The Sons of Katie Elder

The Sons of Katie Elder
"First, we reunite, then find Ma and Pa's killer...then read some reviews."
Showing posts with label Thandie Newton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thandie Newton. Show all posts

Friday, October 24, 2014

The Truth About Charlie

Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn, a very cool supporting cast, Paris locations and a mysterious story that keeps you guess throughout. The movie...1963's Charade. Nothing is sacred though in Hollywood so while I'm not exactly timely with this criticism, here's an unnecessary remake that is basically really bad on all accounts, 2002's The Truth About Charlie.

Returning home a vacation on a tropical island, Regina Lambert (Thandie Newton) walks into her Paris apartment stunned at what she finds. The whole place has been ransacked and little remains but two detectives have been waiting for her. Why? Her husband of just a few months, Charles (Stephen Dillane), has been found dead, apparently murdered. The husband she thought she knew apparently was holding onto some deep, dark secrets, and that past is coming after Regina now. She begins to see people following her and has no idea what they're after. There seems to be one person on her side, a mysterious stranger, Josh Peters (Mark Wahlberg), who appears to be trying to help her. What was her husband actually into? Can Regina figure it out before she gets pulled in too deep? Time is quickly running out as her husband's enemies close in.

It's been several years since I saw Charade for the first time. Is it an all-time classic? No, but looking back on it, I know I liked it for all the right reasons. It's goofy at times, dark at others, and entertaining throughout. But almost 40 years later? Eh, no one really has a memory for anything older than a couple days so we might as well remake all those classics, near-classics and just really good movies from Hollywood's past. So yeah, Charade isn't perfect, but it wasn't missing that special something that screamed out "REMAKE ME!" So why remake it? Words fail me at this point. Director Jonathan Demme (Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia) helms a movie that was critically panned and made barely $7 million in theaters. Let's jump in!

The reasons for struggles are pretty much across the board. A refusal to pick a tone, all style and no substance, the waste of a decent script, and some really interesting but mostly bad cases of casting. Mark Wahlberg is one of my favorite actors, but this was not a part that was cut out for him. He's playing the Cary Grant part. That's all I'm going to say about that. Mostly, the character's main goal seems to make Wahlberg look goofy. He wears a turtleneck almost the entire movie and also favors either a fedora or a very masculine beret. Yeah, that's self-explanatory in its badness. Thankfully he has decent chemistry with the very talented, very beautiful Thandie Newton. The duo makes the most of their time together on-screen, but neither delivers an especially good performance. Their fault? Director? Script? Probably a mix of all three.

The characters are just too stupid for their own good. Once Newton's Regina finds out she's in deeper than she thought, she never really questions what the mysterious Peters is up to. How does he always end up in the right place at the right time? Who's with her? Who's against her? She's perpetually frantic but never puts it all together. So who else to look for? The always sinister (when he wants to be) Tim Robbins plays Bartholamew, an American government agent/official offering his help to Regina. Ted Levine, LisaGay Hamilton and Joong-Hoon Park are three mysterious strangers tailing Regina, apparently from her dead husband's checkered and secret past. Also worth mentioning is Christine Boisson and Simon Abkarian as two Parisian detectives investigating the case.

The biggest handicapper for me was the choice of style over substance. 'Truth' never picks a tone or finds a rhythm and sticks with it. Demme's style is aggressive and unnecessary, the camera always off center and slightly ajar, characters directly addressing the camera. The mystery of what's going on should be better than it is, but that mystery gets lost in a maze of double-crosses and surprises and twists that don't work. Bad is one thing -- to be fair -- but surreal in its badness is another thing. French singer Charles Aznavour makes two appearances as himself, simply appearing and singing as if he was part of the action. The cast looks at him adoringly, the extras look on in confused fashion. Weird is fine. Weird for weirdness' sake is another not so fine reason.

My favorite stylistic choice is a tango scene. Regina dances with...well, everyone, all of the suspects and strangers passing her around a dance floor. At no point does she question why all these people are together. It's a choice that I'm assuming is meant to stylistically WOW but it goes the opposite way to the point I was groaning, even laughing at the scene. That's the entire movie. Give this one a wide berth and go revisit the original Charade instead.

The Truth About Charlie (2002): */****

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Mission: Impossible II

Not to rehash the same intros repeatedly, but one of the best and worst things that can happen to a movie is to be immensely popular.  Naturally if a movie is highly successfully, it is safe to assume there will be a sequel if the story called for it. A smart, intelligent and always entertaining spy thriller, 1996's Mission: Impossible was a huge hit worldwide. Based loosely off a 1960s TV show, the hit turned into a series, including the first sequel, 2000's Mission: Impossible II.

