three out of four attackers, throws the sword down, and shoots the fourth. Why didn't he shoot all four? Because then we couldn't see him use the sword. You see it for the R-rated sex and nudity, which is also plentiful. And you see it for a hilarious scene where Devon Aoki, as a Yakuza princess, demands a salad from her underlings at gunpoint.

"War" is not a great movie. It's hardly even a good movie. But it's still a lot of fun, and a refreshing change from the watered down, PG-13 products that pass for action movies these days.

Miami Vice (2006)

Incredible.

[29 July 2006]

Let me start with a confession: I never have seen the TV show and don't care to. Michael Mann's film version of "Miami Vice" borrows the name and locale and nothing else. I'm OK with that. Instead of being a cheese ball homage/update a la "Charlie's Angels" or "Starsky and Hutch", Mann brings the best crime film in years, essentially blowing away the last decade of the genre since "Heat" (in my opinion, one of the best films ever made).

Jamie Foxx and Colin Farrell star as Tubbs and Crockett, Miami-Dade detectives. I wouldn't even dream of revealing the plot, but let's just say it has something to do with drugs and that all the acting is top-notch, especially from Farrell, Gong Li, and Elizabeth Rodriguez. Despite Foxx and Farrell getting top billing, the real star is Michael Mann himself: writing, directing, and producing. He is up to his usual tricks here, dropping the audience smack into the middle of the action with hardly any exposition and absolutely zero pauses for us to catch our collective breath. If the characters don't need it, we don't need it.

Mann is a stickler for realism, from the weapons and tactics down to the precision use of location. Using outstanding cinematography by Dion Beebe ("Collateral"), the film evokes a mood that feels incredibly real - a dark and sinister metropolis, a far cry from the much-imitated pastels of the television original. The direction is precise and clear, even during the most chaotic of shootouts (and yes, "Miami Vice" does have quite a few). The action is rough, and gritty, with violence exploding in sudden, graphic bursts. The intensity is overwhelming, making one feel part of the shootouts. I'm surprised no one ducked. (Just a side note - the violence is incredibly, incredibly graphic at times. Do not bring your children.)

To sum up, if you're looking for the TV show, rent the DVDs. The first season is out. If you're looking for a brainless, easy-to-follow action flick, you just missed "Tokyo Drift". But if you're looking for one of the most intense, riveting films I've seen in years, look no further than "Miami Vice".

Inside Man (2006)

What happens when you give a stellar cast nothing to do?

[9 April 2006]

Let me just lay all my cards on the table, so there are no surprises later in the review: "Inside Man" is frustratingly bad, Spike Lee was the wrong director for this, but I was able to walk away still a fan of Clive Owen, Denzel Washington, and Jodie Foster. This is a bizarre film, unnecessarily complicated, that assembles a top-notch cast, puts them into a tense situation with all the players in place, and then has nothing to do with them. It's like the writer forgot that you needed a third act; it's all rising action with no denouement.

Washington plays Det. Frazier, a hostage negotiator who acts, literally, as if this is his first case. He has the obligatory younger partner (Chiwetel Ejiofor, "Serenity") who exists so Frazier can explain his theories and the obligatory ESU commander who wants to go in and shoot everyone (Willem Dafoe, sadly underused). Owen plays the bank robber, about whom frustratingly nothing is known except what he said into the camera in the trailer. Finally, Foster plays some sort of player amongst the Powers That Be who walks into the mayor's office, demands an update, and is given "every possible courtesy", etc. She serves no purpose whatsoever, not even in a clichéd action movie type of way like Dafoe and Ejiofor. The performances are the only good part of the movie, but there are times when you can tell that the actors wished they were in a better film. They're giving it their all, and they're getting no help from anyone else involved.

