Journey 2: The Mysterious Island has a solid helping of thrilling elements. For yours truly, seeing a cameo by Branscombe Richmond (Bobby Sixkiller from Renegade TV series) was probably the most thrilling. Man, I miss that show.

Moving along, the 94 minute 3D adventure is a dazzling epic blend of Goonies meets Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. The fam-friendly flick commits to what it is and just flows effortlessly for the most part. Kudos goes to the cast (Dwayne Johnson, Josh Hutcherson, Luis Guzman, Vanessa Hudgens, and Michael Caine) who take endless mediocre dialogue, and through their talents alone, maximize it throughout the story.

Fortunately, the world created by filmmakers is a pleasure to explore. And in a rare occasion, the 3D is actually worthwhile. While it may not be Avatar good, it’s pretty damn close. The landscapes created on the island features ancient cities, a perilous underwater escape, and an emotionally engaging action sequence in the air; all of which can be described as having smooth CGI work. Everything is visually stimulating and easily has the ability to overshadow the under-developed comedic lines.

Yeah, the audible aspects can’t quite keep up with what one’s eyes are being treated to (though Dwayne Johnson’s song lyrics were fairly creative). And the pacing seems to jerk around a few corners and forces in the clichéd moments everyone can see and hear coming a mile away. What gets one through these is, again, the cast. The five main players all want to be here. Granted, the script lets them down but they are pressing on and will entertain the audience no matter what crappy lines they’re given.

Despite its generic nature – outside of the special-effects of course – this film rests its laurels on the escapism factor that is immediately present after the rushed opening. It’s very similar to an amusement park ride; expensive thrills that may have the ability to have your heart skip a beat here-n-there. But just don’t expect an Epcot-type ride (educational and/or substantial).

That’s pretty much all there is to this, kids. It’s a film that creates a charismatic world to explore and has a game cast who finds the right pitch in their performances. And if you can swing it, shell out the extra bones for the 3D gimmick.

Overall, Journey 2: The Mysterious Island is decorated extremely well and has some exceptionally talented hosts (cast members) to guide one through a typical grand-scale fam-friendly adventure.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Read similar posts to Review: Journey 2: The Mysterious Island at Filmonic

There should be more thrillers like Safe House: smart, engaging movies made for adults. With a propulsive score and breakneck pacing to match, the movie tears through a series of double-crosses, shootouts, and narrow escapes usually reserved for summer blockbusters. Lucky for us, it looks like summer’s come early this year.

Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) is a low-level CIA babysitter for a safe house in South Africa. He’s paid his dues for a year, and now he wants nothing more than to move to Paris with his girlfriend and take on a position with more responsibilities. When agent-turned-traitor Tobin Frost (Washington) appears after years off the grid, Weston gets an unexpected house guest. But Frost has information that men are willing to kill for, so the safe house is compromised and Weston’s the only one who can get Frost to the nearest extraction point. But not only is he dodging bullets from trained mercenaries, he also has to contend with Frost himself, a master manipulator super-agent who has his own plans for escape.

Safe House is a great example of how a fresh vision can elevate a tried-and-true concept. Espinosa takes a familiar story and deftly applies his signature to it: the blown-out color palette seems to mirror Weston’s heightened experiences, and the disjointed editing – transitions oftentimes bleed audio from one sequence into visuals from the next – reflect both Weston’s increasingly taxed mental state and Frost’s commanding ability to slip through the proverbial cracks. The South African setting also sets the film apart from others in the genre, with a nice set piece at a crowded football (soccer) stadium and an action-heavy shootout in a tiny shanty town. For Espinosa’s American filmmaking debut, working with a comparatively huge budget and acting superstars for the first time, Safe House is quite an accomplishment.

Washington delivers yet another strong performance, devoting himself to his character so much that he actually endured a brief session of waterboard torture during filming. He’s always been a captivating person to watch, and his natural charisma shines through even in a “bad guy” role. Reynolds is good, too; naive but always believable, he carries the film dramatically and holds his own during some ferocious fight scenes. Vera Farmiga and Brendan Gleeson both have fine supporting turns, and it seems Farmiga is carving out a nice little niche for herself as the authoritative woman on the other end of the phone (she played a similar role in last year’s Source Code).

