One Iconic Scene Does Not Justify The Lackluster Spy Film Mission: Impossible

The Good: Smart protagonist, Generally good acting
The Bad: Special effects, Obvious plot reversals, No real character development, Dumb peripheral characters, Overbearing soundtrack
The Basics: When Ethan Hunt’s team is burned, he learns there is a conspiracy within the Impossible Missions Force and he is the prime suspect.


With so many reviewers going gaga for James Bond in celebration of his 50th Anniversary and the accompanying Blu-Ray/DVD collection for that milestone, I thought, “Now’s the perfect time for me to review Mission: Impossible.” What can I say? I’m a contrarian at heart. Actually, I have a thing about having sensibility in my reviews and I vaguely recalled seeing Mission: Impossible III (reviewed here!) and being disappointed by how derivative of Alias (reviewed here!) it was. Conversely, I enjoyed last year’s Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (reviewed here!), so I thought it was time to go back and see the first Tom Cruise Mission: Impossible film.

I am not impressed. Within the film and as a professional reviewer, there were too many conceits utilized by Mission: Impossible that made it problematic at best. As a viewer who understands how Hollywood works (at least in general terms) the fact that the film opens with a shot of Emilio Estevez, whose name does not appear in the opening credits, is a disturbing nod that informs the viewer they should not get overly attached to his character. In the film itself, Mission: Impossible features one of the dumbest criminal masterminds of all time in that the “diabolical genius” who is behind the film’s conspiracy (which he has apparently been planning for some time) stupidly tells the truth at key moments which allow the protagonist to easily reason who is behind everything. Obviously, if one is a mole in a government agency, they should be used to lying and working covertly. The villain in Mission: Impossible does so so poorly that it is hard to believe that the person gets as far as they do.

Following a mission in Kiev, Jim Phelps assembles an Impossible Missions Force Team in Prague. With the stated mission being to recover a disc that has the aliases and mundane names of every IMF operative working in Eastern Europe, Phelps’s team, which includes Ethan Hunt, Claire Phelps, Sarah, Jack and another operative, infiltrates a party. The mission, however, goes sour and everyone but Hunt appears killed. Contacting command, Hunt is put in contact with Kittridge, who happens to be in Prague and is able to extract Hunt. Meeting with him, Kittridge reveals that there is a mole in the IMF and because Hunt’s family farm has suddenly come out of debt, he is the prime suspect.

Evading Kittridge’s men, Hunt makes it to a safe house, where he attempts to find the people who gave the IMF the mission and he discovers Claire is still alive. Claire and Hunt assemble their own team of former IMF agents to get the list which was used as bait to draw out the real mole. As Kittridge closes in on his team, Hunt learns the identity and motivations of the enemies of the IMF.

To the credit of Mission: Impossible, Ethan Hunt is characterized as a realistically smart protagonist. He asks – immediately – one of the key questions of Kittridge when he learns that the other agent is in Prague. Hunt is operating on a level that makes him seem like a credible, realistically-seasoned spy. He might not be a good son (why would he let his family farm stay in debt if he had such a good job?!), but he is a realistically competent spy protagonist.

The acting in Mission: Impossible is fair. Tom Cruise is credible, if young looking, for a superspy action hero Ethan Hunt. On the character front, Ethan Hunt and his family ties make less sense for a spy of his caliber (obvious weakness), but Cruise gets into the role after the opening meeting scene (in that, none of the performers seem to be taking the briefing seriously enough to be actual intelligence agents. The scene is fun, but not at all believable). The only other truly credible actors in Mission: Impossible are Emilio Estavez and Ving Rhames. Jean Reno, who can usually be counted on for a great performance, plays Krieger as clumsy at a moment when the character cannot afford to be and he does not sell the moment. Similarly, Emmanuelle Beart, who plays Claire, is a pretty generic pouty-lipped, Hollywood ideal who has no presence or gravitas on the screen. Henry Czerny, at least, has the excuse that he isn’t given much to do with Kittridge as a generic antagonist.

Several of the shots in Mission: Impossible do not work in a rational sense. Coming off the iconic scene in the record’s room, Ethan Hunt catches a bead of his own sweat to prevent it from setting off the alarm. The shot looks marginally good, but it is so obviously an insert shot that it is distracting to the seasoned viewer. In other words, there is no way the hand could be at the angle and placement it is shot in, especially catching the sweat, in the reality of Hunt’s body position in the shot. In fact, the movement needed to make it work would have caused the suspended character to pinwheel.

