44 Days of Paranoia #36: The Fugitive (dir by Andrew Davis)

Posted on January 3, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For our latest entry in the 44 Days of Paranoia, let’s take a look at the 1993 best picture nominee, The Fugitive.

We’re all familiar with the saying, “You just had to be there.” We usually hear it as an excuse that’s uttered when a storyteller realizes that his audience isn’t as fascinated by his tale as he is. It’s a way of assuring us that we would also be fascinated if only we had been present when the story actually took place.

I think the same holds true of a lot of movies. You simply had to be there when the film was originally released to theaters, before it’s impact could be diluted by repetition and imitation, to understand why that movie was successful or why certain critics continue to speak so fondly of it.

Case in point: The Fugitive.

Based on an old television series, The Fugitive was a huge hit when it was first released in 1993. It was critically acclaimed, it featured an Oscar-winning supporting performance from Tommy Lee Jones, and the film itself was even nominated for best picture of the year. The Fugitive is still regularly cited as being one of the best action movies ever made.

And yet, last month, when I watched The Fugitive for the first time, I was left distinctly underwhelmed.

The film opens with Chicago surgeon Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford) arriving home and discovers that his wife has been murdered by a one-armed man (Andreas Katsulas). Kimble struggles with the assailant but the man still manages to escape into the night. The police don’t believe Kimble’s story and he ends up being arrested and subsequently convicted of his wife’s murder. It was at this point that I shouted out, “What about DNA!?” but then I remembered that this film was probably made before DNA became a regular part of the criminal justice system. You just had to be there…

While Kimble is being transported to death row, a fight breaks out that causes the prison bus to crash and gives Kimble a chance to escape. Kimble is now a fugitive, trying to track down the one-armed man and clear his name. Pursuing him is the charismatic and rather manic U.S. Marshal Sam Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones).

Every review that I’ve ever read about The Fugitive always praises two scenes. One is the bus crash that gives Kimble his opportunity to escape. The other is the scene where Gerard first catches up to Kimble. Standing at the edge of a storm drain, Kimble says that he’s innocent. Gerard calmly replies, “I don’t care.” Kimble then proceeds to jump over the edge and into the raging waters below. Realistically, the fall really should have killed him but, if it had, there would be no movie.

Those two scenes are genuinely exciting and well-done. Unfortunately, the rest of the film isn’t quite as memorable. Kimble spends the rest of the movie running around Chicago while Gerard chases after him. It’s all shot well enough and Tommy Lee Jones is a lot of fun to watch (the film comes to life in the scenes where Gerard interacts with the other members of his team) but, at the same time, it all feels rather predictable. For all the scenes of Ford looking intense and running through the city, I was more excited about the chance to say, “Hey, isn’t that Julianne Moore!?” when she showed up as a sympathetic doctor.

Worst of all, the solution to the film’s mystery literally comes out of nowhere. However, that solution does feature a Big Evil Corporation which, if nothing else, qualifies The Fugitive for inclusion in the 44 Days of Paranoia.

Watching The Fugitive, I could see how the film had influenced other action films and I think that was a large reason why the film didn’t work for me. What was once undoubtedly seen as being thrilling and surprising now seemed rather mundane and predictable.

That’s why I imagine that, in the case of The Fugitive, you just had to be there.

Other Entries In The 44 Days of Paranoia

Film Review: Love and Honor (dir by Danny Mooney)

Posted on January 1, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Love and Honor tells a simple but effective story.

Taking place in 1969 and opening with footage of the launch of Apollo 11, Love and Honor tells the story of two soldiers, Wright (Liam Hemsworth) and Joyner (Austin Stowell). Wright and Joyner are serving in Viet Nam together and, even as the war grows more and more unpopular in the U.S., both of them remain true believers.

Shortly before they’re scheduled to take a week of R&R in Hong Kong, Joyner receives a break-up letter from his girlfriend, Jane (Aimee Teargarden). Joyner decided to use his R&R time to fly back to the U.S. and ask Jane to marry him. As Joyner explains it, as long as he returns to his unit at the end of the week, he won’t be charged with going AWOL. Wright impulsively decides to accompany him.

