LADY KILLER / PICTURE SNATCHER

Dir. Roy Del Ruth USA 1933

Dir. Lloyd Bacon USA 1933

"Play me for a sucker, huh? Tryin' to pull a fast one? Well I'm wise to your racket, so kick back my dough!"

I watched these over a week ago, but a long vacation derailed my blogging efforts. Hopefully I can get back on track.

I've always found the Bogart vs. Cagney arguement to be a futile one; they're similar enough to warrant comparison, but choosing one over the other is never something I've been able to do. Bogart had the more illustrious career and made a wider variety of films, but while back-to-backing these two films (released about six months apart in 1933, two of the five films Cagney made that year), I was quickly reminded that Cagney is generally more 'fun' than Bogart. By this I mean that Bogart, while certainly infusing most of his characters with a cynical sense of humor, was much more likely to dive headfirst into the dark depths of his characters. Cagney, even when playing a complete bastard, always had a spring in his step, delivering his dialogue (like the lines above, which manage to cram every stereotypical 30's gangster phrase into about 4 seconds of wordplay) at a machine gun pace, always winking and joshing with the other actors and the audience. Whereas watching Bogart is like standing in awe of an icon, watching Cagney is like having a drink with an old friend.

Both of these films clock in at a lean 75 minutes and both maintain the same snappy pace that was common to gangster films of the early thirties. The plots are relatively straight-forward. In Lady Killer, Cagney plays a low-rent conman named Dan Quigley who, after nearly being fleeced by a like-minded team of crooks lead by Mae Clark, falls in with them and finds himself on the run from the law. He ends up in Hollywood, where he scams his way into the acting business and becomes a leading man, with a famous actress played by Margaret Lindsey for a girlfriend. When his double-crossing former partners come calling, he finds his new life placed in jeopardy. In Picture Snatcher, Cagney is Danny Kean, a newly paroled gangster who decides to go straight and pursue his lifelong dream of being a newspaper reporter. Taking a job at a tabloid, the only place that will have him, he uses his criminal connections and skills to get photos and stories no one else can, while trying to woo the daughter of the police captain who sent him to jail in the first place.

Unlike now, where typecasting is seen as something actors want to avoid, the old Hollywood system found something an actor did well and kept them at it for as long as humanly possible. Cagney spent most of the 30's playing charming Irish gangsters with varying degrees of humanity, and in these two films he's combined that with the 'trying to go legit' character. Both films had dialogue written by Ben Markson, which explains the extreme similarity between the two characters as well as the light, fun-loving tone of both films. While Cagney's breakout role (1931's The Public Enemy) and his later, more popular gangster films (Angels With Dirty Faces, The Roaring Twenties and White Heat) would mix some fairly harrowing drama with the usual Cagney shennanigans, these films stay fairly comedic throughout, amidst the obligatory fistacuffs and shoot-outs. The reason, as far as I can tell, is a bit surprising.

With the rise of sound in films during the late 1920's, the extremely loose rules governing what you could and couldn't do on screen needed to be tightened. The Motion Picture Production Code (informally called the Hays Code after the dickhead who came up with it), officially signed into law in 1930, would eventually be responsible for the near complete lack of blood, swearing and sex in films of the era until it died along with the classic Hollywood system in the late 1960's. However, for the first few years following the implementation of the Code, no organized system of enforcing it existed (until the Catholic Church made their obligatory stink in 1934 and ruined things for everyone). This lead to a brief period from 1930 to 1934, now known by the some what erroneous title of "Pre-Code Hollywood", in which a great number of films were produced containing content and messages that, although seemingly tame by todays standards, were pretty racy when compared to films made after the code was heavily enforced. This is somewhat subtlely present in these two films, specifically in their light tone. You see, under the code, criminals, no matter how loveable, had to receive some kind of comeuppance at the end of the film, whether it be prison or death. Both Dan Quigley and Danny Kean enjoy fates much happier than what they would have experienced had they had their adventures several years later. There are also several other nice little moments that reflect this short-lived freedom: Lady Killer features several interactions between Cagney and Mae Clarke, including him lightly kissing her breast through her dress when she hugs him while he's sitting down, and him dragging her across a room by her hair after she double-crosses him (Cagney seems to have built his early career around abusing Mae Clarke; apparently the infamous Grapefruit Scene from Public Enemy was adlibbed by Cagney). Meanwhile, in Picture Snatcher, a running gag in which people keep coming to the newspaper office to shoot Cagney for various slights, results in him hiding in the ladies restroom, where he meets a sassy reporter played by Alice White. That the scene features a man in a woman's bathroom is racy enough for the time, but the fade out implying that they fuck in one of the stalls puts it completely over the top. The film also features a sequence in which Cagney is assigned to cover the execution of a woman who murdered her husband, and manages to sneak a photo of it by strapping the camera to his leg. Despite the inherent ghoulishness of the scene, it's all played as clever fun, something that would have never occurred under the production code.

Obviously I used this review as an excuse to lecture you about the Production Code, possibly as a way to cover up the fact that I watched these over a week ago and my memories weren't particularly sharp. That isn't to say of course, that I didn't enjoy the hell out of both of these films. The similar characters and plots actually went a long way toward complimenting the two films and and they made for a nice double feature. These two films are included in the third Warner Brothers Gangster set, any one of which is more than worth your while if you're looking to check out some older films. Additionally, each film in those sets comes with a feature called Warner Night At The Movies, which allows you to watch the trailer, newsreel, cartoon and musical short that you would have seen, had you gone to see the film in theatres when it came out. It's a great way to experience what life would have been like back then, especially if you're a giant history/film nerd like me.