The script, by first-time screenwriter and former Us Weekly editor David Guggenheim, tears along at an incredible pace, quickly setting up the action and leaving the exposition to be revealed further down the line. It’s a conventional premise, but he sprinkles in just enough unique moments to give the film a life of its own. The action beats are fun to watch, and the film’s denouement touches on some meaningful points about government transparency. Safe House is the type of movie I hope for when I go to the movies: well-acted, stylish entertainment that gives me something to chew on besides popcorn. Until next time…

Read similar posts to Review: Safe House at Filmonic

Chronicle is the latest movie to use the found footage style, blending it with the superhero subgenre to mixed results. Because we’re so familiar with the limitations of the camera in films like this, when the movie breaks that mold – and it does this fairly often – it makes those sequences seem incredibly impressive. But ultimately Chronicle fails to achieve anything more than a few successful tricks here and there; it’s passable entertainment, sure, but if you’re buying into the hype surrounding the film, I’d encourage you to lower your expectations.

The movie is told through the perspective of Andrew, a kid who ostensibly buys a camera to document his father’s violent drunken outbursts, but ends up carrying it with him everywhere. Immediately, we’re presented with the film’s first problem: it doesn’t need to be shot in the found footage style. It’s got an interesting premise – three kids get superpowers, one turns evil – and that should be enough of a gimmick to get the filmmakers’ intended audience into theaters (especially during the first few months of the year, the notorious dumping grounds for studio films).

As the movie progresses, the restrictions of the format make less and less sense and no longer serve the storytelling. At one point, when two of the main characters face off near the Seattle skyline, one of them summons about a dozen camera phones from onlookers and assembles them in a floating circular pattern around his back for the sole purpose of allowing the filmmakers to cut to these different “cameras” to make the scene more visually interesting. It makes no sense in the grand scheme of the plot, or even as a character moment. It’s pointless and distracting, and a disservice to the central story. A token girlfriend character (Ashley Hinshaw) is introduced, and – surprise – she happens to be a blogger who carries around a camera with her all the time, documenting even the most meaningless conversations! Another cheap plot device, the purpose of which is only to expand the scope of the movie by viewing it through a different lens. Weak.

Seeing the trailers, I thought Chronicle would be compelling because it seemed to tell the story from the POV of the villain. But this actually ends up being the film’s weakest point because the villain isn’t actually interesting in any way. Sure, screenwriter Max Landis* (son of John) wants us to sympathize with Andrew: the character’s mother is dying, his drunken father beats him, he’s bullied constantly at school, etc. But Landis lays it on a bit too thick, giving Andrew one too many problems to handle and forcing him to take one too many beatings, which actually pulled me in the opposite direction – I was actively rooting against his character the entire time. Perhaps it was a combination of Dane DeHaan’s acting and the way Andrew was written, but I never felt for him at all. This is no Megamind: that film at least gave its villain some personality, but because of how pissy and insular Andrew was in Chronicle, I couldn’t have cared less about him.

But it wasn’t all bad. Michael B. Jordan was charismatic as hell as Steven, the popular kid who gains powers alongside Andrew and Andrew’s cousin Matt. Jordan was easily the most entertaining actor in the movie, and it looks like he’s got a promising career ahead of him. While I wouldn’t call any of the effects “dazzling,” there were a few flying sequences that stood out as highlights, and watching the guys essentially using The Force is full-on geek wish fulfillment. (Everyone agrees with me that the coolest part of Star Wars is The Force, right?)

