Every now and then, a movie comes along that I can't help but like even though it isn't technically a good movie. These movies are often deemed "so bad they're good" and may very well be my downfall as a critic. Wally Pfister's Transcendence is a simply ridiculous movie. It seems to take itself incredibly seriously yet has characters who only vaguely resemble people doing things that don't sound possible even in the most convoluted science-fiction film. If it weren't for the decent special effects, I would have thought a science-fiction film from the mid-90s was put on a shelf only to be released two decades later. Transcendence is not a good movie but it is impossible not to be impressed by how committed it is to not making sense.
Dr. Will Caster (Johnny Depp) has pioneered in the field of artificial intelligence. He has developed an adaptive computer "person" called "P.I.N.N." which he hopes will aid humanity through becoming sentient and forming a "collective intelligence" with the rest of the world's data. Will calls this "Transcendence" and his plans are applauded as much as they are lauded. A member of an anti-technology group attempts to assassinate Caster. Although they are not successful in killing him, it is discovered that the bullet with tainted with radiation and that Caster's blood has been poisoned. With only weeks left before he will die, Caster decides the only way he can continue his work is if is implanted inside "P.I.N.N.". Caster's wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) and his colleague Max (Paul Bettany) begin the process of copying every brain impulse of Caster into a database. The experiment is a success and quickly the computerized Will starts learning and growing. Will asks to be connected to the Internet so that it can get more information and further the work he had started. Max wonders if this new Will is really Will or a digital menace that will stop at nothing to achieve the goals outlined in its code.
Wally Pfister is Christopher Nolan's primary cinematographer and Transcendence is his film time in the director's seat. As his work with Nolan would suggest, Pfister can make beautiful scenes. Every shot in Transcendence is gorgeous (and that is not solely because Hall is in most of it). Each scene is masterfully framed and photographed and is easily one of the best looking movies to come out this year. The fact that it is beautifully filmed utter nonsense makes Transcendence so much more than it would have been in the hands of a more competent director who was less interested in the appearance. As it is, Pfister has created the largest-budget and most impressive Sci-Fi Channel film ever created. The fact that it is so good looking makes every twist and move in the story that much more interesting.
Transcendence is almost daring in how little sense it makes. There are large stretches of this film that make absolutely no sense in any semblance of a real-world scenario. The movements toward Will's "Transcendence" would raise red flags in almost any slightly realistic movie. A scene where Computer Will hacks into Wall Street and performs fast stock trading to completely fund his post-morterm work is hilarious in the gutsiness it has. This action would have no doubt resulted in the money being frozen and people looking deep into the action of a such a high-profile company. Transcedence doesn't bat an eye over logistics or reality. It keeps feeding the audience quasi-intellectual statements on the destructive qualities of technology and moving bravely and stupidly forward. The story just keeps digging itself deeper and deeper into the ground until it gets so ridiculous all you can is laugh and keep watching. Eventually you begin to wonder why the military or the rest of the country doesn't seem to know or care about what is occurring. Video of the company's "experiments" makes it to the Internet. Still, nobody seems to want to stop Caster. The lack of a realistic and predictable retaliation by the country gives the whole thing a charming quality to it. It is like reading an insane story written by a teen who has clearly read too much science-fiction and wants to make "deep" insights on the nature of technology. "Reality be damned! These 1s and 0s will help and destroy us!" The closest comparison would be 2007's The Happening. That film was more flat-out "unintentionally hilarious" though. Both films will have audiences who activate even the slightest part of their brain looking cock-eyed at the screen and laughing at the ridiculousness presented.
There is no real weak element in Transcendence. The performances are universally fine. Some slight awkwardness by Depp (maybe playing a "cartoon character" for too long has permanently altered his acting) are eventually pushed away when he just becomes a disembodied voice. Hall plays the fiercely-devoted wife well. Bettany furrows his brow in worry the same way he has in almost everything he has made. The story builds and moves at a decent pace. It is entertaining and doesn't really succumb the explosions or big action scenes found in most big-budget studio pictures. The film's hesitation to degrade itself in these manners is no doubt Pfister at work. Nolan has absolutely no hand in the creation of this film and it would seem that Pfister is trying to emulate his direction. The direction is well done. It is the insanity of the script that "destroys" the film.
