Machete
Directed by Robert Rodriguez and Ethan Maniquis
Starring: Danny Trejo, Jessica Alba, Robert De Niro, Michelle Rodriguez and Steven “Fatso” Seagal
Wish I was Machete.
Stupendously ugly but liquid nitrogen cool, the man knows how to take out the trash--and get the girl(s) too.
Machete is a continuation of the grindhouse theme Rodriguez started with, well, Grindhouse, a double feature that he and Quentin Tarantino put together a few years ago. Easily the best part of Grindhouse was the previews shown before each flick, with the Machete trailer being one of the better ones.
If you don’t have an appreciation for grindhouse movies or even a love of “B” movies, then you almost certainly won’t like Machete. If, however, you like all types of movies, dig the exploitation, baby; attend Chris Alexander’s Film School Confidential! and aren’t put off by excessive gore, then you’re going to love Machete.
Starting at 10 and then flying along at 11, Machete not only glories in its excess it revels in political conspiracies and satire that actually touch on the truth … albeit, the truth on steroids. Machete is successful because it embraces stereotypes (hilariously) and its gore is funny rather than offensive; not only that, the music is so apropos, it gets laughs all on its own.
Rodriguez and Maniquis deftly capture the 70’s feel. You wouldn’t know you were watching an up-to-date film except for the fact that there are cell phones and computers. Keep in mind though, “Machete don’t text.”
The acting is well done, with the actors generally “getting” the genre they’re living in. Ironically, Lindsay Lohan is better as a revenging nun than as a strung out drug addict; sometimes it’s tough to play yourself. Jessica Alba is “this close” to being naked, Michelle Rodriguez is tough and beautiful as usual and truly seems to understand what kind of film she’s making. But it’s Danny Trejo who’s the star, and it’s great to see this character actor take on the leading role--he puts the movie on his shoulders and never lets us down.
The political story line, like everything else, is pumped to the extreme but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t hit on the very real themes of fear and bigotry. But the reason I like Machete so much is because it’s just having such a good time being Machete—to thine own self be true. Damn straight.
Point of Interest: I liked Grindhouse when it was released in theatres but (unlike most of the critics) I liked Planet Terror more than Death Proof. I found Death Proof too self-referential and it was two entirely different films smashed together to make one. But as I mentioned earlier it was the previews that were the best part of Grindhouse. How horribly disappointed I was then, when I purchased both Death Proof and Planet Terror only to discover that the previews that were in Grindhouse weren’t included on the two-disc DVDs (except Machete). Of course that was a few years ago, and just recently they released the Blue Ray DVDs with the trailers … weasels. The good news is that the Canadian contribution to the trailers (and I thought the best) was Hobo with a Shotgun, and it’s been made into a feature to be released in 2011—praise Jebus.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Salt: Review
Salt
Directed by: Phillip Noyce
Starring Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber and Chiwetal Ejiofor (really good actor, incomprehensible name)
Salt is a pretty decent action flick.
So does that mean it gets a good review? Should a movie get a good review just because of the genre it’s in? How many times have we heard, “Well, it’s good for a horror film,” or “it’s all right for a zany comedy?” In other words, should we cut some slack to a film just because it’s of a certain type? Sure, we should, we do it all the time. Nobody sees Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter and says, “That’s so unrealistic, a wizard can’t do that!” So we suspend our disbelief depending on the genre of film; but they still have to be well made. The first Lord of the Rings (mostly animated …. mostly) wasn’t well received because it wasn’t well done, or at least well done enough to appeal to everyone, not just nerds.
So Salt is pretty good … for an action flick. The acting is actually quite good. I think Angelina Jolie is an excellent actress. Now, don’t get all huffy—she is. Yes, she broke Jen’s heart and she used to carry around Billy Bob’s blood and she kissed her brother for far too long once, but despite all that, she’s a very talented actress. Watch Changeling or A Mighty Heart and tell me I’m wrong; and she’s good in this too, appropriately teary or determined as the need arises. Liev Schreiber is sardonic and immanently watchable, and Chiwetal Ejiofor brings clarity and purpose to his role as well as a bang-on Yankee accent.
The action scenes are pretty well done, especially when Jolie is jumping from moving cars and trucks to escape a highway pursuit. The plot has a pretty cool paranoid cold war conspiracy element to it, so why is this only a decent action flick instead of a great one?
Believability.
