Showing posts with label Liam Neeson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liam Neeson. Show all posts

Saturday, October 6, 2012

TAKEN 2 - good god

Wow, ok so I guess what we have here is just one crazy step in the wrong direction—literally. Luc Besson again proves that he has absolutely zero talent in writing and producing for other filmmakers—despite his own genius as director. 

This has got to be the worst movie of the year so far, next to Lockout which was also produced by Besson. Taken 2 was directed by Olivier Megaton?, a Frenchman, whom also brought us vertiginous masterpieces such as Transporter 3 and Columbiana. It is no surprise that this movie was just one banal scene of atrocity after another. The movie started poorly with ridiculous editing and mise en scĂ©ne. Liam Neeson looks disheveled and uncool for most of his time onscreen and really just becomes his own fatuous caricature. I feel that his voiced track was raised to an obscene level so that we, the audience, could bask in his gritty ferociousness. Effing Daft. 

This film was so bad that it might one day become a cult favorite. That is to say, it actually was enjoyable—jocular in the extreme. My favorite part has to be when Neeson's daughter roams around the streets of Istanbul launching grenades with relative abandon to give him an idea of her location—classic just classic. The lines are delivered so poorly and abstractly, even in normal dialogue scenes, that it makes one wonder how this director has survived till now. It's films like this that make you appreciate good direction, like the first Taken (however silly), and how it can make all the difference. Taken 2 was plain sloppy, amateur detritus.     

Recommended Viewing: Taken - The Next Three Days - The A-Team (Yes I enjoyed this)


              Bob Scale: The Critic: 3.0   -   The Fan: 5.5
             MetaCritic: 44
 Rotten Tomatoes: 19
                    IMDB: 7.4!!!-holy crap


Saturday, July 21, 2012

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES - only to fall and get back up again

I decided to see the trilogy of Batman films, back to back, at the Palisades theater on Thursday. This, I believe, was a mistake. Christopher Nolan has to be one the most overrated directors working today. It's either I'm not clever enough to grasp his labyrinthine plots or the narratives are so unrealistic and so nebulous that one most transport themselves into a different state of being to live and breath in a Nolanian universe. For some directors this would be a welcome departure but it's not worth it when your deep thinking comes up vacuous. It's as if he comes up with some good scenes, films them quickly and crudely, and then just tosses them to the editor to make into a story. 

The man must be a genius because he has somehow convinced the entire population under the age of 30 that he is one of the best directors working today. His only truly good and original movie was Memento - it also happens to make sense which is a plus. Not all movies need to make sense, mind you, but if they don't then the effort and time spent viewing them should be worth the endeavor. Nolan's movies are a bit like Lost, at times absolutely riveting to watch but at the end no one understands how or why the plot ended up the way it did. Therefore, the fun trying to work through it and engaging your Sherlockian wits is completely wasted which I find rather insulting to an audience.

Batman is not a superhero - he is a disgruntled uber rich guy that happens to have a lot of smart friends that enable him to imbibe his intrinsic blood thirst - probably for the right reasons - to curb crime vigilante style. In some ways he is the best "superhero" of all because any man/boy could aspire to actually become him. I like Batman and I like the Frank Miller version of him - most do. I think most audiences enjoy more mature superheroes over camp and corn. I appreciate what was attempted with the trilogy but as mentioned above I think it's hype far overwhelms the actual quality of cinema viewed. No one I know even questions the fact the The Dark Knight was a good film, everyone loved it. I'm sorry to say, not me. As much as I tried and wanted too, I couldn't bring myself to say I liked it much at all. Of course nearly every scene with the joker was mostly fantastic but good scenes don't always make great movies. I think of it like Avatar - grand in scope with some truly great stuff in there but overall of poor quality compared to great cinema within the specific genre or even just films by the director early in his career. Would The Dark Knight be a great movie without Heath Ledger? Does his performance alone make it great in most minds? Does dialogue, direction, editing etc not count? No, yes and no.

Consider Bane who was the trilogies supposed final villain. His voice sounded like a Patrick Stewart possessed Darth Vader - utterly stupid. Much like the choice to alter Batman's voice. The plot twist at the end also completely undermines Bane's evil as a character and makes him appear weak and used which is a type of twist that many should find unpleasant and unsatisfactory. Not only that but his only superpower is strength and the ability to break necks in poor choreographed fight scenes - rather lame. Catwoman's story is banal and boring and rather superfluous - are Batman's two love interests in any way believable? I've said it before and I will say it again - yes this is superheroes, not real life drama, but a certain veracity must be achieved in the fantasy story you create to not break the rules of that universe otherwise it never feels right. Nolan's storytelling then is, I think, what drives me crazy. It's like he telling a story that only he and his crew understands and lets the audience in on bits and pieces at times far later in the story but by then you forget why you should care. It's just plain bad storytelling especially because it deceives us that it is exceptional. 

