By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
If come Oct. 31, you see a dark, deserted corridor covered in dust and cobwebs with creepy noises emanating from deep within, you are most likely in one of two places: a haunted house or in a theater watching a horror flick. True to form, “Quarantine” will get your heart pumping and blood curdling. Although the plot makes hardly any sense, and the aura falls short of terrifying, this film’s horrific images and shocking jump scenes are true to the Halloween spirit.
Reporter Angela Vidal (Jennifer Carpenter) and her cameraman Scott Percival (Steve Harris) gear up for a special segment on the Los Angeles Fire Department. When the bell rings and firefighters fly down their pole, the aspiring Vidal is thrilled to be part of some real action, even if it turns out to be nothing more than rescuing a kitten from a tree. But when they arrive at an apartment complex curiously designed like a haunted mansion, it quickly becomes clear that this is no routine call.
As the camera keeps rolling, a crazed resident who is foaming at the mouth attacks one of the firefighters. Panic ensues and tensions dial up when, on their way out of the house to get their injured friend to a hospital, police close the doors and lock the group inside the complex. No explanation is given.
Eventually it becomes clear that the group is being quarantined from the rest of the city because it is suspected that a deadly virus is loose in the building. A resident who also happens to be a veterinarian recognizes the symptoms as resembling rabies, but with one twist: instead of taking hours or days for symptoms to show up, bitten or infected victims become rabid in just minutes.
A battle between the infected and uninfected develops, turning a compassionate group of people who desire the well being of everyone into a desperate army fighting against what looks like a growing cohort of zombies. The police will not let anyone out of the building, at least not while anyone is alive. Those who remain uninfected struggle to find a way out before they too fall victim to their former compatriots.
Just like the spider-webbed, zombie-ridden halls of a haunted house, “Quarantine” was not crafted to make much sense; it was crafted to frighten an audience. Viewers may wonder, for example, why the police insisted on closing off the building when the virus is only transmitted through blood or saliva, instead of isolating the lone victim and thereby saving the rest of the group.
But logic is no reason to watch a horror film. When it comes to Halloween movies, each has plenty of blood and gore, but for a horror flick to leave a real impression, a few things need to be accomplished. First, there needs to be a bit of mystery. It is important for the audience to be kept guessing, whether that is done with shaky cameras, dark corridors or mysterious occurrences. Second, there needs to be a real sense of isolation or hopelessness. In other words, an audience needs to feel like the actors and actresses are alone in the world and completely vulnerable. Finally, for a horror movie to be truly horrific, there needs to be a sense of grandeur in the enemy. This grandeur could be something quasi-ideological as in psycho movies, something paranormal as in exorcist or alien movies, or something apocalyptic as in virus movies or doomsday flicks.
Most of the mystery was taken out of “Quarantine” once the group knew that something like rabies was infecting certain members. One would think that isolation was a given, seeing as how that is pretty much the definition of quarantine, however, the fact that the desperate group was separated from the rest of the world only by a thin layer of concrete or stucco diminished the sense of loneliness. Finally, the sense of grandeur only really picks up at the end of “Quarantine.” What is left is a startling and disturbing set of shots captured on an eerie reel of film. This movie is grotesque, and succeeds in transporting the audience into a deep mood of anxiety over imagining taking a step into that horrible place.
All in all, “Quarantine” is not all that great of a movie, but will do the job if what you are looking for this Halloween is a few decent screams.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
"Choke"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
It's rare that a deity and a scoundrel are one and the same. Victor Mancini (Sam Rockwell) is not sure where the needle on his self-assessment barometer lies, but he has a strong feeling that it is not somewhere in the middle; either that or the barometer is broken. “Choke”—an off-color comedy based off a novel by Chuck Palahniuk, author or “Fight Club”—is an eccentric look at a man incapable of being satisfied. Although amusing and interesting, this film is likely to leave audiences, like the protagonist, just short of fulfilled.
Victor is a sex addict, and an ornery one at that. He utilizes any setting—from rehabilitation classes to the colonial pasture where he works as a reenactment tour guide—to sate his insatiable impulses. However, Victor’s life does not revolve solely around lewd and superficial behavior. He also scams the wealthy by pretending to choke on his meal while in high-end restaurants; a move that Victor finds endears him to potential financial backers.
To be fair, Victor does have a nobler side. He spends his money, both earned and scammed, to help pay for his mother Ida (Anjelica Huston) to be hospitalized in an expensive treatment center for individuals suffering from dementia. Because Ida does not recognize her son, Victor assumes a variety of roles as a way to interact with his mother in the hospital.
The story takes a turn when Ida hints at the identity of Victor’s father, a bit of information Victor is desperate to learn about. With the help of his sex-addict friend Denny (Brad William Henke) and a tempting nurse named Paige (Kelly Macdonald), Victor seeks to find out about his past, all the while flashing back to his chaotic childhood.
As the story unfolds and more information about Victor’s past is revealed, the details of his parentage take on Biblical proportions. Still convinced that he is the scum of the earth, Victor has reason to doubt claims that he may be of divine origin.
