In many ways, MI-2 is the ultimate John Woo movie. All his stylistic flourishes are here: the super slo-mo, the two-guns blazing shootouts, and the white doves. All this and Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, that unforgettable character from the first Mission Impossible movie. Sarcasm aside though, character is not what this film is about. Woo and Producer Cruise have simply set out to make the most stylized action film of all time. And for the most part, they succeeded.
Let’s go back a second. I was one of fifteen people who didn’t absolutely hate the first Mission Impossible. It had certain energy along with some fun set pieces. But compared to MI-2, it was like an episode of Father Dowling Mysteries. This film is a non-stop amusement-park ride from the first frame to the last. Plot? Who gives a shit! It has something to do with a deadly virus and the antidote that’s worth billions. It makes more sense than the plot of the first MI, but not much more. What the film is really about is action. And it delivers in spades. From the mountain climbing opener to the epic fistfight at the end, MI-2 serves up the high-tech thrills in giant portions. The motorcycle chase alone, will blow you away! Is any of this stuff realistic? Not even close. Is it fun? You bet.
There are some quieter moments in MI-2, mostly involving Thandie Newton as a woman Hunt recruits to get close to her ex-boyfriend, the main villain Dougray Scott. It’s an homage to Hitchcock’s Notorious, I suppose, except none of the leads will make you forget Cary Grant or Ingrid Bergman (or even Claude Rains) any time soon. But MI-2 isn’t vying for “masterpiece” status here. The plot simply serves as a way to connect the action sequences. Now, that would be a serious flaw in a “serious” film. But MI-2 succeeds precisely because it’s not a serious film. It revels in it’s own non-seriousness; just when you thought it couldn’t get any cheesier, it does, reaching almost comic proportions at times. But all this is done in good fun… with a self-depreciating tongue firmly in cheek. In fact the film openly lampoons both Cruise and Woo. That’s cool! So is Jeffrey Kimball’s cinematography which is reminiscent of Eyes Wide Shut in its’ saturated graininess. (Same film stock, if you’re interested.)
Ultimately, like its producer and star, MI-2 succeeds in spite of its weaknesses; perhaps even because of them. It’s not smart, original, or clever, but it looks great and it’s packed with the kind of stylized action that elevates dumb summer movies into the strata of blockbusters. Don’t take it too seriously and you’ll definitely enjoy the ride.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE
There are two major mysteries surrounding PT Anderson’s new film, Punch-Drunk Love. The first is how in the world did this film manage to win the Palm D’Or at Cannes? The second is why Anderson decided to make it in the first place? I can’t answer either of these questions except to say that maybe the French are losing their collective minds and PT Anderson may be doing too much blow. I may be wrong. But I’m pretty sure I’m right about this: if you ignore all the lemming film critics and look objectively at Punch-Drunk Love, what you are looking at is one weak film.
The story centers on Barry Egan, an LA novelty business owner and a major-league idiot. Immature, emotionally stunted, psychotic, and extremely violent, Barry is the kind of guy who is funny in an Adam Sandler comedy but basically scary as a real person. Of course here, Barry is actually played by Adam Sandler and this bit of stunt casting is supposed to transform this goofiness into high art. Hey, it worked on the French! Me, I prefer my high art packaged inside a good film. Punch-Drunk Love, unfortunately, isn’t good.
Anyway, Barry’s sister sets him up with Lena (Emily Watson) who falls madly in love with him. Why? Love is blind, I guess (nor can it hear, taste, or smell). While this is happening, Barry gets involved in a lame-brained plot involving a blackmailing phone-sex scam and collects thousands of instant-pudding packets in order to win unlimited airline miles. All these moronic strands come together in a pseudo-climax involving a showdown between Barry and Philip Seymour Hoffman that is, admittedly, the best scene in the movie. But that’s not saying much.
PT Anderson is a brilliant filmmaker and the concept of doing a “serious” Adam Sandler film may have seemed like a good idea at some late-night soirée, but it’s not. Sandler does some good acting in this film and may go on to do some great work in the future, but the material itself works against him. (Here’s an idea: make a good film and hire Adam Sandler as an “actor”.) One major problem is that the Sandler Archetype is funny only within the realm of the goofy comedy. The same could be said for most comedic archetypes. Can anybody really imagine a “serious” film about Lou Costello’s persona? How about Jerry Lewis? Or even Buster Keaton?
