JSA (2000)

Since for some time I don't really manage to get to see something better than a certain level, I've told myself to have a look again into the East .. although even the last experience from the cinema there ("The Mission") wasn't really something to remember. I still can say that either I'm lacking the material or the choice inspiration (amplified by the rate of 1 movie/week) ... or I started being too demanding. Anyway, even if "JSA" is (for me at least) again at the limit, it's a higher limit than the last one ...

Let's start with a bit of history: JSA, or in more detail Joint Security Area, is a militarized perimeter of several square kilometers at the border between North and South Korea, established in 1953 when the truce was signed and used for negotiations, etc since then. A more "exotic" characteristic to say so, is that the respective area maintains the marked split line between North and South, which in server point is just a slab in the ground, along with the strict "do not cross" interdiction ensured by guards from both sides. For more details about the location topography I recommend a Google Search. About the current movie, the main part of the action takes place near a bridge (having the split line in the middle). One evening, both sides are put in alert due to an incident between the two guarding posts. The outcome: two deaths + one survivor heart in the shoulder in the North Korean premise and a South Korean shot in the foot who barely manages to cross the border line covered by the rain of bullets exchanged between squads summoned at the place by both sides. To solve the incident a team of two officers from NNSC (Neutral Nations Supervisory Comission) is formed, NNSC being an entity created along JSA and approved by both parties for arbitrating situations, and currently being formed from Swiss and Swedish personnel. The main investigator of the two officers is a woman of Korean descent from her father's side, born in Geneva. She receives the depositions from both sides with a silent suggestion to solve the situation fast and without complications even if the result of the inquiry won't offer any answer. The official version of the southern soldier is that he was kidnapped and he killed the two when escaping. The only survivor of the northern guarding post is that the southern enemy just came in randomly unloading his gun in everybody there. Making a reference to an Asian classic, both versions are presented in a flashback style a la "Rashomon", followed by the real version .. which of course I'll leave to be seen ...

... Not though without a (sort of ) major spoiler :P, since after all the situation becomes quite clear pretty fast, and the movie itself doesn't do too much to hide stuff from the ending. What we have here is pretty close to the story from "Joyeux Noel", or what happened during World War I at the 1914 Christmas time. No to take the spoiler too far, and risking to get a bit cryptic in the following I won't say what happened then, although is neither very hard to guess nor to find out exactly. The difference in "JSA" is that given the much smaller scale of the story, and the ending that you get at the beginning of the movie, the result is to put it in one word: tragic. Up to the point when from the moment (as said not very advanced) when everything becomes relatively clear about the story, and the movie gets a bit hard to watch. You know where it's going, and the slow way to advance to that point only amplifies the drama. What can I say is that "the end of story" is so well done that the drama is kept, but fortunately for the viewer's psychic :) it's not delivered as harsh as you might tend to expect up to that point. I guess I forgot to mention that "JSA" is among the first movies of Chan-wook Park, more known (and awarded at Cannes) for "Oldboy". And since it seems that an excellent directing compensates more an acting not so good here and there, than the reverse from last time ...

Rating: 4 out of 5 ( .. but still at the bottom limit :) although this time I'm more subjective = not really in the mood for heavy dramas at the moment )

Since again the trailers from that side of the world are a disaster (and you ask yourself how come the movies there are not that appealing), I had to find a sort of alternative - in the current case a clip apparently included in the extended DVD release .. anyway much closer to "the movie feeling":

Page Eight (2011)

This week I have as subject again a made for TV movie, picked while looking over the long Emmy nominations due to an apparently interesting story. Maybe I should've taken a look also at the actual nominations it has (= nothing major), or at least at the number, because "Page Eight" is clearly not a masterpiece.