Yes, we cut slack to movies because of their genre, but they have to be believable within that genre. Even fantasy films have to follow the rules of the universe they are in, and the same goes for action films, and this is an action film, not a superhero/comic book movie. The movie is just too implausible, even for an action flick. What makes the Bourne movies so superior to Salt? Jason Bourne does the most incredible things but they seem much more realistic. As spectacular as the (Bourne) action and story is, it is also gritty, tough and within the laws of physics. With Salt, I’m not even talking about the stunning escapes on the highway, I’m talking about the superhuman strength inside a 98 pound spy, the (repeated) ability to just “knock out” people she doesn’t want to kill, the gecko-like ability to scale walls and elevator shafts; essentially, this film gives Jolie’s character the strength of Superman and the skills of Spiderman in a movie with no superheroes. Oh, and there are certain gigantic plot holes that are entirely unbelievable. I can’t divulge too many without giving away much of the film, but let’s just mention one where Jolie’s character manages to inflict a certain amount of damage on someone because the “cuffs” that have been placed on her have about two feet of slack chain to work with. Have you ever seen cuffs like that in any action film/cop movie in your life, or even the last time you were arrested? Nope, me neither.
So, I can’t recommend Salt at a first run theatre. But it does have strong, watchable actors, and some pretty cool stunts … so if it’s at the Bloor … on a matinee … and you’re in the mood for popcorn or Glosette raisins … oh, what the hell, you talked me into it.
Point of Interest: Just another enormous plot hole that must be mentioned because it’s so stupid it’s almost funny. Jolie’s character is told to marry an entomologist because “spider experts” apparently have easy access to the North Korean border.
Really.
The most notoriously closed off military country in the world allows people studying spiders to cross back and forth between North and South Korea. Hell, don’t send Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter to free the next captive American, just find your local German ex-pat bug expert to waltz across the border with a jar full of Black Widows and maybe a Praying Mantis on his shoulder—that’ll impress ‘em.
Directed by: Phillip Noyce
Starring Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber and Chiwetal Ejiofor (really good actor, incomprehensible name)
Salt is a pretty decent action flick.
So does that mean it gets a good review? Should a movie get a good review just because of the genre it’s in? How many times have we heard, “Well, it’s good for a horror film,” or “it’s all right for a zany comedy?” In other words, should we cut some slack to a film just because it’s of a certain type? Sure, we should, we do it all the time. Nobody sees Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter and says, “That’s so unrealistic, a wizard can’t do that!” So we suspend our disbelief depending on the genre of film; but they still have to be well made. The first Lord of the Rings (mostly animated …. mostly) wasn’t well received because it wasn’t well done, or at least well done enough to appeal to everyone, not just nerds.
So Salt is pretty good … for an action flick. The acting is actually quite good. I think Angelina Jolie is an excellent actress. Now, don’t get all huffy—she is. Yes, she broke Jen’s heart and she used to carry around Billy Bob’s blood and she kissed her brother for far too long once, but despite all that, she’s a very talented actress. Watch Changeling or A Mighty Heart and tell me I’m wrong; and she’s good in this too, appropriately teary or determined as the need arises. Liev Schreiber is sardonic and immanently watchable, and Chiwetal Ejiofor brings clarity and purpose to his role as well as a bang-on Yankee accent.
The action scenes are pretty well done, especially when Jolie is jumping from moving cars and trucks to escape a highway pursuit. The plot has a pretty cool paranoid cold war conspiracy element to it, so why is this only a decent action flick instead of a great one?
Believability.
Yes, we cut slack to movies because of their genre, but they have to be believable within that genre. Even fantasy films have to follow the rules of the universe they are in, and the same goes for action films, and this is an action film, not a superhero/comic book movie. The movie is just too implausible, even for an action flick. What makes the Bourne movies so superior to Salt? Jason Bourne does the most incredible things but they seem much more realistic. As spectacular as the (Bourne) action and story is, it is also gritty, tough and within the laws of physics. With Salt, I’m not even talking about the stunning escapes on the highway, I’m talking about the superhuman strength inside a 98 pound spy, the (repeated) ability to just “knock out” people she doesn’t want to kill, the gecko-like ability to scale walls and elevator shafts; essentially, this film gives Jolie’s character the strength of Superman and the skills of Spiderman in a movie with no superheroes. Oh, and there are certain gigantic plot holes that are entirely unbelievable. I can’t divulge too many without giving away much of the film, but let’s just mention one where Jolie’s character manages to inflict a certain amount of damage on someone because the “cuffs” that have been placed on her have about two feet of slack chain to work with. Have you ever seen cuffs like that in any action film/cop movie in your life, or even the last time you were arrested? Nope, me neither.
So, I can’t recommend Salt at a first run theatre. But it does have strong, watchable actors, and some pretty cool stunts … so if it’s at the Bloor … on a matinee … and you’re in the mood for popcorn or Glosette raisins … oh, what the hell, you talked me into it.
Point of Interest: Just another enormous plot hole that must be mentioned because it’s so stupid it’s almost funny. Jolie’s character is told to marry an entomologist because “spider experts” apparently have easy access to the North Korean border.
Really.
The most notoriously closed off military country in the world allows people studying spiders to cross back and forth between North and South Korea. Hell, don’t send Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter to free the next captive American, just find your local German ex-pat bug expert to waltz across the border with a jar full of Black Widows and maybe a Praying Mantis on his shoulder—that’ll impress ‘em.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpeg)