Review | The Movie Rat

Rewind Review: The Kids are All Right

Posted on January 26, 2016 by bernardovillela

Introduction

As those who know me, and if such a person exists, cyberstalk me, know I created this blog after writing on another site, which shall remain nameless, for a while. The point is, I have material sitting around waiting to be re-used on occasion I will re-post them here. Some of those articles or reviews may have been extemporaneous at the time but are slightly random now, hence the new title and little intro, regardless enjoy!

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

The Kids Are All Right is a film for whom success, marginal as it may be, rests entirely on the shoulders of its cast. The film tells the story in a rather tight nucleus focusing on the parents (Annette Bening and Julianne Moore), the kids (Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson) and finally their heretofore unknown sperm donor/father (Mark Ruffalo). Ultimately it is the compelling, truthful, funny and touching performances in this film that make it worth watching even in spite of some very serious problems.

While this is a more sure-handed feature effort from Lisa Cholodenko than the disjointed and awful Laurel Canyon it is not without its serious deficiency. That deficiency to be discussed in full warrants a spoiler alert.

Having said that the major conflict of the film occurs when Jules (Julianne Moore) starts having an affair with Paul (Mark Ruffalo). At one point you think it may just be a one time thing but the film almost revels in showing the multiple relapses that Jules has and her enjoyment of this seemingly inexplicable affair. Your hopes that it will never surface are also quickly dashed.

Now while I will not dwell in the land of film theory in this review and speculate on the potential impact of yet another homosexual character engaging in a heterosexual tryst in a film it is also a plot contrivance that fails in terms of cinematic mechanics in several ways.

First, to simply state it it’s lazy. My major grievance with Valentine’s Day is that even with the sheer number of couples in that film nearly all of them were dealing with infidelity. Oddly enough that film deals with its one homosexual couple in a unique and taboo-breaking way and they have no issues.

While barring some other grievous offense this is the biggest cause of conflict possible it’s not one that had to be introduced just to create drama. While it does allow there to be a very emotional tearing apart and subtle reunion of the family as Joni (Mia Wasikowska) goes off to college one wonders if there would ever be a film that would ever do the opposite and get away with it. Would a man be able to have an affair with another man and be able to repair his marriage, family and have an audience believe it? Doubtful. However, here a gay couple faces the ultimate betrayal and while you want them to resolve things it doesn’t make it any less implausible that they’d manage to stay together.

Yet, plausibility is overrated and almost anything can be accepted in a film if it is sufficiently set up but aside from the one cliché I-Hate-You-I-Want-You glance they exchange right before they kiss you don’t see it coming and further more when pressed Jules doesn’t have a satisfactory answer for Nic (Annette Bening) that would explain not only an extra-marital affair but one with the opposite sex. If that is going to happen in homosexual relationship more needs to be cited than a lack of attention. It’s not like flipping a light switch and while sexuality is between the ears and the affair doesn’t make Jules suddenly straight, this kind of thing does take convincing to make sense and it never quite does.

Unfortunately, this affair is a major event and does take up a significant portion of this film and thus this review. Ultimately, the audience is the determinant of meaning so it is the director’s job to convey that meaning clearly so we can see intent. I am quite sure that perhaps there was some symbolic or representational intent with the affair and that Cholodenko didn’t want it interpreted in a possibly negative way, however, whatever message or motivation existed there was not clearly conveyed.

The overall affect the film has on an audience is a positive one. It is a touching and fitting conclusion and Julianne Moore’s apology scene is a tear-jerker as is Laser’s (Josh Hutcherson) final assertion of why they belong with one another. It’s a film that makes it by on the strength of its actors and its finale it’s the journey I would’ve preferred changed somewhat. Perhaps the message lies in the title that The Kids Are All Right even if the adults aren’t but isn’t that an awfully dangerous mixed message?

6/10

Rewind Review: The Next Three Days

Posted on January 25, 2016 by bernardovillela

Introduction

The Next Three Days (2010)

The Next Three Days unquestionably has some good elements to it but there are far too many occasions it trips itself up just when it is gaining momentum. It ends up being too far-fetched, silly and to an extent anti-climactic to be an effective action film.

