The Activity #1 (MR)
story NATHAN EDMONDSON, art / cover MITCH GERADS
Price:
$3.50
Diamond ID:
OCT110438
On Sale:
December 21, 2011
[Review by Curt Pires] The evolution of global warfare necessitates the evolution of special forces to rise and meet the call. The U.S Army has therefore looked to its last secret special operations tribe, the INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT ACTIVITY, or Gray Fox. Within Gray Fox is a team of elite men and women whose mission is flexible, whose technology is bleeding edge, and whose execution is precise and lethal. They are Team Omaha, and they serve THE ACTIVITY. Read the rest of this entry »
Well folks, that’s a wrap on the first wave of DC re-launch titles. Read on for our thoughts; what to pick up, what to celebrate, or even what ain’t so good, Al. As always, these are only our opinions. But we’re also always right, don’t forget that. Kidding. No we’re not.
Read the rest of this entry »
So we’re half-way through the new 52. If you missed last weeks reviews of the first 13 titles, check that out here. enough of my yakkity-yak, let’s just get right into it. Auburn and I slaved and sweated many hours over these books to bring you only the most honest of reviews. Poor us.
* * * * * * * * Read the rest of this entry »
When the news broke that DC was relaunching with 52 new #1’s in the month of September, Auburn and I agreed that we must read and review every single one. A feat not to be scoffed at. So we split the pile and went to work, with Auburn as punctual as ever and myself a little less so. But we did it. Thirteen first issues reviewed in three days, that’s not so bad considering you’re getting peace of mind for free, right? So without further ado, here’s the word on the first batch of DC’s relaunch titles, in alphabetical order. Read the rest of this entry »
The last year has had me paying real close attention to Image and what they’re putting out. When I found out about The Tattered Man – a double-sized one-shot from writers Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray – I knew the risk was minimal, and potential great. Once I reached the last page, I was glad I had stayed up reading until 1am on a work night.
The biggest hurdle The Tattered Man faces at first glance is familiarity; the book has a definite dark, almost mystical air of Ghost Rider or Spawn. This immediately crashes down hard however, when we’re taken to Auschwitz, among the mass graves of the holocaust. It becomes very real and very disturbing. Palmiotti and Gray are pushing at the rawest nerve in humankind, and for a split second you almost become offended. Writing this took balls. The concept is very small – not a negative, in fact quite the opposite – so I won’t risk ruining it for you with a general summary, but the idea is that out of the holocaust (figuratively and literally) came a spirit. A spirit made from all the suffering, all the rage and all the wrong. We move forward to present day, and the spirit becomes the Tattered Man (again, not saying how), a new entity of vengeance and retribution. Make no mistake, the book is dark, unapologetic and like I said before, ballsy. Read the rest of this entry »
Read my original review, circa April of this year, here.
Of all the films of 2010 (so far), I’ve probably debated the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street the most. Not because the films is unusually controversial or boundary-pushing, but because I seem to be in the minority. I really liked it.
As with any horror remake, the deck was stacked against this one from the beginning, especially considering the cultural impact Wes Craven’s film had on us and the horror genre. The original – and to a lesser degree its long, bumpy franchise – is considered a classic. And rightfully so; even though revisiting Craven’s 1984 film might show more cheese than you remembered, the Freddy character – his means, his methods and his mouth – is indelible. Did the remake even have a chance?
Hardly.
To me, Samuel Bayer’s re-imagination of the Springwood slasher does what every successful horror remake, as few as they are, strives to do: twist the film to be its own, in some way. Gone are the quips, the one-liners and the PG-13 cursing, and are instead replaced with a vile child-molester. Jackie Earle Haley’s Krueger plays out like the Freddy we all love, mixed in with a little To Catch A Predator.
The story is pretty much the same this time around, with exception to an added sub-plot questioning the validity of Freddy’s guilt; the film goes where the original only hinted, confirming Krueger to have dabbled in the diddling. The origin of the character, and the way he dispenses of the children of Elm St. is intact. Many of the scenes, like the bedroom murder of the post-coital blonde girl, are still in the film, albeit with a slick polish and modern teens (complete with dialogue that no youth would ever really spout). The film has been under plenty of fire for being saturated with unlikeable characters with no depth (or, in this case, Depp… har har). Not to defend this claim, but I ask, did the original? Has any big franchise slasher or remake (the original Halloween excluded) really shown any character development?