Spike Lee is up to his usual tricks here, which, in this type of movie, is a very bad thing. The details of the heist itself I won't disclose. I can't. The action is, at best, vague - extremely brief scenes of vaults opening, hole-digging, hostage roughing up, and the usual bank-robber stuff are all the details we really get. It is also inter cut with scenes of the hostages recalling the heist; their recollections serve no purpose except to confuse the audience further. "Inside Man" is curiously racist: the white crooks rough up the black bank customers, the white Foster and the mayor order around Washington, the white cops mistake a Sikh for an Arab and beat him, and even a Jewish hostage was not only a lawyer, but has a nephew who is a jeweler. Washington and Ejiofor are given no flaws whatsoever and are seen mostly being pushed around by everyone else in the movie. The action repeatedly grinds to a halt so Lee can insert quirky little subplots involving video games, Washington's much younger girlfriend and random Albanian women. They're at best unnecessary, at worst, disastrous. If we had been given a director with more focus, there is the feeling that this could have been a lean, mean thriller. But it drags and drags and drags and when we get to the end, we understand why the film stalled for so long: the ending is about as climatic as erectile dysfunction.

"Inside Man" looked like it had it all - great cast, good concept, reputable director, but the end result is a near-disaster. It's like someone threw "Dog Day Afternoon" into a blender, drank it, and vomited it back onto the screen. As I stumbled out of the theater, deprived of my money and time, I cursed the screen gods who thought to tease me with such an improbably bad movie. I thought back to a better day, when a movie at least knew what was going on even if the audience didn't, gave us characters who seemed like actual people and served actual purposes to the plot, so that even if we had to wait until the Big Twist to answer our questions, we at least had a reason to still care.

Thank You for Smoking (2005)

"Thank You" for a good satire!

[25 March 2006]

First of all, sorry for the cheesy title. I couldn't help myself. Second of all, "Thank You for Smoking" is, in fact, a darn good satire - one of the best I've seen since "Election". Aaron Eckhart holds the picture together with a witty, charismatic performance as a tobacco lobbyist. The film is basically about his profession as he spins the news, pitches a movie idea, dodges a subpoena, has an affair with a reporter (Katie Holmes), tries to spend time with his son (Cameron Bright), and has lunch with an alcohol lobbyist (Maria Bello) and a firearms rep (David Koechner) - where they literally compare body counts. The performances are excellent across the board, from William H. Macy's crusading Senator to Rob Lowe's smirking Hollywood agent who struts around his office in a kimono. Even Adam Brody is enjoyable as Lowe's hyperactive assistant whose in-joke with a co-worker earned one of the biggest laughs of the movie.

The majority of the credit, however, needs to go to first-time feature director Jason (son of Ivan) Reitman. Adapting from Christopher Buckley's novel, Reitman has fashioned an enormously clever script, consistent and strong in character, yet not forgetting to be incredibly funny. The style is also perfect - brisk, light-hearted, with impeccable timing marred only by a tangental subplot including Sam Elliott that is, sadly, not very funny. Overall, however, the pace is fast enough where the laughs keep coming.

Reitman also does the unthinkable: he keeps the satire dark and funny to the very end. While most comedies stray blindly into the sentimental, "Thank You" avoids unnecessary emotional tripe and - thankfully - avoids sermonizing about the dangers of smoking or of the flaws of the political process. Eckhart's flawless performance and Reitman's wonderful screenplay anchor an uncommonly perceptive comedy, provided you take yours black. If you need a little cream and sugar, "Fun with Dick and Jane" might still be at the dollar theater.

V for Vendetta (2005)

Utterly Spectacular!

[8 March 2006]

I was a fan of the "V for Vendetta" graphic novel, and Alan Moore disinheriting the film was a bit discouraging. But he's always been a little crazy. The film version is everything I could have possibly hoped for - gripping, chilling, intense, exciting, heartbreaking. It gets Moore's music if not his exact words; elements are slightly different, subplots removed. But the idea - as V himself would be so proud to say - remains the same.

