REVIEW: “The Call”

the-call-posterI have to say I wasn’t expecting very much from “The Call”. It looked basic and clichéd and the thought of Halle Berry teaming up with WWE wrestling’s movie production branch just wasn’t that appealing. Well now I have seen it and “The Call” is certainly basic and clichéd. But despite its flaws it is a movie that manages to remain entertaining throughout. There is just enough tension and just enough suspense to keep you invested. Unfortunately the eye-rolling ending almost undoes everything the film does right.

Berry plays a Los Angeles 911 operator. For me this was one of the strongest parts of the film. I may be wrong, but I don’t remember a movie ever looking at this side of the phone. We’ve had plenty of movies where we hear the 911 operator on the other end of the phone. In “The Call” we see the operators in their environment. The movie calls the place “the hive” and Berry plays a veteran operator named Jordan Turner. Berry is surprisingly convincing as she handles a variety of different calls. In fact the entire setting was well conceived and pretty fascinating.

But after a botched 911 call involving a kidnapped young girl ends tragically, the pressure drives Jordan away from the operating chair. She becomes a trainer of new operators but conveniently ends up taking over a call involving a very similar situation. A teen named Casey Welson (Abigail Breslin) is kidnapped from a local mall and she connects with Jordan via a cell phone hidden in her pocket. The rest of the film follows Jordan’s attempt to get information from Casey while the police rush to save her before things end badly.

The call 1

“The Call” yanks several familiar elements from many thrillers we’ve already seen. It certainly doesn’t do anything new. Yet it is competently made and it’s aware that the pacing and intensity is essential to keeping the audience involved. It doesn’t waste a lot of time developing characters or throwing in too much unneeded backstory. Director Brad Anderson seems to know that he needs to keep his audience fixated on the intensity and suspense and if the pacing lulls there isn’t anything under the surface. For the most part Anderson pulls it off. The movie kept my attention all the way through and it deserves credit for that. It doesn’t pretend to be anything it’s not and it succeeds as a whole.

But it’s certainly not a perfect film and as it reaches its climax things begin to run off the rails. First, you can’t help but notice some of the corny dialogue particularly when the script tries to add a little personality to the characters. There are also several of those head-scratching moments where the action of the characters simply doesn’t make sense. And then there is the ending. I’ve alluded to it twice already and I certainly don’t want to give away any spoilers, but the film goes in the direction that seems odd and frankly absurd. The big conclusion is so silly and nonsensical. It’s meant to be empowering but it leaves so many obvious holes and glaring question marks. All I could do was shake my head and wonder who came up with that ludicrous idea. It’s that bad.

And that’s disappointing. I say that because “The Call” surprised me. Not because of its depth or originality, but because it managed to entertain while tossing out some fairly good edge-of-your-seat suspense. Even with its flaws I was having a good time, at least until the end. Perhaps the filmmakers have something else in mind but I can’t help but think you could end a movie like this in a better way. Regardless, I will give it credit for being better than I expected. In fact, I guess I would say I was entertained.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

REVIEW: “Captain Phillips”

CAPTAIN POSTER

It has been praised by critics as a thrilling movie and berated by former crew members as grossly inaccurate. “Captain Phillips” has hit the theaters and there has been no shortage of fun things to read about it. Prior to seeing it, several things about the movie attracted my interest. First, I was interested in seeing what director Paul Greengrass would bring to the story. He’s a director that I have a love/hate relationship with. Second, this looked like a role that could equal a comeback of sorts for Tom Hanks.

“Captain Phillips” is a biopic taken from the book “A Captain’s Duty”. It follows the story of Richard Phillips, the captain of the Maersk Alabama which was hijacked by Somali pirates in 2009. Tom Hanks plays the title character who tries to get himself and his crew to safety after pirates board his container ship while crossing the Indian Ocean. The film doesn’t waste much time in terms of setup. It quickly gets to the meat and potatoes of the story which is the boarding of the Alabama by pirates and the attempted rescue of Captain Phillips and his crew.

