Thief

This movie is so 80s!  Just look at that poster.  It's like a Max Headroom silhouette. 

 

"Thief" is the second film from director Michael Mann (his first movie was made for TV so if you call this his first, I won't fault you).  Already, Mann is showing his love of criminals and hyper-masculinity. 

 

James Caan plays a thief who gets caught up working for a big time criminal.  He takes "one last job" and everything goes well except that he does not receive his money.  Much blood is spilt.

 

"Thief" is based on a novel written by an honest-to-goodness jewel thief.  As much as the other stylistic elements of Michael Mann, his obsessive eye for detail begins to show.  I get the feeling that Mann learned everything there is to know about heists and their execution.  "Thief" feels practically educational at times.

 

It's not a particularly deep film but it is exceptionally entertaining.  This is one of those "guy movies."  Most wives and girlfriends won't share an appreciation of it.  This is a movie about men who are more badass than most other men fantasize of being. 

 

The score by Tangerine Dream is incredible (but they always are).  It just drives home how supremely 80s this movie is.  It's dated in the best possible way.  So if you're a guy (or super cool lady) who's in the mood to watch badass men steal shit to the sounds of intense synthesizer music, then "Thief" is completely for you.  You'll be a cooler person after you watch it.

 

8 out of 10

Dead Man Down

This movie made me happy.  It's not any great masterwork.  It's a pretty generic action/crime movie.  Most of the plot points are formulaic and predictable.  But "Dead Man Down" has plenty of awesome going for it that helps it stand apart from the pack.

The story involves a mob hit man and his relationship with a disfigured (but not really), young woman.  He tries to juggle his feelings for the girl and getting revenge for his family's death.  We've seen a bajillion movies that fall under this same basic plot.  But the performances and direction in "Dead Man Down" are what make it so enjoyable.

 

Colin Farrell is great when given a role with something to do.  This is one of those roles.  Farrell plays a man who is in constant turmoil over his conflicting emotions.  Yet, he is also a guy who doesn't talk much.  As such, he is required to give a performance of silences.  It's not an easy thing and Farrell nails it.

 

Next up is Noomi Rapace, who is even better in her role.  She plays a woman who was disfigured in a car accident and the left side of her face reconstructed.  Rapace has shown in just a handful of movies that she is one of our great actresses and this another wonderful showing from her.  She is shy and hurt and angry all at once.  Her character's intense emotion shifts never feel out of place.  Rapace is really the standout performance in "Dead Man Down."

 

Dominic Cooper's role is pretty minimal, but his natural charm help to make him likeable with very little screen time.  He's supposed to be the best friend and usually that would require plenty of setup.  But he makes the most of his time and keeps an important (albeit clichéd) final plot point from coming off forced.

 

Terrence Howard plays his role as a crime boss quietly.  He speaks with such a gentleness and determination that his menace is felt in the last act.  But he is also quite good at being scared without coming off as weak in front of his men.  

 

Also making small appearances are F. Murray Abraham and Isabelle Huppert.  Abraham is not given much to do, but I just like seeing him on screen.  Huppert plays Rapace's mother and provides some much needed comic relief.

 

The action is excellently done.  The final showdown is awesome.  But as much as this is definitely a revenge movie, the real great parts are the budding romance between Farrell and Rapace.  They are so broken and so awkward around people that their flirtation is extremely sweet.  The dual forces of mobsters shooting each other and lonely people falling in love make "Dead Man Down" a great date movie.  It has stuff for guys and gals.

 

If there is any complaint to be had, it's Rapace's makeup.  Even after reconstructive surgery, the neighborhood kids still call her a monster.  But the makeup is just a couple of minor scars.  Noomi Rapace is still gorgeous!  It was really hard to swallow at times.  I understand that if she was too disfigured, the audience might be distracted from the story by her face.  But they could've just uglied her up a little bit.

 

"Dead Man Down" gets a huge recommendation.  I loved every bit of it.  It's not perfect and may actually be too short.  But it's a great way to spend a couple hours on the couch.

 

8 out of 10



The Host

What do you get when you team up Academy Award nominated writer/director Andrew Niccol, Academy Award Nominee Saoirse Ronan, and Academy Award winner William Hurt?  A somewhat watchable movie.  To say I went into "The Host" with low expectations is an understatement.  What I received was a film that is sometimes actually enjoyable (really!).

