Minority Report

Released:  June 21^st, 2002

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  20^th Century Fox

Starring:  Tom Cruise, Colin Farrell, Samantha Morton, Max von Sydow

Directed by:  Steven Spielberg           

Written by:  Scott Frank, Jon Cohen

Personal Bias Alert:  likes exploration of ideas, weirded out by Neal McDonough

5.5 of 10

            I’m pretty sure I saw Minority Report when it was released.  I remember the screens sliding around, expanding, overlapping, moving in a way entirely unknown to me at the time.  I also remember Tom Cruise being Tom Cruise-y, although I could be getting that confused with all the other times he’s played that character.  Problem is, I didn’t remember anything else; the story has slid so far out of my mind that its twists and turns seemed fresh and new to me when I re-watched it.  I’m sure they were in my brain somewhere, right next to The Bridges of Madison County and that one episode of Futurama, but I find the movie so utterly forgettable that I can already feel it sliding out of my head all over again.

            Based on a Philip K. Dick short story, Minority Report follows John Anderton (Tom Cruise), the leader of a group of cops who use the predictions generated by three psychic “precog” humans to arrest murderers before they commit the act.  The legality and accuracy of this is brought into question, and the department is investigated by a government representative named Danny Witwer (Colin Farrell).  After an unusual prediction by the precogs, Anderton’s life is thrown into disarray and the holes in the department are left open for Witwer to see.

            A lot of the appeal of Minority Report comes from its sleek vision of the future, with just out of reach technology (some of which we’re already seeing today) and a modern architectural style that compliments the film’s overexposed lighting.  It looks good, but it’s also a world we could envision ourselves in.  That’s a sweet spot to hit in sci-fi that appeals to hard core and transient fans alike.  Except for the cars.  Those were just a bit too strange.

            At its heart, Minority Report is an action film, so it spends a good chunk of its time in long, semi-silly fight scenes.  These are staged all right, but they’re pretty generic and had a few moments that made me unintentionally chuckle (listen to those punching sounds in Cruise and Farrell’s fistfight and try not to laugh).  Since Cruise can pull off action sequences and borderline cheesy lines with the best of them, he’s an excellent fit for the lead role.  You can never question his commitment to a film.  His wholehearted effort always shines through, so it’s too bad that he’s left with a one-note character and no arc in this one.  He tries, but there’s no saving a character written this lazily.

            There is an effort to bring some age-old sci-fi dilemmas into the mix, but the film’s more successful at bringing them up than actually exploring them.  I’m hesitant to give the screenwriters much credit for the ideas themselves, as I’m almost certain they were lifted straight from the Philip K. Dick short story.  Since they don’t expand on them, the film really does nothing with its ideas, treating them more as plot points than themes.  The screenwriters then chose to handle them with dull, on-the-nose dialogue that makes the ideas feel more labored than revelatory and makes this whole aspect of the film a real let-down.

            There are a couple scenes towards the end that really click, and for a moment I thought the film was going to recover from its lackluster middle section.  The film is directed by Spielberg, after all, which always gives you reason to hope for an entertaining but substantive piece.  Too often, though, Spielberg fails to find the right mix, and here the entertainment portion wins out.  The ending abandons the momentum it started to build and goes for a big, silly finish that doesn’t make much sense.

            Actually, most of the film doesn’t make much sense.  The plot holes are pretty big, and when sci-fi writers fail to make their world plausible, I tend to check out.  That’s what happened with me and Minority Report.  I smelled a manipulative, soft sci-fi story from the beginning, and that’s pretty much what I got.

Other Notes (Ridiculous Sci-Fi Version):

Ø  My advanced technology is always thwarted by towels shoved under a door.

Ø  How would the alarms not go off when he scans his old eye?

Ø  Aw, there’s a flush button.

Ø  It’s saggy Tom Cruise!

Other Notes (Regular Version):

Ø  I found the score a bit too overbearing.

Ø  Don’t name your film after a MacGuffin.

Ø  We interrupt this sci-fi action movie to bring you a Gap ad.

Ouija

Released:  October 24^th, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Universal

Starring:  Olivia Cooke, Daren Kagasoff, Ana Coto, Bianca A. Santos, Douglas Smith

Directed by:  Stiles White                   

Written by:  Juliet Snowden, Stiles White

Personal Bias Alert:  not a horror fan, got a free shirt at the screening

2 of 10

            Horror is probably the genre I watch the least, not because I hate scary stories, but because the good ones are so few and far between.  Even when being selective, I still find myself watching a lot of duds.  Perhaps my personal taste is the problem; I prefer atmospheric chillers to the jump scare/gore fests that litter the low-budget horror machine.  Finding the ones that fit that particular style can be tough, but that makes it extra delightful when I find one that works.