Victor is used to being the lying cheat, and thus incorporates his character flaws into what he expects from the world. He expects to be treated as the liar, and the audience does too—after all, he deserves it, right? As it turns out, this deeply flawed person is quite a bit more honest than those around him. The juxtapositions created by ironies of this sort cause viewers to question the legitimacy of distinctions like ‘sinner’ versus ‘saint’, ‘helper’ versus ‘helpless’. Although Victor’s character is tossed from the gutter to the clouds and back again, Victor finds himself somewhere in between, or perhaps not on the scale at all.
“Choke” is as odd as it is lewd. The many-layered story is more coherent beneath the surface than it is at face value. The humor is quirky, smart and delivered well. Although “Choke” does not come close to the merits of “Fight Club” it has its own charm and might be worth watching if you have the patience and stomach to see the story play out. This movie had more potential than the final product delivered, but perhaps not a great deal more. Some of the more outlandish plot developments, which carried a minor thematic load, were probably too cliché, oddly enough, to be worthwhile. The sum total is only slightly more worthwhile.
“Choke” is rated R for strong sexual content, nudity and language.
Coastal View News
It's rare that a deity and a scoundrel are one and the same. Victor Mancini (Sam Rockwell) is not sure where the needle on his self-assessment barometer lies, but he has a strong feeling that it is not somewhere in the middle; either that or the barometer is broken. “Choke”—an off-color comedy based off a novel by Chuck Palahniuk, author or “Fight Club”—is an eccentric look at a man incapable of being satisfied. Although amusing and interesting, this film is likely to leave audiences, like the protagonist, just short of fulfilled.
Victor is a sex addict, and an ornery one at that. He utilizes any setting—from rehabilitation classes to the colonial pasture where he works as a reenactment tour guide—to sate his insatiable impulses. However, Victor’s life does not revolve solely around lewd and superficial behavior. He also scams the wealthy by pretending to choke on his meal while in high-end restaurants; a move that Victor finds endears him to potential financial backers.
To be fair, Victor does have a nobler side. He spends his money, both earned and scammed, to help pay for his mother Ida (Anjelica Huston) to be hospitalized in an expensive treatment center for individuals suffering from dementia. Because Ida does not recognize her son, Victor assumes a variety of roles as a way to interact with his mother in the hospital.
The story takes a turn when Ida hints at the identity of Victor’s father, a bit of information Victor is desperate to learn about. With the help of his sex-addict friend Denny (Brad William Henke) and a tempting nurse named Paige (Kelly Macdonald), Victor seeks to find out about his past, all the while flashing back to his chaotic childhood.
As the story unfolds and more information about Victor’s past is revealed, the details of his parentage take on Biblical proportions. Still convinced that he is the scum of the earth, Victor has reason to doubt claims that he may be of divine origin.
Victor is used to being the lying cheat, and thus incorporates his character flaws into what he expects from the world. He expects to be treated as the liar, and the audience does too—after all, he deserves it, right? As it turns out, this deeply flawed person is quite a bit more honest than those around him. The juxtapositions created by ironies of this sort cause viewers to question the legitimacy of distinctions like ‘sinner’ versus ‘saint’, ‘helper’ versus ‘helpless’. Although Victor’s character is tossed from the gutter to the clouds and back again, Victor finds himself somewhere in between, or perhaps not on the scale at all.
“Choke” is as odd as it is lewd. The many-layered story is more coherent beneath the surface than it is at face value. The humor is quirky, smart and delivered well. Although “Choke” does not come close to the merits of “Fight Club” it has its own charm and might be worth watching if you have the patience and stomach to see the story play out. This movie had more potential than the final product delivered, but perhaps not a great deal more. Some of the more outlandish plot developments, which carried a minor thematic load, were probably too cliché, oddly enough, to be worthwhile. The sum total is only slightly more worthwhile.
“Choke” is rated R for strong sexual content, nudity and language.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
"Burn After Reading"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Joel and Ethan Coen may suffer from what could be called Cinematic Bipolar Disorder—an ability more than an ailment, really, that entails alternatively creating dark dramas and then bizarre comedies. After proving themselves masters of edge-of-your-seat thrills with Oscar-dominating film “No Country for Old Men,” the Coen brothers shifted minds and set out to make a most frustratingly absurd farce named “Burn After Reading”. Few have proven adept at drawing both the laughers and screamers, but gems like “O Brother, Where Art Though” and “The Big Lebowski” illustrate the fact that the Coen brothers possesses what few Oscar-winning directors can claim to possess: a sense of humor. Alas, although the wit and quirk coloring the latest Cohen brothers foray into comedy is bound to stick with an audience predisposed to odd humor, “Burn After Reading” is far from attaining the classic status expected from the Coens.
“Burn After Reading” is a mishmash of eccentric but real characters all hanging on for dear life as their worlds spin out of control. Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is an ex-CIA analyst looking for respect, and his feisty wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is not about to give it to him; nor to her love affair Harry Pfarrar (George Clooney), who is an affable womanizer looking for a good time and a great jogging trail. Meanwhile, gym employee Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) wants a slew of cosmetic surgeries to match her physique with the name of her gym (Hard Bodies). Litzke enlists the help of her ebullient co-worker Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) to help her on her way to greater sex appeal.
