Movie Review: Vantage Point

Vantage Point (2008) 

Directed by Pete Travis 

Written by Barry L. Levy 

Starring Dennis Quaid, Sigourney Weaver, Forest Whitaker, Edgar Ramirez, William Hurt

Release Date February 22nd, 2008

Published February 21st, 2008 

Dennis Quaid is one of those fatherly actors who's craggy visage and heroes stare makes you root for him unconsciously. Like Harrison Ford, Quaid's often been called Ford light by this writer, Quaid looks old enough to be a more handsome version of your dad. In that 'my dad could beat up your dad' contest of childrens egos, Dennis Quaid is who you wish were on your side. Thus Quaid is perfect for the kind of earnest, trustworthy, tough guy, good guy roles that he played in The Day After Tomorrow and that he plays in the new actioner Vantage Point.

As secret service agent Thomas Barnes, Quaid embodies the flawed hero of the American character. Noble, loyal, self sacrificing but not above fear or failing. My rhetoric is lofty but I promise, justified. Even in a movie as terrifically bad as Vantage Point Quaid is worthy of such grandiose musings.

Directed by English television veteran Pete Travis, Vantage Point plays out the same terrorist attack on an American President (William Hurt) from 8 different perspectives. First it's the media where Sigourney Weaver, as a producer for the Global News Network, has several cameras and endless angles to cover all the while dealing with a diva reporter (Zoe Saldana) with an agenda beyond just covering a speech by the President on terrorism. The speech, taking place at an ancient villa square in Spain, is soon rocked by the shooting of the President and then several explosions, all caught on camera, all with different pieces of the puzzle.

Next we rewind to get the 'Vantage Point' of secret service agent Thomas Barnes. Returning to active duty, at the behest of his partner Kent Taylor (Matthew Fox), several months after getting shot protecting the President. Suffering from post traumatic stress, there are fair questions as to whether he can handle active duty again. Once the shooting begins and the plot unfolds it quickly falls to Barnes to put the pieces together and tie the whole of this goofball plot together in some kind of believable or modestly plausible fashion.

Next we see events from the miscast perspective of Forrest Whitaker as an American tourist lashed to a handheld videocamera that captures important evidence of the shooter and the subsequent bombing. Whitaker is a fine actor who gives his all but a younger actor, with less integrity and more grit would have fit the role better. We need to believe that this guy would not put down his camera for anything and while Whitaker plays the noble hero seeking justice, the truer perspective is the modern fame seeker who see's dollar signs with his video of the President being shot is more believable and holds more dramatic possibilities. Consider, the venal anti-hero becomes noble hero is far more dramatically satisfying than the heroic guy becomes more heroic. But there I go, reviewing the movie that Vantage Point is not.

We then get the perspectives of the president himself, a Spanish police officer (Edgar Ramirez) wrongly accused in the wake of the shooting and the terrorists themselves whose goofball plot has every Bond villain cliché one can imagine wrapped in one goofball twist after another. Of course, that isn't the biggest problem for Vantage Point. Rather, the films biggest struggle is with structure. The film rewinds over the same terrorist attack 8 times all the while trying to conceal and reveal little tidbits of plot that maybe they plan to reveal later in the film or maybe they don't. By the 4th or 5th rewind you are not likely to care. Worn out by the constant ripping back and forth in the space time continuum of this event a headache is a far more likely result than intrigue or interest.

And yet, even as you are rubbing your eyes and ruing the thought of another flashback, when Dennis Quaid returns to center stage late in the third act you are momentarily drawn back in. Dominating a pretty terrific car chase through the narrow, brick and mortar streets of old town Spain, Quaid ever so briefly distracts from the flashbacks and goofball twists to deliver a rousing action sequence that in any other film could have been a game changer, a scene so cool it makes the movie better. Nothing, unfortunately, not a car chase or even the resurrection of Steve McQueen driving Bullitt directly over one of the terrorists, could save the goofball mess that is Vantage Point.

Movie Review: The Village

The Village (2004) 

Directed by M Night Shyamalan 

Written by M Night Shyamalan

Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Adrien Brody, Bryce Dallas Howard, William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver 

Release Date July 30th, 2004 

Published July 19th, 2021 

The Village is a real trip, an at times exceptionally well acted, epically misguided story of outsiders with a deep, dark secret. The film stars Joaquin Phoenix as Lucius and Bryce Dallas Howard as Ivy. Despite a slow start, the film slowly evolves as a mysterious 19th century romance with a twist of horror movie monsters hanging over it. The couple are residents of a colony that is cut off from the rest of the nearby towns by a forest populated by monsters who live in a delicate detente with the residents of The Village.

