Film Friday: Total Recall (2012)

Sometimes, I don’t even know where to begin when talking about a film. Colin Farrell’s Total Recall is one of those films. Should I tell you about the pointless and nonsensical plot? How about the fact this is just a long chase scene? The bad science? The bad acting? Ug. This film sucks.

Total Recall is ostensibly a remake of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 1990 Total Recall, but it really isn’t. In essence, they took the key moments from Arnold’s film, stole images liberally from Minority Report, I Robot and Phantom Menace, and then mixed them with a generic chase film about a nondescript right-wing government wanting to kill immigrants for no apparent reason. The result is painful to watch. Arg.

The story involves Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell), a worker in a dead-end factory job making police robots. Each morning he travels from “the Colony” (Australia) to “the United Federation of Britain” which are the only places on the planet that somehow survived a chemical war. To commute back and forth, Farrell takes a gravity elevator which moves between the two countries.

Bored with his job, Quaid goes to an Oriental Masseuse Chinese Restaurant Rekall, a place-thingy where they implant memories into your head, unless you lie or ask for memories that are like your real life memories because then somethingsomething. As Quaid gets his new memories, a SWAT team bursts into the place and kills everyone but him. Quaid goes all super-spy and kills them and then races home to his wife (Kate Beckinsale), who tries to kill him. It turns out that she’s a spy who was assigned to watch him, but apparently doesn’t know who he really is... for no apparent reason. Who is he really? Why, he’s a terrorist or double agent named Carl Hauser, who may know a kill code for all the police robots. And why is he living as a factory worker with no memory of who he really is? Who knows, who cares?

Anyways, no sooner does Kate try to kill him than Jessica Biel shows up and the chase scene commences. About an hour later, we are told that Quaid led the bad guy, Cohaagen, the Chancellor of Britain, right to the rebels... all five of them. Now that he’s caught the rebels, Cohaagen can finally send an army of killer robots to the Colony to kill everyone... so he does, but Quaid stops him. At that point, the first thing you actually care about in this film happens: the credits start rolling and you can leave.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger did Total Recall in 1990, I found myself quite impressed. Not only was Total Recall a competent action film, but it was also an excellent science fiction film which left you with lots of things to think about. What is memory? And how can you tell hallucination from reality? What would colonizing Mars really be like? Will we find massive machines left by ancient civilizations?

These were all fun questions that you could debate for hours or even days after you left the theater. And debate you did: did you notice that the false memories the Recall guy discusses match what happens in the film exactly? Don’t you remember the Recall guy saying, “Blue sky on Mars? That’s original.” But wait! Why would that guy sweat if it was all a dream? Or was that just Arnold’s mind trying to preserve the illusion? And if they could put him into Arnold’s dream, couldn’t they do something else that Arnold would know for sure is not real? Or would Arnold just assume that anything they do was a trick?

Good times.

None of that is true with this film. This film posits no questions... except “why did they make this?” It leaves nothing to the imagination. Quaid IS a rebel spy. Biel IS his girlfriend and he’s been seeing her in his dreams before he even goes to Rekall. There is zero sense that Rekall put these thoughts into his brain. In fact, when the film has Quaid look at a Rekall sign at the end of the film, it just serves to remind you that they really mishandled the whole idea of confusing reality with fantasy.

But even that could be forgiven if this was a decent film, only, it’s not. This film is one long pointless chase scene that makes little sense and to which there is no sense of a solution except “wait for the chase to end and then the cliché ending to sort everything out.” Indeed, at no point do you feel like anything is happening in this film except time passing as you wait for the ending. Moreover, little about the film makes sense. If the bad guy really wants to invade the Colony, there’s no reason he couldn’t do it with or without first stopping the resistance, so the plot is a pretext. There is no point in making Quaid hide as a factory worker with no knowledge of what he really is either, nor is there any reason Beckinsale wouldn’t know who he really was.

Even worse, to pass the time, this film is jammed with all kinds of political stupidity. Obama’s face on their currency? Give me a break. That’s not even clever if we’re talking about the future USA, and we’re not – this is a future Britain. I wonder if Putin is on their coins or Bobo the Clown. How about the idea that Britain wants to kill their workforce for no apparent reason? Talk about stupid. That only makes sense in the paranoid delusions of leftists.