After seemingly picking a bunch of characters out of hat, Joel and Ethan Coen set to crafting a comedy of errors. In an attempt to make his life worthwhile, the stuck-up Osborne Cox decides to ignore his pestering wife’s criticisms and write a memoir. Little does he know that his lack of lucrative ambition has caused his wife to prepare for a divorce by laying hands on his financial information, and perhaps accidentally, his memoir. The disk containing this information is mistakenly left at Hard Bodies, and when the contents are examined by the ever-excitable Chad Feldheimer, who thinks the data is top-secret CIA information, he joins forces with Litzke to blackmail the unsuspecting Cox. Litzke wants the cash for a tummy tuck and breast implants, while the enthusiastic but dim Feldheimer simply wants to play a game of cops and robbers.
Although the data is hardly CIA classified, Cox treats his personal information as if it were for his eyes only. Litzke and Feldheimer are over their heads, which only complicates matters furthers, and the fact that divorce and bankruptcy loom on more than one character’s horizon causes patience to ebb and rash behavior to flow. Already moving steadily from order to disorder, this absurd tale becomes more outlandish by the minute. Cox wants respect and his disk, but is having an equally difficult time attaining either. Feldheimer is having a good time, but Litzke is not getting any closer to her artificially constructed goals. This movie shows that sometimes when you get all the right ingredients working in just the right proportions at just the right temperature, a perfect fiasco ensues.
“Burn After Reading” pits the wits of elite minds against the unpredictability of banal scheming. It is both painful and amusing to watch so many people make so many poor choices at the same time. In a farce, character development is sacrificed for situational development. The Coen brothers enlisted a phenomenal cast to bring life to the story, but their talents may have been better implemented in more amusing circumstances.
For all the bizarre plot turns, “Burn After Reading” is well crafted. It is well crafted, but not all that enjoyable. Most of the potentially laugh-out-loud moments in this movie elicit a chuckle, and thus the audience is bound to become restless while the perfect storm takes too long to develop. Yet although “Burn After Reading” might be a letdown for fans of the Coen brothers, it is easy to admire a sharply built and fast moving cyclone of human drama.
“Burn After Reading” is rated R for pervasive language, some sexual content and violence.
Coastal View News
Joel and Ethan Coen may suffer from what could be called Cinematic Bipolar Disorder—an ability more than an ailment, really, that entails alternatively creating dark dramas and then bizarre comedies. After proving themselves masters of edge-of-your-seat thrills with Oscar-dominating film “No Country for Old Men,” the Coen brothers shifted minds and set out to make a most frustratingly absurd farce named “Burn After Reading”. Few have proven adept at drawing both the laughers and screamers, but gems like “O Brother, Where Art Though” and “The Big Lebowski” illustrate the fact that the Coen brothers possesses what few Oscar-winning directors can claim to possess: a sense of humor. Alas, although the wit and quirk coloring the latest Cohen brothers foray into comedy is bound to stick with an audience predisposed to odd humor, “Burn After Reading” is far from attaining the classic status expected from the Coens.
“Burn After Reading” is a mishmash of eccentric but real characters all hanging on for dear life as their worlds spin out of control. Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is an ex-CIA analyst looking for respect, and his feisty wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) is not about to give it to him; nor to her love affair Harry Pfarrar (George Clooney), who is an affable womanizer looking for a good time and a great jogging trail. Meanwhile, gym employee Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) wants a slew of cosmetic surgeries to match her physique with the name of her gym (Hard Bodies). Litzke enlists the help of her ebullient co-worker Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) to help her on her way to greater sex appeal.
After seemingly picking a bunch of characters out of hat, Joel and Ethan Coen set to crafting a comedy of errors. In an attempt to make his life worthwhile, the stuck-up Osborne Cox decides to ignore his pestering wife’s criticisms and write a memoir. Little does he know that his lack of lucrative ambition has caused his wife to prepare for a divorce by laying hands on his financial information, and perhaps accidentally, his memoir. The disk containing this information is mistakenly left at Hard Bodies, and when the contents are examined by the ever-excitable Chad Feldheimer, who thinks the data is top-secret CIA information, he joins forces with Litzke to blackmail the unsuspecting Cox. Litzke wants the cash for a tummy tuck and breast implants, while the enthusiastic but dim Feldheimer simply wants to play a game of cops and robbers.
Although the data is hardly CIA classified, Cox treats his personal information as if it were for his eyes only. Litzke and Feldheimer are over their heads, which only complicates matters furthers, and the fact that divorce and bankruptcy loom on more than one character’s horizon causes patience to ebb and rash behavior to flow. Already moving steadily from order to disorder, this absurd tale becomes more outlandish by the minute. Cox wants respect and his disk, but is having an equally difficult time attaining either. Feldheimer is having a good time, but Litzke is not getting any closer to her artificially constructed goals. This movie shows that sometimes when you get all the right ingredients working in just the right proportions at just the right temperature, a perfect fiasco ensues.