The biggest strike against it in the far-fetched arena is that this film uses the Youtube-created myth of a punctured tennis ball being able to unlock a car door. Either the filmmakers never saw that Mythbusters episode or they don’t care. This makes even less sense when you consider the bump key plan, were John (Russell Crowe) learns to fashion a key that can open any door. At least there the way it’s explained it seems feasible. In terms of being far-fetched it almost doesn’t bear mentioning that this film contains the obligatory scene where Liam Neeson is brought in to be awesome. The information he gives is crucial but the way he delivers it and how its used is somewhat suspect.

Neeson’s performance is wonderful but it gets a bit expository and at some point and you wonder why he doesn’t lower his voice and/or look around to see if he’s being overheard, which I blame on the director- even having written a book about escaping prison you’d think he’d want to be a little discreet about being an accomplice before the fact. Then the numbers on how long it’ll get to put certain lock downs in place are taken as gospel and placed on a map and on our protagonist’s wrist, as if he would forget like this is Memento or something.
There are a few miscalculated story devices that end up working against the film: The first being the ticking clock element. It is treated like gospel but when the time runs out there really isn’t an overt threat that makes it seem as if our hero is going to get caught. Then there is the question of guilt or innocence. Due to the fact that the film wants to leave that question in doubt we rush through the early part of the story, are left thinking the protagonist is a little delusional and then are escorted through a moderate twist-ending.
Perhaps what is most difficult to embrace about this film is that our lead does resort to extraneous criminal activity to pull off the escape. To go into more detail would be to give too much away. Suffice it to say that decisions are made to cross a line that needn’t be crossed to get the job done.

Now there is in this film a few very good touches which make it watchable and do build suspense. One of the best touches being that upon leaving his house John removes all materials from his “war room.” It ends up filling three bags of garbage. Two he takes with him and one he leaves in the trash can to be found. This acts a diversion and is very well done.

However, as with everything in this film, it seems that for every step forward there was a step back. As enjoyable as that little ploy was it does try to bury something that was a niggling concern throughout, which is that he very clearly has details of his plans and calculations plastered all over his wall simply because they accommodate the aesthetics of the cinematography and tosses aside any semblance of realism. Should anyone have entered this room it would be obvious he was plotting something.

Ultimately, there are a few elements to latch on to that will get you through this film mainly watching the plot of the escape unfold, however, there are too many elements that hold it back and stop it from staying afloat.

4/10

Rewind Review: Kick-Ass

Posted on January 24, 2016 by bernardovillela

Introduction

Kick-Ass (2010)

Kick-Ass had been touted by some who had seen it prior to its release as the next generation of comic book movies which is a lofty moniker to live up to and some have fallen woefully short of this expectation. Kick-Ass not only reaches this lofty praise but fair exceeds it on many levels. It is a film that takes the subgenre in a new direction bravely and boldly.
One of the biggest contributing factors to this film’s overwhelming success is the outstanding performance of its lead cast. Aaron Johnson, as the title character, delivers what is likely to a be a star-making performance. While that ability has always been apparent he has yet to have such a showcase as this. His American dialect is not only unique but completely bulletproof such that many who have recently seen him interviewed were completely unaware that he is, in fact, British.
Probably the second biggest contributing factor of the film’s success, in terms of casting, is Chloë Grace Moretz as Hit Girl. While she too recently proved herself in a smaller role in the film Diary of a Wimpy Kid she absolutely breaks out here with a film that was released later but clearly shot first. In one of the better plot devices the film employs the title character/protagonist/narrator is the least skilled of the would-be real life superheroes and it is Moretz as Hit Girl and Nicholas Cage as Big Daddy who give us the audience the jolt of the graceful, intelligent, funny and nearly infallible heroes we expect. Yet as seeing this film will prove as the events are taking place in the real New York City and not Gotham there can be grave consequences for these vigilantes.

Nicolas Cage delivers a performance in this film that once again is making me eat my words to an extent. Last year in the marginally bad film Knowing I lambasted Cage. It seems he took that film, and many in the action genre (Many of which are Bruckheimer-produced) off. It’s not an excuse for his line-ready badness at times but just a fact because in this film he was, dare I say it? Glorious. And this coming on the heels of The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. He had something here to sink his teeth into and went at it full boar and created a superhero alter ego who seemed to be the bastard child of Adam West and William Shatner and was so funny he challenged my ability to control my Coca-Cola filled bladder.
Last but certainly not least in deserving a mention is Christopher Mintz-Plasse. While he will never be able to shake being McLovin’, nor does he really want to, he was starting to run the risk of being pidgeon-holed in a very small subset of roles with this he is still in the nerd vein but he did get to stretch a little bit and does play a character with dimensions, a struggle, an arc and ambition. In another fantastic twist, which shouldn’t be that hard to do, Kick-Ass gives us the origin story first as opposed to other comic franchises who insist on backtracking towards them in spinoffs, sequels and/or reboots.
Another major element this film benefits from is the implementation of verisimilitude. By constantly giving you reminders that this film is different from others in its ilk in as much as these are real people and not aliens beings or billionaires with fancy toys the stakes are raised greatly and almost anything can happen.
It is this very verisimilitude that allows the film to hit many different notes of emotion throughout the film and also play with tone going from comedy to drama to suspense with ease and in the blink of an eye.

