The Equalizer, starring Denzel Washington, is an adaptation of the 1980s television show in which a retired intelligence officer offers his services to people who feel the odds are stacked against them.
I've never seen an episode of the TV show, but having seen the movie I can absolutely tell you it's not a very good (or at least faithful) adaptation. In fact, it's apparent the film makers only called this film The Equalizer for brand recognition, as the only trace of similarity the film shares with the show (aside from the lead characters name) comes at the tail end of the movie, and even then it feels like the filmmakers tacked it on at the last minute when they realized actual fans of the show might want to see a movie called The Equalizer have something in common with the television show on which it's based.
OK, the same argument could be said for the adaptation of The A-Team a few years ago. The film served as a set up for a franchise of course, and only during the end credits of the film was there a mention of the team being soldiers for hire. But, you know, at least the film tried to make the characters recognizable from the show, as well as embodying the same sense of fun and adventure that made the show so easy to watch. Honestly, I really enjoyed that movie and I thought it was a great set up for further adventures, but I digress.
I know it's weird to be so upset about a failed adaptation of a television program I never watched, but it really bothers me that since the filmmakers couldn't make a fun or entertaining movie with Denzel Washington kicking ass and taking names (which has been done several times before, to my great enjoyment) I at least figured they would make an effort to TRY an actual adaptation of the show. Instead, director Antoine Fuqua clumsily goes back and forth between TGIF sitcom sweetness to extreme, over the top violence, resulting in an awkward tone that never finds its groove.
Actually, Fuqua's previous film, Olympus Has Fallen had similar problems. The tone of that movie was a little more consistent, but it all felt a little forced, like Fuqua thought he was making more of a badass action film than he actually was. The violence in that film was extremely graphic as well, almost too much so like The Equalizer. Normally I'm all for over the top and gratuitous violence, but Fuqua seems to have no real understanding of how to use the violence for any kind of impact on the viewer. Usually such violence in film in used to elicit some kind of response from the audience, whether it's visceral or dramatic or entertaining or funny, it can be quite a tool for any gifted filmmaker.
But Fuqua seems to think that just by putting graphic violence onscreen that we will cheer it on. After all, Denzel is killing some really bad guys. But it all just comes off as ugly as opposed to fun.
As I mentioned earlier though, the films worst offense is probably the tone. As the film opens, Washington is helping a fellow employee at his Home Depot-like store to lose weight so he can qualify for a security job at said store. The interaction between the two characters and all the other employees is so sweet and silly and contrived that it feels like Family Matters with cursing. It gets even weirder during the films big climax when those characters meet up with the main villains, a group of Russian mobsters (!), and another sequence of out of place violence ensues.
Chloe Grace Moretz is all but wasted as the teenage hooker that serves as the catalyst for getting Washington out of retirement. I'm not sure if it's a script problem or simple miscasting, but Moretz never feels anything like an actual character and instead just comes off as a young actress made up to look rough. It doesn't help that she disappears for most of the movie only to turn up at the very end all cleaned up and talking up the fact that she now reads books.
I guess the sole good thing I have to say about The Equalizer is that Denzel Washington is fine. He certainly doesn't embarrass himself but it's a role he can do in his sleep at this point, though thankfully he doesn't seem to be doing so here. Actually, there is one sequence in the film where Washington walks away from an explosion without looking back that is so silly and oddly put together by Fuqua that it actually borders on self parody, so there's that.
Overall, The Equalizer a non adaptation of the TV show on which it is based, as well as a boring and tonally confused mess of an action movie.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Lords of Dogtown
It's been almost a decade since I last watched the documentary Dogtown and Z-Boys and the subsequent feature version, Lords of Dogtown, both of which chronicle the legendary Zephyr skateboarding group that's largely credited for inventing skateboarding as we know it today. I remember liking both, especially the documentary, so when they popped up on Netflix a few weeks ago I figured now was a great time to revisit the flicks.
The documentary holds up well as an entertaining, if somewhat biased look at the group. Not a huge surprise given the fact that the films director was original Z-Boy Stacy Peralta. Either way, I enjoyed it again and was very curious to see how the feature held up.
And dudes, I was a little surprised at just how terrible it is. Filled with awful acting, hokey cameos and a tone that wants to be a lot edgier than it actually is, Lords of Dogtown is a straight up mess.
As with any adaptation of anything, things are going to change from the original property to the new one. It's just part of the deal, and usually, it makes sense. But Peralta, making his feature screenwriting debut, takes the already interesting story of these kids, and throws in every rags to riches cliche in the book. It certainly doesn't help that Peralta makes himself out to be the angel of the entire group. The only one with any kind of decency or loyalty out of the bunch, with everyone else instantly growing giant egos and seeing dollar signs upon the first sign of fame.