There is a "Shelley-esque" quality to much of the film. The idea of resurrecting a dead person using technology is primed for cheap sci-fi horror. If you take Transcendence as a twist on Frankenstein it becomes easier to swallow. You will still be interrupted by huge logic issues but at least you will shrug them off by dismissing the whole thing as a movie about a dead guy resurrected in a computer. Still, the lack of an angry pitchfork-wielding mob feels odd. In the end, we don't necessarily know how we feel about anything we have seen. The noncommittal nature of the film isn't artistically motivated like the ending of films like Memento or Inception. The audience is just left wondering if they should have been cheering for the "monster" the whole time or not.
Transcendence is the oddest recommendation. It looks great and moves along well. The overall enjoyment of the story is in how ridiculous it is. It is not ridiculous in the way that most big-budget blockbusters can be. Transcendence is something else. Much like its protagonist, the story resembles a heartless series of 1s and 0s uploaded into a computer to produce a story. It doesn't have feeling but it certainly knows how to run code. The inhuman characteristic of the presentation is half its charm.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Sunday, April 6, 2014
"Amores Perros" 4 stars out of 4 (A)
At the time of it's release Amoros Perros was compared favorably to Pulp Fiction. Both films have brutal and unexpected violence. Both films also deal with interweaving story lines. This is the extent of the comparisons. Amores Perros is simply a deeper movie than Pulp Fiction. Through the three story-lines, director Alejandro González Iñárritu has created a beautiful film about loyalty that feels as fresh now as it did in 1999.
Amores Perros involves three chaptered story lines which occasionally come into contact with each other. The first part is "Octavio y Susana", which concerns a love triangle between Octavio (Gael García Bernal) and his brother Ramiro's (Marco Pérez) wife Susana (Vanessa Bauche). Ramiro is cold and abusive toward Susana and this angers Octavio who believes she should be treated better. He starts to devise a plan to make money in hopes that it will prove to Susana that he can take care of her. Octavio starts taking his pit bull to the local dogfighting ring and his dog proves to be a true warrior and the money starts coming in. The second story is "Daniel y Valeria". Daniel (Álvaro Guerrero) has just left his wife for his supermodel mistress Valeria (Goya Toledo). They move into a nice new apartment with a gorgeous view of a building-sized advertisement featuring Valeria. Things are great until Valeria gets in an accident which puts her in a wheelchair and stops her from working. As she waits at home, her dog named Richie, falls into a hole in the floor and won't come out. Her immobility and frustration over losing her "baby" Richie brings unexpected tensions between Daniel and Valeria. The third story is "El Chivo y Maru". El Chivo (Emilio Echevarría) appears to be a homeless man with a cart a pack of dogs following him everywhere he goes. What people don't see is the machete hiding in his cart. It isn't there just for self-defense or the defense of his dogs. El Chivo is a hitmen who has a history as a guerrilla. Years ago he had left his wife and his daughter Maru (Lourdes Echevarría) to follow the cause he believed in. The cause fell apart and now he lives a life as a "garbage man" taking the occasional hit men job to feed his dogs and also himself occasionally. He is given a job that he can't pass up. El Chivo makes a promise that this will be his final job so that he can reconnect with his daughter and re-start the life he left.
While the story-lines interweave occasionally (characters come into contact with each other briefly from time-to-time), they are three separate stories that deal with similar themes in different ways. All three stories could have produced impressive full-length films. The film begins in a brutal and violent way with "Octavio y Susana". The violence that involves dogs and humans is difficult to watch at times. Bernal is wonderful as Octavio, a man who is fiercely devoted to Susana. We never see him as being a bad person who is cheating with his brother's wife and submitting his dog to brutal violence. The strength of Bernal is that we feel sorry for him the whole time. He perfectly prepares us for the moral dilemma the audience will continue to have with feeling sympathy for characters who are doing unsympathetic things.
