jeff-coatney Reviews

Tucker and Dale vs Evil (2010)

A Hidden Treasure

[8/10 · 9 January 2011]

I saw the trailer to this film online and it seemed like a funny - yet unsustainable premise. I went to see it with friends anyway and I can't remember laughing so hard at a film in years. This movie takes a promising premise and knocks it out of the park. The cast is superb in this send-up of the psycho in the woods genre and the writing and direction take what I feared was an unsustainable premise and they give it surprising energy and humor. This is not Scary Movie crap. This is inventive and fresh and it has a beautiful heart. Tyler Labine and Alan Tudyk are the "Hillbillies" in this hilarious tale of prejudice and paranoia and they deliver performances that are grounded and authentic. Tucker and Dale never become plodding stereotypes of ignorant rednecks. They are portrayed with great wit and dignity and the actors never overreach or retreat into the safety and insecurity of broad camp. The cast trusts the writing and the director and it pays off. The script by Morgan Jurgenson and director Eli Craig is tight, smart and has a wonderful heart. These qualities are given life by an above average cast that includes the lovely Katrina Bowden from NBC's 30 Rock. An especially guilty pleasure is the character of Chad, brilliantly played by Jesse Moss who channels some alternate universe version of a sociopathic Tom Cruise as the lead frat-boy. Eli Craig really guided home a winner with this film. The movie sets a course at the beginning and you know where you're headed in the first five minutes-- but Craig's the captain of the ship and this journey is filled with surprises and wonderfully subtle moments that give the film a fun trajectory and a brisk pace. You breezily travel through a fantastic, hilarious and utterly sublime entertainment. Bravo!

2012 (I) (2009)

An Unexpected, Transcendently Bad Treat

[4/10 · 24 November 2009]

I really didn't expect much. I knew the resumé's of the players: The Cast, The Producer, The Director. But damn!... Damn!... I had so much fun watching this destruct-orgy... I have to say it was really, really funny. I almost gave this 8 stars, but I was afraid people would get the wrong idea about me... me!? Woody Harrelson had me in tears. John Cusack played it so straight for awhile... then a wink and a nod would peek through... I see... you're in on the joke. I get it. This movie is so over the top, it redefines where the top is. Try fifty-thousand feet higher than you think it should be. I think this film and its relative box-office success have given way to its real achievement: lowering the bar on script development to the point that it would hardly qualify as an English language film. Yet there is the comedy... brilliantly, defiantly staring me in the face, making me laugh though the part in the film where the second act is supposed to go. My ribs are hurting... but nobody spends two hundred million on a comedy! I can't reconcile it. Not even Mozart could construct such a tangled web of coincidence; cliché, coincidence; cliché, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Oh, and the moral crisis... I almost forgot about the moral crisis... it appears in the "third act", stapled to the main scientist guy like a "For Rent" sign on a North Hollywood mailbox on the last day of the month. I wallowed selfishly in the ham-fisted, contrived, thinly woven gauze of the plot, giggling and laughing my way into a sublime euphoria. Even the word "contrived" has lost its measure, its weight. All that is left is the far-away echo that hearkens to a time when movies were made by people that could marshall more than just an escrow account of foreign pre- sales fees, leveraged-hedge-fund-private-equity participations. I wipe away the tears of laughter, with fond memories of the computer-generated images of destruction so perversely maudlin, goofy even, yet vividly realistic-- like a special effects corporate welfare program. Thank you, Roland Emmerich, sir, for not pulling out and shooting your load of cinematic brilliance on the audience's tramp-stamp.

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

I loved this film. Clooney and Spacey were particularly hilarious

[8/10 · 7 November 2009]

