Username Password Remember me Forgot password?

Wanna join? Sign up

Find movies you'll love

dj4our Blog

For "Once" a reel love story

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Once (2007)

ONCE

****

R (for language)

1 hr. 28 min.

written & directed by: John Carney

produced by: Martina Niland

I've been wanting to see this movie since it's release. Actually, I've been in a hurry to see this movie since it's release cuz I know that despite rave reviews, movies about "guy meets girl" usually have limited and short releases. What attracted me? I heard it was about an Irish singer-songwriter/guitarist (the "guy") with emotional baggage who meets a struggling Czech flower seller/musician (the "girl") while performing on a Dublin street. The two discover they are kindred spirits through their music and much more. With that premise, I was sold. I heard that the music was incredible too but most of all it's just hard to find a realistic love story in cinema lately.

This is a love story with real characters in it. There's nothing entirely cinematic about these characters, these are just ordinary people you might see or meet anywhere. No insanely, knock-out gorgeous people here. No Jessica Biel falling for Adam Sandler antics goin' on here. The movie benefits from that premise (and promise) and as well as a documentary, hand-held camera feel with an obviously extremely low budget. There is pure intentions here at the film's heart and a creative passion for musicianship, which is perfect because if there was anything added the film would just come across as rather pretentious.

The Guy (Glen Hansard) is a working-class Irish dreamer, plugging away in his father's vacuum repair shop by day and hitting the streets to perform his songs at night. During one of his street corner concerts, Guy meets The Girl (Marketa Irglova), who is smitten with Guy's guitar playing and touched by his lyrics. After some flirtatious pushing and pulling, Guy asks Girl to form a makeshift band, fashioning a tentative bond between the two that skirts around love, but never seems to settle, much to Guy's frustrations and heartache.

What really sold me on "Once" were the intimate moments between the characters. It just all seemed so real and I cannot think of anything else to describe it....just real. You can tell there was little getting in the way of this film, no studio interference whatsoever is felt here. The end product being a soft, trembling feature that believes in the magic of infatuation and silent agony of unrequited and uncertain love. It's an open wound of stifled emotions, and I was quite taken with the interesting ways it attempts to portray the unstoppable connection between man and woman, here employing the rickety wood bridge of music.

Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova in Fox Searchlight's Once

Hansard's (lead singer of the Irish band The Frames) only other noticeably role was that of a guitarist in 1991's "The Commitments" which is actually to his benefit. It's much more effective to have an unnoticeable actor perform in this role and Hansard being a musician it helps the passion and reality of the character and storytelling. I was blown away with this being Irglova's debut acting role. Just amazing! She responds to those around her naturally and has an astute listening ear. Both actor's performances add a certain freedom to the film. It's obvious that director John Carney likes to rely on the freshness of the talent, trusting their unease with acting will bring out the kindly awkwardness between the characters. This technique works; slowly sucking in the viewer as the two grow more comfortable around each other, especially when they create music. I'll go ahead and say that some may not like Hansard's songwriting or musical delivery. I loved it but then again I'm a big fan of acoustic singer-songwriter work.

Regardless of a viewer's opinions of the music, the passion behind the tunes cannot be denied and speaks volumes about the characters. It really is impossible to turn a cold shoulder to the romantic pining blossoming between the characters when they combine their voices, edging "Once" closer to the musical genre at times. Many have said that this film plays like a modern musical but for me the music is just another star, and inevitable player that progresses the story instead of stopping the story for mere exposition. There is character and story growth while the music is played, it's not just video montage fluff. Does the movie have a happy ending? Let's just say it has a real ending and the "happy" is seen in the realism portrayed throughout the movie.

Marketa Irglova and Glen Hansard in Fox Searchlight's Once

My wife was a lil off-put by some of the dizzying hand-held type camera work but other than that she really loved it. It almost feels unfair or reaching to call out the technical limitations of the film when it really is so sweet and humble. Apparently, it was shot with a commercial DV camera, therefore all the jittery long lenses and camouflaged camera placement to brings that raw, unfettered look at two souls finding perfect sync. Admittedly, it keeps the film baggy; free from succumbing to the pressures of the meet cute and assorted romantic nonsense. Carney may be victim of becoming a lil too enamored by the cinematographic limitations, and it's possibly he loses some excruciatingly important scenes to darkness and lousy focus. But, that's nit-picky to the overall package. I don't really need to see all the moments of emotional longing and heartache, as long as I can feel it.

I liked the quiet moments in this film just as much as the musical scenes. There's a moment shared between Guy and his father (Bill Hodnett) where they sit in a cramped kitchen and listen peacefully to Guy's demo. Because the character of his father has only been developed slightly, we don't really know what his reaction to the demo will be. His father has already been seen as kind and quiet but he seemed to have a permanent frown on his face. But his reaction is one of subtle sweetness, and it sums up the movie beautifully. This is a warm picture intended for soft hearts who appreciate the ache of attraction. I loved it and consider it my Top 10 of 2007 already. It's too bad it's a movie that will most likely be hard to find in your area theaters. If you're looking for a film to movie you, there's an exceptionally sincere, expressive quality here that is universally appealing.

Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:27 AM by dj4our | with 0 comments

A "Glowing" Review

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Sunshine (2007)

SUNSHINE

***1/2

R for violent content and language.

