Antoine Fuqua’s “Shooter” exists primarily to fill the year’s quota of generic, derivative action-thrillers. A text book “popcorn movie” from start to finish, the audience will likely fill their bellies on the smorgasbord of explosions, but the wafer-thin plot will leave them with an empty feeling inside. Then again, that’s exactly what a popcorn movie is supposed to do.
Bob Lee Swagger (Mark Wahlberg) was the best sniper the government had. But when a mission in Ethiopia went wrong and his partner was killed, Swagger decided to hang up his rifle for good and file himself away in the mountains. Three years later, Colonel Isaac Johnson (Danny Glover) tracks him down to extend a request from the government. They believe that there’s going to be an attempt on the President’s life by a highly-skilled sniper and only an equally skilled sniper can help them prevent the tragedy. Swagger reluctantly offers his services, but on the day of the suspected assassination, Johnson turns on him and Swagger finds himself framed for a murder he didn’t commit. On the run, Swagger seeks to mete out justice to those responsible for his predicament.
So yes, “Shooter” would have just been better titled “Every Action Movie Ever Made”. I believe Director Antoine Fuqua just had a checklist of action movie clichés and gradually marked them off one at a time during the filming process. My first instinct was to say that this movie was similar to “Commando”, only with a cookie-cutter conspiracy plot tacked on and no ‘roid-raging maniac picking up a phone booth and hurling at the enemy. Said conspiracy plot is so hackneyed it could make Michael Bay blush, offering nothing deeper than “there are people in the Government framing innocents and doing STUFF!” Not especially thought-provoking.
The action is likely what you’ll be seeing the film for, and I’ll say, it has its ups and downs. Being a movie about snipers, most of the action elements are going to be guys sitting at vantage points, shooting the enemy. That can be fun and is usually coupled with some Metal Gear Solid-style stealth missions. In all honesty, most of the action sequences made me feel like I was sitting in my living room playing my PS2. The action is serviceable but nothing ground-breaking.
If “Shooter” had one saving grace, I suppose it would be the cast. Wahlberg isn’t especially great as the main hero, but he does alright. Well, except for that scene where Johnson asks him if he’s in and Wahlberg responds by donning a pair of sunglasses, smirking at Johnson and then walking toward the camera in slow motion. South Park is going to have a field day with that bullshit.
Danny Glover plays the lead villain and delivers his usual performance, which is fine, ‘cause I like him. However, I dunno if he did it on purpose or if my head just isn’t screwed on quite right, but he had a real bad lisp going on throughout the movie. Michael Pena plays rogue FBI agent Nick Memphis who gets in to deep and is forced to team-up with Wahlberg to save the day. The character was supposed to be rather whiney and green, so to that end Pena did a fine job. Something which surprised me and likely no one else was Elias Koteas as a scummy agent/rapist working for the bad guys. It was a little jarring seeing Casey Jones from the original “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” movies playing such an evil dude, but entertaining at the same time.
“Shooter” is what it is: an utterly run-of-the-mill action film which has little to nothing original to offer the audience. I’d recommend checking it out if you’re bored or something, but don’t invest too much money in the thing and certainly don’t be angry if you didn’t like the flick. I mean, you have been warned, after all.
Grade: D+
The Number 23 – Review
I had my reservations going into this film. I mean, the previews didn’t make it look especially bad, and both Joel Schumacher and Jim Carrey have proven their talents in recent years, practically atoning for the sin that was “Batman Forever”. However, it just didn’t interest me all that much. Well, I can say with general ease that “the Number 23” is a pretty good film. Not a great film, or an award-worthy film, or even something that should grace any sort of Top Ten list, but a “pretty good” film nevertheless.
