Salt

OPENING: 07/23/2010

STUDIO: Sony

RUN TIME: 100 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Who is Salt?

Opening Statement
I have to admit, the trailers for Salt didn’t exactly inspire much excitement in yours truly. It looked like a fairly typical action film rooted in a typical “innocent person wrongly accused” plot; a bit of generic noise to fill a gap in the summer movie season. I’m glad to have been proven wrong. Salt is one of the loopiest films of the summer, but also a tremendously well-crafted thriller and a grandly entertaining experience.

Facts of the Case
Angelina Jolie (Changeling) plays Evelyn Salt, a CIA Agent who’s been given the task of interrogating a Russian spy claiming a desire to defect to the US. During her interview, the Russian suggests that there is an assassination being plotted by a mole within the CIA. He claims that this mole’s name is Evelyn Salt. The interview grinds to a halt, and Salt’s superiors demand that she be put into custody until the matter can be examined further. Not willing to sit around and answer questions, Salt makes a run for it and attempts to escape the grasp of the CIA and FBI while simultaneously looking for a way to clear her name. So begins a tense, action-packed journey to a surprising finish line.

The Evidence
It becomes clear rather quickly that Salt is a film that has been dipped in a giant vat of crazy sauce. We realize this as soon as the Russian defector fills us in on a super-secret Russian program which brainwashes orphans and trains them to become sleeper agents in America. Apparently, the man we know as Lee Harvey Oswald was actually one of the first notable members of this particular program. This plunge into territory that even Oliver Stone might find over-the-top is only the beginning of the eyebrow-raising developments Salt has to offer of the course of its lean 99-minute running time. This much must be said: this movie is neither formulaic nor predictable.

The director is Phillip Noyce, a talented guy whose work includes serviceable Hollywood fare (Clear and Present Danger, Patriot Games, The Bone Collector) and ambitious dramas (Rabbit-Proof Fence, The Quiet American). While Salt isn’t on the level of the latter two films, it represents Noyce hitting an all-time high as an entertainer. The action scenes in the movie are crafted with remarkable skill and precision, steadily increasing the level of tension and excitement as the film proceeds. There’s a refreshing amount of professional nuts-and-bolts craftsmanship on display, as the scenes are largely staged without the aid of CGI or silly special effects. It’s such a nice change of pace to witness an action movie in which the presence of computers is almost entirely unfelt. Real stuntwork, real sets and practical effects are the name of the game in Salt, and these elements are being employed by a director who knows what he’s doing.

The film was originally intended as a vehicle for Tom Cruise, who would have been wise to stick with it. Salt proves considerably more enjoyable than Cruise’s limp summer action/comedy Knight and Day, though it’s doubtful that Cruise could have managed to be as enigmatically compelling in the lead role as Angelina Jolie. It’s a treat to witness the actress handle this material; she’s effortlessly confident and undeniably effective as an action star. Actors are traditionally called upon to show us what they’re feeling, but Jolie’s task in Salt is to make us question whether what’s she emoting is honest or an act. The film’s ad campaign has been built upon the question “Who is Salt?” That’s a question you’ll keep asking yourself for quite a long while.

The show belongs to Noyce and Jolie, but both receive crucial support from a host of talented supporting cast and crew members. Liev Schrieber (Defiance) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (Children of Men) are both crisply professional in their roles as government agents attempting to capture Salt and get to the bottom of the mystery. Oscar-winning Cinematographer Robert Elswitt brings an exceptional level of visual flair and atmosphere to the sort of film that usually doesn’t receive such treatment. Composer James Newton Howard delivers an exceptionally exciting score which does a nice job of adding to the film’s sense of momentum.

Closing Statement
I can certainly see why someone might come out of Salt shaking their head at what they had just witnessed. The film is unapologetically mad, as Kurt Wimmer’s screenplay often feels like it was written by an insomniatic 15-year-old in 1985 (I mean that in the best possible way). Even so, I was thrilled to witness a film that managed to blend such fine technical merits with a delightfully unconventional plot. Most of the folks at my screening were chuckling happily at the film’s conclusion, which I believe is precisely the reaction the film is aiming for. So grab a bucket of popcorn and add some Salt. Odds are you’ll have a good time.

The Verdict
8/10

Predators

OPENING: 07/09/2010

STUDIO: Fox

RUN TIME: 106 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Fear is Reborn

Opening Statement
While I’m a fan of John McTiernan’s savage sci-fi thriller Predator, pretty much everything else about the Predator franchise to date has been uniformly unimpressive. Sure, Predator 2 and even the two Alien vs. Predator movies have their defenders, but to me they all played like weak attempts cash in on the popularity of the original. Now we have Nimrod Antal’s Predators, which easily bests the other sequels but still fails to match the first film.

Facts of the Case
The film begins with our hero (Adrien Brody, The Darjeeling Limited) falling from the sky. He doesn’t seem to know how he got in this predicament, but soon a parachute opens and he floats into a mysterious jungle. Within moments, several others are floating in around him. Brody and the others (a motley crew played by Topher Grace, Alice Braga, Danny Trejo, Walton Goggins, Oleg Taktarov, Louis Ozawa Changchien and the spectacularly-named Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) tensely introduce themselves, and soon discover that they all have one thing in common: they’re hardened individuals well-equipped for a situation like this. Well, everyone except Topher Grace, who is a mild-mannered doctor.

After some searching, the group makes a startling discovery: they’re not on planet earth anymore. It seems they’ve been transported to another world and dumped into some sort of game preserve. The incredibly deadly aliens that brought them to this place are planning on hunting the humans for sport. And so the fight for survival begins.

The Evidence
It’s clear that those involved in making Predators are big fans of McTiernan’s 1987 film. The jungle setting is near-identical, the structure is very similar and various references are made to that iconic film. Director Nimrod Antal and producer Robert Rodriguez make an impressively valiant effort at recapturing what made the first film so memorable, and they almost succeed. Like the first movie, this one waits a pretty long time before it actually allows the monstrous Predators to appear. This is meant to build suspense, but the one thing the film fails to take into account is that we’re already very familiar with what the Predators are and how they work. Scenes that are nearly mirror images of scenes from the first movie just don’t work as well simply because we’ve already seen them.