Director Brian De Palma sacrifices rationality for the cool look in several key moments. The finale of the film involves Ethan Hunt laying inches away from a helicopter blade and he looks mildly startled. That helicopter blade should have been exceptionally hot; regardless of it missing slicing open Hunt’s neck, he should be pretty uncomfortable from the heat. De Palma hopes the viewer will not notice this. Furthermore, he uses an incredible reliance on the soundtrack to telegraph the emotions and tension the viewer is supposed to feel.

They do not.

As well, De Palma makes several obvious cuts - most obviously with Jack's demise - where he is obviously laboring to keep the film PG-13 and it looks and feels sloppy at those moments.  The result is a spy film that strives to be even average, but is so preoccupied with creating the next “surprise” twist that the viewer is left bored for much of the movie.

For other spy thrillers, check out my reviews of:
Skyfall
The Bourne Identity
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

3/10

Check out how this film stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Don Cheadle Sells Another Painful Expose On The Real World With Hotel Rwanda.

The Good: Excellent acting, pace, characters, ? DVD Extras
The Bad: Minor character development issues
The Basics: Don Cheadle performs another role where a man is surrounded by utter misery, in this case the genocide in Rwanda that most of the world let happen.


I've been on a Don Cheadle kick lately. I recently rewatched Boogie Nights (reviewed here!) and Crash (reviewed here!) and found his commentaries to be insightful and enjoyable. He's easily one of the more neglected great actors of our time and I suspect I'll actually make an effort to hunt down more of his works in the near future. Of course, it might be a few days. After all, Cheadle has a tendency to play characters who are caught in horrific personal or professional situations or dilemma's. I'm still reeling from watching the last film I hunted down because he was in it: Hotel Rwanda.

Set in the early 1990s, Paul Rusesabagina is managing the Hotel des Mille Collines in Kigali, Rwanda when the U.N. peacekeeping force withdraws following the collapse of the peace treaty between the Hutu and the Tutsis. As the Hutu military sweeps through the neighborhoods slaughtering any Tutsis it can find, Paul finds himself sheltering Tutsi refugees within the classy hotel following the departure of all of the Europeans. Paul has a rather personal stake in his risky endeavor to save his neighbors; his wife is Tutsi, as are many of his family members.

As Paul is systematically abandoned by all of his allies in Rwanda, he finds himself bribing the local Hutu military leader to keep the hotel protected. Paul and his refugees know influential people outside Rwanda and they begin making telephone calls to leaders in other - primarily European - nations in the desperate attempt to save their own lives. When the U.N. peacekeepers return to extract those who have been granted visas to escape the genocide, one of Paul's workers contacts the Hutu militias to have them slain.

Hotel Rwanda is an exceptionally difficult film to watch. When I finished watching it, one of my friends called and asked me what I thought of the film. Still wiping away tears - literally - I said, "I've never been so ashamed of being American as when I was watching that film." Given the last few years in American History, that's saying quite a bit. But after two hours of watching Rwandan's being slaughtered - cinematically - and knowing how closely it was based on reality while the only sound from the United States is an attempt to split hairs on the difference between "genocide" and "acts of genocide" as a reason to not intervene. It's pretty shameful.

While the United States is physically absent from Hotel Rwanda, Belgium and Canadians in the U.N. Peacekeeping forces do what they can to save the lives that no one else will. Nick Nolte plays Colonel Oliver, who explains the lack of involvement from the rest of the world - especially America - as an issue of color. Sadly, his words ring the most true in the film and it's troubling to watch.

In short, it's not entertaining. Arguably, this is not supposed to be an entertaining film, it is supposed to shock and horrify the viewer. It is intended to unsettle us and it works admirably. But one immediately wonders why director Terry George opted for a drama with fictional license as opposed to a documentary. Hotel Rwanda has a musical score and recognizable actors that express the message fine, but also insinuate that there is some entertainment value to watching the genocide occur. Unlike other recent films exploring brutality in Africa, like Blood Diamond, this does not tread so close to the sensationalist. As it is, it exists in an uncomfortable buffer zone between capturing the whole truth and telling a story that is very personal and horrific.

And it certainly succeeds at being horrific; the refugees hiding out in the Hotel are insulted, menaced and brought out at gun point several times in the course of the film and after an hour of witnessing such brutality - or more often, the effects of it left over in the streets outside the hotel - the audience begins to feel they are being dragged out every time the protagonists are. It's unsettling and by the end of the film, the viewer is likely to be disheartened.

Yes, after all the bloodshed, we do not expect the catharsis of anything remotely near a happy ending. For citizens in the United States, maybe that's a good thing. Our complacency makes us culpable. Hotel Rwanda reminds the viewers that we have a stated moral imperative to never allow genocide to happen again. But hey, in Rwanda, they're black, so it's not so bad. It's been six hours since I watched the film and my stomach is still tight. This is a very effective film and it's likely to horrify the nerve dulled population.

Who am I kidding? Blood Diamond, Hotel Rwanda, nightly news footage of rendition, torture and warfare in Iraq, bombings and walls in Israel and Palestine, school shootings, none of this touches the American psyche anymore. Certainly, we want it to. But when it comes time to act, we stir our t.v. dinners, we send a check to the ACLU and we pluck our hangnails. The citizens of the United States, en masse, may sympathize, might want to empathize, but they are not willing to risk the political instability of removing from power any and all people who are complaint in acts of war, genocide or indifference against either or both. Using films like Hotel Rwanda as some perverse form of entertainment, we dull our population until the next major tragedy in American history and then we let ourselves be manipulated in our fear into whatever whomever appears strongest suggests.

It's enough to disgust one for being American.

Where's the hope, then? What's the purpose of the film that makes it essential to see? It is only through works like this where the audience is forced to be made uncomfortable that there is any hope at all. When none of the population is unsettled, the soul of the nation is truly dead. We might be close, but we're not there yet. The purpose of watching Hotel Rwanda is to act as a witness and renew ourselves to the concept behind the simple words "Never Again." It's time we say it with conviction and mean it; preparing to back it up with more than just bumper stickers.

And Terry George's Hotel Rwanda does what it intends to well. A large chunk of the kudos must go to Don Cheadle. Cheadle humanizes the struggle from his opening moments of complete disbelief in the situation. He embodies the voices of reason, that peace will work, that the world will not stand by for such slaughter, that international medical workers have some safety to travel throughout the streets, and that Paul can actually save those within the hotel. Cheadle plays a man of privilege waking up to a world of barbarism and he plays the transitions in Paul's character masterfully while presenting throughout the sense that this is the same man.

Cheadle's acting is joined by decent performances by Nick Nolte (Colonel Oliver) and Sophie Okonedo (Paul's wife Tatiana). But others are either not so gifted as Cheadle or misdirected by George. Most notably, is the traitorous hotel worker who betrays Paul and the refugees. Prior to his betrayal, he and Paul make a supply run only to find themselves driving over the bodies of the fallen and finding their way blocked by hundreds more corpses. In those scenes, there appears to be a transformation in the character, yet it's almost the next scene where he turns on Paul, making it seem like either the actor was misdirected, a poor actor or intended to manipulate the viewer. The last option would be most cheap and the film seems quite above that.

I'll be honest; usually when I review DVDs, I try to be thorough and watch all the bonus features and listen to the commentaries. I couldn't do that this time. I simply could not bring myself to watch the film again with the commentary track on, nor to go through the featurettes chronicling the real genocide in Rwanda. They are there, the extras seem to largely bring reality to the viewer's mind, but after two hours of this I just couldn't do that to myself.

As a simple consumer, I have that option. The victims of Rwandan genocide, of course, did not.

For other works with Joaquin Phoenix, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Walk The Line
Signs
Gladiator
U Turn

9/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Take A Lesson From Yoda; Flyboys Is An Average Cliche War Movie

The Good: Moments of acting, Moments of effect, Moments of plot
The Bad: Everything is predictable in this movie, pacing, LONG!
The Basics: In a disappointing war movie filled with cliched character and situations, Flyboys manages only to disappoint this reviewer. And Yoda.


I grew up watching The Empire Strikes Back (reviewed here!) and one of the concepts presented in the movie resonated well with me. When Luke Skywalker arrives on Degobah, he tells a stranger he meets he is looking for a great warrior, to which Yoda responds, "Wars not make one great." It's chic to produce war movies while the U.S. is at war because: 1. It capitalizes on any form of pro-war movement, 2. It reminds the citizens of past glories in war which might inspire them to enlist, and 3. It's bound to be reviewed better because few people want to talk bad about a war movie when there's a war going on. I suppose it's unpatriotic. Well, to lift from our comrade Yoda, "War not make movies great." Certainly that's the case with Flyboys, now out on DVD.

