Short Review: The Next Three Days.

Premise: After his wife is accused of murder with no chance of release, a man plans an elaborate escape to get her out and take her and their son to a foreign country to live outside the grip of the law.

Starring: Russell Crowe, Elizabeth Banks, Ty Simpkins, Olivia Wilde, Jason Beghe, Aisha Hinds, Liam Neeson, Jonathan Tucker, RZA, Kevin Corrigan, and Daniel Stern.

My Reaction: I really enjoyed the first hour of set-up and planning. While some might see it as a bit too slow, I felt the slow burn would lead up nicely to the second hour of action. Unfortunately, the action is only in the last 20 minutes or so. The 40 minutes in between the first hour and the last 20 minutes are where most of my major problems with this movie lie. First, it loses some steam. Second, it starts to feel redundant. And third, it just drives home my biggest issue with the movie as a whole: she (the wife) is so not worth it. She's a total witch, and I honestly couldn't see why he would go through so much trouble for her--especially the scene where the movie gets particularly dark and he decides to follow a drug dealer (the Jonathan Tucker/Kevin Corrigan scene). However, the break-out and subsequent on-the-run sequence is a lot of fun, making you wonder if they'll get away with it. Otherwise, not a big Russell Crowe fan, but I think he did fine with it. The movie is mostly entertaining for being a pseudo-heist film... it's just the lengths he goes to in comparison to what he's trying to obtain doesn't seem worth it overall. And most importantly, the title makes little sense, as it alludes to (mostly thanks to the trailer) the three days after the "heist," while the movie is about everything leading up to and then the actual attempt. The results are only visited for about 2 minutes. But maybe that's just me reading into it wrong.


I Am McLovin!

60/60 Extra: The Quick And The Dead.

Note: 60/60 Extras will be reviews of other well-known films that I check out for whatever particular genre or theme of the month that I'm focusing on at the time.

------------------------------

A while back, I heard the ladies of Reel Insight Podcast talk about this film... rather unfavorably. But how can that be? Between the director, cast, and premise, it sounded awesome. Ellen (Sharon Stone) is a mysterious woman who rides into the town of Redemption looking to take vengeance on John Herod (Gene Hackman), the town's tyrannical gunslinger who makes sure things go his own way. He hosts a gunslinging tournament where opponents challenge each other every day, knocking the bracket down until there is only one left. Also pulled into the fray is Cort (Russell Crowe), a preacher who used to be a bad gunslinger himself; Cantrell (Keith David), an assassin; Ace Hanlon (Lance Henriksen), a self-proclaimed badass; Scars (Mark Boone Jr.), an escaped convict; Dog Kelly (Tobin Bell), a stupid outlaw; and the Kid (Leonardo DiCaprio), who has a special tie to Herod himself. The film also stars Gary Sinise as Ellen's father.

The story is basically like if you took Mortal Kombat, removed the mystical elements, and put it in the old west. And the characters are colorful. But the story and the characters--despite being interesting in theory--share the same flaw: they're cliche to the point of boring. From the western angle, the movie takes just about every cliche in the book and slaps it across your face. And this is coming from a guy who doesn't watch a lot of westerns. Hell, I knew Leo's character was gonna refer to himself as the Kid before it even came out of his mouth. The idea of a "game" or "tournament" is fun--Battle Royale is one of my favorite books--but all the fights here are almost exactly the same. There's nothing interesting to differentiate between them. And the characters are just cardboard cutouts. The best relationship is actually the one between DiCaprio and Hackman.

I don't entirely think the movie was casted wrong, though. For the most part, the actors did well. I think they could have explored the duality of Sharon Stone's Ellen a little more, giving us more on how conflicted she is on the inside in comparison to how stoic she tries to be on the outside. And I normally don't care for Russell Crowe, but he was good enough in this (maybe because he doesn't say all that much). Leo also does well. But it was most interesting seeing (very little of) Tobin Bell, especially at the beginning when he's threatening to kill Sharon Stone. I was waiting for the scene to change and show her in a Jigsaw trap... or that there was gonna be a big twist at the end.

Honestly, I think the movie's biggest fault lies in its director. Don't get me wrong, I love Sam Raimi. Between the Evil Dead films, the Spider-Man films, and Drag Me To Hell, he's done some great stuff. And you can definitely see his eye in this film. But it was totally the wrong eye needed. Between the constant zoom-ins of the camera and some wacky, over-the-top and out-of-place moments (the big hole in the head, the hole in the shadow, the one-shot-flips-man-over-and-back bit, etc.), there were just some strange directorial decisions. And the tone would shift because of this from semi-serious drama to wacky action flick. It just felt strange. And it probably could have been 15 minutes shorter than it was--not sure how, but it could have been.

