Redux: Face/Off.

Redux #030: Face/Off.

Cast: 

John Travolta (Sean Archer), Nicolas Cage (Castor Troy), Joan Allen (Eve Archer), Alessandro Nivola (Pollux Troy), Gina Gershon (Sasha Hassler), Dominique Swain (Jamie Archer), Nick Cassavetes (Dietrich Hassler), Harve Presnell (Victor Lazarro), Colm Feore (Dr. Malcolm Walsh), John Carroll Lynch (Prison Guard Walton), CCH Pounder (Hollis Miller), Robert Wisdom (Tito Biondi), Margaret Cho (Wanda Chang), Thomas Jane (Burke Hicks), James Denton (Buzz), and Tommy Flanagan (Leo) Directed by John Woo.

Review: 

On June 27, 1997, Face/Off was released into theaters by Paramount Pictures. It was the third feature film directed by John Woo since his move to America from Hong Kong in 1993. You might remember that Woo had been offered several scripts when he decided to make his first with Hard Target (1993), with one of those being Face/Off. The script was a spec script done by Mike Werb and Michael Colleary, who were graduates of UCLA Film School. The script was written in 1990, with a concurrence of events inspiring them that ranged from seeing White Heat (1949) to hearing about a friend that had to have their face reconstructed from a hand-gliding accident to wanting to have an action movie where the bad guy was just as interesting as the good guy. The script was bought by Warner Brothers, but perceived similarities to another film in their schedule with Demolition Man (1993) hindered them. However, when the option by the studio expired, Paramount Pictures did acquire it and get the ball rolling to make a movie, which started production in October of 1996. Several drafts and several directors (such as Rob Cohen) went hand in hand with several cast members (it was written with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone in mind) all considered. One key change was the shift from it being set in the future to being set in the present day (which got Woo on board), although the writer's insistence on keeping the original ending (involving an orphan) would eventually win out in test screenings.

Sometimes you need a cat-and-mouse with tremendous talent presences behind it. I must admit that I was wondering just how much the movie would change in my perceptions since I first saw it when I was a kid in the many movies that is strange to admit when you consider the portion that happened to have an R-rating. And yet, over ten years later, I enjoyed this movie more for what it does in spectacle (air, sea, or land) with resourceful invention and timing that also has two fun actors wholly in their own element in basically getting to play two personalities each. It shows Woo at his best in terms of control of being allowed to make what he wanted to show in kinetic action with his distinct touches that make for a roaring 133-minute feature. Debating the logistics of the premise (the first facial transplant occurred in 2005, although it required the same blood type) is missing the point when it comes to how it manages to be executed with the overall result as an achievement of the suspension of disbelief for a movie that sees the key swap after a half-hour has passed by. Travolta basically has had multiple career phases that have seen him excel (and other roles that didn't quite make him look great) in multiple genres since the 1970s, but one generally sees a trying effort from him no matter what the material requires of him to do. He already had appeared in a Woo production with Broken Arrow (1996), but he excels better here with this role in part because he bubbles chaos with grand confidence that pierces through the suburban setting he is cast into for most of his time (since the lead two only share four scenes together). Having to play a narcissist thrown into the life of staid non-hedonism is quite the challenge, but he makes it worth with the right sense of timing, probably best signified by a scene where he casually straddles into a bomb situation and later throws a cheesy line about intercepting the bomb. With Cage, he could not be any hotter in terms of presence and general engagement than the 1990s, so it obviously makes sense that he excels just as well with the different approach he has with this film, one that requires him to play both a man of chaos and a man absorbed in knowing how said chaos came from one mind. In other words: it is like watching a mouse try to go through a maze without touching the corners, and Cage weaves his way through with capable charm that matches Travolta without either chewing the scenery to hinder the other. Allen is the solid soothing presence in the middle of such offbeat charm, which also occurs with Gershon despite having slightly less time to show the withered patience that comes when matched with Cage. Nivola, in only his second feature role, was reportedly inspired for the voice of his character by a documentary that he was obsessed with at the time in Crumb (1995). The supporting presences also do pretty well in setting the balance for parts with our main leads, like Pounder in trying to make this premise seem believable for one second or a heel in Lynch. This works out pretty well in a daring sort of sense for a conniving agent of chaos. 

