Author: Darren Goodhart

Darren Goodhart is a 44-year old St. Louis-based Graphic Designer and Illustrator (and former comic book artist) who's been seeing movies all his life, but on an almost weekly basis in theatres for the last 20 years and owns nearly 1,000 DVDs for his home theatre. He's learned a lot about film over the 20 year period, and has taken his appreciation beyond the mainstream. His favorite types of film are mostly genre entertainment, but he also enjoys a wide range of drama, action and cult-y stuff from around the world, and is currently re-discovering a love affair with lower budget exploitation and genre films from the 70s and early 80s. He doesn't try to just dismiss any film, but if there's a bias against one, he'll certainly tell you that in the space of his reviews.

Categories
Text Reviews Theatrical Review

Theatrical Review: Paranormal Activity 3

Paramount Pictures certainly knows when they have a good thing.  Two years ago, the first Paranormal Activity took audiences by storm and the studio was quick to follow it up with last year’s terrific Paranormal Activity 2, which also did quite well.  So of course it was clear, a third was going to be made and I suspect a fourth will be coming as well.

The one bad part about this is that Paranormal Activity 3 is (just like the second one) strictly for those that have followed this series. If you’re planning to see this without seeing the other two movies, then you’ll probably be lost.

In it’s promotion, this has been pretty clearly set up to be a prequel to both films.  It certainly is that.  I’m only going to describe what this is about in the broadest of ways, which is to say that this is about the origins of why the sisters Katie and Kristi have all of this weirdness that affects them.

After a quick introduction seeing the adult Katie and Kristi discovering a bunch of of video tapes taken of them in their childhood, the rest of the action of the film moves to 1988.  Katie and Kristi are small children living with their mom and her boyfriend, who just happens to be a videographer.  Dennis, the boyfriend is making a sex tape of himself and the girl’s mother, Julie, when a supposed earthquake hits.  After this has happened, Dennis reviews the tape and thinks that he sees a figure amidst the dust.  He’s naturally curious and now wants to investigate this further.  He does this by first setting up two video cameras in the house and eventually adds a third, and of course, hi-jinks ensue.

Like the previous films in the series, this uses “found footage” with this footage being entirely on videotape.  While all of the films use handheld footage, the discoveries are mostly confined to the footage used with stationary cameras.  With the first film, it was with one camera.  With the second, we had six cameras.  Paranormal Activity 3 uses three cameras and one of them is very inventive.  Dennis decides that the stationary footage from his first two cameras (both positioned in bedrooms) isn’t enough and so he adds a third.  He has the novel idea of using the base of an oscillating fan, mounting a camera on top of that and positioning it between the kitchen and the living room.  This is an absolutely terrific idea and many of the films best moments comes from the slow reveal of something happening in one room, then panning to the other.  The thing that all three of the movies do extremely well with this technique is that they make you examine the entire screen and always make you think you’re seeing something out of the corner of your eye.

I really enjoyed Paranormal Activity 3 though there are a few inconsistencies with things said in the first two movies.  Now by the end of this movie, some of these inconsistencies can be explained away, but that comes more from the viewer than it does the film.  This is a slight nitpick, but while this is set in 1988, there’s a couple of things that are said that would be more in line with what someone would say today.  It’s not a big deal, just a little observation.

Paranormal Activity 3 is very well made.  It’s paced the same as the others with escalating build-ups to a big finale that just doesn’t let up.  The visual effects are subtle and seamless.  All of the performances are terrific, in particular that of young Jessica Tyler Brown who plays the young Kristi.  Lauren Bittner (Julie), Christopher Nicholas Smith (Dennis) and Chloe Csengery (the young Katie) all do fine work as well and certainly keep this moving.  Keeping continuity with the other films, Katie Featherston, Sprague Grayden and Brian Boland all reprise their roles during the introduction as the adult Katie and Kristi and Kristi’s husband, Daniel.

One thing that I’ve seen a few complain about is that none of the footage of the trailer actually shows up in the movie.  I applaud this for this type of film.  Everything that’s shown in the trailer still plays to what you can expect in the film regarding it’s overall flavor, but everything else is a big surprise.  When you see so many trailers that actually ruin things for some movies, this sort of marketing (for this type of film) is certainly welcome.

Paranormal Activity 3 is quite a bit of fun, and just falls a little short of the other two movies due to a few story inconsistencies.  Even though those can be explained away, it would’ve been better had they actually done so in the film itself rather than me coming up with my own solution.  Now I don’t necessarily think coming to my own reasons for this is necessarily a bad thing, but because of the matter of fact nature this uses with it’s found footage, it would certainly be more in line if those explanations were right there on-screen.  Regardless of that, Paranormal Activity 3 still succeeds at being quite the effective horror film and it’s ending is absolutely terrific.  Highly recommend, but only if you’ve seen the first two movies.

Categories
Text Reviews Theatrical Review

Theatrical Review: The Thing

It’s winter of 1982 and our location is Antarctica.  A Norwegian scientific research team has made an amazing discovery below the ice; a spaceship and it’s inhabitant, completely frozen in ice.  Top scientist Sandor Halvorsen is called in for the discovery and convinces a highly promising paleontologist, Kate Lloyd, to come with him.  Once back at Antarctica, they are truly amazed at the discovery in front of them, until it comes back to life…

The Thing is a direct prequel to John Carpenter’s The Thing from 1982, which in itself was a remake of Howard Hawks’ The Thing From Another World made in 1951.  John Carpenter was fortunate for the time when he made his version; he didn’t have to deal with eye-rolling fans ready to slam him on the internet for re-making a classic film and of course then proclaiming proudly that “Hollywood has run out of ideas.”  That of course isn’t true for director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. who’s making his feature debut with this version of The Thing. Fortunately van Heijningen has some able assistance here thanks to production company Strike Entertainment (the producers behind Zack Snyder’s re-make of Dawn of the Dead) and a script from Eric Heisserer who has previously written another fun prequel story this year with Final Destination 5. Even with that sort of backing, this version isn’t as entirely successful as Carpenter’s version, but I think that’s more because of an over-familiarity with Carpenter’s movie and of course the extremely high pedestal it’s been placed on (and deserved to, it is a terrific film).