Well, that's all for now. I'm not sure what I'll be reviewing next, could be a number of different things. Hopefully it'll be soon.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK

Dir. David Fincher US 2010

"You're going to be successful, and rich. But you're going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won't be true. It'll be because you're an asshole."

The Social Network has been getting a lot of comparisons to Citizen Kane since it came out. This is somewhat justified, as The Social Network will most likely be remembered not only as one of the best films of this year, but as one of the earliest retrospectives on the first decade of the 21th century. While Charles Foster Kane rose from poverty to greatness via a megalomaniacal desire to control the major media of his own era, Mark Zuckerberg came to revolutionize social media in our own time for similarly inscrutible reasons. Fincher's film is only about Facebook insomuch as it is about the ironic failure of one man to connect to the people around him in an era when doing otherwise is becoming less and less of an option.

Told via a framing story in which he is being sued by old enemies and former friends, the film begins with Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) being dumped by his girlfriend, Erica Albright (Rooney Mara), at Harvard in fall of 2003. In a fit drunken spite, Zuckerburg hacks the Harvard computer network and creates 'FaceMash', a beta version of what will eventually become Facebook. He is approached by a pair of preppy, uber-rich twins (both played by Armie Hammer, via the subtle computer trickery that Fincher seems to love now) who want to help him develop the idea in something greater. Along with his best friend and roommate Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), Zuckerberg steals the idea and runs with it. The rest is history.

Despite Seven (spelled Se7en if you're cooler than me) and Fight Club playing a major role in my teen movie-watching experience (I will also defend Alien 3 to the death), David Fincher seemed less appealing to me over this past decade. Zodiac was great, but Panic Room was kinda meh and I still have no desire whatsoever to see Benjamin Button. Given how sick I also am of hearing about Facebook, my interest in The Social Network was pretty low when it came out. Luckily, universally glowing reviews were enough to turn my head, and make me very glad I gave it a shot. This film does everything right, top to bottom. A lot is going to be said and written about this film, most of it more incisive and deep than what you're going to read here, but there are a few things I want to touch on in depth.

I've never seen the West Wing, but if the script for this film is any indication, Aaron Sorkin has certainly earned his reputation as one of the strongest voices in Hollywood. He wisely utilizes the framing structure I mentioned earlier to vary the tone of the film and foreshadow the ending that we all know is coming. The dialogue is razor sharp and surprisingly, consistantly funny. This goes a long way toward propelling the movie forward; given that most of the film is people talking or sitting at computers, the pacing could have become a huge problem, but the two hours fly by before you know it. Sorkin has a lock on a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination, no question.

The direction and editing do the appropriate job of elevating everything that works about the screenplay. There's a sense of excitment that pervades the entire film, placing you right along side the characters as the rocket to fame and fortune. In a way, the film plays a bit like the great gangster films of the past, where you know the characters are heading for disaster, but you can't help but have fun with them as they get there. Fincher makes the most of the locations as well, capturing the archaic chilliness of Harvard in winter and the grandur of the offices and clubs of Manhattan. The movie just looks great.

The biggest surprise for me ended up being the cast, populated mostly by unknown or lesser known actors. Jesse Eisenberg's work as Mark Zuckerberg should dispel any notions that he's a cut-rate Michael Cera and proves that he's a capable leading man, regardless of the genre he's working in. It's no surprise that the real Mark Zuckerberg is unhappy with his portrayal in the film. Eisenberg plays him as an Aspergers-at-best, sociopath-at-worst loser who's desire for recognition and validation belies his complete inability to form any kind of genuine relationships, romantic or otherwise. The film wisely builds him up as an underdog, surrounded by people who can't appreciate or want to profit off his genious, which keeps him sympathetic for most of the film and allows you to root for him despite him constantly acting like a douchebag. The other strong performance here is by Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker, the founder of Napster who becomes the devil on Zuckerberg's shoulder, introducing him to a world of riches and luxury while exploiting him for his own ends. It's a flashy part to be sure, but Timberlake easily slips into the role, talking a mile a minute and flashing winning smiles while maintaining an air of affable menace. It's really easy to make fun of Justin Timberlake, but the guy has an eye for good parts and is consistantly great whenever I see him.

Honorable mentions to Andrew Garfield as Eduardo Saverin, easily the most sympathetic character in the film thanks to both his humor and his tragic friendship with Zuckerberg. I'd never seen Garfield in anything before, but I'm definitely sold on him playing Peter Parker in the Spider-Man reboot. Finally, props to Armie Hammer for both his awesome name and his CG-assisted performance as Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the preppy twins who commission Zuckerberg to build the site that would eventually become Facebook. Even thought the characters never actually do anything wrong, Hammer plays them with all the entitlement and bravado that one associates with Ivy League schools that they end up making pretty effective antagonists. Incidentally, this movie made me feel a bit better about not getting into an Ivy. The culture there seems completely fucking insufferable. I prefer my pretension to be arty and bohemian, than you very much.