But by the film’s ridiculous climax, the characters are flying around destroying a city with no repercussions whatsoever, reminiscent of Hancock. There are very little consequences in this movie, and for something that practically insists you take it as “real” thanks to the format in which it’s shot, there wasn’t much reality in the way things play out near the end of the film in relation to public reaction, police involvement, and identity. So if you can get past the unnecessary stylistic choice, Chronicle is a fine movie – it didn’t ever reach that undefinable “next level” for me, but I also don’t think it was trying too hard to get there. Until next time…

*Max Landis also released a funny short called The Death and Return of Superman, which stars Mandy Moore, Elijah Wood, Simon Pegg, and more. Check it out here.

Read similar posts to Review: Chronicle at Filmonic

Shot between 2004 and 2006, Margaret was acquired by Fox Searchlight and set for a 2007 release. Writer/director Kenneth Lonergan toiled for years in the editing room, causing lawsuits and all kinds of other drama over the missed release date. Eventually, Martin Scorsese and his longtime editor Thelma Shoonmaker were able to trim the movie down to the studio-mandated two and a half hour run time, but Lonergan wanted a three hour cut and still claims this finished version isn’t his true vision for the film. Finally dumped unceremoniously for a one-week run in theaters in 2011, Margaret is being revived for a brief run at the Cinefamily Theater in Los Angeles this week, and I couldn’t resist seeing what all the fuss was about.

Lisa Cohen (Anna Paquin) lives in New York City with her mother and brother, but is planning a visit to New Mexico to stay with her father for the summer. While searching the Upper West Side for a cowboy hat – an apparent must-have for the horseback riding activities she’s been anticipating – Lisa sees a bus driver (Mark Ruffalo) wearing one and tries to flag him down to ask where he got it. To Lisa’s horror, the distracted driver runs a red lights and hits a woman (Allison Janney), who dies in Lisa’s arms. All of this happens in the first ten or fifteen minutes of the movie, and the rest of the film details how Lisa copes with the aftermath of the accident.

Margaret is the most frustrating portrayal of teenage behavior I’ve seen on film, and it may also be the most accurate. Anna Paquin gives an astonishing performance, full of all of the complicated emotionality of being young and having an answer for everything. Her Lisa is a pseudo-intellectual, getting into heated arguments with classmates over politics and constantly battling her mother with the kind of superior attitude that makes you hope you were never like that when you were that age. In fact, Lisa screams at almost everyone she encounters, using her position as a witness to (and partial participant in) the bus crash as a platform, desperate to be seen and respected as an intellectual equal to the adults around her.

One of the most interesting things about this film is the way New York City is portrayed. From the opening credits of people walking in slow motion through crosswalks, the film seems to have a detached perspective not dissimilar from Lisa’s views on life. In many instances, there’s almost a tilt-shift photography element to the way the city is shot; there’s no personality to its people, just ants scurrying through a timeless ant-hill that will be there long after they all die. In one sequence, Lisa and her mother are in the backseat of a cab at night. Buses and buildings surround them on all sides, threatening to swallow the vehicle into its unforgiving urban stomach. Contrasted with Lisa’s father’s breezy life in California (we only see him talking on the phone as he looks out over the calming ocean), Lonergan’s New York is a prison of harsh life experience waiting to happen. Even Matt Damon’s character, a teacher from Indiana, was lured there by the city’s mystique and nearly destroyed by its claustrophobic temptations.

The editing in Margaret is a clear indication of the fight Lonergan had with the studio. It’s unclear how certain relationships begin, and other sequences end right in the middle of a scene, sometimes to jarring effect. These are tell-tale signs of a director who wanted a three hour film but a studio who demanded thirty minutes stay on the cutting room floor. Though it’s noticeable that parts are missing, Margaret still feels mostly coherent. It’s uneven, but the overall truth it reaches is presumably just as effective as a longer cut’s would have been.

It’s easy to see why a #TeamMargaret movement started among film critics last year, and their efforts have succeeded (at least in part) in getting the film more recognition. The supporting cast is good, but this is Paquin’s movie all along, and her acting is top-notch. She’s explosive and convincing, revealing a teenage state of mind that’s rarely captured on screen in such a natural way. These characters are so multifaceted that even when it’s painful to watch, Margaret is rewarding. Until next time…

Read similar posts to Review: Margaret at Filmonic

Well, you have to give The Woman in Black one thing; she did provide a few jump-worthy moments (lord knows she was trying). But then there’s the other 90 minutes (out of 93)…a flat 90 minutes. And we’re not talking about her chest…though she was kind of cute for dead chick.

