Change Your Image
tv-striker
Reviews
The Challenger (2013)
A very well done piece of history...
This is an extremely well done telling of the investigation surrounding the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger in 1986. Despite the fact that we all know the outcome of the findings, there are constantly rising stakes here which help keep you glued to the story.
William Hurt is exceptional as physicist Richard Feynman, a member of the fact-finding commission, who almost single-handedly recognized the cause of the disaster and pushed the commission in the right direction. I did find his failing health issues to be important but overdone. The "peeing blood" and dialysis tended to take me out of the story when I'd already gotten and understood his health problems with the "x-ray" scene.
Brian Dennehy also did a remarkable job of channeling William Rogers (as head of the Challenger fact-finding commission) who from the beginning wants to whitewash the whole the thing. Rogers was the Secretary of State under Richard Nixon which is hardly a vote of confidence for the man and any real neutrality.
Overall, it would seem that history is not going to be kind to the Reagan Administration. The film does bring out facts that were never a part of any official commission findings implying those were repressed for apparently legitimate national security issues of the time. In a nutshell, the Reagan budget cuts caused NASA to promise the military the ability to launch military spy satellites via the shuttles almost on demand instead of the military developing their own new missile. Decidedly, putting temperature restrictions on such shuttle launches would not be something to tell the Soviets about. However, maybe in future years someone will realize that even this was a false concern because the launches would have been from the California coast where freezing temperatures would be almost non-existent.
I highly recommend this film to relive this piece of recent history.
The Informant! (2009)
un-believ-able
One of the tag lines for this film is "un-believ-able." No lie here. You really have to suspend belief to accept just about anything going on in this film. This is the type of film where some people will write reviews or discuss the film based on how quickly they decided to bale out on it.
The basic premise is intriguing and quirky. It's all about corporate hi-jinks in a business specializing in the various derivatives of corn. Not exactly the high stakes world of high finance, precious metals, energy products, or God forbidden, weapons manufacture. Fearing industrial sabotage the FBI is called in but is quickly called off because of some confusion (never totally explained) as to which phone lines they are tapping.
Naturally, the FBI doesn't stop. They are encouraged to continue and launch an investigation of price fixing at the instigation of the lead character, Whitacre (Matt Damon), who agrees to participate in the investigation as an informant. That's where you better get ready for a whole series of improbable circumstances developing which are going to test your ability to suspend belief.
Basic problem centers around character and character development.
At some point, it turns out that Whitacre has been embezzling from his company. The methodology for this is never really explained but it involves fake invoices and others willing to give most of it back to Whitacre; mostly all done with checks no less. The motivation of the character is passed off as some kind of Bi-polar problem. This is totally "un-believ-able" without any other solid evidence of Bi-polar problems on the part of the character.
The Scott Bakula character has absolutely nothing developed in the way of character other than wearing what seems to be a cheap Mr. Spock wig.
Whitacre's wife (Ginger/Melanie Lynskey) also has no depth. There's nothing interesting or appealing about her. We're not sure if merely shares her husband's "delusions" or encourages them.
On the very narrow plus side, Matt Damon is always a pleasure to see on the screen.
Deception (2008)
Yeah, there's a lot of Deception here
I'm not going to spend a great deal of time reviewing the numerous plot gimmicks and twists used in this film. Sadly, there are a lot of them and they're pretty predictable.
I'm also going to use the performer's names rather than the character names. This is because part of the plotting includes multiple names and the two main characters will eventually switch names towards the end of the film.
You suspend belief very early in this film. You have to believe that Ewan McGregor is a workaholic accountant/auditor who has no personal life whatsoever; no women and not even a cat. That's pretty much of a stretch. Call casting. Get us someone who couldn't get a woman to talk to him even if his life depended upon it. Moreover, this "wallflower" of a guy will suddenly turn "cool" and smoke a joint with someone he's never met before (Hugh Jackman). Then the two of them will start what looks like a "bromance" and become best buddies; going to sex clubs, playing tennis, and having lunch. They're so close they mix up their cell phones so McGregor ends ups with Jackman's phone in a key plot point event.
At first glance, the concept of a sex club catering to busy, high-influence people who simply call each other anonymous sex, sounds somewhat plausible. However, it's kind of ludicrous to imagine anyone meeting someone else for sex, sight unseen. I'm sure such a club would require pictures and the like or there could be a bunch of horny trolls hanging out for sex with the horny-busy people. It just doesn't fly.
Once you get past the McGregor character setup and accept the sex club as legitimate, you can go along for the ride until you reach the final suspension of belief.
The Jackman character manipulates McGregor with Michelle Williams (a sex club partner McGregor REALLY likes). Jackman claims to have kidnapped her and will kill her unless McGregor transfer funds from a company he's about to audit. You have to suspend belief that McGregor, the auditor, has system authority to make such a transfer. That's simply not possible. At best, he gets "view only" rights or has to work off of paper copies. It's also probably a monumental system problem if one person only could transfer $20M out of a company without a secondary (software) approval step. Still you have to suspend this belief to get to the conclusion of the film.