 

Because of the involvement of Stephanie Meyer, "The Host" tends to be brushed off as sci-fi "Twilight."  While that is kinda accurate, "The Host" handles that material about as well as anyone could hope for.  This is a movie about glowing, jellyfish aliens who inhabit the bodies of humans.  One girl's will to return to the boy she loves and her little brother keeps her from being completely overtaken.  So, she is trapped inside her own head and leads her alien-infested body back to the uninfected rebels.  The alien in her then falls in love with a different boy.  Cue awkward love triangle.

 

That's a hard plot to make well especially when the target audience is 12-14 year old girls.  As such, "The Host" has a weird obsession with kissing.  Adults watching this will be baffled by the way these characters view a kiss as the culmination of passion.  Again, this is a movie for very young girls.  What adults know about love and what pre-teens know about love differ greatly.  So if you're watching this with your kid, prepare to groan your way through a whole lot of almost making out.  But if you are the kid, prepare yourself for the heroine to kiss TWO TOTALLY HOT GUYS!!!

 

"The Host" is really just a checklist of bad romantic clichés.  It's hugely predictable, which is not really a bad thing.  I just don't want anyone thinking they'll be surprised or thrilled by this movie.  The dialogue is awful.  This kinda shocked me as Andrew Niccol's strongest suit is his writing.  Instead, we are treated to "sweet nothings" so dreadful, they'd make a romance novelist throw up.

 

But it's not all bad.  Niccol is not just a competent director.  He's got a great eye.  His art director and location scouts provide him with plenty of fodder for beautiful camerawork.  Some of his shots are far better than this movie deserves.  Saoirse Ronan does pretty well in a role that consists entirely of talking to herself and smooching dudes (but her Lousiana accent is awful).  William Hurt gives a good performance.  Diane Kruger is fairly good too.

 

One final thing that bothers me about the movie.  The aliens are the best thing that ever happened to humanity.  Seriously.  They are peaceful.  They do not lie or cheat or steal.  They do not kill.  They create a utopia where every person has food/shelter/medicine, and these stupid humans are fighting that.  Why?  Because they don't want to be aliens?  They want to continue to be brutal and violent?  Because they really are.  The rebels are everything that the aliens claim we are.  Some sort of reason should've been given to justify the human rebellion.  As it stands, they just want to be alien-free for the sake of being alien-free.  I kept hoping all the rebels would get caught and assimilated.

 

On the whole, you could do far worse than "The Host."  Especially if you have to watch movies your 13 year old daughter likes.  You may even find yourself liking some of it.  Just be sure to stretch your eyes before pressing "play."  You're going to be rolling them a lot, and I'd hate for anyone to get hurt.

 

5 out of 10

Man of Steel

If there are three things I always want more of Superman, Amy Adams, and Michael Shannon would be pretty close to the top of that list.  So why is "Man of Steel" breaking my heart?  Because it's not very good.  But it's not a bad movie either. 

 

I should note that this movie was tough to watch on two fronts: as a movie nerd and as a comic book nerd.  Superman comics are my favorite.  I love all things Superman.  My home is littered with Superman artifacts.  I've read the "The Essential Superman Encyclopedia" cover to cover three times.  So, it takes a lot for me to watch "Man of Steel" as a movie.  The vast majority of people who go to this movie will not have ever read a comic book, let alone a Superman one.  I needed to disassociate myself from the comic book part of my brain.  So, I will be making all my arguments on a purely cinematic platform.

 

It pains me to even have a list of grievances with "Man of Steel."  But I have no one to blame but myself.  You would think I would've learned my lesson after "Superman Returns" and "Smallville."  I'm in an abusive relationship with Superman.  He keeps beating me, but I keep coming back for more.  And telling everyone how much I love him.  I need help.

 

1) Buy a tripod!  I don't mind some handheld camerawork, but the shots in "Man of Steel" are awful.  The frame is constantly moving.  I several quiet, dramatic scenes the camera is bouncing around like mad.  I swear that the cameraman stumbles a few times during the film, and they just kept those takes.  "Man of Steel" had a production budget of $225 million.  A tripod for a 35mm movie camera costs less than $2000.  Or if you really need that camera moving, a Steadicam rig can also be picked up for less than $2000.  Am I to believe that they couldn't find $4000 somewhere?  I'm sure the shaky camerawork is an artistic choice.  More gritty and realistic or something.  But I think it's really done to distract you from the more awful aspects of the movie.