“Burn After Reading” pits the wits of elite minds against the unpredictability of banal scheming. It is both painful and amusing to watch so many people make so many poor choices at the same time. In a farce, character development is sacrificed for situational development. The Coen brothers enlisted a phenomenal cast to bring life to the story, but their talents may have been better implemented in more amusing circumstances.
For all the bizarre plot turns, “Burn After Reading” is well crafted. It is well crafted, but not all that enjoyable. Most of the potentially laugh-out-loud moments in this movie elicit a chuckle, and thus the audience is bound to become restless while the perfect storm takes too long to develop. Yet although “Burn After Reading” might be a letdown for fans of the Coen brothers, it is easy to admire a sharply built and fast moving cyclone of human drama.
“Burn After Reading” is rated R for pervasive language, some sexual content and violence.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
"Traitor"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Samir Horn is the new international man of mystery. Unfortunately, that is not a good thing. What is mysterious in this action movie has nothing to do with espionage or intrigue. What is mysterious is why a peaceful, intelligent, God-fearing man would undertake a violent, utilitarian mission brainstormed by a single cowboy in the United States government … all in the name of peace? The tagline for “Traitor,” starring Don Cheadle and Guy Pearce, reads, “The truth is complicated.” The truth is that the point of this movie gets complicated, but never irons itself out.
Samir Horn (Cheadle) is a high-tech arms dealer for terrorist groups in the Middle East. This devout Muslim makes bombs and fuses that help end innocent, civilian lives. But when the local police and the Americans find out about a deal Horn is set to make, they raid the party. Horn is arrested, beaten and imprisoned. He refuses a deal offered by a sharp FBI agent named Roy Clayton (Pearce), instead choosing to display solidarity with his captured comrades.
Lucky for Horn, when his terrorist buddies manage to escape from prison, they decide to take him along for the ride. Horn is immediately immersed in a terrorist underworld that involves the recruitment and deployment of suicide bombers to civilian targets. Horn enthusiastically joins in the festivities, offering his own technological expertise in order to make bombings more efficient.
Meanwhile, agent Clayton is hot on Horn’s trail. He and his team discover mountains of evidence linking Horn to numerous bombings throughout the world. Clayton is thorough and efficient, but also thoughtful and understanding. Whereas others in his posse associate all Muslims with terrorism, Clayton beleives every ideology has its heroes and its villains. Thus, Clayton is more willing to believe that something more than meets the eye is going on.
Indeed, beneath the bombings and violence is a story that makes the whole affair quite a bit more complicated. Before thousands are killed and millions are thrown into terror, the characters in this movie have to find a way to look below the surface, work together and end a threat.
Although this premise had promise, “Traitor” ends up flopping at the end. None of the questions the audience needs answered—particularly in terms of motivation—are even remotely satisfied. The intelligence of Cheadle’s character conflicts with the foolhardy risks he is willing to take with his life and the lives of others. The uniformity of the evidence mounting in front of Pearce’s by-the-book character conflicts with how he ends up seeking resolution. Thus, it is neither easy to like nor to understand any of the main characters. Some interesting religious undercurrents were present, but they were not developed into anything meaningful.
All in all, watching this movie is a bit like being privy to a hotshot teenager who tries to show off by racing his parents’ car, only to crash the thing into a ditch. Even if he would have won the race, you probably wouldn’t have admired him. Sound acting performances were delivered by Cheadle and Pearce, but this movie with a head full of steam spun out well before the closing credits.
“Traitor” is rated PG-13 for intense violence sequences, thematic material and brief language.
Coastal View News
Samir Horn is the new international man of mystery. Unfortunately, that is not a good thing. What is mysterious in this action movie has nothing to do with espionage or intrigue. What is mysterious is why a peaceful, intelligent, God-fearing man would undertake a violent, utilitarian mission brainstormed by a single cowboy in the United States government … all in the name of peace? The tagline for “Traitor,” starring Don Cheadle and Guy Pearce, reads, “The truth is complicated.” The truth is that the point of this movie gets complicated, but never irons itself out.
Samir Horn (Cheadle) is a high-tech arms dealer for terrorist groups in the Middle East. This devout Muslim makes bombs and fuses that help end innocent, civilian lives. But when the local police and the Americans find out about a deal Horn is set to make, they raid the party. Horn is arrested, beaten and imprisoned. He refuses a deal offered by a sharp FBI agent named Roy Clayton (Pearce), instead choosing to display solidarity with his captured comrades.
Lucky for Horn, when his terrorist buddies manage to escape from prison, they decide to take him along for the ride. Horn is immediately immersed in a terrorist underworld that involves the recruitment and deployment of suicide bombers to civilian targets. Horn enthusiastically joins in the festivities, offering his own technological expertise in order to make bombings more efficient.
