Argo, Ben Affleck's third directorial outing, tells the true story of six Americans who escaped the American Embassy in Tehran just as it was being taken over by supporters of the Iranian Revolution. The six avoided being taken hostage only to find they were just as trapped. They could not safely leave Tehran, instead taking shelter for more than two months with the Canadian Ambassador.
Affleck plays Tony Mendez, a CIA operative tasked with extracting the non-hostages and bringing them safely back to the United States. After cycling through several bad ideas, he and others eventually decide the best bad idea they have is to create a fake cover as a movie crew, in Iran to do some location scouting.
Shot and edited to look like a thriller from the era, Argo works on just about every level. The acting is realistic and emotional without being flashy, the production values evoke the time and place nicely, and the editing ratchets up the tension very effectively.
If I had one criticism of the film, it would be that the tension at the end seems too forced. There are just a few too many coincidences, a few too many incidents of perfect timing. This story is already tense and incredible enough on its own merits; to add too much makes it feel artificial.
Still, Argo's opening sequence is one of the year's best. The visual and sound editing evoke chaos, terror, tension, and consequence in a truly effective manner. Historically informed audiences will know, at least to a broad degree, where this film will go and what the consequences of larger action will be--which, if anything, make the story even more incredible.
I recommend the film to just about any adult audience, and I think it's one of the best films I've seen so far this year.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
Seven Psychopaths
Seven Psychopaths, the newest film from the must-be dark and twisted mind of writer-director Martin McDonagh, starts out with a bang. A few of them, really.
This darkly comic, supremely violent, meta-film film stars Colin Farrell as Marty, a screenwriter struggling with ideas for his next screenplay, Seven Psychopaths. His friend Billy, played nicely by the always underrated Sam Rockwell, suggests he look to real-life psychopaths to inspire him--a suggestion that proves more fruitful than he originally imagined.
Billy, meanwhile, is getting over his head in his own "business" ventures. He and his partner-in-crime, played by Christopher Walken, kidnap dogs and collect the eventual reward money. When they kidnap the wrong shih tzu, they find criminal boss and violent psychopath (!) Woody Harrelson on their tails.
McDonagh, who previously worked with Farrell on In Bruges, is not afraid to play around with tone. Some of the film's most grotesque violence also provides its biggest laughs, while the aftermath leads to some of its most heartfelt (and heart-wrenching) moments. Farrell's in-film screenplay, meanwhile, allows the characters themselves to comment on what's going on around them--the tropes and expectations of film and storytelling. It's remniscent of films like Adaptation and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, admittedly two of my favorite films. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite live up to those comparisons (nor to In Bruges, for that matter).
Movie-goers who are turned away by excessive violence (even when that violence is used for a point) should probably avoid Seven Psychopaths. Ideally, its title and decidedly earned "R" rating will be enough to keep those viewers away already, but one never knows.
Similarly, if dark, meta, or dark-meta humor is not your thing, this film is not for you. Seven Psychopaths doesn't pretend to be for everyone, but while it doesn't hit the heights of McDonagh's other film and theater work, it is uproariously funny and generally entertaining.
This darkly comic, supremely violent, meta-film film stars Colin Farrell as Marty, a screenwriter struggling with ideas for his next screenplay, Seven Psychopaths. His friend Billy, played nicely by the always underrated Sam Rockwell, suggests he look to real-life psychopaths to inspire him--a suggestion that proves more fruitful than he originally imagined.
Billy, meanwhile, is getting over his head in his own "business" ventures. He and his partner-in-crime, played by Christopher Walken, kidnap dogs and collect the eventual reward money. When they kidnap the wrong shih tzu, they find criminal boss and violent psychopath (!) Woody Harrelson on their tails.
