The Difference Between The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

   The Action-Thriller film genre is best known for its exciting action packed plot and intense visual appeal. But spending a little more time on developing their heroes has proven to not only boost box office sales, but also provide new market space for sequels, prequels, and even figurines. Filmmakers are running out of new ways to save their damsels in distress and keep their car chases fresh. Action seeking fans are now going to the theater expecting more than the same stunts they’ve seen executed from different angles; now they want complex characters and simulating storylines. Whether moviegoers are realizing it or not, they’re flocking to character driven action films.

   The Coen Brothers have been keeping audiences entertained for years with their mix of action, thrill, and complex characters. Marge Gunderson (if her name isn’t enough of a description) is the unforgettable heroine in the 1996 thriller Fargo. She’s the pregnant sheriff in town, but make no mistake, she means business. Her intelligent and polite police work along with that Minnesota accent, makes her a likeable heroine few audiences can forget. And the Coen Brother’s antagonist from No Country For Old Men haunts your nightmares with his retractable steel bolt airgun reminding you to never steal money from him—the all-knowing, merciless Anton Chigurh. Characters like Marge and Chigurh are becoming the difference between a good action film and a great action film.

   Some of the best action films are defined by their protagonists such as Jason Bourne, John Rambo, Peter Parker and John McClane. These films can simply be referred to by their main characters because lets just face it, they are what make these movies great. Big explosions and bloody deaths just aren’t enough these days and more is being asked from writers of this formulaic genre. Now they have to edit out a few story twists and make room for compelling characters with more than a double barrel shotgun.

   Action films lack in dialog and usually focus more on telling story through physical action and that part is also changing more and more as we see more characters developing onscreen. Ridley Scott’s 1991 Thelma & Louise is a thriller adventure film that takes a serious interest in these two women’s lives and their characters grow and develop along with all the action. The action in this film appears to serve a greater purpose than just blowing up something or killing someone who gets in the way unlike many other films in its genre such as the 2008 Death Race which does just that. Death Race’s Jensen Ames (Jason Statham) is unbelievably underdeveloped and the film suffers as a result. Too many characters die senseless deaths and explosions are pointless and have no effect on the lives of the characters. Visual appeal? Maybe, but nothing more. Death Race struggled to make its expected profit from box office sales and this should not come as a surprise to those who witnessed its absurdity.

   Christopher Nolan’s 2008 The Dark Knight has numerous complex characters that develop onscreen and without a doubt contribute to the film overall success. Heath Ledger portrays the best Joker to ever hit the screen. He adds the missing link that other jokers—including Jack Nicholson—couldn’t seem to grasp. He’s cruel and cold, heartless and thrillingly psychotic. His character alone makes the film a successful action thriller. In comparison, Halle Berry’s Patience Phillips in the 2004 Catwoman is an example of a poorly developed character that is to blame for the film’s failure. The filmmaker’s first mistake was choosing an idolized sex symbol like Halle Berry to play an already over sexed role like Catwoman. The action and killing in the film appears humorous rather than thrilling and no one can take Halle Berry’s performance for anything more than soft-core porn. Characters can easily make or break a film even in the action thriller genre.

   It’s no debate fans of action films aren’t going to the theater expecting life changing stories or heart felt dramas, but what films do they call great action thrillers? Is it films like Dragonball Evolution, The Mummy Returns and Hitman or Fight Club, Rocky, and Lethal Weapon? Many of the most popular and favorite action thrillers have an undeniable similarity in common. That similarity rests in its characters and their onscreen development.

   Psychotic Dr. Hannibal Lecter and relentless FBI agent Clarice Starling are among the many complexed characters in the 1991 thriller The Silence of the Lambs. This thriller is packed with jaw dropping action, but unlike most action films, it makes room for dialog and a slice of drama. Clarice doesn’t blow up anyone’s car or go on a random shooting rampage, but she does hunt down the scariest serial killer to ever graze the screen. Compared to the action crime thriller Bangkok Dangerous, …well there is no comparison other than the genre title. Bangkok Dangerous doesn’t have one intriguing character or memorable plot moment. The film is comprised of scenes where Nicolas Cage chases people, makes a mess, shoots them and blows stuff up—but nobody cares. The characters are so severely underdeveloped and simple that the viewer just doesn’t care enough about them for the ending of their lives to feel dramatic or be the least bit entertaining.

