Eagle Eye Review

Slacker Jerry Shaw (Shia LaBeouf) has just attended the funeral of his over-achieving twin brother, Ethan. On the way home, he stops at an ATM and the machine inexplicably reports his balance as $750,000 and begins spitting bills at him. He arrives at his apartment to find it filled with bomb-making supplies, heavy artillery, and flight plan information.

Jerry’s phone rings and an anonymous female voice tells him to leave immediately, before the FBI arrives. Incredulous and confused, Jerry sticks around and is, indeed, arrested. After being interrogated by Agent Thomas Morgan (Billy Bob Thornton), Jerry again receives phone orders from the woman. He escapes and is now a wanted man.

Meanwhile, Rachel Holloman (Michelle Monaghan) puts her son on a train to Washington, DC, where his school orchestra will perform. Holloman then receives a call from the same woman, who tells Holloman to follow her orders or her son will die. Rachel obeys, hops in a Porsche waiting for her curbside, and picks up Jerry, whom she doesn’t know.

Agent Morgan and Air Force Intelligence Agent Zoe Perez (Rosario Dawson) team up to pursue Jerry and Rachel, and the chase is on.

Jerry and Rachel are thus tossed into an old Hitchcock formula, in which two everyman characters find themselves in a complex conspiracy plot. They are innocent but the government suspects them of treason, a la “Saboteur” or “North by Northwest.”

Lucky for them that the woman on the phone seems to control everything. During a car chase sequence, she turns all the traffic lights green, sends Jerry and Rachel directions via the car’s GPS system, and uses a garbage crane to snatch up a police car. And that’s only one scene! She also controls all surveillance cameras, listens to conversations via power lines (I’d love an explanation of the “science” on that one), and probably resets everyone’s VCR clocks, too.

“Eagle Eye” is the best bad movie of the year. It is unapologetically preposterous and fearlessly shirks off any obligation to reality or good taste. It builds to a climax that’s about as believable as 1970s disaster movies like “Towering Inferno” or “Black Sunday.”

But there’s something irresistible about a movie that tries so damned hard to give us our money’s worth. Because despite being laughably absurd, “Eagle Eye” refuses to let us lose interest.

After each action sequence, the people around me let out huge sighs, as if they had just run the 100-meter dash and were gearing up for the next heat.

Both LaBeouf and Monaghan play the everyman very well. Dawson and Michael Chiklis, as Defense Secretary Callister, hold their own playing it straight. But Thornton is a riot as a tough-talking, relentless FBI investigator. I’d love to see a competition between Thornton’s Agent Morgan and Tommy Lee Jones’ Marshal Gerard from “The Fugitive” for who can bark the most threatening one-liner.

“Eagle Eye” does, inevitably, get political, preaching an already tired sermon about sacrificing national ideals in pursuit of security. But forget the political mumbo jumbo. The story is so ludicrous, they don’t really want us to take the politics seriously.

“Eagle Eye” plays fast and loose with both our post-Patriot Act paranoia, and our willingness to believe all its absurd twists.

Yet, it is also does what a thriller ought to do, which is to simply entertain.

Fall 2008 Movie Preview

The busy fall movie season is upon us. Awards will be won, tears will be shed and it will be safe for grown-ups to go to the movies again. Here’s a glance at some of the more intriguing pics to be released during the next few months.

‘The Duchess’

(Sept. 26)

• The setup: Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire (Keira Knightley) was a fashion icon and political player in 18th century England. Tired of her passionless marriage to the Duke (Ralph Fiennes), she begins an affair that puts everything at risk. Love triangle and political intrigue ensue.
• Why we should see it: It’s a lavish-looking production, just as a period romance should be. Knightley is a virtual lock for award nominations, and Fiennes is always worth watching.
• On the other hand …: Anyone else feel like we’ve seen this movie before?
• Bottom line: This will be one of the major players in the awards race, and the buzz says director Saul Dibb shows great potential.

‘Choke’

(Sept. 26)

• The setup: Victor (Sam Rockwell) is a sex addict trying to sort out major issues with his infirm mother (Angelica Huston), and to overcome his addiction. A frank, tragicomic look at psychosis.
• Why we should see it: “Choke” is based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk, author of “Fight Club.” Characters bottom out, audiences will both laugh and squirm.
• On the other hand …: The graphic, honest-yet-funny portrayal of a sex addict’s activities might not be for everyone. And it isn’t as much of a comedy as the trailers suggest.
• Bottom line: Rockwell is a great choice for Victor, and first time director Clark Gregg does very well with difficult material.

