Showing posts with label dennis quaid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dennis quaid. Show all posts

1.22.2010

LEGION.

I've been pretty psyched for Legion for a while. I just knew that, at the very least, it'd be a fun romp into the realm of cheesy B-horror. And what I got was... well... Michael (Paul Bettany) decides to come down to Earth and shed his wings to help the humans. But no, not just any humans. The most important of the humans: a pregnant girl named Charlie (Adrianne Palicki) who lives with a mechanic named Jeep (Lucas Black) and his diner-owning father, Bob (Dennis Quaid). Also 'round these parts is the cook, Percy (Charles S. Dutton); a lost traveler, Kyle (Tyrese Gibson); a father (Jon Tenney), mother (Kate Walsh), and their semi-slutty daughter, Audrey (Willa Holland). Of course, as we learn from the trailer, Charlie's unborn baby is going to save humanity... they just have to stay alive from the legion of angels that are bringing on the apocalypse by killing humanity and trying to get to Charlie. But what exactly is the baby going to do to save humanity? Why do the angels come off more as demons? What did he mean that the angels aren't necessarily the good guys? If God truly wanted to wipe humanity out completely, couldn't He have just thought it into happening or something? Why do the possessed dudes just kinda stand there near the end? Why is one specific character allowed to live so long if said character is just going to die a meaningless and unseen, off-screen death near the end of the movie? What's written in that angelic message? Who (and/or what) the fuck are the prophets? And did anybody else picture Jay and Silent Bob hopping over one of the cars with hockey sticks at that point? Stay tuned, because all of these questions (and more!) are never even remotely discussed, much less answered, in Legion!

At least the first 20 or so minutes of the movie feels like a running joke of "I'm trying waaay too hard." From the burning-cross hole in the side of the building to playing It's A Wonderful Life on the TV in the diner (which is named Paradise Falls, somewhere outside L.A., the "City of Angels," as it were). And so many other things in between. The rest of the movie plays like an ultimate collection of cliches, from character actions to the cheesy one-liner.

I know this has mostly felt like a negative review, but there is some positive. Paul Bettany and Kevin Durand are wonderful in their respective roles (albeit Kevin Durand having way too little screen time prior to the climax of the movie). And Willa Holland is hot (and she is 18, so I can say that). There is some pretty decent comedy, too. There's also some good action--mostly once Kevin Durand comes into the picture, because before that, it's mostly just an endless stream of bullets. And it's always nice to see Doug Jones, although his Ice Cream Man role (which is a good chunk of the trailers) is pretty much just what you see in the trailers. He's on screen for maybe a minute tops.

There's also some good camera angles and cinematography. Despite having a shaky script, there actually was some good direction. It kept the movie fresh, and the visuals (in those respects) certainly weren't boring. The CGI was a bit dodgy in places, but there wasn't much of it, so that's good.

But I'd say the movie's biggest downfall is its script. Besides the aforementioned issues with almost nothing being explained, there's some iffy dialogue, as well as a feel that they tried to flesh out every character, but never could quite make it past the surface with each. There's also a "twist" at one point that... well... shouldn't really be a twist. It's treated as one, but when you hear it (and when the characters are reacting all 'wtf mate'), all I'm thinking is "yeah... OK, didn't we already know this? I mean, he never said it directly, but taking what he did tell us, I'm pretty sure you could figure it out by association. Literally." Their reactions were just a bit too... nonsensical for the timing. Or something like that.

Anywho, I didn't hate the movie. I just didn't particularly love it. It'd be a good one for a rifftrax of some sort, I'm sure. I suppose I'm just easily entertained and not easily perturbed as others are. The little things usually don't bother me, and it takes a lot for a movie to get one of my lower scores. If there's any semblance of entertainment (and, again, easily happens to me), it gets some points. So... yeah.

Photobucket
Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

(P.S. Why, if they lived in California, did Mr. Tokyo Drift have a southern accent... and why didn't his father?)

9.25.2009

PANDORUM.