1 hr. 47 min.

written by: Alex Garland

produced by: Andrew McDonald

directed by: Danny Boyle

This past Monday I was able to catch a screening of Danny Boyle's new film called "Sunshine", a sorta surreal, intense sci-fi film. I'm always up for a free movie and try to jump on any opportunity than comes along to get to see one. I saw that a local online reviewer (who goes by the name "Capone") was giving away passes to this screening that also had a Q&A with director Danny Boyle after the viewing! All I had to do was e-mail him and let him know why I wanted to go. No problem. The next day I received a confirmation e-mail that stated myself and a friend of my choosing were in! Yes! After checking around to see who could go, I wound up meeting my movie maven pal, Paulette. She's an actress and writer whom I work with (fun work not "work" work) and whenever she or myself get in on movie screenings, we always like to give each other a heads up.

The screening started at 7:30pm but I know from experience to get there no later than 6:30pm. With Monday being my first of many Super Daddy Nanny Days, I knew I had to get everything in line in order for me to make the movie. After Grace and I picked up my wife from work, I dropped myself off at the Landmark Theatre near Clark & Diversey and off they went. Paulette was already in the theatre reserving seats by 6:30pm. Yay, I made it! What I'll do is review the movie and then talk about the Q&A....

Movie:

Fifty years from now, the sun is dying, therefore mankind is dying with it. It's basically winter everywhere on Earth and although inhabitable, not the best situation. Our last hope is a spaceship called Icarus II, carrying a crew of eight men and women, all of them either astronauts, doctors or scientists with qualified specialties. They carry with them a device attached to their ship designed to breathe new life into our star, they call it "the payload". But deep into their voyage, out of radio contact with Earth, their mission is starting to unravel. They come into contact with a distress signal....from Icarus I. A spaceship that was sent out seven years ago for the same purpose but that crew was never heard from again. Decisions need to be made, possible life-threatening and mission-altering decisions. They've already been together for sixteen months and now their sanity is tested as they come closer to the sun and closer to the realization that mankind's fate is in their hands.

Cliff Curtis in Fox Searchlight's Sunshine

After these decisions are made, the crew has to deal with the repercussions of their choices. Under extreme pressure and pushed to their limits they face an accident and eventually fatal mistakes. It's now obvious the crew is fighting not only for their lives, but their sanity. These aren't heroes, simply gifted and courageous people thrust into extraordinary situations. Boyle is aware that one of the sci-fi conventions of a story like this is that the crew will be eliminated one by one. That's a given and it goes without saying. Still, he builds their characters well enough and displays their humanity and camaraderie equally through scenes of bonding, tensions and video diaries back to Earth. They are not only interesting characters but they are played by a well-chosen cast.

Captain Kaneda (Hiroyuki Sanada) is steadfast and leads quietly by example. He looks at a dilemma calmly and searches for solutions. He is also obsessed with the failure of Icarus I. Second-in-command is Communications Officer Harvey (Troy Garrity) who is anxious yet thorough under pressure. He designed the ships communications systems. He is an all-round astronaut capable of performing most duties.Biologist Corazon (Michelle Yeoh) or "Cory" maintains the oxygen garden and grows vegetables for food. Trey (Benedict Wong) is the navigator of the ship, a child genius, Trey became part of the Pan-Asian space program after creating a computer virus that wiped out twelve percent of the world's computers. His job is to calculate the trajectory of the Icarus II. Psych Officer Searle (Cliff Curtis) is interested in the psychological effects of deep-space travel to the point of near obsession. Searle ensures the crew remain physically and mentally healthy over the course of their three year mission. The ship is piloted by Cassie (Rose Byrne), formerly with the U.S. Air Force. Maintaining the circuitry mapping and mechanics running the ship's computer is Mace (Chris Evans) and engineer with a mindset solely on the mission. Finally, the man responsible for manning "the payload", physicist Capa (Cillian Murphy), foremost in his field with the goal to maintain the dark matter bomb and activate it when necessary. No pressure.

Chris Evans , Hiroyuki Sanada , Cliff Curtis , Michelle Yeoh , Benedict Wong , Rose Byrne and Cillian Murphy in Fox Searchlight's Sunshine

It didn't take me long to take interest in a movie with this plot directed by this director. After all, "Millions" was probably one of the best films of the past decade in my opinion. I also enjoyed his take on the zombie genre in "28 Days Later". So, when I heard that Boyle was making a sci-fi flick, I was watching for development on it. Sure enough, from the captivating opening minutes that pitch-perfectly set the tone, I was falling in love with this movie. The ethereal electronica-like score by Underworld was right away-a perfect match. The film really does have some wonderful sequences and a number of nerve-rackingly tense scenes. Boyle, his effects team and cinematographer Alwin H. Kuchler create some beautiful and exciting, coming up with some really incredible images. Basically, they purposefully and excellently make the sun itself out to be one of the main characters of the film.

The production design also did a pretty amazing job forming the spaceship interiors and the desolation of the bomb itself. It's not an easy thing to make a sci-fi film look original, so many have come before with all kinds of different designs but this film certainly had a unique look. I noticed as well that the sound and the editing stood out as well. During the scenes of the sun it felt like the giant star had it's own howling voice.

