Archive for April, 2004

Man on Fire

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted April 26, 2004 at 5:40 pm

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Rating:Rated R for violence and language.
Starring:Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, Christopher Walken
Directed By:Tony Scott

Final Grade:

Revenge is back in these days. With the sprout of Tarrentino’s Kill Bill volume one and now Volume 2 and with the Rock getting tough on the big screen in his latest flick, Walking Tall it is easy to recognize that as Americans we love our revenge plots. Even when you flip on the news we find our selves still in a battle of bitter revenge, desperately trying to find a terrorist who hides in sand dunes years after September 11th 2001. If a revenge plot is what you want to see, Director Tony Scott is bringing you something right up your alley.

The Latest Denzel Washington flick touts him as Creasy, a former Marine, kicked out of the marines years prior. Now an alcoholic and a drifter he meets up with an old friend in Mexico City (Christopher Walken) who invites him to stay in the town and try to find a way to call it home for a while. Creasy reluctantly takes a job as a bodyguard for a small girl named Pita (Dakota Fanning). But when Pita is kidnapped and the ransom drop off didn’t go as planned, Creasy goes on a revenge spree, hunting down everyone that had anything to do with the kidnapping.

The cast alone makes this movie almost worth watching. Denzel Washington, who I believe only can play 3 types of characters, a cop, a military officer, or a boxer (which oddly enough also resembles the career of Will Smith) does a nice job in the role. He finds a way to take command in every scene, and you actually really start to like his character. The script also gives him some nice one liners as well as some spots to really shine. Dakota Fanning does and equally good job, being her loveable self. Make no mistake; this is nothing out of the ordinary character wise for her. She is playing the role of nearly the same girl she did in uptown girls, a cute little girl with an attitude. Love it or hate it, there is no denying that she is good at it. Also making the bill is Christopher Walken, a man who on this website The Mike and I nearly worship. Walken Fizzles in the film. His character has a very small role, and in many points you really wonder why his character is really needed at all. Then just as you start to wonder why they keep bringing him back up he walks onto the screen and does some strange (but very weak) Walken Speech about how Creasy is a death artist and is painting his masterpiece.

Director Tony Scott does a very nice job of trying to add as much style as he can in this very straightforward film. Filled with interesting camera shots, camera angles and movements, Scott does a nice job of captivating a very gritty tone for his film. He keeps the film having a very dark tone, and has lots of dark green/Grey overtones that almost become blatantly overbearing at times. But they do work with the film in the end. Scott also does a lot with symbolism in the film, and in countless occurrences you are able to pick them out.

The problem with Man on Fire is that Director Tony Scott may have only been packing the style in because he had nothing to work with. The script is bland and boring, and runs well over 2 and half-hours. In fact the film could easily be divided into two separate films. The first half tells of how Creasy got to know Pita, and the second half is a half cocked revenge plot with a lot of dead air in between. Every time the momentum builds and you start to be interested in the flick, the plot dies, comes to a near screaching halt and you have to wait 15 minutes for any action to happen again. I’m not sure what takes longer, Jude Law making it up Cold Mountain (in last years-Cold Mountain) or Denzel completing his killing spree. Scott also developed a bad habit of subtitling parts of the film that were in Spanish. Words that are Spanish sometimes slip into the sentences of the Spanish Citizens that speak English and Scott Subtitles everything including words like “ex-officio” which in context is easy to tell they mean Ex Official. When he runs out of Spanish to subtitle he does it with English as well, and at various points of the film prints up Creasy’s words on the screen as he is saying them. The point was a stylistic attempt, but it is one that failed miserably in my book.

I always have been a fan of Tony Scott. I was cheering for Spy Game when it seemed like others didn’t care. I’m a huge fan of The Fan (no bad pun intended) and True Romance, Top Gun and Beverly Hills Cop 2. I even find enjoyment in “Revenge” the horrible Revenge flick with Kevin Costner directed by Scott. (Sadly enough both Man on Fire and Revenge have a somewhat similar feel to them). But Scott failed me on Man On Fire. Too much style and not enough time in the editing room made this film a flop. I’m sure beneath all the style and the straightforward plot there was an ocean of symbolism and meaning to the story. If you want to find that, its not hard, you probably can. But there are a lot of ways to waste 2 and half hours of your life. Man on Fire shouldn’t be one of them. If you want and action revenge plot, go rent something. Save Man on Fire for a rental if you are looking for a way to kill time.