The story borrows liberally from the exploits of Joe McMoneagle and Ingo Swann and the cadré of Remote Viewers stationed at Fort Meade, MD, under the operational detachment Project Stargate. Yes, as the film states upfront: "More of this is true than you would believe". There are instances in the film that incorporate actual Stargate operations: tracking submarines, finding a kidnapped American General in Italy and the search for Noriega following the US invasion of Panama. The comedy comes from the disconnect that the professional military hierarchy has from the rest of us. The Pentagon has too much money at its disposal and its internal political dynamics encourage a bizarre mixture of risk-averse yet forward-thinking innovators. This was particularly rampant after our loss in Vietnam. Vietnam and the Cold War combined to pull the Pentagon Brass in a thousand different directions and created a schism in the strategic planning sectors that is ripe for comedic exploration. Grant Heslov deftly captured this cultural watershed through his direction of the film. He ably guided the actors in performances that while sometimes brief, captured the totality of the real absurdity that the military can sometimes give us, while keeping the characters real and grounded and not drifting into farce. Heslov has captured an elusive tone, entirely his own, that I've only previously seen in Coen Brother's films. This is a story I've longed to see told on the big screen and it was worth the wait. You could say its a story about the Military-Insanity Complex, but that's too broad a brush for this slice of American military history. Clooney is brilliantly understated as always, he's a master of subtlety and an actor that understands how powerful the camera can be. Kevin Spacey is throughly despicable as the film's only real villain. If the film has any flaws at all its that Spacey is not in it enough. But the most poignant character is beautifully drawn by Jeff Bridges, who in just a few scenes depicts the inevitable trajectory of the innovative free-thinker in a rigid, uncaring system. Bridges shows us the cost of being that individual and Heslov gives the film room to explore this aspect of the story without sacrificing the reason we're all there to watch: and that is to have a laugh at something that maybe should never have happened but did.

Antichrist (2009)

As Pagan An Orgy Of The Psyche As You're Likely To Get

[1/10 · 2 November 2009]

Yes, I rated this film One Star. It is not entertaining, necessarily enlightening, or revealing really. But don't let my One Star review lead you astray. I could not, in good conscience give it a six or seven. Its not horror, but it is horrifying. It is beautifully cinematic, but not in a way that captivates, yet it doesn't let you look away. I believe this experience is Pagan. Not that it strips away one's belief system in order to pervade your senses with the rawest expression of nature. The sexuality is stark, toxic, inherently dangerous and brutal. Its animalistic and raw. Equal parts satisfying and bloodlettingly cruel. You feel as if you are being pulled inside the film, through the use of imagery and the unwinding of time, and lashed to a terrible conveyor belt that takes you to a dark place of cold fire and evisceration. It is the animal's view of the forest. we are as much the prey, we humans, as the predator. And what of the innate evil that is woman, as the film supposes? The woman is a beastly servant of an unseen master, driven by uncivilized carnal desire to procreate, nurture briefly and give her offspring only the illusion of filial connectivity. She, marching to a drumbeat of biology, devoid of emotion and casually cruel, disconnected from the false construct of what we hold to be civilization, wreaks havoc and leaves a wake of destruction to which the Man is drawn like a moth to a flame. Her power as the epicenter, the gateway through which life and death passes, results in a furious clockwork of Pagan expression, which is at once familiar and malignantly inevitable. Or so Lars Von Trier seems to believe. If you are confused by this review, imagine how it felt to watch the film.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Yes, it lives up to the hype, if you give it a chance.

[8/10 · 9 October 2009]

I was skeptical that a film like this could actually deliver the required thrills and chills to keep me interested, but it delivered. Don't expect huge production value, but you can expect to get absorbed into the story and witness some chilling moments and yes, even some terror. Like the Exorcist, this film presents an intimate peek into the lives of a couple terrorized by something unseen. But unlike the Exorcist, there's no Priests that show up to deal with it. Let's be clear: this film is artfully constructed by a filmmaker that has studied the underlying Psychology of horror and they really stick it to you. This film has a huge impact in a theatre, with a fun crowd of young girls ripe to shriek at every turn. I doubt this film will have the needed impact on DVD. So I suggest you fill out the petition to get it to your local theatre so you can enjoy the ride like I got to. You won't regret it. Take a date. There's plenty of charm and laughs early on from the wonderful actors who play the couple ( they're also decent cinematographers) and so you really get a sense of dread when the spooky shows up. I have very high standards, but the IMDb rating tells the tale.

The Hurt Locker (2008)

A Great Film Undermined By Style

[7/10 · 7 August 2009]

I really liked the writing, the acting, the direction of this film. However, the hand-held camera-work was repetitive, artificially motivated and self-conscious, and it took me right out of the movie. I have to say this because I really liked this movie and I feel like the actors did a fantastic job making their characters feel real. But all this work is undermined by the artifice and the visual cliché of the shaky hand-held camera. The camera movement was so disconnected from the action, it called such attention to itself, it took me right out of the movie. The filmmakers should have studied "Children of Men" for how to use the camera more effectively.

Eastbound & Down (2009–2013)

Great Show!

