Unstoppable

Directed by Tony Scott.
2010. Rated PG-13, 98 minutes.
Cast:
Denzel Washington
Chris Pine
Rosario Dawson
Kevin Dunn
Ethan Suplee
Kevin Corrigan
Lew Temple
Jessy Schram
Dylan Bruce

It’s Will Colson’s (Pine) first day on the job with the railroad company. He’s assigned to train under the tutelage of Frank Barnes (Washington). Barnes and the other vets are more than a little ticked they’re all being phased out in favor of youngsters like Colson. Will gets a double-dose of hateration because he’s got some family connections with the company. However, these two guys are just a subplot.

Our primary tale is about train 777, or Triple 7 as it’s sometimes called. It begins with a bumbling idiot simply failing at his job. Suffice it to say, the train gets away from him. Of course, it slips into the full throttle position. This means the unmanned locomotive with enough cars to be “the size of the Chrysler Building” is barreling down the tracks at 70+ miles per hour. As if that weren’t bad enough, many of the cars contain toxic and presumably highly flammable and combustible materials. If the train reaches the heavily populated Stanton it’s sure to fly off the tracks due to it going way too fast to make it through the elevated curve that has a speed limit of 15 mph. Attempts to stop this particularly dangerous runaway ensue.

To both the movie’s credit and detriment, it remains just that simple. We get to know a bit about the personal problems of our heroes, Frank and Will. There’s also the back and between Connie (Dawson), who runs the railroad and her boss back at HQ, Galvin (Dunn), but that’s all about the train. This makes Unstoppable remarkably free of clutter and effective at being exactly what it wants to be: a popcorn flick featuring a train.

However, since it is so committed to the action, we never really meet the loved ones of our heroes that we hear so much about and see so much of. Throughout the film, there are plenty of shots of them and they get a few lines here and there, but that’s it. They qualify as characters only in the strictest sense of the word.

Between scenes of our train raging out of control, the dialogue is surprisingly solid for a popcorn movie. It’s not terribly original, but the actors give it plenty of life. Pine and Washington play off one another well with Denzel playing the sort of wise old man usually portrayed by Morgan Freeman. Rosario Dawson turns in a stock performance. Since average for her is better than most, there are no problems there.

Unstoppable is a solid action flick that manages not to do anything egregiously wrong. Well, if you’re even remotely paying attention you should be able to spot one major movie gaffe (unless I saw it wrong). Other than that, it rather efficiently goes about its business. It’s a nice diversion of a movie, but nothing earth-shatteringly special.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

Big Fan

Directed by Robert D. Siegel.
2009. Rated R, 86 minutes.
Cast:
Patton Oswalt
Kevin Corrigan
Michael Rapaport
Marcia Jean Kurtz
Gino Cafarelli
Matt Servitto
Serafina Fiore
Polly Humphreys
Jonathan Hamm

Plot: Paul (Oswalt) is a die-hard New York Giants football fan. He eats, sleeps and drinks "G-Men". What will he do after he is beaten up by Quantrell Bishop (Hamm), his favorite player on his favorite team?

The Good: Director Robert D. Siegel does the impossible and gives us an original movie - one dealing with sports, no less. In fact, I'd hesitate to actually call it a sports movie. It's more of a sports fan movie. Instead of focusing on a player, team or coach and working up to "the big game," we walk with an ordinary joe who lives to support his team. That fan, Paul, is portrayed brilliantly and without a hint of sarcasm by Patton Oswalt. That last part is important because Paul could've easily become a comic figure and sank the movie. Through a skillfully ambiguous ending, we're not sure whether to feel happy or sad for him even though he is inexplicably happy. By the way, that's not a spoiler. You have to see it to know what I'm talking about. As Paul's mom, Marcia Jean Kurtz is not only a riot but a constant reminder of how pathetic her son truly is.