    Not all filmmakers are going to change their clichéd formula for action films into character driven action thrillers like The Matrix, Kill Bill, and Iron Man. But highly developed characters appear to be what’s attracting audiences and selling the tickets. Writers of the action thriller genre should make room in their scripts for an unethical Dirty Harry or an impervious Terminator; or otherwise prepare to suffer an excruciating death in sales.

GOMORRA

   Gomorra is an Italian mob drama that takes an inside look at five Italian civilians whose lives are influenced by the all-powerful Comorra mafia. You’re either with the Comorra or you’re their enemy, and we get a glimpse of both sides and what their daily lives consist of. Gomorra is an eye-opening film that exposes the unfortunate truths hiding in America’s closet.

    One of the plot lines tells the story of Pasquale (Salvatore Cantalupo) who is a tailor working at a factory controlled by the Comorra. When the mafia finds out Pasquale has taken a night job teaching Chinese competitors how to sew, they attempt an attack on his life and he is forced to flee. Pasquale’s talents go to waste, as he becomes a truck driver in order to escape death. By the end of the film, many intriguing themes have surfaced, but none as so interesting as the one that is a startling wake up call for Americans.

    This controversial theme that has put the life of director Matteo Garrone in danger surfaces as waste manager Franco (Toni Servillo) calls to a colleague who decides the unethical business going on isn’t for him. Franco yells to him as he’s walking away, “Don’t think you’re any better than me.” He implies that just because Americans aren’t the ones calling the shots doesn’t mean they aren’t enjoying the benefits that result from the distress and suffering of others. 

    These horrible crimes being conducted in Italy are all at the hand of the Comorra mafia, who are ironically enough invested in the rebuilding of the Twin Towers here in America. They control the factories that make beautiful dresses for our movie stars to wear. They control the outsourcing firms that make our food, our most cherished possessions, our cars, and everything we use on a daily basis without considering whose blood was shed for our happiness. 

    Translating from one language to another doesn’t come without its misfortunes. At times the English subtitles were unfortunately funnier than they were meant to be because definitions differ in every language and finding a word with identical meaning can be difficult. The five plot lines became confusing to follow as the non-Italian speaking American was forced to read subtitles and differentiate between stories all at the same time.

    Despite its technical difficulties, the documentary type style of this film makes the stories and acting appear indisputably real and fascinating. A film like this one could start a reformation—If not a war.

             

STATE OF PLAY

With their intense visual appeal, television police dramas usually transition well to the big screen, evidenced by films such as “S.W.A.T.” and “Mission: Impossible.” But director Kevin Macdonald’s “State of Play” is just as disappointing as “Miami Vice” in its attempt to capitalize on an existing audience.

      The film is a suspenseful mystery-thriller based on an award-winning U.K. television series of the same name. Filmmakers should have split the television material into a series of films rather than suffocating viewers with too many plot twists and attempting to fit them all into one movie. Despite its all-star cast and intriguing themes of corruption, “State of Play” fails as a film because its intricate plot leaves no room for character development.

       The protagonist Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) is a valued journalist for the Washington Globe newspaper who goes beyond the limits of a reporter in investigating stories. To get the truth, he abuses his friendships with cops, autopsy specialists, computer hackers and even government workers.

       When the death of Sonia Baker (Maria Thayer) is linked to Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), Cal struggles to put his friendship with Stephen aside. In an effort to shift the investigation’s focus off Stephen, Cal and rookie reporter Della Frye (Rachel McAdams) search desperately for clues to connect Sonia’s death to a corporate cover-up. The Washington Globe takes matters into its own hands as the story turns into a political murder investigation. Cal and Della conduct their own investigation, keeping vital evidence from police officials. This poses numerous ethical questions for audiences to ponder.

       The film spotlights the severity to which the media controls the lives of all characters involved in the case. In his relentless pursuit of the story, Cal gives public officials an ultimatum — either help the newspaper get the facts or risk having their reputations ruined through headlines. But the story itself isn’t nearly as interesting as the dilemmas it raises about the media’s powerful role in society.

       Writers Matthew Michael Carnahan, Tony Gilroy and Billy Ray should have spent more time on character development and less time trying to include every plot-changing twist from the television series. “State of Play” worked as a television show because it was an abundance of material delivered in a six-hour television miniseries rather than a two-hour film. A story about reputation, ethics and betrayal should encourage the audience to take a sincere interest in the characters’ lives.

       The absence of that focus in “State of Play” was detrimental to its success. The audience doesn’t see the characters’ flaws but only hears about them in scenes where the characters sit around a table and talk about the past, preventing viewers from connecting with the characters. News of Cal’s recent affair with his college roommate’s wife, Anne Collins (Robin Wright Penn), comes through conversation rather than actions. Getting to know these complex characters through word vomit feels unnatural and cheap. The plot isn’t character driven, but it should have been. The climax of the film could have felt enormously more life-shattering to viewers if they had the opportunity to feel invested in the story.  

       The film’s inability to connect to its audience was no fault of the actors. Crowe never fails to deliver an admirable performance and does so yet again in the role of an arrogant, rebellious journalist. McAdams fits in comfortably as the inexperienced but ambitious political blogger for the Washington Globe. The duo’s on-screen relationship progresses naturally as the two are forced to rely on and confide in each other. What begins as strictly business develops into a flirtatious friendship. Affleck fits the part of the young and influential public official but sometimes appears overdramatic and slightly rehearsed in his portrayal of Stephen’s grief.

       The surprise ending feels more like a trick because the most important clue to the mystery isn’t the least bit obvious for the viewer to catch. This failed film serves as an example of one police television show that just doesn’t translate to the big screen. A series of films would have been better able to do justice to such a large amount of story.

“State of Play” was written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, Tony Gilroy and Billy Ray, and directed by Kevin Macdonald.

KNOWING

Director Alex Proyas’ Knowing crosses the distinct line between science and religion and explores the relationship of the highly controversial debate of our existence. This film is not a typical science fiction movie filled with disfigured space creatures and green globs, instead brings light to a deeper concept most would rather not delve into. Despite its over-the-top special effects and awkward dialog, Knowing pulls viewers to the edge of their seats and invites them to tag along on yet another Nicolas Cage mystery adventure.

 By now “Nicolas Cage Mystery Adventure” should be its own genre. With all the National Treasure films and the talk of two more, Knowing would fit perfectly in this future box set. Cage (ridiculed for his recent roles in cheap films) plays John Koestler, a MIT astrophysics professor and an overprotective father. John spends most of his time drinking away the memory of his wife’s death and forbidding his 10-year-old son, Caleb (Chandler Canterbury), from leaving his sight.

The real story begins at the celebration of the 50^th Anniversary of Caleb’s school being open. A time capsule is dug up from 1959 when the school celebrated it’s opening, which was seen in the beginning of the film. The capsule’s contents are distributed to Caleb and his classmates. All the children receive pictures of the 1959 class’ predictions of the future. Everyone’s envelope contains a colored picture of things like rocket ships and astronauts, everyone’s but Caleb’s. He opens his envelope from Lucinda Embry (Lara Robinson) and sees that the front and back of the paper is completely filled with numbers. Caleb examines the paper and then looks up and sees a black mysterious figure standing in the woods.

These figures appear time and time again as the plot unravels. When seen, a whispering sound occurs, but the whispers overlap each other so much that it’s impossible to understand. Caleb takes the picture home with him, but doesn’t mention to his father the mysterious man he saw in the woods. John discovers his son has stolen the picture from the school and sends him to bed. After accidentally staining the picture of numbers, John takes a closer look at it and tries to find meaning. What he does find will change the world and virtually everything in it.

Through his investigation, John tracks down Diana Wayland (Rose Byrne) who is the daughter of Lucinda Embry—the woman who wrote the list of numbers. Byrne completely misses her role as an independent woman looking to escape her past and rather blurts out her entire life story through expository dialogue. Her acting in Knowing is incredibly beneath her true abilities seen in films like Troy and Sunshine. But Byrne isn’t the only one responsible for this disastrous film.

What happened to Nicolas Cage and his good days of acting seen in films like Face/Off and Con Air? With any more suspenseful mystery films, audiences can expect to see the unchanged “jolly old clever Nick.” He’s playing the same character that comes up with genius ways to solve virtually any problem he could ever face in any situation. He always plays the smart guy with all the answers and his tone of voice during these great reveals is becoming more of a laugh track as audiences are catching on. He’s beginning to sound a lot like Velma from Scooby Doo and her classic “Jinkies!” phrase.

“Jinkies” would have only been an improvement to this lackluster script. Screenwriter Ryne Douglas Pearson and husband and wife team Stiles White and Juliet Snowden brings us this disappointing screenplay full of forced dialogue and underdeveloped characters. It’s pretty bad when it takes three writers to make a crappy script. Lines like “The caves won’t save us!”  and “This is not a crank call,” are just the beginning of the awkward dialogue viewers have no other choice but to laugh at. The viewer only gets to know character backgrounds through their episodes of puking dialogue. When necessary characters suddenly tell us everything we need to know in order for the present plot point to make sense.

If the filmmakers could have just edited out Knowing’s ridiculous –not so special- effects and replaced the National Treasure Hunter with a clean face, the unique themes and thought provoking questions may have kept it in theaters a bit longer. Knowing is suspenseful to the point that the characters are running around shouting and you do want to know how things will end, but for many this ending will seem very cheap. This film is definitely not for the typical Sci-fi audience, but provides a new view of what’s to come of our world.

Perhaps Proyas should stick to directing films starring Will Smith and robots taking over the world. From now on, any film involving Cage breaking codes should be avoided or better yet prohibited from public viewing. 

ADVENTURELAND

Though “Superbad” fans have been looking forward to a film in the same vein as the raunchy 2007 comedy, director Greg Mottola’s newest flick, “Adventureland,” is more of a “When Harry Met Sally.”

      Mottola brings back big hair and rubber bracelets in his beautifully shot and brilliantly crafted coming-of-age comedy that comes closer to a true representation of life than most films in theaters today. Mismarketed as “Superbad II,” the film is nothing like its vulgar, sex-driven trailer. Instead, “Adventureland” is a trip back to the ’80s that reminds audiences what was so great about that decade of electric sounds and retro trends.

      The film is set in 1987, and recent college graduate James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) plans to spend the summer backpacking through Europe. But after his father (Jack Gilpin) receives a pay cut at work, James is forced to look for a job to pay for graduate school. After exhausting all other options, including a job as an asphalt mixer, he calls his childhood friend Tommy Frigo (Matt Bush), who sets him up with an interview at Adventureland, a local amusement park. After meeting the park’s schizophrenic manager, James begins to learn the ropes with Joel Schiffman (Martin Starr), a nerdy, monotone, Russian-Literature philosopher working a job beneath his intelligence. Joel then introduces James to the world of carnies and rigged games.

      The subplot that holds the film together begins when James meets Em Lewin (Kristen Stewart), a charming, nonconformist co-worker who succumbs to the simple work only to escape her wicked stepmother. Stewart and Eisenberg bring a youthful innocence to the film. Their on-screen relationship is highly believable and exciting as it develops during a summer full of puking children, stale corn dogs and stuffed pandas.

But that’s not the only underlying story. Each of the film’s misfit characters has a pathetic excuse for working a soulless job that cheats children out of penny prizes. The park’s mechanic, Mike Connell (Ryan Reynolds), tells everyone he once jammed with Lou Reed, and the park manager’s wife, Paulette (Kristen Wiig), faithfully follows her husband around the park, never questioning his outrageous and unethical modes of management. Though the film’s plethora of side stories slows its pace, it still contributes to the film’s overall success.

      Cinematographer Terry Stacey enhances the film with expressive shots of carnival rides, fireworks and New York City skyscrapers. “Adventureland” was shot in a run-down amusement park, which helped the film attain its vintage look. The masterfully crafted bumper car scene uses handheld shots that place the viewer on the ride. Stacey captures the essence of that weird transformation from teenage years into adulthood through his shots where innocence and reality collide.

      The characters relate to one another through the stimulating sounds and emotional lyrics of dreamy indie music that plays during the majority of the film’s close-ups. The song lyrics speak for the characters, representing their internal thoughts. “Adventureland” pays tribute to the big names of ’80s rock such as The Replacements and Falco, whose nostalgic tracks play an enormous part in “Adventureland’s” ability to captivate its audience.

      The film’s humorous yet sincere tone is comparable to that of 1996’s “The Daytrippers,” which Mottola also wrote and directed. He incorporates the right mix of wit and ridiculousness into the script. The screenplay has so many jokes that seeing it more than once is a must just to catch them all.

      “Adventureland” reminds audiences of the good old times and the feel of rock ‘n’ roll — by the end of this blast from the past, everyone will be wishing it was 1987 again. The nonstop smart and witty jokes and the thrilling, diverse and captivating cinematography allow Mottola’s film to appeal to a wide range of moviegoers. 

“Adventureland” was written and directed by Greg Mottola.