Unstoppable

OPENING: 11/13/2010

STUDIO: 20th Century Fox

RUN TIME: 98 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
1,000,000 tons. 100,000 lives. 100 minutes.

Opening Statement
Unstoppable moves fast, and talks quick, but fails to do anything even remotely interesting. Credit director Tony Scott for making us believe this story contains genuine thrills. Really it’s about two men enjoying a pleasant train ride through the “undignified” heart of Middle America.

Facts of the Case
Scott’s film opens with–dare I say it? Trains. We watch as engineers and conductors move in and out of busy train yards in remote Pennsylvania; flipping switches, moving industrial items, and preparing for a new day.

Denzel Washington plays Frank, a square-jawed train engineer if there ever was one. Frank and his buddies have worked the track for 20-some odd years. They’re not legends; in fact most of them received pink slips long ago. Frank must partner up with newbie engineer Will (Chris Pine), who the men despise for taking over their jobs–the train corporation wants young blood because they’re cheap.

Frank and Will head off to work, just like any other day. Little dialogue exchanges between the two; Frank calls Will “Junior,” Will thinks Frank hails from a “retirement home.” Disdain creates the basis of this awkward partnership. But Frank remains good at his job, having driven trains for much of his life, and derisively instructs Will in the art of train conducting, offering up marital advice as a bonus.

Both Frank and Will, you see, are troubled characters with problematic personal lives. Will’s wife has a restraining order against him; Frank’s daughters work at Hooters and want nothing to do with their father. Frank and Will’s characters seek redemption. As luck would have it, this day creates the perfect opportunity for just that.

A runaway train carrying several carts worth of toxic chemicals has broken free of its conductors and barrels mercilessly down the tracks, destroying everything in its path. Attempts to stop the train prove unsuccessful, and it’s only a matter of time before Frank and Will must set aside personal issues and risk life and limb to stop the relentless missile.

The Evidence
Unstoppable happily sets its “true life” tale in one those cinema-only worlds where everyone acts either foolishly or ineptly. Such a universe affords directors like Tony Scott the opportunity to show off illogical action and violence much to the pleasure of its adrenaline seeking audience. After all, what says dramatic tension better than inexplicable explosions and wild car chases?

Consider a scene in which a cop attempts to move his squad car away from the railroad tracks. Of course, he cannot start the engine; much to the dismay of the row of cars lined up carefully behind him. As the train roars by, the vehicles are pummeled with debris from the device some equally dimwitted men had laid on the tracks moments earlier in an attempt to derail the locomotive. Now, why in the hell would a patrolman park his car so close to the tracks in the first place, especially considering all that happened before, and knowing all that will happen momentarily? Because if he didn’t, there would exist no action in the film to satisfy the Die Hard crowd, and they are needed to cover the reported $100 million-plus budget.

Unstoppable drenches itself with all the markings of other hackneyed actioners–Jan De Bont’s Speed comes to mind–replete with stereotypical characters– i.e. inane rednecks, fathers seeking redemption from past sins, corporate stooges and hapless cops–who do reckless things recklessly to keep the plot from stalling.

Things go boom–a lot–and trains whiz by at varying speeds, but none of it matters much. About 60 minutes into the production, for all of Unstoppable’s insanity-fueled cinematography and overbearing sound design, I realized nothing substantial had happened since the opening credits. Frank and Will talk and talk some more as Scott’s camera endlessly whirls around their profiles, but neither character says anything of value. Washington and Pine are typically electrifying actors, the latter having proved his worth in JJ Abram’s Star Trek, but here they mope and gripe, spewing out stale dialogue in-between shots of trains moving fast.

The rest of the cast, including Rosario Dawson (Seven Pounds), and Kevin Dunn (Transformers), pop in and provide the necessary explanations audiences need to understand the simple, if not contrived plot. I laughed when Kevin Corrigan (The Pineapple Express) introduced himself as a Safety Inspector, who then spent the rest of the film dropping important insights the remaining players more or less had no understanding of. I kept thinking, it’s a good thing he picked that particular day to carry out an inspection (such is the obviousness of the film).

By now Scott’s films, including the recent remake The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (also starring Washington), all follow a peculiar pattern. He no longer tells stories, but rather films movement. Here, he utilizes news cameras in key action moments, such as during a feeble attempt to stop the train by airdropping a hapless patrolman onto its roof. To what end do these news cameras function, other than to insert more static noise in the proceedings? It’s telling that once the patrolman fails miserably, news anchors cover the story in mawkish fashion.

That feeling of contemptuousness looms over the entire production; Scott takes sly jabs at American cultural, defining it in ignorant terms. When people in the film cheer at news images of heroes leaping atop trains from cart to cart, Scott drains the excitement by placing the onlookers in Hooters, amidst enormous screens of bikini-clad women. Such images invoke laughter, not patriotic fervor. The director’s intentions lie within a desire to portray Americans as oafish, shallow individuals–something he dabbled with in the overtly explicit Domino. By so doing, Scott dodges the silliness of Mark Bomback’s script and wraps a hammy noose around the neck of the film; he embraces the goofy action, and in the process throws a middle finger in the face those who’ve paid to see it.

Tony Scott’s best film came years ago in the form of Crimson Tide – an intelligent submarine thriller, that marked his first collaboration with Washington (the two would join forces for 2004’s Man on Fire and 2007’s Déjà Vu). That film boasted a care and devotion to character, along with a unique dissection of the pros and cons of rank and power. In Unstoppable, there exists an opportunity to explore the nature of heroism. Too bad Scott has lost interest in such ideas. He’d rather poke fun at them instead.

Closing Statement
Unstoppable may satisfy those seeking dumb action; those looking for intelligence, or something akin to character driven excitement need look elsewhere.

The Verdict
6/10

The Book Of Eli

OPENING: 01/15/2010

STUDIO: Warner Bros.

RUN TIME: 118 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Some will kill to have it. He will kill to protect it.

Opening Statement
The Book of Eli delivers an excellent entry into the post-apocalyptic genre, with amazing action and great performances.

Facts of the Case
In a post-apocalyptic America, Eli (Denzel Washington, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is following a divine calling to deliver a sacred book to an unknown destination. During his 30 year journey, he has protected the book against thieves, murderers, and gangs, knowing it has the power to save civilization from itself.

The Evidence
In the span of a year, at least three apocalyptic films have been released to theaters. 2012 gave us the mindless summer blockbuster we sometimes need for a laugh. The Road presented a bleak, post-apocalyptic America, leaving us depressed. But The Book Of Eli offers us hope in a world of emptiness.

Set 30 years after a war termed the "Big Flash," America is a wasteland of rubble, much the crumbling America we see in The Road. That film was presented in mostly grays and blues, while The Book Of Eli was processed using a palette of sepia tones. This could be related to the season presented in each film, but probably more so with the feeling their directors were trying to convey. The father and son in The Road were trying to reach a place the father knew might not bring a better future. Eli, on the other hand, is following a path bigger than himself, providing an internal peace throughout the journey, and a tone for the picture. Although the world is rampant with crime, Eli is dead set on getting the book where it needs to be, by following direction from a higher power.

Depending on the film, I find Denzel Washington’s acting to be hit or miss. He severely overacted in Training Day, but gave a great performance in American Gangster. Quiet and subdued, Washington does an excellent job with Eli, playing the part of a peaceful, yet dangerous man with perfect reservation, only showing intense emotion when the scene calls for it.

One of the better actors of his generation, Gary Oldman plays the antagonist, Carnegie, in his usual superb fashion. He nails the role of ruthless man with sympathy for no one who will stop at nothing to find the book. Knowing it contains much power, Carnegie’s goal is to use the book as a tool for getting the masses to follow him. Oldman gives us a man who is not as confident as his followers might think, but is powerful because he’s smarter than those who follow him. When Carnegie meets our hero (a man who cannot be persuaded), he is weakened by realizing that only through force can he obtain what he needs from Eli.

Based on a graphic novel, The Book of Eli was directed by the Hughes Brothers (Menace II Society, Dead Presidents). I was glad to see they chose to present fight sequences in real time and not with a constant barrage of slow motion shots. Fights are quick, intense and to the point. Slow motion shots can be very effective, but when the majority of a scene is built using those shots, the effect wears off quickly. Limbs are removed so quickly by Eli’s two foot knife it will take a second viewing to catch all the lightning fast strikes (including several decapitations).

The Hughes Brothers present a character in Eli whose life has a mission. It doesn’t take long until we figure out what the book is, and see Eli as something more than human. There is a clear peace to him and others see it as well. Any time Eli comes into contact with a male, they immediately sense something different about him and are angered that he obtains something they do not. Females, on the other hand, feel safe with him, as if for the first time in their lives. One scene depicts the rescue of Solara (Mila Kunis, Family Guy) from a gang whose only intent was rape. Afterwards, walking alongside Eli, she breaks down in tears because she feels unworthy being in the presence of such goodness. This was one of the most powerful scenes in the film, and no, I didn’t tear up. I just had something in my eye. The relationship between Solara and Eli is a stark contrast to the relationship depicted in The Road. Solara, cared for by Eli, is now living in freedom, whereas the boy lives in total fear, even while under the protection of his father.

The Book Of Eli‘s most questionable aspect is the ending, which I definitely did not see coming. Without giving anything away, it will make you think through everything you just saw. Honestly, I’m not sure the ending worked because it made me wonder how plausible most of the previous scenes were. In the same way, my biggest grievance with The Road was the ending, which seemed inconsistent with the rest of the picture. In that film, director John Hillcoat presents a completely hopeless and fearful world, only to have kind people appear out of nowhere in the end. However, I sensed throughout The Book of Eli that we would receive some important revelation and my mind was trying to piece together what that might be. Unfortunately, the reveal wasn’t as grand or profound as I had imagined. Still, the twist did have a wow factor, and I guess that counts for something.

Closing Statement
The Book Of Eli may bother you if need the film to be totally believable, but like The Road, the performances and storyline are more than strong enough to warrant a positive ruling, even if the conclusion is clumsy or a little hard to swallow. In the end (pun intended), both are welcome additions to the post-apocalyptic genre.

The Verdict
8/10

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

OPENING: 06/12/2009

STUDIO: Columbia Pictures

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

SOUNDTRACK:

The Charge
"Life is simple. They just have to do what I say."

Opening Statement
Joseph Sargent’s 1974 thriller The Taking of Pelham One Two Three still holds up well as a satisfying motion picture. Featuring crisp direction and strong lead performances from Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw, the film is an immensely entertaining if somewhat dated viewing experience. New York City has changed a great deal over the course of 35 years; a fact that Tony Scott’s new take on the story certainly reflects. Though not as memorable its predecessor, this version of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (yes, this title uses actual numbers) serves as yet another engaging slice of stylish entertainment from a very reliable director.

Facts of the Case
Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) is a low-key train dispatcher just trying to get through another day, finding ways to economize time, making up for losses in train schedules, and attempting to keep everything safe and well-organized from his control room. Suddenly, one of the trains is hijacked by a team of terrorists/criminals/evildoers/bad guys. The team is led by Ryder (John Travolta), a charismatic yet dangerous man demanding to be given 10 million dollars within one hour. If his demands are not met, he will kill one passenger every minute until he gets his money. Despite the attempts of a highly-trained hostage negotiator (John Turturro) and the New York City Mayor (James Gandolfini) to get involved, Ryder refuses to communicate with anyone but Walter, leaving the lives of dozens of people in the hands of a single dispatcher.

The Evidence
I’m generally not a fan of MTV-style action movie editing, but I make an exception for director Tony Scott. His hyperactive energy is tempered by a focused sense of order and a knack for good pacing. Compare one of his 90-cuts-a-minute scenes with a similarly frantic film directed by Michael Bay, and you will see the difference between a man who knows how to stage a coherent action scene and one who doesn’t. His films rarely approach greatness, with the possible exception of the thoughtful thriller Crimson Tide, but I almost always enjoy his efforts. The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is no exception.

The screenplay by Brian Helgeland — who also penned Scott’s Man on Fire — manages to fuse high-stakes action with quite a few religious elements, particularly themes of guilt and redemption. Helgeland grants his characters a surprising complexity, by imbuing all the major players with past sins. I won’t reveal the details, but suffice it to say there’s a lot of cross-carrying, condemnation, and salvation weaving through this thing. Scott and Helgeland are a little more savvy about it than they were with Man on Fire, a good film which succumbed to severe overdoses of heavy-handed symbolism. In Pelham 1 2 3, such elements generally seem to enrich the characters rather than burden them. Don’t get me wrong, we’re not dealing with a Bergman film here, but it’s nice to see an action movie that actually has something to say other than, "Bang Bang! You’re dead!"

Not to worry, though. We still get plenty of action and the film maintains an impressive intensity for the vast duration of its run time. During the hour in which Walter and Ryder negotiate their way through a turbulent situation, Pelham 1 2 3 is in top form. Scott eases up just a bit on his distinct visual style, occasionally slowing down for lingering close-ups, whenever the situation calls for it. There are also some unusually effective editing choices, as the camera chooses unexpected focus points. Scott gets a lot of mileage out of something as simple as routine reaction shots, and impressively manages to highlight some of the cast’s subtle (and not-so-subtle) character suggestions. It has been said an actor is only as good as the director allows him to be in the editing room, and Scott knows how to make a performance.

This is the fourth collaboration between Scott and actor Denzel Washington, who have created quite a successful partnership. Washington dispenses with his recent high-volume intensity, in favor of creating a more understated character. Returning to the modest, everyman quality he played so effectively early in his career, his performance contrasts nicely with Travolta’s enjoyably hammy villain. While Robert Shaw played a rather cold and calculated character in the original, Travolta once again plays up the monologuing attention-seeker we saw in Face/Off and Broken Arrow. It’s a savvy intelligence mixed with a somewhat needy childishness, a combination which makes perfect sense when you discover the character’s career background. I also quite liked James Gandolfini as a scandal-plagued mayor who could care less about his reputation or getting re-elected. When an aide suggests the mayor should take advantage of the hostage situation as a way to build up the goodwill of the people, Gandolfini sniffs, "I left my Rudy Giuliani suit at home." John Turturro is refreshingly low-key, while the wonderful Luis Guzman is completely wasted as Travolta’s primary sidekick.

Closing Statement
Hijacking a train in 2009 is a considerably different process than hijacking a train in 1974, as is the filmmaking process. I found it intriguing to consider Pelham 1 2 3‘s prediction of how such a scenario would play out, in contrast to the postulations of the original. Perhaps 35 years from now it will be remade again, to provide us with yet another look at how a changing world and changing tastes affect the crafting of a nuts-and-bolts action thriller. This version isn’t perfect (the final dose of action is a bit too familiar for my tastes, and I’m not entirely sold on Travolta’s ultimate plan), but it gets the job done. In a summer full of giant killer robots, superheroes, and apocalyptic battles, it’s nice to get an action flick that actually seems to take place in the real world.

The Verdict
8/10