What happens next shouldn’t surprise anyone who has ever seen a film set in the 60s. Wright and Joyner returns to the U.S. and discover that Jane has fallen in with a bunch of activists — led by the smug Peter (Chris Lowell) — who spend all of their time organizing rallies and publishing an underground newspaper. While Joyner pursues Jane, Wright falls in love with Candace (Teresa Palmer). In order to impress Candace, Wright claims that he and Joyner are actually deserters as opposed to just being two soldiers on R&R. While Wright’s lie impresses Jane’s new friends, it also proves to be a lot of trouble once Peter starts to get jealous.

Love and Honor, which came and went without much notice last March, is a surprisingly sweet and likable film. Liam Hemsworth and Teresa Palmer have a lot of chemistry and Austin Stowell is so likable as Joyner that it’s easy to overlook the fact that his character’s story arc doesn’t really make much sense. Finally, Chris Lowell is properly hissable as the film’s self-righteous villain.

I imagine that some politically minded viewers might be a bit annoyed with the fact that all of the film’s political activists are portrayed as being shallow, flaky, and hypocritical. (Then again, some would argue that this was the most realistic part of the entire film…) Love and Honor uses the politics of the 60s as a plot device but it never explores any of those issues in any sort of depth. But, to be honest, who cares? Sometimes, a romance is just a romance and we, as viewers, are all the better for it.

44 Days of Paranoia #35: A Dark Truth (dir by Damian Lee)

Posted on January 1, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For the latest entry in the 44 Days of Paranoia, we take a look at one of the more obscure films of 2013. A Dark Truth was briefly released last January and it didn’t get much attention. Having recently watched the film, I can understand why.

A Dark Truth (subtle name, no?) opens with a lengthy and disturbing scene of men, women, and children being chased through the jungle by machine gun-wielding soldiers. As we eventually learn, the people fleeing are the citizens of a village in Ecuador and the soldiers are there on a mission to kill every single one of them. It’s such a disturbing and well-shot sequence that I watched it with a sinking feeling because I knew that there was no way the rest of the film would be able to live up to it.

And it turns out I was right. Director Damian Lee seemed to realize this as well because he revisits the footage every time his film starts to drag. Unfortunately, the more we see these violent images, the less powerful they become. By the end of the film, that whole opening sequence has lost whatever power it had simply because we’ve seen it one too many times.

It turns out that the soldiers were working for a — wait for it! — Big Evil Corporation. It seems that this Canadian water purification company accidentally poisoned the village’s water and this led to several villagers getting sick. An executive, who is so villainous that he’s played by Kim Coates, ordered that all the villagers be executed. Among the few that escaped was a veteran political activist (Forest Whitaker) and his wife (Eva Longoria).

Meanwhile, in Canada, corporate executive Deborah Kara Unger finds out what the company did in Ecuador. Wracked with guilt, she hires former CIA Agent-turned-talk radio host Andy Garcia to go down to Ecuador and rescue Whitaker.

A Dark Truth, which obviously aspires to be something more than just a conventional action thriller, is a film that starts with an exciting bang but then ends with a whimper that, even if you have managed to stay awake while watching it, you’ll barely hear. This is one of the slowest films ever made (it certainly feels longer than 105 minutes) and the excessively stylized direction can’t make up for the fact that the film’s plot and dialogue are both painfully predictable. About the only thing that The Dark Truth has going for it is that, while Longoria is painfully miscast, the film does feature good performances from Garcia, Whitaker, and Coates. Best of all is Kevin Durand, who plays a hired assassin here. Durand doesn’t get to say much but he’s such an intimidating physical presence that he doesn’t need to say much.

Seriously, somebody needs to give Kevin Durand his own action franchise.

Other Entries In The 44 Days of Paranoia

Trailer: The Raid 2: Berandal

Posted on December 31, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Here’s something for everyone to look forward to in 2014.

44 Days of Paranoia #34: Saboteur (dir by Alfred Hitchcock)

Posted on December 31, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For today’s entry in the 44 Days of Paranoia, we take a look at the 1942 Alfred Hitchcock film, Saboteur.

