Pearce Brosnan is an anti-Bond. A killer with a crisis of conscience. A former suave spy who’s losing his velvet touch, and is sliding into drunken stupor. This movie was sold to us as the first big acting change for Brosnan. He mocks the famous Bond persona, ditches the class and becomes an antihero. Yes, The Matador is that kind of movie, but it’s not the first time Pierce got drunk and stinky on screen. That’s an outright lie, designed to lure people into theaters. Those with a bit of memory will recall The Taylor of Panama – the first departure for Brosnan – a delicious spy caper, with a despicable anti-hero. Great movie, with great political themes. Check it out sometime – Geoffrey Rush is amazing, as always, and the tone of the film is so great.
Superman Returns (2006)
The Man of Steel is back, after 19 years of movie development hell. Multiple rewrites, many failed casting ideas, many walk-outs. So now what? Are we expected to embrace this sequel, simply because it’s been “nurtured” for so long, or because superhero movies are popular these days? Perhaps we should instantly fall in love with the film based on overwhelming marketing campaign? I can no longer tell what “reviews” are plants, and what – come from people who have the balls and honestly to day “the new Superman movie is FAR from a satisfying experience”. I tend to agree with these people. Not as an act of counter-current to hip, jolly plugging of the new and improved Superman brand, but as a natural, honest reaction. Why? A movie that’s gone through so much production hell doesn’t have to feel like a burden. It’s a fantastic story, with great characters, and involving plot, but it’s so damn dark and slow, I felt like I was watching yet another Batman origin story. Where did all the fun go? The man can fly, see through walls, and hear multiple sound waves. Why is he not having any fun?
Continue reading “Superman Returns (2006)”
Inside Man (2006)
Jodie Foster doesn’t do bad movies. That’s a fact, and if you take a look at her resume, you will agree. She picks her projects methodically, doesn’t overkill us with 2-3 films a year, and always, always leaves behind a great, appealing, real character. Even her little cameo in “A Very Long Engagement” was precious. Her films might be misunderstood, or before their time (Contact, Nell), even formulaic (Panic Room, Maverick), but she still manages to elevate the quality of the film, making the scene(s) more grounded, and characters easier to relate to. In “Inside Man” Jodie plays a secondary character – her appearance and role are minimal, yet necessary to establish the moral center of the movie. But man, does she steal those few fleeting scenes. Not to say the leads are weak – they are indeed very good. The problem with male leads of this film is that they’re stuck in “been there, done that” mode. The roles fit them both, but the roles are quite tired.
Continue reading “Inside Man (2006)”
V for Vendetta (2005)
Alan Moore (whose graphic novel this movie is based on) is striking out for the third time. His other works have been transferred to big screen, but with little success. From Hell, starring Johnny Depp was a classic thriller. It was too scary for audiences, and the critics didn’t like the female lead (Heather Graham). Then there was League of Extraordinary Gentlemen – the second graphic novel I ever got. Man, was I looking forward to this – famous literary heroes banding together for a fantastic adventure. And despite exceptional source material, and some cool casting (Peta Wilson, Stuart Townsent, Richard Roxburgh), the movie fell flat. I adored the over-the-top effects and the Nautilus, but the story, the heart of the adventure was gutted. Now comes along V for Vendetta.
While at first it seems like a one paragraph concept (much was stripped from the comic books, and reduced to a dystopian story with an unlikely hero), it grows beyond that. The film is a strange hybrid between 1984, and Equilibrium, but you expect something completely unique from Wachowski brothers and Alan Moore.
The very first thing I notice is more content. With Matrix trilogy, we kept getting style over substance, and eventually, style over slightly older style. With Vendetta, there are actual conversations, and monologues that one can easily follow, and draw from. There are morals, and references that we’re familiar with. We’re back in our universe again. Unfortunately, this is a dystopian universe that reeks of today’s USA policies (even though everything takes place in Britain) – complete with fright tactics, invisible terrorists, alerts, public manipulation, media control, propaganda, and so on. You can’t create a dystopia and make it seem so painfully familiar. Besides, the conservative backlash for the movie was so powerful, and immediate, that people were basically shamed for going to see it – which played very nicely into the filmmakers, but again brought many issues into the front, much closer than a movie should be. If the Wachowki brothers intended to rattle the political cages in USA and Europe, they accomplished. But the fact that the movie is still an action, full of explosions, tirades, plots and twists – makes it difficult to swallow.
Nevertheless, it’s a good film. It’s not their fault we live in times that seem dystopian, and a film that alludes to it gets a typical dystopian reception. Perhaps the movie is before its time – it will get a cult following with an extended cut. But I would have liked to see more people in the theater. Sure, it’s not matrix, but it’s not even trying to be the next Matrix. It’s a well-filmed, albeit poorly adapted film (I’m almost never happy about adaptations – too much is left on paper). And it’s got the strangest casting choices – Hugo Weaving as V – an actor with a fantastic face who never takes the mask off, and Natalie Portman as Evey – a beautiful woman who’s tortured, shaved bald and bruised throughout the film. I wouldn’t want to see her in pain. She’s too delicate. But perhaps that’s the point – for higher contrast and the damned dramatic effect.
