Director: John Patrick Shanley
Written by: John Patrick Shanley(screenplay)
John Patrick Shanley (play)
Produced by: Scott Rudin, Mark Roybal
Starring: Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Viola Davis, Joseph Foster
“Doubt” is the film that you should have studied senior year of high school, college, or adolescence, right before you tread into the adult world. This is not a feel-good story, nor is it inspiring; rather, it is thought provoking, questioning, and painful if you apply it too personally. Screenplay, writer, and director John Patrick Shanley has created a biosphere of war in which a Nun and Priest battle with weapons familiar to us all.
The opening scene gets right to the jugular with a sincere sermon on doubt by Father Flyyn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) as Sister Beauvier (Meryl Streep) glides alongside the pews reprimanding uninterested children. Sister Beauvier and Father Flynn play each other’s foil with Sister Beauvier being portrayed as the cold and uncompassionate conservative and Father Flynn as the warm progressive man of tomorrow. Conflict through doubt arises in the mind of Sister James (Amy Adams) when she notices suspicious behavior in student Donald Miller (Joseph Foster) after returning from Father Flynn’s office. After Sister Beauvier gets wind of what may have transpired, Sister James’ doubts become her drive to convict Father Flynn.
It is Sister James who serves as our link and catalyst to Sister Beauvier and Father Flynn’s struggle to assert their truth. Initially, she is swayed by her own observations, and Sister Beauvier’s conviction, to believe that Father Flynn has lured her student into an improper relationship. But doubts arise again the next time she encounters Father Flynn as he explains that he is only looking out for Donald Miller, the lone, abused black student at the school. At this point Sister James’ begins to panic and lose sleep from being pulled back and forth by Sister Beauvier and Father Flynn’s contrasting certainties. Up to this point Sister James was our vessel, but when her ailing brother calls her from the Parish, the final battle for resolution begins to gain focus.
To arm herself for her final confrontation with Father Flynn, Sister Beauvier brings in Donald’s mother (Viola Davis) to discuss her suspicions. The dialogue that takes place between the two may be the most conflicting, contradictory, and disconcerting that I have witnessed. The pain with which Ms. Miller speaks makes it that much more difficult to decide whether you can bring yourself to disagree or agree with what she says, “I don’t care what is going on between them, he just has to make it to June.” If her son can graduate from their prestigious school then his odds of getting into a good high school, possibly college, and not incurring his abusive father’s anger, will increase greatly. She cannot allow herself to doubt that Father Flynn is telling the truth because her son’s future has so much riding on making it to June. She walks away bathed in tears, but Sister Beauvier’s conviction cannot be shaken.
Sister Beauvier and Father Flynn’s final battle for truth takes place in her office in the midst yet another lighting storm. For about ten minutes we are sloshed like dirty water by the waves of fierce and vehement assertions and possible truths that wash over our minds. “How can you be so sure!?” Father Flynn demands, “Certainty is an emotion- not a fact,’ she responds. But how can you ever be certain of anything if it is based in something so filial as emotion? How can you be certain of your belief in God and the universe if that defines definition?
After balance and resolution is found between Sister Beauvier and Father Flynn we are led to believe these sort of questions never enter the mind of Sister Beauvier. She is the only strong and constant force throughout the film, regardless of what she hears from any person. But in the silent, snow-covered courtyard when Sisters Beauvier and James are reunited, we find the truth of the film: “You have to walk away from God to pursue wrong, but it comes with a price… for I too am full of doubts!” There is no doubt in my mind that this film deserves a solid 9/10 rating.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Critic Watch: The Reader
Jenni Miller seems immune to finding flaws in a film such as The Reader. Her rave rests upon the shoulders (which were barely covered the entire movie) of Kate Winslet delivering an excellent performance. Miller describes how she feels that The Reader successfully separated itself from the overload of World War II films, as she explains that The Reader delves into the psychological aspects of the war that exist long after the final bomb is dropped.
