Archive for December, 2004

184 – Collateral

Posted by frothy in Collateral on December 31, 2004

Max (Jamie Foxx) is a morose, temporary (for 12 years) cabbie who picks up an unusual fare: For $600, he’ll ferry Vincent (Tom Cruise) around to various real estate deals. Small problem, though: Turns out Vincent’s deals are actually hits. That might cost extra on the meter. Michael Mann’s dark action film is mainly a two-character study of the hijacked Max and the confident Vincent. Will Max ever get the psychological upper hand on Vincent? Who will win out? Will Vincent complete his “rounds”? The other characters are merely background decorations, for the most part, as this is a batter of wits between a cold master and a warm, pensive dreamer.

Critics have raved about this movie, especially about Foxx’s performance and about Cruise’s ability to disappear into a character. I can’t agree with the latter of those two assessments. To me, Tom Cruise never stopped being Tom Cruise. You can whiten his beard and give him a salt-and-pepper mane, but you can never completely take away the very distinct Cruise mannerisms. You can never, in other words, completely forget Vincent is Tom Cruise, Movie Star, and that’s where the movie really suffers. I believe Cruise was miscast in this movie, because another, less-mannered actor would have given a much more-nuanced performance.

Foxx, on the other hand, was perfectly cast, and this (along with Ray) is surely a breakthrough role for the former In Living Color vet. Foxx immerses himself so much in his character that one completely empathizes with Max’s plight. We understand when he’s uncertain about calling Annie, the lawyer who was the fare before Vincent. We know where he’s coming from when he’s asked to do reprehensible things by Vincent over the course of the long evening. We never have to stop and ask ourselves why Max is doing something, or – more appropriately – why Max isn’t doing something to stop Vincent.

There are some holes in the story itself, which never bodes well when the movie is as plot dependent; even worse, though, is that the plot – particularly the ending – seems far too contrived and tidy for the people involved. Things happen in the movie that would be considered mere coincidences in real life, but here they look manipulated.

Because of this, Collateral was a disappointment to me. Even if one sawed through the hype of the movie (“Ooh look! It’s Tom Cruise looking old!”) and took it at face value, the plot contrivances and hamminess of Cruise ultimately sink it, at least to some degree. It’s not a wholly unentertaining movie, as it’s fun to watch Cruise and Foxx interact. It’s just not as satisfying as it should have been.

Collateral: **1/2

, , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

183 – Napoleon Dynamite

Posted by frothy in Napoleon Dynamite on December 30, 2004

Napoleon Dynamite (Jon Heder) is the typical sad-sack, luckless loser that has permeated high schools for seemingly centuries. He has no friends, he’s picked on by bullies, he has a somewhat-odd home life … but through it all, he’s sure things will be just plain okay in the end.

Napoleon and his older brother Kip (Aaron Ruell) live with their grandmother, but at the beginning of the film she tells them she needs to take off for a couple days. Enter their Uncle Rico (Jon Gries), a self-starter who’s living in 1982 (when the coach of his high school football team declined to put him in as quarterback, thus altering Rico’s life forever). Some of the funniest scenes in the film involve Napoleon’s often-combative relationship with Uncle Rico; Rico is also bound and determined to return to those halcyon days of his youth via a time machine he’s seen advertised on the Internet, and he enlists Kip to help him raise the funds.

Napoleon befriends the new kid in school, Pedro (Efren Ramirez), who has a sweet bike, can talk to girls, and has an actual mustache. But like Napoleon, Pedro is a misfit. Both sometimes hang out with yet another taciturn student, Deb (Tina Majorino, all grown up from Waterworld), who secretly (it seems) likes Napoleon. But there isn’t a lot of focus on their relationship, because Napoleon himself is fairly oblivious to how people perceive him. This isn’t a story about young love or lust, it’s a story about a misfit refusing to fit – while fitting in with others like him.

Jon Heder is perfectly cast as the gawky, dorky Napoleon; he resembles Butt-Head in countenance, although certainly not in temperment or intelligence. Mouth agape and with an awkward gait, Napoleon is about as odd a duck as you’d find in high school, and yet he still manages to survive with his dignity intact. He’s a good egg, although he seems to overreact at times: “What are you gonna do today, Napoleon? Napoleon: Whatever I feel like I wanna do…..GOSH!” Still, his delivery is perfect. You can readily picture a Napoleon in any high school.

I think where the film ultimately succeeds, aside from the casting of Heder, is that it doesn’t fall into the traps of predictability and stereotyping. Sure, it’s a high school movie, and there are snobby pretty girls and arrogant jocks, but not much time is devoted to them. Sure, there’s a big dance, but it doesn’t necessarily turn out the way you’d expect it to. What you’re left with, then, isn’t a typical coming-of-age story, but rather a unique take on a rather mundane – albeit life-altering – time in a boy’s life.