Saboteur opens at an aircraft factory in Glenda, California. Co-workers Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) and Ken Mason (Virgil Summers) notice a stand-offish new guy named Frank Fry (Norman Lloyd, who appropriately looks something like a rodent). When a fire breaks out at the factory, Fry hands Barry a fire extinguisher which Barry then hands off to Ken. The extinguisher, however, is full of gasoline, both causing the fire to turn into an inferno and killing Ken.

When questioned by the FBI, Barry explains that Fry handed him the extinguisher, just to then be informed that no one named Fry worked at the plant and that no one saw Fry — or anyone else — hand Barry the extinguisher. Realizing that Fry has framed him and also remembering the address on an envelope that Fry was carrying, Barry runs. With the FBI and police pursuing him, Barry tries to track down the real saboteur. Along the way, he discovers a friendly rancher (Otto Kruger) who is actually a Nazi agent and gets some help from a group of circus freaks, a blind man, and the blind man’s model daughter (Peggy Cummings). He also discovers that the U.S. is crawling with Nazi double agents who hide behind a veil of respectability and are plotting to destroy historic landmarks across the country. It all eventually leads to a genuinely exciting climax atop the Statue of Liberty.

Saboteur doesn’t get as much attention as some of the other films that Hitchcock directed in the 40s and perhaps that’s not surprising. It’s not as technically audacious as Notorious nor is it as thought-provoking as Shadow of the Doubt or as flamboyant as Spellbound. While Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane make for perfectly likable leads, they certainly don’t generate the chemistry of Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman. When one looks at the masterpieces that Hitchcock directed in the 40s, it’s easy to dismiss Saboteur as being a well-made B-movie.

And yet, I love Saboteur. The film is pure non-stop melodrama and, over 70 years since it was first made, it remains an exciting and entertaining film. Despite the fact that some critics may not hold Saboteur in as high regard as some of Hitchcock’s other films, Saboteur is full of moments of the director’s trademark ambiguity and irony. This is one of Hitchcock’s wrong man films, where innocent men are chased across a shadowy landscape by the forces of law and order who, in many ways, are portrayed as being just as menacing as the film’s nominal villains. Meanwhile, the Nazi agents hide behind warm smiles and friendly words, their evil only apparent when it’s too late to stop them. Despite his rather fearsome reputation, Hitchcock’s sympathies always lay with the powerless and the wrongly accused.

It’s those sympathies that make Saboteur into far more than just another B-movie.

Instead, it’s one of Hitchcock’s best.

Other Entries In The 44 Days of Paranoia

44 Days of Paranoia #33: The Stepford Wives (dir by Bryan Forbes)

Posted on December 29, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For our latest entry in the 44 Days of Paranoia, let’s take a look at the sci-fi social satire, The Stepford Wives.

Now, don’t panic. I’m not talking about that terrible Nicole Kidman comedy that came out in 2004. No, I’m talking about the original Stepford Wives. This film originally came out in 1975. I recently saw it on TCM and I was shocked to discover that, despite the fact that the film is undeniably dated in that fascinatingly weird way that most films from the 70s are, The Stepford Wives holds up rather well.

Joanna (Katharine Ross) and her husband, Walter (Peter Masteron) leave dangerous New York City and move to the idyllic suburb of Stepford, Connecticut. Walter is immediately invited to join the exclusive Stepford Men’s Association but Joanna finds it far more difficult to fit in with the citizens of Stepford. As Joanna discovers, all of the women of Stepford are oddly submissive and obsessively domestic. When Joanna and her friend Bobbie (Paula Prentiss) attempt to hold a consciousness raising meeting, they quickly discover that the other women of Stepford would rather talk about cleaning products than women’s lib.