While reviewing The Reader, William Arnold displays his approval of the film for having a terrific plot and excellent scenes. Arnold feels that the director and camera crew worked together to create brilliant scenes every step of the way. Despite giving credit for the individual scenes, Arnold explains a deeper issue into why the film earns a rave review. He acknowledges how the film took on another issue revolving around the Holocaust, the German aspect of it. In previous years as Arnold explains, the only issue that was portrayed in films was the negatives that the Jews experience. In The Reader, the plot explains how there is a side where Germans were also a victim of the Holocaust. William Arnold praises the film for taking that direction.
For Connie Ogle, The Reader swings and misses out on an important aspect of the film. Overall Ogle seems to praise The Reader as being a film with excellent visuals and a decent plot, but she has her issues with one part of the plot that is under developed. Ogle has trouble getting over the fact that the film failed to explore into the betrayal that Michal (in his adulthood) experiences as he finds out about Hanna. This issue leads Ogle to feel that the film fell apart before the end.
Dana Stevens quite frankly, hates The Reader. She believes that it is almost impossible to make a film about Nazis boring, but The Reader manages to change her mind as she describes The Reader as a slow movie with a plot that is hardly believable. One of the major issues that Dana has with the film is how she believes that Michael should be resolved of all his guilt, because he never knew about Hanna’s past. This issue, along with others such as some of the scenes simply not looking good, Dana Stevens does not feel it is a film worth seeing.
Todd McCarthy tackles an issue with the movie that almost all the other critics either overlook or simply don’t agree with. McCarthy feels that the casting was well selected, but an important piece of the characters was left under developed. Hanna’s identity, according to McCarthy, is covered up by a shell and the viewer is never able to see her thoughts and feelings because she the entire film is based on other’s perception of her.
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117939125.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 – Todd McCarthy
http://www.premiere.com/Review/Movies/The-Reader - Jenni Miller
http://www.slate.com/id/2206513/ - Dana Stevens
http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/story/824509.html - Connie Ogle
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/393397_reader25q.html - William Arnold
While reviewing The Reader, William Arnold displays his approval of the film for having a terrific plot and excellent scenes. Arnold feels that the director and camera crew worked together to create brilliant scenes every step of the way. Despite giving credit for the individual scenes, Arnold explains a deeper issue into why the film earns a rave review. He acknowledges how the film took on another issue revolving around the Holocaust, the German aspect of it. In previous years as Arnold explains, the only issue that was portrayed in films was the negatives that the Jews experience. In The Reader, the plot explains how there is a side where Germans were also a victim of the Holocaust. William Arnold praises the film for taking that direction.
For Connie Ogle, The Reader swings and misses out on an important aspect of the film. Overall Ogle seems to praise The Reader as being a film with excellent visuals and a decent plot, but she has her issues with one part of the plot that is under developed. Ogle has trouble getting over the fact that the film failed to explore into the betrayal that Michal (in his adulthood) experiences as he finds out about Hanna. This issue leads Ogle to feel that the film fell apart before the end.
Dana Stevens quite frankly, hates The Reader. She believes that it is almost impossible to make a film about Nazis boring, but The Reader manages to change her mind as she describes The Reader as a slow movie with a plot that is hardly believable. One of the major issues that Dana has with the film is how she believes that Michael should be resolved of all his guilt, because he never knew about Hanna’s past. This issue, along with others such as some of the scenes simply not looking good, Dana Stevens does not feel it is a film worth seeing.
Todd McCarthy tackles an issue with the movie that almost all the other critics either overlook or simply don’t agree with. McCarthy feels that the casting was well selected, but an important piece of the characters was left under developed. Hanna’s identity, according to McCarthy, is covered up by a shell and the viewer is never able to see her thoughts and feelings because she the entire film is based on other’s perception of her.