Despite all the creepy set pieces, this is just another generic horror flick. Except this one has Harry Potter himself in the lead role, Daniel Radcliffe. While he, and the rest of the cast (Ciaran Hinds and Jane McTeer are the only other prevalent performers), gave decent performances – especially considering this is a horror product – this type of haunted tale just seems dated after the last decade (Tooth Fairy, The Messengers, The Fog remake, etc.). Translation: boring.

It’s a story set in the early 1900s in a remote British village. Radcliffe plays a young lawyer who has to settle the affairs of a massive estate that is located off on a nearby island. The townspeople warn him to just go back to London but the guy feels the need to investigate what happened to the family that once lived in the giant recluse mansion. As he spends time going through old documents, he learns of a terrible tragedy revolving around a mother and her deceased son, which ended up driving her to suicide. However, she is somehow still lurking around.

As mentioned, there were a few scenes that will surely get the audience to jump yet there was opportunity for so much more. For instance, one sequence had Radcliffe falling asleep at a desk and a ghostly figure began creeping up from behind down a long hallway. The filmmakers give us the ghost’s perspective here and just go through the motions of a slow stalk accompanied by an eerie musical score. Well how many times have we’ve seen that before? Instead, while they’re still presumably telling the story through the ghost’s eyes at this moment, they should have had her step into that shot right behind Radcliffe to throw the audiences expectations off. Now this comes from a guy (me) who prides himself on knowing the horror genre, so this sequence will probably have the ability to build suspense with other spectators; but again, it’s nothing the casual horror fan has not seen before. And the payoff is usually a letdown.

Then there’s the stupidity angle that could drive some audience members nuts. Radcliffe’s more-or-less depressed character is underdeveloped. He does well with it, but his actions can be perplexing based on the situation he finds himself in. Once the haunting portion begins in this cluttered English mansion (twisted looking dolls and paintings are all over the place – actually looks like the house from Interview with a Vampire), it does not phase Radcliffe one bit. The guy is apparently too numb to be shaken by what is happening to him, but again (and again), the script never fully sells why he would choose to stay and deal with the supernatural happenings (objects moving, entities appear right in front of him, etc.). The dude looks as lost as the story.

Now atmosphere can play a huge role in these types of films and the environment does allow the story to breathe just a bit. Yet after everything, that is fairly obvious, is exposed, the final conclusion is less than satisfying.

Overall, The Woman in Black has the right look but when she opens her mouth, her physical attributes are negligible for most of the way. Although she has some nice moves here and there that can get you going, there’s a good chance you won’t be calling her back and will more than likely be deleting her from your life. And yes, I’m still talking about the movie.

RATING: 2 out of 5

Read similar posts to Review: The Woman in Black at Filmonic

It’s a decent idea; Man on a Ledge.  Now what can we do with this?

Best guess is that this discussion went on all the way through shooting, because after taking in the 102 minutes, the only thing creative and truly engaging is in fact, the man on the ledge.

Sam Worthington makes the most of his predominantly statuesque role.  The guy is standing on a twenty-to-thirty story ledge of a plush hotel in New York City.  A crowd (spectators and first-response teams) form around him and the entire opening act is treated like a real jumper situation.  Of course, it’s not that simple.  When Worthington asks specifically for an officer, played by Elizabeth Banks, there is clearly more going on here.  And this act also ushers in the supporting duo of Jamie Bell and Genesis Rodriguez.  So the intrigue of what is Worthington’s ultimate agenda lingers around until about the halfway point.  Once revealed, the audience will hold on tight hoping they (filmmakers) can sell this.