Overall, despite the action, the movie seemed to drag, most likely due to monotony. The acting was good and the story was good, but I think it was all just executed wrong. I know I haven't said all that much, but this movie wasn't really all that deep to begin with. It certainly wasn't bad, but I think in different hands, it could have been better (which it saddens me to say). I was actually going to rate it a little higher, but the more I reflect on it as I write this, the lower the score sinks. So I think I'm just gonna go ahead and leave it at that.


Stop Saying OK! OK.

2 In 1: American Gangster and Inside Man.

The theme for this one would be Denzel Washington… and I can already tell I’ll probably be blasted for my views and opinions in this posting. Denzel, to me, is great. He’s great to watch, and he’s full of intensity. However, he really only plays one of two characters in each movie: good Denzel and bad Denzel (in respect to morals, not acting ability). This article has both. Please don't hurt me too bad.

American Gangster.

I had low expectations going into this movie. I figured it might have some exceptional acting, but overall, I thought it was going to be boring and overly long. Unfortunately, I was right. It’s the 1970s, Vietnam Era, and Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) is the new big heroin king. But Detective Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) is looking for somebody to bust, and Frank just happens to end up at the top of the list.

Let’s get the bad out first (assuming I have some good). The first 20 minutes of this movie lost me. I had almost no idea what was going on. Once I got a handle on the situation, I realized I really couldn’t give a rat’s behind about Frank Lucas. His character had no depth or development. He was just boring. Detective Roberts was at least a bit more interesting with the whole family trouble aspect, but even that kind of goes to the wayside. What’s sad is that I’m more of a fan of Denzel than Crowe, and I enjoyed Crowe more than Denzel in this movie.

The Lucas family was vastly underused in the movie, I felt. And how the hell does Ruby Dee (Frank’s mother) get a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination? She’s in probably a grand total of 5 minutes in the 2 and a half hour movie, and speaks probably a total of 3 of that, if even. The Academy must have been incredibly desperate.

Another random note… it felt that every time an f-bomb was dropped in this movie, it was used in the wrong place and felt forced. And it’s sad when you notice that kind of thing. But this brings us to the acting. The acting was pretty good. Denzel was “bad Denzel,” which is always entertaining. Crowe was good, as well.

I don’t know… I just didn’t dig the movie. It was too long, and it seemed as if it wasn’t sure what it was trying to do. When something of importance actually happens, you’re left wondering how they got to that point or how it actually came about. It has the Ridley Scott epic feel, but it fell flat for me. It was a good effort, but not good enough. In other words, I think this movie is a bit overrated and tries too hard.

Feed Me, Seymour!

Inside Man.

This movie, on the other hand, is very entertaining, and stars “good Denzel.” Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) and his crew show up in a bank dressed up as painters, lock the place down, and seemingly try to rob it. Detective Frazier (Denzel) is the cop trying to figure out what’s going on. Meanwhile, Madeline White (Jodie Foster) is hired to get some information taken safely out of the bank that could ruin the owner (Christopher Plummer).

Heist movies are always great, in my opinion. This movie actually helped me get inspired and stay in the mood for my last novel, which is, in essence, a ‘perfect heist’ story. I just really enjoy the idea of incredibly intelligent bad guys who always know what they’re doing and can easily outsmart the good guys at every level.

Denzel’s acting is great, as always. Clive Owen is Clive Owen: deeply monotone and mysterious. But this time he does it with a mask over his face the majority of the time. And both characters have depth. They have purpose and are just round characters. As for Jodie Foster's character, the idea behind her character is cool, but I don’t necessarily think she was needed. The first time I saw the movie, I thought her character was completely pointless. The next time I saw it, I gathered a bit more purpose for the character, but that’s about it. I still think the script could have been written in a way to exclude her completely, even though she gave it a bit of edge. And there were, I admit, one or two scenes that she gave meaning to.

It’s hard to talk about this movie without giving much away. It’s a much more entertaining movie than the previous one, I thought, and the pacing is much better, as well. It has its faults, of course, but I don’t think they’re nearly as big. Great movie all around, though.

A Keanu 'Whoa'