Unless you’ve been living under a rock this summer, you know about the G.I. Joe movie. Between the massive marketing campaign and the nostalgia held by anyone under the age of 40, it was bound to evoke reaction from people.
Given Hollywood’s spotty history with remakes, plus the noticeable changes to the franchise that are evident in the trailer, it’s easy to assume the worst.
As someone whose toybox was dominated by G.I. Joes (more than thirty of them by my count), I can identify with those who were upset to see the standard camouflage replaced with some sort of robotic suit that seems to put its wearers into the matrix, where the laws of physics don’t apply.
“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” is not an action movie, it is THE action movie. From “Star Wars” through “Spiderman,” the influence of every action movie that came before it is evident in every scene.
The dogfights may feature submarines instead of X-Wings, a robotic suit takes the place of a radioactive spider, but the action is very much the same.
The ensemble cast is made up of very talented actors from across the spectrum, from Channing Tatum and Marlon Wayans to Dennis Quaid and Sienna Miller. While they are all talented actors, there are written with hardly more depth than their plastic counterparts.
Tatum is the gung-ho Soldier who is always ready for the next fight. Wayans is his wise-cracking partner with a heart of gold. Dennis Quaid is the grizzled yet vulnerable leader and Miller plays both the scorned lover and the villainess.
The movie piles action cliché on top of action cliché, but it does so in a way that seems more of a tribute than just lazy writing. There is every sort of conflict you can imagine. Childhood rivalries, old lovers’ quarrels and past family drama all come into play through a series of flashbacks.
It’s a very efficient way to inject drama into each battle, but it does so without letting plot get in the way of explosions.
The movie takes place in a world where the laws of physics don’t always apply, a karate fight could break out at any minute and every vehicle has at least a half-dozen missiles attached to it, just in case.
There are very few breaks in the action, another car chases, gun battle or highly choreographed fight is always right around the corner.
While all this is going on, enough plot points are planted for a long run for the franchise, the final scene indicates that a sequel is probably already in pre-production.
A particular highlight of the film is the battles between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow. Snake Eyes never talks and Storm Shadow probably spends much of his paycheck on throwing stars.
Both martial artists (one always in black, one always in white), they have a personal history going back to their childhood. Their battles are the highlight of the film, even if you can see it coming from a mile away.
In fact, most of the plot can be plotted within the first ten minutes, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The money that could have gone to an overcomplicated plot line instead went to some absolutely breathtaking scenes.
G.I. Joe purists who still remember getting their first Snake Eyes action figure might not be on board with the movie and its various liberties with the established characters, but if you’re looking to turn off your brain and watch explosions for two hours, there aren’t many movies better suited for that.
Rating - $8.00
Showing posts with label eight dollars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eight dollars. Show all posts
Friday, August 7, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The International
Action-thriller movies have taken an interesting turn in the last decade or so. The action is always plentiful, but often the ‘thriller’ aspect is nothing more than a loose end that gets tied up by the end, but its purpose is to give a brief respite from the gunfire and fistfights.
The Bond franchise and even the Bourne movies have crossed that line. They used to be plot driven, with the occasional gunfight or car chase thrown in to show the audience that movies can still make magic.
Now the only break in action is to re-load and slap some bandages on, then it’s right back into the fray. While action seems to always bring in the big bucks, there is something to be said for the old model, where the plot sucks you in, and the action is just icing on the cake.
“The International” follows an older school of action movies, the school that gave us classics such as “Bullitt.” This type of movie doesn’t bludgeon you with over-the-top shootouts or car chases that destroy entire city blocks. Instead, it is like a volcano, slowly building pressure, erupting then the pressure starts building again.
The film is structured around these release points, and it provides a glimpse back to a simpler kind of movie, not the Jerry Bruckheimer explosion-fests, but a true action-thriller, with an emphasis on the thriller.
The premise is simple enough. Clive Owen (“Sin City,” “Inside Man”), an Interpol agent with a checkered past, and Naomi Watts (“King Kong,” “21 Grams”), a New York District Attorney with everything to lose, team up to bring down an international bank that is suspected of brokering conflicts around the world and profiting off them.
The bank is the classic shadow organization, with people everywhere, and you never know who might be working for them. A quick assassination at the beginning of the film, and the subsequent response by the authorities shows everything you need to know about how far this bank’s reach is.
Owen seems to be at his best when he plays someone that needs to act rather than mull options. His character’s shady past is hinted at, and that’s really all you need to find his motivation. He does a good job as the “wild card,” a role that has been missing from movies since Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry.