I only had some minor problems with the film and then was with Alex Garland's script. I had with it arise from parts of the script and the editing. There's quite a bit for a writer to tackle here and overall he does a good job except for a question I had about the captain of Icarus I. I'm not gonna go into it but Paulette and I had the same question, so if you wind up seeing the film, talk to me. Still, there are some excellent scenes, ideas and themes executed and attempted. Some may feel that the second half may suffer from too many action conventions but it all seems logical to me. Then again I'm no scientist or astronaut. Usually it bothers me when action scenes are shot either too close up or kinetically fast, but for some reason in this environment it only added to the heightened peril.

Out of all the actors I was most excited to see Curtis and Yeoh and it woulda been nice to see them given more. It doesn't really matter to me what movie these two are in, I always wind finding them to be the most interesting part of the movie. Evans is given much criticism for always playing the same character (like hothead Johnny Storm) but I didn't mind him here. Garrity kinda bugged me but I think he was supposed to. Ultimately, what remains for me is the spectacle and fascinating ideas the film conveys. Sure, it woulda been nice if those ideas were fleshed out a lil more but it was enough for me.

If I were to describe this movie to anybody I would probably tell them what sci-fi films it is most similar to. I'd say there are similarities to "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Alien" and "Silent Running." Some may find it more like the awful "Event Horizon" (itself a remake of 1972's "Solaris" which would later be remade by Soderbergh in 2002) but I feel that's a lazy observation, there's more going on here. Boyle deals with their shared elements a lot more interestingly. Overall, it's a very intense experience, I wouldn't mind seeing it again and I do recommend it to fans of the genre or for more thoughtful fare. I fear for the film's survival in a summer of magic wands and giant robots, it's always good to have other options though and maybe this will be one.

Q&A:

It doesn't matter if a film is good or bad, it can still be discussed and the best time to do so is right after one watches it. I've had some of the best after viewing film discussions with friends and most likely so have you. Who better to discuss a film you just watched then with the actual director. It doesn't always happen for me. I've been to screenings with Q&A's for "The Incredibles", "Shaun of the Dead", and "Lord of War", fortunately those were all great movies. Needless to say, I was quite excited to be able to stay in my seat after this film and wait for Danny Boyle to arrive (apparently he was caught in traffic at 10pm at night. Later I would find out it was raining where he was coming from).

I'll try and recall what went down....

Boyle was greeted with a round of applause as two director's chairs were positioned so he and Capone can chat with their cordless mics. Capone thanked him for coming and started out by saying that it was great to see a group of scientists and doctors up in outer space for a change. I don't really know what he meant by that, cuz there certainly have been other sci-fi films with a group of scientists and doctors banded together on a mission. Then he opened it up for questions.

One question I recall was that of the character's and actor's camaraderie that came across so well.....Was there anything in particular done to prepare these actors for that? Boyle stated that actors come to film sets in a bubble. They often bring with them their agent, their chef, their trainer, etc. He stated his goal is to pop that bubble, so there is nothing left but the actor. Then they're able to focus and be on his side. One of the ways he did this was to house all the actors in a dormitory in East London. Some of the actors were a little taken aback at first but they came around and realized that all of it was for the sake of the characters. I thought was pretty cool.

I asked him where the film was shot and if he storyboarded at all. Boyle stated that he usually stays away from Pinewood Studios (where the Star Wars and Bond films were shot) cuz they're just too enormous and the workers there run around calling you "Guv-nah".which doesn't sit well with him. He chose a smaller film warehouse in London and worked with the same visual effects house that director Ridley Scot uses. As for storyboards, he states he usually tries not to rely on them because he likes to already have the film visualized and also keep a more fluid feel to the sequences.

There was a question on whether or not any spiritual themes hinted at throughout or deliberately mentioned at the end of the film were intentional. Boyle commented that while much is open to a viewer's interpretation, one cannot help but to include the spiritual in the story's environment. With human beings floating alone in outer space, taking inventory in one's place in the universe is only natural. One of the sources for research was a book called Moondust about all the astronauts who stepped foot on the moon and how many of them were emotionally and/or psychologically scarred from being in that atmosphere. He mentioned that it was reported as being a very humbling and lonely feeling. It does something to one's pysche and he wanted to work off that and include elements of that in the story.

Boyle talked some about how the sci-fi genre has it's conventions and some of them are limited. He knew that with a set-up of eight crew members in danger out in space, everyone knows that they're gonna be "done away with" one by one. So, they trick is how to do that in a way that both serves the character and the overall story. Among his list of sci-fi movie conventions, he mentioned how there's no sex in sci-fi films, which of course gained some laughter. He just said, it's funny but it's true.

It was so great to just sit there and hear Boyle go on about the film. I felt I wasn't sure if I'd get picked again but I did have another question. Oh and I had a load of 'em. I can see a guy off to their side signing to Capone how many more questions he should take. When he signaled two I raised my hand again and sure enough I was the last to be called. I told him that I really enjoyed "Millions" and obviously this movie was a complete departure. I asked him what the process was in-between projects. After "Millions" did he just feel like working on a sci-fi film? How did this come about? What he had to say was really interesting. He said that a director or really any artist can never really go back to the feeling of that first work. Be it a painting or film. The newness of not knowing what you're doing will never come back but in selection different types of projects, he hopes to at least feel a little bit of that "I don't know what I'm doing feeling". Boyle said he had no idea how to do a sci-fi film and that was exciting for him. Garland came to him with the script and they researched it and went for it. One of the attractions to this film was working with these actors in such confined places.

