Next

So when did it all hit the fan for Nicolas Cage? I'm thinking it was somewhere around 2006 with the all-time classic remake The Wicker Man. He went from an actor who could play quirky roles to a quirky actor who just made (mostly) bad movies. There's been some good ones mixed in but not too many. Here's one of those quasi-duds, 2007's Next.

Working as a mildly successful performer in Las Vegas under the stage name Frank Cadillac, Cris Johnson (Cage) goes about his job and life as quietly as possible. Why exactly? Cris has a special power, one he's trying to keep under wraps. Cris can see two minutes into his own future, knowing exactly what awaits him around every corner and turn. His small-time gambling tendencies have caught the attention of the FBI, including Agent Callie Ferris (Julianne Moore), who wants to use Cris to help stop a terrorist attack. A nuclear bomb is believed to be transported into the U.S. and hopefully Cris can find out where and when it will be used. On the run for a run-in with the FBI in a casino, Cris is trying to figure it all, trying to piece it all together. It may all be connected to a mysterious woman (Jessica Biel) he can see far further into the future than his usual two-minute limit. Can he do it in time with millions of lives at stake?

When this science fiction-ish thriller was released in 2007, my brother-in-law saw the movie and said he liked it. How did he think I'd feel about it? Well, to put it lightly, I wouldn't like it....AT ALL. That recommendation -- or lack of -- helped me steer clear of 'Next' but I guess seven years or so was a long enough wait. This thriller from director Lee Tamahori is loosely based on a short story, The Golden Man, by Philip K. Dick. Is it good? Well, I'm curious to read Dick's short story because as I feel like I write far too often....a whole lot of potential that never really adds up. It's not a long movie, wrapping up nicely in a little under 90 minutes if you take away the closing credits. The biggest flaws come from an overuse of the gimmick, Cris' ability to see into the future. The idea is cool but it adds up the most crippling flaw of all in the finale.

It's Sixth Sense Syndrome again. Movies aren't content anymore to just have a regular old twist ending. It has to be a twist ending that completely comes out of left field with no warning. It doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to fit within the rules of what we've been told to this point. If you're going to have a character that can see into the future in a tight time window, so be it. Run with it. Don't adjust on the fly, and if I've got this twisting, steaming pile of an ending remotely figured out, that's exactly what happens here. A cop-out ending, and that is about the worst thing you can do as a writer/producer/director. Grow a pair and stick with an ending. The point here seems to be to completely confuse the viewer and manipulate them into thinking one thing only to have the carpet pulled out from under you. Now that's a way to create favor with your audience! Just an awful ending.

What I brought up earlier in the introduction is that Nicolas Cage has started to play a caricature of himself over recent years. Quirky overall, stilted acting, even more stilted line deliveries, violent, arm-throwing reactions. Maybe the oddest thing about Next? Cage is the least of the movie's concerns. His voiceover narration is a little overdone at times, and his hair looks pretty hair implant(y) but it's an interesting character. I would have loved some more background other than a few passing lines about his growing up, but the Cris character is certainly interesting from the get-go. Now that said, the script does provide Cage countless opportunities to run. Run away, run to someone, run down a mountain. There's just something truly hilarious about Cage running, trying to sprint at least, because he could be the slowest running actor in Hollywood history. He's pumping and pushing...and looks like he's running in quicksand.

The rest of the cast doesn't fare so well. Julianne Moore feels out of place and forced, her FBI agent whiny and worn down. Jessica Biel tries her best with a poorly written character but there just isn't any interest there. Her mystery woman supposedly holds the key to it all, but it amounts to nothing more than a damsel in distress though. Well, that's not completely fair. There's also her in various stages of undress, under a bed sheet, sporting a post-shower towel. That kind of PG-13 rated "nudity." Also look for Thomas Kretschmann as Mr. Smith, the uniquely named and very dull bad guy, Tory Kittles as Moore's FBI agent assistant, Jose Zuniga as a Vegas security chief, and screen/TV legend Peter Falk making an appearance as a friend of Cris. Except he's on-screen for about 85 seconds and then shuffles off. What's the point?

It is a movie that is missing something. We get little to no background for anything from Cris' history or even a remote explanation of his power to the complete lack of reasoning behind this upcoming terrorist attack. MacGuffins are one thing as Alfred Hitchcock proved time and time again, but you've got to draw a line somewhere, don't you? At no point does 'Next' find a rhythm or pacing, and it feels rushed from start to poorly executed finish. Meh, not good, just not good with wasted potential. Steer clear.

