Showing posts with label Vincent D'Onofrio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vincent D'Onofrio. Show all posts

Friday, October 25, 2013

Last Blood?

It’s pretty safe to say that we’re no longer where we were two or three decades ago.

Back then, it was the heyday for violent, R-rated fare. And two of the biggest movie stars on the planet were Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Rambo. Predator. Rocky. Total Recall. Tango & Cash. Conan the Barbarian. Demolition Man. The Terminator. Cliffhanger. Eraser. Between these two men, Hollywood made billions at the global box office during the era that was the 1970’s through the mid-90's. Today, you can’t point at one actor or actress with that kind of guaranteed draw at the box office, and back then the industry had TWO.

Sadly, success was not meant to last forever. Part of the reason is that Stallone and Schwarzenegger are definitely byproducts of their era. At that time, we couldn’t get enough of the violent, pulpy and completely unbelievable action that permeated not only the movie industry but other facets of the entertainment industry as well; professional wrestling and American Gladiators were at their most popular, and our culture was definitely releasing some of the built-up frustration from the decades-long Cold War. Some of the most iconic moments in cinema were pithy one-liners from our action movies, as well. When Jesse Ventura uttered “I ain’t got time to bleed” in Predator, it was an instant classic. And he wasn’t even the STAR of the film. But changing times have seen the rise of films of multiple genres, including martial arts and “gore porn” (not to mention a similar rise in video games), most of whose heroes are not the jacked-up, testosterone-fueled supermen of the previous era, and while there are a few big men still succeeding in Hollywood, the aging action heroes of yesteryear have all but disappeared.
The team-up we've been waiting for since Expendables 2.
Still, these guys never quite go away, and they almost succeeded in a full-fledged comeback a few years ago with Stallone’s directorial effort The Expendables, which saw many of the older action heroes teaming up in an homage to movies past. Both Stallone and Schwarzenegger were part of that experience, and again two years later in the less heralded The Expendables 2. But now it looks like the Expendable phenomena might have run its course; practically nobody showed up to the actors' two releases this year, the puerile Bullet to the Head and the actually kinda-fun The Last Stand. Are we already tired of these aging stars of days gone by? Is the gimmick well and truly finished? Or will we still show up if they give us an Expendable­-like team-up in the form of new release Escape Plan?

Remember kids, drink your milk!
Formerly known as Exit Plan and The Tomb, Escape Plan features Stallone as Ray Breslin, a professional escape artist who breaks out of federal prisons in order to test their security measures. One day he is asked to step up to the next level, as the CIA want someone to test the viability of a new experimental prison for containing high-risk enemies of the State, based on Breslin's own study of prison design. But after accepting the job, things immediately go wrong as he is finds himself without intel, out of contact with his team and trapped in a hidden fortress surrounded by hundreds of the most dangerous people in the world. His only ally is Emil Rottmayer (Schwarzenegger), a career criminal with a few secrets of his own. Someone sent Ray Breslin here to die. As he attempts to escape, he is determined to find out who, and why.
He's going to "pump you up", and in prison that's just wrong.
Because this has all the earmarks of an old-school action flick (gratuitous violence, witty banter, etc) you'd be forgiven for expecting Escape Plan to be a generic action thriller, even more so because that's exactly what you're getting. Stallone and Schwarzenegger bring nothing new to the table besides Arnold's grey hairs and beard, though director Mikael Hafstrom (The Rite, 1408) manages to transition nicely from his more familiar horror fare to put together a decent well-rounded action film. That's the key word there, "decent." While the environment in which our heroes find themselves is pretty cool, everything else, from the faceless villain (Person of Interest's Jim Caviezel) and the rote plot to the cliched backstories, subplots and predictable twists mar the experience. But even with these things in the way, and a minor letdown of an ending, there's still a lot to like in this thriller, which goes heavy on the action in exciting and occasionally humorous ways.
Yup, "Fiddy" is here. 'Nuff said.
I really only have two complaints about the movie, though they're both major in nature. One is the treatment of co-stars. Obviously the bulk of the focus is on stars Stallone and Schwarzenegger (and they do as good a job as you would imagine), but there's actually a wealth of talented actors involved in this movie, and almost none of them have anything interesting to do. Caviezel, as I mentioned before, is fairly uninteresting as a character, though at least the actor's talent keeps it from slinking into irredeemable territory. But worse off are the trio of actors who play Ray's team on the outside. Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson doesn't show anything proving that he's got talent as an actor, so it's a relief that he doesn't have much to do (and when he does it's appropriately cringe-worthy). But both Amy Ryan and Vincent D'Onofrio are great actors who are hampered by a simplistic script and limited interaction with the audience. Add in a surprising (and also limited) appearance by Sam Neill, and a cast that could have ably supported its stars is left in the dust.
Hi, Amy Ryan! Bye, Amy Ryan!
The second issue is the script itself, especially the dialogue. I can accept most of the sweeping generalities in a Stallone/Schwarzenegger action flick, so the story itself - while truly and deeply flawed - shouldn't bother most thrill-seeking audiences. No, the problem is the "witty" banter that simply wasn't. Puns are bad enough when they actually tie into the scene or moment in question, but when they're used seemingly without reason, the result is less funny than confusing. Screenwriters Miles Chapman (original) and James Keller (rewrite) can't seem to make the dialogue work consistently, and even the best actors couldn't have pulled if off effectively (and interestingly enough, Schwarzenegger proves equally inadequate at acting in German as he does in English). It sucks when even the intensely-hated Batman & Robin has better puns in comparison, and is indicative of just how rushed the scriptwriting process obviously was.
Is there a reason they have masks? Is that ever explained?
Escape Plan looked like it could have been more than just a decent movie based on its star power alone. But Hafstrom's effort is too much of a love letter to an era of Hollywood history for which few people still really care. After a brief resurgence in nostalgic popularity, the lack of audiences for this feature might be proof that audiences are getting weary of plus-sized commandos and their feats of immortality. With so much varied fare out there, this specific brand of violent entertainment is definitely on its way out for the time being. If it will have any chance of a sustained comeback, more will be required from its genre than the bare-minimum effort of Escape Plan.