But there’s another problem here, Anderson refuses to stick to the center of the story; which to me is Barry’s love affair with Lena. Punch-Drunk Love could have worked if the character-study approach was maintained for the entire film instead of abandoned after the first act. The sub-plots here are just plain distracting; they add nothing to the proceedings and are either dropped altogether or resolved in a manner that doesn’t seem at all realistic in terms of plot or character. Speaking of character, hiring a great actress like Emily Watson does not relieve one of the responsibility of actually writing her a descent part.
Overall, Punch-Drunk Love is slight, pointless and, worst of all, not very funny. Happy Gilmore was a better film.
SHAFT
Does anybody really remember the original Shaft? I don’t mean the super cool Isaac Hays theme song; I mean the film itself. What was it about, what was the plot? No idea? Me neither. One thing for certain, Shaft wasn’t a very good film. And Shaft the character (with all due respect to Richard Roundtree) was not very interesting. Billed as a cross between Sam Spade and James Bond, John Shaft wasn’t written with the wit and finesse that made those two characters so successful. Shaft was dry. But Shaft was also the first black action hero (if you don’t count Woody Strode and Jim Brown). That made him special and turned the Shaft films into box office favorites of the early ‘70s.
John Singleton’g Shaft 2000 doesn’t have much to do with the original. It’s not really a remake or a sequel. In fact this Shaft isn’t even the same guy. Played by Samuel L. Jackson, Singleton’s Shaft is the ‘70s Shaft’s nephew. Roundtree even has a distracting cameo that runs way too long. Anyway, the young (Jackson and Roundtree look to be pretty much in the same age group) Shaft is cop who is both liked and hated by his fellow detectives. I say this because the film never seems to settle on a definitive viewpoint here. The relationships between Shaft and his colleagues simply change from one scene to another depending on the demands of the story. Maybe they’re just jealous of Shaft’s Armani leather and designer facial hair? Of course, Shaft is a rebel. When a racially motivated murder investigation goes wrong, he instantly hands in his badge and becomes… a street vigilante of some sort.
I love Sam Jackson. He a wonderful actor and a charismatic leading man. That’s why it’s so strange that he comes off just as flat and un-interesting as the old Shaft. I wanted to like this movie… hell, I wanted to love this movie. But it didn’t work out that way. The main problem may have been the film’s tone. Never deciding whether it should play it straight or funny, Shaft just sort of meanders between various genres throwing in an occasional shootout or a cool one-liner. All this moves along to the sounds of the old Isaac Hays score, that’s become a ridiculous cliché by now. And if you expect some really cool action, you’ll be disappointed. After Metrix and MI-2, this stuff looks like “movie of the week”.
What saves the whole film are its villains; Jeffrey Wright and Christian Bale. These guys have some hilarious scenes together that are bound to become classic. Without them Shaft 2000 would be a total waste of time.
John Singleton’g Shaft 2000 doesn’t have much to do with the original. It’s not really a remake or a sequel. In fact this Shaft isn’t even the same guy. Played by Samuel L. Jackson, Singleton’s Shaft is the ‘70s Shaft’s nephew. Roundtree even has a distracting cameo that runs way too long. Anyway, the young (Jackson and Roundtree look to be pretty much in the same age group) Shaft is cop who is both liked and hated by his fellow detectives. I say this because the film never seems to settle on a definitive viewpoint here. The relationships between Shaft and his colleagues simply change from one scene to another depending on the demands of the story. Maybe they’re just jealous of Shaft’s Armani leather and designer facial hair? Of course, Shaft is a rebel. When a racially motivated murder investigation goes wrong, he instantly hands in his badge and becomes… a street vigilante of some sort.
I love Sam Jackson. He a wonderful actor and a charismatic leading man. That’s why it’s so strange that he comes off just as flat and un-interesting as the old Shaft. I wanted to like this movie… hell, I wanted to love this movie. But it didn’t work out that way. The main problem may have been the film’s tone. Never deciding whether it should play it straight or funny, Shaft just sort of meanders between various genres throwing in an occasional shootout or a cool one-liner. All this moves along to the sounds of the old Isaac Hays score, that’s become a ridiculous cliché by now. And if you expect some really cool action, you’ll be disappointed. After Metrix and MI-2, this stuff looks like “movie of the week”.
