The People have spoken. In this post you will find my review for both Jumper and Gone Baby Gone.
But first, this:
Boston: I just need to do a quick blurb about what the people "in the know" are saying about the Manny trade. Apparently (and this is all unconfirmed reports) Theo met with certain veterans on the team (assumed among them 'Tek, Lowell, Ortiz, Schill, and Wake) to discuss Manny. The word was that he had to go (hence the high cost to relieve themselves of him?). Just before the trade was finalized, it's been reported that Manny, through his agent Scott "I-like-to-think-I-rule-the-world" Boras, let the Red Sox know that he'd like to stay, promising a turn around in his attitude and effort. This just further confirmed for the Sox front office that he had been dogging it and not putting forth 100%. "No Thanks" was their reply and Manny was a Dodger. Now, here's the one piece of evidence that doesn't lay credence to that report. Manny is what's known as a 10/5 guy (Ten years in the league, five years with one team) so he has the right to veto any trade. It's not a no trade clause, but it's similar. If he wanted to stay, he could have stayed. Now on to what you really want to read about:
Review: Jumper 2008/PG-13/Action
I wasn't going to review Jumper. Mostly I didn't feel like it was worth my time to review it. (Does that give a hint as to what I thought about the movie?)
We'll start with the acting. Once again Hayden Christensen gives another "I-talk-funny-and-call-it-acting" performance. Max Thieriot (The Pacifier) actually put forth a better performance as young David than Hayden did as old. Samuel L. Jackson did what he could with a relatively limited character. And Diane Lane made a cameo? What was with that? Actually, more on that later.
The writing of this movie was so blah. The foreshadowing was obvious. The characters were shallow. The plot points predictable. He can teleport? Oh, so he's going to rob a bank. Of course. The villains are religious fanatics and there was no character arch for the hero. Perhaps the most annoying truth of all of this is that Jumper is based on a book about teen angst and escapism. How he can never actually escape from himself. The writers of the movie made a conscious choice to deviate completely from the book. Their product? A completely non-compelling story about a guy with a special power and people trying to kill him. Woo hoo.
Here's what I can say about the movie: The process of "jumping" and the special effects were well thought out and entertaining. The "rip" was a brilliant idea. As was the concept that the things around the jumper would be effected due to the jump. The fight scenes were well choreographed and the jumping during them made them more interesting.
I think what bothered me the most about this sub-par film, was that it was clearly made with a sequel in mind. Any time you tell a story knowing that it is going to continue, you tell an incomplete story. (See Back To The Future II, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Matrix Reloaded). This is why Diane Lane's part was so minimal and secondary. She's slated to have a larger role in the up coming sequels. (The filmmakers are actually planning on turning this into a trilogy! Puh-leez!)
All in all:
1 out of 5 stars
Review: Gone, Baby, Gone 2007/R/Drama
**SPOILERS****SPOILERS****SPOILERS****SPOILERS****SPOILERS**
To begin I must be honest: I went into this movie with lower expectations because I knew two things: A)Directorial Debut for Ben Affleck. B)He cast his own brother.
Lucky for Mr Affleck (both of them, really) they got a compelling story for this project that raised enough questions with the plot that we could ignore the questions raised by some of the directorial and acting choices. For example, why was every close up in the movie such that the camera was far from the actor and zoomed in? Too lazy to move the camera? Too inexperienced to know that people can tell when the camera is close vs when the focus is close? Annoying. And Casey: I didn't really believe you when you were bein' all bad. You are built like Dustin Pedroia (5'2" 160lbs) and nobody believes him either. Nice try though. This film was carried, however, by the giants of the screen Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman. Fantastic believable empathetic performances put forth by both of them.
Of course, with a movie like Gone, Baby, Gone people aren't reading my review for my critique of the lighting (which was pretty under-thought, by the way) but rather for my thoughts about the message of the film. Or, perhaps more specifically, the looming question of the film: Should Patrick have allowed the little girl to stay with Jack and his wife? That poor little girl, whose mother was a drug runner and addict. In fact, it'd be hard to call her a mother, she certainly didn't act like one. The little girl was happy, she'd obviously have a much better life.
Patrick did the right thing. Who are we to say who should and shouldn't be a parent? And even if she failed once, does she not deserve a second chance. (this is particularly aimed at those of us who have experienced the ultimate second chance. What if Jesus decided that we were a lost cause?) Kidnapping is kidnapping, regardless of the motive. That girl would grow up knowing something was missing. She'd try to find her mother. What then? Her mother is going to believe her to be dead. "You were kidnapped, they killed you." What does Jack tell her then?
The logical expansion of believing that Patrick should have allowed her to stay is that this becomes a government program with guidelines on who can and cannot have children. This would be the first step into the world of The Handmaiden's Tale. Patrick also took the necessary step when he learned that Amanda's mother wasn't really going to change. He stuck around. It would have been irresponsible for him to choose to return the girl to the situation she was in before without taking some responsibility for her care. At least we know that he will be involved in her life and that gives us hope.
Overall: I never really believed the girl was dead, so they totally missed that key point. Most of the acting was stellar including the performances by the "no-namers" (Titus Welliver and Amy Madigan). The writing was good. The direction was, for the most part, acceptable. Affleck handled the flashbacks well, not spoon feeding his audience. It raised some good questions and caused some good discussion.
3.5 out of 5 stars
10 comments:
I pretty much feel the same way about Jumper. I didn't get so analytical ... I was just disappointed. It seemed like something I would be into, but Hayden's acting wasn't great. My big beef with the film was that I only hoped he would win because the villian was just so over the top evil. I didn't want him to win because I actually liked him - I just disliked him less. His character was so selfish, using women, robbing to live rediculously wealthy ... not really anything to like! Oh well.
I really liked Jumper a lot. The acting was better than Star Wars, and it was enough for this film; not everything is Hamlet. As with Elastigirl in "The Incredibles," this movie developed a yawner skill--teleportation--into something interesting. Indeed, I wish they'd done more of this. Still, they opened up its possibilities in ways that stayed with me. I couldn't help but think of Plato's Myth of Gyges, in which a man is able to become invisible and it corrupts him. As in that story, it makes you wonder, if you could teleport like this, would it corrupt you? Why or why not? And it isn't the jumpers that are the most interesting, it is the Paladins. (Great name) They have been hunting jumpers since the Middle Ages. How have these two groups developed around each other? Is there an underground community of jumpers in a way similar to Lestat's discovery of deeper and deeper levels of organization in the vampire world in Ann Rice's novels? This movie didn't attempt to just wow you with special effects. There was more going on. I give it four stars, five if they (a) actually produce the next movie, and (b) continue to develop some character and "world-immersive" aspects in it, as I've discussed. The news story about the people trapped on the bus made me think that they are going in that direction, but that the hero hasn't gotten there yet. As for the actual Paladin's we get to know: both of them have a reason to challenge the perceived fundamentalist violence of their accepted/inherited worldview. What will they do with this? How might these two groups change because of it?
Just my opinion.... I found it entertaining, but very shortly into the movie I remember saying to Thom "OK, they've got an interesting premise going here -- now if they don't mess this up with the plot they'll be fine."
I found the Paladins a bit one-dimensional. I sort of felt like I was made to accept the hero/villian arrangement without any well-developed backstory (wait for the sequel/prequel, I guess). But that left me wanting more. Also, I always find it annoying when an unusual word ike "Paladin" is given by a person with a difficult dialect or accent. Thom got it right away, but I felt like I kept thinking "a what??" Just a pet peeve of mine.
Like Thom I did like to think about what good could have been done with that skill, but overall that thought doesn't take long to consider.
as for Hayden's acting -- I thought it was better than as Anakin, but I found the roles to be quite a bit similar. And (this is a writing/character problem, not an acting issue) can you get any dumber than discovering you have an enemy and you're being followed and promptly going and finding the love of your life and putting her in danger, too?! Lousy writing, if you ask me.
but, this is just my opinion ;-)
3 out of 5 -- cool concept, nice pace, held my attention, I didn't fall asleep
Thom, I guess the story would have been more interesting if it had corrupted him and he needed to find a way back to morality. But not in this film. "I'm different. I'm not like the others" was his montra. He left IOU notes. He left the Paladin (I agree, great name) in the Grand Canyon rather than swiming with the sharks. Where is the interest with the main character? They've erred if his arch is designed to be spread over the next two movies. You've gotta make the first one compelling if you want to make two more.
I'll also not hide the fact that the ending was terrible. If you are going to open the can of worms that his mother is a Paladin, do it earlier in the movie. Don't do it as a banner that says "Coming soon: Jumper II" (In your opinion, they get the extra star just for making the next movie?)
L - found everyone one dimentional. From the girl who follows him for no apparent reason to the "I kill Paladins" ~ None had any kind of character arch. What we saw happen in the film didn't change any one of them. There was no point in telling the story they chose to tell.
Please, if you think I'm in error, point it out. Show me the change, or the reason for the story. The redemption? The moral?
Maybe we're starting from two different places. You're starting from an admirably high expectation of what movies can do; I started from "another Hollywood visual effects puff piece." L's confusion over the word "paladin" was unexpected: I tend to take it for granted that the majority of human beings devoured the AD&D Player's Handbook in their tweens. Their use of this word, for me, suggested an entire backstory that was partially filled out, the reason the "paladin" is a different word than "knight." So that entire paladin universe was quite rich from their simple use of the name, where I was concerned. I can see, however, that this sort of freight would be complete absent for the majority of the audience (though I suspect that gamers were their targets, and you can't forget that the larges WOW demographic is women above the age of forty-five.) Your question of where is the character development is, in my opinion, answered by L's observation that he acted in idiotic, selfish, and immature ways. Immaturity, rather than anger (in the case of Anakin) is this character's problem. I didn't have an issue with the IOU's or the leaving Mace Windu in the cave, since, from the opening scenes, he seems to be one of those kids who would rather be good, even when the home life doesn't necessarily encourage that. I know that kid: I was one of them. The girl was definitely one dimensional, but, for this audience, she probably had all the dimensions that she needed. Still, if what I like about this movie is that it tried to do more than it had to, it fell short on this one. The girl represents the rest of us, the non-jumpers, non-paladins. There are lots of really interesting questions about how regular you-and-me's have responded to this war that has been going on for hundreds of years. It isn't like no one has noticed, surely. Is there no military in the world who would be quite happy to offer jumpers protection in exchange for intelligence ops? Finally, the mom angle. J. J. Abrams has made ending with a plot twist the "it" thing these days. Seems like this just follows in his footsteps. I'm encouraged that you actually think they'll make one or two sequels. Since this movie passed without a ripple through theatres everywhere, I'm not holding my breath.
More thoughts on the girl, because now that I think about it, there was something they did that they didn't have to do. There are two scenes in the movie where sex is involved. In the first, Anakin-man is acting like a child in a man's body and with a man's money; he picks that blonde up at a club and leaves without any real sense of connection. In the second, there was a playfulness between the two. They were laughing together trying to get her boots off. (And wasn't there quite a lot of footage about getting clothes off?) Here is something in the physical world, a barrier, that stands between one and the experience one wants, in this case: clothes. The chick is never undressed. She is always clothed. And it is the awkward removal of those clothes--his and hers--that creates this intimate playfulness between the two lovers. The jumper, like the invisibility man in Plato's myth, has to embrace the limitations of the world--its physicality, its slowness, its visibility--in order to really live in it. Jumping because you can (which he demonstrated in that montage in his apartment where he used it just to get a remote control) solves nothing. It is childish (and the montage intelligently suggests it is.) Believing that it solves everything is the road to corruption: exactly what Mace Windu says when he kills that guy in the trees, roughly: "No one should have the power to be everywhere. It isn't holy." And the, dare I say, holiness or sacredness of that scene of them trying to get her boots off, says that Mace is on to something.
One more thing--and I'm definitely pushing this too far. But in the argument that fantasy and superhero genre's are actually a working out of real world problems and situations: you could see this movie as a characterization in crude format of the fundamentalist resistance to the Western Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is, after all, all about omnipresence: the overcoming of time and space. Again, it is pushing things almost to the breaking point.
you'll probably never read this but... I can't believe just how out there you guys are on this one! You expected less of the movie and because it wasn't absolutly terrible, you are ready to give it an Oscar?
"you could see this movie as a characterization in crude format of the fundamentalist resistance to the Western Enlightenment."
I'm sure that's exactly what the filmmakers were thinking...
Seriously, it's like Olympic gymnastics. If you aren't ranked top three and you give an ok routine you get HIGH marks. If you are top 3 and you give a routine that was still better than the non-top-3 gymnast, you get lower scores because more was expected of you.
Seriously, don't try to give this movie accolades it doesn't deserve!
I give it a big fat :P PHFHTHFHPGHFHP
thank you
I just read the book, Jumper. I have not seen the movie. I didn't thoroughly enjoy the book bc it got pretty cheesy in the end. After reading Marc's review, I won't be seeing the movie. I was expecting too much from the character, thus he failed me. He was too flawed, and could have been more exciting and 'superhero'-ish.
I also read I Am Legend. I have not seen the movie either. Have you seen it Marc?
I did see I am Legend.
In fact, my review is in this post:
(if the link doesn't work, here's the address: http://acesoneights.blogspot.com/2007/12/non-sports.html)
Post a Comment