I'm gonna tweak an intro I like to use from time-to-time. I've used it before talking the ocean and huge bodies of water but am twisting it up a bit to outer space concerning a film in theaters that's raking in the dough and piling up positive reviews. Rightfully so as well. So what's scarier than outer space? How about being trapped in outer space millions of miles and months and potentially years away from rescue? Yeah. Pretty...freaking...scary. So goes 2015's The Martian.
It's two-plus weeks into a NASA mission on Mars when a horrific storm forces the six-man crew to abort ahead of schedule and head back to Earth. In the evacuation though, one member of the crew, Mark Watney (Matt Damon), is struck by a piece of flying debris and swept away. The Ares crew leaves before they too are lost, suspecting that Mark was killed in the accident...but he wasn't. With the crew having left Mars behind, Mark wakes up the next day, wounded, running out of oxygen and very much on his own. All he has is a habitat that isn't intended for long-term living and with stockpiles of supplies but only to a point. If he intends to survive, he's got some serious work to do. A potential rescue is at least four years away -- it takes awhile to get to Mars -- and that's only if he can somehow get in touch with NASA. If he can. First things first, Mark has to provide for himself with the food and water (even rationed) scheduled to run out long before any potential rescue arrives. The clock is ticking...
'Martian' is based off a best-selling novel by Andy Weir. I read it this past spring and I loved it. LOVED it. Mark Watney quickly climbed onto my list of all-time favorite characters. At different points reading Weir's novel, I felt physical ill I was so nervous, my eyes teared up with extreme worry about Mark's fate and what I took away most, I laughed out loud over and over again. It's one of the best books I've read in years, funny, emotional, smart and dramatic, all rolled into one. So how about the movie...
It's a gem. Director Ridley Scott is at the helm of an excellent, almost great movie. I don't have any huge flaws to call into question, but I can't call 'Martian' an all-timer. It's just really, really good from beginning to end. Scott has had a string of so-so to meh to not very good movies, but this is the veteran director at the top of his game. It can be daunting adapting any novel, but the effort here is spot-on. Filming was done in Wadi Rum in the Jordanian desert, giving the film a startling, far-off look to the "location" shooting on "Mars." I really liked composer Harry Gregson-Williams' score, unassuming and quiet that more than suits the action. We don't need aggressive, in-your-face music telling you how to feel. You need quiet, companion music that underplays the emotions and action.
When I read Matt Damon had been cast as Mark Watney, I was skeptical -- a little -- because the character is in his late 20's and though it suited Damon regardless of age, something didn't seem spot-on about the choice. Well, I'll admit when I was wrong. Mr. Jason Bourne himself was a perfect choice. Part of the appeal of the Watney character is his response to his isolation and potential death. We see him break down in a couple instances, but this is a man who takes every problem as it comes and attacks it head-on. He never gets too down no matter how hopeless or impossible it seems. It's one of Damon's best performances, showing off what a versatile talent he is. You're rooting for him from the start and that never lets up. Intelligent, funny, stubbornly persistent and quite sure he's going to survive no matter what's thrown at him, an excellent part for Matt Damon.
Damon's Watney is -- not so surprisingly -- on his own during his time on Mars. In other words, it's kind of a one-man show during those scenes. Here, Scott uses some cool style points. In the book, it was quite acceptable that Watney kept a diary of all his day-to-day activities. Short of narration playing over his actions throughout the entire run-time, that wouldn't work here. Instead, Watney films video diaries, keeping us updated on one fiasco or success or observation after another. Damon injects the character with the same energy and dark sense of humor and stubborn hope that Weir's novel presented. It's a straigthforward call on style, but it works. The days pass with a simple 'Sol 18' and so on appearing on-screen, a sound effect like a radar ping playing over it. Not aggressive in the style department, but it works in subtle, underplayed fashion.
