Day 80 -- From Paris with Love

Released: February 5th, 2010

Starring: John Travolta, Johnathan Rhys-Meyers, Kasia Smutniak
  
Writer/Director: Luc Besson and Adi Hasak/Pierre Morel

Description: In Paris, a young employee in the office of the US Ambassador hooks up with an American spy looking to stop a terrorist attack in the city.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Spy-action movies are a genre that I don't think will ever go away. As long as people are fascinated by things that may or may not be going on behind the curtain. There's always a need for people to find entertainment in a group or field that is shroud in secrecy, with the government -- most notably, the CIA -- and the mob at the top of the list. But with this fascination comes the inevitable over-saturation of the genre, and the eventual fatigue by the audience until something truly great comes along.

"From Paris with Love" is the beginning of that fatigue. John Travolta stars as, Charlie Wax (really?!), an American Spy looking to stop a terrorist attack in France. He is teamed up with an employee of the U.S Ambassador to France named James Reece (Rhys- Meyers). After meeting each other, all your standard action movie quotas are met: The pair learn to trust each other, James kills his first person and doesn't know how to react, and Charlie has an affinity for big guns. The story movies along at a pretty quick pace as they try to figure out who is behind the drug ring that may have indirectly caused the death of the Secretary of Defense's daughter. But the pair stumble on to a plot to bomb a diplomatic summit meeting.

The big twist in the movie occurs when it is revealed that James' girlfriend had been spying on him the whole time they were dating, and that she is the bomber. It all concludes in a big action scene where James does things that would have gotten him shot on sight in real life. The scenes are pretty out there even for this genre, and they include Charlie destroying a vehicle with a rocket launcher, and James trying to dissuade Caroline (Smutniak) from finishing her mission by professing his love to her, which fails.

Travolta tries to incorporate two of his more famous characters that relate to this genre into Charlie Wax: Chilli Palmer and Vincent Vega. He wants Wax to be as smooth as Chilli and as lethal as Vega, but he just comes off as a parody of spies in the genre. He's nuts and a loose cannon, but also the best spy in the world. It's like the writers went to the spy character handbook and picked out a template. There is nothing original about his character, and Travolta does nothing to make it stand out. It's really a shame that he's fallen so far as a top notch actor, but I guess starring in "Wild Hogs" can do that.

Throughout the whole movie, I kept thinking that Rhys-Meyers would kick ass as Charlie. That's not good casting when your green, naive partner in the buddy spy movie looks just as bad ass as the "bad ass". There were even times when he out-acted Travolta, and it was hard to watch. But that does not mean that the character of James was well performed or well written, it just mean that he was able to rise above the material at times. The character itself has no real starting point in the story, and no real place in it, until the twist scene near the end.

The writing and direction was as paint-by-number as you could get in a genre that is full of copycat stories. If you couldn't predict what would happen next, then you obviously have not watched enough spy movies or you're in the 4th grade. Besides the predictable-ness of the script, it was very bland and didn't use Paris well enough -- it was the opposite of a Bond movie.

"From Paris with Love" is a run of the mill, popcorn action film with a very thin plot: bad guys bad, must stop bad guys. Even though the film has fun action sequences, I had a hard time not checking my phone or going on the internet. For all of its bluster and star power, it just isn't a very good movie, and possibly the end of this kind movie.

Rating: 5/10 -- Boring, but it's still an okay action film. Travolta needs desperately to jump start his career again, and when he does, he should call Tom Hanks.

Day 79 -- One Week

Released: March 29th, 2011

Starring: Joshua Jackson, Liane Balaban, Emm Gryner, Jane Spidell 
  
Writer/Director: Michael McGowan

Description: Chronicles the motorcycle trip of Ben Tyler as he rides from Toronto to Tofino, British Columbia. Ben stops at landmarks that are both iconic and idiosyncratic on his quest to find meaning in his life.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Why does any director believe that a narrator adds any thing to a story. It goes against everything you are taught as a writer; it's telling instead of showing. Also, it really takes you out of the movie. If I wasn't watching this for the project, I would have turned it off like I did "Vicky Christina Barcelona".

