The Next Three Days review

Paul Haggis' "The Next Three Days" is a competent thriller that ought to be more. It comes down to a story that can go in a lot of interesting and different directions; takes some neat ones, but overall feels less surprising then it could be and feels just a bit too stale. Not that there aren't aspects that work, but they could be much better. Screenwriter and director Paul Haggis ("Crash") is actually the main issue here. Not so much his writing as much as his very regular directing. Throughout the vast majority of the film I caught myself thinking what if Michael Mann, Ridley Scott, Paul Greengrass or a number of other, more visually arresting filmmakers had put their eye behind the camera for this. What a thriller this would have been.

Before we jump on that though here's the skinny. Russell Crowe plays a college professor whose wife (Elizabeth Banks) gets arrested for the murder of her boss. We speed up three years as she's attempting more appeals and trying to stay connected with their son while in prison. In their visits the child doesn't respond to her in almost any fashion. Her husband though can't stand any of it. It isn't so much as he feels she's innocent of the crime, but he loves her so much that he cannot take seeing her jailed for possibly the rest of her life. And after the legal system seems to be swinging out of his favor he decides to take on a daring prison break in, rescue and escape. The vast majority of the film is the prep work he does. It's extensive and with some brief words from a master escapist (Liam Neeson in a nice cameo) sets his plan in motion. Though slow this probably one of the more interesting parts of the film. He's sloppy and learning his tricks of breaking into cars or creating bump keys via the internet and doesn't really have the stomach for violence or for making the hard decisions.

Another aspect that works well is Crowe and Banks' chemistry. From the darkly humorous opening it all works well with their back and fourths. They both seem human and quite down to Earth characters. The real problem is simply Haggis' dull directing and lack of style. The idea of "The Next Three Days" can go in so many directions and include so many close calls and tense sequences of suspense or out and out action. Haggis aims more for the suspense, but it rarely hits the mark and is never memorable. I thought back to Michael Mann's "Collateral". It's character rich and includes some decent action and suspense sequences on just a story level. What Mann did was paint us not just full pictures of the characters, but of L.A. from the top down. The world surrounding this one taxi in the city. It made the night and the locations characters and that helps create a real mood. "The Next Three Days" has no mood.

Furthermore Haggis works best in the slower bits of the film in general. Conversation pieces work fine, lead ups to slightly important moments work ok as well, but the bigger sequences or intense stuff is flat. It put me in a similar mind frame of "Derailed" and "Taken" except I liked both of those enough to recommend them, however slight it might be. Haggis is a strong and impressive writer and perhaps his directing will get better or he'll pick a story that might require more of a straight dramatic approach. Either way the film left me disappointed in all it could have done.

Unstoppable review

A long time ago I started realizing that certain studios were best at certain things. Others might be able to do those same things well, but there would always be the studios that did it best as a whole. Universal is a great house for science fiction and horror. Paramount used to be known for it's dramas and comedies... that has changed now I suppose. Now it's more big budget whatevers. Warner Brothers could pull off crime pictures like clockwork. Fox though was a tough one. Really their strongest suit in the old days was putting on nicely produced pieces of whatever was selling at the time. They could do a little of it all. After a while I did notice a few little things that stood out to me more and more. They could make common folk look awesome. For some reason there are a TON of films in which they make slightly more everyday people much more heroic. Cops, civilians, simple villagers, grunt workers etc. Sure it might be a bit of an odd thing to notice, but they did. Tony Scott's "Unstoppable" actually helps revive that skill over at Fox.

First off I admit to a bias in enjoyed the vast majority of Tony Scott's films. I maintain that he is still one of the most impressive and enjoyable action directors working today and can more than hold his own in the over CGI-ed genre. But heading into "Unstoppable" I was actually expecting NOT to like it. I wasn't impressed by the trailer which depicted the movie as this massive series of overly emotional and big events, when really it's just one event. As I told a co-worker last weekend I don't think the whole kids on a train thing is a big part of the movie. I was right. It's really about three minutes of the movie... at the beginning. Instead it's one major issue and a fluid series of problems. There's an unmanned train gaining speed, carrying explosive chemicals that will at some point derail and potentially kill several thousand people. Whats to stop it? Two normal working joes.

Right there is where "Unstoppable" fully wins me. There's a lot about it I like and enjoy the shit out of, but the basic fact that we're dealing with realistic guys that at their most heroic are still grounded firmly in the real world, that's something I love to see in film. Sure we get a little bit of emotional and family schmaltz near the beginning when learning about Coulson (Chris Pine), but it's all needed for the bigger picture. This is taking a true story and sensationalizing it into a perilous, escapist thriller. And what would it be without heart? Or for that matter main characters risking their lives with nothing on the line.