Boyle added to my question saying that his next film is currently being made in India. It's a comedy about a young illiterate boy who tries to become a contestant on the Hindi version of How Wants to Be a Millionaire? Once again, a totally different experience. With "sunshine" there were environments that he could control but shooting in a bustling Indian street with all the people, he has to account for everything. So, that's what he looks for, to reinvent himself each time.

Boyle mentioned that Michelle Yeoh was the first actor to be cast and she had the choice of deciding what character she wanted to play. She chose the role of the biologist in charge of maintaining a peaceful oxygen garden both for food and air. He mentioned that Yeoh had a very calming presence for the whole crew. That she was "kind of a healer in the group, a bonder."

With that question answered, Capone thanked him again for coming. He also thanked me for mentioning "Millions" one of his favorites as well. Boyle thanked everyone for coming as well and for the opportunity to discuss the film. The studio promo people passed out these colorful Icarus II crew patches to everyone. Free swag! As soon as the standing applause erupted, I made a mad dash to the front floor with my bag. In my bag I had a DVD's of both "Millions" and "28 Days Later" that I wanted to try and get him to sign. I went right up to him in front of the rest of the crowd. I waited till after some guy in front of me was done talking to him, then there was these guys to the left of me from some new film school that got Boyle's attention. Apparently Boyle had an interview with one of them the next morning. The one guy asked to take a picture of Boyle and his friend. Boyle complied and was elated to see that the photographer was taking his picture with an Iphone.

I was up next and I grabbed his attention by whipping out the DVD covers. I asked if he would sign them. He had no problem as I gave him my Sharpie. I thanked him for coming and he immediately told me thanks and that it was just great to be here. We shook hands and I went on my way, happy as can be. It's a cool feeling coming into contact with a filmmaker or actor who turns out not to disappoint. Sure, they're there to promote their film but it's still some great, rare, insightful one on one time that can be remembered forever.

One last note, a comical one....a theater worker came in and made an announcement asking everyone to leave because they had to get ready for a movie that was gonna be playing in that theatre. This got Boyle's attention and he asked the worker what movie to which the worker replied "Sicko". Boyle immediately laughed and scoffed, "Oh no no no. I thought it mighta been "Transformers." Oh well."

Posted Friday, July 20, 2007 1:48 PM by dj4our | with 0 comments

Beware Beware!

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

V for Vendetta (2006)

V FOR VENDETTA

***

Rated R (for strong violence and some language.)

2 hrs, 12 min.

written by: The Wachowski Brothers (based on a graphic novel by Alan Moore)

produced by: Grant Hill, Joel Silver, Andy Wachowski, & Larry Wachowski,

directed by: James McTeigue

Back in 1987, I remember seeing the original comic book issues of V for Vendetta at the comic shop I would frequent in high school. I didn't know too much about Alan Moore's 12-issue maxi-series except that I thought it was mysterious and had some cool art by David Lloyd. I recall seeing a cover of one particular issue worm's-eye view looking up a brick wall and seeing a dark figure with a flowing cloak running along or jumping off the wall. I wanted to know who that person was. I found out he was a British vigilante/freedom fighter named "V" and then I wanted to know what his "Vendetta" was. It appears Evey Hammond feels the same way.

The year is 2020. America is left decimated by a plague. London is under the totalitarian grip of a police state government that enforces nightly curfews complete with surveillance cameras, sirens, and loud speakers on every corner. The local news is cleverly spun to make the citizens feel rest assured that "England prevails." Every part of the media is controlled and every event is spun for the benefit of keeping the public in fear and the government in power. Until one man decides to fight back. He is the shadowy figure whose identity is unknown. He wears a mask frozen with a permanent smile resembling Guy Fawkes. He introduces himself to Evey (Natalie Portman) one night in an alley after he rescues her from a gang of police agents known as "Fingerman", her would-be rapists.

He is known only as "V".

As much as Eve is scared of V (Hugo Weaving) she is also convincingly forced to join him. He is polite and to the point with Evey. He sees something in her. Possibly a connection. There is some mysterious sense of security that V's presence gives Evey. It seems strange but makes sense once we see her back story as she tells V of her harsh and traumatic childhood. Of course, V's got his story as well that slowly unfolds (rather well) as we see just who will specifically will reap the vengeance of his vendetta. One aspect of his mission in his rebellious crusade is to send a message to British ruler Sutler (John Hurt) and his tyranny. Sutler appears in these fascist posters and media programs to the people and on an IMAX-size screen to all the government lackeys that report to him. The other aspect would be to remind people that ideas can still have strength. There's more to the world than just blindly following the government and media as they spin what they want you to know as truth. That people can still act upon their ideas of freedom and liberation.

Natalie Portman as Evey and Hugo Weaving as V in Warner Bros. Pictures' V for Vendetta

The movie is dark and stylishly visual. It's violent because of the way the world has become. Peaceful demonstrations are a thing of the past and just wouldn't work in this world. It pulls you in just as V pulls Evey in with his muffled yer alluring voice in all its enunciated cleverness. V tells Evey that "sometimes you can use violence for good," as he admits that, yes, men were killed in his methodically-planned attacks. We see V's world and actions through Evey's eyes from the beginning as they witness his "orchestrated" destruction of British landmarks like the Old Baily courthouse on November 5th. Is he a freedom-fighter or an anarchist? What's his agenda for his vendetta and how is it that he knows so many words with the letter "V"?

