Stolen (2012)

Damn it, Nicolas Cage! Why are you playing me like this, bro? You're my homeslice. My Ace in The Hole. My D-O-G-E. I go to you to be entertained by your madcap antics! I'm not really watching you so you can go all subdued and stuff. I don't go to you to see you do your best Liam Neeson in "Taken" impression. Frankly you're not tough enough for that. But between this and "Seeking Justice," it seems that Nicolas Cage wants to tone it down some. That is, if he currently has any say in what movies he's in, which he might actually not.

Oh Nicolas. Nicolas, Nicolas, Nicolas. Don't do that. Don't let them do that to you. You're the best there is at what you do, but what you do ain't subtle. You are up there with Christopher Walken in terms of actors who are brutally, unapologetically unique and frightfully entertaining because of your uniqueness. But as good of an actor as you are, most of the material you're being given is not worth that serious dramatic talent. You want to be serious? Save that for Werner Hertzog. Save that for a great movie like "Bad Lieutenant." Don't save it for "Stolen." It's just not worth it.

See, "Stolen" isn't bad. In fact I'd dare say that it's pretty decent as far as your standard "You have X amount of time to get Y amount of money or your kid dies" movie goes. But that's the thing. How many of those movies are out there? The answer is "A metric crap-load." This is not a movie that needed to be made. This is not a movie that needed to be written. It's so stock, it's so cliche, and it's so utterly generic that I find it hard to imagine why anybody thought that it was a story that needed to be told, unless there were something really unique about it.

"Listen, I don't know who you are, but please just tell me why I'm yelling into a phone in every movie I'm in!"

Something like Nicolas Cage, perhaps? If the Cagester had been fully unleashed in "Stolen," playing up the zany, wild eyed madness to the hilt, then we would have at least gotten an entertaining performance out of it. But no, he's not unleashed. He's playing it pretty down-to-Earth, which is just sad. It seems as if the film is scared of having any kind of fun goofiness in Nicolas Cage's performance. No, evidently serious movie is serious.

Well, except for the scraggly, one-legged, psychopathic, murderous, gleefully evil villain played by Josh Lucas. Apparently it's okay for Josh Lucas to act like Nicolas Cage would act were he playing a crazy villain, but it's not okay for Nicolas Cage to act the way Nicolas Cage would normally act.

WHY IN THE BLUE HELL WASN'T NICOLAS CAGE THE BAD GUY?!

Honestly, that's the biggest fault with "Stolen." It was cast all wrong. Nicolas Cage should have been allowed to do what Nicolas Cage is wont to do. Because seeing Josh Lucas, an actor who isn't as convincing as an-over-the-top character, play a villain that is almost literally screaming for a Cage/Walken/Travolta/McDowell style performance isn't as fun as it should be.

"Stolen" has Nicolas Cage playing the "World's Greatest Thief," who we find doing the prerequisite "one last job" at beginning of the film. When things go bad and he's left holding both the literal and proverbial bag he winds up doing 8 years in prison. After he is released, his daughter is kidnapped by his former partner (Josh Lucas) in an effort to get the 10 million dollars from the heist that Cage said was destroyed, but he is sure that Cage had hid before getting nabbed.

That one last "one last job" thing rears its head again, as there are few ways of making 10 million dollars in 12 hours besides robbing a bank or something. And I must admit, as sketchy as the methodology was in how Cage gets his hands on the loot, especially in terms of bank security, I must admit that the idea is pretty clever, and was something I hadn't seen before. Take that for what it's worth, but how many movies have you seen that feature bars of gold being smuggled out of a bank via melting? It was pretty cool.

True story: This is the second film Josh Lucas has starred in called "Stolen." I'm not even joking. #needbettermovietitles

So do I regret seeing "Stolen?" Hell no. I got my Nicolas Cage fix. I'm good. Do I wish the roles had been reversed? Hell yes. He needs to play more bad guys, anyway. I swear if he actually is cast in "The Expendables 3," he better be playing the villain. He's got a good head start since Simon West directed both this and "Expendables 2." And I'm serious. I will be so upset if he's not the baddy in "The Expendables 3." Did you even see "Face/Off?" Remember him in the beginning, before Travolta was playing Caster Troy? That kind of corny should be packed and sold in individual bottles to get you through those tough days. It's delicious and nutritious!

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Stolen" wasn't a great movie, but it wasn't that bad, either. It's got an old school vibe to it, which is enhanced by the kickin' jazzy "Cowboy Beebop" style soundtrack. And while I'd rather see Cage be unrestrained, Josh Lucas did make for a passable villain. Although the movie does get docked a few points for not knowing the proper definition of "moose knuckle."

Session 9 (2001)

I was recommended this one by a guy I used to work with a little while ago. He said that based on horror movies I said I liked, "Session 9" should be right up my alley. I asked "What's it about?" He said "A mental institution." I asked "Is there torture?" He said "Nope." So I said "Cool" and picked it up. That's literally all the pretext I had before watching it. I knew nothing beyond that.