Whether you liked the film or not, you can’t refute the film has balls for taking such an iconic character and portraying him in a different way. Whether that’s the right way or not, this is a very different Freddy, both tonally and physically (though the trademark sweater, fedora and glove remains). The film is dark and gritty, with a layer of filth you’ll have to wash off afterwards. But it is also quite predictable and suffers from a rushed and anticlimactic third act. Jackie Earle’s Freddy is worth the watch alone though, if only to see how different the portrayal of one of the most iconic characters in pop-culture.
The Blu-Ray – complete with DVD and digital copy – features a fantastic video transfer with acceptable audio quality. If you enjoyed the film, it’s well worth the extra dollars to pick up in hi-def.
Available NOW on Blu-ray Combo Pack, DVD, On Demand and for Download! http://bit.ly/nightfb
Jonah Hex. Now here’s a film that seemed to light a fire under fans of the long-running comic series. For the record, I have not read any of the series, my only familiarity with the disfigured outlaw is what I’ve seen on the comic book covers and the fervor overheard from those who hold Mr. Hex close to their hearts. With that in mind, I can’t compare the film to the source material, and a the end of the day nor should I. A film is its own and should stand, or fall, based on what it is.
So. What is Jonah Hex?
I will say this: it’s interesting. It’s not a good film by any means, but it also isn’t as horribly unwatchable as most have painted it to be. There are some redeeming elements and also some very detrimental elements, both of which I’ll get to. The film opens with the most compressed origin story of any comic book movie; confederate soldier Hex (Josh Brolin) betrays Quentin Turnbull (John Malkovich), his commanding officer, resulting in Turnbull burning down Hex’s house – with his wife and child inside – and branding his face, giving him that oh-so-un-leading-man-ish facial scar. From then we leap right into a brief animated intro, and we’re off to the races with Hex – now much more haggard and surly – trying to stop Turnbull from unleashing a horrific army while clearing his own not-so-savory record.
I like Josh Brolin a lot, and he’s probably the best person to touch the role of Jonah. There’s just something off in this flick. I like how his scar was achieved with practical makeup effects, but it does limit his performance. I can see that he’s delivering his lines well, he’s acting, sure, but the damn scar just makes his delivery look goofy most of the time. Across the board however, the performances – especially from Megan Fox – are close to that of a well done local theatre group. I blame a fair amount of this on poor dialogue. The script is just too typical of a period piece, with the cast not really nailing the nuance of the language. Brolin and Malkovich fit right in comfortable, but several stars, like Arrested Development’s Will Arnet and the aforementioned Fox, stick out like a very sore thumb.
Director Jimmy Hayward tries to do some interesting things in this film, and I’ll give him credit for making this hyper-post-civil-war-reality atmospheric.. kinda. The production ultimately feels cheap. There’s just too much conflicting style at work, and the film feels unguided because of it. It’s pretty clear that the real bad guy in the film isn’t Turnbull, but the screenplay from Crank masterminds Neveldine & Taylor. It’s just all over the place, paced erratically and insincere at every turn.
If you were looking for something to praise the film for, the costume and set design is quite good, lending some authenticity and aesthetic to an otherwise superfluous mashup of genres. And Mastodon’s soundtrack – though entirely unfitting, underused and watered down by Marco Beltrami – is worth listening to.
At the end of the day, Jonah Hex is an unremarkable-yet-on-par entry to the comic book film genre as seen five years ago. It’s the perfect companion to such grey-stained big-screen translations of Daredevil, Ghost Rider and Fantastic Four. The real crime here is that there was so much potential for a truly unique film, one that incorporated elements of action and sci-fi within a western.
Alas on paper it was too good to be true.
Posted on: October 7th, 2010 REVIEW: Frozen
Back in 2005 The Descent hit screens, heralding in a new high for horror. The film was gritty and claustrophobic, preying on a very common, very real fear. The concept, though invoking the supernatural, was still simple: you are stuck in a series of underground caves. Here we are in 2010 and writer/director Adam Green (Hatchet, Hatchet II) has taken the same approach and streamlined it into an inventive little thriller called FROZEN.