The town elders, led by William Hurt as Ivy’s father, Edward Walker, have raised their families in fear of the creatures who are fed a sacrifice of animal flesh on a weekly basis. Residents of the Village are not allowed to enter the forest and must not wear the forbidden color, red, which is said to set off the creatures. As we join the story, the monsters are believed to be raiding the town at night and causing a panic.

In the midst of the panic, Lucius begins to spend more and more time looking in on Ivy and her family and while he is a character of few words, Joaquin Phoenix as an actor communicates all we need to know about Lucius, he’s in love with Ivy and shows it by becoming her de-facto protector. For her part, Ivy is far more open and vocal about her feelings and these two approaches collide in the best scene in The Village in which they eventually declare their love.

I had forgotten about The Village since seeing it on the big screen in 2004. This led to a wild viewing experience in which I was convinced that I completely disliked it and then shocked to find myself deeply invested and enjoying it during this rewatch. No joke, I was riveted by the performances by Joaquin Phoenix, Bryce Dallas Howard, William Hurt and the supporting players including the brilliant Brendan Gleeson and Sigourney Weaver.

Then the third act hit and my memory came rushing back. Now I remember why I hated The Village back in 2004. The third act of The Village is a complete trainwreck. From the moment that Joaquin Phoenix is knocked into a plot device coma to the reveal of the big twist well before the actual end of the movie to the nonsensical and self indulgent ending, The Village goes completely off the rails.

The next section of this review of The Village goes into spoilers so if you still haven’t seen The Village and want to remain unspoiled, jump off now and come back after you see the movie, it’s on Netflix. We’ll be here when you get back.

The big twist of The Village is despite the setting in a village that even the tombstones indicate exists in the late 1800’s, the movie is actually set in modern America 2004. The monsters that provide the oppressive atmosphere of the first two acts aren’t real. The town elders portray the monsters as a way of keeping their families from trying to leave the village and find out about the modern world outside the forest.

William Hurt, it turns out, is a secret billionaire who, with the help of the elders, created The Village as a way of escaping the crime of the modern world that had tragically taken the lives of members of every family in town. This ‘twist’ is deeply problematic in numerous ways. For instance, why convince everyone they can’t wear red? Why make red a plot point at all? It never becomes important, especially after Hurt admits to making up the rules along the way/ 

At one point, after the creatures are revealed as not real, Bryce Dallas Howard, whose character is blind, is seen to have wandered into a field of red flowers and tense music plays and you’re baffled as you know there is no danger and she knows there is no danger and yet the movie wants the scene to be suspenseful because of the monsters. The monsters that, by this point, he's already revealed as fake. Why would we be afraid in this scene?

Why didn't the elders simply declare themselves Amish and create a colony based on those values? Why the elaborate ruse about the outside world? I get that they want to frighten the children into never leaving but there has to be something simpler than goofy-looking woods' monsters to convince people from leaving. This just seems like a lot of unnecessary work to hide a secret that doesn't need much hiding.

Shyamalan directs the third act of The Village as if he hadn’t revealed the twist ending at the start of the act. The movie straight up has William Hurt admit the elaborate lie to Bryce Dallas Howard and then sends her on a journey through the now completely safe woods that is then played as if there were still real monsters on the loose. When Howard finally makes it out of the woods it appears Shyamalan wants us to be surprised that we are in modern day America.

That would be fine if he didn’t tell us that before she ever actually left the village. The only real tension is that Howard’s Ivy is blind and must find her way through the forest alone and blind. This is something she manages quite well under the dire circumstances but raises the question of why Hurt didn’t just go himself. He gives some nonsense about how he vowed to never leave the village and yet he reveals the lies about everything to his blind daughter and then encourages her to leave the village on her own? Blind, going into the woods alone. At the very least, that’s awful parenting.

The Village stinks because it wastes two acts of a really compelling drama on a twist that wasn’t a twist and a series of nonsensical story beats that the script undercuts by revealing everything far too soon. We get the secret about the fake monsters and the modern day setting before Ivy leaves into the forest. The film has an action beat left courtesy of Adrien Brody’s offensive burlesque of a mentally challenged man but that’s not what we have been building toward.