 

2) Why is Lois Lane even in this movie?  Way to go, "Man of Steel."  You made be wish Amy Adams wasn't in a movie.  It's not that Adams is bad as Lois Lane.  The problem is: she has no reason to be there.  She's just there to have the movie explained to her.  You know what else works?  How about they SHOW us the movie instead of just telling it to a pointless character?  That sounds like it would make a much better movie. (SPOILERS AHEAD!) Screenwriter David Goyer constantly tries to justify her presence but it is always idiotic.  We first meet her at an Arctic dig site containing an old Kryptonian spaceship.  So, OK, a reporter shows up.  That makes sense.  But the ship flies away and no one believes her.  So why have her ever show up?  To have the ship explained to her.  But the ship could've been explained by a scientist to a military officer.  Boom.  No need for Lois.  Then General Zod demands that she come aboard his ship.  Why?  So he can explain to her why the evil Kryptonians breath different air.  But Zod could just explain that to Superman since Superman has never encountered Kryptonian atmosphere.  Boom.  No need for Lois.  But while she's on the ship, the ghost/hologram/whatever of Superman's dad tells her how to defeat the evil Kryptonians.  Actually, he tells her the plan and instructs her to tell Superman.  But he could've just told Superman.  Superman's in the other room.  Boom.  No need for Lois.  So, Lois tells Superman and Superman tells her to tell the head military scientist (why is this so complicated?).  She tells the scientist and goes along in the plane with the Air Force guys to defeat the bad guys.  But the scientist and Air Force now know what to do.  Why take her, a civilian reporter, along?  All this shit, in addition to being lazy exposition, serves to constantly put Lois in danger.  That way Superman can keep saving her.  It's just awful.

 

3)  Superman's chest hair.  It's shallow but it bothered me that Superman's chest hair is sticking up out of the collar of his costume.  No way the collar couldn't be raised or Henry Cavill's chest hair shaved or plucked? 

 

4)  Superman is the worst thing to ever happen to modern man.  Seriously.  Sure, he's protecting us from Zod. (SPOILERS AGAIN!) But he destroys everything around him doing it.  And there is no way that much destruction does not include human casualties.  Can it be said that those thousands of deaths that Superman contributed to were in service of the greater good?  That if he didn't destroy all of Smallville and huge chucks of Metropolis, then Zod would've killed everyone?  So it was worth it, right?  Well, that's the same argument that Zod gives to justify his actions.  Basically, Superman is Zod with a smile.  Or the desolation of Metropolis can be chalked up to Superman being a new hero.  He didn't know that he should get Zod out of the city so as to reduce damage and loss of life.  He'll do better next time, right?  That's a REALLY hard lesson learned.  Plus, I didn't pay nine bucks to watch Superman be a fuck up.

 

5)  Everyone knows who Superman is.  Seriously.  I've had to tolerate FOUR Spiderman movies where the hero keeps taking his mask off in public, and Superman has managed in one movie to surpass that terrible "identity keeping."  Lois figures it out in two seconds.  Every citizen of Smallville knows.  Hopefully for Clark Kent, all those people died when he razed Smallville to the ground.

 

6) Superman lives long enough to become the villain. (SPOILERS!!!) It's one movie in and Superman has given in to every impulse that his father said would make him a bad man.  And he is still praised as a hero.  Clark spends the whole movie resisting hurting people who really deserve it, because that would be an abuse of power.  But he meets some folks that can take a punch and he goes flippin' ballistic!  It's actually scary.  In an instant, Superman goes from dimples and puppy eyes to a screaming maniac who smashes people in the face relentlessly.  All his principles go out the window.  The culmination of this is when he kills Zod.  Superman kills Zod with his bare hands.  He's spent the last hour causing the deaths of thousands.  But when Zod threatens four civilians, Superman breaks his neck.  Hell, Zod was in a headlock at the time.  Sure, he's using his laser eyes to try to kill some random people.  But if Superman had the strength to break Zod's super strong, Kryptonian spinal cord, then surely he's strong enough to just turn Zod's head away.  Nope.  Murder it is.  But it's OK, because Superman is really upset about it.

 

7)  Superman declares himself above the law.  This shit actually happens.  It could've gone up in #6 I guess, but it was so shocking that I had to address it separately. (MORE SPOILERS!!!) At the end, Superman crashes a U.S. military spy drone in front of a general.  He proceeds to tell the general to stop spying on him and that he's here to help mankind.  And the military better be on board for that.  OK Mr. General, just because the threat is implied and delivered with a smile doesn't mean you should take that lightly.  I hope the General goes back to the base and tells the President, the Pentagon, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to start an Anti-Superman protocol.  A super-powered alien has just declared himself the benevolent dictator of Earth.  Some form of protection is needed in case the benevolence fades away.  It's obvious he's still into wanton destruction.  He could've just as easily taken that drone down with zero damage to it.  Instead, he throws it to the ground in front of a car full of people.  Thank goodness that no shrapnel flew out of it and killed anyone.

