Tangled

Every woman who has ever known me well enough to talk about such things has told me that Disney movies made her wish that she had blond hair, as so many Disney heroines did. I never really understood it at the time, especially since there are non-blond Disney heroines. Not only that, but I’d always thought jet-black hair was far more attractive than blond. The Fates smiled on me, and one day I met the beautiful, black-haired Asian woman who is now my wife. However, she is always talking about wanting to dye her hair other colors, especially (of all things) blond. Yuck. But I digress. More recently, I’ve begun to see why so many women feel the way they do about Disney and hair. Disney’s latest animated fairy tale makes the picture pretty clear, as it comes right out and declares the two points Disney has always been making.

First point: brown-haired girls are useless. Disney has always hinted at this. While the hair colors of their leading ladies are more diverse than some people acknowledge, there has only ever been one brown-haired Disney heroine (unless you count Megara, who is a pretty small part of the Hercules plot, not to mention terribly drawn). However, in Tangled they just come right out and say it. The villainess, Mother Gothel (Donna Murphey), discovers a magic flower that has the power to keep her young forever. Centuries later, the flower is uprooted and made into medicine to save an ailing, pregnant, brown-haired queen. The queen then gives birth to Rapunzel (Mandy Moore), who has long, flowing blond hair, that contains the flower’s power. Gothel kidnaps her and spirits her away to a secluded tower to keep herself young. We later learn that Rapunzel’s hair can never be cut, or it will turn *gasp!* brown and lose its power. Isn’t that a slap to the face of every brunette in the audience.

On the upside, Disney may have found their most likable heroine ever in Rapunzel. The princesses of Disney’s golden age (e.g. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty) were justifiably criticized for being overly passive, depending on a man for their happiness, and waiting to be rescued. On the other hand, Disney’s silver age reeks of overcompensation for this. In the early ‘90s Disney subjected us to a whole generation of Kimpossible-esque princesses spouting musical rhetoric about making their own choices and marrying only for love. It wasn’t terrible, but it was an obvious attempt to be politically correct in an age of commercials full of girls playing soccer and shouting about how girls kick butt. Then, as Disney descended back into mediocrity, they had their heroines attempting near-suicidal stunts and fighting more than Lara Croft. Esmerelda slapped and kicked her way through innumerable guards in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It was all pretty forced.

Lara Croft as a Disney Princess

Rapunzel transcends all of this. On the spectrum between pining prince-craver and emasculating bitch she really doesn’t show up anywhere. She’s a pretty simple character; all she wants is to get out of her tower for a day. She’s humble, yet full of life. Adventurous, yet real and relatable. She’s warm, human and caring. Far less sexualized than Esmerelda, Jasmine, or even Ariel, she’s still thoroughly female. She’s spontaneous, pretty and, yes, blond.

Not only that, but Rapunzel actually has a legitimate grievance in her life. Just when I thought I’d go insane if I had to listen to one more spoiled brat sing about her desire for “adventure in the great wide somewhere,” it was easy to sympathize with the plight of a girl who just wanted to see what was outside her bedroom.

Our male lead (Zachary Levi) is a bit more of a stock character; not too different from Aladdin or Phoebes, but he’s still a lot of fun to watch.

This horse is a better fencer than his rider.

Of course, you can’t have a good story without a villainess to antagonize the primal couple. Disney has been through a real dry spell of villainesses in the last couple decades; the last one I can name was Ursula in The Little Mermaid. I am happy to report that sinister femininity is back with a vengeance in Tangled. Which brings up the second point Disney is trying to make: Black-haired women are evil. The queen in Snow White, Malificent in Sleeping Beauty, The Queen of Hearts, Cruella Devil – they all had black hair (or black horns). Even Ursula had black hair once she transformed into a young woman for the last act. It’s also worth noting that, while Disney does have black-haired heroines, none of them are Caucasian, except Snow White.

True to form, our antagonist in Tangled has black hair. Not only that, but director Nathan Greno uses this hair extensively to emphasize her evilness. Time after time it frames her face for a menacing close-up, or flows into a black cloak that she’s wearing. In all fairness, though, Gothel is a pretty three-dimensional character, especially for a villain. It actually took me almost half the movie to be sure that she was the villain, and that’s rare. Early on, she’s mainly a doting, if over-protective, mother for Rapunzel. It just makes it that much more fun to watch her true colors come out later.

