THE BOOK OF ELI.

Warning: Potential mild spoilers.

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

This movie is not for everyone (obviously, considering the mixed reviews). But was it for me? The movie takes place in a post-apocalyptic near-future, where water is scarce, there's no soap, and the majority of the population can't even read. It centers around Eli (Denzel Washington), a wanderer with a book in his possession that he must get to the west. But along the way, he comes across a little town run by a man named Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who is searching for the very book that Eli possesses. And he will do anything to get it. Eli eventually teams up with a young woman named Solara (Mila Kunis), as well, whose mother is being held by Carnegie.

That's about it. It's no real elaborate plot or anything. And I honestly can't see what all the negative fuss is about the movie... that is, unless you're a close-minded religious zealot. Sure, it's a slow movie, but it's not that slow. The religion isn't even shoved down your throat. Yes, the whole movie is about it, but it doesn't say "this is the right way" or "this is the wrong way." In fact, that's one of the things I loved most about the movie. The way it treated the subject was just like anything else: in the wrong hands, it can be devastating and used for the wrong reasons... but in the right hands, it's precious and good. I read one review that said something along the lines of them not being sure, after leaving the movie, whether or not the movie's purpose wanted them to embrace or condemn religion. I say the movie had no such agenda, but instead showed us that, really, it's up to the individual to decide between what is right and what is wrong. And right and wrong isn't always black and white.

Outside of the story, the visuals are amazing. The post-apoc look is great, and the cinematography is excellent. There were two reason I really wanted to see the movie: 1) The cinematography looked excellent and 2) the action looked great. I was right on both counts. The action is, while typically short, is a ton of fun. One of my favorite action scenes, purely from a camera angle (no pun intended), was the "house" scene near the end of the second act. The way the camera swooped in and out of the house in what appeared to be an impossible single take was outstanding.

On the acting front, Denzel Washington is good, but there really isn't a heck of a lot for him to work with. But he's good enough. I always felt from the trailers that Mila Kunis seemed out of place. After seeing the movie, I'm a bit torn on that thought. Part of me still sides with that thought, but the other part of me thought she did a pretty decent job. The best part, though, was Gary Oldman being Gary Oldman. I love that man in whatever he does, and he can sure play crazy pretty well.

I also wanted to make note that, at one point, I thought we had become Harry Potter and the Book of Eli. Besides Gary Oldman (who played Sirius Black in the movies), we had the random appearances of Frances de la Tour (who played Madame Maxime in Goblet of Fire) and Michael Gambon (Dumbledore since the third). Though I have to be honest, seeing Dumbledore and Madame Maxime go all Rambo on Sirius Black was totally fun. And, Harry Potter aside, what is it with Malcolm McDowell and the apocalypse? Just from recent memory, he's been in this, Doomsday, and the guy who wanted to bring the end of the world in the first season of Heroes. And, according to imdb, he does a character voice in the show Metalocalypse.

All in all, it was a pretty good movie. I actually really enjoyed it, but I like post-apocalyptic stories, great visuals, fun action, Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, and almost anything to do with theology... so I guess you can say it was going to be hard for me not to like this movie. (Despite its incredibly weak and open-ended V-For-Vendetta-cheap-rip-off ending).


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. I didn't even mention the freakin' awesome twist near the end of the movie... that I won't spoil. I totally wanna see it again, just so I can see it with the new mindset).

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123.

I've been excited for this movie since I first saw the trailer. As some of you know, I'm a big fan of heist films. There's no bank involved here, but it's a hostage film, which falls in the same category for me. In the end, it all comes down to "how are they going to get away with it?" This one is about Walter Garber (Denzel Washington), a subway dispatcher with a shaky past, who starts seeing something going on with one of the trains, Pelham 123. Turns out that the train is hijacked by Ryder (John Travolta) and his crew (Luis Guzman being the biggest name). They want 10 million dollars in one hour, or Ryder will kill a hostage every minute they're late. They bring in the hostage negotiator, Camonetti (John Turturro), and they contact the mayor (James Gandolfini). I'm sure you know the drill from there.

Is the movie exciting? Yes. Does it have action and suspense? More suspense than action, but yes. Is there comedy? A bit. All in all, the movie is very entertaining. It's no Inside Man, but it's very good. In fact, I think for the first time in my life, I'm actually agreeing with Roger Ebert: “Nobody gets terrifically worked up, except the special-effects people. Oh, John Travolta is angry and Denzel Washington is determined, but you don't sense passion in the performances.” It's just another character that Denzel has done a hundred times. He does it well because he should be used to it by now. I did like Travolta, too. It's like a more over-the-top and angry version of Vince Vega. The movie isn't all action as the trailers make it out to be. A lot of it is vocal interaction and relationship building between Denzel and Travolta, which is the greatest strength of the film.

You'll probably be hearing a lot about the cinematography of the film, which can best be described as frenetic. The movie is very stylistic as it plays with the speed of movement (no abusive slo-mo... it works more with blurry). For the most part it works. There were only one or two times when I really thought "Okay, was doing it right here necessary?"

There's really not much to hate or even dislike about the film. It's done well, overall. Two of my three biggest issues are similarly related. One deals with a possible plot hole (that they bring up in the film, actually) about why they had to get cars to deliver the money all the way across New York. Why? Well, to have a car driving sequence. And this is the second issue. That had to be one of the lamest attempts at a car-fueled adrenaline rush ever. You know all those car crashes and whatnot from the trailers? It's not really during any car chase. It's basically from a couple stupid drivers getting in the way after the street should already have been cleared by police. It's like "Now that we have them driving the money across the city, how can we make it more exciting? I know, toss in some cars that shouldn't be there."

The third biggest issue is the ending, which was a bit too cheesy for my tastes, especially for a "heist" film. Heist films are supposed to be cool, not cheesy. I can't really say what it is, as that's spoiler territory, but I'll leave it at that.

This is a lot of negative, but I honestly really liked the movie. These things are only small portions of the film. The actors aren't exactly phoning in their performances (especially Travolta). The story is good, though there wasn't that last big POW! that most heist films like to give, which I think is part of what brings it down a notch or two. There's no real twist. Everything that should be a surprise, you see coming a mile away. And when it's all said and done, it (being whatever big plot device occurs) never really amounts to a whole lot. In other words, the movie had the potential of a 5, but instead falls at about a 4.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

Short Review: Training Day.

So I finally saw this movie. Granted, it was an edited version, but I still got the effect.

----------

Premise: Narcotics officer Alonzo takes a rookie, Jake, out on the job for a day of drugs, violence, and the inner-workings of crooked cops.

Starring: Denzel Washington and Ethan Hawke.

My Reaction: Holy crap.


Royale With Cheese

Bizarre Noir #6: Fallen.

Welcome to the sixth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

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

Fallen.

Year of Origin: 1998.

Director: Gregory Hoblit.

Why it's bizarre: It's a supernatural/horror/thriller.

There isn’t a whole lot to say about this one, though it’s a great one, nonetheless. Detective John Hobbes (Denzel Washington) has finally caught sadistic murderer, Edgar Reese (Elias Koteas). And it’s finally time for his death sentence. But during the whole death sentence thing, Mr. Reese speaks in funny languages and does some odd things. But Detective Hobbes simply shrugs it off. That is, until after Edgar is put to death, when people start being killed in the exact same way that Edgar Reese killed. At first, Hobbes and his partner, Detective Jonesy (John Goodman), think it’s a copycat killer. But after following some clues that lead to speaking with one Gretta Milano (Embeth Davidtz), Hobbes starts believing that it is, in fact, a demon named Azazel that can pass from person to person via touch. And now Azazel is seemingly framing up Hobbes as a murderous and crooked cop, much to the chagrin of police lieutenant Stanton (Donald Sutherland).

There’s a couple other good-name actors in the movie, such as James Gandolfini and Robert Joy, and the acting all around the board is really good. Elias Koteas does his role at the beginning subtly, yet maniacally. Denzel is good as always, and, hey, it’s John Goodman. And while James Gandolfini’s character is, for all intents and purposes, pointless, it’s still done pretty well. The only real shaky ground when it comes to acting is Hobbes’ nephew, Sam, but it’s a child actor, and they aren’t all Abigail Breslin's or Haley Joel Osment’s (whatever happened to him, anyway? He did some video game voice-overs…).

The story isn’t as sci-fi channel cheesy as it sounds. It’s done very well, and with a two hour time-frame, the movie is quite capable of pulling it off nicely. The scenes that involve chasing through large crowds with Azazel going from body to body are really cool. And the song (‘time is on my side’) that he sings and/or whistles throughout the movie is pretty creepy.

The cinematography is excellent, much like any good noir film. And speaking of noir things, there is voice-over narration by Denzel, done in a very Denzel kind of way. And along the same lines, there’s a nice twist ending that’s pretty awesome. Oh, and the music is classic cop/noir jazz saxophone, so it fits nicely with the rest of the feel of the film.

There’s not much else to say about this movie. If you like noir or movies that deal with the supernatural, you should definitely check this one out. It has a great cast and a really good story that culminates into a really good climax and awesome twist.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

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'