I’d say this movie was a disappointment but I didn’t really have high expectations for it in the first place so it’s hard to reach that conclusion. Basically this is a rip off of the concept from “Weapons” , and not a very good one at that. The idea of creepy kids being used to take retribution is a cross between a “Nightmare on Elm Street” and the film from last year where Amy Madigan played the part of an ice cream man, sorry I mean witch.
This film is told from the perspective of the young protagonist, a lactose intolerant lad who has been bullied by classmates and even a little bit by his friends, but in the end, he stands up the firmest against the evil that is encroaching on his small town. The story doesn’t make much sense until we get a data dump in exposition from a local priest about 2/3 of the way through the movie. And if by any chance you’re suspicious of the priest and what he has to say, you will not be at all surprised at the twist that comes near the end.
This is an Eli Roth film, so no one’s expecting much subtlety. When the vicious killings occur, there’s not really a lot of cutting away, we’re going to see heads separated from bodies, faces smashed to smithereens, and dismemberment galore . Once in a while we get a sly joke inserted into the mayhem, unfortunately they don’t always land. I can say however, that there was one bit that landed for me. There is a very funny scene which is basically a takeoff on the playground scene from Alfred Hitchcock’s the birds. It builds in a form that mimics Hitchcock’s style of shooting in that scene, and the juxtaposition of antagonists is what makes it work.
The Ice Cream man depicted in the film never really talks. And in spite of the horrible things that occur, there is even a slight effort to make his character somewhat sympathetic. That doesn’t work, for the obvious reasons that innocent people are harmed in the process and that in the absence of any words of contrition from the victims, the Ice Cream man just continues to smile maliciously.
So the movie plays like the gore version of The Pied Piper of Hamlin, with indiscriminate victims, and innocent children turned into murderers. Ho hum. I guess I should have known when I saw that Osgood Perkins was a producer on the film. Let’s just say he’s gone zero for three with me, and I’m someone who appreciated that Eli Roth was directing this film,
It felt a little like I was going to a James Caan Film Festival this last weekend, since he appeared in both the Saturday night and Sunday night films. His part in “Bottle Rocket” was barely more than a cameo, but he is clearly the star of Michael Mann’s “Thief”, the Sunday night experience and one of the best performances of Caan’s career. I saw this film when it was originally in theaters back in 1981. I think I may have seen it one more time on cable sometime in the late 80s.
For a film that I hadn’t seen in more than 30 years and saw only a couple of times before that I remembered quite a bit. I also misremembered a few things, it seemed to me that Willie Nelson had a bigger part in the movie, but that was not true. He had two very brief scenes. Nevertheless the crime component is the main element of the movie and that I did remember.
Caan plays a master Thief who’s used to operating on his own, but in a bid to rush his exit from the criminal world, he agrees to pull a job for a syndicate, and of course that leads to trouble. The movie is drenched in atmosphere, lit with the blues and blacks that characterize a lot of Michael Mann films. Once in a while there are splashes of color like the neon that would become emblematic of Miami Vice, but it was all a lot more subdued in this particular film. A layer of dread also hangs over the enterprise, created by the haunting music score from Tangerine Dream. It suggests constant suspense and danger, even when people are just sitting in a diner arguing over coffee.
The central premise is that our Master Thief, Frank, is so autonomous that no one can control him. I find it frankly easy to believe that he might be the same character played by Robert De Niro in Michael Mann’s Heat 15 years later. Frank stands up to a brutal beating by corrupt cops who want a slice of the action, and he cleverly beats them at their own game so that he can carry out the main crime. As in most heist films, for some reason the audience usually identifies with the criminal, we want them to succeed and not be caught. It’s great when a plan plays out the way it’s supposed to, and no one gets hurt.
Of course if no one got hurt in the plan, and it was perfect, there wouldn’t be any drama in the story. That’s where the boss of the crime syndicate comes into play. Robert Protsky, plays a avuncular, seemingly reasonable gangster, who makes big promises, and comes through on some of them, but breaks the one rule that Frank sees as a red line.
