SmoothCriminal8291958 Reviews

Lions for Lambs (2007)

Intriguing Misfire.

[7/10 · 11 November 2007]

So, here it is. The first, in a very long time, film launched under Tom Cruise & his heavyweight production partner Paula Wagner's newly resurrected-from-the-dead motion picture company, United Artists. Very strange, @ least to me, to see a Tom Cruise film introduced by the classic logo that preceded most of the Pierce Brosnan-era James Bond films of the 1990's. Redford hasn't had a directorial feature in seven years, so he shakes off a little rust here, & Meryl Streep seems to be churning out movies @ a ridiculously rapid rate, so this film is just one of her many acting outputs. While many of the other, interesting periphery aspects surrounding the heavily publicized off-camera occurrences of Cruise's behavior, including Paramount owner Sumner Redstone firing Cruise in '06 due to his erratic behavior, are supposedly noteworthy, the main question now involves the film itself. The question NOW boils down to whether or not this film will stand alone successfully on its own merit by producing bankable box-office numbers & earning respectable reviews from the majority of esteemed film critics.

Well, here we go. My immediate reaction: Robert Redford's film is an intriguing misfire. While the film succeeds in generating awareness in spreading concern about politics about this decade's current "War on Terror," it fails in conveying any new substantial information to its audience. So, the majority of today's young, privileged generation is embarrassingly apathetic about the United States' current involvement with international politics. So, the Bush Administration evidently has not properly, carefully & convincingly laid out its plan regarding its affairs & involvement in the Middle East. So, the American news media machine has inevitably been an accomplice in the recent conflict & turmoil of the Middle East. Tell me something I don't know.

It doesn't help that this film wholeheartedly embraces (can you guess which one?) a particular political perspective & ignores the other one. I don't know, I guess it seems to be the trendy pick among Hollywood celebs today. Thus, the film's result is a narrow, incomplete & lopsided film. It seems as if the purpose of "Lions for Lambs" was for Redford to film a blog-equivalent version of his stance & post it nationally & unashamedly for all to see. Granted, it is justifiable on many occasions, but the film overall as a whole, falls very short. Also, the film's directions, selected by the popular, now go-to screenwriter Michael Carnahan, of a primarily dialogue-driven & didactic pace & tone doesn't help. This direction is notably out of place, it would've been better if this film was an HBO special, or a stage play, & not a heavily-advertised, primer film from a shaky & newly awaken company, marketed by a recently fallen movie star with a lot to prove to nay-sayers. There's a lot at stake here, & "Lions for Lambs" does not embody the ideal film choice. @ the point of its conclusion, the motion picture seems like a revival of a 1940's fast-talking film with a $100+ production budget.

I'm not going to be as cruel & harsh as the other reviewers. On the plus side, Cruise & Wagner have done a superb job of recruiting a well-respected crew of talented actors, screenwriters, etc. in crafting an ambitious, but heavily flawed, film. The supporting cast, led by Andrew Garfield, Derek Luke, & Michael Peña, does a remarkable job of acting their respective roles with sincerity & credibility. All of the principal actors play with roles with incredible conviction: Redford as the liberal-minded, troubled college professor, Streep as the skeptical American journalist, & Cruise as the ambitious, uber-conservative U.S. Senator from the nation's capital. They play their roles well, but it seems that they have little to work off of an underdeveloped premise & a misguided script.

Insomnia (2002)

Taut detective thriller

[8/10 · 13 May 2007]

Director Christopher Nolan made a sensational splash with the indie hit "Memento", earning him this shot at the big time. For the most part, he proved himself up to the task. "Insomnia" provides a multi-layered psychological thriller where two distinct story lines are interwoven in the character of Will Dormer (Al Pacino). The workup is a bit contrived, with Dormer coming to Alaska from LA to help out an old buddy with a murder investigation as he is himself being investigated by internal affairs. This serves as a foundation for the two story lines. The first is the animosity that develops between Dormer and his partner, who wants to cut a deal with internal affairs. The second, of course, is the murder investigation. After Dormer accidentally (?) shoots his partner while chasing the suspect in dense fog, the psychological games begin. Local detective Ellie Burr (Hilary Swank), who is fawning all over Dormer and has read all his books on detective work, begins to suspect that her hero may have feet of clay.

The psychodrama becomes intense as Dormer is confronted with communications from his killer nemesis Walter Finch (Robin Williams), while suspicions swirl around the death of his partner. Add to this his inability to get any sleep in Alaska's perpetual daylight and you have a man driven to the absolute brink.

Nolan does an excellent job of shooting this film and the editing intensifies the psychological tension. The cinematography is also superb, aided by the majestic Alaskan and British Columbian locations. While the interaction between Dormer and Finch is unlikely, the symbiotic relationship that develops is fascinating and Nolan squeezes every psychological tingle that can be wrung from it.

Pacino is masterful as the insomniac cop who has made certain ethical compromises in his career in the name of justice. He looks so terrible that he must have been purposely depriving himself of sleep to increase the realism of the character. Pacino gives Dormer (an interesting play on the Latin dormire, "to sleep", a dormer is the window of a sleeping room) a hard edge that gradually erodes as he becomes more sleep deprived, blurring the distinction between good and evil.

Robin Williams seems to be trying to shed his nice guy image with back to back wackos. He follows up his sociopathic performance in "One Hour Photo" with this character who is a sort of sinister pragmatist. Williams is at his best when he is pushing sanity's limits, whether that be in zany comedy or maniacal mayhem, which is precisely why he was wrong for this part. This character is far too calculating and controlled for Williams talents and the part is also much too physical for him. He is just not convincing as a cold blooded killer and tough guy. That is not to say it was a bad performance, just the wrong actor. Hilary Swank unfortunately doesn't have much to do in a film that is dominated by Pacino and Williams.

This is an excellent big budget debut for Nolan and another terrific performance by Pacino. The suspense and pace are first rate and despite the contrivances, it delivers. I rated it an 8/10. Definitely not a snoozer.

Coyote Ugly (2000)

Without substance, but highly entertaining.

[7/10 · 24 March 2007]

Producer Jerry Bruckheimer seems to have an innate sense of what makes money in cinema. He seldom makes a film that isn't profitable and has numerous blockbusters on his resume over the past 30 years (American Gigolo, Flashdance, Beverly Hills Cop, Top Gun, The Rock, Con Air, Armageddon). Bruckheimer is a populist producer. He is more concerned with giving audiences what they want than he is about producing films of any artistic value or substance. In that regard, 'Coyote Ugly' fits right in.

This film is energetic, entertaining, scintillating and fun to watch. The story is "Flashdance" lite, and is reminiscent of the popular but vacuous 'Cocktail' with Tom Cruise, only with a decent plot woven in. Violet Sanford (Piper Perabo) is a young aspiring songwriter who leaves South Amboy, New Jersey traveling to New York City to be discovered. When things don't go as planned, she takes a job as a bartender in a raucous singles bar where the sexy female bartenders dance provocatively on the bar to the shrieks of the rowdy patrons below. Of course, there is a love story to go along with the quest for fame, completing the populist formula.

Bruckheimer defies the conventional Hollywood big budget approach by using an ensemble cast of veritable unknowns and a first time director. Other than John Goodman in a minor role, and supermodel Tyra Banks who hasn't done much acting, most of the actors have extremely short resumes. This gives the film a freshness and energy that comes from the cast's exhilaration at just being on the set.

Piper Perabo is an incredible find. She is not simply acting in this film, but living the role. Just like her character Violet, this film is her big break so her ability to understand the character and the role is implicit (another stroke of Bruckheimer genius). Perabo is an excellent actor with tremendous ability and potential. It is likely that this film will be the launch pad for a bright career. Maria Bello also gives a fabulous performance as Lil, the tough and successful owner of the nightclub. Australian actor Adam Garcia has great chemistry with Perabo as Violet's love interest. His pleasant demeanor and good looks have many people comparing him with Mel Gibson, although it remains to be seen whether he can handle roles that are more substantial. John Goodman provides one of the film's best moments when he gets up on the bar and dances as Violet auctions him off to the screaming women in the crowd.

The DVD is packed with interesting special features about the making of the film. It also includes a DTS audio option, which I like better than Dolby Digital 5.1. The soundtrack is pulsating and explosive and pumps the film up with excitement.

This is not great film-making, but it is great entertainment. It is an amiable film that sparkles with energy and is easy to watch. I rated it a 7/10. Many people were surprised by how much they enjoyed it, but I'm never surprised when I like a Jerry Bruckheimer film. He knows how to push our buttons.

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

Just As Good As The First For Entirely Different Reasons.

[10/10 · 10 April 2006]

"Mission: Impossible II" is the polar opposite and entirely different animal of its 1996 predecessor. The production team of Tom Cruise/ Paula Wagner wanted to take the billion-dollar film franchise in a different direction. They wanted to correct the misalignments of the first film. Although likable, many people criticized the first film of being overly complex and confusing. So, the production team compensated by hiring a foreign action director from Hong Kong in John Woo to take the series in a new direction and to chart into a new frontier. They dump one of the two screenwriters, David Koepp, and keep the other Academy-Award winning one, Robert Towne, to helm the script. The result is an action film released in 2000 that grossed more than its predecessor. The first film was overly complex; its sequel is overly simple. The first film relied on intrigue, mystery, and CGI enhanced effects to deliver the goods, while its sequel utilized action/adventure and death-defying stunts instead to remain as equal as its predecessor. Instead of bashing "M: I-II," instead I ask that everybody keeps an open mind and take a look at the grand scheme of things regarding the two films.