Meanwhile, agent Clayton is hot on Horn’s trail. He and his team discover mountains of evidence linking Horn to numerous bombings throughout the world. Clayton is thorough and efficient, but also thoughtful and understanding. Whereas others in his posse associate all Muslims with terrorism, Clayton beleives every ideology has its heroes and its villains. Thus, Clayton is more willing to believe that something more than meets the eye is going on.
Indeed, beneath the bombings and violence is a story that makes the whole affair quite a bit more complicated. Before thousands are killed and millions are thrown into terror, the characters in this movie have to find a way to look below the surface, work together and end a threat.
Although this premise had promise, “Traitor” ends up flopping at the end. None of the questions the audience needs answered—particularly in terms of motivation—are even remotely satisfied. The intelligence of Cheadle’s character conflicts with the foolhardy risks he is willing to take with his life and the lives of others. The uniformity of the evidence mounting in front of Pearce’s by-the-book character conflicts with how he ends up seeking resolution. Thus, it is neither easy to like nor to understand any of the main characters. Some interesting religious undercurrents were present, but they were not developed into anything meaningful.
All in all, watching this movie is a bit like being privy to a hotshot teenager who tries to show off by racing his parents’ car, only to crash the thing into a ditch. Even if he would have won the race, you probably wouldn’t have admired him. Sound acting performances were delivered by Cheadle and Pearce, but this movie with a head full of steam spun out well before the closing credits.
“Traitor” is rated PG-13 for intense violence sequences, thematic material and brief language.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
"Tropic Thunder"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
After 15 minutes of previews, moviegoers rushing to see “Tropic Thunder” have to sit through a few more coming attractions. First, a commercial for an energy drink called “Booty Sweat.” Second in the lineup is a preview for the most stereotypical action movie one could ever imagine … and then the audience begins to catch on—this is part of the movie. Yet audiences who need a bit more than slapstick comedy to crack a smile will continue to be confused throughout the film. Forget a war between nations, or bickering amongst agents, actors and moguls; the real conflict in “Tropic Thunder” is its own style. Is it a clever satire or is it a silly spoof? Splitting hairs, one might think, but the ironic voice in this star-studded movie is confused.
Three big-time actors, each dominating their respective genre (action, comedy and drama), are brought together for what is billed as “the greatest war movie ever made.” Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) is the perennial action star, with guns and biceps ablaze. Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) is a slapstick master who makes a living off farting while dressed in various fat suits. Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) is the Oscar winner, winning the hearts of audiences with powerfully emotional performances. With such a cast, how could anything go wrong?
Yet, as the actors fail to gel with each other and as the enormous budget gets stretched, production company executives begin to put the squeeze on the movie’s rookie director (Steve Coogan). Feeling the pressure, the director decides to throw the cast out into the middle of a Vietnamese jungle in an attempt to motivate the spoiled stars. At first the actors feel the mixed emotions of leaving their posh hotels while at the same time being a part of something fresh and exciting. However, as time goes on and the war blazes, the actors begin to realize that they are no longer on the set of a movie. Instead, they have found their way onto the territory of a dangerous Vietnamese drug ring, placing them in real-life peril.
These phony actors are forced to look below their superficial exteriors to find a way to live what they have only pretended to do for so long. One of the actors is captured and put in serious danger, and the others take it upon themselves to bring him back. Meanwhile, agents and executives back home are mostly unaware of what is happening. With stumbling hiccups, these Hollywood stars attempt to become real heroes.
Good actors can always deliver good lines, and there are certainly some laugh-out-loud moments produced by Jack Black, Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder.” Yet, what began as a witty commentary on stereotypical movies ended up being more like a spoof in the mold of “Hot Shots” or “Naked Gun.” The movie these actors are supposed to be creating is ridiculous in itself, but the story that unfolds once the cameras stop rolling is just as void of merit. Thus, it is difficult to place this movie in its cinematic space. If there were a more consistent motif being portrayed, it might be easier to laugh at the circumstances, but as it is, “Tropic Thunder” is a sprawling story punctuated by moments of hilarity. Those who liked “Hot Shots,” “Naked Gun” or even “Dogma” are sure to like this movie, but those who yawned at the aforementioned flicks might lack the patience for “Tropic Thunder.”
“Tropic Thunder” is rated R for pervasive language including sexual references, violent content and drug material.
Coastal View News
After 15 minutes of previews, moviegoers rushing to see “Tropic Thunder” have to sit through a few more coming attractions. First, a commercial for an energy drink called “Booty Sweat.” Second in the lineup is a preview for the most stereotypical action movie one could ever imagine … and then the audience begins to catch on—this is part of the movie. Yet audiences who need a bit more than slapstick comedy to crack a smile will continue to be confused throughout the film. Forget a war between nations, or bickering amongst agents, actors and moguls; the real conflict in “Tropic Thunder” is its own style. Is it a clever satire or is it a silly spoof? Splitting hairs, one might think, but the ironic voice in this star-studded movie is confused.
Three big-time actors, each dominating their respective genre (action, comedy and drama), are brought together for what is billed as “the greatest war movie ever made.” Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) is the perennial action star, with guns and biceps ablaze. Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) is a slapstick master who makes a living off farting while dressed in various fat suits. Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) is the Oscar winner, winning the hearts of audiences with powerfully emotional performances. With such a cast, how could anything go wrong?
