Nearly A-bad-don

So, a while ago, this guy at work gave my Abandon.  He said it was a great movie and I would like it.  Now, I knew this guy didn't know movies -- no more evidence was needed than he gave me the Fullscreen version of the film.  Unless you have no other choice, you don't buy the Fullscreen version.  Anyhow, last night I finally got around to seeing the movie. 


So, firstly, let me just say that I was sitting there watching the movie and I was saying to myself "the only way this movie could be redeemed is if this happens."  Luckily, what I thought should happen, actually happened.  So that's good, at least.  Let me tell you something though: if what I thought should happen didn't happen, then this movie is a bunch of garbage.  


So, the story goes that Benjamin Bratt's character is assigned a missing person's for this artsy-fartsy guy from a local college (think of one of those pompous windbags who does head-scratching artistic stuff that makes no sense and thinks he's better than anyone else) and Katie Holmes was his girlfriend at the time of his disappearance. As the investigation goes on, Katie starts seeing him everywhere and he begins to menace her. Meanwhile, her and Ben are starting something up.  Now, before the twist, I was seriously disliking the movie. Katie Holmes was either acting bad or her character just sucked.  Likewise, the missing person was a douche and I couldn't imagine anyone caring if he was found, other than the fact he was rich.  All this was ironed out with the ending, so I'll let it pass, but there are some things I won't. 


Firstly, Katie Holmes' friends, led by Zooey Deschanel.  What is their purpose other than being annoying?  Seriously, I could have done with all of them being massacred by Jason Vorhees, they were that annoying. Secondly, the relationship between Katie and Ben, too contrived and too forced.  The director/screenwriter said that their chemistry was undeniable but I am denying it, large.  They had no chemistry and it didn't work.  Thirdly, and this isn't giving anything away, but Katie's character has abandonment issues with men.  Hence the title.  So, along comes Gabriel Mann (Nolan from TV's Revenge) and he's a nice, normal, stable guy who happens to love Katie but she doesn't return his love.  If a woman has abandonment issues, does it not stand to reason that she would go with the nice, safe, stable guy who wouldn't leave her because he got tired of her?  That just didn't make sense to me. 


Overall, this is a movie that needs 2 viewings -- one to get the bad taste out of your mouth on some of the stuff going on in the film and then the 2nd one to watch it with the understanding of how the movie ended.  For people who don't know much about film, this movie will probably rock your world.  For those of us that do, you will probably call the twist well in advance and while the movie isn't terrible, it's not that great.  Any movie that needs to be elevated by a twist at the end is not good writing -- it's just trying to hide how mediocre the rest of the plot is. 


Rating: a very generous 3 out of 5. 


- Stephenstein

James Bond, I mean, Evelyn Salt

My title for this could have been so obvious. "Pass the Salt", "Salty fare", "Salt and Pepper". Really, it was too easy, but I wanted to use a title that represented this movie. She doesn't have the gadgets, the Aston Martin, Q, or anything like that (then again, neither does James Bond these days), but for all intensive purposes, Angelina Jolie is James Bond in this flick, at least in the amount of fighting, death-defying stunts, and always seeming to know what to do. She's a one-woman army, and she is taking no prisoners, at all.

Is Salt a Russian spy as is suggested in the trailer? I'm not going to give it away here, but let me jsut say, it doesn't really matter whether she is or not. What matters is what she's going to do next, and how she's going to do it. What matters is her end result motives. I will say, I was surprised at how little dialogue is in this movie, especially when it gets going. There was a good chunk of time when Angie didn't utter one word. Why? Because of all the frickin' action going on! Kurt Wimmer wrote this movie, and if you know his work (Equilibrium, Ultraviolet), you know he loves his action, as implausible as it might seem at times.

So, what about the action? Well, the director is Phillip Noyce, who brought us Blind Fury, and the Patriot Games/Clear and Present Danger movies (as well as Dead Calm, The Saint, and The Bone Collector), so he should know a little bit more about filming action than the rest. Is the action viewable? ......to me, it's a hybrid. Sometimes it seems really fast, and shaky, but I can see pretty much everything, though not quite as well as I like. It's hard to describe. It's like, they're chasing Salt, and the camera seems to be vibrating, but I can see what's going on. The fights...I can see I would say 90-95 percent of the hits...which is unfortunate, considering I want to see 100 percent of the hits!

The storyline is okay, nothing you haven't see before. I would not say there was anything in there that surprised me, and everything I pretty much called right away. They do try and swerve you a bit with the story, but I've seen too many movies to this point to be swayed by red herrings and the such. That's not to say the story is bad or anything, I was right there to the end with Salt, so it wasn't as if I was zoning out or anything. It's a pretty good espionage flick, with lots going on, so it should keep everyone entertained, at least.

So, that's Salt. See it in the theatre, and buckle in, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Rating 4 out of 5 stars.

