Silent Night (2023).

Review #2155: Silent Night (2023).

Cast: 

Joel Kinnaman (Brian Godlock), Scott Mescudi (Detective Dennis Vassel), Harold Torres (Playa), and Catalina Sandino Moreno (Saya Godlock) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off, #336 - Broken Arrow (1996), #1100 - Mission: Impossible 2, #1855 - Hard Target, #1875 - A Better Tomorrow)

Review: 

"The biggest difference for me now is that the action should be realistic. It should serve the drama. In the past, my action was pretty much supposed to be entertaining. Silent Night’s action looks more realistic and more powerful, and it gives the audience more of a feeling instead of just being entertaining.”

Curiosity matters sometimes. What we have here is a film composed of just background noise. The director? Oh, just John Woo, who had last directed an American feature film with Paycheck (2003). Of course, he had never stopped making films when moving past his sixties and seventies, he just branched out back to his roots when it came to not one but two Chinese-Hong Kong two-part films (that, and he stated that he no longer was being offered quality scripts). The script for this film was done by Robert Archer Lynn, who had a few scripts to his credit such as, well, Already Dead (2007). Woo expressed his excitement at the script for what it could bring in terms of challenge as an experiment that he could "feel the freedom" for. As you probably guessed, one of the production companies for the film was Thunder Road Films, which happened to be one of the spearheading forces behind the John Wick series (a sign of the influence Woo had on filmmakers today). 

Cynically, one could wonder how an action movie plays out differently to those who watch with as little distraction as possible as opposed to those who are a bit looser with attention. But in general, the conclusion I come to at the end of the 104-minute runtime is that it all is just fine. It isn't great or terrible, it just is...fine. In a sea of action films that are either ready for DVD viewing or on demand that do their share of budget filmmaking, one will find a lean feature here that lives and dies and just how much one appreciates the curiosity of watching a movie that goes through the general motions of a revenge flick without dialogue to chatter away with. If you like a film that goes through the basics with likeable enough people behind it, this is the one for you. Kinnaman does well enough with the material required in terms of building worthy interest in seeing where the descent of voiceless torment goes when believing that the only way to dig out of that pit is to set forth on a singular-minded goal of oblivion. His intensity in the eyes is what matters most, and he makes that grief one to endure to the very end in meaningful tension. Granted, it may not take much to really care about a revenge thriller with a specific type of lean/mean tick of action, but he fits the bill without playing to just the minimum. The others, well, can only go so far. Think of the movie more as an experiment rather than a strait-laced quiet film, because it can only go so far with people simply deciding to not speak once before one just goes "sure". The film is so devoted to its goal of no-talk, DIY-action that it can only work to those who really invest in what a film composed of chatter can do. Action films with little dialogue aren't that new (I mean, you could just cite The Three Musketeers [1921]), but the general execution of it here works in that bleak sense of the word when it comes to the beat going on when it goes into gear. People live and die but things move on. It didn't need to be a detailed action film when it comes to theatrics, and Woo knows that. Action movies come and go, with this one being just fine in its execution that is more curious than gimmick in the nicest way possible. It can't rank as one of Woo's best films but giving it a whirl to pay attention to in the endgame is not a bad idea one could have for the time of season.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A Better Tomorrow.

Review #1875: A Better Tomorrow.

Cast: 

Ti Lung (Sung Tse-ho), Chow Yun-fat (Mark Lee), Leslie Cheung (Sung Tse-kit), Emily Chu (Jackie), Waise Lee (Shing), Tien Feng (Father Sung), John Woo (Inspector Wu), Yanzi Shi (Mr. Yiu), Kenneth Tsang (Ken), and Fui-On Shing (Shing's right hand man) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off, #336 - Broken Arrow (1996), and #1100 - Mission: Impossible 2, and #1855 - Hard Target)

Review: 

