Movie Review: Cirque Du Freak The Vampire's Assistant

Cirque Du Freak The Vampire's Assistant (2009) 

Directed by Paul Weitz

Written by Paul Weitz, Brian Helgeland 

Starring John C. Reilly Chris Massoglia, Josh Hutcherson, Ken Watanabe, Ray Stevenson

Release Date October 23rd, 2009 

Published October 22nd, 2009

Vampires are hot in Hollywood thanks to Twilight. That massive hit film will spawn a sequel later this year. directed by Chris Weitz, of American Pie fame. Twilight also likely played a part in the film adaptation of another lit based Vampire tale. Ironically this too has been directed by someone named Weitz. Paul Weitz brings Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant to the big screen ahead of his brother Chris's New Moon. It's fair to assume Chris will have a great deal more success than Paul has had with this abysmal mishmash of kid flick and vamp flick.

Chris Massoglia takes the lead in Cirque Du Freak as Darren. A spider obsessed power nerd, Darren is modestly popular at school but not exactly king of the school. His status is dragged down a bit by his hot headed best friend Steve (Josh Hutcherson) whose own obsession with vampires will soon land them both in hot water.

One afternoon as the boys are lamenting a lack of things to do in their small town they find a very intriguing flyer. It's an ad for something called Cirque Du Freak and it promises something well beyond either boy's previous experience. Taking in the show they witness a woman who can grow back her limbs, a man with two stomachs and finally a vampire magician named Crepsley (John C. Reilly).

When the Cirque is broken up early by an invading mob of angry townspeople Darren ends up stealing Crepsley's prized and dangerous spider. Steve meanwhile tries to become a vampire and is turned away by Crepsley. Soon, because of the spider and a deal with Crepsley it is Darren who ends up a vampire. Steve meanwhile turns to Crepsley's enemy for help.

There is a great deal more minutias in this plot but I just didn't care enough to detail it. Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant is an all out mess of plot strands, extranneous characters and a complete waste of time. The nature of the film is as the start of a franchise so going in you know their will be no resolution. What is surprising is how little you care whether the story resolves anything at all.

Paul Weitz is a talented writer and director with a strong wit and daring sensibility. His Amercan Idol parody American Dreamz was also a disaster but one you have to respect for taking big, daring risks. That film walked a tightrope and fell off but was brave in its failures.

There is nothing remotely brave or even daring about Cirque Du Freak. Piggybacking off the success of other vampire franchises and a successful book series, The Vampire's Assistant is just lame kiddie fare dressed up in halloween makeup and dumped onto the screen with a minimum of coherence.

It simply doesn't work. Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant knocks off a few boring vampire cliches, keeps the blood and death to a very bare minimum and fails in every way to find something interesting or vaguely entertaining to do with it's sprawling premise and characters.

Movie Review Green Zone

Green Zone (2010)

Directed by Paul Greengrass

Written by Brian Helgeland

Starring Matt Damon, Greg Kinnear, Brendan Gleeson, Amy Ryan

Release Date March 12th, 2010

Published March 11th, 2010 

It’s tempting to say ‘too little, too late’ about the politics of the new thriller “Green Zone.” I was just getting started working in talk radio in 2002 and 2003 when the march to war in Iraq began and I was wondering at the time when Hollywood or anyone other than me, and a coterie of liberal groups, were going to start asking serious questions about why we were going to war in a country that had not attacked us and did not have any weapons of mass destruction.

Joe Wilson told us that the intelligence was faulty while others told the true tale of the Bush Administration wanting a war against Saddam and a chance to finish the job left undone by the first gulf war, and Bush's father George H.W. Bush. This information was readily available at the time but Hollywood, like so many others, allowed themselves to be cowed by administration goons screaming about a lack of patriotism in those who opposed war.

In the years since the decision was made Hollywood has become slightly less timid. Sure, there was always Michael Moore but he’s not Hollywood, he’s never been cowed by anyone but the occasional untruth. No, the filmmakers timidly attempted telling human stories, soldier stories but avoided really taking on the central issues of the war in Iraq and the war on terror.