The plot is surprisingly complex and nuanced, and I don't want to give anything more away than the previews already have. Suffice it to say that a masked anarchist (voiced by Hugo Weaving) must save a young woman (Natalie Portman) during his attempt to expose corruption in the government. Weaving is perfectly cast, using his formidable physicality and imposing voice to give gravitas to the insanity of the character. Portman has gone from child to teen star and is finally emerging as a talented, adult actress following her Oscar-nominated turn in "Closer". Here, she gives her best performance to date as the orphan Evey. John Hurt is characteristically impressive as the enigmatic government leader, and Stephen Rea gives a wonderful supporting turn as the police inspector charged with finding V - before it's too late.

The Wachowski Brothers' former protégé, James McTiegue, takes on the directing duties here and helms an enormously impressive first feature, using every trick in the book in a manner reminiscent of his mentors' breakout hit "The Matrix". Unlike "The Matrix", McTiegue allows the story to be more of a focus than the action, and as a result the film is a tense and emotional thriller, with outbursts of spectacularly filmed and choreographed action. Showing more maturity and restraint than the Wachowskis, McTiegue doesn't show off, and his trickery isn't self conscious. When slow-motion overtakes a late action sequence, it seems as natural as breathing. The late cinematographer Adrian Biddle (the film is dedicated to his memory) does an outstanding job, Oscar-nominated Dario Marianelli's score is a fantastic accompaniment to the piece, and the visual effects are astonishing, terrifying, and deeply moving, especially in the climatic moments in Trafalgar Square.

With solid acting, great action, and fantastic technical wizardry, it sounds just like another "Matrix"-style ripoff. But the biggest difference in "V" is that it is a story of real ideas - not a fantastic, science fiction creation, but a genuine examination of the human condition. The power of fear takes center stage here - the fear of war, of disease, of famine. Fear is a basic human nature, and has been exploited as a weapon - a method of control - for centuries. And for those who would use it, a masked man waits in the shadows to carry out your sentence. The verdict? Vengeance. "V for Vendetta" is a must-see.

10/10

Bullitt (1968)

The Classic Cop Movie

[5 March 2006]

"Bullitt" is classic in the truest sense of the word. It defined conventions of action films, of police films, and of course is the quintessential performance from the King of Cool, Steve McQueen. Despite its archetypal status, the film is unique in several aspects, mostly in its portrayal of the lead character, Frank Bullitt (with a name like that, could he have been anything other than a cop?). He is calm, deliberate, and precise. He's not Dirty Harry, willing to take the law into his own hands; he is by the book. His partner is helpful and an equal cop, not some comic relief sidekick, and is still alive by film's end. His superior officers (mostly) believe in him, and he's never threatened with suspension if he can't crack the case. It is one of McQueen's best performances, right up there with "The Sand Pebbles", and he's held up by an outstanding supporting cast, including Robert Vaughn, Don Gordon, and a young Robert Duvall.

Despite being more or less the originator of the hard-boiled cop action genre, "Bullitt" transcends it with well-written, well-executed sequences of genuine and realistic tension. The characters aren't video game cartoons or superheroes, but actual people who get out of breath and sweat and bleed. The much-imitated and rarely-beaten car chase is a taut, breathless action sequence, yet is still very much grounded in actual physics and the capabilities of human beings to operate vehicles (unlike many chases of late - "The Matrix Reloaded", I'm looking in your direction). The airport ending is quietly breathtaking, and was lifted almost directly to the ending of 1995's "Heat", the only cop film I would rank as better than "Bullitt".

The film has one major flaw that, if let run wild, threatens to destroy the whole operation: the love interest. Played by Jacqueline Bisset, she is a strangely-accented, awkwardly placed person who serves no function whatsoever to the story. Bisset and McQueen have no chemistry whatsoever, and she exists in the film only so that she can see a dead body, be traumatized, accuse Bullitt of being callous, etc. In a scene that is one of the worst written and most awkwardly directed moments imaginable, Bullitt attempts to comfort her, but you can see in McQueen's eyes that he wants to get back to the rest of the movie, and so does the viewer. They should have simply eliminated the character altogether, but thankfully her four minutes of screen time aren't enough to leave that much of an impression.

