RocknRolla (Theatre) - Ashleigh

Guy Ritchie’s film career started at the peek. His first two films were brilliantly shot, fast paced gangsta flicks that left me wanting to move to England. Then he met Madonna. She ruined him. She destroyed everything he touched. First she stared in the laughably bad Swept Away (2002) a remake of a classic that allowed Madonna to “act” like a selfish princess. Then came the train wreck Revolver (2005), a movie that took three years to cross the pond. Revolver was an abolishment that tried to mix Ritchie’s gangstas with Madonna’s kabala philosophies. Then rumblings of a breakup – were they divorced – weren’t they. Who cares.

Fucking Guy Ritchie is back. During the tumultuous times Ritchie wrote and directed his return to greatness and while RocknRolla isn’t Ritchie’s peek it shines a light into the darkened alley that his career had become.

RocknRolla is Ritchie back to his roots: British thugs running scams. While it does returns to the formula - it’s ending isn’t as complicated nor twisting as his first two. The film starts by introducing the main players. This has worked for Guy quite well in the past and when something isn’t broke you shouldn’t try to fix it. The cast is a massive mix of characters that seem eager to go at each other in a mad dash for money.

The fun of Guy’s first two efforts is back as well. Gone are Revolver’s preachy messages; gone are the horrible acting and influence of Guys former wife. In its place is a well made crime thriller that has been Ritchie’s signature.

Is it anything new? Not really. The main villain gets taken to task. The anti-hero is given just rewards. The ragtag group of misfits is certainly something to root for. And I’m not sure I want Guy Ritchie to do anything else. If he gave me a movie like this every two years I would be happy.

Technically there were one or two new additions. For the first time Ritchie has added a well written/acted female to the cast of characters. The gorgeous Thandie Newton certainly responds well to the boys club that has been Guy’s cast. Also the promise of a proper sequel was splashed across the screen at the end of the film, so I guess I might get my wish after Sherlock Holmes (2009).

But I am grateful for Guy’s return. It is a welcomed return for me. Recently I have been lamenting the current state of films, and it could be because I live in Michigan. It could be because I’m growing older and people just don’t make movies for people like me anymore. I’m not sure, but I feel Guy’s return will give me something, even if it isn’t perfect, to look forward to.

6 out of 10: Guy Ritchie returns to what works.

The X-Files: I Want to Believe (Theatre) - Jennie

I’m not really the biggest X Files fan. I watched it when I caught it, but was never too enthusiastic about catching it. My wife, to my knowledge, is also only the smallest of casual fans. So why did she want to see it? I’m not entirely sure. Part of the reason had to do with it being the only five dollar movie we hadn’t watched and still wanted to see, but Jennie genuinely wanted to watch it. So with only an inkling of interest we sat down to view this film.

I had read that it was going to be a Monster of the Week (MotW) movie. To explain: some of the best X Files episodes I have seen had nothing to do with conspiracy theories and aliens, but simply highlighted a weird group of people, or a particularly interesting unexplained phenomenon. Mulder and Scully would investigate, get to the bottom of it, though sometimes the resolution was vague, and that would be that. These were dubbed MotW episodes, and as had been reported this film was just such a story.

Scully is approached by a federal agent inquiring about the whereabouts of the, now underground, Mulder so that he may be brought in on a case that had supernatural elements. The following two hours was a very procedural resolution to the case. Mulder and Scully slept together, told each other that they loved one another, but couldn’t act on that love, and eventually came to the conclusion that each of them, in the vaguest of terms, brought out the dark in each other. But other than the slight nods to the series this movie was simply an extended MotW episode.

What baffles me is – why bring the series back to the big screen for something like this? They aren’t trying to resurrect the series to my knowledge. This could have easily been shown on television as a reunion type special and many people would have been happy. And my speculation is that that is what this was supposed to be, but when Fox found out about it they thought they might be able to make some money off of it. But then why release it in summer. It certainly wasn’t the blockbuster popcorn selling edge of the seat thrill ride that summer movies are thought to be. It felt like a fall movie. I could have lengthy discussions on the release of this film, but ultimately I point the finger at Chris Carter.