The movie is a British production, taking place during one week from the life of a high-ranking employee of MI5 (= the UK internal security service). The guy receives a file to analyze from the service director, who is also his best friend. The file seems to have a compromising information somewhere at the bottom of page eight (that's where the title comes from). Information which involves Downing Street 10 (= the prime minister) and which is "leaked" in the inner circle of MI5 and a few other high-ranking officials. What follows is essentially a sort of political thriller in which some people want this circle to stay closed, and others (who in the end are reduced to the first character) are more inclined for the opposite. It may seem that I already gave a big spoiler but there is more to be seen (I actually didn't even spoil the beginning of the movie). Unfortunately we have again a director who probably wanted more than he can actually managed to do. And if the directing is after all so & so, I found the screenwriting (by the same guy) awful. Maybe it's only me, I don't know what to say ... But the typical British atmosphere seems to be pushed a bit too much to the extreme and ends up looking fake. So, to be more clear, the first part of the movie is a chain of dry sarcasm and want-to-seem-witty lines (maybe if this style wouldn't be overused they could actually be considered witty). The second part is another chain of dry melancholy and ... again want-to-seem-witty lines (although in a more moderate quantity). To draw the line, I have never heard anybody talking naturally in the way the movie characters do (not at that frequency of using the bunch of figures of speech you can hear combined with the British imperturbable calmness).

The subject, even if it has some potential and looks actually catchy at some point is solved in a rather simplistic manner in the end. I guess the best part in the movie is the cast. Unfortunately, all the weight given in a positive way by the presence of Bill Nighy as lead character, accompanied by Michael Gambon and others, is practically canceled by the dialogues lack of credibility. Well, again, maybe it's just me and the density of "out of normal" dialogue is not that high = case in which you might have a movie that you might like ...

Rating: 3 out of 5 (at the limit)
 

Alice (2009)

Last year at this time I was writing about "Tin Man", a SyFy mini-series that was quite promising and offered a bit too less, despite a pretty nice story adaptation of the Frank Baum classic. This weekend I had the "inspiration" to choose the next "masterpiece" by the same director, Nick Willing, another rehash for SyFy Channel, of another classic story - "Alice in Wonderland" by Lewis Caroll. The good part is that this time Alice of Wonderland (Caterina Scorsone) doesn't rely exclusively on the blue eyes for the role, and she actually tries to act, unlike Dorothy of Oz (Zooey Deschanel). Further than this, let's see ...

As in the case of "Tin Man" we practically have a sequel to the story, with a mature main character, who follows pretty much the same steps: she lands in the parallel story universe, finds the destination in a desolate state under a tyrannical leadership, the tyrannical leadership ("The Queen of Hearts" in this case) finds out about the "intruder", all this is followed by the run + the detailed story (something happening while running) + the final in which the throne of the story world is taken by a less evil ruler. I didn't give any spoiler, trust me (= if you were imagining something else you should definitely look for another movie). Leaving the joke apart, the detailed context is actually quite original & sufficiently interesting to deserve the time. We have all the insertions of classic characters adapted to a sort of semi-industrialized Wonderland. Add to this a bit of romance, some soap-opera, and even an attempt of an "epic fight". I won't say anything more clear than this because it is the only part that makes the movie to deserve watching. Overall I would say that the atmosphere has something from Terry Gilliam keeping the proportions (I don't know why it made me think at a mix between "Brazil" and "Brothers Grimm"). Unfortunately, the director here is not Terry Gilliam ...

There are some good scenes, but there are also a lot of examples that besides looking like "very made for TV" are obviously mediocre. You have the impression sometimes that you're watching a sort of low budget indie made by a couple of fresh cinema graduates = no polishing, only one take as good as it gets and that's all. If we consider the effects we have the same issue as in "Tin Man" = they're not looking like 2009, fortunately they're not many either. I don't know, maybe I'm too demanding for a TV production. For sure, if I spend some time looking for some long-length fantasy series I will probably find something to be worse than what we've seen here (for instance I remember "Camelot" right now which was lame as production level). On the other hand I don't have to look too far to find something clearly above this level = also at SyFy we had "The Lost Room" & "5ive Days to Midnight". Even if these didn't seem to be exactly for big screen they were certainly on a different class than what we have here. I still have to give this "Alice" credit though, comparing it with the abomination produced by Tim Burton. What we have here, as it is, is definitely more recommendable to watch compared to the chaotic disaster in that movie.

Finally, as a personal wish I have to say that I yearn for a SciFi miniseries by SyFy (not a fantasy one, since from what I see they can't really handle well the production level on these), but unfortunately it seems that "Alice" was followed by .. "Neverland" directed by the same Nick Willing ... So, maybe when the "the classic stories" will end ...

