As much as people complain about Hollywood dumbing down its films, it has become harder and harder to find a straightforward movie at the multiplex. If a film isn’t laden with at least one (un)predictable 180 degree plot twist, it is simply far too long, with many presuming they are worth more than two hours of my precious time.
It should come as no plot twist that I found Wes Craven’s Red Eye deeply enjoyable, if only in the ways that an efficient thriller should be. In a year where I avoided the supposedly fantastic King Kong over fears of its length, Red Eye weighs in at under 80 minutes, if you don’t count the credits. Directors should take note; simplicity is effective.
Red Eye begins with hotel manager Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) heading to the airport. Waiting for the delayed plane, she meets Jack Rippner (Cillian Murphy), a uneasily charming fellow passenger who just happens to have the seat next to her. As soon as the plane takes off, he casually informs her that his associate will kill her father (Brian Cox) unless she uses her position to change the hotel room of a Homeland Security official. Thus, our hour of terror begins.
Unlike other thrillers of the cat-and-mouse variety, the two leads spend most of the time mere inches away from each other. McAdams plays Lisa as terrified but calm and quick-thinking, a role light years ahead of the stupid Mean Girls or the apocalyptically terrible Wedding Crashers. Murphy is infinitely creepier and more villainous as Rippner than as the Scarecrow in Batman Begins. Rippner isn’t omniscient or invulnerable to injury, instead relying on a sharp eye for detail and menace to get what he wants.
Red Eye never degenerates into the jerk-off twists or impossible effects that most contemporary thrillers do. The plot may be ridiculous, but not any more than it has to be. Film fanatics will recognize every cog of the story the second it they are presented, but will be pleasantly surprised at how well they fit together.
Ironically, if the film has any major problem, it may be that it is too efficient. The characters and story move along so briskly and with so few superfluous details that we don’t have time to care much for the characters. It is a film teacher’s dream, an A+ screenplay transformed into a B-. Red Eye plays all the right notes, but after the climatic battle, I should have been thinking something other than "Gee, Brian Cox sure has lost a lot of weight."
3.5 out of 5
2 comments:
"Too efficient" you say. It reminds me of "The Simpsons", the episode where Homer donates Bart's blood to Mr. Burns to save Mr. Burns' life. So Mr. Burns gives them an gigantic stone head Olmec relic as a thank-you gift. In the end, Marge is trying to figure out what the moral of the story is. Lisa suggests that "Perhaps there is no lesson in this story."
And Homer says, "Exactly. It's just a bunch of stuff that happened."
Whenever I see a movie in which I don't care whether the characters live or die, I feel like I am just watching "a bunch of stuff" thats happening. From your review, "Red Eye" sounds a bit more interesting than that, and I remember seeing the trailer. But movies that are "too efficient" tend to be boring, even when they are suspenseful.
But thats just my opinoin.
"Jack Rippner"? Could they have been any more obvious about that characters name? Is that one of the easily recognizable "cogs" that you mentioned?
That Simpsons quote is perfect. The film was just a bunch of stuff, but it was a fun bunch of stuff.
Jack Rippner was one of the cogs, though they do reference it directly in the film. Really, its not a bad flick; considering that it is shorter than two episodes of 24, not a bad watch. Purchase? Not for more than $5.
Post a Comment