I have to say that was a nice change of pace. Too often I find my movie-going experience ruined by trailers or Rotten Tomatoes or other people coloring my opinion before seeing a movie. But since "Session 9" is over a decade old at this point, that wasn't an issue. So I was able to go into this totally fresh.

The story is about a hazmat team sent into an old asylum to clear out a crap-ton of asbestos. Of course the place is dilapidated and dark and creepy, with hallways roughly 25,000 miles long, and archaic instruments lying about which were used to basically torture people into being not-crazy. Ridiculously scary building aside, tensions are high because everyone on the team has some issues which are not helped by the fact that they have a huge job to do in a very short amount of time in this nightmarish location.

"Yeah, I guess this place is pretty scary. Could be danker though. I feel like the ghosts are skimping on the dank."

It's not a huge leap to spot where things are headed. It's laid on pretty thick right from the start that there is some haunted crap going down in this place, although it's so stereotypically "haunted" looking that a blind guy could probably pick it out of a lineup of photos and say "Demons live there." What was interesting, and something I really didn't notice until the film had been unraveling for quite some time was that for a haunted asylum, there really isn't much going on as far as paranormal happenings.

In fact, the first time we run into anything supernatural is almost an hour into the film. I feel the need at this point to inform you that the first scene of the movie is the hazmat van parked outside the front gate, waiting to be let in to the asylum, and the only scene that happens away from the asylum is a flashback composed of about four shots. In that way, the movie never really leaves the grounds. Now this may seem like a total load to not have anything happen before then, but "Session 9" actually does a rather good job at being fairly tense despite nothing much actually happening for the first act and a half.

The biggest (and most pleasant) surprise of the entire movie for me was the fact that it never degraded into conventions that are the norm for film stock such as this. One would normally expect to see some undead nurse in a bloody uniform, her lips sewn together hauling around hypodermic needles that she stabs people to death with. Perhaps a warden, his eyes ripped from his sockets, who slices people up with a straight razor. And of course, we can't forget the little girl with super long hair that falls over her face so she can't see anything, but can still crawl/teleport down hallways in really jerky stop-motion type movements.

"I can't see $@*!"

None of this crap is anywhere to be found. Hallelujah, Rock & Roll. It's so nice to see a horror movie that isn't afraid to not have these things, but it means that they need to find some other way of making things scary. What ends up being scary in "Session 9" are the people as opposed to some Michael Meyers type boogieman, which is far more scary, if you ask me.

In fact, (very minor spoiler) I'm not even 100% convinced at the end that there even was a poltergeist. I mean, I'm pretty sure there was but upon a second viewing I may be able to construct a fairly reasonable theory that all the things that occur were the doings of one person, and not an evil spirit. I'm sure that there could be holes-a-plenty poked in it...but there you have it: ambiguity!

The cast was also very good. Josh Lucas plays an outstanding asshole, and Peter Mullan was heartbreakingly convincing in his role as the main character, a man struggling with what can only be described as a LOT of issues, the full extent of which only becomes clear at the end of the movie. And by the way, yes, that's THE Peter Mullan. Oh come on. Mother Superior from "Trainspotting?" Get with it people.

Of course the person most people will recognize is David Caruso. Oh man. I loved Caruso in this movie. He was awesome. Not only does he do a great job acting freaked out when the time calls for it, but there is this fantastic intensity just under the surface with him at all times. When it does surface, it's pretty awesome, and showcases the fact that Caruso is a better actor than he is usually given credit for. "Session 9" is also notable for having Caruso deliver what has to be the single greatest line reading of "F#@k you" ever recorded on film. It is glorious.

I replayed this like 27 times. It's that awesome.

Overall I'd say this movie reminded me of "The Shining." Now, I'm not saying that "Session 9" was anywhere as good as Stanly Kubrick's masterpiece. It wasn't. But they both had a clear understanding of what it is that makes going into a scary place actually scary. It's not things jumping out at you and making really loud noises, it's not a bunch of gore being splattered in your face, and it's not a cast of annoying as hell characters waiting to get killed off as soon as humanly possible.

No, what makes a scary place scary is what it does to the people who are inside it. And when we enter their minds, like we do in both "Session 9" and (arguably) "The Shining," we as the audience lose our own perception of the reality we are seeing, which makes us unsure, uneasy, and ready to be scared when things finally start going to hell.

Oh man. Gotta fit a "CSI: Miami" joke in here somewhere before the end...ummm...

"Looks like I'm fighting...the institution."

 

That's better.


THE BOTTOM LINE - While I won't say that "Session 9" bowled me over, so to speak, I did notice about half an hour into the film that I was riveted to the screen, and I stayed that way till the end. Full of good acting and some genuinely creepy moments. I was pleasantly surprised. Recommended.