All in all, this is a genuinely terrific movie, and you owe it to yourself to check it out. Disney succeeds here where they’ve often failed – in making a movie just as enjoyable for adults as for children – and they did it with almost no violence or sensuality. Tangled deliciously skewers every Disney cliché, from emotive animals to ridiculously spontaneous musical numbers. The story is loaded with hilarity from start to finish, and it’s also a story full of true love, overcoming one’s fears, and often heart-wrenching self-sacrifice. It reminded me of why I once loved Disney. And while I no longer do, and never will again, it was really good to go back for an evening.

[Rating:4.5/5]

The Towering Inferno

The Towering Inferno isn’t exactly a complicated movie.  The premise here is pretty simple:  A gigantic building catches fire.  People are trapped, and the fire department has to come put it out.  Sure there are other storylines going on, and an ensemble of interesting characters to follow, but these periphery elements are really just there to advance the story about the fire and ratchet up the tension even more.  The Towering Inferno is a big-budget disaster flick in the grandest tradition of the genre, starring some of the biggest names in movie history, and for the most part it gets everything right.  From the start we are introduced to Paul Newman, an architect who has just finished putting up San Francisco’s newest skyscraper:  a 130-story tall behemoth that makes all other skyscrapers seem like LEGO projects.  There’s a big party right near the top floor where all the most important people in town have shown up for a gala event in order to commemorate the opening of the structure.  And on the bottom floor an electrical engineer is worried about the potential for fires due to low-quality wiring and other cost-cutting measures.

Gee, I wonder what will happen.

Sure enough a fire breaks out, and it’s up to our hero to save everyone.  Well, along with a little bit of help from the fire department and Chief O’Hallorhan, played by Steve McQueen.  Several decades ago, movie stars didn’t get any bigger than Paul Newman or Steve McQueen.  But just like Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino in their heydays, these two stars rarely shared screen time together.  So putting them in the same movie was virtually guaranteed to produce a hit, not to mention tossing other names in for good measure like Faye Dunaway and Fred Astaire.  It all adds up to a tension-filled action movie that starts off a little slow but once it gets going, never lets up clear through it two-and-a-half hour run time.

"And then I'll launch myself over the building on a motorcycle..."

Audiences today have grown accustomed to big-budget disaster flicks and massive destruction scenes like those in the spectacularly overblown epic 2012.  And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, as modern visual effects wizardry can put us right in the middle of the path of destruction like never before (not to mention the 3D technologies that are becoming increasingly common in movies).  But part of the appeal of The Towering Inferno is seeing the building catch fire, watching massive sets being destroyed right before our eyes, and knowing that the flames are real even if the walls and windows are fake.  If this movie were made today, we would be subjected to all sorts of zooms and pans through CGI fire while actors were safely prancing around in front of green screens.  Newman and McQueen even did many of their own stunts, including some rather dangerous ones near the end during the final last-ditch effort to quench the blaze.

Several bits of the plot are so contrived it’s practically groan-worthy, such as the introduction of a deaf character who doesn’t know the fire alarms are blazing, the mere existence of the cocky son-in-law of the building owner who instructed the construction workers to cut corners, and even (yes they actually went there) a kitty cat who needs rescuing.  But the real star of the show is the enormous blaze and the sheer futility of all the efforts of the firemen to stop it.  A couple different schemes are attempted in order to rescue the party guests, and some of them fail spectacularly and even a little unexpectedly.  Even though the end is never really in doubt, it’s a fun ride and a fantastic disaster movie that could easily hold its own against anything Hollywood has to offer today.

