CO-REVIEW: THE BOURNE LEGACY

THE BOURNE LEGACY
USA 2012
Directed by Tony Gilroy
Written by Tony Gilroy and Dan Gilroy
Starring Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton, Stacy Keach

SYNOPSIS:  The fourth film in the in-name-only adaptation of Robert Ludlum's BOURNE novels (Ok; the first fifteen minutes of the first film were taken from the books.), now sans Jason Bourne. Agent Aaron Cross (Renner) has to fight to survive when the government decides to purge the program, killing off all operatives, as well as non-essential employees who know too much.  Along for the ride is Dr. Marta Shearing (Weisz), a scientist on the government's hit list.

THOUGHTS:

PHIL:  Let me start out by saying that I didn't particularly care for the previous three films (also written, but not directed, by Gilroy), and Anna hasn't seen any of them.  So neither of us were coming into this as fans of the series.

I like the concept of the franchise - a more gritty, brutal, almost cinema verite style of spy thriller.  But I was never gripped by either the simplistic storyline (Seriously; the first three films could've easily been condensed into one.), nor Matt Damon's leaden performance.  Their sense of self-seriousness made them unintentionally laughable at times, and boring at others.  Some pretty sweet action photography and choreography, but nothing too compelling.

So it came as a pleasant surprise when this latest film decided to emphasize a theme that has been present, though understated, since the start of the series; an analysis of the banality of conspiracy.  Closer in tone to the paranoid thrillers of the seventies, such as THE PARALLAX VIEW and THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR, than the James Bond style shenanigans of the original films, we follow a series of average looking conspirators in average looking rooms, as they calmly talk about "eliminating assets".  The "assets" in question are people, but you get no impression from their tone or demeanor that they talking about taking multiple lives.

ANNA: So, I hated this. I hated it with a lot of rage. Philip says, "Well, honey, it wasn't made with you in mind as the audience," and to that I say, "That is exactly what's wrong with it!" It's perfectly okay for the lives, property and food of hundreds of 'expendables', i.e. people of color and women, to be completely destroyed so that one super-enhanced white dude can...not lose his new chemically-induced level of intelligence created by Science(TM)? As long as it's a film for the Status Quo!

Rachel Weisz has begun to sicken me with her role choices as well. "Oh, she's a brunette who wears glasses and is a scientist! She is a Strong Woman and thus I will be a credit to the human race for portraying her with my Middle American Accent." Or maybe she'll be running around aimlessly crushed by trauma into deep ineffectuality such that she has to be literally tossed around like a brainless prop by the Super Enhanced White Dude so that he can get his fix. She'll also fall maddeningly in love with him because she has to care for him while he falters, that ever so irresistible power-struggle charm.

There's not even a throw-away line to make this even a mote satisfying as a dystopic view on the hindered emotions of our over-medicalized society, or even how the Super Enhanced White Dudes are being used by the government to improve society, or ensure freedom. Arduous scenes with tensely-postured suited white dudes asking "what the hell is going on?!" in front of files and fancy computer screens while referring to some kind of monetary or outcome loss does not a compelling drama make. Why do I care about what's happening here?

PHIL:  Again, I'm not really selling it here, but I think that's kind of the point; no one really cares about what's happening.  The main character even says in the film "Don't you ever just not care?".  I take it as a commentary on the atrocities we hear about in little snippets on mainstream news, slid in between stories of celebrity breakups and political sex scandals.  Stories about assassinations, destabilized third world countries, war crimes;  all things that the American TV audience has become completely desensitized to.

And I don't think Gilroy is trying to portray anyone as a hero here. Bourne was the only proactive, altruistic character in the series (who was, admittedly, mostly driven by revenge), but his efforts to expose the government conspiracies are actually the direct cause of all the conflict in this film.  The "Bourne legacy" is that Cross and Shearing end up on the run for their lives.  Norton and Keach, as the main heavies, aren't getting sadistic glee out of killing people.  They're just doing their jobs, and covering their asses.

