What happens when an inept, yet well intentioned, scientist invents a machine that will turn water into food? Odd weather. Wait... it’s a bit more than odd. A spaghetti tornado, a mansion hand carved from jello, streets covered with ice cream. And sentient food. Not just food that is capable of thought, but edible products with malicious self-persevering instincts.
Cloudy presents us with a solid (yet unconventional) premise. A neglected nerd has spent his childhood dreaming of making inventions that would solve the world’s problems. He wants to be a scientist and avoid following in the footsteps of his sardine selling father. But his hometown is in an economic downturn because the rest of the world has discovered that it’s only export (sardines) taste “super gross.” Now that sardines are not being purchased by the rest of planet earth, Swallow Falls has a sardine surplus. Flint Lockwood (dorky scientist) builds a machine that transforms the molecular structure of H2O into delicious meals in hopes that he can provide his neighbors something to eat other than sardines. The experiment is interrupted by an anal retentive cop, and the machine shoots off into the stratosphere.
Then it starts raining food.
With the prodding of the town’s mayor and the companionship of a meteorologist (and reformed nerd), Flint provides a bountiful buffet. But, as foreshadowed early in the film, Flint’s invention creates more chaos than intended and the gourmet precipitation escalates into a globe-encompassing perfect storm.
What impressed me:
The casting. Napolian Dynamite as the bumbling scientist, Anna Faris as his romantic interest, and Mr T as the acrobatic cop were perfect choices.
The voice work. The voices might have been stereotyped, but it worked.
The food. The attention in the animation was devoted to the food - brilliantly colored, and dazzling in both absurdity and surrealism.
The story. This is one that is as important for parents as it is for kids. Thematically, it urges parents to encourage our kids’ eccentricities and to lovingly support all of the weird things they do.
The stuff that was a bit disappointing:
Mean spirited humor. The movie was largely devoid of crude humor. No fart jokes or double entendres. However the script writers replaced the crass with the cruel. Insults and teasing were in plentiful supply.
Character animation. The artistic quality of the human characters lacked the devotion given to the inanimate objects. The animation of the living was angular and disproportionate. They were more caricatures than characters.
Baby Brent (Andy Samberg). Again, the casting choice here was excellent, but the grown (overweight) man in diapers was a bit disturbing.
Overall, it’s a delightful movie for both kids and parents. Enjoyable, but not stellar.
Showing posts with label 2009. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2009. Show all posts
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Friday, April 02, 2010
Inglourious Basterds
Welcome to Quentin Tarantino's version of World War II. It's not real history. He takes a few creative strides that come closer to wishful thinking than reality.
But there is much to learn from this alternate take on the great war. Here's my list.
1. The Nazi occupation of France was set to a soundtrack akin to spaghetti westerns and 70's era kung fu. With a touch of Jazz and David Bowie.
2. Some of the Nazis were murderous and vile. Others were effeminate bi-polar creeps.
3. Hitler had a temper problem.
4. Don't trust Nazi films starlets. They're not too bright.
5. Nazi war heroes are hopeless romantics. If their charm doesn't woo you, they'll just shoot you.
6. Seeing people drink beer from a glass boot never gets old.
7. If you must have a nick-name, you better have a cool one.
8. Nitrate film is highly flammable. And deadly.
9. Pissed of Jewish mercenaries cuss. A lot.
10. I laugh during awkward moments of cinematic brutality.
That last one has nothing to do with the movie, but it is true. And Inglourious Basterds has no shortage of uncomfortable sequences of violence. The movie opens with exterminations, and ends with execution. Between those bookends, Tarantino's cup of death and disfigurment runneth over. Brad Pitt, Eli Roth and their gang of "Basterds" (Jewish American soldiers hellbent on a mission to kill as many Nazis as possible) indulge themselves in a cavalcade of scalping, carving, fists, bombs, and bullets.