"Daniel y Valeria" is surprisingly the most mentally intense portion of the film. Coming off of the violence of "Octavio y Susana", "Daniel y Valeria" starts in a light-hearted fashion. While Daniel is cheating on his wife and leaving his child behind, the love between Daniel and Valeria is presented in an adorable fashion. It is only after Valeria's injury and her dog's disappearance takes a surprisingly depressing twist. "Daniel y Valeria" is the most calm of the three parts but is probably the most psychologically impacting. The storyline and the tension generated by Richie being heard in the walls and the floor but never coming out keeps the audience on edge in a way that you don't see often. "Daniel y Valeria" is the most fleshed out and honest part of the three stories. In some ways, it is the most powerful.
"El Chivo y Maru" is arguably weakest of the three sections. It may be simply that you are almost two hours into a 150-minute film that has already been emotionally taxing. While the interaction between El Chivo and his dogs is really touching, it would seem that a story involving a homeless hit man would have a little more flare to it. The power in this section, much like the first two sections, is how we can draw sympathy for someone is essentially doing a terrible thing. El Chivo's dogs are his life. He seemingly takes jobs just to feed them. While it has probably the saddest moment in the film, the last minutes are not as strong as you would imagine they would be. It somewhat appears that they simply didn't know how to end El Chivo's story. Maybe it is that it can have no true ending. Saying that "El Chivo y Maru" is the weakest of the sections does not mean it isn't good. It is simply very good compared to the other two sections brilliance.
The violence toward dogs in "Octavio y Susana" was as controversial during my 2014 screening as it was almost 15 years ago. The audience reacted to the violence toward dogs much more so than they did the violence toward humans. Anyone who is averse to seeing violence toward animals would do well to prepare themselves. While the dogfighting involved no real fighting (simply "playing") and the dead or dying dogs were really just sedated, it is still hard to watch from time to time. It is a great example how quick cutting and sound effects can create a powerful and difficult experience. While it is still rough to see even a sedated animal lying there with their tongue out covered in realistic stage blood, it is an emotionally priming sight that helps us feel for the human characters even more. I don't know if we would have had the same feelings toward Octavio, Daniel and Susana, or El Chivo if it weren't for our heightened emotions that came from the dog violence.
Even 15 years later, Amores Perros is a brilliant and powerful film. As comparisons to Pulp Fiction either in 2000 or now is short-sighted and do not convey the true feeling of the film. While it isn't always an easy watch, Amores Perros creates the same loyality from audiences as the dogs in the film have for their owners. They don't see criminals, adulterers, or hit men. They see damaged people who they feel for. So do we.
Amores Perros involves three chaptered story lines which occasionally come into contact with each other. The first part is "Octavio y Susana", which concerns a love triangle between Octavio (Gael García Bernal) and his brother Ramiro's (Marco Pérez) wife Susana (Vanessa Bauche). Ramiro is cold and abusive toward Susana and this angers Octavio who believes she should be treated better. He starts to devise a plan to make money in hopes that it will prove to Susana that he can take care of her. Octavio starts taking his pit bull to the local dogfighting ring and his dog proves to be a true warrior and the money starts coming in. The second story is "Daniel y Valeria". Daniel (Álvaro Guerrero) has just left his wife for his supermodel mistress Valeria (Goya Toledo). They move into a nice new apartment with a gorgeous view of a building-sized advertisement featuring Valeria. Things are great until Valeria gets in an accident which puts her in a wheelchair and stops her from working. As she waits at home, her dog named Richie, falls into a hole in the floor and won't come out. Her immobility and frustration over losing her "baby" Richie brings unexpected tensions between Daniel and Valeria. The third story is "El Chivo y Maru". El Chivo (Emilio Echevarría) appears to be a homeless man with a cart a pack of dogs following him everywhere he goes. What people don't see is the machete hiding in his cart. It isn't there just for self-defense or the defense of his dogs. El Chivo is a hitmen who has a history as a guerrilla. Years ago he had left his wife and his daughter Maru (Lourdes Echevarría) to follow the cause he believed in. The cause fell apart and now he lives a life as a "garbage man" taking the occasional hit men job to feed his dogs and also himself occasionally. He is given a job that he can't pass up. El Chivo makes a promise that this will be his final job so that he can reconnect with his daughter and re-start the life he left.