Now of course, 'Martian' isn't a one-man show. The overall cast is excellent, Damon on Mars and the expansive rescue effort playing out back on Earth with the Ares crew also traveling back to Earth. Lots of potentially excellent parts and they don't disappoint. Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Kristen Wiig, Sean Bean, Benedict Wong, Mackenzie Davis and Donald Glover lead the NASA rescue effort in a variety of roles. The "surviving" Ares crew includes Jessica Chastain, Michael Pena, Kate Mara, Sebastian Stan and Aksel Hennie. If that's not a cast powerful enough to melt your face, well, I don't know what is. There isn't a weak link, but I especially thought Daniels, Ejiofor, Bean, Wong, Chastain and Pena did especially good jobs bringing characters to life that could have been cardboard cutouts. What a cast!
It's hard not to watch Scott's 'Martian' and not think of countless other science fiction films. For every comparison you can make from similarly-themed movies like Gravity or Apollo 13, you get the sense that while familiar, Scott's film is carving out its own niche and heading out on its own. I thought Gravity was excellent as a visual medium -- a true experience of what being in space is like -- but I never felt emotionally connected with it. That isn't the case here. It's a spectacle movie, an astronaut wasting away on Mars while a rescue effort is mounted, but it connected far more with me emotionally. That's a credit to Weir's novel, the screenplay adaptation, Scott's directing and an amazingly talented cast. An all-around excellent film. And one more thought...
I liked -- maybe loved -- the humanity of 'Martian.' The trailer introduces the concept that often times when a man/woman, men/women are in trouble, people come to help, to rescue, to save. Racial and cultural differences are set aside, all in the hope of helping those that so desperately need it. It's a highly effective storytelling technique here as billions of dollars are spent to bring one man home. That's where this story is so effective emotionally. You're rooting for Mark, you like him, and you want him to survive. What drives him? He's stubborn and man, he does not want to die on Mars. Watney has some great narration late as a potential rescue effort draws nearer, a man doing a long list of firsts on a planet that is untouched by human hand (or feet). Very well-written, well-executed and well-delivered lines by Mr. Damon.
Reading Weir's novel, Mark Watney became one of my favorite literary characters, and Damon more than does him justice. A heck of a movie that succeeds on basically every level you could ask for. Highly recommended for a great sci-fi spectacle, a moving story with some very high highs and some very low lows with a ton of dark humor sprinkled in here and there. Go see it and read the book too!
The Martian (2015): *** 1/2 /****
The Sons of Katie Elder
"First, we reunite, then find Ma and Pa's killer...then read some reviews."
Showing posts with label Jeff Daniels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeff Daniels. Show all posts
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Looper
Here we are again. Want to start a fight on the Internet? Say something, anything, and someone will disagree with you. That's minor stuff. How about a smart, well-written movie about a complicated topic like time travel? For better or worse, there are certain rules to time travel (via the movies at least, I can't say I've time traveled....that I know of, ooohhh!!!!) so we get fun time travel (Back to the Future, Bill and Ted) and serious time travel (Terminator, Lost, Planet of the Apes). Our newest entry? That's 2012's Looper. Let the arguments continue!
It's 2074, and time travel has been invented and quickly deemed illegal. Organized crime still uses time travel though, sending people back through time 30 years to be killed and disposed. Waiting for them back in 2044 are hired killers called 'Loopers,' one of which is Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). At a prearranged time and place in the countryside, Joe waits with a blunderbuss shotgun for his victim to appear in front of him. He shoots, kills them and burns the body, getting his payment in silver for his work. There is a rule though that's been dubbed 'Closing the Loop.' At some point, your future self will be sent back, and the Looper has to kill his future self no questions asked. Joe is good at what he does, and even though he knows it's coming, he's still stunned when his future self, Old Joe (Bruce Willis), appears in front of him. He's so stunned though that future Joe escapes. Joe has broken a rule, and now his employer is gunning for him. His only solution? Kill his future self and make up for it.
That is a very limiting plot description. Describing the job director Rian Johnson did both directing and writing the script for 'Looper' could be an entire review in itself. It is a phenomenal script, smart, interesting, always entertaining and doesn't get too bogged down in the inane details that Internet-goers just love to argue about. Go ahead, try reading the message boards at....well, anywhere. It's beyond painful to read. Cut away any number of arguments and disagreements, and it comes down to this. There just aren't a whole lot of smart movies out there. More than that, there aren't many smart movies that are entertaining too. This one is. It presents an incredibly unique, well thought out premise, and lets it breathe a little. It's an action movie, but it's not packed to the seams with action. The script will no doubt present some opportunities for "discussion" (does that exist on the Internet?), but they're all for the good if you ask me.