The more that Joanna investigates the social structure of Stepford, the more convinced she becomes that something sinister is being done to keep the Stepford Wives from desiring a life outside of pleasing their husbands. The more disturbed Joanna is by Stepford, the more Walter loves it…

One of the many reasons why I love my boyfriend is because he knows that I’m not perfect. He knows that I’m often a neurotic mess. He knows that I’m just as obsessively insecure about my big nose as I’m obsessively vain about my red hair. He knows that I tend to take on too much and that I get defensive whenever I’m told that I need to slow down. He knows that I can be emotional and silly. He also knows how much I value my independence. He’s knows that I need to have a life of my own and, instead of being threatened, he has always been there to encourage me, to cheer for me when things go right and to hold me when things go wrong and, most importantly, to never judge me regardless of whether I succeed or fail. He knows that I’m not perfect and that I’ll never be perfect and he loves me anyway.

That hasn’t always been the case with some of the guys that I’ve gone out with in the past. For the longest time, I always thought I was the only girl who had a hundred men trying to change her but I’ve discovered that my experiences were hardly unique. All of my friends have stories about men who have tried to change them. There seems to be something inherent in the mentality of many men that leads them to assume that they can make any woman into a robot.

Perhaps that’s why The Stepford Wives resonated with me. Most husbands may not be able to literally turn their wives into robots but it’s certainly not for lack of trying. The Stepford Wives is a flawed film — the pace often drags and the performances are uneven — but it’s one that rings true for many women.

(And don’t worry, boys! The men in this film are such pigs that there’s no way you won’t look better by comparison.)

Other Entries In The 44 Days of Paranoia

44 Days of Paranoia #32: The Purge (dir by James DeMonaco)

Posted on December 27, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For our latest entry in the 44 Days of Paranoia, we take a look at one of the more unexpected box office successes of 2013, The Purge.

The Purge takes place in the year 2022. In some ways, America is much the same as it is today but in other ways, it is significantly different. Unemployment is down to 1% and crime rates have plunged. Before you can say, “So, this is what we have to look forward to once Obama is no longer President,” we are told that America is now being led by the “New Founding Fathers.”

We also learn that every year, for one 12-hour period, all crime is legal. The Purge is designed to act as a catharsis, a time for the American people to release all of their pent-up frustrations and act on all the desires that the government has since forbidden. As the film opens, we listen to people discussing how they’re going to celebrate 2022’s Purge. Some say that they’re going to stay inside and keep their doors locked. Another brags about how he’s planning to take the opportunity to murder his boss.

The Purge has also created an entirely new economy that is completely centered around preparing for the Purge. As a result, men like James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) have become millionaires by selling home security systems. The Purge opens with James pulling up in front his gigantic mansion, going inside, and getting his family prepared for that night’s Purge.

When the Purge begins, James, his wife (Lena Headey), and his family believe themselves to be safe inside their mansion. However, things don’t go quite as planned. For one thing, daughter Zooey’s (Adelaide Kane) older boyfriend Henry (Tony Oller) is hiding out in the house. Henry knows that James doesn’t approve of him but is convinced that he can either change James’s mind or, failing that, simply kill him while it’s perfectly legal to do so.

An even bigger complication arises when a bloody stranger (Edwin Hodge) approaches the house and begs to be let in. When James’s son opens the door to the man, the house is suddenly surrounded by a group of masked purgers who demand that the stranger be sent back out. When the purgers start to attack, the Sandins’s jealous neighbors suddenly see a chance to take out their own resentments on James and his family…

The Purge got terrible reviews but, judging from its box office success, it obviously struck a nerve with audiences. And why not? Like many so-called exploitation films, The Purge may not be subtle but it does manage to perfectly capture the fears and prejudices that everyone in the audience has. I saw The Purge when it was first released and then I recently rewatched it on DVD and I have to say that I was a little surprised to discover just how well The Purge holds up to repeat viewings. The Purge is effective because, as over-the-top as it may seem, it’s still a disturbingly plausible portrait of the type of society that our “leaders” seem to be so eager to create.

https://twitter.com/ItsHoodTV/status/356241203588640771

If Zimmerman get found innocent they gon have a purge in Florida

— CBandz (@MrTurnUpHimself) July 12, 2013

As a side note, shortly after the film completed its initial run, George Zimmerman was acquitted in the Trayvon Martin case and I can still remember seeing hundreds of people on twitter saying that it was time to have a real-life Purge in Florida, which indicates how much of a part of the popular culture this film became. It’s not surprising that a sequel is going to be released in 2014.