"Bullitt" is not a bravado action picture, nor is it a commentary on justice, corruption, or violence that cop movies usually are. Instead, it's a fabulously constructed story of a good cop working a case, doing what he can to see that justice is done. It's fantastic and holds up very well after nearly forty years. It is far and away the defining cop film of its era, miles above "The French Connection" and "Dirty Harry".

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Good, but overrated

[12 February 2006]

It was impossible to not have heard any hype about this film, so seeing it with no expectations was difficult. I had heard comments running the spectrum from the film being leftist propaganda to it being a cinematic masterpiece. I found neither to be true. I found the film to be intensely specific, focusing on only these two men in only this time and place. The story itself was nothing new - a forbidden love affair - only given a bit of a twist involving gay men. Ang Lee's direction is competent and precise, lacking the visual flair of his "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and giving the film a cold, almost objective look. The technical aspects of the film are well-done, from the spectacular cinematography to the haunting score. From a purely technical standpoint, the film is great, a study in location shooting.

However, it is in the artistic merits that I found the film its weakest. The writing is minimalism defined, and long passages with no dialogue are commonplace in the opening act. Unfortunately, and oddly, these passages have nothing to do with the relationship between the characters and more to do with sheep. When the characters speak, it is always in terse, pithy statements about beans and fishing. When they have sex for the first time, they are drunk, and it seems to come more from a desire for something - anything - to break the monotony than an actual attraction towards each other. With better actors, such an approach would have worked. Neither Heath Ledger nor Jake Gyllenhaal have the maturity and presence to make an unspoken attraction work, and they have an uneasy, almost forced chemistry (perhaps due to the fact that both are straight men). Ledger resorts to bland, self-conscious mumblings and Gyllenhaal swings recklessly into melodrama in his later scenes. Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway do what they can with tremendously underwritten roles, each appearing on screen for maybe ten or fifteen minutes of the bloated 134-minute runtime. The biggest failure in the film is that no one appears to age, and I spent the majority of the time wondering if scenes were consecutively appearing, or if years had passed, since I was given no other indication of the passage of time (the story covers two decades). In a later scene, when a middle-aged Ledger talks to his adult daughter, they look exactly the same age.

I've come to find that people are very knee-jerk in their reactions to the film. It's either the best movie ever made, or a worthless piece of junk. It's hardly revolutionary, since "Dog Day Afternoon" featured a gay bank robber stealing to finance his boyfriend's sex change operation, and gay themes have been prevalent in dozens of films before "Brokeback". This film is, instead, an accomplished production, a twist on an old story, and less-than-perfect performances from decent (but not yet great) actors in an undernourished screenplay. It's good, worth seeing, but it's no masterpiece.

King Kong (2005)

Absolutely amazing...

[15 December 2005]

"King Kong" finally proves that Peter Jackson is a brilliant filmmaker. That little Rings trilogy had its moments, but far too often felt a little soulless and mechanical, as if he was just going through the motions. With Kong, however, you immediately get the sense that he loves and respects the material far more than he did Tolkien, and there is a vibrant heart beating throughout. The special effects - and general look of the film - are terrific. The team at Weta absolutely nailed Kong, and Andy Serkis gives another brilliant performance captured entirely in CG (look for Serkis also as Lumpy the Cook). Another long effects sequence, a stampede of dinosaurs, is saved from being a pedestrian thrill by smart, character-driven flashes of humor. And the battle against the T-rex is a never-ending thrill-ride, an orgy of joyful effects and spectacular violence.

The performances are universally effective. Jack Black is a bit distracting at first, but he makes sense as rogue filmmaker Carl Denham. Adrien Brody gives another performance where his eyes do most of the work for him. Naomi Watts is fantastic, proving once again she can stare at something offscreen better than any other actress alive. A solid supporting cast - Colin Hanks, Jamie Bell, Thomas Kretschmann, the aforementioned Serkis - round out a good ensemble. There are surprisingly funny moments and in-joke references to the original film ("Fay's doing a picture for RKO. Damn Cooper.").

