Red Lights (2012)

I'm not in the best psychic mood to write an entry, and the current subject it's really "appropriate". I'll dig right into the the subject, "Red Lights", a quite obscure thriller from last year = no marketing, despite the names written on the poster.

The movie's action is focused on a team from a Psychology department in an university, team that has as main activity .. "myth busting" to cut it shortly, or more exactly unmasking supposed paranormal gifted people. The main subject is a blind guy, Simon Silver = a sort of Uri Geller (at least he's bending spoons live on TV), who after disappearing from the public eye for 30 years stages a comeback meant to prove the public that the unreal is real.

Why ? That's a question stated at some point in the movie. Why is it needed to unmask a supposed-to-be medium, mentalist, etc ? And again in the movie somebody gives an answer. Which sounds more or less like this: Let's say that some day a women in pain prefers to ask a so called alternate therapist who impressed her through his miraculous curing sessions. The guy comforts her after "healing" her energetic aura and tells her that everything will be ok. Later, when the situation gets worse the woman finds out that she has cancer in a stage that wasn't treated at the right time.

I could have started a long debate related to the movie message, but I guess that the "approximate" quoting above is sufficient. Moreover, I'd rather not get deeper into the subject because I would be too subjective (although I don't know if I can hold it). "The sleep of reason gives birth to monsters" says a sketch by Goya. And a pretty long part of the movie follows this line (in a less radical manner though). As any driven-by-reason scientist (although the movie offers also a counterexample) the "myth busters" team doesn't believe in unexplained phenomenons. Actually .. and well, I'm already taking it personal :) more correct for the movie would be that they don't believe in paranormal. In what concerns me I'll stick to "unexplained", in the sense that sooner or later (= 0 - millions of years) the unexplained becomes perfectly explainable, and probably way less spectacular and much more reasonable than you might think of it. Probably the fire was a surreal sorcery for the first homo sapiens who lost a spark in a pile of dry wood. But the fire burns if you don't know how to handle it. Stuff that probably applies to many unexplained phenomenons which many claim they can successfully manipulate. The movie drives less on this lane (of burning yourself with the "fire") and more into the world of fake healers (who have no idea how to make "fire" but they're selling heat). Somewhere between the lines though, and in the final conclusion (light spoiler), the directions connect in the sense that somebody who can actually do something out of common would probably keep it as possible out of the world's eyes.

Sorry .. I said I can't hold it :) ... Let me get back to more objective stuff. The movie itself is an average one. We have a neo-noir atmosphere which is captured quite well. The story though, which I don't want to reveal more than I did, has many plotholes. Besides that there are some hard to believe scenes, action threads left unfinished, and other problems in the script. As a conclusion, the script .. effectively as script, could've been written much better than it is. It compensates a lot through actors: Robert de Niro, Sigourney Weaver and Cillian Murphy and also ironically, despite what I just said ... through the story. More exactly through a twist which you don't see coming, and not the least .. through a sufficiently deep message to take it first time either as white, either as black, but in reality is a pretty inexact shade of grey.

Rating: 3 out of 5

White House Down (2013)

A short entry for this one. Not a long time ago I was writing about "Olympus has Fallen" in not very encouraging terms. Let's see how the other version of "Die Hard in the White House" = "White House Down" looks like.

As I was saying last time, Roland Emmerich seems to do much better on action movies than on "epic disasters" (no pun intended). Or at least "White House Down" got lucky enough to be released exactly when you can freshly compare it with the other title. The story is relatively similar .. but not the same. The White House is taken by terrorists, following a coup organized by the chief of Secret Service, a guy at the age of retirement and extremely pissed on the president. Much more credible than a North-Korean commando ... even considering the motivation, which I'd rather not spoil, especially since it's not given immediately and it also has some extra threads meant to give a scent of political thriller. What can I say is that in the end we get again to deal with nukes, but this time in the "classic" fashion, not some weird autodestruction protocol that's against any common sense regarding a weapon design. "The Hero" (Channing Tatum) is not anymore a disgraced Rambo. Still with some background in a military his CV is apparently not good enough to get a job in the presidential guard, job that he wants to improve the relation with his own daughter (a teen apparently addicted to the U.S. history & related stuff). Since the job interview happens to be exactly in the day of the attack, the guy finds himself in the position to rescue his own child taken as hostage from a visiting tour of the place. On the way he manages to rescue also the president (Jamie Foxx), following this with a cat & mouse chase on the presidential backyard in Washington. That's another difference from "Olympus has Fallen" where the leader in his bunker where he was held hostage was busy releasing nukes access codes in exchange for the life of the state secretaries, stuff that again is handled differently here.

To be fair, the movie is not exactly top of the top in the action genre. The ending is pretty far fetched. We obviously have the propaganda pro-supplementing the defense budget (although again .. unlike the other movie the general note here is actually a pacifist one). The action threads on the political plan are a bit forced. There are plenty of cheesy scenes. Anyway ... not top quality as I said, but as an action movie is ok, waaaay better than "Olympus has Fallen" and probably at the level where the last "Die Hard" should've raised to avoid the major bashing.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Pacific Rim (2013)

Once upon a time there was "Godzilla". Much before the epic disaster staged by Roland Emmerich (who surprisingly seems to deal much better with action movies, but about this next time). Once upon a time there also were many and diverse versions of robots fighting every kind of terrestrial and mostly extraterrestrial forces. At least two animes come to my mind (way before Transformers). Both (Godzilla & the robots) come from Japan, which seems to have a fetish for metal giants and a pathological fear towards monsters risen from the Pacific. The combination is called "Pacific Rim" and is produced in Hollywood, having though many references and even action locations placed in the Asian world.