Scott again teams up with Denzel Washington who plays Barnes, a train driver and veteran of this kind of work. He's smart and knows his stuff. Basically the kind of role Denzel can play like a fiddle. Pine's Coulson is the newbie, but not unskilled and very daring. Together it's a match made in qusi-realistic, badass heaven. Somewhere Charles Bronson and Walter Matthau are smiling. Rosario Dawson is also in there as Connie, the yard manager from which the train escapes from. Interestingly enough the way it happens in the movie IS the way it happened in real life as well. It's great seeing Dawson in any capacity, but seeing her hold down a role that would normally go to any number of male character actors and do it better than they would makes me a happy viewer.

Most of the film is spent looking at hulking, steel trains running at high speeds through small towns and country side. What Tony Scott and writer Mark Bomback do is explain more than enough of the world of trains to get us to understand why this is such a bad thing. Much like a semi truck trains don't stop on a dime... and neither do the cars it's carrying behind it. Something slightly more important however is the speed limits for certain sets of tracks. Which is to say if an elevated curve says limit 15mph then a train going 75mph just...might...have a problem. Scott makes this situation exciting and fun to watch unfold. His photography is great, Harry Gregson-Williams score is booming as loud as the trains, yet strangely works nicely together. And of course the stunt team pulls off some absolutely intense and fantastic work.

One reason I think I love Tony Scott's work so much is his lack of interest in doing things with CGI. He knows what it can do and why you can use it, but opts to actually derail and explode a train instead. Opts to use real stunt men and his actors running across moving trains rather than green screen it. That attention to detail and the moment makes him invaluable to the film industry.

Beyond that there isn't much left to say really. "Unstoppable" was promoted fucking horribly if you ask me, but it's a surprisingly fun ride. It's sort of a throwback in a way to the days of movies about common people being heroic in the face of peril. I know there's some other runaway train movies, however I can't think of a single one. Or the the last time one was made. It's not a hard movie and it's damn sure not a complex one which is probably why it's so fun. Today I watched and reviewing "Morning Glory" as well and my biggest gripe is that they wanted as much conflict as they could instead of just letting it come naturally from the characters in their current situation. "Unstoppable" wisely doesn't second or third guess itself like that. It's fluid and deals with it's main issue as a whole with no real added fillers.

Also HERE is a link to the real story for which the film is based on.

Case 39 review

It's interesting coming off a weekend with terrific pieces of work like "The Social Network" and "Let Me In" and heading straight back into shitsville with "Case 39". Lets just say after the first twenty or so minutes you can tell why the film was held back from release for so long. Its almost a complete mess. Actually something I hate more about it is the fact that it's fully comprehend-able, just really fucking stupid and extremely dated.

Basically Renee Zellweger plays Emily, a social worker that believes a young girl is being abused and wants her boss to try and get her pulled from the home. Of course the higher ups are almost completely no help so Emily gives the girl her home number and tries to connect with her so that she'll get that important late night call about the parents trying to "send her to hell". Well it came pretty soon and with the help of her cop friend (played by Ian McShane), they break in, subdue the parents and save the girl from being burned alive in an oven. Emily then drops her case and takes her into her home until another worker can find her a new home. That's when the stuff starts happening. And when I say stuff... well that's exactly what I mean.

"Case 39" isn't a slow burn horror, thriller; it's just lazy. The first half cruises along without much intensity, intrigue or emotion. The second half is almost as empty, but has dull and uninspired devil movie sequences inserted. It's all just random stuff that would've been lame back in the heyday of horror movies. Jodelle Ferland ('Silent Hill', 'Tideland' and 'Twilight: Eclipse") plays the little girl and shoots for the moon trying seem evil and menacing. Sadly none of it works. Bradley Cooper basically has an extended cameo type role before he's dispensed in a prolonged, ridiculous and generally stupid fashion. In fact just how he dies is something up for debate... you know if anybody really cared to debate about it.

Zellweger is just as boring and generally flat as she usually is when she's not aiming at another Oscar nod. When things do heat up for her character she lacks the strength (or care) to really send home the whole panicking or terrifying feeling. When dealing with the other adult characters she's simply bland and dull. The horror aspects are straight from the early 2000's and seem like lamer pieces from stuff like "Darkness Falls", "The Ring Two" and "Boogeyman". So basically it's in the vein of already really shitty horror movies. There is no reason to seek out "Case 39" with so many really fun and impressive movies out right now. This is something that will hit DVD and probably within a couple of months be tossed into the $5 bin at Wal-Mart. If it's not busy being a boring thriller then it's slowly trying to just be a piss poor supernatural movie. Seriously, this is a massive waste of time and money.

Devil review

Here's a film that was pretty much killed before it even hit theaters. I'm sure you've been in a packed theater when the "Devil" trailer played and the words "from the mind of M. Night Shyamalan" appears and boos and laughs cue up. Indeed it is based on a story by Shyamalan however not written or directed by him. So what difference does that make? Quite a bit actually.