Captain2

This story seems perfect for the conventional Hollywood big budget treatment. But to my surprise “Captain Phillips” steers clear of those trappings. Billy Ray’s smart and calculated script focuses on what’s important. While Greengrass’ direction ratchets up the intensity and always maintains a sense of urgency, it’s Ray’s writing that keeps us thoroughly invested in Captain Phillips and his plight. There is a time just past the midway point where I felt a sequence was drawing out further than necessary, but as a whole this is real ‘edge of your seat’ stuff.

But make no mistake, Tom Hanks is the real driving force. Hanks was once the king of the Hollywood hill but it could be said that he hasn’t had a great attention-grabbing performance since 2002 and “Road to Perdition”. His work in “Captain Phillips” clearly ends that streak. His performance here is in line with some of the best work of his career. He captures the bravery and heroism of the character while also grounding him by showing the sheer terror he experiences. And his final scene moved me so much and it alone may have cemented this as my favorite performance of the year.

I also have to mention the performance of Barkhad Abdi. This first time Somali-born actor plays Muse, the leader of the Somali hijackers. We first see Muse at his village where he and other fishermen are ordered by soldiers of a local warlord to hijack some passing ships. There is clearly an intent to evoke a thread of sympathy for Muse and his circumstances. Overall it worked dramatically although it was never that convincing. But back to Abdi, it’s clear he’s not a seasoned actor but he’s exactly what his role called for. His demeanor, his expressions, his broken English – it all works to make his character completely convincing. It’s a really good performance.

CAPTAIN1

There are so many things I enjoyed about this film. Watching Captain Phillips and Muse as they try to read and measure each other is fascinating. The two share so many fantastic scenes. The direction from Paul Greengrass is very effective despite his patented hyperactive camera. He keeps your heart racing and leaves you emotionally spent. The military’s arrival adds a whole new dynamic to the story. It’s exhilarating and never devolves into an action movie cliché. And then of course there is the towering performance from Tom Hanks. He’s back to his finest form and this is clearly Oscar worthy work.

In a movie year filled with mediocrity, it’s great to see a film like “Captain Phillips”. Yes Greengrass makes his usual political points that are too on the nose and the slightly sympathetic portrayal of the pirates does feel a bit contrived. But these things aren’t nearly as blatant or distracting as in some of his past efforts. It’s a smart and effective thriller that keeps itself within reasonable bounds. I don’t know how much truth is in the movie, but I do know it really works on a cinematic level. I also know it’s one of the best films I’ve seen this year.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Cloverfield”

Cloverfield poster

Whenever I’ve heard people talk about the movie “Cloverfield” they usual use words such as “disappointing” or “mediocre”. In light of that my expectations for the film were pretty tepid. But “Cloverfield” had something else working against it. I’m not a fan of the handheld ‘found footage’ technique that at one point had become wildly popular. For me it only works in small doses and more often than not it turns out to be a liability. So here we are, five years after the film’s release and I’m giving it a shot.

I have to say that as a whole there’s not a lot to “Cloverfield”. It’s very cut-and-dry. It takes no real chances. It has practically no depth to it at all. Yet it’s completely honest. It’s committed to its simple but clear vision. It nicely captures that 1950’s sci-fi B-movie vibe. Most importantly I was with it from the opening government archives “credits” all the way through to its rip-roaring finale. Is it the greatest thing since sliced bread? No. But I enjoyed it a heck of a lot more than I anticipated.

As I mentioned, “Cloverfield” is filmed using the ‘found footage’ method which means that weak stomachs may end up a but queasy. It starts off calm enough. The first 15 minutes or so of its tight 85 minute runtime is spent at a party introducing us to the central characters. Rob (Michael Stahl-David) is preparing to move to Japan. His brother Jason (Mike Vogel) his girlfriend Lily (Jessica Lucas) plan the surprise going away party in their New York City apartment. “Hud” (T.J. Miller) is tasked with “documenting” the party on video. And then there’s Beth (Odette Yustman), a girl that Rob has a tricky romantic relationship with. That’s really all you need to know about any of these characters and we get it all in the first few minutes of the film.