With his script and film, Johnson has created his own unique world. His script, his rules. All the Loopers work for Abe (Jeff Daniels), a man from the future sent back through time to run the Loopers for the man in charge. He finds troubled teenagers and "puts a gun in their hand." Working for Abe are a small army of 'Gat Men,' hired killers who help him keep his grip over the city. Who do they work for? A mysterious man in the future called the Rainmaker. No one knows how he came to power or any of his background. He simply puts everything in motion and rules with an iron fist. Then there's the "tweak" of the future. A small percentage of people have telekinetic powers. It's nothing major, just an ability to hold things up with your mind, but the people are looked upon strangely just the same. Johnson does a great job with all these little touches that give this future version of life touches of reality.
I loved the style of Looper from the very beginning. It's set in 2044 Kansas City which doesn't look too far removed from modern day. Some sort of cataclysmic event has changed how we live, but it's never spelled out for us in great detail. This is our modern world with a slight tweak here and there. The technology is basically the same with a few advances -- hoverbikes, advanced helicopters -- but there's also been a step back. Vagrants and homeless people live on the streets in large numbers. Food is scarce. In a sense, the world has righted itself to a point. The wardrobe is worth noting too. Gordon-Levitt's Joe has a retro look; leather jacket, shirt and tie, jeans. He almost looks like a man right out of the 1950s. The Gat Men hunting him look like stylized wild west gunfighters, all using a long-barrel pistol and wearing black clothes and ankle-length dusters. In the gunfights, we see dusters swooping through the air, something simple that looks incredibly cool.
And oh right, the characters. I almost forgot about them. Gordon-Levitt is one of my favorite actors, and he turns in another solid performance here as Joe, a tragic, scarred character if there ever was. He knows his road will not end well, and he's trying to put his life on the right track. How then does he react when he sees his future self appear in front of him? How would you react? Understandably a little freaked out. Willis does a fine job too in a particularly nasty part as future Joe. Having seen what happens with his life, future Joe wants to right and wrong, and that involves killing several people. The physical similarity isn't perfect with Gordon-Levitt wearing some eye/nose makeup, but it's good enough. The scenes between the two are perfect, especially a mind-bending conversation at an isolated country diner. Joe is talking to himself from the future. Really try and wrap your head around that. Pretty cool premise, huh?
Joining the duo in the cast is Emily Blunt as Sara, a single mom trying to protect her son, Cid (Pierce Gagnon), who may hold a key to the future. Gagnon delivers an incredible performance as Cid, layered and nuanced like an actor with 20, 30 years of experience. It's a great part. Paul Dano has a small part as Seth, a fellow Looper, while Garret Dillahunt and Noah Segan play Jesse and Kid Blue, two of Abe's Gat Men. Piper Perabo nudes up as Suzie, Joe's quasi-girlfriend and stripper/dancer.
Now for a little time travel analysis, but even I'm not exactly sure of every single detail so bear with me. You meet your future self. The logical thought is that everything you do in the moment should already be a memory in your future self, right? Well, because you're meeting your future self, aren't you changing that memory? 'Looper' finds a logical way around that. Future Joe's memory (Willis) is cloudy, things changing as Young Joe (Gordon-Levitt) does different things. Young Joe learns something, Future Joe is instantly aware of it because it is in fact....a memory. Head hurt much? Yeah, mine too. Willis' Joe delivers a perfect line for anyone who gets too hung up on the time travel aspect, plot holes or not. He explains "I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws." Call it a cop out, but it works for me.
I really enjoyed this movie, especially the ending. It can be taken one specific way, but who knows? It leaves the door open for interpretation. Joe makes a choice that he thinks should right things for the future, but anything could happen. Time and the universe have a way of course-correcting (thank you, TV's Lost). The movie itself is a gem though. I loved the premise, the style, the characters, seeing Gordon-Levitt become Willis in a highly stylized montage, and I loved the ending. Can't recommend it enough.