I will give the film a demerit for all of the references to the other films; it's like they felt a strong need to justify a Bourne-less film.  Guys, if you're gonna tell a new story, just tell a new story.  But what worked for me is how well Gilroy is able to milk the tension. There is a shooting in a lab, and an attempted forced "suicide", which are both highly unsettling scenes that had a much stronger emotional impact on me than any action scene in the previous films.  They're almost Polanski-esqe in their surreality.  

Overall, it's easily my favorite installment of the series, which isn't saying a WHOLE lot.  Imperfect, but I loved many of the things that were attempted here, some of which ended up being pulled off admirably.

ANNA:  Yeah, I think I could experience people just doing their jobs and covering their asses (while harming others to do so) in my every day life, so I'm not sure I need to see a movie with that as the theme. It doesn't elevate beyond that; there's no spiritual resonance or even any good kills. The movie is as desensitized as the commentary they may or may not be making.

I will agree; the lab shooting was pretty tight and I felt a flicker of hope that at least I'd get a good, fun, suspenseful action movie out of it. And although it may be directly associated with recently watching his performance in Big Love, I knew Zeljko Ivanek had an intense creepiness about him from the beginning. 

ANNA RATING:  -1 (Fuck Off!)
PHIL RATING:  5 (Like)

FIVE FAVORITE TONY SCOTT FILMS (PLUS A RETROSPECTIVE)

If there are two films that Tony Scott will be remembered for, it's TOP GUN and TRUE ROMANCE; respectively, a box-office megahit with popcorn for brains, and a low-budget grunge-noir flop that gained a massive cult following.  He never made a film that is critically regarded as highly as some of his brother Ridley Scott's best films, such as ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER.  But in between and around Tony's two cultural tent-poles, he was busy crafting some solid reliable pieces of entertainment; some of which have created a more lasting impression than most would originally imagine.

Here's a brief rundown of Tony's entire career, with some thoughts.  (In the last couple years, I did what I dubbed "Scott Fest"; a massive marathon of the Scott family's entire catalog, so these are all pretty fresh in my mind.)

THE HUNGER (1983) - From the opening performance by Bauhaus of their song "Bela Lugosi's Dead", this film would forever link the fashionable undead with the burgeoning goth community.  Fully embracing the alternative-sexuality subtext always lingering slightly beneath the surface of most vampire films (see DRACULA'S DAUGHTER), the story functions as a metaphorical tale of learning how to love at the fringes of society.  It's not without flaws (I find the ending pretty subpar, if not wholly nonsensical), but as both time capsule and performance piece (both in terms of acting and direction) it's well worth a watch.

TOP GUN (1986) - I'll be honest;  I'm not really a big fan of this film.  I mostly find it to be a huge bore.  But it's hard to deny it its place in pop culture.  Like many of Tony Scott's films, it pushes the drama just up to the very brink of outright self-parody, which makes me imagine him chuckling silently to himself while filming some of the more "intense" scenes.  Is the man a bit of a Paul Verhoeven, simply "taking the piss" with his target audience?

BEVERLY HILLS COP II - Has none of the charm of the original, Martin Brest directed film, but 500% more flash.  Plot aside, if the point was to make Brigitte Nielsen look great in a tight dress while stepping out of an astronomically expensive car, mission accomplished.  This also is where we start to see the beginnings of Tony's "mean" side;  the kills are much harder-edged than one would expect from a piece of mainstream fluff entertainment.

REVENGE (1990) - And then he gets REALLY mean.  In a plot that seems like a response to Top Gun, we follow a retired fighter pilot (Kevin Costner) who ends up becoming an Ugly American in Mexico.  This does not turn out well for him.  Melodramatic and meandering, but just dirty and hot in all the right ways.

DAYS OF THUNDER (1990) - And in the same year, we have a NASCAR film that is better than it has any right to be.  With a script by Robert Towne, and beautiful photography by Ward Russell, this is full-throttle entertainment (Sorry!) even if you've never seen an Indy 500 in your life.