Why so much hate for this sequel? From the first time I saw it, I loved it and still do. It is one of the best action movies I've ever seen.  Apparently not everyone felt that way. This sequel is basically everything the original was not. It takes the series/franchise in a completely different direction.  Where the first one depended on a twisting and turning plot with deception and betrayals, the sequel is first and foremost an action movie. Story, character and plot are basically all left by the wayside. It is a polarizing movie, one fans either love or hate. Action fans should definitely check it out though.

IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) has handled his fair share of crazy, even insane missions before, but he's now faced with one that has millions of lives at stake. A pharmaceutical company has accidentally created a virus -- dubbed 'Chimera' -- that potentially could wipe out the population of whole countries. The virus has been stolen by a rogue IMF agent, Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott), who intends to sell the virus and its antidote to the highest bidder. The only hope Hunt has is to get someone to work from the inside, who he finds in the form of Nyah (Thandie Newton), a professional thief and former girlfriend of Ambrose. Working with a small team (including Ving Rhames' hacker Luther Stickell), Ethan heads to Sydney to stop Ambrose, but the clock is ticking.

Through the ups and downs of the last five or six years, Tom Cruise just hasn't been in the public eye as much, especially in actual movies.  Reprising his Ethan Hunt role, Cruise is at his best. The character is somewhat odd over the course of the three M:I movies in how much he changes, but he's always interesting.  For starters, Cruise does most of his own stunts. His introduction rock climbing is insane. Watch it HERE, and that's him doing all that climbing hundreds of feet up with no safety net. It sounds so simple, but an actor doing his own stunts -- some truly impressive ones at that -- gives the movie a feeling of reality, of legitimacy as we watch. Say what you want about Cruise and his personal life or off-screen stuff, but he is a legit MOVIE STAR, and there are too few of those out there.

An action legend in Hong Kong, director John Woo has only made a handful of ventures into American films with some hit or miss efforts. While many directors can be classified as 'workmanlike,' just getting through the movie, Woo has a style all to himself, and that's a good word to describe him...style. Interested in story and plot twists and character development? John Woo might not be the director for you. He is a master of creating an intricate, over the top action scene that is just pure fun to watch. All his trademarks are here; the slow motion shootouts, the hero blasting away with two pistols, the ever-present doves (and less classy pigeons) floating through his scenes. The plot may suffer at times -- apparently Woo's final cut was three and a half hours long -- but one thing you never have to worry about is the action.

The Chimera virus, the history between Ethan and Ambrose and Nyah and Ambrose, all that is just a reason to get to the action. The last 40 minutes of the movie are a sight to behold for action fans. Does any of it make sense? No, not really. Did a nameless henchman on a motorcycle need to attack Ethan? No, but how else do we get our hero in a motorcycle chase? This extended sequence has it all. We're talking martial arts and hand to hand combat, shootouts in slow motion with hundreds and thousands of rounds being fired, and that motorcycle chase that is just hard to beat. The showdown between Cruise and Scott is epically and appropriately ridiculous, including a motorcycle jousting scene. Yes, you read that right. Woo knows action, plain and simple. There is something visceral and animalistic about seeing gunfights, explosions and chases, and Woo plays to that notion time and time again, upping the ante repeatedly.

So while I could just describe how cool each and every action scene is -- appealing to the 13-year old boy in my head -- I'll hold off. The action is crazy. Tom Cruise is cool, Scott a great villain, Newton gorgeous as the eye candy, and Rhames provides some comic relief and one-liners as Luther. Richard Roxburgh plays Stamp, Ambrose's menacing right hand man, John Polson plays Billy, the crazy Aussie member of Ethan's team and Brendan Gleeson is the pharmaceutical CEO with $ for eyes. Even Anthony Hopkins makes a quick appearance as Ethan's supervisor/handler. The soundtrack features songs from Limp Bizkit, listen HERE, and Metallica, listen HERE, along with a score from Hans Zimmer reminiscent of his Gladiator score. Sydney looks beautiful, and did I mention the action?

Also excited to report that a fourth M:I movie, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, is due in theaters this December. Not gonna lie, I'm more than a little psyched for it.  For now, stick with the first three movies, all good in their own right.