Besides Portman and Weaving, there are some supporting roles that flesh out some side plots. Investigating V's attacks for Sutler are Finch (Stephen Rea) and his partner Dominic (Rupert Graves). Both characters are more fleshed-out in the graphic novel but the actors portray enough of their character's essence successfully. Finch is world-weary and loyal to England and gradually less loyal to the law whereas Dominic is more by the book. One of Evey's only other confidants is a friendly older man, Dietrich ( Steven Fry) who works at the station BNT, British New Television she works at. There's also a character named Valerie (Natasha Wightman) who is important to both V and Evey in a dramatic way. All of these various roles help give the world of the film its character and adds a reality to this future, albeit a grim one.

Critics are saying alotta things about this movie. Some compare the relationship that V and Evey have to a kinda "Phantom of the Opera" style while others dismiss it as a film that "promotes terrorism." I could see the "Phantom" meets "The Matrix" comparison, but the terrorism stance is a bit misleading. This is a work of political science fiction with a alotta dramatized action and suspense. It's not based on a true story like the terrorist acts seen in Speilberg's "Munich". Was Speilberg promoting terrorism? Some said that he did. The point is to look at the perspective of those committing terrorist acts. We don't like to cuz it's easier to write them off as evil but alotta times we should. Once we see the environment V and Evey live in and all that they have lived through thus far, it is apparent that they don't see these "acts of terrorism" as anything more than "declarations of independence." Remember the Boston Tea Party? It's a celebrated historic event now but I'm sure back then some may have considered it an "act of terrorism". I'm not condoning violent acts. But, I'm just saying that through certain perspectives you can understand them.

Director James McTeigue has experience working with Portman, Weaving, and The Wachowski brothers. He was the 1st Assist. Director on the Matrix trilogy and on Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. So, once may thing that he was handed the directing reigns through association. Maybe that had something to do with it but he surely showed he's capable. What this movie owes its look to though is the amazing cinematographer Andrew Biddle (Aliens, The Princess Bride Thelma & Louise, & the Mummy) who really captures the look and feel of the graphic novel. Biddle died on December 5th, 2005 and was never able to see the movie released. At the end of the film there is an honorary mention to him and rightly so.

Moore has disassociated himself from this film as he has his other adaptations ("From Hell" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen") and confirmed himself as a disgruntled genius writer. I guess he's entitled, it's his baby. Despite some plot holes which is bound to happen in any novel to film translation, the film delivers very well. I wanna see it again just to pick up other nuances about this futuristic world. It'll be the number one movie in it's first weekend due to the ads promoting it as some kinda new "Matrix-type" movie. Once that all washes over I'm hoping the film has legs and people see the messages of freedom, vengeance, and rebirth that the film has. Their not necessarily "right" messages but their enough to make you think for yourself....much like Evey had to.

Posted Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:00 PM by dj4our | with 0 comments

Redemption is around the Corner

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

16 Blocks (2006)

16 BLOCKS

****

PG-13 (for violence, intense sequences of action, and some strong language.)

1 hr. 45 min.

written by:Richard Wenk

produced by: Randall Emmett, Avi Lerner, Arnold Rifkin, John Thompson, Jim Van Wyk, & Bruce Willis

directed by: Richard Donner

release date: Friday, March 3, 2006

Ever wake up in the morning and feel like ya just can't make it? I'm not talking ya just can't make it outta bed, I mean ya just. can't. make. it. You're eyes are heavy and dry. You're body just aches all over. Every noise affects you. Well, that's how New York detective Jack Mosely, badge number 227, feels and he looks it too. Mosely is a middle-aged cop who is ready to retire. He feels that "life is too long" and seeks therapy at the bottom of a bottle. He's written off by his peers as a man who has already quit.

Mosely is forced into taking a happy, but down-on-his-luck witness "16 Blocks" from the police station to 100 Centre Street, escort talkative witness Eddie Bunker to a courthouse to testify against other corrupt cops, who obviously don't want him to get there. It's a fairly high concept, but done in a way that allows the characters to really come through. I found the story to be more of a redemptive tale for characters who are polar opposites. Mosely (Bruce Willis), a dark guy and a heart attack waiting to happen, who is escorting this witness (Mos Def) who is a 14-time loser with a "sunny" (as Mosely puts it) outlook.

Bruce Willis and Dante 'Mos Def' Smith in Warner Bros. Pictures' 16 Blocks

From the trailer and because Bruce Willis is in the film, one might automatically think, "Aw, man, here's another action flick," or "What is this a remake of 'The Gauntlet' ?" Well, I'm hoping people will realize that despite Willis being popular for his action roles he's also made some great choices that have brought him roles with quite a bit to work with. Ever seen the movie "In Country" or "Nobody's Fool"? Great character movies that really showed that Willis is more than just either a comic or action star. Just look at all that Willis brings to the role in just his eyes. Every emotion that Jack Mosely feels is right there. He's spent. He's had it. We know he has some kinda dark past that's made him who he is but Willis does such a great job with the roles that we're not concerned with the specifics. He's given up on himself and his assignment to walk this witness (with his gimpy leg) unintentionally wakes him up to that fact.