Sorry folks, it’s just too scant to buy into.  Not that you won’t know what is going on (which is part of the problem), but you just won’t care enough after Worthington, or more specifically, the script, has played their hand.  Despite solid performances all around – including Ed Harris and Anthony Mackie jumping in – the script is underdeveloped and unable to sell what the characters are enacting.  For instance, Bell and Rodriguez have fun chemistry together but their role in the story is laughable.  There’s no way one can believe they are pulling off the things they are asked to do on screen.  Perhaps with some more background this would have worked, yet there’s none.  And this also leads to some of their intended comedic moments to be met with silence from an audience.  Also showing up are Edward Burns and Kyra Sedgwick in roles that are negligible.  Basically, they fail to use any of their talents so why bother even having them?

The one thing that gets developed is the aspects of what can occur with a possible jumper scenario.  If there’s any cleverness in the script it is how they execute certain things around Worthington’s actions.  Again, the concept, and how the story is flowing through Worthington’s perspective is quasi-catchy & original.  Sadly though, that’s about all the mental stimulation one will have.  As for physical stimulation, thank you Genesis Rodriguez.

Still can’t say enough about Sam Worthington here (obviously) as he firmly tries to pull this flick to something suspenseful.  He slowly has the ability to make you care about him.  The one flaw that the director needed to address was how his character telegraphs his every move when talking to Elizabeth Banks.  Moments like this are a buzz-kill for audiences expecting a thriller type emotion.  And though everything unfolding around him is painfully obvious and recycled, the guy can literally talk an audience into at least hearing him out.  Issue that arises is that you have to see other things happening outside of his stationery set piece (the ledge).  When the camera isn’t bringing the audience into his environment, it showcases the actions of the police – working on containing the situation, and Bell and Rodriguez – doing their respective parts.  And while the cinematography remains strong throughout, the story and screenplay can’t fully rise up to the levels of the titular idea.

Overall, Man on a Ledge had a thought, but couldn’t get evolve past the brainstorming stage.  Nice idea (and try), decent performances – though vague, yet it probably would have been more exciting if the film just depicted a true jumper situation.

RATING:  2 out of 5

Read similar posts to Review: Man on a Ledge at Filmonic

Take Van Helsing, a Mummy sequel and the attitude of The Crow; lose the campy nature of the first two flicks mentioned, and that’s pretty much what Underworld: Awakening feels like.

Now depending on your thoughts on those flicks this comparison may annoy or entice you to check out the 88 minute fourth installment in the supernatural action franchise.  While part 3 (Rise of the Lycans) went prequel mode, this story is a direct sequel to part 2 (Underworld: Evolution).  Building upon the story of Death Dealer vamp Selene (Kate Beckinsale); the story executed here is more show than tell.  Meaning, the action is taking precedent over the storyline.  And judging from how this ended, this tale is just what it feels like as you watch it…a flashy placeholder.

But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth seeing.  Seeing, being the keyword here.  The imagery is what wills this to, well in this guy’s case, a decent review.  The way director Måns Mårlind places the actors, all of the CGI (mainly the Lycans), and set pieces in each scene, projects out an intense & serious tone for the audience to take in.  So even with a vague and obvious storyline, the franchise still feels like its progressing in some respects.  Though there was a need for more exposition on key plot points.  Based on what happened at the conclusion of this, the script may have contradicted itself, therefore, lost some continuity.  Or…my brain didn’t catch those details since yours truly had to catch a midnight screening because the studio decided not to screen this one. (At least I’m honest).

What definitely has evolved here are the action choreography and the Selene character. Beckinsale becomes more ruthless and deadly than ever. It didn’t matter if it was Lycans (costumed and/or CGI) or humans, the body count is massive. The blood is flowing and when factoring in the cold callous atmosphere created, this series actually becomes more of a horror flick rather than an action piece like the previous entries were. Granted, the conversations are not all that interesting or revealing this time around. During Beckinsale’s dialogue scenes – which are very empty – she still delivers like a robot, but this time it at least fits with the scenario she finds herself in. Plus her new supporting cast is able to slightly spice up the chatter.