THE LAST BOY SCOUT (1991) - You can watch it as the pinnacle of testosterone-fueled excess, or as an appreciative parody of such excess, but either way this is the most over-the-top version of an "80's Action Film" that you're ever likely to see.  Writer Shane Black's decidedly un-PC script isn't for all tastes, and you'll know which camp you fall into within the first five minutes of the film.  So grimy that you might need a shower afterwards.

TRUE ROMANCE (1993) - A Tarantino script produced before he was TARANTINO, this is a loving post-modern, pop-cultural take on BADLANDS (It even rips off the music!) and BONNIE AND CLYDE.  Amazing ensemble cast.  I would argue that the scene between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken is the best filmed Tarantino-written scene ever.  Tony's favorite of his own films, and most film nerds favorite of his as well.

CRIMSON TIDE (1995) - After a string of bombs, Tony went back to his blockbuster roots.  Strongly arguable as being the second-best submarine film of all time, he manipulates a solid cast of character actors, led by his muse Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman.  While TOP GUN and other Simpson/Bruckheimer productions were entirely pro-military, sabre-rattling pieces, this is a piece of mainstream entertainment that has the gall to question the decision making abilities of those left in charge of the trigger.  Intense and thrilling.

THE FAN (1996) - Crap.

ENEMY OF THE STATE (1998) - A film that anticipates the post-9/11 climate to a frightening degree, we have the strange situation in which an action films heavies include such actors as Jack Black, Seth Green, and Jamie Kennedy.  The nerds shall inherit the earth.

SPY GAME (2001) - . . .  sucks.

MAN ON FIRE (2004) - This is where Tony truly found his "voice", I think.  Overbearing, overheated.  Bombastic while also being slightly subliminal.  He pushed style to its absolute limit, beyond which no other directors have dared to go.  (Probably for good reason.)  One of Denzel's best performances.  Bleak, oppressive, and nihilistically purging.

DOMINO (2005) - The madness of TRUE ROMANCE mixed with the style of MAN ON FIRE.  Again, is this parody?  Tony loves endings that involve mexican standoffs with the mafia, it seems.

DEJA VU (2006) - Despite a script that makes zero sense (But what time travel story does?), Denzel's performance and the general fun of the whole piece make this an entertaining ride.

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 (2009) - Totally pointless remake, but I actually like some of the twists they placed on the story.  With a stronger actor than John Travolta, this could've been a pretty solid character piece.  Meh.

UNSTOPPABLE (2010) - Have not seen!  Guess I'll have to get on that.


So, my personal top five faves would be -

1.  Man On Fire
2.  The Last Boy Scout
3.  True Romance
4.  Crimson Tide
5.  The Hunger

Ciao, Tony!

TV REVIEW: SHERLOCK SEASON TWO

SHERLOCK: SEASON TWO
UK 2012
Created By: Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman

SYNOPSIS:  The further adventures of the modern-day Holmes, as he outwits villainy in three feature-length, loose adaptations of the classic stories A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA, THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, and THE FINAL PROBLEM.  Having at last met his arch-nemesis Moriarty face-to-face at the end of Season One, Sherlock (Cumberbatch) and Watson (Freeman) steel themselves for their final (?), climactic confrontation.

THOUGHTS:

The question that first comes to mind before watching this show is, "What is the purpose of Sherlock Holmes in a world with surveillance cameras, Google, and DNA tests?"  We live in a world where you can find out anything you want to know, from anywhere and at any time, so what is the purpose of a man who is simply a fount of knowledge?  

The answer to that question is at the heart of what a modern day Sherlock should represent.  In a modern world overflowing with information, we still have need of a person able to filter that information to useful purpose.  Someone who can connect the dots, even if required to do it in a lateral fashion.

So the modern Sherlock is, for all intents and purposes, much the same as his original incarnation.  A brilliant deducer, observer, and gamesman; who also happens to be egotistical, abrasive, and generally difficult to know.  Much the same, Watson is very much Watson (also, oddly enough, still an Afghan war vet), Mrs. Hudson is still nosey, etc.  The elements are all there, but removed from a slavish devotion to cannon, it acts comfortably as both a modern reboot, and as a loving meta-commentary on the original tales.  In short, you can enjoy it whether you're a fan of the stories, or have never read one before.