Final mention needs to go to the score, composed by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Given his extremely progressive views on music distribution, Reznor seems an oddly appropriate fit for a movie about Facebook, but the music he's created for it takes it in an unexpected, but awesome direction. Often dark and bass-heavy, the score for this film would not be out of place in a horror movie, subtlely reflecting Zuckerberg's anger and despair and creating some genuinely creepy moments, specifically the opening credits sequence where Zuckerberg stalks through Harvard campus after being dumped. The music beautifully captures that colonial creepiness you get on a New England night in fall.

While I don't mind praising this film for most of the review, I will say that it makes a noticeable misstep when it comes to one of the female characters, an associate attorney working on Zuckerberg's defense team during the framing sequences. Her interaction with Zuckerberg puts to fine a point on many of the themes in the film and left me feeling talked down to when the rest of the film goes out of its way to respect the intelligence of the viewer. Luckily, she's played by Rashida Jones, which makes everything ok.

There's plenty more to be said about this film, but it won't be said here. As I mentioned earlier, this film is a shoe-in for year end awards, so I'd recommend checking it out now before it gets crowded out of theatres. Even if you don't use Facebook (yes, I'm talking to all three of you), it's definitely worth it. No one avoids Citizen Kane because they don't read newspapers.

THE TOWN

Dir. Ben Affleck US 2010

"If we get jammed up, we're holding court in the streets."

I (and pretty much everyone else who saw it) was extremely impressed with Ben Affleck's 2007 directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone. My expectations for his sophomore effort were reasonably high and he's pulled it off again, while hinting at a developing style that would not be out of place in the 70's heyday of urban crime thrillers. Also, despite people still giving him shit for it, the guy can act as well.

The Town is set in and around the Boston neighborhood of Charlestown, a haven for professional bank robbers who treat the occupation as family business (although the trailer claims that there are 300 bank robberies in Boston every year, which is total bullshit). Doug MacRay (Affleck) is a failed hockey player who, along with his adopted brother Jem (Jeremy Renner) and two other friends, Dez and Gloansy, makes his living robbing banks at the behest of a local Irish crime boss called Fergie the Florist (Pete Postlethwaite). After taking a bank manager (Rebecca Hall) hostage during a job and then releasing her, Doug follows her to make sure she isn't talking to the police and ends up in a relationship with her. Forced to keep secrets from both his new girlfriend and his partners, Doug's life is further complicated by the arrival of Adam Frawley, the highly driven leader of an FBI task force assigned to bring them down.

Watching this film, I was reminded of a movie I watched last year, The Friends Of Eddie Coyle, a 1973 film by Peter Yates which also revolves around a team of bank robbers in Boston. Aside from a direct homage to that film early on, The Town feels very much like the films of that era, with its lean plot, grubby setting and the straight-forward, do-it-yourself attitudes of the characters and the filmmaking. The film makes effective use of its locations; the narrow streets of the North End and the drab brick buildings in Charlestown allowing the city of Boston feel like a character all its own, which is appropriate given the title. Affleck acquits himself well as a director, keeping the film humming along at a quick pace despite it two hour running time and pulling off a variety of sequences with equal aplomb, from explosive shoot-outs and car chases to easy-going romance to slow-burn suspense (his skill at the latter is particularly surprising; I was on the edge of my seat during a scene at an outdoor cafe about halfway through the film).

As was the case with Gone Baby Gone, Affleck has assembled a great group of actors to fill out the cast of characters. Standouts include Jeremy Renner as Jem, Mad Men's Jon Hamm as Frawley and Chris Cooper pulling a one scene wonder as Doug's father, who is serving life without parole thanks to the family business. Jem is fairly stock as a character (he can be summed up pretty well in an exchange where Doug asks him to help him beat the shit out of some guys but doesn't allow him to ask why, to which he assents immediately, revealed himself in a single line to be both a loyal friend and violent nutcase), but Renner redirects the livewire intensity he displayed in The Hurt Locker into a much more conventional, but equally fearsome performance. The depiction of Frawley ends up being a bit more interesting on paper. It's inevitable that the law enforcement figures in these films end up as the antagonists since, despite their moral superiority, they are nonetheless working against the criminal protagonists. Frawley is written more as a true villain, his all-consuming zeal for apprehending Doug's crew used as justification for blackmailing and terrorizing witnesses and informants and generally just being an asshole. It's an interesting choice for the part, foregoing the balance that ususally displayed in films that show perspectives on both sides of the law. Hamm's performance is also solid enough to overcome some of Frawley's clumsier dialogue, a lot of which sounded like it was included specifically so it could be used in the trailer.

Rebecca Hall is perfectly adequate in the role of Claire, the unfortunate bank manager who gets caught in the crossfire. Her chemistry with Affleck is appropriately sweet, but their courtship is bizarrely drawn out, especially given how obvious it is that they're going to end up romantically involved. Call me cynical, but I found it distractingly unrealistic that it would take four or five dates for a relationship between two people that attractive to become more than platonic. The only questionable choice in the cast is Blake Lively as Krista, Jem's sister who carries a slutty, cocaine-addled torch for Doug throughout the film. Given how prominately she was featured in the promotional material for the film, her character barely appears in the film, and when she does, she feels more like a plot device than a character. Regardless, Lively does well with what little she's given. I've never seen Gossip Girl (and probably never will), but this seems like an attempt to break away from the upper-crust atmosphere of that show and play something a bit trashier (cue zings about Gossip Girl already being trashy).