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Movies

Kill Bill Vol 2

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted April 25, 2004 at 10:13 pm

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:R for Violence and Language
Starring: Uma Thurman, David Carradine, Michael Madsen
Directed By: Quentin Tarantino

Final Grade:

Allow me to start my review of Kill Bill, Volume 2 by saying one thing about the film. It could be viewed as a spoiler, but it’s not important to the plot, it’s simply an observation that I couldn’t help noting repeatedly when leaving the theater. If you don’t want a future viewing to be tarnished, don’t read any further. Just go see it, and come back to this later.

No sword lacerations were made in this movie.

That’s right. None. The follow-up to a film that featured more severed limbs than a chainsaw party in the woods features not a single slice of a sword into human flesh (OK, there might have been a really small one….but it’s close enough). In fact, only two onscreen deaths occur. To say that the tone of Volume 2 differs drastically from Vol. 1 is like saying that rain falls from the sky. It’s that obvious.

Kill Bill’s second volume plays out with only a fraction of the martial-arty goodness of its predecessor, instead often seeming more like one of Sergio Leone’s westerns, thanks mostly to some great musical touches by Robert Rodriguez (of Desperado fame), including a lot of Ennio Morricone’s music from Leone’s films. I expected the whistling of the theme from “The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly” at any moment, but apparently that’s where Tarantino and Rodriguez drew the line. The film also meets Leone’s scope in several desert scenes, making us forget we’re watching a film about a deadly martial artist and sword handler for long stretches at a time. I never expected a Tarantino film to be shot like this.

I should have expected it, having seen his wonderful camerawork in earlier films like Reservoir Dogs. But I shortchanged the “genius” everyone’s been raving about, not thinking he could pull off anything with a bigger setting than a warehouse, a night club, or a drug dealer’s apartment. For that, I apologize. Tarantino’s direction here is his finest to date, and among the finest I’ve seen so far this year.

The story isn’t much more complex than the first volume’s, but it seems to move with more ease at times. There are still slow moments, like the first volume, but they don’t hinder the film at all. These two films are fueled by anticipation, and the slow moments only kept me interested in what was coming next, kept me waiting to see what The Bride would run into next, and kept me longing for more of the ensuing carnage. The logic behind sequels has always been that “the ante must be upped”, or that “the body count must be higher.” Kill Bill, Volume 2 is the opposite.

I know what you’re thinking: “How does a longer movie with less violence about a character that killed many dozen in a predecessor that’s more violent than any film we’ve seen that didn’t feature Jesus work?” To answer, it does so through a little bit of characterization, a little bit of solid acting, and a whole lot of that aforementioned anticipation.

The acting, which I mentioned in passing just then, deserves more credit than I’ve given it. Uma Thurman’s Bride is back and kicking, with much more dialogue and much less sword play than the previous installment. She still manages to kick some booty when needed, along with showing humanity and range as an actress in the rest of her scenes. She loses the spotlight often, however, as David Carradine’s Bill takes over. Carradine plays the part with such flair that we almost feel we should be rooting for him, despite his evil roots that sealed his fate from the opening of the first film. Daryl Hannah and Michael Madsen also shine in their roles, outshining the assassins from Volume 1 in every way. It’s a near flawless job by the entire cast.

Kill Bill, Volume 2, at least to me, is a rare instance in which a sequel upstages its predecessor in every possible way. Tarantino’s direction keeps the film going, and keeps us interested in every scene, as we follow The Bride on her path of revenge. Sure, it’s not the most suspenseful film, and it still suffers from some of the same maladies in script and depth as the first film. But that didn’t effect me one bit. Volume 1 was all about the action, and Volume 2 is all about the story. Together, they work wonderfully, but in the future, I’ll look back on Volume 1 as a supplement to a better work.

Will the change in style be enough to sway the detractors, who didn’t care for the first film? I think it might, and I think that anyone who goes into this film with an open mind will surely get something worthwhile out of it. Kill Bill Volume 2 is more than a sequel or conclusion. It’s a great film.

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Drama, Movies

13 Going On 30

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted April 24, 2004 at 3:26 pm

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:RATED PG-13
Starring: Jennifer Garner, Mark Ruffalo, Andy “Gollum” Serkis
Directed By: Gary Winick

Final Grade:

Jennifer Garner’s turn in 13 Going on 30, her first real big-screen lead role, is a brilliantly conceived opportunity for the bubbly starlet to shine. She’s the kind of actress that needs an opportunity to show off her good nature, and this is the perfect chance to do that.