Through it all, we cheer on the righteous vengeance of the basterds and a Jewish girl with a grudge (Mélanie Laurent) who owns the movie theater that houses a Nazi movie premier and the final scenes of carnage. Tarantino creates no sympathy for the Nazis and treats them with contempt. He then gives us an ending to the war that never happened.
It is a better movie than I expected. Far less disturbing than I've come to expect out of Tarantino - who gives as a well written script, excellent production, and a superb cast.
Inglourious Basterds has earned its spot in my top five movies of 2009. My mother-in-law rooted for the Basterds (she generally abhors movies with gratuitous language and bloodshed), and Bekah enjoyed it. That being said, it is not a movie for little kids. Christian was upstairs watching Horton for the 87th time while we watched Basterds. Unless you want your kids to endure years of therapy when they grow up - keep the little ones away.
But there is much to learn from this alternate take on the great war. Here's my list.
1. The Nazi occupation of France was set to a soundtrack akin to spaghetti westerns and 70's era kung fu. With a touch of Jazz and David Bowie.
2. Some of the Nazis were murderous and vile. Others were effeminate bi-polar creeps.
3. Hitler had a temper problem.
4. Don't trust Nazi films starlets. They're not too bright.
5. Nazi war heroes are hopeless romantics. If their charm doesn't woo you, they'll just shoot you.
6. Seeing people drink beer from a glass boot never gets old.
7. If you must have a nick-name, you better have a cool one.
8. Nitrate film is highly flammable. And deadly.
9. Pissed of Jewish mercenaries cuss. A lot.
10. I laugh during awkward moments of cinematic brutality.
That last one has nothing to do with the movie, but it is true. And Inglourious Basterds has no shortage of uncomfortable sequences of violence. The movie opens with exterminations, and ends with execution. Between those bookends, Tarantino's cup of death and disfigurment runneth over. Brad Pitt, Eli Roth and their gang of "Basterds" (Jewish American soldiers hellbent on a mission to kill as many Nazis as possible) indulge themselves in a cavalcade of scalping, carving, fists, bombs, and bullets.
Through it all, we cheer on the righteous vengeance of the basterds and a Jewish girl with a grudge (Mélanie Laurent) who owns the movie theater that houses a Nazi movie premier and the final scenes of carnage. Tarantino creates no sympathy for the Nazis and treats them with contempt. He then gives us an ending to the war that never happened.
It is a better movie than I expected. Far less disturbing than I've come to expect out of Tarantino - who gives as a well written script, excellent production, and a superb cast.
Inglourious Basterds has earned its spot in my top five movies of 2009. My mother-in-law rooted for the Basterds (she generally abhors movies with gratuitous language and bloodshed), and Bekah enjoyed it. That being said, it is not a movie for little kids. Christian was upstairs watching Horton for the 87th time while we watched Basterds. Unless you want your kids to endure years of therapy when they grow up - keep the little ones away.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The Soloist
First, start with an excellent premise from a talented writer. LA journalist Nathaniel Ayers befriends a talented homeless musician who happens to be a schizophrenic Julliard dropout.
Then take two of the most brilliant actors in modern cinema and plug them into the biographical roles. Jamie Foxx as Steve Lopez - the homeless musical savant, and Robert Downey Jr as the writer Ayers.
Finally, use cinematography to contrast the harsh streets of Los Angeles with delicate concert halls; and balance the chaotic sounds of an urban jungle with the soothing sounds of classical music. This audible/visual disparity serves as a creative attempt to make the audience feel like they are battling the symptoms of schizophrenia.
10 points for effort. 2 points for execution. This movie looked promising and I was eager to see it. Downey and Foxx both contributed high caliber performances. The story was poignant and stunning. Yet, I was completely underwhelmed.
The Soloist suffered from slow pacing (exacerbated by the long stretches of kaleidoscopic visuals set to the lulling score of cello and violin) and uneven directing. It was a dismal disappointment, but it shouldn't have been. It tried too hard to be A Beautiful Mind, when straight-forward story telling would have spawned a better film. The movie focused too much on the music rather than the music makers.
