Archive for March, 2006

Inside Man

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted March 25, 2006 at 12:43 am

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Starring: Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, Jodie Foster
Directed By: Spike Lee
Rated: R for language and some violent images.

Final Grade:

Much to the dismay of many movie fanatics and a fellow critic on this site, I will be the first to say I don’t like Spike Lee films. When I see the phrase “A Spike Lee Joint” attached to a film, I normally turn the other way and try to take off running. Not because I think his “films” are terrible but because Lee tends to beat me over the head with a metaphorical baseball bat with each and every film I watch. Images of what seemed like 20 minutes of Barry Pepper trying to relate criminal Monty Brogan’s (Edward Norton) life to the events of September 11th in The 25th Hour still haunt my movie dreams to this day. Spike always tries to pack that political punch as well as provide you with entertainment. There is nothing wrong with trying to entertain and inform, but Lee’s political messages are about as subtle as being hit by a speeding locomotive.

Needless to say then when I saw the film, Inside Man, I had fairly low expectations. I mean the film looked nothing more like a typical run of the mill heist flick, complete with the superstar power of Denzel Washington and Clive Owen. But when you attached Lee’s name to the director spot, my only thought was, “What am I getting myself into?” To be honest I was pleasantly surprised. Lee created a suspenseful action flick that kept audiences guessing to the very end, with out blind siding you with the “not so subtle” stick.

What makes Inside Man work so well is the great star power of Denzel Washington and Clive Owen. Denzel plays the perfect adversary to our criminal mastermind (Clive Owen) as we try and figure out what really is going through Owen’s head as he is leading what he calls “The Perfect Bank Heist.” Denzel’s shining moments in this film are equally complimented by the commanding supporting performance by Clive Owen, who plays the perfect bad guy that knows a lot more than what he is going to let you in on.

Wonderfully cast is one thing, but hats should go off to the people who brought this story to life. The script has you guessing from start to finish as to who the bank robbers are, what their plan is and for that matter, just what exactly they are after. As a viewer the script allows us to side with both the hero and the villain, making us face a moral dilemma. As a viewer, do we want to see the bad guys get away with it? Owen does such a wonderful job of making his violent intentions and criminal actions so “sexy and cool,” that you want to root for the bad guy. On the other hand you have the smooth talking Denzel Washington, taking control of the situation on the outside, and you almost want to see him outsmart the bad guys as well. Decisions, decisions!

Where this film did go wrong is in two ways. First off, Lee added Jodie Foster in the role of a person with an “independent interest” in the resolution of the heist. Her role while necessary, lacked a lot of back story. At this point, I still don’t know exactly who she was. I know what she was sent to do, but then again- where do you get that job? That aside, Foster wasn’t in the film enough to make much more than a glorified cameo that could have been filled by any other no name actress in Hollywood. In my mind that’s a waste of talent.

The other thing that struck me as odd, was the “interrogation scenes” that were spread throughout the film. Lee tried to use the flashback stories of some of the hostages during the film as a way to present new ideas and to mix things up a bit. I found this whole thing more distracting and annoying than complimentary. Personally I think the film would have worked more seamlessly with out these little added “bookmarks” spread throughout the work.

All that aside though, I have to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed “Inside Man.” Spike Lee brought me a film that was well, written, well cast and for the most part well directed. It kept me interested it’s entire span, kept me guessing and kept you on the edge of your seat. In a good action/heist flick, that’s what you want to see. I Finally found a Spike Lee film that has re-watch value!

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Movies, Suspense

V for Vendetta

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted March 17, 2006 at 5:10 pm

A Film Review By The Mike

Starring: Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman, Stephen Rea
Directed By: James McTeigue
Rated Rated R for Violence, British Cursewords, Terrorism, and Bald Chicks

Final Grade:

Most critics are going at V for Vendetta, the latest film written by The Wachowski Brothers, with guns blazing and abundant questions. They want a better understanding of how the film wants us to feel about the terrorist who is also the film’s hero, and they don’t seem to want to come to their own assumptions about the film. In a day and time when constant complaints arise about Hollywood’s unwillingness to push the envelope, I find this response quite puzzling. The movie, which is directed by veteran assistant director James McTeigue, is a rare sort in Hollywood these days. It’s a hard-boiled, thought-provoking, R rated film that’s partially an action/adventure film but moreover a radical social commentary. As I viewed the film I couldn’t help thinking of the movie as a more fantastic tale than as a look at our current culture, but the parallels to today’s society are evident.

What happens in the movie is sort of a mix between ‘The Count of Monte Cristo’ (which is referenced as V’s favorite movie) and ‘1984′ (though the similarities to that work are more distant and implied.) From a graphic novel by Alan Moore (LXG, From Hell) it tells the story of a masked man known only as V who apparently is the only person in England that recognizes the fact the government isn’t as nice as it seems. Like any revolutionary, he’s not always alone, as evidenced by the confusion among some over a silly curfew law or the little girl who thinks most of the news on TV is “bollocks” (which I think is my new favorite curse word). But he’s the only person that seems to be doing anything about it, until he becomes visible to others who must decide whether his acts are noble or insane. That starts with his rescue of and ensuing friendship with Evey, played by Natalie Portman.

You probably notice that V’s first friend is named Evey, with another of those pesky v’s in it, which isn’t a coincidence. The film takes painstaking methods to make sure nothing in the film is left to chance, and that there’s an inherent force that’s tying everything together. In critical circles we know that this force is the screenwriters, but the film wants us to believe there’s a higher power than V that’s guiding the whole process. It’s one of the more interesting aspects of the film, where the oppressing government claims godlessness elsewhere, while a revolutionary follows a train of what could be “divine” directions to attempt a change in the system. Some have also questioned that V’s attack makes the point that the religious base of society is inherently evil, while I read the film as saying that the use of religious ideals by the government, when coupled with their actions, is inherently evil; while the religion in and of itself is something that is more than necessary.

That is just one of the questions raised by V for Vendetta but, despite the fact it touched on all of these issues, I never was really sure if the brothers’ script was as well put together as it could have been. Like the critics I mentioned in the opening noted, there are many questions in the film that are left to interpretation. While I don’t see this as a bad thing, the film just seems a little disjointed at times due to its attempts to attack so many issues. There are several side stories, including two great flashbacks (one about a medical research facility, and one about the repression of sexuality that occurred when the government was changed), that work extremely well on their own. But the film’s pace is slowed greatly with each of these segues into other territories and times, and the film really felt like it needed a boost in getting to the overall point from time to time.

I haven’t mentioned much outside of the ideas of the film yet, so I’ll quickly throw out some of those details to make this seem like a review. Firstly, the film is shot extraordinarily well by McTeigue, especially for this being his first time at the helm. Outside of the pacing issues mentioned above, I thought he did a great job of developing a trademark look for the film and of framing the action scenes well. The script, as I’ve mentioned above, is very thorough and interesting, but I do think there needed to be a few more cuts made. It also features a lot of good dialogue that helps raise some of the more interesting points, and a good bit of humor too (V’s introductory speech had me rolling, and quite impressed).

The actors involved are mostly solid. Stephen Rea gets a ton of screen time as the cop investigating both V and Evey, and creates a character who’s easy to relate to as he tries to sift through the different characteristics of his suspect and his government. Stephen Fry gives a nice support in a mid-film section as a trusted coworker of Evey who’s also kind of subversive to the system, and John Hurt spits out a lot of well-done, angry speeches as the Big Brother-ish Chancellor. Portman is billed as the “star” for her turn as Evey, and does most of her work in the film well, despite botching the English accent pretty badly.

But the real star is Hugo Weaving (aka Mr. Smith from The Matrix), or at least his voice, as V. He rants and raves beautifully, usually coming to a good point, and has the perfect voice for the narrations he’s often asked to perform. He’s got a lot of incredibly tough lines and discussions (read as: A lot of long explanations with big words that sometimes leave the viewer scratching their head), but he handles the load more than admirably.

As a simple action film, V for Vendetta works thoroughly, right up to a breathtaking finale. It’s well acted, directed, and, for the most part, well written. When one considers the script’s ability to raise questions, even if they aren’t as ground breaking as they might want to be, you’ve got yourself the first must see movie event of this year.

The Verdict:
V for Vendetta isn’t a perfect film in either its messages or its methods, but it’s close enough that I won’t complain.

