I am of the slightly odd opinion that Dwayne Johnson is a legitimately good actor. I know, I know. I don't care that the dude's a wrestler. When you've got it, you've got it. And Johnson is one of the most charismatic screen presences I've seen in the past ten years, ever since he first surprised us all in "The Rundown" back in 2003 by actually being pretty great in it. And as long as I'm spouting weird opinions, I've gone on record saying that I enjoyed "Doom," which Johnson was the highlight of. And now that he's done "Pain & Gain" and managed to steal the show while sharing a screen with Mark Wahlberg, can we finally admit that this guy has a legitimately huge amount of talent?
Seriously. This guy looks like a bad-ass while dressed like Matthew Broderick.
"Snitch" is one of those movies that Johnson does every once in a while to remind everyone that he can act and be a serious action movie star in-between all the kid stuff he does. While watching this I was reminded a bit of one he did called "Faster," which was by itself just alright, but managed to be one of those movies that was surprisingly better than you were probably expecting it to be. And like "Faster," "Snitch" turned out nearly the same with the difference being that not only was "Snitch" better than I expected, but I'd go so far as to call it really good.
Dwayne Johnson is John, a guy whose 18 year old son (Rafi Gavron) gets blasted with the incredibly harsh "minimum sentencing" policies of the American Justice System regarding drugs when he stupidly agrees to hold a box of ecstasy for a day for a friend. He immediately gets arrested since it was a set up, and even though it was his first offense and all he did was hold it briefly, the system mandates that he get slapped with 10 years in prison at the very least, possibly going to 30, unless he can rat out some drug dealers to get his sentence reduced (which is how he got set up in the first place).
Unfortunately he doesn't know any drug dealers, and he refuses to set up his friends, so in jail he rots. Not willing to see that happen, John works with a federal prosecutor (Susan Sarandon) to catch drug dealers in exchange for his son's freedom. We follow him around as he works angles and makes connections to become a drug trafficker as he gets reluctant (and possibly backstabbing) help from Daniel (Jon Bernthal), an ex-con who would rather not be doing this.
Also, Daniel is Commander Sheppard from "Mass Effect." True story.
All of this plays out like "Breaking Bad" or "The Sopranos," and it's really an intense little setup they've got going on as John gets deeper and deeper into this criminal world which is always two seconds and one slip-up away from tearing him and everyone he loves apart. While he's doing it, he's dealing with Susan Sarandon's character, who is nearly as despicable as the cartel members he goes up against, as she milks him more and more dry to get the most she can out of him, regardless of his safety and to the point where he is very likely going to die. By the end we're not really sure how in the world it's all going to play out. It's a bit of a nail-biter.
The cast is also worth calling out because everyone here just knocks it out of the park. Johnson is admittedly fantastic, but Bernthal threatens to steal the show with his intense "Clifton Collins Jr. meets Ben Foster" ex-con. The only problem was his accent which seemed to not solidify until the second act of the film. It wasn't too distracting, but it was kind of weird when I found out Daniel was Hispanic, because I honestly had no idea until he started in with the whole "Ay essay, yo loco, meng" thing seemingly out of nowhere.
Barry Peppers amazing beard also deserves mentioning as the most glorious facial hair since ever.
There is some Hollywood style violence that starts to flair up by the end, before turning into a straight up action flick, but while it seemed slightly dubious it wasn't outside the realm of possibility. It was less of an "Oh, come on" series of events are more of a "Well, that escalated quickly" scenario, if that makes sense. For sure it may seem weird that John is driving a big-rig and firing off a shotgun one-handed in a high speed pursuit with a drug cartel with cars flying off the road and exploding when he's been portrayed as a huge but average guy the whole film, but he is a truck driver by occupation and any idiot can figure out a shotgun. So I can't be that irritated. Made sense to me.
I have a feeling most people would call this one "forgettable," and while you may have to rack your brain to remember specifics about it after a few days, at the very least this is leagues ahead of the kind of movie you usually get with this scenario and budget. Usually this kind of stuff stars Paul Walker or something. Maybe Casper Van Dien. And screw that.
Check out the trailer for "Snitch!"
THE BOTTOM LINE - "Snitch" was surprisingly good for the kind of fare this usually is. It's what you would get if you took the average direct-to-DVD flick about a dad out for revenge and gave it to someone who knew how to make a movie. This one was solid, and features a lot of really good acting, including one of Johnson's best performances to date.
I'm getting really sick and tired of all this crap. I'm getting so weary of never liking anything I'm supposed to think is amazing, that everyone tells me is amazing, that the consciousness says is amazing, and that the Academy Awards decides is amazing. I'm sick of it. I'm done, son. This was the last straw. From now on I don't care what the Tomatometer says - if it's rated at 90% or above, I'm just going to go ahead and assume it's not going to be very good.
