Knight and Day (2010) - Bad Film

If you are the type of film goer who enjoys well-choreographed action sequences with explosions capable of blowing holes in the plot big enough for a jetliner to fly through, then have I got a movie for you! Though I have no evidence to back up my claim, I believe that the original title of this film was Dog And Turd. All kidding aside, Knight and Day isn't so much a bad movie as it is a terrible movie. I wish there were just one or two irksome points I could make that could correct the flat spin that this film finds itself in, but alas, poor Goose would be no safer this time around either. Cruise is just flat-out out of control here.

The film starts out interestingly enough: Boy meets girl, girl becomes interested in boy, boy kills everyone on the plane, girl freaks out while boy lands jumbo jet in what can only be the world's softest corn field, where boy drugs girl for her own safety. (Ah, the budding of sweet romance!) If you're not hooked yet, just wait, it gets better (or worse, depending on your position). What follows is a sort of spy-film-smorgasbord, involving car chases, double agents, secret hideouts, and of course, Cameron Diaz in a bikini. Rest assured, there's a double cross. And a triple-cross. And I think there may have even been an attempt at a quadruple-cross, but I stopped counting right around the time I had stopped caring, which I guess brings us back to the beginning. Like I said earlier, if this sort of story appeals to you, you just found a new favorite film. (Though nothing could ever be better than Battlefield Earth, right?)

What bothers me almost more than Knight and Day's disastrous decline is its preliminary promise. After all, James Mangold (Copland; Girl, Interrupted; and Walk the Line) is a fine director. Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz and Peter Sarsgaard are fine actors. So how does a would-be blockbuster go bust at the starting block? Simple, bad writing. I don't know screenwriter Patrick O'Neill, but given that Knight and Day was his feature film debut, I'm guessing I won't have to know him, as he won't soon be selling more scripts. But O'Neill doesn't deserve the full brunt of the blame. Most of it, sure, but not all of it. Mangold chose the start-and-stop pacing. Mangold directed Cruise's campy character. Mangold ultimately made the calls, and those calls likely won't be returned for a while. At this particular point, I'm not even sure that I'd return Mangold's calls.

To call this film a flop would be to call the sinking of the Titanic a travel delay. It's not just that it's stupid. It's not just that it's ridiculous. It's not just that it's clumsy. It's that it's all of those things and so much more (or less, again depending on your position). Night or day, there's never a good time to watch a film this bad.

Hancock (2008) - Bad Film

With a director as talented as Peter Berg (Very Bad Things) and a writing team responsible for such megahits as Home Fries, it's hard to imagine that 2008's Hancock would be anything less than Oscar's first choice for Best Picture. Had it not been for the long shadows cast by such hard-to-beat blockbusters as Mad Money, The Love Guru, Speed Racer and You Don't Mess With The Zohan, critics may have been able to look past the abhorrent story, appalling acting and atrocious dialogue that was Hancock. Alright, I've now stretched the limits of my sarcasm just about as far as the makers of Hancock stretched the limits of my attention.

So, what was the problem with this film? A less time-consuming question might be this: "What were you thinking?" In short, I don't know why I watched this movie. I've thought long and hard about that question ever since I've tried to forget watching it, and all I can come up with is that I watched it for the very same reason I've watched any of Will Smith's films: I was bored and thought it'd be something fun and stupid that I wouldn't have to pay much attention to. That being the case, I was almost correct in my assumptions. 1 out of 3 may be mostly wrong, but it's still correct. Yes, I've tried to use that argument in my personal life. No, it has never been accepted as valid. But I digress: Hancock was not fun, but it was so incredibly stupid that I had no choice but to pay attention to how quickly it was imploding. And that's the real tragedy of this picture. Between two screenwriters, a director, a talented cast and crew, and gobs upon heaps upon mounds of cash, nobody could figure out how to turn a good idea into a good story. The idea is honestly and admittedly a good one. The world's lone superhero becomes so tangled in his own mess of depression and apathy towards mankind that the world turns their back on him, forcing him to reshape his public image. That's the whole concept, people. It's fun. It's unique. It's worth the price of admission. And yet, even with all that in its favor, it failed in ways that only something superhuman could possibly understand. (Because I certainly don't understand.)