As a whole, I enjoyed the action sequences in what Woo has managed to accomplish in its arrangement that plays like gun ballet, one that has taken the lessons learned from Hard Target and Broken Arrow with their hero-villain pairings and refined it to the best possible setup and execution. The climax that goes from a church to a boat chase to a fight on the sand is especially a key highlight in well-done cutting and setup, Woo fan or not. One is simply swept away in the enjoyment factor rather than dare to wash it off as something mindless or goofy, and perhaps that is the reason the movie has endured so well after 25 years of release. At least in my mind, anyway, since it certainly ranks as a nice highlight in both its director and its key stars, who each have had plenty of highlights to treasure in the action genre. With heightened senses from cast and crew, Face/Off faces the danger of its premise with ease and precision that has made it an enduring experience of a thrill-ride.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Gran Torino.

Review #1550: Gran Torino.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (Walt Kowalski), Bee Vang (Thao Vang Lor), Ahney Her (Sue Lor), Christopher Carley (Father Janovich), Doua Moua (Fong "Spider"), Sonny Vue (Smokie), Elvis Thao (Hmong Gangbanger No. 1), Brian Haley (Mitch Kowalski), Brian Howe (Steve Kowalski), Geraldine Hughes (Karen Kowalski), Dreama Walker (Ashley Kowalski), Michael E. Kurowski (Josh Kowalski), John Carroll Lynch (Martin), and Chee Thao (Grandma Vang Lor) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, and #1501 - Unforgiven)

Review: 
"I liked that it dealt with prejudice, that it was about never being too old to learn — we talked about that before, about always moving forward, progressing."

This was the 29th directorial effort of Clint Eastwood, a name very familiar with numerous films highlighted previously. The 2000s only continued that trend with films such as Million Dollar Baby (2004) or with his Iwo Jima duology in Flags of Our Fathers and Letter from Iwo Jima (2006). He gradually took on less roles as a star, with this being his fourth and last role in the decade (of course anyone would be glad to be over 70 and still take on roles from time to time), with this one serving as an audience favorite. The screenplay was written by first-time writer Nick Schenk with a story by him and Dave Johannson. Schenk had done some work with television (a game show, a mixed martial arts show, and comedy sketches) while working in construction and fruit truck driving that wrote his script at a bar, while Johannson sold furnaces. It was the experiences Schenk had with Hmong co-workers people at construction that inspired the main character (whose characteristics were stated by others in why it couldn't be made). However, after finding producers to help option the script and a bit of bouncing around, it found its way to Warner Brothers with Eastwood, who accepted it without apprehension - the story had only one modification made from script to to screen, which was to change the setting from Minneapolis to Detroit (for tax breaks).

In a way, this proves to be the last of a specific theme in the films of Eastwood - namely the idea of having messed with the wrong man at exactly the wrong time to do so, one who becomes an unintentional hero to those who seek out his scowl-turning tenacity. He might as well be thought of as the hodgepodge of Archie Bunker and Dirty Harry, a man of evolving sensibility towards others but also in the cycle of violence. Even a retirement from Westerns can't help shake the idea that the genre is present in those basic ideas (resembling The Shootist, in its aging fighter, aspiring ward and ultimate note on violence). Whether the film actually accomplishes its goal of said breaking away from said stuff is up to the viewer, naturally. For me, I thought it was a decent film, even if it seems a bit wedged stuck in between being a coming-of-age film involving one finding their courage or just being a confrontational one of a man against the streets infringing on his lawn. I think it actually worked a bit better when involving the Hmong culture and the parallels that come from it with family when faced with Eastwood - or at the very least what seems like their culture, since there  since there was discussion over perceived inaccuracies in the film that came from writers, cast members, and crew. In any case, it is the fact that the performances are fair enough to go alongside fine production values that keep the film from seeming completely washed away in a dated capsule.

Eastwood is probably the best part of the film, in that he fits the mold of what is needed in acid-laced edge that does not so much cry for redemption as he so much softens himself from sharp prejudice to at the very least finding some sort of peace as we go along with him and his grimace, winces and all. The Hmong actors do fine, but "natural acting" without having much rehearsal to go with it can make a wooden time to see play out, because they can only go so far when faced with someone like Eastwood. Vang subsequently described the struggles associated with his performance as one that "doesn't look like stellar acting to me". He stated that he and others did not have much consulting with Eastwood, since he wanted "natural acting", so to speak while finding trouble with a character he felt was negated by the script in submissiveness; the scene with the barber is a bizarre expression of that, trying to assert just what one needs in terms of friendly exchange of insults and banter that doesn't really gel well with actually building this character up as opposed to a bit of a gag. Her makes an okay impression in accompanying Eastwood for a time in snark and culture info-giving. Carley is the only other one giving any sort of impression, and it takes a while for him to not seemingly crumble into a corncob in quivering persistence. The others seem to be there for the occasional vague moment with everything riding on the one professional star, which could have been an unwieldly time with less conviction from an actor.  It all depends on how much one buys the gradual growing-bond between Eastwood and the community that goes alongside macho melodrama that bubbles itself in observation for 116 minutes that only scratches the surface of changing attitudes towards others. In that sense, it may prove a minor effort in Eastwood's extensive body of work, but it certainly has an appeal for those who find it having enough grasp on its subject to make it mean something in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Hot Pursuit.

Review #783: Hot Pursuit.

Cast
Reese Witherspoon (Cooper), Sofía Vergara (Daniella Riva), Matthew Del Negro (Detective Hauser), Michael Mosley (Detective Dixon), Robert Kazinsky (Randy), Richard T. Jones (Detective Jackson), Joaquín Cosio (Vicente Cortez), John Carroll Lynch (Captain Emmett), and Jim Gaffigan (Red) Directed by Anne Fletcher.

Review
Watching this movie is like microwaving a dried out hot pocket near its expiration date: it will either make for a modestly enjoyable experience that you'll forget about conveniently later...or it'll just come off as a stale experience that you'll forget about conveniently later. In my case, this falls in the latter, but what was I expecting? It's difficult to come up with elements to get aggravated about, mostly because there are far better (or worse) movies to talk about. The movie is as cookie-cutter as it gets, with jokes that would be funny if they made sense. The characters/acting are nothing special, feeling like cliches of established cliches, and of course the duo is all bickering at first, but not as much at the end...I suppose. Witherspoon and Vegara never seem at all comfortable together, and any chemistry they could've had is weighed down by tedious plot device that make the movie seem more detailed than it really is. The comedy is not entirely obnoxious, but it just feels so bland that nearly any pairing could be in this "buddy film" without any changes to the plot. Near the end, I wonder if this would've worked better (or at least not as bland) as a drama...probably not. Let's do a little game:
I wish my mind could convince me that my friends care about me and not just merely tolerate me.
If you think there's a joke about Witherspoon looking like a little kid (because 5'1 people are so short), collect 10 points.
If you think there's a joke about Vergara being described as 45-50 years old on TV bullitens, collect 10 points.
If you think the movie is less than 90 minutes, collect 10 points.
If you think this game is an unnecessary exercise in trying to escape having to describe the movie in detail, collect 1,000 points.
While I like doing these reviews, I have a lack of energy to actually review, especially now. Sorry.
If you have 30 points, you either watched one trailer for it, or you flat out used conventional sense.
If you have 1,030 points...you are beyond correct. If you want to see a buddy film, literally google to see if there are other picks. If after exhausting all your options and stuck with no one around to watch it with (or stop you)...go to sleep. Or fix your film shelf. Or try and reach out to friends.
Yea, like that last one will ever happen. Seriously, I watch most of these films alone.
Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Fargo.

Review #765: Fargo.

Cast
Frances McDormand (Marge Gunderson), William H. Macy (Jerry Lundegaard), Steve Buscemi (Carl Showalter), Peter Stormare (Gaear Grimsrud), Harve Presnell (Wade Gustafson), Kristin Rudrüd (Jean Lundegaard), Tony Denman (Scotty Lundegaard), Larry Brandenburg (Stan Grossman), John Carroll Lynch (Norm Gunderson), and Steve Reevis (Shep Proudfoot) Directed by the Coen Brothers (#659 - True Grit)

Review
The movie opens with the following text: "THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred." The movie's credits utilize the "All persons fictitious disclaimer", but even with all of that, the movie seems so real, especially with the small-town setting. While only the opening scene takes place in Fargo, it is where everything comes together for Macy and the two kidnappers he hires in a plan that goes...let's just say awry. It's a movie that spruces itself up with interesting characters and brutal crime to make for a really engaging movie. McDormand does a fine job making a folksy, but effective detective that is enjoyable to see figure out the pieces in such a bizarre case. I don't know why, but the first scene with her (alongside Lynch) having breakfast and then leaving for work is one of my favorites, mainly because it isn't just a normal eat and go kind of scene, it feels very regular (of course, the scene ends with her needing the car to be charged, but with the setting it makes sense).

Macy does a fine job in such a panicky role of a man that tries (and fails) to make the best out of the situations he has gotten himself into. I especially like when he is trying to explain a (deliberate) mistake he made with regards to filing on forms (by smudging the numbers). You can see the desperation and the ways he tries to wiggle out, even with all the pleasantries exchanged between the two. Buscemi and Stormare have their own quirks as well, even if they aren't as pleasant as the rest of these "Minnesota nice" characters. I especially like the scene where Buscemi's character is trying to get Stormare to talk during their trip to Minneapolis. Maybe it's just the fact that he is doing this on a trip to kidnap someone, or the fact that I can relate trying to make conversation on a driving trip because I (admittedly) did that while my dad and I drove up to Oregon a few years back (though at least my trip did not end with...you know). Buscemi is the more talkative villain, but Stormare really does a good job of silent force that is probably the more efficient killer. On the whole, this is a movie that feels original because it does what it wants to do that utilizes dark comedy to great effect to make for a riveting, but still enjoyable flick.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Volcano (1997).

Review #202: Volcano.

Cast
Tommy Lee Jones (Mike Roark), Anne Heche (Dr. Amy Barnes), Gaby Hoffmann (Kelly Roark), Don Cheadle (Emmit Reese), Jacqueline Kim (Dr. Jaye Calder), Keith David (Lieutenant Ed Fox), John Corbett (Norman Calder), Michael Rispoli (Gator Harris), and John Carroll Lynch (Stan Olber) Directed by Mick Jackson.

Review
The film is easy to describe in a few words: "Volcano pops up in Los Angeles, cheesiness ensues." Tommy Lee Jones at least does a good job, given what he is in (he sure has been in a lot of situations from a FBI marshal to Ty Cobb) The characters are introduced in a snap but aren't much in terms of memorable territory. The cheesiness factor ranges from scene to scene, but my "favorite" is when the lava is destroying a house (man, that's weird to type), and the dog is trapped there. He looks around...and barks at the lava before going out the doggy door. That alone is laughable. The effects are decent, they look believable enough, but the last thing I'll mention (probably most important) is the relatively changing science in the film. Characters get close to lava without feeling much and when toughing the lava are dead with the touch (you might as well use TV Tropes to help you understand volcanoes) At points, the lava isn't much threatening, as it moves slower then a snail at points. I might as well mention this film is 15 years old (it doesn't feel that way though)...But the last question is: Is it better then Dante's Peak? Probably, but it doesn't matter given that both are slightly forgotten, and that is probably for the best.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.