Lest you think that I regard the original Predator as a flawless piece of cinema, let me assure you that isn’t the case. That movie has some significant flaws, but it’s quite well-directed and the primitive final half-hour is strong enough to erase one’s memories of the weaker moments. Predators is weak in precisely the areas where the original was strong, as the movie just sort of runs out of steam by the time Adrien Brody gets into mud-coated Predator-hunting mode. The action scenes are directed in a rather generic, uninvolving manner, so it’s only natural that the action-heavy third act would be the weakest.

I had hopes that a gifted actor like Adrien Brody might bring something meaty to the proceedings, but Brody proves surprisingly bland in the central role. Beefing up a bit and adopting Christian Bale’s Batman rasp, Brody humorlessly stomps through the proceedings without making much of an impression. Most of the other actors are one-dimensional character types who each bring a single element of personality to the proceedings. There are some highlights, though: Walton Goggins is gleefully creepy in his turn as a serial killer, while Laurence Fishburne melds his usual gravitas with an appealing loopiness as a man who has been surviving on this planet entirely longer than any human should have to.

If Predators is weak where Predator was strong, it’s only fair to note that Predators is occasionally strong where Predator was weak. Some of the less explosive moments in the film actually manage to resonate, particularly a brief scene between Brody and Braga in which they contemplate whether this new environment is actually better-suited to humans such as themselves. The characters are constantly forced to choose between survival and clinging to whatever they have left of their humanity. They are presented with variations on this choice on numerous occasions, and it’s quietly moving every time.

Closing Statement
I do genuinely appreciate the effort Antal and Rodriguez have put into restoring the franchise; and those who are fans of the series in general should find this one of the more satisfying efforts. I can’t really recommend it to those who aren’t already big fans of Predator, but you could certainly do a lot worse at the movies right now.

The Verdict
6/10

Knight and Day

OPENING: 06/23/2010

STUDIO: Fox

RUN TIME: 109 Minutes

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Cruise and Diaz

Opening Statement
After briefly dabbling in the realm of serious-minded war movies with Lions for Lambs and Valkyrie, Tom Cruise returns to his default setting as the cocky, confident action hero in James Mangold’s Knight and Day. Alas, the results are underwhelming.

Facts of the Case
Our protagonist is a woman named June Havens (Cameron Diaz, The Mask). She makes the mistake of getting on the same plane as a guy named Roy Miller (Tom Cruise, The Last Samurai). June takes a bathroom break mid-flight, and when she returns discovers that Roy has killed everyone on the plane (including the pilots). Obviously, she is concerned. Roy insists that there’s an explanation and that she should trust him. So begins an unusual relationship that is by turns tense, playful and curious. Still, with Roy’s sanity in question and both the FBI and the mob trailing our two lovers, it’s uncertain just how long this high-octane romance can last.

The Evidence
Knight and Day is one of those films I’m sort of hard-pressed to say much about. On the one hand, it’s competently made, reasonably well-acted and provides just about what the trailers promise it will provide. On the other hand, there’s very little that’s exceptional or terribly interesting about the movie. It’s one of those films that seem to exist for no other purpose than to adequately fill an empty space in the summer movie season.

Strangely enough, the film is hot on the heels of a string of action movies that place star-crossed lovers in the midst of action-packed situations. We witnessed this scenario in The Bounty Hunter, Date Night and Killers, none of which were particularly well-received by critics. Knight and Day isn’t doing much to change that situation, as it aspires to be a modern-day Charade but lack the stars and writing to achieve that goal.

Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz are both capable of doing good work, but snappy banter isn’t really their cup of tea. They have pleasant chemistry together, but that’s just the problem: it never rises above “pleasant,” never comes close to the sort of delightful sparkle that Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn (or even George Clooney and Renee Zellweger) have with each other. Despite a handful of amusing lines, writer Patrick O’Neill (turning in his first screenplay for a theatrical film) provides both a story and dialogue that remains pedestrian on a fairly consistent basis. The plot is fueled by an unusual device that I forget the name of, but that’s okay because it’s merely a MacGuffin.

Director James Mangold is a talented man whose films include the very fine Cop Land and the superb remake of 3:10 to Yuma, but he feels very much like a hired gun this go-round. Mangold’s never really been faced with tackling the sort of large-scale action scenes called for in this film, and this film demonstrates that he has a long way to go in that department. The scenes are largely unexciting, save for a fairly well-staged sequence in Spain late in the film (even this section suffers from some very unpersuasive CGI).

The film is littered with talented supporting players, but none of them really get much of interest to do. Peter Sarsgaard (An Education) and Viola Davis (Doubt) are completed wasted as FBI agents, Paul Dano (There Will Be Blood) has very little screen time as Cruise’s nerdy sidekick and Jordi Molla (Bad Boys 2) gets even less to do as the intimidating mob boss. Maggie Grace (Lost) is onscreen so briefly that one might easily miss her if they take a bathroom break. The score by John Powell is livelier and more memorable than most of the supporting players, which is a real problem.

Closing Statement
So Knight and Day revs up its engines and hums along steadily for 110 minutes, giving people just what they paid for and not a wee bit more. You could do worse at the movies right now, but that says more about the state of this summer’s popcorn movies than it does about the merits of the lackluster Knight and Day.

The Verdict
5/10

Attention readers: did you miss our review of Daybreakers from our Toronto International Film Festival coverage in September? If so, you missed out on a bloodbath, literally. Packed full of dismembered bodies, vampires and more Willem Dafoe than you can shake a stick at, horror aficionados are no doubt lining up for this one.

What did we think of Daybreakers? Head on over and read our review to decide for yourself!

Ninja Assassin

OPENING: 11/25/2009

STUDIO: Warner Bros.

RUN TIME: 99 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Fear not the weapon but the hand that wields it.

Opening Statement
Just when most studios are rolling out their serious pictures for awards season, here comes a wild bit of counter-programming from the makers of V for Vendetta and Speed Racer. As far as Japanese sword epics go, Ninja Assassin is about as authentic as sushi from McDonalds. But this plate of martial arts action is served up with all the right fixings which makes it a wholly satisfying heap of ninja carnage.

Facts of the Case
As a young orphan, Raizo (Rain, Speed Racer) is taken in by the Ozunu Clan and trained as a deadly assassin. When his childhood friend is killed, Raizo turns his back on his ninja brethren and vows revenge. Meanwhile, agents of Europol (a generic international law enforcement agency based in Berlin) are investigating a series of high-profile murders. Agent Mika Coretti (Naomie Harris, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End) uncovers a complicated money trail that suggests a secret society of killers has been hiring out their services for hundreds of years. As incredible as her analysis of the clues is, Mika manages to explain it with a straight face to her superior, Ryan Maslow (Ben Miles, Coupling), who appears to buy it. It isn’t long before shadowy figures are dispatched to silence Mika. The only one who stands in their way is a lone outcast ninja.

The Evidence
Fans of martial arts movies will recall the love affair American film studios had with ninjas in the 1980s. Films like Enter the Ninja, American Ninja, and Ninja III: The Domination, paved the way for parodies involving kids, turtles, and a fat guy from Beverly Hills. That’s to say, maybe ninjas have never received proper treatment on this side of the globe. With Aussie James McTeigue directing and the Wachowski brothers and Joel Silver producing, Ninja Assassin rights some of those past wrongs.

This genre lives and dies with its action scenes and Ninja Assassin offers up plentiful doses of exhilarating action. The choreographed fighting and the special effects are seamlessly, masterfully blended. The stunts are executed with such realism the occasional CGI assist — whether to make an actor move swiftly or to fill the screen with throwing stars — is the icing on the cake. While many of the fights occur at night and in the shadows, the darkness doesn’t obscure the action and the nighttime scenes are beautifully lit. The shooting and editing style also varies during the movie so that some sequences are framed tight and cut fast while others are afforded a wider composition. This is a gloriously gory action movie, with plenty of sword play accompanied by lots of severed limbs, sliced bodies, and gratuitous blood spatter. Fans of this kind of action will surely get their fill.

Korean pop star Jeong “Rain” Ji-hoon headlines but his acting chops aren’t really tested here. His character doesn’t say much, but he’s got that tough guy intensity and mysterious cool that says Raizo’s an action hero to be reckoned with. There’s no denying Rain looks fantastic, whether he’s posing oiled and shirtless or battered and bruised. Best of all, Rain looks entirely believable as a martial arts expert. The kusarigama — a sickle on a long chain — is his weapon of choice and he is awesome when he wields it.

The non-ninja players are pulled from the stock character bin, but they support the story without getting in the way of the action. Of course Mika gets herself into trouble, but she’s tougher than she first seems, the rare sidekick who doesn’t make you anxious to see killed off. Ryan is the standard cynical and suspicious veteran cop but he proves that he’s not too old for this stuff. Veteran actor Shô Kosugi (alumnus from numerous ’80s ninja flicks) adds some old school authenticity as the bad guy.

The story doesn’t break new ground, but works quite well setting up the action set pieces. Writers Matthew Sand and J. Michael Straczynski don’t waste time with ancient mysticism, overwrought emotions, or corny jokes. The flashbacks to Raizo’s childhood just barely slow the momentum of this adrenaline ride. The screenplay does leave a few plot holes open. Early on, a yakuza tattoo artist recalls surviving a ninja attack thanks to a miraculous physiological anomaly but this is never explained. There’s also a brief moment that suggests someone is assisting Raizo in his quest for vengeance, but this is also left undeveloped. Maybe those mysteries will be revealed among the extra footage when the movie hits DVD. Nevertheless, the quick pace of the movie and the dazzling action is enough to distract from those gaps in the narrative.

Closing Statement
While Ninja Assassin doesn’t revolutionize the genre, it just might rejuvenate it. This may be the best ninja movie ever from the hands of Western filmmakers and it’s bloody fun.

The Verdict

8/10

Kamui

OPENING: 10/05/2009

STUDIO: Shochiku Co. Ltd

RUN TIME: 120 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Live through it.

Opening Statement
The ninja movie genre gets a chance for a revival with Kamui, based on a long-running Japanese graphic novel series. Perhaps hoping to do for assassins in feudal Japan what Twilight has done for vampires, the new film features an attractive, young cast in a familiar story. Accordingly, it should be popular with audiences who aren’t aware of older but better examples.

Facts of the Case
An orphan cast out of his village, Kamui (Matsuyama Kenichi, Death Note) joined a ninja clan at a young age and became a deadly assassin. Now an adult, he’s grown weary of the ninja lifestyle, and leaving the clan commits an act of betrayal. On the run, Kamui finds refuge in a quiet village where a fisherman and his family take him in. When an old foe, Sugaru (Koyuki, The Last Samurai), recognizes him and suspects he’s there to kill her, she decides to finish him first. To make matters worse, the lord of the region is looking to punish the villagers for the killing his horse. Even if Kamui and Sugaru can settle their differences and protect the village from the lord’s men, both are still being pursued by the ninja hunters.

The Evidence
There are many elements in ninja films which explain its cult popularity — the period setting, the sword fighting, the stylized bloodletting, and the stories built around the theme of martial honor and loyalty. Fewer fans are attracted to the genre for the fishing. Yet, in Kamui a great deal of screen time is spent watching the protagonist, a reformed assassin, learn how to fish. Aside from a lengthy opening action sequence and the inevitable showdown between Kamui and his nemesis, the bulk of the story concerns the ex-ninja learning to adapt to village life. I could tell you how exciting those fishing scenes are (not very), but you’re probably more interested in hearing about the action.

Kamui’s action relies heavily on CGI assistance, but the big surprise is how cheap those effects look. Mixing things up with a little wirework, characters fly effortlessly through the air. When they land on trees and other surfaces, it is glaringly obvious the actors are floating over a fake background (other times it’s fake actors on a real background). The resulting effect reminds me of clicking on an desktop icon and dragging it to another position. Computer technology has made this sort of elaborate action staging much safer and more fantastical, but when it looks this fake, you long for decent old-fashioned stunt work.

At first glance, the special effects might appear deliberately shoddy, the movie is meant as a parody. Hut there isn’t enough humor in the script to support that perspective. The movie plays it totally straight, even with the introduction of a pirate who looks like he walked right off the cover of a teen magazine. The final showdown has some respectably choreographed sword fighting, but I couldn’t say it was worth the wait.

While the younger cast members are game for the action and basic plot developments (such as the romance between Kamui and the fisherman’s daughter), they don’t feel very authentic. The script doesn’t afford any depth to the familiar archetypes. Viewers are left to make up their own back-story for Kamui’s rise in the ninja ranks and subsequent change of heart. Director Yoichi Sai leaves the story open for a sequel, which shows a lot of optimism for audiences’ reception, considering the main character is barely developed enough for a single film.

Closing Statement
Having never read the original manga series The Legend of Kamui (1964-71), I can’t comment on the faithfulness of the adaptation. As a fan of ninja, samurai, and other martial arts films, I found Kamui a disappointment, built upon a story and characters who didn’t capture my attention with its overall fake look.

The Verdict
5/10

Daybreakers

OPENING: 01/08/2010

STUDIO: Lionsgate

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Vampires that don’t sparkle! Hooray!

Opening Statement
Daybreakers stretches a modest budget to impressive lengths, creating a dystopic and gritty future where the world is overtaken by vampires, who are absolutely not interested in dating high school girls. Well, maybe to tear their limbs off. The plot and acting derail themselves faster than a freight train, but it’s refreshing to see a vampire movie get back to the basics of blood and guts.

Facts of the Case
In the year 2019, the world is a very different place. Vampire outbreaks have decimated the human population, who live on the fringes of society, hunted for their blood. The world continues as normal, but now the vast majority of the humans are vampires. Ten years into the new vampire world, the human population has been hunted to verge of extinction, and the vampire population simply cannot survive on the current supply of blood.

Edward (Ethan Hawke) works as a hematologist for a multinational vampire corporation that controls the blood supply for the planet, with walls of hapless individuals strapped to machines constantly pumping out their blood. Recognizing the fragile state of their own existence, Edward and his team search for an artificial substitute to satiate the masses, but all their efforts have disastrous (and messy) results. His boss, Charles (Sam Neill) urges him on, anxious to find a new market to capitalize on. For Ethan, he finds his work necessary to save the human species. Despite his own vampire nature, he finds himself feeling sorry for the humans, avoiding human blood at all costs.

Through a series of accidental events, Edward comes in contact with a small resistance group of humans harboring an earth-shattering secret. Their leader Elvis (Willem Dafoe) asks Edward to help them on a different approach to the vampire food problem: a cure for vampirism. As the vampire population starves slowly, blood riots break out and threaten to tear society apart, and Edward thinks he has a chance to save his world. But his corporation may not want a cure…

The Evidence
Directed by the Spierig brothers (Peter and Michael), who rose in the Lionsgate ranks after their low-budget Aussie zombie film Undead cleaned up with cult fans, Daybreakers is a serious upgrade from their previous work. During the Q&A at the screening, one of the brothers remarks that the entire budget of Undead was overtaken by the contact lens budget in Daybreakers. With an influx of cash and a surprisingly all-star cast, the duo spent the last few years perfecting the film, which lands a release date just as the world is finally getting tired of vampire pop culture. Don’t mention this to the Sperigs. They swear they started to work on this long before vampires were “cool” and “sparkly”. You won’t be seeing any romance in this movie, trust me.

Imagine the world of Gattaca if overrun by vampires, and you have a pretty good visual image of Daybreakers. The film makes great use of CGI and artistic design to create a dystopic world a mere ten years in the future where vampires are now the dominant species on the planet. People still go to work, live in nice houses, order coffee (20% blood) and take the subway, but they’re vampires. Life moves on. The movie is crammed full of newspaper articles, television news reports and sly technological working solutions to how a vampire manages to live a day-to-day existence, like cars that have special tinting that allows them to drive (via cameras) during the day, and a PA system in every neighborhood giving advanced notice of the exact time of sunrise. These geek-out moments are everywhere, and the nerds among us will delight in seeing all the attention that went into them.

As the film progresses, we learn of the human resistance movement; a loose rag-tag army constantly on the run from vampire hunters looking to farm their bodies for the growing demand for blood. It isn’t a David vs. Goliath situation, more like mice constantly scurrying and cowering from the army of cats on their heels. Edward, being sympathetic to the human cause, finds himself accidentally aligned with a group of on-the-run humans, who hope that his hematologist skills can aid them in finding a cure for the vampire condition. The logic behind the solution devised is questionable at best, drunken at worst, but it’s a moot point anyway, because Daybreakers is the kind of film that if you think too long about its premise, or its scientific explanations, blood will shoot out your nose. Don’t do it. Resist the temptation.

A fun horror film full of carnage, shocks and some great “boo” moments that will get audiences screaming, the experience of Daybreakers is easily ruined by the unauthorized use of brain cells to ask questions about the acting quality (horrible by any measurable standard) or the plot (riddled with puncture holes large enough to drive a car into) or the scientific justifications for the events on screen. Don’t ask why the cars are all current-models with glowing blue grills, or what logic dictates how vampires can go out in daylight sometimes, but catch on fire other times, or how you can cure somebody of vampirism via the method explained in the film (a genuine brain-killer), or why when you shoot a vampire with a crossbow they explode lie a canister of gasoline. Actually, I know the answer to the last one: because it’s @#$% cool. I think a lot of decisions in the conceptual drawing up of Daybreakers were answered this way.

Take for example the casting: Sam Neill as the primary villain figure, an expensive-suited vampire CEO plays his role with such over-the-top sneering contempt that you can hear the vitriol dripping from his tongue. He isn’t scary or menacing, just goofy. And speaking of goofy, Willem Dafoe, whose purpose in the film is so bizarre as to represent the single greatest casting decision ever in the history of the world. His name is Elvis, and he drives muscle cars, and he kind of affects a southern accent, but only on 25% of the words he speaks—the rest, Dafoe forgets about it. Every bit of dialogue is a hackneyed one-liner, every conversation an atomic bomb of logical fallacy. It is as if the Iraqi propaganda ministry wrote the dialogue for Dafoe’s character, piecing it together from every B-reel John Wayne film and archival episodes of Hee Haw. A performance this over-the-top stupid could tear a lesser movie in half, but Daybreakers feeds off it, channels it, turns it into an ironic “so bad it’s good” extravaganza you can’t help but laugh at. Ethan Hawke plays his Edward character as a wussy human sympathizer, cowardly and sniveling, but his performance is satisfactory—he doesn’t really have a chance at outperforming his two senior cast members, because they’re just so over-the-top bizarre.

All told, Daybreakers is a triumph of low-budget excess, pulling off complex sequences and spectacular gore with minimal financing. It looks great, sounds great and will entertain on a pure aesthetic and visceral sense, provided you avoid thinking about it too much. The blood and bullets fly, vampires and humans explode in equal numbers, and the dystopic world comes crashing down with glorious chaotic fury. No one is going to give the Sperig brothers an award for “Screenplay That Makes The Most Sense”, but the two have talent for the action and horror genres that will no doubt take them far in Hollywood.

A random observation: the score is a massive orchestral affair, sweeping and epic and grandiose, and feels mismatched to the grey-tinted fluorescent light themed future full of vampires. A score more low-key and gloomy would suit the subject matter better.

Closing Statement
Daybreakers emerges into the light of day with buckets of blood, frenetic vampire action and much style. The premise is a refreshing twist on an increasingly clichéd subject matter. If all you expect from your action/horror hybrids are slick one-liners, buckets of blood and hewn limbs, Daybreakers will deliver. The story and acting are laughably bad, so check your sensibility and logic at the door.

The Verdict
7/10

Public Enemies

OPENING: 07/01/2009

STUDIO: Universal

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

SOUNDTRACK:

The Charge
“We’re here for the bank’s money, not yours. Put it away.”

Opening Statement
An unapologetically stiff technical masterpiece of composition and historical accuracy, Public Enemies is a surprise right out of the gate. When one considers the subject matter of Prohibition era bank robbers, Tommy guns and notorious American outlaw John Dillinger, one expects a cinematic humdinger of an action film, full of testosterone and action machismo, dramatic conflict and proper romanticizing of Dillinger as a cultural icon. Surprisingly—or perhaps not at all—we get nothing of the sort. Public Enemies is a film scrubbed so thoroughly of emotion and resonance as to be downright alien. It has no interest in observing any of the action clichés of summer blockbuster films, despite being released in the prime of summer blockbuster season.

Still, what exactly should we have expected from director Michael Mann? Consider Heat, a film that (depending on whom you ask) is either the best action film ever made, or the most colossal of bores. I lean towards the former, and I certainly appreciate Public Enemies for its numerous merits, but I have a feeling this film will be somewhat polarizing with audiences this weekend—especially those looking for a high-octane summer blockbuster.

Facts Of The case
Notorious bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) has just sprung his gang members from an Indiana state prison. It is 1933, and the world is at his fingertips. Dillinger is a cocky-yet-reserved thief who takes what he wants without hesitation, robbing bank after bank in a crime spree across Chicago and the Midwest with his longtime partner John ‘Red’ Hamilton (Jason Clarke). Dillinger le lives for the moment, having no interest in thinking about retirement or the future, aside from his interest in Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), a coat check girl whom he liberates and takes as his girl.

But things are changing in America. Young FBI director J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) is training a new generation of investigators in modern techniques to catch criminals and put forth legislation making certain crime fall under federal jurisdiction. Dillinger and his gang have always found safe haven with the National Crime Syndicate in Chicago, but the Syndicate begin to realize that harboring criminals-turned-celebrities like Dillinger might be more trouble than worth—especially as they find new ways to make money without robbery and violence. A hotshot agent named Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) is called in to hunt down Dillinger at all costs.

As the glory days of criminal sprees wind down, Dillinger is forced to make desperate alliances with unfamiliar and notorious gangsters to make money, including the violently unpredictable Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham) and Homer Van Meter (Stephen Dorff). Branded Public Enemy #1 and with his friends in jail or dead, Dillinger seems almost oblivious to the noose tightening around his neck…

The Evidence
Public Enemies feels less like a dramatic recreation of the last few years of John Dillinger’s life, and more like a psudo-documentary, as if crews with digital cameras were sent back in time to simply record what they saw of Dillinger’s life. The attention to detail and minutia is nothing short of obsessive. Rarely does a Hollywood blockbuster adhere to historical fact as authentically as Public Enemies does, opting too often to throw caution and reality to the wind in favor of dramatic filmmaking, or to a particularly daring action sequence, or a shuffling of events to suit narrative. Here, the exact opposite is true; the film shoots in documentary-style on location whenever possible in the actual venues and locations that John Dillinger was. The infamous shootout at the Little Bohemia Lodge in Manitowish Waters, Wisconsin was re-created exactly at the same location. Actual banks Dillinger robbed are used to re-create identical robberies, and he escapes out of actual jails he escaped from. Some liberties (as always) are taken in the script, especially in killing various and notorious gangsters in view of the camera, but these are minor historical adjustments at best. The costume designs, the vintage automobiles—every detail is immaculate and perfectly realized.

Flip the coin over, and one quickly realizes that such unflinching historical accuracy and realism elements create a film so absent of Hollywood narrative, clichés and expected plot development as to be uncomfortable, like a spacious room devoid of all furniture. John Dillinger robs some banks, and then he dies. There is no greater purpose, no meaning in the action, no driving motivation behind the events—he did these things, and so Public Enemies shows him doing them. There is no rationalization or judgment behind them, no understanding of the man or his pathos. Action sequences are confused, chaotic affairs full of disorganization, screams and confusion; realistic to be sure, but far from the carefully choreographed sequences audiences expect with heroes leaping over cars firing guns akimbo.

It is possible that we may never see a movie more unsuited to be released at the height of the summer blockbuster season than Public Enemies. This is not to suggest that it is a bad film; far from it. When taken at its own merits, Mann has created a fascinating and detailed cinematic experience, a period retelling of a tumultuous era in American history with fantastic performances from cast and crew alike. But as a summer blockbuster, Public Enemies is as disinterested and cold as Dillinger (the man) reveals himself to be. At the screening I attended, there were quite a number of scattered boos echoing through the theater as the credits rolled. I overheard one person lament that they didn’t “get it”. They ask, “so he robs banks, and then he dies, and that’s it?” Yes, that’s it. Think of Public Enemies not as an action film, but a biopic; an academic retelling of key historical events in the life of a bank robber. Why does he rob banks? Even Dillinger himself seems uninterested in exploring his own motivations. No back story is offered, no childhood memory to justify his action. He is a matter-of-fact fellow, and he robs banks in a matter-of-fact sort of way. Dillinger says of himself that he likes baseball, movies, good clothes and fast cars. What else you need to know?

As an actor, Depp cuts a remarkable Dillinger, his physical resemblance to the man notwithstanding. This is a controlled and reserved performance, as simple and unpretentious a role for Depp as we have seen from him in years. Likewise for Christian Bale, who leaves his gruff bravado at the door—a refreshing break from his recent emphysemic action films. Bale cuts a dapper and suave profile as Melvin Purvis, the man out to catch Dillinger. With little character development portrayed in the film, the two embody living caricatures of actual people, and do it professionally and efficiently. Purvis does what he does because it’s his job, nothing more. We are used to seeing our characters in this role suffering obsession and anger and frustration, but none of that here; another subversion of expectation. We expect Dillinger to be something of a narcissist, but not so; he is interested in his stature as a growing celebrity, but only as a curiosity, observing with pride, but without flare or fuss. He is cool and calm and in complete control, and only begins to lose his cool when his girlfriend gets pinched. Marion Cotillard plays Dillinger’s girl, Billie Frechette, and her contribution to the film is mostly auxiliary, possessing few memorable lines and little to do in the script beyond run around and look anxious, playing her established role in the history lesson.

Beyond the primary cast, Public Enemies is crammed with dozens of secondary characters, all of various levels of interest, relevance and influence in Dillinger’s life. His gang of fellow robbers includes brief but solid performances from Stephen Dorff and Jason Clarke, and we are introduced to Purvis’ character by way of his apprehension (murder, really) of Pretty Boy Floyd (a cameo appearance by Channing Tatum). Of particular note is the casting of Stephen Graham as Baby Face Nelson; a devilishly wicked bit of casting. Graham is unhinged and raucous as Nelson, but gets little screen time.

Michael Mann has proven himself to be a filmmaker of astonishing technical prowess and craft, meticulous in design, accuracy and execution time and again, and no one will fault Public Enemies for its stylish direction, gritty cinematography and ultra-realistic action sequences. The high-definition digital film (a look familiar to fans of Collateral) seems oddly out-of-pace in a period film so meticulous in its historic accuracy and detail, but actually lends itself surprisingly well once audiences adjust to the washed-out color palate and peculiar lighting. Night sequences are particularly effective, casting trench coat thugs in shadow and swirling grain. Fans of Mann’s action work in the past will know exactly what to expect here, especially during the gunfight sequences, where proper caliber rules are observed. Handguns make small popping sounds in comparison to the Tommy gun, which unlike its “rat-a-tat-tat” characterization in films of yesteryear, is actually a loud, frightening and percussive thing that goes “KABOOM KABOOM KABOOM” and makes big holes in people. For a film with a running time of over two hours, action sequences are relatively few, but they feel well-placed and astonishingly visceral. Bullets pound into trees, and on-screen characters wince visibly with the impact and vibration. It’s all about the little details.

Dillinger in American folk culture is something of an anti-establishment folk hero, a rebel at the height of the Great Depression and takes the American Dream into dangerous and dramatic new directions, taking what he wants from the wealthy and the corrupt. He represented reckless and romantic abandon, freedom from constraints and rules. In Public Enemies, Dillinger is just a guy with a day job robbing banks. He enjoys what he does, and dresses sharp, and makes no apologies for his action, but reality lacks the same flair and charisma that American audiences have come to expect from this particular subject after years of popular culture, serialization, gangster films and word-of-mouth exaggeration.

Public Enemies is a constant subversion of expectations, replacing machismo and bravado and action sensibilities with cold authenticity and historical detail. There is little in the way of wit or humor in the film, because Dillinger was not a particularly witty or humorous person. With so few liberties taken by the screenplay, Public Enemies is boxed in by its own desire for total historical accuracy. It is not Mann’s strongest film, but it offers up a unique and unexpectedly faithful take on the American gangster mythology. Depending on your sensibilities, you will either find it refreshing, or extremely boring.

Closing Statement
Public Enemies eschews being boxed into popcorn blockbuster categorizations, yet bizarrely released at the absolute apex of audience expectations for such a film. This may be the most surprising film released this entire summer, a devious joke played by Universal upon the movie going public at large in the first week of July at a time when “subtlety” is the name of a jive-talking robot in a Michael Bay film. Oh my.

An undeniably fascinating technical and meticulous composition of historical accuracy and period drama, Public Enemies is too low-key and subtle to be categorized with Mann’s best work to-date, but if one goes in with the right expectations, the film will deliver as only his films can. Still, I fear the majority of the moviegoing public might not get the memo in time, and mistake Public Enemies for a film it is not.

The Verdict
7/10

Knowing

OPENING: 03/20/2009

STUDIO: Summit Entertainment

TRAILER: Trailer

ACCOMPLICES: Official Site

The Charge
Knowing is everything.

Opening Statement
Knowing is a film ambitious in scope and exploration, of big-screen destruction and mind-wrenching possibilities—all completely and utterly hampered by its stunted dialogue, lousy acting and pondering tone, dragging it down into the depths like a heavy weight tied to the leg of a swimmer. It is a testament to director Alex Proyas and his inherent ability to create flawed-yet-fascinating masterpieces of sci-fi horror that Knowing keeps its head afloat at all, given the oppressive odds. But it does.

Facts Of The Case
A time capsule goes into the ground fifty years ago at the groundbreaking of a brand new elementary school. In it goes a curious piece of paper, drawn feverishly by a troubled young girl named Lucinda Embry, full of numbers. No attention is paid until the capsule gets opened and the letter gets into the hands of a student at the same school, now five decades later. The boy, Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) takes the letter home, and it catches the interest of his single parent father, John Koestler (Nicholas Cage), a MIT professor and astrophysicist.

At first John dismisses the page, but catches a pattern in the numbers corresponding to the date of every major human disaster on the planet over the last fifty years. If the page is accurate, it would mean tomorrow would predict the death of 81 individuals—and sure enough, a plane falls out of the sky and kills 81 people, right in John’s backyard. Not literally, of course, but down the street.

Struggling to rationalize his scientific belief and his faith, John tries to predict where the next event will occur, but has no how he can stop them from occurring. Even more alarming, his boy Caleb is being visited by ominous apocalyptic imagery and haunting black figures who whisper directly into his head. Together with the daughter of Lucinda, Diana (Rose Byrne) the parents desperately try to unlock the secret behind the numbers, and the very fate of humanity.

The Evidence
A furious mish-mash of science fiction tropes, mathematics, philosophy, religious ideology and spiritual ruminations, Knowing is ambitious; at least as far as end-of-the-world blockbuster films are concerned. Consider what our normal Hollywood expectations are for this kind of film: asteroid/plague/pestilence/monster threatens to destroy earth, heroic band of misfits step up to battle and save the day, some east coast city gets wiped off the map, Morgan Freeman gives an inspirational speech, American flag waves slow-motion in the wind, and Aerosmith plays a triumphant song as the credits roll. Knowing is like the dark horse of the genre, refusing to abide by any of these rules, carving a path directly through the wall and into unexplored territory. The results are messy, but admirably daring.

Driven by peculiar conundrum of crashing cinematic clichés and spectacular missteps, all bound together by complex notions about life, the universe, religion and faith, science and mathematics; Knowing is as interested in blowing up the planet as it is exploring the meaning of it all, of free will versus determination. This is a tricky thing, mixing science fiction and religion in this fashion, because one side inevitably gets the short stick. And if you’re “lucky” enough to have Nicholas Cage in your film, well, you’ve got another set of problems entirely. Its flaws are many, but not enough to diminish the glorious way Knowing refuses to compromise its peculiar messages about faith and fate. I’d much rather see a movie that stays true to its convictions and goes all-in, even if in doing so it dooms the film to mediocrity, than sit through something that tries to be profound and chickens out at the end. And “chickening out” is one phrase that will never, ever be used in relation to its ending. Kudos where kudos is due: this film goes for broke, and a lot of things get broke.

Bloated and gagging on defects that would derail any other film, Knowing saunters on undeterred, refusing to allow its acting, plot holes or dialogue to derail its ultimate goal of messing with your head. I admire this kind of stubborn tenacity. What begins as a humdrum mathematical thriller rapidly descends into a Japanese-style horror flick, and then further plummets into insanity as a full-blown science fiction extravaganza. The transition between these three elements is not always smooth, but once Knowing gets its hooks into you, you’re going for a ride. Director Alex Proyas brings a commanding style of ominous shadow and direction into some truly stunning works of composition and CGI destruction. One in particular involving an unbroken shot amidst the carnage of a plane crash, is riveting. Let there be no argument about the visual style: Knowing is stunning to look at. The score, a calamitous orchestral affair tumbles and swirls, one of the most visceral and effective scores in recent memory for heightening tension and anxiety in audiences.

Where things get tricky for audiences is how Knowing juggles at least three different genres of films simultaneously (horror, action-thriller and science-fiction) and often gets jumbled up, with scenes leaping schizophrenically between apocalyptic ramblings and introspective explorations of faith. The transition from one style of filmmaking to the other creeps up inexorably, similar to director Proyas’ previous cult classic, Dark City. Just when you think you have a handle on what’s going on, creepy looking dudes in black trench coats show up and toss the rule book out the window. It can be disorienting.

As mentioned, the acting is bad. No getting around it. I struggle with the credibility of Nicholas Cage as an actor, because I’m almost positive audiences shouldn’t be breaking into laughter during his emote scenes (which they did in my screening). He may be Hollywood royalty, but he just looks befuddled on screen. Or, gods help us, constipated. The dialogue and plot show all the signs of having far too many cooks in the kitchen (no fewer than five screenplay writers are credited) leaving a perplexing jumble of sequenced events, clumsily-executed monologues and erratic character behavior. For many, these will be deal-breaking elements. Knowing pays off, but only for those who can suspend disbelief long enough to see where the film is going. Unfortunately, many will not make it this far.

One cannot escape the realization that Knowing (or something very much like it) was the movie that M. Night Shyamalan desperately wanted to make the last time around, but chickened out and made The Happening instead—a film that you will no doubt agree with us about, sucked. Like The Happening, Knowing also feels confused at times about its message and how best to articulate it to eager audiences. Imagine yourself in the position of the protagonist: if you were handed a list of every major catastrophe and knew it was inevitable, how would you go about stopping it? Would you even try? Why? Wouldn’t that just be a gigantic waste of time? For John, the struggle is personal and professional—his scientific mind rejects the notion and insists that “sh*t happens”, as he says in the film, but his faith (or lack thereof) demand his attention, suggesting that his own personal tragedies in life may have been avoided with timely intervention, had he been privy to the right information. Knowing genuinely seeks to find intellectual footing here, in exploring the dichotomy between philosophy and faith. There are profound and complex themes at work about science and religion, about destiny and free will, and while not all of them hit their mark, it is a refreshing change from the standard, mindless disaster genre.

You may notice how light this review is on salient plot points. This, gentle reader, is deliberate on our part—the less you know about Knowing going into it, the more satisfactory (or aggravating) an experience it will be for you. This is absolutely critical to appreciate its masterful descent into mathematical madness and apocalyptic horror, because if you get the end spoiled for you, you’ll think the film sounds dumb. Audiences have exactly one shot to appreciating this film, and it is going in as sight unseen as possible.

With some suspension of disbelief, Knowing offers one of the best descents into pure science fiction thrills in recent memory. It takes a while for the engine to warm up, but once it revs in the second act, the descent is a spectacular collision of high-octane special effects, stunning compositions of mayhem and disaster and top-notch thriller chases. Like a swelling crescendo of an orchestra, everything keeps intensifying: the science fiction elements keep getting more and more profound, the horror elements keep getting more unsettling, and the action elements lead to white-knuckle gripping of your seat. How satisfying you find the climax will depend entirely on your tastes, but it is an impressive ride all the same.

Closing Statement
An inherently jumbled script, laughable dialogue and wooden acting cripple Knowing at the knees, preventing the sci-fi thriller from achieving critical glory. Still, none of its flaws—not even Nicholas Cage—can diminish the sheer ambitious scope, the fantastic visual style or the large-scale catastrophic special effects, which tear up the screen in thrilling fashion. If you can forgive some stony dialogue and performances, Knowing will reward those looking for something memorable and oblique.

The Verdict
Not guilty. It may not be perfect, but I like my films to go big or go home.

7/10

Valkyrie

OPENING: 12/25/2008

STUDIO: United Artists

TRAILER: Trailer

ACCOMPLICES: Official Site

The Charge
Many saw evil. They dared to stop it.