Please don't misinterpret that last sentence. Classical music is not the reason The Soloist is a dreary and plodding movie. Several other movies have used classical music with more compelling results. Mental illness is not the problem, nor is the realistic portrayal of homelessness.
The problem with The Soloist is that it is trying to do too much. It tried to mimic the devices of other mental illness based movies. It tried to unpack the problems healthy and grounded individuals have relating to the mentally ill. It tried to highlight the trials of the homeless. It tried to show how an act of selflessness can change the course of a person's life. In attempting so much, it falters on every purpose.
I give it two half stars out of a possible five half stars.
(Disclosure: I was tired when I watched The Soloist. Some of my complaints about pacing could be a result of my sleepiness.)
Then take two of the most brilliant actors in modern cinema and plug them into the biographical roles. Jamie Foxx as Steve Lopez - the homeless musical savant, and Robert Downey Jr as the writer Ayers.
Finally, use cinematography to contrast the harsh streets of Los Angeles with delicate concert halls; and balance the chaotic sounds of an urban jungle with the soothing sounds of classical music. This audible/visual disparity serves as a creative attempt to make the audience feel like they are battling the symptoms of schizophrenia.
10 points for effort. 2 points for execution. This movie looked promising and I was eager to see it. Downey and Foxx both contributed high caliber performances. The story was poignant and stunning. Yet, I was completely underwhelmed.
The Soloist suffered from slow pacing (exacerbated by the long stretches of kaleidoscopic visuals set to the lulling score of cello and violin) and uneven directing. It was a dismal disappointment, but it shouldn't have been. It tried too hard to be A Beautiful Mind, when straight-forward story telling would have spawned a better film. The movie focused too much on the music rather than the music makers.
Please don't misinterpret that last sentence. Classical music is not the reason The Soloist is a dreary and plodding movie. Several other movies have used classical music with more compelling results. Mental illness is not the problem, nor is the realistic portrayal of homelessness.
The problem with The Soloist is that it is trying to do too much. It tried to mimic the devices of other mental illness based movies. It tried to unpack the problems healthy and grounded individuals have relating to the mentally ill. It tried to highlight the trials of the homeless. It tried to show how an act of selflessness can change the course of a person's life. In attempting so much, it falters on every purpose.
I give it two half stars out of a possible five half stars.
(Disclosure: I was tired when I watched The Soloist. Some of my complaints about pacing could be a result of my sleepiness.)
Monday, January 11, 2010
Carriers
What if?
That is the question superior survival movies ask. Not the “what’s going to happen,” “how did it happen,” or “how are they going to fix it.” Those are awful questions.
Enter Carriers. The world has been ravaged by a highly contagious and horrific disease. Most of the population is dead or dying. What if it was you? What would you do? How would you survive? Carriers only asks questions – it proposes no answers. Instead of answers, it gives you something to ponder.
Two brothers (Chris Pine and Lou Taylor Pucci) are driving cross country to return to the beach house they vacationed at as kids. Along for the ride are Pine’s girlfriend (Piper Perabo) and an upper class stranger (Emily VanCamp). They have rules to follow to prevent getting sick: avoid the infected, sanitize everything, etc. They also carry a healthy supply of bleach, duct tape, and bottled water.
Their strategy is flawed as the meet a father who is willing to do anything to save his daughter (Christopher Meloni), a sick doctor who has given up on finding a cure, a team of professionals with a surefire way to thwart infection, and a pair of armed old ladies.
The cause of the disease is never explained (nor is the cause needed), the fate of humanity and the surviving characters is never resolved, and there is no gratifying conclusion, just a somber journey through despair, isolation, and loneliness.
Graciously the melancholic temperament of the film is broken by bits of absurdity (Pine’s character driving a golf cart across abandoned fairways and sand traps with reckless abandon, and the hyper quarreling between the two brothers). Yet despite the humorous interruptions, you still can’t escape the morally challenging queries.
Would you kill to survive? Lie? Steal?