In any event, this film raises a couple issues that merit mentioning. First, this film continues to make me wonder about Colin Farrell. Farrell showed such promise early in his career that it seemed he would soon be considered one of the best actors of this generation. But after films like this and the remake of Fright Night, the bloom is off the Farrell rose. He’s fast becoming a harbinger of failure.

Secondly, this film shows exactly what’s wrong with modern Hollywood. This film stole the key moments from the 1990 version of Total Recall, which should have been enough to give the film at least some of the same appeal as the original. But they mishandled those by turning them into nothing more than speed bumps in the chase scene... moments that appear, resolve, don’t affect the plot, and then are forgotten as the film races on to the next videogame level. I lay the blame for this firmly on studios who are so out of touch with the public that they don’t realize that in a film about the reliability of memory and the blurring of reality with fantasy, audiences expect the story to have something to say about those things rather than just watching our hero run around blowing up police robots and Froggering his way across an unrealistic elevator system... the Big Shiny. Sadly, this is how studios think now and the result is a film that has better effects, better actors, better sets, a bigger budget, and the benefits of hindsight, but can’t hold an LED candle to the original.

Finally, I need to point out that, once again, we are dealing with a film adaptation of a novel by Philip K. Dick. And once again, we are looking at a film that underwhelms. It continues to surprise me how hard it is to put Dick’s ideas on the big screen in an interesting and watchable way. Fascinating.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Fright Night (1985) & (2011)

Remakes are all the rage these days because they come with a built-in audience. You take a film property with an existing fan base, you repeat the story with some twist to make the film feel fresh, you use new special effects or new story-telling techniques, and you’re guaranteed at least a minor hit. Add in a top-named actor like Colin Farrell and you should be looking at quite a moneymaker. That is unless you really screw it up. Welcome to Fright Night 2011!

** spoiler alert **

Release in 1985, the original Fright Night proved to be quite a hit. It starred William Ragsdale as Charley Brewster, a fan of horror films, who discovers that his neighbor (Chris Sarandon) is an actual vampire. Naturally, no one believes him, not his mother, his best friend or his girlfriend. He finally seeks out Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall), a washed up actor who plays a vampire hunter in horror movies and has his own local show hosting classic horror movies. Vincent doesn’t believe him either and thinks he’s a crazed fan. But Vincent soon discovers the truth and then he and Charlie set out to hunt down Sarandon and to free Charley’s girlfriend.

All in all, this film wasn’t great by any stretch of the imagination, but it was original and it was entertaining. It also became a surprise hit, out-earning every other horror film of that year. What made the film work was the characters. Charley was likable as the determined teen who intends to protect his family even if they can’t see the danger. Vincent was enjoyable as the washed up cynic, who rises to the challenge of a fight with something he never truly believed existed. And Chris Sarandon was smarmy, condescending and so unlikable that you really couldn’t wait to see him get his comeuppance. This drew you in and made you pull for the heroes to get their act together to take out the bad guy that you had personally come to despise.

In 2011, Fright Night was remade. This time Colin Farrell took the place of Chris Sarandon, Doctor Who’s David Tennant took the place of Roddy McDowall, and some other people replaced the other actors. And that’s kind of where the problem begin with the remake. William Ragsdale is not a good actor. But he came across as a genuine teen who was both out of his league and yet determined to prevail. His replacement, Anton Yelchin, comes across as a very smooth actor who reads his lines with the right amount of emotion but with no believability that he is this person you see on screen. Amanda Bearse, who plays Charlie’s girlfriend in the original, is not attractive nor is she slavishly devoted to Charlie, and that makes her a very real girl for the type of woman who would date Charlie. Her replacement, Imogen Poots, is too attractive and too compliant with Charlie’s script needs.

David Tennant is a poor replacement for Roddy McDowall as well, though more in the writing than in acting ability. McDowall’s Vincent was washed up and tired. He didn’t believe in vampires and when he found out the truth, he was overcome with fear. Watching him get up the courage to fight was rather inspiring. Tennant’s Vincent, by comparison, knows the vampires are real and is basically just a coward and a waster. He’s comic relief as an unlikeable drunken womanizer who runs from danger in an almost melodramatic way. McDowall was someone you could look up to eventually, Tennant is a joke you want gone.