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Comic Book, Movies

16 Blocks

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted March 5, 2006 at 3:26 pm

A Film Review By The Mike

Starring: Bruce Willis, Mos Def, David Morse
Directed By: Richard Donner
Rated: PG-13 for Lots of Guns, a Bit of Swearing, and Drunk Foolishness

Final Grade:

It’s been a while since I’ve seen an action movie that’s grounded in its characters. Unlike most action directors, Richard Donner’s made a career of building his action around interesting characters, and his latest film, 16 Blocks, is perhaps the most interesting, real-life, action film he’s made. Considering it’s been nearly a decade since his last good film, and almost two since his heyday, it’s a very welcome surprise.

16 Blocks follows Bruce Willis’ Jack Mosley, a burned-out, alcoholic cop whom we meet at the end of an overnight shift when he’s forced to take on a couple hours of overtime to transport a criminal (Mos Def) to testify. He’s not happy to do so, or happy at all, spitting out comments like “Life’s too long” or “I don’t like birthday cakes” in a constant showing of worn-out depression. But, when the prisoner becomes a target of dirty cops, who’re lead by his ex-partner of 20 years (David Morse), Jack must make a decision between turning his back or facing the truth.

Since this is a movie, it’s not too hard to guess which side of that coin Bruce Willis will choose. But the film succeeds most by playing up the character’s conscience, offering his old friend as a sort-of devil on his right ear while the witness’ constant optimism is like the little angel on his left ear. The best scenes come when either of the side characters are trying to explain why Jack should do what they want him to, highlighted by a mid-film standoff where Morse’s character tries to get Jack to consider who he’s protecting and how much he really knows about him.

Willis’ turn as Mosley is not too different from a lot of his recent roles in films like Hostage or Sin City, and is a far cry from his well-known, Die Hard, persona. He really looks like a drunk, and mopes accordingly, and does so in a manner that’s much more human than we usually see from him. It’s not a ground-breaking move for him, but it’s a nice change.

Def is a hoot as the neurotic witness in transit, complete with an annoying accent and mile-a-minute manner of speech. He doesn’t offer as much comedy as I expected, keeping the film’s tone intact. But he offers up a likeable and watchable character that’s really the heart of the film, which means the star he’s been building should take a good jump.

The least known of the cast is veteran character actor Morse, and he pulls the devilish role off with a sinister charm. After almost 25 years of working in mostly side roles, it’s nice to see him getting a bigger role in a film like this one, where he’s really allowed to play off someone like Willis. As I expected, he pulls it off quite well.

With these three actors offering their parts in the morality based plot, there’s little left that’s needed to make 16 Blocks work for the viewer. It’s well-paced in its semi-real-time structure, and written sharply, with a finale that’s both surprising and adequate considering the moral pickle the characters are put in. It should please the average filmgoer with its stars and action, and even offer a good deal of moral intrigue for the viewer that’s looking for a little more than the standard. Considering the output of the studios so far this year, this is probably the first movie of 2006 that’s a sure-fire Hollywood hit, which is just what we would have expected from Donner and Willis 15 years ago. Good for them.

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Movies

Ultraviolet

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted March 3, 2006 at 5:04 pm

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Starring: Milla Jovovich, William Fitchner
Directed By: Kurt Wimmer
Rated: PG-13 for language, partial nudity and violence.

Final Grade:

Long ago I should have realized that modern day Hollywood can’t make a movie that is a equal mix of outstanding visuals, sounds and coherent plot. This concept was reiterated to me last week as I got the chance to check out the comic book film, Ultraviolet.

I’d tell you what the plot of Ultraviolet is, but I’m not really sure what it’s true point was. Violet is a woman who is infected with a disease that she contracted after a government genome project went awry. Now her body infused with super powers, she and some others who have the same fate, decide to fight back against the corporate entity that made them the way they are. But when Violet discovers a young boy that may be the secret to everything, she puts everything on the line to protect him.

In a nutshell, thats all you need to know about Ultraviolet. Questions such as just what exactly does the boy do, and why Violet is who she is, is really not that important. Why does Violet change colors? Who knows. For us who know nothing about the film coming into it, we are completely lost in what may be one of the most plotless idiotic films of this year to date.

Directed by Kurt Wimmer, who was responsible for the Christian Bale Indie hit, Equilibrium took the reigns of Ultraviolet and gave it his best shot. What we get are a lot of high action sequences strung together by a underdeveloped plot line. But before you dismiss Wimmer as the guilty party when it comes to Ultraviolet’s ridiculous plot, it should be noted he is also credited with writing this film. The film is such a piece of pointless drivel that it only pales in comparison to Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever in pointless plot lines strung together by pointless action. Further evidence of this claim lies within the terrible dialog that is so painfully delivered, members of the audience were laughing at what were supposed to be some of the most “intense” parts of the film.

