UNSTOPPABLE 3.5****
Loosely based on a true story from 2001, “Unstoppable” is a tension packed, heart-racing roller-coaster of a movie about an unmanned, runaway train carrying a payload of highly flammable fuel and toxic waste that is heading straight for the densely populated of Stanton, Pennsylvania at 70mph. Several human errors by an incompetent train driver and his colleagues allows the out of control train to leave the train yard unmanned without brakes or an automatic cut off system … and from then on, the race is on to try and stop this out of control half-mile long train from devastating a city.
The true star is the train, a runaway monster ("a missile the size of the Chrysler Building" as one protagonist puts it) accelerates quickly to 70 m.p.h. along southern Pennsylvania, first through rural areas then into densely populated towns and cities, towards Stanton, PA and a fateful curve in on an elevated section of the rail with huge oil tanks underneath . Not enough? The train is carrying thousands of gallons of fuel and eight cars filled with highly toxic and explosive chemicals.
The pace of the film starts relatively slow but then quickly ratchets up until it is utterly, utterly relentless - there's no time to breathe here, just one near disaster after another… one heroic effort after another … all done in reality ( there is almost no computer generated special effects)…with frantic conversations intermixed to quickly set up the next danger faced by our blue-collar heroes. These are real huge trains and real flesh and blood people with lots of collisions, twisted metal and explosions. The key thing for the movie to succeed is that there be heroes that the audience can root for, and in that regard, I cannot think of anyone better than Denzel Washington. Teaming with him, co-star Chris Pine (Capt. Kirk in the recent remake of “Star Trek”) comes through with an excellent performance. The pair play the familiar know-it-all young guy vs. the wise, experienced veteran who start out with animosity and finish as…. well you have to see the movie but you’re allowed to guess.. They each have their own "human story" – a not-really-so-old engineer forced into early retirement with half-pension and a greenhorn conductor eager to prove himself (while troubled and distracted by marital problems). These background stories are necessary to lift the characters out of a single-dimension existence, but the focus is aptly placed on their exciting and heroic efforts to stop the runaway train.
Ably directed by Tony Scott (who has something of a history with trains and Denzel Washington – “Taking of Pelham 123”, “Man on Fire”), “Unstoppable” features some really good camera work, low ground shots, blur in movement, close-up action … and a very imaginative use of sound and music …all the things that really emphasize the feeling of locomotive power, speed and imminent destruction. Scott continues to be an in-demand action film director, and this film contributes to that winning streak. He applied that age old rule for success: “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”.
Clark
________________________________________
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNET”S NEST 3.0***
Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) is back in "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest", the third and final installment of the late Swedish author Stieg Larsson's trilogy. The first two were the "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and "The Girl Who Played With Fire". But don't worry too much if you didn't see the first two films. There is a quick intro at the beginning that helps… but admittedly it is much better if you seen or read the first two.
The movie starts with Lisbeth is in the hospital, in critical condition. But there is little doubt for those who have come to know her fascinating character that nothing short of death itself can stop our tiny, but powerful, typhoon of a woman. Not only is she battling for her life from severe gunshot wounds, including one to her head, but also even if she recovers, she is going to trial for the attempted murder of her horribly abusive father. Once again, her only ally is journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist). But we've seen them team up twice before, and despite some hefty obstacles, they stand a good chance against bad odds.
Aside from the recovery time in the hospital, much of the film focuses on the ins and outs of the law and we’re talking about “Swedish” law which is much different from American law. The rest and best part of the film tales place in the court room and manages to not only keep your interest, but also be incredibly engaging. Maybe it's because everything comes together from the first two films This is not to say that “Hornet’s Nest” is as good as the first of the series..”The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” .” There’s nothing like novelty to evoke special interest. Once you’ve marveled at the punk-Mohawk-haired-biker-clothed character of the lead girl, Lisbeth Salander, and her unbelievable physical and mental skills, you know you’ve seen something/someone completely new and original on the screen. But after those initial marvelous moments of discovery, and with time, the novelty wears off and you become somewhat accustomed to even this very unique character.
All in all, “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest” is both a fitting end to and a last hurrah for a brilliant trilogy of first the 3 books and then the 3 Swedish films.
Clark
Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) is back in "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest", the third and final installment of the late Swedish author Stieg Larsson's trilogy. The first two were the "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and "The Girl Who Played With Fire". But don't worry too much if you didn't see the first two films. There is a quick intro at the beginning that helps… but admittedly it is much better if you seen or read the first two.
The movie starts with Lisbeth is in the hospital, in critical condition. But there is little doubt for those who have come to know her fascinating character that nothing short of death itself can stop our tiny, but powerful, typhoon of a woman. Not only is she battling for her life from severe gunshot wounds, including one to her head, but also even if she recovers, she is going to trial for the attempted murder of her horribly abusive father. Once again, her only ally is journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist). But we've seen them team up twice before, and despite some hefty obstacles, they stand a good chance against bad odds.