Granted, most 13 year-old girls are not so good-natured, as noted by the opening scenes of the film. But we’re willing to accept that they are out there, and willing to accept that our main character, Jenna, is one of them. She’s a borderline geek who wants to be “in the crowd,” though it’s not easy considering her best friend is her neighbor Matt, a camera-toting oddball. When she realizes this, and is freshly armed with ideas from the latest women’s magazine and a packet of wishing dust, she of course, wishes to be 30.

Then we get into the meat of the story, with the Garner’s version of Jenna waking up to find out what she’s become. She’s a 30-year-old magazine editor, who’s known for her cruelty to fellow employees and flings with celebs and married men. But when this version of Jenna starts to realize this, she runs off to find the one person who can calm her, Matt.

What ensues is your normal drama, think “Big” with a twist. There are obvious holes (How does the newly awoken Jenna understand the magazine industry so well? Why is no one too concerned that this backstabbing skank is suddenly the friendliest and most naïve person in the office?, etc.), but they don’t really effect the hijinks much. Garner is charming as can be, and her relationship with Matt (now inhabiting the body of Mark Ruffalo), is definitely what the ladies will call “cute.” There’s some great humor involving her adapting to her new age, though I feel there’s more that could have been covered. The first encounter with her coworker/new best friend after she awakes is worth the price of admission alone, as is her saving of a work party with a little bit of “Thriller”.

The plot, as I said above, is pretty normal, and thus follows the normal twists and turns all the way to its final frames. But the characters are so vibrant and entertaining that that really doesn’t matter. Garner and Ruffalo are both rising the ladder in Hollywood quickly, and show why here with great chemistry together and great charisma when alone. These performances make this movie, which could otherwise be “Cliché Going on Sucky” become “Funny Going on Touching.”

That said, there’s one unanswered question about the “Wishing Dust” in the movie that left me wondering greatly and has stuck with me more than anything the film itself presented. Granted, it’s something I wouldn’t expect a movie of this sort to answer; but if my calculations involving the finale are correct, our lead characters are sitting on a veritable gold mine. I wish I knew more. But even as is, 13 Going on 30 succeeds in being the cute comedy it wants to be, and shouldn’t be discounted even if it leaves out the deeper implications I love in my films.

No Comments
Filed under: Comedy, Movies, Romance

The Punisher

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted April 16, 2004 at 2:05 am

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:RATED R for lotsa violence and some language and nudity
Starring: Thomas Jane, John Travolta, Will Patton
Directed By: Jonathan Hensleigh

Final Grade:

As a recent saga said (or maybe it was an old Klingon proverb), revenge is a dish best served cold. It’s funny it said that, as it then proceeded to be two films filled with as much silliness it could hold. Sure, it still worked, but if you’re looking for a much colder version of revenge, seek out The Punisher.

Granted, the film won’t say it’s about revenge, but about punishment. And sure, I guess we can respect that, for the story of Frank Castle ends with the death of his family and the slew of bullets in his chest. That’s when a new man is born, one who doesn’t want revenge, because he can’t see as he used to. He only wants to punish those who killed him and his family.

But of course, we know he is alive, and that he is the same person, so we can view it as revenge. Or we can’t, it really doesn’t matter. At all. So let’s get to the movie.

The mythos of The Punisher has always been among my favorite comic book tales. A man so torn apart that he stops thinking as himself and starts thinking only as an executioner. He’s like a stronger version of Judge Dredd, only without any superior. The Punisher exists only to give wrongdoers their just desserts, and he’s the only one who gets to decide their fates. Sorry to Mr. Stallone, but not even Judge Dredd can top this guy in cool.

That said, the vision of the film needed to be dark and cold. Long-time screenwriter and first-time director Jonathan Hensleigh accomplishes that, with most of the credit going to his cast, and particularly his star Thomas Jane, who is perfectly macabre and down-trodden, although he still sports a decent sense of humor. Jane, who I’ve thought could be the perfect centerpiece for a movie of this sort for years, doesn’t disappoint one bit.