Then there are Sarandon and Farrell. Normally, I’m impressed with Farrell, but not here. Sarandon played the vampire as a true bad guy. You loathed his smugness and you genuinely worried that his power was too strong for the good guys to overcome. Indeed, even though you knew how the film would end, you never felt really sure. And as his victories built up, you worried that he might actually win. Farrell, on the other hand, plays an annoyance. There is nothing about him to suggest an all-powerful creature, he’s more like an animal. And he doesn’t get under your skin like the smug Sarandon, he annoys you more like a skateboarder who won’t leave your driveway. Moreover, there seems to be no real plan for Farrell. When you try to imagine him winning the film, it’s never clear what his victory would even look like. So he’s just never menacing.

So the film starts poorly in the area that matters most – the characters. And it goes downhill from there. Indeed, this film fails dramatically in something that any remake should be able to achieve: it doesn’t live up to the story of the original. The original story moved confidently from plot point to plot point, with each building on the prior plot points. The order of the action made sense, the characters’ actions made sense, and the story became progressively more tense. The remake doesn’t. The remake seems like a jumble of uninteresting moments until the lengthy fight scene at the end. There is little continuity and no tension. Not to mention, the entire film is so dark in the way it’s filmed and the effects so dull that it's hard to follow.

What makes this worse is that the film lacks any sort of intermediate level of danger. In other words, throughout the original, there were many bad things which could happen at any moment, but the remake only offers two results: dead or survives. Thus, since you know the movie isn’t over, you know that Charlie will survive each scene to make it unscathed to the next, and that means there is no tension. By comparison, you were never sure what could happen in any scene in the original because there were so many more alternatives.

Beyond this, there is nothing you could call a twist or a new slant on the original. There is no unexpected revelation, no attempt to make the story bigger or take it in new directions, and nothing to give you a fresh look at the story.

In effect, this remake failed on all levels. It offered less story than the original, its effects were worse, it had no interesting take on the original, and its characters lost all the quirkiness which made the originals so interesting to watch. That’s why this bombed and why the original out-earned it domestically by about a third on a much smaller budget. The moral here is simple. Even if you’re going to remake a film, you still have to make a good film.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Phone Booth (2002)

If I told you that a movie takes place entirely within a phone booth, you’d probably wonder how interesting that could be. Well, with only minor exceptions, the movie Phone Booth takes place entirely within a phone booth and the street surrounding the booth. And as unlikely as it sounds, this movie is gripping! It’s also a rather conservative film.

** spoiler alert **

Phone Booth is the story of uber-jerk Stu Shepard (Colin Farrell), a small time New York City publicist. He lies to his clients, tricks newspapers into publishing stories about his clients, flirts with having an affair and generally mistreats everyone in his life. Every day at the same time, he uses a phone booth to place a call to the woman he’s flirting with, so his wife doesn’t see a cell phone record. On this particular day, Stu receives a call when he steps into the booth. The call is from an unknown man (Kiefer Sutherland) who argues with Stu and seems to know everything about him. As Stu is about to hang up, the caller tells Stu that he has a rifle pointed at the phone booth and that if Stu leaves the booth, he will be killed. Stu must then deal with a series of challenges including the police.

Phone Booth is a fascinating film precisely because of the difficulty in getting a film like this to work. You have limited visuals you can offer the audience because the film is confined to a very small set. You need the perfect actors because they have to carry the plot with little help from modern storytelling techniques. There is no CGI, no high speed chases, and only one man is in danger. Not to mention, you need to come up with a reason why this film stays confined to the phone booth and why the conflict you will use to keep the audience hooked must play out there.

In fact, the idea of a film taking place entirely within a phone booth was originally pitched by writer Larry Cohen to Alfred Hitchcock in the 1960s. Hitchcock liked the idea, but he and Cohen couldn’t come up with a reason why the story would stay confined to the phone booth. Thirty years later, Cohen came up with the right idea: a sniper. What Cohen did was invent a character, the caller, who wanted to toy with Stu. Making him a sniper justified keeping the story in the phone booth. As an interesting aside, this film ultimately had its release date pushed back because of the DC Sniper.