Looper (2012): *** 1/2 /****
It's 2074, and time travel has been invented and quickly deemed illegal. Organized crime still uses time travel though, sending people back through time 30 years to be killed and disposed. Waiting for them back in 2044 are hired killers called 'Loopers,' one of which is Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). At a prearranged time and place in the countryside, Joe waits with a blunderbuss shotgun for his victim to appear in front of him. He shoots, kills them and burns the body, getting his payment in silver for his work. There is a rule though that's been dubbed 'Closing the Loop.' At some point, your future self will be sent back, and the Looper has to kill his future self no questions asked. Joe is good at what he does, and even though he knows it's coming, he's still stunned when his future self, Old Joe (Bruce Willis), appears in front of him. He's so stunned though that future Joe escapes. Joe has broken a rule, and now his employer is gunning for him. His only solution? Kill his future self and make up for it.
That is a very limiting plot description. Describing the job director Rian Johnson did both directing and writing the script for 'Looper' could be an entire review in itself. It is a phenomenal script, smart, interesting, always entertaining and doesn't get too bogged down in the inane details that Internet-goers just love to argue about. Go ahead, try reading the message boards at....well, anywhere. It's beyond painful to read. Cut away any number of arguments and disagreements, and it comes down to this. There just aren't a whole lot of smart movies out there. More than that, there aren't many smart movies that are entertaining too. This one is. It presents an incredibly unique, well thought out premise, and lets it breathe a little. It's an action movie, but it's not packed to the seams with action. The script will no doubt present some opportunities for "discussion" (does that exist on the Internet?), but they're all for the good if you ask me.
With his script and film, Johnson has created his own unique world. His script, his rules. All the Loopers work for Abe (Jeff Daniels), a man from the future sent back through time to run the Loopers for the man in charge. He finds troubled teenagers and "puts a gun in their hand." Working for Abe are a small army of 'Gat Men,' hired killers who help him keep his grip over the city. Who do they work for? A mysterious man in the future called the Rainmaker. No one knows how he came to power or any of his background. He simply puts everything in motion and rules with an iron fist. Then there's the "tweak" of the future. A small percentage of people have telekinetic powers. It's nothing major, just an ability to hold things up with your mind, but the people are looked upon strangely just the same. Johnson does a great job with all these little touches that give this future version of life touches of reality.
I loved the style of Looper from the very beginning. It's set in 2044 Kansas City which doesn't look too far removed from modern day. Some sort of cataclysmic event has changed how we live, but it's never spelled out for us in great detail. This is our modern world with a slight tweak here and there. The technology is basically the same with a few advances -- hoverbikes, advanced helicopters -- but there's also been a step back. Vagrants and homeless people live on the streets in large numbers. Food is scarce. In a sense, the world has righted itself to a point. The wardrobe is worth noting too. Gordon-Levitt's Joe has a retro look; leather jacket, shirt and tie, jeans. He almost looks like a man right out of the 1950s. The Gat Men hunting him look like stylized wild west gunfighters, all using a long-barrel pistol and wearing black clothes and ankle-length dusters. In the gunfights, we see dusters swooping through the air, something simple that looks incredibly cool.
And oh right, the characters. I almost forgot about them. Gordon-Levitt is one of my favorite actors, and he turns in another solid performance here as Joe, a tragic, scarred character if there ever was. He knows his road will not end well, and he's trying to put his life on the right track. How then does he react when he sees his future self appear in front of him? How would you react? Understandably a little freaked out. Willis does a fine job too in a particularly nasty part as future Joe. Having seen what happens with his life, future Joe wants to right and wrong, and that involves killing several people. The physical similarity isn't perfect with Gordon-Levitt wearing some eye/nose makeup, but it's good enough. The scenes between the two are perfect, especially a mind-bending conversation at an isolated country diner. Joe is talking to himself from the future. Really try and wrap your head around that. Pretty cool premise, huh?
Joining the duo in the cast is Emily Blunt as Sara, a single mom trying to protect her son, Cid (Pierce Gagnon), who may hold a key to the future. Gagnon delivers an incredible performance as Cid, layered and nuanced like an actor with 20, 30 years of experience. It's a great part. Paul Dano has a small part as Seth, a fellow Looper, while Garret Dillahunt and Noah Segan play Jesse and Kid Blue, two of Abe's Gat Men. Piper Perabo nudes up as Suzie, Joe's quasi-girlfriend and stripper/dancer.