Mission: Impossible II <---trailer (2000): ***/****

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

RocknRolla

Before I saw Sherlock Holmes last winter, my knowledge of Guy Ritchie was limited to knowledge of a couple cult classic British crime stories, his marriage to Madonna and subsequent disastrous movie starring Mrs. Ritchie.  I liked Sherlock Holmes but didn't love it, and looking at his short list of movies none of them really jumped out at me, especially 2008's RocknRolla.  I remember seeing the trailer and thinking it looked like an annoyingly ultra-stylish story that knows it's cool and is going to take every opportunity it gets to show you how cool it is.  But then I really looked at the cast, and thought I had to at least give it a try.  I'm glad I did.

Ritchie has taken all sorts of abuse over the years for everything from his directing style -- as a Tarantino rip-off -- to his not-so private life with Madonna.  And even in a period piece about one of literature's most famous characters, Ritchie was able to make it an ultra-stylish period piece.  Not having seen Snatch or Lock, Stock... but knowing their reputation, it seems Ritchie is most at home in the London underworld where heavy accents and dialects dominate and everyone and anyone will turn on you for a buck.  RocknRolla is at times convoluted, at times overly concerned in its style, but in the end a very enjoyable, very entertaining British crime caper.

When a business deal goes south, two members of a British gang called the Wild Bunch, One Two (Gerard Butler) and Mumbles (Idris Elba), find themselves in needs of some quick cash, turning to an icy accountant (Thandie Newton) for some inside information.  The man they owe, criminal kingpin Lenny Nelson (Tom Wilkinson), doesn't necessarily need the money, but principle is principle.  Lenny, with right hand man Archy (Mark Strong), is caught up in a real estate deal with a Russian businessman (Karel Roden), who loans Lenny a famous, lucky painting of his until the deal can be completed. The painting wastes no time disappearing, and Lenny is up the creek, even more so when he finds out his stepson, drugged out rocker Johnny Quill (Toby Kebbell), is the thief. So it goes as all these crooks work to save their own backsides, a vicious cycle as One Two and Mumbles end up stealing the money that Lenny is due from the Russian, the painting playing a key role, and in the end everyone is going to run into each other.

Screwy enough for you?  There were times as all these various storylines cross and re-cross that I wondered if I was watching a Seinfeld episode.  But like the best Seinfeld episodes, Ritchie fixes everything in the end as all these characters, storylines and predicaments come together, everything tied up nicely with a bow.  Confusing at times, surely, but never to the point where you feel lost.  Because there is so much going on, you're not always sure quite where everything is going, but it's fun to go along for the ride.  At a certain point, you just go along and enjoy some really cool characters interact in some very stylish ways.  The London criminal underworld never looked so good.

The characters I included above covers about half the actual cast.  Jeremy Piven and rapper Ludacris have two small parts as Johnny Quill's former manager roped into helping Lenny get his painting back.  Tom Hardy plays Handsome Bob, a member of the Wild Bunch and friend of One Two and Mumbles.  There's other characters that drift in and out, but those are the biggies.  Two main storylines dominate all the action, Wilkinson and Strong as the kingpin and his tough as nails assistant trying to track down a stolen painting (the ridiculousness of the premise somehow works perfectly) while Butler, Elba and Hardy keep going after piles of money just waiting to be stolen.

Going away, my favorite parts of RocknRolla was the Wild Bunch.  They have a great dynamic among all the members of a gang that isn't low-level crooks but isn't top-shelf thieves either.  They're somewhere in between, knowing their place in the underworld.  Butler has struggled finding good roles since the success of 300, but this is a very funny gem for him.  Elba is equally perfect in an underused part as Mumbles, and Hardy (another great supporting part along with this summer's Inception) has a great twist to his character that produces some very funny results.  The high point for the Wild Bunch is a robbery gone bad when two Chechnyan thugs do everything they can to protect the cash they're guarding.  A running, chaotic chase scene with some great dark humor, knock down violence runs for almost 10 minutes and is the runaway favorite for the best scene in the movie.  Watch a portion of it HERE. The end of course says the Wild Bunch will be back, and I'm looking forward to it.

As strong as the cast was, I was skeptical going into this movie and ended up really liking it.  Almost every member of the cast is given their own chance to shine and none disappoint.  Wilkinson is his smarmy, intimidating best, Strong's narration is dripping with subtle humor, Newton is a sexy femme fatale that film noir would be jealous of, Butler, Elba and Hardy have a chemistry that speaks to longtime friends, and in the big picture, the stylish elements never go overboard.  Ritchie has a real winner here.  If I can offer any advice, watch the trailer below, but don't hold it against the movie. Don't do what I did, and hold it against the movie.