We were promised a twist ala The Sixth Sense and what we got instead was a third act that would come to define the worst traits of M Night Shyamalan, his tendency toward convoluted and overwrought twist endings and big plot moments. In the third act, Shyamalan abandons the strength and heart of the film, the love story between Joaquin Phoenix and Bryce Dallas Howard in favor of nonsense action movie chases and a twist that he spoils himself before it can surprise us.

It’s a shame because there were two thirds of a really compelling movie in The Village.

Movie Review: Changing Lanes

Changing Lanes (2002) 

Directed by Roger Mitchell 

Written by Michael Tolkin 

Starring Ben Affleck, Samuel L Jackson, Toni Collette, Sidney Pollack, William Hurt, Amanda Peet 

Release Date April 12th, 2002 

Published April 11th, 2002 

Each and every one of us has been there. We've all done it. All of us have done something that to this day we still regret. Be it cheating, lying or stealing, often all three at the same time. Ethically there is no justification for these actions but at the time it was what suited our needs and we were able to rationalize it to the point where we can live with the consequences. It is such a moral quandary that is at the heart of the gripping drama Changing Lanes.

Lanes stars Ben Affleck as high-powered attorney Gavin Banek who, while on his way to court to file some very important papers, has a minor fender bender with a man named Doyle Gipson played by Samuel L. Jackson. Gipson is also on his way to court, he is trying to save his marriage by buying a home and therefore convincing his wife that he has changed. You see Gipson is a recovering alcoholic. Fate is a funny thing and Gavin, in a hurry, tries to pay Doyle off to forget what happened. Gipson refuses, so Banek takes off and leaves Doyle on the side of the road. When Doyle asks for a ride Gavin replies "better luck next time". What Gavin doesn't know is that he has lost his precious file and Doyle has it.

This setup could have lead to a series of action movie clichés like gunplay and fistfights and vows of revenge, but director Roger Michell and writers Michael Tolkin and Chap Taylor choose instead to make a more grounded film. They allow the characters bruised egos and bravado to carry the story through its series of plausible arcs.

Affleck has never been better. I thought I might have a hard time taking him seriously, as by reputation he doesn't take himself seriously. And for the first half of the film I was having a hard time believing him. However through a series of well written scenes and strong supporting actors (Toni Collette as Gavin's colleague and former lover, Amanda Peet as Gavin's wife and director Sydney Pollock as his boss), Affleck proves he can carry a drama as well as he can do comedy.

Sam Jackson is easy to take for granted. Myself, I walk into his movies and assume he'll be great and he hasn't proved me wrong yet. In Changing Lanes, Jackson plays a man who desperately wants to be a good person but can't resist trouble. As William Hurt as Doyle's AA sponsor says, Doyle is addicted to chaos.

Changing Lanes shows the thin line between right and wrong and does so with honesty and a clear vision. Right and wrong are merely choices with morals and ethics as the lowest common denominator. The film never allows anyone to become a villain. Each character is able to explain the motivation behind their seemingly unethical acts and they do so in ways that are actually very understandable. 

Amanda Peet's character is most effective at getting this point across, explaining her motivations that are on the surface sad and depressing but the underlying reason is a plausible decision she has made to be comfortable instead of happy. In the end there is very little black and white just a lot of gray. We would all like to do the right thing all the time and expect others to do so as well, but we don't live in a fairy tale.

Changing Lanes is no fairy tale, it is an honest observation of humanity, wart and all. Few films have the courage to do what this film does. It avoids formula and actually attempts to say something. For those of you who are just looking for a popcorn movie you may think this to be a little heavy but trust me, the film as a whole is as entertaining as it's message is resonant.

Movie Review The Yellow Handkerchief

The Yellow Handkerchief (2010) 

Directed by Udayan Prasad 

Written by Erin Dignam 

Starring William Hurt, Maria Bello, Kristen Stewart, Eddie Redmayne 

Release Date February 26th, 2010 

Published August 4th, 2010 

“The Yellow Handkerchief” is a great looking movie that relies on fabulous Louisiana scenery and a strong eye for locations to distract from what is a rather dull and inert bit of storytelling. Indian director Udayan Presad and writer Erin Dignam, like so many indie minded teams, mistake characters saying and doing inappropriate things for character development.

William Hurt stars in “The Yellow Handkerchief” as Brett a fresh from prison, oil rig working lummox who finds himself on a journey through Louisiana with a pair of emotionally damaged teenagers. Eddie Redmayne is the slightly mentally handicapped Gordie and “Twilight's” Kristen Stewart is the daddy issues having Martine.

