"Unstoppable" Review

With a capable cast and the right script, Tony Scott has made terrific movies. Lately however, he’s taken on a string of lousy screenplays and contributed little to them. In “Unstoppable,” it isn’t initially clear whether he’s working for or against us—irksome stylistic choices threaten to derail his momentum at every turn. But like Triple Seven, a ghost train towing a half-mile of hazardous chemicals, the breakneck energy he builds vaporizes any obstructions in its path. “Unstoppable” is a fun, effective film.

Anchored by charismatic performances by Denzel Washington and Chris Pine, Scott’s latest is refreshingly straightforward: a seasoned engineer (Washington) and his trainee (Pine) are on a routine delivery when they unwittingly become the last, best hope to stop an unmanned locomotive from jumping track in a highly populated Pennsylvanian town. Silly though the characters’ transitions from blue-collar workers to action stars might be, the premise is simple and stays that way, and the plot builds not in scale but in intensity. Of course, there’s plenty of railyard jargon and engineering exposition peppered throughout to create a veneer of complexity, but “Can’t stop the train” is about all you’ll ever need to know.

And what more do you need to know? “Unstoppable” is one of the most viscerally exciting Hollywood spectacles this year, and a welcome relief in the action spectrum from the ceaseless deluge of military and mercenary films. An action movie sans combat is all but unheard of in this day and age, but never fear; Scott squeezes in enough explosions and speedometer-snapping trucks, helicopters, and trains to keep even the most attention deficient spectators docile. That he does so without relying on conventional violence is just the icing on the cake.

Still, “Unstoppable” is a far from perfect film, and the fun had comes only after a mandatory adjustment to Scott’s ugly shooting style. His carousel dollies, unmotivated snap zooms, and bland color palette are all major distractions. Either Scott doesn’t care whether his images have an independent artistry, or he has terrible aesthetic taste. Even his coverage feels inadequate in certain instances—key moments are muddled because we aren’t sure of Triple Seven’s spatial relationship to its surroundings. For an action director, that’s a significant oversight.

Yet ultimately, it barely matters. As ugly and unpolished as “Unstoppable” often looks, it’s hard to deny the base effectiveness of the imagery. The sense of constant motion is no accident, and that the photography manages to vilify Triple Seven as our inanimate antagonist is an accomplishment in itself. The integration of faux newscasts into the narrative is an interesting choice as well, though does little to elevate it on a visual level.

“Unstoppable” is an unambitious action film, but one that succeeds beyond its own meager expectations for itself. It’s a goofy, gimmicky movie that will likely play on basic cable years from now, watched and enjoyed by its audience simply “because it’s on.” There is a certain timeless appeal it shares with the likes of Scott’s own “Top Gun,” and “Unstoppable” does for trains what it did for jets.

Tony Scott is rarely the sole determiner of his successes, and the stars aligned for “Unstoppable.” A marriage of performance, material, and realization, the director has hit his first Triple Seven in years. The effectiveness of the equation was audible; even in a half-full screening, the crowd gasped and applauded at all the right moments.

If you don't have the opportunity to see this worthwhile thriller theatrically, fear for your evenings when “Unstoppable” makes its way to basic cable.

3.5/5

FARCE/FILM Episode 69: Unstoppable

--> Episode 69: 11/14/10 <--

Hosts: Colin George, Brian Crawford, Tyler Drown, Brian Johanson, Max Cooke, Kelly Conaboy

Intro – 00:00

Top 5 - 01:29

Unstoppable (spoilers) – 07:28

E-mail – 37:24

(Favorite NY films, including before 1980s)

WMD – 48:00

(Batman, A Buddy Story, Tiny Furniture, Shrooms, Saw 3D, Saw 6, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, Catfish, Audience of One, The 400 Blows, Garden State, Do the Right Thing, Anchorman)

Outro - 01:24:44

"Unstoppable"

Colin:
Tyler:
Brian:
Max:
Kelly:

-- Weekly Discussion --

This week, our hosts discuss their favorite films set in New York City. What are some of your favorites? What are some of the best films that embody their settings?

FARCE/FILM Episode 68: Due Date

--> Episode 68: 11/09/10 <--

Hosts: Colin George, Kevin Mauer, Laura Rachfalski

Intro – 00:00

Top 5 - 01:04

Due Date – 09:23

WMD – 37:15

(Terminator, Romancing the Stone, Standard Operating Procedure, Fast Cheap and Out of Control, Dancer in the Dark, Barton Fink, The Color of Money, Fright Night, Candyman, Zombi 2, Fawlty Towers, The Walking Dead, Vertigo)

E-mail and Outro – 01:10:51

(Time travel movies)

"Due Date"

Colin:
Kevin:
Laura:

--Weekly Discussion--

This week, our hosts discuss Todd Phillips’ “Due Date,” and compare the criterion by which they rank comedies. Should obvious flaws be overlooked if the material is funny? What is more important to you, that a comedy make you laugh or draw you in?

