Showing posts with label two movies duel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label two movies duel. Show all posts

Saturday, 13 April 2013

Total Total Recall

I might have mentioned earlier—in my Nothing Lasts Forever review—that I grew up watching action films with my Dad. Skip ahead twenty years and I’m sitting in a dark movie theatre, baffled by the previews.

They’re remaking Total Recall.

They’re actually remaking Total Recall?

And with Colin Farrell?

What the actual fuck?

I was miffed. Utterly irked and exasperated. But I was also curious.

I didn’t go to see the remake in the theatre, but did eventually get the dvd. And if I’m going to suspend disbelief for two hours I might as well refresh my memory on the original film too.

Total Recall 1990

Arnold Schwarzenegger wakes up in bed with Sharon Stone, they fight and they make up. After there’s some bad news on their wall panel tv. Rebels are causing trouble on the Mars colony and Schwarzenegger wants to move there. Sharon Stone isn’t enthusiastic. Instead of going there for real, Schwarzenegger decides to take a memory implant trip at Rekall. Something goes wrong and the bloody trip to actual Mars—or to sandpit with a red lens—starts.

The original film is a wonderful mindfuck. It really is. It makes you question what makes a person and just how important those memories are to you, what’s the real you, and can science ever override what you know to be true to make you into something more convenient.

Of the two films, the 1990 version has the stronger script. Douglas Quaid’s—Schwarzenegger’s implanted personality—marriage to Lori is stronger and more real. I’m not just saying that because we get to see Sharon Stone in a nightie, but because whenever Lori speaks to Doug, he doubts himself and what he thinks is real.

Or he would if Schwarzenegger could act. Trying to be two different characters in one film is obviously too much to ask from him, although in the short recordings of Houser Schwarzenegger comes across quite convincing. Think of what the world would have been like had Schwarzenegger played the devilish villains instead of the wooden heroes.

Naturally, this being a Paul Verhoeven film, there’s gore too. The director of Robocop and Starship Troopers seems to relish in overabundant gunfights and blood spray covering pretty much everyone.

Total Recall 2012

The film starts with an explanation. I’m guessing the passing twenty years have lowered the audience’s average intelligence enough that the filmmakers need to provide written introduction for the film. Here’s a clue: It’s set in the dark, dystopic future on Earth.

Watching this overcrowded The Colony and the exploitative United Federation of Britain all I can think is: What happened to reaching for the stars? And that thought, that humans have given up on space travel, makes this vision of future all the more bleaker.

One of the reasons I was miffed about how the promotion for this film was handled, was that they didn’t even try to keep Lori’s motivations secret. Of course as I watched the film, I understood why—Beckinsale is playing an amalgam of Stone’s and Ironside’s roles—but I can’t help but feel some sort of affection for Stone’s duplicitous portrayal. Beckinsale’s part is simple in comparison despite the expanded role.

The same can be said about Biel. Her role is bigger in comparison to Rachel Ticotin’s Melina, but also superficial. Again, I’m blaming the script, because Biel is brilliant in the short <spoiler>identity swap</spoiler> scene at the very end.

As good an actor as Colin Farrell can be, he’s no match to the women. Neither is he good enough to create a distinction between Hauser and Quaid. He basically plays one character occasionally plagued with amnesiac identity crisis rather than a man who has changed and wants to stay as he is. You could say that he loses even to Schwarzenegger in this, even if his version of Quaid isn’t as panful to watch as the Terminator’s.

The 2012 version improves on the special effects and gadgets, and I’m guessing that’s the only reason for updating the film, because the script certainly isn’t it. Alien species have been replaced with robots—which also makes this film conveniently less bloody—but they’ve kept the three breasted woman. Australia has become Asian and has been relegated back to its historical colony status.

And worst of all are the stolen and defaced scenes. For example when Cohaagen’s troops try to convince Quaid that he’s still in the chair in Rekall and hallucinating, the dialogue sounds like it was cut from the original script, put through a shredder, and pasted on the the new script. The acting’s not much better either.



If you want to watch a film called Total Recall I recommend you watch the original 1990’s version with bad acting and all. You can imagine societal criticism in the comments about the price of air, and you can revel in the childlike imagination humanity used to have. You can still dream of reaching the stars.

