By Brenton Thom FAST & FURIOUS 6 is a direct sequel to FAST 5... which was a direct sequel to FAST & FURIOUS (the 4th installment), and so on down the line. The only oddball film is FAST AND THE FURIOUS 3: TOKYO DRIFT. That film is supposed to take place after this film. Sort of. Now, I will do my best to review this film without giving away any spoilers, but let’s face it, you’re not going to hold this movie up on a pedestal when it comes to twists and mysteries around every hairpin corner. This movie begins as FAST 5 ended: Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker) are street racing on the cliffs of Spain. After the completely pointless race home, we discover Brian has a child with Toretto’s sister, Mia. They are one big happy family, the movie assures us. Roll intro credits. If you didn’t see any of the other movies, you don’t have to worry. The opening titles do a recap of all the entries up to this point (excluding TOKYO DRIFT - because that one’s in the future, chronologically). We see highlights and recaps, and also how Toretto’s love, Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), was killed off in FAST 4. Once the movie really starts, there are subtle references to the previous films throughout, but nothing you can’t deduce while watching the film (or through the opening titles). A good chunk of the movie takes place in the UK, and uses London’s packed streets and tight, winding roads for plenty of drifting. One thought that came into mind is how all these clean and shiny cars never get dinged or nicked through all the tight turns. Why don’t these cars ever scratch anything? Oh forget it, we’re not here the argue the realism (more on that below). The second act takes place on the highways and bridges of Spain, and the climax is at a NATO military installation that has the world’s largest/longest runway. For roughly 15-20 minutes, the gang in their cars chase down a Russian cargo jet. You heard me right, a 4 engine, wide body, nose lift, cargo jet with more wheels than the Michelin Man races down the longest runway on the planet. I’m going to assume a lot of the stuff that happens inside the jet and outside the jet are all happening simultaneously because the time it takes that plane to speed up, lift, and TRY to take off is longer than any straight freeway I’ve ever been on. I bet that airport has a lot of plane traffic. The performances by Walker and Diesel are satisfactory, though weak at points. I could definitely tell Diesel was bored and probably just collecting a paycheck. I personally think he's a fine actor, but in this flick, it felt like he was just doing it for money. The only spot where I saw a real performance was the emotional part mid-second act where Dom confronts ex-love, Letty, for the first time since her fake death. SPOILER – THEY REVEAL IN THE TRAILER THAT LETTY COMES BACK FROM THE DEAD! This is one of the few moments with an emotional charge. Rodriguez and Diesel do have chemistry. Their flirting and scar-story bits are cute, and it feels like there was a connection there. But outside that, in the action, their performances are flat. I think the most interesting characters in the movie are Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and his partner Riley (Gina Carano). Carried over from the previous film, he is motivated and determined to get his mark, at all costs. In this flick, it feels the same way... up until the end, where he does something his character wouldn’t do. I'm dancing around spoilers, but - personally - it felt wrong. Riley is also one tough woman. She knows how to kick ass, too. We hear a lot of cracking and bones snapping when she doesn’t get something she wants. A lot of the “surprises” in the story are set-up nicely in the beginning by visuals or causal placements of dialogue, so from a structural standpoint, the movie is okay. There's a definite rise and fall of tension at points in the story. As for the action, it's ridiculous, and the filmmakers know that, so they bring things to the next level. We could argue to death points about realism and physics with this movie, but that’s not the issue. This movie can be held as a larger than life flick, similar to any James Bond or superhero film. The series started out with a more grounded action vibe (like POINT BREAK, for example) and now has become something more comical like the change in tone from GREMLINS to GREMLINS 2. The film has plenty of scripted “jokes,” but many of the actual events happening are funny, too, because of the ridiculousness of them. I won’t say it’s up there with AIRPLANE or NAKED GUN, but it does have its moments. The filmmakers know what kind of movie