Despite the overwhelmingly positive critical reception this film has received, it strikes me as a bit too meat-and-potatoes to garner any major accolades come awards season. However, I'm happy that Affleck is now two for two on directing and I would definitely recommend this to anyone looking for a well-made crime flick.

UP NEXT: A movie that will definitely be getting lots of awards this year, The Social Network. Yes, the Facebook movie was as good as everyone's saying it is. Feel free to be shocked.

CELLULAR / PUSH

Dir. David R. Ellis US 2004

Dir. Paul McGuigan US 2009

Chris Evans is always enjoyable in everything he's in and I'm looking forward to seeing how he does playing Captain America next year. I decided to check out a pair of his movies that slipped through the cracks over the last few years; the gimmicky thriller Cellular and the sci-fi film Push. Neither of these were particularly good, but my expectations of which I would like better were inverted.

Cellular is one of those movies that really wants to be high-concept but is actually just a gimmick. Written by the screenwriter who brought us Phone Booth (what if he's still trapped on the phone...but now he can move around? Brilliant!), Cellular begins when Jessica Martin, a high school science teacher played by Kim Basinger (Jesus, could you imagine?) is kidnapped from her Brentwood home by a gang of armed men led by Jason Statham. After demanding information that she doesn't seem to possess, she is locked in an attic with a broken phone, which she somehow fixes (yeah, science!) and uses to connect with a random number. Said number belongs to Ryan (Chris Evans), a beach bumming twenty-something who has just broken up with his girlfriend (Jessica Bland, I mean, Biel. Sick burn.) over his extremely original commitment issues. After some convincing, Jessica is able to convince Ryan that she is in serious danger and soon has him running all over L.A. trying to save her husband and son while remaining one step of the badguys and dealing with all kinds of wacky phone related problems.

This movie was made in 2004 and the fact that it already seems kind of dated bodes well for its comedic value in the years to come. As you may have guessed by now, this film revolves around Ryans sweet new cell phone (a Nokia 6600 to be exact) which has all kinds of equally sweet features that are displayed in the first five minutes of the film. It can totally take pictures of some hot babes on the boardwalk and send them to Ryan's computer to be used as a screensaver AND it takes videos too! And if you think that these features will come into play in the third act of the film, you are officially smarter than Hollywood thinks you are. Congratulations.

Of course, given the premise, you should assume that you're signing up for both product placement and lots of crazy cell phone related tension. Battery running low! Watch Chris Evans rob a cell phone store at gunpoint after he's told to wait in line for a charger. Reception cutting out as he enters a tunnel! Watch Chris Evans reverse through oncoming traffic to avoid loosing the connection. Thank goodness for the coverage we have now or else we'd all be committing city-wide crime sprees to keep our calls from dropping.

Other than the ridiculousness of the premise (and the fact that Kim Basinger sleepwalks through what should be a fairly emotional role), this movie actually turned out to be a pretty fun ride. At 95 minutes, the pacing is tight, the plot kicking into gear with almost no set-up and never letting up. Evans is fun as the exasperated everyman and William H. Macy shows up as a cop who's about to retire and gets caught up in the action. That's always fun. He's too old for this shit! Plus, Jessica Biel is only in it for like, two seconds. I would say Jason Statham is wasted as the bad guy, but he plays it pretty much the same way he plays good guys, so it kind of works itself out.

If you need to kill an hour and a half, you could do a lot worse, especially given that David Ellis' two other most notable films are Final Destination 2 and 4. Better yet, have some kids, let them grow up, then watch it and start yelling about how back in your day, phones used chargers, not your own body heat and the pictures had to be sent to a computer, not directly to your brain. I have high/awesome hopes for the future, apparently.

Despite fairly crappy reviews, I had less than crappy expectations for Push, which had a pretty neat trailer and looked like a more badass version of Heroes (never has any show I wanted to be good been botched so badly. Fuck you, Tim Kring, fuck you). And while nothing could be as disappointing as Heroes, Push still managed to screw up more than it got right.

The premise (laid out in an extremely blunt voice-over at the beginning) revolves around Cold War experiments in which the government attempted to created an army of psychic soldiers with various powers. A generation later, the similarly powered children of these soldiers are on the run from a government organization called The Division, that wants to harness their powers for their own nefarious purposes. Nick Gant (Chris Evans) is a con artist living in Hong Kong who inherited his telekinetic abilities as a 'Mover' from his late father. He meets Cassie (Dakota Fanning), a 'Watcher' who's clairvoyance has told her that Nick will help her rescue her mother from The Division. This is further complicated by the arrival of Nick's ex-girlfriend Kira (Camille Belle), a 'Pusher' who can influence peoples thoughts and possesses a mysterious suitcase, the contents of which are very valuable, both to The Division and a super-powered Chinese crime family. Wow.

This film does do a few things right, so I'll discuss those first and not be mean. The look of this film is definitely interesting, combining jittery camera work and drab art direction of the Bourne films with the garishly colored lighting and slick direction of Hong Kong action movies. Setting a film featuring mostly American protagonists exclusively in Hong Kong gives the film a unique dynamic and lends a bit of authenticity to the idea that the characters are on the run from the government. Dakota Fanning is also a lot of fun as the snarky, fatalistic Cassie; most of the one-liners in the film end up being hers. The action (when there actually is some) is fairly clever and well-shot. There's a restaurant shoot-out about two-thirds of the way through in which neither person actually touches their guns, which is pretty nifty.

