Gravity (2013)

I have a very weird phobia: Dying by floating off into outer space. I tried to look up if that has a specific name, but the closest match I found was "Spacephobia," which sounds stupid like a cheesy 80's sci-fi comedy staring Lloyd Bridges or something. It's just this bizarre thought that has worked its way into my nightmares on occasion, and there are few ways that I can personally think of that would be a worse way to die. Fortunately I'm pretty sure that I'll never come anywhere close to having to face that particular fear unless I get selected for that Mars One thing. But I wasn't really going to try for that anyway. I'm too addicted to microbreweries.

So after I saw the trailer for "Gravity," there were two things that went through my mind. The first was "Wow, that looks pretty good." The second was "Crap. I'm going to have a heart attack during this thing."

Christ on a cracker...

I'm glad to report that I did not, in fact, need to go to the hospital after seeing it, although make no mistake, "Gravity" was just as intense as you were probably imagining it was. And yes, for someone with mild spacephobia it was a frightening experience that was borderline torturous on occasion. On those terms alone it could be called a success, but where "Gravity" goes a couple of steps further is in the absolutely gorgeous visual presentation with which it tells this simple story of survival.

The setup for this movie is dirt simple. Two astronauts, Matt (George Clooney) and Ryan (Sandra Bullock) are doing a spacewalk when the Russians do something that they really should have been more careful with and end up sending a whole bunch of shrapnel hurling towards everyone else. This destroys the shuttle and kills everyone on board with the exception of Matt and Ryan, who are left floating adrift in space. Their only hope is to make it to one of the space stations nearby to use one of the reentry pods to get back home.

 Uh oh. Look out, Alfonso Cuarón. I think J.J. Abrams has invaded your movie.

And that's it. That's the whole movie. Now, contrary to what it may have looked like in the trailer, Matt and Ryan do not spend the entire film free-floating in space. Not too far into the film they reach the station and all that good stuff, so for those of you who were perhaps concerned that it was going to be "Open Water" in space can relax a bit. There's more to it than that, although it's pretty obvious that at some point they're going to have to reach somewhere because Ryan is down to 2% oxygen within the first twenty minutes, and it's probably likely they're not going to kill off Sandra Bullock in the first act, as if "Gravity" could be structured like a traditional three act film, which it can't.

That brings me to the actors, both of whom I only can say good things about here. Sandra Bullock absolutely tears it up in this film, which isn't surprising since she's very good. I've been a fan of hers for some time now, ever since I got my first Hollywood Crush on her after seeing "Speed." I was so jealous of Keanu Reeves after he hooked up with her at the end of that movie. Anyway, she's also a fantastic actress on top of still looking amazing (to a possible black-magic-is-involved degree), and "Gravity" is one of, if not the best efforts of her career, which is saying a lot.

Caution: Her storyline involves the feels. Many feels.

George Clooney actually kind of stole the show for me, though. That's weird because I don't even like George Clooney that much as an actor. But he was fantastic in "Gravity," providing the level-headed calmness of a seasoned professional to balance out Bullock's panicked rookie. And he's charming as hell while he does it. And liking both of these characters goes such a long way, and is such an important thing for the tension because it ensures that we want to see them make it.

All that being said, the thing people are probably going to remember about "Gravity" is the visual presentation. In those terms this film is insane. That's the only word I can think of that describes it fittingly. Insane and beautiful. You'll get dizzy watching it. You might get vertigo. You might get queasy. That may sound like I'm trying to dissuade you from watching it but I'm not. "Gravity" does such an amazing job of conveying, at least in some small way, what floating in space must be like as the camera twists and turns and floats around while the Earth's horizon looms overhead like it's the only thing in the Universe, that sitting in your seat you feel like you're about to be sucked up into the movie screen as you plummet towards it. That may be my spacephobia talking, but I defy anyone to watch this and not feel their sense of equilibrium unbalanced.

"Aaah. AAAAH. AAAAAHJESUSCHRISTI'MGOINGTOPUKE."

In terms of any negative impressions I got from it, there's really only two things that I found to complain about. The first is that there comes a moment in the film, and you'll know it when you get there, when something big happens. It's an event that changes roughly everything, and while it was certainly dramatic and rather heartbreaking, I couldn't help but feel that it wasn't a great choice for the film to make. And the reason for that is because the movie is simply not as interesting after that point, and it makes any dialogue afterwards essentially meaningless, despite how well-acted it was. That aspect I was not a fan of.