I know Charlize Theron can act. What I can't figure out is why she didn't act for this movie. It's not even an attempt. I've seen better acting in elementary school holiday pageants. In her defense, she was given a role that shouldn't even be part of the film. Theron's storyline is of secondary importance to the story, if it's of any importance at all. And let me just say this to Mr. Berg, regarding his setup of Theron's character: there's a difference between foreshadowing and foretelling. The difference is whether or not you're the jackass that shouts "surprise" while the birthday girl is still in the driveway or you just happen to make some offhand remark about lame surprise parties weeks in advance. You see, one gives it away, the other just sets it up for those who are paying attention, so they can sit back and bask in the glory of how smart they are when all of the events finally unfold as they predicted. Another way of putting it: having someone feed you grapes is sexy (foreshadowing), but having them choke you with an entire grape vine is just painful (foretelling). Ah, much clearer. Who doesn't love analogies?

All in all, I'd have to say that the worst mistake with this movie isn't even in the movie, it was the decision to release it in the same year as the most successful superhero film in history, The Dark Knight. Don't get me wrong, I don't really think that Hancock producers had any misconceptions whatsoever of achieving Dark Knight fame. However, I think they very much wanted to overcome the major hurdle that made The Dark Knight (and also Batman Begins) so good: realism. Now, I don't mean that to say that a guy from another universe who enjoys sticking men's heads up other men's rectums could ever be as real as a real guy, a la Batman. What I an saying is that I think Hancock producers very much wanted to catch that emotional realism of a man torn between his calling and his very existence. And in that regard, The Dark Knight is a painful reminder to Peter Berg & Company of everything that Hancock is not.

Hancock set out to be a superhero movie with a heart. Ultimately, it ended up being a superhero movie without a brain.

In Bruges (2008) - Good Film

Martin McDonagh is one the most brilliant up-and-coming writer/directors in recent time. Watching In Bruges this past weekend, I was reminded of my first thoughts of Richard Kelly following my initial viewing of Donnie Darko back in 2001. That said, I can only hope that McDonagh's follow-up to In Bruges is much more conherent and accessible than Kelly's dismal Southland Tales. Having not seen McDonagh's 2005 Oscar-nominated short, Six Shooter, I am without a basis by which to compare his only works to date, preventing me from concluding whether In Bruges was the next logical step for an aspiring new talent or just a lucky hit for an otherwise would-be hack. I am however inclined to believe that a film as well-crafted as In Bruges involved anything remotely resembling luck, and here's why: it's too far removed from commercial hit standards to have hoped for a lucky break of the blockbuster variety. Instead, this film seems more well-suited (if not intentially geared) toward an underground cult hit with overwhelming critical appeal. And to that end, it is a masterpiece through and through.

From the moment we enter Bruges as an audience, the characters of Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) begin to unravel in a way that is both telling of their pasts and foreshadowing of their futures at the same time. This is not one of those stories where you are given all of the backstory upfront and then just sit back to watch the players cat-and-mouse their way to the ultimate conclusion; this film is way too smart for that sort of story. Instead, what In Bruges does (and does well) is give you a little piece of backstory at a time, sometimes as a cast-off line of dialogue, sometimes as a full-fledged flashback, but always right where you need it most. New characters are introduced and included from that point on. There's none of this Derailed-type detour, where we introduce Jennifer Aniston as a major player, then throw her aside for a good hour of screen time, only to have her resurface in the final act as we uncover the mystery of who done it. Every character in In Bruges plays their part, and there are no small parts, unless you consider dwarves to be small parts. The story twists and turns and winds back around again in a way that is fresh and intelligent, almost blindsiding at times. That's not to say that you won't see where it's going before it gets there, but even if you do, you'll still be satisfied with how smart it is. Attention to detail is everything in falling in love with this film.

Okay, so by now, I may have sold you on In Bruges as a smart art-house flick, but I'd be short-siding this film, if I didn't point out its bitingly satirical dialogue. Aside from being Colin Farrell's best acting to date, this is his most likable role. His delivery ranges from triumphant to tragic with such emotional honesty that, despite the fact that he's a hitman, it's nearly impossible to not root for him. Dirty dialogue hasn't been this enjoyable since Pulp Fiction or Bad Santa. If you don't mind deciphering Irish dialects, a good deal of realistic violence, or laughing at American stereotypes, you just might have found your new favorite film. A must see!

High point: Colin Farrell egging-on a family of fat Americans who don't get the joke.

Low point: Would have liked a bit more time with Ralph Fiennes.