Would you drink yourself into oblivion?
Would you give up hope? Or would you persevere against insurmountable odds?
Would you be willing to abandon someone you love if you knew there was nothing you could do to save them? Would you force someone you love to make that decision?
What would you feel? Bitterness? Despondency?
Would you break the rules – even if you were the one who created the policy?
Again, the movie does not answer any of these questions. The actions and motives of the characters are never justified or rationalized. You will not walk away from watching this movie with a peaceful easy feeling. While a viral pandemic is the backbone of the plot, the real story is about making tough judgments in the face of ghastly circumstances.
My take: The characters are oversimplified archetypes – the jerk (Pine), the bullied genius ( Pucci), the rebellious girl (Perabo), the spoiled rich girl (VanCamp), and the noble father (Meloni). Despite the stereotypes, the acting is superb. The story is depressing, tainted with disturbing imagery, yet it is engaging and thought provoking.
Bekah’s take: What a depressing movie. It did spark some debate. Would I leave her on the side of the road if I found out she was sick and incurable? She swears she’d volunteer to stay behind and give us a better chance at survival. She wouldn’t recommend the movie.
Final word: A hat tip from me but a frown of scorn from Bekah. My recommendation – if you’re going to watch it be prepared, the movie will give you no reason to celebrate humanity and you might want to consume an entire gallon of ice cream (or some other comfort food) afterwords.
That is the question superior survival movies ask. Not the “what’s going to happen,” “how did it happen,” or “how are they going to fix it.” Those are awful questions.
Enter Carriers. The world has been ravaged by a highly contagious and horrific disease. Most of the population is dead or dying. What if it was you? What would you do? How would you survive? Carriers only asks questions – it proposes no answers. Instead of answers, it gives you something to ponder.
Two brothers (Chris Pine and Lou Taylor Pucci) are driving cross country to return to the beach house they vacationed at as kids. Along for the ride are Pine’s girlfriend (Piper Perabo) and an upper class stranger (Emily VanCamp). They have rules to follow to prevent getting sick: avoid the infected, sanitize everything, etc. They also carry a healthy supply of bleach, duct tape, and bottled water.
Their strategy is flawed as the meet a father who is willing to do anything to save his daughter (Christopher Meloni), a sick doctor who has given up on finding a cure, a team of professionals with a surefire way to thwart infection, and a pair of armed old ladies.
The cause of the disease is never explained (nor is the cause needed), the fate of humanity and the surviving characters is never resolved, and there is no gratifying conclusion, just a somber journey through despair, isolation, and loneliness.
Graciously the melancholic temperament of the film is broken by bits of absurdity (Pine’s character driving a golf cart across abandoned fairways and sand traps with reckless abandon, and the hyper quarreling between the two brothers). Yet despite the humorous interruptions, you still can’t escape the morally challenging queries.
Would you kill to survive? Lie? Steal?
Would you drink yourself into oblivion?
Would you give up hope? Or would you persevere against insurmountable odds?
Would you be willing to abandon someone you love if you knew there was nothing you could do to save them? Would you force someone you love to make that decision?
What would you feel? Bitterness? Despondency?
Would you break the rules – even if you were the one who created the policy?
Again, the movie does not answer any of these questions. The actions and motives of the characters are never justified or rationalized. You will not walk away from watching this movie with a peaceful easy feeling. While a viral pandemic is the backbone of the plot, the real story is about making tough judgments in the face of ghastly circumstances.
My take: The characters are oversimplified archetypes – the jerk (Pine), the bullied genius ( Pucci), the rebellious girl (Perabo), the spoiled rich girl (VanCamp), and the noble father (Meloni). Despite the stereotypes, the acting is superb. The story is depressing, tainted with disturbing imagery, yet it is engaging and thought provoking.
Bekah’s take: What a depressing movie. It did spark some debate. Would I leave her on the side of the road if I found out she was sick and incurable? She swears she’d volunteer to stay behind and give us a better chance at survival. She wouldn’t recommend the movie.