Yet, as the actors fail to gel with each other and as the enormous budget gets stretched, production company executives begin to put the squeeze on the movie’s rookie director (Steve Coogan). Feeling the pressure, the director decides to throw the cast out into the middle of a Vietnamese jungle in an attempt to motivate the spoiled stars. At first the actors feel the mixed emotions of leaving their posh hotels while at the same time being a part of something fresh and exciting. However, as time goes on and the war blazes, the actors begin to realize that they are no longer on the set of a movie. Instead, they have found their way onto the territory of a dangerous Vietnamese drug ring, placing them in real-life peril.
These phony actors are forced to look below their superficial exteriors to find a way to live what they have only pretended to do for so long. One of the actors is captured and put in serious danger, and the others take it upon themselves to bring him back. Meanwhile, agents and executives back home are mostly unaware of what is happening. With stumbling hiccups, these Hollywood stars attempt to become real heroes.
Good actors can always deliver good lines, and there are certainly some laugh-out-loud moments produced by Jack Black, Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder.” Yet, what began as a witty commentary on stereotypical movies ended up being more like a spoof in the mold of “Hot Shots” or “Naked Gun.” The movie these actors are supposed to be creating is ridiculous in itself, but the story that unfolds once the cameras stop rolling is just as void of merit. Thus, it is difficult to place this movie in its cinematic space. If there were a more consistent motif being portrayed, it might be easier to laugh at the circumstances, but as it is, “Tropic Thunder” is a sprawling story punctuated by moments of hilarity. Those who liked “Hot Shots,” “Naked Gun” or even “Dogma” are sure to like this movie, but those who yawned at the aforementioned flicks might lack the patience for “Tropic Thunder.”
“Tropic Thunder” is rated R for pervasive language including sexual references, violent content and drug material.
Monday, July 21, 2008
"The Dark Knight"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
For numerous reasons, both auspicious and not, “The Dark Knight” has been burdened with anticipation—forced to outdo any film in the Batman series and perhaps even in the superhero genre. The unique atmosphere surrounding this film has only born questions to further inflate expectations. Could the late Heath Ledger win an Oscar? Could this be the best superhero movie of all time? If box office numbers decided these questions, the golden statue would have been engraved two weeks ago. But putting aside questions, expectations, hopes, genre, history and tragedies, “The Dark Knight” lived up to itself, and surpassed itself, as a truly great movie.
In “The Dark Knight,” Batman (Christian Bale) is attempting to subdue Gotham’s crime, but the riffraff of criminality mixed with complications associated with his own imitators keep the superhero distracted and disillusioned. It is Batman’s belief that what the city needs is a police infrastructure, not a vigilante warrior. At just the right moment, Harvey Dent (Aaaron Eckhart) becomes Gotham’s new district attorney, swearing to be tough on crime and pledging to pull no punches. The presence of this impressive new addition to the city’s crime-fighting force is immediately felt—scores of big-time criminals are put behind bars.
Batman, who was feeling stretched thin, is pleased with what he is seeing from Dent and looks forward to stepping down as Gotham’s crime-fighting hero. However, a new kind of criminal comes on the scene. Calling himself the Joker (Heath Ledger), this scarred, painted, greasy-haired maniac is true to his name, perpetrating his crimes for the mere pleasure of it all. At first, Batman and Dent downplay the importance of the Joker, but when the latter ups the ante by throwing the city into chaos, Batman is called back into action.
The Joker is far more sophisticated than the average criminal, or even the average villain. He is clever, diabolical and at least two steps ahead of everyone, including Batman. What is more disturbing about the Joker is that he is not interested in money, revenge or any sensible objective. He claims to want nothing more than to have Batman unmasked, but in the end all he wants is to make a game out of killing and chaos. Make no mistake, the Joker is refined and ideological, but paradoxically, in a nihilistic sort of way. He has a purpose and a plan—a way he wants things to unfold—while at the same time not ultimately caring, even for his own life. He wants to show that “everything burns,” and what better way to do that than to send a city of 30 million inhabitants into anarchy?
The mayhem brought on by the Joker causes Batman, Dent, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, Bruce Wayne’s perennial love and Dent’s current girlfriend) and the police department to re-evaluate their ideology, their values and what they are willing to do to win the war against the Joker. The truly terrifying fact is that defeating the Joker does not come down to putting him behind bars or killing him, for the Joker would gladly submit himself to either, so long as the images of the heroes and shining faces of the city go down with him.
This film begins as a fairly commonplace, action-packed superhero movie, but by the end, it transformed itself into a thought-provoking, profound social commentary. In particular, the concepts evoked by the Joker are startling and sinister. He is a true Nietzschean villain: he believes in nothing, and so determines to make his life a work of art. He unmasks all the hypocrisy and false ideology typical of any organized society—hoping to cause its very structure to crumble.
