Taken 3 is the third and final(?) installment of the Taken trilogy. I was slightly surprised we didn't get Taken 3 part 1.
A
couple years back Bill Maher made a joke that now all of Liam Neeson's
films should simply be called "I will Hunt You Down and Kill You." It's
funny, but basically true. I have enjoyed Liam's transformation into the
thinking mans action hero of late. Being the capable actor he is, he
tends to lend a little more depth to a typical action character, and
sells being a very capable combatant.
And now, Taken 3. In this
film we see Neeson's character Bryan Mills in much more of a defensive
position, then in the previous Taken films were he was in a decidedly
more offensive situation. After the death of his ex-wife, Mills is
framed for her murder, and must find the real killer to avenger her,
keep his daughter safe, and clear his name. Obviously he is on the run
mainly instead of being in pursuit. While the character is still
interesting, this change takes a little of the intellect, and strategy
out of the character. He still stays a step ahead of the police, and
tracks down the bad guy, but in general he just seems a little flatter
then in the previous films. It is nice to see him enlist the help of
some of his buddies, but they clearly wanted to keep it the Liam show so
their help is minimal. I was excited to see what Forest Whitaker would
bring to the film, unfortunately his character was left some what two
dimensional, and in general just served to move the plot along.
In
the previous films, especially Taken 2 the camera work was frantic, and
did a good job of pulling you into the mayhem. In 3 however I felt the
camera work was more tame, and kept you purely as a view rather then
drawing you into the action. This is not meant to be a fault, just
pointing out what I believe to be a stylistic change.
This may
sound like I didn't like the film, which isn't true. I enjoyed it, and
found it to be a perfectly capable action film. However it doesn't
hit the same highs the previous films did. I would watch it
again though.
High Points:
Liam Neeson kicking ass. Excellent use of a
Porsche verse a jet plane. Bryan Mills is still a cut above many other
action hero's.
Low Points:
Ok, in movies I know you have to suspend
disbelief, but some times the line is crossed to a point that it makes
me yell at the screen. Depicting a modern police car having no barrier
between the back seats and front of the car made me scream. You can't
find a taxi cab these days that doesn't have a cage or bullet proof
glass between the seats let alone a police cruiser. Come on! Forest
Whitaker is wasted on a less then fully developed character.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Saturday, January 10, 2015
The Gambler
The Gambler, Rupert Wyatt's latest was much more than I was expecting. Considering how often I come away from a film feeling like I got less than I expected, or less than was promised, it was a welcome surprise to be treated to such a deep, relatable, intelligent character. Mark Whalberg's portrayal of Jim Bennet, our desperate hero, was spot on. The Gambler did suffer from a problem a lot of movies these days: a marketing campaign so removed from the film itself that you went into a film expecting a completely different film. Other films that come to mind that I think have suffered from this recently include Non-Stop and The Equalizer, both much more nuanced and intelligent than the one-dimensional action flicks I expected from the marketing campaigns.
I did not expect brooding, french-inspired, existential angst. Don't get me wrong, this was definitely a Hollywood film. Instead of the tired Hollywood version of existential crisis that has nothing to offer but navel-gazing ennui and anxiety, it put our hero on a path of self-destruction that was blinding, and brilliant, and unrelenting in the face of everything. Those moments in a film when your hero fails to do the reasonable thing, instead sticking to some internal moral code, that make you cheer and throw your hands up in exasperation at the same time? That was this film from beginning to end, and the character's code was "fuck it."
I haven't seen the 1974 version of this film, but am eager to see if they hit the same points in the same way. From what I've seen online, it looks like the 1974 Gambler was actually about gambling, whereas the 2014 Gambler is decidedly not a film about gambling.
High Points:
The supoorting cast holds this film together. While Whalberg is great, his character is too detached to spend the entire film with. His detachment is balanced out by the supporting characters' earnestness and concern. Jessica Lange's cold but sincere Roberta (Bennet's mother), and John Goodman's dark and greedy, but well-intentioned Frank both stand out, but the heart of the movie is held by newcomer Anthony Kelley whose charming college basketball star makes us all want to hope for greatness in this dark, desperate terrain.
Low Points:
The film should have ended exactly two shots earlier. Staying spoiler free, I will just say that it was disappointing that the film, after treating us like adults the whole way through, gave in to lowest-common denominator thinking at the end and stooped to wrapping up lines with pretty bows rather than leaving us with the more powerful imagery.
Bonus Points:
"Fuck You."
I did not expect brooding, french-inspired, existential angst. Don't get me wrong, this was definitely a Hollywood film. Instead of the tired Hollywood version of existential crisis that has nothing to offer but navel-gazing ennui and anxiety, it put our hero on a path of self-destruction that was blinding, and brilliant, and unrelenting in the face of everything. Those moments in a film when your hero fails to do the reasonable thing, instead sticking to some internal moral code, that make you cheer and throw your hands up in exasperation at the same time? That was this film from beginning to end, and the character's code was "fuck it."