Napoleon Dynamite: ***

, , , ,

No Comments

182 – The Bourne Supremacy

Posted by frothy in Bourne Supremacy on December 28, 2004

Matt Damon reprises his role as former-agent-now-with-amnesia Jason Bourne, who finds himself being shot at while in India with his lovely wife, Maria (Franka Potente). Who’s trying to kill Jason? Another former agent? The mob? The U.S. government? Bourne wants answers, and the improbable path seems to lead to the CIA and a now-dormant super-duper-secret organization.

The CIA wants to kill Bourne, because they believe he killed two of their agents. Bourne, as in the first film, still needs to know who he is, who’s trying to kill him, and the relevance of the name Treadstone.

Fans of the first movie will likely enjoy this second film, but fans of the second book (by Robert Ludlum, don’t ya know) will be mystified, since the movie takes only a few basic elements from the book. Which is a shame, in my estimation, because the second book was pretty well packed with action and intrigue. The movie makes up for this by including a quite lengthy car chase during the final third of the film.

Perhaps a different director (Paul Greengrass instead of Doug Liman, who executive produced) explains the change in pacing and tone; Bourne seems the same, which is good, but less seems explained, which is bad. Also, the action scenes are so fast cutting that it’s sometimes impossible to tell what’s going on.

Damon still looks the part, and he does a very good job in the role. We don’t see enough of Franka Potente, unfortunately, but we do get to see the great Joan Allen as the CIA official out to get Bourne. The ending’s a bit too pat, rendering a lot of the plot meaningless. All in all, it’s a good time waster, just not as engrossing as the original.

, , , ,

1 Comment

181 – Spider-Man 2

Posted by frothy in Spider-Man 2 on December 20, 2004

A cut above the typical comic book movie, S-M 1 did what this type of movie is supposed to do: introduce the main characters, have ‘em fight a Super Bad Guy, and then have it all end happily ever after, for the most part. In other words, for the first movie in a supposed franchise, you have to allow time for exposition of the protagonist’s background, even if millions already know him from another medium.

With S-M 2, though, such an obligation isn’t necessary. We’ve met Spidey, MJ, Aunt May, et al., and we’re ready to jump into a new story. So while the first one explain why Spidey is, the second movie devotes more time to fighting the Bad Guy du Jour, Doctor Octopus.

Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) still pines for MJ (Kirsten Dunst), from whom he steers clear despite his undying affection for her. It’s for her own good, he tells himself. If we’re together, my enemies will top at nothing to get at me through her, and I can’t put her in that position. And so, in typical superhero fashion, he broods and broods and broods. The relentless push-and-pull between his love for MJ and his devotion to using his powers for good is a constant theme in the Spider-Man universe, and in the movies it either smolders in the background or charges with a raging fury to the forefront. Peter is given the impossible choice – true love or good deeds – and it’s a choice to which, at its core, everyday people can relate; we all have exceedingly difficult choices to make throughout our lives.

And in this especially, the movies succeed. Peter Parker is supposed to be an average teen – well, except for those powers he has. He’s not morally superior. He’s not smarter. He’s just a poor schlub who accidentally has these super powers, and he doesn’t quite know how to deal with them. On a smaller scale, a comparison can be made to a supremely talented collegiate football player who’s just made it to the pros. He has otherworldly talents. He has money, fame, fortune. And can he handle it? About as well as Peter can.

Anyway, the big villain here is the aforementioned Doc Ock (Alfred Molina), yet another in a long line of Good Scientists Gone Wrong. You may recall that the Green Goblin from the first S-M movie was also of this line. This Doc has found a way to manipulate metallic tentacles with his mind. (It helps that the tentacles are physically attached to him.) Something goes wrong, he goes mad, and next thing you know it, he’s gonna take over the world. Give these boys a Happy Meal, and they’d still want two prizes.

Along with the inevitable Spidey-Doc Ock battles, Peter Parker’s best friend Harry (James Franco) is still quite resentful as Spidey’s killing of his father in the first movie. He doesn’t know Peter is Spider-Man, but he knows only Peter is able to take photographs of him. So the second thematic struggle is within Harry – does he resent his friend for knowing the murderer (in his eyes) of his father?

All of the cast returns from the first movie (well, all that survived the first movie), and they all do a collective good job. Maguire is a perfect choice for the lead; he’s unassuming, can’t really emote, is stoic, and even a little bit wimpy. All are qualities that plague the characters of both Spider-Man and Peter Parker.

Spider-Man 2: ***

, , , ,

No Comments