The conclusion of the film is really a test of Frank’s Independence. His willingness to fight back against the intrusion on his autonomy, is the main focus of the third act. Once again we may want Frank to succeed, but we’re not going to see him as a very good person, because of the sacrifices he’s willing to make in order to stay his own self. I don’t think however it could have gone any other way and felt authentic.
My daughter and I are already in the middle of a rewatch of Quentin Tarantino’s filmography. The fact that “Reservoir Dogs” was playing at the summer classic film series is just pure coincidence, but a happy one, because I haven’t been able to see this film on the big screen since the first time I saw it at the Colorado theater in Pasadena in 1992.
This story is going to repeat itself on my page chronicling some movie visits with my late wife. I’ve been trying to do that sequentially, so this is a little out of order. This was Tarantino’s first film, and I had read about it in one of the national magazines and the splash that it was making at Sundance. I was anxious to see it and I brought my wife with me, and neither of us had any idea of what we were getting into. The film is pretty brutal, and the language is coarse, but for the most part that did not seem to be bothering her. Until the scene where Michael Madsen, while dancing to Steelers Wheels , cuts the ear off of a cop that he is torturing. It’s at that point that my wife leaned over to me and said in my ear “you owe me big time”. She was apparently a little miffed that I had exposed her to something so savage.
Anyway the rest of the movie is almost as savage, the fact that Tim Roth spends the majority of his performance laying on his back screaming and moaning from a gunshot wound is only part of it. The characters, famously named after colors, which was inspired by “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three”, are all reprobates, that may have a gift for gab, but with whom you wouldn’t really want to be involved in a conversation.
Speaking of conversations, it’s hard for me to believe that I actually showed the opening diner scene with criminals sitting around the breakfast table arguing about tipping, in my argumentation classes. The vocabulary they use and the graphic way in which they describe their opinions, was not my focus, but rather the way they tried to parry one another’s points, and refute the claims being presented, while talking about an opinion that they differed on. I’m pretty sure that if I was showing this in my classes today, I wouldn’t be retired, I’d be unemployed.
Although there are a few scenes set outdoors, and a few other locations, this movie is the perfect scenario for a first-time screenwriter /director who has a limited budget. It’s almost like a piece set in a single scene, because so much of what is going on occurs in the warehouse, and everything else is just a flashback. This was our first opportunity to fully absorb the way Tarantino’s characters spoke. For the most part they are articulate, forceful, and vulgar. Actors exchanging his dialogue is nearly hypnotic, and this will be a trademark of all of Tarantino’s subsequent movies.
The pop soundtrack is another giveaway of future Tarantino trademarks. Heavy on ’70s film references, and the soul and pop songs of the era, it makes the squeamish elements more tolerable for those of us who know the tunes. The theater was packed, and everybody seemed to appreciate it when Mr Pink rubs his thumb and index finger together, playing the world’s smallest violin for all the waitresses in the world.
27 years ago a cult grew up around the films of the Wachowski Brothers / sisters, with the release of”The Matrix”. It was a groundbreaking film that utilized special effects, clever camera tools and frankly brilliant framing and staging, to make a science fiction film a classic. The two sequels never lived up to the promise of that first film, because they got bogged down in a series of philosophical and existential musings.
How could they redeem the promise that they showed with that first Matrix film? For my money the answer is apparently the gloriously overstuffed “Speed Racer”. When this film came out it didn’t do any business that is worth writing home about, which always amazed me because it looks spectacular. It may be that I am just one of those people who’s willing to go along with the conceit of a filmmaker if it strikes me as being appropriate in the moment. For example, I love films like “Snakes on a Plane”, “The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai across the 8th dimension”, and “Swiss Army Man”. “Big Trouble in Little China” may be the most enjoyable film that John Carpenter ever made but I know there are people who just can’t get into it, well I can. And “Speed Racer” is a movie that I’m willing to do the same for.