[10/10 · 18 February 2009]

The pilot episode was really funny. Danny McBride has that elusive, thoroughly Southern quality of brazenly aggressive, righteous pride that infuses every note. I have met pure examples of the archetype of "Kenny Powers" and while they may be rare, McBride captures the essence honestly and vigorously. The strong cast really elevates a show that could so easily and effortlessly slide into a grating farce. The women in Kenny's life are played with brilliantly understated dignity that is rendered so subtly, so carefully, it turbo-charges the comedy. Katy Mixon's reactions had me howling with laughter. Jennifer Irwin's southern housewife is spot-on with her quiet, tortured expressions that are amazing in their subtlety. Katy and Jennifer coil the show's mainspring so remarkably tight, it explodes when the raucously sexy Sylvia Jefferies and the hilarious Danny McBride pile on. John Hawkes has the hardest job in the cast. Hawkes plays Kenny's older brother Dustin and has to be both dignified and provide some degree of plausibility for Kenny's existence. There is a rich vein of comedy and heartfelt sincerity that lies underneath Kenny and Dustin's relationship and I hope the creators can navigate through it over time as deftly as Hawkes has managed his role in the pilot. The pilot episode seemed effortlessly directed by Jody Hill. Hill let the writing and the performances do the heavy lifting by placing a premium value on subtlety and nuance. For all Kenny's hurricane-like energy to dominate a scene, Hill balances that power by tempering it with the lightest touches from the rest of the cast. I look forward to future episodes, these folks have something indescribably great on their hands.

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

The Most Beautiful Aspect of This Film is Easily Missed

[9/10 · 14 September 2007]

Westerns are by their nature allegorical territory. But this film hides away a secret that if you're not careful, you may miss. I picked up the clues somewhat by accident, but as the film unfolded I began to more fully understand the Russell Crowe character and the Christian Bale character in a way that made the film impossible to misinterpret. Fathers almost always want the best for their sons. They want to protect them from harm, disappointment and loss. But in the final analysis, when everything else is taken away, even a bad father wants his son to have someone in his life he can count on, someone worth looking up to. In the final moments, when a father knows that the only things he's given his progeny are the worst parts of himself, and he has an opportunity to give him something truly good he'll do anything to provide that gift. Even when his nature is to destroy everything that matters to him. How could a man, who by every measure is a failure, not be a hero when he stands as a giant in the eyes of the boy he calls a son? Who could ask for a better father than the man that walked Ben Wade to the train station when no one else would? A man could not ask for a better Father for his son than that.

Sunshine (2007)

Why, why, why...

[4/10 · 27 August 2007]

Why are movies about "astronauts" always populated with people that wouldn't pass the psych. profile necessary for setting foot on the ship in the first place?

Why do science-fiction screenwriters watch all the great science fiction movies that have gone before and then blatantly rip-off the iconic scenes from each one and string them together in what some people call a script?

Why does the fate of mankind ALWAYS come down to the same lame "fist-fight in the engine room"? Why does Sunshine, which starts out okay, degenerate into a bad TV show by the third act? Why do well-respected filmmakers attempt to make science fiction movies when it's clear they really want to do a bad action movie instead?

Why does it never seem to occur to movie makers that when a audience pays money to see a space movie, they expect a mind-expanding, intelligent story to unfold, not a "Heroes" episode.

Bottom line: If you can't take me where I've never been, show me things I've never seen, make me think things I've never thought, then don't bother leaving earth orbit. Take the money you spent on this movie and build a few wells in Africa.

The Polar Express (2004)

Tom falls into the "Uncanny Valley"

[4/10 · 14 December 2006]

In short, this film tells a great story. I would give some weight however to the gentleman that put forth the theory about population control and fascism when the train arrives at the north pole. That argument at least sounds interesting. But my problem with this film lies along a different path. I had a difficult time watching the film without becoming nauseous. My principle reaction to the look of the characters was revulsion. This is a fantastic example of when not to use computer animation. It would have been fine to turn the people into cute animals or caricatures, but photo real looking CGI people that talk and act in medium shots and close-ups are nothing more than animated cadavers. At least that's how our brains see them. I saw the film in 3D, which I'm sure amplified my natural and innate instinct to reject the characters, as one would reject a fresh corpse.

The Fountain (2006)

Six Minute Short Film Squeezed into 98 minutes

[3/10 · 27 November 2006]

Had this film been edited down to six to twelve minutes, I would have lauded it as one of the most brilliant shorts I'd ever seen. There simply is no story. I think Aronovsky is a brilliant thinker and shows great promise as a film maker, but this film is lost. I found it indulgent, narcissistic, intentionally vague (always a hallmark of missing story) and utterly pretentious. I have a sneaking suspicion that the entire concept of this film hangs on a somewhat arcane quote from Stanley Kubrick, that death is a disease and we will one day find the cure. I hope the next film that Aronovsky makes takes into consideration that the Audience is a critical piece of the equation in Cinema.