Rating:[Rating:4/5]

Waterworld

WaterworldLet’s get this out of the way right from the start: Waterworld is not a terrible movie.  Despite its infamous reputation, it’s not nearly as bad as legend would have us believe.  It is a deeply flawed film, but it’s no more or no less horrible than 80% of the other films in its easily-identifiable genre of post apocalyptic action movies.  That being said, any film that opens with the hero peeing into a cup, recycling it through a rusty Rube Goldberg coffee maker, and drinking it again is probably not destined for greatness.  But to understand this movie it’s helpful to step back in time a couple of decades…

The 1990’s were kind of a strange time.  Grunge rock was saturating the airwaves, people were trying to figure out new technologies like cell phones and the internet, and and school kids passed their time by trading cardboard circles on the playground. Along with these strange activities came a healthy dose of fear about the earth either burning up from mysterious holes in the ozone layer or collapsing under the weight of gabillions of tons of cans that schoolkids refused to recycle.  Even PBS got on the bandwagon with an almost-unfathomably cheesy cartoon about purple aliens who battle capitalists, or something like that.  But despite repeated efforts to help people understand the catastrophic consequences of refusing to reduce and reuse, the message just wasn’t getting through.  And as we recently learned from the Gulf Oil Spill, who better to turn to in dire situations than Kevin Costner?

Waterworld

Enola, Helen, and The Mariner, searching for any hint of logic in the screenplay.

Yup, that’s right.  Dances With Wolves himself was going to singlehandedly drive home the message that we all need to stop drinking out of juice boxes and once and for all by making a movie where the entire planet was covered with water because…(wait for it)…the ice caps have melted thanks to humanity’s environmental shortsightedness!  But what’s that, you say? The ice caps melting would only cause the oceans to rise a couple hundred feet?  Bah!  Facts matter not to Hollywood when a buck can be made, and so in 1996 Waterworld was unleashed in theaters across America.  It tells the tale of a nameless man known only as The Mariner (Kevin Costner) who…um…sails a boat a lot.  Sometimes he meets people, but since this fish-eat-fish world is pretty low on resources people aren’t all that friendly anymore.  And the least friendly of all are a scrappy group of metalheads known as Smokers who go around beating people up and shooting things because…well, we’re actually never given any sort of reason why the Smokers do this.  It was probably just to fill in a box on the casting sheet:  “Bad guys?  Check.”

Pretty soon the Mariner comes across an atoll where a couple dozen people are holed up and eking out a living by eating dirt and counting plastic bottle caps.  There’s also a girl named Enola who has a mysterious tattoo on her back that could very well lead to dry land, a crazy scientist, and a community leader who looks just like Al Borland whose sole purpose in the movie is to deliver painfully dull bits of exposition.  The inhabitants sentence the Mariner to die because he’s different from them (because what’s a postapocalyptic thriller without some modern social commentary thrown in for good measure?), but before you know it those darn Smokers show up and start blasting the atoll to bits and running into it with jet-skis.  At this point one might wonder why, in a world where even scraps of paper are regarded as priceless treasures, a group of individuals would be more interested in destroying a floating fortress rather than simply capturing it and taking its resources, thus giving them a strategic advantage and a home base for staging operations.  Because explosions are cool, that’s why!  And what about the fact that blowing the atoll to smithereens might very well kill the tattooed girl they are so interested in finding?  Because explosions are cool!  *sigh*

The late great Dennis Hopper, demonstrating why he was always the best choice for a movie villain.

The Mariner, Enola (“alone” spelled backwards…get it?), and her adoptive mother Helen (Jeanne Tripplehorn) spend the rest of the movie sailing around on the Mariner’s boat while having domestic disputes about Crayola crayons and taking swimming lessons.  The Smokers show up from time to time to cause headaches and complain about how that darn Mariner keeps getting away from them.  But we all know where this is going and how it’s going to end, and to be honest it doesn’t even matter that much.  And yet, after all this, I maintain that Waterworld is actually not that terrible.

Despite the hokey premise, the silly cast of characters, and the wandering plot, Waterworld is a pretty stunning action flick with ridiculously gigantic setpieces and one of the coolest villains in recent memory.  The sets are real, and when the enormous atoll is getting ripped to shreds the feeling of danger is pretty darn visceral.  The entire movie strives to belong to that elite pantheon of films who deserve the adjective epic, and even though it doesn’t work it gets some points for trying.  The ending climax aboard a derelict floating tanker is an amazing sight to behold, and Costner displays the type of old-school heroics we don’t often get in wimpy modern protagonists nowadays.  But even more than the go-big-or-go-home scale of the presentation, the real reason to see Waterworld is Dennis Hopper. As the leader of the Smokers, he basically is given free reign to be as mean and despicable as any PG-13 villain in movie history.  And boy, does he go for broke here.  He gleefully romps around tossing insults and sly quips like candy at a parade, offing his enemies with joyful aplomb, and is clearly two shades shy of all-out crazy.  Slinging lines like “You know, he’s like a turd that won’t flush” with what appears to be actual, genuine sincerity is something only Hopper could have pulled off, and his performance is so brazenly ostentatious it’s a sight to behold.