This movie looks like a cartoon, moves like a cartoon, and is acted like a cartoon, and that’s one of the things that makes it so much fun. When Warren Beatty made “Dick Tracy” back in 1990, he used a very specific color palette and lighting strategy to evoke the comics of the era that the character came from. The Wachowskis are doing the same thing with this movie. The colors are dazzling, oversaturated Neon hued, and they whack you over the head.
If you’ve never seen the movie it’s hard to describe what the experience is like. It’s very immersive, and very loud, and I’m surprised that anybody who suffers from motion sickness can get through a screening of this film without passing out or vomiting. I guess I’m lucky because mostly what I get is an Adrenaline Rush and the kind of brain stimulation that occurs when I drive down the strip in Las Vegas. This particular screening was even more so, because it featured a new 4D presentation of the film on the largest IMAX screen in the state of Texas. It was an assault on your senses that you voluntarily take on, in the hopes that it will get you a kind of psychedelic High without actually having to drop acid.
In the nearly 20 years since the film came out, it has acquired a cult status, which overcomes its initial failings. When I see people criticize the film because they object to the little brother and the chimpanzee, I know they have completely missed the vibe that I experience when I see the movie. Sure the kid is corny, and some of the jokes are obvious, but if you take a look around you’ll see that that’s true everywhere in the movie. That’s one of the pleasures of this film, it is exactly what it wants to be. This movie wants you to give in to the sensory stimulation and the artificial nature of the visuals. If you can accept the little boy and his chimpanzee smuggling themselves in the back of a race car, or engaging in hijinks on a private plane, or simply just being a nuisance, then it’s easy for you to accept the ridiculous car chases, race sequences, and comic book villains.
As a kid I never really watched Speed Racer, so I don’t have that nostalgia to fall back on as a reason for my love of this movie. My embrace of it is clearly based on the audacity of the concept and its execution. I have not been enthusiastic about other films from this duo, but along with “The Matrix”, “Speed Racer” has my respect for them as filmmakers.
As far as I’m concerned they’re not enough movies about the American Revolution. This is one of the greatest moments in history, a point when the American people chose to stand up and change the world. To go along with my frustration about a shortage of films about the revolution let me also say that they’re not enough films about The Hero of the American Revolution who later became our first president. Young Washington is a film about this great American before he was an American. And frankly before he became great. Washington had several setbacks in his life, and everybody who thinks he was a privileged white guy doesn’t know enough about the nature of the world in the 18th century.
This story takes place 20 years before the American Revolution. It is in fact an evolution story about The Man Who Would lead this nation into Independence. First however he had to discover his own flaws and weaknesses so that the later story would be a success. Young Washington focuses on a two year period when George served British forces in the French and Indian Wars , and carried out his duties valiantly but also made major mistakes that produced failures in his military commands.
There is plenty of excitement in the recreated battles that are depicted on the screen in this film. It’s interesting to see how different Warfare was in the time period, and to see the seeds of Washington’s future campaigns being planted two decades before fruition. The story is not exclusively about his military experiences but it also covers some of the striving social climbing that he was attempting and for which the social structures of the time cemented his opinion of the British system.
The film was done on a smaller budget, and it was made by a director who has had success with more specific audiences. The fact that the movie works so well is a tribute to not just the actors but the Craftsmen and on-site technicians who always make a movie work. When you add a director who is competent and increasingly skilled in working under budgetary limitations , it is immensely satisfying to see a film like this succeed.
Admittedly the movie is not as polished as a major Blockbuster coming from a studio that had cash to burn, but the look of the movie matches up any of those things that a studio might have come up with, and I think it is edited in a way that does Justice to the facts of the tale but also the entertainment value of a film. John Erwin directed two earlier films that I did see and I enjoyed quite well,”Jesus Revolution”, about the Revival movement of the 1970s, and” American Underdog”, a biopic of the great quarterback Kurt Warner. This is a much more complex movie, and he acquits himself admirably as far as I’m concerned.