It wasn’t until last year when the boldest critique of Bush administration policy arrived in James Cameron’s “Avatar.” Yes, though some loathe admitting it, not wanting to spoil the brain free fun of the film’s fantastic visuals, the most successful film of all time is an anti-war tract scoring points against preemptive war, occupying armies and how the war on terror has been fought.

I have issues with the heavy handed points that the ultra-liberal James Cameron makes in “Avatar” but mostly I was irritated that it came so late to the game. We needed a movie like “Avatar” 6 years ago when the topic was bold, fresh and there was an impact to be made. That same feeling clouds my appreciation of Matt Damon’s new thriller “Green Zone,” arguably the boldest direct criticism of the war in Iraq Hollywood has yet delivered.

Matt Damon stars as Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, leader of a squad searching for WMD in the days immediately following the invasion of Iraq. Roy is growing frustrated quickly. Each site his team raids comes up empty and looks to have been empty for a very long time. When Miller questions the ‘intel’ that keeps sending him to empty sites he is told not to ask questions, just follow orders.

Miller’s questions however catch the ear of a CIA Agent, Martin Brown (Brenden Gleeson), who encourages Miller to keep asking questions and if he turns up something useful, call him. Miller soon does turn up something interesting and it is something that some very powerful people will do anything to keep quiet. Greg Kinnear plays a shady White House official who opposes Miller and Brown.

“Green Zone” boldly tackles the Bush Administration’s main justification for war in Iraq, the need to secure Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. We know now, really we knew then, that Saddam had no weapons and hadn’t had weapons since the first gulf war. The futile search for weapons they knew weren’t there cost far too many innocent lives, though “Green Zone” doesn’t pause too long to ponder that, the point is made in brief.

The film goes further in other avenues of the war however, wading into the strategy of the administration’s post war policy. In disbanding the Iraqi army the Bush Administration missed an important opportunity to shorten the war by keeping the guys with the guns employed on our side as opposed to unemployed, armed and desperate. Keeping some of the Baathists in power would have been controversial but it also would have saved lives.

Now, I am making “Green Zone” out to be heavier than it is. Trust me; this is an action thriller at its heart. Directed by Paul Greengrass, the director of two of the Jason Bourne blockbusters, “Green Zone” starts fast and is relentless in its pulse pounding action and suspense. The political points are scored on the edges while the action and suspense dominate the foreground.

“Green Zone” features bold politics and bad ass action and yet, like “Avatar,” it comes far too late to the party. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to have my opinions reiterated with the force of pop culture behind them but I was making these points about the war at the time. I know Hollywood can’t make movies quickly but seven years late is a little much.

For those not invested in an anti-war stance as I was and am, “Green Zone” still offers the pleasure of being a seriously butt kicking action flick with realism, violence and chest tightening, pulse pounding suspense. I may still be lamenting the war in Iraq but “Green Zone” moves so quickly that lament will be the last thing most will feel while watching.

Movie Review: The Taking of Pelham 123

The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) 

Directed by Tony Scott 

Written by Brian Helgeland 

Starring Denzel Washington, John Travolta, John Turturro, Luis Guzman, James Gandolfini 

Release Date June 12th, 2009 

Published June 11th, 2009 

Robert Shaw was three years away from his iconic performance in Jaws. Walter Matthau was a star but certainly no action hero when, in 1974, the two actors teamed for The Taking of Pelham 123. Based on the bestseller by Robert Godey, the story placed this unique acting duo in an unexpected action context and allowed them to create indelible characters. The film has developed something of a cult following amongst hardcore movie nerds.

Now comes a true action remake of the underrated 74 picture. With bigger stars and a much bigger budget, The Taking of Pelham 123 comes into modern times with bells and whistles beyond anything imagined for the original but with it's premise and highly distinct voice intact.

The Taking of Pelham 123 is essentially two guys having a very important conversation. The first guy is Walter played by Denzel Washington. Graying and rumpled, Walter has worked for the New York City Transit Department for years. He was the boss of the Subway system until he was charged with taking a bribe. Now, Walter finds himself back behind a microphone as a train dispatcher. It is in this capacity that Walter meets Ryder played by John Travolta. Ryder is a terrorist who takes a subway car full of New Yorkers hostage and demand 10 million dollars in one hour or he will begin executing people.