What saves the whole film are its villains; Jeffrey Wright and Christian Bale. These guys have some hilarious scenes together that are bound to become classic. Without them Shaft 2000 would be a total waste of time.
SHANGHAI NOON
This is going to be short and sweet. Shanghai Noon is by far the best American Jackie Chan movie. All the action you’d expect plus a ton of laughs provided mostly by Owen Wilson, in a star-making performance. There’s real on-screen chemistry between these guys that’s great to watch. They’re both well defined characters who play off each other very well. In truth, Jackie Chan works well in teams and you’d be hard pressed to think of a single instance where he does not have chemistry with his co-stars. But even by those standards, he and Wilson really shine.
The plot deals with a kidnapping of a Chinese princess (Lucy Liu) and the rescue mission mounted by Chan’s character, John Wane, a not-too-respected member of the imperial guard. Once out West, John is forced into a partnership with a loquacious outlaw (Wilson) who’s own reputation isn’t much better than John’s. It sounds kind of like Rush Hour, but Shanghai Noon is a much better film. Not because it has more action, but because the story actually has something to say about old world values in the new world and the relationship at the center of the film is satisfying and funny. If you want to see great Kung Fu, there are probably better action sequences in other Chan films. And I wasn’t too happy with the tacked-on coda, but overall… Shanghai Noon delivers.
The plot deals with a kidnapping of a Chinese princess (Lucy Liu) and the rescue mission mounted by Chan’s character, John Wane, a not-too-respected member of the imperial guard. Once out West, John is forced into a partnership with a loquacious outlaw (Wilson) who’s own reputation isn’t much better than John’s. It sounds kind of like Rush Hour, but Shanghai Noon is a much better film. Not because it has more action, but because the story actually has something to say about old world values in the new world and the relationship at the center of the film is satisfying and funny. If you want to see great Kung Fu, there are probably better action sequences in other Chan films. And I wasn’t too happy with the tacked-on coda, but overall… Shanghai Noon delivers.
SHORT REVIEWS
High Plains Drifter – High Noon from Hell. A lean, anarchist, and spooky western. Eastwood’s second directorial effort is also one of his best. He’s an ex-marshal back from the grave to avenge himself on a corrupt California town and the men who killed him. Or is he? It’s wickedly funny too. “Let’s paint the town red, baby!”
The Green Mile – A bloated, clichéd and thoroughly insincere piece of Hollywood hokum. Death-row miracles happen to some cardboard characters. Many wonderful actors wasted on another stupid Stephen King story. Frank Darabont desperately tries to mine his Shawshank Redemption gold and comes up with 14-karat crap. Skip this turkey (unless you’re a big Touched By An Angel fan).
Cookie’s Fortune – Intrigue surrounding the suicide of a crazy old lady in small Southern town. Altman’s best film since Short Cuts. Unique and mellow, full of wacky characters and down-home charm. Some wonderful performances too; especially by Patricia Neil and Charles Dutton. I could do without Chris O’Donnel or Liv Tyler, but even they are likable in this fun yet unsettling story, expertly directed and acted.
Pale Rider – Another remake of Shane. Eastwood tries to use some of the supernatural angle from High Plains Drifter to far lesser success. Clint is a butt-kicking preacher inexplicably defending a small mining community from an evil corporation. The film has a great visual feel, but its predictability proves too tough to overcome. Watchable, but ultimately, the weakest of the four Eastwood-directed westerns.
Seconds – The best damn 90-minute episode of The Twilight Zone I’ve ever seen! That’s a compliment, by the way. A trippy, creepy masterpiece directed by John Frankenheimer at the top of his game. Middle-aged businessman finds a fountain or youth and nearly drowns in it. The best performance Rock Hudson ever gave.
Interview With a Vampire – Anne Rice’s masterpiece brought to the screen in a surprisingly faithful, even reverential manner. The novel’s tragic tone and unsettling philosophy are all here, wonderfully directed by Neil Jordan. This probably explains why the film was such a huge box-office disappointment despite Tom Cruise. A good film that even manages to overcome the monumental miscasting of its lead characters. Yet one can’t help but wonder what other actors could have accomplished in these roles.
The Whole Nine Yards – Montreal dentist befriends an Chicago mob hit-man. Garbage. A comedy without any laughs. OK, I admit Mathew Perry did make me chuckle a couple of times; but this tale of kind-hearted assassins and evil French-Canadians is just plain bad. Bruce Willis loses many of his Sixth Sense points in an extremely shallow performance. I think I’d rather go to the dentist then sit thru this stinker.