McDonagh, who previously worked with Farrell on In Bruges, is not afraid to play around with tone. Some of the film's most grotesque violence also provides its biggest laughs, while the aftermath leads to some of its most heartfelt (and heart-wrenching) moments. Farrell's in-film screenplay, meanwhile, allows the characters themselves to comment on what's going on around them--the tropes and expectations of film and storytelling. It's remniscent of films like Adaptation and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, admittedly two of my favorite films. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite live up to those comparisons (nor to In Bruges, for that matter).
Movie-goers who are turned away by excessive violence (even when that violence is used for a point) should probably avoid Seven Psychopaths. Ideally, its title and decidedly earned "R" rating will be enough to keep those viewers away already, but one never knows.
Similarly, if dark, meta, or dark-meta humor is not your thing, this film is not for you. Seven Psychopaths doesn't pretend to be for everyone, but while it doesn't hit the heights of McDonagh's other film and theater work, it is uproariously funny and generally entertaining.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The Master
The Master, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, is a beautifully shot, well-acted film that doesn't quite come together as a satisfying whole. Joaquin Phoenix stars as a troubled, alcoholic WWII veteran--established thoroughly in the first half-hour or so, and continually after that--who finds a path with Philip Seymour-Hoffman's Cause, a pseudo-religious set of beliefs that promise him direction and, well, cause.
The two meet rather by accident, but during their time together come to an understanding, as Phoenix becomes more and more integral not only to Seymour-Hoffman's cause but to his life. The Cause, which is definitely nothing like Scientology at all, is written off by some as a cult, while others dedicate their lives to furthering its teachings. When Phoenix first comes across it, he, like the audience, is unsure how to respond. As he becomes closer to its leader, he becomes closer to its philosophy and beliefs.
The tender, complex relationship that forms between the two men is the real heart of the film. Others don't understand. They try to publically disgrace The Cause or put a wrench between Phoenix and Seymour-Hoffman, but while it's obvious that the former truly needs the latter, the latter's need turns out to be just as strong.
The performances are uniformly excellent, creating complete (if bizarre) three-dimensional characters whose motivations, passions, and concerns all build naturally.
The more that I write about this film, the more I process it; the more I process it, the more I like it. I am not sure what to make of the film's ending--in fact, of its whole last half-hour or so--but it is definitely a film that leaves the theater with you. I can't help but feel that a lot of this film wound up on the cutting room floor. It's not just that the trailer publicizes scenes that don't exist; it's more that the story seems so rich but so incomplete.
Ultimately, The Master is a film you're sure to remember--though you may love it, hate it, or just question it. The film is unlikely to work for everyone, but for some it will likely have a huge impact. Just like The Cause.
The two meet rather by accident, but during their time together come to an understanding, as Phoenix becomes more and more integral not only to Seymour-Hoffman's cause but to his life. The Cause, which is definitely nothing like Scientology at all, is written off by some as a cult, while others dedicate their lives to furthering its teachings. When Phoenix first comes across it, he, like the audience, is unsure how to respond. As he becomes closer to its leader, he becomes closer to its philosophy and beliefs.
The tender, complex relationship that forms between the two men is the real heart of the film. Others don't understand. They try to publically disgrace The Cause or put a wrench between Phoenix and Seymour-Hoffman, but while it's obvious that the former truly needs the latter, the latter's need turns out to be just as strong.
The performances are uniformly excellent, creating complete (if bizarre) three-dimensional characters whose motivations, passions, and concerns all build naturally.
The more that I write about this film, the more I process it; the more I process it, the more I like it. I am not sure what to make of the film's ending--in fact, of its whole last half-hour or so--but it is definitely a film that leaves the theater with you. I can't help but feel that a lot of this film wound up on the cutting room floor. It's not just that the trailer publicizes scenes that don't exist; it's more that the story seems so rich but so incomplete.
Ultimately, The Master is a film you're sure to remember--though you may love it, hate it, or just question it. The film is unlikely to work for everyone, but for some it will likely have a huge impact. Just like The Cause.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Trouble with the Curve
Trouble with the Curve is a boring movie. Its plot is predictable, its characters are unrealistic and annoying, and its writing is frustrating. It's certainly not horrible; it just isn't good, either.