Next (2007): * 1/2 /****

Hitchcock

A movie about the making of a movie? Yeah, that doesn't necessarily sound that interesting. Oh, it's about all-time great director Alfred Hitchcock and one of his most respected classics? Okay, I'm a little more interested now. I was curious but skeptical going in, but I ended up liking 2012's Hitchcock a whole lot.

It is 1959 and highly respected Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) is coming off one of his best movies in terms of critical acclaim and audience success, North by Northwest. He's thrown for a loop when a reporter asks if he's going to retire now that's he 60 years old. Hitchcock vows his next film will be his best, a unique, doozy of a flick that audiences have never seen the likes of before. He finds his source in a novel called Psycho, a story loosely based on a real-life murderer. The subject matter is highly controversial, especially for a 1960 audience, and he struggles from the get-go to get the backing to produce his movie. Instead, he and his wife, Alma (Helen Mirren), fund the movie themselves, putting their own money up as backing. Casting, the actual filming, the studio, the censors, all will prove difficult in getting his film made, but it's also threatening to tear up his longtime marriage and partnership with Alma.

Released in 1960, Psycho was a film that earned lukewarm reviews but rabid audiences ate it up and helped it take off. It earned four Oscar nominations -- including Hitchcock for director, Janet Leigh for supporting actress --and quickly became a classic with a story and style that helped rewrite the thriller/horror genre. While it's remembered as a classic now, it had a checkered production as Hitchcock struggled to get backing (studio head Richard Portnow) while also doing battle with the censors (played by Kurtwood Smith) to make the movie that he wanted to make. From the infamous shower scene to the on-screen depiction of violence and sex, it is a gem of a film. Enough with background though. Is a movie about a movie interesting? Sometimes stories based on facts like this can play like reading an encyclopedia, but this one is interesting from the first scene right to the end.

I know there's a lot of great acting performances out there, but I'm genuinely surprised Hopkins did not earn a Best Actor nomination. He certainly deserved it. For one, he's almost unrecognizable as the famous English director. Looks are just one aspect of the performance, one that isn't a do or die moment. What's more important is that Hopkins becomes Hitchcock. The speech patterns, the personal, little mannerisms like holding his suit, pursing his lips, it all adds up to bring the puzzle pieces together. When Hopkins is on-screen, you can't take your eyes away from him. It also isn't a hero pic, portraying the director as he was, an incredibly talented if mercurial director who had tendencies that drove people up a wall at times. On the other hand, he was so talented those people had to put up with him at times.

The movie is significantly better for it. While it is about the making of Psycho, it's more so about how the making of Psycho affected Hitchcock's marriage to Alma Reville, played to perfection by Helen Mirren. While filming, Hitchcock had his quirks. He was always searching for that perfect platinum blonde (Kim Novak, Janet Leigh, Tippi Hedren), sometimes at the expense of paying Alma any attention at all, something that plays out as Alma works with smooth-talking screenwriter Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston). Neither Hitch (he at one points says "Hitch....never mind the cock") nor Alma is below playing some head games, testing their marriage when the pressure of making their movie successful is already wearing on them. We see Hitchcock in all his glory and flaws -- holding grudges, being a peeping tom among others -- but it adds to the movie, making it more than just a documentary. Hopkins and Mirren are two pros at the top of their games, great lead performances.

Working with director Sacha Gervasi is a very talented supporting cast beyond his two stars. I was worried some because the actors are playing....well, actors, and actors much of the audience will be familiar with. Scarlett Johansson is excellent playing Janet Leigh, the star of Psycho who bonds quickly with Hitchcock during filming, Jessica Biel also solid as Psycho co-star Vera Miles. Toni Collette is solid too as Peggy Robertson, Hitch's much-maligned assistant who is nonetheless someone the director counts on in a big way. Michael Stuhlbarg is very good as Lew Wasserman, Hitch's agent trying to help him through the troubled production. Michael Wincott is perfectly creepy as Ed Gein, the real-life inspiration for the Norman Bates character, James D'Arcy playing Anthony Perkins. In a cool storytelling device, Gein actually "talks" to Hitchcock, apparently giving the director inspiration in bringing his movie together.

I liked this movie. Good style, solid characterization and an inside look at a classic film. I loved the bookend storytelling too, Hitchcock actually talking to the audience much like he did in his Alfred Hitchcock Presents TV show. It's on-screen narration that works so well, setting things up. In a cool visual with the narration, the final scene gives a hint to Hitchcock's next film, another classic remembered fondly with Psycho. Just a good solid film overall, most memorable for Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren.