So what exactly does Ultraviolet have to offer? Ultraviolet offers up some cool looking yet still pointless visual effects. However the novelty wears off quickly. After all how many variations of a girl defeating 20 genetic super men that surround her can one take in a film. (I think the correct answer was 4 or 5) The point is, action can only go so far with out a somewhat simplistic but coherent plot Ultraviolet could not deliver that. The only other thing Ultraviolet has to offer is that it sounds good. The sound is great, the action sequences have fantastic audio tracks, and a great soundtrack to back it up. But once again, sound doesn’t make the movie.

The point is, if you want to see Milla Jovovich fire guns and slay some bad guys, go rent Resident Evil (it should be noted, I said Resident Evil, NOT Resident Evil:Apocalypse (she’s in both, but Apocalypse is possibly worse than Ultraviolet)). If you want a slightly better futuristic thrill ride with a lead in tight leather, check out Aeon Flux. (That’s not good either, but if you’re choosing the lesser of two evils, Charlize Theron is hotter anyway). As for going to check out Ultraviolet, save your time and your money. And if you are one of those poor souls who wasted your money already- I’m Sorry!

The Verdict: Not the worst thing I’ve seen, but if you’re not 26 and still living in your Mom’s basement, this film is a waste of time.

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Movies, Science Fiction

The Squid and the Whale

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted at 6:21 am

A Film Review By The Mike

Starring: Jeff Daniels, Laura Linney, Jesse Eisenberg
Directed By: Noah Baumbach
Rated Rated R for Sexual Content/Dialogue, Language, and Masturbating Kids

Final Grade:

Box Office Bullet Points: The Movie In A Nutshell *The performances of each cast member are nothing extraordinary, but as a whole the group seems fresh and real. Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney play off each other superbly, and Jesse Eisenberg continues to shine as a young talent to watch. William Baldwin even adds a few laughs.

*The younger son, Frank, is a little too creepy at times.

*Some really funny satire and a bit of classic humor…

*But it’s also one of the most heartbreaking dramas of recent memory.

*I really applaud the film for not taking the easy way out with its conflict and characters. They each have major flaws, but it never singles out who is wrong and who is right. It gives us real, human characters, and it’s easy for the viewer to empathize with them.

I regret saying that, when I was younger, there were many times when I was pretty certain my parents were going to get a divorce. I remember thinking about this possibility, and having a million questions running through my mind. Who would I rather live with? Which parent would move out? Would my parents stop talking to each other? And how would that work when me or my sister wanted to have both parents around? But the only thing I remember being certain of when considering these questions was that I was afraid of making those choices. In fact, I was terrified by the mere possibility of them arising. Thankfully, I never had to, and now realize my parents are probably the best duo I’ve ever known.

The Berkman family that is the center of The Squid and the Whale was not so fortunate. The film, a freshman effort by Wes Anderson-protege Noah Baumbach, dives into these issues headfirst, and does so with a brutal honesty. The film introduces us to a family that seems pretty normal, and then tears it apart at the seams. What follows is a portrait of each character and the weaknesses they have. Some of these flaws were causes of the divorce, but many of them some of were simply strengthened by the divorce.

Baumbach’s script is inspired by turmoils that he and his brother encountered upon their parents’ divorce, and it shows. He handles the flow of the story with flair, sliding the characters through funny and likable moments that are often immediately followed by heartbreaking ones. This allows the film to emulate life, because the characters do not progress through the film in a distinct order. Their emotions and opinions are never really concrete, and the trouble they are having facing the challenges that life has provided them is easily visible through the uncertainty and fear that is evident in most of their dialogue or expressions.

Like a lot of recent independent dramas, this film doesn’t answer all the questions about its characters and their lives. But, unlike a lot of those films, I think Baumbach’s film makes the right choice by leaving many things open for his characters. A film this lifelike and emotional cannot be summed up simply without seeming short-sighted. Baumbach knows better, he’s dealt with these fears, and he most likely still is. There are no easy answers for the characters, just like the unfortunate people dealing with divorce in real life.

The Verdict:
A rich, human drama that deserves recognition as one of the better films of the year.

No Comments
Filed under: Drama, Movies
?>