While the concept is something feeling like a short story, it's execution is equal to that of a really entertaining episode of "The Twilight Zone", but with more blood and cussing. What you see from the trailer is indeed what the movie is all about. One of the five people pictured above is the devil and have come to kill. That's it. But with the addition of a depressed, faithless and recovering alcoholic detective (Chris Messina), some clever, twisty and fun writing by Brian Nelson it's made a lot more interesting. What the film attempts and accomplishes is to never give you too many classic movie hints to who might be the devil. Everyone has a thing about them that very well could make them the devil or just an innocent person stuck in a terrible situation. Fernando Velazquez's score cues punctuates the situation and the suspense in great manner and helps add to the tense atmosphere.

Our elevator passengers include an old woman, a young woman, a security guard, a salesman and a mechanic. All are in this office building for different purposes and with different destinations, but if Shyamalan's thought process has taught anything over the years it's that everything has a purpose. And when that elevator stops we begin to learn how it all comes together or mostly comes together. "Devil" has got some little holes riddled in it's side, but doesn't take away from the fun they have with it all. Director of photography, the great Tak Fujimoto paints the movie well and helps director John Erik Dowdle make the suspense in a tiny area work with very well set up shots and nice lighting that's never too moody, but great for the moment. It all works out well which actually makes me quite pleased.

Personally I have VERY mixed feelings about Shyamalan. I perfectly understand why he's getting the flack for his past couple of works right now. I don't get why other guys like Paul W.S. Anderson don't get it too, but I can see what people aren't digging from him. At the same time he's still somebody I that feel can do good again and regain at least some of his cred. Going into producing is tricky as hell as I said when I reviewed "The Last Exorcism" there's not many thriller or horror that end up producing even passable genre films (look at Wes Craven, Sam Raimi and John Carpenter for examples). His work here with "Devil" is good. It's damn sure not great, but it's a workable, entertaining and a fun thriller that feels like it embraces the right amount of suspense, character and goofiness much like "The Twilight Zone"; which from what I understand is what his Night Chronicles set of films is supposed to feel like.

The twist that occurs isn't entirely unforeseeable, but it's unveiling is nicely done in it's subtly. Again the tech side plays well with the overall tone of the story and makes it feel like a well put together package of B-thriller goodness. It does heavily involve faith and religion (as often is the case with his stories) and some of it does have a cheese factor, but in the end there is a rather stronger message behind some of it that kind of elevates it a tad just for the general bravery to take it in that direction. I won't say what it is, but most movies would probably go the darker and more cynical route (as is usually the case), but it's refreshing to see it go the other way for a change. This is a step in the right direction for Shyamalan and hopefully one that might spark some change in his own written and directed work. I'm interested to see if they can build off of this with the next in the Night Chronicles series and actually create an interesting and fun set of mid-level thrillers using young talents.

The Girl Who Played With Fire review

Something that can kill any thriller or mystery for me is a lack of style or suspense. Earlier this year I reviewed part 1 of the Millennium trilogy "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo", which was being beefed up as a major deal. While I did really enjoy the stylish, sleuth picture I was never fully in love with it all. Now with the "The Girl Who Played with Fire" I'm kind of on the fence about how much I really care this whole story ends.

Like I stated above a huge killer for these sort of movies is a lack of style and suspense and that's the biggest issue here. Director Niels Arden Oplev stepped away and Daniel Alfredson took over for the last two movies. Apparently this was a fucking mistake. Oplev did a great job of creating a gloomy and grim world that our heroin Lisbeth Salander existed in, Alfredson however works to remind us that this movie series is based on books and also a tv show by displaying dull stylization and throwing as much random narrative at us as possible and seeing what sticks. Basically this is a mystery, in a mystery, about another mystery and none of it is made particularly interesting.

Noomi Rapace is Lisbeth, the gothy, hacker with a knack for getting to the bottom of tough cases. We meet up with her a year after the last film as she's preparing to head back to home after noticing some emails on her parole officers computer that she wasn't too fond of. (That makes a lot more sense if you've seen the first movie) On the flip side is friend and journalist Mikael Bloomkvist who's working on a new story with a new reporter involving sex trafficking. When the the new reporter and his author wife are found dead and the murder weapon has Lisbeth's finger prints on it... then something is thought to be... amiss by Bloomkvist and Lisbeth has to decide how she's going to clear her name and find out who's behind it all.

There's more to it all, but nothing too note worthy since none of it works to full capacity. The main yarn is that of a suspenseful expose' story. Really our main character this time out isn't Lisbeth, but instead Mikael; who follows up leads and attempt to figure out who the mystery man behind it all is other than the codename: Zala. Some of his poking and prodding lead to intrigue, but most to boredom. Lisbeth occasionally comes out of her hiding place to strong arm some nasty men into getting answers, but really doesn't do too much until the final act which is... somewhat interesting, but never too thrilling or suspenseful. The revelation of who's behind it all isn't particularly startling either. I question is it the direction or just the story that makes it all so weak. It's very much a bridge plot that appears to lead up directly to part III ('The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest'), but still I feel like with better writing and direction it's a movie that could've been at the least entertaining.