Walter Sparrow (Jim Carrey) is your typical father/husband/dog-catcher, nothing to see here. However, his life changes when his wife (Virginia Madsen) buys him a fascinating book she was flipping through entitled “the Number 23”. The novel deals with a detective named Fingerling (also played by Carrey) who is drawn into a bizarre case where every lead ends with the number 23. Sparrow begins to notice eerie similarities between the character of Fingerling and himself, and when he starts to do the math, discovers that every significant thing in his life can be boiled down to the number 23. The number quickly becomes an obsession which tears his family apart, as Sparrow agonizes over the true identity of the book’s author and whether he will share a fate similar to Fingerling’s.
I had a hard time getting into the film when it started. The idea that a “normal” person could violently obsess over something as trivial as a number strained even my suspension of disbelief. Yet as wacky as things got, I never found myself losing interest. “The Number 23” is a mystery suspense film, however I felt it took a bit too long to get to the mystery part. The entire movie isn’t about Carrey trying to find the author; that kicks in about halfway through. The first half is mostly Carrey losing his mind over a silly little number, which is the half of the film I found most tedious.
The second half is where your patience really pays off. Like all good mystery movies, there’s a shocking plot twist and crazy revelation which you never saw coming yet it makes about half-sense when you put the pieces together. I suppose what made the whole side story of “this obsession is tearing our family apart!” a bit less text book is that Sparrow’s son (Logan Lerman) gets into it as well, so you aren’t left feeling like Sparrow is completely isolated in his dementia. Still, the big revelation at the finale, as interesting as it was, was still bogged down with some soap opera-quality BS that the audience couldn’t have predicted because there were never any hints in its direction. Which, in turn, delivers a minor injury to the “mystery” aspect, as a good mystery film should always make it possible for the audience to figure it out on their own if they’re smart/attentive enough.
Scenes from the book-within-the-movie are played out in a film noir style (this is a detective novel, after all). I found these parts to be least appealing, as Schumacher bastes them with a thick and obvious “Weee! Look at how hip and rock n’ roll I am!” that can make your stomach turn. Its one thing to try and be “cool”, its another to lay on it on so thick the audience snickers at your filmmaking techniques (I’m looking at you, Tarintino).
Save for a few things that didn’t gel with my personal tastes, there really wasn’t anything all that wrong with “the Number 23”. The aforementioned “man, a guy going nuts over a number is just stupid” complaint is a bit moot, as the film’s climax explains all. Honestly, it’s a pretty good movie. I mean, it’s not going to top any charts as far as mystery flicks go, but its pretty solid. Certainly worth a look in the theater during a month that’s been pretty cruddy, movie-wise.
Grade: B
Zodiac (2007) – Review
There were a lot of famous serial killers in the 20th century, many of which inspired movies and documentaries (such as Ed Gein, who inspired “Psycho” and “Silence of the Lambs”), but few were as intense, complex, long-lasting and all around fascinating as the Zodiac murders from the early 1970’s. The Zodiac murders inspired many movies and books (such as “Dirty Harry”), but there had never been a truly well-done retelling of the events behind the scenes until now. The film “Zodiac” is a marvelous and dark look at the investigation behind the Zodiac case in all its frustrating, soul-crushing, heart-stopping glory. It’s been a long time since a murder-mystery film has latched onto my attention and sucked me in from start to finish like “Zodiac” did.
In 1969, after the murder of a young woman, the San Francisco Chronicle began receiving threatening letters from the culprit, a serial killer calling himself “the Zodiac”. Enclosed with each letter was a bizarre cipher which presumably hinted at the Zodiac’s motives or state of mind. The Chronicle’s cartoonist, Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), is quite talented at puzzles and proceeds to decipher the Zodiac’s code. As the murders and letters continue, Inspectors David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) become mired in the bizarre and frustrating effort to find the killer’s identity and bring him to justice. The search seems futile as years pass and results thin out to nothing, yet as more time goes by more clues surface and the identity of the Zodiac may be just within reach.
First let me say, the trailers for this film stink. The first half of the theatrical trailer presents the film as a run-of-the-mill slasher flick, while the second half makes it look like it’s some sort of dark comedy. Pay no attention to those trailers, they were pieced together by imbeciles at Warner’s marketing department.