Now for a little time travel analysis, but even I'm not exactly sure of every single detail so bear with me. You meet your future self. The logical thought is that everything you do in the moment should already be a memory in your future self, right? Well, because you're meeting your future self, aren't you changing that memory? 'Looper' finds a logical way around that. Future Joe's memory (Willis) is cloudy, things changing as Young Joe (Gordon-Levitt) does different things. Young Joe learns something, Future Joe is instantly aware of it because it is in fact....a memory. Head hurt much? Yeah, mine too. Willis' Joe delivers a perfect line for anyone who gets too hung up on the time travel aspect, plot holes or not. He explains "I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws." Call it a cop out, but it works for me.
I really enjoyed this movie, especially the ending. It can be taken one specific way, but who knows? It leaves the door open for interpretation. Joe makes a choice that he thinks should right things for the future, but anything could happen. Time and the universe have a way of course-correcting (thank you, TV's Lost). The movie itself is a gem though. I loved the premise, the style, the characters, seeing Gordon-Levitt become Willis in a highly stylized montage, and I loved the ending. Can't recommend it enough.
Looper (2012): *** 1/2 /****
Labels:
2010s,
Bruce Willis,
Emily Blunt,
Jeff Daniels,
Joseph Gordon-Levitt,
Paul Dano,
Sci-Fi
Monday, December 7, 2009
Traitor
Even though the 9/11 attacks happened eight years ago, making a movie about any of the following -- Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorists -- is about the equivalent of trying to sneak into the White House to talk to Obama. You won't be successful, and there's no way your plan ends well. Yet, people in Hollywood still continue to try to put their own spin on the conflicts going on around the world. Maybe the wounds are still too fresh, but it's hard to imagine a big box office for any movie dealing with these sticky topics. Even the critically loved 'The Hurt Locker' struggled in theaters, never getting a wide release. By the way, definitely looking forward to seeing that on DVD.
Part of the problem is that these current world issue war on terrorism movies just haven't been that good. Finally saw one this week, 2008's Traitor, that while not great is an interesting look at modern terrorism, government intrigue, and personal beliefs, both morally and religious. But instead of being too preachy, there's some good action, several exciting chase sequences, and a not so surprising performance from star Don Cheadle. Be forewarned, from here on in, I'm going to be throwing SPOILERS left and right because this is one of this flicks that's more than a little hard to review without a few key (read *twists*) plot revelations.
As a young boy in Yemen, Samir Horn sees his father killed in a car bombing. It's an event that changes his life as a grown-up Samir (Cheadle) joins the U.S. Special Forces only to stay in the Middle East following his discharge. There he works with Muslim terrorist cells, using his expertise with explosives and engineering to keep these cells occupied with bombs. It's at a meeting to sell these explosives that Samir is captured and thrown in a Yemenese prison. There he forms a friendship with Omar (Said Taghmaoui), a member of the cell Samir was working with. An FBI agent, Roy Clayton (Guy Pearce), visits Samir, offering to help him get out, but he wants none of it.
It is not long before Omar and Samir escape the prison, hooking up with the higher-ups and remaining members of their cell. The group, known as Al Nathir, plans to cause chaos in the U.S., not just with one attack, but with 50 attacks happening simultaneously. Al Nathir has been planting sleeper agents throughout the U.S. for years, and now they will each board a different bus on the same day at a prearranged time. The lynch pin is this, they'll all be carrying bombs Samir builds. Continuing his investigation, Clayton sees all the evidence pointing to Samir, but something seems a little off. Can he stop it before the attack?
SPOILERS If you disregarded my previous warning and kept reading, now would be the appropriate time to stop if you don't want the movie spoiled for you. SPOILER Let's face it, Don Cheadle isn't a terrorist, and that's the only big flaw this movie has. There is no way in hell a movie with a major Hollywood actor starring as a hardcore terrorist would get released in theaters. So to resolve that, Cheadle is an agent deep undercover trying to expose the cell that trusts him so closely. His only link to the government he works for is an intelligence operator, Carter (Jeff Daniels making the most of a small part).