Basically, you generally know in advance what you’re in for here.  That’s not necessarily a bad thing if you play around with it a bit and they do here, but not quite to the extent that I would’ve liked to have seen them do.  There are a few nice twists to what the Thing itself does and we even get to get up close with it’s spacecraft.  Though the visual effects aren’t the practical on-set style that Rob Bottin did in 1982, they still look consistent with what Bottin did.  To me, that was admirable as they could’ve been glossed up quite a bit but this actually does try to stay consistent with the 1982 film.

Where this really falls short is with it’s characters.  Now I’m certainly willing to grant them the fact that not everyone is going to be as exciting the cast that Carpenter assembled.  I’ll also grant them the fact that this is a Norwegian expedition and so they just may not be given to the same histrionics that you got from the American team in Carpenter’s film.  Actually, I’d be OK with this if the approach taken with them might’ve been more of a salute to what was in the Hawks film, using a snappier pace and more rapid-fire dialogue, which certainly would’ve stood out.  I’ve read how Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s performance as Kate has been compared to what Sigourney Weaver did as Ripley in the first Alien film.  To me, the only similarity is that both are women character’s who’ve had to step up to a difficult situation and that’s it.  Weaver’s Ripley, Even in the original film, is a much more lived-in character and that doesn’t quite feel the same with Winstead’s Kate.  Now I don’t necessarily hold this against Winstead, it’s more in the script and maybe just not quite knowing how to make this group as distinctive as they could be.

There are some nice character moments though but they come from the Norwegians.  Ulrich Thomsen plays Sandor Halvorsen and you pretty much know he’s going to be uptight from the start and pretty much cements that when He tells Kate at one point that her job there isn’t to think but to do what he tells her to do.  Another moment involves figuring out who is who once the shapeshifting alien has revealed itself.  They actually come up with a novel way to do that here that doesn’t duplicate what Carpenter did and yet it still has the same sort of tension.  But as this process is going on, there’s moments where the Norwegians are wanting to turn on the Americans with them and actually make that sort of nationalism as part of the point.  Now don’t get me wrong, it’s not overwhelming, but both of these moments at least try to start a little bit of fire with these characters and I at least give it some points for that.

What really saves the whole thing in the end is the ending.  At first, you do get a feeling that they’re going to change some things up here and not be as exact a prequel as it could be, and that was starting to bother me a bit.  But, once the end credits started to roll, it was firmly cemented that this was indeed an exact prequel to Carpenter’s film.  This, to me, also helps the fact that the characters just aren’t as exciting as what they were in Carpenter’s film- I mean every Antarctica outpost can’t be filled with the same character types, right?  Basically it just makes it more palatable in the end and makes this version a fairly worthy companion to John Carpenter’s film.  I would certainly like to see this again at some point down the road, but in such a way where I’m watching this first and then watching Carpenter’s film afterwards.  I do think director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. is doing a lot here to maintain visual consistency with Carpenter’s original and I think a later viewing with both back-to-back could be a lot more fulfilling for this prequel.

Categories
Text Reviews Theatrical Review

Theatrical Review: Real Steel

It’s a few years in the future and down-on-his-luck former boxer Charlie Kenton tries to eke out a living and regain some former glory.  The sport of boxing no longer uses human players and has now gone high-tech with massive robots that really have no limits at the kind of destruction they can cause.  Charlie travels from small venues (at the opening he’s at a local carnival/rodeo) and participates in underground events where he’s behind the controls of his own robots made up of scrap metal.  Charlie’s hit rock-bottom and now finds his life further complicated having to deal with his estranged son, Max, who soon finds himself just as entranced with the sport as his father.

That’s the basic premise to Real Steel the latest movie from director Shawn Levy who’s best known for the Night At The Museum movies and the more recent Date Night.  Real Steel loosely uses aspects of Richard Matheson’s short story Steel which has been adapted as a terrific Twilight Zone episode starring the late, great Lee Marvin.  One of my fellow reviewers at The Trades said he was going to boycott this movie because it wasn’t being called “Rock “Em Sock ‘Em Robots” after the old Hasbro toy.  When you first see the trailer to Real Steel, I’ll certainly grant you that that’s the first thing to come to mind, but it’s not the only time that this premise has been used before and in fact there’s been more real versions with such TV shows as Robot Wars. But that’s beside the point- is Real Steel a good movie?

For the most part, it is though I do have a couple of little quibbles with it, but we’ll get to that shortly.  I give Shawn Levy high marks for making this sort of light family drama compared to his other movies.  Real Steel follows a lot of familiar notes for an underdog sports film and personally I think it has a lot more in common with a film like Ron Shelton’s Tin Cup more than it does with say some obvious boxing movies.

It’s a longer movie than I’d originally expect it would be, but it doesn’t feel like a long movie.  Levy’s paced this in a balanced way dividing it up between fairly equal parts of light human drama and robotic action.  And speaking of it’s robotic action, I think it’s visual effects are superb.  They won’t necessarily “wow” compared to some other big-budget films, but they are seamless and really well composed and quite fun.