So now this brings up the whole remake business. David Fincher has officially began shooting of 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' with Rooney Mara ('A Nightmare on Elm Street' and 'The Social Network') as Lisbeth. Fincher's not known to make mistakes so I have no doubt in his ability to craft an interesting if not widely better thriller than the original. But if things come to pass and the whole trilogy is remade I wouldn't mind seeing it done more like 'Red Riding' in which each film has a different director that brings something slightly different to the table. In anycase I feel like most name filmmakers that could be brought up to do this would probably handle it better than it has been.

The American review

It's extremely rare for U.S. spy dramas or like-spy dramas to go with a lovely slow pace instead what's become the norm for the genre via the 'Bourne' or 007 movies. "The American" has more in kin with samurai dramas or thrillers of the 70's than it does with the current genre and it's made all the better for it. George Clooney plays Jack or Edward, we're never really sure; an assassin of sorts whose last job involves him hiding out in Italy and crafting a weapon for his successor. Right there is 90% of the film as he mainly walks about the town, occasionally meets and chats with the locals despite his somewhat cold demeanor. He gets close to a prostitute named Clara (Violante Placido) and something more begins to appear in the character. Something like love for her... however not too long after that so does something comes out of him too.

The other 10% of the film deals subtly with paranoia. I say subtly in the form in which Coppola used it in "The Conversation". The entire time you feel like something more is going on, but you can't quite get a grasp on it until it's right in front of you. The entire final act is a well devised tight rope of tension and character emotion that's accomplished through patience and skill. "Control" director Anton Corbijn does what ought to be an award nomination worthy job along with screenwriter Rowan Joffe of making Clooney's mostly silent character likable by the end of the picture; making us fully care what happens in the final minutes. It's also a film that I would call sexy; not a adjective I tend to use when referring to movies, but it is.

I'm not talking just for the nudity or the sex, but generally they've shot this movie in such a beautiful fashion and soaked it in mystery and drama to the point that if this was a person, you'd want to meet em', befriend them, bang them and have a picnic with them the next day. At the same time not everyone will feel as strongly about it all as I do. The one beef I have against it is Focus Features marketing of the film. The first trailer was around 1:30 and played up the drama and romance of the story rather than the action (which is probably the third or fourth important aspect). That trailer aired in theaters probably for a week or two before a 30 second cut came out which utilized Mr. Voice talking of assassins and George Clooney while just showing off the action pieces in the film. Thus several people will walk in expecting an action film where Clooney goes ape shit killing baddies for his final hurray. THIS AIN'T THAT MOVIE. This is a smart, quiet thriller.

"The American" might be considered one of Clooney's awardy type films by some, but I'm not so convinced. I'd love to see this get some real legs and viewers and nods come that time of the year, but it feels more like a film destined to be left behind somewhere in that race. Why,I'm not entirely sure yet. Perhaps it's the heavy European feel that could hurt it. The somber tone that concludes in a rather bleak fashion or the fact that there just isn't a much of money shots in the film. Either way it is a film that deserves viewers. It's one of the best films I've seen all year and also warrants many technical accolades as well.

Salt review

Apparently the ending of the summer is shaping up to kick the beginnings ass. "Salt" literally came out of left field for me. I wasn't feeling the trailers or posters or "Who is Salt?" tagline. I liked that Jolie was showing off her age a tad bit and looking somewhat less pristine than usual, but there wasn't anything there that got me exciting to see it.

But damned if I don't love a good surprise here and there and "Salt" was it. Not only does it work as an action film, but also as a more than competent thriller and chase film that recycles things we've seen before and yet displays them and uses them in a fresh and very, very exciting way. Off the bat I'm not telling you who Salt is. But I will say that shock of all shocks that tagline IS important to the plot of the movie. It's an awesome early story turn that brought me into that 'where's this headed' zone. Damn... I remember when tons of action movies had those fun moments where you just weren't at all sure what was to come next... good times.

"Salt" is written by Kurt Wimmer ('Equilibrium' and 'Ultraviolet', I think I finally forgive him for that second title), who is pretty good at using all the old tricks, but making them fun again. Salt is on the run and is a highly training enemy the CIA must track down and grab. Been there and done that, but damned if he and director Philip Noyce don't attempt to drum up some interesting tension, have fun with the characters and then go into full ass kicking mode. Noyce, who is a highly skilled action filmmaker on the level of Mann and Zwick, never gets the credit he deserves. To this day I absolutely love "Clear and Present Danger", "The Quiet American", "Patriot Games" and "Rabbit Proof Fence" and that is where "Salt" fits in. It's a smarter than usual, espionage action, thriller. It's shot fantastically by Robert Elswit (all of Paul Thomas Anderson's film) and edited by the glorious Stuart Baird and John Gilroy. Both are men who KNOW this world back and forth. Shit... why the fuck wasn't I jazzed for this movie again?!