Rather than constant explosions, the movie features terse, intense conversations where everyone is lying, and everyone else in the room knows that. It is a remarkable way to ratchet up the tension without being overwhelming. There are also plenty of good, but slightly trite, one-liners, which add nicely to the vintage feel of the movie.
Parts of the plot are predictable, as they are in any action movie. There are subtle references to classics such as “The Godfather” and “Reservoir Dogs” that don’t leap of the screen, but they are there. The combination of cliché and intrigue make the film familiar yet fresh in an interesting way.
And then there is the shootout. A good shootout can make a bad movie better, and conversely, make a good movie worse. In this case, the seven-minute apocalypse that takes place in New York’s Guggenheim Musuem, it’s one for the ages.
What makes it better is that you don’t see it coming. What is supposed to be an eavesdrop on a meeting turns into a full fledged masterpiece of a shootout. The architecture of the museum lets the action breathe, as well as provide many different props for the characters to shoot at.
The movie’s problem becomes apparent as it starts winding down. Without spoiling anything, the film just kind of trails off in a whimper. It’s as if the producers had a few plot points and the idea for the shootout, and decided that it was enough.
Which begs the age-old question: is it about the destination or the journey? While the journey is very satisfying, by the time you get to the destination, you can’t help but look back and wonder, as The Strokes did in 2001,“Is this it?”
Rating - $8.50
The Bond franchise and even the Bourne movies have crossed that line. They used to be plot driven, with the occasional gunfight or car chase thrown in to show the audience that movies can still make magic.
Now the only break in action is to re-load and slap some bandages on, then it’s right back into the fray. While action seems to always bring in the big bucks, there is something to be said for the old model, where the plot sucks you in, and the action is just icing on the cake.
“The International” follows an older school of action movies, the school that gave us classics such as “Bullitt.” This type of movie doesn’t bludgeon you with over-the-top shootouts or car chases that destroy entire city blocks. Instead, it is like a volcano, slowly building pressure, erupting then the pressure starts building again.
The film is structured around these release points, and it provides a glimpse back to a simpler kind of movie, not the Jerry Bruckheimer explosion-fests, but a true action-thriller, with an emphasis on the thriller.
The premise is simple enough. Clive Owen (“Sin City,” “Inside Man”), an Interpol agent with a checkered past, and Naomi Watts (“King Kong,” “21 Grams”), a New York District Attorney with everything to lose, team up to bring down an international bank that is suspected of brokering conflicts around the world and profiting off them.
The bank is the classic shadow organization, with people everywhere, and you never know who might be working for them. A quick assassination at the beginning of the film, and the subsequent response by the authorities shows everything you need to know about how far this bank’s reach is.
Owen seems to be at his best when he plays someone that needs to act rather than mull options. His character’s shady past is hinted at, and that’s really all you need to find his motivation. He does a good job as the “wild card,” a role that has been missing from movies since Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry.
Rather than constant explosions, the movie features terse, intense conversations where everyone is lying, and everyone else in the room knows that. It is a remarkable way to ratchet up the tension without being overwhelming. There are also plenty of good, but slightly trite, one-liners, which add nicely to the vintage feel of the movie.
Parts of the plot are predictable, as they are in any action movie. There are subtle references to classics such as “The Godfather” and “Reservoir Dogs” that don’t leap of the screen, but they are there. The combination of cliché and intrigue make the film familiar yet fresh in an interesting way.
And then there is the shootout. A good shootout can make a bad movie better, and conversely, make a good movie worse. In this case, the seven-minute apocalypse that takes place in New York’s Guggenheim Musuem, it’s one for the ages.
What makes it better is that you don’t see it coming. What is supposed to be an eavesdrop on a meeting turns into a full fledged masterpiece of a shootout. The architecture of the museum lets the action breathe, as well as provide many different props for the characters to shoot at.
The movie’s problem becomes apparent as it starts winding down. Without spoiling anything, the film just kind of trails off in a whimper. It’s as if the producers had a few plot points and the idea for the shootout, and decided that it was enough.
Which begs the age-old question: is it about the destination or the journey? While the journey is very satisfying, by the time you get to the destination, you can’t help but look back and wonder, as The Strokes did in 2001,“Is this it?”
Rating - $8.50
Friday, November 7, 2008
Role Models
While Judd Apatow’s modus operandi of late is to bookend the summer with movies that gross over $100 million, that doesn’t stop his troupe of actors from acting in their own films. Paul Rudd (“The 40 Year Old Virgin”) and Seann William Scott (“American Pie”) are two of those actors, and they perform the typical roles in “Role Models.”
Rudd plays the typical sensitive guy who is so devastated by the end of his relationship that he loses control. Scott plays a typical hard partying, womanizing guy that he has cashed so many checks as. Rudd is clean shaven and wears collared shirts, while Scott is stubbled and wears MMA shirts.