            Even with my lack of genre knowledge, I know the trepidation adult horror fans feel at the site of a PG-13 rating.  It’s translation:  no violence, no gore, no fun.  Still, if a film knows how to work without the crutches of R-rated horror, then you can get away with some pretty terrifying stuff.  Ouija, unfortunately, doesn’t know how to do this.

            With the name Ouija you should be able to guess the basic plotline of this movie:  some teens use a Ouija board, evil spirits are released, a haunting ensues.  It’s pretty stock stuff, and the movie never bothers to stray far from these basic elements.  It’s actually kind of surprising to think back and realize how little actually happened in this film.  It feels much longer, but that might be the boredom talking.

            So the movie has a basic plot, that’s still recoverable.  Get a few decent actors, build some atmosphere, pepper in some creepy visuals, and you have a hit.  Ouija does get the acting right (I’ll get to that in a minute) but fails to deliver any substantial visuals or build to much of anything.  The movie mostly plods along, hitting the required plot points to get itself to a finish line we all see coming.  Add in that first-time director Stiles White mistakes darkness for style, and the whole thing ends up like that tasteless side dish your Aunt always brings to Thanksgiving dinner.

            So thank god there’s good acting.  Really, the only redeeming quality about this movie, besides the fact that it’s largely in focus, is the core group of actors.  They sell the proceedings well enough to avoid it being laughable, and Douglas Smith, Daren Kagasoff, and particularly Olivia Cooke in the lead role manage to turn in some noteworthy performances.  Sure, they don’t have anything to do and struggle with some awful dialogue, but that actually makes their performances all the more impressive.  They manage to pull off a lot of generic, badly written schlock, which is no small feat.

            Now, I often get on movies for giving a character one or two traits and then pretending they’re fully realized human beings, but Ouija sets a new bar for utter lack of characterization.  I walked away not knowing a single trait for any of the main characters.  Nada.  None.  They are blank canvases, tabula rasas floating in and out of breakfast joints on the way to their doom.  The one thing I did learn was that the girl who dies at the beginning of the film inexplicably likes Shakespeare, but that was thanks to the set design and not any actual writing.  This interest is never explored nor explained, but is left hanging on the wall like an inside joke on the utter expanse that exists between Hamlet and this movie.

            I’m going to keep this short and sweet, which is one of the few things Ouija has the decency to do.  In all honesty, I just don’t have much to say about this one.  When the lights went up in my theater, I was filled with an overwhelming nothingness and thought ‘Was that it?”  In my opinion, that’s one of the worst reactions a horror film can elicit.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Who dresses in a nice skirt and tights to hang out at home eating some fancy looking leftover pasta in the kitchen by themselves? 

Ø  Still not sure how to say Ouija.

Ø  Those sinister ghosts and their stoves.

WALL-E

Released:  June 27^th, 2008

Rated:  G

Studio:  Disney/Pixar

Starring:  animated robots, Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Fred Willard, Jeff Garlin

Directed by:  Andrew Stanton           

Written by:  Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, Jim Reardon

Personal Bias Alert:  haven’t seen many silent films, always optimistic about Pixar movies

8.3 of 10

            The G rating for WALL-E may be the most apt thing the MPAA has ever done.  This innocuously sweet story of robot puppy love is something everyone can get behind, and by combining it with gorgeous animation and some sly societal critiques, it becomes a film that will enchant nearly every filmgoer imaginable.

            WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter – Earth class) is the last trash collecting machine still in operation, whiling away his days sorting through the remnants of humanity and saving the oddities that pique his interest.  Humans have long since left, having decimated Earth due to the poor environmental practices encouraged by the mega-corporation Buy ‘n’ Large.  It’s a lonely life, and Wall-e finds himself enamored with the idea of finding a companion, a lover insomuch as he understands the term.  The opportunity presents itself when a robot probe named EVE (Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator) arrives to scour Earth for signs of life.  At first, she ignores Wall-e’s advances, but softens after seeing the collection of human interest trinkets that Wall-e has stashed in his home.  Unfortunately, Wall-e’s stash also includes a living plant, the site of which sends Eve into a hibernating state until she can report back home.