4 out of 10 – an alright thriller with familiar characters. I’m not entirely sure why or how this movie even came to be, but there it is in all its mundane glory.

Untraceable (Dvd)

Three to five years ago this would have stared Ashley Judd, but she has moved on to bigger and better things (like Bug (2006), I guess). So Diane Lane fills her sassy cop loafers to put away this particular bad guy, and this leads me to a discussion of the fate of 40+ actresses. They seem to be segregated to the waste bin of movies, left to play menopausal newly single mothers who need to learn to date again, over sexed fashionistas, or, as in this case, hard nosed cops. Other than the occasional role as Queen Elizabeth (any of them), or the portrayal of a mental disorder, the meaty roles are nowhere to be found. Hell, Cate Blanchett got nominated this year by playing a man! I posit this question, is it that no one wants to write these films? Or is it that no one sees these films? Or, is it something else?

Leaving that lofty question in the air I bring you down to this waste of marquee space. If you watched the trailer I’m sure you already know the entire plot sans one or two details. You already know Colin Hanks character dies, in what is an emotionally tough loss for the already frazzled Jennifer, played by Diane Lane. I’m sure you know that the killer is caught by his own hubris. I’m also sure you know that her family is somehow threatened, but ultimately o.k. This film is nothing new or even relatively interesting.

Why did we pick this up from Blockbuster then? Well, my wonderful wife got me a Playstation 3 for my birthday. If you are not familiar with these behemoths they are both a gaming system and a Blu-ray DVD player. When we went to the Blockbuster to pick out a movie this was one of the only ones in the meager selection of movies that we hadn’t watched in that format, and I wanted to see what the new system could do. Simply put, it can waste our afternoon with crystal clarity.

To continue, I also have a hatred for internet/computer films. I’m sure all professionals who see films about their professions think this, but they never get it right and end up sounding incredibly stupid.
“Oh no, the criminal hacked the kernel and concatenated hidden bits on the end of each program counter so the instruction cycle would print out to an IO and he would eventually be able to take over the assembly language!”
Guh. The writer of this script must have grabbed the latest copy of Interwebs For Dummies to type up this dialog. The movie going public doesn’t care; they wouldn’t know what you were talking about anyway. The only people that would know what you are talking about will hate you for failing to even get it close. On that note, the film also displayed a distinct hatred for the internet. It tried to make it look like a dark alley where predators stalk any who venture in.

I recommend that you quickly close this browser and shut down your computer. This movie thinks the web will kill you.

2 out of 10 – Thankfully, no one wants to watch this, so I don’t feel obligated to discourage you from watching it.

Funny Games (Theatre) - Ashleigh & Matt

The previews for this film make Funny Games out to be another torture porn movie that attempts to make the audiences squeamish with close-ups of dismemberment and murder. However, this is not an altogether accurate portrait that has been painted. Funny Games shows no actual violence on screen (other than one hit with a golf club to the knee). In fact, if it weren’t for the psychologically violent scenes this movie would be rather tame when compared with Hollywood’s recent fascination with blood and guts. And, this is to say nothing of the most fascinating aspect of this film.

The film begins with a mundane scene; a top down shot contains a family vehicle that is making its way to its summer house. George (Tim Roth) and Anne (Naomi Watts) are playing "guess the composer" as their son Georgie (Devon Gearhart) and his dog sit and listen. The strings ebb and flow along with George’s incorrect answer to Anne’s choice of symphony in their game and the whole family smiles, a happy upper-class family. A jarring scream rips through the theatre as John Zorn and Yamantaka Eyes replaces the peaceful classical music George and Anne are listening to and the title card is shown, the family continues to smile as the animalistic shrieks bleat through the theatre's sound system – truly an offsetting scene. The family reaches their distention and the games begin. Michael Pitt and his creepy, puffed-out-version-of-Leonardo-Dicaprio-self plays a disturbing ringmaster to the family circus that is about to take place and his companion Peter, played by the equally creepy and unibrowed Brady Corbet, begins the action with a seemingly neighborly request to borrow eggs. The boys use this ploy to eventually escalate an argument with George Sr. This argument ends in George slapping one of the boys and seemingly in retaliation the boys attack George with a golf club, again the only real violence shown on screen. As things progress Peter and Paul take the family into the living room and prepare them for the game they are about to play. Paul makes a bet with the family that they will not live to see the next morning. The family is eventually murdered one-by-one and by nine a.m. Peter and Paul take the family’s boat to another pier and knock on the door. They ask the neighbor who answers if they could borrow some eggs.

