Short Circuit

I can include Short Circuit in that same 80s category as Gremlins - kitch classic and nothing more - if not for Johnny 5. He (or it) is a more interesting creation for me than Gizmo and his more vagrant pals. For all his corniness and glee, he was entertaining. Sadly, Steve Guttenburg and Ally Sheedy are void of chemistry and charisma in their roles, but they're really secondary to the main event - ole Johnny 5. For him, a passing grade.

***

Mad Max

I finally saw the beginning of my beloved Mad Max franchise. I have to say, I'm a little disappointed. All the superior elements of the franchise are there: a brooding Mel Gibson, spectacular CGI-less car stunts, crazy (CRAZY) villains, and notable cinematography and style. The problem is that all these elements aren't perfected until The Road Warrior. Mel Gibson, despite of all his charisma, shows his lack of experience. The stunts are still there, but they're certainly less necessary. When the cars and/or motorcycles aren't driving across the endless asphalt, there isn't a whole lot to love in Mad Max. There are some very memorable shots in the movie, but these shots only punctuate the droll interlude between them. Thank goodness for Hugh Keays-Byrne's work as Toecutter, the psychotic leader or a motorcycle gang out for revenge after their even crazier former compadre is killed in the film's opening car chase. Toecutter is the snarling, edgy precursor to The Might Wez and Lord Humungous (The Road Warrior) and Master Blaster (MM: Beyond Thunderdome) of subsequent films. While he feels a bit out of place in Mad Max, it's clear writer/director George Miller is honing his world and style here. It's a good film with great moments, but it pales in comparison to its sequels. A great finish to a lackluster beginning.

***

Push

Push isn't a necessary addition to the superhero genre, but it is a nice diversion. It looks great with it's bleached tones and vibrant colors. Some of the action pieces are well-photographed and staged (chiefly a short chase in a Hong Kong market). The basis of the plot seems so simple, but screenwriter David Bourla throws in a needlessly convoluted device to catapult the film through its climax. Like a time travel movie, it's hard to follow the movie through each step of its paces. When it ends, it's hard to tell if the whole thing works because you're still trying to figure out if the device works and, more importantly, if it was necessary at all. What Bourla gets right is his lingo. Each super-powered human type gets its own term ("mover", "sniffer", "watcher", etc.) that actually adds a unique aspect to the film. Chris Evans plays the lead and doesn't add anything special, but does prove that his solid work in Sunshine wasn't a fluke. He's not an A-list talent, but he fills this type of role just fine. Dakota Fanning, moving into teenage roles, is not a unique talent anymore. She's a fine actress, but this role isn't tailored for her skills. She's doesn't have the dry wit to pull off the attitude or her dialogue. But she's scores above Camille Bell, the beauty playing the question mark of the film. She's unquestionably beautiful, but she has all the charisma of a mannequin. Djimon Hounsou's talents are also wasted as the head villain. All in all, Push is pretty good; but is only notable for how good it could have been.

***

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans is nothing special and doesn't really have anything working for it other than its fanbase and mythology from the previous two films of the franchise. I count myself as a part of that fanbase, and on that basis, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. If you don't give more than a hoot about any of the Underworld movies, you can skip Underworld:ROTL with nary a regret. I enjoyed seeing Michael Sheen reprise his role as Lucian and fight Billy Nighy (though Nighy has abandoned all restraint he may have possessed). The two actors have fun, even when saying the preposterous dialogue. All three Underworld films share a screenwriter, but something is lost when the dialogue is put back into the Medievalish language. Rhona Mitra is a rare beauty, but she cannot fill the heroine role the way Kate Beckinsale does in the first two films. Kevin Grevioux, one of the orginators of the franchise with a strangely deep voice and muscled physique, reprises his Underworld role. However, his talent is sorely lacking and more apparent with a larger role in this installment of the franchise. In the end, the film is a fun diversion on a Friday night and a welcome pleasure for fans who like their vampire films to take themselves seriously without actually being serious. Are there anymore of us out there?