When I first saw the teaser trailer for this movie a while back, I was immediately excited for one reason: Ben Foster in a leading role. I've been a big fan of Foster's since I saw him in a little known (but brilliant) film entitled Bang Bang You're Dead, which, had it been a major studio film and not just a Showtime Original, should have won some awards (and given Foster some kind of Oscar nod). But since then, he's been getting some wasted roles, like Angel in X-Men 3, the Stranger in 30 Days of Night, or the crazy outlaw guy from 3:10 to Yuma. But, for the first time since BBYD, it seems he's been given something to work with once again, and I was excited.

Then I continued watching the rest of the teaser/trailer and realized how crazy awesome the film seemed with so little shown of it in said trailer. And from then on, I knew that if done right, this movie could be one of my favorite Sci-Fi films (or Sci-Fi/Horror). So how did it fare? Well, I'll get there in a minute.

The movie is a notable mix of familiar Sci-Fi (or horror) films, such as Aliens, Titan A.E., Sunshine, Event Horizon, The Descent, and a dash of Cube. And considering I only majorly disliked 1 of those films, those were some good odds. It's the future, and Earth is dying. So they send a space vessel, the Elysium, out into space to help (for reasons I don't want to spoil, though it's really not that hard to figure out). Next thing you know, we're watching Bower (Ben Foster) wake up from an extended cryo-sleep with loss of memory (which happens when you're in cryo-sleep for too long). After he orients himself, he is eventually joined by Lieutenant Payton (Dennis Quaid). The power is out, and the only door is locked shut. So Bower goes through the crawl space to get into another part of the ship and find a way to get the power back on. To do this, he must go through basically the entire ship to get to the power reactor thing while Payton stays behind to guide him via radio. But Bower soon realizes he's not alone. Among him are other survivors, including the badass foreign guy Manh (Cung Le), and a feisty woman named Nadia (Antje Traue). And then Payton soon discovers another, Gallo (Cam Gigandet), who seems a little crazed. But what exactly are they survivors from...?

Well, since I made a big deal of Ben Foster, I'll discuss acting first. Although Dennis Quaid gets top billing, Ben Foster is the main character. But is he able to show off his acting chops? Somewhat. This isn't a role as challenging and emotionally deep as the one in BBYD, but he does a pretty good job with it nonetheless. I was happy to see him given a good bit of stuff to do. Quaid, on the other hand, wasn't given much at all. He's basically locked in a room the entire movie asking if Foster's "Bower" is still there. He does do a few other things here and there, and the introduction of Gallo gives him some more interaction, but besides that, there isn't much.

And speaking of Gallo, one of my very few complaints is that I think it might have been better to introduce Gallo a little bit earlier in the movie. Not too early, but a little earlier than he was. And while we're on complaints, I just have a possible nitpick for a plot hole, but somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Throughout the movie, the characters are able to force open locked/shut doors to move around, yet there are other doors (such as the one out of the beginning room) that they can't. Are they just different types of doors or what?

I might need to see it again to get the full explanation of the "creatures," as it goes by really fast, but I liked what I gathered from it. It was original, and it wasn't some cop out "oh, aliens on board!" or anything like that (though there's a bit at the end that might make it moot anyway... who knows?). And speaking of really fast, those action scenes could have really been slowed down a bit. The action was crazy fast editing-wise. Not really shaky-cam, but just quick cuts. It was strange to go from slow, drawn-out frames of building tension to quick-cut action/suspense scenes. Though the action that you could make out was really freaking cool.

I really do think this is one great Sci-Fi flick to add to a list of what is a not-so-great genre. There are few films of this genre--Space Sci-Fi/Horror--that are actually really good (Alien/Aliens and Pitch Black off the top of my head). But I think this is in my Top 5 of the list now. It has a great mix of slow-building tension, suspense, fun action, a bit of humor, a couple scares, great atmosphere, and good writing and acting. Not to mention the special effects, which I haven't really mentioned yet. They're few and far between, but when you see them, they're really good. And the creature effects are decent. They're like a bigger, more humanoid version of the creatures from The Descent. So if you're a fan of the genre (or Ben Foster), I'd say give it a try. I found it highly entertaining, and I know I'll be getting it on DVD when it comes out.

Photobucket
Royale With Cheese

(P.S. Not perfect, as you saw in my review, but I loved it just the same, so I gave it my high score).

8.07.2009

G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA.