 

I really wanted to like this movie more.  Michael Shannon is great.  Henry Cavill is an excellent Superman (the writing of the character is not his fault).  But all the characters are flat.  Superman is the only character who grows or changes.  And he becomes a goddamn monster!  "Man of Steel" isn't terrible.  I left the theater so stoked about it, but time has given me clarity.  I can't stop poring over the grotesque problems of the movie.  Most of the issues I have can be attributed to the script.  If you're looking for a loud action movie, you could do better but you could do much worse.  But this Superman fan did not get much out of "Man of Steel."  I'd like to see it again to see if I can enjoy it knowing its problems, but I have a sinking feeling that it'll hurt even worse.  Maybe this is my punishment for my brief flirtation with Batman a few years ago.

 

6 out of 10

 

Upside Down

I liked "Upside Down" but it required a lot from me to do so.  I never even heard of this movie until I looked at an upcoming DVD calendar.  When I looked into it, I found I had overlooked a film starring Kirsten Dunst and a dude you'll recognize from a couple of other movies. 

 

"Upside Down" had a budget of $50 million and only saw an extremely limited theatrical release.  I wondered why it was not released all over the U.S.  The trailer is incredible!  I really wanted to see this movie.  And even if it sucked, I'm sure that Hollywood has spent more on a worse movie and still put it out there to recoup some money.  After watching "Upside Down," I am still confused as to why it never saw a proper release.  But not as confused as I was trying to figure out what the hell was happening on my TV while watching it.

 

To put it mildly, "Upside Down" makes no sense at all.  The premise is that there are two planets that are practically touching.  Each planet has its own gravity.  One planet is very poor.  One is very rich.  The rich planet exploits the poor one.  It is against the law for one planet's citizens to go to the other planet.  A young man from "Down" climbs a huge mountain, the peak of which is mirrored by an "Up" peak.  He meets an "Up" girl.  They fall in love.  They cannot be together.  The rest is standard star-crossed lover stuff.  All this exposition is delivered in an excruciatingly slow voice-over by lead actor Jim Sturgess.  Sturgess is a British actor, and I have long suspected that he can't do an American accent very well.  He always ends up sounding like he's poorly imitating someone from New York City.  It's painful.

 

Now, there are rules for this odd planetary setup:

1. All matter is pulled by the gravity of the world that it comes from, and not the other.
2. An object's weight can be offset by matter from the opposite world (inverse matter).
3. After some time in contact, matter in contact with inverse matter burns.

 

These rules sound like they would make for interesting scenarios throughout the movie.  Beyond the legal boundaries to the love story, they literally can't be together.  So, how will the filmmakers get our lovebirds together?  By completely discarding the rules, of course!  This was endlessly frustrating for me.  I have an extremely strong suspension of disbelief.  I will accept whatever premise a movie throws at me.  I will accept the rules of that cinematic world.  But I need the premise and rules to stay constant. 

 

Rule #3 was the worst.  If matter from "Down" burns after a few hours on "Up" (and vice versa), then people themselves burn too.  People are matter.  People's clothes are matter.  Everything is matter.  There comes a point where I thought that the rule should've been metal from the other planet burns.  Because that's seems to be the only thing burning in the movie.  I was willing to just accept that the script should have said "metal" instead of "matter."  But then one planet's metal starts being stable on the other planet and the lead character's shoes catch on fire (not metal shoes!).  It's just bad writing.

 

If you can overlook the awful screenplay that this movie is based on, then you'll find yourself watching one of the coolest looking movies you're liable to see in awhile.  The visuals are astounding.  This was made as a 3D movie, and I'm sad I didn't get to be endlessly frustrated with it in theaters. 

 

Dunst and Sturgess are pretty good.  They don't have much to work with but they make the romance convincing.  "Upside Down" is essentially a fairy tale, sci-fi, Romeo & Juliet story.  Because it is so heavily rooted in the fantastical, it's hard to get angry about its problems.  It turned out to be an ultimately enjoyable ride.

 

Note: If you're one of those people who see any inconsistency in a movie and freak out about "plot holes" (whether they are or not), "Upside Down" may give you a stroke.

 

6 out of 10

The Call

This is a hard one.  I didn't hate "The Call," but I didn't necessarily like it.  I guess I'll get into what I didn't like and then I'll say something nice at the end.  That works for me.

 

1) WWE Productions?!  That's not exactly a good thing but it's even weirder when there are no wrestlers in it.  I would've preferred to see Triple H as the 911 call operator with PTSD.

 

2) The script is terrible.  Everyone in this movie sounds stupid.  Whenever a character opened their mouth, I worried for their safety.  I wouldn't trust these people with a phone let alone another person's life.