Now we come to Jolie. As an actress she's got her ups and downs. I'll say with her action based roles it's definitely been more downs. Her work in "Wanted" was pretty good, but nothing mind blowing (pun intended), but then there's the dreadful "Tomb Raider" pictures as well as "Gone in 60 Seconds" and probably a few others that escape me. Here she finally hits that mark for me that makes me fully buy her action hero status. Very little CGI, mostly hard hitting practical action work and stunts that look fantastic and are never too over the top as to remove you from what going on. I like the fact that Jolie is willing to get dirty in the film. She willing to be beaten to a pulp, tortured, shot and so on and not look like a super model or superhero the entire time. There's even a nice little homage to the world of "Mission Impossible" that is pretty ridiculous on some levels, but she sells it. Honestly I'd like other performers looking to dive into action to look at this as a training tool. How you can sell some rather insane things and make them work for an audience. Might have sorta helped "Prince of Persia". Well... maybe not that one.

I do think Sony's chosen release for "Salt" is unfortunate. While it's a prime film for the summer, still I think it could've been a monster success if released during a dead heap of the spring or fall. Much like what studios did with "Taken" or "The Transporter" films. I feel like right now it's just caught in the massive coat tails of "Inception" and will only get lost in the shuffle of other big ticket action pieces coming in August. "Salt" is absolutely one of the most generally entertaining and fun films I've seen all summer; trumping "The A-Team" and even "Predators". Have you seen "Inception"? Are you looking for something lighter that you can kick back and watch some good ole' fashioned ass stomping, but with some cognitive thought and a story? "Salt" is by far your best bet.

Inception review

Christopher Nolan's "Inception" is a fully realized science fiction opus, in which Nolan goes to great lengths to completely convince us of this science of dream invasion and what not. To date I can fully say this is Nolan's most complex film and also most wonderfully misleading as far as what we're really dealing with. I think it's great to see that in addition to providing trailers that just give us nothing but money shots, he's also gave us a film that's got an action sense about it however isn't quite what I'd call an action movie because after a while it's no longer driven by action, but the emotion of the characters.

You probably know the players and what they do by now. You know DiCaprio's Cobb is a dream thief and he's given a chance to 'make it back home' with one last job of inception. Inception is the planting of an idea in someones mind; as opposed to extraction which is them going in and stealing an idea (what they primarily do since inception is said to be near impossible). Cobb's team is great and if ever there was an exciting group of young actors to come together on screen for something like this, you couldn't do better. Joesph Gordon-Levitt is Arthur (pointman), Ellen Page is Ariadne (the architect), Tom Hardy is Eames (the forger), Dileep Rao is Yusuf (the chemist) and Ken Wantanbe is Saito (the tourist). Their job is to planet an idea in the mind of Robert Fischer Jr. (Cillian Murphy) that would destroy his father's empire. This will involve many complicated devices to work including dreaming within dreams and so on and so forth. All matters that are made more sensible and interesting by Nolan in the film than little ole' me could ever make them seem.

The dream worlds are created a way that's fresh for film. They are fully moving cities, snow capped mountains with bases, cliff side retreats and so on. Sure there are a many elements of the fantastic that occur, but it's nothing like the fully fantasy dream worlds we're used to. There are rules and concepts that haven't been explored or visualized the way they are here. Furthermore there's a heavy emphasis on physical action (aka what things look like when ACTUALLY blow up and not just CGI blow up). There's a difference and it's always something more visually striking and dynamic about the right thing. Much like when they flipped the semi truck in "The Dark Knight". You can pick up on a few influences of Nolan including 'On Her Majesty's Service' and 'Blade Runner' to some extent as well as a few noir and heist movie elements. But all in all this is a very original piece of work.

But it's not all derived from Nolan's script or directing. Like I said a HUGE part of the film deals with emotion and just who these characters are. Cobb is a troubled man and getting into dream cons with him has it's ups and it's downs. The downs being his wife Mal (Marion Cottillard), who appears to sabotage missions if Cobb tends to know too much about the lay out of a location or even sometimes when Cobb is losing control of his own thoughts. Their story is perhaps the most important of any in the film and something that's been left quiet when discussing it. There's a reason and I'm not going to spoil that. In fact I'm not really going to spoil much more of the film because it's one of those rare occasions when the film has manged to advertise itself this much, but still provide a theatrical experience that you are unknown to until you're there watching it.