Other than that, unfortunately, this movie is a bit of a clusterfuck. You can probably boil down everything that's wrong with this film to the fact that it takes itself WAY too seriously. I specifically watched this movie to watch Chris Evans be a wiseass and his character is almost completely humorless in this film beyond his lovingly sarcastic relationship with Fanning's character. The movie thinks way too much of the emotional arcs and not nearly enough of the action scenes, a gross mistake given what the target audience of this film is looking to get out of it. The characters are all extremely thin and the emotional beats in the film are far to drawn out and protracted, featuring way too many overbearing musical choices and way too much on-the-nose dialogue. It's pretty clear that the writer was invested in the material and really wanted to create a believable world, but crammed into a two hour movie, it just seems like a mess. The shorthand terms for people with powers (Movers, Pushers, etc.) are kind of silly and the villains are way too generic to be threatening. Characters bounce in and out of the film for no reason other than to further the plot and by the third act the plot itself makes the terrible mistake of becoming too convoluted to easily follow but not interesting enough to make the effort. Blegh.

I don't think I can recommend either of these movies. It is odd that Cellular, despite being the less intersting film, ended up being more enjoyable. Not sure what's up next. I should be getting to the theatre this weekend, but I'm not sure what I'll end up seeing. Everything starts to pile up in the last three months of the year. Damn awards season.

A PERFECT GETAWAY (Major Spoilers)

Dir. David Twohy USA 2009

"That would be a hell of a second act twist, though."

(Quick note regarding Boardwalk Empire: I've abandoned my original plan to review every episode since it seems like the quality of the show will remain constant and I don't want the reviews to get repetitive. I'll probably do another one when the first season ends. Walking Dead and Game Of Thrones will definitely get reviews for each episode since I'll have a lot to say about comparisons between the show and the source material.)

OK, so, A Perfect Getaway. This movie came out late last summer to little critical or box-office fanfare and was pretty quickly forgotten. I mostly wanted to see it based on the strength of the cast (specifically Steve Zahn, Mila Jovovich and Timothy Olyphant) and the director (who made one of my favorite sci-fi/horror flicks ever, Pitch Black, as well as Below, which I reviewed over the summer). And while I did enjoy this movie, it's pretty tough to discuss without giving away the ending. So I'm going to do what I did for The Book Of Eli and stay spoiler-free for as long as possible before leaving some space and discussing the ending. Sound good? Good.

The film stars Steve Zahn and Mila Jovovich as Cliff and Cydney, a pair of newlyweds who are spending their honeymoon hiking on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. While on a lengthy, multi-day hike to a remote beach, the couple hears news of the brutal murder of another newlywed couple on the main island, apparently perpetrated by a man and a woman. They then encounter two couples, Kale and Cleo (Chris Helmsworth and Mary Shelton), two white-trash hippies and Nick and Gina (Timothy Olyphant and Kiele Sanchez), a pair of intense, but likable outdoorsy types. As they trek deeper into the wilderness, Cliff and Cydney being to suspect that one of the two couples may be responsible for the murders and that they might be next. DUN DUN DUN!

If this sounds like a B-movie thriller, that's because that's exactly what it is, albeit a beautifully shot one. Twohy milks the scenery for all its worth and although I didn't watch this on Blu-Ray I expect that it'll pop right off the screen if you do. The film is well-paced, building characters and tension slowly for the first two-thirds before hitting the gas and not letting up toward the end. The acting is surprisingly good for this type of film, with Steve Zahn and Timothy Olyphant turning in their usual great performances. As an alpha-male former soldier Nick, Olyphant gets to unleash the affably threatening persona that characterized his early work in Go and The Girl Next Door (yes, I've seen that and it's surprisingly not terrible). He seems to only get cast as stoic badasses nowadays, so it's nice to see him turned up to 11 again. I was more surprised by the female leads in the film, who I wasn't expecting much from. Mila Jovovich has kind of fallen into a rut over the past few years (although I guess it's making her money) as a beautiful but bland action star in crap like Ultraviolet and all the Resident Evil movies. Here, playing a normal down-to-earth character, she displays a naturalness and vulnerability that makes me wish she'd take dramatically challenging roles more often. And Kiele Sanchez, who played one of the two most hated characters on Lost, makes me believe she too has been hampered by bad material in the past, showing a lot of personality and enthusiasm in this film.

Despite having better characterization and directing that a film of this type deserves, the movie isn't without its problems. Steve Zahn's character being a screenwriter provides a lazy short-cut for Twohy, allowing the characters to have entire discussions about red herrings and plot twists in films which, depending on how meta you like your movies, may come off as annoying. And despite nicely balancing some pretty broad tonal shifts for much of its running time, there is one scene about halfway through the film that just...goes to a really weird place without much warning and feels completely divorced from the rest of the film (although it does pay of story-wise by the end).

Speaking of the ending, it's time to talk about that. I hate giving away endings, so if you haven't seen this movie and it seems at all interesting from what I've written so far, I'd reccommend checking it out before you read on. It will definitely be more enjoyable going in blind, but I understand if you don't. There won't be any jump back after the spoilers, so if you don't want to read any further you can jump off here. Bye.