If you haven't seen Season One, it isn't entirely necessary for you to do so before watching these.  You've probably absorbed enough of the foundational mythology of Sherlock Holmes through cultural osmosis to get the general gist of what's going down.  However, there are lots of little character moments and in-jokes that will be completely lost on you, so, given the extremely short length of both seasons, I would highly recommend starting from the beginning.

Of the three "features" in Season Two, I found A SCANDAL IN BELGRAVIA to be the strongest, dealing with Sherlock's pseudo-romance with the generally villainous Irene Adler (Lara Pulver).  It was written by series creator Steven Moffat, who also wrote the equally strong series pilot A STUDY IN PINK.  THE HOUNDS OF BASKERVILLE is a somewhat lackluster (by Sherlock standards) adaptation of what is perhaps Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous tale.  And finally there is THE REICHENBACH FALL, Sherlock's ultimate battle with a distinctly Joker-like Moriarty (Andrew Scott).  It was an entertaining installment, with a killer ending, but perhaps felt a touch anti-climactic after all the buildup over the last two seasons.  Perhaps they can find a way to, um, keep it going?  (Fingers crossed.)

If you've yet to jump on this show, I would say it's worth a watch even if you aren't usually into mystery/suspense type shows.  The strength of the performances, as well as the writing, elevates this above your usual police procedural.  In spite of its relocation to the modern age, this is the best adaptation of Holmes that we've had in some time.

REVIEW:  7 (LOVE)

CO-REVIEW: BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD
USA 2012
Directed by Benh Zeitlin
Written by Benh Zeitlin and Lucy Alibar
Starring Quvenzhane Wallis, Dwight Henry

SYNOPSIS:  In a poor-man's post-apocalypse (in every sense of the word), a six-year-old girl named Hushpuppy (Wallis) lives in a walled-up, flooded out area known as "The Bathtub".  Her only protector is her physically and emotionally abusive, alcoholic father Wink (Henry).  But she may have to learn to fend for herself when her father falls ill, the big floods come, and gigantic, ravenous creatures known as aurochs come sniffing for human prey.

THOUGHTS:

PHIL - It's a pretty film, to be sure.  That's my strongest recommendation for it.  If you're as shallow as I am when it comes to photography, that alone might get you through this.  But while I found the premise interesting, and think that it would have made for a fantastic short film, the plot felt way too padded out.  Some great moments, but I found myself pretty bored through most of this.

ANNA - I'm generally a fan of post-apocalyptic analysis of contemporary social justice AND up for anything that has a child protagonist, so this movie is right up my alley. Wallis gives a strong performance as Hushpuppy, and I enjoyed that the film delved lightly enough into the magical realism that is really just a child's imagination. I struggled a bit with the performances of most of the adults - mostly unconvincing for film; perhaps their overdrawn characterizations come from the story's origin as a theatrical play? 

PHIL - Yeah, I'm not one to give a low-budget or independent film a pass for poor acting.  If you don't have the budget for explosions or CGI aliens, isn't performance the main thing you should be focusing on?  I'm all for sci-fi/fantasy as allegory (most of the best works are really about the here and now, not the far future), but I felt like this was a little too on-the-nose with the Katrina thing, without having anything particularly interesting or insightful to say about it.  The more direct you are, the more it just comes off as a polemic, without having its own story to tell.

ANNA - Even with some of the issues, I'll probably be listing this among my top ten 2012 films, just for the character of Hushpuppy. B+ is too low but it's not quite an A- either. 

PHIL - B++, then?  I wouldn't begrudge someone liking this film - It's different enough, and I get why it strikes such a strong chord with some people.  It just didn't really speak to me, and I feel like it was resting too comfortably on concept to really take and expand the story to where it needs to go.

PHIL REVIEW:  3 (AMUSED BY)
ANNA REVIEW:  6 (LIKE)