The facile nature of bouncing from tone to tone also allows the pace to stay steady such that when the pedal hits the metal and the film is driving towards the finish you are hooked and literally at the edge of your seat.
Another aspect in which this film separates itself and makes it somewhat different is that it also seeks to please by having our heroes have good kills. Generally this is a notion of the horror film genre when you know that the body count will be high so it’s a matter of creatively disposing of victims not so much the fact that they do die. The same applies here in this film where there are many henchman to work through before getting to the ultimate villain and the film really thought about how to fluidly and creatively have these obstacles eliminated.
One sequence towards the end where Hit Girl is in the enemy’s lair is not far off the finesse and prowess of the massive fight scenes in Kill Bill but like with that film to reduce this film to a massive bloodbath would be an injustice.

As I frequently say, and will write on shortly, I am not one for hyperbole so take the following statement as an apt comparison, due to the fact that Kick-Ass ends with Red Mist (Mintz-Plasse) reciting a line from the following film: I, not being a comic book film completist by any means, have been waiting for something like this since Batman and it is good to know that it can happen and that the exalted feeling I had leaving the movie theatre is not reserved for childhood.
10/10

Rewind Review: Easy A

Posted on January 22, 2016 by bernardovillela

The first thing that needs saying about Easy A is the following: I for one am not the kind who is off-put by listening to dialogue that is so witty and on point that it seems too good to be true. Unrealistically rapid, witty dialogue is part of what made Film Noir and many classic films work. Lip service need only be paid to reality when absolutely necessary to preserve suspension of disbelief. Especially when dealing in the comedy genre dialogue will be unrealistic in one way or another what matters is, is it good? The dialogue in Easy A is fantastic from beginning to end and is the best I’ve heard since Whatever Works, which is saying something because Woody Allen can talk circles around most.

Part of what makes this seemingly sitcom-style dialogue work is that this film is never, not even for a moment insincere, whether about the points its trying to make or its characters. The parents in this film played brilliantly by Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci are oddball, California liberal stereotypes, however, even when consoling their daughter and actually playing parent they do not suddenly change persona but rather do their variation of this person being sincere which is still a little offbeat.

The bottom line is that this film is hysterical an that is what matters most when it comes to comedy. It may not quite be up to snuff with The Hangover, which would need to be re-viewed but now there have been two comparisons made to the two best comedies of 2009 so you get a sense of the quality of this particular film.

What helps to elevate this film is the performance turned in by Emma Stone. While Stone already has many credits to her name this is indeed a star-making turn and it’s little wonder that her name is already being bandied about for two very high profile roles now. Her performance in this film is nothing short of a revelation. Her delivery and reactions are always spot on and when she needs to get emotional, even in the context of this tale, you believe it.

While playing a high school tale which is essentially a self-conscious and modern day retelling of The Scarlet Letter the film still manages to avoid didacticism which is quite a feat. This is likely due in part to the influence of John Hughes which can be felt in this film not only in the dialogue but the usage of music throughout including blatant The Breakfast Club references.
There is through the jokes also a reverence for cinema particularly the classics there is also quite a bit of adherence to the comedic rule of three. One particular example comes to mind but it’s best kept a surprise. The film is also told in a frame of a webcast. While frames are a classical technique the webcast is a current/forward-thinking.   Easy A, if you’ll excuse the cheesy critical pun, earns an Easy A as one of, if not the, funniest films of the year and one of the better most complete comedy experiences you’re likely to find in contemporary cinema combing intelligence, heart and laughs.

10/10

Rewind Review: Avatar

Posted on January 22, 2016 by bernardovillela

Avatar is probably the most amazing piece of eye candy that moviegoers have been allowed to unwrap in quite some time. It includes fantastic vistas, wonderful conceptions, phosphorescent and vibrant images that are always intriguing and some are downright awe-inspiring. As just a film to look at it may be the most amazing film this critic has ever beheld.