Of course, it's entirely possible that that's how it happened. That stuff wasn't in the documentary, but it still could have gone down that way. And besides, even if it didn't, this isn't supposed to be the documentary. This is the dramatization, meant more for entertainment than anything else. And if it had been done well, it wouldn't have bothered me, but it seems as if Peralta just added that stuff in for the sake of being dramatic as opposed to letting any of the drama feel interesting or organic to the story itself.
Ok, so having Peralta write the screenplay was a big mistake, but having director Catherine Hardwicke at the helm was not, for the most part at least. Hardwicke employed a bleached out effect to the camera work that was extremely popular in the mid-aughts for whatever reason, but it works here. Also, she makes sure the footage of these kids skating is just as accurate and fascinating as the real footage from the documentary, even going so far as to mimic some of the shots that Peralta would become famous for in his Bones Brigade skating videos. Hardwicke even assembled a who's who of young performers to star in the flick, including Heath Ledger, Emile Hirsch, Nikki Reed and Johnny Knoxville, among others. Unfortunately, this is where Hardwicke trips up a bit.
Look, I love Emile Hirsch. I think he can be a great actor. His work in Into the Wild is incredible, I'm a huge supporter of Speed Racer and his most recent work in Prince Avalanche is a hoot. But Hirsch is terrible here. He plays Jay Adams, the youngest and wildest of the bunch. The documentary does a great job conveying Adams' spirit and rambunctiousness, but in the movie Hirsch just keeps making weird faces, leaning his head back and widening his eyes. In other words, he tries really hard to be tough and crazy but just comes off as goofy.
And guys, Heath Ledger is bad in this movie. Really bad. His character, one of the founders of the Zephyr group, is seemingly nothing like he was in real life, at least in comparison to the documentary. Which, again, I wouldn't have cared if it worked in the context of the movie, but it doesn't. Heath simply made a choice and ran with it. He employs some kind of surfer dude accent, says "man" a whole lot and acts spaced out for the majority of the movie.
Now, let it be known that Heath Ledger was great. I know it, everybody knows it. And honestly, I really like it when actors make choices like Heath did here. But sometimes actors need to be reigned in, and this was one of those times. But Hardwicke is pretty absent in this instance. She doesn't seem to be able to give any real kind of direction to these actors. To be fair, a lot of the fault lies in the script. And maybe she thought that letting these kids interpret the lines their own way would help the film feel authentic to the way teenagers really talk. But what was meant to feel authentic comes off as amateurish, and a lot of the fault in that area lies with Hardwicke.
As for the tone of the movie, I get the feeling that it really wants to feel dangerous, something the documentary was successful at conveying as these kids tore though what was believed to be the limits of professional skateboarding. As you might be able to guess though, the feature film does not have a dangerous bone in its body.
Oh, I also mentioned that the film has some hokey cameos, and upon reflection that's not entirely true. A few of the original Z-boys pop up quickly in amusing cameos that only hardcore fans would be able to notice. They're fun and harmless and don't detract anything from the movie. But Tony Hawk shows up in a moment that is so *nudge nudge* *wink wink* that it's cringe inducing. I don't really have anything else to say about it, honestly. I just hated it and I needed you to know.
I haven't even gotten into the subplot about the kid with a brain tumor, and you know what, I don't think I will. Suffice it to say the movie doesn't handle it very well and decides to treat more like a joke than anything else.
Alright, well, I didn't like this movie, obviously. I'm a little surprised to find that a lot of you guys do, though. Have you all watched it recently? I can certainly see how it might have been a draw for some of you back in the day. Hell I even mentioned earlier that I remember liking it ten years ago. It has a great cast and an interesting story, it just turns out that the movie is quite terrible as opposed to good like we all thought. Don't worry guys, this isn't a holy grail film from our youth that we're terrified of ruining, it's just a really bad movie.
The documentary holds up well as an entertaining, if somewhat biased look at the group. Not a huge surprise given the fact that the films director was original Z-Boy Stacy Peralta. Either way, I enjoyed it again and was very curious to see how the feature held up.
And dudes, I was a little surprised at just how terrible it is. Filled with awful acting, hokey cameos and a tone that wants to be a lot edgier than it actually is, Lords of Dogtown is a straight up mess.
As with any adaptation of anything, things are going to change from the original property to the new one. It's just part of the deal, and usually, it makes sense. But Peralta, making his feature screenwriting debut, takes the already interesting story of these kids, and throws in every rags to riches cliche in the book. It certainly doesn't help that Peralta makes himself out to be the angel of the entire group. The only one with any kind of decency or loyalty out of the bunch, with everyone else instantly growing giant egos and seeing dollar signs upon the first sign of fame.