William Franklyn-Miller, is the star of the film as the eager young Washington seeks his place in the world. I think this is his biggest role outside of a couple of Television Productions that he’s been involved with, and it’s a good introduction for me. He plays Washington, an earnest, striving, and intelligent man who has been placed in an inferior position because of his family’s Birthright and the location of his family fortune. He was destined to be an outsider from the very beginning.
Three actors playing different characters in this film all reinforce the need for Washington to break out of this traditional social hierarchy. Kelsey Grammer plays a local family patriarch who becomes something of a Patron to the young Washington. Sir Ben Kingsley, represents the bureaucratic English Empire, who stumble on the acquisition of this talented young man, but also become the source of his failures. And Andy Serkis, plays The General that young Washington serves in his most distinguished military Enterprise on the field of battle, and who for a moment Grace’s Washington with the respect he deserves.
If this picture had been made in the 1930s or 40s, it would fit in well with the biographical films of the era. Since however it is 2026, most film critics would be expecting some sort of deconstruction or reinvention of this historic character. Edwin and his fellow filmmakers stick to the facts, tell the story clearly and make it interesting. If you care about Fidelity to history, you won’t mind the absence of a comedy sidekick, smart ass anachronistic dialogue, or revisionist approach to the American story. Maybe it helps to be a patriot to admire this movie, but I think that people who see this movie are more likely to become Patriots, that’s good by me.
This is the last full film I saw at the Paramount Theater before it closed. For the next 11 months it’s going to undergo renovation and hopefully be restored to even greater Beauty. It’s hard to imagine a more fitting closure then seeing the greatest musical of all time one more time on the big screen.
I love singing in the rain, I can’t understand people who don’t like musicals, and I’m especially suspicious of anybody who doesn’t love this musical. This film has everything, is in hysterical comedy, with terrific dancing and singing numbers, set in the Golden Age of Hollywood, dealing with some of the real problems that came with the Advent of sound, and it stars the great Gene Kelly.
There are so many iconic numbers in this film, that I’m not sure I could get to the mall and it doesn’t paragraphs. So I’ll just remind everybody the gene Kelly’s dancing in the rain, will probably the most visually iconic, is certainly not the only memorable musical sequence in the film. Donald O’Connor steals the movie for 5 minutes with his routine make him laugh. Debbie Reynolds, takes the lead on good morning, and Cyd Charice doesn’t sing she just dances like an angel Moving On A Cloud along with her partner Gene Kelly.
Of course the biggest thief in the film is Jean Hagen, who plays the movie star with a voice to die for, I’m sorry I meant to voice to die from. Silent screen Stars sometimes didn’t make the transition to the talkies for a reason. Instead of making this a tragedy however, Gene Kelly and co-director Stanley donen turn this into a farce. And what a lovely time we all get to have as a result.
Good luck and for a short time farewell to the Paramount Theater, You Are My Lucky Star.
For a large number of years now I’ve had an affinity for the films of Guy Ritchie. His English gangster films are the most intriguing with clever plots and hard-nosed dialogue written in a style that is amusing enough to keep me entertained even when I’m not quite familiar with the British vernacular. I’ve even enjoyed his Sherlock Holmes movies and the remake of Aladdin. In the last few years however his output has been a little less consistent. I was not a big fan of “Operation Fortune”, and I had my suspicions about this film, given its apparently turbulent distribution problems. (Although Guy Richie’s The Covenant” was my favorite film two years ago)
I can say off the bat that this is not my favorite of his films but it is also not the worst of those movies that he’s made. The major flaw in this film is the first 45 minutes, where we get the kind of narrative provided in voiceover that tells you that this might have been an intriguing novel but was maybe a little too intricate to show cinematically. Usually Richie gets around that by narrating things that have already happened and then going back and showing us what it all meant. The structure of this film’s narration however seems to be contiguous with the events that are taking place. So we get an omnipresent voice explaining what’s happening on the screen, almost continuously for the first half of the film. I found it quite irritating. Yeah it helps clear up what’s going on on screen, but it was pissing me off having to listen to this voice keep telling me what should be clear from watching the events on screen. The narration is needed to clarify things but it just doesn’t work the way it has worked in previous Richie films.