Writer Richard Wenk doesn't stereotype these characters in any way which breaks it apart even further from any type of action-drama, buddy convention. The dialogue is real. There's no typical lines given for this wino cop as well as there's certainly none for Mos Def's motor-mouth character. What's great is I think we all have known or know, or at least have seen characters like this in real life. Could be a co-worker, a friend, a family member....heck, it could be you. The mile-a-minute, nonstop talker who tells you every detail about their life and assumes you're interested and still listening. Or the grizzled, sardonic, and cynical character unconsciously desperate to reconnect with what is right.

With these two characters being the protagonists in the film there of course needs to be an antagonist. I mean, a 16 block trip with a cheery witness has gotta be a walk in the park, er, I mean....city, right? Nope. Enter the perennial corrupt cop, Frank Nugent (David Morse) who turns out was Mosely's partner for twenty years. Yeah, he's a dirty cop but even he has his reasons for the way he is. His immoral justification adds to the tension he and his crooked-cop-cronies permeate as they pursue and thwart these two on their perilous journey. Just like Mosely's darkness, these cops didn't wake up one day corrupted. You can see this is a character element that is quite dense and layered. Great character for the ever-capable Morse to slide his way into. We've seen him in great character roles such as "The Rock", "Contact", "The Green Mile", "The Negotiator", and "Dancer in the Dark" for years. Always reliable and often taken for granted, I believe.

There's a great scene in a bar towards the beginning of their "walk" that takes place just after the catalyst scene. Mosely and Bunker are joined by Nugent and his gang in a kinda standoff that builds to set the pace of the rest of the movie. Some great expressions from all three of these guys here. Nugent tries to pat Mosely on the back and take Bunker into his own hands but Mosely notices something is up as he sees Bunker's _expression. Def masters this scene where we see just how pure and real his emotional response is to the tension and danger of the moment. What I was surprised about was how much I really liked these characters and their interaction. I wasn't too surprised I enjoyed the movie cuz I'm a huge Richard Donner fan.

Donner and Wenk make this movie into something so much more. With Donner's eye we taken to busy Chinatown, densely layered buildings, and streets. Similar to the city feel of his great "The Conspiracy Theory" we see the city as a character as well. Donner has developed at great shooting style as well. He has honed his craft on film classics like "Superman: the movie", The Goonies", "Ladyhawke", as well as the "Lethal Weapon" movies. If Donner had not directed this I may have been hesitant to see this. Combined with Wenk's superb script which drops any conventional norm and instead and character and depth. When Bunker enthusiastically tells Mosely that he has plans to open up a bakery specializing in birthday cakes in Seattle where his sister lives, he asks Mosely, "What kinda cake you like, man." Mosely looks at him in annoying disbelief and replies under his breath, "I don't like cake." Bunker is dumbfounded, "What? Who doesn't like cake?" It's moments like these that balance out the tension of the story and give these great actors opportunities to shine through these wonderful characters.

Ultimately, the movie is less about police corruption and moreso about what good can survive in a bitter and corrupt world and how redemption can be available when you least expect it. I saw this movie last night with my wife and Faith and they enjoyed it just as much as I did. The crowd at this premiere had a great time. Donner delivers!

Posted Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:53 PM by dj4our | with 0 comments

Bursts into Flame!

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Firewall (2006)

FIREWALL

**1/2 stars

PG-13 (for some intense sequences of violence)

1 hr. 40 min.

written by: Joe Forte III

produced by: Armyan Bernstein, Basil Iwanyk, & Jonathan Shestack

directed by: Richard Loncraine

Alright, okay, I got suckered. I shoulda learned from the last time I went to a new Harrison Ford movie on opening weekend. It's just that, well, I grew up with the guy. Yeah, he was my hero. When I was 5 years old he was a Corellian space pirate. At age 9, he got me into archeology. The next year he had me dreaming of electronic sheep. When I was 13, I saw that being Amish could be cool. The next year how a man's obsession can overcome him to the point of losing his family. At 21, I saw him wrongly accused and on the run in the Windy City. But, Harrison, ya lost me at, "Get off my plane!" Since then you've had this grimacing, constipated look with a deep growl for almost every movie. Alright, it's not like he's gonna be reading this. But, man listen to your fans ya curmudgeon! Ah well.

So, me and Donzell went and saw Ford's latest attempt at staying afloat "Firewall" and it was....good. It didn't surprise me. It didn't necessarily reveal anything new to the whole thriller genre. My theatre experience was revealing though. Growing up, Harrison Ford films meant big crowds and lots of people....my age. Not any more. As I sat down in the theater and looked around at the balding, blue and white-haired crowd I realized that wasn't the case anymore. Has my generation given up on Ford? Am I seeing this with his peers? Am I just seeing his films now for nostalgia in an attempt to relive the Ford experience of my youth?

Well, it is what it is. "Firewall" is a formulaic thriller with not a whole lot of new elements (funny, considering the movies title was originally "The Wrong Element") to offer. As far as comparing this with other Ford's other films, it's currently being called a cross between "Patriot Games" and "The Fugitive." I guess that's about right.