Hitchcock (2012): ***/****

Total Recall (2012)

Oh, goodness, here we are again. I swear Hollywood has no originality. N-O-N-E at all. Remakes are one thing when an original calls for it. If the original doesn't live up to its potential or is in a situation where a remake would benefit it, then so be it. That of course, is not the case. Hollywood ain't interested in potential or what should have been. Instead, it's all about the $, and that's all you really need to know about 2012's Total Recall.

It's near the end of the 21st Century, and following a global war, little exists of the world we know now. The only habitable regions are the United Federation of Britain (UFB) and the Colony (Australia). Problems have arisen in this new society as a possible invasion looms, the UFB and its governor (Bryan Cranston) threatening to attack the resistance. Among the citizens is Doug Quaid (Colin Farrell), a factory worker who lives with his wife, Lori (Kate Beckinsale), but he's frustrated with his life and starting to question certain things. He wakes up at night with memories of vivid dreams so he investigates, going to Rekall, an experience via software that allows you to "obtain" memories. What awaits Doug is a complete surprise. He has a hidden past that even he is unaware of, and it's a past that involves the government, the governor and many more secrets.

So if you're not aware, this basic story was first used in a film in 1990's Total Recall starring the Govern-ator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's an above average sci-fi epic that overcomes some general cheesiness to be a pretty good movie despite some special effects limits. It's also not completely fair to say this is a remake because it is based off a short story by author Philip K. Dick, but for all intensive purposes....that's just what it is. So yes, this 2012 version is its own movie. It tweaks certain things to make it "Its own movie," but does it really matter? Sorry to go all Old Curmudgeon on you loyal viewers, but I can't help. Some 22 years have passed. Did we really need a remake of a movie that yes, is pretty good, but is it anything more? Nope, and that's what I find frustrating.

Well, the movie was remade so no point crying over spilled milk. The biggest improvement are the incredible advances made over the last 20-plus years in CGI and basically anything associated with computer visuals. The 1990 Recall has a somewhat cheap look, but that's not the case in director Len Wiseman's film. A look at a futuristic dystopian society in the right hands is a fast ball down the middle. The UFB and the Colony are ultra-cluttered, buildings seemingly piled on top of each other as they tower up to the sky. The CGI is incredible, and the story itself presents some very interesting premises. The concept of Rekall itself is pretty cool, implanting memories that seem real. Means of transportation especially stand out, including an expressway of sorts with hover cars floating and moving far above the city. The biggest standout though is the Fall, a way of getting from Britain to Australia in just 17 minutes, a free-falling train that literally falls through the Earth via gravity, reversing its gravitational pull near the core. Scientifically implausible? I'd assume, but it's pretty cool.

If you seek this movie out, I'll recommend it for one main reason; the action. Done on an impressive scale and handled about as ideally as possible, I came away very impressed with the action. Always a bonus, the action varies in type, not limiting itself to one chase scene after another. The highlight has Farrell's Doug running from government forces with Melina (Jessica Biel) and eventually ending up trying to escape courtesy of the hover car expressway. Police and government forces are in high pursuit in action scene that will hopefully get the adrenaline pumping. So without expressing and explaining every little thing about the action, just know that's it the best thing going here and a real highlight.

What isn't as impressive is the acting/characters. Farrell is one of my favorites regardless of the movie, but this isn't his best work. Chalk up part of that to the script which doesn't do him much in the way of favors. His Doug Quaid is full of mystery and confusion -- what and/or who exactly was he previously? -- but it's never a truly well-written character. The more interesting parts of Quaid are the things we eventually find out about him. Biel is necessary but pointless eye candy, around because a movie of Farrell running around would be dull. Beckinsale is a movie stealer as Lori, seemingly the perfect wife but she's got secrets of her own. She ends up being a villain that is surprisingly effective in its ability to keep us guessing. Cranston is Cranston, imposing and intimidating with a touch of slime and greed. Also look for Bokeem Woodbine as Quaid's work friend, Bill Nighy as a resistance leader and John Cho in one scene as a Rekall specialist. 

My biggest takeaway from this 2012 remake was pretty blase, even a little mediocre. It's far from good but never really amounts to anything good, above average or memorable. Like so many remakes, it just isn't necessary. It tries to do enough to distinguish itself from its predecessor, but for anyone with even a few working brain cells and/or ability to remember anything, this movie will come across as nothing more than an average, enjoyable time-waster.