***

Unknown

The film is a construct of its conceit, and therein lies it's chief attraction. Synopsis:

Five men waking up in a chemical warehouse and realizing they don't know who they are and how they got there. But through time they deduct that some of them are hostages and some are kidnappers. The men now must figure out who is who as they've learned the lead kidnapper is on his way and plans to kill the hostages.
-Yahoo Movies

It brings the best part of the first Saw to mind, but Unknown has a solid cast and better than average plotting. Its setup and thrust into the action and confusion is thrilling, but the film struggles to maintain that level of excitement and believability through the climax. Jim Caviezel, Greg Kinnear, Joe Pantoliano, Jeremy Sisto, and Barry Pepper (you go, boy!) are the five men and Bridget Moynahan is the fretful wife of one of the hostages on the outside. The writer and the director aren't aces at their crafts (as evidenced by cliched visual cues and slighted yet prominent characters), but there is enough mystery and slight of hand to keep the audience guessing. Even when I had it figured out, the film had one twist left. Though that last twist may be to the film and audience's detriment. It added apathy to what had been up to that point my mild enjoyment. Still, I can recommend the film to fans of the cast and someone looking for something new on the shelves of Blockbuster (do people still go to video stores?) on a Saturday night.

I will say this: Jim Caviezel's performance in Unknown shows a vague but familiar hint of the untold potential he showed first in Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line. I don't think Caviezel can realize that potential again unless he is revived by another visionary director with the right part.

***

The Good German "(Maguire's) adhering too much to the contemporary view of classic cinema - no subtlety, scenery chewing, melodrama."

They don't make 'em like they used to, but that sure doesn't stop them from trying. I am more a fan of contemporary cinema than any of the black and white Hollywood hey day movies. I've tried to branch out in recent years, even making a summer noir series of my own with Laura, The Maltese Falcon, The Third Man, and Casablanca. I mention Casablanca not because it's a great example of noir, but because The Good German wants to be like it so very, very much (only with more swearing). It's a lofty goal it cannot reach.

The Good German is really only an excellent imitation of those melodramatic, love torn, post- and pre-war film noirs. It offers nothing to set it apart from anything that has ever preceded it. Instead, it boldly goes where many, many films have gone before it. Normally, this would be a major detraction (and it still kind of is), but The Good German really wants to be those movies you saw before. It loves those movies. It hopes to Moses you love those movies, too.

I had problems from the start with Tobey Maguire. He must have been told to "explore the studio space" because he's adhering too much to the contemporary view of classic cinema - no subtlety, scenery chewing, melodrama. He plays an unsavory character with constant strain in his voice and face. He can't handle the dialogue or the character. It's outside the realm of his abilities. Hey, I love the guy (Go, James Leer!), but he's pretty awful in this movie. Luckily, he doesn't factor much into the major storyline later in the movie.

Thankfully, George Clooney and Cate Blanchett know what they're doing...most of the time. They handle the dialogue pretty well, save the normal difficulties you'd expect from actors trying to speak old timey/edgy/cool dialogue from a script emulating someone else's script. Clooney and Blanchett's scenes together are the best in the movie and I think everybody knows it because they get tossed in each others way a lot.

Clooney doesn't have to do anything he hasn't had to do before, and he appears to be the most comfortable in the world of the film. And the world of the film and the camera love him...a little too much. The camera almost fetishizes Clooney in that soldier uniform and hat - from behind, from afar, from above, from the ground, from the front (oh, it loves looking at ol' Clooney's dashing hero gaze). Clooney does have trouble in one scene in particular where he has to grab Blanchett by the arms and shake her and say, "Why won't you let me me help you!" in his best noir impression. That's the thing with The Good German - it's more than happy just to be an impression of anything real though its depict real moments in history.

