Talking About Stuff, with Mike and Christiana

Movie Reviews: Red Eye and Flightplan

What makes a good thriller?

A good thriller, as opposed to a horror movie, is designed like, as cliche as it is to say so, a roller-coaster ride. They are, well, "thrilling" for the time that you are watching and then they are done. If they are done well, they don't leave you feeling insulted and manipulated.

Thrillers generally don't try to say anything important about humanity or to change the world. They are just here to entertain you with vicarious excitement where likeable characters triumph over nastiness.

A good thriller is the equivalent of a fast food cheeseburger. Sure, they aren't very nutritious, but sometimes, when you get that craving, nothing else will do and they can be extrordinarily satisfying.

First up, (because that's the order I saw them in,) Red Eye






.

Next, Flightplan.






.

The truth is, I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time describing Transporter 2.

That's not a bad thing. It's just that this is a very specific type of movie with very specific objectives, and the only real question to be answered is: How successfully does it achieve those objectives?

Action Movie (aka "Car-chase movies", "heh heh... explosions") Objectives.

1. Have an appealing and convincingly awesome hero.

Check. Jason Statham reprises his role from the first movie, and he's still all-business. He doesn't say much, but whatever he says, you can tell he means it. Plus he beats people up a lot and his stuntman is really skilled.

2. Have an interesting locale and set-pieces.

Check. The movie makes excellent use of its Miami setting and features sequences involving such diverse elements as intercoastal highways, shipping yards, brightly colored apartment buildings, and even a commuter jet.

And most importantly...

3. Have exciting action sequences.

Check. The action in this film is a lot more James Bondian than the first film, with some glorious stunts and action that you don't believe for a second, and yet are paced and directed so effectively that you only have time to have fun gaping at the supreme audaciousness. (I will refrain from actually mentioning any of them to avoid spoiling your pleasant surprise, but trust me that they are supremely silly in a very enjoyable way.)

All right, so Transporter 2 succeeds on all three levels, so that translates as a thumb's up for me.

The film isn't perfect. In particular, neither villain really gets a satisfactory dispatching. Also, a lot of the plot is brushed by with nary an attempt to make any of it logical. To say that the details involve a lot of hand-waving is a dramatic understatement. I think you'd need spotlight-waving to distract from the gaps in both the logic and physics of what we see.

Still, despite not being the best action flick ever, it remains nonetheless a pretty good one. Plausible? Not remotely. But a lot of fun just the same.

.

The Bad News Bears

I remember the original version of this film fondly, but I haven’t seen it in probably fifteen years. So I’m not really going to make much of an attempt to compare the two. My general impression is that it’s a pretty faithful remake of the same film, not really covering much new ground, but simply updating the story to modern-day, and turning up the “inappropriate conduct by children” knob a few notches, to keep pace with today’s culture. After all, a ten-year-old saying “hell” just isn’t as shocking these days.

Anyway, how is the film? Pretty good, but what struck me more than anything was a surprising amount of moral complexity. Sure Billy Bob Thornton is funny and watching him pour out a non-alcoholic beer so that he can refill the can with whisky is pretty entertaining. Sure the kids are cute and funny, even when they’re fighting. And sure, the classic formula of the sports movie is just as effective today as when the original was around. (Though of course, both versions subvert the formula in a fairly dramatic way that ventures into spoiler territory that I won’t go into here in case you had a deprived childhood.)

So the movie works just fine on that level, and why shouldn't it? It was directed by Richard Linklater, a fantastic filmmaker who has made many great films, most recently, the wonderful School of Rock and Before Sunset. Though this film isn't quite as good as either of those, you can still tell that he didn't phone it in. Just take a look at the way he takes what could have been a black-and-white, paint-by-numbers sports comedy, and made it into something that actually makes you think.

For example, Greg Kinnear's fantastic turn as Ray, the snobby, arrogant jerk of an opposing coach. He's the sort of guy that makes you want to just punch him in the face, even when, technically, he hasn't actually done anything to you.

He's the one that teaches his team that winning is the only thing while at the same time coating his words with a saccharine layer of political correctness. He's the one that suggests the Bears resign from the league after their first game "so that they don't keep embarrassing themselves like this." He's the one that keeps flattering Buttermaker (Thornton) and saying how much he respects the time Buttermaker spent in the major leagues. He does this up until Buttermaker sees through his BS and tells him where he can go. At which point Buttermaker becomes a "drunk, washed-up never-was."

So, an unredeemable jerk, right? He even proves it by yelling so aggressively at his own son on the pitcher's mound that his son actually falls over backwards in fear.