But more importantly than coming up with the sniper, Cohen brilliantly gave the character a truly twisted motivation. Specifically, the caller sees himself as the good guy, and he thinks his calling (pun intended) is to get Stu to admit the lies he’s been telling himself and others, which the caller thinks will make Stu a better man.

This is a fascinating motive if you think about it. On the one hand, the caller is right. He wants Stu to be a better man, and if Stu stops lying he would be. This in turn would make everyone happier and better off in Stu’s world. Thus, in many ways, this is an admirable goal, and you could easily see this being an uplifting movie about a priest or therapist or friend who struggles to teach this to Stu. BUT, the way the caller chooses to go about this goal ultimately makes him a sadistic and evil villain. This makes the character very interesting.

At the same time, this desire to cure Stu gives Farrell a lot to work with. Farrell is forced to admit to his wife that he is flirting with another woman. He’s forced to admit that he’s been misleading his intern. And ultimately, he’s forced to admit that his self-image isn’t what he projects. And in the process, Stu grows tremendously as a character, with a truly cathartic moment coming when he finally decides to free himself of the caller’s trap. This is great writing. But even more so, this is great acting. I’m not sure another actor could have pulled this off. Farrell plays Stu so odiously at first, but somehow keeps you from hating him. I attribute this entirely to the likeability Farrell projects onto the screen. He then makes every moment believable as Stu struggles with staying in the phone booth as the outside world (including Police Captain Ramey (Forest Whitaker)) tries to get him out. And finally, he is absolutely convincing as someone who has an epiphany in the midst of what appears to be a breakdown. Farrell proves beyond any doubt that he is a top actor in this film and he makes this film work.

There’s also an interesting political undercurrent here, though the film is in no way political. This is one of those films which I would describe as premised on conservative values even as it does not espouse conservatism. For example, the things Stu has done “wrong” align strongly with traditional moral beliefs. Lying is wrong (something liberals excuse if the motive is a good one). Infidelity is wrong, but even more so, flirting with infidelity is wrong. This goes against the liberal ideas of no-fault relationships, that men naturally stray, and that we should not judge people’s behavior. When Stuart breaks down, we are then introduced to the idea of shame, another traditional belief liberals now reject. We are shown through the sniper that just because you have good motives doesn’t excuse your bad deeds. This flies in the face of much of liberalism which says force is justified to make people better. Finally, we are shown the idea of self-help. Indeed, Stu does not rely on the cops to save him, he helps him self and finds the only true solution. This again goes against the liberal idea that the individual is powerless to help themselves and must rely on government experts to save them. I’m not saying these points are intentional made as a political statement, but they are how the story operates and the unconscious message it sends.

In the end, this is a fascinating, gripping film. This film shows that all the things Hollywood thinks you need, e.g. CGI, chase scenes, shootouts at touristy locations, etc., aren’t necessary. All it really takes is solid writing. I highly recommend this film.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Horrible Bosses (2011)

Lately, we’ve been talking about the dearth of good comedies in the modern era. It seems that most modern comedies are gross rather than funny, dull rather than clever, and generally generic. I had little hope for Horrible Bosses. Imagine my surprise to find a truly enjoyable film.

** spoiler alert **

Horrible Bosses is the story of three disgruntled employees, Nick (Jason Bateman), Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) and Dale (Charlie Day), who decide they want their bosses dead. Eventually, in an homage to Hitchcock’s Strangers on A Train, they decide that the only way to make this happen, and to not get caught, is if they kill each other’s bosses. But there’s a problem. . . they’re idiots. And soon the hunters become the hunted.

This film works for a variety of reasons, each of which is generally missing in the comedies of people like Seth Rogen and Judd Apatow. Specifically, you have well-drawn characters, a tight script, and clever social commentary.

● Well-Drawn Characters: One of the first things you notice in Bosses is the great characters. What makes them stand out from other modern comedies is that they are all unique. For example, Nick, Kurt and Dale each have different personalities, see their jobs differently, and have different driving motivations (money, love, public good). Yet, they have formed an enduring friendship, which the actors sell through the way they interact, particularly the use of careful comedic timing to fire lines back and forth and thereby show they have known each other for years. Good luck finding that in an Apatow film, where the relationships are distant.