 

3) SPOILER ALERT? MAYBE? Look, I don't know if this is a spoiler because they telegraph it in the movie.  Plus the script is stupid and clichéd.  So, the movie starts with Halle Berry being the operator during a murder.  She basically helps the killer find the girl.  This gives her PTSD.  Months later, she takes over a random call and lo and behold it's another girl being attacked by the same killer!  The odds of that are so insanely small, that it hurts my head to think about it.  Why not just have her deal with a new situation and have her overcome her personal demons?  Are the filmmakers implying that she would not be personally invested in saving this girl's life if the assailant hadn't ruined her life?  That is far more disturbing and interesting than anything else in "The Call."

 

4)  The camera work is bad.  We alternate from extreme close ups that make no sense to what must be the work of an epileptic cameraman.  The close ups were the most frustrating.  Shaky, incomprehensible camerawork, while it sucks, has been around long enough to make me just groan in disgust.  The close up work is so bizarre that I have a hard time with it.  The first time I noticed it is when Abigail Breslin is describing her kidnapper.  Here's what happens:

Berry: What color is the car?

Breslin: Red.

Cut to extreme close up of side mirror which is red, I guess.  But why the side mirror as representative of the car?  Maybe that was just a weird choice.

Berry: What does he look like?  White, Black, Asian?

Breslin: White.

Cut to extreme close up of the back of kidnapper's head which is the back of a white dude's head.  But why the back of his head?  That makes sense if she described hair color.

Berry: How old is he?  30s, 40s?

Breslin: 30s, maybe.  Mid-30s.

Cut to extreme close up of kidnapper's knuckles which are the knuckles of a mid-30s white male.  Wait, what?!  His knuckles?

Breslin: And he has sunglasses.

Cut to extreme close up of kidnapper's sunglasses. 

No other close up will make sense for the rest of the movie.  There are lots of fast close ups of noses during the "action" scenes.  I don't know why.  We may never know.

 

5) ANOTHER SPOILER-ISH THING!! At the end, Halle Berry knows where the killer is.  So like a well-trained, professional 911 operator, she informs the police.  The police arrest the culprit and he is tried for his crimes.  Ha!  Psych!  She goes unarmed to the killer and murders him!  Which leads me to believe that we don't really need the police.  What we need are a few dedicated 911 operators to answer the phone and dole out justice.  I guess the cops could still give out traffic tickets and play charity basketball games against firefighters, but let's leave the crime fighting to the professionals.

 

That's the broad strokes of it.  I could nitpick a million things about "The Call," but that it true of most films.  Now, it should be said that I didn't hate or even dislike this movie.  I chuckled at its idiocy which can be fun.  It's run-of-the-mill which is fine for zoning out on the couch for a while.  It's not a bad movie, per se.  It just has so much bad stuff in it.  If the story sounds good to you, I say watch it.  It won't hurt.  You may even find yourself liking it.

 

5.5 out of 10

Simply fantastic!  That's pretty much all that needs to be said about "No."  I can't possibly encourage folks to watch this enough.

 

"No" is one of last year's Academy Award nominees for Best Foreign Film.  It's a Chilean film about a man who heads a marketing campaign to get his countrymen to vote the dictator Augusto Pinochet out of office.  The marketing team takes the position of "No, to Pinochet" ("no" being an inherently negative word) and Pinochet's history of brutality and oppression, and they turn it into a campaign of positivity.  They turn away from the dreary world they live in and focus on the optimism of what a Chile without Pinochet could be.

 

Looking at "No" through the lens of the past few elections, this movie becomes a look at what politics could and should be.  Who needs all the mud slinging and negativity?  Why not focus on the glorious future ahead?

 

Gael Garcia Bernal is fantastic (of course) in his role.  He has a way with emoting.  You feel everything right along with him, which is impressive considering the way "No" is filmed.

 

"No" is made to look as if it was filmed on Betamax.  And then watching that Betamax on broadcast television.  In Latin America.  In the 80s.  That kinda sounds awful when I describe it, but it creates an incredibly immersive experience.  The technique is flawless.  The image is square.  The camera is handheld.  The detail is soft and the colors are slightly separated like the red, cyan, yellow separation in an old color TV.  The English subtitles are even black outlined yellow letters (the preferred coloring in South America.  North America prefers black outlined white letters).  It all comes together to create an incredible documentary feel to the movie.  As a bonus, it's a movie that will look way better on your TV than it would in theaters.

 

This is by far the best movie I've seen in awhile.  Please, please, please go check this out.  I already want to watch it again.

 

9 out of 10