Where this falls short for me is in it’s initial characterization of Charlie Kenton.  Right off the bat, when we’re first introduced to Charlie he’s fallen out of his bed from his truck with beer bottles around him after he’s been through what I perceived to be a bender of sorts, which is one of those little character things that I’m just getting a little tired of.  From there, Charlie’s just not really that much of a likable character at least on paper, and there’s nothing there to really get behind him other than the fact that he’s being played by Hugh Jackman.  Now by it’s end, he certainly does progress to a point that we are behind him and rooting for him, but it happens more by rote than it does through any sort of real human depth.  I mentioned Tin Cup above and there’s certainly similarities to Kevin Costner’s character in that film, but the difference here is that there’s still something very much likable and identifiable by the character that Costner plays.  It’s almost like this movie is afraid to do that with Jackman here at the start and wants to keep Charlie this very edgy and abrasive guy until his son enters the picture.

Dakota Goyo plays Charlie’s son, Max, and his introduction leads to another quibble, which is this sort of by-the-humbers battling that he has with his father with any initial conversation being nothing more than yelling at each other more than anything else.  Sure, it’s a little more understandable on Max’s part, I certainly get that.  For an underdog sports film that plays so much by a standard playbook, it just would’ve been nice had this tried a couple of less conventional methods of illustrating it’s characters from the start and made them more appealing to want to get behind them.  As I said, there is a progression and when that starts to happen that’s when this picks up more.

The brightest spot in the cast is Evangeline Lilly who plays Bailey Tallet, an old girlfriend of Charlie’s who runs the gym where Charlie first trained at.  Lilly’s really engaging as this other character that’s more or less at the end of her rope and I thank goodness that she’s here to provide a counter balance to what you first get with Charlie and Max. For the most part, there’s really nothing that original about her character, but Lilly’s presence really makes her inviting.

Even with these character quibbles, I still thought that Real Steel was an overall enjoyable movie.  I like it’s back half more than it’s first half though your own mileage might vary with that.  With a little more thought to it’s main characters at the start this might’ve delivered a real knockout punch by it’s end.  It’s diversionary fun, but it could’ve been a lot more.

Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: Killer Elite

It’s 1981 and Danny Bryce, an ex-special ops agent believes he’s finally out of the game and has retired for good.  That retirement is relatively short-lived when he discovers that his long time friend, partner and mentor, Hunter is being held against his will by a wealthy oil sheik in Oman.  The sheik will free Hunter only after Danny performs a specific task: killing three British soldiers who were responsible for the murder of the sheik’s sons. Bryce begins the job successfully, but soon catches the attention of Spike Logan, the enforcer of a secret British watchdog society.

That’s the premise to Killer Elite which is not a re-make of the Sam Peckinpah film, but is inspired by the true story told in Ranulph Fiennes book The Feather Men. It’s also the first big screen feature for director Gary McKendry who was previously nominated for an Oscar for Best Live Action Short Film in 2005 ( a film called Everything In This Country Must).  Now, I’ve not read The Feather Men and I’ve not seen McKendry’s short film, but from the moment that I saw the trailer for Killer Elite the first time, I pretty much knew that I had to see the movie on release.

What this movie puts me in the mind of is what you might get if you crossed the late John Frankenheimer’s film Ronin with Steven Spielberg’s Munich and I consider that high praise.  McKendry really knows how to make an action movie and there is a lot here that puts me right in the mind of John Frankenheimer’s films in particular.

Killer Elite stars Jason Statham, Robert DeNiro and Clive Owen.  Jason Statham plays Danny Bryce. Now I am a big fan of Statham’s and I think consistently he’s one of the best in action films today.  His characters may not vary that widely, but he always seems authentic like he really could do a lot of the things that he does in these films.  This isn’t as over-the-top as say the Crank films or The Transporter movies.  I’d actually put Statham’s work in Killer Elite more in line with his work in The Bank Job or The Mechanic. Regardless, he’s always fun to watch and he doesn’t disappoint in this movie.

Robert DeNiro is more support than anything else in this film and I think he’s pretty good here.  I wouldn’t necessarily ever imagine him working with Statham in anything and yet, he does look like he’s having fun here.  DeNiro plays Hunter and he and Statham really do have some good chemistry together, so much so that you actually wish  they could’ve been paired together for more of the film.

Clive Owen plays Spike Logan and it’s easily one of his more threatening roles.  Like Statham, Clive Owen is money in the bank for this type of movie.  One of the better action scenes in the film involves a brutal hand-to-hand fight between Bryce and Logan and to both Statham’s and Owen’s credit it damn near seems like they did the whole thing themselves.

These three are terrific and I’d expect them to be, but the real standout of the cast for me had to be Dominic Purcell.  Purcell plays Davies a Welsh associate of Bryce’s and Hunter’s who’s just a little more headstrong than those two.  Purcell is better known for his work on Prison Break and I have to admit, when I first saw him here, I honestly did not recognize him.  It wasn’t until after the credits rolled that I realized who this actor was who was playing this character.  Now, a lot of that is due to a really good make-up job that basically portrays Purcell in a way we haven’t seen him before, but… it’s also a really good performance on his part and he certainly does stand toe-to-toe with the three leads.

Killer Elite is really more of a throwback tough guy film more than anything else.  It doesn’t go for some of the more over-the-top action that’s atypical of today’s action movies and it’s tightly and intricately paced.  I don’t know how true it is to it’s source, but it certainly does seem like there’s been a lot of attention to detail here.  It’s very well cast and director Gary McKendry is certainly a guy that I’ll be watching in the future.

Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: Drive

The Driver is a solitary man.  By day, he works in an auto shop and does part-time work for film industry as a stunt driver.  His boss and handler, Shannon, has a dream to put The Driver on the stock car racing circuit, but lacks the finances to do so.  Occasionally, through Shannon, The Driver takes the odd illegal job as a getaway driver.  He doesn’t want to know the people or the entire plan and offers his services up during a five-minute window of opportunity.  The Driver is very good at what he does, not only being an expert driver, but also having an intricate knowledge of the streets of Los Angeles.  This is what he does and who he is, nothing else seems to matter.  Then one day he meets Irene and Benecio, the mother and son who lives next door to him and his world is about to change dramatically.