So what is that concept? It’s entirely brilliant in that why-didn’t-I-think-of-that sort of way: three friends hit the ski hill for some fun in the snow and take a late night chair-lift up the mountain… where it gets stuck. They quickly realize, after all the lights in the resort are shut off, that they’re are the only ones on the hill, with the resort closed for a week. I won’t give away any more details on where the story goes, but let’s just say it goes from bad to worse many times over.
It’s easy to write a film like Frozen off, especially with such an unusual and intangible adversary – hell, the response I’ve received from telling people about the film is usually along the lines of “really? It’s actually good?!” – but the film is really fun and a terrific thriller. There are a ton of “WTF moments” and scenes that are hard to watch, though not too gory. Frozen is a nightmare. It’s more than enough being stuck up there in the bitter cold with the elements, but the ordeals these three have to go through are truly what horror is made of.
A narrow film like this is all about the characters, and the film doesn’t disappoint. The performances from the three – Emma Bell, Shawn Ashmore (this time a literal Iceman) and Kevin Zegers – are believable and emotional. Unlike The Descent, which had a few too many throw-away characters, it’s easy to actually care about these kids. It’s no challenge to become invested in their plight, making the situation that much more frightening. Adam Green knows how to pace a film and make audiences squirm, but beyond that he can write decent dialogue between the three, a feat that’s harder than any other aspect, especially in the genre.
The less you know about Frozen, the better, so with that I leave you to check the film out. I guarantee it will surprise you, leaving you telling your friends to check out ‘this little horror flick about the kids stuck in the chair lift’. The blu-ray, which is out now for $9.99, also has some really interesting behind-the-scenes features chronicling the difficult shooting conditions.
Have an ice day.
Patton Oswalt, a brilliant and wise artisan, once said “I don’t give a shit where the stuff I love comes from, I just love the stuff I love”. I think it’s fair to say that even with the critical acclaim David Fincher’s THE SOCIAL NETWORK is receiving, a large amount of the world will take that approach with “the Facebook movie”. Little do these people know, the story behind the most frequented social networking site is nowhere near as boring or superfluous as your news feed and status updates.
Based on The Accidental Billionare by Ben Mezrich, The Social Network – written by Aaron Sorkin, directed by David Fincher – tells the true story of the creation and imminent success of Facebook; the rise and fall of Mark Zuckerberg. Though to be fair the only thing that falls is his reputation, while he lands on heaping mounds of millions.
This is David Fincher’s least Fincher-esque movie to date, leaving behind the bio-mechanical first-person style he’s become famous for, and focusing on solid, character-driven drama thanks to an exceptional ensemble cast. Jesse Eisenberg leads the film as Mark Zuckerberg, painting the Facebook founder as less of an arrogant dick, but more of a socially-clueless-or-just-doesn’t-give-a-fuck dick. And he does so indelibly and convincingly. Eisneberg is flanked with equal talent in Andrew Garfield (our future Peter Parker) as Eduardo Saverin, the level-headed, morally sound “victim” in all the drama. Garfield is definitely on my radar, and although I still have a tough time imagining him as Spider-Man, there’s no doubt that this guy can act, and will likely be raking in the roles from here on out.
The performance that really struck me as exceptional however, is Armie Hammer playing two roles, that of the Harvard rowing twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss who claim the Facebook concept was theirs. I loved their characters in this film, and Armie Hammer – a relative unknown, though previously cast as Batman in George Miller’s now-defunct Justice League film – blows not one but two roles out of the water. The twins are so perfectly all-American and Ivy League, almost a satire of the archetype, while being interesting, sympathetic, and downright funny. My favorite line in the film comes from one of the twins, “…I’m six-five, two-twenty and there’s two of me.”
Sadly, Justin Timberlake, who showed some acting promise with Alpha Dog and his Saturday Night Live appearance, is the weakest link to the cast. Though he’s still pretty good, his portrayal of Napster founder Sean Parker leaves little impression, and Timberlake just doesn’t seem as comfortable in front of the camera as the rest of the cast.