Final word: A hat tip from me but a frown of scorn from Bekah. My recommendation – if you’re going to watch it be prepared, the movie will give you no reason to celebrate humanity and you might want to consume an entire gallon of ice cream (or some other comfort food) afterwords.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
2012
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to set up a bank of TVs and simultaneously play a bunch of disaster flicks on them? The Towering Inferno, Earthquake, Armageddon, The Poseidon Adventure, Dante's Peak, and Hard Rain on a stack of six big screen TV's... I'm sure you haven't, but just in case you have wondered - Roland Emmerich was thinking of you.
Emmerich threw down the gauntlet when he blew up the White House in Independence Day. He is the man who set the standard for the modern era of the disaster genre. Yet, he's never quite lived up to the expectations he created. His movies have been more hype than substance (the quirky Godzilla and the plodding Day After Tomorrow are a couple of examples). Now with 2012 he aims to out do himself (and every other apocalyptic movie ever made) in both it's epic scale and epic duration.
Yes I said duration. It is a long movie. I'd recommend using the facilities immediately before the opening credits. Despite the long running time (158 minutes) Emmerich fills that time wisely. It's not the "when will this movie ever end" kind of Transformers 2 long... just the "my bladder is going to burst at any moment" kind. If it wasn't for the one liter of Mt Dew I chugged prior to the movie's beginning, I would have barely noticed the length.
The scenes of destruction (of which there were many) were evenly spaced - unlike some other movies that pack it all in to the fist 20 minutes of film (I'm talking about you The Core). While the dialog is not Oscar worthy, it's not a distraction. The conversations were practical (all though mildly predictable), punctuated with intentional humor, and a self-parodying outlook on the concept of cataclysmic events.
There are a couple of cheese ball moments (The Governator Schwarzenegger's cameo and an obnoxious fissure that splits a couple after the man mentions feeling like there is something separating them) but those clips are few and do not take away from the grandeur of the total and inescapable destruction that Emmerich celebrates for nearly an two hours and forty minutes.
As California sinks into the Pacific, a cruise ship and aircraft carrier are upended in tidal waves, buildings collapse, Yellowstone explodes, and Woody Harrelson goes crazy, you can't help but think how awesome it all looks. And while we know the story is completely implausible, we enjoy it. We know a puddle-jumper plane can't outrun (outfly?) a pyroclastic flow, but we sit on the edge of our seats to see it happen. We know that the earth will not open up to swallow the Vatican, but it makes compelling cinematography. And amidst the chaos is a plot. A decent one. And while some disaster movies center on one story, 2012 takes on a few. The strength of family, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Political and humanitarian ethics. Sacrifice and hope.
And with all that is splayed on the big screen during 2012, one of my favorite moments came after the movie was over (and I'm not talking about Adam Lambert's caterwauling during the closing credits). On my way out of the theater, I overheard two teen-aged girls talking.
"What sucks is like this is totally going to like happen like three days before Christmas," one of them said. (I wish I was joking.)
First of all... it's not. 2012 is a work of fiction - not a documentary. I won't get into the details, but the world will not end on 12/21/12. Astrophysicists, anthropologists, geologists, and many other scientific peoples have easily discounted the proposed meaning of Mayan prophesies. It is well documented. Google it. So I got a good laugh at the girls' academic naiveté, but I am also a bit puzzled by their arithmetic. The end of the Mayan long count calendar is December 12th of 2012. Last time I checked, Christmas falls on the 25th of December... every year. So, if I do my math correctly, 25 minus 21 is 4... not three. And the movie wasn't vague about the date. But I digress. The movie is well worth the price. Emmerich not only lives up to the expectations, but surpasses it. The sad misguided conversation of two girls who are prone to believe anything is just icing on the cake.
