Year: 2010
Director: Sophia Coppola
Screenplay: Sophia Coppola
Starring: Stephen Dorff, Elly Fanning, Chris Pointius
Synopsis is here
Somewhere has Stephen Dorff playing an actor broken both physically and mentally. After breaking his wrist in a drunken stumble we find him posing for marketing pictures with his female lead who detests him for his womanizing and partying with his equally immature friends. It's clear from the drinks, hotels and poledancing hotties that this man can pretty much do what he wants, and yet he is incredibly empty inside. We really shouldn't give a damn about a guy like this because he is living the life that we pay to read in those risible celeb rags. However, while it takes a bit to get there, Sophia Coppola manages draw out a certain amount of worth empathy for someone that we really shouldn't like.
Somewhere comes off like a prologue to Lost in Translation with Stephen Dorff's Johnny Marco heading towards the same stages of loneliness that Bill Murray's Bob had in Coppola's Award winning second feature. Marco despite being so popular lives in a life as fractured as his wrist. He gets anonymous texts which spit venom at him, his work life is a blurry haze of flashing lights and portentous questions from foreign journos. Coppola coming from such a life captures this bizarre other world with accuracy that only someone like herself could bring about. Many scenes brilliantly send up how artificial everything has become to Marco, so much so that he can only sit there and take it each day at a time..if he can remember which day it is. Highlights of this include a scene where Marco and his daughter Cleo in an Italian hotel; sit down to watch Friends in countries language. Neither know the language but it's familiarly gives the comfort. Another scene involves Marco sitting in a plaster cast to get a mold of his face. When the cast is taken off to reveal a mold of Marco as an aged man, his reaction is a Keanu like "whoa!" suggesting that only now he's released that one day his looks will fade. The scene also plays with the idea that Marco is masked and it'll only be at the end of his life he'll release that he's done nothing. Such moments are simple, but effective. Often they hit the mark a become quite touching.
This is all said without the main reason why we get behind Johnny Marco: his 11 year old daughter Cleo. A neatly level headed performance by Elly Fanning (counterbalancing the Dorff's laid back near adolescent behavior) is one that reminds us of her older sister Dakota. Wise beyond her years but enough childhood nativity and concern to give the movie restrained emotion the film needs. Two wonderfully telling moments include Fanning's Cleo joking with both her father and his friend Sammy and a quietly awkward "fake family" moment involving a disproving Cleo, Marco himself and one of his conquests. Scenes like this also show that Somewhere isn't without humor with scenes often being funnier than they should be.
Somewhere isn't without it's flaws. At first Coppola utilizes early scenes well to mark the frustration of the character and we too absorb the idea that the easy life is hard when the perks are repeated and money is no object. The problem is that Coppola draws out a few of these scenes too long for their own good and while they wish to be lyrical, they end up being more of an annoyance. It doesn't help that the film feels like it could have ended three times before it actually does. Others have stated a lack of character development within the film, which has an element of truth but also shows Coppola taking something that could have been quite saccharine and taking away the easy answers.
Somewhere has a wry eye on celebrity isolation and manages to crave out a subtly touching tale about someone we wouldn't like in real life losing touch with his own reality. We may not like to hear it but sometimes it's hard having the easy life.
Sunday, 12 December 2010
Review: The Tourist
Year: 2010
Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Screenplay: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, Christopher McQuarrie
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Johnny Depp
Synopsis is here.
As with many films these days; The Tourist is of course a remake, but as most people haven't even heard of the original film, it manages to get away with all that nasty outrage that a Let me in gets. I find this to be a little unfortunate as this film with it's popular stars and gloss will get less of a drubbing than some of it's more known retreads. I guess it's because I wish for a just world in where if someone is going to bitch at America for it's lack of ideas, I hope they do the research on all the films going and rightly lambaste all the movies and not just the ones they know about and like. They should also remember it goes both ways, and they should really check out some Turkish features. Quite simply, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.
Shame I found The Tourist to be a bore.