Important as any character in the film, is the score provided by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. If you haven’t heard the score yet – available here for $5 – it’s mesmerizing, anthemic and emotive; easily some of Reznor’s best work. And it fits the film perfectly, with equal parts technological and organic. I strongly suggest you give the album a listen, it definitely holds its own as a cohesive body of work, not just an accompaniment.
It was an unusual feeling, sitting in the theatre watching a drama about Facebook, a relatively new, still fresh part of our culture. It felt like this was something that should happen post-mortem, but still I came home and checked my news feed. Hell I’ll be posting this review to the very app built on the backs of those men. Those men now sleeping on billions because of me doing so. And yet, The Social Network is important. It is relevant. It’s also a damn fine film, the Wall Street of our trans-media generation. We need to know how the things we love come to be, even if it is from one side (I’m sure Zuckerberg has his own version), and in this case the film is a story worth telling, done expertly so.
If the response to LET ME IN has been anything at all, it’s been passionate. It has sparked debate and discussion. It has opened up audiences to dissection and analysis of film. For that reason alone, especially in a climate so heavy with remakes, retellings, reboots and sequels, Let Me In is an important film. Beyond that, it is an exceptionally made film that unfortunately will never escape the shadow of its predecessor, the Swedish Let The Right One In.
Tomas Alfredson’s 2008 film has been called everything from ‘brilliant’ to ‘masterpiece’ to ‘modern classic’. Naturally, with Matt Reeve’s American version, you’re bound to fight resistance, comparison and passion. While Let Me In adheres to the narrative, adapted from John Ajvide Lindqvist’s novel, the US film is the product of a different artistic vision. This is Reeve’s interpretation of the source material, not simply a remake of Alfredson’s film. And after all, isn’t that what makes some remakes not only great, but worth retelling?
Let Me In moves the story from Stockholm to New Mexico, centering on young Owen, a boy seemingly at the whipping end of life. Owen befriends Abby, the unusual little girl that just moved into his apartment complex, and as the trailer suggests, she is a vampire. It isn’t long before their relationship blossoms and the pain of being loved only by that which isn’t living becomes apparent. One thing to note of Reeve’s English version, is that the film does play out darker and with more horror elements than the Swedish film, something I thought was quite clear with the trailers. LMI is tonally very different from LTROI because of this. Matt Reeve’s also shines in this aspect; his camera work and lighting is some of the best of the year, as is Michael Giacchino’s brooding, emotional score. Visually, Reeve’s has more aesthetic style than Alfredson. That isn’t the claim that LMI is a better film, it’s merely proof that it is a vastly different film, should you view film as an art (and if you don’t, why read this?). I choose not to have these two films compete, as they both hold such strong merits and both deserve to be seen.
If there were one film to make up for the harsh bastardization of the vampire mythos of the last decade, it would be this. Don’t go in expecting a balls-out horror as the trailers and tv spots suggest. That’s far from what you’ll get. LMI is the story of a young boy, not a blood-sucking vampire. It’s unapologetic in its harshness and equally as discomforting as the bitter cold onscreen. And it’s entirely relatable. The pain felt in the film, beyond that of the neckwounds, are very real and presented in beautiful agony.
While “remaking” a film such as Let The Right One In (named after a Morrissey song, fyi) has split audiences and fans, you can’t deny that Let Me In is not only a valiant undertaking, but a unique film with a stellar cast (Chloe Moretz trumps anything that Dakota Fanning has done before her) and a distinct visual style. Sure minor (I say superfluous) details have been changed, added or subtracted in comparison to Alfredson’s version, but so what? The film that exists is a whole, not a part, and it completely works and impresses alone.
Michael Giacchino
Posted on: September 19th, 2010 REVIEW: Devil
In the last month I’ve been in a theatre three times where the trailer for Devil has played before the feature. Each and every time, the theatre let out an audible groan when ‘from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan’ hit the screen. While in my head I echoed their sentiment, it’s disheartening that Devil will be met with resistance from some, based on M. Night’s involvement alone. While his name is slapped all over the film and its marketing, Shyamalan is credited as producer and coming up with the idea – he did not write the screenplay, nor direct.
