"The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" Does Not Suck By A Long Shot

As cliched as this sounds, "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" is, very simply, everything a movie should be. It thrills the audience with its rich humor, complex characters, lively performances, blend of stylized and realistic violence, suspense, intensity, etc. To top it off, it is that rare kind of gritty action movie: the kind that emerges from the terror and violence with its heart intact. Most importantly, it brings with it a crucial element that is missing from most action movies of late: fun. I liken it to "Drag Me to Hell" in that it brings a sense of innocence back to its genre. The action genre has been hardened in the last few years by films like "The Bourne Ultimatum" and "The Dark Knight." "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" is perfect counterprogramming to those films. Where those films are engagements with the times in which we live, "Pelham" offers pure escapism. Although it is about an act of terrorism in New York (a subway hijacking), it does not highlight relevance to 9/11 or the War on Terror. It is not trying to pour salt on open wounds, it is trying to make the audience forget about those tragedies.

With "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3," "Drag Me to Hell," "Star Trek," and a slew of other movies, we are entering a new Golden Age of Cinema. Movie buffs now flock to the theaters not to see hardhitting, politically allegorical films like they did in 2007 ("There Will Be Blood," "No Country for Old Men," "Zodiac," etc.), but to escape reality and experience good ole fashioned popcorn entertainment. The villain in "Pelham" is not Daniel Plainview. Not Anton Chigurh. And despite being viciously violent, he is not the Zodiac killer either. As portrayed by John Travolta, he is a live wire and an oddly likable guy. He is a real person with real emotions whereas the villains in "Zodiac" and "No Country for Old Men" were symbols, simple metaphorical representatives of our current enemies in the Middle East and at home. They represented faceless terror, greed, corruption. Ryder (Travolta) has a face. He has a personality, a sense of humor. And by the end of the film, you actually want to see him succeed. Travolta's performance is the best piece of acting I've seen this year thus far.

Director Tony Scott has never tried to be relevant or bring loftiness to his films. This is the only time his lack of relevance has been refreshing, though. This is also the only time simple popcorn entertainment has felt so good and so...necessary.

"The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3"

Grade: A-

Film Criticism 101

Anyone can call a movie “spellbinding,” “nail-biting,” “hilarious,” “incendiary,” and a slew of other flashy adjectives. This is not the aim of film criticism, though. Film criticism is about explaining, in explicit detail, why a movie is “spellbinding,” “nail-biting,” etc. Describe and analyze particular scenes from the movie that illustrate your praise or dislike. Compare the movie to the director and actors’ previous work or films within the same genre. A critic’s job is to contextualize movies, not promote them. Reviews should provoke intelligent discussion, not serve as simple endorsement, which brings me to my second point: DON’T FOCUS ON PERSUADING YOUR READERS.

This may sound like blasphemy to aspiring entertainment journalists, but film reviews should not read like persuasive essays convincing readers to either see or avoid a particular movie. The best reviews are the intimate ones that detail the critic’s personal experience with the movie, the ones that don’t try to “sell” the readers. Here’s an example from the late, legendary critic Pauline Kael…

“I came out of the theater, tears streaming, and overheard the petulant voice of a college girl complaining to her boyfriend, ‘Well I don't see what was so special about that movie.’ I walked up the street, crying blindly, no longer certain whether my tears were for the tragedy on the screen, the hopelessness I felt for myself, or the alienation I felt from those who could not experience the radiance of ‘Shoeshine.’ For if people cannot feel ‘Shoeshine,’ what can they feel? Later I learned that the man with whom I had quarreled had gone the same night and had also emerged in tears. Yet our tears for each other and for ‘Shoeshine’ did not bring us together. Life, as ‘Shoeshine’ demonstrates, is too complex for facile endings.”

What a lyrical review. Reviews should be like Kael’s: vivid outpourings of emotion that read almost like pages ripped out of someone’s diary. Unfortunately, most critics these days sound like car salesmen, promising their customers a “rip-roaring good time.” Don’t worry about how the audience will feel. Focus on how you feel. Reviews should be treated like any other form of personal expression. On that note, let’s look at some specific “do’s and don’ts” of film criticism.