In the 142 minutes of "Inception" I found myself engrossed in the action, engrossed in the story and engrossed and invested in these characters. I'm not attempting to boast hype or spin any wheels, but it's quite something when a movie (especially in the summer) can really do all the things that have been done here. Hans Zimmer's score plays slightly counter to traditional summer action scores and has a much more dramatic and emotionally driven feel. I really love that Zimmer is experimenting more now that he did in the 80's and 90's; creating a different sound for these types of films that fits like a glove. Wally Pfister continues to shoot beautifully and is well on his way to becoming one of those cinematographers that's a go to guy for great imagery (like Robert Richardson, Robert Elswit, Roger Deakins etc). And finally the performances in the film run like clock work. Not one performer misses a beat and not one is unconvincing of who they pretend or proclaim to be. The entire final act becomes less about action and race against time, but about these people and what happened to them. I can honestly say the finale kinda killed him in that respect and I loved it. It's a feeling almost completely reserved for the good ole' end of the year Oscar movies that get their jollies by depressing the fuck outta you and then sending you home.

"Inception" probably won't convert non-fans of Nolan, but anytime something like this can get into that mass audience range and actually be successful, I'll take it. The hope is that other filmmakers will learn from what Nolan's been doing in the blockbuster range and perhaps others will go down that road. Start creating genre films for the summer season that have more to them then the usual bang-bang. It's definitely the best thing I've seen all summer and among the best of the year, although is WAY too soon to see how it stacks up among others I liked. What I'm trying to say is you should probably see it. If you're tired of enduring the same junky summer films we've been getting, the bland animated films or the lackluster action pictures... then here you go. Don't wait... just go and experience it for yourself and see how it grabs you.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo review

Oh those crazy Swedes and their sex and violence filled ideas... ahh... but seriously this is a thriller that does have it's healthy dose of both. "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is one of those films that includes many elements for which we've seen before in thrillers, mysteries and horror films, but finds a way to piece them all together in an interesting and provocative way. At the same time it's a much rougher film than I expected including sadists and rapists coupled with the already running who-done-it and what'd-they-do mystery.

Our girl with the dragon tattoo is named Lisbeth Salander a punk, qusi biker/goth sleuth and hacker that works for a major security firm in Stockholm. After she's put onto the job of tracking a magazine mogul/ reporter after he's sentenced to prison she continues looking into him after her job has ended. The magazine reporter, Mikael Blomkvist is spending his remaining six free months by taking a job in another part of the country for an old man trying to find the killer of his favorite niece. Fun part, a body was never found and the incident happened over 40 years ago. Needless to say he's got a lot of work ahead of him. The man is one of the heads of the Vanger group, which was a family owned corporation with a lot of secrets. However what is not so secret is the fact that most of the family hates one another and so it could have been any number of them who killed her. As time passes Mikael delves further and further into the families past and uncovers more and more dirt, but still not much of anything to link a single person to a crime with no clues. Not until Lisbeth comes to the forefront of his life.

Now going into to her background is a bit tricky as I don't want to give much away in the area of the darker, nastier things in the picture. But I'll tell you that she's not somebody to fuck with and have her just take it as she proves throughout a number of scenes. Noomi Rapace plays Lisbeth with a bit more doe-eyed-ness then I would've expected, but there's something within her performance that works. I guess I like the idea of the tough sleuth character considering we see so many sheepish ones in films nowadays. I'm sure with the other two films probably making their way to the U.S. soon we'll see what the rest of her story is really about, but there's a lot of hints to her sorted past. Fun stuff me thinks.

As a whole I don't find it as perfect a thriller, but a damn entertaining one made with a lot of style and guts. There are things that remind of 'Se7en' as well as elements that pop up in a very novel fashion like they would and probably do in the book series. It's not something enough to shout out rip off or anything or even enough to distract from the picture. Fact is I'm just damn pleased to see so many well made mystery based films in one year that are getting big press. "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is one of those that'll be talked about highly for a while before disappearing (like "The Vanishing", pun not intended) or perhaps it's fate will be decided upon the release of the next two films in the series; who can say just yet. But it's a film for those who love crime thrillers and grim character pieces. It's got its thrills and bumps and humor and sex appeal to go with it's expansive and classy yet gritty storyline. If the film is near you it's definitely something to go check out.

Green Zone review

Oh the joys and follies of telling friend you're going to go see a film like "Green Zone". Follies being when you have friends that would say things like 'it just looks like another 'Bourne' movie' or 'it's just another anti-war movie'. The joys being that you know that they've probably only seen Greengrass's two 'Bourne' films and otherwise don't know shit about what their talking about, because you have seen his other films and know how powerful they are. Of course if "Green Zone" wasn't a good film then perhaps there would be some validity to their statements. By the way it is a good film, a damn good entertaining as hell film, that allows past politics within war to ride shotgun with an enthralling thriller that's nothing like either 'Bourne' film Paul Greengrass has done and is a far more suspenseful and entertaining Iraq picture then most of the dozens we've gotten since 2003.