The unique twist of this film is Paul knowledge of the theatre’s audience. He “breaks the forth wall” multiple times either to goad the audience or to explain to Peter why different methods of murdering are more entertaining to the audience watching the film. If the son remains alive, argues Paul, then the drama will be more intense. The director of the film uses the usual tricks that horror films evoke and dismisses them just as easily. Case in point, the films sets up that a knife has been accidently left on board the boat, but when the murders take the last surviving family member out to the boat and a last chance effort at survival for the family member could be made, Paul and Peter simply take the knife and throw it overboard in an anticlimactic snub to the theatre audience wanting some sort of justice for the dead family members. As an audience member it is believed that evil will be triumphed over by the end of the film, or at least some sign of retribution will be present by the last frame and Funny Games does not deliver on this and as Peter and Paul point out by the end of the film, this is not usual. Haneke, the director, peppers this device in just the right amount. But, I did have one problem with Haneke’s methods. At one point in time Paul rewinds the film in an attempt to undo some action he deems unsatisfactory. I felt that that was a little too much in terms of meta-entertainment. But overall I loved the self-aware shtick. The soundtrack was delightfully stark causing scenes as innocuous as borrowing eggs to have an edge. And the performances by the actors were brilliant; I believe Pitt was born to play Paul. I don't really understand why Haneke felt like he had to recreate his 1997 thriller, but I enjoyed the effort.

8 out of 10: a delightful addition to a tired genre, dare I say, a new Psycho?

Vantage Point (Theatre) - Jennie

I’ll have to be honest here, I thought this concept could have been good. It was possible. I have seen T.V. shows pull this kind of plot device off with fantastic results. This device goes as follows; the viewer is treated to one scene after another as seen through the eyes of only one character. Other character’s stories are advancing around them; however, we are not privy to their motivations till we see their view point. It is often very difficult to keep the full details of the plot from slipping out while advancing through the earlier character’s stories and revealing just enough to keep the viewer enticed is a key element to this plot device’s success. Confusion is also very hard to escape as some early character’s actions seem very unmotivated and haphazard. However, redundancy is the largest of hazards that can fell this device. Vantage Point fails in all of these areas and more.

Instead of artfully hiding information as to not reveal too much, they simply don’t show the action. Case in point, when Thomas Barnes, played by Dennis Quaid, saw a traitor on a television screen, they held the shot on Barnes, and we got some pathetic eye acting from Quaid. Revealing this information would have destroyed the plot, so instead they simply shot Barnes’ reaction and faded to white, and proceeded to the next character’s story.

Also, Characters motivations were seemingly left up to the viewer to interpret, leading to confusion as to why Forrest Whitaker’s character, Howard Lewis, would run after a supposed assassin when he was simply a tourist with a video camera. I guess he just had to see what happened with the assassin. We were never given a reason for him to follow the action, however his character had to be in the final shot, so he ran for no reason.

Finally, Vantage Point had no qualms with being redundant. They showed the explosion eight or nine times. They replayed character’s interaction; I guess so the viewer didn’t forget what happened. They milked every ounce they could from every car crash that happened, replaying the scenes multiple times.

The failure of the device is the cornerstone to this waste of a movie, but it was not helped by the lackluster performances of some pretty solid actors. The script was stale, with dialog like, “I’ve got you now Mr. President.” And even if these “vantage points” succeeded it would still have been a stale plot about terrorists attempting to sabotage America. It even contained the down but not out cop (secret service agent) who came back to prove he wasn’t done yet, only to end up saving the day (Harrison Ford’s role was played by Dennis Quaid this time).

I must add that Jennie liked it, though. She enjoyed the car chase scenes and that is pretty much all she told me. I prodded for more after declaring, “What a stinkbug,” as we left the theatre, but she didn’t want to placate me with more discussion.

2.5 out of 10: A waste of time, money, and brain cells. Redundant, stale, and annoying.