Movie Review Flight of the Phoenix

Flight of the Phoenix (2004) 

Directed by John Moore 

Written by Scott Frank, Edward Burns 

Starring Dennis Quaid, Giovanni Ribisi, Tyrese, Miranda Otto, Hugh Laurie 

Release Date December 17th, 2004 

I must admit that I was rather intrigued by the ad campaign for Flight of The Phoenix. First Fox boldly bumped the film up into the competitive holiday market and then they launched a saturation ad campaign that made the film seem like a major release. Finally it promised a twist ending, something that really caught my attention because of the seemingly perfunctory plot, just what possible twist could they give something so seemingly conventional. My curiosity was not rewarded.

Fly boy Frank Townes (Dennis Quaid) has a reputation that flies with him wherever he goes. With his Co-Pilot A.J (Tyrese Gibson), Frank is known as ‘Shut’em down Townes’. When he shows up at an oil rig work site in the middle of the Gobi Desert in Mongolia the leader of the crew, Kelly played by Miranda Otto, knows he is there to deliver pink slips and shut’em down.

 

Kelly’s United Nations crew, black guy, Mexican guy, Irish guy, are your typical modern day disaster movie crew (If you were on a plane with this group you would know something bad was gonna happen). They bicker and drink and fight and fiercely defend one another to the officious British executive (Hugh Laurie) who just happened to be visiting when Frank arrived.

All of these people and their far more valuable equipment are herded onto Frank’s cargo plane when one last straggler arrives. Elliott (Giovanni Ribisi) is a weirdo who just showed up one day in the middle of the desert and is now being evacuated with the crew. What do you bet that this nerdy, blonde dyed, little man will have an important role to play later on.

Frank is desperate to dump his cargo and the valuable equipment, so desperate that he tries to fly over a sandstorm and ends up crashing his plane. Two of the nameless crewmembers die and like that extra crew member that beams down to the alien planet with Kirk, Spock and Bones the remaining oil riggers line up for their dead guy red jerseys.

Trapped in the desert with maybe a months worth of food and water the crew must figure a way to survive and nerdy Elliott has an idea. Take what is left of the old plane and use it to build a new one. Because the plot requires it, Frank is against the idea until a pair of inspiring speeches, one by Kelly and one by a placeholder character, the guy who just wants to get home to his wife and kid. Since he is showing off his picture of his wife and kids you might spend a large portion of the film waiting for him to be killed as cliché demands, I will leave the mystery.

If your name is not Dennis Quaid or Giovanni Ribisi and your not playing the love interest or best friend your chances of surviving either the elements or the stock terrorists who show up to try and ratchet up the suspense are slim. 

After 2001’s “Behind Enemy Lines” Director John Moore looks like the perfect Director for Flight Of The Phoenix. Both films are simply scripts transferred to film with as little else getting in the way as possible. Moore is a technician, a conduit through which a marketing campaign is launched. His rare moments of inspiration beyond the script, like the awful film score and Giovanni Ribisi’s alien performance, are the films biggest disasters.

For his part Dennis Quaid is… Dennis Quaid. He is a pro even when saddled with a script that casts him in both an action movie and something that resembles a fifties screwball romance. Quaid and Miranda Otto will of course fall in love because the first scene they share they argue and they pretend to hate each other. It does not take a rocket scientist to see where this is going.

Movie Review: 27 Dresses

27 Dresses (2008) 

Directed by Anne Fletcher

Written by Aline Brosh McKenna 

Starring Katherine Heigl, James Marsden, Malin Akerman, Edward Burns, Judy Greer 

Release Date January 18th, 2008

Published January 17th, 2008

I'm not supposed to like 27 Dresses. It is what has come to be called a 'chick flick'. A derogatory term for a movie made for women only. This limiting mentality has at once a strong shorthand but also speaks to the emotional immaturity of men across this country. Anything a little too feminine and men get uncomfortable. Weddings, babies, women in general, make men uncomfortable and it isn't manly to be uncomfortable.

