I'm not going to lie; this feels like I've flipped the script with this. Back when I was getting more into blogging on this site, I focused much more on movie reviews, pushing out articles whenever I watched a handful of them. Meanwhile, my book reading was relegated to a single article at the end of the year. However, it's clear that my entertainment patterns have changed. While I do still watch movies, it's certainly not as frequent as it used to be, while my book reading habits have somewhat improved. Still, I did end up watching some neat films here and there, and I figured I had a few interesting things to say about them. So I'm doing a format I've done before and simply recap all the movies I saw.
After reading the book, I figured I had to check out the movie. Featuring a classic, star-studded cast, and some decent authenticity provided by real US Navy ships, I was kind of excited to see how they would translate the novel to the silver screen. It turns out, they didn't really bother.
The plot starts the same for the most part: submarine USS Neptune has an accident just off the US coast and crashes on the ocean bed, and the story follows their survival against the clock as the US Navy works to rescue them. However, the similarities end there. Instead of having to stay underwater for weeks, the crew of the USS Neptune only have 36 hours of air before they start to suffocate, and all the characters have been renamed. In fact, very little of the character clashes of the book carry over. To be fair, a movie can never include all the plot points of a book, so it's natural to expect some stuff to get cut, but when you don't have the press angle, the tensions of waiting, the frustrations of bureaucracy, and the cleverness of having a Russian boat lingering around, it's hard to believe this is even the same story. I just hope David Lavallee got paid well, at least.
Setting aside the adaptation analysis, the movie is still pretty good for what it is. Some of the special effects haven't aged the greatest, but with Charlton Heston giving one of his great, paternal performances handling the decaying morale of his crew, and the solid cinematography of the cramped submarine space, the movie mostly holds together. Some of the developments feel a little hokey, especially when a two-man sub (manned by a weird scientist played by David Carradine) goes under multiple times to check things out and get involved in the rescue operation. I don't know if I would call this a great movie (and it's hardly an adaptation), but as a disaster film exploring the fear of being trapped underwater, it does well enough.
This was a year featuring some curious thrillers. Based on a novel from the 80s, it follows a young CIA desk worker named Charlie whose wife is killed in a terrorist attack. When the CIA isn't responding as quickly as he'd like, he decides to blackmail his superiors into giving him field training, which he fails at, as his handler believes that Charlie isn't capable of killing. So Charlie goes off on his own to bring justice to these terrorists, all while being chased by the CIA.
The movie is a slower affair than your typical spy-action blockbuster, giving time to let the characters settle into the story, and lets Rami Malek really show some interesting physical range. While he is adamant about getting justice, the title rings true through most of the action, as Charlie's plans don't always work out, and even follows a quick, on-the-spot lock-picking tutorial on YouTube to break into an apartment. While it's never mentioned, Malek's portrayal of the character shows some autistic tendencies, which seems to be a bit of a theme lately with action or thriller heroes. I'm not an expert on such topics, so I can't say how good or correct the portrayal is, but it is interesting element that the movie lightly brings up. Much is made of the main character's inability to kill, but it rings a little hollow as he takes out his targets, albeit in a rather roundabout manner. The story does maybe get a little too complicated for its own good, but otherwise, this was a fine spy drama that leans closer to the work of John Le Carré than most spy movies do.
I didn't see the first film when it came out, but my father did, and he praised it pretty highly as a neat little action thriller. When the sequel came around and my dad wanted to see it with me, I took the time to watch the first in anticipation of the second, so it makes sense that I review them together.
This might be a little unfair, though, as the two films are distinctly different, not only in its approach, but also in its focus. The first film focuses on Ben Affleck playing a peculiar accountant with autism (like I said, a trend) named Christian. As it turns out, he's been doing shady business on the side of his firm, but also sending tips to the Federal Treasury Department to bring criminals to justice for their money laundering. And he happens to be an assassin-level warrior in both guns and hand-to-hand combat because his father was a government agent and resorts to tough love to help his son learn to control his autism. I felt the movie had a really slow start, and the scenes that focused on Christian's condition were somewhat awkward and uncomfortable, but as the pieces come together, it ends up being mostly decent.
The sequel largely picks up right after the first, with Charlie being reunited with his brother Braxton (played by Jon Bernthal). While there's another situation for our heroes to handle involving the death of a good man, and searching for a missing El Salvadoran family, it almost takes a backseat to the recovering bromance between Charlie and Braxton. Bernthal (who was in the first film as well) really plays up the role of the obnoxious little brother who just wants some attention, and frankly, the movie becomes weirdly heartwarming, with these two men not only working out their own issues, but working together to bring other families together. I ended up liking the second one more, if only because the humor was much better, but both are solid action flicks with some unique angles of how an action film can work and who gets to be in them.
I admit I haven't been keeping up with the Marvel Cinematic Universe much at all, but the opportunity came to see this one, and found it to be pretty enjoyable. I also haven't seen the earlier Fantastic Four films, but apparently the fifth's time is the charm, as the film finds a nice balance between superheroism and pulpy sci-fi.