The conversation between Walter and Ryder takes place within this intense hour as Ryder demands that Walter first listen to him and then explain himself as they wait for the city, lead by the Mayor (James Gandolfini), to come up with the cash. With topics ranging from religion to Walter's corruption charges, these two very different men connect in ways they never imagined.

The idea of two guys talking probably doesn't set your pulse racing as an action movie fan. However, you've never seen Denzel Washington talk to John Travolta as they are filmed by the hyper-kinetic director Tony Scott. Somehow, through carefully choreographed camera whips and pans and an exceptional supporting cast, lead by Gandolfini and John Turturro, working at the edges, the conversation becomes an intense action of its own and The Taking of Pelham 123 flies on the words of Denzel and Travolta.

If the final act that takes Washington into the tunnels with Travolta fails to match the intensity of their conversation, it is still the only way to wrap up the twist that is the essential ending of The Taking of Pelham 123. It's not a letdown, per se, it's just that things devolve to a rather typical chase scene and it's not as exciting as the dynamic was when they were separated by a microphone. It's how the movie has to end and we just have to accept that. 

Putting reservations aside, The Taking of Pelham 123 radiates with energy, wit and directorial flourish. The talking is fun, the action is fun and, in the end, even the dopey chase scene finish cannot take away from the excitement of the first two acts of The Taking of Pelham 123.

Movie Review Man on Fire

Man on Fire (2004) 

Directed by Tony Scott 

Written by Brian Helgeland 

Starring Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, Christopher Walken, Radha Mitchell, Marc Anthony, Mickey Rourke 

Release Date April 23rd, 2004 

Published April 23rd, 2004

Denzel Washington has become such a consistently brilliant actor that we have begun to take him for granted. Seeing Denzel's name on the poster, you know that he will deliver a great performance regardless of whether the film is any good. Case in point, his latest film, Man On Fire, in which Denzel is terrific but the film is an utter mess. Full of child-in-danger cliches and muddled visuals, it comes from Tony Scott, a once great director who has become a parody of his own best work.

In Man On Fire, Denzel is John Creasy, a former special forces soldier who regrets the number of people he has killed over the years. Living in a perpetual alcoholic haze, Creasy finds himself in Mexico City visiting an ex-army buddy named Rayburn (Christopher Walken). Rayburn has successfully given up the guilt of being a killer and is now a happily married family man. Rayburn feels he can help Creasy by getting him a job and finds him work as a bodyguard.

As the films jangled, sunburnt, out of focus prologue explains, there is a kidnapping every 90 seconds in Mexico City and one of the most requested services is that of a bodyguard. With Rayburn's help, Creasy gets a gig guarding Pita (Dakota Fanning), the daughter of an auto manufacturer, Samuel Ramos (Marc Anthony). Though he can barely afford to pay Creasy, Samuel hires him at the insistence of his wife Lisa (Radha Mitchell).

At first, Creasy does all he can to keep emotional distance from Pita but eventually her sweetness and smarts win him over. The scenes of Creasy and Pita bonding over swimming, homework and music are given great weight because of these two amazing actors but do little to mask the tragedy that is so obviously on the horizon. The film’s ads and trailer betray the tragedy of the film even before you enter the theater. You already know that Creasy is going on a killing spree, this is a revenge film so you can infer why revenge is necessary.

The revenge scenes are as brutal as anything in last week’s dark revenge fantasy The Punisher and much like that film, the scenes of brutality overstay their welcome. Director Tony Scott achieves a languorous pace that dwells on each bit of vengeance and regardless of how justified it may seem, it begins to wear on anyone with a conscience. The real betrayal however, comes at the end of the film which entirely betrays all that came before in one twist that makes you feel dirty for having been so involved in the film’s drama.

As always, Denzel is fantastic. I can't say enough good things about Denzel, he is consistently better in each and every role. It's unlikely that any other actor could have made this role tolerable. Because Denzel is so skilled and so trustworthy, we follow this character further than we would a lesser actor. It is truly sad how Director Tony Scott betrays Denzel's performance with cheap cliche and overheated visuals that border on the absurd.