Now that said, once the action part of the movie kicks into gear, the film works really well. We have a very clear idea of what’s coming because elaborate plans were laid out in the first half of the film. Richie has always played with the timeline of his plots, but this film seems to have done the most surprising of things, stuck to a chronological narrative, and followed through on things that were set up in the first half of the film.
The two biggest stars in the movie are Henry Cavill and Jake Gyllenhaal, both of whom usually have enough charisma to carry a film on their own. The problem with this movie is that they are not really the stars of the film, they’re the secondary characters who carry out the plans of the main lead. Eiza González plays a high powered Financial fixer/lawyer who’s trying to reclaim a billion dollar loan given to a shady South American who is either a drug lord or a dictator, we don’t really know for sure. All we know is that he is scurrilously unwilling to pay back his debt, and has already killed people in the process of protecting himself. Most of the film consists of a high stakes set of financial traps, being perpetrated by González’s character with the assistance of Cavill and Gyllenhaal. They seem to be equally ruthless, but we are clearly on their side from the beginning. Rosamund Pike appears as the financier, who contracts with González s character, but who may be trying to short her in the payoff.
Sid and Bronco are the two tough guys played by Cavill and Gyllenhaal, and their loyalty to González is explained partially on screen, but mostly it’s assumed because of the way the dialogue flows. I don’t want to seem sexist , but I think it may be possible that another one of the faults of the film is that it puts so much of Richie’s Macho based banter into the mouth of the main female character. Rachel, the character played by González, is supposed to be incredibly bright, accomplished and ruthless. All of that comes out in her demeanor, but when the dialogue tries to reinforce it, it doesn’t quite sound as true. Jason Statham, Matthew McConaughey, Hugh Grant and a dozen other British actors have made Richie’s dialogue crackle over the years, González just makes it sound like exotic conversation, not like petulant threats or braggadocious chastisements. To me the thing that doesn’t work in this film is using her point of view to tell the story.
We know how well prepared the team is to carry out their plan when they originally visit the island of their nefarious counterpart. We were shown step by step the plans that were being made to protect Rachel and to extract themselves from anything that might have gone wrong. When Rachel and her team accomplished their objective, you might think that all of that setup was for naught. Of course it’s there for a reason. Eventually all of the three Escape Routes that were elaborately laid out for us , get used in some way because of the usual last minute double cross.
Bronco and Sid are the stereotypically competent to the extreme accessories to what would be a heist film, if the main objective here wasn’t just blackmail in Leverage. Once the chase starts everyone is cool, calm and deliberate. Even when a sacrifice is being made, it is done in a very professional way, reinforcing the old saying it’s not personal it’s just business.
I never saw much marketing on this film and I’m not exactly sure how they would sell it anyway. The heist is not really a heist but more a series of stings designed to create leverage to get somebody in a contract to comply with the terms of their loan. I suppose they could lean heavily on the action scenes and half of the film, but it takes a while to get there and the humor that is usually strung throughout a Guy Richie film seems to be much less frequent than usual. Cool shots of the composed team are all we have to keep us going until the guns start coming out.
Don’t get me wrong I enjoyed the film, I just found it to be less of what I wanted and more of something else . There were probably ways to fix this movie, so that it would more closely resemble some of the earlier gangster films that Richie is responsible for, it just seems like everybody was a little lazy and wanted to do it in shorthand. And then they realize that nobody reads shorthand.
If you are ever boarding a plane and you see Aaron Eckhart in the cockpit you should probably take another flight. Between this movie and Clint Eastwood’s “Sully”, Eckhart manages to be the co-pilot on two disastrous flights. Of course one of them turns out well and he ends up a hero, This one, not so much. “Deep Water” Is an Amalgam Of Disaster Film And Shark Exploitation. Like the movie “Bait” from a few years ago, we have a disaster followed up by shark attacks, but instead of a tsunami, “Deep Water” has a plane crash in the ocean.