- Stephenstein

I dream of Leo

I know some people who read this blog have not seen the movie yet, so I have no intention of giving anything away. There's enough spoilers bouncing around the internet without adding to it. So, the big question is, is it good?

Well, other than Insomnia, all of Christopher Nolan's movies have been solid (at least the ones I've seen...I haven't seen Following, yet). With apologies to the rabid Dark Knight crowd, my favourite Chris Nolan film is still Memento. The concept behind this movie is just awesome, as was the acting, and the story, and the plot, and how it was shot and edited. It's the total package. All preceding films have been damn good, but I've had small nitpicky problems with it.

Inception fits into this category. Look, this film is well-written, with an awesome concept, and it is professionally executed by the all-star cast. Nolan never gets cheated on his production values. The movie looks great, and it's engrossing. It's not the sort of film too, where you can duck out for a leak. You need to pay attention.

That being said, there are a few tiny problems. I'm sure there's logistical flaws in the story (thought nothing comes immediately to mind, one of the astute readers/contributors to this blog will find one, I'm sure), and the problem is, Nolan makes "realistic" films with fantastical twists. He tries to make fantasy realistic, and that doesn't always work. Also, there's some extraneous shots, and everyone who sees the movie will know what I'm talking about, that is supposed to build suspense. There is no suspense, though. It's really well-written, but it's not what I would call unpredictable. Everything that you guess will happen, does happen. That doesn't mean it's bad, it's just trying to add suspense for suspense sake. It doesn't really matter. I also have another problem, that I won't address in this blog, but after you see the movie, I will tell you personally.

So, that's it. It's a really good concept-driven movie, that delivers exactly what you expect, and hope it does. Like I said, I don't want to give anything more away, so see it yourselves, and tell me what you think.

I bid thee a fond inception.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

- Stephenstein

It's only paranoia if they're not really after you

Shutter Island. What can I say? If you want a movie that leaves you sitting there for most of the picture saying "What in the blue HELL is going on here?", then this film is for you. If you're not that sort of person, then stay away.

While I was watching this film, there was only 2 alternatives about what was going to happen. I'm not going to tell you what the alternatives are, because that will give away the ending to this movie, and most of what is good with this movie has to do with the ending. Scorsese plants a few clues to what this ending is in the film, but you really have to know what you're looking for in order to spot them.

So, DiCaprio and Ruffalo are up on Shutter Island (think Alcatraz, only in Boston Harbour instead of the San Francisco Bay), and all sorts of weird things start to happen. What the trailer misleads is that DiCaprio was not aware of how weird Shutter Island is. He is aware...in fact, he's on a mission that has nothing to do with his investigation. Once again, I refuse to give away this mission, because hey, isn't it awesome enough that he has a pre-determined purpose instead of just stumbling across something?

Anyhow, this film has the look and feel of Cape Fear, probably the last thriller Scorsese made before this movie. There's a lot of moodiness, bad weather, dark tunnels, water dripping, stylistic music cues, and just overall a rich atmosphere. I will say this for filmmakers today, I'm not impressed with a lot of what they come up with, but atmosphere doesn't seem to be a problem. The atmosphere is just really well done in this film, and it's obviously fairly early that Shutter Island is not easy to leave.

So, how did I feel about the ending? I'm a little half-and-half on it. While, as I said there was only one real alternative for the movie, the thing is that with either possible ending, you're going to leave someone unsatisfied. That bothers me a bit, as I feel that an ending should really suit the story; a great ending is not something that could be argued about (a perfect case is The Usual Suspects, in my opinion), but with this one, I feel that people could be pissed off with either possible ending, which raises some questions, doesn't it?

I did like the film, though. I like DiCaprio, I liked the atmosphere, and I did like trying to figure out what was going on. It's not a movie that I'm going to rave about how good it is, but I will say it's pretty solid, and worth checking out, if you're curious.

On a slight side note, there were these 2 younger girls sitting right beside me, and they kept laughing through this film, presumably at the mental illness portrayed in the film. Isn't it a nice state of affairs that someone with mental illness is the object of ridicule by the youth of our society? Then again, the youth of our society is 99 percent expendable anyway, so I wonder if they would find that funny? I do.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

I bid thee a fond goodnight.

- Stephenstein

Get yourself armored

Armored. Doesn't the title sound cool? Like, "I'm going to get all armored, and then we'll see who is laughing at who for bed-wetting!" Not me. I don't wet the bed. Any more. Anyhow, the movie hooked me because of the insane amount of "we're not really headline stars, but we're known" actors in this movie. Matt Dillon. Laurence Fishburne. Jean Reno. Skeet Ulrich (that's right...Skeet...Ulrich), Milo V. (I refuse to spell his last name, as I don't really know how to spell it, but you know, he's Rocky's kid in Rocky Balboa).