The Bad: While Paul is supposed to be a sad case, the movie took the easiest route to that destination by utilizing stereotypes. In this case it's that a guy who's passionate about his team and likes to call the sports radio shows he listens to has to be child-like in all areas of life. Paul is so much so, it's nearly to the point of retardation. His buddy Sal (Corrigan) is similar. However, I wanted more from Sal. We can guess, but are never really sure how he feels about all that's going on. It's especially important since Sal is actually present when Paul is beaten. And what happens with what Paul's brother, Jeff (Cafarelli), is trying to do for him?

The Ugly: Whether you find her attractive or not, former (current?) porn-star Serafina Fiore as Paul's sister-in-law Gina has an unbelievably distracting appearance.

Recommendation: While it's an excellent movie, it's hard to recommend because it's a bit of a downer. It's doubly so for someone like me who is actually a Giants fan and likes to listen to sports talk radio. That said, definitely see this if you want to see a drama that's sports related but still has a unique vision. Just don't go looking for any actual sports scenes because there are none.


MY SCORE: 9/10

Double Indemnity

Directed by Billy Wilder
1944. Not Rated, 108 minutes.
Cast:
Fred MacMurray
Barbara Stanwyck
Edward G. Robinson
Jean Heather

An insurance agent (MacMurray) falls in love with the wife of a client (Stanwyck). The two then hatch a plan to kill her husband so they can collect the insurance money and be together. This is Film Noir 101. All of the elements of the genre: the narration, dame that gets ultra-cool guy in hot water, murder and slick slang are not only present but have seldom, if ever, been done better. The dialogue is insanely sharp, filled with sexual innuendo, humor and thoughtfulness at appropriate times. The story keeps you on your toes, introducing elements that subtly change your idea of what you think will happen up until right before the climax. At that point, our hero tells you what's going to happen, or at least what he plans on, and instead of it being a let down it intrigues us even more because we've seen how his plans have worked out so far. MacMurray and Stanwyck are both marvelous in the lead roles and have great chemistry with one another. Robinson, not getting top billing for the first time in a career which was starting to wane by this point, conveys a fierce determination the couple in question must fear. He does so with one of his more subdued, but no less excellent performances. Any fans of film noir, or film buffs in general, must see this movie. This is the movie most recent efforts of the genre take their cues from, even something so over the top as Sin City or as experimental as the underappreciated Brick.

Harry Brown

Directed by Daniel Barber.

2009. Rated R, 103 minutes.
Cast:
Michael Caine
Emily Mortimer
Charlie Creed-Miles
David Bradley
Ben Drew
Sean Harris
Iain Glen
Jack O’Connell

Harry Brown (Caine) is having a tough go of it. He spends his days at the side of his long-time wife’s hospital bed. She doesn’t even know he’s there. At night, he medicates himself with a few beers and a game of chess with Leonard (Bradley). Though Leonard is his only friend, it’s not the greatest company. Leonard spends most of their time together complaining about the young thugs that have overrun his neighborhood and his run-ins with them.

Shortly, Harry’s wife passes away and Leonard goes and gets himself killed. Harry copes by really getting sloshed. On the way home from the pub, Harry walks everywhere by the way, one of the hooligans Harry thinks was involved in Leonard’s murder tries to mug him at knife point. This apparently re-ignites whatever it is in Harry’s past he refuses to speak of on several occasions. Harry going vigilante ensues.

Obviously, two questions arise. First, will Harry be able to wipe out all the riff-raff in the hood? Second, will he be caught? Well, since the movie holds no real surprises in that area, the question then becomes how does the movie go about its business? The answer to that begins with the star, Michael Caine.

Caine has long been a brilliant actor. He doesn’t disappoint, here. His Harry is a weary old man with a dark past whose world is crumbling around him. On top of everything else gone wrong in his life, he has to take the long way around in his travels to avoid the knuckleheads. That’s how the role is written. The magic of Michael Caine is he makes us feel it. He’s perfect, as usual.

HB is also graphically violent, and for a short time sexually also, in a good way. It creates a hyper-realistic world that doesn’t pull any punches when it comes to depicting who these people are. Neatly, it turns the trick of not having any of these moments fell like they’re just for effect. Of course, this brilliantly gives it an unsettling effect.