Despite a wealth of writing, acting and directing* talent, much like an adolescent relationship making love for the second time; the whole situation leaves you frustrated and strangely unsatisfied. That's not the best visual metaphor I've used for describing a movie, however if what I said made you crack even the slightest grin then you had more fun then, than I did in the entirety of this movie. It's not for lack of trying as it's clear that Angelina Jolie is using all her feminine charms to give the film some kind of allure, while Johnny Depp does that lower end Depp act he does when he's not bringing out his best work and together it should work.
However, it's hard for them as they are fighting a pointless story. It's bad enough that the direction isn't strong enough to distract me from the naff plot points and the clear Deus Ex Machina moments (Poor Timothy Dalton), but the simple fact that the reasons behind the films whole narrative are so weak makes the whole thing an incredible waste of time. I found myself asking, is that really why we're going round the houses? It almost makes the shenanigans in Knight and Day seem straightforward and level-headed.
Can the chemistry between main performers take my mind off all of this? Can it fuck. You don't believe in their relationship for one second, mostly because Depp is hilariously miscast. Depp could take many peoples girlfriends away with a wink, so you'd think the film would do it's best to make him the schlub that they wish us to believe. It seems the reaction to that thought is? Why bother? This is a film that just wants two good looking people in exotic places on screen, who needs chemistry to give the make shift story at least feel like it had a chance?
If there is any good points about then film, I will say that the speedboat set piece does what it can to give the illusion of fun and some of the dialogue exchanges aren't bad for what they are. But really, is that all I can take from this movie? Unfortunately yes.
This is for purists only. Fans of the leads who can talk at length about how great Secret Window is, or quote you the entire script of Life or something like it. To others, they may find it more substantial to rewatch the Bourne trilogy again.
Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Screenplay: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, Christopher McQuarrie
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Johnny Depp
Synopsis is here.
As with many films these days; The Tourist is of course a remake, but as most people haven't even heard of the original film, it manages to get away with all that nasty outrage that a Let me in gets. I find this to be a little unfortunate as this film with it's popular stars and gloss will get less of a drubbing than some of it's more known retreads. I guess it's because I wish for a just world in where if someone is going to bitch at America for it's lack of ideas, I hope they do the research on all the films going and rightly lambaste all the movies and not just the ones they know about and like. They should also remember it goes both ways, and they should really check out some Turkish features. Quite simply, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.
Shame I found The Tourist to be a bore.
Despite a wealth of writing, acting and directing* talent, much like an adolescent relationship making love for the second time; the whole situation leaves you frustrated and strangely unsatisfied. That's not the best visual metaphor I've used for describing a movie, however if what I said made you crack even the slightest grin then you had more fun then, than I did in the entirety of this movie. It's not for lack of trying as it's clear that Angelina Jolie is using all her feminine charms to give the film some kind of allure, while Johnny Depp does that lower end Depp act he does when he's not bringing out his best work and together it should work.
However, it's hard for them as they are fighting a pointless story. It's bad enough that the direction isn't strong enough to distract me from the naff plot points and the clear Deus Ex Machina moments (Poor Timothy Dalton), but the simple fact that the reasons behind the films whole narrative are so weak makes the whole thing an incredible waste of time. I found myself asking, is that really why we're going round the houses? It almost makes the shenanigans in Knight and Day seem straightforward and level-headed.
Can the chemistry between main performers take my mind off all of this? Can it fuck. You don't believe in their relationship for one second, mostly because Depp is hilariously miscast. Depp could take many peoples girlfriends away with a wink, so you'd think the film would do it's best to make him the schlub that they wish us to believe. It seems the reaction to that thought is? Why bother? This is a film that just wants two good looking people in exotic places on screen, who needs chemistry to give the make shift story at least feel like it had a chance?
If there is any good points about then film, I will say that the speedboat set piece does what it can to give the illusion of fun and some of the dialogue exchanges aren't bad for what they are. But really, is that all I can take from this movie? Unfortunately yes.
This is for purists only. Fans of the leads who can talk at length about how great Secret Window is, or quote you the entire script of Life or something like it. To others, they may find it more substantial to rewatch the Bourne trilogy again.