It's "24" season....30! Chloe still helping Jack-any Jack!
Ford plays a computer security expert named Jack Stanfield who works for a large Seattle bank. Jack's got a great job and he has Beth (Virginia Madsen) his beautiful architect wife and his two children, 14 year-old Sarah (Carly Schroeder) and 9 year-old Andy (Jimmy Bennett). Turns out the bank he works for is about to merge and he doesn't get along with the corporate guy,Gary Mitchell (Robert Patrick) from the other company. Jack and his partner Harry Romano (Robert Forster) meet a tall young guy by the name of Bill Cox (Paul Bettany) after work for drinks on a typical rainy Seattle night. Aware of the impending merger Cox offers them both consulting jobs.
After the meeting, they all walk out in the rain. Jack gets in his car and Cox quickly jumps in his back seat and tells him, "You're wife has beautiful eyes," and then shows him an image of his panicked, screaming wife on his cellphone. He tells him he's kidnapped his family and he must do whatever he says to ensure their safety. They both go home to Jack's house where he finds his family bound and gagged by some of Cox's armed lackeys. Jack still has no idea what Cox wants him to do.
He is eventually told that they will be using him to loot his own bank. They wire-and-camera him up and see him off to work the next day and let him no they will be in touch with him. He must do exactly as they say or his family dies all while making it seem that everything is fine. His bow-tied boss Arlin Forrester (Alan Arkin) gets suspicious and also asks him to kiss and make-up with Mitchell which makes Mitchell kinda suspicious. Even Jack's assistant Chloe, er, Janet (Mary Lynn Rajskub) finds his behavior peculiar.
After Jack makes attempts to secretly alert others for help, Cox shows up at the bank unannounced for a meeting with Jack. He tells him to stop screwing around and give him a tour of the bank. Meanwhile the wife and kids are at home with their uninvited guests making themselves at home. Cox tells Jack to go home and await further instructions. No matter where he turns he is being watched. They've wired him in such a way that they can here what he's saying at anytime. He's trailed anywhere he goes.
Back at home Jack is told to figure out a way to make this theft happen. He eventually engineers some escape attempts for the family that go horribly awry and put them in greater danger. The family is developed more than you might expect, which is not to say that they ever get beyond the cut-out stage. Madsen is so much the loving wife that I was immediately suspicious that she was behind the plot. Oh well. I guess that was "Presumed Innocent".
While Jack is jumping through Cox's hoops, his family is now being taken from his home with Cox away from the city. We know of course that Jack strikes back as he finally figures out how to flip the tables and tells Cox, "You'll get the money, when I get my family." The line is delivered in such a Ford way. With the help of Chloe, er, Janet, he eventually finds where his family is with the help of Rusty, the family dog's trusty GPS collar. What a plot device as is little Andy's peanut allergy.
Jack and Janet drive out to some cabin by a lake where they find his family and Cox and a coupla lackeys. Janet stays at the car with Rusty (who they find walking around) and calls 911 while Jack opens up a brutal can of 'whup-tushy' on the baddies. Cox and Jack wrestle in the cabin. They fall down wooden stars. They're thrown out a windows. Thrown on the ground. Kicked, punched, & stabbed. Felt like I was watching a Peckinpah film. Sheesh. It all ends quite typically with happily-ever-after.
So, the movie delivered. It wasn't great. It was all that ya saw in the trailer. There was plenty of product placements for Chrysler, Dell, & Equifax which I'm use to nowadays. Just not used to it in a Harrison Ford pic. It was funny to see Rajskub play basically the same role she plays in Fox's "24" where she helps out Kiefer Sutherland's Jack Bauer as Chloe O'Brien. Hmmmm. Overall, the acting was solid. Bettany is great. It's just that there wasn't much to it. No, it doesn't necessarily have to be believable I guess. But, it should be a lil more thrilling, surprising, and not so plot device laden.
In a recent interview, Ford was asked why it took three years between his last flop, uh, I mean, film "Hollywood Homicide" and this one. He said something to the sort that they had to another director and get the script right and blah blah blah. Okay the director thing I can understand but be real. The final script was not that good. He was probably just too bust flying his planes and playing with Calista. Feh.
Is Ford getting to old for this? Well, he's older and in pretty good shape. He did all his own "physical acting" as he likes to call it. He says he doesn't do "stunts." Okay. Think about this, at 64 years old, Harrison Ford is the same age Sir Alec Guinness was when he played the role of Ben 'Obi-Wan' Kenobi back in 1977, when Ford was 35. Interesting. Yes, there will be another Indiana Jones which will most likely come out in 2008. Next up for Ford is a movie called "Manhunt" based on a Civil War book that was just released this month. Ford will play a Colonel Everton Conger who leads the hunt for Abraham Lincoln's assassin. Guess that's why he currently has that goatee.

Posted Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:42 PM by dj4our | with 0 comments

Another Needless Remake

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Fun with Dick and Jane (2005)

FUN WITH DICK AND JANE

PG-13 (for brief language, some sexual humor and occasional humorous drug references).

1hr. 25 min.

written by: Judd Apatow, Nicholas Stoller, & Peter Tolan

produced by: Jim Carrey & Brian Grazer

directed by: Dean Parisot

This past Tuesday a bunch of us fellas high-tailed over to the five dollar theater to catch a movie. It was kinda slim pickin' as far as choices. Some have already seen this while others didn't wanna see that. So, we decided on this here flick. Everyone figured it'd be good for a laugh. I went in not expected too much and it turned out I was neither disappointed or surprised. I had "fun" hanging out with the fellas but not so much with "Dick and Jane."