The other thing that I have to complain about is the fact that "Gravity" isn't a movie I could imagine owning, let alone seeing again. That's a bit unusual for me since I fancy myself a collector, and I do enjoy rewatching films that I liked, and I did like "Gravity." However this film seems more like an event you sit through once, say "Holy crap that was a thing" and then never see it again. And it all goes back to the first thing I talked about. If that hadn't happened I may have had a differing opinion, but it is what it is, and I thought "Gravity" really suffered in the second half because of it.

All that being said, you should still see it at least once. Find the biggest screen you can. It's quite a thing.

Jesus...

THE BOTTOM LINE - I didn't personally feel that "Gravity" is worth the obscenely high Rotten Tomatoes rating of 97% it has, but it's still a damn good movie that's very much worth watching, and it's probably the prettiest thing you'll see all year in the theater. It's gorgeous, it's very well acted, and it's very intense. All that being said, it left me feeling just ever so hollow at the end, enough to make it so I wouldn't own it or see it twice. But it was definitely worth that one watch.

Phantom (2013)

It occurs to me as I write this entry that there really haven't been many movies about submarines that I haven't liked. At least, I can't think of a submarine movie that I haven't at least found passable. I've never seen one that made me mad at it.

I mean you've got "Das Boot," "The Hunt for Red October," and "Crimson Tide" which gives the genre pedigree by themselves, but don't forget about "Down Periscope" either. That's actually one of my favorite comedies, as strange as they may sound. Even the low-budget Rutger Hauer vehicle "Hostile Waters" I found to be decent. I think the worst I've seen was probably "U-571" and "K-19," and those weren't really bad, they were just okay.

Submarines are just an interesting setting for a film. It's inherently tense without really even trying, what with being in a tin can below the water, where one mistake could leave you crushed in an instant. All it takes is good direction and half-way decent writing and acting and you've got most of the work done for you as far as suspense goes. Like I said, I like these kinds of movies.

This brings me to "Phantom," a film about a Russian submarine during the Cold War starring Ed Harris and David Duchovney. That premise alone gets a hardy "Hell Yes" from me. Ya'll know I loves me the Duchovney. I remember it got a small theatrical release in March, but it wasn't playing anywhere near me, which ticked me off because I would have seen it even if it was only rocking a 25% on Rotten Tomatoes, which it was. But that website isn't very trustworthy most of the time, anyway, so my interest in it was still firmly in the "very" category.

Archeologists could probably find ruins of ancient civilizations in those valleys and crags on his face.

After seeing it I honestly have no earthly idea what it's doing at a 25% on Rotten Tomatoes. "Phantom" isn't a mind-blowing epic or anything, and its tin-foil hat may be showing ever so slightly, but it's a solid submarine movie that hits nearly every note which makes the genre work, and it's headed by a really solid cast that sells what they're doing quite well. I hate to use phrases that would normally get slapped on a DVD case, but "Phantom" is a pretty rousing thriller, and I enjoyed myself.

Based on true events in the same way "A Perfect Storm" was (in that the filmmakers actually have no idea what really happened but hey this scenario would not have been physically impossible), "Phantom" follows the final voyage of a Russian submarine which was hijacked by members of an extremist branch of the KGB and turned into a vessel for starting a war between China and the US. The eponymous "Phantom" is a device the KGB has installed on the ship which makes it essentially invisible, and is the lynchpin in their plan. So yes, notes of "The Hunt for Red October" are present, but that movie is awesome, so shut up.

Pssh. A submarine in the water. Seen it before. Boo. Zero Stars.

Everything past that is standard submarine movie fare, which isn't to say it's bad or boring, but it is a fairly by-the-book story. Of course we know that World War III didn't happen, so we know the KGB don't succeed in their plan, but it's still tense to see how or if the men on the boat are going to get out of the situation, because the film is made with very competent direction and pacing by director Todd Robinson.

The cast is a solid mix of big names like Harris and Duchovny who both tear it up, and a collection of "that one guy from that one movie" actors like William Fichtner and Sean Patrick Flanery. It's even got Lance Henriksen showing up for 3 minutes in the beginning for a scene they can put in the trailers to drop some quick exposition. I was particularly a fan of Jason Gray-Stanford, who plays one of the boat's officers, because he looks exactly look Goose in "Top Gun." So that's pretty awesome.