What else am I supposed to think when a boring piece of clap-trap like "Zero Dark Thirty" gets a 93% while awesome movies like "The Last Stand" got a measly 59%, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" got 65%, and "Django Unchained," one of the best movies I've seen in years, is at an 88%?
Are you kidding me with this? Really, everyone? "Zero Dark Thirty" was rated better than "Django Unchained?" I'm not saying an 88% is something to be scoffed at, but was the fact that Quentin Tarantino makes enjoyable films such a turn-off to some of you? Or were you all so shaken in your ultra-PC, easily offended little bubbles by the dreaded "n-word" being used? Maybe you could explain why you called black dudes getting tortured in "Django" to be "in poor taste" whilst calling an Arab dude getting tortured in "Zero Dark Thirty" to be "provocative" and "powerful?"
Isn't it interesting where the line is drawn?
ZD30 is a plodding, self-fellatiating exercise in testing the limits of how far the audience is willing to blindly accept the notion that everything Kathryn Bigelow makes is fantastic, simply because that's what they've been told. All it has going for it is the fact that it's about terrorism, it shows waterboarding, and it attempts to paint both sides with multiple shades of grey. But the terrorism aspect is barely seen, the waterboarding lasts about a minute, and while it tries to be morally ambiguous it's clearly just as much American chest-thumping as any random Michael Bay movie is. Oh, and it's over two and a half hours. Because that was necessary.
Am I saying that "Zero Dark Thirty" is a bad film or that Kathryn Bigelow is a bad director? Well no, it's not techincally a "bad film," I am saying that it's boring and that she's severely overrated. Take that for what it's worth, and if you enjoyed this or "The Hurt Locker," then by all means don't allow me to detract from the entertainment you get from either film, since you're clearly in the camp that finds her work sublime. I just think you're all nuts because I found both films to be insufferable.
I could attempt to describe the plot of ZD30, but honestly I started blanking out pretty early on in the film in terms of what I was seeing and what anybody was talking about. I happen to be in luck, though, since the film is extraordinarily easy to sum up, because all that essentially happens is that:
1) Jessica Chastain works for the CIA. She wants to get Osama bin Laden.
2) They interrogate a metric crap-ton of Arab gentlemen in order to find bin Laden.
3) They find bin Laden. They shoot him in the face. Jessica Chastain has nothing to say. The End.
"Man, you guys. I sure am glad we're only in the last 20% of the movie, and that the previous 80% is talking. Otherwise that might have been exciting or something."
All that takes over two and a half hours. And despite its simplicity, throughout the entire affair I had little to no idea what was going on. The endless conversations which make up a vast amount of the run-time almost instantly devolve into a never-ending cycle of Arabic names that sound utterly alien to my ears, therefore making the connections impossible to follow. This of course is a problem since the whole point of the movie is to follow Jessica Chastain on her investigation, uncovering threads as they are revealed.
But how am I supposed to understand any of it when it's just a swirling cloud of names that all sound like "Abdul Al-Aldebwah," all connected to angry looking bearded men that all look identical to each other in their black and white surveillance camera mugshots, which is usually the only time we see their faces since we never actually meet any of them? I have no idea who any of these people are. And that's not limited to Arab people, either. I didn't even know who in the blue hell any of the Americans were. There were roughly 5 American characters in this movie who all looked alike, again, under their beards. These characters also acted nearly identically and liked to drift in and out of the film so often that I had no idea who I was looking at half the time.
Ah yes. My three favorite characters: Beard, Beardy and um...Beard.
The film does such a poor job with clearly identifying characters that it dissolves into a mess of "Well that Arab dude wasn't helpful. Hey Random Bearded American #3, there's another Arab dude. Let's ask him. Oh good. That info might be useful. Make sure to tell Random Bearded American #2. Jessica, could you please stop being a bitch? We know you're upset we haven't caught bin Laden. We're working on it. You're adorable when you try to act tough, though."
That brings me to Jessica Chastain. You know, it's one thing to have to sit through a very long film you're not enjoying. It's quite another to sit through a very long film you're not enjoying with a main character you can't stand. I found Jessica Chastain's character Maya to be grating and one-dimensional, that one dimension being "obsessed with getting bin Laden." This is her one defining character trait, and the only thing we ever know about her.