Before I get into this review, I want to--yet again--discuss a theater experience during this film. First, I wasn't even excited to see this movie, to say straight away. I never played with GI Joe's, never knew any of the characters or any of their stories. But the movie looked to be one of those "so bad it's good" films. I just kinda went to the theater on a whim while I was in the area, and it was between this and The Perfect Getaway, but by the time I got there, the next showing for Perfect Getaway wasn't for a while, and GI Joe started in about 15 minutes. That being said, let me go into the actual theater experience.

There were really only two things this time around. The first was highly annoying, and the second had to be the strangest theater experience yet. The first was a little boy, maybe 2 or 3 years old, who sat behind me. And he literally (no hyperbole here) never shut up, not even for 1 second. If he wasn't talking or rambling or asking the same question 5 times in a row without giving anybody time to answer, he was singing or making incoherent noises. And all of this he was doing loud enough for the entire theater to hear him. And the most the mother (or whomever) would tell him was "shh." I'm a relatively laid back person and I'm not really easy to anger. I never tell off anybody in the theater (or otherwise, really). But this had to be the closest I'd ever come to cussing out both a toddler and his mother in public without care of consequence (again, keeping in mind that I didn't even care about this movie... that's how annoying it was).

Now, the second thing was just strange. Two seats to my right there was a little girl, maybe 9 or 10 years old (at the most). There was an empty seat between us. Let me briefly describe her film-going experience. During the entire previews portion, she had her head turned toward me, which I could easily see out the corner of my eye. I'd look at her, and she's staring up at the far wall (maybe a light fixture)... just... staring. Her body doesn't move an inch, nor does her head. She just stares. The movie starts and she faces forward... but only for a couple minutes. Then she does something with her phone before getting up and leaving for about 15 minutes. When she comes back, she sits back down and, yet again, I can see her face staring in my general direction. I look over again, and her eyes are closes, and her hands go from pressed to folded. And then she makes the sign of the cross. She was praying. So she goes to watch the film for a few minutes before I see her staring in my direction again. Then she gets up and leaves for another 10-15 minutes. When she comes back... yes, you guessed it... more staring. Eventually, she leans forward with her head between her legs and starts playing with a pile of spilled popcorn that's on the floor, and I'm sitting there wondering if she's found Jesus' face in it or something. Once she's done with that, again, turned toward me, though I believe she was sleeping this time. And it wasn't long after that when the movie ended.

So, with the peripheral distraction and the kid I wanted to smack in a movie I was only minimally intrigued in at best... I give you my review of GI Joe. The movie is about Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans), who find themselves involved with a special ops departement called GI Joe, run by General Hawk (Dennis Quaid). Other members include Snake Eyes (Ray Park), Heavy Duty (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), Scarlett (Rachel Nichols), and Breaker (Said Taghmaoui). They're fighting against a group of baddies run by McCullen (Christopher Eccleston) and The Doctor (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), but also include Ana (Sienna Miller), Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee), and Zartan (Arnold Vosloo). The baddies are after some bio-chemical weapons that, well, they made in the first place. And each side has super-enhancement weapons and whatnot.

Honestly, story-wise, the movie both does and doesn't make sense. It has its share of logic or plot holes. One of the most annoying being that the Neo-Vipers (or whatever they're called) are stated toward the beginning to not feel pain or have emotions, but they sure do show both when they're being killed. But really, it isn't about the story.

The only redeeming factor in this movie is its action. I have to say, honestly, this movie does have some pretty cool action. The CGI is hit or miss, but the action is pretty dang good. The only real disappointment in the action department was that (and especially with Ray Park involved) the fight scenes between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow could have been so much cooler (and longer) than they were. But for the most part, the action scenes were inventive, fun, and overall entertaining.

The acting isn't the greatest, either, really. In fact, it's pretty spotty. Stephen Sommers actually brings in a few of his Mummy alums for various roles, such as the mummy himself, Arnold Vosloo. And there are a couple interesting though mostly wasted cameos, like Brendan Fraser and Kevin J. O'Connor. Casting Marlon Wayans was mostly a waste, as well, because the writing of the movie tried too hard to be funny and fell flat on its face. There's maybe one good joke, and it's not good enough to get more than a weak chuckle.

As I said, the CGI is hit or miss. Some of it is really good. Some of it is really bad. Parts of it are mostly unnecessary. And the rest of it looks like Watchmen leftovers--very comic book-ish. Luckily, most of the spotty CGI isn't in the action scenes, so that was good, at least.

Overall, despite all the distractions I had, I was still mildly entertained by the action pieces of the film. I also have to say, for the film's credit, the ending was a pretty interesting surprise (though I wonder if it would have been had I not been as distracted as I was). But this is a movie to see for the action. Otherwise, it's really not worth it, at least from a non-fan's perspective.

Photobucket
Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

2.23.2008

VANTAGE POINT.

I will warn you now that there is going to be quite a bit of comparison in this review. The reason is because the idea behind this movie’s technique is rare, but has been done a few times before… imagine seeing a new movie that plays backwards: it would be impossible to review it without comparing it to Memento.

Anyway, like a few movies before it, such as 11:14, Go, Rashomon, and even the first half of Atonement, Vantage Point’s technique has the audience see an event from one perspective, rewind, and then see it all over again from another perspective until all the truth is out on the table. This time, the President (William Hurt) is shot during a peace conference, and the movie takes us through every important Point of View (POV), from a secret service agent (Dennis Quaid) to a tourist in the crowd (Forest Whitaker) to the bad guys at the end, until we know the entire story.

The one thing that this movie does differently than its predecessors (except maybe Atonement) is that it only shows a character’s POV up until right before their big climax, then it stops, rewinds, and starts again from somebody else’s POV, waiting to use all the climaxes together at the end. Another difference is that this has to be the most action-packed attempt at this technique I’ve yet to see. The action almost literally never stops, and it all culminates into a really cool car chase scene at the very end.

One of the improvements and drawbacks happens to be in when they do the rewinds. The point of multiple POV movies, at least in the past, has been to conceal a mystery until the final POV. But in doing this, each POV is fully completed upon their turn. This is the innovation and creativeness with this technique: having the ability to write a story where you can tell a full story from different POVs completely without giving anything away until the end. This movie simply stops right before something vital is revealed and keeps the viewer waiting until the very end of the movie when it compiles all of the climaxes into one uber-climax. It is an improvement because it keeps the audience in suspense until the end of the movie to find out what exactly happened with each character’s story. However, it’s a downfall because it can potentially annoy its audience (quite a few in my theater were very vocal about it, even after the fourth or fifth rewind). It also seems to say “we can’t write it well enough to keep everything a surprise if we finish each story individually.” I have to admit, though… the climax was rather suspenseful, and everything did come together fashionably well. It’s really a double-edged sword the way it was done.

Also, because the movie simply revolves around an action-packed sequence of roughly 10 minutes each (except for the longer climax POV), there’s very little time for character development… as there is none… but that’s really not the point of this movie, either. Along with no character development, the acting tends to be kinda bad every now and then, specifically from Dennis Quaid (moreso toward the end of the movie, where he really has some cheesy lines).

I found that the best POV and character was Forest Whitaker’s. He seemed to be the easiest to latch on to and connect with, probably because he’s the everyday tourist, the most human and relatable. He also, I believe, gives the best performance of them all in the movie. Though that is to be expected; I mean, come on, it’s Forest Whitaker.

The ending isn’t too predictable unless you paid attention to the movie trailer. But seriously, I even had it spoiled for me a few months back and I still didn’t expect it, mostly because I had both forgotten and gotten too wrapped up in the action to really think about it. The only bad thing about the big reveal is that it’s not really explained much, so it almost doesn’t make much sense, but I went with it anyway.

So overall, it was a great action movie that took a cool idea and put it to decent use (the thing that bothered me most is that it’s seemingly taking credit for creating this technique, when it’s been done a few times already, but with less commercial films). The acting could have been better, but this wasn’t made to be an Oscar winner. It’s a summer blockbuster that was accidentally released about 4 months early, apparently. And if you liked how Vantage Point was done, go see it done better with Go and 11:14 (they’re like this movie, but with less action and deeper characters). Time to rate this bad boy…

Photobucket
I Am McLovin!