I have never really understood this mentality even as I am able to diagnose it. I've never had a problem being in touch with my emotions or expressing how I feel to others. Maybe that is why I can so easily enjoy movies like Legally Blonde, Just Like Heaven, My Best Friend's Wedding or Something New, some of my all time favorite movies written off by men as 'chick flicks'.

27 Dresses is indeed another movie written off as a chick flick. It's all, in touch with it's emotions, thoughtful, sweet, smart and sexy. All things that make most men uncomfortable, no babies though.

Jane (Katherine Heigl) has been nursing a mad crush on her boss George (Ed Burns) since she began working for his clothing company two years ago. Now, with a little liquid courageshe is ready to confess her feelings when her little sister Tess (Malin Akerman) walks right up to George and the two fall madly in love. Naturally, Kate is called upon to plan their eventual wedding. You see, Kate is something of an expert. She has presided as bridesmaid and unofficial wedding coordinator at 27 different weddings. In fact, as we meet her, she is attending two weddings in one night, an event witnessed by Kevin (James Marsden), the wedding reporter for the New York Journal.

Smelling a story in this unusual woman, Kevin pursues her and in the process falls for her. Kate is not so quick to even like Kevin let alone fall for him. Where she happens to love weddings, he is cynical and cites how often the ritual fails to translate to lifetime love. Of course, if you think the movie has anything other than true love on it's mind for Kate and Kevin, you clearly don't watch many movies.

To call 27 Dresses predictable is like saying the sun is predictable. This is a romantic comedy folks, not  Scenes From A Marriage. 27 Dresses is about oddball romantic roadblocks between two characters destined to live happily ever after. And, while I have in the past dinged other similar films for their overfamiliar clichés and simpleminded routines, I maintain that those films weren't as interesting in their predictability as 27 Dresses.

27 Dresses offer characters that are easy to accept and enjoy, Director Anne Fletcher may not be skilled at avoiding the typical, but she knows how to cast actresses and actors we want watch in a story that doesn't put one to sleep.

The main reason 27 Dresses is better than other similar films is star Katherine Heigl. This lovely talented young actress has had one exceptional year coming off of the success of Knocked Up last summer and her Emmy win for TV's Grey's Anatomy. She gets 2008 off to a good start with a performance of wondrous romantic angst and good hearted cheer. Her Jane is not some pathetic, pining woman-child but a serious minded woman with good reasons why she has fallen for who she's fallen for, even if she lacks the spine to declare her feelings

Jane is the rare selfless character in a sea of selfish, overbearing characters not just in 27 Dresses but in most modern movies. Just a quick blush of the movies I've seen this weekend from the bank robbers of Mad Money to the monster bait of Cloverfield, we are adrift in selfish, self involved characters whose only concern is for themselves and their well being.

Jane may be a little spineless but it comes from a place of honesty and caring. Though Marsden's Kevin thinks she gets walked on by her friends, the filmmakers portrayal makes it seem more likely that she just loves weddings and wants to give these women the dream that she holds for herself some day. That is nobility if you ask me and a rare characteristic of the modern movie character.

Late in the film, when Jane finally does something truly selfish it is not celebrated as her finally standing up for herself but rather as an out of character, meanspirited moment that she must and does make up for. Again, how rare, a character punished for being selfish. On this message alone I could celebrate 27 Dresses. That it is also charming, sweet and funny is icing on the giant three layer wedding cake.

Movie Review: Ash Wednesday

Ash Wednesday (2002) 

Directed by Edward Burns

Written by Edward Burns 

Starring Edward Burns, Elijah Wood, Rosario Dawson, Oliver Platt 

Release Date October 11th, 2002 

Published December 16th, 2002 

One of the holiest of Catholic holidays, Ash Wednesday is celebrated as the beginning of Lent. The ashes anointed on the head of the believer is a reminder that we are born of dust and will one day return to dust. Essentially, it's a reminder of death. The perfect metaphor for Edward Burns’ new feature Ash Wednesday. A film that is a meditation on life and death and the choices people make that lead to death. Though the filmmaking is somewhat misguided, its heart is in the right place.