Nightmares & Dreamscapes: From the Stories of Stephen King (2006)

This King more like a Prince.

[4/10 · 26 July 2006]

Man, I really wanted to like these shows. I am starving for some good television and I applaud TNT for providing these "opportunites". But, sadly, I am in the minority I guess when it comes to the Cinematic Stephen King. As brilliant as King's writing is, the irony is that it simply doesn't translate well to the screen, big or small. With few exceptions (very few), the King experience cannot be filmed with the same impact that the stories have when read. Many people would disagree with this, but I'm sure that in their heart of hearts they have to admit that the best filmed King story is but a pale memory of the one they read. The reason is simple. The average King story takes place in the mind-scape of the characters in the story. He gives us glimpses of their inner thoughts, their emotions and their sometimes fractured or unreal points of view. In short, King takes the reader places where you can't put a Panavision camera. As an audience watching the filmed King, we're left with less than half the information than the reader has access to. It's not too far a stretch to claim that One becomes a character in a King story they read, whereas One is limited to petty voyeurism of that same character when filmed. For as long as King writes, Hollywood will try shooting everything that comes out of his word processor, without any regard to whether or not they should. I don't blame the filmmakers for trying, but it takes an incredible amount of talent and circumspection to pull off the elusive Stephen King adaptation that works. The task is akin to turning lead into gold, or some arcane Zen mastery. Oh well, better luck next time.

Hostel (2005)

Takes a while to get to the scary

[6/10 · 23 July 2006]

I really wanted to like this one more. I have enormous respect and admiration for the people who made it. Strictly speaking, It took what felt like a long time to get to the point of the film. I've heard of the underground murder industry and believe me that is a scary world. I enjoyed the lead up to the midway point in the film, but it felt like two different movies. Without much connective tissue between them.

I also didn't feel empathy for the characters in the film that fall into jeopardy. It's probably because we spend so much time with them before the danger shows up that we realize that they're not that likable. I think we see too much of them and their juvenile behavior and it just wore thin. Kinda like nails on a chalkboard, for me at least. When the terror arrived, like a train late to the station, I guess I was too tired from standing, waiting on it, to enjoy the ride. I hope Hostel 2 is more successful in these tricky areas. And Hostel 3D... and Hostel 4: The Beginning... and Hostel V: Hotel Hell... and Hostel 7: Prey 2 Heaven!... and Hostel Ocho: Dark Night of the Gringos...

Nell (1994)

Fascinating Premise

[8/10 · 14 July 2006]

I did not see this film in it's initial run, but recently caught it on DVD. I am fascinated by the premise and I found the film to be a very emotional experience. Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson tackle the colloquialisms of Carolina to an astonishing degree, with Richardson damn near passing for a native speaker. Nick Searcy delivers a performance, yet again, that captures the verisimilitude of his utility role with authenticity. He is an often overlooked and under- appreciated talent. But the reality that Jodie Foster exudes in her performance really made me wish I had discovered this film when it first came out. Her portrayal is so crouched in the emotional reality of her character that it transcends the banality of the direction. I don't want you to think the movie is poorly directed, quite the opposite, I think Michael Apted does a fantastic job. But when these characters are juxtaposed against the circumstances of the story, I felt like Apted chose the path of least resistance cinematically. There are some logic gaps that I wanted him to fill in or explain better, but then I think... why gild the lily? Is it not a beauty in it's own right?

Silent Hill (2006)

Doesn't live up to the trailer

[4/10 · 23 April 2006]

I did not know that Silent Hill was first a video game until a couple of days before I saw it. However, the trailer alone was enough of an incentive to plunk down $20 for two tickets. I would pay the filmmakers $40 more dollars to get back the two hours of my life they took from me. It seems that for all the "edgy" and extreme imagery that the filmmakers had at their disposal, not one frame of this film was the least bit scary. I sat in a theater in Burbank, CA, on day two of the release in an auditorium that was half full and at least half the audience howled in fits of (unintentional) laughter. Some of the situations in the film are so ham-handed that they elicited giggles from the audience because they were so ridiculous. I'm waiting two weeks for this thing to open, thinking I'm going to see some scary stuff and this movie is remarkable for the utter lack of any scenes or imagery that is dread-inducing. There were at least five walk-outs in the first thirty minutes and I hardly ever see that when I go to the movies. I will give the movie this kudo; the concept artists they hired to design their creatures was money well spent. But instead of seeing this movie, I think I would have rather browsed the artist's portfolios looking at their concept designs for two hours. Better luck next time...