they're making, and what the audience is, and they amplify everything, including the action. At least, that was my impression. I have to say I had a good time watching this movie, ridiculousness and all. The film has laughs and the action is a lot of fun. Did I care much for the characters? Ehh... Did it really matter? I got to see some beautiful parts of the world with some fun/cool action setpieces and plenty of colors and explosions. It was like watching a kaleidoscope on screen. There is a lot people could say about this movie, mostly by the “film buff” type people, and they would say this is a “stupid movie” or a “dumb action flick.” And they might be right, but this is not SCHINDLER’S LIST we are talking about here. This is FAST & FURIOUS 6. The SIXTH installment of the high-octane-pumping, sexy-women-walking, buff-muscles-flexing, and flashy-cars-drifting series. Would I recommend this movie to others? Maybe. It really depends on the type of person you are. If you enjoy action of all sorts and like having a laugh or two at what’s going on screen, I’d recommend it. For everyone else, mostly women, I’d say wait until video or cable.
0 Comments
By Breanne Brennan You've all seen it: Movie posters that for some reason show half of a character's face. I'm not sure why many designers choose this approach...maybe it's laziness, lack of promotional photos, hiding a deformity, or (as shown in the AFTER EARTH poster) it looks either intimidating or badass(?) Whatever the case, I personally find it to be lazy. Take the DINNER FOR SCHMUCKS poster. What does it tell you about the film? Well...Steve Carell looks creepy as hell, is too close for Paul Rudd's comfort, and is probably a schmuck. So, where's the dinner? Understandably, it's a teaser poster, but why can't we see all the weirdos sitting at a dinner table being weird? You'd get more information about the movie, and it would look better. A more recent instance is the poster for THE INTERNSHIP... WWW.IMPAWARDS.COM Huh? Oh, wait. I thought this was the poster for THE DILEMMA. My bad. WWW.IMPAWARDS.COM Sorry, they both had red text going down the middle, cropped body parts and Vince Vaughn. Forgive me. But seriously, what does this poster tell you about the movie? That Owen Wilson's nose is difficult to crop properly? I don't know either. All I hope is that this epidemic of half-faces subsides, but I have a feeling that won't happen any time soon. By Brett Blake As I have no interest whatsoever in seeing either FAST & FURIOUS 6 or THE HANGOVER PART III, there won’t be a review from me this week. However, I can’t just let a week go by without writing something - anything - movie-related. Which brings me to this. In Re-Cast This Movie! (which may or may not turn out to be a recurring column), I will take a popular movie from years past and re-imagine it with different actors. Just for kicks, if you will. There are a few columns like this floating around the web, but I primarily took my inspiration for this from a thread on the CHUD.com message boards, and it makes for some fun, “What if?” reading material: http://www.chud.com/community/t/130268/recast-your-favorite-movies-2011-edition For this column’s inaugural run, I picked a movie that I know is close to the hearts of many people… Now, strictly speaking, the cast you’ll see below is meant to reflect Michael Crichton’s novel more than Steven Spielberg’s 1993 film. I've also played fast and loose with the ethnicity of some of the characters, but for the better, I think. So, if JURASSIC PARK were to be remade (or re-adapted), this is the kind of ensemble I’d love to see take it on… Michael Crichton's "JURASSIC PARK" Starring Aaron Eckhart as Alan Grant Sam Rockwell as Ian Malcolm Mark Ruffalo as Donald Gennaro* Idris Elba as Robert Muldoon Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Ellie Sattler Jonah Hill as Dennis Nedry Jeffrey Wright as John Arnold Richard Jenkins as Dr. Harding** John Cho as Henry Wu Paul Dano as Ed Regis*** Special Appearance By Michael Fassbender as Lewis Dodgson**** And Starring Michael Caine (who else?!) as John Hammond Notes