And while the Nega-Midas touch of M. Night makes us all a little weary, Devil is actually a very enjoyable little film. I’m actually quite surprised at how into the film I am.
This marks the first film in The Night Chronicles, a sort of Tales From The Crypt meets The Outer Limits imprint for films of the supernatural-thriller genre. Each film is conceived by M. Night though he will not write or direct any of them. Devil, the inaugural flick, is more literal than it seems – five people find themselves stuck in an elevator and one of them is the Devil. Though more thriller than horror, it fills its succinct run-time with creepiness and atmosphere while making us play guess-who right to the very end.
Devil and The Night Chronicles make perfect sense. This is how M. Night can redeem himself. As horrible as his last three or four films have been, you can’t deny he’s got a creative mind with some unique stories left to be told. This is his chance to get those stories made, to collaborate with other creators and writers and directors while still leaving his mark on films. We forget that at one time Shyamalan was a potential force in genre films (don’t believe me, watch Unbreakable again). Devil has a very strong Twilight Zone feel to it, as if it came straight out of Rod Serling’s mind. It’s high-concept and small and to-the-point like it could be a regular tv series, but with a reasonable budget it goes a step further in production than anything ever done on The Outer Limits. I am really behind this Night Chronicles concept.
Devil is a very small film. It only runs 80 minutes and features faces you’ve really only seen twice at most, but can’t quite place. These are not criticisms by any stretch, if anything i like how tight the story is. The run time is split between the people stuck in the elevator, and the security and police officer inside the Philadelphia high-rise watching it all unfold and trying to piece it together. As quickly as they get stuck, they begin to fall one by one as the Devil has his way. Just don’t expect to see any snarling beasts or a demonoid Satan with horns, Devil holds back the reins and instead relies on our senses and an unseen terror to make us squirm.
I almost feel bad for writing this review with such shock, like all of my praise for the film is based on how I didn’t hate it. While that is most certainly true, don’t see that as the film being just not bad, there is some great work here. Director John Erick Dowd (Quarantine) has done an exceptional job, adding style and atmosphere to the film, something incredibly hard to do when the subjects of your film are confined to a very small elevator in which people are slaughtered by evil in human form. Lighting and camera angles are the film’s fulcrum, and are all handled very well and with innovation. Again, this is a very small film that brought out great things from the technical minds involved.
Brian Nelson wrote the film (from Shyamalan’s concept) which borrows strengths from his previous work – the slow-burning tension of Hard Candy and the isolation and horror of 30 Days of Night – making Devil a unique entry into the genre. The film doesn’t skip a beat, introducing us to our characters and defining the mythology right away letting it all unfold rather quickly. It’s not just a superfluous string of jump-scares and kills either; Devil mixes in themes of morality and malevolence while finding connections between the characters and making the whole ordeal actually have a point and a reason. As much as the film is based supernaturally, there are underlying elements that are plausible and relatable and entirely realistic. For those supernatural elements, I do applaud the use of subtlety, both in the script and its direction.
None of the acting in the film is anything to make note of, though everyone does their roles justice. With a film like Devil, again so rooted in the vain of The Twilight Zone, everyone behaves as they should and understands the context of their characters. It becomes clear very early in the film that any one of these people could be the Devil, while all of them give us reason to doubt it at the same time.
Another great element of the film is its score. It’s got that great 80’s sci-fi horror theme to it, with creeping violin strokes and broad, marching tones thanks to Fernando Velazquez.
The more I think about it, the more I enjoyed Devil. If the film is marred by having M. Night’s name attached to it, then that is a shame really, as Devil does deliver.
When I first saw the trailer for Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole – you know the one, with the slo-mo helmet adorned warrior owls, set to Jared Leto’s band channeling U2 – I admit, I sprung a big geeky one. It’s like someone read my childhood notebook and took the two most badass things I could think of, warrior helmets and owls, and handed ‘em over to the guy that made 300 and Watchmen and set him loose on it. But over time, with more recent posters and tv spots, and the incessant buzzing of ‘from the creators of Happy Feet‘, I began to worry that I would be let down by a really powerful concept made silly for kids. Then I showed up a little late to the pre-screening this morning, only to be surrounded by kidlets. Young ones too, even babies. It looked like free hot dog day at a lunchtime showing of Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel.