No, “Zodiac” is no horror movie (though it is rather frightening) and is certainly not a laugh-out-loud comedy. It’s a mystery-suspense flick which pits the audience on the side of the journalists and detectives struggling to identify the Zodiac. As the movie progresses you get caught up in their search; you get just as frustrated when leads don’t work out, just as angry when evidence comes up short and just as disappointed when all the suspicions prove incorrect as the characters in this film.
The movie takes you back in time and throws you into the maelstrom of news as it happens. For those of you who lived through the Zodiac insanity when it actually happened, this is as close as you’ll get to reliving it. The movie progresses chronologically, so there’s no skipping back and forth. As a result of this, the players are presented with what feels like uneven amounts of screentime. For example, at the beginning of the Zodiac case, the main character of the film, Graysmith, feels more like a back-up character supporting the Chronicle’s star reporter, Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.). Then, when the Zodiac killings really fire up, the movie focuses a great deal of time on the two inspectors, leaving Graysmith and Avery with hardly any screentime at all due to their actual irrelevance during this period of time. Then, when the investigation seems to end, Graysmith takes on the starring role and reawakens the case while Avery slips away into obscurity. Although this does seem rather uneven it maintains the reality of the ordeal and doesn’t pad out the film with fluff involving certain characters who did nothing of note for a few years. Every minute of this movie is important and director David Fincher doesn’t waste any of the audience’s time. I had to pee for the last hour of the flick but was too fascinated with the story to risk getting up for a second.
The acting and direction of the film leave little to complain about. There’s no over-bearing star power which detracts from the story and the atmosphere is quite spooky (major kudos on “the basement scene”). It’s a period piece and 1970’s San Francisco is brought to life especially well. Even the Paramount opening credit is the vintage 1970’s version. I suppose the only kind of “off” choice of casting was John Carroll Lynch as suspect Arthur Leigh Allen. He was fine in the movie but every time I see that guy all I can think about is the Drew Carey Show where he played a cross-dresser. But that’s probably just me and likely won’t distract anyone else in the audience.
“Zodiac” is without question the best movie I have seen this year and I’m sure will remain in my Top Five by the time December rolls around. It’s just that good. I couldn’t recommend it more.
Grade: A
Breach (2007) – Review
Check it out, another political conspiracy suspense thriller movie that’s, surprise surprise, based on a true story. Okay, okay, so it may not be anything particularly inventive, but to my astonishment, “Breach” was actually pretty interesting. I mean, it’s not something I’d grant a repeat viewing or go out of my way to purchase, but I don’t find myself regretting the $8.25 I spent on the ticket.
Eric O’Neil (Chris Cooper) is a young hot shot, looking to make FBI agent. He is assigned to watch a fellow government employee, Robert Hanssen (Ryan Phillippe); an assignment he at first considers beneath him. It would seem that Hanssen is a sexual deviant and the FBI is looking to catch him red handed. However, as O’Neil works closer with Hanssen, he discovers the man he’s gradually coming to respect is something much worse: a spy. Hanssen may very well be the worst spy in United States history and O’Neil has only a few months to catch him in the act before he retires and gets away scott-free.
“Breach” is a bit textbook, I have to admit. The very first scene of the movie makes it perfectly clear that Hanssen is caught and exposed. But then, this was based on a true story which happened only six years ago, so I suppose secrecy about the film’s ending would be a bit futile. Nevertheless, when you know how a story ends, you can’t help but feel the “suspense” aspect of this “suspense film” take a slight plunge.
Anyhow, if you can get that out of your head, “Breach” is rather thrilling. There are no explosions or car chases or high octane max the envelope thrill ride banzai extreeeeme action sequences; “Breach” is grounded very firmly in reality. This works well, as you feel a stronger connection to the characters knowing they’re all real and that their actions have actual consequences. You have to be in to this kind of movie, though, otherwise you might get a little board. Still, I never considered myself a big fan of the political conspiracy thriller genre, yet I had a perfectly entertaining time.