The effects are truly tremendous in every way. The creature-work done in this film is unparalleled. There is a very unique and enthralling ecosphere created on the fictional planet of Pandora which is just incredible. All the creatures are fascinating, effective and memorable which cannot be said for all sci-fi films.

The sound design was also fantastic in helping to create the world’s animals but also in making the battle scenes hit harder. There is creativity in conception and excellence in the edit.

As any good sci-fi tale does it comments on our society, our world, through the subterfuge of a far off place. Sometimes the commentary is subtle or nearly non-existent. What was surprising about Avatar was how very present the commentary was.

There is an aspect of colonialism to the way humans displaced from earth now occupy this planet in a very uneasy equilibrium. The people from earth are after a precious mineral and looking to get the Na’vi, the natives of the planet, to abandon their land so it can be excavated.

In the mineral lies the only issue of the film’s construction and plot. Firstly, the mineral is called Unobtainium. Really? This is a film that from what we can tell created a people and a bestiary but this is the best name they could think of for the rock? The other issue is that we never find out what purpose it serves except that it’s valuable. Is it just precious like gold or can it be harnessed as a fuel – what is the attraction?

That all being said the hunt for the Unobtainium brings other things to light. Giovanni Ribisi’s character, although it is never made clear, appears to make an unspoken comment on the Military-Industrial Complex. He seems to be there just urging the army to obtain it by any means necessary and is never addressed as a dignitary so it seems his power is inferred and not one of rank.

Some have commented that this is a Pocahontas type tale and while the parallel can be drawn from the Native-outsider relation in this film there is a very distinct difference. In relationships between Native Americans and Europeans it was the native who would leave with the other, here it is the outsider who literally becomes a member of the tribe. The tribal commentary seems very general and shouldn’t be interpreted wrongly whether you read it as an African or Native American tribe the point is this: the people belong to the land and vice versa, they treat it with respect and they care for it due to the abundance it gives them and that ought not be taken lightly, and certainly not destroyed, by so-called civilized peoples.

Minor vague points aside this film is an incredibly enthralling experience that does build slowly but it uses that added half-hour of running time to its advantage. The battle scenes at the end are also very well-executed.

This is one of the top 15 films of the year based on its technical merit, advancement and engaging story-line alone. There are some head-shaking flaws that just make you wonder but it does not taint the overall experience.

9/10

Rewind Review: Killing Kasztner

Posted on January 21, 2016 by bernardovillela

The main objective of a documentary is to inform and illuminate subject and bring it to a larger public’s attention. More often than not the subjects of a film’s investigation will be one that is greatly unknown. It is generally in learning new things and in examining difficult questions that the best documentaries are made.

Killing Kasztner is just such a documentary as it brings to light a largely unknown, suppressed and unexplored chapter of the history of World War II and the infancy of the Israeli state. It examines the polarizing figure of Rezso Kasztner a Hungarian Jew who negotiated with Adolf Eichmann for the release of more than 1,600 Jewish prisoners. It investigates the controversy that exists surrounding the negotiation itself, the postwar implications, a trial Kasztner faced in Israel and his subsequent assassination at the hands of a young extremist Ze’ev Eckstein. Even walking into the film knowing all this beforehand you will still learn a great deal and it will provoke much thought and emotion throughout.

The film is an interesting one in as much as you not only hear the director/interviewer, Gaylen Ross, ask certain questions but also see the director on occasion, typically accompanying voice over she wrote and performed. It is most definitely an auteur’s approach to documentary film wherein the director is not an invisible hand but is to an extent involved and invested in the tale being told not unlike Werner Herzog is in some of his works. This involvement, however, is never obstructive and both sides of the story are presented and certain questions asked are never answered because they have no answers and so one could leave the film with either opinion of the man based on the facts presented. Moreover, this involvement works to the benefit of the film as just getting a little taste of what the story means to the person behind the camera raises the stakes for us as an audience a bit.

