Blackhat

Sometimes the formula is better than the finished product. That was my thought going into 2015's Blackhat, a colossal failure at the box office earlier this season. We mix director Michael Mann, star Chris Hemsworth and a cyber-thriller story....should be pretty good, right? Reviews and a very poor box office seem to indicate otherwise. Where does it end up then for this Michael Mann/Chris Hemsworth fan?

At a nuclear power plant in Hong Kong, a hacker causes the coolant pumps to overheat and eventually cause an immense explosion. Not long after, the same hacker unleashes his work on a mercantile exchange, making millions of dollars in the process by placing stocks in the right place. Chen Dawai (Leehom Wang), a military officer in China's cyber warfare unit, has now been placed in charge of the investigation, tasked with finding those individuals responsible for the attacks. As he investigates the attacks and how the hacker pulled them off, Chen realizes the code the hacker is using was actually written by...Chen himself, years before when he was in college. He actually wrote it with his roommate, Nicholas Hathaway (Hemsworth), now wasting in prison for a sentence because of his own hacking and computer crimes. Working together, Hathaway is granted release to help track down the hacker but time is in short supply. Could this hacker unleash another attack? If so, what's his end game?

I'm a huge Michael Mann fan. I love Last of the Mohicans, Heat, Thief, Collateral, and even like his less well-received efforts like Miami Vice, Public Enemies, and yes, this movie, Blackhat. I liked it. I did. I understand the objections but in spite of them a bit (while admitting they VERY much exist), I enjoyed this most recent Mann flick. Now that said, it seems not too many other people did. Released near the new year, 'Blackhat' cost around $70 million but earned only $17 million around the world. It's rocking a 5.4 at the IMDB and a 34% at Rotten Tomatoes. In other words, not good At All. There are some huge flaws that should have been dealt with, but if you're a Michael Mann fan, there's enough here to give a slight recommendation.

Probably the biggest complaint I have is that this movie feels far more like a cyber-thriller you would have seen in the late 1990s or even early 2000s, movies like Swordfish, Sneakers, The Net, Enemy of the State and many others. It feels dated, even a little past its prime. Yes, computer hacking is at an all-time high -- yeah for identity theft! -- but it's more the way Mann brings it to life. The opening scene as the power plant gets taken down "follows" the code as it races through the wires and computers and yeah, been there and done that countless times before. If this intro is supposed to look cool, it did....15 years ago. That's what is most surprising. Usually Mann is pretty up on things when it comes to his films -- period pieces, crime thrillers, biographies -- but this felt like a misfire considering that aspect of the film and its mildly successful attempt at timeliness.

So when you think of Mann movies, what comes to mind? For me, that's simple. When they work, we're talking bad-ass, renegade, freaking awesome, all that is man lead characters. We're talking Daniel Day Lewis' Hawkeye with a rifle in each hand running up a mountain. We're talking Pacino and De Niro mano-a-mano. We're talking James Caan in Thief, Tom Cruise in Collateral, Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx in Miami Vice. Mann does a roguish anti-hero like nobody's business so a pairing of him, his script and Thor...um, Chris Hemsworth seemed logical. Other than Hemsworth not being my first (or 18th) choice to play a hacker, he makes the best of it. He's cool. He can mumble a line with line. He can seductively stare at both men and women. And when it comes down to it, and everything hits the fan, he's calm, cool and collected. Oh, and because he's a hacker, he can figure out seemingly impossible things with ease.

Who knows why audiences do and don't see certain movies. I wonder some if the lack of a recognizable cast beyond Hemsworth had anything to do with it. Wang's Dawai character is interesting but underdeveloped, an up and coming security officer who risks it all to get the job done. Wei Tang plays his sister, Chen Lien, loyal to a fault...until she develops feelings for Hemsworth's Hathaway. Yeah, the script goes there unfortunately. Oh, no, doomed love! As for Hathaway's relative team (i.e.: the ones making sure he doesn't bolt), there's an underused Viola Davis and an underused Holt McCallany with Andy On joining the group as a like-minded hacker. Also look for John Ortiz, Ritchie Coster and Yorick van Wageningen in key supporting parts.

There's a certain look and feel and touch to a Mann movie. He was shooting in handheld, shaky cam in digital long before others thought to do so. That look and feel of the movie is definitely there with a story mostly based in a very humid-looking Hong Kong, Malaysia and Indonesia. That Michael Mann style is there to burn. The set pieces are okay, but nothing too memorable with the exception of the finale at a crowded parade ground during a religious ceremony. Even then though, the finale disappoints because it could have packed quite a punch but instead goes for a far safer ending. Too bad.