Friday, October 19, 2012

True Crime Spree

There are few certainties in life but I know at least one thing; if there's a new horror movie coming out, Todd will invariably want to go see it. There are exceptions, of course (she has no interest in the new Paranormal Activity flick), but for the most part if something involving ghosts, demons or poltergeists is on the way, Todd's all in. It's also the main reason Sinister popped up on both of our radars, as a film from the director of The Exorcism of Emily Rose and the producer of Insidious was bound to attract our attention. While the horror genre has seen some love thanks to the animated ParaNorman, nothing else in 2012 has stood out thanks to a sea of mediocre or worse releases thus far. While I AM looking forward to seeing Paranormal Activity 4 this weekend and Silent Hill: Revelation the next, Sinister likely represented the best option for a new, original scary movie this year. I'm quickly learning that I LIKE to be scared, and I'm constantly hoping that this next release is going all out to succeed.

CSI: Middle of Freaking Nowhere.
Author Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke) is desperate. In the ten years since his breakthrough success true crime book Kentucky Blood hit #1 on the New York Times bestseller list, he has struggled both creatively and financially, with one of his books actually allowing a known criminal to walk out of prison. In an effort to redeem himself and his work, he and his family move into the home of his latest subjects, a family who were found hanged from a tree in the backyard, the youngest daughter gone missing. With the police unable to solve the mystery as to who murdered the family, Ellison hopes to find something to crack open the case and perhaps even locate the missing family member. But a box of 8mm tapes found in the attic forces him to admit that things are not as that at first appear, and that the mysterious force that has been killing families for decades may have found its next victims.

Nothing good comes out of 8mm tape.
This is very much a one-man show. When Ellison is wandering his new home at night, hearing this or that creepy noise, Sinister is at its spine-tingling best. Director Scott Derrickson knows how to use his environments to create mood, and he constantly raises the tension to nearly breaking points throughout the movie, which largely takes place at night within the Oswalt home. While Hawke himself stumbles a few times, he also does more than his fair share in conveying the terror his character goes through and carries the movie's limited story forward. He has a believable relationship with his wife and children, fraught with good and bad moments, and the scenes in which he reflects upon his earlier success (back when he didn't care about success) are charmingly believable and more in-depth than most horror films get with their subjects. It's easy to see how Ellison can get sucked into the horrific nature of his subjects when they are the only things that don't make him feel like a failure.

Checking out his "Best Of" collection...it's not long.
Unfortunately, Ellison's portrayal is about the only thing that feels polished in Sinister. While the film has scares-a-plenty - and even when you know they're coming, they're still effective - just about all of them are in the trailer. The few that aren't might frighten you for a minute, but at one time I turned to my companion and muttered "They're STILL doing this?" One major exception relates to the 8mm tapes, each of which depicts a grisly scene (and one in particular that will freak you out), and are definitely Sinister's highlights. It's been a while since Derrickson made The Exorcism of Emily Rose, and perhaps his definition of scary is different than mine. But while I found the whole thing creepy, I almost never got to the payoff of being actually terrified by a movie that was painfully predictable in its execution.

"Why 8mm?"
Sinister's biggest problem is its complete lack of lore. We eventually learn that the force behind this mess is a pagan demon named Bagul. But while the child-consuming, trapped-in-pictures (and completely fictional) monster has the basis of a good movie in it, Derrickson chooses to completely ignore anything in that vein to focus on Ellison's story. I get the decision, but I believed the movie could have been big enough for both of them, and that by not going deeper in characterizing Bagul (or the just silly Mr. Boogie, as he's occasionally called), or even basic information about his past victims, the director left a lot of opened doors that don't connect to anything. I don't need ALL my questions answered, but how is it that Bagul is trapped in photos, but can manifest a box in his victim's homes? How did his spree get started (the tapes stretch back to the sixties but there's no indication of how it all began)? How does he control or coerce his victims? Why does he abduct the children? What does he get out of the family slayings? Why would anyone ELSE keep watching the tapes? Why wouldn't any of THEM go to the authorities with what they found? There are simply too many open questions, and you get the feeling that some things (like the demon's reliance on an out-of-date film type) were used not because they actually made sense, but because they made the movie as a whole creepier. That's lazy filmmakeing, the type of thing that made The Apparition one of the year's worst.

By far the creepiest kids of the year.
Still, with the emphasis on Hawke and his reaction to the story's elements, Sinister at least manages to slip its way into the realm of "not bad" horror films. It's far too similar to modern (and classic) haunted house fare, and the twists are projected too far ahead and too easy to discern quickly. This was one that demanded a more intricate telling, though at least Hawke gets some acting support from Vincent D'Onofrio, theatrical actress Juliet Rylance, Law & Order's Fred Thompson and The Wire's James Ranzone, not to mention creepily talented child actors Claire Foley and Michael Hall D'Addario. Still, the scares are far too infrequent to be an effective horror movie and the story is far too light to make for a deep character study. Sinister lingers far too long in mediocrity to stand out, and I'm left hoping that the next of its ilk will be more conscious of its narrative, rather than focusing solely on mood just to keep things going.