To be honest with you I wasn’t expecting much, this looks like it might even be a straight to video Shark film. It’s actually much better than it has any right to be and in fact Renny Harlin, the director of this film, seems to be back in form when it comes to creating a suspenseful action movie. After early successes like “Die Hard 2” and “Cliffhanger” , Harlan has been inconsistent, with several films relegated to direct video in the last 10 years. He had a film out last year that just got a token release in theaters and I’ll bet you didn’t even know that. Unfortunately this film also got a very limited release, and because it didn’t take over the box office in the first weekend it disappeared from most theaters, which is too bad. “Deep Water” is an exciting disaster picture, with a truly horrifying crash sequence and plenty of suspense in the shark sections.
Ben Kingsley is the co-star, and he’s just fine as the older pilot, who makes the initial tough decisions Ultimately he gives way to Eckhart’s First officer. Not to give too much away, that’s not by choice. There is just enough character development of some of the passengers to make us interested in what’s going on, but not so much just to turn it into a soap opera. When the time comes for us to root for certain characters to survive or to be consumed, we know exactly where our feelings are going to rest.
Slow burn is not the way I would describe the picture but it does take its time to get started. Once the crash sequence starts however, it is phenomenally frightening and I think it will make you more afraid of flying than the Sharks will make you fear being in the water. The combination of practical effects and CGI are very convincing. The interior shots of the plane are very effective and practical, and even the exterior CGI is pretty solid. There are a number of hazards that show up in the crash sequence that you probably haven’t thought about , but will make you nervous the next time you get on an airplane. Fires and falling luggage are bad enough, but you better keep your seatbelt on if you know what’s good for you.
In the long run this film doesn’t do anything new, it just does what it’s supposed to do very well and that is to entertain us. You should be gripping your arm rest pushing yourself back into the seat and occasionally closing your eyes during several moments in the film. The Shark sequences are solid, and I think the sharks look better than the CGI sharks that Harlan had in “Deep Blue Sea”, but I’ll probably get yelled at for saying so.
Aaron Eckhart’s character has a personal backstory that doesn’t seem to make much sense, and it is clearly manipulative at the end of the film. That’s okay though, his character has managed to secure the safety of as many passengers as possible, including the adorable children that you knew were going to be part of the plot.
So you probably won’t get a chance to see this in theaters but when it shows up on your streaming service, take the plunge and fork over a couple of bucks. One of The Producers on the film, of which there are at least a hundred it seems like, is Gene Simmons of Kiss, who of course wants your money. So go ahead and give it to him and have a good time and enjoy the surprise of a competently made film that does what it sets out to do without embarrassing anyone.
It has been a long time since I last watched “Almost Famous” and it was probably the year 2000 when I last saw it on screen in a movie theater. Both of those deficiencies were recently corrected when I attended a screening at the Paramount Theater as part of their fan support program as the theater gets ready for a year long restoration process. This was a great choice for movie fans because the film will remind us of the reasons we go to the movies in the first place. We want to be entertained and stimulated, and “Almost Famous” does those things for it’s entire running time.
We are presented a number of moral quandaries that we will ask ourselves. How far are you willing to go to “make it”? When is it appropriate to lie, and when is it better to tell the truth? Can you be rich or famous and maintain integrity? What is the meaning of friendship? Can music save your mortal soul? The film is filled with characters who face this issues throughout the story. Russell Hammond, played by Billy Crudup, is a touchstone for most of those issues. As the lead guitarist and chief songwriter of the band “Stillwater”, he comes across as if he is trying to maintain integrity as a musician, but he falls prey to all the trappings of rock excess including rationalizing cheating on his partner. His sincerity is undermined by his actions.