So what's the biggest issue? It isn't the most action-packed movie. I'd say more than that it is even a tad slow to the point of being boring in a 133-minute running time. I did like it though in spite of its flaws, but just not as much as Mann's other previous ventures. A flawed recommendation.

Blackhat (2015): ** 1/2 /****

Prisoners

It was a movie that seemed like it was a sure thing to snag some Oscar nominations. Powerful, dramatic acting, incredibly dark subject matter, and a whole lot of talent assembled for a cast. And what did 2013's Prisoners get nominated for? Exactly....one, that nomination for Best Cinematography. Okay, yes, that's fair. It's certainly a visually interesting film, but nothing else?!? Come on now. So....anyways, yeah, this was an excellent movie.

On a gloomy, rainy Thanksgiving Day, Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and his family walk down the street to celebrate the holiday with their neighbors, the Birch's. After dinner as the Dovers get ready to go, they realize their daughter and the Birch's youngest daughter are both missing, nowhere to be found. Minutes turn to hours, hours to a day, and there's no trace of either girl. The police are called in, including lead detective David Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), a suspect, Alex Jones (Paul Dano), found just a few hours after the disappearance was first reported. Looking for clues/evidence tying Jones to the girls though, the police come up empty and are forced to release him after a 48-hour hold. Keller remains convinced that Jones is the one who kidnapped the two girls and decides to take drastic measures to bring them back. All the while, Loki becomes progressively more obsessed with the case, leads drying up in one dead end after another. The clock is ticking for the two girls.

From director Denis Villeneuve and writer Aaron Guzkowski, this movie is a doozy. Movies about serial killers, murderers, diseases running rampant, they can all be uncomfortable in countless ways. But as for a movie about someone kidnapping two young children? Unsettling doesn't begin to describe that ever-developing story. I watched this one, and I couldn't help but think of my five-year old niece. This is a movie that isn't intended to entertain (obviously) but one you appreciate. Audiences responded to the film, 'Prisoners' earning $122 million, and it's easy to see why. The acting here is what acting is all about. It's human and real, and when it calls for some big, dramatic moments, it doesn't feel authentic. It is authentic, credit to Villeneuve and cinematographer Roger Deakins for making a film with a bleak, dreary look that doesn't pull any punches. Deakins picked up an Oscar nomination for his cinematography. Tough to see him winning against Nebraska or Gravity, but he deserved that nomination.

The 2013 film year was very loaded when it comes to acting, especially for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor. Maybe the issue here was deciding between Jackman and Gyllenhaal in nominations? These are two powerhouse performances and for different reasons. A family man and middle-class dad torn apart by his daughter's kidnapping? A detective with a troubled childhood past who similarly becomes obsessed with finding two missing girls? These are great parts, both actors stepping up to the plate and delivering. Jackman handles his role in the right way with scenes that could feel forced or overdone. He's driven down a road that most would never want to even contemplate, but he's going to get his daughter back. He doesn't care what he does, if it's right, morally or in the eyes of the law, or what his decisions will ultimately do to him. I thought Gyllenhaal's part was underrated, reminding me some of his part in Zodiac. His detective is tough, brutally efficient and the pressure is starting to wear on him, especially with Jackman's Keller pressuring him to close the case and bring his daughters back.

Brace yourself for the rest of the cast though. It is a halfway decent group if you're into that sort of thing. Maria Bello plays Keller's wife, Grace, progressively losing her mind as hours turn into days, needing her husband more than ever as he takes desperate measures to get their child back, Dylan Minnette playing their teenage son. The parents of the second kidnapped girl are played to perfection by Terrence Howard and Viola Davis while Zoe Borde plays their teenage daughter. Dano seems to be typecast a bit as the possibly crazy/unhinged guy but there's a reason. He's good at it, really good. We're never quite sure of his intentions, his background, his motivation, Melissa Leo playing his aunt. Also look for Wayne Duvall, Len Cariou and David Dastmalchian in key supporting parts.

Beyond the general uncomfortable feeling in tone and emotion that basically permeates every single scene in a 153-minute movie (It never drags), what makes it especially memorable and tolerable is that the story becomes a whudunnit story. Yes, obviously, we want to see the girls rescued. But as clues and leads and evidence dry up, we also want to see who did the kidnapping. Why did they do it? Guzkowski's script does a great job keeping us guessing right until the reveal. Hints are dropped here and there, but it's difficult to peg everything down as it comes along. Uncomfortable? Yes, but the mystery aspect makes it interesting on a far different level.

It all builds to an impressive reveal and finale, including a great final scene. Some viewers/critics call it ambiguous, but it really isn't if you think it through. I very much liked this movie, or at least as much as you're supposed to like a movie about child kidnapping. Appreciate it for the top to bottom strengths of the cast.

