Change Your Image
drjmetz
Reviews
Max Payne (2008)
Why more than a passing nod to the original source matters
I managed to catch this (finally!) and delayed putting it off until I finished playing Max Payne again (coincidentally I was already in the middle of playing the game when the TiVo caught the film off HBO). As a result, I was fresh off playing the game before watching the movie.
I look at it this way. If I changed the names of the characters to something else, would I:
1) recognize this as Max Payne, and/or 2) think the film was enjoyable?
The answer to 1 seemed pretty clear to me. I wouldn't have seen it as MP, but would have thought that the writer had obviously been inspired by some of the elements of the game.
The answer to 2 was, well, it was a very pretty movie but there was a great deal of disconnect from scene to scene, and with a set of characters in which none are developed from beginning to end, there wasn't much to really admire except for the nifty cinematography. Otherwise, the plot was very, very cliché and predictable.
The reasons why movies are made from video games are varied, but effectively there's something inherent in the game that makes for a compelling big-screen adventure. If you take Resident Evil as an example0, it was nifty traps and some intense action (zombies!!). For Max Payne, the compelling intrigue was the character as well as the mystery behind 1) his family's murder and 2) who set him up. In the game, he wasn't sure who to trust - including himself - as his predicament made very strange bedfellows. Sadly, his family's murder was the only thing that was included in the film and that was pretty evident early on.
There was none of the mistrust of Mona, the uneasy alliance with Vlad, the personal vendetta with Punchinello. Game-Max was forced to take Valkyr and his experience was horrific because he was trapped in a nightmare of his family's death, searching for them to save them and yet taunted by their incessant crying for help. Movie-Max took the drug of his own accord to gain the strength that Game-Max found through emotional loss. This is a very different character.
Slapping a couple of logos onto the walls as graffiti and using the same names does not mean that the movie adheres to the story. Game-Max and Movie-Max are not the same character, nor were the motivations, nor were the way in which the story was told. There's really not much left to tie it to the original.
Even with the game the plot was predictable. Evil corporation pushing bad drugs on the street; nothing new there. But through Game-Max's jaded eyes and so-corny-that-even-he-knew-it commentary, the noir became a compelling reason to run from the cops and the Mafia to search for answers.
By throwing demons into the mix as the movie does, and as often as it does, it's similar to saying that you're going to make a Harry Potter movie but replace wands with light sabers and include a few alien spaceships; oh, and Harry is actually a 25-year-old orphan whose parents were killed attempting to overthrow the Ministry of Magic. Those pesky Death Eaters? Yeah, we just left them out. It might work and it might be close enough to the original, it even might be a decent movie if done properly, but it's disingenuous to call it Harry Potter.
As a Max Payne flick, I rated it a 1. As a non-Max Payne flick, because of the beautiful cinematography but crappy character development and uber-predictable plot line, it got a 3.
Knight Rider: Knight Rider (2008)
Walking a fine line
I finally got around to seeing this today and have only read a couple of comments but it appears that viewers have generally panned it. I take the approach, however, that the producers must walk a fine line balancing the desires of the traditional fans with the expectations of the modern audience. In some areas, I believe, they succeeded where in some others they left a lot to be desired.
The best thing that the producers could do for this show is take some lessons from Battlestar Galactica, and attack some of the main issues of the day (especially with the tie-in to the FBI) directly. This means not shying away from life-and-death, something that the original show was loathe to do. The very real danger that a favorite character might die in any particular episode makes for compelling television, and a willing suspension of disbelief.
There is a risk with turning Michael into a "James Bond". But there is a room for creativity (especially as at the end of the show he's off to Dubai, where the FBI has no jurisdiction and would normally be reserved for the CIA). Nevertheless, either he's going to be facing real dangers and real enemies, or he's not. No use stacking the deck with killer technology if he's not going to be facing opponents who have the means (and desire) to kill him and allow him to fight back with prejudice.
The problem is that the show (like the first edition) is formulaic. Exposition, action, dialog, action, exposition, more action, etc. Lessons should be drawn from "Buffy," "Angel," or "Heroes" where the writers managed to use action to further the storyline as opposed to being separate from it. As a result the action sequences often seem repetitive or (worse) gratuitous. We can tune in whichever week we want and get the same formula, just like we did 25 years ago, and not get the feeling that we really missed *anything* important.