Friday, 5 April 2013

Two Movies Duel Review: Skyfall vs. Argo

Two Movies Duel Review

Skyfall vs. Argo

1. Presentation of the opponents (a.k.a synopsis):

Skyfall: Although his name is Bond, James Bond, and he still drinks his martini stirred not shaken, it doesn't mean he is in top form and infallible all the time. Yes, in this continuation of adventures of the most famous secret agent of Her Majesty the Queen, 007 is left in the serious lurch, mainly because his colleagues are less efficient than him and his boss is an insensitive, stubborn old lady.The movie kickstarts with an uproarious chase scene in Istambul during which James is wounded  by his glamorous partner, Eve, who was ordered by M to shoot their opponent, no matter what. As it wasn't a clear shot, she hurt Bond instead. Presumed dead, James hides in an exotic country and enjoys a well-earned respite in the arms of an anonymous exotic beauty and in a river of alcohol. Not for long, though. When he finds out that the MI6 headquarters in London have been attacked and nearly blown sky-high by a terrorizing computer hack of incredible reach he knows it's time to move. The upshot of this disaster is a request for M's  resignation from a higher-up bureaucrat played by Ralph Fiennes. "Like hell," is the short version of steely M's answer and it will be hell, no problem. At which point the presumed-dead Bond returns, a little worse for the wear after his partying sabbatical. M sets him loose despite his shakiness, shamelessly doctoring the results of his physical and psychological tests; the quest for a villain who knows too much begins. What secrets will be revealed this time?

Argo: 1979. Antonio J. Mendez, a Central Intelligence Agency officer, is tapped to help free six State Department employees stranded in Tehran. While revolutionary forces (or rather an angry mob) were overrunning the embassy and taking hostages, including the 52 men and women who were held for 444 days, five Americans fled undetected, joined later by the sixth one. Eventually, they made their way to safety, hiding at the Canadian ambassador’s house while the C.I.A., the State Department and the president struggled to find a way to ferry them home. Mr. Mendez, an unorthodox wizard of disguise, came up with the cover story for the six escapees that improbably stuck: they would pose as a Canadian movie crew, shooting one of these cheesy space operas. Set in, surprise, surprise, Iran, because there is no safer and better place on Earth, especially during a revolution, right? To make the movie idea work, Mendez flies to Los Angeles, where he brings in an old colleague, John Chambers a real makeup artist who received an honorary Oscar for “Planet of the Apes.” Next on board is a  producer, Lester Siegel who helps make the fake  science-fiction flick called “Argo,” look legit. Still it is Tony who has to actually travel to the very mouth of the lion and snatch the victims away, outwitting the enemy. Will he manage to do it on time?

2. Round one: reality check

Skyfall: James Bond, a creation of Ian Fleming, has never been real, not to me anyway. How could he? The guy changes faces like girlfriends and girlfriends like tuxedos and other spying gadgets. At first he looked like this:

Ian Fleming's image of James Bond; commissione...
Ian Fleming's image of James Bond; commissioned to aid the Daily Express comic strip artists. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
...and the rest is the silence. Can you really trust such a character? Nuh-huh. Can it be considered real? No way.

Argo: Antonio J. Mendez, on the other hand, was based on a real CIA officer so here he wins, hands down.

James: 0 points
Tony: 2 points

3. Round two - likeability factor

Skyfall features a Bond who has something to prove, and who could be damaged goods, physically and mentally, like any other mortal. He also is not exactly handsome - jug-eared and bandy-legged, definitely older and weary. Did it work? Yes, it did - I was impressed, James! What a change compared to the previous Bond movies full of agressive males in their primes! You are no longer fit but even at your lowest you were still capable of pulling off a very scary drinking trick involving a scorpion. Overall you become attractively human (though never humane) which really suited me fine.

Argo's character is based on a real hero so it should have been even better but somehow he wasn't. I admit Ben Afleck tried and tried to make his Tony three-dimensional and likeable. A bit of personal drama? Here you go, he and his wife are in separation and it is obvious he misses her rather badly. Not even a whiff of an office romance, no clubbing, just pure depression. A cute kid to make the soft-hearted ladies swoon? Not a problem, Tony has a little son and he loves him dearly, trying to relate to him even if they live apart (aww...a family guy!). Did it work? No. It sounded spurious and somehow, looking at the smooth, thoughtless face of Mr. Afleck, covered so becomingly with facial hair, I didn't care or liked his character.