For Gordie, Brett is an obstacle and oracle. Because Martine has an obvious affinity for Brett, he stands between Gordie and his crush on Martine even as Brett attempts to offer Gordie sage council on how to deal with her. For Martine, there is a mixture of wanting a father figure and the forbidden nature of being attracted to a stange, older man.

Throughout “The Yellow Handkerchief” we flash back to Brett's life before he was released from prison. Brett was once happily married until something happened and he ended up spending the next 6 years in jail. Maria Bello plays either his wife or his victim, you'll have to see the film yourself to find out.

The characters in “The Yellow Handkerchief” work very hard to make each other and us uncomfortable. They say oddly personal things and reveal things about themselves that normal humans might not reveal to close friends. Call it the comfort of strangers if you like but if a stranger spoke to me the way these characters speak to each other, I would run away screaming.

There is a worthy bit of filmmaking skill to “The Yellow Handkerchief.” Gorgeous scenery, a well managed pace that sinks perfectly into the film's hot southern exteriors; with a better sense of character, something more believable and far less off-putting, “The Yellow Handkerchief” could be extraordinary.

Sadly, the only thing likely to come from “The Yellow Handkerchief” is a solid audition reel for director Udayan Presad and cinematographer Chris Menges.

Movie Review Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks (2007) 

Directed by Bruce A. Evans 

Written by Bruce A. Evans, Raynold Gideon 

Starring Kevin Costner, Demi Moore, Dane Cook, William Hurt, Marg Helgenberger

Release Date June 1st, 2007 

Published May 31st, 2007

The career of Kevin Costner has had many ups and downs. He has been one of the biggest stars in the world and People Magazine's sexiest man alive. He's also been the most reviled man in Hollywood and a grand punch line after his triple failures, Waterworld, The Postman and Wyatt Earp. He has recently tried to reinvent himself as a character actor and a comeback kid, a perception fed by well received performances in The Upside of Anger and Open Range.

Now however, as he tries to reclaim leading man status; Costner is once again flailing. First, there was the disastrous Rumor Has It, a pseudo sequel to The Graduate with Costner as a middle aged Ben Braddock. Now comes Mr. Brooks a disaster of a different kind, one that isn't really Costner's fault.

"The Hunger has returned to Mr. Brooks, it never really left"

That is the opening title card to the new thriller Mr. Brooks, a title card that thrusts us into the midst of the madness of a man named Earl Brooks (Kevin Costner). Earl is a proud father, a loyal husband and a respected businessman who runs a major box company. However, in his spare time he is the thumbprint killer, a maniac who likes to pose his victims after killing them and then get off over the photos he takes.

He has been at this for years and for years has been careful to not get caught. He even managed to stop killing for 2 whole years with the help of  weekly A.A meetings, though alcohol never played a part in his compulsion. Then the hunger returned and he selected a pair of victims. Unfortunately, he wasn't as careful as he used to be. He left the curtains open and across the street, an amateur cameraman saw him commit murder.

Luckily for Mr. Brooks the cameraman, call him Mr. Smith (Dane Cook), is a sick puppy like himself. Smith doesn't want to turn Brooks over to the cops, rather he wants to learn from Mr. Brooks, he wants to kill. Thus sets up an uncomfortable partnership between the steely, calculating Mr. Brooks and the unnerved novice Mr. Smith.

That is just one of several plots running concurrently in this rather misguided take on the Dr. Jekyll, Mr Hyde mythos. Also jammed into this plot is a backstory and sub-storyline for Demi Moore as the cop investigating the thumbprint killer and another different killer and a credulity stretching plot for Danielle Panabaker as Mr. Brooks' daughter who may have inherited the serial killer gene.

A glance at director Bruce A. Evans' resume offers a few clues as to why Mr. Brooks  turned out so goofy. Evans wrote the lauded screenplays for epics like Cutthroat Island, Jungle 2 Jungle and Kuffs, a Christian Slater guilty pleasure that he also directed. Curiously, Evans hasn't directed since Kuffs. Maybe he was waiting for something that could match the goofball pleasures and squirm inducing discomfort of that early nineties crime comedy.

Mr. Brooks is certainly goofy but it's not supposed to be. It's intended to be a thriller but thrills are in short supply compared to the unintentional laughter induced by some of the bizarre choices made. There are more than a few moments of unintended humor such as watching comic Dane Cook attempt to appear credible as an actor opposite the veteran Costner. The disdainful glare of Costner's Mr. Brooks towards Cook's Mr. Smith plays like Costner's silent commentary on his co-star.