The star here is, of course, Kong, and Jackson has a lot of fun with him. The beast is touching, romantic, overwhelming with a more expressive face than on most actors today. The cinematography captures the ape in some of the most beautiful shots I've seen, and creates rare visual poetry with the epic Empire State Building sequence. James Newton Howard's score is powerful, epic and tragic at the same time being a rousing adventure. It is very easy to tell how much Jackson and his team love this material, how much he loves his job. He's as excited as a kid on Christmas telling this story, and I was right there with him.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

I liked it. Sue me.

[28 November 2005]

Above all else, I think this film was mis-marketed. The trailers revealed a Gladiator-esquire epic battle romp, hanging the film on the reputation of Ridley Scott's Oscar winner. The film does have its battles, and they are excellent, but they are not the point. The point of the film is the personal journey of one man, played decently enough by Orlando Bloom, who joins a crusade to seek redemption and find a place for himself. Scott understands the history of the era, and he represents the many complexities of the conflict fairly, yet knows when to deviate from it for entertainment's sake (I have my doubts about the love story subplot, and flaming projectiles were not commonplace in 12th century warfare). Leaders on both sides are depicted as pragmatic and grounded, focusing on the well-being of their people while being assailed on both sides from fanatics who wish to see further conflict in the name of god. No one is truly vilified, and no one is truly heroic. There are good performances all around, from a huge and diverse cast including Liam Neeson, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Alexander Siddig and the impressive Ghassan Massoud as the Arab king, Saladin. Try to guess the star, whose face is never seen, under the mask as King Baldwin - the vocal and physical performance is one of the best I've seen all year.

From a technical standpoint, the film is colossal. The editing, cinematography, costumes, and sets are all top-notch (although Jerusalem isn't actually in a desert, it's on top of a series of wooded hills), and Harry Gregson-Williams' score is powerful and inspired. CG is used sparingly and convincingly, interspersed with intense close-ups, practical effects, and miniatures to create real battles of substance, power and scale, unlike the horde-of-special-effects-ants styles of recent "Troy" and "Lord of the Rings". Ridley Scott knows that we know what a battle looks like, and wisely focuses more on the aftermath and the reactions of individuals than the blood-n-guts stabbing and slashing with which Hollywood has become obsessed. Which isn't to say the film is not violent - it is, but Scott gives the violence purpose and directs with the same precision, control, and focus that made "Black Hawk Down" a smashing success.

I enjoyed this film for what it was, not what it was marketed to be: a well-made historical drama about one man's crusade and the perils of fanaticism - from BOTH sides.

Derailed (I) (2005)

Interesting neo-noir

[13 November 2005]

"Derailed" was just the right amount of entertaining tension for me to enjoy without being anything brand new or spectacular. The setup for the affair is compelling, the building tension palpable, and the payoff... well, I'm not sure about it. The ending of the film got my heart racing, despite the fact that the Big Twist has been breathlessly ruined by those tabloid "journalists" on E! and even by "respectable" critics such as Peter Travers. You can see the end coming, but it's so well played it doesn't matter. Clive Owen, in true noir tradition, is the center of every single scene, and his performance holds the movie together. It's not his best work (see "Closer" or "Croupier") but it's nonetheless effective in portraying a man who has been beaten down by life but rises to prove his mettle. That performance is perhaps symbolic of the movie as a whole: stylish, well-done, yet nothing extraordinary.

**SPOILER WARNING: Don't read any further if you know nothing about this movie.** As far as the casting of Jennifer Aniston, I thought she did an excellent job. You're not supposed to know she's some sort of femme fatale, so using a type-casted seductress would have ruined the surprise. Her wholesome image works for her here, making her immediately intriguing to the also-wholesome Owen character. But see it, and decide for yourself.