Ever hear of a movie that inspires a nickname for a genre? On release, A Better Tomorrow (1986) would set the stage for what is known as the "heroic bloodshed" genre in Hong Kong cinema. In other words: films with some sort of good-willed criminal to go with elements of loyalty or strong brotherhood before action is conveyed through stylized gun battles that is known as either "ballistic ballet" or more specifically, gun fu. This was the first prominent film of John Woo, who had been inspired by seeing Bruce Lee in The Big Boss (1971) that saw him do a mix of martial art films and comedies. The film was written by Woo, Chan Hing-Kai, and Leung Suk-wah, with producer credit going to Tsui Hark, who had directed film such as All the Wrong Clues for the Right Solution (1981) and Zu Warriors from the Magic Mountain (1983) before co-founding his own production company Film Workshop in 1984. The movie was done on a tight budget and proved a huge success. Tsui and Woo would work together again in A Better Tomorrow II (released in 1987 that saw the return of Ti, Chow, Cheung, Chu, and Tsang)), but their disagreements meant that only the former returned to direct the last of the series with the prequel A Better Tomorrow III: Love & Death in Saigon (1989). A Better Tomorrow had a number of inspirations that included two Hong Kong films: The Story of a Discharged Prisoner (1967) and The Brothers (1979), which was actually a remake of an Indian movie named Deewaar (1975). Three remakes have followed: Aatish: Feel the Fire (1994, made in India), A Better Tomorrow (2010, made in South Korea), and A Better Tomorrow 2018 (made in China).

The power of the film is not so much just the array of action sequences with weapons but instead the characters around it that make it a generally absorbing experience. Told primarily in Cantonese with some English and Mandarin as well, A Better Tomorrow utilizes its 95-minute runtime to righteous execution and timing. Squabbles over just who one is as an individual trying to get out of the muck of the underworld has never felt so bittersweet in fun. The material may be familiar, even seeming like a touch from Old Hollywood at times, but it is a patient movie that never seems at odds with its audience, instead leading them to the payoff they think they want rather than playing for phoniness; of course, Chow's attire in particular inspired an array of copy cats across Hong Kong, so folks really did just dig the movie and wanted to look like it rather than just absorb it like product. Ti was elevated to star status in the 1970s with Chang Cheh as his primary director before leaving Shaw Brothers Studios lessened his power in the 1980s. Pushing forty with a role that was basically part of a three pronged attack of actors, Ti pulls it all together with the regrets required from such a role with solemn force. Cheung had started a career in show business as a teenager that eventually found success within Cantopop music, although he would appear in a number of films from time to time. Chow and Ti may overshadow him, but Cheung does make a fair impression when it comes to trying to play stubborn impulse in the shadow of crime (his onscreen chemistry with Chu isnt as lucky, since Tsang manages to overshadow her in outright presence). Chow was a television presence for a number of years prior to this film that had mixed results in trying to enter film (to the point where there were doubts over the success of a film with him in it). The success of the film would lead to a handful more collaborations with Woo alongside both of the follow-ups to A Better Tomorrow. He does an exquisite job here, straddling the line of loyalty and lack of fear that makes for a confident presence. The sequence where he convinces a character to get their head together and fight is probably the highlight scene, although obviously the climax would be a good one to highlight Chow too. Lee makes a quality villain, conniving in all the right ways for those cold moments required with either lesd presence, right down to the vicious beating sequence. As a whole, the movie runs smoothly in its bravado of action and tinges of drama that come together for riveting quality for involved, one with a closing sequence that caps itself off in rewarding fashion to make it all quite worth the time spent to get there. Helping to make a specific nickname for a genre is certainly worth all of the things said after 35 years later, in my book.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

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.

Hard Target.

 

Review #1855: Hard Target.

Cast: 

Jean-Claude Van Damme (Chance Boudreaux), Lance Henriksen (Emil Fouchon), Arnold Vosloo (Pik Van Cleef), Yancy Butler (Natasha Binder), Kasi Lemmons (Detective May Mitchell), Chuck Pfarrer (Douglas Binder), Willie C. Carpenter (Elijah Roper), Wilford Brimley (Uncle Clarence Douvee), Sven-Ole Thorsen (Stephan), Jules Sylvester (Peterson), Robert Apisa (Lopacki), Tom Lupo (Jerome), David Efron (Billy Bob), Joe Warfield (Ismael Zenan), Eliott Keener (Randal Poe), Douglas Forsythe Rye (Frick), Mike Leinert (Frack), and Marco St. John (Dr. Morton) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off, #336 - Broken Arrow (1996), and #1100 - Mission: Impossible 2)

Review: 

"Mr. Jim Jacks, the writer, Chuck Pfarrer, and Jean-Claude Van Damme, they flew over to Hong Kong to meet me, and push me to do the job. They all loved my movies, liked my style, and they wanted an American action film with a new look. And I found the people from the studio were very sincere, very warm, and made me feel very relaxed about doing the film. So I took the job."