But what does work in this context is that none of the story is whitewashed. To convince the cell and his superiors that he is legit, Samir does actually build bombs for them, including one that goes off in an embassy and kills several people that weren't supposed to be there. Cheadle shows off his acting chops in the aftermath, silently tearing himself apart as he reads the newspaper recounting the attack. He doesn't say a word throughout, and it's a powerful, very moving scene. And even riskier, Taghmaoui's Omar is presented as a sympathetic character. That's a ballsy play showing a terrorist as anything but pure evil, but it works. Their unlikely friendship (man, that sounds like a Disney movie) is a key as the movie develops.
Director Jeffrey Nachmanoff chose to set this story in modern times, but it does have elements of any number of genres; the spy movie, the political thriller, the action epic. On a purely entertainment level, Traitor goes up a notch because of that. The characterization and development sets the groundwork for a good movie, and then all those other things lift it up some. There's a message without being preachy, and at the same time it's entertaining as Samir and Omar seemingly race around the world. Locations include Chicago, France, Canada, Morocco, London and Marseilles. Pretty good for a relatively small budget and a somewhat controversial storyline.
This one slipped through the cracks upon its initial release, but it's one worth catching up with. One of the most underrated actors in Hollywood, Cheadle delivers both an emotionally charged and understated role at the same time. Pearce is the FBI agent trying to do his job as best he can, only to realize he's not so different from the man he's chasing. A nice blend of action, intrigue and a message. Definitely worth a rent.
Traitor <----trailer (2008): ***/****
Part of the problem is that these current world issue war on terrorism movies just haven't been that good. Finally saw one this week, 2008's Traitor, that while not great is an interesting look at modern terrorism, government intrigue, and personal beliefs, both morally and religious. But instead of being too preachy, there's some good action, several exciting chase sequences, and a not so surprising performance from star Don Cheadle. Be forewarned, from here on in, I'm going to be throwing SPOILERS left and right because this is one of this flicks that's more than a little hard to review without a few key (read *twists*) plot revelations.
As a young boy in Yemen, Samir Horn sees his father killed in a car bombing. It's an event that changes his life as a grown-up Samir (Cheadle) joins the U.S. Special Forces only to stay in the Middle East following his discharge. There he works with Muslim terrorist cells, using his expertise with explosives and engineering to keep these cells occupied with bombs. It's at a meeting to sell these explosives that Samir is captured and thrown in a Yemenese prison. There he forms a friendship with Omar (Said Taghmaoui), a member of the cell Samir was working with. An FBI agent, Roy Clayton (Guy Pearce), visits Samir, offering to help him get out, but he wants none of it.
It is not long before Omar and Samir escape the prison, hooking up with the higher-ups and remaining members of their cell. The group, known as Al Nathir, plans to cause chaos in the U.S., not just with one attack, but with 50 attacks happening simultaneously. Al Nathir has been planting sleeper agents throughout the U.S. for years, and now they will each board a different bus on the same day at a prearranged time. The lynch pin is this, they'll all be carrying bombs Samir builds. Continuing his investigation, Clayton sees all the evidence pointing to Samir, but something seems a little off. Can he stop it before the attack?
SPOILERS If you disregarded my previous warning and kept reading, now would be the appropriate time to stop if you don't want the movie spoiled for you. SPOILER Let's face it, Don Cheadle isn't a terrorist, and that's the only big flaw this movie has. There is no way in hell a movie with a major Hollywood actor starring as a hardcore terrorist would get released in theaters. So to resolve that, Cheadle is an agent deep undercover trying to expose the cell that trusts him so closely. His only link to the government he works for is an intelligence operator, Carter (Jeff Daniels making the most of a small part).
But what does work in this context is that none of the story is whitewashed. To convince the cell and his superiors that he is legit, Samir does actually build bombs for them, including one that goes off in an embassy and kills several people that weren't supposed to be there. Cheadle shows off his acting chops in the aftermath, silently tearing himself apart as he reads the newspaper recounting the attack. He doesn't say a word throughout, and it's a powerful, very moving scene. And even riskier, Taghmaoui's Omar is presented as a sympathetic character. That's a ballsy play showing a terrorist as anything but pure evil, but it works. Their unlikely friendship (man, that sounds like a Disney movie) is a key as the movie develops.