Hi. So about halfway through the film, Zahn and Jovovich's characters have been sticking with Olyphant and Sanchez's characters, despite their suspicions, mostly because the third hippie couple are way creepier and a bit more threatening. When they get arrested by the police, it seems pretty obvious that Olyphant and Sanchez are going to be the killers. Then, when the two couples alone on an isolated beach, Sanchez realizes that Zahn and Jovovich are in fact the killers. We are then treated to a ten minute flashback which shows us that Cliff and Cyndey are a Mickey-and-Mallory-style sociopathic couple who murder other couples and assume their identities in order to live an infinite number of lives.

In retrospect, if I had been thinking harder while I was watching the film, I would have seen this coming, despite it being totally bugfuck nuts. I didn't think the movie would be particularly challenging when I sat down to watch it and Olyphant and Sanchez being the killers seemed like the obvious outcome, which I was willing to forgive since the rest of the movie was so well done. While their are clues placed along the way that could allow you to figure this out, Twohy cheats a bit by having Cliff and Cyndey remain in character while they are alone with each other, which cause the viewer to eliminate them as suspects from the get-go. This is later explained (or rather, the explaination is implied) by the idea that they are insane method actors who completely "become" the people they kill, but it still feels pretty cheap. Basically, if you think this is the most retarded thing ever, it'll probably ruin the movie for you, but if you can run with it (which I was able to do, more or less) it makes for a pretty nifty twist and allows for a breathless final twenty minutes where your character allegiances are turned on their head.

The twist also allows for a few other positives. I've never seen Steve Zahn play a balls-to-the-wall villain before and he's pretty goddamn good at it. More importantly, in my case anyway, it allowed me to root for the characters that I had liked best all along. Timothy Olyphant and Kiele Sanchez (particularly the former) are so badass and so charming, that I found myself regretting the fact that they were going to end up being the killers as I watched the first three quarters of the film. When they were suddenly revealed to be the potential victims in the final act, I was happy to remain in their corner as they suddenly find themselves fighting for their lives. And although the movie could have been even more subversive by having the protagonists you've been following the entire time come out on top, I won't really blame them for playing it a little safe.

Ultimately (and somewhat unfortunately) the twist will probably be the deciding factor as far as your opinion on this film goes. I think it goes all the way from audacious through retarded and back to awesome. And I didn't see it coming. Which is really what you want out of a twist in the end.

UP NEXT: A Chris Evans double feature, oddly enough. It just kind of worked out that way. Cellular and Push, two apparently middling thrillers. Lets hope for the best.

HARRY BROWN / THE HIT

Dir. Daniel Barber UK 2009

Dir. Stephen Frears UK 1984

"It's just a moment. We're here. Then we're not here. We're somewhere else... maybe. And it's as natural as breathing. Why should we be scared?"

I feel like I've been doing a pretty good job thematically (if not obviously) pairing these reviews up and I just went with two British crime flicks I'd been meaning to see for a while. One was pretty good, one was pretty bad. In we go:

Harry Brown got a small US release this past April, and it had some interesting buzz surrounding it at the time. It's the first film by director Daniel Barber and was pretty much advertised as Death Wish with Michael Caine. That descriptor alone should provide most of the plot synopsis, but I'll give you a short one just for the hell of it.

Harry Brown is a long-retired Royal Marine who's sickly wife passes away in the first five minutes of the film. Harry is left alone in his flat in an extremely run-down housing project that is overrun with nihilistic young gangs of drug dealers. Harry fills his empty days by playing chess with his only friend, another elderly man named Leonard, in a local pub. When Leonard suffers a fatal encounter with the gangs plaguing their neighborhood, Harry reaches his breaking point and is forced to bust out his old school military training to clean up the streets.

Like I said, it's basically Death Wish, although in a lot of ways it's also a much more conventional take on the material covered by Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino. Unfortunately, with the exception of Caine's performance (which is unsurprisingly great), I'd pretty much call this film a complete failure. It's kind of amazing that anyone, even a first time director, was able to botch such a tried and true concept, especially when working with such a reliable and talented lead actor.

The problems with this film all start with the script. Like I said, the story isn't particularly original, but this film devolves into obvious cliches at every turn and just glosses over plot points as it goes on, all smacking of an untested first-time writer/director. The friendship between Harry and Leonard is poorly established, showing us that they drink together and play chess, but giving us no indication of how they know each other, or for how long, making the main thrust of the film feel empty. The villains in the film are ridiculously over-the-top caricatures that are never represented as anything less than completely, irredeemably evil, collectively or individually. They run guns, deal drugs, make snuff films and perpetrate random acts of violence, but are also represented having some kind of organized structure, which doesn't really make that much sense. The police are also portrayed collectively as incompetent and uncaring, to the point that it's completely unrealistic, all of which works toward building a world where the audience has to believe that Harry is the only one who can take action. It's lazy writing, plain and simple. I won't spoil the ending, but the final act contains a preposterous action sequence as well as an extremely stupid pseudo-twist that, surprise surprise, feels cheap and completely unrealistic.