Matt Damon plays Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, whose job in Iraq is to track down WMDs. The problem is that time after time his Intel leads he and his team into busy civilian zones and resistance zones where they end up finding nothing. When looking into the matter Miller is constantly turned away, talked down to and told that everything is looked into and that it's not his concern where the information came from. It's not until Miller meets a grizzled CIA man (Brendan Gleeson) and a Wall Street Journal reporter (Amy Ryan) that things start to make some sense and the government created charade starts to crumble. Greg Kinear plays a government official who has the task of making sure the right people get into power and things are set up in place the way we want it for the new Iraq. This would mean keeping the charade going and thus making Miller, but more importantly the mysterious information man known as "Magellan" a huge threat.

I think I kind of summed that up nicely, although it's still a pretty damn complex series of moves in the picture. Screenwriter Brian Helgaland (one of my top three favorite screenwriters) worked hard to craft an interesting thriller set during the most controversial time of this controversial war and director Paul Greengrass once again displays his attention to characters, storytelling and craftsmanship in the use of gritty well done shaky-cam with the films few action sequences. One of which being a twenty minute chase sequence which is as tense and gritty and exciting to watch unfold. The night photography grain gives it an almost news reel look and feel and every edit is seamless. Few working directors can handle an intense look as well as Greengrass and even fewer can have it all make sense even when geographically it's hard to tell where you are.

The politics of "Green Zone" are something that's sure to arise controversy as did the book it's inspired by. What it boils down to is the same thing is boils down to with this war itself. Why do you believe we went to war? I've met plenty who buy into the official story and think it was to liberate a country and do some good in the world. I've met plenty that believe it was for oil and cooking up stories of nukes and all that was a good way to get our foot in the door without people asking too many questions. I don't judge people who believe either, I think both are very, very possible. But at the end of the day it's somewhat the rule of Chinatown, which is that helping one group can also be severely hurting another group and that sometimes the best policing is to do nothing, but keep an alert eye. It's harsh, but often it's the best way to keep your hands clean. There are ideas brought up in "Green Zone" that now probably would've made things go easier over there (for example NOT disbanding the Iraqi army and attempting to use those not loyal to Saadam to help us), but that's all in the past now and time can only tell how things will end up.

This is Greengrass's third docu-drama, but the first one that A: didn't make you want to cry in the end and B: was blended with the entertainment factor he controlled with the second and third 'Bourne' films. I extremely urge people to watch "Bloody Sunday" and "United 93" and you'll see a heavy side of what "Green Zone" is like. He goes back more to that style of film making and just dashes in a bit of that action sense that he's developed. The man's got one more docu-drama coming along and that's the long awaited "They Marched into Sunlight" which is sure to be tragic and heartbreaking as his other pieces of work. But for now he's just trying to deliver a fun as hell thriller with some brains and he has definitely accomplished that.

Edge of Darkness review

It's an interesting world that of trailers and promotions. I can say that this year so far there have been quite a few crappily cut trailer releases for movies with good buzz or good people behind it that make you question why the trailer is so bad. Now with some it's faith that you'll see it on and hope that your favorite stars won't let you down. And some is just believing that the good hype was from people that share your tastes. "Edge of Darkness" had a trailer that I hated. I mean I got sick of it after two views, nearly forgot about the movie even coming out and saw little to be impressed with for it to be A: the return of Mel Gibson, actor and B: director Martin Campbell's follow up to "Casino Royale", his best directorial accomplishment to date. And even with good word of mouth before the release I was still pretty 'meh' about it all. Welp I was fucking wrong; this movie kicks some serious ass and not just in the literal sense.

Based on a BBC series from 1985 that Campbell directed, it's really a noir story about a cop's daughter that gets killed and works for this mysterious company. The first 40 minutes to an hour is really bringing up minor clues and lots of questions and questionable characters; the main being Jedburgh played fantastically by Ray Winstone. Jedburgh is like Michael Clayton with a gun in a sense. He's someone who's is called in to 'fix' situations that don't appear to be able to be handled in any other fashion. Interestingly enough though he takes on a more personal interest in Gibson's Thomas Craven character and in a way does his part to help lead him in the right direction. Jedburgh's reasoning? Well that's of his own mind and left for you to fully figure out, but that's part of the allure. Much of "Edge of Darkness" works like a true blue British crime drama.