There are issues, though. First, and foremost, it’s formulaic. As I wrote earlier, there are no real surprises except for one out of left-field character development. The only big difference between this and any other vigilante movie is the age of our hero. That would be enough if it explored that angle better. Instead of us getting to know more about the mysterious old chap, particularly about his time in the Marines and how that has affected him, which it obviously has, his age is merely a plot device that plays into the action. It works for that purpose but isn’t as satisfying a factor as it should be. This plagues the entire movie. Things are brought up as if their depths are about to be plumbed, yet time and again the movie is content to skim the surface.

Overall, it’s a solid watch that Michael Caine makes better than it has any right to be. He’s worth the price of admission because he is so undeniably believable. He alone, is not enough to make HB anything more than decent. That’s because you’ve seen this movie before. Think of it as Death Wish for senior citizens.

Tokyo Gore Police

Directed by Yoshihiro Nishimura.
2008. Not Rated, 110 minutes.
Cast:
Eihi Shiina
Itsuji Itao
Yukihide Benny
Jiji Bû
Ikuko Sawada
Cay Izumi
Mame Yamada

Sometimes you read the title of a movie and know you’re in for a wild ride. When your suspicions are confirmed within the first two minutes, you have a decision to make. Do you hit the stop button and end the madness now? Or do you subject yourself to what you know will be completely bonkers. If you keep going, you do so echoing the sentiments of legendary basketball coach Bobby Knight: if being raped is inevitable, you might as well enjoy it.

Okay, it’s not even remotely close to rape. However, it is something most normal people wouldn’t call entertainment. Note that I’ve never once claimed to be normal. What it is, is arguably one of the most ridiculous and without queston the most ridiculously bloody movie I’ve sat through. I don’t mean bloody like the English might say. I mean just plain old bloody. The slightest laceration sets off a geyser of bodily fluid. It literally sprays in all directions, by the gallon. It even seems to be raining blood in one scene.

There is a story, here. At some point in the future Tokyo’s police force has been privatized much like Detroit’s in Robocop. In general, crime in Tokyo isn’t nearly as widespread. Instead, most of the PD’s efforts concentrates on catching and killing “Engineers”. No, we’re not talking about any type of engineer you’ve ever heard of. Here, Engineers are a special breed of criminal. They basically try to kill anyone they come into contact with and keep killing until they themselves are dead. They’re not easy to kill. When wounded, whatever part of them has suffered the damage transforms into some sort of weapon. For instance, when the first Engineer we meet loses his arm, it grows back with a chainsaw attached. Seriously. And you’ll just have to see for yourself what happens when one guy’s penis is bitten off. Yup, I said bitten off. You did notice that this movie isn’t rated, right?

We focus on Ruka (Shiina). She’s the best “Engineer Hunter”. It stands to reason she’s so good at her job because she likes killing. Just ask that poor guy on the subway train. I would tell you what happens there, but that would deprive you of the joy of being surprised. You see that? I wrote that like you might actually watch it. Go ahead. I dare you.

If that’s not enough incentive then think about some of the other visuals you’re missing out on. There’s the woman who’s lower half transforms into what resembles an alligator’s head, the guy who pulls the skin off the top half of his own head, the woman stuffed in the cardboard box that’s only big enough for a few of my kid’s toys. Actually, she’s not stuffed at all, but piled there. Yeah, you kinda have to see it to understand. Believe it, or not, I left a lot out.

Bringing this out of the constant stream of gross-out moments for a minute, there is an interesting dynamic to the writing. Again borrowing from Robocop and even a little from The Warriors, TGP uses a string of wacky commercials and a hyped up dispatch lady to not only provide comic relief but also creates an element of satire that runs through the film. Whether or not it is sharp social commentary I probably need to know a lot more about contemporary Japanese culture to say. Some of it is universal and works just fine.