The movie picks up when the party is interrupted by a huge tremor. The first reaction is that it’s an earthquake but we quickly learn that’s not the case. I won’t go into heavy detail but let me just say that the huge old school creature feature fan in me was pretty excited. I think this is where the movie fell short for some people. This is clearly a classic tip of the hat to the big monster pictures of the mid to late 1950’s mixed with a popular modern filmmaking technique. Your enjoyment of “Cloverfield” will probably depend on how much that interests you or how much of it you can buy into.

Cloverfield

Director Matt Reaves and writer Drew Goddard borrow from several older movies. My favorite are the television
newscasts taken straight from George Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead”. It’s here that we and the characters first learn about the deadly threat facing New York City. Things only get worse as the filmmakers throw us right down into the middle of the city in chaos. We’re take along with our main characters in what turns out to be a survival horror/science fiction. It’s simple but it’s at times exhilarating and it’s clever in its execution. The special effects are a blast and we get them in carefully measured doses. I also thought the performances were serviceable with the exception of T.J. Miller whose line reading is never all that convincing. He has an occasionally funny line but he’s mainly just your run-of-the-mill doofus.

There are a few other things that keep this from being a full-blown gem. There isn’t one hint of explanation in terms of the creature’s origin or makeup. It simply pops up downtown and the rest is catastrophic history. Now this was clearly intentional and it wasn’t a huge deal for me. But I still couldn’t help wanting to know more about this threat. Also, while the hand-held camera was more effective than in most films that have employed it, it’s still not my first choice for how I want to watch a movie. It’s also worth noting that “Cloverfield” was a really fun experience the first time through but it doesn’t seem to be the kind of movie that would have near the same effect the next time around.

Yet still I have to say I was surprised with this movie. I don’t agree with the common criticisms and I found myself thoroughly entertained. With its short running time it doesn’t overstay its welcome and it’s never misleading or pretentious. Sure it has some throw-away characters and you never get as much information as you would like. But it’s still a fun and well-made return to the monster movie genre that I still love to this day. In other words it delivered for me. I’m not saying it will have a long-lasting impact, but for 85 minutes I was glued to the screen and I soaked up every bit of what I was seeing.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Conjuring”

CONJURING POSTER

There have been so many subpar horror movies in recent years. There have been a handful of passable to decent horror pictures yet nothing in recent memory that did anything to really strengthen the outlook for the genre. In other words the horror movie genre is desperate for some smart and original features. Then along comes “The Conjuring”, a movie that might not be the bold, groundbreaking film that the genre needs, but it’s certainly a good movie and a pleasant surprise.

“The Conjuring” is based on the true story of Ed and Lorraine Warren (played by Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson), a husband and wife team of paranormal investigators, and their encounter with the Perron family. Set in 1971 (the year I was born), the movie has a very good sense of time and setting. The outfits, automobiles, and handful of songs are all spot on. Even the intricacies of the characters seem carefully written with the time period in mind. The main characters are the Warren’s. After a very unique and unsettling career, they now spend their time giving lectures on their experiences with demonology and paranormal activity.

Conjuring1

We are also introduced to the Perron family. Tell me if you’ve heard this before. Roger Perron (Ron Livingston) and his wife Carolyn (Lili Taylor) along with their five daughters move to rural Rhode Island after buying a two-story farmhouse. The family begins to experience strange, frightening, and unexplainable things. Wouldn’t you know it, the house turns out to have a troubling history which triggers the haunting of the Perron family. Carolyn catches the Warren’s after a lecture and convinces them to help find out what’s going on in their house.

The movie is really broken up into two halves. During the first half we spend a lot of time with the Perron family. The story is very deliberate in allowing us to get to know the family and in its revealing of the haunting. In several ways this works to the movie’s advantage but I have to admit I eventually was ready for it to move along. The second half follows the Warren’s work to help the Perron’s identify and deal with the terror. This is where the film really picked up and I quickly found myself thoroughly involved.