Monday, 6 December 2010
Review: Monsters
Year: 2010
Director: Garteh Edwards
Screenplay: Garteh Edwards
Starring: Scoot McNairy, Whitney Able
Synopsis is here
I know someone, somewhere is whining about Monsters because "there's hardly any monsters!". To that person I say read film reviews. So many people love to gripe about film reviews because "they have their own opinion" However, other than the fact that reading others view can re-enforce your own conceptions and understanding on matters (be it politics or films), they also warn about certain things like THAT TITLE I ALLEGORY AND THAT TRAILER IS LIES! Ahem, sorry.
Yes once again, the trailer of the film is used to try and sell something it's not and those looking for the next Cloverfield may find themselves a little confused. The title is one of those blatant misleads that reminds one of those old twilight zone episodes. Oh yes there are monsters....and they ain't who you think! etc. Such a tactic may be seen a mile off for a disgruntled cynical cinephile; but with that said, Monsters has more to say than a slight nod to old school sci-fi. It is an interesting movie that helps continue this trend of recent sci-fi that not only utilizes it's CGI in an interesting (and cheap) way but presents an thoughtful (although slightly obvious) metaphor about how we view the alien other.
Much has said about the films cost and it's computer graphics so I'll be brief with this. The film not only looks gorgeous but just just as expensive as say War of the Worlds. Monsters cost $500,000 while Spielberg's 2005 feature cost $130 million but at times you'll be hard pressed to see how big that gulf really is. It is quite clear that Visual effects artist-cum Director Gareth Edwards knows what he's doing with CGI, with his digital shots looking better than some of the weaker efforts seen in other films. But what sets Edwards apart is he has a good hold a certain amount of cinematic language. His shots of the (rarely seen) aliens are mostly at night; not only show the capability of his CGI, But to remind us that it's things that bump in the night that still unsettle us the most. His use of location is also well considered. Like District 9 (2007), the film is enhanced by it's setting. It's not a typical urban landscape that we see constantly in films like this, but something that is also still quite alien to those who may or may not watch art-house features which delve into the central Americas more than often.
It is the location that sets up the metaphor splendidly. At a time when certain voices are highlighting that a change in ethnicity may approaching the U.K and the U.S. It's pretty revealing that Edwards decides that it is in Mexico (where recent troubles have reared their head involving the state of Arizona) that no only the majority of the film takes place but also where we as an audience discover the the conflicting nature of these beings. I won't say any more, but think of it like Solaris (1972 & 2002) where intent to harm collides with communication.
Lets not get this ahead of ourselves however, as in some ways comparing Edwards to Tarkovskiy is extraordinarily naive. But while there films bounce around in a similar ballpark at points, Edwards is a filmmaker who is seemingly more in touch with his contemporaries than anyone else. All this talk about aliens and least we forget that this is really a romantic road movie, with it's use of setting and characters feeling more a mixture Y Tu Mama Tambien and Lost in Translation more than anything else. When Edwards' camera is focused on the smaller moments (a visit to a 400 year old church is nicely put together) these particles of culture and character work extremely well. These creatures no longer cause large impact on the world, they have been assimilated into part of it. These two leads are now finding new parts of themselves within this background and the combination of the old and new shows the film at it's most watchable.
It's a shame that while these moments stand out Edwards shows that he is more than a little rough around the edges with other aspects. Monsters (mostly improvised) screenplay is full of forced dialogue with one unfortunate moment having the lead spell out much of underlying subtext upon viewing America's new great wall. Also as a romance I can't say that the meandering pace of the love story and the small chit chat make me believe in the central relationship much. This may be because I've been forced fed sickly sweet rom-coms since mainstream cinema gave up on trying to give us anything different, but with all that said, I didn't just truly buy it.
This is not due to the two wide eye performances of the leads with Scoot McNairy being the standout. It is his character that is given the most development and he runs with it well, with the films more emotional moments stemming from him. This is not to say that Whitney Able's role isn't any less important, it is merely more subdued. The two are more than natural in front of the camera it's just together in this vicinity the real life couple are just a tad too restrained when together.
But this doesn't distract Monsters from being a eye-opening opener. It is beautiful to look at and the film's commentary is not only topical but competently placed through out. Edwards has come out alongside Duncan Jones (Moon) as a Brit director whose view on the sci-fi aesthetic is more than the mere superficial. Whether or not or not a mainstream audience can look beyond the title is a different story.