Caine aside, the acting in this film is pretty terrible, but the person I was most surprised by was Emily Mortimer. Although I haven't seen her in much, she has a good reputation as a decent actress and I instantly latched on to her demure presence and overall adorableness when she first popped up in the movie. By the end, I was trying to decide if she'd been horribly miscast or had just completely botched the interpretation of her character. She plays the detective investigating Leonard's murder, who eventually comes to suspect that Harry is responsible for the rash of anti-criminal violence. You'd expect this part (played by either a man or a woman) to fall into typical hardass cop cliches, but that would have been preferable to what actually happens. Mortimer plays the part like a frightened mouse, unable to stand up to her superiors, whispering reprimands at her partner and generally appearing to be completely pathetic. Her complete lack of physical competence or any kind of believable personal drive made her wholly unsympathetic and boring, and you know how bad it must be if I'm unable to sympathize with a character played by a cute British woman.

As always, Michael Caine not only did the best with what he had, but seemed to really pour himself into this role. He carries himself with a combination of righteous anger and weary grief that kept me compelled despite everything else being a total suck-fest. Shots like him standing silent and alone at his friends funeral while another giant procession passes by and his lonely, monotonous morning routine were some of the few well-made directorial choices in the film, and Caine sells every minute of it.

My last complaint about this movie before I move on is fucking CGI bullet hits. I know I just nitpicked this in my Boardwalk Empire review, but this exclusively featured CGI bullet hits and stabbings and holy shit did it look fake. Like, laughably fake. This shit bothers me slightly less in sci-fi or comic book movies like Kick-Ass, where it sort of meshes with the aesthetic, but I'm watching a gritty crime thriller here, not playing Resident Evil 4. It's probably weird that I fixate so much on this, but I just don't understand how this can possibly be seen as cheaper or more effective than using practical effects. Someone please explain it to me.



Much more interesting and enjoyable was The Hit, an early effort from director Stephen Frears, best known in America for directing The Grifters, High Fidelity and The Queen. The Hit tells the story of Willie Parker (played by Terence Stamp), an English gangster who sells his companions up the river in the mid-70's in exchange for immunity following a failed bank robbery. Ten years later, Willie is enjoying his retirement in sunny Spain, until he is kidnapped by the ice-cold Braddock (played by John Hurt) and his over-eager protege Myron (a hilariously young Tim Roth), who intend to return him to his former comrades so they can have their revenge. What follows is Sexy Beast by way of In Bruges in sort of a road trip format.

My interest in this film was piqued when I saw that it was a Criterion release, and they're pretty flawless when it comes to releasing movies that are, at the very least, interesting. Also, John Hurt and Terence Stamp are badass and I was extremely curious to see what Tim Roth looked like when he was younger than me (as you saw above, the answer is: kinda goofy). The movie isn't particularly action packed, but when violence does strike, it's pretty brutal and unexpected. There are very few speaking parts in the film beyond the three leads I just mentioned and a female lead who inadvertently gets wrapped up in this whole situation and ends up along for the ride. Everyone, however, is excellent and the script is structured in such a way that you can easily view any of those four characters as the protagonist of the film. The obvious character to latch onto is Willie, for whom this trek across western Europe is a days long death row march, but Stamp plays him with a sort of Zen-like sneakiness that allows you to not really worry too much about him as the film goes on, and instead get invested in the relationship between Braddock and Myron, which starts out frayed and deteriorates from there. I personally gravitated toward Braddock, who's backstory and thought process goes relatively unexplained, but is communicated very effectively by Hurt's performance, made all the more impressive by the fact that he wears sunglasses for most of the film. As the reckless young punk, Tim Roth (22 at the time the film was shot) overplays a bit, but still displays that charismatic spark that's carried him through most of his career. The fact that his character is a bit annoying would have probably stymied a lesser actor, but Roth carries it well.

The tone of the film (like In Bruges) fluctuates wildly, but never feels uneven. The score, which consists of flamenco music and some extremely 80's guitar licks, courtesy of Eric Clapton and Roger Waters, keeps the mood pretty light for much of the film, as does the easy-going nature of Stamp and Roth's characters. However, when the film turns on the intensity, it's pretty unforgiving. The opening scene, where Willie testifies against his friends, ends with him being lead out of the court as all his friends begin to sing "We'll Meet Again" in an incredibly foreboding fashion (what is it with that song by the way? Between this and the end of Dr. Strangelove, it's become way creepier than its authors ever intended, I'm sure). There's also a spectacularly tense sequence set at a gas station about two thirds of the way through and the ending, as you can imagine, is fairly intense. The movie never looses sight of this underlying direness, despite the frequent humor and sun-drenched scenery, best exemplified by the scene from which I pulled the quote at the top of the page, where Stamp explains his views on death, which allow him to remain calm and affable in the face of his impending execution. It's powerful stuff, and an excellent example of writing, directing and acting coming together for the best.

One other quick thing worth mentioning, in comparison to Harry Brown: the characters leave a swath of bodies in their wake as they make their way through Europe, thanks to a series of unfortunate coincidences and mistakes. Unlike Harry Brown, where an entire subplot told from the point of view of the police completely sucks the life from the film, The Hit utilizes scenes of a Spanish police captain tracking their crimes across the country. He has no lines, backstory or characterization to speak of, but it's an effective and simple way to both acknowledge the real world consequences of what's happening and creates a nice bit of tension to keep you worried for the protagonists.

UP NEXT: Going on a short vacation this weekend, and I won't see the new Boardwalk Empire episode til Monday night at the earliest. I'll try to have that posted by Tuesday night. Not sure what movies are up next. I'm overdue for seeing something in theaters. The Town and Buried both look interesting. Be back next week.