Heath Ledger does a truly remarkable job as the Joker, and the rest of the cast is fairly good. Christian Bale is good, but not as good as he could be or has been in other roles. Aaron Eckhart was just O.K., as was Maggie Gyllenhaal. Gary Oldman as Lt. James Gordon was perhaps second only to Heath Ledger in quality of performance.
This movie is fast, thrilling and dramatic. It keeps the audience on the edge of their seats and causes them to feel the ups and downs of the plot as if they were personally involved in the story. With superhero movies currently all the rage, “The Dark Knight” is the only one that stands above the rest—the only superhero movie that surpasses the genre.
“The Dark Knight” is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace.
Coastal View News
For numerous reasons, both auspicious and not, “The Dark Knight” has been burdened with anticipation—forced to outdo any film in the Batman series and perhaps even in the superhero genre. The unique atmosphere surrounding this film has only born questions to further inflate expectations. Could the late Heath Ledger win an Oscar? Could this be the best superhero movie of all time? If box office numbers decided these questions, the golden statue would have been engraved two weeks ago. But putting aside questions, expectations, hopes, genre, history and tragedies, “The Dark Knight” lived up to itself, and surpassed itself, as a truly great movie.
In “The Dark Knight,” Batman (Christian Bale) is attempting to subdue Gotham’s crime, but the riffraff of criminality mixed with complications associated with his own imitators keep the superhero distracted and disillusioned. It is Batman’s belief that what the city needs is a police infrastructure, not a vigilante warrior. At just the right moment, Harvey Dent (Aaaron Eckhart) becomes Gotham’s new district attorney, swearing to be tough on crime and pledging to pull no punches. The presence of this impressive new addition to the city’s crime-fighting force is immediately felt—scores of big-time criminals are put behind bars.
Batman, who was feeling stretched thin, is pleased with what he is seeing from Dent and looks forward to stepping down as Gotham’s crime-fighting hero. However, a new kind of criminal comes on the scene. Calling himself the Joker (Heath Ledger), this scarred, painted, greasy-haired maniac is true to his name, perpetrating his crimes for the mere pleasure of it all. At first, Batman and Dent downplay the importance of the Joker, but when the latter ups the ante by throwing the city into chaos, Batman is called back into action.
The Joker is far more sophisticated than the average criminal, or even the average villain. He is clever, diabolical and at least two steps ahead of everyone, including Batman. What is more disturbing about the Joker is that he is not interested in money, revenge or any sensible objective. He claims to want nothing more than to have Batman unmasked, but in the end all he wants is to make a game out of killing and chaos. Make no mistake, the Joker is refined and ideological, but paradoxically, in a nihilistic sort of way. He has a purpose and a plan—a way he wants things to unfold—while at the same time not ultimately caring, even for his own life. He wants to show that “everything burns,” and what better way to do that than to send a city of 30 million inhabitants into anarchy?
The mayhem brought on by the Joker causes Batman, Dent, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, Bruce Wayne’s perennial love and Dent’s current girlfriend) and the police department to re-evaluate their ideology, their values and what they are willing to do to win the war against the Joker. The truly terrifying fact is that defeating the Joker does not come down to putting him behind bars or killing him, for the Joker would gladly submit himself to either, so long as the images of the heroes and shining faces of the city go down with him.
This film begins as a fairly commonplace, action-packed superhero movie, but by the end, it transformed itself into a thought-provoking, profound social commentary. In particular, the concepts evoked by the Joker are startling and sinister. He is a true Nietzschean villain: he believes in nothing, and so determines to make his life a work of art. He unmasks all the hypocrisy and false ideology typical of any organized society—hoping to cause its very structure to crumble.
Heath Ledger does a truly remarkable job as the Joker, and the rest of the cast is fairly good. Christian Bale is good, but not as good as he could be or has been in other roles. Aaron Eckhart was just O.K., as was Maggie Gyllenhaal. Gary Oldman as Lt. James Gordon was perhaps second only to Heath Ledger in quality of performance.
This movie is fast, thrilling and dramatic. It keeps the audience on the edge of their seats and causes them to feel the ups and downs of the plot as if they were personally involved in the story. With superhero movies currently all the rage, “The Dark Knight” is the only one that stands above the rest—the only superhero movie that surpasses the genre.
“The Dark Knight” is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
"Mongol"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
“Do not scorn a weak cub; he may become a brutal tiger.” Most individuals have heard the name Genghis Kahn, but few have heard of Temudjin. Likewise, and true to the Mongolian proverb which prefaces “Mongol,” most individuals know the protagonist of this Best Foreign Film nominee as a brutal tiger, not the weak cub who was once scorned. Although this story of Genghis Kahn’s rise to power is surely a fictional portrayal, “Mongol” is a genuine cultural experience, both charming and alarming.
Temudjin is a proud and disciplined young boy whose father is a Kahn, the leader of his clan. Temudjin’s future seems certain: he will choose a wife and rule the clan in prosperity. However, when the Temudjin’s father suddenly dies on the way home from a trip to help find his son a wife, the headstrong boy’s secure future dies as well. Instead of becoming the young Kahn, Temudjin is immersed in a dangerous environment more suitable for experienced warriors. Temudjin is driven from his home and left for dead. Yet with the aid of an unexpected friend, the rightful Kahn returns, but only to be captured and made a slave.