But the real treat is the bosses. Kevin Spacey plays Nick’s boss Dave Harken. He exploits his employees with promises he’ll never keep and with threats. He’s abusive and angry and jealous of anyone who gets near his wife. Spacey plays this character like he played the hateful Buddy Ackerman in Swimming With Sharks, only he adds an element of maniacal joy to his evil. This makes you enjoy hating him rather than just hating him. He also gives the character just enough of a God-complex to make his over-the-top actions entirely believable.

Colin Farrell plays Bobby Pellit, a drug-abusing, power-abusing, paranoid slimeball wannabe, who inherits a great company and decides to run it into the ground because he hated his father and because he’s paranoid that others look down on him. He’s the kind of guy who has a wall-sized portrait of himself doing martial arts. Like Spacey, Farrell makes the character believable by adding just enough hints of paranoia and self-doubt behind his eyes to let you know why this guy really would act this way.

Finally, you have Jennifer Aniston, as uber-cougar Dentist Julia Harris. What she does so perfectly here is to put on a hard-sell seduction of Dale, which would frankly work on any man, and then add a little touch in each scene to make it uncomfortable. It’s in those moments of discomfort that you see her insanity and where everything she does becomes believable. She is essentially completely out of control.

These characters are all funny and believable. They all have unique traits, which broadens the variety of jokes available. Also, the good guys are good, unlike in a Rogen film, and they aren’t unmotivated and pathetic, like in an Apatow film, so you genuinely cheer for them against the bad guys.

● Tight Script: This leads us to the second point: the tight script. One of the biggest problems with modern comedies is sloppy scripts with characters doing things which make no sense and unrelated gags strewn throughout the film. None of that is true here. For one thing, there’s no filler. Everything any of the characters does is designed to show you some aspect of their personality which explains their future actions. And everything these characters do makes sense. For example, the heroes don’t just decide to kill their bosses because the script calls for it, they are pushed into it when their bosses attack things which are dear to them and make it clear they will continue to harm them in the future, AND their alternatives are taken away. Even then, they act reluctantly because they just aren’t killers.

Further, nothing in this film comes out of the blue because everything is foreshadowed. And the crazier the event, the greater the foreshadowing, with the craziest moments being foreshadowed at least twice. For example, toward the end, it becomes important that their On-Star-like system can hear what is being said in the car. Before this happens, however, you are shown twice how this works with conversations with the On-Star service rep. Thus, when this moment arrives, you don’t have any problems accepting it. Similarly, another character is distracted by an attractive woman at a critical moment. While this may seem difficult to believe under normal conditions, you’ve actually seen this character get similarly distracted twice before and you’ve been told how this woman fools around. Again, this means you never once doubt what happens. Compare this with Apatow and Rogen films where events occur seemingly randomly and without any warning.

Also unlike Rogen and Apatow, this script rarely sinks to sex jokes or gross-out jokes. And the few times it does, the jokes are understated, leaving much to the imagination, and it always has a purpose, i.e. it will become relevant before the film ends.

● Clever Social Commentary: Finally, this film takes swipes at liberal sacred cows. For example, the three heroes want to find a hired killer, so they go to a bar in a black neighborhood. They don’t think of themselves as racist, but the racism is obvious in their assumption that murderers would most likely be found at a black bar. When the bartender reacts poorly to the suggestion that all black people must be criminals, they try to use standard liberal talking points about tolerance and oppression to talk their way out of it by suggesting they see “you people” as victims. To this, the bartender angrily retorts that he’s a small business man. The liberals are stumped. But their liberal stupidity has drawn the attention of Dean “Motherf*cker” Jones (Jamie Foxx), who exploits the prejudice they didn’t believe they had.

There are also jokes about Priuses versus SUVs, they make light of sexual harassment and anal sex in prisons, and there is a funny moment about how useless it is to force someone who is intent on killing you to keep their firearms in a locked case. . . it doesn’t prevent anything. These joke aim directly at the flaws inherent in these liberal ideas, flaws which politically correct liberals pretend don’t exist. Naturally, for doing this, writer Markowitz got hammered for being racist, homophobic and misogynistic. But the joke was ultimately on the critics, as the film broke records on its way to making $209 million worldwide.