The supporting cast is excellent as well, and Hensleigh’s script gives adequate development to each of the film’s key players. John Travolta gets the most screentime of them as the evil mastermind Howard Saint, though he’s a much more minor player than you’d expect from a name of his caliber. Almost as much time is spent with the exploits of The Punisher’s followings of Saint’s wife (Mulholland Drive’s Laura Harring) and his consiglieri (Remember the Titans’ Will Patton), each of whom play their roles perfectly. Then we meet The Punisher’s mysanthropic neighbors, a wacky bunch that includes Rebecca Romijn-Stamos in another surprisingly small role. The time spent fleshing out who each character is is admirable, especially when the movie strays from the heart of its source material.

There are important characters from the comic offered up as minor villains, however. These two baddies (a mariachi-esque old man and a ginormous Russian) get minimal introduction and maximum carnage, and are involved in the film’s best action moments. The battle with “The Russian” (played by pro wrestler Kevin Nash) is particularly wonderful, and is among the most memorable fight scenes I’ve seen in years. The concluding attack by The Punisher is also wonderfully executed, and surprisingly gory.

The Punisher is a surprising action film that spends just as much time developing its characters and setting up their conflicts as it does dealing with them. It’s a truly noteworthy achievement by the filmmaker and cast, who’ve turned out a product that’s better than most expected it to be. While not a classic by any means, The Punisher is a solid tale of punishment and (in essence) revenge, that’s served up perfectly cold.

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Comic Book, Movies

The Alamo

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted April 9, 2004 at 4:03 pm

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Rating: PG-13 for sustained intense battle sequences
Starring:Billy Bob Thorton, Dennis Quaid, Jason Patric
Directed By:John Lee Hancock

Final Grade:

When I was in high school, I always said “Why do I need to know history? It’s in the past, it’s never going to apply to me.” Well years later I have found a few times when History has applied to my everyday life. One of those few times is when I watch Hollywood destroy history in the movies. Love stories are added (Pearl Harbor) and the true stories of heroes are bastardized for the sake of bigger money, bigger tall tales and more box office bank.

The Alamo is Hollywood’s latest attempt at putting history on the big screen. The film was scheduled to come out last December with hints of an Oscar Push, but was pushed back due to some editing changes: or so they called it. The film was finally pushed back to Easter Weekend in April, hidden amongst a lot of other films that didn’t have high box office hopes. Why the pushback you ask? Was the original cut that was due out in December that bad? The world may never know.

If you paid attention in History class you know the story of the Alamo. A small group of untrained Texians are held up in a run down former church fort against the thousands of Mexican General Santa Anna’s troops. Out numbered a thousand to one, the men stood their ground. In the end, Santa Anna prevailed, killing all of the men including the famous Davey Crockett and continuing onward until finally being stopped by Sam Houston and his Army in a battle where the battle cry was “Remember the Alamo.”

The film takes many luxuries of stretching the truth in spots, and is probably very historically inaccurate. It doesn’t really matter in the end though. After all, did you really expect that Hollywood would make something accurate? After all take a look at Pearl Harbor. That film has so many flaws it would take years to list them all.

Acting is what makes this film enjoyable. Billy Bob Thorton steals the screen when he is present by playing the role of David Crockett, “The Legendary Lion of the West.” Billy Bob does a great job in the role, and he literally brings the character to life. Match Thorton’s performance with great performances by Dennis Quaid (Sam Houston) and Jason Patric and you have a film that gets and A for acting.

However the story suffers enough that the film isn’t a perfect film. The film runs two and a half ours long and almost drags in parts. A little more time in the editing room would help this film a lot. Unfortunately, what makes this film not work is they drug it out too long. Just like Pearl Harbor, the story of the Alamo is not a happy one for the audience, since the heroes die on that fateful day. So to make the film a happy ending in both Pearl Harbor and The Alamo, they drag it out for and extra thirty minutes so the Americans can get their revenge and it ends happily.

What fails the Alamo the most is the death of Davey Crockett. Once Thorton dies the film fizzles out and dies, mostly because the story then focuses on Sam Houston’s character, a character that wasn’t given much of a story until the last few minutes. In the end it’s not because Quaid was terrible in the role, it was because suddenly as an audience we are expected to cheer for a new hero in the last few minutes for the film to work.

But in the end the Alamo is an enjoyable film. An enjoyable film can have his flaws, and there is no doubt that the Alamo has it’s flaws. But some good performances will leave you entertained as you leave the theater. The only problem is that the history books make sure you will “remember the Alamo” but in a year or so there is a pretty good chance that the movie version of the Alamo isn’t really going to be remembered much at all.

No Comments
Filed under: Drama, Movies, War, Western
?>