(And (Warning: plot spoiler) good news for dog lovers, a few corgis survive along with a king charles cavalier. Good news for alien lovers, so does District 9)
Emmerich threw down the gauntlet when he blew up the White House in Independence Day. He is the man who set the standard for the modern era of the disaster genre. Yet, he's never quite lived up to the expectations he created. His movies have been more hype than substance (the quirky Godzilla and the plodding Day After Tomorrow are a couple of examples). Now with 2012 he aims to out do himself (and every other apocalyptic movie ever made) in both it's epic scale and epic duration.
Yes I said duration. It is a long movie. I'd recommend using the facilities immediately before the opening credits. Despite the long running time (158 minutes) Emmerich fills that time wisely. It's not the "when will this movie ever end" kind of Transformers 2 long... just the "my bladder is going to burst at any moment" kind. If it wasn't for the one liter of Mt Dew I chugged prior to the movie's beginning, I would have barely noticed the length.
The scenes of destruction (of which there were many) were evenly spaced - unlike some other movies that pack it all in to the fist 20 minutes of film (I'm talking about you The Core). While the dialog is not Oscar worthy, it's not a distraction. The conversations were practical (all though mildly predictable), punctuated with intentional humor, and a self-parodying outlook on the concept of cataclysmic events.
There are a couple of cheese ball moments (The Governator Schwarzenegger's cameo and an obnoxious fissure that splits a couple after the man mentions feeling like there is something separating them) but those clips are few and do not take away from the grandeur of the total and inescapable destruction that Emmerich celebrates for nearly an two hours and forty minutes.
As California sinks into the Pacific, a cruise ship and aircraft carrier are upended in tidal waves, buildings collapse, Yellowstone explodes, and Woody Harrelson goes crazy, you can't help but think how awesome it all looks. And while we know the story is completely implausible, we enjoy it. We know a puddle-jumper plane can't outrun (outfly?) a pyroclastic flow, but we sit on the edge of our seats to see it happen. We know that the earth will not open up to swallow the Vatican, but it makes compelling cinematography. And amidst the chaos is a plot. A decent one. And while some disaster movies center on one story, 2012 takes on a few. The strength of family, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Political and humanitarian ethics. Sacrifice and hope.
And with all that is splayed on the big screen during 2012, one of my favorite moments came after the movie was over (and I'm not talking about Adam Lambert's caterwauling during the closing credits). On my way out of the theater, I overheard two teen-aged girls talking.
"What sucks is like this is totally going to like happen like three days before Christmas," one of them said. (I wish I was joking.)
First of all... it's not. 2012 is a work of fiction - not a documentary. I won't get into the details, but the world will not end on 12/21/12. Astrophysicists, anthropologists, geologists, and many other scientific peoples have easily discounted the proposed meaning of Mayan prophesies. It is well documented. Google it. So I got a good laugh at the girls' academic naiveté, but I am also a bit puzzled by their arithmetic. The end of the Mayan long count calendar is December 12th of 2012. Last time I checked, Christmas falls on the 25th of December... every year. So, if I do my math correctly, 25 minus 21 is 4... not three. And the movie wasn't vague about the date. But I digress. The movie is well worth the price. Emmerich not only lives up to the expectations, but surpasses it. The sad misguided conversation of two girls who are prone to believe anything is just icing on the cake.
(And (Warning: plot spoiler) good news for dog lovers, a few corgis survive along with a king charles cavalier. Good news for alien lovers, so does District 9)
Law Abiding Citizen
Step 1: You watch as home invaders rape and kill your wife and daughter. Step 2: The guy who killed your family goes free due to a flaw in the justice system. Step 3: You seek revenge. On everyone.
Sounds like a run-of-the-mill "vengeance is mine" movie plot. After seeing the 20% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, that is what I was expecting. I was anticipating a plot I’ve seen a million times: the everyman seeks vigilante justice when the legal system fails. Even the plot summary on IMDB states "An everyday guy decides to take justice into his own hands."