Director: Garteh Edwards
Screenplay: Garteh Edwards
Starring: Scoot McNairy, Whitney Able
Synopsis is here
I know someone, somewhere is whining about Monsters because "there's hardly any monsters!". To that person I say read film reviews. So many people love to gripe about film reviews because "they have their own opinion" However, other than the fact that reading others view can re-enforce your own conceptions and understanding on matters (be it politics or films), they also warn about certain things like THAT TITLE I ALLEGORY AND THAT TRAILER IS LIES! Ahem, sorry.
Yes once again, the trailer of the film is used to try and sell something it's not and those looking for the next Cloverfield may find themselves a little confused. The title is one of those blatant misleads that reminds one of those old twilight zone episodes. Oh yes there are monsters....and they ain't who you think! etc. Such a tactic may be seen a mile off for a disgruntled cynical cinephile; but with that said, Monsters has more to say than a slight nod to old school sci-fi. It is an interesting movie that helps continue this trend of recent sci-fi that not only utilizes it's CGI in an interesting (and cheap) way but presents an thoughtful (although slightly obvious) metaphor about how we view the alien other.
Much has said about the films cost and it's computer graphics so I'll be brief with this. The film not only looks gorgeous but just just as expensive as say War of the Worlds. Monsters cost $500,000 while Spielberg's 2005 feature cost $130 million but at times you'll be hard pressed to see how big that gulf really is. It is quite clear that Visual effects artist-cum Director Gareth Edwards knows what he's doing with CGI, with his digital shots looking better than some of the weaker efforts seen in other films. But what sets Edwards apart is he has a good hold a certain amount of cinematic language. His shots of the (rarely seen) aliens are mostly at night; not only show the capability of his CGI, But to remind us that it's things that bump in the night that still unsettle us the most. His use of location is also well considered. Like District 9 (2007), the film is enhanced by it's setting. It's not a typical urban landscape that we see constantly in films like this, but something that is also still quite alien to those who may or may not watch art-house features which delve into the central Americas more than often.
It is the location that sets up the metaphor splendidly. At a time when certain voices are highlighting that a change in ethnicity may approaching the U.K and the U.S. It's pretty revealing that Edwards decides that it is in Mexico (where recent troubles have reared their head involving the state of Arizona) that no only the majority of the film takes place but also where we as an audience discover the the conflicting nature of these beings. I won't say any more, but think of it like Solaris (1972 & 2002) where intent to harm collides with communication.
Lets not get this ahead of ourselves however, as in some ways comparing Edwards to Tarkovskiy is extraordinarily naive. But while there films bounce around in a similar ballpark at points, Edwards is a filmmaker who is seemingly more in touch with his contemporaries than anyone else. All this talk about aliens and least we forget that this is really a romantic road movie, with it's use of setting and characters feeling more a mixture Y Tu Mama Tambien and Lost in Translation more than anything else. When Edwards' camera is focused on the smaller moments (a visit to a 400 year old church is nicely put together) these particles of culture and character work extremely well. These creatures no longer cause large impact on the world, they have been assimilated into part of it. These two leads are now finding new parts of themselves within this background and the combination of the old and new shows the film at it's most watchable.
It's a shame that while these moments stand out Edwards shows that he is more than a little rough around the edges with other aspects. Monsters (mostly improvised) screenplay is full of forced dialogue with one unfortunate moment having the lead spell out much of underlying subtext upon viewing America's new great wall. Also as a romance I can't say that the meandering pace of the love story and the small chit chat make me believe in the central relationship much. This may be because I've been forced fed sickly sweet rom-coms since mainstream cinema gave up on trying to give us anything different, but with all that said, I didn't just truly buy it.
This is not due to the two wide eye performances of the leads with Scoot McNairy being the standout. It is his character that is given the most development and he runs with it well, with the films more emotional moments stemming from him. This is not to say that Whitney Able's role isn't any less important, it is merely more subdued. The two are more than natural in front of the camera it's just together in this vicinity the real life couple are just a tad too restrained when together.