Blaine Rawlings is an American who hops the pond to France in the last portions of World War I before the American's joined the war. Fleeing an arrest warrant for beating a banker who foreclosed on his ranch, Rawlings finds himself as part of the Lafayette Escadrille, a group of fighter pilots who learn to fly the relatively new technology of airplanes, then go off to fight the Germans. Blaine and his companions shoot and get shot at by Germans, rescue the French and overcome their various interpersonal problems while never learning French and never surrendering.

Good for them.

Now, in real life, there was a Lafayette Escadrille and they were essentially Americans fighting in French airplanes and becoming heroes for doing that. How much of their story actually makes it into Flyboys is in serious doubt by me. I say this not because I deny the heroism of the Lafayette Escadrille, but rather how very plot convenient their assorted combats and deaths actually were.

The detachment that Blaine belongs to is made up of every possible war movie stereotype for a war movie made after 1970. So, our heroes consist of: Blaine (All-American), Skinner (Black social statement), Briggs (his prejudice, wealthy, white counterpart who will learn a valuable lesson in the course of the movie), and William (Legacy of warriors in the family to live up to). There's also Criminal-Made-Good-By-War, Churchy, and Young-Green-First-To-Die. Sure, they have names in the movie, but we don't care because they are just stereotypes, cinematic roles filled with a precision and predictability that only Hollywood could continue to churn out and think it was still new. And, of course, the squadron is trained by the paternal Captain Thenault, a by-the-book, serious officer who sheds it all in the face of good, American insubordination and victory.

I've read Bazooka Joe bubble gum wrappers that were more original than this movie.

The characters are abysmal Hollywood archetypes that teach all of the same lessons of war that we've learned before. And whenever the flyboys win a victory that does not end in a way that might lead to some serious dialogue and soul-searching, Thenault runs on screen with a new target that has to be hit now! The thing is, in addition to exceptionally predictable characters (again, I'm talking the characters in this movie, not the historical personas on which they are based!), Flyboys has one of the most predictable plots of any war movie.

I'm not only talking about the victories the Lafayette Escadrille manages to pull off; this isn't "The Empire Strikes Back" and knowing that the French and Americans do eventually beat the Germans, one cannot expect the new pilots to lose every battle. Those are predictable, but even more predictable is the "kill order." Which characters die and when is so unbelievably foreseeable that I got them all. I'm not joking. Should you decide to forego my recommendation and you actually watch this film, here's a game for you and your friends to play. When the squadron is fully assembled, but before they fly their first combat mission, write a list of the characters in the squadron and guess who will survive the movie and who will not. For those who you figure will not live, guess the order that they perish. If you've watched anything more than twenty war movies (about WWI and beyond) in your life, you ought to be able to get the order and the list of who survives.

That's how bad this movie is.

It's so bad that it's not worth discussing the characters. There are no characters here, they are all "types." They are all pre-filled roles that we've seen before. So, of course, there is a romantic subplot for Blaine, who finds a young French woman to romance, a reconciliation between Skinner and Briggs when Briggs realizes racism is wrong, and a moment that the leader of the squadron opens up to Blaine. This movie could have been one of those parody movies (a la Scary Movie and Date Movie), it is so hackneyed toward "types" as opposed to genuine characters.

The only things that are at all remarkable about this movie are the performances by Jean Reno (Thenault) and James Franco (Blaine). Reno, who I had only seen before in the terrible remake of The Pink Panther (reviewed here!) plays Thenault with a realistic, leaderly detachment that makes him seem more like he might have a backstory to him than the others. Reno has a dignity and posture that allows him to pull off the leadership role quite well.

As for James Franco, he continues to impress me. I first saw Franco in the amazing television series Freaks And Geeks (reviewed here!) and watched him hold his own dramatically on-screen opposite Robert De Niro in City By The Sea (reviewed here!). Franco has the cocky American strut that makes his ideal for this type of role. He brings to the role a confidence that makes the viewer believe that his character would be together enough to improvise amputating a friend's hand to save his life. And he has almost enough ability to make the viewer believe that he cares enough about the fight to fight it, given that once he made it to France he was essentially off the hook. Franco makes the viewer believe that Blaine dreams of being something better and something more, even when the script does not make those motivations clear. The look Franco gives at the beginning of the movie while watching footage of spitfires in the air sells us on his direction.