* Gennaro is much more important in the novel than in the movie; he's an "everyman," and also one of the more decent, even heroic characters. He's no cowardly guy hiding in the outhouse waiting to get eaten. ** It's a similar story for Dr. Harding, who's barely in the movie at all; his role in the novel is substantially larger, warranting an actor of Jenkins' stature. *** Poor Ed Regis didn't even get included in the movie at all, though some of his characteristics were absorbed by the movie's version of Gennaro. It is Regis who is cowardly and easily agitated, and who ends up on the receiving end of a T-Rex's jaws. **** Dodgson only shows up briefly in Crichton's novel (and in Spielberg's movie), but he goes on to become the central human villain of the sequel novel, THE LOST WORLD. So I figure we get Fassbender to do the cameo here to set him up as one of the leads in the sequel film. Well, there it is. Let me hear how badly I screwed this up, or what some of your ideas might be! By Brett Blake Let’s get this straight at the outset - STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is not a bad movie. It has fine performances and exhilarating action setpieces to spare. Taken purely as a sci-fi action blockbuster, it’s first-rate entertainment, and I think anybody who says otherwise is simply being a stick-in-the-mud. At the same time, anybody who says this movie doesn’t have some massive problems is delusional, because INTO DARKNESS is far from perfect. The plot, in as bare-bones a fashion as I can muster, involves Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise crew on a mission to track down John Harrison, a character who would probably be best described in our contemporary parlance as a “terrorist.” But that plot is merely the vehicle for a pair of character arcs for Kirk and Spock. Each character undergoes quite noticeable change by film’s end, and these transformations are incredibly satisfying. Chris Pine’s version of James T. Kirk is one still learning, a brash young man who basically lucked into the captain’s chair in the previous film. This movie is about him proving himself worthy of commanding a starship, and Pine sells that journey incredibly effectively. He tears into the role, fully making it his own, rising above comparisons to the previous incarnation of Kirk (but I still love ya, Shatner!). Simultaneously, we have Spock, still struggling to balance his logical upbringing and his simmering emotions. Zachary Quinto has several stand-out scenes in which we see him wrestle with the two halves of his personality, and these are some of the best moments in the movie. The rest of the cast continue to have an infectious sense of camaraderie, with Karl Urban’s Bones and Simon Pegg’s Scotty standing tallest, providing a nice amount of humor and warmth. Bruce Greenwood returns from the first film, as well, and his fatherly influence over Kirk is a nice element that’s key in fleshing out Kirk’s journey. Then, of course, we have Benedict Cumberbatch as our villain, John Harrison, and no two ways about it, he’s excellent. His sizable dramatic chops allow him to be completely convincing when Harrison is doing things that, by any measure, are evil, but he’s also able to pepper in some wonderful little character beats showing us the tormented (almost sympathetic) side of Harrison. If anything, I think he needed to be in more of the movie; while he’s certainly talked about a lot, he’s not actually onscreen very much. That’s a script issue, not a Cumberbatch issue, but it is symptomatic of something else that’s a problem: Harrison’s story, his motivations and desires, are entirely arbitrary. There is nothing about the plot of this movie (or the thematic subtext) that requires this specific character to be who he is, or to do what he does. You could literally remove him from the story, and only have to change a few minor details. In that respect, he’s a strangely inert villain. Again, Cumberbatch makes the best of it. That leads to the bigger problem, though, which is that STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS does not have a story that’s particularly interesting, ambitious, or important. Indeed, as the movie blasted into its end titles, I was asking myself, “So that’s it? That’s all it is?” The whole film feels like it’s building; there’s a calculable ratcheting-up of the tension leading to the climax. The movie builds and builds and then… ends. It builds up to something huge that never arrives. The last section is spectacularly anticlimactic, and it is certainly not helped by the moment that kicks off the film’s final movement - a scene so wrong-headed, so ill-conceived, I couldn’t believe I was actually, really seeing it. For that one scene, the movie becomes a parody of its own franchise, trading on the nostalgia of old school TREK fans in the most pandering, transparent way. It’s lazy writing masquerading as clever writing, and I can imagine the writers were surely clapping themselves on the back, saying, “See! It’s just like that scene in that other movie… only we changed it a little! Cool, huh?” No. It's cheap, and it actually kind of sucks. However, I suspect the less a person knows about STAR TREK lore, the less of