There will be time yet to cover the long career of John Woo in all the meaningful details. He was born in Guangzhou, China before purges in the country saw his family move to Hong Kong when he was five; at the age of 23, he started work in the film industry with his first short before directing features in 1974. A director for over four decades, he has directed features for both Asian and American cinema, with The Killer (1987) receiving considerable attention abroad. After the release of Hard Boiled (1992), Woo decided to move to the States despite not having a dream to work there before coming there. Chuck Pfarrer, a former Navy SEAL, had developed a script at Universal Pictures that was soon developed with Van Damme in mind. The script took a couple of renditions (such as being inspired by The Naked Prey (1965) and Aliens (1986)) before it found its final form, which was inspired by The Most Dangerous Game (as helped by producer Jim Jacks). Jacks, Pfarrer, and Van Damme all flew over to Hong Kong to meet Woo and try to get him to do it. Jacks helped to bring Woo onto the project, although the studio would have to be convinced to hire Woo because of their doubts - one about his handling of drama and the other about his command of English. Van Damme was the star brought on to star in the movie, although Pfarrer actually had Armand Assante in mind when writing the movie (for his part, Woo actually wanted Kurt Russell, but he was too booked). Woo had gone through a couple of scripts offered to him (one was a script involving switching faces...) before he accepted this one; Sam Raimi was hired by Universal as a potential successor to look over Woo in case things would go south for him, which is why he is credited as an executive producer, although obviously Raimi had confidence in Woo. Van Damme had the star power of script approval and even final cut privileges, which means that there are different versions of the film - Woo had to cut the film just to make sure it wasn't rated NC-17 (the last cut submitted to the MPAA that failed was called the international version, running at 99 minutes), while Van Damme insisted on a version with more of him, complete with close-ups too. This means that the theatrical cut is 97 minutes as opposed to a screening cut done by Woo, which had lasted 116 minutes; an unrated director's cut was released in 2021. A direct-to-video sequel was released in 2016 with none of the cast, and I'm sure none of you give a crap about that. Hard Target was the first Hollywood studio film made by an Asian director.

Even if he had trouble converting his directing talents to a Hollywood "sensibility", one can still see the talent involved in his distinct techniques, whether that involves slow-motion shots and birds that fly around before action starts. I'll be honest, the movie may be a "starring vehicle", but it actually is the second actor that takes control of general interest. No seriously, Henriksen is the more interesting presence in the movie, and this is in a movie where our lead is playing a Cajun drifter who just happens to be a former Marine with a greasy mullet, and one of the supporting actors is Wilfred Brimley playing a Cajun relative who doesn't even show up until a hour has passed. In a sense, it probably is a bit strange to see a movie about taking rich eccentrics and company hunting down homeless veterans (which happen to be in New Orleans after several hunts in other places). If Van Damme (a martial artist after his father enrolled him in classes at the age of 10 before also taking up ballet) is known for his rigid stature of doing one particular hero type for his movies, Woo at the very least managed to make him seem a bit more heightened in a way that will at least make one believe him to be in between say, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Steven Seagal (in other words, below the former but considerably higher than the latter). He moves well to the beat of the action without becoming just a man wrapped in the background of lurid fun, which makes it better than previous stuff like Bloodsport (1988), obviously.

There is a twisted elegance to Henriksen that dominates the interest in ways that probably made Van Damme jealous. Imagine someone as professional and dedicated to their work as Henriksen, who excelled in character roles such as Aliens, stealing the show away from a guy who kicks hard because of his pitch-black attitude. He lives on the edge, complete with a dandy weapon that makes him very entertaining to see against the lead, which is probably best represented by a scene where an explosion leads to his jacket being on fire and he just rips that thing off like it was a wad of gum on the shoe (which was an ad-lib by Henriksen). Vosloo is the other key adversary, and he does just as well here in conniving charm needed for the other sociopath in the movie. Hell, you could almost have made a movie with just them as the leads, in an offbeat sort of way, because one does have some fun with what they do together. Butler (making her feature starring debut) is the middle person between interesting presences that is adequate without becoming just a shell for nothingness (Lemmons gets to be the empty one, since authority figures in this kind of movie is like throwing beer on a fire). Brimley is clearly enjoying putting on an accent bordering on "hooting and hollering" that is silly enough to endear oneself to a movie that uses him to solid effect for the climax with Van Damme.

You will get the whole gumbo of things to note and possibly enjoy, whether that involves our lead biting a snake after asking someone to trust them before setting it up as a death trap, jumping over burning barrels before kicking a fuel canister to shoot at it, guys getting shot through keyholes, arrows being fired at home-made moonshine to help light people on fire, and a climax that happens in a Mardi Gras warehouse (it "helps" that the cops happen to be on strike) because the villain doesn't want to just take him down from the air. It really does flow like lurid ballet, packed with a tiny bit of philosophy (or something when the bad guy targets veterans that no one will notice for his weird hunts) mixed with the primal action. By the time the movie ends, you will either find yourself wanting to see the differences between this movie and other Van Damme movies or you will want to see further John Woo movies (he would do five further films in Hollywood before shifting his focus to make films in China by the end of the 2000s). Silly, bombastic, engaging, it really does make for a curious winner that will hit a certain kind of sweet spot in audience and never let go in Woo's attempt to make a modern Western that succeeds.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mission: Impossible 2.