Prisoners (2013): ***/****

Ender's Game

Originally published in 1985 from author Orson Scott Card, the novel Ender's Game has become a fan and cult favorite for readers over the last 25-plus years. For years, it never got that big screen adaptation, that big-budget science fiction flick that would appease diehard fans and newbies alike. Well, we got it, and maybe with the advances in technology, it was worth the wait. Hitting theaters a few weeks ago and struggling a bit at the box office as I write this review, 2013's Ender's Game.

Fifty years into the future, Earth has moved on from an alien invasion by a race known as the Formics. The war and invasion was costly, millions of people killed in the blink of an eye and the subsequent attacks. Five decades later, the International Fleet continues to prepare for a counterattack, turning to children and teenagers to lead the defense. Among the trainers are Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) and his right hand officer, Major Anderson (Viola Davis), always trying to find the child best suited to lead the defense of mankind. Among the thousands of trainees, Graff thinks he's found the right subject, the perfect individual to lead the defense, a young boy named Ender Wiggins (Asa Butterfield), the youngest of three children who is brilliant in his analysis and clear-thinking in almost all his actions. He displays all the characteristics they're looking for, but is he really the best choice? Is he almost too smart? Can young Ender keep his own demons under wraps to live up to his potential?

I never read Card's novel the movie is based on. Deal with it. Okay, that's a little harsh. Just want to get that out there. I'm not a fan, haven't read it, and went into this movie without any expectations of what this movie had to live up to it. From director/screenwriter Gavin Hood (X-Men Origins: Wolverine), 'Game' is a pretty entertaining, polished, well-told science fiction story that I loved for half of its 114-minute running time. It has a ton of potential, plenty to the point I'm still looking forward to checking out Card's original novel. 'Game' asks a lot of questions, some pretty dark considering this is a movie at least somewhat aimed at a teenage audience. On a familiar level, there's growing up and discovering who you are as a person, but there's much more. It's living and dealing with your flaws, embracing on them or working at them, becoming part of a group or becoming a leader and on a far bigger level, the loss of a few for the savior of many. It's pretty heady stuff.

Visually, 'Game' is what a science fiction film can be when computer-generated images are used to aid a story rather than overwhelm it. The CGI blends seamlessly at all times here, a future down the road some but not so far removed from the 2013 world we know now. When Ender is sent to Battle School, we're introduced to a West Point-like culture in Space Station form floating through space far above Earth. The school and its tech-heavy hallways and corridors looks familiar, like something we've seen in countless other sci-fi movies, but with a new spin. The coolest thing is the Battle Room, an expansive, enclosed zero gravity circle where the Armies of the Battle School learn strategy and battle theory, all while floating through space while still doing battle. As we see more, I thought it's cool to see that Ender and his fellow trainees use touch screen-like technology to lead armies of spaceships, drones, fighters and thousands of people. It ain't too far removed from iPads, iPhones and any number of other modern tech items. Yeah, it could have a cool charm if it had been made in the 1980s, but how about 2013? It's a pretty ideal time for a story like this with that sort of technology.

A very talented young actor, Butterfield is excellent as young, talented, even troubled Ender Wiggins. The movie depends on him so that he steps up to the plate is a huge positive. The fact that the character has touches of the Christ figure -- the One to save us all, the Savior -- is subtle without beating us over the head with the message too. The young actors are solid across the board, especially Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit) as Petra, a fellow Battle School student who befriends Ender, and Abigail Breslin making the most of a stereotypical part as Ender's worrying sister, Valentine. As for the rest of the students, look for Aramis Knight, Suraj Partha, Moises Arias as a violent rival for Ender, and a handful of other parts that all handle themselves really well. It's encouraging to see this many young actors perform so well, and all in one movie.

The focus is on the child parts, but the adult actors don't disappoint either. Harrison Ford has a good part, playing against type a bit, as Colonel Graff, the commanding officer who's intentions are not perfectly clear. How far is he willing to go to accomplish his goals? What is he willing to sacrifice? Viola Davis provides the perfect counter, a voice of reason and clear-thinking, to Ford's Graff. Ben Kingsley is poorly used as Mazer Rackham, a legendary pilot who provides quite the example for the young students. Nonso Anozie has a fun part as Sergeant Dap, the drill sergeant hovering over the students with an iron fist.

So what's the problem? It's hard to peg. I think there's just too much going on for its own good with a movie that runs just under two hours. The training sequences become repetitive quickly, and then all the sudden we're at the finale! There's the ending and then a quasi-twist that continues the movie for another 10 minutes that limp to the finish. It's not a bad movie by any means. There's a lot of positives, A LOT of them, but I came away mildly disappointed because the start was so strong. I still feel very comfortable recommending it, but I could have recommended it more if that makes any sense.

Ender's Game (2013): ** 1/2 /****