The Green Mile – A bloated, clichéd and thoroughly insincere piece of Hollywood hokum. Death-row miracles happen to some cardboard characters. Many wonderful actors wasted on another stupid Stephen King story. Frank Darabont desperately tries to mine his Shawshank Redemption gold and comes up with 14-karat crap. Skip this turkey (unless you’re a big Touched By An Angel fan).
Cookie’s Fortune – Intrigue surrounding the suicide of a crazy old lady in small Southern town. Altman’s best film since Short Cuts. Unique and mellow, full of wacky characters and down-home charm. Some wonderful performances too; especially by Patricia Neil and Charles Dutton. I could do without Chris O’Donnel or Liv Tyler, but even they are likable in this fun yet unsettling story, expertly directed and acted.
Pale Rider – Another remake of Shane. Eastwood tries to use some of the supernatural angle from High Plains Drifter to far lesser success. Clint is a butt-kicking preacher inexplicably defending a small mining community from an evil corporation. The film has a great visual feel, but its predictability proves too tough to overcome. Watchable, but ultimately, the weakest of the four Eastwood-directed westerns.
Seconds – The best damn 90-minute episode of The Twilight Zone I’ve ever seen! That’s a compliment, by the way. A trippy, creepy masterpiece directed by John Frankenheimer at the top of his game. Middle-aged businessman finds a fountain or youth and nearly drowns in it. The best performance Rock Hudson ever gave.
Interview With a Vampire – Anne Rice’s masterpiece brought to the screen in a surprisingly faithful, even reverential manner. The novel’s tragic tone and unsettling philosophy are all here, wonderfully directed by Neil Jordan. This probably explains why the film was such a huge box-office disappointment despite Tom Cruise. A good film that even manages to overcome the monumental miscasting of its lead characters. Yet one can’t help but wonder what other actors could have accomplished in these roles.
The Whole Nine Yards – Montreal dentist befriends an Chicago mob hit-man. Garbage. A comedy without any laughs. OK, I admit Mathew Perry did make me chuckle a couple of times; but this tale of kind-hearted assassins and evil French-Canadians is just plain bad. Bruce Willis loses many of his Sixth Sense points in an extremely shallow performance. I think I’d rather go to the dentist then sit thru this stinker.
SOLARIS
There’s an oft-broken rule that states, “one should never remake a great film”. It’s fortunate for Steven Soderbergh that Andrei Tarkovski’s 1972 Solaris isn’t that great. Frankly that film is ponderous and slow and Soderbergh’s remake is superior in almost every way. Of course, you’ll never hear any “serious” film critic admit it; after all, Tarkovsky is the saint the film-geeks. But nonetheless, it’s true. One of the great accomplishments of the new Solaris is that it makes its point in a quarter of the time it took Tarkovsky in his cinematic equivalent of fishing (remember the first shot of that film?). This kind of storytelling economy is just one of the reasons why Soderbergh is one the best directors in Hollywood and probably the world. Future film-geeks will take note after he’s dead, but for now it’s sufficient to say that he’s a filmmaker at the top of his game.
Solaris, based on Stanislaw Lem’s novel, is a story of Chris Kalvin, a psychiatrist who’s psychologically devastated after his wife’s suicide. Early in the film, Kalvin is sent on a mission to a space station orbiting the mysterious planet Solaris. His assignment is to find out why the crew refuses to return to Earth. Once on the station, Kalvin discovers that his buddy, the Captain is dead and the rest of the crew is either terrified or zonked out. He soon finds out why; the planet creates living manifestations of the crewmen’s memories. In Kalvin’s case, the manifestation is his dead wife and after some initial resistance, he begins to fall in love with her all over again.
One of the things I love about this film is how it uses science fiction to tell a romantic ghost story. Don’t expect some pat explanation as to what’s happening. Like the dead Captain tells Kalvin in a dream: “This isn’t about answers, it’s about choices”. Just like real life. The choices Kalvin does eventually make are thought provoking and debatable. Is the manifestation fated to repeat the cycle of Kalvin’s wife? Is she doomed as a result of being based solely on Kalvin’s memories and perspectives? Is she even real? Is any of it real? Are we all doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again? These are fascinating questions that haunted me for days after the movie and are an obvious testament to the success of Soderbergh’s vision.