This film has much going for it, especially compared to recent comedies. Is it the greatest comedy ever? Hardly. Is it better than Ghostbusters or Night At The Opera? Nope. But it shows that buddy comedies can still be funny, and it does that by giving us unique, likeable and hate-able characters, by giving us a solid script with zero waste or padding, by poking fun at things Hollywood normally won’t touch, and without making us watch characters trade bodily fluids for humor. Bravo.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Minority Report (2002)

I want to like Minority Report, but I can't. It’s based on a Philip K. Dick short story, and I usually enjoy movies based on his stories (see, e.g. Blade Runner and Imposter), plus it’s got a strong cast, excellent pacing, an interesting plot and some deep themes. But there’s just something wrong with the film and Spielberg knows it.

** heavy spoiler alert**

The Plot

Directed by Steven Spielberg, Minority Report is the story of John Anderton (Tom Cruise), a Washington, D.C. police officer who works in the world’s first “PreCrime” division. PreCrime is a new concept whereby a group of “pre-cogs” (psychics) predict murders in advance. Anderton’s division is charged with arresting the murderers before they can act. But things go horribly wrong for Anderton when the pre-cogs announce that he will murder someone he doesn't even know. Soon he is chased by a Justice Department overseer (Colin Farrell) and discovers he was framed by his boss (Max von Sydow).

On the surface, Minority Report sounds like a smart film. It purports to deal with issues of free will versus destiny and it raises interesting questions about when a crime becomes a crime. Unfortunately, Minority Report is not a smart film and it fudges all of its themes. I think Spielberg knows this too, because he tries to distract the audience at key moments.

Free Will v. Destiny

Minority Report pounds away on the issue of free will versus destiny. Indeed, this is mentioned in almost every scene. Normally, this would be fertile ground for interesting science fiction storytelling, but something feels wrong with this theme throughout the film. And that something is that Spielberg uses an unworkable concept of destiny and then tries to cover up his failure rather than fix the problem.

For the film’s setup to work, the audience must believe the pre-cogs are infallible because we need to believe they can predict people’s destinies. If we don’t buy that premise, then there is no destiny to challenge Anderton’s free will. Thus, this idea is reinforced to us by almost every character throughout the film repeatedly telling us that the pre-cogs are never wrong. Even when we are finally told they can be wrong, we’re still told they are never wrong. . . they just sometimes “disagree” (hence, one gives a “minority report”).

But this is a false premise. For one thing, it's just never believable that there is any real destiny here. It is easy to believe in destiny when it’s something beyond your control, e.g. you will meet an old friend. But it’s impossible to believe in destiny if destiny requires a conscious act, e.g. murder. Think about it. If the cops show up at your door and tell you that you’re destined to murder your wife, does anyone really think you would feel compelled to go through with it? Indeed, the very concept of PreCrime wipes out the destiny element because they are stopping the murders. Hence, there is no destiny here, there is only a possible future which can be changed -- not to mention the pre-cogs apparently can disagree about the future. Therefore, the idea that Anderton is fighting destiny seems rather fraudulent from the beginning.

Moreover, the only reason Anderton appears to have a destiny is because every character repeatedly tell us that Anderton’s destiny is inescapable and because Spielberg manipulates the plot to cause it. Indeed, what Anderton does makes no sense. He should go to his boss and tell him, “this is a mistake. I’m not killing anyone and I’m going to go sit quietly in a cell until this prediction expires.” Instead, he foolishly decides to track down the guy he is supposed to kill. . . because that will somehow clear things up? Of course, Spielberg tries to make this seem plausible by having the other cops chase him. But it's hard to image a law that could convict him if he simply sat down and never killed anyone.

These problems undercut the very theme upon which Spielberg bases the whole film. He pounds away relentlessly at the idea that Anderton is struggling against destiny, but there is no destiny, there is only pretend destiny created by Spielberg’s manipulation and the constant barraged of characters telling us there is a destiny. What Spielberg should have done instead is drop the destiny farce and explore the theme of how many innocent people we are prepared to lock away to prevent all murders. That is the obvious theme within his setup. But Spielberg dodges that one, probably because it’s a difficult question of morality.

How Can A Possible Future Be A Crime?