I must say that I really, really enjoyed Duchovny's role in "Phantom." I've never seen him play a villain, but after this I think it would be a real missed opportunity if he didn't do it more often. On top of his character, Bruni, being a very well-written role because he's one of those great villains who doesn't think he's a villain at all, Duchovny's trademark deadpan delivery and fantastic cold eyes makes him a lot of fun to watch.

What? David Duchovny playing a member of a shadowy, fringe, paranoid government organization who goes off and does his own thing regardless of what his superiors want? What a twist.

My favorite dialogue from the film was in a scene where Harris asks Duchovny why he's doing what he's doing, to which Duchovny explains that the US now has first-strike capabilities. That means that Russia must strike first because America now has their finger on the button. Harris asks the obvious question, "What makes you think they'd attack us first?" Duchovny replies in a very calm, logical, why-do-you-even-ask tone of voice, "We would." That was straight up chilling. Props to Duchovny.

There is one big thing about "Phantom" that didn't work, and was pretty weird despite the fact that by the end I had accepted it, and that is the fact that nobody here even attempts to have a Russian accent. Not one single cast member. In fact I'm pretty sure the navigator had a Texas drawl going on. And while it's probably best to either go all or nothing with that kind of thing, the "nothing" approach did make itself a constant distraction. At least Sean Connery was surrounded by guys doing Russian accents, and Connery himself has an accent, even though it's Scottish. "Phantom" sounds like they filled the sub with the cast of "Field of Dreams."

Oh hey. It's...you. I remember you from...oh geez what was the freaking movie? You know...the one with that other guy. The guy with the face? That movie. You were in that, too, I think. Are you sure you're not Sig Hansen?

Apart from that I heard some people complain about the end of the film being silly, but I disagree. Yes, it does get a bit (okay a lot) metaphysical and artsy, but it actually didn't take me out of the movie at all. Honestly I thought it was quite poetic and rather moving. It gives some closure to a film that by all accounts really couldn't have much of one had they simply left it where it normally would have ended.

So why did this movie get panned? I have no idea. I guess you either like these kinds of movies or you don't. I think people can expect a bit too much from films sometimes, particularly when the premise is fairly simple. I mean, there's only so much you can do in a submarine movie. It's about guys crammed in a metal cigar box underwater. Their options are limited. But as long as the tension is there, what more do you want from a submarine movie?

Check out the trailer for "Phantom."

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Phantom" is a solid entry in the submarine movie genre. It's not doing anything overly original besides casting David Duchovny as a villain (which makes it worth seeing by itself), but the skill with which it's made makes it a fun, intense ride. I was invested beginning to end, despite the story being most likely ridiculous, although the behind the scenes features on the DVD offering a defense of the story is admittedly interesting and oddly compelling. If you're a submarine movie fan, this is definitely one to check out.

Pain & Gain (2013)

So Michael Bay made a movie for $26 million, huh? That is brilliant. Absolute genius, and it needs to happen more often to more directors. Give James Cameron all his usual equipment, the best stuntmen Hollywood can find and Arnold Schwarzenegger on the condition that he can't use CGI at any point. Give him a year time limit, too, since he won't have to wait for the stuntmen to catch up with his vision. Give Spielberg 100 grand, an RV, Tom Hanks and an HD camera and send him on his way. Let's see what he does. Make Uwe Boll film a movie on a cell phone. Hell, it'd probably be a step up from his usual stuff.

It's no secret that I'm not a Michael Bay fan. I guess when I was a kid I was, but that's only because Bay's target audience is the lowest common denominator and stupid children. I think that even at that time I knew what I was watching wasn't very good, but man, when you're 15 years old "Armageddon" just speaks to you. I saw that mess in theaters twice, son. That blew my young mind. And of course "The Rock," which is arguably Bay's best film (although the only reason it's good is the cast) was a monument to my adolescence. Then he did "Transformers" and all affection for Bay was lost on me, with little chance of ever returning.

I think this was the moment when my childhood officially died.