The next few decades of Temudjin’s life are a struggle to stay alive, to stay free and to grab what is his. He fights his enemies as well as his friends, making sure to form plenty of grudges along the way. In this Mongolian culture, everything is transitory. What is yours is that which you are strong enough to take. Whether it is horses or a wife, property and relationships trade hands as often as territories in a game of Risk—often as if settled by a roll of the dice. At one and the same time, Temudjin learns to both embrace and scorn this way of life. He believes his wife and his horses are his own, yet he often shows a willingness to play the power struggle game, and in the process endangers that which he holds precious. A very fine line between greatness and great failure develops, and if the audience did not know how the story turned out, they might have wondered whether Temudjin was destined to be a king or a slave.
This film only reveals glimpses of Temudjin as Genghis Kahn, the king of all the kings; a man who expresses his desire to bring law to Mongolians, even if he has to kill half of them. Herein lies a central ideological conflict that remains unsettled. Was Genghis Kahn’s legacy positive because he brought order to mayhem, or was it negative because he was part of the mayhem—perhaps the most brutal part? Which is worse, anarchy or dictatorship? These unresolved conflicts are intentional and important. The tagline for this movie, “Greatness comes to those who take it,” appropriately portrays Temudjin, with all his moral complication, as a great man for his willful persistence and disciplined focus.
In addition to being a unique ideological experience, the setting and production of this film is sharp and beautiful. Not since “The Lord of the Rings” has scenery in a movie been this appealing. However, “Mongol” also had its flaws. Those who come to see Genghis Kahn the warrior will be mostly disappointed. This movie is slow and sometimes sprawling, punctuated with a few fast-paced battle scenes. The film’s transitory feel is critical to its themes, but at times this sensation causes detachment from the audience and hurts the logical flow of the story. “Mongol” will always be interesting, but you may have to be in the right mood to enjoy it.
“Mongol” is rated R for sequences of bloody warfare.
Coastal View News
“Do not scorn a weak cub; he may become a brutal tiger.” Most individuals have heard the name Genghis Kahn, but few have heard of Temudjin. Likewise, and true to the Mongolian proverb which prefaces “Mongol,” most individuals know the protagonist of this Best Foreign Film nominee as a brutal tiger, not the weak cub who was once scorned. Although this story of Genghis Kahn’s rise to power is surely a fictional portrayal, “Mongol” is a genuine cultural experience, both charming and alarming.
Temudjin is a proud and disciplined young boy whose father is a Kahn, the leader of his clan. Temudjin’s future seems certain: he will choose a wife and rule the clan in prosperity. However, when the Temudjin’s father suddenly dies on the way home from a trip to help find his son a wife, the headstrong boy’s secure future dies as well. Instead of becoming the young Kahn, Temudjin is immersed in a dangerous environment more suitable for experienced warriors. Temudjin is driven from his home and left for dead. Yet with the aid of an unexpected friend, the rightful Kahn returns, but only to be captured and made a slave.
The next few decades of Temudjin’s life are a struggle to stay alive, to stay free and to grab what is his. He fights his enemies as well as his friends, making sure to form plenty of grudges along the way. In this Mongolian culture, everything is transitory. What is yours is that which you are strong enough to take. Whether it is horses or a wife, property and relationships trade hands as often as territories in a game of Risk—often as if settled by a roll of the dice. At one and the same time, Temudjin learns to both embrace and scorn this way of life. He believes his wife and his horses are his own, yet he often shows a willingness to play the power struggle game, and in the process endangers that which he holds precious. A very fine line between greatness and great failure develops, and if the audience did not know how the story turned out, they might have wondered whether Temudjin was destined to be a king or a slave.
This film only reveals glimpses of Temudjin as Genghis Kahn, the king of all the kings; a man who expresses his desire to bring law to Mongolians, even if he has to kill half of them. Herein lies a central ideological conflict that remains unsettled. Was Genghis Kahn’s legacy positive because he brought order to mayhem, or was it negative because he was part of the mayhem—perhaps the most brutal part? Which is worse, anarchy or dictatorship? These unresolved conflicts are intentional and important. The tagline for this movie, “Greatness comes to those who take it,” appropriately portrays Temudjin, with all his moral complication, as a great man for his willful persistence and disciplined focus.
In addition to being a unique ideological experience, the setting and production of this film is sharp and beautiful. Not since “The Lord of the Rings” has scenery in a movie been this appealing. However, “Mongol” also had its flaws. Those who come to see Genghis Kahn the warrior will be mostly disappointed. This movie is slow and sometimes sprawling, punctuated with a few fast-paced battle scenes. The film’s transitory feel is critical to its themes, but at times this sensation causes detachment from the audience and hurts the logical flow of the story. “Mongol” will always be interesting, but you may have to be in the right mood to enjoy it.
“Mongol” is rated R for sequences of bloody warfare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)