Tuesday, October 12, 2010

RED: Movie Review

I honestly knew almost nothing about RED before I went and saw it, and maybe that was a good thing. I had seen a preview for it at some point a while back but it honestly seemed like the marketing was almost non-existent for this film. I knew that it had a lot of famous people in it and was something about retired assassins, but I almost wrote it off as another Expendables until I got the chance to see an early screening. I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by this mildly funny, slick action pick. Of course it doesn’t have the testosterone of the expendables, but the lighter touch I think makes a winning combination when you are telling the story of a group of assassins.

The movie is about Bruce Willis (OK, I don’t know the characters names, but in a movie that is cast with all movie stars, I don’t think the filmmakers really care if you know the characters names) a retired CIA black-ops agent who goes throughout his mundane life before a team of assassins is sent to wipe him out. He then goes on the run with his never-met-before crush Sarah (Mary Louise-Parker) to gather information and essentially reassemble a team of retired assassins including Morgan Freeman, John Malkovitch, Helen Mirren and Brian Cox. Their purpose according to the plot is to find out why they are being targeted for elimination after they have been retired, but in all actuality, it was just so they could all get together and make sly one-liners, banter about age and do some serious damage. It feels like w you are invited to a party where everyone seems to be friends and at the top of their game, and that makes it fun for the audience as well.

The supporting cast is almost as good as the principals, but their characters don’t have near enough fun and are inconsistent in their portrayals. Bane plays the heartless CIA assassin who’s tasked with hunting down and killing Willis, but come to find out he’s a family man? Richard Dreyfuss plays the bad guy and his job is to be a sniveling bad guy. Not much else for him to do. Besides the acting, there is not much here to laude. The script has some very inventive banter, but the directions, cinematography and sets…were all very Hollywood: Top notch, professional and devoid of any personality. Luckily the cast more than makes up for the deficit.

The pacing of the film, could improve. There are too many slow times interspersed by very surreal sped up action sequences that jar the viewing experience. A certain philosophy may hold that the slow times are needed to balance out the overdrive of action explosions. While I tend to agree on this point, I thought that may of the spaces, long pauses, drawn out glances and awkward silences were more of an editing gaffe than intentional timing by the director. All the same, some of these lulls do enable the cast to build relationships and flesh out their characters. Mary Louise-Parker goes through the biggest metamorphosis from harried cubicle dweller to adventure seeker while John Malkovitch’s weirdo lends most of the comedy and care free abandon one would only hope to have in your later years.

I am not one to promote mindless action films usually (see my Losers review) but in this case, I think this film deserves a lot of praise. It is way too much fun and self-aware to be dismissed as horrible filmmaking. As a matter of fact, I would go so far to say that despite the script or predictability, it’s a very good movie. I can’t believe I’m owning up to the fact that a cast can save a picture no matter how mundane the plot, direction or film itself may be. If Alfred Hitchcock is right, and actors are just cattle, then these cattle must be some seriously funny top quality solid gold Angus.

Final Consensus:
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!!
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t Bother

Share

Thursday, October 07, 2010

The Social Network: Movie Review

It’s saying something about facebooks’ popularity when most people know the new film The Social Network as “The Facebook Movie.” It says even something more that the film uses restraint in telling the story of facebook without delving much into its popularity, functionality or even purpose. If one honestly had no clue what facebook is, they would probably still not know much about it after seeing this movie and honestly probably not care. In The Social Network, facebook itself serves as a sort of McGuffin, a term Hitchcock used to describe a major element of the plot that drove the story forward, yet was really insignificant in relation to the events of the film. Instead in The Social Network, we get characters who are weak, petty, indecisive, repulsive, sympathetic, excited, awkward, conceited and most importantly…all pretty clueless when it comes to dealing with the new fame and fortune that Facebook drops in their lap quite suddenly.

Jesse Eisenberg plays Mark Zuckerburg…the co-founder and programmer of Facebook. Now, I honestly have no clue what mark Zuckerburg is like in real life, his speech cadences or manner of addressing his fellow human beings (outside his wooden delivery as a guest on The Simpsons) so I am not able to rightly say how much Eisenberg channels the persona of Zuckerburg. It is safe to say that I am a huge fan of how Eisenberg portrayed the lead protagonist. He is not a likeable character by any means, and has the knack for alienating and making an enemy out of everyone except his best friend played by future spidey Andrew Garfield. It is the relationship between Garfield’s Eduardo and Zuckerburg that is the heart of the story, and what a twisted, innocent, backstabbing heart it is.

Garfield has the least amount of work to do in this film since he seems like the only normal down to earth person at Harvard and the rest of the film for that matter. Is he honestly the only one that is able to reason logically when this whole Facebook thing exploded? Justin Timberlake plays the napster party guy Sean Parker who seems fun at first but morphs into the slime ball you love to hate. Both actors do a pretentious best that play identical twins Winklevossi (he he) who claim the Zuckerburg stole their idea and can’t bear the thought that anyone could be more popular than they are.

As a movie…the film is actually quite boring. It’s all dialogue, which in this case is a good thing. I was a huge fan of Aaron Sorkin’s short loved but brilliant show Studio 60 and this film proves he is a genius at quick banter, meaningful introspections and very revealing personal speaking which never comes across that way. I was also glad to see David Fincher move away from his more dark and violent material (yes you Se7en and Zodiac) and prove that you don’t need blood and murder to create compelling drama. There are flashes of brilliance in his style (amen rowing scene) and he somehow keeps the audience engaged through almost 2 hours of solid dialog and talking heads.

Did I actually use compelling and boring to describe the same movie? Yes, I did…because that is what this is. No twists, no big reveal just seriously flawed people trying to navigate themselves around each other with each trying to come out as the top dog. While that may seem trite and rather a downer, Fincher does a stupendous job of showing us that in such a dog-eat-dog world nobody is a winner. All the success and money in the world will never change who you are when you started out…so make sure that someone is a person you can live with, or you will be left friendless and lonely…no matter how many facebook friends you have.

Final Consensus:
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!! (not for the special effects, but just to support good moviemaking)
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t Bother