The biggest obstacle this feature has to overcome is whether or not people will buy into the direction of the story.  Again, this brings up continuity with regards to part 1 & 2.  These questions come up in the first act and unless you can buy into what is happening between Lycans, Vampires, and humans, then this could end up being a letdown.  But as stated earlier, the imagery and action could cover-up the storytelling direction.

Overall, Underworld: Awakening can be summed up like this: Fans of the franchise will be content with where the story is heading; casual viewers will not feel like they wasted their money; and chances are, one will not have the urge to watch this again.  For a fourth installment in franchise built around a war between vamps and werewolves during modern times though, what more can you ask for?  Well, besides developing a more engaging storyline that is just as entertaining as the continuous blood bath depicted on screen.

And feel free to skip the IMAX and 3D.  Though a few sequences could benefit with the IMAX scope.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Read similar posts to Review: Underworld: Awakening at Filmonic

So was this Steven Soderbergh’s final project for film school?  The question is posed for it seems that the stylish director (Ocean’s flicks, Traffic, Contagion, etc.) couldn’t afford a talented lead for Haywire. Plus, the sound edit, uh, sounds as if a micro-budgeted indie filmmaker made this on his Macbook. Actually, one could probably get better sound out of that computer.

Obviously, this isn’t Soderbergh’s senior project and there was some coin behind it ($25 million) as you can surmise from the talented cast that chimed in on this 93 minute flick.  And although the action, which is to say hand-to-hand combat sequences, had some intensity to them, the script suffers immensely from the storytelling execution via the femme fatale, Gina Carano.

Her dialogue delivery is bloody awful to the point that you feel sorry for her as you watch this.  Now even though the story wasn’t all that riveting to begin with, having the majority of it told through the more-or-less rookie actress was clearly too much to ask here.  She is surrounded by an accomplished supporting cast and she does have the ability to carry them in the above mention decently choreographed fight sequences.  But once those come and go, the mediocre level this flick attains drops faster than a man between Carano’s leg scissors.  And speaking of those legs, the one thing Carano did accomplish is the dethroning of Famke Janssen (Goldeneye 1995); as she can now proudly wear the title of having the sexiest choke-hold in cinematic history.

While Carano just isn’t ready to enhance this spy-betrayed-by-the-system saga outside of using her apt MMA skills – and perhaps Soderbergh realized this during filming, as there are prolonged shots of her just running around and scaling rooftops (one of the better shot sequences though), it all falls on Soderbergh and the story to keep us wired in.  Watching Soderbergh’s camera placement is always intriguing.  If he’s shooting on a rooftop, he’ll find a crevice between a fireplace and a pipe and guide the lens through as it follows the character.  When screenplay is active, he’s at his best.  And much like his Ocean’s flicks, the luring musical score has the ability to set the tone.

Most of everything stated above is realized within the first thirty minutes.  And while the direction of this piece doesn’t quite come fully together, one is hopeful the plot will eventually catch you.  Unfortunately, it just isn’t happening here.  The atmosphere is subdued despite it being a spy-thriller.  It’s not wordy or bland like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy or The American, but it doesn’t have an adrenaline rush commonly found in a Bourne movie or even Salt for that matter.  As far as originality goes, there is none.  Well, except for the fact that Carano actually looks like she can kick some ass as opposed to a 95lbs. Angelina Jolie. So basically, this is just Soderbergh’s take on a spy-thriller…that isn’t all that thrilling and has a few mechanical issues.

Overall, Haywire can never really get going.  At certain turns, you wonder if this would even make the cut to be shown in a local film festival based on the production and acting levels of Gina Carano. The pacing is fairly good when considering the short running time, yet the product as a whole feels like a rush job that people just wanted to unload.  In other words: Why bother even making this?

RATING: 2 out of 5

Read similar posts to Review: Haywire at Filmonic

Contraband is a typical January release. Which is to say, it’s a movie – and that’s about it. It meets all the qualifications necessary to be a movie, and does absolutely nothing interesting along the way.