While the story-lines interweave occasionally (characters come into contact with each other briefly from time-to-time), they are three separate stories that deal with similar themes in different ways. All three stories could have produced impressive full-length films. The film begins in a brutal and violent way with "Octavio y Susana". The violence that involves dogs and humans is difficult to watch at times. Bernal is wonderful as Octavio, a man who is fiercely devoted to Susana. We never see him as being a bad person who is cheating with his brother's wife and submitting his dog to brutal violence. The strength of Bernal is that we feel sorry for him the whole time. He perfectly prepares us for the moral dilemma the audience will continue to have with feeling sympathy for characters who are doing unsympathetic things.
"Daniel y Valeria" is surprisingly the most mentally intense portion of the film. Coming off of the violence of "Octavio y Susana", "Daniel y Valeria" starts in a light-hearted fashion. While Daniel is cheating on his wife and leaving his child behind, the love between Daniel and Valeria is presented in an adorable fashion. It is only after Valeria's injury and her dog's disappearance takes a surprisingly depressing twist. "Daniel y Valeria" is the most calm of the three parts but is probably the most psychologically impacting. The storyline and the tension generated by Richie being heard in the walls and the floor but never coming out keeps the audience on edge in a way that you don't see often. "Daniel y Valeria" is the most fleshed out and honest part of the three stories. In some ways, it is the most powerful.
"El Chivo y Maru" is arguably weakest of the three sections. It may be simply that you are almost two hours into a 150-minute film that has already been emotionally taxing. While the interaction between El Chivo and his dogs is really touching, it would seem that a story involving a homeless hit man would have a little more flare to it. The power in this section, much like the first two sections, is how we can draw sympathy for someone is essentially doing a terrible thing. El Chivo's dogs are his life. He seemingly takes jobs just to feed them. While it has probably the saddest moment in the film, the last minutes are not as strong as you would imagine they would be. It somewhat appears that they simply didn't know how to end El Chivo's story. Maybe it is that it can have no true ending. Saying that "El Chivo y Maru" is the weakest of the sections does not mean it isn't good. It is simply very good compared to the other two sections brilliance.
The violence toward dogs in "Octavio y Susana" was as controversial during my 2014 screening as it was almost 15 years ago. The audience reacted to the violence toward dogs much more so than they did the violence toward humans. Anyone who is averse to seeing violence toward animals would do well to prepare themselves. While the dogfighting involved no real fighting (simply "playing") and the dead or dying dogs were really just sedated, it is still hard to watch from time to time. It is a great example how quick cutting and sound effects can create a powerful and difficult experience. While it is still rough to see even a sedated animal lying there with their tongue out covered in realistic stage blood, it is an emotionally priming sight that helps us feel for the human characters even more. I don't know if we would have had the same feelings toward Octavio, Daniel and Susana, or El Chivo if it weren't for our heightened emotions that came from the dog violence.
Even 15 years later, Amores Perros is a brilliant and powerful film. As comparisons to Pulp Fiction either in 2000 or now is short-sighted and do not convey the true feeling of the film. While it isn't always an easy watch, Amores Perros creates the same loyality from audiences as the dogs in the film have for their owners. They don't see criminals, adulterers, or hit men. They see damaged people who they feel for. So do we.
"Anita" - 3 stars out of 4 (B)
Anita strives to prove one thing: that the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings of 1991 were a sham. Clarence Thomas was being vetted to become a Supreme Court justice and Anita Hill, a former co-worker of Thomas, wanted those who would be appointing him to know about what she claims was his past. She wrote a letter and was called in to what appeared to be a courtroom proceeding. She was questioned for a whole day by 14 white men as if she had committed a crime. Freida Lee Mock's documentary Anita is trying to convince that the hearings were a clear example of men blaming a female victim. She wants you to believe that the men entered that hearing with one goal. It was not to hear the truth. It was to prove Anita Hill wrong. In the end, Anita's testimony may not have changed Thomas's path but as Anita proves, it had a deeper impact on society over time.
Anita Hill didn't want to become a star when she wrote her letter concerning Clarence Thomas in 1991. Thomas was being vetted by then President George Bush to become a Supreme Court judge. Hill wanted the Senate to know about events she claims happened while the two worked together. Thomas is said to have made a few romantic passes at Hill to which she turned down. He didn't continue to act on this but he did continue to make Hill uncomfortable. Thomas is said to have made innuendos about his genitals and about pubic hair. Hill just wanted the Senate to know about what she claims to have gone through before they made their minds up on Thomas. The firestorm that followed was not what she was expecting would happen. Her "anonymous" letter was leaked and it became a major news story. Soon, Hill was giving her testimony in front of 14 male members of the Senate. They questioned every event she claims happened. In the end, her testimony was dismissed and Thomas was appointed as a judge. The attention to Hill continued though. Around the time, she shunned the exposure. 20 plus years later, her view on the event has changed. Anita presents Anita Hill as a Civil Rights activist whose exposure in 1991 had a major impact on society.
My only exposure to the Anita Hill case came from seeing repeats of the Saturday Night Live skit featuring Ellen Cleghorne as Hill. The skit is featured briefly in Anita and is edited to make it look like an uncomfortable and unfunny satire. The hearings are presented in this film in a squirm-inducing way. The audience at my screening was visibly cringing at the questions and phrasing of many members of the Senate. Hill is presented as strong and incredibly composed the entire time. The film doesn't question her testimony in the slightest, instead presenting her as someone who didn't crave the spotlight at all. She is presented as someone who simply wanted to anonymously get her word out. Thomas is only briefly shown giving his testimony which accused the Senate hearing as presented African American men as a racial stereotype and the hearing to be a "high-tech lynching". It doesn't present Thomas a liar as much as someone pulling "the race card".
The hard thing about the Anita Hill case then and now is there is no solid evidence as to Hill being correct. The testimonies of a few of her co-workers at the time Hill claims she was harassed are given. The testimonies of more of her co-workers were ignored. Anita doesn't necessarily strive to prove that Hill was correct and that Thomas was lying. It is trying to prove the case was an example of "witness blaming". It opened up a dialogue about work-place sexual harassment. The last part of the documentary presents how Hill's testimony had opened up the ability for other women who were harassed to make their case known. Even if Hill's testimony were a total lie, it still resulted in people knowing that "work-place sexual harassment" exists.
Mock's direction presents Hill in a positive although not "godly" way. One rather long shot of a picture of Rosa Parks on the wall seems a little over-the-top. It would seem that she could present Hill as an important part of the on-going female civil rights movement without resorting to such a direct comparison to Parks. For the most part, she simply uses Hill's actions in 1991 and her actions today to present her as an activist. The Parks shot seems redundant and grandiose. The film at 95 minutes feels a little longer than it needs to be. Some tightening during the presentation of the hearing could have helped speed the story along. The last part dealing with Hill's impact starting the dialogue of sexual harassment could have been an act in itself, if not just a full-length documentary. While it is a tiny complaint, this section is easily one of the most interesting parts of the film.
Anita reminds us in an entertaining and well-made manner an event that took place over 20 years ago. It reminds us of a time when "sexual harassment" wasn't necessarily a thing. What may have seemed like little more than a character attack is proven to be so much more two decades later. It takes what may have been little than a few paragraphs in history and fleshes it out in a very interesting way.
Anita Hill didn't want to become a star when she wrote her letter concerning Clarence Thomas in 1991. Thomas was being vetted by then President George Bush to become a Supreme Court judge. Hill wanted the Senate to know about events she claims happened while the two worked together. Thomas is said to have made a few romantic passes at Hill to which she turned down. He didn't continue to act on this but he did continue to make Hill uncomfortable. Thomas is said to have made innuendos about his genitals and about pubic hair. Hill just wanted the Senate to know about what she claims to have gone through before they made their minds up on Thomas. The firestorm that followed was not what she was expecting would happen. Her "anonymous" letter was leaked and it became a major news story. Soon, Hill was giving her testimony in front of 14 male members of the Senate. They questioned every event she claims happened. In the end, her testimony was dismissed and Thomas was appointed as a judge. The attention to Hill continued though. Around the time, she shunned the exposure. 20 plus years later, her view on the event has changed. Anita presents Anita Hill as a Civil Rights activist whose exposure in 1991 had a major impact on society.
My only exposure to the Anita Hill case came from seeing repeats of the Saturday Night Live skit featuring Ellen Cleghorne as Hill. The skit is featured briefly in Anita and is edited to make it look like an uncomfortable and unfunny satire. The hearings are presented in this film in a squirm-inducing way. The audience at my screening was visibly cringing at the questions and phrasing of many members of the Senate. Hill is presented as strong and incredibly composed the entire time. The film doesn't question her testimony in the slightest, instead presenting her as someone who didn't crave the spotlight at all. She is presented as someone who simply wanted to anonymously get her word out. Thomas is only briefly shown giving his testimony which accused the Senate hearing as presented African American men as a racial stereotype and the hearing to be a "high-tech lynching". It doesn't present Thomas a liar as much as someone pulling "the race card".
The hard thing about the Anita Hill case then and now is there is no solid evidence as to Hill being correct. The testimonies of a few of her co-workers at the time Hill claims she was harassed are given. The testimonies of more of her co-workers were ignored. Anita doesn't necessarily strive to prove that Hill was correct and that Thomas was lying. It is trying to prove the case was an example of "witness blaming". It opened up a dialogue about work-place sexual harassment. The last part of the documentary presents how Hill's testimony had opened up the ability for other women who were harassed to make their case known. Even if Hill's testimony were a total lie, it still resulted in people knowing that "work-place sexual harassment" exists.
Mock's direction presents Hill in a positive although not "godly" way. One rather long shot of a picture of Rosa Parks on the wall seems a little over-the-top. It would seem that she could present Hill as an important part of the on-going female civil rights movement without resorting to such a direct comparison to Parks. For the most part, she simply uses Hill's actions in 1991 and her actions today to present her as an activist. The Parks shot seems redundant and grandiose. The film at 95 minutes feels a little longer than it needs to be. Some tightening during the presentation of the hearing could have helped speed the story along. The last part dealing with Hill's impact starting the dialogue of sexual harassment could have been an act in itself, if not just a full-length documentary. While it is a tiny complaint, this section is easily one of the most interesting parts of the film.
Anita reminds us in an entertaining and well-made manner an event that took place over 20 years ago. It reminds us of a time when "sexual harassment" wasn't necessarily a thing. What may have seemed like little more than a character attack is proven to be so much more two decades later. It takes what may have been little than a few paragraphs in history and fleshes it out in a very interesting way.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
"Need for Speed" 3 stars out of 4 (B)
When I saw that Breaking Bad star Aaron Paul had been hired to star in a big-budget movie about car racing based on a video game, I was concerned to say the least. Paul has made a career out of playing damaged and emotionally stunted characters. His small stature and stern eyes don’t lead you to believe he could be an action star. Luckily Need for Speed is not your typical movie based on a racing video game (whatever that might be). While there are plenty of fast cars driven by stunt drivers and a relatively thin plot, Paul proves that he can handle himself in an action scenario by bringing a touch of heart that you don’t see often in a movie that would stereo-typically be shallow and mindless. This unexpected heart coupled with jaw-dropping race sequences make Need for Speed the exciting summer movie we didn't expect to see in the doldrums of March.
Tobey Marshall (Aaron Paul) is a small-town mechanic who is known for being able to do amazing things to impressive cars. He is also known for talent at at illegal street racing after-hours occupation. He is given a job by professional racer Dino Brewster (Dominic Cooper) to fix up a rare Shelby Mustang. Tobey completes the job and is challenged to a race. During the race, Tobey’s friend is killed by Dino. After the smoke settles, Dino is no where to be found and Marshall is framed for the murder. Two years later, Tobey leaves prison looking for revenge against Dino. He sees the opportunity in the Deleon race, a famous secret car race in California, which Dino will be racing. He teams up with racing enthusiast Julia Maddon (Imogen Poots) to make the cross-country drive from New York to California, dodging cops and hit men dispatched by Dino. Tobey sees the Deleon as a change to clear his name and prove Dino killed his friend.
While Paul is very enjoyable, the true star of any car movie is the cars themselves. Any film that features characters watching Bullitt, the quintessential “car movie”, knows what audience it is trying to appeal to. Need for Speed’s action driving scenes use a minimal amount of computer trickery. These are real cars driven by real people. It is a sight we might have forgotten we missed until we see the real thing. Where the Fast and the Furious films seem to be more about the action then they are about the cars and driving, Need for Speed makes the driving the sole focus in action scenes. These characters are very rarely fighting with weapons other than the four-wheeled variety. Each driving sequence is well constructed, thrilling and offer quite a lot of surprises.
One sequence that takes place in downtown Detroit is especially impressive. While the fact that I’ve frequented the city definitely helped me enjoy it (“Look! Comerica Park!”) it is still one of the most impressive driving sequences we have seen in quite some time. Any movie that portrays Detroit as more than the stereotypical cesspool that many stereotype it to be is always welcome. The only disappointment about this sequence is that it made me realized I was so close to Ms. Poots and yet I didn’t even know it. After a long day spent acting in stunt cars, she no doubt would have wanted to meet up with an aspiring film critic and talk over a meal at Slow’s or a drink at Great Lakes Coffee. Maybe that can happen that if Need for Speed 2 gets filmed in “D-Town”. A guy can dream, right?
Need for Speed has a surprisingly large amount of heart, mostly in the form of Paul. We believe Paul is a driver who honestly wants to clear his name and revenge the death of his friend. The film doesn't push the relationship between Tobey and Julia like you would expect them to. While they no doubt have chemistry, the two are very much goal-oriented. They don't even kiss during the film but yet we fully believe that Tobey cares about her. The fact that we care about these characters helps us have a connection beyond "cars driving fast".
The supporting human stars of Need for Speed is where the film falls apart a little. Imogen Poots is pleasant as the female love interest (Seriously, Imogen. Text me. Slow's is amazing!) who is more than just a love interest. Some may complain about her accent but it is a nice change from the pre-processed female interests like Megan Fox in the Transformers films. Cooper spends much of his role as a villain glaring and fighting a losing battle against his English accent. His cold attitude fits his character well though and most of his truly evil moments are done by stunt drivers. Marshall’s lackies (Scott Mescudi, Rami Malek, Ramon Rodriguez) are fairly one-note. This film will garner lots of comparisons to the Fast and the Furious franchise and maybe even 2003’s The Italian Job. Those films have both impressive car sequences and fun supporting characters. You'd be pressed to remember the names of Marshall's friends. The “buddy” roles are just not as fleshed out as they need to be. Mescudi, who is often known by his rapper name Kid Cudi, is grating as the “African American friend” role that has been getting parodied since the late ‘90s. He seems to be under the belief that the louder you are the more charming you will be. His antics along with one very out-of-place scene with Malek miss far more than they succeed.
Michael Keaton makes a fun appearance as Monarch, a racing show host who also puts on the Deleon race. It is always nice to see Keaton in a movie. While he doesn’t play as large of a role as he did in this year’s Robocop he is given some room to branch out here. All of his scenes take place in a room away from all other characters. This freedom allows Keaton to really shine. We get to see occasional flashes of the wild Keaton we haven’t seen much since the ‘80s. Hopefully this and Robocop will put him back into the minds of Hollywood.
While the film fits into the “turn your brain off” action genre (to stop you from thinking “What about all the innocent bystanders who probably die as a result of the car races?”), there is quite a bit to enjoy about Need for Speed. It may not be something you will remember come June but it is an enjoyable and fun exciting film with some truly inspired stunt car work and a serviceable story. It may not go the full 230 mph that the film’s Mustang can hit but it definitely gets you there faster than you expected.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)