While the casting offers nothing new for either actor, there is a reason that they continue to play these roles. They are very good at them. Maybe even more importantly, they have the timing down with each other that they can constantly produce laughs.
Add in the usual cast, such as Jane Lynch (“Best in Show”) and Christopher Mintz-Plasse (“Superbad”) and it’s hard not to chuckle as they riff off of each other.
The plot isn’t anything fancy, and it doesn’t have to be. Rudd, distraught over his break-up decides to play tug of war with his company’s vehicle and a tow truck, while a police officer looks on. This lands the duo in a predicament: go to jail for 30 days, or spend 150 hours mentoring troubled youth.
Rudd is assigned to Mintz-Plasse, who brings back his McLovin persona in all its awkward glory. Scott is assigned a rowdy child with a filthy mouth played by cinematic newcomer Bobb’e J. Thompson.
The story gets very trite from here on out, with both men initially dreading their service, before coming to enjoy their assigned punishment. There is the obligatory moment where it all comes crashing down (with a high-voiced, acoustic guitar playing singer singing a mournful tune on the background of course), and then the rest of the movie is spent rebuilding.
What keeps it fresh is the interaction between the characters. Whether it is a camping trip, or a weekend spent participating in a medieval role-playing game, the characters always find time to exchange snide remarks.
Basically the whole movie plays out like an Apatow-inspired remake of “Problem Child” which is an intriguing possibility. The movie is much funnier than the few cheap laughs played in the trailer, and while it won’t be making a dent this awards season, it is a great way to spend two hours.
Whether it is worth your ten dollars, well, that depends on your sense of humor.
Rating - $8.50
Rudd plays the typical sensitive guy who is so devastated by the end of his relationship that he loses control. Scott plays a typical hard partying, womanizing guy that he has cashed so many checks as. Rudd is clean shaven and wears collared shirts, while Scott is stubbled and wears MMA shirts.
While the casting offers nothing new for either actor, there is a reason that they continue to play these roles. They are very good at them. Maybe even more importantly, they have the timing down with each other that they can constantly produce laughs.
Add in the usual cast, such as Jane Lynch (“Best in Show”) and Christopher Mintz-Plasse (“Superbad”) and it’s hard not to chuckle as they riff off of each other.
The plot isn’t anything fancy, and it doesn’t have to be. Rudd, distraught over his break-up decides to play tug of war with his company’s vehicle and a tow truck, while a police officer looks on. This lands the duo in a predicament: go to jail for 30 days, or spend 150 hours mentoring troubled youth.
Rudd is assigned to Mintz-Plasse, who brings back his McLovin persona in all its awkward glory. Scott is assigned a rowdy child with a filthy mouth played by cinematic newcomer Bobb’e J. Thompson.
The story gets very trite from here on out, with both men initially dreading their service, before coming to enjoy their assigned punishment. There is the obligatory moment where it all comes crashing down (with a high-voiced, acoustic guitar playing singer singing a mournful tune on the background of course), and then the rest of the movie is spent rebuilding.
What keeps it fresh is the interaction between the characters. Whether it is a camping trip, or a weekend spent participating in a medieval role-playing game, the characters always find time to exchange snide remarks.
Basically the whole movie plays out like an Apatow-inspired remake of “Problem Child” which is an intriguing possibility. The movie is much funnier than the few cheap laughs played in the trailer, and while it won’t be making a dent this awards season, it is a great way to spend two hours.
Whether it is worth your ten dollars, well, that depends on your sense of humor.
Rating - $8.50
Friday, June 13, 2008
The Incredible Hulk
The first thing prospective viewers of “The Incredible Hulk” will be asking themselves is what the film’s relation is to Ang Lee’s disaster, 2003’s “Hulk.”
Fortunately, the first film is never mentioned, and the Hulk’s origin is explained in the three-minute opening credit sequence. The events are not the same as in the first movie, indicating that this film is an entirely new reboot for the green-skinned hero.
Screenwriter Zak Penn (“PCU,” X-Men 2,” “X-Men: The Last Stand”), no stranger to the comic book movie, penned the script with help from Edward Norton. The result is a script that is closer to the comics and original television show than the previous film.
Norton fills the title role this time, and his acting chops lend a little more depth to Dr. Bruce Banner. Banner lives his life trying to control his heart rate, because anything over 200 beats per minute will unleash his monstrous alter ego.
Playing his love interest Betty Ross, is Liv Tyler. Best known for her glassy eyed stare and quivering lower lip, she was tailor made to play the torn, wounded love interest of Banner.