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117939125.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 – Todd McCarthy
http://www.premiere.com/Review/Movies/The-Reader - Jenni Miller
http://www.slate.com/id/2206513/ - Dana Stevens
http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/story/824509.html - Connie Ogle
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/393397_reader25q.html - William Arnold
Thursday, February 26, 2009
[DVD Review] Changeling: Don't Believe What You're Told
Director: Clint Eastwood
Written By: J. Michael Straczynski
Produced By: Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, Robert Lorenz
Starring: Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Gattlin Griffith, Jason Butler Harner, Eddie Alderson
It is one of the most fearful incidents that could ever happen to a parent; coming home to find your child missing. Director Clint Eastwood hits close to home by retelling the true story of a women on the brink of an emotional breakdown. Even though we may have read through all the articles pertaining to the Wineville chicken coop murders, which is the name given to this incident, Changeling does not fail to bring tears to the eyes. It becomes so frustrating because we know we can do nothing but watch as the story unfolds.
We are first introduced to Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) as a single mother taking care of her son, Walter Collins (Gattlin Griffith). From the time when Walter goes to school to when school ends, Christine works at a telephone company. It would seem that Christine never lets Walter out of her sight. But on this one fateful day, on a Saturday, Christine is left with no choice but to leave Walter on his own as she leaves for work. The image of Walter in the window is the last we will see of him and the battle with the LAPD will begin.
After checking the house and the entire neighborhood, Christine calls the police when Walter is nowhere to be found. Because of police policy, she is not able to file a missing persons report for another twenty-four hours. Several months pass and there is no word of her son. When it is reported to her that her son has been found, all the tension and frustration held to now is released in the form of weak knees and tears. Impatient, Christine runs to meet up with her son only to be confronted by a complete stranger. However, to give off a good image, the LAPD is determined to convince Christine that Walter has physically changed because of his "traumatic" experience.
Not convinced with the LAPD's explanations, Christine demands they find her real son. However, unwilling to admit the department has made a mistake, the LAPD manipulates Christine's words and actions of those of a delusional women. To keep her quiet, the department enters her in a psychiatric ward. Only when the truth is revealed is she released. Angered with the injustice, Christine is not satisfied. She will not be satisfied until the LAPD is brought down and revealed for their corruption. When everything is finally over we are still left with questions unanswered.
Even though we know the outcome, the acting of Angelina Jolie and her co-stars pull the audience into the story as if this was the first time ever hearing of it. There are several emotions involved that completes the whole experience. We feel anger when the LAPD continually discredits Christine. We feel frustration when no one believes Christine's claims. We feel sadness when Christine breaks down crying. Without the actions to go along with the words, none of these emotions would exist. Because we see just words, we feel detached from the story. But paired with fantastic acting skills and direction, the audience is able to experience an event without having to experience it in their own lives.
Changeling reminds us that in our lives we will go through several hardships. However, they may not be to this extreme. But reality is reality and a true story like this is as close to reality as you can get. The fact that this could become someones reality is more horrifying than any horror movie ever filmed.
Written By: J. Michael Straczynski
Produced By: Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, Robert Lorenz
Starring: Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Gattlin Griffith, Jason Butler Harner, Eddie Alderson
It is one of the most fearful incidents that could ever happen to a parent; coming home to find your child missing. Director Clint Eastwood hits close to home by retelling the true story of a women on the brink of an emotional breakdown. Even though we may have read through all the articles pertaining to the Wineville chicken coop murders, which is the name given to this incident, Changeling does not fail to bring tears to the eyes. It becomes so frustrating because we know we can do nothing but watch as the story unfolds.
We are first introduced to Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) as a single mother taking care of her son, Walter Collins (Gattlin Griffith). From the time when Walter goes to school to when school ends, Christine works at a telephone company. It would seem that Christine never lets Walter out of her sight. But on this one fateful day, on a Saturday, Christine is left with no choice but to leave Walter on his own as she leaves for work. The image of Walter in the window is the last we will see of him and the battle with the LAPD will begin.
After checking the house and the entire neighborhood, Christine calls the police when Walter is nowhere to be found. Because of police policy, she is not able to file a missing persons report for another twenty-four hours. Several months pass and there is no word of her son. When it is reported to her that her son has been found, all the tension and frustration held to now is released in the form of weak knees and tears. Impatient, Christine runs to meet up with her son only to be confronted by a complete stranger. However, to give off a good image, the LAPD is determined to convince Christine that Walter has physically changed because of his "traumatic" experience.