And she's also kind of a bitch and swears at her boss,
since that's professional. I guess that's supposed to make her a
"strong female character," but seeing little Maya standing at the numerous briefings with her arms
crossed, lips pursed, and eyes glaring out under furled brow came across
more like a toddler holding its breath until it got to watch more
cartoons. I'm not saying that for a women to be tough she has to be Briene of Tarth or anything, but with as instantly confrontational and puffed up in her bravado as Maya is while being a shallow as hell character, she comes across more like the demon fiance in any random romantic comedy who is holding back the male love interest from being with probably Katherine Heigl and will end up falling into a pool with a wedding dress on or get a cake dropped on her head or something by the end of it.
I don't care how cool her shades are. She's still boring as hell.
The only redeeming quality I found in ZD30 was the last 40 minutes or so, which shows the raid on bin Laden's compound. It's the only part of the film in which it feels like anything of substance is happening, which makes sense because it IS the only part where anything of substance happens. And to be fair, it is a very well shot and surprisingly tense scene, despite the fact that we know what's going happen. But it's less about any kind of surprise in the plot and more about watching the process with which the SEALs carry out the assault. Of course, I had no idea who any of these people were, so I felt nothing for them as characters, but hey, that's been par for the course for 2 hours leading up to it. Why start now?
Ah yes, the run time. It always seems to lead back to that, doesn't it? Here's the deal, and the last thing I'm going to say about "Zero Dark Thirty":
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is 2 hours and 49 minutes. Everyone bitched and moaned and griped and whined about it being far too long, which admittedly it was. But you know what? Stuff happened in "The Hobbit." They fought goblins. And trolls. And wargs. And orcs. They flew on eagles. A ring of ultimate power and unimaginable evil was found. We saw 13 dwarves and a wizard cut their way through an army of goblins. We saw a goddamn dragon burn down a fortress built into a mountain. But no, that's "padded and overblown."
"Zero Dark Thirty" is 2 hours and 37 minutes long. That's only twelve minutes shorter than "The Hobbit." And you know what happens in that essentially identical amount of time? They water-board a guy, some car bombs go off, Jessica Chastain scowls at her boss a lot, and a bunch of Arabs get shot. We have all learned a valuable lesson. What is that lesson? F@#k if I know, but it's very important and you should give this movie Oscars. Roll credits.
How hard do you think I can type SYMBOLISM on my keyboard before it breaks something?
And by the way, what in the hell does "Zero Dark Thirty" even mean? I'm just wondering because the film never mentions it. That would have been nice.
Come to think of it, I don't care. It's probably military code for "pretentious."
Here's the trailer to "Zero Dark Thirty." Enjoy Jessica Chastain being uppity and Metallica's music actually becoming worse.
THE BOTTOM LINE - An insanely overrated piece of plodding, confusing garbage that is banking on the hope that you'll consider it a masterpiece because of who is directing it. Kathryn Bigelow has once again made a dull, full of itself snooze-fest that managed to irritate me even more than "The Hurt Locker," something I didn't think was possible. I miss "Point Break" Kathryn Bigelow.
Nicolas Cage time!!! Wooo!!! Once again we join our intrepid over-actor as he has another fun filled, spastic journey which will fill our hearts with joy and glee. So what is on the menu this time, Mr. Cage? A cheesy B-horror flick? An over the top gore fest? Something were you get to play a crazy person?
"Seeking Justice": noun - A 2011 film staring Nicolas Cage, who plays a teacher whose wife is savagely beaten and raped. He makes a deal with a mysterious man who will kill the man responsible, in exchange for a favor to be called in at a future time.
Oh. Well, that doesn't sound whimsical at all. That sounds...grim.
In all honesty, I really dug this plot. I like the thought of a exploring what a person will do in their deepest, darkest moments of despair, and I also like the exploration of the grey areas that "justice" can overlap at times. I think if you asked the vast majority of people, husbands or wives or whatever, who were in the hospital a mere hour after their spouse had been beaten and raped whether or not they wanted whoever was responsible to die, a good amount of people would say "Hell yes." Ask them again in a few days or weeks and you might get a different answer, but if you ask them right after they came out of the IC unit, I don't think most of them would be feeling too much compassion for those responsible.
Of course, us being the audience, we know that it's not the best idea to get involved with people advertising free murder (in exchange for...oh I don't know...a "little favor" in the future). We've all seen these movies. But it does make sense in context. I can't really blame the character for doing something stupid like that, or getting involved with really shady people. I'm not sure I wouldn't do the same thing in that situation, honestly. And despite what you're saying, I'll bet you'd think seriously about it too. Not saying it's smart, but there you go. Not everyone thinks clearly during their moments of despair.
"Hello? Listen, my dog just died, can it wait? What? I won a cruise? Well, I suppose I have time to answer a few questions for a cruise..."