It is a film that tackles its subject matter from as many different angles as possible talking to many people on all sides of the tale from Kasztner’s family to his assassin, from the son of the man who tried him to the survivors who were saved by him and also journalists who covered him and were against him. A very full picture, in terms of participants, is painted of this very intricate story.
One of the truly great things about watching this film at Theatre N was that there was a Q & A with director/producer Gaylen Ross via Skype after the screening, where I was able to ask her about her handling visually of some of the interview footage with the assassin Ze’ev Eckstein. There was a different visual approach to him than all the other interview subjects. The shots were more close-up, sometimes extreme-close up on his mouth or eyes. Ross said she didn’t want him looking too “natural or dramatic” and that she wanted to “separate him from the others in the story as just a force that’s present.” Thus, he’s differentiated from both those for and against Kasztner but he is not commented on by the filmmaking process itself, which is preferable.

It’s a fascinating and thought-provoking film that brings to light a story which should be part of common knowledge regarding the holocaust. The change in attitude regarding Kasztner even as Ms. Ross was in production is rather impressive. It is a well-crafted and well done documentary. It is also one with an evocative, haunting and moving score which is well-placed throughout.
It’s a sprawling tale that does deserve our full attention it uses just about all of its two hour running time to its advantage. It also deftly avoids sensationalizing potentially combustible confrontations and renders the situations with calm, insight and art.

To keep tabs on where this film is playing next please visit their official website.

9/10

Rewind Review: The Ghost Writer

Posted on January 19, 2016 by bernardovillela

Introduction

The Ghost Writer (2010)

As much as one might try and protest to the contrary every film we see has a pre-life, which consists of our first hearing of it, seeing a trailer and things of the like. While these things may not ultimately color our opinion of the film they do make part of the experience. The fact that The Ghost Writer is a Roman Polanski film is not irrelevant both to the pre-life and to the film itself. The pre-life is even more affected by the fact that this is potentially Polanski’s last film. As sad as it is to admit Polanski’s recent arrest may garnered this film more distribution and attention than it was likely to get. It was picked up by Summit Entertainment and in a move that did somewhat affect the end product they pushed for a PG-13 rating and dubbed over a few F-Bombs noticeably. While this did allow a few open-minded locals who can separate the artist and the man to bring their kids to see it, it is unlikely to boost the audience that much and it didn’t make the film any better.
Another palpable way in which Polanski’s situation affected the film was in filming locations. The film is set mostly on an island off the coast of Massachusetts but clearly it could not have been filmed there. However, having not known that fact it’d be hard to decipher visually. The German locations were scouted perfectly and were fantastic and added an extra dimension to the tale.
The cast of this film is nearly flawless with the noticeable exception of a very small part the Michelle Obama-like US Secretary of State played by Mo Asumang. In this cast you have the small appearance by a legend in Eli Wallach in a spectacular scene, an actor playing against type in James Belushi and a very strong dramatic core with Ewan McGregor easily playing the protagonist unwittingly thrown into political intrigue, Pierce Brosnan as the mysterious former Prime Minister, Olivia Williams as the strong-headed wife, Tom Wilkinson as the cryptic college professor and Kim Cattrall as the PM’s personal secretary. It’s a combination of talent, character and material that is nearly impossible to top.
The Ghost Writer is a film that is truly Hitchcockian, which is a rarity. Hitchockian is a phrase most people will bandy about as irresponsibly as “feel good.” It would seem that almost any suspense film that is successful to any degree in the past 30 years has been given this moniker by one critic or another yet few, if any, ever reach the tension created in a Hitchcock vehicle, which consists of a tautness so palpable it brings to mind the Gene Wilder line from Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory “The suspense is terrible…I hope it lasts.”
It is also a film that wastes no time and has the intrigue begin as soon as MacGregor lands job as the replacement ghost writer. First, he has to operate under a ridiculous deadline and then he is mugged and has the wrong manuscript stolen from him on the street. Slowly but surely with increasing tension and rising stakes the routine nature of this assignment is stripped away and the mystery comes front and center and we start getting closer to the truth. Each revelation is more fascinating than the last and nothing is ever apparent each twist and turn in the tale is a pleasant surprise.