The second problem stems from the believability of the whole concept as a law enforcement tool. If the police knew you would kill your wife at some particular hour, do you really think society would lock you up as a murderer? It’s not likely. Arresting someone for something they haven’t done yet flies in the face of two thousand years of Western jurisprudence and runs counter to human nature. More likely, the role of the PreCrime division would be to stop you and maybe send you for a mental health hearing. Interestingly, Spielberg tries to hide this issue by making sure that each killer we see is caught just as they are about to strike so the audience never gets a chance to ask if this is how the system would really work.

What’s more, it seems inconceivable that our legal system would trust the pre-cogs. For one thing, the minority reports all but disqualify the pre-cogs as legitimate predictors of fact as compared to possibility. But even beyond that, I still can’t conceive of a method for testing their accuracy that would stand up to court scrutiny? Did they sit around for decades predicting every murder while the government compared their predictions to trial results? It just seems implausible that courts would send people away based on the visions of three druggies lying in a fish tank. Also, consider both von Sydow’s death and the death of Anderton’s “victim.” Both are clearly suicides with Anderton never pulling the trigger in either instance. Yet, Anderton is identified as the killer? Can’t the pre-cogs distinguish between murder and suicide or self-defense? How many rape victims and shopkeepers were arrested for murder? And why would anyone trust a system that can’t separate these important details?

Spielberg sees these problems as well. Thus, he gives us Colin Farrell, who plays some sort of Justice Department overseer or auditor. His role is to assure the audience the government, i.e. the Justice Department, watches this program carefully and finds it legitimate. He also plays the skeptic who is quickly won over, which is a gimmick to alleviate the audience’s doubts.

The Plot Holes

The plot really is nonsense. First, it falls into the standard “boss did it” cliché, which we discussed the other day. Secondly, I can’t for the life of me figure out why Anderton’s boss (von Sydow) decided to set Anderton up? Sure, he mouths something about protecting the program from Anderton discovering that he killed someone in the past to protect the program, but Anderton only found that out after von Sydow set him up. So the only reason I can see for von Sydow setting Anderton up is to cause the plot.

Further, the explanation of how von Sydow did the original murder makes no sense. We’re told he got away with it because the cops would have ignored his attempt as it would have appeared to be an echo of the prior murder attempt. But wasn’t there a ball (“report”) with his name on it? Didn’t that make anyone suspicious that this was more than just an echo?

There’s a huge problem with von Sydow killing Colin Farrell too. Spielberg through von Sydow tells us that von Sydow can get away with the killing because Anderton stole the head pre-cog and, thus, the cops have no idea a murder is being committed. But how is von Sydow going to explain the body in his office? How can he hope to blame Anderton for this? Has the future somehow lost the ability to run ballistics tests and gun powder residue tests? Only D.C. is on the pre-cog program, surely the FBI can figure this one out.

There are other problems too. For example, von Sydow wants to roll out the PreCrime concept nationally, but how can he do that when they only have three pre-cogs and only one of them is actually gifted enough to make the whole program work? Why are all the killers in the cryoprison Caucasians? Even more interestingly, this is supposed to be Washington, D.C., what happened to all the blacks? And why does D.C. look like some sort of Blade-Runner version of Hong Kong?

Conclusion

As I said above, I want to like this film. I like the actors and I generally enjoy films made from Philip Dick’s work. The plot sounds like it should be interesting and the themes should be deep and give you something to think about. But the film simply doesn’t work. Spielberg is talented enough to hide his mistakes and keep the viewer from seeing them right away, but they gnaw at you. And the film completely breaks down when you think about it. That’s why I can’t like this film: Spielberg fudged the whole thing. . . and he knows it.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Guest Review: In Bruges (2008)

By Tennessee Jed

Despite being nominated for several golden globes and an academy award, In Bruges flew under viewersʼ radar, generating only about $33 million at the box office. I might have missed it myself, if not for a positive review in a magazine skimmed in a dentist’s waiting room. Directed by first-time Irish filmmaker Martin McDonagh In Bruges is a black comedy and a real hidden gem. Think of it as something of a European version of Pulp Fiction.

** spoiler alert **

The screenplay, also by McDonagh, was inspired by both Harold Pinter’s 2005 play The Dumb Waiter and the McDonaghʼs first trip to the city of Bruges, a canal city in northwest Brussels that has been called the “Venice of the North.” Bruges is known for its medieval architecture, which has survived to this day, and its world class beer! McDonagh says he was struck by the city’s beauty, but was nonetheless bored. So he wrote this film.