I also can't say enough nice things about young Dakota Fanning who is so much better than the roles she plays. This preternaturally smart pre-teen is going to be one terrific actress once she learns to choose better material. Like her roles in I Am Sam and last year’s Uptown Girls, Fanning is far better than the characters written for her.

The rest of the supporting cast are merely cardboard cutouts, placeholders for plot points. Especially underutilized is Christopher Walken, who gets one good Walken-esque speech, the “masterpiece of death” speech seen in the commercial. Other than that, Walken is on the sidelines for most of the film.

Director Tony Scott has sadly lapsed into a parody of his better films. The man who directed True Romance, Crimson Tide and Spy Game has fallen in love with his camera and overuses it at every opportunity. Just because you can create unusual visuals doesn't make it necessary to use them. Scott can't help washing out colors, superimposing dialogue, out of focus shots and tricks with sound and editing. Maybe he felt the visual histrionics were necessary because the script is such an awful cliche.

Nothing is more cheap and manipulative than placing a child in a dangerous situation. Man On Fire is predicated entirely on a child being placed in the midst of gunfire and being the target of unnecessary violence. A screenwriter who can't achieve real drama falls back on this type of cheap ploy, this film is built around it.

The most ludicrous part of Man On Fire is not its cheap manipulative plot or awful twist ending, it's a little coda that appears prior to the final credits. On a black background, there is a message from the filmmakers thanking the wonderful people of Mexico City for providing such a great place to make a movie. The film portrays the city as a cesspool of corruption, a place where police officers conspire with criminals to snatch children, a place where a kidnapping happens every ninety seconds. Therefore, the thank you at the end is a rather backhanded slap as opposed to a real thank you. I doubt Mexico City is going to brag about having hosted the filmmakers behind Man On Fire.

Movie Review: Blood Work

Blood Work (2002) 

Directed by Clint Eastwood 

Written by Brian Helgeland

Starring Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Jeff Daniels, Dylan Walsh, Anjelica Huston 

Release Date August 9th, 2002 

Published August 8th, 2002

As one of our greatest living actors, Clint Eastwood can be forgiven for many things. We can concede him the indulgence of playing a codger in a space comedy like Space Cowboys. We can forgive him, and even take a little pleasure watching him, in the trashy thriller Absolute Power. However, our good faith can only go so far, and when Eastwood releases a retread cop thriller like Blood Work, even Dirty Harry can't be forgiven this indulgence.

Blood Work stars Eastwood as a famous FBI criminal profiler--a job that is not nearly as glamorous or exciting as Hollywood would have you believe--Terry McCaleb. As we join the story, McCaleb joins a pair of cops, played by Paul Rodriguez and Dylan Walsh, as they walk through a crime that has a message specifically for McCaleb. Scrawled in blood on the wall is a code and the message "Catch me McCaleb." As McCaleb is exiting the crime scene, through a throng of reporters, a piece of evidence tips him off to a man in the crowd who may be the killer. McCaleb chases the suspect until he is felled by a heart attack, but not before popping a bullet in the suspect.

Two years later, McCaleb is the beneficiary of a heart transplant. The operation saved his life but ended his career. Now living on a boat in a marina, he passes the time fixing the boat and talking to his neighbor Buddy (Jeff Daniels). Out of the blue, a beautiful woman named Graciella (Wanda De Jesus) shows up on McCaleb's boat claiming to be the sister of the woman whose heart was given to McCaleb. She tells McCaleb that her sister was murdered and implores McCaleb to use his cop connections to find out what is happening with the investigation into her sister's murder.

From there you know what is going to happen. McCaleb is drawn into investigating the crime, which will inevitably connect to other crimes; innocent people will look suspicious; and the one least likely will turn out to be the killer. If you can't figure out this movie's secrets in the first 20 minutes, turn in your moviegoer's card and never come back to the theaters. 

If you don't feel like seeing Blood Work, rent The Bone Collector with Denzel Washington; the same lame thriller minutia populates both films. Blood Work is slightly more believable, but both are police procedurals. Normally, these films appear as straight-to-video trash starring people like Jeff Fahey and Patrick Bergin.