‘How to Lose Friends & Alienate People’

(Oct. 3)

• The setup: Comedy about British writer Sidney Young (Simon Pegg) trying to survive the world of NYC publishing and high society. Young spars with colleague Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst) and befriends starlet Sophie Maes (Megan Fox).
• Why we should see it: Pegg and Dunst are perfectly cast and show hints of chemistry in trailers. That duo, along with Jeff Bridges and Thandie Newton, should lend the romantic comedy genre some much needed wit.
• On the other hand …: This could just be a re-hash of “Devil Wears Prada” with a gender switch.
• Bottom line: Pegg is one of the few actors who will get me to the theater regardless of the movie, and this seems like a worthy vehicle for him.

‘Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist’

(Oct. 3)

• The setup: Nick (Michael Cera) is an insecure, sensitive dude recently dumped by his girlfriend (Alexis Dziena). At a club one night, Norah (Kat Dennings) asks him to be her boyfriend for five minutes to avoid her ex. Nick and Norah encounter farce and romance as they cruise the city all night.
• Why we should see it: Director Peter Sollett’s indie drama “Raising Victor Vargas” was fresh and invigorating. Expect him to do something original with the teen romance scenario.
• On the other hand …: Movies trying to attract teens by being hip often suck (or whatever the kids are saying these days).
• Bottom line: We already love Cera, Dennings is on the verge, and this should be the perfect way for both to step out of the Apatow style.

‘Rachel Getting Married’

(Oct. 3)

• The setup: Drug addict Rachel (Anne Hathaway) struggles to maintain sanity and sobriety during her sister’s wedding weekend.
• Why we should see it: There’s already buzz that red-hot Hathaway will score an Oscar nod. She’s supported by Debra Winger, Rosemarie DeWitt and Anna Deavere Smith and directed by Jonathan Demme. I’m sold.
• On the other hand …: Movies about drug addicts don’t exactly set the box office afire. And soul searching in the midst of a wedding weekend isn’t exactly new territory.
• Bottom line: Demme is perhaps the most underrated director in America, and the trailer crackles with frantic, desperate energy.

‘W’

(Oct. 17)

• The setup: Oliver Stone’s bio-pic follows current president Bush (Josh Brolin) from boyhood to frathood to presidency.
• Why we should see it: Curiosity. And a crazy-talented cast. But mostly sheer curiosity.
• On the other hand …: It’s possible this will be the ultimate example of Hollywood liberalism run amok.
• Bottom line: I just have to see what Stone is up to here, and Brolin is intriguing after “No Country for Old Men.”

‘Changeling’

(Oct. 24)

• The setup: In 1928 Los Angeles, Christine Collins’ (Angelina Jolie) son is abducted. The LAPD return a boy they claim is her son, but she is certain it is not. Preacher-turned-police-watchdog Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich) leads the crusade for justice as the police punish Collins to cover up its own corruption.
• Why we should see it: Director Clint Eastwood exposing L.A. corruption, Jolie showing her full range and a great supporting cast.
• On the other hand …: None that I can see.
• Bottom line: I’m looking forward to this as much as anything this fall.

‘Zack and Miri Make a Porno’

(Oct. 31)

• The setup: Longtime friends Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) are both broke, so obviously the solution is to make an adult film. In the process, the friendship might be growing into romance.
• Why we should see it: In this order: The title, Rogen, Banks and director Kevin Smith. It seems like a good combo of actors, director and subject matter.
• On the other hand …: Smith has yet to equal the hilarity of his first movie, and this could be one gratuitous T&A shot after another.
• Bottom line: Smith is due for a good one, and this cast should give him a big boost.

‘The Soloist’

(Nov. 21)

• The setup: True story of how down-and-out journalist Steve Lopez (Robert Downey Jr.) befriended mentally troubled, former musical prodigy Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Foxx). While Lopez helps Ayers resurrect his musical career, they rescue each other’s spirits.
• Why we should see it: Director of “Atonement” and writer of “Erin Brockovich” meet Downey, Foxx and Catherine Keener, who plays Lopez’s wife. This has all the makings of a truly inspirational experience.
• On the other hand …: Might be too “made-for-Oscar.” (But I doubt it.)
• Bottom line: Tell me you don’t want to see Downey, Foxx and Keener work together while all are at their peak. And the trailer alone will make you tear up.