Unfortunately, it's nowhere near enough to save this movie. Flyboys is too predictable, long and slow in all the worst ways to be worth watching. And if the pilots on whom this movie was based truly were as the movie portrays them, it's a shame the movie wasn't made before their lives were a series of bad Hollywood cliches. Somehow, I suspect our heroes in reality were a bit better than that.

For other works featuring Tyler Labine, please check out my reviews of:
Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
Zack And Miri Make A Porno
Boston Legal - Season 3
Invasion
The X-Files - Season 3

3/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Pink Panther: About As Bad As You're Already Heard (Or Suspect)

The Good: There are moments that are actually funny
The Bad: A lot of slapstick, No great performances, Characters are blah, Resolution
The Basics: Steve Martin's remake of The Pink Panther is unremarkable, but has a few funny moments.


I don't recall what movie I was out watching when I saw the preview for The Pink Panther, but it was one that the preview seemed incongruent with. The person I was with turned to me and said, "If they were going to remake it, Steve Martin is an excellent choice." I had to agree. Then I promptly forgot about it. The Pink Panther was released in theaters, declared one of the worst movies of 2006 and was largely forgotten by me. Then I saw it, which I suppose took some forethought, though it did not feel like it. The bottomline - if you want it up front - is it's about as bad as you might think, but better than you've probably heard.

The ambitious inspector Dreyfus is offered the chance of a lifetime to be awarded the Medal of Honor when a famous soccer coach is killed in front of a stadium of witnesses. Dreyfus decides that the best way he can do this is by having another inspector and the media on the case while he works the case from behind the scenes, allowing for the "official" investigation which he will later discard with his "genius" detective abilities. Dreyfus puts the bumbling incompetent Jacques Clouseau on the case. Almost immediately, Clouseau is bumbling toward the truth with his very capable sidekick Ponton in tow.

While Dreyfus investigates the Chinese - the poison that kills the coach was of Chinese origin - Clouseau investigates the coach's lover, Xania, the star soccer player, the people who did not like the coach and the people who he owed money to. Amidst the murder investigation is the apparent theft of a giant jewel called the Pink Panther diamond, which Clouseau is less diligently searching for.

The Pink Panther is largely a slapstick film, so if you like slapstick, this is probably great. I'm not a fan of slapstick, so watching The Pink Panther was a draining experience for me. It was not terribly clever or funny with the props flying, people falling, ridiculous gags that turned moments into supposed laughter. I generally don't find that funny and this was no exception.

Ironically, the moments when the movie was funniest was when the slapstick was abandoned for such things as wordplay. Clouseau gets in trouble in an airport in the United States and the spinning newspaper montage comes into play with various pictures and headlines. This is funny for the way the publications are portrayed, with the least reputable having the most dumbed-down headline. In short, when the movie wants to be clever, it can be. In fact, unlike some true cinematic atrocities, like The Out-of-Towners, with Steve Martin, The Pink Panther succeeded at moments at making me laugh. But the moments where that was true all had to do with wordplay or concepts that would go above the head of the usual patron of a PG movie. I suppose I'm out of touch with what makes something PG as opposed to PG-13.

Anyway, the moment that actually made me laugh - there were a few where I smiled - involved Clouseau, who has been fawning over Xania the entire movie, being warned that her invitation to her room might be a trap, to which Clouseau responds, "who cares?!" Ahh . . . the cheap laugh of a man willing to die at the hands of a beautiful woman.

But that's pretty much it. Otherwise, The Pink Panther is pretty solidly a dud. None of the characters have a particular amount of character. This is a murder mystery where all the roles are obviously filled. You have the inspector, the ambitious police chief, the girlfriend having problems with her lover, the angry celebrity, the ambitious worker, the business partner who is tired of the failing antics of the other partner. It's all very standard after a fashion. There's even Added Romantic Subplot #12 thrown in to make the movie even more of a cliche.

The movie focuses on Clouseau and Dreyfus, but there are problematic aspects there. Clouseau only proves his worth through unlikely exposition at the very end of the movie. Dreyfus, who sets up the movie, is abandoned for a cheap gag in the flick's last frames. It's ridiculous; Dreyfus sets up the movie. He is telling a story. Yet he does not finish the story. It's disconcerting and sloppy.