Director Jeffrey Nachmanoff chose to set this story in modern times, but it does have elements of any number of genres; the spy movie, the political thriller, the action epic. On a purely entertainment level, Traitor goes up a notch because of that. The characterization and development sets the groundwork for a good movie, and then all those other things lift it up some. There's a message without being preachy, and at the same time it's entertaining as Samir and Omar seemingly race around the world. Locations include Chicago, France, Canada, Morocco, London and Marseilles. Pretty good for a relatively small budget and a somewhat controversial storyline.
This one slipped through the cracks upon its initial release, but it's one worth catching up with. One of the most underrated actors in Hollywood, Cheadle delivers both an emotionally charged and understated role at the same time. Pearce is the FBI agent trying to do his job as best he can, only to realize he's not so different from the man he's chasing. A nice blend of action, intrigue and a message. Definitely worth a rent.
Traitor <----trailer (2008): ***/****
Monday, September 14, 2009
State of Play
When dealing with the current state of newspapers in a movie, there's certain things that can't be avoided; the online vs. print rivalry, a good story vs. tabloid stories that might sell more papers, the morality of publishing a story, conflict of interests, and of course, big business. Will anyone let us print this story? State of Play clearly did its research in handling these subjects whether it be the look of the fictional Washington Globe's cluttered, chaotic newsroom to the rivalry between a print writer and a young blogger. It's the little things that make the movie more believable, and much easier to get into the world of what's going on.
Old-school newspaper reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) is very good at what he does, but with the changing times of newspapers, he refuses to change with the technology. So when two dead bodies turn up, Cal goes to the scene for his story. Across town, a woman is killed in a subway station, or was she? It turns out the woman was an aide to Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) and as more information becomes available, she was also having an affair with Collins. His editors start to put the squeeze on Cal because during his college years he was roomate with who else? Collins.
The two cases/stories start to evolve and working with a young online writer, Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), Cal begins to accumulate a lot of evidence that the two cases are seemingly related. Collins and his aide were working on a case against PointCorp, a private corporation full of ex-military personnel who serve in the Middle East and around the world providing security. Could PointCorp have really ordered a hit on Collins' aide? Would they really go that far? So starts a twisting, turning story that kept me guessing right until the end.
Working as a team, Crowe and McAdams work well together, a journalistic Odd Couple. Crowe's Cal is wary of working with the young blogger but comes to see her as a colleague, a fellow reporter. It can be tricky making journalists' work compelling to watch because much of it is tracking down phone numbers and calling people, knocking on doors trying to get information, but with a handy montage the job is that much easier. The journalistic detective work provides much of the bulk of the story, but it never drags as a possible conspiracy unfolds.
As the Making of Documentary discusses, it would be hard not to compare this to All The President's Men, the true story of how Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein took down the Nixon administration that was turned into a movie starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. State of Play pays homage to its predecessor while putting its own spin on the story. One scene in particular jumps out as Cal hides in a parking garage from a man believed to be a PointCorp assasin. Shot among the shadows, it's a great scene that sent a chill down my back at the surprise intro of the killer. And overall, the movie has a good balance between the newspaper side and the thriller aspect without overdoing or overstaying its welcome on both.
Crowe and McAdams together leading the movie is a good example of what strong casting can do, but the supporting cast here is just as important. Helen Mirren is pitch perfect as Cameron, the Washington Globe editor who must balance selling newspapers with getting that perfect story out there. Robin Wright makes the most of a smaller part as Anne Collins, Stephen's wife who has a past with Cal also. Affleck may be a little young for the part, but he pulls it off well as the suave, sophisticated Congressman seemingly on the rise. Jason Bateman as a seedy PR guy and Jeff Daniels as a fellow representative looking to help Collins also leave a good taste in your mouth.
As a reporter for a paper here in Chicago, I couldn't help but smile when I saw this movie's trailer. Journalists as heroes saving society from the government?! Count me in! The story is an exciting one that easily brings the viewer in and keeps them involved trying to unravel those deep, dark, scary Washington DC conspiracies and mysteries. Great ensemble cast and a story based off a BBC miniseries makes this one well worth a watch.
State of Play <----trailer (2009): ***/****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