I won't say that "Pain & Gain" has brought me back into the Michael Bay fold, so to speak, but you know something? This is good. This is a really, really, really good movie. And it's not only a testament to the actors involved, almost all of whom give award-worthy performances, not only a testament to the writers, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, for making a true, horrible story about true, horrible people actually hilarious, but it's also a testament to Michael Bay himself, because with "Pain & Gain" he has outed himself as a very good director when he wants to be. And yes, it pains me to say it, but it's true.

"Pain & Gain" is the "so insane it can only be true" story about a trio of lunkheaded body builders who wanted more out of life. After all, they deserve to live the American Dream. So they kidnapped a rich guy and stole all his stuff. This all led to some torture and cold-blooded murder, and saw two of them ending up on death row. They actually got away with it for a while, but that's mostly because the story was so bonkers that the Miami police didn't buy a word of it. Or they were incompetent. But it was probably a little bit of both.

Danny Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) is the ring leader of the group. He's unsatisfied with his job working as a trainer at a gym when, after attending a motivation seminar by a guy named Johnny Wu (Ken Jeong), he decides he's going to be a "doer" and not a "don'ter." That's when he develops his scheme to kidnap one of his clients, a rich guy named Victor Kershaw (Tony Shalhoub), and take all his stuff. He enlists the help of his friends Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and Paul (Dwayne Johnson), and after a few bungled attempts they nab Victor and hide him in a sex-toy factory for a month before they finally end up with all his money, after which they try to kill him. Of course, since they're idiots they can't even get that right, so Victor is left alive and seething for vengeance.

Even with $26 million, Bay still gets the "Walk away from an explosion all cool" moment.

His only problem is that the police don't believe him for various reasons and, despite dubious circumstances, all the paperwork he was forced to sign while imprisoned which handed his possessions over to Danny is technically legit. Victor hires a private investigator, Ed DuBois (Ed Harris) to get to the bottom of everything, who is the guy who eventually catches up to Danny and the others. Of course Ed is helped by the fact that Danny and the others are, once again, really stupid.

The cast is across the board fantastic. It's takes a lot of talent to make characters this unlikeable be this entertaining, and in some bizarre ways the portrayal makes them almost lovable. Naturally these are terrible people, but you can't help but love Mark Wahlberg and his bright-eyed sincerity. Almost every word out of his mouth is either a terrible idea or something dumb enough to split the Earth in half, but he says it with such innocence and such gravity that you believe that to his 'roided up core he believes every syllable of it.

Even as he's being led away to prison, he's telling the person who caught him that he should work on his quads. I love this guy.

The only person who threatens to steal Wahlberg's thunder is Dwayne Johnson. Now, everyone else was great. They were fantastic. But just in case anyone out there was not yet aware that Dwayne Johnson was a shockingly talented actor, here you go. At first he's the innocent, even dumber, born again Christian simpleton of the group, but as the movie goes on and he indulges in the decadent lifestyle he finds himself immersed in, the drugs and money and pressure and guilt start making him crack. And it doesn't take too long before he's doing more really stupid things, which cause the spiral to go down even further. Meanwhile you can see the cold panic that is setting in right under the surface of his tough guy exterior, but you get the feeling he's too stupid to understand any of it. It really is a stunning performance.

The cameraman attempted the world's most epic high five with Dwayne Johnson. These are his last recorded moments.

One thing that has always remained constant with Bay is his style. As much as I despise the vast majority of his films it can't be denied that he's got a visual thumbprint that is impossible to miss. You know from the first few frames of the film whether or not it's a Michael Bay film. And "Pain & Gain" is no different. The shaky cam, the frankly pointless bits of slow motion, the nearly fluorescent color scheme, lots of lens flares, and the upward angle low-shots and dutch angels that have come to be his trademark are all here. It looks just like "Transformers" but without robots and Shia LaBeouf's stupid face.

And while visually it does border on obnoxious, had this been a first time director I wouldn't have minded. I would have just thought it was a guy with a strong and unique visual calling card, like David Fincher or Stephen Spielberg. I think I only find it obnoxious because it reminds me of other films I despise, which is distracting. I'm sitting there laughing my fool head off at Wahlberg, but in the back of my mind I'm dreading that any moment Skids and Mudflap will show up with fried chicken, watermelon and Kool-Aide.

That brings me to my biggest complaint about "Pain & Gain" - some of the humor. This is not only a Michael Bay movie in visual style, but also on occasion crap that's not really funny. This is a tableau of all the usual testosterone infused sexism, homophobia, bigotry and misogyny present in all his works, only it's cranked up to such levels that it makes me think that it's potentially satirical. I can't really tell. If that's the case it puts a whole new light on his other works, but suggesting that perhaps his brain-dead brand of machismo is a kind of parody is probably giving him too much credit.

That's his chainsawin' shower cap.

There's no way that it's a coincidence that so much of this film is hysterical, while also containing gags that are note-for-note the kind of sophomoric idiocy that we've seen time and time again with his films. The writers are talented, after all they are the duo that wrote "Captain America" and both "Thor" films. I find it hard to believe that they would have a fat man blasting poo all over a hospital bathroom after getting an enema, a priest coming on to Dwayne Johnson, Rob Corddry thinking that Walhberg telling him to "star 69" a guy means having sex with him, or a little person showing up to threaten Wahlberg and Johnson with a bat just because, well, little people are apparently hilarious. That crap is classic Michael Bay, and we've seen it time and time before with him.

I think it's those moments of non sequitur shenanigans that have nothing to do with anything that were put in there by Bay himself. They had to be. The rest of "Pain & Gain" is clearly parody. It's a bit mean spirited and by extension stupid because the characters are stupid, but one thing it isn't is nonsensical. Those random episodes of idiocy that reek of Michael Bay are too dumb to be satire. He's just getting in the way of the talented writers. It'd be like if Seth MacFarlane had been on the writing staff of "Blazing Saddles." All of a sudden Gene Wilder and Cleavon Little would step into a recreation of the music video for Toto's "Africa," because that makes sense, and we're all supposed to laugh because "the 80's."

But just as soon as that crap is over we usually cut to something awesome like Dwayne Johnson grilling human hands, so it all kind of evens out.
 

Even with those things in there, the rest of "Pain & Gain" is honestly kind of brilliant. And I think I've figured out why I liked these characters so much and had such a good time when in another Michael Bay movie I would have hated it. The reason is because unlike Shia LaBeouf or the rest of the cast in the "Transformers" series, we are never meant to like Wahlberg and Johnson. They are terrible people, but "Pain & Gain" doesn't insult us by trying to make us root for them. We don't necessarily want bad things to happen to them because they're so entertaining in their awfulness, but if they were to get caught we'd probably say "Well, they had it coming, the idiots." The horrible things they do are easier to laugh at when we're not expected to be on their side like they're the good guys.
 
Does "Pain & Gain" make me a Michael Bay fan? Hell no. Are you high? I still think his movies are generally borderline hate-crimes against anyone with a brain-stem. But let it not be said that I'm not merciful, because I always give credit where credit is due. This is a good movie. And Michael Bay directed. True, it might be good in spite of him, but it's still good. Now if he can just get away from CGI robots and do more stuff like this, maybe I won't consider scheduling eye removal surgery whenever another one of his films comes out.

Check out the trailer for "Pain & Gain." It's a pretty good representation of what the movie is like. (Red band trailer so NSFW)

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Pain & Gain" is a bit niche based on how utterly sleazy and mean spirited it is, but if you're someone who can appreciate some dark humor than this film is an absolute blast. I'm not completely sure, but this may be my favorite Michael Bay movie. Even if you hate him as a director, I'm seriously recommending this one. Crom help me, this might make my Top 10 of 2013. Trust me, I'm as surprised as you.

Man On A Ledge (2012)

It must be hard to be Sam Worthington. He's at the mercy of an insane person.

Think about it. His career has to wait for James Cameron, that anal-retentive, off-his-rocker-crazy perfectionist who takes 20 years between each movie in order for technology to catch up with his fever dream visions of making stuff that isn't real look still-not-real-but-boy-is-it-pretty-and-shiny. And Sam ain't doing jack in the meantime. The only time anyone cared about Sam Worthington was when he was in "Avatar," and it would appear that the only time anyone will care about him again is whenever Cameron makes the sequel. That's rough.

That may be a bit harsh, but come on. The biggest thing the dude's done in the 4 years since "Avatar" are the "Clash of The Titans" reboots. That is not exactly prestigious. And now we have "Man On A Ledge," which doesn't thrill and entertain so much as confirm my suspicion that Sam Worthington is trying guilt-trip James Cameron into making "Avatar 2" faster so that he can have a career.