I was pleasantly surprised by the film, despite the grammatical error in the title. (It should be Law hyphen Abiding, not Law space Abiding. Sheesh.) Citizen starts off with a bang, like a baseball bat to the face. Actually it was literally a baseball bat to the face, but all things considered, I like the simile. The story begins through the eyes of the protagonist Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler of 300) as he watches his wife die and daughter taken away. When the worst of the two criminals flops on the not-as-bad guy, we follow the case into court to watch the plea bargain play out, only to see Shelton in the background watching the evil dude shake hands with the prosecutor Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx from Ray, Collateral, The Soloist, etc). 10 years later, one of the two home invaders is at the end of his death-row sentence. The execution doesn’t go according to plan, and the murders (paybacks) begin. Shelton is arrested, thrown in jail, and continues to kill people from behind bars. Each escalating killing portrays a staggering work of genius and Rice (with police in tow) race to end the massacre and keep Shelton in prison.
Yet, to describe Law Abiding Citizen as the typical revenge flick overlooks some key elements.
1. The movie’s hero (anti-hero?) is not a normal guy. He’s a tinkerer (as one character in the movie states). With a little foreshadowing, the opening sequence shows him to be adept with electronics and robotics. As the story unfolds, we discover the guy is extraordinary, intelligent, and diabolical. While there is an element of righteous anger that motivates his revenge, there is also a mastermind design behind the brutality that could not be carried out by an "everyday guy."
2. Most revenge plots have one bad guy: the person who escaped justice. Once that person has been killed, the hero can carry on with their life in peace. Not this movie. The brutal killings of the two home invaders (the first one startling, the the second graphic – both disturbing) are just the start for this Citizen. The bad guys in this movie are not the people who first committed the crime, but the entire justice system. The courts are corrupt and Shelton wants to "bring the whole system down." So the scope of retribution span beyond the two thugs. It includes their defense attorney, the judge that threw out key evidence, the prosecutor that made a deal with the guilty defendant, the district attorney, the DA office’s staff, and the mayor. Whew. Talk about a hit list.
3. You’re never sure who to root for. At first we like Clyde Shelton. There is an understandable empathy toward his actions. We cheer him on as he tells off the judge during his bail hearing (people in my theater were clapping). We nervously laugh at his steak dinner and later at an exploding cell phone. But at some point, we no longer see Shelton as a grieving father, but a maniacal lunatic. Nick Rice is a workaholic who seems willing to sacrifice his family’s happiness for his own political ambitions. Throughout the movie he stands by his choices maintaining an "I did the right thing" defense when we all know he made the wrong decision. We want him to man up. Eventually we begin to see him as the hero. (I consider this to be great story telling as characters that are too perfect or too flawed are not believable.)
4. It bucks the traditional ending. The moment we expect (Shelton gets the same deal that Rice struck with the bad man at the beginning of the movie) never happens. We want Shelton to earn his freedom for a while, but then we begin to think he belongs in jail.
5. This is not a feel good movie. The first death looks like a clip from a horror movie. The second fatality is a sociopath’s dream. (We’re spared the viewing of the dissection, but we see the results and the gory details are described within the prison interview room.) The third killing is clinical. The fourth is excessively bloody and the next catches you off guard. The final body count is in double digits. The language is vulgar. The cinematography is sharp and gritty. The pace is unsettling and quick. This is not the type of movie you walk away from thinking "I’d do the same thing if a couple of drug addicts killed my family and got away with it."
My only complaint about the movie is the amount of detective work that Nick Rice accomplished. I understand there is a bit of research that prosecutors have to do to build their case, but Citizen had Rice riding along with the police to every crime scene, and to make every arrest. Well, that complaint and the bad grammar in the title.
Overall, Law Abiding Citizen is not one of the best movies ever made. But it is entertaining. And that’s what movies should be about. I give it 6 exploding cell phones out of 10.
It is rated R for good reason.
Sounds like a run-of-the-mill "vengeance is mine" movie plot. After seeing the 20% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, that is what I was expecting. I was anticipating a plot I’ve seen a million times: the everyman seeks vigilante justice when the legal system fails. Even the plot summary on IMDB states "An everyday guy decides to take justice into his own hands."