Not convinced with the LAPD's explanations, Christine demands they find her real son. However, unwilling to admit the department has made a mistake, the LAPD manipulates Christine's words and actions of those of a delusional women. To keep her quiet, the department enters her in a psychiatric ward. Only when the truth is revealed is she released. Angered with the injustice, Christine is not satisfied. She will not be satisfied until the LAPD is brought down and revealed for their corruption. When everything is finally over we are still left with questions unanswered.
Even though we know the outcome, the acting of Angelina Jolie and her co-stars pull the audience into the story as if this was the first time ever hearing of it. There are several emotions involved that completes the whole experience. We feel anger when the LAPD continually discredits Christine. We feel frustration when no one believes Christine's claims. We feel sadness when Christine breaks down crying. Without the actions to go along with the words, none of these emotions would exist. Because we see just words, we feel detached from the story. But paired with fantastic acting skills and direction, the audience is able to experience an event without having to experience it in their own lives.
Changeling reminds us that in our lives we will go through several hardships. However, they may not be to this extreme. But reality is reality and a true story like this is as close to reality as you can get. The fact that this could become someones reality is more horrifying than any horror movie ever filmed.
Blog Review: W
W.
Starring: Josh Brolin, James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfus, Jeffery Wright, Thandie Newman
Produced by: Moritz Borman, John Kilik, Bill Block, Oliver Stone
Written by: Stanley Weiser
Directed by: Oliver Stone
"Dick, what is the real withdraw plan?" "There isn't one." It was at that point where Dick Cheney is portrayed as an evil oil-thirsting sith lord that I knew I was going to love this movie. Well, not the movie itself, more like the subject matter. W. made waves upon its release by being the first biopic movie made about a president while said president was still in office. Released at the height of President Bush's unpopularity, there seemed to be no way that the movie could fail.
The movie starts out with a lively debate happening within the Oval Office. Just how should the President address Iran, Iraq, and North Korea in his speech? It's 2002 and September 11 has happened just months ago and (believe it or not) the President was enjoying an 80% approval rating. Secretary Powel says to be too strong could incite bad feelings in the area. The Vice President says the President needs to use that popularity to prevent another September 11. I think this scene greatly highlighted the importance of every single decision made in that office, because as it turns out, what was choosen, axis of evil, has become the idiom of the decade.
The film thus begins a raucous jumping back and forth covering various scenarious of George W. Bush's life. We see him at pledge week at Yale, being bailed out of jail by daddy, drinking binges, suprising sibling rivalry, and attempts to please his father. All of these scenes are cut in between meetings and discussions that take place in the White House. It seems very hard and ruff, there are no transitions whatsoever. The camera is often zoomed in on Brolin's face and shot at odd angles, but to me the close up doesn't achieve what it could have. There is also symbolism that is so strong it almost smacks you in the face. Yes, George Bush owned the Texas Rangers. No, I don't need to see Brolin going out to try and catch a pop-up everytime something hard in his life happens. Will he catch it? We never find out.
The acting however is fantastic. Wright and Dreyfus are great as the continuously feuding former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Vice President Dick Cheyney. The audience is given both sides of the Iraqi War quite well, and you feel a sense of dread when the president doesn't listen to his Secretary of State. I do not remember the presidency George H. W. Bush, but I highly appreciated Cromwell's portrayel of the over bearing father who loved his other son more. Brolin, as the title character, while at times taking the "wild cowboy" act to the extreme, showed that perhaps Bush Jr. was in effect trying to prove to someone that he was capable. Like I said, the subject matter is what is highly fascinating. History is always in 20/20 vision and could the president really justify not doing something after September 11 even if "there was a 1% chance of WMDs"? In 2006 The Queen garnished much praise for its portrayal of British royalty, and I believe did a better job in it's depiction, but W. is quite a worthy mention.