The major differences between crime dramas in the U.S. and in the U.K. is that over seas they use some of the clitche's of crime noir to their advantage and they seek to tell more complex stories with characters that are equally complex and often on various levels. You get hints to what they're thinking and maybe why they're thinking that way, but you don't hear it said in so many words. A lot of times in the states we'll have a piece of that pie, but rarely all of it assembled. The reason is because we don't take too kindly to British film pacing when it comes to action pictures, which would explain the overly action packed American like trailer. But make no mistake, this is a Brit picture to the core. It's also co-written by Oscar winning screenwriter William Monahan, writer of "The Departed" and "Kingdom of Heaven". Monahan has a great flow to his dialogue where sometimes the best thing said is nothing at all and sometimes those ridiculously hoecky lines in the trailer, roll out dynamically in their proper noir like setting.

And now to Gibson. I had a long talk with a friend about this after the movie comparing the antics and believability of Gibson vs. Harrison Ford in a role like this. We agreed that Gibson has a certain thing about it where we could see him being this guy and you get his emotion through the character in roles like this. Here he's got a strong Boston accent and it's pretty damn good, but what surprised me was really just how old they made him look, but didn't make him into a superhero kind of like Liam Neeson in "Taken". The violence is bloody, brutal and rough; so it doesn't feel as stylized as it either. Actually it's more like a Cronenberg picture in that respect, but it's great either way. Howard Shore also delivers a fantastic score that when it hits that third act becomes the cherry on top of the already terrifically made thriller.

And I do mean thriller. There are some great sequences of tension and it's built around wondering who is watching or listening in and what is Craven going to do next. Pissed off as he is, he's not going around shaking everybody down. He knows when to talk and when to fight, but still you don't want to fuck with this guy. The story's complexity and paranoia aspects work okay, but not in that "Parallax View" sort of way or a "Silkwood" sort of way. Closer to something like "The International". And I just have to commend really the Hollywood system. This is the first time in recent memory where major studios have released really good and entertaining films so early and I hope it continues throughout the year.

I've seen three genre pictures that were skillfully made and entertaining this month. Hell I'd package them together and tell you to pull a triple feature on them, but these are the sort of films studios should turn out. It doesn't matter if they're action films, comedies, horror, romantic comedies... but they need to have characters, interesting or at least interestingly told stories and an impressive cast and crew that seem like they want to make this movie and not just toss out a hunk of shit for a few million. Oh and while you're at it, START CUTTING SOME TRAILERS THAT ACTUALLY DISPLAY THE GOOD ASPECTS OF THE MOVIE! I'm sick of hearing things are good, when the evidence isn't there for me or the rest of John Q public. Hopefully people will still give "Edge of Darkness" a shot even with shitacular ads because it's very much worth the price of admission.

Brian De Palma's BLOW OUT

Lately I've been in a real mood for very stylized film making. I think "Inglourious Basterds" had something to do with it, but then again these feelings come in waves so who can really say. In any case over the weekend I finally sat through all of Brian De Palma's "Body Double" which in a lot ways had elements I liked, but together and done in the fashion it was done I really didn't like it.

However it did have me longing for one of his films I don't own on DVD and that's "Blow Out" with John Travolta and Nancy Allen. So being broke and not having the time to find a proper download for it I watched a few Scorsese pictures, realized that I actually really dug "Gangs of New York" and that I should watch "Cape Fear" more often. But now with my computer set up and a few extra hours I did re-watch the entire film and reaffirmed how great a thriller it is. More specifically it's my kind of thriller.

"Blow Out" follows Jack, a sound designer for low budget horror flicks in Philadelphia. One night he's out on a bridge recording some sounds when he records the sound of a car blowing a tire, hitting a street lamp and plummeting into the lake. He rushes to the lake and manages to save a woman from the back seat. The male driver however was already deceased. Nothing too out of the ordinary right? That would be the case if it weren't for the very bizarre line of questioning from the police, followed by a conversation with a political candidates manager. The other person in the car you see is the senator who was set to run for president. Jack is very good at his job and listens to that tape again and again and again until he is convinced that there was indeed a blow out... one that was caused by a gun shot a few seconds before. The rest of the film deals with Jack searching out the truth, trying to convince people to help and believe him including Sally (Nancy Allen) who he saved from the car.

Sally's place in this story is something out of the ordinary, but it's not my place to discuss that. De Palma is a huge Alfred Hitchcock fan, and in most of his 70's and 80's work that is something that's pretty easy to spot. I've always looked at it as Hitchcockian with flash. A lot of the performances he achieves are mocked after Janet Leigh's work with Hitchcock, while still being very with the times. I love Travolta in the film as he's never quite Jimmy Stewart in "Rear Window" or quite the paranoid theorist running around like a mad man... well at least not till later. For the most part he's just frustrated, but very smart. He keeps a level head and thinks his way around these situations.

It's political, it's big and it's frantic. "Blow Out" builds up strong and finishes stronger like a great thriller should. That De Palma flash is in almost every single frame and the very matter-of-fact conversations never dull in it's crisp format. If you like thrillers and films that have got that sort of old school, new school vibe then rent it, buy it, download, whatever. "Blow Out" is a great flick.