Your final suspension of belief deals with the Williams' character. There's not really a whole lot about her revealed in the film. Yet, you're asked to accept that she really likes, cares for, McGregor (which kind of gets back to the first problems with the McGregor character being a little too attractive).
This film is probably not going to bore you. The performers are appealing and therefore help sustain the picture. However, you're probably not going to be on the edge of your seat and will probably not be overly surprised about the plot twists. You won't walk with a great deal of satisfaction about anything. You probably won't want to view it again.
Georgia Rule (2007)
Not what I expected when it was released...
I vaguely remember avoiding this movie when it first came out because it was marketed as a comedy/romance. I had seen Jane Fonda in "Monster-in-Law" and was completely bored to tears. Not that I don't like Jane Fonda, I just don't care for that sort of film. I figured this one was simply a follow up.
Forgetting all about the film name and not even noticing Jane Fonda in the cast, I came across it on one of the premium channels and decided to watch it. The summary was about a troubled teenager from California being sent to live with her overbearing grandmother in Idaho and soon starts revealing family secrets.
What I found was a very stylized and entertaining drama.
Rachel (Lindsay Lohan) is the troubled California (San Francisco) teen. She's just graduated from high school and is supposed to go college in the fall. Her mother and stepfather can't deal with her so they ship her off to grandma (Georgia, played by Jane Fonda) in Idaho. Actually, her mom, Lilly (Felicity Huffman), drives her most of the way but in the opening scene, there is a fight where Rachel decides to walk the rest of the way. By the time Rachel gets to grandma's house, Lilly has already had her fill of Georgia and has left. Georgia is a woman who lives by rules. If you take the "Lord's name in vain," you have to eat soap. Anything she considers important is called a "Georgia Rule." Hence,the title of the film.
Rachel is an extremely troubled girl. She flaunts her sexuality around town, raising eyebrows. She seduces a young Mormon by giving him oral sex. When the town vet (Simon, played by Dermot Mulroney) doesn't respond to her flaunting herself, she initially concludes he is gay.
Now, in some contexts, some of the scenes are comical. Harlan (Garrett Hedlund) takes Rachel to meet his Mormon future-wife-to-be June (Chelse Swain). This is probably a little "over the top" and even satirical dealing with Mormonism and sexuality. Hence it could be classed as comedy. However, it seems to play out very seriously and with a degree of believability.
During a casual conversation with Simon, Rachel portrays herself as a "survivor" since her stepfather (Arnold, played by Cary Elwes) started molesting her when she was 12.
Simon tells this to Georgia who tells it to Lilly who then leaves Arnold and comes home to mom. Arnold also arrives pleading reconciliation. From then on, the tenor of the film changes to strictly drama with no semblance of comedy or romance. The key question is whether Rachael is lying because she resents being sent away for the summer or if Arnold is really a monster.
The interaction of the characters is highly charged and this is where spoilers might be required in any review so I'm going to sidestep going into details and/or opinions. This is where you are going to enjoy and appreciate the film. And, up until the ending, you're probably going to have trouble making up your mind.
Prom Night (2008)
Our next generation horror film?
Well, it's a raining day and I had nothing better to do so I did what I've been avoiding
watching this movie.
Afterwards, I read the IMDb reviews and was somewhat shocked at all the negative reactions to the film because it really wasn't that bad. Most of the negative reviews were about the LACK of blood and gore in the movie and how that was a betrayal of the "genre." Apparently to some, the "slasher genre" requires a certain body count as well as a certain "yuk" factor in order to be valid.
There's no question here that the film makers are trying to "break rules." I like that. Out the gate, I'd give them a 5 for trying to do something different and trying to change the genre. That's what "Scream" did. It changed the genre and reinvented it.
First broken rule, as noted, this isn't a "blood and gore" flick. They've specifically minimized that which is apparent from the PG-13 rating as well as the opening scenes. Those wanting more should have walked out at the opening (or shut off the DVD). There's no sense waiting for something that isn't going happen.
The second rule that's broken is that the killer doesn't invisibly sulk around the fringes of the film while committing his mayhem. In fact, the physical appearance of the killer is very much a part of the unfolding story. To further this, they've even cast a "hottie" as the killer; someone whose screen presence is more likely to delight rather than cause fear. This is a very significant deviation from the expected.
Another rule that was broken was that bodies weren't discovered until later in the movie. This means that our "core characters" don't wander off in the face of danger. Of course, they still wander off to their fates, but not with the usual setups. Instead, they event some equally implausible setups to bring the killer and victims together.
However, that's where the rule breaking ends and the regular genre rules come back into play.
There's the usual "false jump" shots where something could happen but doesn't.
The cops are only marginally competent and end up being simply more "cannon fodder" for the killer/stalker.
The worst though is that there is no character development. The teens are all just "eye candy." There's nothing special about any of them and they are all interchangeable. You can go down the checklist of possible characteristics and find only the expected. There's the "going off to college" conflict(s). There's the "who is going to be Prom Queen? There's the horny teens going off to propose marriage/have sex. Even the main character has only one individual characteristic in that the killer tried to get to her before. But, beyond that, she's a vacuum. The stalker/killer also has no character. He "wants" Donna (our main character) but we don't really know why which would actually seem to be critical if want any kind of believability.