But this doesn't distract Monsters from being a eye-opening opener. It is beautiful to look at and the film's commentary is not only topical but competently placed through out. Edwards has come out alongside Duncan Jones (Moon) as a Brit director whose view on the sci-fi aesthetic is more than the mere superficial. Whether or not or not a mainstream audience can look beyond the title is a different story.
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
Review: The Next Three Days
Year: 2010
Director: Paul Haggis
Screenplay: Paul Haggis
Starring: Russell Crowe, Elizabeth Banks
Synopsis is here
I have not seen Anything for her (French original of this U.S Remake), however a glimpse of it's running time and the two reviews I quickly read from two national papers reveal more than they suspect. The 96 minute feature is considered by Phillip French (Observer) to be:
But of course I could feel that. From what I've seen, Paul Haggis as a director doesn't seem to be one to rock the boat. Crash did as much as possible to open and shut cans before a worm even saw a light of day. In casting Russell Crowe, Haggis makes what could be considered quite a large error to some. Not because Crowe is a bad actor (I'm a fan) but because he's safe hands. At what point do you feel any trouble when your wrapped up tight in the hands of Maximus Decimus Meridius?
Crowe is a great actor to show a determined man. From Gladiator to Proof of Life, to L.A Confidential and even in this; Crowe is brilliant at showing a man whose willing to do anything for his cause. The problem however is this performance is lopsided. We're treated by lots of Maximus from a character who is supposed be a vulnerable English teacher. Crowe channels much of his strongest roles into this character but forgets that we are meant to be watching someone who is a reluctant hero. Once that steely purpose begins to burn in his eyes, we know that everything is going to be fine. Trouble is that fire was started far too early on.
Knowing that Crowe isn't going let that burden bother any of us also hinders Elizabeth Banks role (it doesn't help that she still looks too good to be in prison) as all her performance is shoved to the latter half of the movie. This is also is a plot issue, however once Crowe's John has become an Internet Macgyver (thanks youtube) there isn't too much for her to do. This is a shame as one pivotal revelation (or red herring) shows her ability to switch emotions naturally with ease.
Lack of conviction aside, there's some well directed moments within the movie that hold interest. Haggis' latter third runs at such a frantic pace that a bravura car sequence leaves one a little breathless and makes you wonder why Haggis felt the need to puncture the scene with such an unfortunate broad moment of humor. Not that The Next Three Days has to be that somber as Haggis' dialogue has enough wit early on to provide an above average lead in during the films earlier stages.
The Next Three Days is competent in it's creation and will be a passable diversion to many. However there may be other people looking for a thriller for a little more bite. This may not be the feature for them.
Director: Paul Haggis
Screenplay: Paul Haggis
Starring: Russell Crowe, Elizabeth Banks
Synopsis is here
I have not seen Anything for her (French original of this U.S Remake), however a glimpse of it's running time and the two reviews I quickly read from two national papers reveal more than they suspect. The 96 minute feature is considered by Phillip French (Observer) to be:
"The movie invites the audience to empathise with a decent man driven by despair into dangerous criminal activities and we're on his side from start to finish."Tim Robey of The Telegraph states:
"The dangers of being out of your depth in criminal dealings give Fred Cavayé's film plenty of pulse and urgency"So with this knowledge in mind I find it difficult to figure out what was so necessary in the extra 26 minutes that reside within this movie. However, with the films intricate plotting being so incredibly neat (far too neat), I'm guessing the added plotting is to ensure that everything is covered and no questions can be asked. In a thriller like this, such hand holding is a weakness. We know so much that risk is taken from us. Everything is perfect, too perfect. We're wrapped the situation up and have already got our coats on for the car. I may be very wrong, but at no point throughout the The Next Three Days did I find myself feel the stake rise above boiling point. It's all far too controlled.
But of course I could feel that. From what I've seen, Paul Haggis as a director doesn't seem to be one to rock the boat. Crash did as much as possible to open and shut cans before a worm even saw a light of day. In casting Russell Crowe, Haggis makes what could be considered quite a large error to some. Not because Crowe is a bad actor (I'm a fan) but because he's safe hands. At what point do you feel any trouble when your wrapped up tight in the hands of Maximus Decimus Meridius?