I was so wrong. Legend of the Guardians is everything I had wanted in my head when I saw the trailer, and everything I have come to expect from Zack Snyder.
The film, based on the book series The Guardians of Ga’Hoole by Kathryn Lasky (all 15 of which I have never heard of nor read), follows a young barn owl named Soren, who alongside his brother and many other owlets, are kidnapped by a group of owls bent on turning the young ones into an army to aid them in conquering all of the owl kingdom. Soren and Gylfie, the only defiant little furballs, escape and try to find the Guardians, a group of owl warriors believed only to be myth by most, to warn them of the oncoming owl threat, led by the Sauron-esque Metalbeak.
LotG is definitely a family film, but I’ve never quite seen one that embraces its maturity so much. During the movie I was certain that more than a few of the younglings in the theatre would be intimidated, if not scared by the film’s darkness. There are no silly sight gags and certainly not any kiddie-oriented jokes. There’s as much entertainment for the adult crowd, if not more. And it’s the best of both worlds, as the film is paced a lot faster than you would expect – especially considering Zack Snyder loves his epic lengths – making for a very straight forward, action-packed movie that you and your kids will never tire of.
The first thing I noticed however, is that the film looks fucking gorgeous in every aspect, from the owls and environments all the way to the cinematography. The camera work and animation is just stunning, and teamed with Zack Snyder’s direction – his signature style is intact, though he has dialed down on his speed-ramping calling card a significant amount – LotG could be the most gorgeous movie of the year. The owls are entirely believable within their environments, even when fighting in helmets and armor and lifting flaming sticks. Major kudos to the animation team behind it, I have the feeling this is going to be one of those blu-rays you demo to all of your friends.
Concept and appearance aside, the film is executed wonderfully. The story is great and I see a real potential to keep going with the franchise; Lord knows WB needs a non-DC family series to take over Harry Potter’s reign. I really hope that the Ga’Hoole series becomes that. If anything I think it could appeal to a much broader audience – the film exudes the same maturity as the Lord of the Rings while being far more accessible to a larger crowd.
I’m really hoping for a great opening weekend for LotG next week. It’s definitely one of my favorites of the year and deserves your dollars (if I were you, I’d pass on the 3D version – though much better than recent offerings, the film is still plagued with ghosting and clarity issues).
Do check it out, Legend of the Guardians opens next Friday, September 24th.
Ben Affleck has a bigger bum rap than Sir Mix-A-Lot.
Like most actors, he’s strayed into the areas of the unwatchable (Daredevil, Gigli, Jersey Girl), but when you really take a look at the man’s resume, it’s decent. If you can get over his emotional breathing with his mouth open, you can find him in some great roles. Lately however, Affleck’s true calling has become more prevalent with the success of his directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone, which received a heap of attention and nominations. Oh, and there is that little Academy Award he won (with Matt Damon) for writing Good Will Hunting.
In The Town, Affleck’s second time out directing, this time also starring in, he has proven that he is indeed a formidable force behind the camera. Not only that but he has stepped the acting chops up a notch or two. The film is solid in every aspect. The story, based on Chuck Hogan’s novel The Prince of Thieves, is tightly wound, gritty and right down to earth, following four friends in Boston, bonded to each other by their highly illegal past-time: robbing banks in the tough streets of Charlestown. As precise and talented as the four are, a spontaneous move from one of them brings a witness and love-interest into the fold. Doug Macray (Affleck) must now balance the obligation to heist, the desire to start over and a less-than-truthful courtship, all while the FBI (led by Jon Hamm) work madly to build a case on the young Bostonians.