Starring: Josh Brolin, James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfus, Jeffery Wright, Thandie Newman
Produced by: Moritz Borman, John Kilik, Bill Block, Oliver Stone
Written by: Stanley Weiser
Directed by: Oliver Stone
"Dick, what is the real withdraw plan?" "There isn't one." It was at that point where Dick Cheney is portrayed as an evil oil-thirsting sith lord that I knew I was going to love this movie. Well, not the movie itself, more like the subject matter. W. made waves upon its release by being the first biopic movie made about a president while said president was still in office. Released at the height of President Bush's unpopularity, there seemed to be no way that the movie could fail.
The movie starts out with a lively debate happening within the Oval Office. Just how should the President address Iran, Iraq, and North Korea in his speech? It's 2002 and September 11 has happened just months ago and (believe it or not) the President was enjoying an 80% approval rating. Secretary Powel says to be too strong could incite bad feelings in the area. The Vice President says the President needs to use that popularity to prevent another September 11. I think this scene greatly highlighted the importance of every single decision made in that office, because as it turns out, what was choosen, axis of evil, has become the idiom of the decade.
The film thus begins a raucous jumping back and forth covering various scenarious of George W. Bush's life. We see him at pledge week at Yale, being bailed out of jail by daddy, drinking binges, suprising sibling rivalry, and attempts to please his father. All of these scenes are cut in between meetings and discussions that take place in the White House. It seems very hard and ruff, there are no transitions whatsoever. The camera is often zoomed in on Brolin's face and shot at odd angles, but to me the close up doesn't achieve what it could have. There is also symbolism that is so strong it almost smacks you in the face. Yes, George Bush owned the Texas Rangers. No, I don't need to see Brolin going out to try and catch a pop-up everytime something hard in his life happens. Will he catch it? We never find out.
The acting however is fantastic. Wright and Dreyfus are great as the continuously feuding former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Vice President Dick Cheyney. The audience is given both sides of the Iraqi War quite well, and you feel a sense of dread when the president doesn't listen to his Secretary of State. I do not remember the presidency George H. W. Bush, but I highly appreciated Cromwell's portrayel of the over bearing father who loved his other son more. Brolin, as the title character, while at times taking the "wild cowboy" act to the extreme, showed that perhaps Bush Jr. was in effect trying to prove to someone that he was capable. Like I said, the subject matter is what is highly fascinating. History is always in 20/20 vision and could the president really justify not doing something after September 11 even if "there was a 1% chance of WMDs"? In 2006 The Queen garnished much praise for its portrayal of British royalty, and I believe did a better job in it's depiction, but W. is quite a worthy mention.
Critic Watch: Coraline
Written by Henry Selick
Directed by Henry Selick
Starring Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Dawn French, Jennifer Saunders, and Ian McShane
Based on the novel by Neil Gaiman
Critic Watch by Joe Romano
From the mind of director Andy Selick comes a new stop-motion animated movie based on the hit novel Coraline by Neil Gaiman. It has been almost universally recognized, if only for its novelty. It is one of the only movies to be made using stop motion in recent years, requiring nearly endless hours of work to produce. But was the final product worth all the trouble?
Directed by Henry Selick
Starring Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Dawn French, Jennifer Saunders, and Ian McShane
Based on the novel by Neil Gaiman
Critic Watch by Joe Romano
From the mind of director Andy Selick comes a new stop-motion animated movie based on the hit novel Coraline by Neil Gaiman. It has been almost universally recognized, if only for its novelty. It is one of the only movies to be made using stop motion in recent years, requiring nearly endless hours of work to produce. But was the final product worth all the trouble?
Lawrence Toppman of the Charlotte Observer praises Coraline as "visually imaginative," and commends the visual and aural elemnts of the film. He suggests it might even be a little too sophisticated for its target audience; kids and parents. He says the story does "borrow" some from other films like "The Matrix" and "Spirited Away," but in the end concludes that the film is both aurally and visually delightful.
