Change Your Image
strangenoise
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Æon Flux (2005)
Nice try but flawed
Problem: A big bunch of story from a series (ten times or so the running time of a movie) needs to be condensed into a easy-to-understand, entertaining 90min movie. Common Solutions: a)drop the series or b)overload the movie until it breaks down. Aeon Flux tries to go with both ways. It tames the series and especially the protagonist with kind of a new storyline. This leaves enough freedom in the story world for everyone to get along. But, for the b)-solution, it stumps the exposition into one solid block of story. The first 30 minutes (of approx. 85) are a nuisance of compressed, boiled down and abbreviated bits & pieces of information. This makes characters, plot and even the dystopian idea of the movie shallow and foreseeable. Therefore the script fails in the opening and nearly kills the whole movie with it. In addition, the dialogue and the camera work are cheesy and way too simple for the information the movie wants to give. Sentences like "Once I had a live,now I had a mission" should be forbidden and punished by the god of scripts himself. And for the camera: kidnapping victims do not drop red scarves in Technicolor and slow motion. This is not only simple, this is just cheap. And the cheap effect is sought fairly often, leading to the flat characters. My hand was already on its way to remote control, when suddenly á miracle happened: the movie started to flow. After 30 minutes or so (with the first meeting of Aeon and Goodchild), things started to roll. And from this point on it was like watching a different movie. Characters gained character, dialogs became entertaining, the action sequences were tense and gripping (despite a bunch of bad CGIs). Even the conventional MTV-camera style of the introduction found new ways and some excellent image compositions. Charlize Theron started to become credible as Aeon and Csokas enriched the movie greatly after his first real appearances with more then 3 sentences. Even the shallow (partly foreseeable) plot gained a bit of depth and found some better twists towards the end. Everything turned into a nice action sci-fi romp. My explanation for this extreme division of the movie would be that the writers and also the director knew that the series R.O.C.K.E.D. and had a clear vision about the "rocking" itself but they had a hard time developing the stage for the show. So it turns out to be a good action flick in the end but falls flat on any larger scale and has its harsh shortcomings in structure and substance. The recommendation for a excellent adaption of a sci-fi series to the big screen still is Serenity. And the best Dystopia with a low budget still is Equilibrium. This is only too bad. The potential had been there to come up with something really innovative. But finances might have played a part in this, too. The movie has a hard time to shake off a "sci-fi Xena"-TV double episode charm. With a bigger budget for a better production and 30 minutes more to develop in senseful manner this could have been a great movie. As it is now, it is just a slightly above average mainstream movie. You can watch it, you don't need to watch it.
Running Scared (2006)
It's a sick and twisted world out there...
First off : don't let them fool you. Especially Mr. Tarantino and his recommendation. This is NO fun ride, no bloodgutspillbangbang romp. It is not comparable to Master Tarantino at all. There is no excessive celebration of violence like in Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction. The hallmarks for Running Scared are more like A History of Violence or Bad Lieutenant. This is the examination of an everlasting spiral of violence, from every day bullying down to the utmost sadistic kinds of torture and murder. Joey Gazelle's run through the night leads through an assortment of crimes and/or sins. This explains the slightly confused storyline : a collection of violent snapshots that confront the viewers with their own reaction to them. Main Question behind this "Sick, sad world"-scenario is "Can violence be justified?". The protagonist himself is not a small timer in crime, he is a killing machine. So it is up to the audience to judge his actions. And these are not for the feeble-minded. Imagine Sin City without the graphic novel-element. This is realistic violence without a safety net. And it is systematically abolishing any taboos a movie goer wants to have. Innocent deaths en galore, women and children included, like uncensored newspaper articles burned directly into the eye. And like in se7en this is not a bad idea nor a bad attempt. But does it succeed? Not fully. Paul Walker does a good job for an action flick, but cannot develop the possible depth of the scenario. The plot holes work for the construction of a "violence museum" but defy the simple laws of logic (even for an action movie). And, maybe most important, the bottom line of the movie sticks to arbitrary law and pathetic patriotism more than once. Therefore the moral of the fable is slightly sour. Similar to The Game, another ending could have turned the whole movie into a successful statement (if you watch the movie, you'll surely see what I mean, but I don't wanna spoil a thing). But still director and writer Wayne Kramer is more than a bit promising and I hope that he is about to dive deeper into the topic. I believe he could be the man to top off Old Boy, Hana-Bi and similar brilliant violent meditations about life. For now we have one of the most disturbing and cynic action thrillers of 2006.
16 Blocks (2006)
Cold-blooded, neat thriller
I looked forward to that one for Bruce Willis is a bit like wine : the older the better. His performance as drunk cop is a perfect dirty version of his all-time hero McClane. And yes, he never ever looked that ugly. The aspirin-evergreen has changed to breath mints, receding hairline, mustache (ewwwww...) and he limps right from the beginning. And Willis is perfect for that role. His counterpart Mos Def acts fine enough for the "rapper in movies"-standards and does really well. Unfortunately....to be honest: his voice is horrible. He is squeaky and sometimes barely understandable. That's also why parts of the dialogue go down the drain. Too bad, because they are well-written (for an action flick). Not as witty and humorous as Donners legendary "Lethal Weapon" trilogy, but, hey, this is a much darker thriller. The story surely has some nice enough twists to keep the viewer glued to the screen. What makes this one better than the average (apart from Willis) is the excellent work of Richard Donner. He shows a formidable sense of timing and turns the script into a breath-taking roller-coaster ride. In his hands the premise of a confined (and heavily guarded) space to cross in a small time frame builds up a tension (bullets can fly any second...) that can walk over some plot holes without giving away the whole movie. The action itself is fine but has the problem of copying some of the genre's gems (like Eastwood's "The Gauntlet" that gets an almost explicit homage). Lucky enough that "16 Blocks" adds enough own ideas to avoid the term "copycat". One last huge pro for this movie is the bad guy. David Morse re-enacts (and improves)his part from "The Negotiator" and makes this the cold-blooded, dark cop thriller it is. His performance is worthy for "L.A. Confidential" and it can't get much dirtier than that. A++ for David Morse. To wrap this up: a good actioner that tops most of the 2006 big screen blockbuster productions. Definitely worth its while and the better part of 7 out of 10 points.
Neung buak neung pen soon (2002)
A bit of a letdown.... OK nevertheless
I suppose I would never have chosen the movie by the cover, but there was Pang mentioned and I thought... Hey, nothing to lose. As it turned out, Danny Pang had a lot to lose. The Eye was too high a standard and this one stays behind. Though there is a lot on the good side. The movie is definite eye candy, MTV aesthetics with a good cut can still work out nice, the score is great, the story itself is OK for a not-so-shallow action flick and main actress Fresh is a pulse raiser. Too bad that most of these points are put under the lid by 80%-cheesy dialogue, bad actors on all supporting parts, a pale main actor (though not as bad as the supporting cast) and a horrible narrating rhythm that not only takes the drive out of the first 2/3s of the movie but almost kills the story as a whole. Still some of the scenes are great. So as long as you can stand the boring parts and just want to see some great pictures (and a hot actress :-) ), it still is enjoyable. For Mr Pang, this is nice try, but no banana. Maybe next time. Still I'm looking forward to the next one.