"One Week" is the story of a man diagnosed with stage four cancer that has a very low survival rate. He decides that instead of starting treatment for the cancer, he's going to ride cross country (Canada) on his motorcycle. Thus begins a modern road movie.

Along the way he runs into several characters that all find a way to change his life, and make him understand what living is about before he passes. He smokes a joint with a cancer survivor who makes him realize that he may not be in love with his fiance, he has his bike repaired by a ranch owner who teaches him that he always should keep trying new things, and he runs into a hiker, who after a night of passion, helps him solidify that he want more in his life. These moments would all be boring segments if it wasn't for the charisma of lead actor, Joshua Jackson.

Jackson, like his "Dawson's Creek" cast-mate, James van der Beek,  has gotten much better at his craft with age. If it wasn't for Jackson's charm, the character of Ben would be completely unlikeable. But we deal with the selfishness and indecision because we inherently like Jackson. He has the rare ability to make you feel what his character is feeling without saying a word, and by the end, I wanted Ben to survive despite the odds.

Unfortunately, this movie was not a one-man show -- it was probably as close as you'll ever get, though -- and the supporting actors did nothing. Especially Liane Balaban, who played the fiance, Samantha. She was about as wooden and bland as you can get. Despite all of the emotion that should have been flowing through her, she was in complete monotone in every scene. She was way too calm and understanding for the situation. I would have taken one screaming argument, but alas, she took everything and gave up without a fight. Disastrous casting choice. And in terms of the road trip characters, none of them truly stood out and most of their scenes are forgettable.

The writing of the interactions Ben had and the conversations with his wife were spot on, but the side stories and especially the narrator, were very subpar. Outside of unneeded narration, making a character's small choices all of sudden help everyone he encounters is one of my major pet peeves. 

In two instances in the film, Ben indirectly saves a women from a train wreck by missing a doctor's appointment, and helps another fall in love by convincing her that she needs to visit her son. Both of these moments were completely unnecessary and after the revel that he wrote a book about his experiences, make Ben seem very narcissistic. These were the two reason -- side stories and narration -- why this film didn't get enough support to receive a limited release in the U.S., despite Jackson leading the cast.

The film gains a lot of points because of the story. While some of the telling aspects were bad, the idea that a man would put off cancer treatment to go live instead of start to die, is very compelling. The question of the movie is, 'what would you do if you had only one day, week or month to live?' And I think we would all want to have the experiences and the clarity gained by Ben during his journey. I really wish the script itself was better.

"One Week" is a film with so much potential that it's sad that the execution was so poor. The narrator added nothing, the side stories added nothing and the actress playing his fiance added nothing. All three of these could have easily be fixed: the narrator talks less, eliminate the side stories, and do a better job with casting. But sometimes indie films don't have much opportunity to see if something works before putting it in the movie, and I imagine it was especially difficult for this project because of the constant moving of filming locations across Canada. But that still doesn't excuse the terrible narration and the fact that a good director would have cut it from the script. It screams, 'look at me, I'm a clever writer,' but this is what happens with a mediocre writer/director.

Rating: 5.5/10 -- Could have been a powerful film if they left out the awful narration. Jackson is superb and is clearly carrying the rest of the cast. A very intriguing concept that is butchered by the writer/director. Did I mention that I didn't like the narration?

Day 78 -- Itty Bitty Titty Committee

Released: September 28th, 2007

Starring: Melonie Diaz, Nicole Vicius, Carly Pope, Deak Evgenikos, Lauren Mollica
  
Writer/Director: Tina Mabry and Abigail Shafran/Jamie Babbit

Description: High School grad and all American gal, Anna finds her purpose and herself after she hooks up with the radical feminists in The Itty Bitty Titty Committee.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

It is always interesting to watch a movie from a perspective that you are not all that familiar with in your life. Whether it's a movie like "The Help" that is told from the position of a black maid in the south in the 60s, or the Japanese in WWII. Many movie goers don't venture too far outside of what they know and what they can relate, too. But I feel that a movie's overarching story should not be a reason to avoid a movie.