Hell in the Pacific (1968)

May Well Be A Masterwork...

[10/10 · 6 February 2006]

This film, of all the ones I have ever seen (much less reviewed), has the distinction of being one of the most perfect examples of a pure cinematic experience. The story is remarkably compelling. Told nearly exclusively in a visual language, it is fascinating to see these two great actors, Mifune and Marvin, relate to each other as human beings, while being completely unable to understand each other verbally. This film should be a must-see for any cinemaphile. Brilliantly directed in two very different ways: first of all, visually and then from a stand point of the acting. The challenges of making this film had to be enormous... filming on the water, dealing with the language barrier, and all the while never letting the core themes of the film suffer. This film is a great achievement. Bravo!

Munich (2005)

Sadly Inevitable

[9/10 · 2 January 2006]

Mr. Spielberg has now sadly been drawn into this phenomenon we call terrorism. No civilized person will be allowed to be neutral on this subject in the coming years. Paving the way, as always, is the art world... heralding the coming of the subject of terrorism and the Middle East in particular as they invade popular culture and the debate begins to be democratized as it seeps out into the masses.

Before Cinema, Governments, Zealots and Radicals made their own rules, playing the power game of nationalism and politics free from the scrutiny of those they govern. Now, we are learning how deep the hatreds run among the players and how ruefully unprepared our elected officials are in combating it. Dramatized though it is in parts, Munich lets us peek at the sick momentum that builds within and without world events and the inevitable cause and effect that will ultimately, it seems, decide which group or cause will one day triumph.

I am saddened that Mr. Spielberg, who I'm sure, like all of us, would rather live in a world where there are no ugly realities to inspire such films as this, would feel compelled to tell the story of the Sword of Gideon. I long for the days when we could watch the summer blockbuster escapism, blissfully unaware that outside the theater was a desperate world fighting to remain civilized. The French arms-dealers who traffic in information and lives are such a great illustration of that time, swathed in their cultured hermitage, able to ignore the collateral costs of their family business with at least as much passion as they reserve for their cheeses and wine.

The Spielberg of the multiplex cinema generation has moved into darker, more uncomfortable waters, the only guide for the filmmaker and his audience is our own conscience. Here then is the echo of the mind that made E.T., Saving Private Ryan, Amistad and The Color Purple. He knows us so well, he's sure that inside we are as decent and civil as he is and he knows he merely has to show us the images and we will choose the right path. But they must be images we have not already been desensitized to, because the journey of Munich is not one we can observe from afar. In this journey we must be participants. Because we are of course active participants in the reality of Munich, in the debate about terrorism, in the prayer for a lasting peace, in the hope that men will someday care more about this world than they do the next world.

King Kong (2005)

The Original was nothing more than pre-viz for this epic

[9/10 · 17 December 2005]

This is film-making on the Jackson scale and should be considered the first true telling of the Kong story. The classic original is great and all, but when you see what Peter Jackson's team has created I'm sure you will be overwhelmed. It is amazing what can be put up there on the movie screen these days. What a wonderful place to be for three hours. It reached into me, grabbed my inner fourteen-year-old boy and gave him a wedgie. I have not been this thrilled at the movies in years. The depth of emotion, the performances (both real and virtual) are so grounded and true to themselves and the story that when you add the stunning production design and the kinetic visuals, the experience is overwhelming. This is a back-row movie. If you sit anywhere towards the front you might get sea-sick, the action sequences are that extreme. I would pay double to see this film. And, I will be going back for two or three more helpings. There is so much going on in each shot, I know I will wear out my pause and slo- mo button on my DVD player when this thing gets released.

A History of Violence (2005)

Brilliantly Sub-Textural

[8/10 · 9 October 2005]

I felt as if I was watching a documentary about how higher primates relate to each other. Most people are going to judge this film at face value. Look past the plot points and the characterizations and the brilliantly graphic violence and sexuality and you get to see the real History of Violence. This film explores how humans relate to each other using violence. We build intimacies, define how we love each other, create the social fabric we live within, all by using violence at every stage of life as a central and according to the point of view of the film, an essential tool to assert our power and dominance, protect what we value and connect to our sexuality. This film shows us the history of violence through the situations the characters face from adolescence all the way to a showdown for utter survival. Along the way, we see how violence emanates from all humans naturally and freely and may even be as essential to our survival as a species. There are many very eloquent moments in the film when we are surprised intellectually by how the characters react, yet those moments ring true instinctively. Maria Bello's character is tormented and repelled by the revelations from Viggo Mortensen's character, yet in the middle of their fight, she becomes aroused sexually. It's clear that in her character's mind, the primate part of herself betrayed the intellectual side of her being and that both satisfies and disgusts her. The complexities layer one upon the other in such a way that when the very realistic violence occurs, it heightens the effect in the most unglamorous way. Essential viewing for anyone interested in human behavior.

Grizzly Man (2005)

A story impossible to tell in Fiction

[8/10 · 26 September 2005]

Anyone that talks into a camera, as Treadwell does throughout the film, involves the audience in a passive way in his endeavors. This act invites criticism, judgment, empathy. This film is not about a man living with or studying Bears. This is a very personal journey that one human being takes to discover himself, confront himself, and a vain attempt in the end to define himself. What makes this a great film is that we get to go along for the ride, through the very personal and visible involvement of Herzog, who makes himself a character in the piece. The film becomes self-reflective both of it's subject, Treadwell and the filmmaker, Herzog.

Who Treadwell is or was, in the end is still a mystery (thankfully). But, like meeting someone new in life, we get a pretty good idea whether or not we'd like Treadwell personally, or if we'd like to spend any time with him, or even engage him in conversation. Apart from or perhaps because of his eccentricities, to me at least, Treadwell's life is that of someone who isn't quite sure of who he is. Is he the kid from back east who adopts the hippie liberal Berkley affectations, as if he were an actor, living the part of an interesting person doing important work for the greater good? There are glimpses that he lets us see, sub-consciously, that reveal depression, self-loathing, sexual confusion, an overwhelming desire to be relevant in a chaotic and unsympathetic universe, and yes, even sociopathic tendencies. Are these the measure of Timothy Treadwell? The journey he takes is the search for Eden, the connective tissue that Modern Man believes has been lost. The desire to connect with nature in an effort to fill the void of meaning and the loneliness that civilization has created in us. The betrayal that Treadwell feels toward the modern world, for crushing his dreams of adulation and love, of relevance and his need to feel necessary, is revealed in how he regards the inanimate camera contrasted with his regard for the men who encroach on his camp.

In the end, his death, which feels like a suicide to me, give his efforts the context that eluded him his whole life. Would Herzog have noticed this guy if he hadn't been eaten by the creatures he sought desperately to connect to? Why are we watching this? I find Tim Treadwell interesting in a tiresome celebrity-centric way. I'm sure he was a nice person and he was very obviously well-loved, but the shadows of the person I see on screen is someone I would not like to spend the afternoon with. His interest in the Bears runs toward the narcissistic. As if to say: "Look at me, I love these animals, I am important and relevant and I should be admired for this and valued and celebrated!" Do any of us watching this not covet the same? That is what is extraordinary about this film. It's what I think of myself after watching it that I find remarkable. Treadwell is so pervasively average, it's impossible not to connect with the part of him that drives his need to go to the wild.

The Island (2005)

The most important subject Mr. Bay may ever tackle...

[5/10 · 17 August 2005]

Regardless of the Producer's comments concerning Ms. Johanssen's and Mr. McGregor's connection with the audience, it is clear in the film that the actors are reflecting the stunted emotional depth of their characters. This aspect of the performances may get lost in the explosions and car chases, because it is one of the more nuanced and subtle aspects of the film. While I respect Mr. Bay's craft as a filmmaker, I'm not part of the demographic he is targeting usually. So, I just can't "get into" Mr. Bay's films, even though they look great. I'm missing something from practically every one of them. Except this one. The Island has that thing I'm looking for, but midway through, the film just morphs into a tired (yes, it's tired...) action-movie string of set-piece "stunt-gredients". The basis for the film, the reason The Island exists... that has weight and gravity and a sense of urgency, but it is exhausted(!) in the first "Act". It's clear that Mr. Bay is really only interested in having 17 to 22 year-old's buy tickets for his films, because he seems to be ignoring the intellectual and emotional demands of audiences over 30 yrs old. I don't want that to sound like a criticism, designed to nullify Mr. Bay's effectiveness as a filmmaker. What I hope is that Mr. Bay listens to this comment as an invitation from a great, vast audience of people hungry for some compelling cinema. Are you up to the challenge, Mr. Bay? We anxiously await your answer, with millions of dollars of ticket money that we will not part with until we're given better reasons to go to the cinemas on the opening weekend.