The effects and music soundtrack are nowhere near what you would expect from Matrix creators. But once again, this is not the same type of movie. Here we have time to get used to characters, and relate to them, rather than some pixels moving around the screen in a pretty-looking pattern. V is compelling, despite being overly poetic, and constantly quoting literature. John Hurt (Big Brother) is truly frightening, and all the people Evey meets on her journey fall easily within the parameters of a dystopian universe – rebels, slaves, enforcers. I liked the movie for its taboo themes, and its over-the-top approach to questioning authority. But since we’re currently in a middle of a bloody war, and bogged down by corrupt, manipulative, controlling government (no need to name specific countries, it seems to be happening in many places), I couldn’t watch this movie and be a little bit worried.
Perhaps V for Vendetta is more than a cautionary tale. Perhaps it’s a more than a dystopia – perhaps it’s our own reality in a few short years. And, in some scenes, the allegory was too familiar. It was a fact. And when dystopian films look like fact, you gotta stop watching movies, and start making some changes. Around you, in your mindset, on your street.
V for Vendetta could have easily been a dumb action flick, without ties to reality. It could also have been a cautionary tale, an uncomfortable analysis of a political system gone really bad. Strangely, people who exemplify style over substance decided to go heavy on substance, and just dress it up in pretty colors and original montage. You walk away from the theater burdened. And that’s not a comfortable burden. Who are we fighting anyway, and how do these terrorists appear in our ranks, in our families? Finally, what is it they really want? Just to be heard?
Poseidon (2006)
Wolfgang Petersen just has no luck these days. The director who gave us Das Boot, Enemy Mine, Air Force One and The Perfect Storm is wading back into the water with Poseidon, and it seems nobody wants to swim along. Sure, after a few weeks in theaters the film has made its money back (or most of it anyway), and there’s always overseas market, the IMAX screens, and the DVD releases. But the mass appeal is gone. Even for a remake, Poseidon is not faring very well, with either critics or audiences, and it’s a real shame. Here is a movie that’s been sold as an action flick, but has so much more to offer – perhaps a credit to stars, or writers – and many of us are going to miss it completely.
Continue reading “Poseidon (2006)”
Lucky Louie (Sundays on HBO)
I like crude humour. Well, perhaps I like comedians who can be very good at it. Jim Norton (from Opie and Anthony show) is a good example – his material is so filthy, and delivered so well that you can’t help but think that Jim is a filthy, disgusting man. And, laughing at such a man is so much easier. Jerry Seinfeld, on the other hand, is “acting” when he delivers his material – you can see a persona on stage, but a completely different person (who’s not even comfortable with some of this material) behind the curtains. But Jim Norton can do no wrong – every quip – no matter how inappropriate, how groan-inducing – gets at the very least a smile, but usually, a laugh.
Continue reading “Lucky Louie (Sundays on HBO)”
Rescue Me (Tuesdays on FX)
After two breathtaking seasons, Rescue Me is back on FX. If you missed it, or dismissed it as a one-note firefighter drama, you missed out. You have no excuse – tune in every Tuesday and you won’t regret it. Rescue me is about a team of firefighters, dealing with all kinds of crap in their personal lives. It’s not the sugar-coated stuff of Alias, or the politically-correct morals of The Unit. This is the real deal – people who play with life and death on daily basis, unable to cope with their own lives – drinking, abuse, separations, infidelity, gambling, mortgages, extended family, drugs… Each and every firefighter in the show has his own tragic story, and deals with it on is own terms, or with the help of a friend – not always successful, not even rational sometimes. What sets this show apart is its realism – from language to how they relate to each other – these are people you know, people who are surrounded by stress all day, and then some – at home.
Continue reading “Rescue Me (Tuesdays on FX)”
Mission Impossible 3 (2006)
I think I know J.J. Abrams’ weakness when it comes to his projects – he’s a premature ejaculator. Seriously, this guy either finishes up the fun part(s) way before he should, or he simply pulls out of the storyline, and abandons it. I’ve seen this problem with Alias series, MI3 movie, and I’m afraid the same fate awaits Lost. Abrams can put on a great show, but he leaves it altogether (or in the wrong hands), and the project implodes or loses its track. Mission Impossible is a disappointing movie in the franchise, but it’s a very good action flick on its own. It wants and tries to be so much more, and for the first half or so – it succeeds. Tom Cruise (you know, the guy who owns the franchise, calls all the shots and controls the universe) made a good choice hiring J.J. Abrams, but he should have been involved in the editing process, or at least, read the script from the end to the beginning a few times. All the elements are there, but what starts off as an intense spy caper becomes a loud, flashy action film – worthy of summer blockbuster title, but unfortunately, not being able to live up to its name. The mission is very much possible, and very much tired. And if you’ve been watching action dramas on TV (24, Alias, the Unit), you might just be bored. Let’s not even compare this franchise to Jason Bourne series.