What I like in particular is the fact that the two movies serve as complete opposites. Tom Cruise did not want to serve up the same movie twice, so he created an entirely different one, even if it does not confine to the original framework of its predecessor and TV series.

"Mission: Impossible II" is a seriously underrated film, although it does not confine to the original concept of the 1966 television series, or its film predecessor four years previous, Cruise still nonetheless should have garnered his fourth Academy Award nomination. I'm now going to make the stretch in stating if indeed, Cruise received a nomination for this role, he probably would have beat out favorite Russell Crowe for "Gladiator." He had to deal with emotionally, complex material from a incredibly underrated script by Robert Towne, who won an Academy Award for the "Best Original Screenplay" in 1975 for his script to the Jack Nicholson film, "Chinatown." Just because "Mission: Impossible II" is an action movie, does not automatically necessarily mean it's a bad film. You cannot dismiss it so easily, because it's like what Towne said so accurately about the film-making style of director John Woo: "It's like Yeats, the famous poet, said, 'a terrible beauty.'" All of John Woo's films have a certain type of unrelenting violence, in a similar fashion that director Martin Scorsese has, in his films that the viewer cannot resist but to watch. Now granted, "M I: II" is not the perfect film, and it is not without flaws. The overkill use of John Woo's slow motion techniques can be sometimes "lame," but ultimately Tom Cruise single-handedly elevates the status of the film.

People need to stop bashing Tom Cruise. I'm not saying that he's the most perfect human being/actor in the world today of famous celebrities, but nonetheless, he still undeniably has tremendous talent. When you analyze the range of his films, the range of acting for this actor is incredible. For people to bash Cruise without prior establishment of any solid foundations, makes the accuser(s) seem completely idiotic. Cruise is the consummate actor. You don't have three Academy Award nominations for being a *beep* actor, and he potentially could have won all three awards if not for the performances of Daniel Day Lewis, "My Left Foot," (1989), Geoffrey Rush for "Shine," (1996) and in the supporting acting role for Michael Caine in "The Cider House Rules" (1999).

There aren't a lot of actors who are willing to take the physical beatings, do all of their own stunts, and act with the conviction necessary to carry the entire weight of the success or failure of the film. If you don't believe take a look at the previous winners in the Academy Award category for this decade alone. Russell Crowe (2000), Denzel Washington (2001), Adrien Brody (2002), Sean Penn (2003), Jamie Foxx (2004), and Phillip Seymour Hoffman (2005). Now granted, all of these preceding actors are extremely talented actors and deserving of all the success that they have been fortunate to receive w/in the past years, but none of them go through the complicated, time-consuming process of truly delving into the characters portrayed in the films that Tom Cruise evidently has done so in the past. Don't believe me? Think I'm talking out of my ass? Then, analyze "The Color of Money," (1986) "Rain Man," (1988) "Born on the Fourth of July," (1989) "A Few Good Men" (1992), "The Firm," (1993) "Interview With the Vampire" (1994) "Jerry Maguire," (1996) "Eyes Wide Shut," (1999) "Magnolia" (1999) "Vanilla Sky," (2001) "Minority Report," (2002) "The Last Samurai," (2003) or "Collateral" (2004). Every actor has their off days so forget "Cocktail," (1988) "Far and Away" (1992). Here's an actor who held his own against fellow Hollywood Heavyweights in Paul Newman, Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman, Jack Nicholson, Brad Pitt, Cuba Gooding Jr., Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Max von Sydow, Ken Watanabe, and Jamie Foxx.

To the people who say that Tom Cruise is a "not-so-talented" actor who steals roles from other talented actors, let me remind you that Cruise has used his business savvy and ambition to work with talented directors such as Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubrick, Ed Zwick, Sydney Pollack, Brian De Palma, John Woo, Tony Scott, Ridley Scott, Berry Levinson, Oliver Stone, Michael Mann, Cameron Crow, Rob Reiner, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Neil Jordan. You don't establish a track record like this for working with any of the preceding directors: Tom Cruise has worked with all of them. If Tom Cruise is such a bad actor, then why have his last seven consecutive films dating all the back to 1999, opened at number one at the box office in the United States (which is difficult, given the fact that box office numbers have recently slumped)?