"Itty Bitty Titty Committee" is told from a world that is the complete opposite of mine. The movie centers around a small feminist organization known as Clits in Action, or C(i)A, which for me is not a group that I've been around too much. As much as the movie talked about the ideals and beliefs of the group, it also told a good story.

A lot of movies that I have watched that involve homosexuals -- male or female -- tend to be more of the stereotypical variety, but the women in this movie are not. While some do look the part, they do not act it. Meat (Evgenikos), for example, looks like how most men see lesbians: short hair and wearing more masculine clothing, but she doesn't portray the mainstream "butch" lesbian. This especially comes through when she talks to Anna (Diaz) about not falling for Sadie (Vicius). The situation is treated just like a heterosexual relationship, and not some crazy story to make it seem more exotic. It help to show some close minded people that we are all alike.

All I kept thinking through out this film is how relatable all of character were. They weren't treated like alien beings that do and react to thing in a completely different way than everyone else. The actual conflict in this movie was the relationship between the women, and not the conflicts they faced because of their views of the world. Sure, some things were thought provoking, but the storytelling was spot on and it didn't feel like I was watching a propaganda film. It was much closer to a coming of age film.

Most of the credit for the likeable characters belongs to the actors. Diaz especially was brilliant as she transformed Anna from a naive teenage lesbian into a strong, independent woman who ends up leading the group in their most public demonstration: putting a penis on top of the Washington Monument and blowing it up on live TV (Spoiler: it was fake). 

The only actress I found myself constantly rolling my eyes at was Carly Pope. There were multiple times in the movie where I felt she was trying to hard to be a tough girl. The character of Shulamith was supposed strong willed and opinionated, not like a girl looking for a bar fight. She nailed this at times, especially the protest scene in Sacramento, but failed in most of her early scenes with Diaz. I realize she didn't trust her, but I felt her character would have had a more condescending tone than the confrontational one she had with Anna.

One of the big flaws with the film is that they had the most generic love triangle. The problem with most love triangles is that there's always one choice that's better than the other, and the film gives no consequences to the person that has been stringing along two people. They always end up happy. I would just once like to see the person at the top of the triangle end up unhappy, and the other two move on and find happiness. There was not one point in the movie from the moment they met that I didn't think Sadie and Anna would end up together.

"Itty Bitty Titty Committee" is an engaging movie that can be related to from any perspective. I went into the movie expecting bad acting and lazy writing, but I quickly became interested in the story and the characters. While it's not perfect, the movie is surprisingly watchable. It is definitely an example of not judging a book by it's cover.

Rating: 5.5/10 -- Solid characters and a story that doesn't get convoluted when it easily could have been. Even though it was less than 90 minutes, the was still some fat to trim, especially the scenes involving Anna's job -- there's no way she would have kept that job as long as she did in real life. Could have spent that time telling deeper backstories on the women.

Day 77 -- Brothers

Released: December 4th, 2009

Starring: Natalie Portman, Tobey Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal
  
Writer/Director: David Benioff/Jim Sheridan

Description: A young man comforts his older brother's wife and children after he goes missing in Afghanistan.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Sometimes filling your cast with powerful A-list actors can be a hindrance to your film because they don't really mesh together, and therefore, there's no connection to the audience. Egos come into play a lot, and some actors worry too much about number of lines rather than creating a great piece of art. Some people don't work well with perceived equals and need to feel superior to their peers.

"Brothers" fortunately suffers from none of these issues. Natalie Portman, Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhaal all bring top-notch performances and the trio help raise each other's individual performances. Maguire, especially because this film came out in the shadow of the terrible final chapter of  his "Spiderman" movies, reminded us of how good of an actor he can be with the right script. He, along with Gyllenhaal, brings an intensity to this movie that I rarely see anymore.