Ash Wednesday, written, directed by and starring Burns is Francis, a former Irish mob thug turned reformed citizen after the supposed death of his brother Sean (Elijah Wood). It was 1980 in a part of New York known as Hell's Kitchen. Sean Sullivan was tending bar when he overheard a group of men talking over the murder of Sean's brother. Sensing the men meant business, Sean does the only thing he can think of to save his brother and murders the group. 

Conspiring with his brother, their priest Father Mahoney (James Handy), and their father’s mob partner Whitey (Malachy McCourt), Sean is smuggled out of the state and his death is faked to satisfy the families of the men he killed. Unfortunately, Sean leaves behind a wife played by Rosario Dawson, and an unborn son he does not know of. Three years pass and Francis has been spending time with Sean's wife until Sean pops up unannounced to claim her and take her away with him. Sean is unaware of his brother's actions. The rumors of Sean's return from the grave spread quickly and the family of the men Sean killed lead by Oliver Platt (in what amounts to a cameo, though he's on the poster) immediately come looking for Francis and a fight.

Once the indie wunderkind who went from intern on Entertainment Tonight to writer-director with his first feature The Brothers McMullan, Ed Burns has been on a steady decline since his charming debut. His most recent film was the highly uneven Woody Allen homage Sidewalks Of New York. Before that the unnoticed No Looking Back. The quality of Burns' work has slipped with each outing and Ash Wednesday continues the decline.

Though the film has its moments of purity and intelligence, Burns' performance, along with that of his woefully miscast co-star Elijah Wood, undoes any interesting elements the film has. Burns is excessively laid back for the character he is portraying, a killer with a conscience. To convince anyone he was a conflicted killer Burns would have to show us he has a pulse, show us that he actually cares. However, even during the few scenes of gunplay Burns maintains a disaffected air that is off-putting to the audience and undermining of the character.

As for Wood, his wistful looks make him about the least believable killer since Julia Roberts shot that guy in The Mexican. I honestly expected him to drop the gun and start crying. I'm not commenting on Wood's masculinity, I'm speaking solely of his performance which is dewy eyed, whiny, and deeply unconvincing for what the character is called upon to do. 

There are good things about Ash Wednesday, specifically the performance of Rosario Dawson who in a very limited role manages to earn audience sympathies while saddled with subpar dialogue. Also good is the film’s score, a piano driven dirge that reinforces the gloom that rises from the crime ridden streets.

The truly disappointing part of Ash Wednesday is it's ending, which is meant to be emotional and cathartic, but is instead insultingly obvious.

Movie Review Confidence

Confidence (2003) 

Directed by James Foley 

Written by Doug Jung 

Starring Edward Burns, Rachel Weisz, Andy Garcia, Paul Giamatti, Donal Logue, Dustin Hoffman 

Release Date April 25th, 2003

Published April 25th, 2003 

It's all been done.

That is the problem with modern Hollywood filmmaking, the perception that there is nothing new that can be done. That every story is a familiar concoction of similar films. It's a product of Hollywood's adherence to genre and demographic marketing that certain elements are put into films where they don't belong in order to appeal to mass audiences. Take for example the con man movie Confidence starring Edward Burns, a familiar story of cons and con men that doesn't simply lack originality but feels so familiar that it becomes predictable.

Burns stars as Jake Vig, if that ain't the name of a movie con man, I've never heard one. Jake and his crew including Gordo (Paul Giamatti) and Miles (Brian Van Holt), specialize in petty scams involving thousands of dollars and moving quickly from place to place. However, the crew's latest con has found them sticking around longer than they are used to, and playing with larger sums of money than before. Not only is the con bigger than usual so is the man being conned, though they don't realize it at first.

In possession of 100 grand after scamming some small time bag man, Jake and his crew find that the money is that of a sadistic mobster known as the King (Dustin Hoffman). Rather than being upset with Jake, the King is impressed with his skills. Nevertheless, he wants his money back. So Jake hatches a new con, a fleece on one of the King's rivals that will not only get the King's money back but net everyone around five million bucks.

