The Bourne Legacy (2012)

2/5

The Bourne Legacy, the fourth Bourne movie, has a very confusing plot. The general outline is that a covert government agency is killing all their secret operatives after a benign-appearing YouTube video is leaked. One black ops agent (Renner) escapes death and travels to the Philippines with a scientist (Weisz) so that he can inject himself with a virus. Yes, it does sound absolutely preposterous. And to make matters worse, there are simply too many story lines and too many characters to keep track of. The director, Tony Gilroy, seems to focus on the wrong things in each scene, as if uncertain what the movie is about. He goes back and forth between time and place way too frequently without any real explanation or clear motivation. This results in an extended second half that doesn't make sense within the film's logic, where seemingly ever character (big, small, good, bad) takes enormous risks out of proportion to expected benefits.

Superficially, the movie looks very exciting. There is a lot of anger and yelling, a lot of drama and histrionics. But the action scenes aren't so much exciting as they are filled with loud action-y music. Instead of gunfights and fistfights, we get running and chasing. Instead of action, we get super-fast cuts. I estimate that the average length of each shot is around 1 second. Not to spoil the movie, but Matt Damon never appears in it, although his character is unendingly discussed peripherally. To make matters worse, it has an extremely unsatisfying ending. Do not recommend.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194173/

Skyfall (2012)

3/5

Skyfall, the 23rd Bond film since its creation 50 years ago, is certainly the most beautiful Bond film I've ever seen. And it's a prototypical Bond movie in many ways--filled with dry wit, exotic locales, and evil villains--but it's set in the new "hero as human" era of superhero movies that started with The Dark Knight. I'm certainly not an expert in the franchise, but my experience has always been of James Bond as a suave, debonair, practically invincible spy. Ever since the refresh with Casino Royale, we've seen him tortured and shot and just about beaten to death. This new bastardization of Bond is of an action hero who relies on brute force instead of gadgets, luck instead of planning. The 007 franchise has turned into a predictable summer blockbuster with a little star power and name recognition thrown in, but it's lost what made it special.

On top of all that, the movie itself is pretty mediocre, even with Sam Mendes at the helm. I will give it credit for having phenomenal cinematography (thanks to the incomparable Roger Deakins) and set pieces. But Mendes did not do enough to make it special again. Q and his gadgets came back, but in the most piddling, imbecilic way possible. The pacing suffered from an extra 30 minutes of explosions tacked on at the end. The plot is absolutely laughable. Granted, the plots have always been laughable, but that was part of their charm. Now they're preposterous in a realistic world instead of a dream world, which makes the inconsistencies and plot holes all the more embarrassing.

This is a plea to the producers: Stop this nonsense. Bond is not an action series; it's a spy series. Stop turning it into every other movie and bring it back to its roots. Update it without destroying it. Bond is more than what we're seeing here.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/

Traffic (2000)

4/5

Steven Soderbergh's Traffic weaves an intricate, spellbinding tale that is nearly impossible to take your eyes off of for its entire 2.5 hour running time. The plotting is impeccable, keeping you engaged whether detailing the intricacies of drug consumption or the complex involvement of governments on drug trafficking. The stories, as penned by Stephen Gaghan, are eye-opening and richly-textured. We are thrust into a collection of environments so authentic that we cannot help but take the events that pass as reality. We become involved and complicit; we end up shaken and unclean. Every person has a little bit of good in them and a little bit of bad in them, making decisions equal parts wrong and equal parts right. There are heart-breaking scenes in here, made all the more powerful thanks to superb acting, that combine with profound and provocative ideas to bring home a very specific message: the war on drugs is a lost cause. The film ends on a solemn, haunting note, showing us characters continuing to fight a battle that will never end and will only take more lives. Everything feels so overwhelming, and we are all so helpless to effect change.

But despite my high praise, the movie also fails on a number of levels. Honestly, I hated the editing. The pacing was practically non-existent, with innumerable superfluous scenes cut together haphazardly. (Not that the movie was boring per se, just that there was about 30 minutes of extra footage meandering throughout its nonlinear storyline.) The editing was almost as bad as some of Soderbergh's directing decisions. Really? Blue, orange, and red? That's your big contribution to the story? I'm not saying it's not a well-directed movie from other standpoints, just that the colors were a bit too in-your-face for me. It was about as subtle as a sledgehammer. But Soderbergh still somehow manages to fill our minds and our hearts to their breaking point, giving us a timely and timeless story that is both absorbing and poignant. And also unforgettable.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181865/

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

4/5

Paul Greengrass's The Bourne Ultimatum is riveting. Not only does it have some of the most tense action scenes put to film, but it has them one after another with almost no lag time. The editing is simply stunning. Not a single wasted frame. While I despised the over-the-top shakiness in the second movie, this movie's less obtrusive, more muted camerawork was actually quite effective at making it realistic and thrilling. Probably because you could still tell what was going on. What made this movie stand out from your typical action fare was its political and thematic underpinnings. While it focuses most obviously on the dichotomy between following orders and making your own decisions, it also delves into modern American politics unapologetically. My favorite line in the movie was by Strathairn: "Don't second-guess an operation from an armchair."