In the year 2000....Dick (Jim Carrey) and Jane Harper (Tea Leoni) are living the ideal life in Southern California. Dick has an executive position at mega-corporation, Globodyne. Jane works as a travel agent. Both successful careers.They live in a beautiful house complete with a huge flat screen HD TV and a newly laid-out lawn turf with affluent neighbors all around. They have a stereotypical Latin maid/babysitter and have a clever little Latin-obsessed son (hmmmm, wonder why?).

Who they are and the world they live in is all established within the first coupla minutes. It's all up on the screen for us to read....literally.

Yes, everything is looking great, possibly perfect for the Harpers.

What can make it even better? Dick gets sent to the 51st floor of Globodyne to be told that he's getting promoted to Vice President of Communications. Whoa! This is it, they think! Now Jane can quit her job and get more time with their boy. Dick gets invited over to CEO, Jack McCallister's house for breakfast where Jack (Alec Baldwin) and his business partner Frank Bascom (Richard Jenkins) tell him how wonderful he is and how great he is for the job. They sit him down and tell him that his first duty is to go on live television and tell the world the current status of the company. How great for you Dick!

But it turns out McCallister has secretly transferred and depleted funds from Globodyne leaving....nothing. Dick is humiliated and devastated in an on-air interview and comes home to find that Jane has quit her job. All the money they had was in Dick's company. Jane freaks out! They lose their savings, their lawn, and their HD TV!

After many humiliating job interviews and getting fired the day he was fired at what was supposed to have been a Sam's Club, Dick realizes that there are no jobs and then comes to the revelation that if stealing worked for McCallister....why can't they?

Hilarity ensues in ways only a movie with Jim Carrey can and should. There's plenty of funny moments as we see first Dick then Jane then both of them commit various acts of thievery. Yeah he robs a convenient store. That was funny. They rob a coffee shop and order drinks while at it. That was funny. They dress up as Sonny and Cher at a car dealership and steal money there. That was funny. They steal the neighbors Mercedes and ram it through a jewelry star dressed up like the Blue Brothers. That was funny. They even break into one of the guys Dick interviewed with, tied the guy up, and stole a bunch of stuff from him. That was funny. Yeah, it was all funny and after a while it was.....tiring. Really, how many times can we see them doing this? I mean after a while it's just funny, that's it. Nothing new. Just different locations. It got me tired and kinda bored.

Jim Carrey and Tea Leoni in Columbia Pictures' Fun with Dick and Jane

Part of it was I didn't really care about these characters. I saw them as one-dimensional, materialistic go-getters. Their priorities were all messed up. Dick is obviously a deadbeat dad cuz he doesn't even care that his housekeeper has more influence on his son that he or Jane. Jane seemed like she had a little more common sense than Dick but then she goes and joins him in his criminal pursuits.

Yeah, sure it's funny Jim Carrey schtick but if you want that go see the funnier "Liar, Liar" or "Bruce Almighty". In those movies at least the audience can connect a lil more with his characters but here, this Dick Harper is a big baby. I was quite impressed with Tea Leoni's comic timing here. I feel she matched Carrey each step of the way which I imagine for any actor is not easy to do. She's done good comedy before like "Flirting with Disaster" but here her physical stuff is really funny. Overall, the acting was good but the characters were annoying.

Now that I think about it, there's nothing really that funny about the aftermath of an Enron-like style meltdown. Trying to hold on to your life as everything comes crashing down around you is not funny either. I guess that's why there was something a lil unsettling about this remake. Yeah, this is a remake from the 1977 movie of the same title starring George Segal and Jane Fonda as Dick and Jane. Never saw it. Not gonna break a sweat to see it, either. So, yeah, I'd say this is kind of a rental or netflix of whatever you kids do out there.

By the way, some of you may know the name "Dick and Jane" from the controversial series of textbooks written by Zerna Sharp. The books were used to teach children to read from the 1930's through the 1960's. The main characters were Dick and Jane, a little boy and girl with supporting characters including Mother, Father, Spot the Dog, Puff the Cat, Jack the Clown (ew, creepy), and Tim the Teddy Bear. By the 1950's, these books were used by 80% of first graders. The books relying heavily on "sight-reading" and "repetition" using phrases like "Oh, see. Ph see Jane. Funny, funny Jane."The infamous phrase "See Spot run" was from these books as well. After a while, they were put aside cuz they were seen as kinda remedial.

They were controversial because of the way life was depicted or rather idealized. White-picket fenced families living in white suburbia. Kinda like in the movie. Hmmph. Black characters were not introduced till 1965 when the books were declining in popularity anyway. In 1955 Rudolph Flesch criticized the "Dick and Jane" series in his book, "Why Johnny Can't Read."

First editions of the books are now worth as much as two hundred dollars. The books were reissued in 2003 and over 2.5 million copies were sold, but this time the publishers had warned against using them to teach reading to children. Related merchandise, such as shirts and magnets, also gained wide popularity, particularly among people who had never been exposed to the original series but were familiar with catch phrases like "See Spot run!"

Posted Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:22 PM by dj4our | with 0 comments