Syriana (2005)
Do you drive a car? The next time you fill up, consider the arguments of this movie, consider the kind of people that occupy it, consider their motivations. I’m not accusing you of anything, only suggesting a deeper analysis. Just think about where this gasoline comes from, how many lives it affects, and how. The movie, despite the backlash and promotional campaign, doesn’t accuse anyone either. It’s not pro-environment. It’s not anti-Republican. It’s not peacenick. It simply looks at the oil industry a little closer, revealing fascinating, shocking and compelling stories. It’s a marvel to watch, and even if you may not understand every plot-line all the time, you know you’re being educated, and this film comes with a lot of passion.
George Clooney has been very socio-politically involved lately. The guy has a few things to say. There was the black and white Good Night and Good Luck, there weer K Street and Unscripted, and now comes Syriana – written by Stephen Gaghan (Traffik, Rules of Engagement). It’s a complex movie, with intercutting plot-lines, too moany characters and muddled motivations. It’s difficult to follow, but the stuff you get blows your mind. Nothing really surprising, just drives the point: oil industry is a business, and government is very much a business. CIA, committees all have budgets, expenses, HR and deficits. And what do you do when you have a deficit? You either cut expenses (if you’re in a service industry), or raise prices (if you’re selling anything). That pretty much applies to everyone. Money is king in this film, and similar to Wall Street, greed is a good thing, because otherwise you will be trampled by someone just a little greedier.
Thank You For Smoking (2005)
This movie is not about smoking. If you find you learned something new about smoking from this movie, you have been living under a rock for the past 7 years. Why seven? Because back in 1999 a little movie called The Insider came out. If you missed it, do yourself a favor, rent it, and go see Thank You For Smoking. The former movie is about smoking, the latter – is about public relations. It’s about perceptions, about power of argument. The main character, tobacco lobbyist Nate Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) says at one point that “if you argue correctly, it doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong”. And that’s exactly why this film came out of nowhere last fall at Toronto Film Fest, and has been quickly snatched up by a bigger studio. The current wide release is very small, but it’s building on word-of-mouth.
It’s appealing to people despite unpleasant subject matter. It’s appealing because the movie, just like its main character has “certain moral flexibility”. The film is very entertaining and extremely quotable. Even if you don’t like the characters or their motivations, you can’t help but side with them – they’re having fun doing this, and they’re succeeding. You know you’re rooting for the bad guys, but you go along for the ride, because it’s so much fun.
You see, Nate Naylor is a successful tobacco lobbyist, who’s going through a little life crisis. He’s about to visit his son’s school and give a speech on his job, when he realizes just how badly people think of his profession. Lobbyists are not popular people, especially if they argue on behalf of tobacco companies. Nate knows it, and doesn’t give a shit, except that look in his son’s eyes. “Don’t ruin my childhood”, he says, and Nate begins to analyze what it is he does, for what purpose and to what extent. The movie is a satire with a big heart. Nate knows right from wrong, but he’s so good at arguing, he’ll argue for anyone, even tobacco companies. Besides, it’s not like “we’re forcing cigarettes down people’s throats”. It’s a choice, and using this logic, Nate jumps from press conference to public appearance, protecting, and even saving the tobacco industry from public backlash.
Occasionally, he meets with other lobbyists – firearms (David Coechner), and alcohol (Maria Bello). Their meetings are usually in a dark, small restaurant, over a lavish meal and have a feeling of old mafia movies. I think that’s the point. What these three discuss after hard day’s work would have been considered plotting and conspiracies a few decades ago. Nowadays things are different. As these people discuss their latest “victories”, the audience chuckles, rooting them along – and knowing perfectly well that these people give more power to the big bad arms, booze and cigs corporations. More power and more money. Still, it’s a riot every time they meet to talk about the trade.
The movie almost has no characters with redeeming qualities (perhaps the son, and the former Marlboro man who’s joining the ranks of public outraged at tobacco companies’ shenanigans). Even these two cannot stand up to the rest of the cast (Rob Lowe – a sleazy film producer, trying to find a way to promote movie smoking even further). Wait a second, a movie that criticises smoking is in a way promoting it as well. Nevermind, I’m over-analyzing this. It’s still not about the subject of smoking. It’s about the power of debate. Even Katie Holmes, a journalist out to get Nate and spill his secrets onto newspaper headlines is eventually all about the headlines.
Good intentions get skewed, kind and moral people are fried in the process, and still the audience chuckles and laughs along. You know you got a good script when everyone’s rooting for the bad guys, almost for all of them. As long as the bad guys can convince you of their righteousness, you passed the exam. Come in, listen to the conversations, be a fly on the wall, learn a few things about debating, and if you happen to light one up because of the high energy, go ahead.
And thank you for smoking. We know EXACTLY how you feel, and what you need. Don’t forget your booze and bullets on the way out. This film is a bright shiny satire that makes the usually dark topics a little easier to bear. You can dislike these characters later, and think twice about your tax money, about your local journalists, and your city council. For now, watch how these people operate.