The big three performances are all trumped by the straightman. Kevin Kline plays Dreyfus, Beyonce Knowles plays Xania, and Steve Martin portrays Clouseau. None of them shine. Martin and Kline are not playing roles we have not seen them in before. Martin's ability to do schtick wears thin and Kline's arrogance becomes grating. Knowles reminds the viewer that if a musical artist is going to act they ought to either have an excellent role in mind or otherwise have a talent for acting to engage. Were I an actor, Knowles would inspire the reaction I have to people who treat writing like something anyone in the world can do.

The only performance worth watching is from actor Jean Reno. Reno plays Ponton, the straightman to Clouseau's clumsy detective and he does it quite well. Reno is serious and unflinching, playing the role perfectly. So, even though the character is not much, Reno does it well.

Is it worth watching The Pink Panther? No. But if you have kids who like slapstick and fart jokes, it might keep them busy for an hour and a half.

For other works Shawn Levy was involved in, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Date Night
The Pink Panther 2

3/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page by clicking here!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Surprisingly Entertaining, The Pink Panther 2Is Better Than Steve Martin's First Outing As Inspector Clouseau!

The Good: Funny, Moments of performance
The Bad: Predictable plot and character arcs.
The Basics: Actually funny and charming, The Pink Panther 2 reminds viewers that Steve Martin is a comic genius!


If I do not enjoy the first film in a series, I will almost never bother with a sequel. This, I suppose, is probably quite normal, but it bears repeating. So, when I had a chance to take in a screening of the sequel to the loathsome remake of The Pink Panther with Steve Martin, I was somewhat hesitant. However, my fiance was excited about the film, so it seemed like a great way for us to spend some time together. I also promised to never curve reviews just because my partner liked something.

That said, I enjoyed The Pink Panther 2, even more than Steve Martin's first outing as Inspector Jacques Clouseau. Every now and then, I go into a comedy I prejudge as lame and I come out completely and pleasantly surprised. The last time that happened was when I took in Get Smart (reviewed here!) and was shocked by how it actually had a motif. The Pink Panther 2 is not as smart or surprising - it is plagued by a terribly predictable plot, for example - but it is solidly funny and it is worth seeing. Indeed, when this comes out on DVD, it is a solid recommend for seeing, even if not the buy. That said, my fiancé and I laughed . . . a lot and with good reason. The Pink Panther 2 is quite funny.

When priceless artifacts like the Shroud Of Turin, the Magna Carta and the Imperial sword, French Inspector Jacques Clouseau is called in to lead a dream team of investigators from around the world. The perpetrator of the crimes appears to be a master criminal called The Tornado, who stopped working ten years prior. Determined to protect the Pink Panther diamond, which authorities worry might be the next targeted item, Clouseau joins the dream team and no sooner does he leave French soil than the Pink Panther diamond is stolen.

Thus, the dream team of Vicenzo, Pepperidge, Kenji and Sonia (an expert in The Tornado's escapades) descends upon France, where they begin investigating the Pink Panther's theft. Aided by Ponton, Clouseau - who has been on parking ticket detail for over a year prior - witlessly begins investigating, despite the heavy intellectual competition from the other members of the team. Plagued by a love for his assistant, Nicole, that he is unable to express and Vincenzo's advanced upon her, Clouseau sneaks, burns and stumbles his way onto the trail of the Tornado, whom he is not even certain is the actual thief!

The Pink Panther 2 is a mystery comedy and unfortunately, anyone who has seen any amount of mysteries will be unsurprised by who the thief is. In fact, in treating the film like a mystery, I overthought and my first guess - Ponton's wife of ten years, the first character to have a mention to "ten years" outside the Tornado - was wrong. However, once it became clear that Ponton's wife was a mostly off-screen character, the solution to the mystery is actually quite obvious and, in fact, painfully so. In fact, the guilty party might as well enter the film with a big sign that reads "Red Herring, I didn't do it! Wink! Wink!"

But, of course, the Pink Panther series is not about great crime fighting or intelligent detective work, it is essentially about a detective who bumbles his way into the right answers. The point is to be funny; this is a slapstick movie and as that it works wonderfully. I am not generally inclined toward slapstick and I found myself laughing a lot at The Pink Panther 2. But the thing is, a lot of the humor I found myself laughing at was not the slapstick humor, it was the verbal humor. So, for example, my fiance and I were the only ones to laugh at the hilarious line when Clouseau hands Chief Inspector Dreyfus (played by John Cleese) a report on sixteen months of parking tickets, Dreyfus responds, "I shall waste no time in reading this." Hilarious. And there are a number of verbal gags like that, like Nicole and Clouseau talking about remembering to forget the night of passion they almost had.