"Due Date" Review

I appreciate that “Due Date” dials back the faux-outrageousness that made director Todd Phillips’ shallow smash hit “The Hangover” such an aggravating, unfunny experience for me. “Due Date” deals in plot and character, words I was beginning to think had been dropped from the comedy screenwriter’s handbook. The problem is, “Due Date” isn’t riotously funny either.

Humor is always a balancing act. While “Due Date” sports fewer laughs than “The Hangover,” it boasts a higher laugh to joke ratio. Also, since its predecessor crams shtick into every vacant nook and cranny, we never end up caring about its group of sorry misfits, let alone their Vegas bachelor’s party gone awry. When a joke falls flat in “The Hangover,” there isn’t a safety net to break the fall. The film splinters on impact.

The tightrope is safer in “Due Date” because we actually care about Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.). An expectant father with anger management issues and a lousy row of bad luck, Peter is exactly the sort of flawed protagonist we inherently root for. His cross-country companion Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis), however, is another story. His sole purpose in the film is to instigate Peter’s short-temper, a task at which he excels. We don’t care much about him, but then we don’t need to—his personality quirks aren’t the punchline, Peter’s reaction is.

In that regard, there are some beautifully cathartic moments that distinguish “Due Date” from many of today’s ultimately polite comedies. The gravitas with which Downey Jr. delivers his tirades make them that much more effective, and his lack of conventional comic attributes is what makes “Due Date” palatable. If only his resolve had held stronger.

As Peter and Tremblay arrive at an awkward friendship, Phillips regrettably kills the only thing “Due Date” has going for it: animosity. These are characters I don’t care to see get along; when they’re enjoying each other’s company, it hard to enjoy either’s. Everything funny about the film comes from their being at odds—Peter’s unapologetic audacity is what makes the character such a great foil to the naive, annoying Tremblay. Stripped of that dynamic, the film merely sputters.

Where “Due Date” finally collapses is in its cheap third-act schmaltz. The film is all but devoid of a climax, and Peter arrives at the hospital to meet his wife to neither fanfare nor adversity. The film is almost working against itself at this point, because Tremblay never becomes a proper antagonist. Even when the nature of his greatest deceit is laid bare, the character clash between he and Peter is underwhelming in comparison to earlier bouts. That they afterwards go on to become buddies is the coup de grace.

Though “Due Date” is hardly a contender for comedy of the year, it nevertheless displays more intelligence than one would expect from the follow-up to “The Hangover.” That intelligence, however, renders its “Hangover”-esque material (masturbating dogs) embarrassingly obsolete. The characters are strong enough to overcome the script’s stinkers, at least until friendship rears its ugly head.

Still, “Due Date” is encouraging as a testament to the importance of strong character writing, if only because it edges out a pass in spite of its blemishes elsewhere. Odd as it might sound, it’s refreshing to see even a middle-of-the-road comedy that isn’t trying to squeeze in six lame jokes per page. “The Hangover” may have had more laughs, but I’ll take better characters any day.

3/5

FARCE/FILM Episode 67: Paranormal Activity 2, The Walking Dead

--> Episode 67: 11/02/10 <--

Hosts: Colin George, Kevin Mauer, Jon Mauer, Micah Haun

Intro – 00:00

Top 5 – 00:50

Paranormal Activity 2 (spoilers) - 04:02

The Walking Dead pilot - 34:37
WMD - 49:26

(Zombieland, The Tudors, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Pushing Daisies, Mrs. Henderson Presents, Saw 3D, The Blob (1956), Trash Humpers, Dracula (1931), Bram Stoker's Dracula, Suspiria, Louie, Kontroll, House of Wax)”

E-mail and Outro - 01:19:34 (Favorite Horror Franchises/Deaths)

"Paranormal Activity"

Colin:
Kevin:
Jon:

"The Walking Dead" pilot

Colin:
Kevin:

-- Weekly Discussion --

This week on the show, our hosts discuss Extended, Unrated, and Director’s Cuts of films. Does allowing filmmakers to revise their work have its merits or does it just dilute the film itself? What are some of your favorite alternate versions?

"Paranormal Activity 2" Review

“Paranormal Activity 2” is inferior to its predecessor—few sequels aren’t. I could rag on it for regurgitating the ideas and scenarios that made the original such a memorable theater experience, but what’s more interesting to me is where it goes right. Very few people awaited this found footage follow-up with any degree of anticipation, and with a conspicuous absence of the advanced screenings that so stoked public interest in the first, “Paranormal Activity 2” was, to all appearances, shaping up to be an unmitigated disaster.

Turns out it was plain bad marketing. “PA2” might actually be the most conceptually creative sequel since J.J. Abram’s “Star Trek” reboot. Like that film, this is chronologically a prequel, with the ill-fated original stars, Katie and Micah (Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat), returning in a supporting role as relatives of the affected family. The handheld camera premise has also been extrapolated on, and after the first paranormal incident (misconstrued as a break-in), the patriarch of the Rey family (Brian Boland) has a series of security cameras installed, by which we monitor his kitchen, living room, patio, bedroom, and nursery.