A total monster, right?

But wait, why was he so angry? Because his son, after being told to walk a batter, beaned him instead. Ray is furious. "You never throw at the batter! You could have hurt him!"

So yes, he's a jerk, and yes he's an overcompetitive asshole, but he doesn't play dirty, and though it's certainly not high on his list of priorities, he actually does care about the kids on both teams.

Even more striking is the moral grey areas that Buttermaker goes through. At first, the Bears are so bad that the only reasonable goal is simple improvement. At that stage, it's pretty easy to say "Win or lose, just do your best." But when they improve so much that the championship, and Ray's big trophy starts looking like a real possibility, suddenly, it's important that you beat him. He's such a jerk, you want to rub it in his face. You want to prove that his way of coaching isn't the only way to win. But soon, beating him becomes so important that you're screaming at a ten-year-old for dropping a pop-fly, or telling an eleven-year-old to "take one for the team."

In Buttermaker's zeal to triumph over Ray's arrogance and ruthless attitude, he starts acting just like him. Suddenly, the whole idea of what lessons these kids are supposed to be learning is called into question. What should these kids be taking away from their time in little league? Should it be that the the less-talented players should just keep their heads down, staying out of the way for the good of the team? Should it be that everyone should get to play even if it means the whole team loses?

Teaching ambition, teamwork and healthy competitive spirit is important, but how far can you take it without forgetting that these are kids playing a game?

(I want to take a moment here to quote a great line that doesn't directly relate to the above, but addresses a similar parantal quandary. Buttermaker suggests to one mother that, what with all the classes and activities her son is in, she doesn't ever actually spend any time with him, and doesn't really know him. "Are you telling me how to raise my kid?" she asks. "No," he replies. "But somebody should.")

I don't mean to be falling down solidly on either side of the issues I mentioned above. I only wanted to demonstrate the sorts of issues that this movie addresses. For a paint-by-numbers sports comedy, that's surprisingly sophisticated.

.

As far as raunchy sex comedies go, The 40 Year Old Virgin was truly a breath of fresh air. So many of the films in this genre come across as mean-spirited, frequently misogynistic and homophobic, basically nothing more than puerile attempts at making horny teenagers snicker.

Which is not to say that they can’t be a lot of fun anyway. I think there’s a little horny teenager in all of us, so sometimes those movies can be an entertaining way to spend a couple of hours.

Still, when I see a movie like this one, it just makes me realize how much better the others could be. The 40-Year-Old Virgin may not be the funniest raunchy sex comedy I’ve ever seen, though it might just be the best. How hard you laugh is not the only criteria with which we can judge the quality of a film, and this one delivers compelling sympathetic characters, an interesting, identifiable story, and a satisfying climax.

Oh, and it’s funny too, of course. I had a lot of fun with this one, but what I liked about it more than anything was that they weren’t laughs that made me feel guilty afterward. Steve Carrell’s character in this movie isn’t made out to be a complete freak who should be ridiculed. He’s a nice guy, a little awkward, a little shy, who, after a few bad experiences, simply stopped trying. Now, it’s still funny, but in a lesser film, he would have been, well, Napoleon Dynamite + 25 years. A hopeless nerd who pretty much brings it all on himself through his own actions.

In this film, he’s not a freak. He’s a guy with a problem. Furthermore, his more “experienced” friends who make it their mission in life to end his virgin-status, are demonstrated to be just as, if not more, screwed up as he is.

Gosh, I’m making this sound like a heartwarming touchy-feely thing, which it is, I guess, but that’s not to say it’s short of laughs. I guess I’m just emphasizing the heartwarming part because it’s so unusual. That’s what makes this movie stand out.

Raunchy sex comedies are a dime-a-dozen, mostly all just tired variations on the same theme. They can be entertaining just the same, but aside from laughing at the jokes, I bet you won’t still be thinking about the characters when the movie’s over. I bet you won’t feel like you actually learned something about the human condition.

Society sometimes makes it seem shameful to be inexperienced, but the other side of the “experience” coin is “baggage.” What a delight to find a film that can take an honest look at that and still manage to be funny at the same time.

.

So why should you see March of the Penguins? Well, for starters, to see all the cute penguins. Also you can… um, well, because of the…

Okay, pretty much the only reason to see it is to see all the cute penguins.

Want to see some cute penguins? Then go see March of the Penguins. It delivers.