BOARDWALK EMPIRE: EPISODE 1-1

"Boardwalk Empire"
Sundays 9 pm HBO

"You can't be half a gangster, Nucky. Not anymore."

I watch a lot of TV, but I know myself well enough to know that I can barely keep up with movies reviews, let alone a weekly show. However, there are a number (3, if you want me to be specific) of new shows starting in the next 8 months or so (the other two are The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones, if you want me to be even more specific) that I'm really goddamn excited for and with that enthusiasm in mind, I've decided to attempt weekly reviews for these shows. They'll probably be a bit shorter than my movie reviews, which should help with not falling behind. Since we're talking about the pilot here, I'll avoid spoilers, but with following episodes, I'll have to delve into plot specifics, so if you don't plan on keeping up with the show, I'd recommend you only read this review and hold off on the other ones.

Boardwalk Empire is the tip of the spear in what seems to be HBO's effort to reclaim their title as the kings of premium-quality cable TV, since Showtime, AMC and FX have been kicking their ass in the last few years. The Sopranos, The Wire, Six Feet Under, Deadwood and Rome all ended within about two years of each other. So basically, between 2008 and 2010, HBO was running on Entourage and True Blood which...isn't really something to be proud of (Although they did do the John Adams and Generation Kill mini-series during that time, which were great). Tremé and The Pacific kicked off the 2010 relaunch and Boardwalk Empire seems like the a sure critical and commercial hit for the network.

Well, they were pretty much right. Boardwalk Empire is set in 1920 in Atlantic City, where the county treasurer, Enoch 'Nucky' Thompson (played by Steve Buscemi) brokers arrangements between a burgeoning organized crime syndicate and local politicians in order to circumvent the newly passed federal law outlawing the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages. The characters range from the powerful (real-life mob figures Lucky Luciano and Arnold Rothstein) to the everyday populace (a pair of drivers, one of whom is a young Al Capone, and a lower-class member of the Women's Temperance League) as well as Michael Shannon as Nelson Van Alden, a federal agent seeking to nip a criminal empire in the bud. All of which is certainly familiar territory for the show's creators, Martin Scorsese, who directed the pilot and Soprano's writer/producer Terence Winter.

This episode definitely feels like a Scorsese film. Subject matter aside, Scorsese leaves his stamp all over this episode. Everything from the sweeping overhead crowd shots (very reminiscent of Gangs of New York) to the flashback structure (Goodfellas) to the freeze-frame/action cuts and the old-fashioned silent film lens opening at the beginning and end of the episode. And while the episode displays a few of the weaker points of any pilot episode (some clunky expository dialogue, mostly), Scorsese displays his usual skill for balancing strong character work with excellent pacing and a meticulous attention to period detail. This easily rivals Deadwood and Rome as one of the best looking HBO shows I've seen (although for some reason they're going with CGI bullet hits, which still manage to look fake despite the insane budget this show has. I do not understand why no one seems to use practical bullet hits anymore).

Unsurprisingly, the cast is really great too. It may seem typical to see Steve Buscemi playing a criminal at this point, but his character of Nucky Thompson is actually a bit different than what we normally see from him. Whereas Buscemi generally plays jumpy, short-tempered snakes (Reservior Dogs and Fargo) or total psychos (Con Air and The Sopranos), here he seems more a man trapped by circumstance, wary of becoming a full-blown criminal, but too savvy not to make money when it's there to be made. It's an interesting move on the part of the show, giving a lead role to someone known strictly as a character actor (albeit a great one), but Buscemi displays enough layers in the first episode to make me believe he can pull it off. My favorite bit was the "Jesus-what-did-I-do" look on his face as his mistress is screaming at him from the bathroom while he's trying to have a phone conversation.

Other standouts so far include Stephen Graham as the affably violent Al Capone (although Graham, at 37 is a bit old to be playing a 21 year old Capone) and Michael Stuhlbarg as the super smooth Arnold Rothstein, who proves himself a worthy opponent by deftly outsmarting Nucky by the end of the first episode. Both Michael Shannon (as the fire and brimstone federal agent) and Michael Kenneth Williams (I don't know who he plays in the show, but he was Omar in The Wire and that's all I need to know) only appear briefly in this episode, but based on their past work, I'm expecting great things from both of them. The only reservation I feel is toward Michael Pitt (goddamn, did they only hire people named Michael for this show?) as Jimmy Darmody. Although the character has tons of potential (at age 23, he's Princeton educated, a hardened WWI vet, a father and a mob driver/enforcer), Pitt's delivery is a bit stiff and one-note in this episode. He's got great presence when he's lurking behind Nucky or looking at someone like he's going to kill them, but he pales in comparison to most of the other actors. Hopefully, he'll find a groove as the show goes on.

I hope to find my groove as well, since I've never reviewed anything on a weekly basis before, I'll try to have the reviews up on Monday or Tuesday every week (the show airs on Sundays), and I'll try too keep the spoilers light (but no promises, you should just watch the show). It's good to have you back HBO. See you next week.

UP NEXT: Back over on movies, I've got a pair of British crime thrillers coming up: 1984's The Hit starring John Hurt and Tim Roth, and 2009's Harry Brown, starring Michael Caine.