That’s the basic premise to Drive, the latest film from star Ryan Gosling and Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn.  Until this very weekend, I was unfamiliar with the films of Refn, but thanks to Netflix Instant Play, I watched two of his prior films in anticipation of Drive. The two movies I watched were Bronson and Valhalla Rising and to say that I was impressed is mildly stating the claim.  Bronson tells the story of the UK’s most violent criminal Charley Bronson and thanks to Refn’s skillful direction and a tour-de-force performance from actor Tom Hardy, it is an extremely impressive movie.  Valhalla Rising set during 1000 AD, tells the story of the mute warrior One Eye and the journey he takes aboard a Viking vessel to an unknown land where he discovers his true self.  It’s an incredibly strong visual sensation with a terrific performance from Mads Mikkelsen as One Eye.  I’d handily recommend Bronson immediately and I’d also recommend Valhalla Rising though mass opinion on the latter is pretty sharply divided.  It’s a movie that demands patience from it’s viewer and some might not be ready to give it.  Regardless, after seeing both, and seeing the initial trailer to Drive, I honestly couldn’t wait to see this film.

While I enjoyed Drive quite a bit, I think I got my expectations up a little too high.  Now that’s no knock on the film by any means, but after what I saw with both Bronson and Valhalla Rising I was expecting to see something a little more “out there” with Drive just based on those two movies.  Drive is more conventional than what I thought it would be at least on it’s initial viewing, though I expect that to change for me when I see it again down the road.  Even though I’ve labelled it as “conventional” that’s not to say that it isn’t engaging in the slightest, it really is a good movie.

Refn has said that he saw his and Gosling’s pairing in this to sort of be like the pairings of Peter Yates and Steve McQueen in Bullitt or Lee Marvin and John Boorman in Point Blank. Those two movies are certainly high marks to shoot for and yes, there’s certainly echoes of both in Drive. To me though, I saw more similarities with Michael Mann’s Thief and William Friedkin’s To Live And Die in L.A. and there’s nothing wrong with that at all, those are two terrific films.

Drive essentially takes Refn’s style and mixes it with Hollywood convention, and I’d hoped it would’ve ventured further into the art house than what it did, though for some viewers, it still might be going to far.  This is a slow burn noir thriller mixed with complex character study. It’s deliberately paced to take the time to let us get to know The Driver so that it’s moments of action and violence really do stand out.  They certainly do, in particular with two sequences:  one after a job gone wrong and another with The Driver and Irene in an elevator.  These are real turning points in the film where are main character’s world has literally turned upside down and he uses extreme methods to try and set them right.  They’re real telling moments for the character of The Driver as they basically say that this character can’t possibly ever have the moments of peace and change that he thought he might get from meeting Irene and Benecio.

Drive certainly has a great look to it, reveling in it’s 80s homage, and Refn certainly shows great restraint with a lot of his choices.  He doesn’t go overboard with excessive sound or overly flashy visuals, except for those few moments when The Driver’s world explodes.  Last week, I praised the work of composer Cliff Martinez in the movie Contagion. Martinez is back again as the composer for Drive and he does an equally exceptional job here as well, coming close to bringing a feel of having Tangerine Dream doing the music for the movie.

Ryan Gosling (simply credited as Driver) isn’t exactly the actor that I’d picture making a movie like this, but he certainly does do a fine job.  Conscious choices were made with having The Driver have little dialogue and letting Gosling’s face tell the story.  It’s very effective with one moment going from a look of tranquility that he didn’t think he could ever have and then going to another scene with his face soaked in blood that really does show the true nature of the character.  To me, it’s obvious that he really enjoyed working with Refn, so much so that they’re already set to do another film together and reportedly both are talking about a re-imaging of the 70s science fiction film Logan’s Run (and personally, I hope they get the chance to do it). It’s a strong performance from Gosling and he certainly does carry the movie.

Gosling’s got a lot of great support.  Carey Mulligan plays Irene and she and Gosling have some very nice chemistry together.  Her innocent features just furthers the notion that she is the ideal that The Driver is searching for.  The great Bryan Cranston plays The Driver’s handler, Shannon and he’s terrific here with a lot of body language to his character that almost suggests that he’s channeling the late, great Jack Lemmon to some respect.  Oscar Isaac plays Standard, Irene’s husband who’s just been released from prison and still finds himself in a lot of trouble.  While Isaac is only in the movie for a short period, he has quite a difficult job and that’s establishing himself as this important figure in Irene and Benecio’s lives, making himself sympathetic to the audience, and then building a friendship of sorts with The Driver.  He does a great job and I’d only wished that there might’ve been at least one more scene for him to help him more further things along.

Ron Perlman and Albert Brooks play the villains of the piece, NIno and Bernie Rose respectively.  Perlman’s menacing enough, but don’t go into this expecting the same sort of gravity that he has with Sons of Anarchy. At first he seems as though he’s going to be the real villainous force here, but he’s not.  That’s reserved for Albert Brooks.  As we’re first introduced to Bernie, this almost seems as though it’s going to be a sort of “by-the-numbers” bit of business from Brooks, but as we get further along, he reveals a real venality and that was exciting to see.

I certainly do recommend Drive though I have to admit my expectations were quite a bit higher than they should’ve been. After having been so struck by his other films, I was hoping for more of the same with Drive. Still, it’s a great, more mainstream introduction for a mass audience to director Nicolas Winding Refn who to me anyway, is one of those directors to watch in the future.  From his past work, Refn has shown that he has moments that can certainly be compared to directors like Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch and Lars von Trier.  With Drive I can now add Michael Mann and William Friedkin to that list.  There’s a lot of style to Drive but it’s also balanced with a great deal of substance and while I wasn’t as struck by it as I thought I would be, I still think it’s well worth seeing.

Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: Contagion

Beth Emhoff is returning home to Minneapolis from a business trip to Hong Kong.  She’s feeling sick, but doesn’t really chalk it up to much than being a bad case of the flu.  Soon though, things go from bad to worse, as Beth (and others she had been in contact with) start to drop dead from their disease.  As more cases come forward, it becomes clear that a major pandemic is occurring and now it’s up to official government agencies to determine both the cause and a cure.

That is a real nutshell premise to the latest movie from director Steven Soderbergh, Contagion. Soderbergh is best known for his work with George Clooney in movies like the Ocean’s Eleven series of films and other films like Traffic and his breakthrough movie Sex, Lies and Videotape. I’m an absolutely huge fan of Soderbergh’s work and so I was very much looking forward to this movie.  While the trailers for this seem to suggest something that’s going to be a little more kinetic, the final film is much, much more clinical in it’s presentation, but still a very effective scientific thriller.

If there’s any of his past movies that Contagion most resembles, it’s probably Traffic. Both movies take a “big picture” look at their problems (for those that haven’t seen Traffic, it covered the problem of illegal drugs).  Contagion is spread over a four-month period showing everything from the rise of the problem, it’s personal effects, containment, and possible cures.  It’s a pretty realistic presentation of what would actually happen if a totally unknown virus got out of control that doesn’t go for heavy melodrama in the slightest.

There is no fantasy element present in this film; if you’re expecting zombies or some heavy duty Hollywood action to get to the bottom of the problem, then you’re best bet is to look elsewhere.  That’s not Soderbergh’s interest here.  As I said above, this is almost clinical in it’s presentation, but that doesn’t mean that’s it’s pure documentary. There is subtle drama here, though that drama is underscored by the big picture.  It’s a fascinating look at seeing true professionals carrying out their duties during a major crisis with what seems like no hope in sight.

Some of the criticisms that I’ve read about this mentions that the film is poorly paced and that characters are underdeveloped.  I couldn’t disagree more.  Soderbergh is juggling  a number of characters and events while trying to present this big picture and I thought he never lost sight of that.  It’s just that these aren’t Hollywood “big” characters and events.  To present this as a Hollywood “big” movie would undermine the true horror of what could happen in this situation. I thought this was evenly paced and that the characters felt “lived in.”  There are character arcs, but they are extremely subtle (in particular those involving Matt Damon’s and Marion Cotilliard’s characters).  While the presentation of events certainly does jump around, it’s in a logical and subtly escalating manner.

As I’d expect from Soderbergh, Contagion is extremely well made.  It’s a very good-looking film, very crisp and clear in it’s presentation.  There’s some very nice bits of editing for effect with standout moments being showing how the disease is spread near the start of the film and moments when Marion Cotilliard’s character is tracing the origin of the spread.  Cliff Martinez provides a terrific score for the film that really punches up everything, but again not in a big Hollywood way.

Contagion features a star-studded cast and I think they all do a nice job.  Gwyneth Paltrow plays Beth Emhoff who (and I don’t think I’m really spoiling anything by saying this) meets her end very early in the film.  I have to give her high points though for allowing Soderbergh to use her in some pretty interesting ways.  Beth may meet her end early, but it’s not the last that we see of her and her presence is felt throughout the movie.  Matt Damon plays her husband Mitch and he’s the everyman of the film.  Like he did in Soderbergh’s The Informant! Damon looks like he put on a few pounds in this movie (which I think actually adds to the reason for an act of indiscretion on Beth’s part, but it’s subtle) which I think actually helps his performance.  He probably has the biggest emotional moments in the movie, but they’re not overblown at all.

Laurence Fishburne and Kate Winslet play Drs. Ellis Cheever and Erin Mears, employees of the Center for Disease Control.  Winslet gets the showier part, actually playing a field agent who has to get a handle on the situation in Minneapolis.  Fishburne has to maintain the professional “face” of the CDC and he does a good job, but also has a nice (but subtle) character turn as well.

Marion Cotilliard plays Dr. Leonora Orantes who’s part of the World Health Organization and she’s given the task of traveling to Hong Kong to trace the origin of the disease.  She gets involved in something that’s pretty unexpected there and has a great character turn as her story concludes.  Jude Law plays Alan Krumwiede, a blogger/journalist who seeks to get the “sinister” truth out about what’s going on.  It’s also a pretty showy part for the film and while at first he certainly does seem to be this crusader there’s also some shadiness there as well.  It’s never quite resolved, but then that’s not the film’s point either.  What you think about Krumwiede is basically you’re own conclusion, but his use here certainly helps show Soderbergh’s big picture, especially with how new media is used to lay out the story.

Other cast notables include Jennifer Ehle, Elliot Gould and Bryan Cranston.  Ehle plays Dr. Ally Hextall, another employee of CDC who is fervently looking to discover a cure.  Gould plays Dr. Ian Sussman, an independent researcher who defies CDC orders in his investigation and recreation of the virus.  Cranston plays Lyle Haggerty, the military liason with the CDC and he certainly brings the right air of authority to the part.  As huge Breaking Bad fan, I really enjoyed seeing Cranston being a part of this, even if it was a small part, and I look forward to seeing him in next week’s Drive as well.

I think Contagion is an exceptional film. Director Steven Soderbergh and writer Scott Z. Burns deliver an effective thriller that doesn’t play to huge melodrama and instead plays to a realistic unfolding of events.  The ensemble cast are all quite good and totally in service to the story.  While I mentioned above that this reminded me of Soderbergh’s previous film Traffic, it also puts me in the mind of what you’d get if someone took a big Irwin Allen 70s disaster film and made it with an art house touch, and I don’t think that’s a bad combination at all.  If you’re looking for something that’s Hollywood “big” well then you might want to look elsewhere, but for me, Contagion was very satisfying.  Highly recommended.

Categories
Text Reviews Theatrical Review

Theatrical Review: The Devil’s Double

The Devil’s Double is loosely based on the true story of Latif Yahia.  Latif Yahia was an Iraqi army lieutenant hand-picked to be the “fiday” (body double) for one of Saddam Hussein’s sons, Uday.  If Latif refuses, his family would be condemned to death.  Ultimately, Latif agrees and basically gives up his own life to exactingly learning how to be Uday.  Uday tells Latif that what belongs to him (Uday) is now his (Latif’s), though Latif is appalled at Uday’s decadent lifestyle.  Latif has no idea of who he can trust within Uday’s circle.

The Devil’s Double has been described as a “Mid-East Scarface” and while that description isn’t far off the mark, there’s certainly a lot more to it than just being what some would see as another gangster film.  Thanks to extremely skillful direction from veteran director Lee Tamahori and absolutely brilliant performances from Dominic Cooper, this hits on another couple of levels.  Not only do you have what can be seen as this Mid-Eastern gangster lifestyle, but Latif does everything he can to still keep his own sense of morality strong.  At the same time, this gets more complex with Uday who essentially falls in love with Latif, not in any sort of homosexual way, but more because he’s built Latif into an extension of himself.

Director Lee Tamahouri first got great notice with his first feature, Once Were Warriors which tells the story of a family descended from Maori warriors struggling to keep itself together while dealing with an abusive father and societal problems.  It’s a terrific film, and Tamahori deserved every bit of praise that he got for it.  Since then, he got involved with bigger Hollywood films with varying degrees of success.  Some of those movies include Mullholland Falls, The Edge, and the James Bond film, Die Another Day. I wasn’t that great a fan of his last movie, the Nicholas Cage thriller Next from 2007, but for the most part, I’ve enjoyed his work.

I first saw the trailer for The Devil’s Double earlier in the year when I saw 13 Assassins and was just mesmerized by it.  I’ve been eagerly anticipating this one and so when it came here to St. Louis, I couldn’t wait to see the movie.  I’m happy to say that The Devil’s Double didn’t disappoint me in the slightest and I’d certainly put it right up there with 13 Assassins as one of the best films I’ve seen this year so far.

From what I understand, Latif’s duty as Uday’s double lasted for about a 4-year period, so the events of this film are presented in a pretty condensed way.  I’d tend to think that the overall intent is pretty accurate to how things played out, but considering the things that Latif had to do, we may not know for sure just how complicit he was in some of the atrocities that Uday was responsible for.  I’d certainly expect that liberties were taken (and one is very obvious by the fact that this is all presented in English) and regardless, it certainly felt to me like I got an accurate portrayal of the big picture.

Tamahori doesn’t politicize this either.  While it’s set during the Gulf War, that scene is set primarily using news footage and it’s not the central focus of the film.  That focus is more on dictatorship in general and it’s effects.  I didn’t feel like I was being sold propaganda about America’s involvement in Mid-Eastern affairs at all, but more getting a picture from an Iraqi’s point of view of being on the inside.

Technically speaking, Tamahori’s film is absolutely beautiful.  Dominic Cooper plays both roles of Latif and Uday and the effects used for when both are on-screen at the same time are pretty seamless.

Dominic Cooper is just tremendous in this film.  Prior to this, he was seen in movies like Mamma Mia and An Education neither of which I’ve seen.  Currently though most of the audience will be familiar with Cooper thanks to the part that he played in Captain America: The First Avenger which was the part of Howard Stark, the father of Tony Stark who of course is Iron Man.  Even though it’s a smaller part, I thought Cooper was terrific in Captain America and so I was a little stunned to hear that it was the same guy in the lead for The Devil’s Double. As I said above, Cooper plays both roles of Latif and Uday and one could also see him doing extra duty of playing a performance within a performance when he has to play Latif playing Uday.  It’s not just a simple matter of him turning off one character and going right into the other- you can still see parts of Latif while he is standing in for Uday.  Uday is almost cartoonish in contrast to Latif, but even though I say that, I don’t mean it in any sort of derogatory way.  Uday’s the son of a despot and gets anything he wants any time he wants, and so I’d expect him to be quite a bit over-the-top.  Latif is stoic and does his best to keep his composure as he bears witness to the shocking experiences he goes through.  While at first this may not seem to get the most emotional depth out of the character, it does build, and by the film’s end the real emotion is there when Latif makes his break.  If may not be the same thing that we’d necessarily feel in our own culture, but it certainly felt authentic to what was presented here.  This is an Oscar-worthy performance and I can only hope that Cooper gets recognized for it when the time comes.

The Devil’s Double is a pretty powerful movie that works on a couple of levels.  It can be seen as a gangster film, most certainly, but works even more as a complex character study of two characters, both with completely different views on life.  It is an extremely violent movie and it’s certainly graphic about it, though again, I believe it’s just scratching the surface of the total horrors Latif actually faced.  Still, what’s seen here is probably enough to put off squeamish viewers, so that should certainly be kept in mind if you’re considering seeing this.  Regardless of that, for myself, The Devil’s Double is one of the best movies I’ve seen this year.  Highly, highly recommended.

Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: Apollo 18

In 1972, NASA supposedly ended manned moon missions with Apollo 17, but one year later, a covert mission was set up by the Department of Defense for one more trip to the moon.  Chosen to make this mission were astronauts Nathan Walker, Ben Anderson and John Grey, all very enthusiastic to continue NASA’s work, but that enthusiasm fades as the real details of their mission slowly come to light.

That’s the opening premise to Apollo 18, the latest entry in the horror sub-genre of “found footage” movies, and personally, I thought this was a lot of fun, though from what I’m seeing so far, I’m a minority with that.

As I’ve stated in other reviews about films in this sub-genre (Paranormal Activity 2, TrollHunter), I’m a big fan of this type of film.  I like their sense of immediacy and urgency and I really like how they make you watch the little things that you might not normally pay much attention to.  Right from the start, Apollo 18 gives you a pretty logical explanation about why they have so many cameras at work and thanks to director Gonzalo López-Gallego’s attention to set detail, it all looks extremely authentic.

The only real gripe that I have about the film is that I think the effect of the technical deficiencies used in the “found” stock is a little bit over-used, but it’s a small gripe.  That effect is certainly overcome by the above-mentioned attention to detail, some pretty effective “jump scare” scenes and a very nice sense of dread that’s pretty much there right from the start of the film.  In addition, I thought the amplified use of ambient sound was a great touch in punctuating that sense of dread.

Apollo 18 is a short movie, but it’s effectively paced as a slow-burn tension builder.  The real discovery for the astronauts is shown in little glimpses which furthers the tension, and frankly, I wouldn’t have it any other way.  Showing too much would’ve shown more visible seams, so I think a right balance was found.

Warren Christie, Lloyd Owen and Ryan Robbins play our trio of astronauts and I think they’re all terrific.  Christie and Owen get the majority of the screen time as they’re the two astronauts (Walker and Anderson) who actually make the landing on the moon.  Robbins (as Grey) remains in the command craft, and at least offers some hope of salvation to his comrades.  No they don’t go into any real depth of character, they just hit things in the broadest of strokes, but that’s not the point of the movie.  They look and sound authentic and that certainly adds to the credibility of the situation.

I thought Apollo 18 was a lot of fun.  It’s very well made, it’s short enough that it doesn’t overstay it’s welcome and it’s setting and premise is a nice twist on the “found footage” sub-genre.  Of course, that sub-genre is what will be the bone of contention to many viewers.  For the detractors, this won’t offer enough; you won’t get an explanation of events, you won’t get obvious set pieces and you won’t get real depth of character simply due to the immediacy of the situation as it’s presented.  If you don’t care for this type of film, well, I seriously doubt my review will change anyone’s mind. I had a great time with it, and if you’re a fan of this type of film, I’d certainly recommend giving Apollo 18 a chance.

Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: Fright Night

Charley Brewster is a teenager who seems to have things going on for him right now.  He’s got a very attractive girlfriend in Amy and he looks to be climbing the social strata at school.  He formerly saw himself as a classic geek, and he’s trying to put that image of himself behind him by not hanging out with his childhood buddies, Adam and “Evil” Ed Lee.  But, Adam has disappeared and now Ed is desperate to get back in touch with Charley because he believes that Adam was killed by a vampire and now that very vampire is moving in next door to Charley.

Fright Night is a re-make of a 1985 film of the same title.  The original is fondly remembered by those of us who saw it back in the day, thanks to skillful direction and a witty script from director/writer Tom Holland, along with some great visual effects for the time, and some engaging performances from Chris Sarandon, William Ragsdale, Amanda Bearse, Stephen Geoffreys and Roddy McDowall.  This new version comes to us thanks to director Craig Gillespie, known for two past movies, Mr. Woodcock and Lars and the Real Girl and writer Marti Noxon, who’s best known for her work on the Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel television series, and I’m pleased to say, it’s a pretty entertaining film.

Gillespie and Noxon have managed to take the basic structure of the original film and the original character names and give us a few new twists to everything that makes it more palatable to a current audience.  Some of these changes include a change of background for our story’s location, a nicely thought-out background change for the vampire, Jerry and an entirely different set-up for Peter Vincent, the “professional” that Charley seeks out to aid him in killing Jerry.  This all makes for a pretty entertaining re-make that can certainly stand on it’s own, but doesn’t tarnish the original in the slightest.

Now it’s not all perfect, there’s a few plot holes and a little too much over-reliance on digital effects, but I was able to get past that thanks to the film’s quick pacing, the changes mentioned above and a very capable cast.

Anton Yelchin plays Charley and doesn’t quite start out being the same likable character that William Ragsdale was.  He’s quite a bit more self-absorbed, but that changes as events escalate. Imogen Poots plays Amy and she’s quite a bit more sophisticated than Amanda Bearse’s original starting off that might seem a little off-putting, but as things develop, so does her charm.  Toni Collette plays Charley’s mom, Jane, and it’s the least “showy” of all the parts here, but certainly serviceable and she looks terrific.

The real standouts though are Colin Farrell, David Tennant and Christopher Mintz-Plasse.  Farrell plays the role of Jerry and he really attacks the part, heightening the danger factor just a touch higher than what Chris Sarandon did in the original.  David Tennant plays Peter Vincent and of course Tenant is best known for his terrific version of the Doctor in Doctor Who. His Vincent is quite a different change from Roddy McDowall’s more genial version, being a much more self-absorbed and acerbic character, but still highly watchable and he just looks like he’s eating up the part.  I didn’t much care for Christopher Mintz-Plasse in Kick-Ass but really like what he did here as “Evil” Ed Lee.  It’s a completely different take than what Stephen Geoffreys did in the original film with Mintz-Plasse playing a total geek/nerd.  Now that in itself doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch, but his pain of falling from grace as Charley’s friend certainly does come through and he gets the chance to do some really “showy” stuff later in the film.  For fans of the original, there’s a really nice little bit of extra-casting mid-way through the movie, but I don’t want to spoil that here.

I saw this in 3D and compared to my recent viewings of Final Destination 5 and Conan The Barbarian this 3D is a little lackluster and actually falls flat in a few of the darker scenes, though it does have it’s moments thanks to a few scenes designed to have some “in your face” effects.  Now I don’t necessarily put the blame for less effective 3D viewing here at the filmmakers’ hands.  I saw this in a different theatre than the other two movies and this just didn’t seem to be projected as brightly as it could’ve been.  I certainly think could be a very real factor for a lot of disenchantment with 3D right now.  The 3D isn’t essential for your viewing of this film, though if your theatre projects it bright enough that could make all the difference.

I had a fun time with Fright Night.  It’s heart is certainly in the right place and it’s updating doesn’t do anything to tarnish the original film.  Even though there are a few plot holes, it doesn’t really suffer thanks to some nice pacing and a terrific cast, with stand-outs being Colin Farrell, David Tennant and Christopher Mintz-Plasse.  I’m a week behind with this review, just thanks to some unfortunate timing.  The thing is, I think it’s some unfortunate timing on the release of this as well as it doesn’t seem to be that embraced by audiences right now (though I’d certainly account that to the 3D “backlash” going on now as well).  Had this been released in mid-fall or early in 2012, it might’ve stood a better chance.  Regardless, Fright Night is a good time at the movies and certainly worth seeing.

Categories
Text Reviews Theatrical Review

Theatrical Review: Conan The Barbarian

I think that director Marcus Nispel has waited his whole life to make this movie.

He’s best known for earlier helming the Michael Bay-produced remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday The 13th. He got his “warm-up” of sorts with Pathfinder in 2007.  I’ve seen the remake of Chainsaw and thought it was technically well-done at least.  I haven’t seen the Friday The 13th remake as of yet, but have seen Pathfinder and had fun with that.  The sheer look of that movie gave me a lot of hope for what Nispel would do with Conan The Barbarian.

And I wasn’t disappointed at all.  Now keep in mind, this is pulpy, B-movie fare and it wallows in it.  I certainly applaud that, as I’m a big fan of pulpy B-moives.  As this starts, we’re told of the Acheron, a group that ruled the land in pure tyranny thanks to the power that they gained through a mystical bone mask.  The Acheron were overthrown by barbarian tribes who late broke apart the mask and hid the parts so that it could never be used again.  Khalar Zym, a tyrant in the making, seeks to put the mask back together again to both rule the land and bring his long dead wife back to life.  Zym has located the last piece of the mask in Cimmeria, with Corin, the leader of the Cimmerians standing in his way. Needless to say, Zym gets his final piece of the mask, but in order to get it’s power active, he needs one last component, the pure blood of someone descended from the Acheron.  Now, the only thing that stands in Zym’s way, is the young Conan, the son of Corin, who seeks his revenge.

Now, I openly admit, I’m not the most knowledgeable person around when it comes to Conan lore.  I’ve only read some of the Marvel comics of the past and have seen the two prior movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.  I don’t know how true this is to the works of Robert E. Howard, but it certainly puts me in the frame of mind of the early comics by writer Roy Thomas and artist Barry Windsor-Smith. What really carries the day for me is Nispel’s strong visual sense, some really intense set pieces and a strong cast that is just eating up this chance to have some strong pulp fun.

Nispel’s film looks incredible with lots of bright action scenes, terrific production design and some really well-done special effects.  One sequence in particular involving the four principle actors and a battle with some creatures made up entirely of the earth is absolutely spectacular and for me was virtually worth the price of admission.  There’s way more to this than just the one scene, though it is a standout.  Where this falters just a bit for me is in some of it’s pacing, it’s disjointed in a few areas.  For the most part though, this is a rollicking good time that very much embraces it’s R-rating.  It is extremely bloody and violent, not watered down in the slightest, and just further adds to sheer zeal in making this.

Jason Momoa, from HBO’s Game of Thrones plays Conan.  Now I’ve not seen Game of Thrones so this is my first real extended exposure to Momoa.  Visually, he reminds me of Barry Windsor-Smith’s version of Conan from the comics (whereas Scwarzenegger reminds me more of John Buscema’s version).  He certainly has the sheer physicality for the part and attacks this with some real zest.  but what really brings his performance to life is this little twinkle in in his eyes that he gets right before going into action.  There’s something there that actually brings real charisma to this and makes him fun to watch in every scene he’s in.

Stephen Lang plays Khalar Zym and Rose McGowan plays his daughter Marique, our villains of the piece.  From my perspective, they were just having a ball with their parts.  Lang has terrific delivery and his physical presence is nearly as impressive as Momoa’s.  Rose McGowan is just built for parts like this with her quirky intensity.  I have to admit, from the trailers, I just didn’t recognize her at first, and I think her unique look in this film just further adds to her performance.

Rachel Nichols fills out our leads, playing Tamara, the Acheron descendant.  Compared to the other three, her performance is the most sedate, but it doesn’t hurt the piece either and she does have some nice chemistry with Momoa.  Ron Perlman plays Conan’s father Corin, and though he’s only in the early parts of the film, his presence gives this whole thing credibility.  I also have to give note to Leo Howard who plays the young Conan, really standing out in these early scenes.

I chose to see this in 3D.  The first time I saw the trailer for the movie, I saw it in 3D and was very much impressed by it.  I thought the 3D was very well done, really standing out in the film’s action sequences, though not to the same extent as what I saw in Final Destination 5. Some scenes display a real immersive depth, one in particular involving Nichols walking out from a cave with her reflection being cast in a small pool of water just really struck me well.  Going into this, I thought it had been shot in 3D, but after seeing the film, I then discovered that this was tacked on.  Normally, I’m not a real fan of this, but obviously i enjoyed what I saw, so I certainly applaud the effort that went into this to really make it’s 3D stand out.  I don’t think it’s necessary to see this in 3D, but it did work for me.

I had a really fun time with Conan the Barbarian. I think Marcus Nispel has a real affinity for this stuff and he’s certainly not afraid to embrace it’s B-movie aspects.  Jason Momoa is a talent to watch and I certainly look forward to seeing what he gets to do next, but further, I hope he and Nispel get together to make another Conan film.