DO’S

• Approach reviews like thesis papers. The more you follow a strict structure, the easier the review is to write. Like when writing a thesis paper, always follow a clear, logical progression of ideas.
  Stick to a major point. For example, if your thesis is, “With its understated direction and naturalistic performances, the film subverts genre expectations,” do not devote a paragraph to the eclectic quality of the soundtrack or the beauty of the costumes. Focus on what you set out to explore with your thesis: the understated direction and naturalistic performances.
  Always provide support for your opinions. If you write, “This film digs deep into the mind of Ray Charles,” explain how. If you say a film fails miserably in all aspects, explain exactly why and how it fails in each one of those areas.
  Use scenes from the movie as examples as much as possible to support your opinions.

DON'TS

• Don’t devote too much of the review to summarizing the plot. One brief paragraph is sufficient.
  Don’t write a paragraph for “miscellaneous opinions.” For example, after you’re done supporting your thesis, don’t write a paragraph like this--“In addition to the powerful performances, the film has an eclectic soundtrack full of interesting songs. Speaking of interesting elements, the film’s production design is unique as well. To top it off, this movie is full of shocking plot twists.”
  Try to avoid making statements that can be made without seeing the movie (For example: “the special effects are good,” “the film is action-packed.”) These observations can be made by simply watching the film’s previews.
  Don’t write from someone else’s point of view and don’t lower your standards. For example, don’t write, “Well, for a kids’ movie, it is good” or “‘Transformers’ fans are bound to like this movie.” Readers can see right through your biases and it is better to fully embrace your opinion than to lower your standards or apologize to fans.
  Don’t try to be conversational. You should not write about a movie the way you talk about it with friends. The more formal the writing, the more readers take you seriously.
  You don’t have to like everything. Do not be afraid to give a negative review to a movie that is otherwise universally acclaimed.

Fun In Hell: The Triumphant Return of the Horror Film

For a long time, there was no sense of magic, discovery, and most importantly, fun in horror films. Instead, we had deep, depressing forays into the human psyche ("The Ring," "The Orphanage," "Joshua," etc.). Horror films lost their innocence. They were grim and uncompromising--no longer about making viewers jump and laugh in terror, but about inflicting nightmares and shaking people to their core. When not dealing with psychological elements, filmmakers were stripping the horror genre down to its essence, delivering pure, unadulterated violence ("Saw," "Hostel"). It got to the point where audiences were no longer seeking out horror films for love of cinema, but for the desire to simply witness murder.

Sam Raimi's "Drag Me to Hell" is the perfect antidote to this disturbing behavior. It marks a return to the classic, escapist horror structure of 80s gems like Raimi's own "Evil Dead I" and "II" and with its bells and whistles, reminds us that what we are watching is only a movie. The "Hostel" films on the other hand are so immersed in violence that they no longer apply to the film world, thus becoming simple displays of pain and torture seemingly untouched by human hands. Unlike "Hostel," "Drag Me to Hell" carries with it a history of film and truly seems like a love letter to cinema. This is evident in the beginning in which the 80s-style Universal Pictures logo appears and operatic, 1930s-esque creature feature music plays over the credits. A strong, warm feeling of nostalgia rushed over me. For the first time in a long time, a horror movie evoked other films instead of focusing on the simple act of violence. I felt at home and more importantly, at peace with the film world. Thank you, Mr. Raimi.

New on DVD: "Gran Torino"

To honor today's DVD release of Clint Eastwood's "Gran Torino," I'm reprinting my review from The HiLite...

“I finish things. That’s what I do,” Walt Kowalski, the belligerent codger at the center of “Gran Torino,” says threateningly. Clint Eastwood, the actor behind this character, is also finishing something: his amazing acting career. And with the fantastic “Gran Torino,” he ends it gracefully. Eastwood also goes behind the camera, taking newcomer Nick Schenk’s screenplay and truly making the story his own. He turns it into a study of the iconic character he has established over his nearly 60-year career. “Gran Torino” is not only about Walt, but also Dirty Harry, Josey Wales, William Munny–the list goes on. Naming this film after a classic car is fitting for it is a highly nostalgic tribute to Eastwood’s career. This celebration of his work is infused with effective self-referential humor as well as poignancy and relevance.