Desson Thompson of The Washington Post also lauds Coraline for its beauty. He says that the combination of stop-motion combined with stereoscopic 3-D and high definiton computer effects render the movie "supercharged with in-your-face palpability." However, he criticizes the screenplay, saying that it underplayed the dramatic subject matter, leaving the true story too watered-down. He loved Dakota Fanning's voice acting, but says he wished the script was more engaging.
Paula Puig of USA Today was even less enthusiastic about the movie's writing, saying that its only merits come from visual appeal, while the story is unfocused and falters in parts. She also mentions that the macabre tone may be disturbing for younger viewers.
J.R. Jones agrees with Puig, saying that the story spends too much time meandering through introductions and spends too little time actually reaching the movie's home stretch. Jones also admits that the film's visual element is "wonderfully creepy."
On a lighter note, Lou Lumenick of the New York Post praises Coraline's story as "sophisticated" and "involving." He, too, praises the film's eye-popping 3-D visuals.
In general, Corailine received a very warm welcome from the critics. The story elements seem to be met with a mixed opinion, but the critics stand unanimous in their appreciation of the film's visual elements, identifying them as it's best selling point.
Desson Thompson of The Washington Post also lauds Coraline for its beauty. He says that the combination of stop-motion combined with stereoscopic 3-D and high definiton computer effects render the movie "supercharged with in-your-face palpability." However, he criticizes the screenplay, saying that it underplayed the dramatic subject matter, leaving the true story too watered-down. He loved Dakota Fanning's voice acting, but says he wished the script was more engaging.
Paula Puig of USA Today was even less enthusiastic about the movie's writing, saying that its only merits come from visual appeal, while the story is unfocused and falters in parts. She also mentions that the macabre tone may be disturbing for younger viewers.
J.R. Jones agrees with Puig, saying that the story spends too much time meandering through introductions and spends too little time actually reaching the movie's home stretch. Jones also admits that the film's visual element is "wonderfully creepy."
On a lighter note, Lou Lumenick of the New York Post praises Coraline's story as "sophisticated" and "involving." He, too, praises the film's eye-popping 3-D visuals.
In general, Corailine received a very warm welcome from the critics. The story elements seem to be met with a mixed opinion, but the critics stand unanimous in their appreciation of the film's visual elements, identifying them as it's best selling point.
Blog Review: One Man Army in Pierre Morel's Taken
Director: Pierre Morel
Written by: Luc Besson, Robert Mark Kamen
Produced by: Luc Besson, Didier Hoarau, Franck Lebreton, Michael Mandaville
Starring: Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Famke Janssen
Combine fast paced action, real world issues, and the excellence that is Liam Neeson and what do you get? Pierre Morel's action thriller, Taken. The film never fails to keep its audience on the edge of their seats, but what it lacks in plot and believability prevents it from being truly great. Considering the film's genre, plot usually isn't really emphasized when it comes to skull smashing action. But in this case, the film's plot will leave even the biggest action junkie wanting more.
The story centers around Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson), a former member of the CIA, and his struggle to reconnect with his seventeen year old daughter. His ex-wife tries to stop him every chance she gets, and with her perfect new husband around, his task seems harder as time goes on. After a few father-daughter scenes, Kim (Maggie Grace), asks her dad if she can take a trip to Paris. Bryan, being an ex-CIA operative, initially refuses to let her go on the basis that the world is too dangerous for her. A few tantrums and lies later, Bryan agrees to let her go.
The plot seems promising initially. A war-hardened man trying to bond with his now grown up daughter. It quickly falls into the realm of unbelievability when that same war-hardened man allows two seventeen year old girls to travel to Europe by themselves. They even lie about the specifics of their trip, but after a few harsh words from his ex-wife, he agrees again. If he truly is the paranoid government man he is made out to be, he would never allow such a trip. It also seems implausible that her mother would let her go, no matter how much of a new age parent she tries to be.
The conflict begins shortly after the girls arrive in Paris. While on the phone with her father, Kim and her friend are kidnapped from their apartment. Bryan quickly learns that the girls are going to be sold into a sex slavery ring, and if they are not found within 96 hours, he'll never see his daughter again. This begins his rampage of anger and violence. Taking out everyone in his path, he won't stop until his daughter is safe at home again.