Of course, it's entirely possible that that's how it happened. That stuff wasn't in the documentary, but it still could have gone down that way. And besides, even if it didn't, this isn't supposed to be the documentary. This is the dramatization, meant more for entertainment than anything else. And if it had been done well, it wouldn't have bothered me, but it seems as if Peralta just added that stuff in for the sake of being dramatic as opposed to letting any of the drama feel interesting or organic to the story itself.
Ok, so having Peralta write the screenplay was a big mistake, but having director Catherine Hardwicke at the helm was not, for the most part at least. Hardwicke employed a bleached out effect to the camera work that was extremely popular in the mid-aughts for whatever reason, but it works here. Also, she makes sure the footage of these kids skating is just as accurate and fascinating as the real footage from the documentary, even going so far as to mimic some of the shots that Peralta would become famous for in his Bones Brigade skating videos. Hardwicke even assembled a who's who of young performers to star in the flick, including Heath Ledger, Emile Hirsch, Nikki Reed and Johnny Knoxville, among others. Unfortunately, this is where Hardwicke trips up a bit.
Look, I love Emile Hirsch. I think he can be a great actor. His work in Into the Wild is incredible, I'm a huge supporter of Speed Racer and his most recent work in Prince Avalanche is a hoot. But Hirsch is terrible here. He plays Jay Adams, the youngest and wildest of the bunch. The documentary does a great job conveying Adams' spirit and rambunctiousness, but in the movie Hirsch just keeps making weird faces, leaning his head back and widening his eyes. In other words, he tries really hard to be tough and crazy but just comes off as goofy.
And guys, Heath Ledger is bad in this movie. Really bad. His character, one of the founders of the Zephyr group, is seemingly nothing like he was in real life, at least in comparison to the documentary. Which, again, I wouldn't have cared if it worked in the context of the movie, but it doesn't. Heath simply made a choice and ran with it. He employs some kind of surfer dude accent, says "man" a whole lot and acts spaced out for the majority of the movie.
Now, let it be known that Heath Ledger was great. I know it, everybody knows it. And honestly, I really like it when actors make choices like Heath did here. But sometimes actors need to be reigned in, and this was one of those times. But Hardwicke is pretty absent in this instance. She doesn't seem to be able to give any real kind of direction to these actors. To be fair, a lot of the fault lies in the script. And maybe she thought that letting these kids interpret the lines their own way would help the film feel authentic to the way teenagers really talk. But what was meant to feel authentic comes off as amateurish, and a lot of the fault in that area lies with Hardwicke.
As for the tone of the movie, I get the feeling that it really wants to feel dangerous, something the documentary was successful at conveying as these kids tore though what was believed to be the limits of professional skateboarding. As you might be able to guess though, the feature film does not have a dangerous bone in its body.
Oh, I also mentioned that the film has some hokey cameos, and upon reflection that's not entirely true. A few of the original Z-boys pop up quickly in amusing cameos that only hardcore fans would be able to notice. They're fun and harmless and don't detract anything from the movie. But Tony Hawk shows up in a moment that is so *nudge nudge* *wink wink* that it's cringe inducing. I don't really have anything else to say about it, honestly. I just hated it and I needed you to know.
I haven't even gotten into the subplot about the kid with a brain tumor, and you know what, I don't think I will. Suffice it to say the movie doesn't handle it very well and decides to treat more like a joke than anything else.
Alright, well, I didn't like this movie, obviously. I'm a little surprised to find that a lot of you guys do, though. Have you all watched it recently? I can certainly see how it might have been a draw for some of you back in the day. Hell I even mentioned earlier that I remember liking it ten years ago. It has a great cast and an interesting story, it just turns out that the movie is quite terrible as opposed to good like we all thought. Don't worry guys, this isn't a holy grail film from our youth that we're terrified of ruining, it's just a really bad movie.
Monday, September 8, 2014
The Iceman
The Iceman tells the true story of Richard Kuklinski, devote family man and notorious contract killer. Richard Kuklinski claimed to have killed over 100 people during his career. But he was a murderer with a code. No women, no children. Even if they witnessed something they shouldn't have. Michael Shannon, an already imposing dude, brings his usual intensity to
the role of the titular character, but the moments where we get to see
the killer as a family man above all else are what help make this bio
pic just a tad more interesting than all the rest.
The film opens in the mid 60s with Kuklinski on his first date with his wife, played by Winona Ryder. The scene itself is pretty familiar, but Ryder and Shannon have a nice attraction to one another that's credible, and we get our first glimpse of how this obviously stoic man can be broken down by a good woman.