James: 2 points
Tony: 1 point

4. Round three - visuals

Skyfal is hands down the most visually beautiful Bond movie I have ever seen. Usually such flicks are watched  just for action and fighting scenes, guns and babes. This one is different. From the opening in Istanbul to the final siege shootout in the Scottish Highlands, this film is a supremely enjoyable when it comes to the landscapes, presented. My favourites? Shanghai at night and the deep Scottish countryside in the mist. Incredible!

Argo's crew evidently had a lot of fun with the Chia Pet facial hair, oversize glasses, wide collars, fat ties and earth-toned threads - so did I while watching it! The movie takes us to Hollywood and to Iran. Hollywood is more or less well-known but Teheran shots were really interesting. Still nothing can match Scotland!

James: 2 points
Tony: 1 point

5. Round four: secondary characters

Skyfall: Say what you might but Dame Judi Dench stole the show, at least for me. Playing M, Bond's boss, she dominates every frame with her character, being 100% better and more interesting than any Bond girl and/or associate, featured so far. She is so irritating at the opening, so poignant and admirable at its end that she turns into a kind of fulcrum of the whole movie. A great performance!

Argo: There are plenty of secondary characters which were better/more likeable than the main hero. Which was kind of weird because well, aren't you supposed to support the lead the most? Instead you laugh and cheer John Chambers (played by John Goodman, breezy and reined in), a real makeup artist and a curmudgeonly Jewish producer, Lester Siegel (a wonderful Alan Arkin) - two Hollywood beasts who help make the fake project sound real and legit.

James: 2 points
Tony: 1.5 points

6. Roud five: the ending

Skyfall shows once again the wisdom of Godard's dictum that all you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun and once the girl is dead or married and the gun - shot the movie ends. Still I liked the ending far better than the antics connected to your common and garden James Bond movie.

Argo is a very optimistic thriller - in the end, this is a story about outwitting rather than killing the enemy, making it a homage to actual intelligence and an example of the same. Very uplifiting! Still the director didn't manage to avoid some cheesiness so my rating is lower a bit.

James: 2 points
Tony: 1.5 points

7. Duel results

James: 8 points
Tony: 7 points

James Bond prevailed but it was a close-run contest - in my opinion Skyfall was only marginally better and, mind you, it was pitted against a rather weak movie too. In fact both filcks can be described as  examples of decent cinematic workmanship but nothing special. In the case of an Oscar-winning movie it's criticizm, in the case of another James Bond installment it is a compliment - here I see the main difference.

What do you think? Have you seen any of these?  If yes, did you enjoy them?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, 11 March 2013

Two Movies Duel Review: Catch Me If You Can vs. The Talented Mr. Ripley


Two Movies Duel Review

Catch Me If You Can vs. The Talented Mr. Ripley

1. Presentation of the opponents (a.k.a synopsis)

The Talented Mr. Ripley: Tom Ripley is a handsome young underachiever without any formal education, living in a basement and working as a lavatory attendant. However he is also a 'quick study' - intelligent, bright, perceptive, musically talented. He can do very accurate impressions of other people, he can forge signatures and he is a consumate liar. One day he borrows a Princeton jacket to play piano at a private garden party. When a wealthy father of a recent Princeton grad chats Tom up, Tom pretends to know the son and is soon offered $1,000 to go to Italy to convince prodigal Dickie Greenleaf to return home and start earining his keep. In Italy, Tom simply attaches himself to Dickie and to Marge, Dickie's cultured fiancée, with a tenacity of a boa constrictor. He pretends to love jazz and is soon harboring homoerotic hopes as he soaks in borrowed luxury of his lovely host. He also tells Dickie the truth about his real mission - it seems those two might become fast friends if not something more. Soon enough, though, Dickie becomes bored with Tom's company and lets him know that he is not welcome anymore in his Italian house. Tom, who likes his new life far better than the old one, is not a person you can get rid of easily. Sensing that Dickie is about to cut him loose, he decides to take the matters into his own hands - he thinks that it's better to be a fake somebody than a real nobody and with his many talents he decides to change his identity...and contiune the 'dolce vita'. At his rich friend's father expense.

Catch Me If You Can: Frank Abagnale lives with his parents in New Rochelle, New York. He is a bright, handsome teenager with a penchant for dramatics and a father who uses the boy as a prop in his many con schemes, giving invaluable life lessons how to chat up a woman and manipulate a banker. Small wonder one day Frank uses his talents pretending to be a substitute French teacher (his mom is French so he knows the language far better than his peers) in a new school. When his parents divorce anguished Frank runs away and starts a life full of windfall profits, occasional luxury, constant deceit and danger. He becomes an expert in forging checks and different confidence scams, tricking mainly banks and Pan Am airlines. Still, despite a string of casual lovers (all those lovely stewardesses and tellers!) the kid feels more and more alone and alienated. Not to mention the fact that a certain FBI agent called Carl Hanratty keeps following Frank doggedly hoping that one day he'll finally catch him. The real 'hide-and-seek' tournament begins...who will be better?

2. Round one: reality check

Tom Ripley is a fictional character from a series of psychological novels penned by Patricia Highsmith. He lives roughly at the same time as Frank - perhaps a decade earlier. He is three-dimensional and well-rounded, at least in the movie.

Frank Abagnale is a real person with an unusual career - before his 19th birthday, he successfully conned millions of dollars worth of checks as a Pan Am pilot, doctor, and Louisiana parish prosecutor. He escaped from police custody twice before he was 21 years old. He served fewer than five years in prison before starting to work for the federal government. He is currently a consultant and lecturer for the FBI academy and field offices. Facts are always stranger than fiction - nobody could have imagined such a hero!

Tom: 1 point
Frank: 2 points

3. Round two: likeability factor

Both our heroes are handsome, gifted and intelligent. Both are poor underdogs, they have to fight for a better life and both want to achieve something more than your ordinary Mr. Smith. What's the difference between them?

Tom's personality screams 'pathology' at every turn. Let's face it, this guy is a born con man with a distended ego only matched by his ambitions - he wants to make a career and do it painlessly and very fast. He thinks he is entitled to it. Yes, he tries to be honest at first but unfortunately he's chosen the wrong recipient - Dickie is not better than his guest: vain, self-centered, with low boredom threshold, thinking that the whole world should belong to him and has been created for his amuzement only. Such an attitude enhances Tom's expectations to a realy insane degree, making him a fully-fledged deviant and a murderer, unable to trust anybody and completely lonely as a result. He proves he  also has a talent for ruining his life.

Frank is also a bit full of himself but a) he is a bit younger than Tom so more malleable b) he seems to be more intelligent. After a while Frank sees clearly that a metaphorical 'diet' consisting of sweets and cakes (so his unlawful spoils) is nothing healthy or nothing that will last. Deep down he yearns for a bit of normality - safety, love, family. He also never hurts anybody personally (at least not in the movie), quite the opposite - he cons big corporations and companies, the police, the banks but not innocent people. Finally he earns sympathy even from his pursuer and nemesis, Carl, the FBI agent.

Tom: 0.5 of a point
Frank: 2 points

4. Round three: the setting

The Talented Mr. Ripley is set mainly in Italy - in Rome, Milan and Venice but also in the country. I loved it - it was a visual feast!

Catch Me If You Can takes the viewer in a journey round America and Europe but we rarelly see more than the interiors: airports, banks, hotels and such. Nice but definitely less impressive.

Tom: 2 points
Frank: 1 point

5. Round four: the ending

Tom ends up killing again and again (not saying who, it would be a spoiler) and fighting his inner demons to no end. I admit it was sad but also so very real - let's face it, when you cross certain limits you might not return to a land of psychological stability ever again.

Frank finds a real career, the safety and stabilization he sought. He marries and lives happily ever after. I liked that evening far less althoug it was mood-lifting and optimistic. Why? Well, don't get me wrong, I am perfectly happy the real Frank ended better off than Tom but I bet it was only because he was just very very lucky. More often than not forgers and fraudsters ruin their life as efficiently as murderers.

Tom: 2 points
Frank: 1.5 points

Duel results:

Tom: 5.5 points. Not bad for a fictional psychopath :)
Frank: 6.5 points. Real life heroes rule and win!!!


How do you like my new movie review formula? I don't promise to do it often but if you know some movies which, in your opinion, simply beg for being compared do let me know!