Review #1100: Mission: Impossible 2.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Thandie Newton (Nyah Nordoff-Hall), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Dougray Scott (Sean Ambrose), Brendan Gleeson (John C. McCloy), Richard Roxburgh (Hugh Stamp), John Polson (Billy Baird), Rade Šerbedžija (Dr. Nekhorvich), and William Mapother (Wallis) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off and #336 - Broken Arrow)

Review: 
The first film was a fairly decent adventure that managed to juggle its spy elements with a decent story and a capable cast to make for a satisfactory experience, for the most part. Four years later, a sequel was created, with Robert Towne returning to do the screenplay (with the story being done by Ronald D. Moore and Brandon Braga) and Cruise and Rhames returning. It's easy to say that the sequel is not as good as the original movie, feeling like a bit of a letdown in terms of its execution. The action sequences certainly seem to be competing with the plot to see which one can go faster in pace, and it would seem that the action sequences win out in terms of effectiveness. The film seems to enjoy having scenes compete with themselves for most ridiculous, such as a rocket containing sunglasses to deliver exposition that explode into the title sequence, a car chase with reckless action and even more reckless hair, doves flying out of nowhere, and a climax complete with a game of chicken and fights in the sand. I can't really give the writing too much guff since the film at least moves moderately well - up to a point, anyway. The motivations make sense roughly 60% of the time, although the plot-line certainly jumbles itself silly at times.

Cruise does a fine job, keeping this character fairly interesting to watch around, having a degree of confidence to him - complete with the opening shot of him doing rock climbing. Newton is fine, although the writing does sometimes let her down. I find that the scenes with Cruise and Newton don't have too much chemistry with each other, not really seeming any better than what you might see in a James Bond movie, for example, although I would note that if you compared it to the three Bond films released in the 1990s, this one would probably fall in the middle in terms of quality, although it certainly wouldn't beat GoldenEye (1995). Apparently, Woo's original cut was three-and-a-half hours long, so it is evident that something was lost in the process to make the final cut 123 minutes long. I do wonder if the longer cut would've made these characters a bit more interesting than they ended up being, particularly with the villain, although I really can't blame Scott for not being up to task for such a thankless role. It sure is nice to see Rhames, albeit in a less role than the first time around, although he certainly seems more interesting than the other member of the "team" in Polson. Gleeson and Roxburgh prove to be fairly watchable as well. Even though the original one was prone to twisting itself a bit too much, I felt that there was something interesting about where it took itself that worked for the moment, but this film doesn't really to work as handily for the moment, making for a movie that is mildly entertaining but not as good as the previous one. It isn't anything to give too much criticism for, but it also isn't anything to really find loving unless one doesn't have much expectations going in.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Broken Arrow (1996).

Review #336: Broken Arrow.

Cast
John Travolta (Vic Deakins), Christian Slater (Riley Hale), Samantha Mathis (Terry Carmichael), Delroy Lindo (Max Wilkins), Bob Gunton (Pritchett), Casey Biggs (Novacek), Frank Whaley (Giles Prentice), Shaun Toub (Max), Howie Long (Kelly), Vondie Curtis-Hall (Sam Rhodes), and Kurtwood Smith (Secretary of Defense) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off)

Review
It's almost amazing how an action film can feel so familiar, feeling like other films without even trying. There's something about this film that dooms it (for me) from the start. Our two leads. Maybe its just me, but Travolta is actually more interesting to go for. With Slater I just have this mild feel for, even with the leading actress. The acting is mediocre, not too bad, but not exactly anything either. I do like Delroy Lindo though, though it may be due to missing him and his performance in Get Shorty. Oh, and Kurtwood Smith. The film's action is okay, with the usual explosions of stuff one might expect. But honestly, I have absolutely no investment in the two main plot devices (Nuclear weapons) of the film. The timecodes get switched consistantly, giving not much time to care. While Woo does a fine job directing, it's obvious that his next film after this would be better (That would be Face/Off), and while it can have some fun by Travolta, it's not one of his best. If you have zero expectations of great quality that actions films wish they could do, you might get some enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.