            This takes us to the thirty minute mark in the movie, in which the only dialogue has been a video billboard and a brief, beeping exchange between Wall-e and Eve.  I suppose this shouldn’t be surprising, the movie does star robots, after all, but we’ve come to expect kids movies to be frantic, loud things nowadays.  There’s still a clear plotline thanks to some extraordinarily detailed animation from Pixar.  I know it’s not news to point out that Pixar is the leader of the pack when it comes to animation, but they’ve really outdone themselves here.  It’s a double feat they’ve pulled off, first in figuring out how to animate precise body language to tell a visual story (they reportedly watched Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton movies to prep themselves) and second to translate that body language onto robots.  The fact that Wall-e and Eve are thoroughly robotic while having so many recognizably human qualities is the most remarkable thing about this movie.

            Then you have the rest of the animation, which appears almost film-like during Wall-e’s time on Earth.  There’s an extraordinary depth to the backgrounds, seemingly endless expanses of a crumbling civilization, with dust and debris blowing gently about.  The most striking part, though, is the way the animators simulated the lighting.  It’s grand in an unnaturalistic, staged sort of way.  It doesn’t surprise me to read that cinematographer extraordinaire Roger Deakins consulted on this film.  It has his elegant, stylish lighting down pat.  My wow moment was when Eve bombs a wrecked boat, the scene pulling back into a wide shot to show the billowing explosion illuminating the night.  Notice the light flickering on the surrounding debris.  Extraordinary.

            As good as it all looks, WALL-E would be nothing more than a meaningless exercise without a good story behind it, and the romance between Wall-e and Eve gives it a solid core.  It’s a sweet, innocent thing that Wall-e learned from watching a scene in 1969’s Hello, Dolly!, the culmination of which is a gentle interlocking of hands.  Throughout the movie, Wall-e attempts to recreate the moment with little success.  There’s a longing there in that outstretched hand that anyone old enough to follow a story can understand, no matter what the hand is made of.

            The problem comes when the humans appear.  It’s not bad per say, just not as charming as the robot’s story.  It does feels a bit tacked on, like somewhere along the line it was determined that humans had to make an appearance.  But really, if they thought audiences couldn’t handle a film without a human story, what made them think we would sit through the first half hour of this film?

            What the middle section lacks in charm is partially made up for by some biting commentary.  Humans have become essentially immobile, relying entirely on robots to do everything for them.  The robots are, of course, made by the megacorporation Buy ‘n’ Large, the same corporation that made the spaceship they’re cruising on and essentially controls their lives.  It’s an oddly dim view of humanity’s future; we’ve become like docile cattle, happily doing whatever Buy ‘n’ Large wants.  In a way, it reminded me of a cartoon I used to watch as a kid called Invader Zim.  Zim is more overtly dark than WALL-E, but a similar contempt for humanity’s current path runs through both.

            I wish WALL-E had stuck to its guns and found a way to tell Eve and Wall-e’s story alone.  The movie’s vibrant when it focuses on their relationship, leaving the rest feeling dull and tepid in comparison.  Still, that tender portrait of puppy love is hard to resist.

            Other Notes: 

Ø  The spork joke made me laugh out loud.

Ø  Great work yet again by composer Thomas Newman.

Ø  How are the babies getting made?  I don’t think the humans have the energy to do the deed.

Ø  Let’s not get into the inherent creepiness of Wall-e taking Eve on dates while she’s essentially unconscious.

Ø  Who has a better stash, Wall-e or Ariel from The Little Mermaid?

Fury

Released:  October 17^th, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  Columbia Pictures

Starring:  Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Peña, Jon Bernthal

Directed by:  David Ayer

Written by:  David Ayer

Personal Bias Alert:  likes war movies, likes Brad Pitt and Logan Lerman

8.5 of 10

“In war, there are no unwounded soldiers.” ~José Narosky

            That’s one of many lessons that Logan Lerman’s Norman must learn quickly when he’s shoved into a cramped tank with four seasoned veterans.  Norman’s greener than green, trained to be a typist instead of a fighter, but through some error that Fury never bothers to explain he ends up in that tank.  What follows is a well-trod war story, that of the seasoned vets breaking in the young recruit, but the twist of telling it in the confines of a tank during the waning parts of World War II breathes enough life into this astoundingly executed piece to make it one of the year’s best films.

            Brad Pitt plays Don, the tough but subtly intelligent commander of the titular tank.  He smells the weakness Norman has brought to his crew and takes a rough but effective path in training the young man.  As their relationship complicates, the two come to silently recognize something in each other, and the audience is treated to a prolonged scene in which their gentler sides get to show.  It’s marvelous, one of my favorite scenes of the year, and highlights just how great Pitt and Lerman are in these roles.  I knew Pitt had it in him, and I pray that he finally gets the awards recognition he’s long deserved, but Lerman may overshadow him.  He’s such a surprise here, getting to play a much different role than we’ve ever seen him in.  That said, neither man is better than the other; both turned in A-game performances.

            The rest of the crew is rounded out by Shia LaBeouf as the religious cannon man, an underused Michael Peña as the driver, and Jon Bernthal as the uncouth loader.  These roles are noticeably underwritten, especially Peña’s, but the caliber of acting each guy brings makes this detriment less bothersome.  LaBeouf in particular, with his hollowed out eyes and terrible mustache, manages to do a lot with a sparse, varied role.  In some scenes he must spout thematically resonant bible verses, while in others he’s expected to provide some much-needed comic relief.  He somehow manages to pulls off both sides of this character and still convey a weariness that seems to be dragging him down with each step.

            The performances set a high bar, which is equaled by some gorgeous cinematography by director David Ayer and DP Roman Vasyanov.  They embed the horrors of war into the mud of the German countryside, fog and mist constantly hanging in the background, making it seem like a battle is always just around the corner.  The battle sequences we do get are expertly handled, alternating between the action inside the tank and what’s happening outside it to keep the sequences clear and tense.  Yes, there’s some beauty to it all, but the brutality always looms, as it does over everything in this film.

            The story is slightly below par, feeling a bit too familiar to be truly great.  Many elements cut very close to the legendary Saving Private Ryan, which few films compare favorably to.  Add in that the ending happens a bit too neatly to seem real, and the plot becomes a noticeable drawback.  Still, Ayer made a great choice by making his story about a tank crew.  At least the action sequences seemed fresh and not just more ground troop maneuvering that we’ve seen a million times.

            Walking out of the theater, I was still in a reverie, carrying the film’s moodiness with me out into the night air.  It’s an affecting film that seeps into you, and I found that Fury grew into a greater film the more I reflected on it.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Brad Pitt standing on that tank is a hero’s shot if I ever saw one.

Ø  There’s no way those eggs survived in Don’s pack.

Ø  People in my theater were cheering when the Nazi’s were being killed.  I’ve never understood wanting to cheer during a war film.

2001: A Space Odyssey

Released:  April 3^rd, 1968

Rated:  G

Studio:  MGM, Stanley Kubrick Productions

Starring:  Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Douglas Rain

Directed by:  Stanley Kubrick

Written by:  Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke

Personal Bias Alert:  has a dark view of nature and the universe

5 of 10

            The problem with art is its subjectivity.  No image, song, or story will ever have the same meaning to everyone who encounters it.  Moreover, it will never even be able to elicit a reaction from everyone.  There will always be those who are unmoved, whose approach to life is so different, who derive meaning from such a foreign place, that any work that tries to reach the depths of our beings will fail for some people.  2001:  A Space Odyssey is undoubtedly a work of art that tries and succeeds at touching many people, but I was left unmoved.

            Broken into four sections, the film seems to tell the story of aliens influencing life on Earth through the placement of large, black monoliths.  The first appears to a group of hominids, the ape precursors of humans.  The second is discovered by humans on the moon, which prompts a journey to Jupiter after the moon monolith emits a radio signal aimed in that direction.  That’s a bare bones summary of the plot, but the film clearly desires to tell a much larger story.  The specifics of that larger story is left open to interpretation.  Consider it the ‘choose your own adventure’ portion of the film.

            Perhaps I’m a bit too analytical for this film, or maybe I’m just too familiar with science to find the grandeur in it.  Whatever the reason, I found the beginning hour and a half of this film tedious and rather pointless.  Yes, our pre-human ancestors behaved in much the same way as current apes, forming groups, fighting for resources, dying, etc.  And yes, eventually one of them started using tools (although humanity’s true key to success is our ability for form complex social structures, but let’s forget that).  Then we get to what I consider the ‘spaceship porn’ section of the film:  endless shots of space travel set to music that tells me I should be finding it amazing.  The problem is, I see it as just science, hunks of metal briefly performing amazing feats before malfunctioning and either floating endlessly as trash or burning up in the atmosphere of whatever planet they encounter first.  I imagine space travel to be much more like the screeching docking in Apollo 13 than the perfected elegance Kubrick displays in 2001.

            Eventually, we get to the story of the manned trip to Jupiter, where the film finally began to work for me.  The two men overseeing the travel are working closely with a computer system called the HAL 9000, or Hal for short.  The interaction between the men and the possibly sentient computer is riveting, and the culminating scene took my breath away.  Here, I thought.  Now I get this film.  It’s about struggling against the abyss of death.  Our ancestors did it with the monolith-given tools, the human characters follow the signal in an attempt to find some purpose for their lives, and now our offspring, Hal, is struggling to find its place in the world.  We all do it, and the aliens, it seems, want to help us along.

            Then we get to the last section, which is mind-bogglingly weird, clearly throws my ideas out the window, and is, again, way too long.  It became abundantly clear to me that I missed the boat with this one; that this film, for whatever reason, wasn’t going to speak to me.  And that’s okay.  I have many films that reach obtusely into the recesses and pull out deep meaning for me (Tree of Life and Upstream Color came out in just the last five years).  I don’t demand that everything speak to my particular worldview, and if you find something meaningful in this film, then I’m happy that you have it.

            Outside the story itself, the technical aspects of this film are extraordinary.  Remember, this was made in the 60’s, and all the space travel shots still look amazing.  Some are obviously basic effects, like turning the camera on its side so it appears that the actors are climbing on the walls, but several still left my modern eyes gaping.  The use of lights and colors add to both the reality and surrealism, and that blend of hard science with large displays of grandeur is an impressive balancing act of visual tones.

            My lack of emotional reaction to this film was disappointing, but perhaps future viewings will uncover other meanings for me.  For now, I really dislike this film, but give it a 5 of 10 because I can see the big goals it has in mind.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Grip shoes!

Ø  Is the cut from the monkey’s club to the space ships contrasting the brutality and elegance of man?

Ø  Did Star Wars model their hangar bays from this film?

Ø  The inherent problem, I think, with me and 2001 is a differing view on how life works.  The aliens who left the monoliths seem to just want to help humanity.  I, however, buy into what Werner Herzog said in Grizzly Man:  “I believe the common denominator of the universe is not harmony, but chaos, hostility, and murder.”  Hence, this seemingly altruistic version of aliens is a bit too neat for my taste. 

Dracula Untold

Released:  October 10^th, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Universal Pictures

Starring:  Luke Evans, Sarah Gadon, Dominic Cooper, Samantha Barks

Directed by:  Gary Shore

Written by:  Matt Sazama, Burk Sharpless

Personal Bias Alert:  likes vampire movies, familiar with almost no one involved

4.5 of 10

            The title is the first clue that something’s wrong with this film.  I mean, really, is there any aspect of Dracula’s origin that hasn’t been told?  I’m no expert, but a childhood spent watching The History Channel taught me about Vlad the Impaler, Elizabeth Bathory, and few other historical blood users that may have influenced Bram Stoker’s vision.  Dracula Untold uses Vlad, the most commonly sited of these influences, as a jumping off point, and even though it’s not particularly original, it does manage to cobble together enough decent elements to almost make it enjoyable.

            This movie’s Vlad (Luke Evans) starts off as the established ruler of Transylvania, a man who’s content to quietly raise his son and his people under the thumb of the Turks.  When the Turks show up demanding 1,000 boys for their army, Vlad decides it’s time to cut ties and is forced to draw from his dark past and from an even darker power in the mountains to save his people.

            Dracula is in the title, so I don’t think it’s any secret that Vlad seeks out a vampire in those mountains.  Played with gusto by Charles Dance (you know, Tywin Lannister), the scene between the ancient vampire and Vlad is everything you want in a vampire film:  darkness, blood, some body horror, and a good-looking guy to stare at.  The scene gets a lot done, too, and its success reminds you why execs at Universal look at the Dracula property and see a hit film.

             The good-looking guy in the aforementioned scene is Evans (trust me, you don’t want Dance), and his performance singlehandedly makes this film better than it should be.  He manages to root the underdrawn, overstretched Vlad in some sort of reality, and I found myself really caring for the poor guy.  He’s equally good in the action scenes, drawing out a menacing side that effectively portrays the monster he’s trying to be.

            Helping out Evans is an excellent effort by the costume, makeup, set design, and special effects crews.  The film looks great, and that’s directly due to the efforts of everyone involved in these and other departments.  The world they’ve created is ornately detailed, and the big and small set pieces feel appropriately scaled.  What’s most impressive, though, is the special effects, particularly the bat transformations that are featured in the trailer and the poster.  It’s a seamless stream of motion, with Evans slowly disintegrating and bats forming from the void.  I have no clue how much money was spent on this effect, but it was worth every penny.

            The problems come anytime this film tries to tell an actual story.  It seems the filmmakers didn’t think we’d be interested in a simple vampire story, so they jazzed it up with as many subplots as possible.  There’s not enough time to explore each one, so instead they skim the surface of each, leaving me wondering which I should be most concerned about and not particularly caring about any of them.  The biggest failure is the subplot involving Vlad’s family, which falters under the lack of relationship development and the poor performances by Sarah Gadon and Art Parkinson (more Game of Thrones people).

            Otherwise, some overly flashy cinematography and generally wooden performances keeps the whole thing a bit off-putting.  I can’t say I was ever bored, the film does keep things moving, but outside of a mild interest in Vlad himself, I didn’t care much about what was happening.  Reminiscent of my feelings towards 2012’s Snow White and the Huntsman, Dracula Untold is an empty, frustrating waste of some excellent elements.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The lack of blood allowed in a PG-13 movie and a vampire story doesn’t mix well.

Ø  Samantha Barks is listed as a star, but her role was cut in editing.  I guess she can still pretend that he’s beside her.

Ø  That guy’s money was literally protecting him.

Ø  You know you’re having issues when the blood starts whispering to you.

Hackers

Released:  September 15^th, 1995

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  MGM

Starring:  Jonny Lee Miller, Angelina Jolie, Jesse Bradford, Matthew Lillard, Fisher Stevens, Lorraine Bracco, Renoly Santiago, Laurence Mason

Directed by:  Iain Softley

Written by:  Rafael Moreu

Personal Bias Alert:  has nostalgia for the ‘90s, clueless about computers

6 of 10

            Hackers may as well exist in another world.  Allegedly portraying the underground hacker society of the mid ‘90s, which I can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of, this film seems like it's more a parody of ‘90s culture than a real representation of it.  This may not have worked at the time, the film bombed at the box office and with critics, but it’s since gained a cult following.  I can see why; It’s fun, intentionally so, and its weird cultural representation makes it odd enough to chuckle at while still eliciting a fair amount of nostalgia.

            Starring Jonny Lee Miller pre-Trainspotting and Angelina Jolie pre-everything, the cast is a mishmash of capable actors, most of which are still working today (how many ‘90s films can say that?).  They’re all excellently cast here, with many playing character types that later became their trademarks.  Miller and Jolie are the essential ones, bringing an effortless cool to their roles to make the film’s odd style work.

            It’s that style and the chemistry between the core group of friends that make the early scenes pop.  Outfitted in a mix of ‘90s skater, punk, and grunge, the group bonds over their hacking obsession and are constantly engaging in strange battles to prove their own legitimacy.  At one point, Miller’s Dade and Jolie’s Kate engage in an arcade game showdown at a combo hacker/skater club that lets in a lot of teenagers.  The whole thing is overwhelmingly odd, but it’s enjoyable to watch these people hang out.  You won’t ever see the likes of them again.

            That makes it extra disappointing when the plot kicks in and the characters take a backseat to a generic thriller plotline.  Sure, you still get some charmingly weird moments, like when the bad guy played by Fisher Stevens covertly picks up Dade’s floppy disk on a skateboard, but these moment don’t last long enough.  The inexperienced young actors struggle to bring the exposition-heavy scenes to life, and the whole thing starts to drag.

            Also hampering the film is the incredibly un-cinematic action of typing on a computer, which takes up much of the film’s time.  Nowadays it’s common to see films struggle with this, but in the mid ‘90s this would have been a pretty new problem.  Few have done it successfully, and while it doesn’t entirely succeeding, Hackers is far from the worst I’ve seen.  It employs the tried and true method of speeding up time, but it also cuts to inaccurate but colorful representation of what’s going on inside the computer.  It’s a bit Tron-esque, with pulsing electronic music to keep you on edge, and I kinda dug it.

