National Treasure (2004)

All of a sudden treasure-hunting was cool again. Somehow thanks to the rumors of another Indiana Jones installment and the very overrated Dan Brown-adaptions.
And where there is money, there are dull films made without sense of quality.

As always, when the protagonist has an epiphany there are pan-ins of the bystanders' faces as they marvel at his deductions. It's rarely clever and never interesting.

There is the inevitable double-cross, this time early in the flick, the nervous sidekick, bad jokes, Jon Voigt, protagonist being chased by both bad guys and the authorities, the skeptic female slowly falling in love, torches (seriously, don't these idiots know there is a thing called "a flashlight?" the point where all seems lost, great heights to fall from, henchmen who all have special training yet can't shoot for shit. It's all been done before. There isn't a single creative idea or hint of originality to be found, whether it be the MacGuffin, the casting, the story, the set-pieces or otherwise.

Cage is uninspiring, as are the extras and certainly the predictable smaller parts filled with celebrities running out of money... or simply never feeling they have enough.

The music is dreadful and you can guess the rhythm from the suspense. Faster music means more happening. Slow means we're all very bored. Besides, the best thing this film had going for it was to be a hangover-flick on a Sunday afternoon and the music is really to bothersome for that.

There is enough happening to keep you slightly entertained for most of its duration, but this just doesn't cut it.

National Treasure is made utterly without a love for movies to fit a market that rushed by. It shows.

3/10

Argo (2012)

A hugely successful Oscar-winning film starring Ben Affleck? Directed by Affleck? There shall be bacon falling from the skies today.

OK, Affleck's career as a director hasn't been so bad, and he has won an Oscar before (though that was despite the fact that he starred in "Good Will Hunting") but his acting-credits never really was anything but a standing joke. Nevertheless, this is surprisingly good.

And why not start with the actors? Affleck actually is somewhat of a leech here. It's meant as a compliment. He has surrounded himself with the exceptional talent of Alan Arkin and John Goodman as well as added some brilliant casting with Tate Donovan and Scoot McNairy receiving most of my plaudits. Pairing Arkin and Goodman is actually a stroke of pure genius and as long most of the best dialogues and in-house jokes lie with them, you simply can not fail. Affleck mostly walks around with his new beard looking sad, tired or both and does exactly what he is supposed to. It works because the story here isn't primarily built around the protagonist. So he's still not a good actor, he has (seemingly) just gotten very good at trying to marginalize his shortcomings. Kudos!

The story is well-written (Oscar-winning no less) and never seems dull. In the first 2/3 of the film there actually is a lot of build-up and even some politics. But it's smart, filled with quality characters and good dialogue so it's a good thing. It actually feels great to see that some film-makers still dare to be smart as the idiotic films where any halfwit with a semi-functioning brain is able to follow every lead and angle seem to be taking over Hollywood. And TV... but that's beside the point.

I have huge difficulty seeing why they injected the wife/son-angle here though. It brings absolutely nothing to the story, nor to any of the characters (apart from trying to explain the sad face of Affleck) and is, quite frankly, sentimental tripe. Better than sentimentality are the scenes of claustrophobia and great fear, as in the markets.

But the last half hour or so is riveting. An absolute nail-biter as Affleck uses all the tricks in the book to keep you at the edge of your seat. And, boy howdy, is he ever successful. Granted, if you have seen a lot of films, some of his tricks are on the cheap side, and perhaps there are a few too many. It still doesn't change the fact that I was almost afraid to blink.

Is this the best movie of 2013? I doubt it, though I haven't seem them all. But it is a very smart political thriller with some interesting historical aspects and suspense in abundance. Affleck as a director will be interesting to follow in the years to come.

8/10

Skyfall (2012)

I want it to be perfectly clear that I write this whilst listening to Bond-scores only. Mostly John Barry and most certainly not the score Thomas Newman composed to Skyfall. Seriously? Thomas Newman? I know he has scored most of Mendes' work but he simply doesn't have the right style for Bond.

That aside: The opening, as is so crucial to the Bond-films, is quite OK. A hint of darkness followed by a tedious car chase (no wonder, Bond is letting the woman drive) and a better motorcycle-chase (with one awesome stunt). Then it's off to fight on moving trains again. Not bad, and let's face it: How are they going to come up with something that has never been done before? The finish is brilliantly tense so the let-down of Adele can provide a little contrast.

And the suspense is what Mendes does best. This movie will have you at the edge of your seat for an amazing part of its running time. 143 minutes actually makes it the second longest Bond ever, falling one minute short of Casino Royale (and one minute longer than OHMSS). A particular highlight is the courtroom-scene, both in build-up and execution. Mind you, Mendes would never make a mindless action-festival and I reckon a lot of the extra minutes are for a few good dialogues and build-ups. Fiennes and Dench provide an early highlight as their first scene is so exceptionally British in culture and language it is a triumph to the Crown, no less.

The point of introducing Fiennes though, is to get a new M. Fiennes seems to fit the bill perfectly. The old soldier gone bureaucrat with just the right amount of righteousness. He reminds me a lot of the iconic Bernard Lee's Admiral Sir Miles Messervy (only much younger) and I very much look forward to seeing more of him him in the future.

Bond himself starts off beaten and tired (most Bond-actor get at least one chance at this). Newly shot with fragments to show for it and with a solid intake of alcohol (straight from the bottle is never a good sign for a protagonist). A necessary condition as Mendes has plenty of focus on M and Bond being too old and about to be replaced. To get some fresh perspective, he opts for a very young Q. Swing and miss. Let's hope they correct that until the next time.

But what happened with the villain? With such brilliant characters to follow as Dr. No, Auric Goldfinger, Blofeld etc who is this sissy Javier Bardem trying to portray? He looks like a disenchanted Mr. Wint. And Mr. Wint was hardly even a memorable henchman! Nowhere near worthy of the "shadow" of a person they want to portray before he finally shows up.

Bardem also has the least megalomanical plot a villain in Bond has ever had. Come on, where's the panache? Bond-villains are supposed to be a threat to all democracy and/or life on earth. All this guy wants do to is shoot a little old lady. Lame.

That's not the only place Mendes fails to demonstrate Bond-values. Where are the dead-pan jokes and gambling? And why the hell don't we hear Bond order his drink? It's right there on the bar! There's also a bit too little strut for my taste, but I suppose that's fitting as Bond is supposed to look old and beaten. Oh well, at least they remembered to kill whichever woman Bond beds in the first half of the film.

But Albert Finney comes just in time to bring a decent (though hardly original - look no further than Batman's butler) and warm character to life. And then follows another show-down of great suspense, perfectly portrayed as the trio of run-down "old people" use nothing but ancient military tactics and weaponry to overcome the many henchmen.

Sam Mendes has made a very good thriller with great tension and flair. But he forgot a lot of what makes a  Bond-movie, and as an exceptional Bond-fan, I can't overlook that. As a film, it's very entertaining though.

7/10

Lawless (2012)

If anyone thought Nick Cave would be adding a lighter side of life to his screenplays than his music: Look no further. This script is so bleak it might turn your stomach at times. The violence is absolutely grueling and the callousness absolute. It's been a while since I saw a film with such total disregard for human life and emotions. So good times then!

Though the script's main story isn't particularly original, it flows nicely, letting the story itself as well as the characters develop naturally. It also has nice internal logic. I like that. Furthermore there is no lollygagging and guys in pajamas whirling about with fancy weapons. Only mean men with fists, (rather dull) knives and guns. The end game reflects perfectly on that as a group of men stand in cover, fire every now and then, and die every now and then. It might not be mesmerizing in its effects but it is realistic and it adds perfectly to this film.

Why oh why... In a film where Tom Hardy is absolutely fantastic with his stoic calm, underplaying his
characters viciously violent tendencies, and Jason Clarke is so solid as his aggressive shortsighted brother. Where Guy Pearce is so evil you seriously can't believe he once was a four-eyed wimp begging Russel Crowe to stop pounding him. Pearce simply displays an utter disdain for the rednecks surrounding him and takes gleeful joy in hurting them in very sadistic manners. Where Mia Wasikowska shows she can be so much better than as Alice and where Gary Oldman, Noah Taylor and Jessica Chastain so aptly adds a little to almost every scene they're in. Why? Why would you add the absolutely, positively untalented Shia LaBeouf to that mix? He only has a single expression he can do perfectly: Dumbfounded. And he only needs it once. LaBeouf has been running around looking stressed and cowardly in three different Transformers installations, and despite all the dames he has probably nailed as a consequence of his fame and wealth, he still can't act to save a fish from... Hm. Whatever a fish needs saving from. Bigger fish I suppose. There's hardly a single scene that he brings anything to and quite frankly I'm amazed that the other actors are able to get anything from the scenes he's in (most of them).

As for scenes, there is a little standout-moment between Hardy and Chastain. A quiet, short scene of realization and great anguish for both. It really is a slight streak of genius from director Hillcoat, and I thank him for it.

A small deduction will have to be made for the character of Floyd Banner. Though crucial to the storyline, he drowns a bit and it seems strange that he needs to be there at all. I have to bring it up again, though. Tom Hardy is astonishing here and makes the film worth it all alone. So calm before the storm, without any buildup whatsoever before he dishes out the most brutal of punishments, well beyond what is necessary. But they cast LaBeouf  in the biggest part and that sinks this movie in many aspects. That and the stupid and extremely unnecessary voiceover in the last ten minutes.

Too bad. This could have been a truly great little western.

6/10

Red Heat (1988)

Nothing makes me miss the late, great John Belushi more than seeing his younger brother, James, on the big screen.

Oh well. This movie wants to show off the Governator in his prime. So what's more natural than starting off with a Turkish bath with a lot of nude body-builders (and for some absurd reason, petite women) and Arnie flexing his biceps over a stone from the oven before kicking the crap out of the only two fat-guys in the place out in the snow. The awesomeness has been established, and so they can move on to the directness with a mean streak. In a bar of course, tables breaking everywhere as Arnold demonstrates just how cool it is to be a Russian cop, rather than an American (The Miranda rights are - no kidding - a reoccurring joke in this flick).

Speaking of jokes: Some of the jokes are most amusing, if you have the right amount of testosterone. And by right, I mean a lot. So I laughed. Sue me. Even more peculiar: Arnie is the funniest guy in this flick.

There are a few riddles to solve, but it's done mostly with violence or very simple deductions. There is plenty of action, most of it made to fit Arnie's lack of martial arts and Belushi's general lack of fitness. So they shoot each other or slug it out. And the chicken-part, that I'll get back to shortly

For a film with very little brain, there is actually a lot of talent here. Not including the leads. No, seriously. I don't count those two. But Laurence Fishburne and the brilliant Peter Boyle is here. As is Brion James and Gina Gershon. Both better in other flicks.

Other than that, it follows the same buddy-cop pattern most of these flicks do: Very different cops meet. Very different cops hate each other's guts. Then very different cops are forced to work together. And towards the end very different cops are friends. In addition there is the early screw up, the yelling from the bosses and the cultural jokes. And most people hate cops, it would appear. The difference is though, that in this case, Arnie is really doing all the work. Belushi is his cop sidekick, contributing very little to the apprehension of our Georgian baddie. Or the film for that matter.

And to play chicken with buses as an endgame. Not at all a bad way to go.

It's not bad, it has entertainment. But the leads are not really good enough (Belushi in particular) and Walter Hill never was the director to demand a great script. Hence; mediocrity.


5/10

Sneakers (1992)

I do like a smart film, and Phil Alden Robinson's "Sneakers" is surely that.

This film actually has an (at the time) original story, with some cool characters. Hell, they did such a good job with the characters that Dan Aykroyd seems a plausible choice in a thriller, albeit a mostly lighthearted one.

In many ways, this is a predecessor to movies like "Oceans Twelve" (and it's sub-par sequels). It's a big heist, the good guys are of somewhat questionable moral fibre, there are many things going on on many levels, and it's light-hearted and cool in nature. Oh. And the casting is by ensemble. Redford, Aykroyd, Strathairn, River Phoenix, Sidney Poitier and Mary McDonnell head the cast and are fantastically flanked by Stephen Tobolowsky, Timothy Busfield, Eddie Jones and the late runners Ben Kingsley and James Earl Jones. They all fit the bill here and deliver apt performance to add depth and set up the humor.

The humor here is great, and the actors possess wonderful comedic timing for the most. An absolute necessity when you're trying to make something slick and cool.

As tech-thrillers go, this is a clever example, combining logics and panache with what was at the time a futuristic technology and some really cool gadgets. They create small and large challenges along the way and allow the viewer to see the process towards solution. Exciting and gratifying! The trip towards making Redford an "honorary blind person" is absolute genius.

James Horner has a tendency to build all his scores around a single theme. In this film he varies more on themes and less on instruments, but with great luck. The choral arrangements remind of Elfman, but other than that it is worth a listen on its own as well as laying a fine musical carpet for the film.

Alden Robinson does stretch the brutality a couple of times, considering the light tone of the film. The same goes for the seriousness of Kosmo's plan. But it's just inside the borders of what the film can take and adds a little extra. Ironically mostly humor. Kudos to Eddie Jones!

So next time you consider Clooney and Pitt on re-run; remember that this cast is much more credible and the movie as a whole simply better.

8/10

In the Line of Fire (1993)

This is a perfect example of thorough workmanship. It doesn't excel, it's not particularly innovative or original. It's just very well made in most aspects. A most underrated Eastwood-film.

Let's start with some correlation: The script is well written, allowing the characters to develop just the right amount, with room for thought and dialogue in between the suspense and the little action there is. With director Frankenheimer trusting his script and actors, he will invite the viewer to take that opportunity, making the film a better experience.

Fun Fact: At the time this film was made, it was considered somewhat of a feature to be able to work an old image of Eastwood into a film with John F. Kennedy. How things change.

Eastwood is great here, playing to his strengths, showing a bit more self-irony and warmth than his usual cops (perhaps due to the fact that he's not directing here). This is necessary for the great interplay with Rene Russo. This really is the kind of part she was made for and she makes Eastwood much more believable. Malkovich is absolutely outstanding, portraying the assassin with an underplayed serenity. His calm demeanor when killing a couple of hunter is absolutely terrifying, as is his tete-a-tete with Eastwood. Malkovich is intense both when he's in control, and in the short scene where Eastwood gets the better of him. In a brilliantly clever turn, the next phonecall between the two main characters is utterly reversed as the bereaved Eastwood reacts with fury to the smugness of the would-be assassin.

But as this films strength is the craftsmanship, it's the thoroughness of the casting that gets to you. The smaller part are cast with such taste and thought, you feel a bit sad for the films that pick 2 great leads and leave it at that. Gary Cole, Tobin Bell, John Heard and Fred D. Thompson never were big stars (small exception for Heard), but they add credibility to their scenes and allow Eastwood and Russo to shine.

Though Morricone's score is uninteresting when simply listened to, it serves the meticulousness of Malkovich well, adding suspense at scenes that could be considered stale otherwise. The same goes for the romantic scenes between Russo and Eastwood.

The suspense in this film is more in the tension than action, set-pieces and chasing and it serves the whole of the film well. Due to the quality of the actors, the script and the directing it's most unnerving. A smart tension beats a noisy one every time. Even the end game follows that formula. Two men in a dark elevator, trying to get that one split seconds advantage over the other to turn the game.

This film in no way revolutionized Hollywood or its genre, it's just a very good example of how you can make a thriller.

8/10