In fact, the most interesting thing about this movie is who is behind the camera. Baltasar Kormakur was the star of an Icelandic action film called Reykjavik-Rotterdam back in 2008, and now he’s directing Contraband, which is a remake of that film. And…that’s about the extent of anything fascinating you’ll find in this movie. The film itself is a by-the-numbers thriller about a former smuggler (Wahlberg) and his best friend (Foster) who get called back for “one last job” to save Wahlberg’s screw-up brother-in-law from a local drug dealer (Ribisi). Wahlberg’s wife (Kate Beckinsale) is threated for leverage, blah blah blah. You’ve seen this movie before. It’s basically Gone in 60 Seconds without the cars.

Wahlberg hooks up with a team of guys to smuggle millions of dollars in counterfeit money from Panama on a freight ship, and for a while, the movie desperately wants to be like The Italian Job or Ocean’s 11. But the main characters’ situation is so robbed of significance that it fails on every level. We know Wahlberg is going to make it back to protect his threatened wife, so every tumultuous scenario that happens in Panama is mind-numbingly boring because we already know the outcome. And the secondary guys on his team – including Lukas Haas, whose talent is totally wasted here – are given a piss poor introduction (in one of the most mundane montages I’ve seen in a while) and aren’t fleshed out as real characters, so I didn’t care if they lived or died. I barely knew who they were. There’s no emotional connection in this film, and even the stuff with the wife back home feels contrived just so we’ll root for the hero.

The setting was another missed opportunity to do something to make the film stand out. Set in a post-Katrina New Orleans, Kormakur occasionally provides us with a few shots of the city, but never turns it into a character the way, for example, Ben Affleck does with Boston in Gone Baby Gone or The Town. Same thing with Panama when the story eventually gets there: it seems as if the filmmakers are trying to evoke Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (or similar big budget blockbusters) in the way they depict the skyline here – brief helicopter shots that paint the city from the side – but, like the rest of this movie, it’s a half-assed effort that ends up meaning nothing.

There was one point in the film where I thought it had a chance to elevate beyond it’s mediocrity. A main character nearly dies – something that was shocking, ballsy, and an actual twist that I didn’t see coming – but it’s immediately revealed that this character is still alive, deflating all the excitement I felt as the film returned to its boring conclusion. If you watch two or three movies a year, you might think Contraband is good. Otherwise, you’ll see everything coming as it plays out in the most banal way possible.

For those of you who hated the ending to The Town, this is way worse. Contraband apparently can’t be bothered to deal with things like “consequences.” It ends exactly the way you think it will, and doesn’t care to explain how the main characters get around some pretty major problems that would arise if this movie cared about plot holes. (I’m dancing around the ending to avoid spoilers). Put it this way – “Breaking Bad” devotes a multi-episode story arc to something that isn’t even addressed in this film. It’s not mentioned here because these people are the most basic of action movie characters, given such minimal characterization that it ultimately doesn’t matter what happens to any of them. Contraband? More like Contra-bored. (Sorry. That had to be done.) Until next time…

Read similar posts to Review: Contraband at Filmonic

The Grey is a hell of a way to kick off 2012. It’s part horror film and part survival flick, with all of the Liam Neeson badassery you’ve come to expect from his on-screen personas over the past few years. Joe Carnahan (Neeson’s director on the under-appreciated 2010 film, The A-Team) shows he’s a filmmaker capable of far more than gritty crime dramas – this is one of the best survival films I’ve ever seen. 

I will warn you, though – if you’re going to see the movie exclusively for the wolf-boxing scene shown in the trailer, there’s a chance you’ll be a bit disappointed. But to be completely honest, that was the sole reason I was interested in this movie, and it didn’t take long for me to realize that The Grey has much more to offer than one gimmicky sequence.