Even the jokes that are telegraphed or are obvious setups - like Dreyfus telling Clouseau to deny that Dreyfus had assigned him to parking ticket detail - still pay off in funny ways and it works. The Pink Panther 2 has a lot of physical comedy, from Clouseau being dragged by a car in the earliest sequences to him snooping around the Tornado's fence's estate. And in this regard, Steve Martin is an obvious and wonderful choice for Clouseau who lives up to the comedic reputation and potential that he fell too far short of in the first film.

The Pink Panther 2 has a decent cast that is used quite well. In addition to Steve Martin, the film is populated by John Cleese and Lily Tomlin, as the political correctness officer who tries to train Clouseau to be more respectful to coworkers and different ethnicities in some of the film's funniest verbal moments. Cleese, Tomlin and Martin are all expected to be funny because of their long histories in comedy and they each live up to their potential in that regard. Conversely, acting heavyweights Jeremy Irons, Andy Garcia and Alfred Molina all appear in The Pink Panther 2. While Irons is not given anything especially comedic to work with, Garcia either falls flat with much of his humor or is unable to present the comedy he is given in a funny way. Molina adapts well to humor, actually poking fun at some of the dignity he comes at so many of his serious roles with by playing an arrogant Brit.

Jean Reno makes a great straightman to Martin's Clouseau as Ponton. Similarly, Emily Mortimer makes for a good romantic foil to Martin's Clouseau and that works for the film perfectly. Mortimer plays Nicole as plain and shy in a way that she seems quite credible at. This makes Martin's performance as the often over-the-top Clouseau resonate with a reality that makes the viewer feel like the world of The Pink Panther is filled with a realistically diverse population.

Martin, for his part, reminds the viewer that with decent material - and he co-wrote The Pink Panther 2 - he is able to navigate physical and verbal comedy like the seasoned pro he is. Truth be told, though, the Clouseau character is mostly a one-joke character. He is the hapless fool who stumbles into good fortune and the clues needed to succeed. The rest of the Dream Team are similarly monolithic, so it is not like The Pink Panther 2 is a great work of character development or any particular genius in that regard.

But it is fun and it is funny. My partner lauds it as one of the funniest movies ever and I am loathe to contradict my fiance. The Pink Panther 2 is fun, funny and it is good for consistent laughs. But it is not an amazing film. Going into it with that expectation would be ridiculous. Without it, though, it is enough fun to recommend and enjoy. Thoroughly.

For other comedy sequels, please visit my reviews of:
The Whole Ten Yards
Shrek Forever After
Scary Movie 4

6/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an updated listing of all the movies I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Thrill Is Absent For Anyone Who Has Seen The Previews: Armored Flops.

The Good: Decent premise
The Bad: Poor execution, Cliche character development, Actors are typecast (as opposed to used well).
The Basics: A pretty generic action-heist film, Armored is far too predictable and populated by too many characters the viewer doesn't care about to truly enjoy.


When my partner and I managed to get into the preview screening of Armored, back before it was released, I had a moment of inappropriate laughter. My wife, at the last minute, asked what I had gotten us into and when I told her Armored, she looked at me with a blank expression. I elaborated, "The one with the armored truck guards who arrange a heist" to which she responded, "Didn't we see that already?" At that point, I laughed (as the lights in the theater went down) and with good cause; with all of the movies, especially preview screenings, we saw that year we saw an inordinate number of previews for the film. In fact, the real drawback for us was that having seen the full theatrical trailer so many times, seeing the actual film offered up no real surprises as to what happens in the movie.

This movie could have been a tense, tight action adventure film, but unfortunately, Armored, like Quarantine (reviewed here!) the year before, revealed far too much to audiences in advance and the pathetic thing is, for those who see even the thirty-second trailer, the movie is pretty much ruined. The fundamental problem with Armored is that it is simplistic and the characters, acting and plot all reflect that. The movie is intended to be stylish and human (and as an anti-capitalist, I can certainly appreciate portions of the film's moral and mood), but it belabors itself and once things go wrong, the movie quickly degenerates into the most banal "guys night out" type film where reason, empathy and any sense of quality take a backseat to gunplay, car chases and explosions.

Ty is a hardworking guy who is struggling to make ends meet as an armored car guard. He takes care of his brother, but is in danger of losing the family house to the inflexible bank. Being an upstanding citizen, he attempts to get more hours at work, but finds that in the current economic climate, armored transports are a suffering business. As his probationary period comes to an end, Ty is mortified when his armored truck is hijacked . . . by his friends in an apparent prank.