Walt, a widower and former autoworker, is a crotchety old man who watches obsessively over his property while drowning himself in booze and cussing out neighbors. He's embittered by the demise of the industry he used to work for as well as the demise of Detroit where he lives. By extension, he's embittered by the demise of America as he sees it-- the decline of heavy industry, the decline of cities, the decline of patriotism, increase in immigrants from "Third World" counties, etc. Eastwood portrays a certain American stereotype, a nativist who is prejudiced against and suspicious of foreigners and who champions “buy American.” Walt calls his own son unpatriotic for driving a Japanese car. Here, to much success, Eastwood pokes fun at the mindset of his legendary Dirty Harry character, the infamously prejudicial screen cop. With Walt’s every snigger, Eastwood telegraphs a wink to the audience: Walt’s values, Eastwood implies, are not his own. In this sense, Eastwood is similar to TV personality Stephen Colbert in mocking the ultra-conservative attitude. Also like Colbert, he has powerful comic presence. However, the film takes a serious turn when Walt surprisingly befriends a Hmong boy named Thao and attempts to protect him from a ruthless gang.

Walt shows a sensitive side in his relationship with Thao that mirrors Eastwood’s own sensitivity. In telling the touching story of this strong, interracial friendship, Eastwood tries to convey that he is nothing like the violent, corrupt, racist roles he’s played in the past. In fact, all of his more recent directing efforts seem to deliberately stand against the behavior of those famous characters. Particularly in his revisionist western, “Unforgiven,” Eastwood plays against type as William Munny. Instead of portraying him as a cold-blooded gunslinger like in his earlier westerns, he creates a sympathetic, compassionate figure. For example, after shooting a man, Munny demands that the man be given water after noticing that he suffers from dehydration while dying. Eastwood conveys genuine concern and sorrow over the man’s pain. Another directorial effort, “Mystic River” also stands against violent behavior. Sean Penn’s character in the film is actually punished for his uncontrolled rage unlike Dirty Harry. “Gran Torino” is the most obvious of these films in highlighting Eastwood’s values. It is arguably his most personal and, therefore, most affecting piece of acting and direction.

In terms of relevance to 2008 films, “Gran Torino” joins “Iron Man” and “The Wrestler” in presenting a central character that mirrors the actor playing him. In “Iron Man,” Tony Stark’s transition from irresponsible playboy to ethically strong man resembles Robert Downey, Jr.’s transformation from wild, druggie celebrity to serious, respectable actor. Similarly, “The Wrestler” is not only about fictional, washed-up wrestler Randy Robinson, but the similarly battered actor playing him, Mickey Rourke. These performances are especially powerful precisely because of their self-reflective quality that allows filmgoers to see through the character and into the actor’s soul.

“Gran Torino” is speculated to be Eastwood’s last performance. The film community will undoubtedly be saddened if this is true. However, people couldn’t ask for a more perfect, beautiful swan song.

Secrets, Lies, and Spaceships: The State of Hollywood Spectacles

Comparing "Star Trek" and "Terminator Salvation," "Star Trek" is a much more honest Hollywood spectacle. It's honest in the sense that it is upfront about revolving around technology. Honest not only in its composition, but in the story itself. The characters relish the future and revel in the constantly evolving technology around them. "Terminator Salvation" on the other hand, is, for lack of a better phrase, full of shit.

"Terminator Salvation," a cautionary, "rage against the machine" vision of the future, embraces technology at the same time that it stands against it. "We must not act like machines in this war," John Connor (played by Christian Bale) says. The film fails to take that advice, though. With his strict adherence to formula, director McG is just as cold and calculating as the destructive machines at the film's forefront. He depends completely on computer-generated effects to engage the audience. For a film about human resistance to technology, there is very little, if no, trace of a human touch to the storytelling. Maybe McG was trying to emulate Stanley Kubrick's direction of "2001: A Space Odyssey." "2001's" warning was against the enslavement of humans to machines. Therefore, the fact that Kubrick was a slave to technological aspects in the making of the film made that warning more credible. The cold, detached, machine-like quality of the film that resulted added powerful irony as well. However, I don't think McG was this clever in his direction of "Salvation."

This irony is evident in many more science-fiction films however. Many of them stand against technology while using it to illustrate that very message. However, they have an earnestness about them unlike "Terminator Salvation." They realize their own irony and comment on it (i.e. "The Matrix," "2001," etc.) "2001" comments by making the machine character, HAL a more complex and dominant character than the humans in the film. "The Matrix" comments with its notion of a "dreamworld" used by humans that mirrors the purpose of movies themselves. McG's flaw is that he does not realize the irony in his "rage against the machine" story and how it was made with the very machines it rages against. He's not honest like "Star Trek" and we need more films with that quality.