 "Do it, Cameron! Do it or I'll jump! I swear I'll jump!"

Whatever. "Avatar 2" is still probably going to be crap, just like the first one was. Maybe this time it'll be a 4 hour long rip-off of "The Postman." Which would actually make that movie shorter, come to think of it.

I'm going to tell you straight out, for "Man On A Ledge," I'm going to spoil the crap out of this movie. I'm doing it because I don't care, and honestly, neither do you. You just don't know it yet. It's a dumb film that is under the impression that it's clever. Even with Ed Harris as the villain, which under any other circumstance would be awesome, it manages to also be boring. And the reason it's boring is because, going back to the first point, it's dumb. Although there might be something to be said about the entertainment factor of watching a train wreck.

The only way for me to try and make sense of any of this mess is to break it down into steps.

1) Businessman (Ed Harris) loses a lot of money during the economic collapse.
2) He sells his gigantic diamond to make some money to survive.
3) In an effort not to be humiliated, he frames a seemingly random cop (Sam Worthington) and says that he stole the diamond, cut it up into many pieces, and sold them.
4) Cop is convicted of this and goes to jail.
5) Cop and his brother set up this elaborate heist to break the cop out of jail and steal the diamond from the businessman, in order to prove that he didn't steal it the first time. Among other things, this plan involves the cop creating a huge distraction by standing on a ledge, and their father faking his own death and becoming a bellhop at the hotel across the street from the businessman's building. (Oddly enough, the father bit makes more sense since the only reason the ledge thing is necessary was to make a crowd cheer in order to make enough noise to cover up an explosion. If that's your plan, try harder.)
6) Absurdly, the plan actually works, up to the point where the brother and his girlfriend (two people who are not career criminals yet are pulling of "Ocean's 11" style heist-aerobics) find out that the diamond is not in the safe they thought it was in. At this point their plan is officially tits-up. Everything past this point couldn't have been planned by them.
7) The businessman, seeing that his security measures performed admirably and exactly as intended despite being penetrated, decides to take the diamond out of his super high tech safe that the thieves couldn't possibly break into and instead puts it in his pocket because...um...because...well...he's dumb.
8) The brother and his girlfriend break into the businessman's office and wait for him, since there is apparently no security leading to his office (what?), and steal the diamond off of him. Keep in mind, they did not know that he a) had another safe or b) had the diamond on him. And even if they did know that (which they couldn't) their entire plan hinges on him removing the diamond from the safe after the break-in. Which, even as flimsy plans go, is a stretch and relies on the businessman being galactically stupid.
9) In a beautify orchestrated series of hand-offs and tag team switcharoos involving their dad undercover as a bellhop, the brother manages to get the diamond into the hands of the cop.
10) Using crooked cops and a gun, the businessman gets the diamond back, making the whole switcharoo stuff pointless.
11) Using dumb luck and convenience, the cop manages to punch the businessman in the face and shows the diamond to everyone in a big crowd including the media, which apparently clears him from wrongdoing, exonerates him, and makes him a free man. They all have a drink.

And if there was any kind of sense or logic in this movie, step 12 would be that he goes to jail for stealing the diamond. Because here's the special thing about that little plan. Yes, it's true that it may clear you from that first charge when you hadn't done it. That's true. But there's still that second charge. You know, that time when you actually did do it? Yeah, you're going to jail for that. You are so sued. That would be some kind of record, wouldn't it? Going to jail for doing a crime you did to prove you hadn't done the exact same crime before?

He should write a book called "If I Stole The Diamond."

I mean, look at all the things he could be arrested for, which he absolutely 100% did do. There's escaping from jail, assaulting two police officers, creating a public disturbance, being an accessory to a robbery, assaulting a SWAT team member, assaulting the businessman, and destruction of public and private property which would probably factor in the hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage, if not millions of dollars. And let's not forget that he and his brother made, planted and detonated explosives on the roof of a building in New York City, which I'm sure would get him prosecuted under some kind of anti-terrorism act. This dude is going up the creek for sure.

But no, it's a movie, so proving that you were the victim once automatically clears you from any wrong-doing you do later. I like to call that the "Lisbeth Salander Defense." And it bugs the crap out of me every time it happens. Even when it's emotionally moving and what we'd probably like to see happen, like in "A Time To Kill."