So obviously, the favor gets called in, it escalates into something more than Nicolas Cage bargained for, and he tries to get out of it. Guy Pearce plays the mysterious "Simon," the man behind everything, and in a nice change of pace does a job that isn't straight "C average." I mentioned in my "Lockout" review that Guy Pearce is the definition of an "average" actor for me, and I'm seldom impressed with him but in "Seeking Justice" he was pretty good. He's no Nicolas Cage (shut up, he's a good actor) but he does a passable evil jackass.
Here's Guy going undercover as Timothy Olyphant.
The rest of the story really isn't anything overly special. In fact the plot is fairly predictable most of the way through. However that isn't to say that it's bad. "Seeking Justice" is well directed, well acted, and well paced. Despite the fact that it isn't going to blow your mind or reinvent the genre for you, that doesn't stop it from being a passably fun use of an hour and a half of your time.
I think the weakest link is honestly the ending. This isn't because it's necessarily bad, but because it's probably the most stock section of the film. While some sequences of "Seeking Justice" did contain some elements of "twists," with varying degrees of success, the ending is pretty much going down exactly how you figure it's going down. You'll be able to guess how it's all wrapping up and probably be pretty spot on about 20 minutes before the end credits roll is what I'm saying.
"Remember, feet shoulder width apart. Bend slightly forward. Relax. Look down the sights, make sure to line the barrel straight up with the foreshadowing and squeeze the trigger. Very good."
Speaking of "twists," that's another thing that "Seeking Justice" did pretty well...up to a point. The "twists" pretty much boil down to the question "Who is involved in this shady organization that kills bad people?" The answer winds up being "Nearly everyone." Well, that's not true, there are plenty of characters who aren't involved, but there winds up being just a few too many characters who are. Had it been just one other character who winds up in it, that would be one thing, but the movie gets a little slap happy with the idea.
So what about my Nicolas Cage fix? Did I get to see one of my favorite actors going insane? Unfortunately for me, but most likely fortunately for everyone else, not really. Cage plays it pretty straight this time out. There's no high pitched wailing "He's scratching at the DOOOOOOR!!!" or punching ladies while wearing a bear costume in this. Although that is to the film's detriment. If anything I think Cage plays it a little too dialed back. Perhaps he was trying something new. However, as much as I prefer my Cage's to be crazy, this might help sway people into seeing him for the decent actor he is.
For example, the scene where he visits his wife, played by January Jones, at the hospital was kind of weird for me, but at the same time was a really nice moment of acting from Cage. I was expecting a full blown meltdown, but instead, as he's walking down the hallway into the room, he barely has any expression at all. As he's standing next to her, he just kind of looks borderline sad. I was actually getting a tad annoyed and thought "How could they get such a boring performance from him?" But then everyone leaves him alone in the room with his comatose wife, and he starts cracking a bit.
What I liked about it was that it was less of an explosion and more of a barely controlled implosion. I saw a guy who was so overwhelmed that he really didn't know what to do. I guess it makes more sense, because people don't always throw an Al Pacino-esque tirade whenever they're upset. Sometimes you just don't know what to do with yourself, and it's all you can do to just stand there and try to keep your brain from falling out of your head. It's a nice bit of acting from a guy who doesn't get nearly enough credit. Remember, he is a "Best Actor" Oscar winner.
So overall, I'd liked this flick. It was pretty good. It's also nice to see Xander Berkeley in something again. I really don't know why that guy isn't better known. He's a pretty prestigious supporting actor, and not only in little movies, either. Remember "Air Force One?" He was the turncoat Secret Service agent who shoots William H. Macy. He was John Conner's step-dad in "Terminator 2." Has was on "24" back in the first couple seasons when it was good. It was also nice to see Harold Perrineau in something were he wasn't screaming "WAAAAAALT!!!" over and over again. Seriously, screw "Lost" and Michael. And Walt. And Jack. And Locke. And Kate. Oh, especially Kate! That stupid, selfish piece of crap character needed to be thrown off the first sizable cliff they came to. And you know what? Screw Sawyer, too. I liked him until he kept going after Kate. What the crap does he see in her? Is it because she's hot? Because she's a criminal? Because she's a worse sociopath than he is? Why?! OH! And don't get me even STARTED on what they should do to Ben Linus!
What was I talking about again?
Sorry. "Lost" takes me there.
THE BOTTOM LINE - "Seeking Justice" is a passable revenge drama with a little bit of action thrown in. It's not the over the top Nicolas Cage that I love, but as always, he's pretty entertaining. It won't blow your mind, but I've seen waaaaaay worse than "Seeking Justice." Recommended.