If you’re looking for something totally outrageous, this is the movie for you. It’s live-action anime with one visual after another you may never forget. I’ve read reviews that say this movie isn’t good or bad but exactly what it tries to be: perverse, bizarre, gory, silly and a number of other adjectives. I prefer to say it the way you’re used to me saying. It’s so bad, it’s awesome!

MY SCORE -10/10

True Romance

Directed by Tony Scott.
1993. Rated R, 120 minutes.
Cast:
Christian Slater
Patricia Arquette
Gary Oldman
Christopher Walken
James Gandolfini
Dennis Hopper
Bronson Pinchot
Brad Pitt
Michael Rapaport
Saul Rubinek
Samuel L. Jackson
Sarah Silverman

The setup is nearly too unbelievable for words. Since words are all I have, I’ll just tell you what happens and let you make of it what you will. Clarence (Slater) is a loner who has way too much love for Elvis Presley and decides to spend the night of his birthday alone in a theater showing a triple feature of all three of Sonny Chiba’s Street Fighter movies. While there, he meets the beautiful Alabama (Arquette). The two hit it off, he shows her the comic book shop where he works and spends a good deal of his off time. They end up making love in his hole-in-the-wall apartment. In the wee hours of the same night she admits to him she’s a call-girl that was hired by his boss who wanted to make sure his top employee got laid for his birthday. She also admits that what started as an act became genuine and she is truly in love with him. Not the least bit upset about any of this because he had a great time, he admits that he’s also in love with her. Clearly, he needs to get out more. Then again, even if he had he might never meet another girl who’s not only into martial arts flicks but is really interested in his endless pontification on all the things in pop-culture he’s passionate about. Anyhoo, our two lovebirds get up first thing in the morning, head to the Justice of the Peace and get hitched. Um…yeah, I guess.

I’m with you. It plays like a geek’s wet dream come true. It’s the ultimate affirmation for those of us who tend to spend too much time in fantasy land. Keep immersing yourself in the alternate reality of your choice, without compromise and sex with beautiful women will miraculously (immaculately?) occur because you’re just that cool. Before any of you geek gods try to strike me down with the bolt of lightning you acquired from the roll of a twenty-sided die, spare me. I’ve been called a geek more than once by people who actually know me. Luckily for you strangers, my ridiculously sexy exterior conceals the analytically superior processor within my skull. Oh, wait…you wanna read about the movie, don’t you?

The reason the open plays like a fanboy’s fantasy is because, essentially, that’s what it is. For those unaware, this was written by a then video store clerk, still pop-culture and b-movie enthusiast named Quentin Tarantino. An opening like this only makes perfect sense.

Enough of this. I’ve spent way too much time on the first fifteen minutes of the movie. The truth is, even though we’ve got a flimsy basis for love, the rest of the film absolutely sizzles. In no way is this a conventional love story. All you really need to know to prove that is that what sets the story in motion is that Clarence's stupidity…er…bravery causes him to try and get Alabama’s things from her pimp, Drexel (Oldman). That’s former pimp, unbeknownst to Drexel. Bada-boom, bada-bing Clarence accidentally ends up with a suitcase full of cocaine and our loving couple goes on the run from the people it belongs to.

Like the best of Tarantino what makes the movie is not the plot but the situations the plot puts the characters in. The more tense the situation, the better the writing is a general Tarantino rule and it applies here. These moments are deliciously outrageous, violent and often clever. This is what drives the movie, makes it a thrilling watch.

The other major factor in making it a good movie are the characters. Really, most of them aren’t well developed. What they are is purpose driven, extreme and totally willing to say whatever comes to mind. Many of them are people we love to hate. Filling these roles is a superb cast that delivers every line perfectly. Stealing the show, however, are two guys who were relative newcomers at the time, James Gandolfini and Brad Pitt. Pitt plays a great stoner and Gandolfini is flat scary.

To his credit, director Tony Scott seems to stay out of the way of the screenplay. It doesn’t feel like his other movies. It’s less him, but in this case that works out well. It does, in fact, feel like a Tarantino movie except it doesn’t bounce around the timeline the way most of his self-directed films tend to. That said, atop what seems to be a faulty foundation an excellent movie is built.