            Hackers is the kind of movie you secretly enjoy.  You know it’s not good, and maybe you hit play under the guise of hate-watching, but I can’t imagine anyone actually hating this film.  Sure, you can and should make fun of its ridiculousness, but it’s got that combo of good-natured earnestness that sells the cheese.  You aren’t laughing at these guys, you’re laughing with them, because you can bet that they had a blast making this thing.

            Other Notes:

Ø  I know nothing about computers, hence I needed all the exposition they threw out.

Ø  If I were Jonny Lee Miller or Angelina Jolie, I’d dream about each other, too.

Ø  Points for a random Penn Jillette role.

Ø  “What did you learn in school today?”  “Revenge.”

Gone Girl

Released:  October 3^rd, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  20^th Century Fox

Starring:  Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler Perry, Carrie Coon

Directed by:  David Fincher

Written by:  Gillian Flynn

Personal Bias Alert:  Read the book, hit and miss with Fincher

6.8 of 10

            The similarities between Gone Girl and director David Fincher’s previous film, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, are remarkable.  Both are based on popular crime novels where the flashiest character is a smart woman who refuses to get taken advantage of.  Take a look at the two leads below.  Which do you think is the sane one?

                                      

            Looks can be deceiving, which is a running theme in both pieces.  Gone Girl explores the assumptions that are made when a well-to-do young woman goes missing in America’s heartland.  The missing woman is Amy Dunne (Rosamund Pike), the unhappy wife of Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck).  Unhappy might be an understatement considering she’s left behind a diary that details a crumbling marriage and a growing concern that her husband might have had enough of her.  As the blame quickly falls on Nick, he struggles to assert his innocence against the mounting evidence and the rabid media that’s latched onto the story.

            With Pike gone for a large portion of the film, the true lead is actually Affleck, who’s brilliantly cast as the type of guy everyone would look at and assume might kill his wife.  He’s got a winning face, the kind that might have allowed him to get too much too easy, and Nick’s reserved, Midwestern politeness doesn’t make for the distraught husband everyone wants to see.  Note that I was talking about Nick at the end; Affleck isn’t a Midwesterner, nor do I think he might kill his wife (I’ve seen Alias, Garner can take care of herself).  Nature might have given Affleck the perfect look for this character, but it’s his great performance that carries the film.

            Pike arguably has the more complicated role, appearing largely in flashback and rarely getting to show Amy’s true nature.  Pike struggles to make Amy feel real, and while there’s moments that work, the performance feels strained.  The same goes for most of the rest of the cast, although there are two standouts besides Affleck.  Kim Dickens excels as the hometown detective assigned to the case, playing into the looks can be deceiving theme by showing good instincts and solid detective work.  On the other hand, Neil Patrick Harris is entirely out of his depth as a suspicious former boyfriend of Amy’s.

            Harris, Pike, and everyone else’s struggles date back to the book, in which novel and screenplay writer Gillian Flynn must have valued pace and theme over characterization.  Several of the characters were left feeling pretty thin, and their behaviors were often erratic.  The worst was Amy, who never made sense to me.  It’s disappointing to say, because so much of the book and the movie are so good, but the ending takes Amy and others too far off the rails.  I understand that it was just going for some crazy fun, but I didn’t buy it.

            Fincher is good at making these sorts of stylish thrillers, and his eye for detail makes for a great looking film.  However, the time restrictions that come with adapting a dense, 432 page novel show.  The beginning and end feels rushed and features some odd edits that cut off prematurely, making it hard for me to get emotionally invested and truly absorbed by the film.  More time is given to the outstanding middle section, and the movie almost becomes something truly great until that off-putting ending.  Still, that Fincher style is always interesting to look at, even if his films sometimes get strangled by it.

            What I realized at the end of this book, and what I remembered at the end of this film, was that Gillian Flynn must have been far more interested in giving us a pulpy thriller than in exploring the story’s interesting themes.  It’s frustrating, because most of the story is a great intersection of entertainment and ideas.  If Flynn had found a way to land the ending that satisfied both sides, then this would have been an excellent piece of work.  Instead, it throws it all away in favor of a shocking ending that left most people in my theater shaking their heads.

            Other Notes:

Ø  I loved the moments where you could see people’s sweat stains.

Ø  I don’t know if Affleck was beefing up for Batman V Superman during filming or if they just hid his body better in some scenes, but there were jarring variations in how big he looked.

Ø  Boy, it’s been a while since Almost Famous.