Critical Film Condition

To make a long and totally constructed story short: Margaret Tate (Sandra Bullock) is a very ambitious and pushy editor at a New York publishing house. She manages to make her staff’s life a living hell, especially her smart assistant Andrew Paxton’s (Ryan Reynolds). When her Visa application is denied, she has to present an American fiancée in order avoid deportation to Canada and save her job. Not really easy for a single and grumpy professional with no life outside the office. This is where an obedient assistant comes in handy. With the immigrations office hot on her tracks, Margaret blackmails Andrew into marrying her in exchange for a promotion.

When they travel to Alaska to meet Andrews’s family, Margaret is welcomed with open arms despite the horror stories Andrew has been sharing about his boss. In secret, everyone is suspicious however, especially Grandma Annie (Betty White), who delivers one of the best opening lines ever: “Would you like to be referred to as Margaret or Satan’s Mistress as usual?”

Margaret and her Louboutin heels are a clear disconnect in Alaska. All the fresh air and nature, the hunky Alaskan shop owners/strippers, Andrews six-pack and the experience of an actual family life are getting to her. When Grandma Annie insists that Margaret and Andrew get married that weekend all hilarity ensues.

The plot is usually a negligible factor in RomComs and “The Proposal” is no exception. In fact it is a somewhat laughable excuse. But Director Anne Fletcher (“27 Dresses”, “Step Up”) and writer Pete Chiarelli manage to turn this into a very likeable comedy with a tag-team of two fantastic lead actors. Both Bullock and Reynolds are great at physical comedy, which makes even the weak chemistry forgivable. And they both look very yummy naked (Deathpool, hello!), although Sandra Bullock is a little too skinny for my taste.

Another great asset is “Golden Girl” Betty White as Grandma Annie, part hell-raiser, part Shaman, part babymaker-blanket provider. The cast is completed by Mary Steenburgen (Grace Paxton) and Craig T. Nelson (Joe Paxton).

Check out this clip from the folks at funnyordie.com:

Perfect summer date movie.

Popularity: 6%

The Bourne Trilogy is really one of the easier franchises to review since the three movies (especially Supremacy and Ultimatum) are really one big block. There’s a leap in time, style and, more importantly, director from Identity to Supremacy, but that’s about it.

Now, I have to be very careful not to spoil plot points in this review, which is really hard considering that there’s a LOT happening all the time, but then again, I wouldn’t be much of a critic if I didn’t succeed at it, so here goes:

The story in the Bourne series begins in the Mediterranean Sea, when a fishing boat finds the body of a man in the water. The man (Matt Damon) is still alive, but has no memory of who he is or why he has two bullet-holes in his back. His only clue is a chip on his waist (like, under the skin on his waist) with a bank account number in Zurich… And all the skills he has, like expertise in fighting and everything that involves killing for that matter. He teams up with a German woman, Marie, who tries to help him remember all this stuff, while all of a sudden people show up trying to kill them.

This about sums it up for Identity, and this is about as much plot-related information I can give on all three movies. Bourne warns Conklin (Chris Cooper) in the end of Identity that if whoever he works for continues to hunt him down, he will bring the war to them. Supremacy starts two years after the first movie, and involves Bourne again being hunted down and staying true to his word: he calls Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) at one of the CIA divisions in New York and hauntingly tells her: “Get some rest, Pam, you look tired”, when all of a sudden it is revealed that he is watching her from the next building. But the brilliant thing is that Ultimatum starts six weeks before Bourne arriving in New York, namely one minute after the scene that preceded said telephone conversation, in Russia, still in Supremacy.

While “The Bourne Identity” is by far the weakest of all three movies, it still is an entertaining movie, essential for the viewing of parts 2 and 3. Doug Lyman (“The Bourne Identity”, “Go”, “Mr. and Mrs. Smith”), while not as successful as Paul Greengrass (Supremacy and Ultimatum, “United 93”) in this trilogy, does manage to set a style that remains consistent, if not evolved, throughout the whole series. Identity is fast-paced, but it lacks in story development, something that happens often in action movies. While the situation does develop with Bourne hitting and missing with every attempt at finding out who he is, we certainly don’t get that feeling of closure. Character development is all but progressive, with love interests sparking out of thin air and information being handed out to the viewer in five-minute intervals. It might seem like I’m bashing the screenwriter here, but this is not the case. The screenplay is well put together, but after watching Supremacy and Ultimatum, you get my point. It is worth mentioning that Identity also has the lesser interesting story, mainly because it sets the field for the other two movies. It’s like Identity is a necessary evil for Supremacy and Ultimatum to be as good as they are. And while Doug Lyman set everything up, Paul Greengrass took control of a machine that was already in good motion and just inserted good oil and high-octane gas.

The acting in Identity also lacks compared to the other two. Matt Damon doesn’t feel like he is yet comfortable in the role of Jason Bourne, and Franka Potente was the right casting choice for Marie, but somehow doesn’t deliver. Chris Cooper succeeds yet again at being the bad guy who never looks like a bad guy, who sits in his CIA office ordering people to kill Bourne and progressively falling apart with every failure. Brian Cox and Julia Stiles have small roles, almost cameos, and while Cox never fails to please, even with such a small role, Stiles doesn’t even get a chance to speak.

“The Bourne Identity” is a fun, fast-paced action movie that just didn’t go the extra mile. It doesn’t smell good, but it doesn’t stink either. A good analogy would be the bronze-medalist at a competition: he did beat everybody else, but standing next to silver and gold, nobody really cares for him.

Enter “The Bourne Supremacy”, which could be considered the first chapter after the prologue that was Identity. Bourne is almost happy in India, still with no memory, but not being chased anymore. When he is threatened again, it triggers a motivation never seen in Identity, to find his wrongdoers and to find out who he is. Bourne realizes that as long as he doesn’t know who he is or who is chasing him, they will never stop trying. He is also framed for murdering two CIA operatives in Berlin by the same people who tried to kill him in India, making him both cat and mouse on his quest, and where Identity was unlucky because of the lack of information it could give to the audience, Supremacy takes bold moves in revealing just enough to stay interesting and set all the pieces for Ultimatum. While Supremacy is not much of an evolution in comparison to Identity, it is much better put together. The story is still a little convoluted, but that is because each piece The Bourne Trilogy is hard to fit into 120 pages of screenplay. There are so many characters that have to get their due development, and you need action scenes to keep the audience with you as well. In that sense, Supremacy is much better than Identity.

Damon now looks sure of himself in Jason Bourne’s shoes, Brian Cox gets more screen time and Joan Allen is a welcome addition to the cast. Karl Urban, who is not amongst my favorite actors, makes for a very cool, intelligent villain. I don’t want to drag much about the acting here, but the fact that it is so much better than in Identity is one of the main reasons why Supremacy is so much better.

And while the leaps are minor in acting and storytelling, technically they’re HUGE. Director of Photography Oliver Wood is one of the few crew members who worked on all three movies, but it seems that by working with a more competent director (sorry, Doug Lyman), his work shines from the second part on. The change in camera operator (Cameraman, if you will) from Adam Kowalski to Klemens Becker brings some freshness to the franchise, and Becker’s work is nothing short of amazing. Like with the movies, I am eager to just get to talking about Ultimatum, and there is not much more to say about “The Bourne Supremacy”.

“The Bourne Ultimatum” starts right after Supremacy. Sure, there’s the scene where he already is in New York, but Ultimatum starts six weeks prior to that, explaining how he got there. This development is so brilliantly put together that it ruins my chance at writing a good review because in revealing any information I would be spoiling the amazing plot the screenwriter put together.  What can be said about “The Bourne Ultimatum” is that it is, with lack of a better explanation, the best action movie to be released in recent memory, if not one of the best ever. It is already an amazing feat to have a movie that runs over two hours with few seconds to breathe from one action sequence to another, but the amazing thing is that they manage to do this while consistently developing the story further until climaxing in an amazing finale. Think about it: it takes a lot of people and time to make a movie, so a director’s job is not an easy one, and it takes a shitload of managerial skills to keep everything in check and some luck to get the planned result. Paul Greengrass is an amazing director, I’ll give him that, but he also got lucky, because it seems that EVERYTHING in “The Bourne Ultimatum” went according to plan. Most shots are from steadicams, with shaking and eveything you could wish for action and still, no shot is out of focus, no focus-pull goes wrong… And this happens more than you can imagine. Renny and I say, at often times, that Blu-Ray is no forgiving medium, mainly because every mistake becomes more evident due to high-definition. Then how come, with such complicated shots at every five seconds, that there are no notable mistakes by the camera operator in this movie. I shit you not, Renny at one shot went: “OH, THANK YOU, CAMERAMAN!!!!”. And do I even need to say much about the editing? The flow in this movie is just perfect… It could be too fast, it isn’t, but it isn’t slow… It is FAR from slow. No scene is longer than three seconds, which could make for a tiring experience… Naturally, it is not the case. Every line helps the plot in moving on, and every action scene is right where it should be. Every character gets his or her due screen time, not being over- or underused in any sense. It’s like the crew of “The Bourne Supremacy” got the job for “The Bourne Ultimatum” and said in a creative meeting: let’s just kick some ass. And this is exactly what they did. I mean, Supremacy is already an amazing technical achievement, but Ultimatum manages to take everything that made it a good movie and evolve it into something rarely seen in cinema, and then filling in all the gaps of things it lacked.

I’m dragging on… Back to the topic, Guddy, shut up.

The same cast members are back, with the addition of Scott Glenn, David Strathairn, and Paddy Considine… Again, each with their due time on screen and never deviating from the plot that started in Supremacy. Joan Allen and Julia Stiles play bigger parts (oh, crap, I can’t talk about it without spoiling the plot), not because they’re expensive actresses, but mainly because their characters bring forth the whole development in Ultimatum.

Even talking about Ultimatum is exhausting.

But, to recap everything, The Bourne Trilogy is one of the best franchises to greet the silver screen in a long time. Identity smartly sets the field for its better sequels, while Supremacy builds up the main character’s motivation and Ultimatum blows us away and kicks all naysayers that say that a good action movie can’t have good story development in the gut. It’s a rare case where every chapter in a franchise surpasses its predecessor in every aspect and it’s worth watching all at once mainly because with the plots of parts one and two fresh in memory, the already amazing part three becomes a much more entertaining and satisfying experience. If you’re not an action fan, watch it anyway… It’s just that good.

Popularity: 2%

Many directors have a background in a lower position before they get to be “el capitano”. Robert Zemeckis worked for Spielberg before directing “Back to the Future”, Michael Bay worked at ILM before directing “Bad Boys”, etc. Len Wiseman worked for a long time in Special FX in effect oriented flicks like “Independence Day”, “Godzilla” and “Stargate” (no love connection to Roland Emmerich, though). I don’t know how, but Wiseman one day woke up, had an idea for a movie about Vampires vs. Werewolves and he just did that.

“Underworld” doesn’t have a gigantic budget… But for a director with no experience who wanted to shoot his own script, Wiseman got a big break and he proved, to some extent, that he had what it took to front such a big project (or else they wouldn’t have made the sequel).

The story goes that a clan of vampires and a clan of Lycans (werewolves) have been waging war for centuries. Selene, a smokin’ hot Death Dealer (hunter of Lycans) gets involved with a man with whom the Lycans are obsessed (and happens to have been bitten by one). To reveal more would spoil the plot, since “Underworld” has many plot twists (some good, some obvious, some plain stupid). Since “Underworld: Evolution” is a direct sequel of the original, I won’t tell the story here.

So, first the pros: Both movies have an amazing visual style, and while it copies the “Matrix” movies, it copies them well (if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it). The mix between neo-punk leather and some middle-age vintage clothing results in a sexy and coherent style. Also, the whole back-story about the feud between both clans brings some originality to the genre, simply forgetting about the likes of Dracula and other cliches, and giving each individual character some depth. Kudos for Wiseman for that.

However, the biggest problem in this movie lies within Wiseman himself. I think, with all honesty, that he has a great future as a director, since I loved “Live Free or Die Hard”. But Wiseman himself failed to notice that he lacked the experience in the director’s seat to direct a complex movie like “Underworld”. Many key moments display a lack of additional directing or a harder initiative by the man… Scenes that should’ve been shot more times, or scenes that should’ve been cut happen a little too often, and those are signs of immature and/or lazy directing. I’m not condemning Wiseman as a director, but even George Lucas didn’t helm all the original “Star Wars” since he knew that it was too much to handle.

The fact that the sequel is shorter, better acted out and put together, even though it has a less interesting plot is an obvious sign of the director’s improvement. However, the sequel lacks the originality of the first, and while it is obvious that when you continue a story there’s less room for originality, there should be some kind of “evolution” (no pun intended), right? But it seems like the story continues in a linear fashion, only paving the way for more action sequences. This is an action movie, people, so don’t fool yourself into thinking that you’ll be in for a scare.

My final grudge here is with the effects, even though it is an unfair grudge. While the original sells itself as an action blockbuster of sorts, the lack of digital effects and excessive animatronics make this look a little…. cheap. And in my short experience with visual effects, I know that there are moments where you choose between animatronics and digital for artistic purposes, not financial. The digital werewolf transformations are pretty cool, but once these things start attacking and digital is traded for big puppets, it looks like you’re watching another “Chucky” movie. The quick cuts and short camera angles try to hide this, but these things look as lifeless as can be. “Underworld” had a budget of U$20 million, so this really is an unfair grudge. However, the sequel cost U$50 million and the problem remains. The big werewolf looks awesome in the digital shots, jumping fifty feet in the air, moving quickly from side to side… But when the puppet shows up, it looks like a retarded version of the Frankenstein monster… with hair! I just expected a little more, especially from a movie directed by a man with such extensive effects experience.

Final verdict. Watch both movies. They’re fun and have their moments where you see that brilliance could have been achieved. However, the acting, directing, plot and effects are all just on average. Don’t expect it to change your life.

[starreviewmulti id=1 tpl=21 average_size='20']

[starreviewmulti id=1 tpl=21 average_size='20']

Popularity: 3%