The hero of the story is William Miller, 1 15 year old kid who writes like a veteran journalist, but is being swallowed up by the music machine as he struggles to get to the heart of the band. Rock and Roll is full of dangerous offramps and he is operating with the most important navigational tool available , the band aid (not groupie) Penny Lane. That these two characters are able to charm us is not only due to the writing of director Cameron Crowe, but to the casting of two young actors who were completely up to the task. Patrick Fugit has the naive expression and longing eyes that make his charter feel convincing as a young writer. He is assisted by the legendary Phillip Seymour Hoffman, playing the legendary real life Lester Bangs, a gonzo journalist of the era.
The not so secret weapon of the whole enterprise is the luminescent Kate Hudson as Penny Lane. Just about every scene she appears in, she dominates the moment by her look and graceful movements. If ever there were a star making part for an actress this century, it is this one. She was a joy to watch and listen to, and the audience at the screening seemed to respond to her character warmly, and the last shot of her leaves us with a positive stage on which to exit the theater, happy in knowing that life can go on, regardless of disappointments.
I will just add that the screening gave us a chance to chat with some of our friends on the staff of the Paramount Film crew. Erin and Kevin were as happy to see us as we were to see them. The Summer Classic Film Series will be moving to the State Theater Next door while the restoration project is in progress. It is a smaller venue so some nights this coming summer may get a little crowded, but we all hope for the best for both theaters as the long term project plays out.
Gore Verbinski has created a lot of films that I’ve enjoyed , most of which have a strange twist or odd angle to them. One of my favorites is Rango, the animated film that earned him a very deserved Academy Award, because let’s face it no one is going to give him an award for overseeing the chaos that is the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, regardless of how much he managed to make sense of it all.
In anticipating “Good Luck Have Fun Don’t Die”, I was expecting the usual degree of visual insanity and quirky characters that have characterized much of his previous work. To be honest a lot of it is here, but somewhere the funny got lost and instead of having a light touch with a serious subject, this movie feels as if it has a heavy thumb on the scale of sadness.
I can’t fault Sam Rockwell as the star of the film because he does exactly what he’s supposed to be doing. He is maniacal, controlling, and at the center of all of the chaos. It’s just that the chaos doesn’t feel quite as chaotic as it should, and even though the premise is off center, it just doesn’t feel off center enough. To me, the best section of the film is the opening where his character shows up and appears to be recruiting a team from the patrons of the diner that he’s in. We are led to believe that he’s done this over 100 times before and is simply looking for the right combination of customers to get into his desired objective. The way in which he rejects or demands participation is truly amusing. Unfortunately once they escape the diner, what follows is a rather mundane Quest picture where the quest is just not as interesting as it should be.
The last half hour of the film does attempt to reinvigorate the crazy sensibility of the story. The fact that it is so dominated by visual effects that probably use the same kind of computer technology that the story is ultimately about, feels like it is undercutting the goal. I appreciate the characters of the company that Rockwell takes on his mission, and as we lose a couple on the way I was sad because they provided some of the best moments of the film.
It’s hard to understand what’s going on from the very beginning, but as we get closer to the climax we do get a sense of what it all means. I’m not going to spoil it for you, but there is another twist at the end, and although I could see it coming, that doesn’t mean that I thought it was appropriate. Let’s just say if we take the film at face value we are only watching a single chapter in a book that is not going to be completed. If there was hope that this could be a continuing series that has probably been dashed by the lack of box office, not to mention the less than enthusiastic reviews.
I’m glad I saw the movie, and I would certainly recommend it to fans of Sam Rockwell, because after all everything is better because he’s in it. Since his failure with the Lone Ranger a dozen years ago, Verbenski has not been able to get a movie made on the scale of his previous dozen years. I’m afraid this movie is not going to change his situation. He has a great visual eye, but his storytelling chops seem to be muted at least for the moment. So let me finish by saying good luck, trying to figure out how this all works, have fun, watching the Clockwork Orange turn, and don’t die from your bloated expectations.
Kirkham A Movie A Day 