Ripping the story from the comic pages (and taking place in an alternate universe), the Fantastic Four are a group of superheroes who gained their powers as a consequence of a disaster during a space flight mission, but instead of being hated or mistrusted by the public, they become the world's saviors, not only in taking on supervillains, but also improving society with the leader Mister Fantastic's scientific inventions and innovations. However, at the same time that he discovers that his wife is pregnant, the world is approached by Shalla-Bal, the Silver Surfer, presenting an omen that massive cosmic being Galactus wants the child for his own reasons, compelling the team comes together to fight off this apocalyptic threat.
While I don't think the film is necessarily great, I also get the impression that it wasn't trying to be either. Instead, it settles into its Jetsons-esque retrofuturism, and simply lets the heroes be the heroes; facing difficult odds, finding clues, working out solutions, and coming together in the end, even if their methods may be difficult for the masses to accept. The special effects are also quite solid, especially when deep in space. That chase scene around a black hole was the highlight of the film, in my opinion. In the end, the film ends up being about having faith in your family, with some pretty satisfying results. While I don't know if this will necessarily get me back into the MCU, it's definitely a bright spot in what I understand has been a pretty rough ride lately.
I didn't see the first film when it came out, but my father did, and he praised it pretty highly as a neat little action thriller. When the sequel came around and my dad wanted to see it with me, I took the time to watch the first in anticipation of the second, so it makes sense that I review them together. (If that sounds familiar, that's because it's just been that kind of year. Like I said, I don't seen many new films, but the ones I do see, it's generally with my dad.)
Anyways, the first film was certainly a curious ride. Hutch Mansell is a pretty stereotypical suburban dad, working a suburban desk job, and struggling to stay involved with his family and their lives. When some robbers break into their home, Hutch basically lets them, even though he could have easily stopped them. Because of this, he loses his reputation with his teenage son, and soon his neighbor and his co-workers find out as well, clearly setting him up as this weak pushover of a man. However, when he discovers that the robbers might have taken his daughter's bracelet, he goes on a hunt to punish them for it, only to discover that they don't have it, nor do they really deserve to punished. Frustrated, he takes the bus home, only to see some drunk young men harassing a young woman. Seeing an opportunity to finally let loose, he kicks the tar out of the young punks, inadvertently setting off a chain reaction that causes the Russian mafia to try and take him out. It turns out, Hutch is actually a former government assassin, and now that he's being hunted himself, he uses all of his skills to make them pay for threatening him and his beloved family. It was a quirky film, where the action was pretty funny and slapstick-like, but the other scenes are played pretty seriously, making it hard to know what level the film was trying to work within, as the tone kept changing. However, the ending action stuff was pretty fun, making for a decent thrill ride.
The second film is largely a retread of the first. Hutch wants to connect with his family better, so he takes them on a vacation to the place he was ever allowed to go to for fun (as his family is also heavily military/PsyOp minded). Unfortunately, he ends up on the bad side of the local police, who are being used as a front for a drug and weapon smuggling ring. Soon enough, Hutch's family is in danger again, so he works out a few deals, gains a few allies, and turns the theme park into a battleground full of traps that would make the Home Alone kid impressed. Again, I think the second film is better, mainly because I think the action was better directed and choreographed. They did a very good job of showing the scenery in a way that made it clear what was happening when the action picks up later. However, both films are pretty solid, and I'd sooner recommend these over the Accountant films, though the violence is definitely more gory and visceral in these.
Once again, we have a sequel to a violent action film this year. Not sure why that is, but I'm not necessarily complaining. While the first film was a wild ride, I did feel that the tone was a little all over the place for what they were trying to do. Still, when a sequel was announced, my dad and I were definitely intrigued to see where things would go. As it turns out, it was another wild ride, this time with some very solid emotional stakes this time.
This movie takes place a few years later, after World War II has ended. As a consequence of a pact with Soviet Russia, Finland had to agree to give up a chunk of land, and thousands of Finns were forced to relocate. Our old soldier from the first film decides to make his way into that territory to find his old home where the Russians had killed his family. His plan is to take that home, logs and all, back to Finnish territory so he can build it in peace. Unfortunately, the KGB learn that this soldier, who had killed so many Russians that they called him "The Immortal," is back on Soviet ground, so they send their agent Dragonov as an act of revenge. The movie then becomes an extended chase across Karelia as our hero deals with Russian agents out to capture him and punish him until his legend is no more. And then things start exploding.
The plot really is that simple, but for a tight movie that's barely 90 minutes, it works. It also helps that the movie retains its Spaghetti Western sensibilities, understanding that moments of quiet are important as well. The opening sequence of the old soldier going back to him home is emotionally powerful and does a great job setting up the stakes. The old man just wants to take the physical manifestation of one of the few good memories he has and take it somewhere safe. I think it's those emotional stakes that make this film better than the first one. I also think it was a little more focused, and the action scenes were really well done. If you don't mind your action movies both gritty and over-the-top, you really can't do worse than this. Great stuff!
No comments:
Post a Comment