Crowe is a great actor to show a determined man. From Gladiator to Proof of Life, to L.A Confidential and even in this; Crowe is brilliant at showing a man whose willing to do anything for his cause. The problem however is this performance is lopsided. We're treated by lots of Maximus from a character who is supposed be a vulnerable English teacher. Crowe channels much of his strongest roles into this character but forgets that we are meant to be watching someone who is a reluctant hero. Once that steely purpose begins to burn in his eyes, we know that everything is going to be fine. Trouble is that fire was started far too early on.
Knowing that Crowe isn't going let that burden bother any of us also hinders Elizabeth Banks role (it doesn't help that she still looks too good to be in prison) as all her performance is shoved to the latter half of the movie. This is also is a plot issue, however once Crowe's John has become an Internet Macgyver (thanks youtube) there isn't too much for her to do. This is a shame as one pivotal revelation (or red herring) shows her ability to switch emotions naturally with ease.
Lack of conviction aside, there's some well directed moments within the movie that hold interest. Haggis' latter third runs at such a frantic pace that a bravura car sequence leaves one a little breathless and makes you wonder why Haggis felt the need to puncture the scene with such an unfortunate broad moment of humor. Not that The Next Three Days has to be that somber as Haggis' dialogue has enough wit early on to provide an above average lead in during the films earlier stages.
The Next Three Days is competent in it's creation and will be a passable diversion to many. However there may be other people looking for a thriller for a little more bite. This may not be the feature for them.
Sunday, 28 November 2010
Review: Unstoppable
Year: 2010
Director: Tony Scott
Screenplay: Mark Bomback
Starring: Denzel Washington, Chris Pine, Rosario Dawson
Synopsis is here
I know that when you write reviews you should be totally unbiased (impossible* but as much as you can be) but after catching the trailer for Unstoppable I felt that straight away I was heading for a bad time. I was unimpressed with Tony Scott's uneven remake of The Taking of Pelham 123 and this not only looked like more of the same, but with a runaway train no doubt. Of course with a podcast to record and a co-host whose wish for us to sit through nonsense is far too strong I braved the British chill and headed to the cinema to brave Scott action overkill.
Or so I thought. It turns out that despite Unstoppable having one of those silly titles that has nearly all reviewers claiming false advertising (see also some cases of The Never Ending Story), the film itself is a good fun watch. I feel this is mostly because Scott; who's seemingly been on a quest to melt peoples eyeballs since 2004's Man on fire, tones down some of the visual tics (minus crash zooms and slow motion) to focus on the films premise. The outcome of this moderation is a tightly wound genre piece. The threat is set up quickly and efficiently, the set pieces seem sparse but they have more than enough punch and this is all combined with a likable and enjoyable cast that have fun with their quite generic character molds.
It's pretty safe to say that there's no surprises within the film. I won't lie to you and say there's something within the film that pulls the rug from you. But when you buy a ticket for a film like Unstoppable what do you want? Yes, so much of the movie has been done to death and yet Scott's direction of the material and the charm of the whole cast, keeps everything ticking over nicely.
While Unstoppable clearly shows signs of Scott "chilling out" a bit in terms of visual glitz, for some reason, the veteran director has decided to channel this extra energy into unnecessary exposition as told by countless news reporters reiterating story points in more layman terms as if your didn't understand that the train needs to stop. The theme of media coverage has poked it's head in his work before (Domino) but here it merely appears on screen as padding to help the film reach the 90 minute mark.
This is not to say that the film outstays it's welcome, as the pace is what you expect, racing to it's anticipated but fun finish. By the time this movie reaches it's destination it was hard not to throw a punch of pleasure to it's two heroes. But that's what I wanted from a film which has two leads bouncing off each other with as much ease as the two here. Denzel Washington makes sure that his experienced pro driver is seasoned as opposed to surly while Chris Pine is frustrated as opposed to cocky. This may not seem like much but it certainly helps us get on the side of these guys as typical as their backgrounds are. Their chemistry plays out well, as does Rosario Dawson's determined Connie who once again reminds us that Dawson should really have more lead roles. The rest of the cast is played by a handful of character actors you've liked (but may not have remembered their name) in a bunch of other movies (Please stand up Kevin Corrigan, Ethan Suplee, Kevin Dunn). Like I mentioned before, it's a fine mix and I could find anything to dislike in any of them.