Featuring Clint Eastwood as Clint Eastwood,--er, Gus--an aging baseball scout losing his vision and Amy Adams as his tightly-wound lawyer daughter, Curve seems like a direct response to last year's Moneyball. 2011's Oscar nominated baseball draft movie documented Billy Beane's use of sabermetrics and statistical, computer-driven approach to drafting players. In Curve, the "likeable" characters write off this style while its villains thrive with it. The audience, then, is supposed to come away with the idea that good, old-fashioned scouting is superior, but it just comes off as "Old guys don't like new stuff." Which, I suppose, could be Clint Eastwood's whole mantra, given his most recent films.
Curve's characters are broadly drawn, though the under-utilized cast does what it can with the writing. Few characters, besides Gus and daughter Mickey, are given much by way of "shades of grey." The villains have no redeeming qualities; the supporting heroes are perfect and polite and understanding of everything.
The estranged relationship between father and daughter is the real heart of the film, however, and the writing does at least give its protagonists flaws and room to grow. The problem is, neither character starts the film as particularly likeable, and while each gets better by the end of the film, I couldn't quite bring myself to be cheering for either one.
This sounds like an entirely negative review, which isn't strictly fair. The predictability may be right up some viewers' alleys, and there is certainly an audience for Eastwood's gruff old man schtick; I'm just not really a part of it. There are better baseball films out there. There are better father-daughter stories out there. But it all honesty, there are worse films of each, too.
Featuring Clint Eastwood as Clint Eastwood,--er, Gus--an aging baseball scout losing his vision and Amy Adams as his tightly-wound lawyer daughter, Curve seems like a direct response to last year's Moneyball. 2011's Oscar nominated baseball draft movie documented Billy Beane's use of sabermetrics and statistical, computer-driven approach to drafting players. In Curve, the "likeable" characters write off this style while its villains thrive with it. The audience, then, is supposed to come away with the idea that good, old-fashioned scouting is superior, but it just comes off as "Old guys don't like new stuff." Which, I suppose, could be Clint Eastwood's whole mantra, given his most recent films.
Curve's characters are broadly drawn, though the under-utilized cast does what it can with the writing. Few characters, besides Gus and daughter Mickey, are given much by way of "shades of grey." The villains have no redeeming qualities; the supporting heroes are perfect and polite and understanding of everything.
The estranged relationship between father and daughter is the real heart of the film, however, and the writing does at least give its protagonists flaws and room to grow. The problem is, neither character starts the film as particularly likeable, and while each gets better by the end of the film, I couldn't quite bring myself to be cheering for either one.
This sounds like an entirely negative review, which isn't strictly fair. The predictability may be right up some viewers' alleys, and there is certainly an audience for Eastwood's gruff old man schtick; I'm just not really a part of it. There are better baseball films out there. There are better father-daughter stories out there. But it all honesty, there are worse films of each, too.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Looper
Things have a way of coming full circle.
As Rian Johnson's new film, Looper, begins, his protagonist fills in the basics: time travel has not yet been invented--but in thirty years, it will have been. It is highly illegal and used by only the most powerful mobs. Tracking and identification has advanced to a point that disposing of a body is all but impossible, so when the mob needs someone gone, they send that someone back in time where he is killed by a specialized assassin, who then disposes of the body and the problem. These assassins are called "Loopers," since signing on to the job comes with a caveat--the last person they'll be killing for the mob is themselves, closing their "loop."
Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, an assassin whose loop is about to close--until something goes wrong. Now, Joe has to track down his future self, played by Bruce Willis, in order to save not only himself but the future that now may or may not come to pass.