The prank is more than just a bit of hijinx between the guys; it is a test run for robbing the armored car company of one of its shipments. Led by Cochrane, who initially seems compassionate to Ty's plight, six of the guards look to take a $42 million shipment and get away. Their plan goes off remarkably well, until the group is at their safe location after the actual heist when a cop walks in on them. Most of the group is content to let the officer die, but Ty takes compassion on him and fights to keep him alive. In standing up to his coworkers, Ty ends up in a battle for survival that threatens not only him and the dying officer, but his brother!

Armored is a very basic tale of desperate people dealing with desperate situations and how their best laid (bad) plans come unraveled. Unfortunately, it seems instantly familiar and not just from the previews. First, the plot seems remarkably contrived so none of the reversals actually resonate as truly unique or impressive. Ty is an average guy who is trying to work within the system to survive only to discover just how hard times are. But when he is let in on the planned robbery, his moral core wavers in a predictable way that does not "read" right. Ty goes along with the robbery more because the plot demands it than it is in his character.

Then the movie hinges on reversals and after the initial "scare" with Ty before his probationary period is up, the movie throws the surprises at the viewer in much the same way. There are quick reversals, but because the heist goes off so easily (and so relatively early in the film) the viewer knows there has to be complications. Armored was never going to be a film where a man bemoans losing his house, robs an armored car and then simply goes and pays his bills with the stolen money. So, when the police officer walks in on the celebrating criminals, it is not surprising that he gets shot. Ty barricading himself in with the officer is also unsurprising and the conflict that follows is hard to care about.

Part of the reason for that is that the characters make little sense. Most of the characters are "types" as opposed to individuals. Ty is the poor black man trying to work his way up and protect his family who is just overrun with debts from the inflexible bank. His character is the most problematic because it is so contradictory. He doesn't turn in his coworkers (which would have given him all the hours he wanted) when they let him in on their plan, going with the plan instead. So, he's morally ambiguous. But no, he's not morally ambiguous, because he works so hard to protect the officer and his family. It never seems to cross his mind seriously that with his cut of the money he can pay all his bills, let the cop die and still have enough money to soothe his conscience.

The rest of the characters are even more bland and monolithic, which speaks poorly to the writing of screenwriter James V. Simpson. Baines is a mentor figure with a great technical mind, Quinn is an expert on the wetworks and Cochrane is pretty much a generic villain (though he is a bit more Faustian than obvious in some parts) through most of the movie. There's the wisecracking member of the bunch and as a result, the film is populated by less distinct players than it is by "action-adventure standards."

This becomes even more disappointing when one considers the casting. Prestigious actors and newer performers are given equally mediocre parts to play, but largely Armored is hampered by the way it seems to want good casting to equate to good acting. So, while the presence of Laurence Fishburne (as Baines) and Jean Reno (as Quinn) lends some apparent weight and class to the movie, the performances are well within their expected ranges of greatness. In other words, they give viewers nothing new. This is a pretty common problem with films these days and in Armored it is nowhere more egregious than its use of Matt Dillon. Dillon made it big - for me as someone who never saw the movies of the so-called "Brat Pack" - with his performance of a racist L.A.P.D. officer in Crash (reviewed here!) and he was absolutely phenomenal in the role. Director Nimrod Antal uses Dillon the exact same way, having him deliver lines with a tightlipped sense of seething anger that never makes him seem truly deep . . . or unfamiliar.

But most of the movie hinges on the performance of Columbus Short as Ty. Short play the role as deftly as the script allows, with him convincingly looking beaten down with his body language when he converses with representatives from the bank and conversely strong and proud when taking on the villains. Short has decent emotional range, though the movie eventually degenerates into him yelling, running and looking freaked out. By that point, though, the viewer is unlikely to care about either the quality of his performance or the fate of his character.

I was bored by most of Armored and I was unsurprised when others at the preview screening actually walked out. A couple seated in front of my wife and I had seemed very excited coming into the movie, but they left after the first hour. Perhaps they felt like I did; there was nothing truly new here and it was hard to care about any of the characters, despite all the fastmoving people and cars.

For other works with Laurence Fishburne, check out my reviews of:
Contagion
Predators
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
The Matrix Revolutions
The Matrix Reloaded
The Matrix

4/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |