[Freya-dæg] All-Request August Pt. 5: This Means War

{This Means War's movie poster, found on Wikipedia.}

Introduction
Plot Summary
The Good
The Bad
Judgment
Closing

Introduction

When I first saw the previews for This Means War I thought that Hollywood had finally moved onto something new in the rom-com genre. I thought that the usual romantic comedy formula had been done away with and things had begun to progress onto something more substantial. I thought, for a while, that we all had a bromedy (bromantic comedy) on our hands.

Of course, thoughts and reality aren't always in accord, I thought as I sat down to watch this movie to round off All-Request August. Let's see just how much my thoughts and the reality of this movie jive.

Back to Top
Plot Summary

Tuck (Tom Hardy) and FDR (Chris Pine) are two of the CIA's top agents. They're great in the field together, and back at the office they're some of the most popular guys in the agency. But there's something that can tear even the closest of friends apart, something that can be more heinous that a plot to destroy the world, more scheming than any mastermind looking to destroy the diamond market, or more maniacal than a mogul interested in assassinating the leader of the free world. A woman.

Lauren (Reese Witherspoon) is busy at being a product testing executive. Maybe a little too busy, or so her friend Trish (Chelsea Handler) thinks. So she creates a profile for Lauren on an internet dating site - and, seeing the same ad on television, so does Tuck!

But little do either of them know that this will lead to a three-way meeting that might just tear apart the two fastest of friends and put the whole of America at risk. In fact, if they can't resolve their differences it might be more than just these two rivals in love declaring: This Means War!

Back to Top
The Good

Full disclosure, I thought right. This Means War does actually do things a little bit differently from the standard modern romantic comedy. Rather than focusing on a couple who has lost their spark, this movie focuses on two friends and what happens when a woman comes between them. Plus, we do see a little bit of a bromance between Tuck and FDR.

It also sort of portrays some strong, independent women. In fact, all of what it says that's positive can be summed up in Lauren's friend's advice: "Don't choose the better guy, choose the guy that's gonna make you the better girl."

What's more, throughout the movie we actually see some real character growth in FDR. He starts off as a stereotypical American alpha male, but he winds up completely changed (more or less) but for the better. In essence, we actually see him grow up over the course of the film in a lot of ways.

Speaking much more broadly, the movie's premise of spies using their resources to woo the same girl could be interpreted as an evolution of Cyrano de Bergerac's romantic-helper sub-plot. However, instead of both friends working together, or in any otherwise strictly co-operative way, they act on a much more individual basis.

They both rely on teams to gather information on each other and on Lauren, but they use all of this information as individuals, subjecting the raw data to their own analysis, thoughts, and figurings. In that way, then, the premise of this movie lends itself well to a celebration of the power of the individual in the digital age (if say, we replace the teams of data miners with other people who provide people with information, like say, bloggers).

Add to all of this some frenetic action sequences that are intense but easily followed and all-around well done, and you've got yourself an incredible movie.

Back to Top
The Bad

However, in the case of This Means War you'll get all of that and about 30 minutes more. Or rather, too much.

The movie hums along nicely through its first act and most of its second act, with nary a care. There's some morally dark, privacy invasion issues raised by Tuck's and FDR's bugging Lauren's home (while she's in it, no less), but that sort of thing is built into the premise.

What's harder to get past is how the movie deteriorates as the third act comes into view and then crumbles entirely by the time it ends.

Up until the penultimate climactic scene where Lauren, Tuck, and FDR are all together for the first time the movie has, though slightly awkwardly, shown character growth, suggested that it's okay for women to be bold and independent, and made the wise-cracking friend role more of a wise-friend role. But, once the three meet all of this falls apart.

In this scene, Lauren becomes a hyperventilating mess, her friend goes back on everything she's said up to that point by saying "I told you you shouldn't have dated two guys at once," after towing the exact opposite line for the first 2/3 of the movie, and Tuck and FDR are broken up without any real threat to their relationship since the movie's big bad has been spotted and it's still their mission to take him down. What's more, the big bad kidnaps Lauren and Trish, as if they're perfectly helpless damsels in the face of gritty reality - contrary to what the rest of the movie has suggested.

What makes this reversal worse is that the movie telegraphs that it's coming almost from minute one.

The emphasis throughout the first two acts is firmly placed on the romantic stuff at the cost of the spy stuff - but the big bad that's out to get Tuck and FDR for what they did in the opening scene is still there, lurking just out of frame and begging to have his part of the plot resolved. This fulfilment comes in a rush of high-paced action. Up to this point the action's just been drizzled over the two agents' comic rivalry. So it's clear that he's going to be the focus of act three.

Between Tuck and FDR, FDR gets far more character development. We learn about his past, a little of what motivates him at present, and we actually see him change over the course of the movie.

However, Tuck remains largely the same as a character. Only his circumstances change, since after it's revealed that he's a secret agent his estranged wife and kid - whom he had formerly convinced that he was a travel agent - come right back to him, no questions asked whatsoever.

And as far as Lauren's character goes, she is portrayed as a successful career woman, but we also get glimpses of her being hung-up on an ex whom she followed to the city while they were still dating. This situation could be made to bolster her as the strong female figure that she more or less is, but at the same time this is clearly an illusion.

Without ever getting a reason for it, we're shown that she still has a thing for this ex in spite of his being engaged and, by the very rules of the movie, thus unattainable. You could argue that this unattainability makes her want him back all the more, but since it's not clear what made him so special in the first place Lauren's jealousy and desire aren't given enough motivation to take full advantage of the unattainability angle.

The negative transformation of Lauren's friend is a little less predictable. Yet, just before she turns into the "I told you so" character that rom-coms are well known for having, we see her in a setting that's more everyday than those in which we've seen her previously. This is also the scene where she gives Lauren her sage advice.

So what's the situation? Helping her son repair a baseball mitt, while sitting on the couch in her living room and talking about how she loves her husband because he's her own man, despite his faults. This is sweet and all, but it entirely contradicts the firebrand that we've seen her as before. This isn't to say that mothers can't simultaneously be firebrands and motherly (real people are complex, of course), but there's no build up to this scene.

Further, it suggests something curious about marriage that the rest of the movie works towards as well.

The motherly scene with Trish, Tuck's lack of development, FDR's full-on development, and Lauren's loosening up all suggest that marriage is some sort of solidifying ritual. That it somehow locks people into what's truly best for them and that this means, to varying degrees, that growth is no longer necessary for a person.

This is why I've taken this away from the movie: all of its unmarried characters change gradually, we see them grow, evolve, and become something different from what they were at the movie's beginning. Conversely, all of the characters who are married do not change (Trish's sudden change is out of character, but not unpredictable since the movie is constantly reminding us that she's married and has a kid).

It may not have been the movie's intent, but since we're given two main characters (Tuck and FDR) it's hard to not compare the two. And any comparison shows that while unmarried the one changes, and while married the other does not change.

Back to Top
Judgment

The story of two men competing for one woman is definitely nothing new.

Chaucer's Knight tells the story of Arcite, Palamon, and Emily in the Canterbury Tales - written in the latter half of the 14th century. And Chaucer didn't create the Knight's Tale from pure inspiration, it was a shortened version of a story by Giovanni Boccaccio, which itself probably has even deeper historical roots.

However, This Means War does show some character growth within its love-triangle.

Yet, at the same time, it's kind of surprising that this movie got made. Especially now, in a world of phone tapping and drone strikes, and all manner of privacy invasions being made possible by the internet and the degree to which we're all connected to it. It would've made much more sense had they explicitly addressed this in the movie rather than just calling it "immoral" right before an action sequence.

The movie also promotes some of the old curious romcom axioms: marriage saves, and women who are all about their career only mellow out once they meet a man.

There is potential in This Means War, but all of that potential, like an unsatisfying story draft, gets crumpled up by the end of the second act and intricately tossed into a decorative garbage can in the third.

So, Freya, this one may yet moan and move about on the littered ground of the Field of Fallen Films, but don't let yourself be fooled into raising it up. Ultimately, it's just muscle memory at work.

Back to Top
Closing

Next week, the blog update continues, but depending on how much of it gets done over the weekend, regular updates might just return to this blog. Regardless of my progress through that to do list, however, I'll be giving In The Name of the King a look next Friday, and am hoping to find something hospitable within it.

Back to Top

[Freya-dæg] Nicolas Cage Month Pt. 3: Trespass Review

{Trespass's movie poster, found on Wikipedia.}

Introduction
Plot Summary
The Good
The Bad
Judgment
Closing

Introduction

For part three of Nicolas Cage Month Trespass is on the block. A film that came out to terrible reviews peppered with a few passing grades, Trespass was pulled from American theatres after only 10 days (in which it made back less than $25 000 of its $35 million budget). Let's see just how bad this movie is, and how Cage fares.

Back to Top
Plot Summary

The Miller's are a wealthy family, living on a secluded wealthy estate where security is tantamount. Not just because Kyle (Nicolas Cage) is a diamond trader, nor just because Sarah (Nicole Kidman) is an architect - it's all about family.

But the Miller's notion of family comes under threat when a group of thieves invade their home, demanding that Kyle make the most dangerous trade of all - his money for his and his family's lives. Does he do the deal? Or do the robbers double cross him? Just who is in the right and who is in the wrong is hard to tell when everyone involved is bound to Trespass.

Back to Top
The Good

Trespass offers some chilling moments that showcase the brutality of people when they're at their most desperate. It includes some strong performances from Kidman and Cam Gigandet (Jonah). But, most importantly, it showcases Nic Cage's specially adapted variety of acting.

{Move over, John Hodgman, there's a new Deranged Millionaire in town.}

Cage really shows what he's capable of in this movie. Every line of his dialogue is excellently delivered, and pitched excellently. Plus, Cage gets matched with a line that must have been written for his special brand of over-the-top acting: "That your filthy lust invited them in?"

The film is also plush with style and a smooth finish that are the result of the soundtrack, lighting, and camera work.

Back to Top
The Bad

But, beneath those performances, and that style, beneath the lovely veneer, this movie is rotted through.

The core elements of any thriller, are suspense and tension. Trespass offers neither.

Aside from the home invasion element of the movie, its other focus is the strength of the Miller family.

Throughout the movie the bonds between Kyle and Sarah and them both and Avery are tested. Mostly, however, the fact that Kyle is always away on business is thrown at the audience and through the use of oddly placed flashbacks, we're told that Sarah may just have gotten a little too involved with the security system maintenance guy, who just so happens to be Jonah.

This could make for a compelling family drama, except for the fact that there is never anything at risk.

The flashbacks show nothing that is explicit about Sarah and Jonah having an affair, except for one picture which is shown to be the result of a set up shortly after it has first been displayed.

What's more, in an early scene Sarah wonders aloud about how much longer she'll have to wait before she stops caring that Kyle is never around - an indication that things aren't going well between them, but that she, up to this point, still cares enough about him to not cheat on him.

The movie's plot is also sluggish and built on a shakey foundation. The introduction to the Millers is fine, but the thieves are simply a group of ne'er-do-wells when they first arrive on the scene. They do a good job of this, definitely, but they constantly change their story, and this not only clouds their motivation, but frustrates rather than interests.

By the time the invaders' true reason for being there is revealed it's hard to really care.

Back to Top
Judgment

Trespass scores high on two fronts: Acting and being very aptly titled. For this movie is indeed a trespass against interesting, suspenseful storytelling.

It has a handful of moments, both legitimately good and so bad that they're almost good, but so few moments do not a movie make.

Though it may try to talk you out of it, fly high over this one, Freya. Let it linger longer in that field of fallen films - perhaps a green shoot or wide-boughed tree will raise from where it lay.