That’s not to say it’s 100% cute. Penguins live in just about the most inhospitable environment on earth, and that they survive there is like the anecdote about the talking dog. It’s not that it speaks well, it’s just amazing that it speaks at all.

I mean, holy $#!T! These penguins are freaking crazy! Sure, they manage to survive well enough to maintain their population down there in Antarctica, but surely there’s an easier place to raise a chick. Basically the parents take turns starving for weeks at a time in order to shuttle food back and forth from the ocean to the only place where the ice is thick enough for the eggs to not fall through.

So it’s important to be aware before taking really little kids that some of the penguins die. Including some of the uber-cute babies. I don’t think that’s a reason not to take kids to see it, but it would be better to know its coming and not be taken off-guard.

So that aside noted, boy are there ever some cute penguins in this movie! The penguin is one of nature’s inherently silly-looking creatures. Think of it, thousands of them waddling across the ice in long single-file lines, occasionally flopping over onto their bellies and scooting along by pushing with their toes. Tiny bright-eyed baby penguins sitting on top of their daddy’s feet to stay off the ice and protected from the wind by the soft folds of their dad’s feathery belly. Occasionally sticking their head out to peep for food. How could you not want to see this movie?

I should also mention that the film has some great, if extremely anthropomorphizing, voice-over narration from Morgan Freeman, explaining some of the more bizarre things we see the penguins doing on screen. It also features some truly breathtaking landscapes, (icescapes?) and scenery.

On the whole, it doesn’t really advance the human condition, but it’s a fun, sweet documentary and a must for anyone who likes animals.

Did I mention the cute penguins?

.

Next up: Land of the Dead


I think I built this one up too much in my head before seeing it. This effect was probably exacerbated (What does that mean?) to some extent by the several unsuccessful attempts I made at seeing this before finally catching it at the $1.50 second-run theater.

That’s not to say it isn’t good. It is, but I guess I’d just been expecting something classic. Something iconic. It’s good, but it’s not iconic.

George A. Romero, of course, invented the zombie genre. The idea of reanimated corpses wasn’t new, but his Night of the Living Dead defined the cinematic zombie as we now know them and practically established the “trapped-in-a-farmhouse” horror sub-genre all by itself.

He followed it up with Dawn of the Dead,(Note: This is the original 1978 version, not the fun, but flawed 2004 remake.) which took the original premise and cranked it up a notch or two, adding a sharp layer of social satire along the way. ) Why do the zombies flock to the shopping mall? Well, as one of the characters suggests, they sort of remember. The mall used to be something important in their lives.

The third film, Day of the Dead, was really a more classic sequel, in the sense that it expanded on and continued the story, but didn’t really contribute any substantial new elements, except for Bub, a zombie subjected to numerous experiments by a military scientist, and demonstrates that the zombies do retain some semblance of memory and thought, as well as the ability to learn, even if dramatically reduced from their original levels. Day of the Dead, however, did not really feel like a new movie so much as it felt like watching the most recent episode of a TV show. More stuff happens, but the essential situation does not change except in the most superficial ways.

The fourth and most recent film, Land of the Dead, is an improvement in that regard, as well as in the re-emergence of the satiric elements that had made Dawn so good. It’s not that good though. I’d say that any zombie movie fan ought to see it, and not just for the sake of completeness but because it is actually pretty good. But you shouldn’t go in expecting something to knock your socks off.

As the film opens, we see that the thousands of zombies have started a sort of society. It is extremely rudimentary and mostly mimicked, but the zombies do seem to be developing some sort of community with one another. (Unfortunately, it is pretty clear by this point that the zombies will not just eventually run out of steam, as the characters in earlier films hoped.)

Humans (at least the ones in this film) live inside a barricaded city. They’ve managed to clear a significant area and have the borders sufficiently protected as to not be a major concern so much as an occasional irritation. But as is so often true, all throughout human history, the society layers itself into the have’s and have-not’s. The have’s, let by an oddly subdued Dennis Hopper, live in Fiddler’s Green, a high-rise with nearly all the comforts of home-as-it-was. Restaurants, shopping, booze, everything you could ask for. But of course, all that stuff has to come from somewhere, since nobody is manufacturing anything anymore. So the rich employ the poor to risk their lives, venturing out into the unprotected world to scavenge. But this is not a system where the hard-working entrepreneur can climb the ladder, as is made painfully clear to Cholo, (John Leguizamo). Nor is it a place where useful people are allowed to go their own way, not when they can be extorted to stick around. But if the poor in the city are poor, at least they have something to eat and somewhere to sleep. What then, are we to make of the zombies? They are seen by the residents of Fiddler’s Green to be largely the equivalent of uncooperative peasants.