Let me also touch upon the film’s technique. Once again, Soderbergh acts as his own DP and the results are wonderful. The film has an organic feel that’s so desperately lacking in most Hollywood movies. And while many will find the pacing slow, I was drawn into its deliberate and mellow approach to the story. A lesser director would have punched up the drama and suspense. Soderbergh lets his characters propel the plot and it works remarkably well. Again, the economy is wonderful; Solaris is utterly “fat” free. But there’s also real emotion here, based on universal themes, handled skillfully and with great subtlety. Notice the scene where the manifestation of Rhea, visits Kalvin for the first time. The cross-cutting, the camera work, the acting all combine to create an effect that’s emotionally moving and cinematically breathtaking. This is a terrific film that will surely be overlooked. But I’m looking forward to revisiting it for years to come.
THE CELL
The Cell revolves around the efforts of a child psychologist (Jennifer Lopez) to probe the mind of a serial killer (Vincent D’Onofrio) who’s M.O. includes drowning women by remote control. When I say “probe”, I mean literally enter the mind and navigate there as within a physical landscape, interacting with both the ego and the superego in the same way that we interact with real people. What appealed to me about The Cell was its willingness to go with its concept; to take it to the inevitable (if somewhat predictable) resolution instead of falling back on even more predictable clichés. A lesser film would have had D’Onofrio’s character “possess” someone’s body and murder the supporting cast, but not The Cell.
The action takes place almost entirely in the mind and that’s what makes it so original and effective.
The visuals in The Cell are pretty impressive, but not in the usual CGI way that’s been so ridiculously overdone as of late. In fact, most of the effects here are of the standard, in-camera variety. They could have been done 40 or 50 years ago, for the most part. That’s probably why they work so well. What Singh seems to be most concerned with are images, not special effects. And these images are both beautiful and disturbing. The Cell is a triumph of art direction, mixing elements of Dali, Mapplethorpe, Nick Knight and countless other artistic sources. These disparate elements are combined to create unique and cohesive mental landscapes in which the action unfolds and give The Cell a distinctive and original visual style; more Nine Inch Nails than Matrix.
All the performances are good. Jennifer Lopez, as always, is believable and radiant at the same time. The camera really loves her. Vince Vaughn as the fucked up FBI guy, makes Fox Mulder look like a Republican; he’s never been better. And Vincent D’Onofrio is continuing to create a legacy of brilliantly quirky roles that’s bound the make him the Chris Walken of his generation. I love the way he goes from naturalism to operatic expressionism within the same character and occasionally even within the same scene. He’s a great and surprisingly sympathetic villain. That’s another thing I really liked about The Cell, it explained some of the motivation for D’Onofrio’s insanity without making excuses for him. You understand how he became such a monster, but he’s still a monster none-the-less. There are no easy answers here; no simple Hollywood solutions. Even a romantic spark between Lopez and Vaught is left unfulfilled for a change. Good. The FBI plotline is a bit of a bore in its homage to Silence Of The Lambs, but that’s a small quibble. Overall The Cell works. I don’t know if it will be a successful film financially. The Cell is more disturbing than scary. But it is a highly effective and visually daring picture that deserves to become a classic of the genre. What genre, though, I’m not sure.
All the performances are good. Jennifer Lopez, as always, is believable and radiant at the same time. The camera really loves her. Vince Vaughn as the fucked up FBI guy, makes Fox Mulder look like a Republican; he’s never been better. And Vincent D’Onofrio is continuing to create a legacy of brilliantly quirky roles that’s bound the make him the Chris Walken of his generation. I love the way he goes from naturalism to operatic expressionism within the same character and occasionally even within the same scene. He’s a great and surprisingly sympathetic villain. That’s another thing I really liked about The Cell, it explained some of the motivation for D’Onofrio’s insanity without making excuses for him. You understand how he became such a monster, but he’s still a monster none-the-less. There are no easy answers here; no simple Hollywood solutions. Even a romantic spark between Lopez and Vaught is left unfulfilled for a change. Good. The FBI plotline is a bit of a bore in its homage to Silence Of The Lambs, but that’s a small quibble. Overall The Cell works. I don’t know if it will be a successful film financially. The Cell is more disturbing than scary. But it is a highly effective and visually daring picture that deserves to become a classic of the genre. What genre, though, I’m not sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