Overall, this movie was solid, if unspectacular. Basically, it's about a guy, Ty Hackett (Columbus Short) refusing to give in his principles, even when there is overwhelming reasons for him to. His folks died, he's got two mortgages on his home, there's a stack of hospital bills, Child Welfare wants to take his little brother away from him, because he's skipping school, because the little brother is looking for a job to help support him and Ty...and all Matt Dillon and his guys want to do is take a little bit of money ($42 million worth), to help him and his family out...and themselves, of course (no duh), so he reluctantly agrees, even though his experiences as a soldier in Iraq had scarred him. Wow, I haven't been this depressed since Up.

So it all goes bad of course, and then it's him against his fellow guards, and since he's a solider, that's a good excuse for how ludicrously resourceful he is. He makes a bomb in no time flat, he burns money, in no time flat, if you want something done, in no time flat, then this is your guy.

However, I can't help but feel that his nobility is a tad misplaced. His main gripes are against anyone getting hurt, and getting caught by the cops, as they would definitely take his little brother away from him. However, he bails at the first sign of danger, which doesn't make much sense, considering that he has the most to gain by the heist succeeding. Consequently, the "bad" guys (who aren't really that bad, when you think about it), take far too much time pounding away on the hinges to the back door, when really, they had an alternative that I thought of, that would save them both time, and allow them to succeed. Ty's locked in the back of one of the trucks with half the money, so why not torch that truck, and split the remaining money? You still have 21 million, and a perfect scapegoat for the crime, but I guess you also wouldn't have a movie, would you?

That's the inherent problem with these movies, though: logic has to go out the window for it to be a movie, but these sort of movies rely heavily on logic for them to succeed. It's a Catch-22 situation, that very few movies can overcome. This isn't one of them. It is a decent movie, there's so good suspense, and I laughed out loud when he set up the bomb, as the guys who were killed in the explosions DEFINITELY deserved it (at least Laurence Fishburne did...he was pissing me off the entire film), and I liked the main guy, Columbus Short (though he got 7th billing or something, and I don't know why, he was the star of the show), but this one really is either a rental or a $6 cheapie DVD purchase.

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars.

I bid thee a fond armored goodnight

- Stephenstein

Bruce Willis is my Surrogate

In the future, everyone will have a surrogate, who will do everything for you. It's basically like, you build a robot, you control it, it does all the stuff for you, and if it blows up, hey! You just go and get another one. Kind of like what the American politicians are doing with the soliders over in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is Surrogates, a movie I missed in the theatre, but watched recently all in the confines of my home...without the stick floor, and the people whispering behind me (I hired two people to simulate the experience by whispering behind me, but fired them, when they weren't doing their job properly...I could still hear the movie).

Anyhow, this movie is all concept. The world is without war, or crime, because no one feels anymore (though people still find a unique way of getting high through their surrogates...even when we have developed a technology that revolutionizes modern society, people still use it for absolutely useless and destructive behaviour), there is no more human contact, and everyone looks way better than their real self. When someone kills a surrogate, there is an investigation, that leads our good guy Willis, to this zone where people refuse to get surrogates because it is artificial life, and thus not the real experience of life. Heavy. Things get even more kooky, when Willis' surrogate is destroyed, and his real self (who looks like Hell) tries to investigate, and realizes that society is now a shell of its former self, because it's all fake now.

Interesting idea, and something I could see actually happening, considering the sad state that society is in, now. I mean, the idea of a surrogate is enticing, as the person you present to the world is often idealized, stays that way forever, you can do extraordinary physical feats, and nothing can really harm you, because if your destroyed, you just get a new one and send it out there. In fact, people are stunned when they see real people. However, they also lose the capacity to feel, as whatever happens to your surrogate never happens to you (except the aforementioned "getting high", and oh yeah, there's also this weapon that can take out you and your surrogate...all for one low, low price), and you can see people begin to degenerate, as their physical selves are neglected in favour of their artificial dopplegangers.

If I have a criticism of it as a movie, and I do have one, it's that on the level of a murder mystery, it fails as it is hugely apparent who is behind the deaths of the surrogates and their operators fairly early. In the case of some thrillers like that, it's the journey that matters, not the mystery, but that is not the case in this one; you are supposed to not know who is behind it, even though the motives of the brains behind it is painfully obvious, and all the other developments in the film are easily predicted, as well. It seems that despite the concept of the film being interesting and provoking discussion, the filmmakers or the studio, or your Aunt Sally, or whomever was calling the shots, was content to have the plot unfold as another formulaic whodunit, with a ridiculously obvious antagonist.

Anyhow, I did enjoy this film, for the concept, and for Bruce Willis, who despite not winning any movie awards, always seems to turn in a solid performance.

Rating: 3.5 stars

I bid thee a fond goodnight...you and your surrogate.

