Year: 2012
Genre: Action
Director: Simon West
Plot: A recently released bank robber has to rescue his daughter, who's been kidnapped by his former partner. He has to rob another bank in 12 hours or she's dead.
The gist: Remember when Nicolas Cage and Simon West made a film called Con Air? It was over the top and ridiculous, but it was so much fun and I loved it.
Stolen is ridiculous too, but other than that, it's the total opposite of Con Air. It's stupid and dull, and marks yet another bad film project from Cage.
Cage plays a bank robber who's supposedly the smartest bank robber in the country (Really?), who destroyed the loot he took from a bank job after being cornered by the cops, and subsequently sent to jail. Eight years later, he comes out and tries to reconnect with his daughter, but before he can make amends for lost time, his old partner shows up and kidnaps her, and demands his share of the loot.
It's just laughable watching Cage run down the street when he's obviously in no shape to do so anymore. But what's even worse is seeing Josh Lucas wearing the worst wig of all time in an attempt to play a villain.
The film attempts to be smart but fails more often than not. One is having Danny Huston as the lead detective wear a hat, as if he was a wise old hound. But Morgan Freeman he ain't, as he is too easily fooled by Cage's character. The twists West tries to incorporate are either badly done or predictable.
The good: There's a decent car chase sequence at the film's opening 15 minutes, the key word being decent. There's a scene where Cage is speaking with a cab company owner with a Cajun accent, which was quite funny. Other than that, can't think of anything else here.
The bad: Josh Lucas wins the Worst Villain of the Year award. Does he seriously think he can be intimidating with a wig and a wooden leg, and the worst lines ever written? Then there's the dull plot, messy execution and badly conceived characters. Poor Malin Akerman had almost nothing to do here too.
Verdict: It's a bad movie. Go watch Con Air instead. (2/5)
Year: 2001
Genre: Romantic comedy
Director: Peter Chelsom
Plot: Two people who fall in love and separate on the same night attempt to find each other years later using clues they left behind.
The gist: Serendipity is defined as a fortunate accident or a pleasant surprise, as well as the name of the cafe where John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale's characters have coffee with each other after they meet. Although already attached to other people, they like each other a lot, so they leave their respective numbers on a dollar and a used book, and vow to find each other again if they rediscover the items someday.
Of course, being a romcom, the ending is already a foregone conclusion, but the fun is in getting there. Peter Chelsom keeps things moving briskly and inserts a lot of funny situations that are not over the top, and it works. It also helps a lot that his two leads are really charming and work well together, despite only sharing scenes at the beginning and end of the film.
The good: Cusack and Beckinsale are the perfect choices for the leads. Jeremy Piven shines as Cusack's best friend while Eugene Levy is pretty funny as the salesman who helps Cusack in getting information that he needs. The music is also to die for, my favorites being numbers from Annie Lennox and Evan & Jaron.
The bad: Predictability, obviously. Being a romcom, a lot of the stuff that happens is way too convenient. And why would they be attached to other people to be married if they're still pining for each other? I don't get that.
Verdict: I'm not a fan of romantic comedies, but I like this charming little film. (3.5/5)
Year: 2012
Genre: Crime drama
Director: John Hillcoat
Plot: Based on the true story of the Bondurant brothers, who ran an illegal moonshine business during the Prohibition era in the 1930s.
The gist: This is one of those stories where the outlaws are the good guys and the lawmen are the villains. In this case, we follow the lives of the Bondurant brothers: Jack, Forrest and Howard, who make and sell illegal moonshine during the Prohibition era. They face a threat in the form of a corrupt lawman named Charlie Rakes, who wants a cut of their profits.
The story is solid but the way the story is told is rather weak. In the middle portion of the film, attention is diverted to the brothers' personal lives, where Jack courts the local priest's daughter while Forrest gets involved with their bar assistant, Maggie. Then we're suddenly shoved into the third act when Rakes steps back into the picture and a messy shootout becomes the film's climax. A bit more time spent on the story in the second half would really help.