an issue this might be for him/her. But enough of the negatives, let’s get back to some positives. The editing and pacing are top-notch, rocketing the film forward with energy and excitement, but also with enough breathing room for the smaller moments to have an impact. On a technical level, the movie is phenomenally well-made, with beautiful, colorful imagery (impressive 3D work, too), some really cool sound design (which uses just enough of the Original Series’ iconic, retro effects without them becoming a crutch), and yet another impressive score by Michael Giacchino, who builds off his work for the previous film in a fresh and organic way. He creates a series of motifs for the Harrison character that weave in and around his established themes in a really interesting fashion. All of these elements converge in the movie's various action setpieces, and they’re all incredibly fun. We get a variety of action (it’s not all space-bound stuff), and there’s a degree of immediacy and creativity to them that I found quite thrilling at times. Like I alluded to up at the top, I don’t think anybody could tell me they sat down and watched this movie and didn’t at least derive some enjoyment out of the sheer visceral spectacle of it all. And again, I have to come back to the strength of the character journeys. Although the movie doesn’t satisfy on a story level, it absolutely does on a character level; frankly, I’d rather have a film err on the side of character over plot than the other way around (ideally, of course, I’d like to have both). So, while I can Monday Morning Quarterback the story flaws all day long, I feel like the truly important things - Kirk and Spock’s friendship, and the interplay between the members of the Enterprise crew - are well-served. Still, this could have - should have - been a classic TREK adventure. As it stands, it’s merely a very good one. By Breanne Brennan
I love movie posters to put it simply. I work at a movie theatre, so I am surrounded by designs that are good, bad, and ugly. Needless to say, walking by them every day tends to get me thinking. For my first skewering, I lay on the slab the poster for Robert Redford's film THE COMPANY YOU KEEP. To summarize the film in one sentence for those who aren't familiar, an activist (Redford) is on the run and has his identity revealed by a journalist (Shia LaBeouf.) One might think a poster for this movie might look like a gripping thriller, right? Uh, no. We just have the busts of LaBeef and Redford staring jadedly at the cast list in the middle of the poster. What does this imagery say about the film? You probably wouldn't even think that it was about a man trying to outrun his past...oh, wait. That's what the paragraph on the top of the poster is for--to tell you what it's about and what genre of movie it is. And here I thought it was about a May-December romance between two guys. But what could possibly make this poster better? Well, if you're going to categorize this as a thriller, then make it look like one. Redford's character is trying to keep his identity safe, so why not have his back to the audience and his face in partial profile. Maybe some deep shadows, Redford looking out the blinds of a window a little paranoid. Whatever it may be, it should definitely be something that makes us say, "Ooo, that looks interesting." By Brett Blake “I could use a drink.” That’s the first thing I thought to myself as I walked out of the early matinee showing of this new iteration of THE GREAT GATSBY. Why did I need a drink? Because, frankly, I was kind of amazed by just how much I disliked the film. It’s competently made, but for the most part, it’s a mess, a loud and flashy interpretation of a nuanced and introspective classic of American literature. Everything is heightened, everything is cranked up, as if the filmmakers have no faith than an audience will “get it” without slamming them over the head. But before I get too far into this, I do think I should offer some background regarding my relationship with the auteur at the helm of this particular ship - Baz Luhrmann, he of ROMEO + JULIET and MOULIN ROUGE! fame. To be honest, neither of those are movies I have much use for, though - in all fairness - that might be more my fault than his. Luhrmann and I have never really been on the same cinematic wavelength; I generally find his films splendid to look at, but ultimately pretty hollow experiences. I’m the weirdo who thinks that AUSTRALIA is his best movie, as it’s the one where he seems the most restrained (it’s the least Baztastic, if you will). So, going into GATSBY, my expectations were not terribly high, but I was hoping for the best. I’m going to assume most are familiar with the broad strokes of Fitzgerald’s novel (didn’t we all end up reading it in high school?), so I’m not going to bother with tedious plot descriptions. Suffice it to say that, after an unnecessary and somewhat odd framing device, the movie launches into a fairly standard blow-by-blow telling of the novel. The film’s strongest attribute is its look, which is legitimately stunning. The 1920s are brought to vivid (though stylized) life by the lush cinematography (I saw the movie in 2D, so I can’t comment on how well the gimmick of 3D was applied), incredible production design (granted, much of the environment appears to have been generated in the digital world), and striking, opulent costume design. So the film looks great. Perhaps too great, as I did begin to find it somewhat garish by movie’s end. I’ll be charitable, though, and assume that Luhrmann intended for this to be the case as a commentary on the decadence of the Roaring Twenties, which - again, if intentional - is a smart way to communicate that idea to an audience so far removed from the time period. Everything other than the look of the film is problematic, chiefly the acting. I’m sort of baffled by the underwhelming performances given by the fantastically talented cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is one of my favorite actors currently working - he’s given consistently great performances since 2004’s THE AVIATOR - but for the life of me, I have no idea what he thought he was doing with the character of Jay Gatsby. The accent/cadence he adopts is a bit strange (granted, I believe there’s talk in the novel of the character having a peculiar kind of sound, but DiCaprio occasionally sounds like he's playing his Hoover character from J. EDGAR playing Gatsby), and even more strange is the uneven temperament he brings to the role. I know Gatsby is a difficult, interior sort of role, but DiCaprio underplays everything… except for the moments where he sails wildly over-the-top. It’s the most unsatisfying performance I’ve seen DiCaprio give, and I’ve seen his work in CRITTERS 3. As the object of Gatsby’s love, Carey Mulligan’s Daisy Buchanan is basically a non-entity; neither bad nor particularly good, she’s just there, leading one to wonder exactly what it is about her that inspires the passion inside of Gatsby. Tobey Maguire gets the somewhat thankless role of Nick Carraway, our narrator and audience surrogate, and a lot of his youthful naivete comes across as an affectation rather than a genuine reaction. The only actor in the cast who really delivers is Joel Edgerton, who conveys the more unpleasant and menacing aspects of his character, Tom Buchanan, in a fully-formed and compelling way. One last thing that irked me is the soundtrack. Much has been made about Luhrmann’s decision to take an anachronistic approach to the music (as he did in MOULIN ROUGE!), and I understand on an intellectual level that he wanted the story to feel fresh and modern, but the songs really seemed to be hugely inappropriate to me. Now, I’ll freely admit that I’m a total square when it comes to contemporary music (my sonic interests tend to come predominantly from the ‘60s - ‘80s), so I was probably never going to warm up to the likes of Jay-Z and wil.i.am and Beyoncé contributing to the film. Even so, the modern music is a jarring element; needless to say, I’m not rushing out to buy the soundtrack album. On the whole, the movie looks too tremendous to completely ignore, and if it’s up for some of the technical awards come Oscar time, I won’t be complaining, but a satisfying production of the novel this is not. The movie pays lip service to the introspection and subtext, but they’re overshadowed by the more surface concerns. I suspect the movie will work for a lot of people who'll just sit back and enjoy the imagery and the melodrama, but I am not one of these people. I think a somewhat more reserved touch was needed, and Luhrmann - love him or not - doesn’t do reserved. Perhaps THE GREAT GATSBY is truly an unfilmable book, as evidenced by the fact that it’s now been filmed multiple times over the decades, and it's yet to be truly nailed. If you feel you absolutely need to see a cinematic version of this story, seek out the Robert Redford version from 1974; though it completely lacks any visual flair, it does get the substance right. Or you could always read the novel again. By Brett Blake At this point, coming off the spectacular success of last year’s THE AVENGERS, Marvel Studios is in the enviable position of being able to absorb one of their films being a failure, either creative or financial. If Warner Bros. and DC