- Stephenstein

Life is a Box

I wanted to check this one out when I saw the trailers, but I wasn't sure if I would catch it, just because, I don't know, it doesn't look like a "theatre movie". I wasn't dying to see it, but was interested enough to check it out. Well, visiting a friend in London, Ont, and I suggested we check it out when he asked that eternally entertaining question "what do you want to see?", and I was certainly not disappointed.

For those of you who wonder, yes, the box is a box, with a button, and you push the button, and someone you don't know dies, and Frank Langella gives you a million dollars. Yes, someone does die, and yes, they actually do get a million dollars. The ramifications of pushing that button, are staggering, though.

I'm not going to reveal more of the plot, but it's done by the Donnie Darko guy, based on a Richard Matheson short story (and yes, it was a Twilight Zone episode), but man, this movie was interesting as hell. I mean, I'm sitting there watching it, and I don't always know what's going on, but I always wanted to find out what was going on. The explanation of who Frank Langella is, and what his purpose is, is just awesome, in my opinion, and at the same time, I felt kind of bad for Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, because the concept of someone giving you the box is kind of preposterous, when you think about it, but at the same time...they shouldn't have pushed the button. I also loved Frank Langella's analogy that life is a box, we spend our entire lives in some form of box or another, and when life ends, they put us in a box, in the ground. Neat stuff.

I will say this movie was a tad confusing, and it will definitely be one I'll pick up, and watch again, just to see if I can pick up more the second time through. I'll give it 4 stars for now, but it could go higher with multiple viewings.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars.

I bid thee a fond box

- Stephenstein

The Taking of Denzel Washington's Wallet

Look at that poster. Doesn't it make you want to run out and see this movie? Me neither. Still, I try and see as many Denzel Washington movies as possible (as long as it looks like something's going on in them...reason I skipped Antwone Fisher), but this is a remake! How dare I spend money on...a remake! For shame! Eh, what can I say, Stephenstein is hard up these days for theatre fare.

Actually, this movie was pretty good. You have John Travolta demanding $10,000,000 (or basically the amount of money that Denzel has in his wallet at any given time...off-screen, that is) within an hour, and if he doesn't get it, he will kill people on the train he's hijacked. At the other end of the line, you have Denzel, and boy oh boy, does this man have problems. To tell the truth, this may be the first time I've seen Denzel Washington in a role where he was completely helpless...even in John Q, when he's doing the hostage negotiating with the police for his son's life, you get the idea, hey it's Denzel, he knows what he's doing. Not in this film though, and it's really interesting to see him play a floundering character. Travolta is charasmatic as he usually is in the bad-guy role (though he's gotten to the point where just screams motherf***** at the good guys, and that's supposed to be intimidating), and John Turturro supplies solid supporting work as the veteran hostage negotiator.

My gripes with this movie are a few plot holes (ummm...if the police are speeding towards a location with $10,000,000, what idiot is going to smash into their car? I mean seriously, you're telling me the motorcycle escorts with them couldn't have cleared the streets?) and the movie was predictable, including the ending which I won't spoil here, other than to reveal, surprise surprise, Denzel and John have a confrontation, with guns involved. Still, I think this was a pretty solid movie, with a decent mix of suspense and drama, so it's worth a peek, though you can probably get away with watching it on whatever souped-up home theatre system you may possess.

Rating 3.5 out of 5.

I bid thee a fond good night.

- Stephenstein

Angels and Demons

Remember when the Da Vinci Code came out? All the furor, the press, the indignation? Well, here we have the "sequel", which is actually the prequel if you're going by the books, but those crazy Hollywood types, they never seem to get things right. So Tom (I won 2 Oscars 15 years ago, or so) Hanks has returned with his buddy, Ron Howard, to deliver another religious thriller. The critics and fans hated the first one. How did they do in round 2?

Well, I think they did really good, personally. Now yes, they probably didn't jam every ounce of the book into the movie (and thank God, because this religious history stuff is hard enough to follow as it is), and I'm sure there were great parts in the book that never saw the light of day in the film, but that's the case for all books....so, SETTLE DOWN! Better. Not great, but better.

So what you get in this one is a good, albeit somewhat predictable film, with suspense and fine performances turned in by Tom Hanks and Ewan McGregor.

Now, the question on everyone's mind who saw Da Vinci Code is, does this film run as long as the first film? The answer is, I think it does, but this one ran a little smoother than it's predecessor. It's still somewhat a long movie, but I feel there was less to cut out of this one, and far more intrigue and a faster pace. As I am quickly falling out of favour of 3 hour opus' that really could be 2 hour opus' (and I'm looking right at you, Dark Knight), this movie could have really irritated me...but it didn't...so there.

So check this one out, if you're interested enough from the first film to enter the world of Robert Langdon, and those crazy, crazy guys in the church.

I bid thee a fond good night.

- Stephenstein