I'm sure I am nearly alone in my thoughts, which is ok, I usually am. All I will say is that I've read a couple hundred books on the subject, seen over 8,000 features and directed plenty of short films and music videos to know when I see good movies. I'm caught up in it - obsessed with it. I love nearly all art forms and consider cinema to be the greatest in the last century for it's unique ability to combine all others into one coherent awe inspiring spectacle. I value respect and intellectual discourse on aesthetics. I wish more people would take the time to critically evaluate the import of such things but not all of us have the time, energy or concern. However, visual stimulus affects us all and we would do well to put heed and credence to that which deserves deference and admiration. Nolan's Batman is nothing more than eye candy stimulation with little depth or purpose.

Recommended Viewing: Warrior - X2 - Batman (1989)

              Bob Scale: Objective: 6.5   -   Subjective: 6.0
             MetaCritic: 78
 Rotten Tomatoes: 87
                      IMDB: 8.6




Sunday, April 1, 2012

WRATH OF THE TITANS - aaahh!! monsters

Another mythical Hollywood epic is to be expected here. Although a usual sequel, it surprised me more than the original effort in 2010. I liked this film more, I liked Sam Worthington more and the special effects were better. 

The story comes from no extant Greek mythology text but takes bits and pieces of ideas and of course all the popular characters and thus comes to a satisfactory amalgamation of plot and endless action. There is no time for much dialogue because there are literally only about 10 minutes of rest from hyper-deranged action sequences -  subsequently the paucity of speech leaves something to be desired. Worthington reminded me a bit of his character in Terminator when I was first introduced to him and liked him - that is to say, for the first time in a while, his performance wasn't irritating.

The film comes jam packed with famous, mostly British, actors, even though many of them have short screen time. Ralph Fiennes plays his token bad guy well, however, a small surprise near the end, awaits the viewer. Also Bill Nighy as the designer of Tartaros (Hell) was a great character indeed and for me was the most interesting part of the story. I won't say who gets axed but I will say that it's slightly annoying that so many so called GODS die in this movie. I though God's were God's because they have the power to remain immortal. Whats up with that?

Recommended Viewing: Clash Of The Titans (1981) - Jason And The Argonauts - Hercules (1961)

              Bob Scale: Objective: 6.0   -   Subjective: 6.5
             MetaCritic: 37
 Rotten Tomatoes: 24
                      IMDB: 6.5


Saturday, January 28, 2012

THE GREY - white and red all over

The Grey is survival of the fittest blown up and served cold. It reminded me of another film I saw only a month ago titled Essential Killing starring the elusive, Vincent Gallo. I believe that film was shot more beautifully and captured the essence of survival more so than The Grey but regardless I still believe this film to be decent as well.

It has some surprises a normal Hollywood film would not usually deem acceptable. It is very bleak right up to the end. Consider the opening shots and the sparsity of human connection. When a man is about to die in the plane crash, Neeson tells the man he is going to die - even in the most realistic war movies, characters aren't so honest! The penultimate scene and maybe the most important, is when Neeson asks for God's help to no avail. Most films would have someone or something show up with a golden hue from the sun around it to help the characters - but not this movie.

The wolves are the gimmick that propels the story and the characters to act but I believe The Grey does pull this off all the while feeling fairly realistic. The Grey and other films like it are successful for the same reason - it's innate to fight for survival. I don't think anyone knows why but we all want to live no matter what pain is incurred or what trials we must endure. Its in our DNA to fight to live, to survive another day. It may be the strongest instinct we possess next to food and sex cravings - which are also there in order for us to survive. We don't know why Neeson and the others must keep fighting to live, we just know they must. 

Few people ever give up on themselves, relatively speaking, and think of the brain power needed to overcome your own genes to commit suicide or decide to be euthanized. These decisions don't come lightly for most and usually, I assume, after tremendously long struggles with life. So if you want to watch some grisly men fight for their lives from flesh eating wolves - go see The Grey.



Recommended Viewing: The Way Back - How To Die In Oregon - Essential Killing

              Bob Scale: Objective: 7.3   -   Subjective: 7.5
             MetaCritic: 64
 Rotten Tomatoes: 77
                      IMDB: 7.5