Total Recall (2012): ** 1/2 /****

The Illusionist

So let's talk about some magic, huh? Who's excited?!?  Since we were all little kids, there's been magic around whether it's the form of some crappy magician at a friend's birthday party, a B.S. Magician Reveals All show that explains the tricks, or even David Blaine being a toolish street performer.  But that's now, in the 21st Century.  Through points of history where there wasn't always oodles of entertainment around, people went to see magicians perform on-stage.  I reviewed Christopher Nolan's The Prestige last fall, and I'm adding the 2nd half of the magician movies that came out a few months apart from each other, 2006's The Illusionist.

Other than the fact that both movies deal with late 19th century magicians, it's really not fair to compare the two movie.  The Prestige has an epic feel to it with scope and style to burn while The Illusionist is a smaller movie that makes up for its lack of scope with some a real feel of what a period piece movie should be like.  Just because they're different doesn't mean either are worth passing up, they're both excellent, highly entertaining movies.  Watching 'Illusionist' though, I had the feel of a classic Hollywood movie in terms of the simplicity of the story but also the filming techniques.  Moral of the story? Check both out, they'd make an interesting double-bill.

In late 19th century Vienna, a magician named Eisenheim (Edward Norton) opens a show to huge crowds and critical favor with his vast array of tricks that he is able to perform. His tricks are not just sleight of hand and deception, seemingly having something deeper and more sinister.  Could he actually have supernatural powers?  One night on stage, he asks for a volunteer and a beautiful woman walks on stage, Duchess Sophie (Jessica Biel) the fiance of Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell), the heir to the throne. As teenagers, Eisenheim and Sophie were very close only to be torn apart because of their class differences.  Now as Leopold makes a play for the throne, the reunited couple plans to run away, but nothing comes easy.  A police inspector by the name of Uhl (Paul Giamatti) is on their trail trying to figure out exactly what they're up to.   

Without giving away some major plot revelations, that is about as detailed as I'm going to get with the story.  Know that the story takes a big turn about halfway through, but a good, smart turn.  It's not a difficult movie to follow but if I can say anything it will be this; pay attention because everything you see is not as it seems.  Director and screenwriter Neil Burger fashions a good old fashioned story that's a blend of romance between lost loves, the mystery of a magician and all his tricks, and the always reliable dogged detective trying to piece clues together as he goes.  With all that in the mix, the movie could have been overwhelming, but it finds that nice balance among all three.

As for the movie on the whole, it has a very distinct feel of a throwback to the classic Hollywood films from the 1930s and 1940s, albeit with the technology from the 2000s.  The film was shot on location in the Czech Republic so right off the bat, the story looks like it should, taking place in the events where the story actually takes place.  Novel concept, huh? Cinematographer Dick Pope puts together a beautiful finished version with full colors and great visuals.  At times, the corners of the screen are even fuzzy -- a little faded -- as if the movie was released 60 or 70 years ago.  He also uses some cool-looking, very stylish scene transitions that catch the eye.  Also, composer Philip Glass's score varies between a soothing main theme and a quicker version -- that still sounds time appropriate -- when the story requires a little brisker pace.

One thing that definitely caught me by surprise when I read about a magician story period piece was the casting.  Norton, Biel and Giamatti just didn't seem like appropriate choices for a 19th century period piece, but I guess the joke was on me.  As Eisenheim, Norton is able to go back and forth between this intense on-stage performer with this low-key man off the stage.  Then when pushed too far, this brooding anger comes through in an underrated performance from Norton. In the past, I've never thought much of Biel as an actress, but she nails this part.  She looks the part in period clothing and manages a believable accent.  The best performance for me though was Giamatti as Uhl, the police inspector balancing a desire to improve himself with a curiosity as to how Eisenheim does his tricks.  His last scene especially stands out in a scene-stealing part.  Sewell is appropriately evil/dislikable with Eddie Marsan good in a small part as Eisenheim's manager.

There's not much to complain or be critical about here.  The pacing early on can be a little slow, but it never drags.  The slower portions of the story are necessary so when some twists and turns do start popping up it's non-stop the rest of the way.  Also, I think Berger made a wise decision leaving Eisenheim's abilities a mystery.  Is he just a highly skilled, very talented illusionist able to deceive audiences, or is there something else there?  Does he have some sort of other-worldly supernatural powers?  I guess it depends on the viewer, but it's a question and a movie worth looking into.