Blanchett has a German accent throughout and it's really only a glaring bump because it's Cate Blanchett speaking in it. The same could be said for her Katherine Hepburn accent in The Aviator. I just think the accents are "so not her" that they remove me from the world of the movie. She does deliver the most consistent performance. She knows how to milk a scene for all it's simmering heat (milk the heat?). I never really think of females as brooding, but Blanchett certainly does brood.

Story stuff: Blanchett plays Lena, this German femme fatale that was so memorable and alluring in a pre-war affair with Jake (Clooney) that he purposefully heads back to Germany after the war to find her. The big problem for me is that she's not really all that great. I can't really imagine what's so great about her that all these men are wanting her so much. For Tully (Maguire), it's clear his thrill is in possessing her; but for Jake, it seems he's helping her out of some nostalgia for feelings that I can't imagine pretty much anyone having for her.
(edit: Perhaps this is the point the movie is trying to make - the woman Jake fell in love with has been ruined by the war.)

Also, Clooney gets involved in three skirmishes in his hunt for a mysterious man everyone's after. He gets beat up pretty bad by his assailants, but they just leave him there writhing in pain or knocked out or what have you. Nobody ever really gets the idea that "Hey, this guy's always turning up and gumming up the works...maybe we oughtta kill the jerk." He dusts himself off and goes back to the search.

Also, that ending! No! Don't do it! It involves a revelation that should have happened earlier, and not so awkwardly spoken or located. The movie should have ending in the crowd of all the people. Whenever I watch the movie again, I'm going to stop it there. That's a decent movie. It's still pretty decent anyways, but it would have been decenter (decenter?).

But, lo and behold, I am recommending this movie. I really enjoyed the entire second act and much of the third. Once Maguire faded into the background and the intrigue really started, I committed to the movie and was mostly satisfied despite all the words above to the contrary. It's a solid movie. I commend its ambition. It's hard to call a movie that emulates other movies ambitious, but it's really quite an undertaking in this day and age to evoke the atmosphere and spirit of another day and age.

Clooney's good. Blanchett's good. Maguire's bad, but the rest of the supporting cast is good in spite of him. I actually even liked the story for its simplistic storyline that masqueraded as a complicated web.

I LOVED the cinematography. If I loved the movie, I'd find a way to make a poster of some of the shots and put them up on my wall. Gorgeous black and white picture.

So...

***

Down by Law

Down by Law is still walking around in my brain. I saw it last night. I'm still deciding how I feel about it, so this may end up being a stream of consciousness review when all is said and done.

I think I liked it. It definitely did not possess the usual attributes and qualities I look for in a film, especially independent film. It's atmosphere is pretty bare. Jarmusch creates a stale air speaking "Louisiana, Louisiana" and "jail, jail." I can't really put my finger on it more than that.

I felt distanced from the film and the characters for most of the film. There were times when they opened up or had a brief spell of interaction that was mildly amusing, but there was also a lot of bland waiting and silence. It can surely be said that silence can say a lot, but I don't think the silence in Down by Law said that much. More accurately, it said what it had to say and then kept repeating it over and over again.

Of course, whenever you add Roberto Benigni to the mix and you get more interest and excitement than whatever you had before. he adds life and mischief to the film. The best moments in the film - and there are several really, really good scenes - take place after Benigni joins the other two characters in their jail cell. I'm not particularly a fan of Benigni, but I am impressed by how his mere presence in Down by Law made the film and the other two main characters interesting.

Jarmusch employs a leisurely pace. He certainly doesn't rush things. At times, he tried my patience. Other times, especially when the three main characters were on the lam, he kept me engaged (for the most part).

Since this is only the second Jarmusch film I have watched all the way through (the other being Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai, which employed a similar leisurely pace), I can only really speculate here...but I think Jarmusch is still trying to find his voice in Down by Law. He doesn't really say that much in the film. And what he does say, he doesn't say well. I might be looking for meaning in all the wrong places, but it seems he was really just making a dark, bleak, sometimes zany comedy about casual friendships and the long arm of the law. It also moves along the lines of a tough-love letter to the seedy streets, back alleyways, back woods and swamps of Louisiana.