Back to Top
Closing

Next week is the last week of July, and so, the last part of Nicolas Cage month. The set of special reviews will be rounded off with a look at Seeking Justice, the story of how far a grief-stricken man will go to exact vengeance.

Plus, next week there will be a new piece of creative writing, an editorial article, and Annotated Links #10 and #11.

Back to Top

[Freya-dæg] The Warrior's Way

What do you get when you combine a gun toting country girl (Kate Bosworth) from the 19th century Western United States and "The Best Swordsman in the World. Ever." (Dong-gun Jang) from somewhere in Asia? Well, you get the Warrior's Way, of course.

The film is Sngmoo Lee's first English language effort, and my guess is that it does his Korean work little to no justice.

As a fan of Hong Kong cinema and the awesome madness of movies produced outside of North America, I may be a bit biased against the Western aspects of the movie. But, within themselves they are done well. West and East just don't mix very well in this flick.

According to Rotten Tomatoes, (my determiner of what a generally "good" or "terrible" movie is) this has a ranking of 31% among critics and 47% among viewers. So it's close to being good enough to pass over. However, as both numbers fall below 60%, I'm going to go ahead and say that it is a generally "terrible" movie - something that could perhaps use a little bit of redeeming.

But. Here's the bad stuff that even I noticed.

This movie is as covered with clichés as 19th century gift blankets were with smallpox. The idea behind the flick is to combine the ninja/samurai genre with the western genre. However, instead of having the two interact in a new and interesting way all of the familiar stereotypes are here: silent warrior, spunky country girl, drunken old gunman, lecherous old general (Custer, essentially) - plus the clichés around fighting styles are there too.

The cowboys fight with guns and dynamite and revel in explosions, the Asians fight with dramatic pauses and rather useless after-kill poses. But the two never really mix aside from the girl's learning how to handle double swords from the Asian swordsman.

There's a neat nod to the silent gunman riding off into the sunset at the end, but the reasons for the swordsman's leaving aren't just because he's defended the town and is now ready to move on. He goes as an expression of his love for the girl. This is well done, but is way too minimal within a movie that puts more emphasis on the fight scenes than anything else.

And, like all modern movies featuring fight scenes, slow motion action sequences are used freely. To the point where they become distracting and essentially meaningless. The last thing you want to do when studying is to highlight every word, and the same principle should apply to slow motion and fight scenes.

All of these things made the movie lag for me. A film that was just about an hour and a half felt instead like two and a half.

But. The good:

One of the major plot threads of the movie - the romance between the girl and the swordsman wasn't anything new, but it was interesting to see it unfold. And to see how it ultimately came together in the end-they weren't just two crazy kids in love, but instead were two that gradually fell in love (in some proper, eye-roll-worthy scenes) and then couldn't be together because of what was indeed best for all.

Jang's flashbacks to his training were awesome. It's the usual over the top samurai/ninja/martial arts movie training, but instead of wild challenges to increase his strength and agility we're shown the parts of his training that destroyed his compassion. Though predictable, it's definitely a unique thing to show, and a very good point to make about what's needed to be the greatest fighter.

The cliché of the cold-hearted killer turning soft because of a child is pretty standard in most martial arts flicks that want to get a little more sentimental. But it's well done enough to make it an interesting transformation.

The rest of the good that I can say about this one relies entirely on its visual appeal. There's a lot to look at, and a lot that's very attractive. But there's nothing really amazing or memorable.

Despite the fact that I've pointed out more good than bad still leaves one thing. The clincher: does this make me want to see more of Sngmoo Lee's movies? Not really.

The swordsman's reasons for leaving were at least a little complex, and the fact that he's caring for the baby that is the last member of his rival clan definitely adds some interesting layers. But these aspects are too often left lingering in the background while flashy fights are center stage.

So, it was neat and all, but ultimately just not that intriguing. Maybe his foreign language stuff (The Legend of Evil Lake) is solid, but this is just alright. Best just to let this one go, so it can fall back to the stack of fallen fighters from whence it came.