For some
reason modern action movies have decided to imitate 2 other movie franchises,
the first is "The Bourne Identity" (Trailer) and the other is Christopher
Nolan's "The Dark Knight" (Trailer) franchise.
Those are good movies to borrow from, I have no issue with that, but an
interesting side effect of this imitation is you end up with movies that could
all conceivably be happening in the same universe. All of the martial arts and gun violence have
roughly the same effect, all of the technology is on the same level (with some
stupid exceptions), and nearly all of the villains could work for the James
Bond bad guys, Quantum from "Quantum of Solace".
The Award for best Vanity Project: "Jack Reacher" (Trailer)
I actually
really liked this movie, but if the title had been "Tom Cruise" I
don't think it would have experienced an appreciable drop in ticket sales. The dialogue is smart, the concept is very
modern and cuts to the core a very troubling issue, mass shootings. Each character is shown to be competent, and
while they may make rash or stupid decisions it is not poorly handled, you can
see why they would make the decisions that they do, they act like real people
and that is a good thing. It also has
the best car chase in a crowded urban metropolis since "The Town" (Trailer) had
bank robbers fleeing police in creepy nun costumes.
The only
real issue is that this movie ruins its own mystery right from the start. To explain, the movie begins with a guy in
latex gloves shooting 5 seemingly random people, you see the guy's face, so you
know who the shooter is. The person the
police arrest moments later is not the shooter, and they use a fingerprint to
lock him up. So you know it was a frame
up, which means you do not get to see the mystery unravel the same time the
characters do... That is a weird choice for the narrative, and easily fixable
with maybe 3 camera angles getting changed. I have no idea why they did that because it
causes a lot of the discovery and who/why done it element for the audience to
be lost.
There is another
issue too that is a lot less substantive because it is just one poorly done
scene. There is a tonal shift that
happens at the start of the second act (roughly) for all of two minutes and it
hurts the movie, like a speck of something floating on the surface of a drink. What happens is: Tom is looking over a scene
and figuring out that a guy was murdered, he is then ambushed by two thugs, that
sounds like a tense scene because Tom has no weapon, the guys have the drop on
him, and they have baseball bats... what follows is retarded. The fight happens in a really small room and
like the freaking 3 Stooges these guys keep pulling back to hit Tom and knock
each other in the head or miss because their swings are so wide that they catch
on the walls of the tiny room. Tom
Cruise is borderline unconscious for the first 30 seconds of the fight in which
the two goons beat up the room and each other in what can only be described as
a scene from another movie.
8/10
The movie could almost be summed up with this image. |
The Award for being the best Batman Movie released this Year:
"Skyfall" (Trailer)
I really
cannot fault this movie for being anything other than what it is, James Bond
being Batman. For fuck's sake, the
phrase "Skyfall" means "Dark Night Rising". The whole third act takes place at Stately
Bond (Wayne) Manor. There is an Alfred. There is a Batcave. The main bad guy has a scene in which he is
in a holding cell and practically utters the phrase, "Wanna know how I got these scars?" The whole movie has
these sorts of Batman echoes. It is easy
to see why, both are dark wish fulfillment characters, rich playboys who are impossibly
good at everything, and covered in good fashion and pricey gadgets. It isn't really something to be lamented,
Bond and Batman are both potentially good characters, and this movie shows how
good Bond is by actually exploring who he is and why he does what he does.
There are
some stupid things in it though, like the palm reader handgun in the trailer,
think about that from a logical standpoint, what are the odds that a bad guy
(who probably has their own weapon) using Bond's gun against him and being
foiled by the device (yes it happens, but how it happens is so unlikely that
using that as an example makes you sound dumber for the effort). Then look at it another way, how long does it
take the gun to read his palm and unlock?
Cause if it takes longer than 3/10's of a second, that is longer than it
takes a person to draw and ready a weapon, which means the gun could
potentially keep Bond from successfully drawing and firing his weapon at an
optimum speed. It is the most modern bit
of sci-fi in the movie, and by far the most impractical.
If I were
to say this movie had a symbolic turn, it would have to be this: Bond is dead,
and this is his personal hell.... stay with me on this. Spoiler: at the beginning of the movie Bond
is shot in the chest and declared KIA, he flees off to a tropical paradise to
recover and then returns when a terrorist attack in London demands his
attention. For the rest of the movie
Bond tours a lot of the old spy movie tropes.