If you've had a problem with the U.K tubes/trains as of late, it may be wise to check out Unstoppable and see the large amount of issues the U.S have with their railroads. It's best not to think this film inspired by true events is sparked so easily by an hilarious comedy of errors. I do hope that the art didn't immediate life and that this almost tragic event is down to an extremely lazy gentleman who was more interesting in his gut than his job. But like me watching this films naff trailer and ending up enjoying this ride, stranger things have happened.
*Impossible is the sense that as a viewer you never go into any film completely clean. Your past viewings, experiences, peers et all will always shape your viewings of course.
Director: Tony Scott
Screenplay: Mark Bomback
Starring: Denzel Washington, Chris Pine, Rosario Dawson
Synopsis is here
I know that when you write reviews you should be totally unbiased (impossible* but as much as you can be) but after catching the trailer for Unstoppable I felt that straight away I was heading for a bad time. I was unimpressed with Tony Scott's uneven remake of The Taking of Pelham 123 and this not only looked like more of the same, but with a runaway train no doubt. Of course with a podcast to record and a co-host whose wish for us to sit through nonsense is far too strong I braved the British chill and headed to the cinema to brave Scott action overkill.
Or so I thought. It turns out that despite Unstoppable having one of those silly titles that has nearly all reviewers claiming false advertising (see also some cases of The Never Ending Story), the film itself is a good fun watch. I feel this is mostly because Scott; who's seemingly been on a quest to melt peoples eyeballs since 2004's Man on fire, tones down some of the visual tics (minus crash zooms and slow motion) to focus on the films premise. The outcome of this moderation is a tightly wound genre piece. The threat is set up quickly and efficiently, the set pieces seem sparse but they have more than enough punch and this is all combined with a likable and enjoyable cast that have fun with their quite generic character molds.
It's pretty safe to say that there's no surprises within the film. I won't lie to you and say there's something within the film that pulls the rug from you. But when you buy a ticket for a film like Unstoppable what do you want? Yes, so much of the movie has been done to death and yet Scott's direction of the material and the charm of the whole cast, keeps everything ticking over nicely.
While Unstoppable clearly shows signs of Scott "chilling out" a bit in terms of visual glitz, for some reason, the veteran director has decided to channel this extra energy into unnecessary exposition as told by countless news reporters reiterating story points in more layman terms as if your didn't understand that the train needs to stop. The theme of media coverage has poked it's head in his work before (Domino) but here it merely appears on screen as padding to help the film reach the 90 minute mark.
This is not to say that the film outstays it's welcome, as the pace is what you expect, racing to it's anticipated but fun finish. By the time this movie reaches it's destination it was hard not to throw a punch of pleasure to it's two heroes. But that's what I wanted from a film which has two leads bouncing off each other with as much ease as the two here. Denzel Washington makes sure that his experienced pro driver is seasoned as opposed to surly while Chris Pine is frustrated as opposed to cocky. This may not seem like much but it certainly helps us get on the side of these guys as typical as their backgrounds are. Their chemistry plays out well, as does Rosario Dawson's determined Connie who once again reminds us that Dawson should really have more lead roles. The rest of the cast is played by a handful of character actors you've liked (but may not have remembered their name) in a bunch of other movies (Please stand up Kevin Corrigan, Ethan Suplee, Kevin Dunn). Like I mentioned before, it's a fine mix and I could find anything to dislike in any of them.
If you've had a problem with the U.K tubes/trains as of late, it may be wise to check out Unstoppable and see the large amount of issues the U.S have with their railroads. It's best not to think this film inspired by true events is sparked so easily by an hilarious comedy of errors. I do hope that the art didn't immediate life and that this almost tragic event is down to an extremely lazy gentleman who was more interesting in his gut than his job. But like me watching this films naff trailer and ending up enjoying this ride, stranger things have happened.
*Impossible is the sense that as a viewer you never go into any film completely clean. Your past viewings, experiences, peers et all will always shape your viewings of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)