I was expecting a light silly story and as many (positive) reviews said a pretty simple one, eventually having the "classical" one per 5 minutes explosion. Something like a mix between "Godzilla" and "Transformers" with a scent of "Battleship". Fortunately "Pacific Rim" is directed neither by Roland Emmerich, neither by Michael Bay and neither by Peter Berg. It's by Guillermo del Toro. Who after an excellent "Hellboy" continued with a lame "Hellboy 2" so I had some reserves. Well ... I guess I start to bore with my references so let's see what's to be said about the actual "Pacific Rim".

- The story: simple as it was said but not so thin as expected. From a rim in the Pacific depths emerges an alien threat = kaiju - the monsters, race who wants to take over the Earth. The counterattack is done first with robots = jaegers, driven through a neuronal interface by two pilots. More in the movie. It's enough to be discovered behind a trailer. And even if we don't have any heavy drama here, the fact that is not describable in just two sentences compensates at least a little the parts hard to believe in the story (normally otherwise for this genre)

- The actors: "Star Wars" style (= something like "starring Mark Hamill"), with the exception of Idris Elba and Ron Perlman in secondary parts, we have an "unknown hero" as planet savior: Charlie Hunnam. Overall the movie is ok regarding the casting, although I guess I would have preferred somebody else in the lead female role = the 2nd half of the robot pilot.

- The direction & the technic stuff: excepting things like - mostly all the battles take place at night during rain which looks like saving on the FX budget a bit, the movie looks impeccable and is directed also impeccable. We are far from the kitsch in Transformers regarding the robots design, who aesthetically (at least for me) look way better in "Pacific Rim". And about the direction, what can I say ... for this kind of movie, to name it like I did is enough that the frequency and the length of the battle sequences don't even try to surpass the records established by Michael Bay :)

Verdict: a light SciFi, summer blockbuster type, nice to see and with a boring factor reduced to a minimum compared with other titles in the same genre

Rating: 4 out of 5

Gunpowder, Treason & Plot (2004)

"Remember, remember the 5th of November ...". Yup, the title relates to that. Not to "V for Vendetta" but to the real historical source of the rime = the plot meant to kill King James I of England and Scotlans in 1605 AD. I don't really know where to start from. I've probably watched one of the most .. weird .. filmic production in a long time. But let's try to disect somehow the subject of this so called two part mini-series, although "Gunpowder, Treason & Plot" is actually only the last half.

The first part presents the most vivid period of the reign of Mary - the Queen of Scots. Some historical background: she was the closest rival ruler in geographic terms of the much more known (and put on film) Elisabeth I. I don't want to get too much in details, because that's the movie's role, but what I can tell from my minimal general knowledge in that area, what is presented is decently accurate compared to the truth. A catolic queen, arrived from France after her mother's death, Mary didn't have the easiest rule in a protestant Scotland, and also not a very bright end to it. But she had a son, unlike the rival from the South, which son is the subject of the second part ...

The second part looks like a completely different production. Not a single character from the first half is present for more than a couple minutes. It's true that we have a gap of quite some years between the two (after a pretty abrupt ending of the first part). But besides that there are enough elements that would make me double check if the production team was the same. I'll leave this for later and get back first to the subject. As said before, Mary had a son, James, who in the context of no other direct heir of the England throne, got the crown in London based on the British monarchs genealogic tree. Of course, the main event consists in the gunpowder plot caused by the religious tensions. Sort of ironic, if Mary got to deal with the protestant opposition, James was close to be killed by the catholic resistance. But for more details, see the movie.

I'll get back to the weird part, as I characterized the production. The script differs a lot as style between the two parts. If the first looks relatively close to a history book, the second allows itself more building an evil devious portrait for James which seems slightly exaggerated compared to what seems to have been in reality (although, here and there, especially towards the end, the production leaves some humanity to get out from him too). Well, I don't know much on UK history anyway ... We have intrigues, assassination attempts, etc = the complete menu also in the first part as a historical drama. The second starts as a History Channel documentary in which the characters speak to the viewer from time to time to update to the news of the moment, after which it turns (more or less as a nuance) towards a dark comedy with a grim dry humor that's felt quite often. It might sound surprising .. but I guess this actually saves the not so good script. The differences continue .. In the first part we have a torid and tensed loved story involving Mary, in the second we have a cold and pragmatic marriage with a Danish princess (= we get three kids, after which you can get lovers), but the relation finally gets a certain charm for which I'll leave the movie to say more (although again, I tend to think that the historical accuracy is pretty thin on this matters).

I don't know what final verdict to give. The script varies from abysimal to extremely bright lines. I forgot to mention the actors - I noticed Clemence Poesy for the first time (although theoretically I've seen her before in "In Bruges" or "Harry Potter", but I must have been blind). For the rest, Kevin McKidd and respectively Robert Carlyle capture the screen in each of the two parts. Well .. overall it was an interesting movie experience, relatively different from everything seen as a history production by now (if we take the two pieces together). And as additional factor, it deserves to be seen at least as a documentary if you want to find more about the origin of "Remember, remember the 5th of November .." .

Rating: 3 out of 5