A lot of the film’s success can be credited to director James Wan. There is a level of tension and discomfort from the opening to the end credits and I say that positively. Clever techniques and strategies end up paying off. For example his use of scaling camera shots and creative angles work really well. And even though he uses standard stuff such as slamming doors, flickering lights, and creaky wooden floors, it’s pretty effective in its implementation. Sparse music, creepy makeup effects, and a reliability on psychological horror over gore are other sure positives.

CONJURING2

And I have to give props to the two lead performances. The routinely underappreciated Patrick Wilson is excellent here. He falls right into the part and you never sense anything disingenuous about his performance. And I’ve said before that I am a huge fan of Vera Farmiga. This is a different role for her but once again she’s fantastic. Both Wilson and Farmiga are clearly 100% committed and it shows. There’s no winking at the camera or throwing away lines. Both are huge reasons the movie worked for me overall.

It’s hard to say that “The Conjuring” brings something new to the table. There are tastes of everything from “The Amityville Horror” to “Paranormal Activity”. Yet there’s something strikingly fresh about it even though it spends the entire time in familiar territory. “The Conjuring” has turned into a surprise hit this summer but I didn’t put much stock into that. As someone a little tired of the bland, run-of-the-mill “horror” we get today, I was a bit skeptical. But I love being surprised and this film did that for me. It has its flaws and it’s easy to pick it apart. But I had too much fun to waste my time doing that.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

Classic Movie Spotlight: “Charade”

Classic Movie SpotlightAny movie starring the suave Cary Grant and the gorgeous Audrey Hepburn automatically catches my attention. Yet for some inexplicable reason I had not taken time to watch “Charade”. Well now I have and I can say without hesitation that it’s a real treat. Stanley Donen produced and directed this 1963 film that plays in almost every genre. It can be considered a Hitchcockian thriller, a slick romance, or a side-splitting comedy. But more importantly all of these elements fit together nicely in what turns out to be a well conceived and sharply directed picture driven by some wonderful performances. And would you expect anything else when you have this kind of talent involved?

The movie begins with a murder. We see a quick scene of a man being thrown from a train that’s speeding through the French countryside. This turns out to be Charles Lampert and his death is what triggers the mystery component of the film. Hepburn plays his wife Regina who is winding down her skiing trip in the French Alps. It’s here that she first meets an alluring stranger who goes by the name of Peter Joshua (Grant). After returning to Paris and finding everything in her apartment gone, Regina is notified by the police that her husband had been murdered while trying to leave the city. At his funeral three mysterious and shady looking men “pay their respects”. In actuality, the three were past partners with Charles in an elaborate scheme to steal $250,000 worth of gold. They are determined to get the money and think that Regina knows where it is.

It’s this mystery that serves as the main course of the film. Who is it that murdered Charles? Who is it that would do anything to get their hands on the $250,000? Who can Regina trust? Can anyone trust Regina? These are all viable questions and the movie never tips its hand too early. Instead you find yourself suspicious of every character at some point in the film. Peter pops back up but it may not be by accident. Grant nicely creates an aura of suspicion mixed in with his character’s self-assured charm. I loved it every time he showed up. The three men from the funeral, wonderfully played by James Coburn, George Kennedy, and Ned Glass, throw aside the ‘honor among thieves code’ and are as untrustworthy as they come. Regina has to navigate through this cast of questionable characters but does so with the help of the CIA administrator named Hamilton Bartholomew played by Walter Matthau.

Cary Grant & Audrey Hepburn

There are several other things that help make “Charade” a really good film. I’ve mentioned how well the mystery element of the story works. But the movie also has its share of hilarious scenes particularly those featuring Grant and Hepburn’s playful banter. I also felt there was a believable romantic chemistry between the two that I bought into despite the noticeable age differences. And then there’s the great look of the film thanks to the fantastic cinematography of the brilliant Charles Lane as well as carefully chosen locations scattered throughout beautiful Paris. And I just have to talk about the cast again. Hepburn is lovely and you just can’t take your eyes off of her. Grant’s performance is a reminder that he was not only a very polished actor but he could also be very funny. This was one of his final roles, and even though he’s older and grayer, he still masterfully handles each and every scene. And while I’ve never been the biggest Matthau fan, he’s perfect here as is Coburn.