The Illusionist <---trailer (2006): ***/****

The A-Team

In a continuing trend of why be original when you can duplicate past success, The A-Team hit theaters a few weeks ago and quickly started raking in the money.  Based off the popular 80s TV show of the same name, it's that perfect summer movie you can eat with piles of popcorn and a pop as big as your head.  I went in with moderate expectations having some knowledge of the show without actually seeing an episode although The Family Guy spoof was perfect. So anyways, strap yourself in for one-liners, lots of explosions and Liam Neeson being awesome.

When I reviewed The Losers in April, I mentioned how a stream of similar movies was hitting theaters this summer, a group of specialists taking on a job that seems nearly impossible.  Including 'Losers' and 'A-Team' there's also The Expendables and Takers coming out later this summer.  I've mentioned in the past how much I love these movies, and one has to be pretty bad for me not to recommend it at least partially.  The Losers started things off right, and A-Team is an incredibly similar movie with almost duplicate scenes in some cases.  Still, decide for yourself.

After eight years working together as a Special Forces team, Colonel John 'Hannibal' Smith (Neeson) and his Alpha Team (hence A-Team) that includes Lt. Templeton 'Face' Peck (Bradley Cooper), B.A. Baracus (MMA fighter Quinton Jackson), and pilot Murdock (Sharlto Copley), are sent on a mission that ends up being a double cross.  They're court-martialed and jailed until a mysterious CIA agent, Lynch (Patrick Wilson) shows up offering to help them break out and find the real culprits.  The A-Team has to not only catch a privatized security force responsible, but the force also has a connection with counterfeited money plates that could flood the market with fake U.S. money.  All the while, government agent Sosa (Jessica Biel) is on their trail trying to figure out exactly what they're up to.

Director Joe Carnahan's last movie was 2006's Smokin' Aces, a mess of a movie that was a ton of fun to watch.  Big cast, lots of action, explosions all around, all that good stuff that makes a good popcorn movie.  The A-Team has all of that.  With one exception, the action is well-handled and thankfully steers clear of any ultra-fast quick editing that makes the action impossible to follow.  One early scene has the team taking down a heavily guarded convoy transporting counterfeit money through Baghdad.  It's a great scene, as are most of the action.  One assault on a building in downtown Berlin is packed full of great stunts, as is the ending in a shipping yard with an ambush waiting around every corner.  If action is what you seek, then you won't be disappointed here at all.

The A-Team casting is hit or miss with two parts working for me and two falling short.  Neeson as Hannibal is an inspired choice, and is another great move for the Irish actor who's been doing more mainstream work of late.  His Hannibal is smooth, highly intelligent, calm under fire and a master planner.  He's a great choice to fill George Peppard's shoes and one of the big positives to come out of the movie.  Same for MMA fighter Jackson who succeeds in making B.A. (Bad Ass) more than a stereotype.  Playing a role Mr. T made famous could be a little daunting, but Jackson passes with flying colors.  Same for Wilson as CIA agent Lynch, a smarmy, smart-ass who you just love to hate.  Brian Bloom is also solid as Pike, the security official responsible for setting the team up.

Now those are the positives of the casting.  I like Cooper as an actor, especially comedy, but I don't know if he was the right choice here to play Face.  He yells a lot, seduces women left and right, takes his shirt off for some strategically placed flexing, and I thought was generally pretty annoying.  District 9 star Copley gets what should be the funniest part as Howlin' Mad Murdock.  Here's something pretty basic though, if the movie's too loud to actually hear the one-liners it kinda defeats the purpose of having the one-liners.  That said, what lines I did hear were funny, but Murdock was too over the top for me.  Then there's Biel who god bless her, may be the most attractive government agent ever.  But she's not a great actress, and her background with Cooper's Face seems a little forced. Also look for Jon Hamm in a quick, miss it and you'll blink scene late.

Seeing this in theaters, the movie ended and I walked out thinking it was good, an average action movie that didn't leave much of an impression on me.  Then, the more I thought about it, I liked it more.  But now, most of a week since viewing the movie, I've got that empty feeling again.  I can't put my finger on it, but something was missing, some sort of energy.  My favorite part was definitely the beginning as the four members of the A-team meet on a mission south of the border.  The rest? It's good enough, but nothing spectacular.  There will be better summer movies and there will be worse.  A decent enough way to spend 2 hours.

The A-Team <----trailer (2010): ** 1/2 /****