With very little exposition, Johnson creates a very complete world, planting small seeds early that lead to big payoffs later. He also has a knack for the visual; one early scene features very little actual violence, but rather plays of the implied violence in a fully disconcerting way. It's a scene bound to stick with a viewer days after the film is over.
Featuring a strong supporting cast in Emily Blunt as a fierce mother who will do anything to protect her son, Jeff Daniels as the world-weary Looper boss the future mob sends back to oversee everything, and Johnson regular Noah Segan as a screw-up hired gun, Looper pulls a series of strong performances that give the movie its heart. Good sci-fi isn't about aliens or time travel or bizarre scientific advances--it's about the human emotion behind those things.
Looper is up there with my favorite films of the year. It's intelligent, clever, well-acted and well-made. It builds on its "Wouldn't it be cool if...?" premise and explores answers that may not be so cool after all. It's a 2012 must-see.
As Rian Johnson's new film, Looper, begins, his protagonist fills in the basics: time travel has not yet been invented--but in thirty years, it will have been. It is highly illegal and used by only the most powerful mobs. Tracking and identification has advanced to a point that disposing of a body is all but impossible, so when the mob needs someone gone, they send that someone back in time where he is killed by a specialized assassin, who then disposes of the body and the problem. These assassins are called "Loopers," since signing on to the job comes with a caveat--the last person they'll be killing for the mob is themselves, closing their "loop."
Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, an assassin whose loop is about to close--until something goes wrong. Now, Joe has to track down his future self, played by Bruce Willis, in order to save not only himself but the future that now may or may not come to pass.
With very little exposition, Johnson creates a very complete world, planting small seeds early that lead to big payoffs later. He also has a knack for the visual; one early scene features very little actual violence, but rather plays of the implied violence in a fully disconcerting way. It's a scene bound to stick with a viewer days after the film is over.
Featuring a strong supporting cast in Emily Blunt as a fierce mother who will do anything to protect her son, Jeff Daniels as the world-weary Looper boss the future mob sends back to oversee everything, and Johnson regular Noah Segan as a screw-up hired gun, Looper pulls a series of strong performances that give the movie its heart. Good sci-fi isn't about aliens or time travel or bizarre scientific advances--it's about the human emotion behind those things.
Looper is up there with my favorite films of the year. It's intelligent, clever, well-acted and well-made. It builds on its "Wouldn't it be cool if...?" premise and explores answers that may not be so cool after all. It's a 2012 must-see.
Friday, September 28, 2012
The Words
"Pretentious," in my book, is not necessarily a negative adjective. Sure, it gets thrown about in a mostly perjorative sense, but I don't think that's quite fair. Popular art requires a level of arrogance--after all, those people creating the art must believe their opinions, views, and stories are worth hearing. Otherwise, the art would never be made, or at least never be brought before a larger audience. The pretentiousness that can accompany that attitude shouldn't be held against it; it's a natural side effect.
The problem arises, of course, when the art produced doesn't come near to matching the level of pretention that comes with it.
Exhibit A: The Words. The film takes a matryoshka approach to storytelling: a story within a story within a story, with characters at each level commenting on the beauty of the story inside it. One author (Dennis Quaid) is reading his new publication to a roomful of adoring fans. His story is about a struggling author (Bradley Cooper) who finds, and ultimately decides to pass off as his own, a beautiful story about another struggling writer (Jeremy Irons). And so on and so forth.
The most useless of these is the outermost shell. The movie would have done well to leave behind the Dennis Quaid/Olivia Wilde portion of the film altogether in favor of fleshing out the inner rings a bit more.
It also would have done well to remember the old adage "Show, don't tell." Perhaps because The Words is a story about, well, words, the filmmakers thought it would be better to use flat language to get its meaning, depth, and theme across. It was wrong. Voiceovers are a crutch. Using characters to praise a work rather than showing that work to the audience and letting that audience make up their own minds is a crutch. Telling the audience, flat out, what to feel about a character is a crutch.