The Town is an admirable heist film for how it separates itself from the others. The characters come first and foremost. The bank robberies and illegal activities the gang commit, are important parts to the story and the characters themselves, but Affleck has cut out all the flash and fantasy of ‘the perfect heist’. The genre has become waterlogged with Oceans 11 type caricatures and superfluous stereotypes. These films have become more of a procedural how-to, a CSI meets Cirque Du Soleil spectacle, instead of gripping us, taking us into the people behind such acts, and showing us the world around them. The Town is not about four untouchable bad guys, it’s about four scared, normal, yet slightly morally-bankrupt individuals. Instead of waiting for the heist to go all wrong, you’re watching to see what happens between friends when one of them goes right.
Don’t take it that the film is just a character study or a romance-thriller. The Town is a sincerely apt action film. It’s entirely gritty and mature and features one of the best car chase scenes since Ronin or The Bourne Identity. There’s no doubt about it, Affleck can shoot action. Every moment of impact, every turn and every screeching tire can be felt throughout the audience, paced wonderfully and intensely. The Town may not be the smartest thriller, nor the ballsiest action film, but it does everything it sets out to do very well.
The performances are no exception either. For a small little film set in a dingy Boston, the ensemble cast is tight and downright believable; no easy feat when almost every character has that thick Bwaustin accent. Affleck (possibly at his most ripped, physically) leads the film strongly, giving one of his career bests – no small feat considering he directed himself for his second directorial outing. Jeremy Renner, still a hot commodity after his nomination for The Hurt Locker, turns in another transformation as the loose cannon of the team. The still relatively new Rebecca Hall is entirely believable as the young bank clerk roped into a hornet’s nest, but the biggest surprise from the female cast of The Town has to be Blake Lively. The Gossip Girl (and soon to be Green Lantern) star paints an impenetrable coating of filth on the story as Doug’s dead-beat, drug-ridden, baby-mama past squeeze. Like Amy Ryan in Gone Baby Gone, Lively sheds all her inherent beauty (and in her case slight inexperience), turning in a completely credible performance. Though I really dug him in the role, I felt that Jon Hamm’s performance left me desiring a little more. Though it’s an unfair comparison, I didn’t feel the fire behind his character to hunt the bad guy, like Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive. It should also be mentioned that the great Pete Postlethwaite is simply awesome in his small, but important (and terrifying) role.
There are quite a few movies like The Town that come out each year; seemingly smaller films that turn out better than you’d imagine. In an arguably disappointing year, with several highlights being big genre pictures, The Town is a refreshing and realistic thriller that deserves your weekend dollar over any other flashy, trashy or 3D picture.
I’m really looking forward to Affleck’s next, and dare I call him the next Eastwood. So far our Shannon Hamilton, notorious for nailing women in the place they dread most (not the back of a Volkswagen), is 2 for 2.
Posted on: September 6th, 2010 REVIEW: Machete
There’s no doubt we live in an odd time for movies. Remakes flood the market almost on a weekly basis, and major film franchises can be rebooted within the same decade. And with the onslaught of 3D films gagging for our almighty dollar, clearly spun under the facade of “new” technology, studios are unmistakably looking to the past for originality – grasping at ideas that most of us won’t remember, or will gladly pay $12 to celebrate, while at the same time gasping for air.
But there’s a big difference between remaking an old film for a new audience than there is making a new film for a new audience, should that film embody the past – in this case the B-movie exploitation genre – while bringing something original and worthwhile to the screen. Taking it a step further is Machete, based on the fake trailer of the same name that appeared in Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino’s Grindhouse. Audiences lapped up Danny Trejo as a knife-throwing ultra bad-ass, never expecting the trailer to become truth, and before you know it we’re sitting in the theater waiting for the feature to begin. That, my friends, is dedication and passion. By that accord, Rodriguez earned some major kudos. I mean c’mon, this is the guy that brought you three (soon to be four) Spy Kids films (not to say that’s a bad thing). It’s clear that Rodriguez can pretty much do what he wants, and ends up doing it how he wants to do it.
Machete is most definitely what you expect. Hell, if you saw the Grindhouse trailer, you’ve essentially seen the film (and if you haven’t seen Grindhouse, you may not be in on the joke). Though the full-length feature is toned down in terms of that visual Grindhouse style – gone are the grainy film effects and watermarks used before – Machete is one long tongue-in-cheek camp-fest.