Aside from the recovery time in the hospital, much of the film focuses on the ins and outs of the law and we’re talking about “Swedish” law which is much different from American law. The rest and best part of the film tales place in the court room and manages to not only keep your interest, but also be incredibly engaging. Maybe it's because everything comes together from the first two films This is not to say that “Hornet’s Nest” is as good as the first of the series..”The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” .” There’s nothing like novelty to evoke special interest. Once you’ve marveled at the punk-Mohawk-haired-biker-clothed character of the lead girl, Lisbeth Salander, and her unbelievable physical and mental skills, you know you’ve seen something/someone completely new and original on the screen. But after those initial marvelous moments of discovery, and with time, the novelty wears off and you become somewhat accustomed to even this very unique character.
All in all, “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest” is both a fitting end to and a last hurrah for a brilliant trilogy of first the 3 books and then the 3 Swedish films.
Clark
HEREAFTER 2.0**
What is this movie about. Is it about the supernatural. Well only if you do not believe in an afterlife or the hereafter in which case you’d have to rely upon the idea of the supernatural to consider the concept. I think the subject of afterlife must have been on Director, Clint Eastwood’s mind. After all, he is rapidly approaching 80 years old and his own mortality. His last film, “Gran Torino” had so much story and feeling. So, I was surprised at how plodding this movie was… partly because it is way too long by at least 30 minutes. After a great opening (a simulation of what it must have been like for those caught in the 2004 tsunami), a young French woman briefly has what has become referred to as a near death experience (“NDE”). But the movie, unfortunately fails to capture this eventful moment. It's almost as if Eastwood has never read the numerous accounts of those who experienced near death. With all the new computer generation/special effects available, he could have done so much better…at a minimum, there should have been a glorious 'tunnel of light'… but all we get is out-of-focus silhouettes.
This drama is about three lonely people each living in different countries whose lives become connected in an unforeseeable, yet touching way. The story centers on Matt Damon, an American, who apparently has the psychic ability of contacting the recently departed, however, he believes that this "gift" is a "curse" because it renders him a social outcast. There is also the French woman who had the tsunami NDE and a troubled British boy grieving over the loss of his twin brother. The NDE was so life-altering to the young French lady that she leaves her primary job as a political reporter and writes a book about her NDE experience and how the media trivializes the phenomena. Her book references her research and discusses all the expert testimony that supports the persuasive facts about NDE experiences, and the correlation between science and the afterlife. And then…the movie tells us nothing. It simply glosses over anything substantial in the way of research. The question to me, and the main problem I had with the movie is why start the conversation, if you aren't going to offer even a small hint of the answers? From the testimonials/research of those who have experienced an NDE there is far more involved than just a chemical reaction to the body starting to shut down. Much more. But, all we are left with in this movie is the frustration of why not tell us more.
My reaction to this movie is in the minority compared with most of the critics who are giving the movie high praise. Well, it just didn’t move me. It was slow and it missed the chance to explore a fascinating subject. Instead, it only hinted at the “hereafter” and those who have possibly glanced at it in some fashion.
Clark
What is this movie about. Is it about the supernatural. Well only if you do not believe in an afterlife or the hereafter in which case you’d have to rely upon the idea of the supernatural to consider the concept. I think the subject of afterlife must have been on Director, Clint Eastwood’s mind. After all, he is rapidly approaching 80 years old and his own mortality. His last film, “Gran Torino” had so much story and feeling. So, I was surprised at how plodding this movie was… partly because it is way too long by at least 30 minutes. After a great opening (a simulation of what it must have been like for those caught in the 2004 tsunami), a young French woman briefly has what has become referred to as a near death experience (“NDE”). But the movie, unfortunately fails to capture this eventful moment. It's almost as if Eastwood has never read the numerous accounts of those who experienced near death. With all the new computer generation/special effects available, he could have done so much better…at a minimum, there should have been a glorious 'tunnel of light'… but all we get is out-of-focus silhouettes.
This drama is about three lonely people each living in different countries whose lives become connected in an unforeseeable, yet touching way. The story centers on Matt Damon, an American, who apparently has the psychic ability of contacting the recently departed, however, he believes that this "gift" is a "curse" because it renders him a social outcast. There is also the French woman who had the tsunami NDE and a troubled British boy grieving over the loss of his twin brother. The NDE was so life-altering to the young French lady that she leaves her primary job as a political reporter and writes a book about her NDE experience and how the media trivializes the phenomena. Her book references her research and discusses all the expert testimony that supports the persuasive facts about NDE experiences, and the correlation between science and the afterlife. And then…the movie tells us nothing. It simply glosses over anything substantial in the way of research. The question to me, and the main problem I had with the movie is why start the conversation, if you aren't going to offer even a small hint of the answers? From the testimonials/research of those who have experienced an NDE there is far more involved than just a chemical reaction to the body starting to shut down. Much more. But, all we are left with in this movie is the frustration of why not tell us more.
My reaction to this movie is in the minority compared with most of the critics who are giving the movie high praise. Well, it just didn’t move me. It was slow and it missed the chance to explore a fascinating subject. Instead, it only hinted at the “hereafter” and those who have possibly glanced at it in some fashion.
Clark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)