Sam (Maguire) and Tommy (Gyllenhaal) are polar opposites as brothers; the former is Marine Captain and the latter is a ex-convict. After Sam is deployed for the fourth time overseas, he is captured and presumed dead. This leaves his grieving widow, Grace (Portman), all alone to raise the couple's daughters. Tommy, who has straightened himself out after Sam's death, offer to help and becomes a surrogate father, but he and Grace never really go past a kiss in the intimacy department. Just when everything goes back to normal, Sam is rescued, returns home but is not himself.

He becomes obsessed with the idea of Tommy and Grace sleeping with each other behind his back. This is where the emotion and the performances get turned up a notch, as Sam slowly becomes more and more disturbed -- eventually leading to a stay in a mental hospital -- Maguire begins to shine. The confrontation scenes between the trio are gut wrenching and tear-jerking, but fall just short of transcendence. This flaw usually occurs when one of the three goes a little too over the top with the emotion and makes the scene more soap opera-y than realistic.

Those moments are what keep the film from becoming a truly great film. Great acting, as mentioned before, is all about nuance, with the trick being the ability to make it look like your not acting. When the audience can tell you thought about a reaction, or can tell that you primed yourself before your line, they immediately get pulled out of the world and are reminded that it's a movie. Great films keep you engaged, while good films have lulls in them.

The direction was pretty good. The tone was perfect, and the camera work was almost spot on, but again, it fell just short of greatness. That seems to be the common thread of this movie: the parts are really good, but they just fail to make that final connection to ascend the film into the greatness level.

"Brothers" is a good movie that doesn't purposely shoot itself in the foot. There are just small mistakes that hold it back from it's true potential. These mistakes are not limited to one area as there are acting slip-up, directing miscues and editing oversights. It's one of those solid second tier films that needed one or two things to go differently for it to reach top tier status, which shows you how difficult reaching that level can be for a film.

Rating: 7/10 -- Very well done film that should be viewed by everyone. Reminds us all that Tobey Maguire can act, especially when he's paired with Jake Gyllenhaal instead of Topher Grace. Definitely, a topic most American can relate to today.

Day 76 -- Knockout

Released: April 26th, 2011

Starring: Steve Austin, Daniel Magder, Janet Kidder, Emily Grabinsky
  
Writer/Director: Evan Jacobs, Jack Nasser and Joseph Nasser/Anne Wheeler

Description: A retired boxer tries to help a new student, Matthew Miller (Daniel Magder), who is being targeted by bullies. While learning to box and stand up to his tormentors the young boxer must learn to overcome his tumultuous past.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Fairly or unfairly, all boxing movies will always be compared to "Rocky" or "Raging Bull". And ultimately they fall short. The sweet science already has a built-in drama to it that is only lessen by a lazy or convoluted story. The audience needs to have followed a boxer or trainer through a real conflict in order to root for them during the big fight.

"Knockout" tries to tackle bullying and special treatment in high school by using boxing as it's main source of drama. Ex-boxer turned janitor, Dan Barnes (Austin), tries to help a new student who has become the punching bag for the school's star boxer. After Dan save him a few times, Matthew (Magder), asks him to train him, and the reluctant custodian agrees. Almost immediately, Dan sees heart and natural talent in his pupil, who apparent has inherited his grandfather's feel for the ring.

The very dumb Matt is tricked into a beat down by Hector, and the rest of the sadistic boxing club. Dan saves him again and eventually convinces the club coach to allow Matt to fight in the box-off against...wait for it...go ahead, take a guess...yep, his tormentor, Hector. Holy foreshadowing the act three climax, Batman!