So when things go bad, (and of course they do,) it’s not simply because the zombies manage to infiltrate the system, it’s because the corruption of the human city begins to rot itself out from within.

On the whole, the film has some cool images, the gore is pretty good, the make-up is good. (Though I was disappointed by my inability to spot Shaun of the Dead’s Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright as zombies. According to the credits, they were the “Photo-booth zombies” but I didn’t notice them.) It’s not the best zombie movie ever, but it’s definitely not the worst either, not by a long shot, and if you have any interest in the genre, I’d say it’s worth a rental on DVD.

.

Well, I’ve seen a number of movies in the last couple of weeks, but because most of them weren’t new even when I saw them, and because I am, in fact, quite lazy, I hadn’t gotten around to putting up reviews for them.

So in the interests of playing catch-up, I thought I’d go ahead and get them posted.

First up: The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants


Yes, it’s a teenage girly-flick. No, it’s not trying to be anything other than a teenage girly-flick. Those of you who are, in your heart of hearts, opposed to teenage girly-flicks may as well move on, because this isn’t likely to be the one that wins you over.

That said, it’s actually pretty good so far as these things go. To begin with, it has a pretty impressive cast. Not to unfairly dis Hilary Duff or Lindsey Lohan, because they are each pretty talented in their own right, but I think this cast has earned a few more stripes.

In addition, the writing, while not groundbreaking per se, is certainly more than able to deliver the tropes of a teenage girly-flick in ways that feel fresh and interesting.

So if you missed (or forgot) the trailer, we’ve got four girls, the best of friends, but all very different from one another.

There is the fabulous Alexis Bledel, best known as Rory from the Gilmore Girls, but also fun as Becky, the traitorous whore with the blue-blue eyes in Sin City. She plays Lena, a kind, but shy good girl. She’s visiting relatives in Greece for the Summer, but is upset to discover that the cute guy she meets there is the son of her family’s sworn enemy. He seems like the one that might finally bring her out of her shell, but she’s heartsick over having to go behind her family’s back.

We have Amber Tamblyn, best known as Joan from the highly underrated and tragically cancelled Joan of Arcadia, playing Tibby, the rebel who wants to be a documentary filmmaker. Side Note: She must be a pretty impressive pitch artist too, because she’s trying to make a film about the low-wage employees of Wal-Mart (or a Movie-Brand stand in, I don’t remember), and somehow she got permission to actually walk around filming things while she’s ostensibly working as a stock-girl. But in the process, she meets an aggravating little know-it-all of a ten-year-old who decides, of her own volition, to help with the movie.

We have America Ferrera, best known for a wonderful film called “Real Women Have Curves.” She plays Carmen, a full-figured Latina who’s visiting her caucasian father for the Summer, only to be shocked by the revelation that her father is engaged to be married to Barbie, complete with the Wonder-bread twins as stepkids. Suddenly, instead of spending the Summer with her dad, she’s adrift in the suburban wasteland, feeling like an outsider who’s only tolerated in the interest of good manners.

Then we have Blake Lively as Bridget, the only one of the four that I’d not already been familiar with. Still, I think that may change, because she’s certainly got the looks and the talent to be a notable actress. She’s the leader of the group, brash, forward, adventurous, but we start to get the feeling that a fair amount of that is a front. Trying too hard to be strong to prove she’s not like her mother who committed suicide. She’s at a soccer camp in Mexico for the Summer, and she decides to make it her quest to seduce the cute college-student coach, but we sense that she’s not nearly as experienced as she pretends to be.

So what do these four disparate threads have in common? What holds the movie together? Well, it’s the titular pants. Before going their separate ways that Summer, they found a pair of jeans in a thrift store that magically fits each of them perfectly, despite their vastly different figures. They decide that these pants must have been meant for them, and that therefore something important would happen when they are worn. So the girls resolve to each keep the pants for a week, then to mail them to the next girl, and so on, until the end of the Summer.

Do the pants work? Do they give the girls the confidence to do things they wouldn’t have otherwise? Do they make things happen that otherwise wouldn’t have happened? Do they help to resolve tricky situations? Well, ask yourself one simple question. Have you ever seen a teenage girly-flick before?

Enough said on that matter. But as I said before, the characters are interesting and well-acted, the writing is good if not outstanding, and the movie left me with valuable life-lessons and a nice warm fuzzy feeling at the end. And after all, that’s what teenage girly-flicks are for.

.