Either way the don't do anything to tell us about the characters other than the obligatory "Oh, Michael is an ex-Army Ranger and can take care of himself." Once that point is made, however, every subsequent action sequence fails to advance our understanding of the plot, the characters, or the general milieu of the Knight Rider World that we're inhabiting.
Comments have been made about making Michael Knight appear to be a deadbeat dad. Unfortunately the pilot really didn't do anything to counter that perception, as Mike simply didn't get enough information to understand that Knight *wasn't* a deadbeat. Too much reliance is placed on the audience's memory to know the truth, having watched those episodes 25 years ago.
What this means is that the pilot missed an opportunity to really establish some intriguing and long-term character arcs; this could have been done even within the context of a standalone pilot episode. The sad part about this is that Michael Traceur leaves the episode appearing nearly as shallow as he enters, and Sarah Graiman simply isn't believable as a PhD/Professor at Stanford. She's never given any room to show that she is worthy of the accolades and the audience is supposed to take on faith that she does simply because she's her father's daughter. A plot device, yes, but a clichéd one and she winds up simply being another weak female character who is only used for exposition and forced tension as she becomes the damsel in distress.
Finally, the car. I've never owned a Mustang *or* a Camaro or Trans Am, so I don't have any vested interest in the Ford vs. GMC debate. I personally don't have any philosophical problems with the choice of car - it is what it is. Nor do i have any real issues with Val Kilmer as the voice. What concerns me is the strong parallels to First Season ST:TNG Data as he attempts to "understand" human emotion. We've heard these conversations before (seemingly verbatim), and we would hope that since 1987 we could come up with something less forced.
This, beyond the criticism about how many buttons there are or issues with nanotechnology being tied in to the operation of the computer to be effective, is the biggest obstacle: the original show primarily hinged upon the relationship between KITT and Michael, and their partnership. The car is a major character in each of the story lines, and first impressions are difficult to eradicate.
As a result, there needs to be some *competence* on the part of the characters - including KITT. During the pilot the only person who appeared to show any competence at all - Michael's mother - was shot and killed. Everyone else relied on someone else to do something for them in order to get them out of a jam. With such a reliance on sheer luck (or benefactors) to succeed, it's hard to believe that they have the fortitude to go up against trained military mercenaries or, worse, well-funded terrorist organizations (remember, the FBI is running the show now, no pun intended).
Ultimately, the show still has potential. Obviously the writers and producers don't want to reveal all their cards in the first episode, so we'll see improved capabilities over time. I'm sure we'll see the obligatory computer-virus and computer-hacker story that goes along with it, but as the show Eureka has shown, even those story lines can be done with a new, creative twist.
The real mistake would be to assume that viewers who are used to the sophistication of Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Eureka or Heroes are going to tolerate any insults to their intelligence in order to push more Mustangs out the showroom floor (or anything they perceive as a 42-minute commercial). At the moment, the show has the potential for growth, and if it gets picked up I hope that they choose the right path to evolve the franchise in the right direction.
Bet Your Life (2004)
What a waste of time
After watching many of the "Next Action Star" reality TV eps TiVo taped this gawd-awful tripe for me. For some bizarre reason - and I only have myself to blame - I watched the whole thing, hoping that there would be *something* unique in the entire movie. After so much hype about Joel Silver's "Midas Touch" with action flicks, he might want to make sure he bones up on his alchemy.
First, the only redeeming value of the entire film was Billy Zane, and even he couldn't lift the slipshod writing out of the crapper. Having said that, Zane's performance falters about 2/ 3rds of the way through, as he doesn't even seem to know what else to do other than look smug.
Can't blame him here, though. The writing, quite frankly, sucked. Let's take ideas from "Rat Race," "Enemy of the State," "Terminator," "Midnight Run" and any bad gambling film you can think of and simply rehash it. And who's brilliant idea was it to have TWO bridge chase sequences in a ROW?