RocknRolla <---trailer (2008): ***/****

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

2012


Watching his movies, I can't help but wonder if Roland Emmerich would have been better suited if he was born about 20 years earlier.  That way, his success in disaster movies would have coincided nicely with the 1970s epidemic of disaster movies.  To his name, he already has Godzilla, Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and now 2012, all dealing with some sort of disaster of epic proportions.  Of course, all of these movies use CGI heavily so where would the German actor be?

I feel the need to point this out so I don't come across too critical, but Emmerich's movies are awful.  (How could that be construed as critical?).  Even his good ones like The Patriot, Stargate, and the ones mentioned before are awful movies.  Just about all of them qualify in the always entertaining 'so bad they're good' category and count me among the moviegoers who enjoyed these schlock fests.  But with his most recent outing, last fall's 2012, I think Emmerich finally hit rock bottom.  It's beyond 'bad but good' and produces so many unintentional -- I hope -- laughs that I'd recommend it for the comedy, not the drama.

Now as the year 2012 draws closer, more and more is being made of the ancient Mayan calendar predicting the end of the world, the apocalypse.  Emmerich takes the idea and runs with it, going from zero to 60 like nobody's business.  An American geologist (Chiwetel Ejiofor, one of the few bright spots in the movie) working with a friend in India finds out the Earth's core is beginning to heat up.  He informs his government superior (Oliver Platt in prime a-hole mode) who then passes it along to the president (Danny Glover).  Fast forward three years to 2012, and the predicted cataclysmic events come earlier than expected.

A divorced dad (John Cusack) works to save his family as the Earth starts to tear itself apart with volcanoes, tsunamis, and earthquakes all starting at once.  It's while vacationing in Yellowstone with his two kids that Cusack's all-American dad starts to catch wind of the coming disaster, but he shrugs off the warnings of a conspiracy theorist (Woody Harrelson) spouting off about the coming disasters.  The crazy guy is of course, correct, forcing divorcee dad to keep his family alive...somehow....some way.  From the theorist, he heard of a government plan to continue mankind, spaceships outfitted to handle 400,000 people each.  The only problem?  These ships are in China.  Oh, but good news, the new dad in the family has taken flying lessons!  Now let's all find a plane!

Yeah, yeah, I know no one goes to these big budget disaster movies for the story, but come on, Roland Emmerich.  That's all you've got?  More so than most disaster movies, this one depends on coincidence and huge strokes of luck more than it should.  It's also pretty lazy with four different instances of characters having to outrun deadly death clouds/earthquakes/tsunamis/asteroids, like THIS ONE.  Some of those moments do provide the story's funniest scenes with Cusack scrambling around and looking worried, screaming at anyone who will listen.  I typically like Cusack as an actor, but he was not the right guy for this part.

The cast is full of big names -- as is required in a disaster movie -- who are forced to play cardboard cutouts of characters.  Anyone with half a brain cell can figure out within 30 seconds of a character's introduction if they will or will not survive the disaster.  Divorced dad making up for lost time?  He'll make it, especially cause he's got a cute daughter.  New dad who is an all-around douchebag?  Don't hold your breath.  That's the problem with the whole movie, you can tell where it's going before the movie probably even knew.  Also worth mentioning are Amanda Peet as Cusack's ex, and Thandie Newton as the President's daughter destined to end up with Ejiofor's scientist.  One other observation, do disaster movies require a black president?  Just wondering.

Now on to the good stuff, the CGI.  A sign of good CGI -- for me at least -- is that it doesn't produce groans from audiences when it appears, so basically anything even remotely fake-looking.  Emmerich spares no expense (okay, maybe the story) to produce some top notch CGI action.  The apocalypse never looked so good as when Emmerich is directing the story.  Not surprisingly, watch this one for the special effects.  Your viewing experience will almost certainly be more enjoyable with friends and beer too.  Brace yourself though, it's a long movie at 159 minutes.  And don't trick yourself into thinking it'll fly by, there are times (basically any dialogue scene) that are painfully slow.

Saving the best for last though, the ending.  Cusack saves the day and helps one of the spaceships -- they're actually arks -- survive.  A title cards reads 'Day 27....Year 01'  (pretentious much?) as the three remaining arcs sail around the world, or at least what's left of it.  We learn that Africa, the whole damn continent, wasn't affected at all by the natural disasters.  Not even a little bit, none, zilch, nada.  So actually, the end of the world was only sorta the end of the world.  It's one of the stupidest endings ever...only topped by the alternate ending on the DVD.  No spoilers here, I'll force you to rent/buy it.

A truly awful movie that seems to object to its status as a truly awful movie.  Lots of overacting from some typically talented people, cliched and boring story, and some cool, well-done CGI to balance things out.

2012 <----trailer (2009): */****