The Plot - The plot revolves around two hit men in the employ of a British crime lord. The film opens with Ken (Brendan Gleeson) and his rookie partner Ray (Colin Farrell) already in Bruges, having just completed a job which did not go smoothly. The two have been ordered by their boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes) to lay low while he cleans up the mess. For a hit man, Ken is highly cultured. He looks forward to spending his “vacation” checking out the historical and artistic aspects of the city. Ray, on the other hand, has no such interest. He views Bruges as a “sh**hole,” and is only interested in finding a bar and getting laid. Making matters worse, it’s Christmas and only one room with twin beds is available. Funny scenes abound and Ray delights in kiddingly ordering “a straight beer for me and a gay beer for my gay friend” at a local pub.

Through their interaction, we gain insight into what went wrong on the last job. This was Ray’s first job. He did the actual shooting and is extremely depressed about the unintended consequences of what he’s done.

That evening, Ray happens upon the set of a film being shot in the city. He meets Chloe (Clemence Poesy), a local drug dealer currently supplying the film crew, and Jimmy (Jordan Prentice), one of the actors who also happens to be a bigoted American dwarf (think about that for a second). At dinner the next night, Ray and Chloe are surprisingly open with each other about who they are and what they do, considering it is their first date. Their honesty appears to create a bond between them, laying groundwork for a potentially real and redemptive relationship considering Ray is starting to become suicidal.

To absolutely no surprise, Harry is depicted as a brutal man with a peculiarly strict moral code, albeit one not altogether uncommon among gangsters. He loves his family (all children actually) and accepts zero tolerance for violence that spills outside the “business.” In Harry's view, anyone violating this code deserves to die, no exceptions, and should willingly kill himself as atonement. This view becomes critical to the story as Harry decides Ray must die for violating the code. What happens going forward will not be revealed here, however. The synopsis to this point merely tees up the core of the film, and having read it should hopefully not spoil your enjoyment of the movie.

Themes - In Bruges delves into the murderous, profanity laced, drug infested world of organized crime. It deals with its subject matter in a darkly comedic manner much reminiscent of Pulp Fiction. While the dialog can at times be hilarious, the underlying theme actually aims a bit higher and is perhaps best summed up by a question: Is it possible for those who commit unspeakable acts of violence for a living to be sufficiently dynamic persons to also be capable of qualities such as love, loyalty, and responsibility? Can this be said of all the central characters? A secondary theme relates to the concept of perception as reality; one man’s heaven is another man’s hell. Wonderfully subtle dialog and imagery support this theme throughout.

The Cast - While the plot is solid and writing excellent, it is the acting which lifts the film to loftier levels. Colin Farrell (Tigerland, Phone Booth) won the golden globe for best actor, beating out co-star Gleeson. (He won $20 from him in a friendly bet.) The character Ray is quite complex and Farrell plays him just right. While I usually enjoy Farrell anyway, this just may be the best work of his that I’ve seen. Brendan Gleeson (Braveheart, Harry Potter) as Ken, is every bit as good in an equally complex role. Ralph Fiennes (Schindlerʼs List, Harry Potter, English Patient) as Harry Waters does “menacing and evil” about as good as anybody around. I’ve never seen him mail in a performance and he certainly does not disappoint here. Clemence Poesy (Harry Potter), Jordan Prentice (Howard the Duck) and Thekla Reuten (The American), as the proprietress Marie, are all convincing in secondary roles.

Other Factors - While acting is central to why In Bruges works so well the writing, cinematography, and plot development are all actually quite good as well, especially for a first time director. The score by Carter Burwell, who has done most Coen Brothersʼ scores, is also excellent. The plot takes a bit long to hit its stride, but even the distractions serve specific purpose. As it winds toward the climax, the action becomes truly riveting to watch. One key scene involving Ken and Harry in the bell tower is particularly well shot and scored. The scene utilizes to magical effect the song “On Raglan Road” by the Dubliners (one of the great love ballads of all time) as viewers realize what is occurring and why.

As far as negatives, the language is truly atrocious, if not strictly speaking gratuitous, given the characters portrayed. Between language and violence, it is not a film most would feel particularly comfortable viewing with a mother or daughter. That apart, it remains a film I can unhesitatingly recommend.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...