Thankfully, Matt loses the match, but not after he knocks down Hector and gains his respect. Unlike "Legendary", this loss has no build up or emotion behind it like brother bonding moment in the former. There also a terribly written section where everything falls apart, but really doesn't for Matt at the end of act two. Despite, forging his step-father's signature, his parents still allow him to fight, but Dan loses his job. Matt's reaction to this is way too over the top. Mostly because the script gives us no reason to care if Dan has a job or not; now if he was supporting a family...

The writers are either terrible, or the producers got too involved in the creative process. I tend to lean toward the former because it's rare that a script handled by three people is interesting. There are just too many different ideas going into it that help it become a convoluted mess. The scripts tries for inspiration but quickly becomes very boring.

"Knockout" is a forgettable movie that was the perfect comparison for a film like "Legendary". Both movies try to accomplish the same thing but one gives it an earnest effort, while the other feels like a paint-by-numbers story. Once again, inspiration comes from well-written characters, not a well-conceived plot. If the audience can't care about the protagonist, then they will care less about the film's plot points.

Rating: 4/10 -- The boxing feels like a gimmick more than an actual part of the film's plot. Austin is good when he has to be menacing or mentor-y, but he lacks any real talent to deliver lines in a normal conversation. He should stick to action films; if Vin Diesel can do it...

Day 75 -- Legendary

Released: September 10th, 2010

Starring: John Cena, Patricia Clarkson, Danny Glover, Devon Graye

Writer/Director: John Posey/Mel Damski

Description: A book-smart teenager joins his school's wrestling team as a way to reunite his surviving family members, who split apart after the death of his father, a college wrestling legend, 10 years ago.

[Review may contain spoilers. Please watch movie before reading, unless you don't care. Most of these films have already been released for a while, so they should be readily available.]

***

Inspirational films are usually hit or miss in terms of quality and story. "Rocky" and "Miracle" are universally praised, but few talk about the sheer amount of bland and boring imitators that are filmed each year. The inspiration usually comes from the story itself, and requires no nudge from the script.

"Legendary's" main flaw is that there's a disconnect between the story and plot of the movie. Calvin Chetley (Graye) begins wrestling in order to reconnect with his older brother, Mike (Cena), who was a state champion. Mike has been absent since their father died 10 years ago. He is also estranged from his mother, who blames wrestling for everything.

Cal eventually convinces Mike to train him in wrestling. This is where the writer, or director, or editor missed a big opportunity to make this film more inspirational. They only showed Cal fail twice, and all of a sudden he starts winning. There was no build up of him getting close to victory, but falling short. It was too rushed and lack any real emotion in it. But the one thing I'll give them credit for is having Cal lose the title match even though he used the special "reverse cradle". I would have had to suspend belief too much if he had beaten a district champ.

The performances were pretty mediocre. When she was used properly, Patricia Clarkson was great, but she was vastly underused. John Cena's only poor scene was the bonding moment before the big match when he teased Cal about listening to opera. He delivered that line so unnatural that it made me cringe, but that was rare during the bulk of  his scenes. The standout was Madeleine Martin of "Californication" fame, who played love struck, Luli, and made me believe her love for Cal was real and not tacked on to the film.

"Legendary" falls just short of being a solid film. All that was need was a better training montage and more showing than telling in the story's main conflict which revolved around the Chetley family. The dad's death was dealt with in exposition near the end of the film. A flashback scene or even an old newspaper article would have been better than telling it through dialogue. Exposition never works, never.

Rating: 5/10 -- Solid story that was just missing something. The amateur wrestling was pretty realistic. Also, there was a WWE style entrace for Cal before the last match, which dropped the rating by a half-point.

May the Odds Be Ever In Your Favor

On this week's show we discuss a terrible movie that starred the Hogan Family, our soiler-free (hopefully) review of The Hunger Games, and a rapid fire version of the interrogation.

The Rundown:

Intro
Week In Review
Hunger Games discussion
Interrogation

Be sure to follow us on Twitter (@offthemarktweet) as I will be live tweeting Wrestlemania tonight.