I have no idea why I waited so long to catch up with “Charade”. It’s a highly satisfying mishmash of several movie genres that I love and it’s anchored by two performances from two of Hollywood’s all-time greats. Fantastic direction, beautiful cinematography, and a perfect supporting cast give this movie a familiar yet distinct style that I truly loved and responded to. Now there are a few plot holes that you could nitpick about and there may be a couple of things that are a little too silly to buy into. But I found it to be an entertaining time and it’s a film that shouldn’t fly under any movie fan’s radar. If you haven’t seen it, don’t take as long as I did. It’s definitely worth your time.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Cold Light of Day”

Cold Light posterAbout a quarter of the way through “The Cold Light of Day” I was really wondering why everyone had been so hard on the film. I was already preparing for my defense of the movie and the ribbing I would be getting for it. But then things changed. Bruce Willis disappears, Henry Cavill takes center stage, and the bottom falls out. Now I usually don’t like to dwell too long on a movie’s bad points but sometimes you just can’t avoid it. Especially when the entire movie takes a nose dive right before your very eyes. Things definitely go bad here and the movie erases nearly every bit of promise it offers early on.

The idea of the movie is sound enough. Will Shaw (Cavill) arrives in Spain where he plans to spend the week with his vacationing family. We quickly learn that Will doesn’t have the best relationship with his father (Bruce Willis) and the tension between the two is evident. But Will doesn’t make things easy. He sulks and mopes and spends more time on his cell phone checking on his business in San Francisco. This self-centered immaturity pops up throughout the film. I mean even later, when Will is supposed to be ‘a new man’, his character reminds me of a 14-year old with some of the things he does.

The group takes a sailboat off the coast for a day, but Will and his father have a huge argument leading Will to swim into town to get supplies and cool off. When he gets back to the beach to he notices that the boat is gone. He walks the beaches searching until he finds it in a cove. Nobody is on board and it appears there was a struggle. Neither the police or American Embassy are willing to help and Will begins to find out some interesting things about his father. I don’t want to give away any of the few surprises (and I mean very few) this movie has so let’s just say he ends up with a host of people chasing him through Madrid while he tries to find a way to save his family.

CA.0822.the.cold.light.of.day.

One of the biggest problems with “The Cold Light of Day” is that things get so blasted silly. The film takes so many convenient, out of the blue turns and the characters do some of the most idiotic things. Sigourney Weaver, a talented and accomplished actress, enters the picture and you would think she would be a stabilizing force. Not so! Her character is as cheesy and corny as they come and I often found myself just shaking my head at her flailing attempts at tough guy dialogue. Her character’s angle as well as several other aspects of the story are completely predictable which cuts into any of the suspense the film was hoping for. And any type of plot that happens to catch you by surprise still feels totally contrived.

None of this is helped by Henry Cavill. If I may be unapologetically blunt for a moment, Cavill is absolutely awful here. Now to be fair it doesn’t help that he’s given such boneheaded dialogue. But his performance even sinks below that. Cavill is at his best when he’s sprinting through the streets, jumping over cars, and ducking for cover (and he does a ton of that). But once he’s asked to say a line or show some emotion, well lets just say I’m suddenly a little worried about the upcoming “Man of Steel” movie.

Now this movie features some good camera work and it’s shot in some gorgeous locations. I absolutely loved seeing the sights of Madrid as the movie moves from one part of the city to another. I enjoyed the first third of the film and thought it opened itself up nicely. It also moves at a good crisp pace and at 90 minutes it doesn’t drag things out longer than it should. But the pluses don’t absolve the movie of its clear transgressions and as it moves forward things completely fall apart. I remember when I first saw the trailer for this film. I thought it had a lot of potential. It did. Unfortunately the movie wastes practically all of it.

VERDICT – 2 STARS