MY SCORE: 8.5/10

35 Shots of Rum

Directed by Claire Denis.
2009. Not Rated, 102 minutes.
Cast:
Alex Descas
Mati Diop
Nicole Dogue
Grégoire Colin
Jean-Christophe Folly
Djédjé Apali
Eriq Ebouaney
Julieth Mars Toussaint

You know what they say about us Americans who like watching foreign films? We think we’re smarter and more sophisticated than the rest of you. Along comes a movie like 35 Shots of Rum to remind me I might not be as artsy-fartsy as I’d like to think. I’ll explain.

It’s subtly written and filmed likewise. Of the movie’s 102 minutes of runtime, roughly 100 of them are very quiet. It’s beautifully acted, also subtly. It is so subtle the characters really do feel like actual people. There really is no plot to speak of so it plays like a true slice of life type of film. It’s even in French. It’s arthouse in every sense of the word. Yet, I was bored to tears and pissed off about the ambiguous ending. That last bit is most surprising. If you’ve been paying attention, you know I generally love those types of endings. Usually, the more questions I’m left with, the better. Here, not so much.

What is 35 Shots about? To be honest, I’m still not sure. We spend lots of time with Lionel (Descas) and Joséphine (Diop), a father and daughter who share an apartment. He works as a train conductor and goes out drinking with his buddies from work every now and then. She goes to college, does housework and occasionally works at a Virgin music store. I didn’t know they still had those. No, it’s not set in the past, either. I know this because the very whiny René is given an I-Pod as a retirement gift. Anyhoo, Joséphine seems to have a thing for Noé (Colin), the guy who lives in the apartment upstairs. There is also Gabrielle (Dogue), the cab driver who lives in the apartment next door. She seems to have been carrying a torch for Lionel since she learned to walk. The feeling isn’t really mutual. He likes her, he just doesn’t like like her. Oh, and there’s whiny René. He pops up every five or ten minutes to…um…whine…until he eventually does what I knew he would the first time he opened mouth.

Why was I bored? It was far too realistic. I realize that’s an odd complaint to make, but hear me out. If someone stuck a camera in most of our homes and just observed our true dailyu lives without forcing us to vote someone out, compete for a prize or give us random tasks and jobs to prove our worth, most of the viewing public would be hard-pressed to be entertained. In movies about families, dramatic devices occur at fairly regular intervals to advance the plot and/or add intrigue. Personalities are exaggerated to create sympathy, empathy, heroes and villains. In 35 Shots, it feels as if we’re watching reality without the TV. There are no votes, hypersexual tension or grand prize. These people go through their mundane existence in a mundane manner.

It takes courage and patience to make a movie like this but it lacks the magic to make its players transcend the screen. What passes for a romance feels disjointed and barren of hope until it is hastily resolved. The resolution, however, feels unreal and out of very deep left field. For all of the movie, we’re watching what seems to be everyday of their lives from the time we meet them and then, we suddenly fast-forward to a conclusion.

The 35 shots in the title is perhaps most perplexing. About midway through, we learn that Lionel either celebrates or rues a major event in his life, we’re not sure which, by downing 35 consecutive shots of rum. If he’s able to walk the next day I’d be shocked, but I digress. We’re told there is a story behind this ritual that he won’t tell at this time. This comes up again at the end of the film. Sadly, without having seen it you know as much as I about the significance of this practice. Justifying alcoholism? Probably not. If any of you brainiacs has happened to watch this movie, feel free to enlighten me.

This is a difficult film for me, if you couldn’t already tell. The writing is lyrical and sparse. People have conversations without saying a whole lot. Their pauses aren’t pregnant with the possibility of an earth-shattering revelation in the next sentence. They’re just pauses. There are no complaints to be made about any performance here. Many of the elements critics are thrilled by are present. Still, it doesn’t add up to winning cinema, for me. In my eyes, the whole equals much less than the sum of its parts.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10