I thought The Purge was totally unrealistic.. until the Zimmerman verdict

— dave lane (@oldwaver) July 14, 2013

Wtf zimmerman gets off? I guess it was the purge on thatday smdh

— La Jinn The Tweet Genie (@FreakyMikeyD) July 14, 2013

Other Entries In The 44 Days of Paranoia

44 Days of Paranoia #31: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (dir by Francis Lawrence)

Posted on December 26, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

For our latest entry in the 44 Days of Paranoia, we take a look at a film that might, at first, seem out-of-place in this series — The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

Why is Catching Fire included in a series of films about conspiracy and paranoia? Because, even more than the first film, Catching Fire is a film with a political subtext. Beneath its franchise surface, Catching Fire is about how the government and media establishment manipulates its citizens and how, occasionally, the citizens are smart enough to manipulate them.

When reviewing Catching Fire, probably the first and most important question is how it compares to The Hunger Games. Is it that film’s equal, is it better, or is it worst? That’s not necessarily an easy question to answer because Catching Fire is a very different film from The Hunger Games.

One of the main reasons that I loved The Hunger Games is because, after a countless number of Twilight-style films that all featured teenage girls willingly sacrificing their independence for a boyfriend, The Hunger Games finally gave us a female protagonist who kicked ass and made no apologies for doing so. Katniss Everdeen was defined by her mind and her soul and not her relationship status. I loved The Hunger Games because, like Brave, it celebrated female strength and independence. While I have always been willing to defend the Twilight films for what they are, I would not want my niece or my future daughter to grow up to be Bella Swan. Katniss Everdeen, however, is a role model for both our times and our future. The Hunger Games was all about celebrating girl power and, for that reason, I loved it.

Katniss Everdeen is still a worthy and independent role model in Catching Fire but the film itself is far more political than The Hunger Games. Whereas The Hunger Games was all about establishing Katniss as a strong woman, Catching Fire is about how that strength can be used to challenge the status quo.

As the film opens, Katniss (played, of course, by Jennifer Lawrence, who I have such a girl crush on) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) have returned to District 12 after having “won” the 74th Hunger Games. Realizing that their act of defiance could lead to a full-scale revolution, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) attempts to co-opt their rebel image. He orders that Katniss and Peeta continue to pretend to be in love so that, during their Victory Tour, the citizens of the other districts will be convinced that Katniss’s actions were the result of love and not of defiance.

This is actually a very interesting premise and definitely that shows a lot more sophistication than what we, as filmgoers, have been conditioned to expect from a movie based on YA fiction. While thousands of films have depicted love as a form of political rebellion, Catching Fire is unique in suggesting that love (or the appearance of love) can also be used to maintain political suppression.

During the Victory Tour, both Katniss and Peeta balk at having to play the roles that Snow has assigned them. While at District 11, Katniss pays tribute to Rue and then watches in horror as Snow’s “peacekeepers” executes a man who dared to hold up the three-finger salute. Trying to avoid further violence, Katniss agrees to become engaged to Peeta.

Snow, however, realizes that, as long as Katniss is alive, she’ll be a threat to him. He announces a special all-star edition of The Hunger Games, in which all the tributes will be past winners. Since Katniss is the only female tribute from District 12 to have ever survived the Hunger Games, she knows that she’s going to have to compete for a second time. When Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) is selected to be the male tribue, Peeta immediately volunteers to go in his place.

The first hour of Catching Fire, which deals with the media and political manipulation surrounding the Victory Tour, is brilliant. The second half, which features Katniss and Peeta competing in their second Hunger Games, feels a bit familiar and rushed. It’s not that the second half of the film isn’t good. It’s just far more predictable.

But here’s what’s important — everything that worked about The Hunger Games works for Catching Fire. Josh Hutcherson seems a lot more confident here than he did in the first film, Donald Sutherland makes for a great villain, Stanly Tucci is a lot of fun as Caesar Flickerman (what a great name!), and the film is a visual feast. Among the new cast members, Jena Malone is perfectly cast as tribune Johanna Mason while Philip Seymour Hoffman is properly Philip Seymour Hoffmanish as the new director of the Hunger Games.