I was pleasantly surprised by the film, despite the grammatical error in the title. (It should be Law hyphen Abiding, not Law space Abiding. Sheesh.) Citizen starts off with a bang, like a baseball bat to the face. Actually it was literally a baseball bat to the face, but all things considered, I like the simile. The story begins through the eyes of the protagonist Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler of 300) as he watches his wife die and daughter taken away. When the worst of the two criminals flops on the not-as-bad guy, we follow the case into court to watch the plea bargain play out, only to see Shelton in the background watching the evil dude shake hands with the prosecutor Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx from Ray, Collateral, The Soloist, etc). 10 years later, one of the two home invaders is at the end of his death-row sentence. The execution doesn’t go according to plan, and the murders (paybacks) begin. Shelton is arrested, thrown in jail, and continues to kill people from behind bars. Each escalating killing portrays a staggering work of genius and Rice (with police in tow) race to end the massacre and keep Shelton in prison.
Yet, to describe Law Abiding Citizen as the typical revenge flick overlooks some key elements.
1. The movie’s hero (anti-hero?) is not a normal guy. He’s a tinkerer (as one character in the movie states). With a little foreshadowing, the opening sequence shows him to be adept with electronics and robotics. As the story unfolds, we discover the guy is extraordinary, intelligent, and diabolical. While there is an element of righteous anger that motivates his revenge, there is also a mastermind design behind the brutality that could not be carried out by an "everyday guy."
2. Most revenge plots have one bad guy: the person who escaped justice. Once that person has been killed, the hero can carry on with their life in peace. Not this movie. The brutal killings of the two home invaders (the first one startling, the the second graphic – both disturbing) are just the start for this Citizen. The bad guys in this movie are not the people who first committed the crime, but the entire justice system. The courts are corrupt and Shelton wants to "bring the whole system down." So the scope of retribution span beyond the two thugs. It includes their defense attorney, the judge that threw out key evidence, the prosecutor that made a deal with the guilty defendant, the district attorney, the DA office’s staff, and the mayor. Whew. Talk about a hit list.
3. You’re never sure who to root for. At first we like Clyde Shelton. There is an understandable empathy toward his actions. We cheer him on as he tells off the judge during his bail hearing (people in my theater were clapping). We nervously laugh at his steak dinner and later at an exploding cell phone. But at some point, we no longer see Shelton as a grieving father, but a maniacal lunatic. Nick Rice is a workaholic who seems willing to sacrifice his family’s happiness for his own political ambitions. Throughout the movie he stands by his choices maintaining an "I did the right thing" defense when we all know he made the wrong decision. We want him to man up. Eventually we begin to see him as the hero. (I consider this to be great story telling as characters that are too perfect or too flawed are not believable.)
4. It bucks the traditional ending. The moment we expect (Shelton gets the same deal that Rice struck with the bad man at the beginning of the movie) never happens. We want Shelton to earn his freedom for a while, but then we begin to think he belongs in jail.
5. This is not a feel good movie. The first death looks like a clip from a horror movie. The second fatality is a sociopath’s dream. (We’re spared the viewing of the dissection, but we see the results and the gory details are described within the prison interview room.) The third killing is clinical. The fourth is excessively bloody and the next catches you off guard. The final body count is in double digits. The language is vulgar. The cinematography is sharp and gritty. The pace is unsettling and quick. This is not the type of movie you walk away from thinking "I’d do the same thing if a couple of drug addicts killed my family and got away with it."
My only complaint about the movie is the amount of detective work that Nick Rice accomplished. I understand there is a bit of research that prosecutors have to do to build their case, but Citizen had Rice riding along with the police to every crime scene, and to make every arrest. Well, that complaint and the bad grammar in the title.
Overall, Law Abiding Citizen is not one of the best movies ever made. But it is entertaining. And that’s what movies should be about. I give it 6 exploding cell phones out of 10.
It is rated R for good reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)