I suppose what really ails the movie hasn’t anything to do with the story or acting (both the leads, Cooper and Phillippe, deliver excellent performances), it’s just that the movie is very…unremarkable. A bit like that film “Arlington Road” which came out some years back; it seems destined to be forgotten. Still, a nice low-key thriller such as this makes for a refreshing diversion from most of the other so-called “suspense thrillers” being released these days; films that have more in common with “Fast and the Furious” and “Under Siege” than other films from their genre.
Also, while it was probably the fault of the projectionist at my theater, I could see the freaking boom mike through-out the entire film. It drove me insane and almost killed the movie. If this happens, go get the manager and tell him/her to tilt the projector up a little more. Believe me, that is no way to watch a movie.
Grade: B
Hannibal Rising – Review
To me, I find that Hannibal Lecter is a character best used sparingly. Of the three films within the original “Hannibal Trilogy” (though I’m loathed to call it that), “Red Dragon” and “Silence of the Lambs” are my two favorite installments, both of which only feature Hannibal as a supporting player with limited screen time. I found the third installment, aptly named “Hannibal”, to be the least appealing. Well, “Hannibal Rising” is a prequel to that series, focusing completely on the title character. While that didn’t exactly appeal to my pallet, those of you who want Hannibal, Hannibal and more Hannibal will most likely enjoy this offering.
The story begins in Germany, 1941, at Castle Lecter. Young Hannibal (Aaron Thomas) and his family are forced to flee to a secluded shack in the wilderness to hide from bombarding Nazi forces. Hannibal’s parents are killed by enemy fire and he and his infant sister, Mischa (Helena Lia Tachovska) are left alone in a horrible blizzard. They are soon taken prisoner by a group of Nazi war profiteers, who go mad with hunger and eat Mischa. Fast forward 8 years, and Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel) is now a disturbed young orphan who goes to live with his Aunt, Lady Murasaki (Li Gong). She trains him in the ways of the Samurai and Hannibal uses these skills to hunt down the men who killed his sister, gradually losing his grip on reality in the process.
I liked Hannibal better when all I knew about him was that he was an intelligent, professional man who went nuts and ate people. I found him much more chilling, believing he was relatively normal. Then this movie comes along, explaining he was once the heir to a wealthy family and then became a Samurai and turned into a serial killer, etc. As I said before, when it comes to Hannibal Lecter, less is more.
But that’s just me. I know there are plenty of people who want as much Hannibal as possible. Well, here’s your movie. And from that perspective, it honestly isn’t half bad. Hannibal’s origin is rather intriguing, if a bit over-the-top. I really could have done without that ridiculous Samurai bit, which I felt was the stupidest part of the entire film. Adding to that, the face mask of the Samurai armor just happens to look like the face mask he wears in “Silence of the Lambs” while all trust up at the asylum…ugh.
Ignoring that bit of idiocy, the main plot of Hannibal seeking vengeance upon those who ate his sister is very intriguing and fulfilling. There’s a subplot where a French detective, Inspector Popil (Dominic West), tries to find evidence to put Hannibal away, and while it adds some tension to the film, it takes a backseat to all the stuff Hannibal is doing. Also, with this being a prequel and all, you pretty much know how well Popil’s chase is going to go.
For a movie consisting mostly of unknowns, the acting is surprisingly good. Grutas (Rhys Ifans) portrays a very frightening villain, who feels no remorse for the things he did or the things he’s still doing. You find yourself rooting for Hannibal, which is strange, since you know he’s just a sick and twisted badguy-himself. Gaspard Ulliel was okay as the title character. At times, I felt he resembled Crispin Glover from “Back to the Future” more than he did Anthony Hopkins. His acting was a bit stiff and his line delivery could range from fine to cringe-worthy, but he carries the role well enough as not to ruin the movie.
Overall, “Hannibal Rising” isn’t a bad film, but from my point of view, an unnecessary one. Still, many would disagree, and for those who want to know everything there is to know about Hannibal Lecter, its right up your alley. I hope you enjoy the Samurai bits.
Grade: B-