John Ottman (Neeson) is a sharpshooter working at an oil refinery in Alaska. Their base camp is filled with “men unfit for mankind”: fugitives, ex-cons, the works. Ottman’s job is to protect the men working outside from wild animals, and he’s pretty damn good at it. But when their plane crashes in the Alaskan wilderness, the few surviving men must battle more than just the freezing temperatures and barren landscape to stay alive: a pack of wolves stalks their every move, killing them off one by one. Through harsh, unforgiving terrain and relentless pursuit by the wolves, the men must put their differences aside if they plan to make it out alive.

Though other films in the survival genre often touch on themes like fate and faith, The Grey overtly addresses these issues and, most importantly, does so in an interesting way. It wisely steers clear of using its characters as ciphers. (Example: it doesn’t feature one survivor as a preacher and another a doctor – GRRR, faith vs. science!) Instead, Carnahan chooses to depict his world in a startlingly bleak fashion, taking an existential approach to the survivor’s plight. Characters die in terrible and sometimes heartbreaking ways, lorded over by the pitiless whims of nature. It’s not the easiest thing to stomach, and the director goes out of his way to make us feel the hopelessness of his characters’ situation. Even the cinematography – beautiful as it is in some instances – soaks in a dreary palette, consuming the audience with the melancholy of the snow-swept mountains.

As one would expect from a Joe Carnahan film, the action is just as monumental as the picturesque backdrops. The plane crash is frantic and fierce, the most impressive I’ve seen since the one depicted in “LOST.” There is a chasm crossing reminiscent of the one in Cliffhanger, and at one point a character crashes into a tree in what is surely the most brutal and bone crunching depiction of such an act on film. I won’t go over each setpiece, but they’re all realistic and effective; Carnahan knows what looks good on screen, and he goes the extra mile to get it.

Neeson’s performance anchors the entire picture. There’s a subplot involving his character’s wife, and the actor adds an emotional heft that, if it were anyone else in this role, may not have translated well. Neeson seems to pull directly from his own life experience to reach this part of the performance (see his tragic family history regarding his own wife if you’re unfamiliar), and he effortlessly makes the quiet moments ring true. Conversely, he snarls his way through smoldering wreckage and dense forest alike as the self-imposed alpha male of the survivors, his perseverance alternately inspiring and angering his cohorts. At one point, he punctures the plane’s fuel tank and fills a thermos with gas; while he actually uses it to make torches later in the film, his character is such a hardass that it wouldn’t have been out of place if he growled and chugged that gas like a beer.

The supporting cast is full of mostly unrecognizable faces. Dermot Mulroney is the only name that I recall having seen before, and though he’s most best known for having a name oftentimes confused with actor Dylan McDermot, Mulroney was great in this movie. But the standout – aside from Neeson, of course – comes in actor Frank Grillo, who plays memorable psychopath John Diaz. (Grillo actually had a small role in Warrior, one of my favorite films of 2011.) It’s an unhinged performance full of bravado, and watching him react to his hubris was one of the most enjoyable aspects of the film for me. Maybe it was the fact that they were essentially trapped in snow, but the supporting cast of The Grey seemed to hearken back to John Carpenter’s The Thing - a bunch of guys with different philosophies forced to band together due to an outrageous circumstance, battling paranoia and the elements at the same time.

The horror elements are also on display in the form of the wolves, terrifying creatures that serve as the Monsters of the film, capable of brutal attacks from any angle at any second. Thanks to some grisly kills early in the film – many of which involve loud jump scares – Carnahan puts the audience on edge for the entire movie. Since we’ve seen what the wolves are capable of, we never fully relax as the characters move through the forest, pausing to take shelter, sit around a fire, and occasionally chat about their personal ideologies. What once would have been a fairly normal campfire conversation becomes a ticking time bomb of tension and trepidation; like this entire movie, it’s very well-executed. (Imagine the bar scene from Inglourious Basterds, but with wolves instead of Nazis.)

At its core, The Grey is a simple genre exercise about man versus nature. Thanks to some excellent filmmaking, compelling character work, and dynamic action, it rises above convention and emerges as an entertaining and accomplished movie that stands among the best survival films ever made. Until next time…

Read similar posts to Review: The Grey at Filmonic