I didn't really like the intro at all. It did nothing to serve the story and its lack of any explanation simply made its inclusion unnecessary. Additionally, some of my enjoyment was slightly marred by the terrible smile by Julia Stiles in the next to final frames. And for some reason Jason Bourne is superhumanly strong and incapable of being injured. But if you like action, you need to see this movie. Now. It truly is the best action movie of the year.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0440963/

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)

3/5

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is a flawlessly realized melodrama thriller, but the technical mastery Sidney Lumet has over the medium does not save the movie from its absolutely ridiculous story. It is about two brothers who need money; naturally they plot a robbery of their own parents' jewelry store. Something goes wrong, and the rest of the movie deals with the aftereffects of their grievous error in judgment. By the end of the movie, when everyone's life had spiraled wildly out of control and every character has made irreversible mistakes, I got up and left the theater in a hurry. Why? Because it was so spectacularly unbelievable. And I mean Snakes on a Plane unbelievable, accentuated even more so by the relative normalcy that preceded it. The characters morph from seemingly intelligent men to brainless psychopaths. These characters are not real; they are preposterous caricatures. I cannot fathom their thought processes or their motivations. But apparently other people could.

If you can deal with the single hang-up that I had about the movie (namely the poppycock masquerading as characters and plot), you will probably fall in love with it. Because the movie is technically brilliant. Sidney Lumet really is at a high point cinematically (albeit an extreme low point fictionally). The nonlinear storytelling was powerful, adding depth and tension to a rather simple story. It tantalizes you by giving you what you want in measured amounts, like a calculating drug dealer. I guess that's not a great analogy, but it works. The acting is awesome. They really make the insane characters seem insane. But seriously, the emotions on display were raw and real, and props go out to all the actors. I hope you see it if you find it interesting, because it seems I'm in the minority regarding my disbelief of characters and plot. Be your own judge.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0292963/

Miller's Crossing (1990)

4.9/5

Miller's Crossing is exquisitely detailed, exceedingly complex, and fully realized from start to finish. Darkly comic, this crime movie set in the Prohibition-era 30's tries to be a film noir in dialogue and a gangster movie a la The Godfather in content. Instead of fitting well into either category, it ends up being a fresh blend of both. Filled with double crosses, hidden agendas, and snappy dialogue, the plot can get quite confusing at times, but never out of reach for the attentive viewer. It envelops you in its own world, where every word has meaning if you know how to hear it right. The atmosphere is so real you're breathing the same air they are. My favorite aspect of this movie, and what keeps me coming back for more, is the abundance of subtle nuances left in the background for the especially watchful to pick up on. While the movie does explain the main story, it leaves a lot of important side stories and relationships open for the audience to chew over and realize on their own, which makes it much more engaging and memorable for those watching.

Onto the technical specifics. The acting was unerringly precise from all parties. The editing was terrific, milking every shot and scene for all they're worth while still maintaining mood and environment. The script itself is so rich and multi-layered in plot alone that it could stand up to analysis from a dozen different angles and produce different results each time. The dialogue is pithy and smart, as only the Coens know how to make it, although it does sometimes feel a bit "written." And it requires a very sensitive ear and very active mind to pick up on everything.

I remembered it being prettier, and was a little disappointed seeing it again and noticing rather bland colors and flat shots. While brilliant in composition and framing, the actual execution itself was not up to my expectations. The sound design as well made it a bit difficult to hear what the characters were saying, although perhaps the accents and word choice added to that problem. The dialogue doesn't quite succeed as a 40's noir, but the fervent and dedicated attempt more than make up for it. The music felt extremely out of place, specifically the choice of the main theme and also the times at which it would crop up, almost as if by accident. Also, some of the violence was a bit too exaggerated and almost laughable, although I'm pretty sure it's intentional. Very highly recommended, for any Coen brothers fan, Byrne fan, or gangster/noir fan. I will leave you with my two favorite lines from the movie.

"Nobody knows anybody. Not that well."

--"Look in your heart, look in your heart!"
--"What heart?"

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0100150/