The Words had potential, but got so swept up in its own self-importance that it never bothered to check if it was actually good.
It wasn't.
The problem arises, of course, when the art produced doesn't come near to matching the level of pretention that comes with it.
Exhibit A: The Words. The film takes a matryoshka approach to storytelling: a story within a story within a story, with characters at each level commenting on the beauty of the story inside it. One author (Dennis Quaid) is reading his new publication to a roomful of adoring fans. His story is about a struggling author (Bradley Cooper) who finds, and ultimately decides to pass off as his own, a beautiful story about another struggling writer (Jeremy Irons). And so on and so forth.
The most useless of these is the outermost shell. The movie would have done well to leave behind the Dennis Quaid/Olivia Wilde portion of the film altogether in favor of fleshing out the inner rings a bit more.
It also would have done well to remember the old adage "Show, don't tell." Perhaps because The Words is a story about, well, words, the filmmakers thought it would be better to use flat language to get its meaning, depth, and theme across. It was wrong. Voiceovers are a crutch. Using characters to praise a work rather than showing that work to the audience and letting that audience make up their own minds is a crutch. Telling the audience, flat out, what to feel about a character is a crutch.
The Words had potential, but got so swept up in its own self-importance that it never bothered to check if it was actually good.
It wasn't.
Friday, September 14, 2012
ParaNorman
ParaNorman, a stop-motion film about a kid named Norman who just happens to have paranormal powers (punny!), starts out well. Its protagonist is likeable, if lonely, and its setting is filled with just enough character and history that it intrigues and captures the viewer. It has a great lesson and some important themes.
And then it took those things and wrung out every ounce of subtext so it could hit the audience over the head with them, over-explaining every step along the way. ParaNorman has a lot of promise at the begining and all but squanders it by the end.
Its characters, Norman excepted, are all broadly drawn, and while this isn't a make-or-break quality in a children's film, it can be a problem for the adult members of the audience. When characters are only given one or two traits, they're not very interesting to watch. Any shading given to the non-protagonist characters is minimal at best, and while broad stereotypes can help to build humor, they don't do much to add depth or meaning to the story.
It's too bad, really. I wanted to like ParaNorman, and I certainly wouldn't say I came out of the theater hating it. Mostly I just felt disappointed. The film put some clever twists on old horror film tropes and did a nice job with the character of Norman himself. Its opening (especially the sequence with Norman walking to school) was very effective, not to mention attractive. Some shots look like the real world while others use the stop-motion to beautiful effect. This is especially true in the climactic showdown at the end of the film.
ParaNorman is a mediocre film that could have been much better, and there is little more frustrating for me to watch than ambition and potential thwarted by mediocrity.
And then it took those things and wrung out every ounce of subtext so it could hit the audience over the head with them, over-explaining every step along the way. ParaNorman has a lot of promise at the begining and all but squanders it by the end.
Its characters, Norman excepted, are all broadly drawn, and while this isn't a make-or-break quality in a children's film, it can be a problem for the adult members of the audience. When characters are only given one or two traits, they're not very interesting to watch. Any shading given to the non-protagonist characters is minimal at best, and while broad stereotypes can help to build humor, they don't do much to add depth or meaning to the story.
It's too bad, really. I wanted to like ParaNorman, and I certainly wouldn't say I came out of the theater hating it. Mostly I just felt disappointed. The film put some clever twists on old horror film tropes and did a nice job with the character of Norman himself. Its opening (especially the sequence with Norman walking to school) was very effective, not to mention attractive. Some shots look like the real world while others use the stop-motion to beautiful effect. This is especially true in the climactic showdown at the end of the film.
ParaNorman is a mediocre film that could have been much better, and there is little more frustrating for me to watch than ambition and potential thwarted by mediocrity.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Premium Rush
How do you solve a problem of a potentially unlikeable, abrasive protagonist? Make sure his antagonist is the worst kind of person he could possibly be. Throw in another large, shady, unbeatable power--say, the Chinese government--and a few slick chase scenes and you've got yourself a movie.
Premium Rush doesn't carry much weight, but then again, it doesn't really need to. When adrenaline junkie bicycle messenger Wilee, played by one of my personal favorites, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, picks up a MacGuffin that absolutely must be across town by a certain time and delivered only to a certain person, he doesn't see it as anything out of the ordinary. That is, until he's chased down by a complete lunatic, played gleefully by Michael Shannon, who demands the package back.
Couple this with an NYPD that is bumbling at best and outright hostile at worst, along with a cause so noble it's unimpeachable, and our intrepid daredevil of a protagonist is all set to go, gaining the audience's sympathy and support along the way.
Michael Shannon's over-the-top villain may rub some viewers the wrong way, but I found him hysterical. He stole every scene he was in, and you never knew what he was going to do next, which is refreshing in an essentially predictable film. His performance lets the audience know they don't have to take the film too seriously. The film even lampshades its light take on things by a including real, outtake-style video of the result of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's injury-inducing accident on set during the credits.
Chase movies, by their nature, don't need much by way of plot or character development, and Premium Rush is light on both. There are no great, deep character insights or compelling, deep questions for the audience to consider, and there don't really need to be. It's a light, fun, funny thriller that delivers what it promises.
Premium Rush doesn't carry much weight, but then again, it doesn't really need to. When adrenaline junkie bicycle messenger Wilee, played by one of my personal favorites, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, picks up a MacGuffin that absolutely must be across town by a certain time and delivered only to a certain person, he doesn't see it as anything out of the ordinary. That is, until he's chased down by a complete lunatic, played gleefully by Michael Shannon, who demands the package back.
Couple this with an NYPD that is bumbling at best and outright hostile at worst, along with a cause so noble it's unimpeachable, and our intrepid daredevil of a protagonist is all set to go, gaining the audience's sympathy and support along the way.
Michael Shannon's over-the-top villain may rub some viewers the wrong way, but I found him hysterical. He stole every scene he was in, and you never knew what he was going to do next, which is refreshing in an essentially predictable film. His performance lets the audience know they don't have to take the film too seriously. The film even lampshades its light take on things by a including real, outtake-style video of the result of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's injury-inducing accident on set during the credits.
Chase movies, by their nature, don't need much by way of plot or character development, and Premium Rush is light on both. There are no great, deep character insights or compelling, deep questions for the audience to consider, and there don't really need to be. It's a light, fun, funny thriller that delivers what it promises.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Total Recall
Perhaps the most disappointing thing about Total Recall was that it had so much potential. A talented but underused cast. A sleek design that blends into monotone rather than popping memorably. A mind-bending premise that's all but forgotten (though vaguely hinted at) by the end of the film.
Say what you will about the Arnold Schwarzenegger original: at least it had an identity. The Colin Farrell remake lacks that almost entirely. It's a safe, if dull, PG-13 action flick.
I know there are critics who don't exactly find Colin Farrell to be the most compelling actor out there. I urge those critics to see In Bruges. Personally, I would have preferred to see all of Total Recall from the perspective of Farrell's character. Every moment out of his viewpoint was a confirmation that the film's action wasn't all in its protagonist's head--the most potentially compelling plot point of the movie. I am not a fan of "It was all a dream!" twists, but when "What is real? What is reality?" is designed to be the primary theme in your film, it isn't a twist so much as an absolutely necessary component.
The film does its chase and fight scenes a PG-13 action flick type of justice. There is plenty of shooting, plenty of adrenaline, plenty of "cool" shots at the expense of realism. The somewhat-nonsensical elevator chase was still a fun one. It was fun to see two absolutely capable female action stars duke it out, even if their clothes were just a bit tighter than they needed to be.
Overall, the film was a passable, if disappointing, summer popcorn flick.