The good: Tom Hardy, Jessica Chastain and Guy Pearce all put in great work here. Hardy is a man of few words as Forrest, but he's intense as heck. Pearce is suitably slimy as Rakes while Chastain is magnetic and vulnerable as Maggie. Kudos also to Hillcoat and the crew for the authentic sets and music score.
The bad: Shia Labeouf tries his best but he can't shake off the Sam Witwicky persona. He's much better as Jack here than in Transformers though. Also the above mentioned weak storytelling, and Gary Oldman is totally wasted in the role of a mobster, he barely got five minutes of screen time.
Verdict: It's a decent historical crime drama, but there's plenty of room for improvement here. (3/5)
Year: 2008
Genre: Biography
Director: Nicolas Winding Refn
Plot: Loosely based on a true story about Michael Peterson, the most dangerous prisoner in Britain, who takes on the name Charles Bronson while being in solitary confinement.
The gist: Halfway through this film, I didn't understand what the heck I was watching, and even now I don't fully understand it. Perhaps I felt that there's a wide gaping hole in it that needs to be filled, even though most critics are happy enough to leave the film as it is.
The film focuses on one Michael Peterson, who although had a good upbringing, gets into fights and violent scraps and then sentenced to prison. In prison, he continues this behavior and earns a reputation for being so dangerous, he gets transferred again and again, and gets sent back to jail not long after his release.
Thing is, the filmmakers never explained his motivations for getting into fights. We see Peterson, who renames himself Charles Bronson (after the actor) attack other people, inmates and guards alike, without provocation. But why? Is he crazy or does he love fighting? Who knows? Nicolas Winding Refn didn't bother to say so, perhaps because that's not the kind of film he's going for. I get that, but still, a bit of substance would be nice. Instead, we get Bronson presenting his story to an audience on stage, in a satiric manner, which is a unique touch, but for me it's not enough.
The good: At least Tom Hardy is excellent in the role. Now, I don't know how the real Bronson was like, but Hardy obviously worked hard to get into the shape required for the role (i.e. bulky) and he is intimidating even when he smiles. He owns the role, that is for certain.
The bad: A lack of substance on the man's motivations make the film hard to comprehend at times. There were several attempts by Refn to humanise the guy, but it's not enough to help me understand the man.
Verdict: If you want a thorough story on Bronson, go to Wikipedia. This film doesn't quite answer the question on him, preferring to make a satire out of his character. Hardy's the best reason to see this, but it's frustrating to watch this film on a whole. (2.5/5)
Year: 1996
Genre: Drama thriller
Director: Tony Scott
Plot: A down on his luck knife salesman becomes obsessed with an all star baseball player who is struggling to live up to his expensive price tag.
The gist: I almost had no idea that the late Tony Scott directed this thriller. It's not as famous as his other works like Top Gun, Man On Fire and Enemy Of the State, but it's quite good on its own actually.
So here we have Gil Renard, a knife salesman who is having a hard time getting his life together. He's having trouble meeting his sales numbers, he's not being a good enough father to his young son and his ex-wife keeps trying to stop him from seeing his kid. Baseball is the only thing he loves that he can fall back on, and in that regard, he continues to support the Giants' all star player Bobby Rayburn, despite the guy having a hard time living up to his reputation.
Bobby himself isn't the most likable of people, thinking that he is as good as his agent says he is. That is until he finally gets back on track, which may or may not have something to do with Gil's actions. As a fan, Gil is willing to do anything to see Bobby succeed, but how far will he go?
The script is solid for the most part, allowing both Robert DeNiro and Wesley Snipes to shine equally. The best part is you don't have to be a fan of baseball to understand this movie.
Special mention must be made to the film's opening and ending sequences; the former being a poem about one's love for baseball voiced by DeNiro, the latter a glimpse of old photos while a song by Terence Trent D'arby hauntingly plays.