The film opens to find Banner working in a soda bottling plant in a third-world country, taking anger management in order to manage his ‘incidents.’
When he is eventually tracked down, the story uses the patented “Cloverfield” method of showing glimpses of the monster, in order to build the tension (previously known as the “Jaws” method).
In addition to “Cloverfield,” the film’s opening chase scene strongly resembles one from the blockbuster, “The Bourne Ultimatum.” While there is nothing wrong with films paying tribute to one another, when the references are to smash hits that have come out less than a year ago, it tends to make one cynical.
Many elements of nostalgia from the television show are present, including the famous piano theme from the closing credits, and a brief appearance by Lou Ferrigno.
The film also makes it clear that it is part of the Marvel comics universe. There are several references to Tonty Stark, the main character from “Iron Man.”
The bread and butter of superhero movies, the fight scenes, are incredible. While the Hulk fighting his human pursuers is somewhat entertaining, it’s the fight with The Abomination at the end
Despite its cast improvement over its predecessor, the movie seems unsure of its own worth. Three of the biggest movies in the last nine months are referenced, and the result is a movie that seems unsure of itself.
The film’s strength lies in its narrative. Since the first half of the movie isn’t wasted with an origin story, a full story can develop. As successful as superhero movies become, the first half of the first movie in series can be taken up by the origin, and it strains the narrative when the stories must be juggled.
The film’s conclusion just seems to taper off into nothing, and while ground is laid for the sequel; the viewer is left unsure of the fate of several key characters.
While not quote the savior to the genre that “Iron Man” was (and maybe it’s unfair to compare the two, but Marvel chose to release them within a month of each other), the film is another step in the right direction.
It takes another step towards creating The Avengers, a superhero group that consists of the Hulk and Iron Man, as well as Captain America, Thor and others. But rather than phone in the film in anticipation of an epic Avengers film, “The Incredible Hulk” lays a good foundation for both sequels and crossovers.
Rating - $8.00
Fortunately, the first film is never mentioned, and the Hulk’s origin is explained in the three-minute opening credit sequence. The events are not the same as in the first movie, indicating that this film is an entirely new reboot for the green-skinned hero.
Screenwriter Zak Penn (“PCU,” X-Men 2,” “X-Men: The Last Stand”), no stranger to the comic book movie, penned the script with help from Edward Norton. The result is a script that is closer to the comics and original television show than the previous film.
Norton fills the title role this time, and his acting chops lend a little more depth to Dr. Bruce Banner. Banner lives his life trying to control his heart rate, because anything over 200 beats per minute will unleash his monstrous alter ego.
Playing his love interest Betty Ross, is Liv Tyler. Best known for her glassy eyed stare and quivering lower lip, she was tailor made to play the torn, wounded love interest of Banner.
The film opens to find Banner working in a soda bottling plant in a third-world country, taking anger management in order to manage his ‘incidents.’
When he is eventually tracked down, the story uses the patented “Cloverfield” method of showing glimpses of the monster, in order to build the tension (previously known as the “Jaws” method).
In addition to “Cloverfield,” the film’s opening chase scene strongly resembles one from the blockbuster, “The Bourne Ultimatum.” While there is nothing wrong with films paying tribute to one another, when the references are to smash hits that have come out less than a year ago, it tends to make one cynical.
Many elements of nostalgia from the television show are present, including the famous piano theme from the closing credits, and a brief appearance by Lou Ferrigno.
The film also makes it clear that it is part of the Marvel comics universe. There are several references to Tonty Stark, the main character from “Iron Man.”
The bread and butter of superhero movies, the fight scenes, are incredible. While the Hulk fighting his human pursuers is somewhat entertaining, it’s the fight with The Abomination at the end
Despite its cast improvement over its predecessor, the movie seems unsure of its own worth. Three of the biggest movies in the last nine months are referenced, and the result is a movie that seems unsure of itself.
The film’s strength lies in its narrative. Since the first half of the movie isn’t wasted with an origin story, a full story can develop. As successful as superhero movies become, the first half of the first movie in series can be taken up by the origin, and it strains the narrative when the stories must be juggled.
The film’s conclusion just seems to taper off into nothing, and while ground is laid for the sequel; the viewer is left unsure of the fate of several key characters.
While not quote the savior to the genre that “Iron Man” was (and maybe it’s unfair to compare the two, but Marvel chose to release them within a month of each other), the film is another step in the right direction.
It takes another step towards creating The Avengers, a superhero group that consists of the Hulk and Iron Man, as well as Captain America, Thor and others. But rather than phone in the film in anticipation of an epic Avengers film, “The Incredible Hulk” lays a good foundation for both sequels and crossovers.
Rating - $8.00
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)