Jake and his crew can't pull this con off alone so Jake recruits a skillful pickpocket named Lily (Rachel Weisz). Lilly’s part is to seduce a low level VP in a stock scandal that includes Swiss banks, the Cayman islands and various other familiar con movie locales. The mark is a mob lawyer and money launderer played by Robert Forster, and the dupe VP is well played by “Drew Carey” vet John Carroll Lynch.

The film is told in flashback in a noir tribute to the thirties con man movies. It begins with Burns on the ground and in voiceover explaining he is dead. The device is effective and set's the film in motion but the noir feel doesn't hold up long. After the opening moments the film takes on a more modern look and feel and abandons noir all together.

Edward Burns in recent interviews has stated that he was far more committed to acting in Confidence. He broke his old pattern of working on one film while writing another, which helped him to be more focused than he has been previously. The change is noticeable, this is the most lively Burns has been in any role since She's The One. Unfortunately, on his best day as an actor he's still reminds of Ben Affleck minus the charisma.

Director James Foley skillfully directs this con game and it's Mametesque script, which is no surprise. Foley was the man who successfully wrestled Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross to the screen. Confidence isn't as brilliant as that film but the script has it's moments especially those handled by Hoffman who once again shows what a true pro he is.

I neglected to mention that Andy Garcia turns up as an FBI agent on the trail of the con men. Watching Garcia makes you wish he and Burns could have switched roles. Shave the shaggy beard, blacken the hair and throw on a nice suit and Garcia could do the role with his eyes shut. Nothing against Ed Burns, he gets better as an actor each time out, but Confidence demands a pro and Garcia could have been that pro.

Movie Review Life or Something Like It

Life or Something Like It (2002) 

Directed by Stephen Herek, 

Written by Dana Stevens

Starring Angelina Jolie, Edward Burns, Stockard Channing, Tony Shalhoub 

Release Date April 29th, 2002 

Published April 29th, 2002  

It seems there is a new Angelina Jolie story every week. Whether it's making out with her brother, entering into an ill-advised marriage or feuding with her celebrity father Jon Voight, Angelina Jolie can't do anything without making the papers. One is left to wonder, when will Jolie's movies become as notable as her personal life? Her latest work, Life or Something Like It, is another step in the wrong direction, a film only notable for the fact that it is worse than her last film.

Life finds Angelina Jolie under a poorly fitting blonde wig as Lanie Kerrigan, a TV features reporter at a Seattle TV station. Like any conventional movie character Lanie has it all, looks, money and a wealthy baseball star boyfriend. Indeed life is perfect, until her boss reteams her with her ex-boyfriend, a cameraman named Pete (Edward Burns). Lanie and Pete had some sort of previous relationship though the film is unclear about what exactly happened, we do know they don't like each other, which in movie parlance means they will end up together. (That, by the way, is not a spoiler. If you didn't know they were ending up together please purchase my book Romantic Comedies for Dummies).

Lanie and Pete argue and fight until they do a story about a street performer who some believe can tell the future. Tony Shalhoub plays Prophet Jack who tells Lanie she has only a week to live. Lanie does the only thing any rational person could do in that situation, she believes him. If a crazy homeless guy told you that you were going to die of course you would believe him, right?. From there the film devolves into your typical romantic comedy cliches without providing one original moment.

I can't say I was disappointed in Life Or Something Like It, going in I knew what I was seeing. I had hoped that an actress of Angelina Jolie's talent could provide a more interesting performance even in such a conventional romantic comedy. She doesn't. And what of Edward Burns, wasn't this guy supposed to be something special? Since his debut in the surprisingly good Brothers McMullan, Burns had been hailed as the next Woody Allen. He has yet to show the talent that was expected of him.

Director Stephen Herek, who's RockStar has become a guilty pleasure movie for me, returns to his genre safe work that helped ruin Eddie Murphy's career (Holy Man). Herek has the same lame crowd-pleasing instincts that mark the worst Hollywood hacks. Nothing challenging, nothing different, everything safely market tested for proper effectiveness. Honestly this kind of filmmaking turns my stomach.

Say what you will but I am tired of this cookie cutter Hollywood swill like Life Or Something Like It. I realize that not every film can be a genre buster but shouldn't every movie aspire to something other than just box office?