Comics’ Superman relaunch, MAN OF STEEL, under-performs later this summer, it would be a crippling blow to that studio’s floundering attempts to launch a Marvel-style interconnected cinematic universe, but Marvel can afford to make some bolder, riskier choices with their upcoming slate, knowing that they’ve got THE AVENGERS 2 coming in a mere two years. Taking that into consideration, coupled with the fact that third installments rarely turn out as well as hoped, it would be understandable if IRON MAN 3 was a less-than-satisfactory motion picture. So, is it? Thankfully, no. Not at all. IRON MAN 3 is far more than satisfactory. It’s confident, funny, and engrossing, and while I wouldn’t go so far as to call it the best movie that Marvel has put out so far (hello, AVENGERS!), it more than accomplishes what it sets out to do, which is be massively entertaining. I don’t want to get into much regarding the plot, except to say that a villain called the Mandarin is wreaking havoc of a terrorism nature, and his motivations may or may not be what they initially seem. More than anything else, though, IRON MAN 3 feels like a mystery. Oh, sure, the action is there (more on that below), but there’s a sense of investigation and the unraveling of clues that really drives what the story is about. I don’t think it’s much of a spoiler to say that Tony Stark spends a good deal of the movie out of the armor, but rather than being boring or uninteresting, it’s the best section of the film, allowing Tony to show that he’s quite the resourceful fellow. The other element that stands out is the tone, which strikes a great balance between the stakes and the humor. Director/co-writer Shane Black is well known for the terrific dialogue and intricate plots in his screenplays, and his fingerprints are all over this movie. I’ve already touched upon the approach he takes with the story, but I’ll briefly mention the humor; it’s certainly not a comedy - and it never gets outright silly or goofy - but I’ll be honest: this movie is funnier and more satisfying than most comedies. Black lets the zingers and quips fly, but they’re all modulated to fit into the overall story, never overpowering or diminishing the sense of danger. The movie gives Tony a kid sidekick for a while, and that could have gotten old REAL fast, but Black nails it perfectly, and that relationship is one of the humorous highlights of the movie. Robert Downey Jr. is clearly very much at home in the role of Tony Stark, to the point that one wonders how much acting is actually going on, but he gets some new shadings to play this time around, and he remains as watchable and charismatic as ever. Both Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle have great chemistry with RDJ, but for the most part we’re not seeing anything really new from them. That’s not at all a criticism, however, since the movie isn’t demanding big character arcs from them. And now, for our villains. In the comic books, Iron Man has never been known for his deep Rogues Gallery, but the Mandarin is probably the closest thing to an arch-nemesis that he has. Again, I don’t want to say very much, but I will report that Ben Kingsley plays the character in full-on weirdo mode, and it’s a lot of fun to see. Joining him in villainy is Guy Pearce, who brings the smarm (in a big way) in another highly entertaining performance. “But enough of that,” you’re saying. “How’s the action?” It’s fantastic, running the gamut from smaller-scale shootouts and fisticuffs, to the huge, “money shot”-laden setpieces. It all works, and there’s an energy and a WOW! factor present here that I think was missing from some of the action of the first two Iron Man movies. For example, there’s an aerial free-fall sequence that is absolutely incredible stuff; I was blown away by how convincing it looked, by the fact that they had to have actually filmed a lot of it for real. That might not sound like a big deal, but when the brain can tell it’s looking at something dangerous that actually happened… instead of something that was obviously created in a computer… it gives the scene an extra kick that really makes it memorable. I could go on about how strong the score by Brian Tyler is, or how the cinematography and sound design are as effective as ever, or how the movie shows us some really cool stuff involving the armor and its capabilities that we haven’t seen before, but this movie doesn’t need more praise heaped onto it. I’ve made my point. IRON MAN 3 is the rare blockbuster that’s actually also a good movie, and it made for a wonderful time at the cinema. I had a blast with it. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|