The one thing the movie definitely gets right is the way it handles its central issue. Human trafficking is not just a major problem in the world of fiction, but in the real world as well. The fear of abduction poses a real threat in society. The movie portrays the issue as what it truly is, demeaning, disgusting, and horrible. The movie depicts the destroyed lives of these women, their forced addiction to drugs and prostitution. Neeson's sweet revenge on the men that run the ring provides a subtle gratification to the viewer.
While unrealistic at times, the action provided in the movie is indeed entertaining, if the viewer is able to suspend disbelief. A certain thrill is felt whenever Neeson destroys another bad guy. It also helps that your protagonist just reeks bad ass in his every action. Neeson portrays the character of protective father very well, keeping a good balance of anger and worry throughout. The biggest highlight of the movie is Bryan's unrelenting determination to find his daughter.
Can a middle aged man take out several men less than half his age all at one time? In most action movies, yes, but what the fight scenes lack in believeability is usually made up for in some other aspect of the film. This isn't quite the case when it comes to Taken. While the fight scenes are quite satisfying and enjoyable, the plot of the movie leaves much to be desired. It does have a redeeming quality in its acknowledgement of the all to real issue of human trafficking and the devastating effects it has.
Written by: Luc Besson, Robert Mark Kamen
Produced by: Luc Besson, Didier Hoarau, Franck Lebreton, Michael Mandaville
Starring: Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Famke Janssen
Combine fast paced action, real world issues, and the excellence that is Liam Neeson and what do you get? Pierre Morel's action thriller, Taken. The film never fails to keep its audience on the edge of their seats, but what it lacks in plot and believability prevents it from being truly great. Considering the film's genre, plot usually isn't really emphasized when it comes to skull smashing action. But in this case, the film's plot will leave even the biggest action junkie wanting more.
The story centers around Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson), a former member of the CIA, and his struggle to reconnect with his seventeen year old daughter. His ex-wife tries to stop him every chance she gets, and with her perfect new husband around, his task seems harder as time goes on. After a few father-daughter scenes, Kim (Maggie Grace), asks her dad if she can take a trip to Paris. Bryan, being an ex-CIA operative, initially refuses to let her go on the basis that the world is too dangerous for her. A few tantrums and lies later, Bryan agrees to let her go.
The plot seems promising initially. A war-hardened man trying to bond with his now grown up daughter. It quickly falls into the realm of unbelievability when that same war-hardened man allows two seventeen year old girls to travel to Europe by themselves. They even lie about the specifics of their trip, but after a few harsh words from his ex-wife, he agrees again. If he truly is the paranoid government man he is made out to be, he would never allow such a trip. It also seems implausible that her mother would let her go, no matter how much of a new age parent she tries to be.
The conflict begins shortly after the girls arrive in Paris. While on the phone with her father, Kim and her friend are kidnapped from their apartment. Bryan quickly learns that the girls are going to be sold into a sex slavery ring, and if they are not found within 96 hours, he'll never see his daughter again. This begins his rampage of anger and violence. Taking out everyone in his path, he won't stop until his daughter is safe at home again.
The one thing the movie definitely gets right is the way it handles its central issue. Human trafficking is not just a major problem in the world of fiction, but in the real world as well. The fear of abduction poses a real threat in society. The movie portrays the issue as what it truly is, demeaning, disgusting, and horrible. The movie depicts the destroyed lives of these women, their forced addiction to drugs and prostitution. Neeson's sweet revenge on the men that run the ring provides a subtle gratification to the viewer.
While unrealistic at times, the action provided in the movie is indeed entertaining, if the viewer is able to suspend disbelief. A certain thrill is felt whenever Neeson destroys another bad guy. It also helps that your protagonist just reeks bad ass in his every action. Neeson portrays the character of protective father very well, keeping a good balance of anger and worry throughout. The biggest highlight of the movie is Bryan's unrelenting determination to find his daughter.
Can a middle aged man take out several men less than half his age all at one time? In most action movies, yes, but what the fight scenes lack in believeability is usually made up for in some other aspect of the film. This isn't quite the case when it comes to Taken. While the fight scenes are quite satisfying and enjoyable, the plot of the movie leaves much to be desired. It does have a redeeming quality in its acknowledgement of the all to real issue of human trafficking and the devastating effects it has.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Critic watch: Push
Critic watch: Push
By Joe Dawson
Director: Paul McGuigan
Written By: David Bourla
Produced by: Icon Productions
Starring: Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning, Camilla Belle, Djimon Hounsou, Maggie Siff, and Scott Michael Campbell
Push is a sci-fi thriller about people with superhuman powers. The government is trying to build an arm by harnessing certain individuals’ special abilities, like the abilities to read minds and “push” things without touching anything. Dakota Fanning is a 13-year old girl who can see into the future and it isn’t pretty; she helps Chris Evan’s male character realize the magnitude of the situation that is about to face them. The movie is filled with suspense and a lot of supernatural action as they try to prevent the inevitable.
The critics had many different opinions about this movie. Steve Rea, of the Philadelphia Inquirer, gave this movie a fairly good review, rating it a 75 out of 100. He seemed to enjoy the fast pace action of the movie and the way it was filmed, with the use of swooping and jumping camera views. Rea used some creative language in the beginning of his review to draw the reader in, writing “when push comes to shove.” His rating was the highest of all the ratings given to this movie.
Other reviews were far less favorable. One review by Claudia Puig, of USA Today, gave this movie a 50 out a 100. Puig didn’t like the fact that this movie was so farfetched. She said it is a “silly movie” and “plenty convoluted.” Many critics agreed more with Puig; the average rating of this movie was 36 out of 100. Glenn Whipp gave a rating that was the closest to this average with a 38. He slammed the movie, calling it “painful.” He criticizes the whole plot of the story because it did not make much sense to him. Also, he didn’t like Dakota Fanning’s role saying she looked like a “bratz girl,” and that when acting drunk she failed miserably. But this was not the worst of all; the Miami Herald gave this movie a 25 and the Austin chronicle gave it an 11. Overall, the majority of the critics disliked this film because of its lack of logic and absurdly unrealistic plot.
By Joe Dawson
Director: Paul McGuigan
Written By: David Bourla
Produced by: Icon Productions
Starring: Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning, Camilla Belle, Djimon Hounsou, Maggie Siff, and Scott Michael Campbell
Push is a sci-fi thriller about people with superhuman powers. The government is trying to build an arm by harnessing certain individuals’ special abilities, like the abilities to read minds and “push” things without touching anything. Dakota Fanning is a 13-year old girl who can see into the future and it isn’t pretty; she helps Chris Evan’s male character realize the magnitude of the situation that is about to face them. The movie is filled with suspense and a lot of supernatural action as they try to prevent the inevitable.
The critics had many different opinions about this movie. Steve Rea, of the Philadelphia Inquirer, gave this movie a fairly good review, rating it a 75 out of 100. He seemed to enjoy the fast pace action of the movie and the way it was filmed, with the use of swooping and jumping camera views. Rea used some creative language in the beginning of his review to draw the reader in, writing “when push comes to shove.” His rating was the highest of all the ratings given to this movie.
Other reviews were far less favorable. One review by Claudia Puig, of USA Today, gave this movie a 50 out a 100. Puig didn’t like the fact that this movie was so farfetched. She said it is a “silly movie” and “plenty convoluted.” Many critics agreed more with Puig; the average rating of this movie was 36 out of 100. Glenn Whipp gave a rating that was the closest to this average with a 38. He slammed the movie, calling it “painful.” He criticizes the whole plot of the story because it did not make much sense to him. Also, he didn’t like Dakota Fanning’s role saying she looked like a “bratz girl,” and that when acting drunk she failed miserably. But this was not the worst of all; the Miami Herald gave this movie a 25 and the Austin chronicle gave it an 11. Overall, the majority of the critics disliked this film because of its lack of logic and absurdly unrealistic plot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)