Burn After Reading Review

What do you get when you throw a cast of A-list actors into a film where they all play losers swept up in an intricate yet pointless spy plot? Well, mostly you just get a pointless spy plot.

After last year’s outstanding but weighty “No Country for Old Men,” the Coen Brothers lighten up with “Burn After Reading,” an understated parody of spy movies with a comically complex plot.

Vacuous personal trainer Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) and his body-obsessed co-worker Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) believe they have found a disc with intelligence information on it, so they attempt to blackmail the owner of the disc, recently fired CIA agent Osborne Cox (John Malkovich).

Osborne’s life is falling apart in a number of ways. His wife, Katie (Tilda Swinton), is leaving him so she can be with her lover, former security agent Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney). Osborne refuses to play the fool in Chad and Linda’s scheme, Harry and Linda begin dating via an internet matching site, and in classic spy movie tradition, the whole thing becomes so elaborate it’s almost indecipherable.

What does all this boil down to? A couple of moronic amateurs enter the cloak and dagger game, which sets off an absurd chain of events among a handful of equally moronic intelligence professionals. When the bodies begin to pile up, two unnamed CIA superiors (David Rasche and J.K. Simmons) try to clean up the mess and make sense of it all.

Be aware: this is not “Ocean’s Fourteen.” Or “Austin Powers.” This is the Coens, so expect the unexpected. There are a few “big” moments of broad, fast-paced humor, but for the most part, the brothers are subtly mocking the self-importance of recent spy yarns like the Bourne movies and “Michael Clayton” (that comparison is a no-brainer, with Swinton and Clooney in both films).

The tone here is low key. There’s very little physical comedy, and it never strives for the silliness of “Raising Arizona” or “The Big Lebowski.”

In fact, the movie might be too smart for its own good. It’s clever but delivers too few laughs. Much of the comedy relies on famous actors acting idiotic. This definitely has its charm, but it shows a distinct lack of quality writing from two of the most distinctive, quality writers in American movies.

Malkovich is at his self-parodying best, Clooney does his “O Brother” brand of screwball, and Swinton hits the bullseye with her alpha-female career gal. Pitt does fine, but aside from bad highlights and personal trainer jokes, he doesn’t get to do much.

Surprisingly, Simmons and Rasche eventually steal the movie as they try to sort out the mess that the main characters create (only somewhat surprising, since they are both outstanding character actors).

Most spy films weave an intricate plot around some crucial truth about how nations deal with each other. The maneuvering and manipulation become so convoluted and absurd that viewers need a score card. Which is fun, if you like that sort of thing (I do).

The big joke in “Burn After Reading” is, at the core of the intricate plot is a handful of idiots who are merely playing – badly – at the romanticized game of espionnage. There is no crucial truth, only the absurd game itself.

It’s a great idea and a great cast that should have been good for more laughs.

Hamlet 2 Review

Satire is back, and the world is already becoming a better place. At least, a funnier place.

The Judd Apatow crowd has dominated Hollywood comedy the past few years with its loser-facing-a-life-crisis humor, but the two best comedies of the summer are take no prisoners satires. You’ve already heard about “Tropic Thunder,” a loving attack on Hollywood, but you might have overlooked “Hamlet 2,” a hilarious satire that pokes fun at amateur theatre, self-indulgent actors, and people at pretty much all points on the political spectrum.

Dana Marschz (Steve Coogan) is having a difficult life. He failed as a professional actor and is now an even worse high school drama teacher. He and his sardonic wife (Catherine Keener) are broke and unable to conceive a child. Then his drama class is overrun by Latino kids who transferred into the class only because there is asbestos in the trailer classrooms the school had stuck them in.

The suddenly “ethnic” drama class is actually a storytelling device: “Hamlet 2” parodies earnest-teacher-meets-troubled-youths movies like “Dangerous Minds” and “Freedom Writers.”

When the high school announces plans to cut the drama program altogether, Marschz takes desperate measures by writing and staging a sequel to “Hamlet” that is inappropriate in too many ways to list here. To give you an idea: Hamlet travels time with Jesus in order to prevent all the deaths that happen at the end of the original play, singing and dancing Broadway-style to songs inspired by the sexual abuse Marschz suffered at the hands of this father.