Despite the loopy plots and unintentional humor there are a few honest pleasures in Mr. Brooks, not least of which is the chemistry between Kevin Costner and William Hurt. These two veteran actors are so in sync and so on the money that you hate the movie for the constant interruptions of their interplay. Taking time out for Demi Moore's lame backstory and a search for another serial killer aside from Mr. Brooks and the daughter's story and Dane Cook's story all serve to upstage the film's one and only asset, the Costner-Hurt duo.

In the few moments that Costner and Hurt get to play we actually get to dig into Mr. Brooks' character and find out how he ticks and why he does what he does. The potential is there for a very unique take on the classic serial killer picture, a movie from the killer's perspective. Few killers are as uniquely villainous as Mr. Brooks, the upstanding businessman and father who happens to be a serial killer.

What a waste, Mr. Brooks had all sorts of potential and wasted it all on dopey, distracting subplots. Director and co-writer Bruce A. Evans is not a bad director really, just inexperienced with a seeming lack of confidence. Evans lacked the courage to jettison what was clearly not working and focus things where they were working, with Kevin Costner and William Hurt riffing and roaring.

Oh, what might have been.

Movie Review The Incredible Hulk

The Incredible Hulk (2008) 

Directed by Louis Letterier

Written by Zak Penn

Starring Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, Tim Blake Nelson, Ty Burrell, William Hurt 

Release Date June 13th, 2008

Published June 12th, 2008 

In 2003 director Ang Lee took a stab at the comic book genre and divided audiences in ways no one could have imagined. Non-comic book fans were enamored with Lee's take on the origin of the Hulk. Fans were left wondering what happened to Hulk Smash! Hulk was a box office misfire costing over 200 million dollars while taking in a paltry 124 million domestic, breaking even thanks to worldwide numbers never changing the perception of failure.

Now the Hulk is back and with Incredible back in the title he is everything that fans have been waiting for. Hulk Smash is back as well.

Edward Norton takes over the role of scientist Bruce Banner and rather than making us endure 20 or 30 minutes of back story Norton and director Louis Letterier cram what we need to know into the credits and then thrust us right into the story. David Banner is living in Brazil, hiding from a US Military, lead by General Ross (William Hurt), that wants what he has inside him.

Fans know that inside Bruce Banner is the result of an experiment gone wrong. Exposed to high levels of gamma radiation, Banner has a hulk inside him that comes out when his heart rate goes over 200 beats per minute. The General needs a sample of Banner's blood in order to synthesize it into a weapon to create super soldiers. Banner knows that is far too dangerous an idea.

Banner is seeking a cure and corresponds with a doctor in New York who may have some sort of breakthrough. Returning to the US, after a spectacular chase scene involving Banner and some US soldiers through the streets of Brazil that gives us our first glimpse of the Hulk, Banner first seeks Betty Ross, his ex love and science partner who has more than just key scientific details for him.

Running parallel to Bruce's story is that of an ambitious and dangerous mercenary named Blonsky (Tim Roth) who volunteers to become Ross's guinea pig for another Banner-esque experiment. Naturally, the experiment goes very wrong and now Ross must turn to Banner and The Hulk for help. .

The Incredible Hulk is the second movie from the gang at Marvel Comics as they begin to take a more active role in taking their legendary characters into the realm of film. The first was Iron Man and that was a huge success. Now The Incredible Hulk which is not quite Iron Man good but works well enough to shine more positive light on the production crews at Marvel.

The script for The Incredible Hulk by comic book movie veteran Zak Penn, with an alleged uncredited polish by Norton, does a terrific job balancing the need for character development with the need for full bore action and effects. It's not a perfect balance, too many times big effects overwhelm and consume the film, but not so often that Norton and his talented supporting cast can't bring it back. 

Liv Tyler, William Hurt, Tim Roth and Tim Blake Nelson provide backup for Norton and though I would like to see Tyler do something more than whimper, she and Norton strike a good chemistry. It is through Tyler and Norton's scenes that The Incredible Hulk gets its heart and humor and given the heavy handed nature of the special effects, the chemistry of these two stars is an essential element.

It's no Iron Man, even with a kick butt cameo by Tony Stark himself, but The Incredible Hulk is strong enough to put the wearying Ang Lee version out of our memories and set up plenty of intriguing storylines for the future of the Hulk series. Keep in mind this quote from the very end of the movie "We're putting a team together".