But that just doesn't fly with me. As strong and sexy of a defense as Matty McC can give, Samuel L. Jackson totally shot Keifer Sutherland to hell, Noomi Rapace gladly tried to kill her father with an axe, and Sam Worthington did enough here to put him away for a few decades. Or at least as long as they put away weed dealers. Which is about the same, since justice is awesome like that.

"Come on, honey. Let's commit some crimes to prove our innocence."

But more to the point, there's some other utterly perplexing stuff going on here. Go back and look at #2. The businessman sold the diamond. That's how he got the money to keep him afloat during hard times. I don't think I'm misremembering anything with that, because they even say during one of the conspiratorial exposition scenes something like "Out of nowhere he gets $40 million. He's back on top." So that would imply that he sold it. Besides, if he didn't, why would he hide it? And what was the $40 million from if not the diamond? So that brings up a very important question that I don't remember the movie ever answering: How does he have the diamond in his safe if he sold it?

Perhaps he bought it back from whoever he sold it to, but I can't recall that ever being mentioned. And yes, it's true that I was kind of bored by "Man On A Ledge," but I wasn't bored to the point of missing out on a plot point like that. My lone vodka and tonic isn't going to make me miss it. I just think they either didn't think it was important enough to mention, or they just plain screwed up. I'll let you speculate, but you can go ahead and guess which scenario I find more likely.

"I have money. Don't ask questions."

There are two ways to go about looking at a movie like "Man On A Ledge." The first way of looking at it, and I think this is the manner in which both the filmmakers want you to watch it and the way the average movie goer actually does watch it, is that it's just a movie and we should all just let it roll over us and not worry about silly things like plot and making sense and all those trivial things that I get called pretentious for pointing out.

The second way to look at a movie is that yes, it does matter if a movie makes sense in its own universe. I'm not saying that every movie needs to have both feet firmly planted on the ground. I loved "Machete" for crap's sake, and that movie had its feet so far off the ground it could be hired to do repairs on low-orbiting satellites. I'm not saying a movie can't be fun or ridiculous or not worry about trivial stuff in the plot.

But a movie like "Man On A Ledge," which is obviously proud of its caper and working really hard to make a lot of pieces fit together throughout several *GOTCHA* moments can't really excuse itself by throwing its chips in with the outlandish absurdity of movies that were never meant to be taken seriously in the first place. I really believe "Man On A Ledge" wants to be totally serious.

Alright then, "Man On A Ledge." You want to be taken seriously? Then get ready to be looked at as such. You're proud of your caper? Fine. Explain to me how in the hell these seemingly average people with no mentioned training besides "breaking into nice houses back in high school" are able to pull of these heists like Ethan Freaking Hunt in "Mission: Impossible." Where did they get the gadgets? How did they get the intel on Ed Harris' high-tech vault? How are they able to even remotely pull off this insane job when Genesis Rodriguez's character, in fact all of them, are too stupid to have the foresight to realize that when you have a red-tinted flashlight, everything you're looking at is going to be tinted red, including wires you have to cut? Why did she apparently not even study the wiring diagram to know exactly which wire to cut? Instead she has to rely on Sam Worthington to coach her through it via radio, but she just ends up having to guess in the end anyway? Are you for real? Seriously, her jackass boyfriend just advices her to "Cut the reddest looking one." What a pro. Glad you planned that out. Why does the heat sensor in the vault room not pick them up when they've entered despite having taken no measures to counter it? Why does the floor sensor not set off the alarm since they're just walking around casually? Why is there a conveniently located human-sized ventilation shaft located on the ceiling precisely above the safe, leading to an easily accessible opening in the room next to it which is located ON THE GROUND?

Do I even need to bring up the question as to why she needs a flashlight when it's clearly lit in there?

This could actually be a pretty good parody of a heist movie if it weren't taking itself so seriously.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Man On A Ledge," while not necessarily the worst made or produced film I've seen this year, is probably one of the more irritating in terms of how much more credit it gives itself than what it actually deserves. This is a dumb, dumb movie that makes no logical sense in even the simplest terms, and for a heist movie, which as a genre is one that depends on rigorous attention to detail in order to properly work, that's a big problem.