I had a love-hate with the cinematography. On the one hand, the black and white images on screen could be beautiful. Black and white lends itself to beauty. But the camera was stationary or static for many shots. This added to the stale air. It must be difficult to film a jail cell and make it interesting, but Jarmusch didn't even try. If his intention was to show the boredom of jail, he succeeded. As a setting for a film, I think that setting has to be visually interesting for the audience.

I'll give this movie a marginal recommendation, though I do want to see Down by Law to see if I missed the point along the way the first time. I also look forward to seeing what ol' Jarmusch has up his sleeve.

***

Disturbia

Disturbia spends much of its time jumping through the usual teen movie hoops before finally pulling out some decent thrills. It's a fine one-watcher with a likable and good performance by Shia LaBeouf, but underuses and undersells the creepiness of David Morse. It also contains a severely average performance from the girl next door, played with generally little besides flirtateous glances and scared eyes. But it's worth a look-see for Shia fans. Something I am not ashamed to say I am. The guy's good (see also A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, The Battle of Shaker Heights), and he could be great.

***

Vacancy

Vacancy accomplished exactly what it set out to do: to scare the snot out of me. There is no real substance to the movie, although the filmmakers do try to create multi-dimensional protagonists with conversations at the beginning of the movie. The characters soon become secondary to the suspense. The scares are the real draw here. Once the terror starts, it doesn’t let up until the end.

Pluses. I thought the leads did a fine job with their parts, although those conversations that attempt to flesh out their characters are the most awkward part of the movie. After that, they pretty much just had to act scared. And they did. Pretty well. I don’t really put a lot of stock in either Luke Wilson or Kate Beckinsale’s acting range, and they didn’t really have to stretch their talent in Vacancy. But they were good enough to hold my attention and keep me rooting for them instead of rooting for them to die, which sadly can be the case with all the stupid young people in most slasher/horror films. I guess part of what made this movie work was that Wilson and Beckinsale behaved in fairly intelligent ways considering the circumstances. I think the film justified much of the helplessness of the two protagonists. Kind of a real “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” conflict.

The film was scary. And while there were a few of those quiet-in-the-dark-then-sudden- rush-of-sound-and-motion jump in your seat moments, I found the general mere suggestion of doom to be the real spine tingler. I just felt the leads were doomed. Horror sequels are the norm nowadays. Killers must live to kill again in further franchise installments. They’re cheap to make so they generally make their budgets back and then some. I mean, Boogyman was the number one movie the weekend it was released. And it sucked. Thankfully, Vacancy did not suck. It is even good enough to get my recommendation.

The film takes place at a little hotel in the middle of nowhere. The filmmakers successfully made the rooms feel claustrophobic for me. I felt as trapped as Wilson and Beckinsale did.

Minuses. While much of the film was suspenseful and scary, a few of the climatic scenes were anti-climatic. Stabbings weren’t the chilling events they were meant to be. The anticipation of the stabbings and confrontations was when the real nailbiting occurred.

Some of the horror movie clichés are there. People who should of died the first time rise again. Protagonists seek darkness as cover. Killers wear masks and dark clothes. People split up. And so on and so on.

Then there is that awkward attempt at the beginning of the film to make Wilson and Beckinsale more than you average horror movie victims. I think the filmmakers succeeded in spite of the attempt, but it can’t be chalked up to the writing, acting, or direction of those conversations.

Frank Whaley also seemed to be a bit zanier than I want my villains to be. I think back to the menacing Rusty Nail from the movie Joy Ride. That guy meant business. Whaley is just too over the top to be put in the same category as other villains from more successfully constructed films. His killer pals were far more effective.

The film doesn't seem like the type of film that can maintain its quality over the course of repeated viewings, so once is probably enough for anybody.

So, the thrill of the chills was plentiful enough to get a solid recommendation from me. Just don’t expect any real substance even when it’s forced on you.

***