Sean Carrigan, the "man of the hour" of "The Next Action Star" shows all of the strengths and weaknesses the casting directors mention during the entire run of the series. A one-note johnny, Sean plays the dumb good looking jock very well, but struggles with shouldering the weight of the film. Quite frankly, we never quite seem to care about whether he lives or dies by about mid-way through, as Carrigan fails to provide a reason for the audience to even like him. His dumb-but-lucky routine gets old as there really isn't anything about the character to root for.
But Carrigan is a dream compared to the wooden, rigid Corinne Van Ryck de Groot. Did Howard Fine really tell her to pretend to be a Terminator for the first half of the film? I don't think so. I kept expecting her to quote Arnie. Her character "performance" can be compared only to the dramatic depths of "Freddy Got Fingered," though not nearly as well-developed. The camera loves her in dark, shadowy limousines, but in the harsh light of day her demeanor sucks all energy off the screen. Jeanne Bauer showed more natural life in her five minute bit part than Corinne showed at any part of her screen time.
Ultimately, Sean has the rugged good looks to provide a good lead in an ensemble cast, but shouldn't have been left to do this one solo. It was simply too big of a task for him. "Next Action Star" colleague Jared Elliot may or may not have had better luck with some more dynamic characterization, but it's hard to tell given Jeff Welch's lame script. Someone should take Welch's iMac away from him before he hurts himself or anyone else. And finally, Van Ryck de Groot simply was outclassed and way out of her reach, even for complete shlock like this.
Joel Silver should be ashamed.
Dreamcatcher (2003)
Slipped off the tightrope
It must be hard to make a movie version of a Stephen King novel, with all its depth, complexity, and character development. In that sense, it must be like walking a tightrope. Having said that, it's not clear why so much was either changed or omitted that would have helped the gaping plot holes from which the movie suffers. In this regard, the movie slips off the tightrope and falls.
It is possible to create a relatively good likeness of a book (see, e.g., Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone), even one with as many characters as Dreamweaver has. Say what you will about HP, at least that movie was far more faithful to the spirit of the book.
What the movie lacks is the existential trauma that Jonesy goes through with his schizophrenia, not to mention the tete-a-tete with Mr. Gray. The give-and-take between Owen and Kurtz (renamed Curtiss in the film) is utterly nonexistent, and Curtiss' insanity is completely emasculated by eliminating the near religious-level of allegiance he commanded from his troops. Each character exists as an island unto himself, despite the fact that the 5 friends rely heavily on each other for their own development. This leaves the viewer feeling somewhat disjointed from scene to scene as the characters seem to come to self-revelations without satisfactory explanation. This doesn't even begin to cover the atrocity (an assault on the sensibilities of anyone who has read the book) that was making Duddits an alien in the movie
Curtiss comes off more mean than insane, which is not due to Freeman's performance but rather the script's complete lack of tension. Small touches, such as Duddits scoring the boys' cribbage games, would have helped the characterization immensely. The threat of the Ripley was completely ignored, as the revelation of its ultimate harmlessness in the greater picture would have helped underscore Curtiss' growing insanity. All in all, everything just seemed "too easy," as the movie tends to move lockstep in a pre- determined direction, when that uncertainty is nowhere to be found within the original story.
I would like to recommend, however, that if you would like to experience a wonderful, entertaining dramatization of the book, listen to the unabridged audiobook read by Jeffry DeMunn. He not only does a phenomenal job , but the entire audiobook maintains the tension of the book to make it an actual experience.
Flawless (1999)
Excellent characterization, limited plot
Overall, an excellent film which rests heavily on the shoulders of DeNiro and Hoffman. The plot device to get them together - a botched drug hit - foreshadows the ending so early as to not really be dramatic *or* suspenseful. It got to a point where these interruptions were much more of an annoyance to the character development than a benefit.
The true joy in this film is Hoffman's Rusty, who's characterization of a pre-op transgender female is right on target. Hoffman, who plays a character who's over-the-top doesn't have to actually *act* over-the-top, and it's a balancing act that never falters. DeNiro's minimalist style is a brilliant counter-point and together they move the story along as smooth as Rusty's disposition. The scene where Rusty confronts the Gay Republicans is just plain excellent.
Overall, this is an excellent choice if you are in the mood for excellent acting and characterization. Ignore the "action" and suspense, and you'll have a great time.