Key to the success of a film like this is the scoring and Alexandre Desplat’s work on this film is nothing short of spectacular. It’s not the most overwhelming score but it pulls the right strings and ratchets up the tension at the right moments with the proper effects.
The Ghost Writer is a truly great film and an instantly classic thriller that you should seek out. While it’s too soon to know if this is Polanski’s swan song if it is it is such an incredibly high note to end on. Absolutely top notch.
10/10

Rewind Review: Inglourious Basterds

Posted on January 18, 2016 by bernardovillela

Inroduction

There are some mild spoilers within, forewarned is forearmed

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Inglourious Basterds is Quentin Tarantino’s delightfully twisted and decidedly Tarantino retelling of World War II. Sticking with his rococo chapter structure tales of disparate intrigue are told that are bound to collide – and they do with fantastic and explosive results.   Already prized at Cannes, all the hype and buzz surrounds Christoph Waltz’s performance, and it is certainly deserved as he is fabulous. However, the hype machine overshadows several standout performances in this film, and the film itself.    Other standouts include:
Mélanie Laurent, as Shosanna Dreyfus: an actress I was unfamiliar with, but who in a surprising turn literally carried herself and acted like a 1940s starlet.   Brad Pitt, as Lt. Aldo Raine: who is one of the more frustrating movie stars working today because he can turn it on when he feels like it but doesn’t always feel like it. He is on in this performance, and very funny.
Diane Kruger, as Bridget Von Hammersmark: was great as a drunk, a flirt and in agonizing pain.   The smaller parts are also very well cast even though Tarantino’s choices might make you do a double-take work brilliantly. Eli Roth as the so-called Bear Jew is hilarious and effective, as is Mike Myers, as an aging British General. It was great to see him get this character work and do well after having a bad 2008 in some people’s opinions this critic notwithstanding.    There are several touches Tarantino adds to an otherwise very straightforward story: two cuts to back-story/explanation with Samuel L. Jackson narration, a cut to Goebbels being intimate with a translator, cut to a Hitler monologue and a few other things.    The cinematography in this film is great starting in the very first scene where Landa (Waltz) is interrogating a man accused of harboring Jews. It starts with very well-framed shots and then gets more intricate with a beautiful circle shot that moves down below the floorboards to those being hidden.

Tarantino’s dialogue is tempered not overly-profane, verbose or arcane, things he can be even in a good way. It was always on point. The only scene that might’ve run a little long was the rendezvous in the bar because the German officer wasn’t immediately questioning them and then when the interrogation finally began anew we didn’t know he was caught. The dialogue told us. It is the kind of scene that does need to be reexamined as it likely works better on second viewing so it can’t quite be faulted.    All in all it’s an excellent film you should go out and see especially if there’s nothing new out compelling you. I personally want to see it again. It is a movie that you keep thinking about, and it gets better with time.

10/10

Rewind Review: Law Abiding Citizen

Posted on January 17, 2016 by bernardovillela

Introduction

Law Abiding Citizen (2009)

This is a film filled with plot holes but what was ultimately most distressing was that it actually sent this critic back to Syd Field’s Screenplay seeking a citation as if arguing a legal case and seeking precedent. The reason for this is that it seems like a film confused about who its protagonist is.

The answer ended up being found in Robert McKee’s Story “A protagonist is a willful character,” “The protagonist has a conscious desire,” “The protagonist has the capacity to pursue the Object of Desire convincingly,” “The protagonist must have at least a chance to attain his desire,” “the protagonist must be emphatic; he may or may not be sympathetic” all of these things seem to describe Gerard Butler’s Clyde. Until we think about this point – “A story must build to a final action beyond which the audience cannot imagine another.” Herein lies the ultimate failure, in part, somewhere along the way even though we started the film with Butler’s character it wants us to shift allegiance to Jamie Foxx’s character because to have Clyde win would be politically incorrect. The film sells a bad bill of goods dressing itself up as a modern day Death Wish but ultimately it doesn’t have the guts to be so. In part because he targets authorities and in another part because he doesn’t use hand guns. Ultimately, it was made worse for it. Also, Clyde’s failing was avoidable and uncharacteristically stupid, which is a direct contradiction of McKee’s last axiom.

Even accepting that we should switch allegiances as a given, what added incentive is there? Foxx’s character is just as superficially drawn, if not more so. He and his wife fight because he works too much and he misses his daughter’s recitals. Sounds very common. Aside from Clyde sending the DVD of the first kill to their house and his daughter watching it, for too long, there was never a direct threat made against his family. A bigger scare would be required to make the switch easier.

Granted considering both protagonist and antagonist are family men Foxx’s family is never truly threatened but there were other possible end games, however, the other problems with the film are already inherent before the end game.
Identification with Clyde’s character and his plight is short. In fact, if you’ve seen the theatrical trailer you’ve seen a majority of the first act and had the most effective kills spoiled in part already. Both characters end up being rather simplistic. So much of the film was heavy-handed in terms of dialogue such as Darby’s, the man who plea bargained, dialogue when he was sentenced. Some events are odd and hard to swallow like Foxx forgetting Darby’s name after attending the execution of his accomplice, Clyde having tunnels into practically every prison cell from a nearby industrial building and how Clyde’s holdings are all found so easily and so on and so forth.

It’s possible to go on listing problems of this nature but after a while it becomes pointless. Butler and Foxx are fine but they never have enough to really work with to elevate this tale. It’s ultimately a cheap action film with easy ill-defined answers for everything and an anti-climactic ending regardless of where an audience member’s allegiances are. This film also adds to a legacy of writer Kurt Wimmer that seems to prove that Equilibrium, one of the best films of 2002, was the exception and not the norm in his work.

3/10

Rewind Review: Legion

Posted on January 16, 2016 by bernardovillela

Introduction

Legion (2010)

If Legion had been released in 2009 it might have dominated the Most Asinine Shots of the Year list. It still might get to have its moment in the sun with doozies like: a flaming cross burned into the side of a building, the Incredible Stretching Ice Cream Man Demon, The Old Woman Crawling Up the Walls and an armored Gabriel walking through a glowing doorway. However, there are the occasional positives and conversely worse things than just those shots in the mix.
It’s a film which tries to walk the tightrope between blasphemy and gutsiness and falls off onto the wrong side. When there’s an overtly religious theme in a movie, and you challenge the conceptions that even the most lapsed Christian might hold, then you’re fighting an uphill battle and you’d better execute the story to perfection and make people forget that they have a hard time accepting the scenario you’re trying to portray. This is the ultimate suspension of disbelief because you’re taking one citation (Psalm 34:11) at the head of the film and asking the audience to accept that as the only gospel truth, for lack of a better term, when it’s about to change a lot.
Considering the story issues that exist, the execution both technically in terms of the edit, cinematography and on the part of the cast is rather good. It wasn’t great, especially in terms of the edit as the film could’ve been tightened up a bit but it certainly wasn’t as bad in that regard as it could’ve been.

The theology of this tale is ultimately very flawed, and yes it’s a fictional tale, however, when considering the implications it makes it’s hard to deal with. There are some spoilers ahead.
The story is about the Archangel Michael disobeying God’s order, which is to assist in the annihilation of mankind, including the murder of the woman who is the bearer of The Second Coming. It is certainly not unprecedented within the pages of the Bible to have gruesome and bloody stories, however, this tale not only portrays God, who is not seen but he is heard, as cruel but as one who is indecisive. Think of it eight months before He decrees this young girl will bring His son to the world anew, and then he decides “You know what? Never mind, people don’t deserve Him. I’m going to end the world instead.” This is literally end it, no Noah, no ark, nothing. This is problematic for one seeking to engage and be lost in this story.
As a side note where is the Vatican’s review of this movie? It seems like this is the kind of film they would want to deter people from viewing more so than Avatar. I mean there is a compulsory happy ending but the plot does infer that God Himself is trying to kill an unborn child, which last I checked, is a sensitive subject.

There are other shots and images that are blasphemous but considering that the whole plotline is dubious at best, in those regards, they are hardly worth mentioning in detail.
Smack dab in the middle of the movie there is an overly-long expository sequence where the characters that are trapped in this Diner at rest stop are talking in pairs and exchanging their life stories. Granted I will not knock the film for trying to build character, however, this was a clumsy and uninteresting way to go about it. When a film is supposed to be horror/action a very long lull is harder to deal with than under-developed character.
The casting of this film was rather interesting full of people who left you wondering “What are you doing in this movie?” There is Dennis Quaid who is still as good as he ever was but has not done a really good film in a while and did this on the heels of last year’s painful Pandorum. There’s also Lucas Black, who was last seen by many in The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, but is more well known from Sling Blade. He is still quite good and never got a breakout and this might not be helping. Then there is Paul Bettany as good as ever as Michael but again “What are you doing here?” was what came to mind. Tyrese Gibson and Charles S. Dutton are also rather good in this film. Of course, the casting can’t be perfect with the inclusion of the freakish androgynous kid and the more-over-the-top-than-she-should’ve-been Old Woman.
In conclusion, this was a better film than expected but still had too many issues with the plot and concept that execution could not overcome. Even with that execution being better than average it’s still well worth missing.
3/10