I haven't seen the 1974 version of this film, but am eager to see if they hit the same points in the same way. From what I've seen online, it looks like the 1974 Gambler was actually about gambling, whereas the 2014 Gambler is decidedly not a film about gambling.
High Points:
The supoorting cast holds this film together. While Whalberg is great, his character is too detached to spend the entire film with. His detachment is balanced out by the supporting characters' earnestness and concern. Jessica Lange's cold but sincere Roberta (Bennet's mother), and John Goodman's dark and greedy, but well-intentioned Frank both stand out, but the heart of the movie is held by newcomer Anthony Kelley whose charming college basketball star makes us all want to hope for greatness in this dark, desperate terrain.
Low Points:
The film should have ended exactly two shots earlier. Staying spoiler free, I will just say that it was disappointing that the film, after treating us like adults the whole way through, gave in to lowest-common denominator thinking at the end and stooped to wrapping up lines with pretty bows rather than leaving us with the more powerful imagery.
Bonus Points:
"Fuck You."
Friday, January 2, 2015
Fury
Last night we watched Fury, the gritty WWII film from David Ayer, staring Brad Pitt. We were very impressed and then...very, very disappointed.
We went into watching this movie saying "I remember when this cam out, but then I never heard anything about it." For the first 2/3 of the film, we were still wondering why this movie hadn't received heaps of praise. The realism of the war-torn German countryside is stark and unsentimental. There are some wonderful performances in this film, and some moments that highlight those performances beautifully. Brad Pitt is excellent, Percy Jackson's Logan Lerman does a decent turn as the innocent Norman Ellison, Michael Peña was good, as always. I was particularly impressed by Shia LaBeouf, and Jay kept saying over and over again how great Jon Bernthal was.
The most impressive thing about this film, though, is the way the tank serves as the sixth character on the 5 man team. The choreography of the battle sequences using the tank is orchestrated in a way that puts the tank at the center of the action. The action is intense, even when the pacing is (realistically) slow.
And then...
...the film falls apart so fast you are left with vertigo. Without giving away any major developments, I can say the perfect, gritty, realism that Ayer excels at, and spent so much time establishing at the beginning, falls apart in the face of trite the-action-is-simply-on-hold-until-we-get-our-heartfelt-speeches-completed and we'll-just-skip-over-logic-in-order-to-manufacture-forced-tension Hollywood schmaltz. I don't think it would have been nearly as disappointing if the beginning of the film hadn't been so good. The final battle, though, was one poorly-written sequence after another.
High Points:
In one sequence in particular, Pitt's character holds court in a small apartment in war-torn German town. The character goes from being the most brutal thing in a delicate situation to the most humane thing in a brutal situation without changing. It's a striking moment of filmmaking that demonstrates how situation and perspective color our understanding of character.
Low Points:
The third act of this film fell apart so spectacularly that we spent the entire time screaming "What?!" and "Come on!" at the screen.
Bonus Points:
Shia LaBeouf, as "Bible" proves that he is still an actor that can construct a complex and compelling character.
We went into watching this movie saying "I remember when this cam out, but then I never heard anything about it." For the first 2/3 of the film, we were still wondering why this movie hadn't received heaps of praise. The realism of the war-torn German countryside is stark and unsentimental. There are some wonderful performances in this film, and some moments that highlight those performances beautifully. Brad Pitt is excellent, Percy Jackson's Logan Lerman does a decent turn as the innocent Norman Ellison, Michael Peña was good, as always. I was particularly impressed by Shia LaBeouf, and Jay kept saying over and over again how great Jon Bernthal was.
The most impressive thing about this film, though, is the way the tank serves as the sixth character on the 5 man team. The choreography of the battle sequences using the tank is orchestrated in a way that puts the tank at the center of the action. The action is intense, even when the pacing is (realistically) slow.
And then...
...the film falls apart so fast you are left with vertigo. Without giving away any major developments, I can say the perfect, gritty, realism that Ayer excels at, and spent so much time establishing at the beginning, falls apart in the face of trite the-action-is-simply-on-hold-until-we-get-our-heartfelt-speeches-completed and we'll-just-skip-over-logic-in-order-to-manufacture-forced-tension Hollywood schmaltz. I don't think it would have been nearly as disappointing if the beginning of the film hadn't been so good. The final battle, though, was one poorly-written sequence after another.
High Points:
In one sequence in particular, Pitt's character holds court in a small apartment in war-torn German town. The character goes from being the most brutal thing in a delicate situation to the most humane thing in a brutal situation without changing. It's a striking moment of filmmaking that demonstrates how situation and perspective color our understanding of character.
Low Points:
The third act of this film fell apart so spectacularly that we spent the entire time screaming "What?!" and "Come on!" at the screen.
Bonus Points:
Shia LaBeouf, as "Bible" proves that he is still an actor that can construct a complex and compelling character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)