The movie spends very little time showing the play within the movie, focusing instead on the furor caused by the mere idea of such an offensive, terrible play.

The principal tries to stop the production, the media blows the whole thing into a cause célèbre, and the ACLU gets involved in the form of Cricket Feldstein (Amy Poehler), a foul-mouthed, opportunistic lawyer who loves to toss around the fact that she married a Jew like it’s a sign of street cred. And along the way, Marschz meets Elizabeth Shue (playing herself), who has quit acting and become a nurse.

This absurd romp is filled with funny performances. Poehler is her usual fearless self. Shue, who often comes across as detached and artifical, is as down to earth and charming as she has ever been. Keener is at her sarcastic best (and no one does sarcasm better). The young actors playing Marschz’ students embrace the provocative content with abandon.

But while these roles add much, nothing distracts from the force of nature that is Steve Coogan in this movie. No other comedic performance this year – maybe in several years – shows the range of Coogan’s absurd, sympathetic, endlessly earnest yet consistently ridiculous drama teacher. Coogan does pratfalls, cerebral wit, and all points in between.

The last comedic performance that made me sit up and take notice of an actor in this way was Steve Carell in “40 Year Old Virgin.”

Satire isn’t for everyone, especially a movie that pokes fun at religion in any way. But there’s something very right about a movie that takes shots at both conservatives and the ACLU. All demographics are fair game, but none of the humor is mean-spirited.

We all tend to take our political and social positions too seriously. If “Hamlet 2” has any agenda, it’s to remind us to laugh at ourselves.

“Hamlet 2” is tragically limping through its theatrical run, and I urge you to seek it out before it disappears.

Traitor Review

“Traitor” is a shot across the bow. With films like “Towelhead,” Oliver Stone’s “W,” and Bill Maher’s “Religulous” due for release within months, in the midst of a tight presidential election, it’s going to be a controversial, divisive fall season.

“Traitor,” with its relentless attempts to push our buttons and spark political dialogue, is a preview of what’s to come.

Samir Horn (Don Cheadle) was once a bomb expert for a U.S. military special operations unit. Now, he is a devout Muslim working his way through the hierarchy of a global terrorist organization. As he does so, he becomes close friends with Omar (Saïd Taghmaoui), another terrorist who has spent years living in Europe and America.

Roy Clayton (Guy Pearce) and Max Archer (Neal McDonough) are FBI counter-terrorism agents whose investigations keep leading back to Samir. Through the agents, we learn more and more about Samir’s mysterious past.

While Samir and the FBI play cat and mouse, the movie toys with viewers, making us wonder whether Samir is what he seems. He is the traitor of the movie’s title, but is he betraying his nation or his fellow terrorists?

Gullible viewers may be on the edge of their seats wondering whether Samir is the hero or the villain, but you are likely too smart to fall for it.

“Traitor” throws a lot of pseudo-philosophical dialogue at us in an attempt to use an action movie format to ask some big questions. How far should the government go to combat terrorism? And who causes more violence and destruction in the world: Muslim terrorists or American counter-terrorism agents?

It also attempts to meditate on the nature of violence in the Islamic faith. Samir and Omar quote the Torah frequently and mention several spiritual leaders. Once in a while it’s thought-provoking, but then the American intelligence characters show up and we’re subjected to stereotypical one-liners that would fit better on “CSI: Miami.”

In other words, “Traitor” isn’t as smart as it may first appear.

It succeeds much more as an action movie. There are genuine surprises and suspense.

But there remains something uncomfortable about an action movie that plays around with religion so heavily. Samir is one of the rare devout Muslim protagonists in American film history, which is a nice change. But the movie bombards us with images of other Muslims praying to Allah just before they launch an attack on innocent people.

In other words, “Traitor” isn’t nearly as politically even-handed as it may first appear, either.

This movie will have a difficult time finding an audience. It’s not intelligent enough for the art crowd, and it’s too long-winded for the action crowd. And all viewers will have to suffer through some terrible scenes to get to the high points. Because when “Traitor” works, it’s outstanding, but when it doesn’t, it’s the moviegoing equivalent of waterboarding.

No film as yet has been able to incorporate an intelligent discussion of the War on Terror into an exciting action movie package, and neither does “Traitor.” It’s an energetic yet unsatisfying movie.

I give the cast and crew credit for trying something so ambitious, but they unfortunately miss the mark as often as they hit it.