Opening Statement
“Hitler is dead…I saw the explosion myself. We shall proceed with Operation Valkyrie!” — Col. Claus Von Stauffenberg

Facts Of The Case
July, 1944. Colonel Claus Von Stuaffenberg (Tom Cruise, Lions For Lambs) has become disillusioned by World War II and, particularly, what the Fuhrer has done to his beloved homeland. He returns from North Africa battered, both physically and emotionally, with an entire hand and his right eye gone. Stauffenberg’s new assignment is becoming the leader of the reserve army, and his first task is creating Operation Walkure, a plan to smoothly ensure Germany will be governed properly after the death of Hitler. The governing party in question wouldn’t be devoted Nazis, however, but a secret German Resistance who have been itching to destroy the Fuhrer’s control for sometime.

The Evidence
The company involved was tempting. You have director Bryan Singer re-teaming with his Usual Suspects scribe Christopher McQuarrie, who won an Oscar for the 1995 nail-biter. You have one of the Hollywood’s A-list actors playing the lead, with a supporting cast to die for, including Bill Nighy (Shaun Of The Dead), Tom Wilkinson (In The Bedroom), and Terence Stamp (Superman). Also, you have a story which, while repeatedly told in many literary sources, is one of the most interesting and fascinating in 20th century history. However, Valkyrie winds up being a stellar disappointment, a film which struggles every second to maintain suspense, let alone build it. Singer and Cruise are more than qualified to make this story intense even if the outcome can be seen from a mile away; alas, this ends up being a frustrating, mediocre movie which can’t hold up because of star power alone. I think studio head Les Grossman would have been pissed if he were financing this epic.

The storytelling is straightforward but shaky. The entire first half is devoted to Stauffenberg’s situation, which includes the extreme worry exhibited by his wife Nina (a nice English debut for Dutch actress Carice Van Houten) over the safety of their four children. Despite his disabilities, Stuaffenberg has formulated his assassination plot without an ounce of fear and recruits many followers who assist him in his campaign. The members of the German Resistance have obviously been opposed to Nazism from the beginning, but meeting them is a challenge. We understand these individuals in theory, but not in execution, as they seem to be presented more as slight caricatures of good-hearted Nazi oppressors.  Even with the odor of an Allied invasion and a Nazi Germany about to collapse under its own weight, their motivations’ are questionable as they don’t register as being simply for the inhumanity or persecution which has stained the world.  In other words, McQuarrie and his partner Nathan Alexander are much more concerned about the brilliant plan than the planners themselves, whose dimensions are murky at best.

Most viewers will no doubt become impatient over the excessively overlong buildup, as Valkyrie doesn’t wake up until the assassination sequence at Wolf’s Lair. By that time, however, you almost feel as if you’ve seen the entire movie already, as the second half has the usual scenes of chaos, distress, and uncertainity. It’s one thing to know already that the operation backfired and failed, but it’s another when it’s not handled with the appropriate power. The supposedly catharthic climax lacks the emotional punch and gravity for us to really care all that much. It’s a shame Walkure didn’t get fully consummated, but it’s an even bigger shame when a host of talented individuals can’t contribute a worthy cinematic salute. Valkyrie is never boring, mind you; it just rambles and rumbles when it should rivet and reward.

Cruise has remained one of the most charismatic actors in the past 25 years, and the screen has been surely blessed by his presence. However, his Stuaffenberg is so rough and wooden all the sandpaper in the world wouldn’t help. The guy looks and acts exactly the same as he did when the film started: Cruise in an eye-patch. I would guess his method here is look sternly in the camera, hoping the audience could feel his silent rage which is presumably built-up inside of him. It’s also rather jarring to hear his very American accent mixed in with the all of the British ones on audible display, although I blame this on Singer and McQuarrie more, who felt the need to film this in English with English-speaking actors (thus removing a huge chunk of authenticity). Alas, this is one of Cruise’s weakest performances and certainly his least believable; all of those blasted Far And Away detractors should definately agree…for once!

The supporting cast is undeniably strong but many of them are left outside to chill out. For example, Kenneth Branagh is one of the today’s finest and he’s only given two scenes, both of which the actor isn’t free to fully bring out his chops. Tom Wilkinson and Thomas Kretschmann (the only German actor, and the only one who feels like he belongs) are quite good in key roles, but the unyieldly, complicated script doesn’t give them much to work with. Bill Nighy is excellent as Olbright (one of the leaders of the Resistance) and anytime Terence Stamp plays a General you know he’s going to kick ass. However, the best performance doesn’t come from any of the men, but Halina Reijn as the Resistance secretary Margarethe von Oven. Just watch her in the film’s closing moments, as she remains the only effective, emotional force even when she has little dialogue and keeps a phone to ear much of the time.

The Rebuttal Witnesses
On the flip side, there are several scenes which do ring true. Singer, after all, is too smart and sophisticated a filmmaker for us not to feel something at times. I felt the scenes which worked best were in the Reich communications complex, especially when all the secretaries discover the “truth” behind Hitler’s assassination. Other highlights were the ones in woodsy Wolf’s Lair, the moment where we meet Hitler and watch him sign and approve Walkure, and some stirring points as the Resistance gains control of the Lion’s Den. All of the scenes filmed at Bendlerblock (the HQ of the Resistance) were actually filmed on-location at the memorial. The Ministry of Defence has always been leary about letting studios film there, but they made an exception here.

If there is anything else which Valkyrie does accomplish, is giving us an intriguing window into what working as a Nazi was like on the inside. Production designer Lilly Kilvert (The Last Samurai) and set designer Bernhard Henrich both do an exceptional job in re-creating many of the Reich’s digs, including the Army High Command center (with its emblam-marked chow hall and swimming pool), the communications complex and Wolf’s Lair. Once again, Singer’s frequent collaborator and friend John Ottman contributes both as editor and music composer, with the moody latter work making up for the loose former.

Closing Statement
I don’t think I’m being too harsh here, as Valkyrie remains quite watchable. It’s just never credible, and you will soon forget about the film even if the story itself will always be remembered. I recommend you wait for Valkyrie on DVD, as there are other films the holiday season is offering, including the highly touted Revolutionary Road, Doubt and The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button. Court is adjourned!

The Verdict
5/10