While the film is totally enjoyable and has that right amount of over-the-top silliness, ultimately that’s where the film fails. It’s just too little to spread out over the course of an entire film. The film exists to be unapologetic and exploitative, but sadly this means for a thin storyline with scenes that drag and jokes to fall flat. Again, if you’ve seen the trailer, you know the story, there was no deviation (and most of the trailer footage appears in the film). Machete, a former-federale thought dead, is hired to assassinate a racist Senator(played unremarkably by Robert DeNiro). He’s then double-crossed by his employer and Machete vows revenge, while the film tries to combat the silliness with flimsy messages on immigration and racism.
I’ve been a Danny Trejo fan for years (who hasn’t?) and was excited to see him finally get a leading role. Machete is the perfect vehicle for him to star in, but unfortunately he doesn’t do much as a main man. He is as violent as you would want, skilled and lethal with any weapon (even fashioning his own, like a Mexican MacGyver), and he has plenty of stone-faced one-liners. With such an ensemble cast, each one a vibrant characature, Trejo seemed to blend in with the rest of the cast in the second and third act. There some really great perfomances here, especially from Jeff Fahey, Steven Seagal and Don Johnson. Jessica Alba is once again terrible, and Robert DeNiro looks like a fish out of water, being especially painful to watch in the third act. In a stroke of perfect, art-imitating-life casting, Lindsay Lohan pulls off the most believable role in the film, playing a coke-addicted, sexually-charged young harlot. Lohan gets her fair share of heat, but I honestly enjoyed her in the film.
I’m having a hard time with Machete. On one hand I had a lot of fun, and the film definitely succeeds within the framework it created for itself. On the other hand, it’s just not as good as Grindhouse. It just feels like a spinoff. You can’t quite shake the feeling that it was made to ride on the coat tails of Grindhouse, which was this perfect little isolated experiment a whole three years ago. I acknowledge these shortcomings, and would go as far as saying the film is a facsimile of something better we’ve seen before, but there’s no doubt that I had fun. I’m happy the thing got made, with the people involved, and I’m happy to have seen it. Machete isn’t as awesome as I hoped it would be, nor is it bad by any stretch.
Machete just is.
Posted on: August 27th, 2010 REVIEW: Takers
I am a fan of stunning visual imagery in film making, such as Hayden Christensen in an impeccably tailored suit and a bowler hat.
Hayden Christensen, in a wife-beater with tattoos, playing the piano while smoking.
Hayden Christensen’s adam’s apple while he drills a giant hole in the ceiling and fills it with C-4
Zoe Saldana in skinny jeans.
I was psyched for Takers. I’ll admit to having anticipated this B-list star studded heist film all summer long. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised by something awesome. I knew I’d be disappointed. Even so, I was pumped.
The heist crew features, of course, Hayden Christensen, as well as Chris Brown, T.I., Paul Walker, and two other guys. Zoe Saldana is in for three scenes as a love interest. Matt Dillon is the hardened detective on the case. There’s a couple of heists. The Russians shoot up the place. That’s about it.
Okay, so it was bad. I mean, I am a fan of any mediocre action film featuring Paul Walker. Really, a mediocre action film is all it takes to please me on most accounts. Give me a generic heist film, and I am a happy, happy girl.
There is absolutely no reason why a heist, in which the main heist is from The Italian Job (which T.I. helpfully points out in the film), should be two hours long. Thank Christ for the generically abrupt ending which sets up a bevy of sequels, because I just couldn’t sit any more.
Always seeking the positives here. T.I. makes an excellent villain. He’s just so slimy and deliciously evil. Matt Dillon was basically born to play an angry overly violent detective who is just focused on getting the job done at all costs. Chris Brown, mercifully, doesn’t say much.
The homages to Oceans 11 are beautiful, getting all those gangsters dressed up in their finest suits and suspenders. The Italian Job scene is wonderful, with Paul Walker proving he only looks like an insurance salesmen, but can still crack some skulls. Chop thirty minutes out of the movie and concentrate on simply recreating the heist formula with new faces and better explosions, and this movie would have been alright.
I know all you squidies are planning to go see The Last Exorcism this weekend instead, and I fully endorse your decision, unless you are like me and aroused by ex-Jedi in suspenders.
