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
Monday, February 06, 2006
Saturday, February 04, 2006
10
Film sequels are very often reviled, and very rarely valued above the original. What are some film sequels that out-do the first installment? Here are some of my picks.
American Pie 2 & American Wedding
Bad Boys 2
Blade 2
Spider-Man 2
Star Trek: Wrath of Kahn, First Contact, and Nemisis
Terminator 2
Some films are very hard to call. The entire Naked Gun series is about equally funny. LOTR films I don't count because they were all written and green-lit and shot at the same time, though I'd argue Two Towers is easily the best of that series. Toy Story 2 is too close to call.
The most argued over series has to be Star Wars, though I'd argue that the first(1977) is the best of the series. However, anyone arguing for one of the other original films would have a very credible case; forget about the crappy prequels.
Anything I'm missing? Agreements, disagreements?
American Pie 2 & American Wedding
Bad Boys 2
Blade 2
Spider-Man 2
Star Trek: Wrath of Kahn, First Contact, and Nemisis
Terminator 2
Some films are very hard to call. The entire Naked Gun series is about equally funny. LOTR films I don't count because they were all written and green-lit and shot at the same time, though I'd argue Two Towers is easily the best of that series. Toy Story 2 is too close to call.
The most argued over series has to be Star Wars, though I'd argue that the first(1977) is the best of the series. However, anyone arguing for one of the other original films would have a very credible case; forget about the crappy prequels.
Anything I'm missing? Agreements, disagreements?
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
9
I was watching Lord of War a couple of days ago, and one scene got me thinking. Nic Cage plays an illicit arms dealer who enters his young son's room, takes his toy pistol, and throws it in the garbage. In the film, it was clumsy symbolism, but I put a lot of thought into people who take that stance in real life.
What is the exact mindset behind telling your children that they should never have anything to do with weapons, especially firearms? I don't know, because my children certainly won't be raised like that, but I am assuming the mindset covers two major points:
1. Safety. People don't want their children involved in any accidents. This, I understand, but can be well covered without hysterically scaring kids into thinking weapons are the devil.
2. Pacifism. Some parents believe that by encouraging their children (boys in particular) to handle weapons, this is telling them that violence is a viable solution to problems.
Of course, violence is a viable solution to many problems. There are times in the world where violence can be used effectively and morally, such as in self-defense, in the pursuit of justice, or most arguably, pre-emption. Yet, the line between those listed options and something wrong can be thin and blurry.
This is the kind of topic I could write about all day and not begin to cover adequately. One question that I would pose to those who act hysterically afraid around firearms and encourage their kids to do the same: why do you find it acceptable for others to have the power and responsibility of handling firearms, but not yourself? Do you really want to live in a society where the only people that can use guns are soldiers, policemen, and criminals? Is that a responsibilty that should only be entrusted to those three groups of people, two of which are beyond the shadow of a doubt wildly irresponsible?
What is the exact mindset behind telling your children that they should never have anything to do with weapons, especially firearms? I don't know, because my children certainly won't be raised like that, but I am assuming the mindset covers two major points:
1. Safety. People don't want their children involved in any accidents. This, I understand, but can be well covered without hysterically scaring kids into thinking weapons are the devil.
2. Pacifism. Some parents believe that by encouraging their children (boys in particular) to handle weapons, this is telling them that violence is a viable solution to problems.
Of course, violence is a viable solution to many problems. There are times in the world where violence can be used effectively and morally, such as in self-defense, in the pursuit of justice, or most arguably, pre-emption. Yet, the line between those listed options and something wrong can be thin and blurry.
This is the kind of topic I could write about all day and not begin to cover adequately. One question that I would pose to those who act hysterically afraid around firearms and encourage their kids to do the same: why do you find it acceptable for others to have the power and responsibility of handling firearms, but not yourself? Do you really want to live in a society where the only people that can use guns are soldiers, policemen, and criminals? Is that a responsibilty that should only be entrusted to those three groups of people, two of which are beyond the shadow of a doubt wildly irresponsible?
8
Is there ever a point where it is okay to simply disregard someone's opinion and say that they are, in fact, totally wrong? I'm not talking about an issue like taxes or Iraq or religion, issues where there literally are causes and solutions, and the opinion lies within with they are. I'm talking about something less concrete, such as someone telling me that Wedding Crashers was hilarious or that 24 really sucks.
Is it wrong for me to listen to someone harping about how great Wedding Crashers and think "This guy is seriously wrong. Not wrong like I don't agree, but wrong like 2 + 2 = 5,"? I know the value this society puts on everyones opinion, but oftentimes I feel like it is right to make a stand, and say that something crappy sucks, period, and something good is awesome, period.
But if I were to start taking this stance, where would it stop? It feels right to deny that Wedding Crashers has any redeeming value, but on most other topics I feel content to listen to the opinions of others, shitty as they may be. Is the stance something I am only entitled to use in extreme situations? Or is it for once in a great while? Or should I not use it at all?
Is it wrong for me to listen to someone harping about how great Wedding Crashers and think "This guy is seriously wrong. Not wrong like I don't agree, but wrong like 2 + 2 = 5,"? I know the value this society puts on everyones opinion, but oftentimes I feel like it is right to make a stand, and say that something crappy sucks, period, and something good is awesome, period.
But if I were to start taking this stance, where would it stop? It feels right to deny that Wedding Crashers has any redeeming value, but on most other topics I feel content to listen to the opinions of others, shitty as they may be. Is the stance something I am only entitled to use in extreme situations? Or is it for once in a great while? Or should I not use it at all?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)