The good: DeNiro and Snipes are great in their roles as Gil and Bobby. DeNiro gains the audience's sympathy despite being the antagonist here, playing a tragic character who goes off the deep end. Snipes is pretty good in a non-action role for once, showing some good acting chops. Ellen Barkin and John Leguizamo provide some nice support as well.
The bad: The film drags from time to time, so some tighter editing would have been nice.
Verdict: It's an underrated thriller that deserves at least one watch. (3.5/5)
Year: 2012
Genre: Horror thriller
Director: David Brooks
Plot: Three people are trapped in an ATM booth late at night by a stalker.
The gist: You know those movies where the trailer makes the movie look better than it actually is? This is definitely one of them.
So here we have three friends; two guys and a girl, stopping by the ATM late at night to make a withdrawal, only to find a guy standing between the booth and their car. They don't know why he's there, only sensing that he's trouble, which is confirmed when a passerby shows up and quickly gets killed by the man.
The film is sort of in the tone of Frozen (three kids stuck on a chairlift at a ski resort), except that film was quite believable. ATM is implausible and hopelessly stupid. You won't believe the number of bad decisions these three people make while being stuck in there, or even before they get there, to be honest.
For instance, why park the car far away from the booth? Why wait for the right moment to make a run for it when they outnumber him three to one? Why not fight back instead of freezing to death in the booth? The fact that the killer leaves the front of the booth several times to tamper with something or execute his next move would have given them a chance to run, but they never do. The audience ends up figuring out a dozen ways to deal with this problem before the three of them do.
The director is trying to make this a smart thriller, judging by how the film ends, but it just doesn't work. I pity the three actors who must have taken this gig for a paycheck.
The good: The best thing actually is the playing of Silent Night (the film is set during Christmas season) during the film's credits. It's extremely slowed down to the point of creepiness, which suits the tone they were going for. And okay, for some moments of the film, the three actors were decent enough.
The bad: The script obviously. I lost count the number of times the three friends said things like "What's he doing?" or "What's happening?" or "What do we do?". The stupid decisions they make, like tampering with the ATM or their reaction to the first person who walks into the booth after it begins.....it's unbelievable.
Verdict: It's bad. It's bad enough to make someone curious enough to see it, but I wouldn't waste 90 minutes on this again. (2/5)
Year: 1995
Genre: Suspense thriller
Director: John Badham
Plot: An accountant who has just arrived in Los Angeles is forced by two people to kill the Governor or they will kill his daughter.
The gist: I remember this film when it first came out at the theatres back in 1995. The film's main selling point was the whole thing taking place in real time. But truth be told, now that I've seen it again, that fact isn't so significant anymore.
What is significant is watching Johnny Depp, way before he became the star he is now, play an everyman forced into a tough situation. It's a far cry from being Jack Sparrow, the Mad Hatter or Willy Wonka, but he pulls it off nicely. He shares great rapport with Christopher Walken, who is always reliable as a villain. Walken pretty much plays it the way he usually does, but it never gets old.
Overall the suspense isn't edge of your seat stuff, but the film makes up for it with solid performances from the cast.
The good: Depp and Walken shine here, and so does Charles S. Dutton as a shoe shine man who becomes Depp's only ally. Roma Maffia also deserves mention as Walken's accomplice, though she hasn't got much to do here.
The bad: The movie's main flaw is logic. I recall this question being asked back then: why didn't these guys do the assassination themselves instead of forcing a stranger to pull the trigger? It probably would have been easier this way. Another stretch of logic is watching Depp trying all sorts of ways to get help, only to be foiled by Walken again and again. It's noted that Walken is always about a stone's throw away from Depp when this happens, but it seems like he has ESP or something, because his timing is always perfect. And what's with the "fool the audience" fantasy sequence? I didn't buy it when it happened, and I don't think anyone would have. It was just weird.
Verdict: It's a decent thriller. It's watchable thanks to the cast's fine performances, but the logic of the whole plot needs some fine tuning. (3/5)