He journeys to exotic locals, is nearly fed to some strange animal in a
pit, fights of a team of goons, one of which looks a lot like Odd Job from "Goldfinger" (Trailer). He goes to a deserted island fortress
hideout. There are repeated images of
descent, in the subway, MI-6 in the underground bunker, falling through ice,
the escape route out of Skyfall later in the movie; the only image of ascent,
when he holds onto the bottom of an elevator to keep up with an assassin is
treated as extremely difficult and he nearly falls to his death. There are all of these elements from previous
movies that get brought up, used, and destroyed, (the old car being the best
example) it's like they are the sins of Bond's past getting burned away by
hellfire. The main bad guy is a fallen
MI-6 agent, like a fallen angel who has come to rule his own underworld
kingdom. M is treated very much like a
divine mother figure. And the final
confrontation takes place in a freaking church.
Bond died at the start of the movie, and came back from heaven to fight
the devil, and his reward for success is that he gets to be reincarnated down
the line by a new actor who will continue the fight.
Hell, read
this bit of dialogue from the trailer:
Bond:
"Everyone needs a hobby."
Someone
Else: "What's yours?"
Bond:
"Resurrection."
8/10
Though, I suppose if you wanted someone to play Satan in a James Bond movie, Javier Bardem is a good pick |
Most Unnecessary Voice Over Award: "Premium Rush" (Trailer)
Okay, this
movie is very style heavy, they chop up the timeline, they have a lot of
graphics displaying the New York geography, they have a weird effect to show
how the main character can quickly plot out the options for where to go and how
to avoid being crushed to death in stressful fast moving traffic, if I cared
about any of the characters or thought the dialogue or narrative was any good I
might appreciate these things... I do not.
This movie
is insultingly dumb and has the audacity to start off with voice over explaining
what a bike messenger is... I know what a fucking bike messenger is. Voice over is used to explain complex
premises to stories, premises that just require too much back story otherwise and
the movie would be too long. For
instance, the movie "Looper" (Trailer) also stars Joseph Gordon Levitt and
begins with him explaining what a Looper is, it is an assassin that works to
kill time travelers, it is a hard thing to swallow unless it is explained...
Guys delivering shit via bike is not complicated, and explaining it is
insulting to the audience.
The action
is actually boring, goes on far too long, and since they are on bikes it is
actually kind of slow paced even with the style and shifting obstacle course
that is New York City traffic. Also,
there is a massive plot problem: the villain is looking for a lotto ticket with
a distinct symbol on it, the villain has not seen the ticket, Levitt has, so
why doesn't Levitt just buy a lotto ticket from a quick stop, draw the symbol
on it and hand it over to the bad guy, then deliver the correct ticket to where
it needs to go? That is a huge out for
the protagonist. It is a plot hole.
Also, the
acting in this, with the exception of Joseph Gordon Levitt and Michael Shannon,
is just awful. Everyone has bad lines to
read, poor motivation, bad scenes in general, it is a waste to watch. And what is funny, the criminal organization
in this, which is basically a Chinese Mafia, would still fit into the James Bond
shared universe I described earlier.
3/10
A word
about "Alex Cross" (Trailer) and "Taken 2" (Trailer) who could also be in this
category, and probably could also take place in the same universe. I didn't see these movies. "Alex Cross" stars Tyler Perry and
is considered by many to be one of the worst movies of the year, it looks like
a mess and I have no desire to see it, if I hear good things about its sequel
(as I imagine there will be one) then I might go back and watch this one, but
for now...
"Taken" (Trailer) was a well structured action movie with a tight script that had only a few plot
holes and structure issues, it is a good movie about a guy doing violent and
asshole things to save his child.
However, "Taken" is a jingoistic and stupid movie, it is
somewhat disgusting in its own way. So I
will not watch "Taken 2" which exists it seems to give old guys who
are scared of foreign countries a sense of, "I could totally do
that", rather than do anything interesting with the narrative or comment
on anything going on in the world. It
seems like an offensive movie to my somewhat cosmopolitan look on the world,
and I don't want to watch it.
No comments:
Post a Comment