Waterworld is often remembered as one of the biggest bombs in movie history, but it actually turned a healthy profit in total worldwide numbers.  This environmentalist fable-turned-action epic does not reach greatness, but not for lack of trying.  It is no Mad Max, Children of Men, or 12 Monkeys, but it’s no Battlefield Earth either.  It’s definitely worth a look, as long as you know what you’re getting yourself into.

Rating:[Rating:2.5/5]

Flyboys

World War I rocked. It’s not like the population of Europe was actually decimated, or the world thrown into political upheaval that it’s never fully recovered from. Millions of men didn’t really claw through the rest of their lives, battling the scars left by poison gas and shell shock. No, the real story of WWI is one of teenage heartthrobs strutting around in designer-made period costumes, and flying brightly decorated airplanes through dazzling explosions that don’t hurt main characters. Or at least that’s the impression you get from Flyboys.

Actually, if you were to watch films made during WWI, you might think the same thing. WWI fighter pilots were made celebrities and national heroes. In reality, the airplane contributed precious little to the outcome of the war, which was won on the ground. But there’s nothing entertaining about watching a man starve and freeze in a mud-hole until he’s blown to bits by a shell fired by unseen enemies. So let’s crank the propellers and fire up Flyboys!

For all my cynicism, this is a genuinely entertaining movie. The story of Americans who volunteered for the French military, it has every cliché in the book. James Franco stars as Cocky Young Guy who joins up because he thinks it would be fun to fly airplanes. Martin Henderson plays Grizzled Veteran. “Let me guess: you’re here because you thought it’d be fun to fly airplanes.” They have all the standard dialogue.

Veteran: You realize if you die here, your family name dies with you.

Yes, Franco's plane is mostly canvass, and yes, he flew through that blaze, and yes, he's fine.

Young Guy: Psh. I don’t plan on dyin’.

Veteran: None of the guys in the squadron cemetery did either.

Young Guy: Psh.

The two then fly deadly missions together. In between them, Young Guy woos Indigenous Girl (Jennifer Decker) while he should be training. She starts counting the planes every time his squadron flies out and flies back. Eventually, he has to save her from some German foot soldiers. To do this, he steals a plane from the squadron hanger. He is therefore sent up for military discipline, until his French commanding officer (ever notice how there’s never a French guy in a movie that’s not played by Jean Reno?) conveniently looses the paper work and slips him a medal.

Meanwhile, Veteran, an aviation progeny with over 20 kills, is driven to fly extra missions to hunt down the Germans that killed all of his friends. He is haunted by the specter of his last remaining adversary, Smirking Face with no Dialogue (Gunnar Winberg). In their eventual confrontation, the Face kills him, so who goes toe-to-toe with the Face at the climax? I’ll give you three guesses and the first two don’t count.

The cast of war movie cut-outs is rounded out by Philip Winchester as War Hero’s Son Who Can’t Fill the Shoes (from Lincoln Nebraska, I might add), Abdul Salis as Angry Black Guy, Tyler Labine as Racist Guy, and Michael Jibson as Religious Guy. Together they fly through all the standard scenarios, involving daring dogfights, civilians in need of rescue, and eeeeevil Germans. The fuselage of this movie is riddled with clichés from nose to tail, but it’s one of those movies that show you why the clichés exist – because they work! It’s easy to thrill to the dogfights and lose yourself in this one until you forget your troubles. Yes, you’ll predict everything that happens in the movie, but you’ll still care about the characters (even if you forget their names). I could say that this film is an insult to the millions who suffered and sacrificed during the Great War, but that would be a cliché in itself. Rent it tonight, make some pop corn, and see what you’ve been missing out on.