Say what you will about the Arnold Schwarzenegger original: at least it had an identity. The Colin Farrell remake lacks that almost entirely. It's a safe, if dull, PG-13 action flick.
I know there are critics who don't exactly find Colin Farrell to be the most compelling actor out there. I urge those critics to see In Bruges. Personally, I would have preferred to see all of Total Recall from the perspective of Farrell's character. Every moment out of his viewpoint was a confirmation that the film's action wasn't all in its protagonist's head--the most potentially compelling plot point of the movie. I am not a fan of "It was all a dream!" twists, but when "What is real? What is reality?" is designed to be the primary theme in your film, it isn't a twist so much as an absolutely necessary component.
The film does its chase and fight scenes a PG-13 action flick type of justice. There is plenty of shooting, plenty of adrenaline, plenty of "cool" shots at the expense of realism. The somewhat-nonsensical elevator chase was still a fun one. It was fun to see two absolutely capable female action stars duke it out, even if their clothes were just a bit tighter than they needed to be.
Overall, the film was a passable, if disappointing, summer popcorn flick.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
The Bourne Legacy
It's unusual to find a move that is most engaging in its middle, with the beginning and ending dragging, but that's exactly the case with The Bourne Legacy. Its mid-film action sequences--especially the shoot-out in the house--are the best parts of the film. The sequence in the lab was one I found incredibly difficult to watch. Though this could be in part to the recent mass shootings that have been making the news, it is also a credit to the director that it was, frankly, so frightening.
If only the final sequence could have lived up to the house sequence. I am generally not critical of shaky-cam style film making; at times I find it very engaging and unlike many people I know, I rarely find it distracting. In The Bourne Legacy, it was distracting. The chase sequence was very hard to follow because the camera and editing choices moved everything so quickly that it didn't allow the audience to register the action. I don't mind chaos in editing, but only if it's done for a reason--if the lead character is so disoriented that he or she can't figure out what's going on, it's a feasible choice for the editing to enhance that and leave the audience wondering, too. This, however, wasn't the case with Bourne. Instead, it just left the film feeling messy.
I will say, however, that I liked the casting quite a bit. I have always enjoyed Rachel Weisz's performances, and unlike some action heroines, she plays a very convincing genius scientist. Jeremy Renner was engaging even in scenes with no dialogue and no other actors. Edward Norton was perhaps underused but infused his character with enough empathy that the audience could understand his motivations and justifications, even if we could not agree with them.
I have come to hold the Bourne movies to the standard of the best sequence out of the four movies--the tense, extended sequence with the reporter in the train station in The Bourne Ultimatum. Sadly, nothing in Legacy came close. It's a film of missed potential, though a good enough action movie for a summer afternoon.
If only the final sequence could have lived up to the house sequence. I am generally not critical of shaky-cam style film making; at times I find it very engaging and unlike many people I know, I rarely find it distracting. In The Bourne Legacy, it was distracting. The chase sequence was very hard to follow because the camera and editing choices moved everything so quickly that it didn't allow the audience to register the action. I don't mind chaos in editing, but only if it's done for a reason--if the lead character is so disoriented that he or she can't figure out what's going on, it's a feasible choice for the editing to enhance that and leave the audience wondering, too. This, however, wasn't the case with Bourne. Instead, it just left the film feeling messy.
I will say, however, that I liked the casting quite a bit. I have always enjoyed Rachel Weisz's performances, and unlike some action heroines, she plays a very convincing genius scientist. Jeremy Renner was engaging even in scenes with no dialogue and no other actors. Edward Norton was perhaps underused but infused his character with enough empathy that the audience could understand his motivations and justifications, even if we could not agree with them.
I have come to hold the Bourne movies to the standard of the best sequence out of the four movies--the tense, extended sequence with the reporter in the train station in The Bourne Ultimatum. Sadly, nothing in Legacy came close. It's a film of missed potential, though a good enough action movie for a summer afternoon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)