The most disappointing thing about Blood Work is that Eastwood also directed it. How can such a skilled director as Eastwood not see the obvious cliches in the script from Joel Schumacher wannabe Brian Helgeland? 

Eastwood knows the proper camera moves and his direction is studied and logical but the story Blood Work is too predictable to be either suspenseful or entertaining. After seeing this film, one is left to wonder if Eastwood's best work is behind him, a sad thought but one you can't help entertaining. I hope that is not true. Only time will tell. 

Movie Review Robin Hood (2010)

Robin Hood (2010) 

Directed by Sir Ridley Scott 

Written by Brian Helgeland 

Starring Russell Crowe, Danny Huston, Scott Grimes, Cate Blanchett, Oscar Isaac, Mark Addy 

Release Date May 14th, 2010 

Published May 13th, 2010 

Russell Crowe is a superstar and despite his personality defects, prickly interviews and phone throwing incidents, Crowe's films have always showcased his natural charisma. As was said of classic male movie stars of the past 'Men want to be him, Women want to be with him.' That has been the essence of Russell Crowe.

Lately however, Crowe has chafed against this persona and his ache to pursue a different reputation led to a terrific performance as a roguish and paunchy reporter in “State of Play” and now a buffed up action hero “Robin Hood.” While the movie “Robin Hood” rewrites the English legend, Crowe rewrites his own history essaying Robin as a stoic, charmless action hero that could as easily been played by Vin Diesel.

As King Richard (Danny Huston) wages war in France following a trip to Palestine and Israel in the Crusades, Robin Longstride is one of the King's Archers for hire. No longer entirely loyal to the crown following a horrific massacre of Muslims, Robin Longstride is soon to leave and return to England.

Joining Robin are his long time friends and fellow Archers Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes) and Alan A'Dayle (Alan Doyle) and his onetime antagonist turned loyal friend Little John (Kevin Durand, in a rare good guy role). The way back to England leads to the discovery of a French ambush on English Knights. King Richard is dead and his crown is to be returned to England along with an ancient sword that belongs to Sir Robert Locksley (Douglas Hodge).

Robin and his merry men will return to England dressed as knights, return the crown and reap a reward, or so they had hoped. Winding up in Nottingham to return the sword, Robin meets Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett), Locksley's wife and Sir William Locksley (Max Von Sydow) who engages Longstride in a deal, Robin will take on the role of his son in order to maintain the lands after his death; he will also become husband to Lady Marion.

Meanwhile, as the craven Prince John becomes King John, the French plot an invasion to take advantage of the Royal chaos. Stoking the fires is King John's best friend Godfrey (Mark Strong) who has joined with the French and is leading the invasion. Needless to say, Robin, his merry men, and the people of Nottingham get caught in the midst of all of this intrigue and many a sword is swung and arrow flown.

Directed by the brilliant Sir Ridley Scott, “Robin Hood” treads very similar ground to his Oscar winning epic “Gladiator” and his massive flop, the crusades epic “Kingdom of Heaven.” Scott has a great deal of love for the ancient world, warrior codes and the brotherhood of war. He evokes the age exceptionally well with detailed landscapes and costumes, well used CGI and some terrific cinematography.

Where “Kingdom of Heaven” failed is in the same way “Robin Hood” comes up short; both films swamp the viewer with the ugliness and depravity of the ancient world and leave little for people to enjoy beyond the carnage. Characters suffer because Scott's attention to period detail apparently means depicting men with courage minus charisma and charm.

While Cate Blanchett is allowed to look radiant even while covered in mud, Russell Crowe plays Robin subdued, withdrawn and modestly tortured. His bravery is evident in battle and you can see why his men are loyal to him but he comes up short in the aspects of personality that make him a compelling movie character.

Mirthless, constipated and withdrawn, the Crowe that was so captivating in “Gladiator” and so charming in “State of Play'' is caked in mud and blood and is basically part of the scenery in “Robin Hood'' until the battle scenes awaken his warrior side. The battle stuff is very good, almost the equal of “Gladiator,” but “Robin Hood '' is over 2 hours and 20 minutes long and the battle scenes are merely a third of that run time.

“Robin Hood '' has moments that are as amusing as any classic action epic but the quiet moments are so quiet that lethargy sets in and the audience begins to withdraw nearly as much as Mr. Crowe does. The battle returns the Russell Crowe we’ve come to enjoy then he recedes and we wonder where is the star, where is the spirited rebel. Is Russell Crowe so desperate to create a new persona that he can no longer find joy in his work

If he can’t enjoy it, how can we enjoy it?

Movie Review: The Order

The Order (2003) 

Directed by Brian Helgeland 

Written by Brian Helgeland 

Starring Heath Ledger, Shannyn Sossomon, Mark Addy, Benno Furman, Peter Weller

Release Date September 5th, 2003 

Published September 4th, 2003 

It's not Heath Ledger's fault

It's not his fault that even before he finished what was to be his breakout role as a lead actor in A Knight's Tale, that Hollywood's marketing machine was on full blast anointing him the heir apparent to Mel Gibson. It wasn't Ledger's fault that seemingly out of nowhere Hollywood had decided that audiences loved Heath Ledger. He hadn't had a top-line-starring role yet and already he was on every magazine cover and his name was being mentioned in company with box office heavyweights like Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise.

A Knight's Tale went on to gross over $100 million dollars but no actor could live up to that hype and his next film, the stolid but beautiful looking Four Feathers, bombed miserably. Even before that failure Ledger had another film albatross around his neck called The Order, a film made as a favor to Director Brian Helgeland soon after completing A Knight's Tale.

In The Order, Ledger plays Father Alex Bernier, a New York priest for a strange and largely ignored Catholic sect. Father Alex's mentor back in the holy city of Rome has been killed and the Catholic hierarchy wants Father Alex to investigate the circumstances. The death is seemingly a suicide but on closer inspection, Alex begins to suspect murder.

With the help of a fellow priest played by Mark Addy, and an oddball romantic interest played by Shannyn Sossamon, Father Bernier slowly uncovers a conspiracy within the church that could result in a new pope. The conspiracy involves a supernatural being known as the Sin Eater (Benno Furmann), a deity who can send anyone to heaven with a clean slate of sin. Through ritual, the Sin Eater takes in the evil committed by men of power allowing them a free pass into heaven. It is the Sin Eater who killed Alex's mentor and Alex wants revenge. What the Sin Eater wants is Alex.

Here is the odd thing about the Sin Eater, though he is the bad guy, the things he does actually don't seem that bad. He seems to serve a purpose that some might call admirable. He absolves the sins of people who are near death and are uncertain about their chances to get into heaven. Whether he can get them there or not is unimportant, it just seems that the comfort he provides to the dying is something to be admired.

Peter Weller shows up in The Order in a vaguely sinister role as the possible new pope, a badly underwritten role that makes little sense. But then, not much of The Order makes sense. As written by Director Brian Helgeland, it's a story that has an interesting religious hook but doesn't know what to do with it. It doesn't help that the dialogue is stiflingly dull with both Ledger and Sossoman delivering their lines in sullen monotones that sound as if they were rehearsing their lines rather than actually performing them. 

Disdain for the church is fair, in my eyes, considering the recent scandals and painting the church as harboring the ultimate evils is a clever allegory to use in a movie plot. Unfortunately The Order isn't interested in symbolism. The Order is a straight genre suspense flick with supernatural overtones and has no other aspiration. It's a shame because religious-themed mysteries are an undeserved dramatic context. With all the vagaries of religious text, the mystery and suspense that can be found in religion is endless.

This film however is only interested in it's minor twists and jolts, none of which rise to the genre of horror which some have ascribed it to. There are neither enough blood nor scares for The Order to be called a horror film. As I stated at the front, I don't think that the path of Heath Ledger's career is his fault. There is a streak of independence in Heath Ledger that seems to chafe at the attention he receives for his looks. It's the same look that Johnny Depp had early in his career as he fought off matinee idol pigeonholing. Whether Ledger has the same nose for smart material as Depp has developed, is something he has yet have to prove.