 

 

[Rating:3/5]

Battle: Los Angeles

When will Hollywood filmmakers learn how to design an engaging extra-terrestrial?  I sat through the entirety of Battle: Los Angeles wondering why the movie was even made if the creatures the film is to be about seemed as though they were cobbled together on the last day of post-production.  Even good science-fiction films feature hokey creatures, such as Signs and War of the Worlds, but with practically limitless technology these days, why resort to such lacking creativity?  And why start out a film critique bashing alien designs?  Because the sheer laziness and lack of imagination brought to the table when considering the science-fiction elements on display here ruined Battle: Los Angeles.

I’m sad to report that Jonathan Liebsman’s stab at the alien invasion epic is an otherwise interesting (although one-note) piece of filmmaking.  Blending Black Hawk Down and War of the Worlds, Liebsman drops us into Ground Zero with a group of confused marines sent into the battleground of Los Angeles following a barely announced invasion circling the globe.  I call it Call of Duty: Worlds at War.  Aaron Eckhart, featuring a full face once again, leads his platoon of one-note soldiers into a combat zone that would have Michael Bay and Sylvester Stallone drowning in envy.  There’s a handful of characters here, but the film has precious little time for back story.  Minutes into this thing the audience is dodging shrapnel and ducking under the smoke clouds.  This is a combat film, through and through, filmed via handheld and edited to make your head spin.

So what’s the mission?  Honestly, there isn’t much of one.  The marines are choppered to the L.A. police station to rescue a group of civilians trapped inside.  From there on out, it’s moving from point A to point B avoiding deadly fire from the outer-space hostiles.  Never mind why the aliens are invading with violence.  We hear a few news clips claiming they are harvesting our planet for water.  Also never mind that their biological composition makes little to no sense.  Part machine, part creature of some sort, they look cheap and biologically improbable to function.  In a head-scratching scene, Eckhart’s character and a veterinarian dissect one of their captured enemies to figure out how to kill it.  To their surprise, the alien has a heart in its chest.  “Aim for the heart!” he cries.  It seemed to me the marines were blowing them in half from the get-go, but maybe that’s just me.  Don’t ask me about the aliens’ spacecrafts either.  From what I can tell, the filmmakers haven’t any more of a clue than I do.  The ships seem like C.G.I. whirlwinds of car parts that can disassemble into smaller aerial drone planes.  There’s no sensible design or calculations to these vehicles.  I’m guessing the artists behind them saw Transformers one too many times and decided to dumb down the concept there.

Battle: Los Angeles clearly left storytelling and imagination out of the greenlighting contract as well.  Cliches abound in the premise and reign supreme throughout.  We have a gruff leader in Eckhart, whose character battles his haunting past amidst the haunting present.  He’s retiring early on in the film after losing his entire unit of men during his last mission.  For his final day on the job, he is supposed to play second-in-command to another officer for a training simulation.  Turns out aliens invade and he’ll have to take on the greatest threat of his career.  Weird.  The plan to thwart the aliens involves taking out their system core that holds their entire power source.  Also original.  Even the minimal dialogue appears to be peeled away from other films.  At least the pyrotechnics are sound, and to be honest, that’s what the film is all about—getting in-your-face visceral.

For a quick action-fix, Battle: Los Angeles will in no way compare to a classic like Aliens (a far-superior clashing of alien creatures and marines—made 25 years ago…), but it will likely tide over young men who have no problem putting down their X-Box controllers to witness some more first-person shooter mayhem.  Complaints regarding the film playing like a kaboom-heavy videogame aren’t far from the truth.  Battle: Los Angeles isn’t striving for good sci-fi.  It’s striving for gritty target practice.  I actually dug the concept of a military action-thriller as the forefront of an alien invasion film.  Unfortunately, while all the technical aspects and extended action sequences of Battle: LA prevail, the aliens and plot do not.  I can shoot second-rate animated robot slugs at home.  For those needing a break from that sort of time-wasting, Jonathan Liebsman’s bone-crunching, ear-drum pounding, brain-thumping epic will do.  And you don’t even need a controller, unless you wait for it on DVD of course.
[Rating:2/5]

Mars Attacks!