Serenity (2005)

Thoroughly Enjoyable

[12 October 2005]

This has been a year full of great, dark movies: Batman Begins, Sin City, Kingdom of Heaven, even Star Wars lost its innocence. The fast-paced, lightly entertaining films have been not so great (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, for example). Luckily, Joss Whedon's Serenity is a combination - fast-paced, hilarious, action-packed, and above all, it's actually good. I never watched Firefly, and hate Buffy The Vampire Slayer, but this movie blew me away. Seriously. It was like the best roller coaster ever, with outstanding action, brilliantly timed one-liners, elements of mystery, classic Western conventions, and spectacular visual effects. Its only weaknesses are completely subjective and are mostly the result of Whedon's inexperience directing a feature film: a few shots are framed a bit awkwardly, and a couple sequences cut too short. This adds to the frenetic pace, but I would have liked to enjoy the excitement of the opening escape scene or the massive, epic space battle for a few moments longer. In short, go see it if you're a fan of Whedon, Firefly, science fiction, action, or simply being entertained.

A History of Violence (2005)

Can I go back in time and not see this movie?

[2 October 2005]

Possible spoilers herein! It won't matter, since you shouldn't see the movie anyway.

I've read most of the reviews and positive comments of this film, was intrigued by the premise, and was rather excited to see it the first night it opened here in Phoenix. The beginning was kind of slow, the middle was a little lagging, and the end was, well, slow. That's kind of the running theme for this film - extremely slow pacing, which is a bad thing, seeing as how the movie is a little over an hour and a half. According to the reviews, A History of Violence is a somehow satirical look at violence-obsessed media, but it falls prey to exactly the same sensibility it pretends to deplore, using violence to solve its plot holes and for little more than shock value. Extreme closeups of dying people's graphic injuries do little more than cause the audience to shift uncomfortably, and the two sex scenes elicited laughter from the packed house of thirty-somethings. The first one drags on too long, the second one doesn't make any sense.

Veering away from the violence and sex, the acting is downright lousy, from the mopey Viggo Mortensen to the horribly cast little blonde girl playing his daughter. Ed Harris is in the film entirely too briefly, and the usually great William Hurt is saddled with a ridiculous goatee and a goofy mobster accent. I can't recall a single scene of memorable dialogue, and the director seemed lost in a myriad of potential plots, abandoning each new moment of intrigue for more shots of broken bones, gunshot wounds, child abuse, and unnecessary sex.

When the credits finally began to roll after the six minutes of dead silence that constituted the film's ending and the lights came up, a huge collective sigh came from the audience and the theater was empty within about thirty seconds. If the point of the movie was to exploit violence for cheap gut-wrenching and to make people as uncomfortable as possible, David Cronenberg and crew succeeded admirably. If the point was to make a film that had something intelligent to say about American society, a plot, good acting, quality writing, and was overall worthwhile, they failed miserably. I don't want my money back; I want my memory erased.

Resident Evil (2002)

What?

[22 September 2005]

(This contains minor spoilers) As a fan of action movies, as well as the zombie genre in particular, I was fairly excited to see this movie. Sadly, it makes no sense. The plot - if it could be called such a thing - is only briefly referenced, and the rest of the movie is people running from poorly-animated creatures, obnoxious music cues ("Let's take the stairs!" cue exciting, techno music for the ten seconds of climbing down stairs), and awkwardly-placed flashbacks. Poor acting from people who should know better, cheesy dialogue and short-sighted directing from Paul WS Anderson, who should but obviously doesn't. My favorite moment in the entire film is when our heroes are completely surrounded by zombies in a tunnel with no way out. Anderson wisely cuts to a shot of an unrelated empty hallway and cuts back to the characters having made some sort of miraculous escape.

And of course, there's the ending, where the enjoyable Jason Isaacs makes a good-sport-style cameo in a rather pointless scene that doesn't appear to connect with anything we've just witnessed, including a creature that would make a Harryhausen stop-motion flick look like Lord of the Rings. Good job, all around. I'll avoid the sequel.