However, the film belongs to and works because of Jennifer Lawrence. Whether she’s playing Katniss or Mystique or Ree Dolly or Tiffany Maxwell or Rosalyn Rosenfeld, Jennifer Lawrence kicks ass.

Yes, that is my official review as a film critic.

Jennifer Lawrence kicks ass.

Other Entries In The 44 Days of Paranoia

Film Review: Drinking Buddies (dir by Joe Swanberg)

Posted on December 25, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Drinking Buddies is one of the best films of 2013.

It’s important to state that from the beginning because it can be difficult to explain the appeal of Drinking Buddies. In fact, it can be argued that nothing really happens in the film. For 90 minutes, we follow four likable and familiar characters as they drink, talk, flirt, and occasionally fight. In many ways, this is a very funny film but it’s definitely not a comedy. It’s a serious movie that’s notable for lacking any real drama. Instead, it’s a warm and sympathetic portrait of life as it’s lived.

Luke (Jake Johnson) and Kate (Olivia Wilde) both work at a Chicago brewery. Luke is an almost stereotypical nice guy while Kate is good at her job but totally neurotic with almost every other aspect of her life. When we first see them on-screen together, it’s easy to assume that Kate and Luke are in a relationship. However, despite being perfect for each other, Luke and Kate are both involved with others. Kate is involved with Chris (Ron Livingston) while Luke is trying to get over his nervousness over the prospect of getting married to Jill (Anna Kendrick). After the four of them go on a camping trip with each other, Kate and Chris break up and Luke is forced to deal with his feelings for both Kate and Jill.

Now, I knew that sounds like the set-up for a romantic comedy, the type where Chris would turn out to be a complete cad and Jill would be so obviously wrong for Luke that the audience would be openly rooting for Luke to dump her so he could get together with Kate. However, and this is what makes this film brilliant, Joe Swanberg isn’t interested in making a film full of romcom stereotypes. If anything, Chris and Jill are both portrayed as being far more sympathetic than either Luke or Kate. (Livingston and Kendrick have an extended picnic scene that should be remembered as one of the best cinematic moments of 2013.)

In the end, Drinking Buddies doesn’t do anything that you expect it to do. Swanberg is less interested in romance and more interested in observing and celebrating the friendship of these four characters. This is one of those unexpected films where every single detail rings true and you end up feeling as if you could hop a plane to Chicago and find any of these four characters living their own lives beyond what the audience has been lucky enough to observe.

How good is Drinking Buddies?

I don’t even drink and I still loved this movie.

Film Review: All Is Lost (dir by JC Chandor)

Posted on December 25, 2013 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I have to admit that when I first heard the plot of All Is Lost, I was skeptical.

Essentially, the film is 100 minutes of Robert Redford (playing a nameless sailor) floating out in the middle of the ocean and trying not to die. Beyond delivering some deliberately ambiguous narration at the beginning of the film and then shouting at some profanity about halfway through the film, Redford’s performance is almost entirely silent. We’re never really sure why Redford was out in the ocean in the first place, though there are hints to be found by those who are willing to take the time to track down the small details. Myself, I know nothing about sailing and, considering how utterly terrified I am of drowning, I doubt that I ever will. As such, I spent most of the film not having the slightest idea what Redford was doing or why he was doing it.

(To just give one example of my lack of nautical knowledge, I was stunned to discover, while watching All Is Lost, that a boat can be flooded with water without automatically sinking to the bottom of the ocean.)

So, I really should have hated All Is Lost.

But I didn’t.

I have to admit that it took me a while to get into the film. There were a few times when I thought the movie was going to lose me. But every time that I thought I was going to zone out on the film, Robert Redford snapped me back. Redford brings such a sense of immediacy to his role that you can’t help but watch him even if, like me, you’re not always sure what he’s doing.

If not for the all of the Oscar talk being generated by Redford’s performance, I probably would not have seen All Is Lost.

But I’m glad that I did.