Mars Attacks!Tim Burton practically defines the word eccentric. His movies run the gamut from goofy (Ed Wood) to contemplative (Big Fish) to freaky (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) to downright odd and well-nigh unclassifiable (Edward Scissorhands). Mars Attacks falls more in the latter category, even though it is first and foremost a pretty spot-on good-old-fashioned parody. The subject of Burton’s lens in this film is 1950’s sci-fi, with its themes of paranoia, alien invasions, American superiority, and national wonder at what awaits us in the great unknown of outer space. Mars Attacks! begins with several vignettes introducing a wide swath of caricatures characters ranging from the President of the United States to a self-absorbed TV fashion reporter to a washed-up prizefighter waiting tables in Vegas. But before you can say “baby needs a new pair of space boots,” giant flying saucers from Mars have landed on the planet with aliens who have seemingly come in peace. As you might expect, though, things are not what they seem and pretty soon the aliens are blasting everyone in sight with their ray guns that turn people into red and green skeletons. No explanation is given, nor is one really needed, and for the next hour and a half it’s basically humans vs. aliens in an all-out global battle for survival.

Every character is an overwrought cartoon, which is part of the fun, and anyone who tries to take this movie seriously is missing the point.  The idea of a martian invasion is just a canvas for Burton to weave some seriously weird yet downright heartwarming tales of idealism, heroism, and big-headed aliens with ray guns that turn people into green skeletons.  Mars Attacks! has all the subtlety of a cinder block, and flaunts it proudly:  Martians land on earth in giant flying saucers and start shooting ray guns at everyone.  The military wants to nuke ’em.  The academic elite wants to study them. The hippies want to make peace with them. And the reporters want to interview them.  Characters are as dispensable as their accents, and the special effects would be laughably cheesy if that wasn’t how they were supposed to be.

Professor Donald Kessler

Pierce Brosnan playing (what else?) a brilliant British scientist.

Perhaps it’s a coincidence that this movie was released in 1996, the same year as another alien invasion movie you might have heard of called Independence Day.  But where Emmerich’s bombastic blockbuster was about two sizes too big for its britches, and took itself a little too seriously, Mars Attacks! gets everything just about right. Even the aliens, with gigantic heads and a language that consists solely of barking out the words “Ack! Ack!” are a pitch-perfect sendup of the oh so realistic extra terrestrial creatures in Independence Day, Close Encounters, E.T., and so many other science fiction films.  Of course the best reason to see Mars Attacks! is Jack Nicholson as the President (as well as a seedy Las Vegas businessman) and easily one of the funniest roles of his career.  Hamming it up at every turn, chewing the scenery like it was freeze-dried ice cream, and flashing his signature condescending grin every chance he gets, it’s a role only he could have pulled off with such overwrought tongue-in-cheek delivery.  It’s a sight to behold.

Mars Attacks! is blisteringly funny and bitingly sarcastic, but it does have its share of flaws too.  The lack of any coherent storyline is a bit of a drag, and it is somewhat frustrating that we never really find out why the martians have attacked in the first place.  But any movie in which Sarah Jessica Parker’s head is glued to a chihuahua is OK by me.

Rating:[Rating:4/5]

Unknown

You would think it a general rule of thumb not to steal from Liam Neeson, whether it be his daughter or his identity—he will find you and he will kill you.  Europe ain’t getting the message, because Neeson is hunting down its baddies again.

He plays Dr. Martin Harris en route to a biotechnology conference with his wife Liz (January Jones).  After arriving in Berlin, he and his wife take a taxi to their hotel and an important briefcase is left behind.  Martin realizes he’s forgotten it upon arriving at the hotel and decides to grab another cab and head back to retrieve it without so much as a word to his wife.  Bad choice, Doc.  A major car wreck sends Harris’ cab flying into a river and leaving him with a serious head injury.  He wakes up four days later in a hospital without anyone looking for him.  He hurriedly returns to the hotel to reunite with his wife, but there’s a problem: she doesn’t recognize him.  No one knows him.  In fact, there is another man with his wife who claims to be ‘Dr. Martin Harris.’  Is the Doc crazy?  Only the woman who drove his cab (Diane Kruger) and saved his life may be able to help him as he races against his own sanity (and a horde of assassins) to prove his identity.

Here is the short review for those who want a summation before I delve into spoilers: Unknown is a good movie that turns sour—a smart concept and an engaging thriller that takes a turn for Stupidville and never recovers.  Neeson is a commanding lead regurgitating his role from Taken, and the action sequences and mystery thrills deliver most of the time, but none of it helps the dopey turns of the plot.  Readers planning to see this film SHOULD NOT READ ANY FURTHER.

Here’s a film that demands its twists and conclusion to be discussed and examined—not because they’re good, but because they are not good.  If Taken didn’t contain enough similarities to The Bourne Identity, then Unknown makes sure both films are represented in full.  Liam Neeson’s character spends a lot of time chasing loose ends.  After his accident, he has no formal identification, photos, or a cell phone that proves he is himself.  A screenwriter can only conjure up a handful of scenarios to explain the situation.  And in hindering the plot, the screenwriters become desperate to reveal an orchestrated assassination attempt at the middle of everything.  You see, Neeson is an assassin with a severe case of amnesia and when undergoing his head trauma, he wakes from his coma having taken on the identity of his cover ‘Dr. Martin Harris.’  He actually believes he is this fictional person.  The trauma also transforms his personality.  He has now become a warm-blooded humanitarian as opposed to the cold-blooded killer he once was.  His agency sent in a replacement assassin to take over for him, and instead of swiftly killing ‘Harris,’ they try to poison him, capture him, and even go so far as to explain to him his obscure condition.  If that isn’t enough, Neeson’s character returns to the scene at the film’s climax to admit he is an assassin who planted a bomb that could take out an important political figure and he decides to lay waste to his former team members.  Oh, and then he escapes the disaster and takes on a new identity.  I was hoping they would show his face on every news program in the country.  Alas, not to be.

Further developments make the film’s conclusion even more laughable, but I’ll stop here.  Unknown is worth a redbox rental and might as well be a follow-up to Taken, even if it’s not as good.  The big reveal simply makes the plot too large of a grab-bag of holes that can not be explained away in any logical sense.  But, hey, I could watch Neeson, the latest unlikely action star (in his mid-50s!), in this type of role 100 times over before I tired of it.  Take that as you will.

[Rating:2.5/5]

Green Hornet

I’m sure you’re all wondering if The Green Hornet is any good. It depends on what you’re looking for. A far cry from the original version, this one is more like a mismatch buddy comedy than an actual super hero movie. The first scene (aside from the prologue) sets the meta tone for the movie. Two villains meet in the back room of a night club and attempt to intimidate each other. What do they talk about? How many men they each have? Guns? No! They critique each other’s image and marketing. “You need a better name!” “Well you need a better suit!” By now we all know what kind of movie this is going to be.

Much like the villains, our heroes decide to be such almost by accident. The new Britt Reid (Seth Rogen) is the irresponsible son of a millionaire newspaper owner (Tom Wilkinson), who spends all his time partying. After his father’s death, Britt hates being overshadowed by his legend. He meets Kato (Jay Chou), who used to work for Britt’s father and also didn’t like him. After a few beers one night, they go out to vandalize Britt’s father’s tomb. Since this is a movie, they just happen to run across a couple being mugged by several men. Through his impulsive heroism Britt manages to piss the bad guys off, before Kato puts them all in the hospital (Britt lands one punch). They then go home and get really hammered. Britt says to Kato “We’re wasting our talents! We could be heroes.” The rest of the dialogue boils down to “sure, why not? We just need a cool name! And better suits!” Thus begins the battle of image between heroes and villains who strive to be cooler than each other. I won’t mince words; The Green Hornet is definitely stupid. It’s saving grace is that it knows it’s stupid, and remembers to make fun of itself, rather than insult its audience.

There are a lot of funny moments here that I won’t spoil, and some great action sequences (Refer to Mythbusters for the question of whether any of them could happen).

Seth Rogen with the real Green Hornet.

On the other hand, Rogen’s Britt Reid is hardly hero material, being propped up by Kato throughout the movie. What’s more, the relationship between them seems pretty forced, changing from standoffish strangers, to friends who call each other “brother,” to hating and punching each other over (what else?) a chick, to reconciliation in time for the big showdown, in a little under two hours. It would have been more effective had Rogen (who also wrote the script) reduced the number of transitions.

I guess it boils down to personal preference. When I go to a superhero movie, I expect to be blown away, not to laugh at movie that laughs at itself. I want a real hero, not a wise-cracking bumbler who gets lucky a lot and has his sidekick do all the work. If you want a movie you can have fun with and not take seriously, check this one out. Don’t bother with the 3-D.

[Rating:2.5/5]