Flash forward 5 years. Shannon and Ryder are married with child, Shannon has already killed a guy outside a bar in cold blood and joins the mafia after murdering a homeless man for initiation, all within 10 minutes. I have no doubt that most of that really happened, at least to some degree, but my main beef is that director Ariel Vromen rushes through all this like he only has 90 minutes to tell this story! Which, um, I guess is true. Whatever, my point is that while Vromen is able to create an appropriately grim tone and gets good performances from his surprisingly impressive cast, it just seems that he doesn't have enough time to tell this story they way it should be told.
Kuklinski's story spans multiple decades, and while I don't believe every movie HAS to be 2+ hours, it feels like The Iceman needed at least an extra 30 minutes for it to be able to leave more of an impression. What makes this even more troubling is how Vromen and the screenwriters spend a good chunk of time dealing with crime boss Ray Liotta and his no good friend played by a barely recognizable David Schwimmer(SCHWIMMER?!?). While it's interesting to see Schwimmer doing something so different and it's always nice to see Liotta in something decent, I really don't see the need to spend so much time on the subplot, especially when the main characters story is so interesting.
Even with all that frustration, there's still a lot of stuff that Vromen got right and makes The Iceman worth recommending. Aside from another good Michael Shannon performance, Vromen spends a good amount of time showing Kuklinski's relationship with his family and how he was able to deceive them for almost 20 years. It's easy to think that a spouse would obviously realize something wasn't right in a situation like this, and the film actually alludes to the fact that his wife might have had a suspicion that he was at least involved in something not entirely legal, but she certainly never suspected murder was involved. Kuklinski proved himself to be a loving husband and father, and the film makes a good case as to how he could have hidden his true profession for so long. And of course, it also makes his ability to kill without much remorse all the more shocking.
Special mention must also be made that The Iceman features a GREAT performance from Chris Evans as a fellow hitman Kuklinski partners with. I'm going to be genuinely saddened if Evans really quits acting in favor of directing. Don't get me wrong, it's great that he wants to branch out, but he has gotten better with each role and I for one would seriously miss that charisma of his.
Despite its faults, The Iceman proves to be an entertaining and fascinating look into one of the most brutal killers of the 20th century. But still, with a bit more focus and perhaps a longer running time, it really could have been one of the greats.
The film opens in the mid 60s with Kuklinski on his first date with his wife, played by Winona Ryder. The scene itself is pretty familiar, but Ryder and Shannon have a nice attraction to one another that's credible, and we get our first glimpse of how this obviously stoic man can be broken down by a good woman.
Flash forward 5 years. Shannon and Ryder are married with child, Shannon has already killed a guy outside a bar in cold blood and joins the mafia after murdering a homeless man for initiation, all within 10 minutes. I have no doubt that most of that really happened, at least to some degree, but my main beef is that director Ariel Vromen rushes through all this like he only has 90 minutes to tell this story! Which, um, I guess is true. Whatever, my point is that while Vromen is able to create an appropriately grim tone and gets good performances from his surprisingly impressive cast, it just seems that he doesn't have enough time to tell this story they way it should be told.
Kuklinski's story spans multiple decades, and while I don't believe every movie HAS to be 2+ hours, it feels like The Iceman needed at least an extra 30 minutes for it to be able to leave more of an impression. What makes this even more troubling is how Vromen and the screenwriters spend a good chunk of time dealing with crime boss Ray Liotta and his no good friend played by a barely recognizable David Schwimmer(SCHWIMMER?!?). While it's interesting to see Schwimmer doing something so different and it's always nice to see Liotta in something decent, I really don't see the need to spend so much time on the subplot, especially when the main characters story is so interesting.
Even with all that frustration, there's still a lot of stuff that Vromen got right and makes The Iceman worth recommending. Aside from another good Michael Shannon performance, Vromen spends a good amount of time showing Kuklinski's relationship with his family and how he was able to deceive them for almost 20 years. It's easy to think that a spouse would obviously realize something wasn't right in a situation like this, and the film actually alludes to the fact that his wife might have had a suspicion that he was at least involved in something not entirely legal, but she certainly never suspected murder was involved. Kuklinski proved himself to be a loving husband and father, and the film makes a good case as to how he could have hidden his true profession for so long. And of course, it also makes his ability to kill without much remorse all the more shocking.
Special mention must also be made that The Iceman features a GREAT performance from Chris Evans as a fellow hitman Kuklinski partners with. I'm going to be genuinely saddened if Evans really quits acting in favor of directing. Don't get me wrong, it's great that he wants to branch out, but he has gotten better with each role and I for one would seriously miss that charisma of his.
Despite its faults, The Iceman proves to be an entertaining and fascinating look into one of the most brutal killers of the 20th century. But still, with a bit more focus and perhaps a longer running time, it really could have been one of the greats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)