It’s a clever natural progression of the first film’s conceit, though it never justifies itself as well. Rationality of characters’ actions has always been a stumbling block for horror films, and one way the original “Paranormal Activity” distinguished itself was in creating a character who would believably continue filming the bizarre phenomena in his home. Most of the time, our videographer in the sequel is a stuck-up teenage girl (Molly Ephraim). Her interest in cataloging her family’s day-to-day lives, along with the increasingly surreal occurrences is never explained. The motive for camera involvement in certain scenes is questionable at best, and her inseparability from her camcorder is completely artificial.

That being said, the majority of the film is viewed from the vantage point of the mounted security cameras, which better serve the reality of the story. The sets are designed with the same attention to detail as the first—these are deep, cluttered spaces that keep you scanning the frame for signs of movement. Again, “Paranormal 1” does it better, and the use of multiple locations, though novel, does admittedly kill some of the visual tension.

But despite being significantly less effective (re: scary), “Paranormal Activity 2” is neck and neck with the original in spooky fun factor. What I love about both films is their unapologetic simplicity. Modern horror filmmaking has become oversaturated with textbook mood, and artists presume their work scary because it's lit like a horror film, scored like a horror film, and directed like a horror film. Fear cannot be calculated and manufactured in that way—“Paranormal Activity” and its follow up are refreshing because they are effective without ‘trying’ to be frightening. Naturally, they both are, but it’s so much easier to suspend our disbelief when we aren’t watching a Hollywood starlet meander down a flickering blue corridor with a string orchestra phoning in the emotional experience.

That “Paranormal Activity 2” manages to avoid all that without taking itself overly seriously—in addition to building an interesting dialogue with the first film—is a miracle in itself. It definitely would have been nice had the film been more original, or upped the ante in the suspense department, but color me pleasantly surprised “Paranormal Activity 2” achieves even that much.

Needless to say, this follow-up far exceeded my modest expectations, and though it is inferior to its predecessor in nearly every way, it’s still smarter than your average shameless cash-in. It’s a worthy sequel, and alongside countless other franchises’ many unmitigated disasters, that’s praise enough.

3/5

"Saw 3D" Review

How many “Saws” does that make now? Evidently, even its creators have stopped counting. “Saw 3D” is only the second film in the annual horror franchise I’ve seen (the first being the first), and this alleged “final chapter” assumes working knowledge of Jigsaw canon. My critique, however, is of “Saw 3D” as a stand-alone film, though my gut reaction undoubtedly echoes what you already know—this is a ‘fans only’ affair.

The story of “Saw” fandom is one of diminishing returns. After being decimated at the box office this Halloween and last by the low-budget “Paranormal Activity” films, the series is struggling to stay relevant, or at least to sell tickets on shock-value alone. “Saw” has long since passed that threshold, and the obvious draw this year is the incorporation of 3D. It may seem like a gimmicky application of the technology, but having human entrails hurled into the audience is the logical next-step for the series, and may even be the highlight of this experience.

As it turns out, “Saw 3D” is a lot like “Jackass 3D,” albeit far less entertaining. Both are shameless excuses for elaborate spectacle, be they stunts or traps, and “Saw” excels at creating crass psychological experiments. Unlike “Jackass,” however, it relies on a story to connect the grisly dots, though it really needn’t. We don’t care who these people are; the stars of the movie are Jigsaw’s inventions, and the traps have more of an arc than the characters. So little attention is paid to the audience’s emotional investment in the story that they might as well do away with one entirely. “Saw 3D” is boring and pretentious when it presumes our interest—the series would be better served by taking the “Jackass” route or going all out anthology. Compiling upcoming and established horror directors’ takes on the “Saw” universe in a series of short vignettes could trim the fat considerably.

It would certainly beat the muddled, uninteresting, and expository excuse-making of “Saw 3D.” Morbid curiosity drives the franchise, and that the traps are paramount to the characters they ensnare is readily apparent. Almost immediately, we understand Jigsaw is teaching twisted morality lessons through his sadistic mechanisms—empathy for his victims is thrown immediately out the window. Here, our protagonist is faced with a series of time-based challenges to save the lives of his acquaintances, but fails every time. Who cares? The audience has paid in advance to see them killed.

My qualms with that sentiment are not moral, but creative. What irks me is that the narrative is at odds with viewer expectation when they should be working in tandem. The script should be adding dramatic weight to the gore, but instead it feigns interest in its characters only long enough to brutally murder them. “Saw” needs to either attempt something more emotionally compelling, or not waste my time with its placeholder storytelling.

If this is indeed the final “Saw” film, which seems more likely a function of declining attendance than anything else, my constructive criticism is irrelevant. There are a thousand and one ways the franchise could be improved upon, but “Saw” (judging at least by the first and final installment) is uninterested in adaptation or change. The creativity stops at the carnage, which is unfortunate because the series could be phenomenal in better hands. As it stands, the incorporation of half-hearted 3D is about the extent of its creators’ willingness to innovate. At its best, “Saw 3D” is an appropriately squeamish theater experience—the problem is that it’s otherwise boring.

Not that it matters. As it turns out, “Saw” is like “Jackass” in another way. Fans know exactly what to expect, and can’t much complain about receiving more of same. This many entries in, however, I can’t imagine anyone will be sorry to see it go.

2/5