As such, I don't think the film makers have advanced too far in challenging the genre. They've made some positive efforts but have fallen way short of making something different and unique. A few more steps in new directions could have given us our "next generation" for the genre. Instead, we'll have to wait for someone else to finish those steps.
The Last Templar (2009)
What a crappy movie
I did read the book. I found it moderately enjoyable but outrageously unbelievable for a number of reasons.
The cornerstone of the book and the movie is a supposed "Gospel of Jesus" written by none other than Jesus himself. And, this "gospel" concludes that He was only a man.
Everyone gets all excited about this so there are competing interests chasing after the document and each other. Flashbacks to the age of the Templars trying to get the document out of the Holy Land and back to Europe run in tandem with the modern story.
Generally, a good setup for an adventure/chase movie. Except it doesn't work.
The plotting lurches forward rather than having a smooth, ascending crescendo. There are too many time-wasting scenes stuck in between the adventure scenes. Some downtime is expected but when these occur, there should still be a sense of urgency. Had this been a two hour production, there wouldn't have been a need to waste time. Even the interruptive flashbacks to the Templar era tend to break the pace too much.
The production values are uneven. There are definitely a lot of scenes to film based on the storyline and these can be expensive. Some of these though seem very cheaply done.
The characters are one-dimensional and none of their motivations seem genuine and often don't make any sense whatsoever. The heroine (Tess) and her tag along hero (Sean) seem like they're right out of "Desperate Housewives." There's a rouge Cardinal out of the Vatican who has a guy out of "Othello" trying to kill them. There is a former friend of the heroine and her father who explicitly wants the document in order to destroy Christianity and complete the Templar's "mission" and therefore be "The Last Templar." He seems a little fanatical and unreasonable.
The major failure though is the underlying sought-after document itself. Who is going to authenticate such a document? Are they going to call in a handwriting expert? If they can't authenticate it, what interest is there in having it destroyed? Or, preserved? How well would it serve the purpose of destroying Christianity? Absent any authentication, it's just another old piece of paper. Given that, none of the character's motivations make any sense.
There's somewhat of an underlying "faith" theme in both the book and the movie. In the book, Tess comes to appreciate the faith of others so as to not destroy it. In the movie, she seems to have a "conversion" making her want to preserve faith.
The film also handles the Templars differently than the book. In the book, the Templars used the document to blackmail the Vatican for centuries. Once it was clear the Templars no longer had the document, the Vatican destroyed them. Without "authentication" why would the Vatican care and thus wait so long? In the movie, it appears the Templars fabricated the document and/or knew it was false and/or didn't care if was or not. The overall implication was that even a false threat was enough to keep the Medieval Vatican off balance for a couple of centuries.
Overall, I give this film a 2. Frankly, I don't recommend wasting your time.
Believers (2007)
It had to happen... contains spoilers
I kind of expected it about half way through the film. What if this wasn't just another "escape-by-suicide" doomsday cult? Suppose one of them really got it right. They really weren't killing themselves but where really going to a new world and our old one was about to dissolve.
It did help that the "followers" appeared to be scientists. Like maybe there was more credibility to them than one would think. And, of course, the idea of mathematics to explain all and fix all is not really that far out.
Ultimately, I was hoping for a "quantum-generated" worm hole that would whisk the believers away even if the implication might be it was simply a high-tech suicide machine. I suppose that was beyond the budget of this film and they opted for a "gas chamber" and having to "die" in these mortal bodies
thus somewhat prolonging the film's conclusion but only by a couple of minutes.
At any rate, getting to the resolution was rather laborious and tortured. There were a lot of plot holes and conveniences which ultimately "fail" the film. Without getting too far into it, why destroy/eliminate everything including the paramedics if everything is going to burn up in a couple of weeks anyway? The list goes on.
Nevertheless, Johnny Messner, as David and Jon Huertas, as Victor, were very convincing. One resisted the pull towards immorality and the other embraced it. That kind of "push/pull" is very good. Both were driven by their character backgrounds although Victor having sex with the "dead woman" seemed to ultimately predominate his prior religious background. His religious past actually would have worked well but the whole sex thing ultimately became just another needless plot hole.
Bug (2006)
Do we really like these people...
I found this to be a troubling movie.
Half way through I began asking myself if I really cared about these characters. Peter was distant and undefined. Agnes was vague. Jerry seemed convenient. RC was somewhat defined but with no background. Sexuality was all over the board. It wasn't clear whether this dealt with gay, bi-sexual, or even asexual people.
I kept thinking this was going to turn out to be a "real" science fiction story where the "horror" was the reality. Yet, it doesn't seem to have ended up that way.
Instead, we have two delusional people feeding off and increasing their delusions from each other. Problem is that we don't really see Agnes' delusion. Peter's is somewhat familiar in the "big conspiracy" genre, but there is no feel for where Agnes' delusion lies. She lost her son. She's lonely but really doesn't seem to be. It seems too convenient. The conflict with her ex is contrived.
As far as performances are concerned, all the performers are suburb. Their intensity is mesmerizing. It keeps the interest in the film going even if the direction seems to change.