Rating: 3 out of 5 (mostly for the story, too bad for the final result)

Better than the trailer ( especially since I wasn't very positive :) ):

Safe House (2012)

"Safe House" is a sort of rehashed Bourne. That actually comes as a first recommendation: if you didn't like the last Bourne, probably watching "Safe House" is not the best choice, if you did like it you might give it a try but don't expect anything to top it.

The movie starts well, which attenuates a bit from the stupidity of the "Safe House - No One is Safe" tagline. However, considering you've seen this on the poster, it might be still better not to expect too much. The premise of the story though is rather original. Somewhere in South Africa, in a CIA safe house, we have an inexperienced agent (Ryan Reynolds) as the "host", or better said location administrator. Being bored to death and hoping for a promotion, in the spirit of the saying "be careful what you wish for", the guy gets one day the visit of an operative crew escorting a "guest". Which guest (Denzel Washington) is a former agent, went rogue for the last 10 years, and who apparently surrendered to the U.S. Consulate. I won't spoil all the beginning. To put it shortly, he seems to be followed by a whole bunch of very aggressive people who want something from him. In the end the movie is sort of like a continuous run .. a la Bourne .. but this comparison can stop somewhere at two thirds, if not before ...

The movie maintains a rhythm and an event flow built to be sufficiently "catchy" in the first part, but in the end ... 1. Light spoiler that grows up as you watch the movie: for a rather long period you don't really get to know who is the actual "bad guy", aspect that's supported by the standard technique of "subtle" suggestions .. so "subtle" that becomes clear what "surprise" will you get at the end. 2. The movie has a sort of impulse for cliche, but it manages to keep it contained for a while .. but not until the end, therefore making the final besides extremely predictable also quite boring. 3. The violence seemed to me a bit too exaggerated, although I normally don't have any issue with such things, and it's again especially towards the end of the movie .. to be honest I wonder if the director didn't take a holiday for a while making only sort of 1/2 of its job. To give also some good feedback I have to admit that the actors are up to their name indeed. Another thing to mention are some nice exterior shots giving you the feeling that South Africa is indeed the location where the action takes place. More than this .. it's ok as an average thriller to see before getting to bed when you don't have other better options .. it's a pity considering the beginning which was promising ...

Rating: 3 out of 5

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)

This entry should have been dedicated to "Chronicle", another movie chosen on the "under 90 minutes" criteria considering my current time limits. The reason to "pollute" my blog with "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" :) is that I'm not really in the mood to talk about "Chronicle". The reasons are many, starting from the lack of time for a detailed enough entry up to my deranged subconscious which by some weird connections made the story in that movie hard to watch, so what about writing more on it afterwards ? Therefore I'll leave "Chronicle" for another time and I'll turn to probably the weirdest title this year fortunately seen not that long ago, and still fresh in my mind.

Given the combination of terms in the movie subject, I started (like probably many others) with the premise of some stupid action getting into a dumb unwanted comedy at some points and ending up as superficial as "Wanted" .. another production of the same director (Timur Bekmambetov). I suppose that if you don't know anything about the movie, or even better .. if you know only half the title and you enter the cinema having a shock when you find out the other half, you might end up building exactly the impression described above about it. Ironically, I guess the movie is saved exactly by the fact that you cannot take seriously the subject before it starts knowing already the main idea. And the way the story unveils is like slapping you in the first phase exactly for this, in the sense .. ok ... wait a minute ... this doesn't look that dumb as I thought it would be ... More exactly, we have him, Abraham Lincoln, as a child losing his mother after a first encounter with a human blood sucker. The little Abe, not realizing yet who he's up against, builds a vengeance inner desire until he grows older enough to be able to confront the murderer. Surprise though .. the guy doesn't want to die from a normal bullet. Well .. further we have much more of the story to come :) I will only say that as I was suggesting above the movie will most likely seem less dumb than you were expecting, exactly due to the way the action builds in the first part. Actually, in the first half or even a bit more you could replace the name of the main character with any other. The role of "American President" enters the scene quite late and it's introduced completely separated from the story involving the long teeth specimens. Yes, the end mixes them up with the American Civil war and the personal life of the guy on the 5 dollar bill ... but this comes already at a moment in time when you might be able to accept also such nonsense as a story :) exactly due to the way it was built up to that point.

If the movie would have placed the same story in a hypothetical context (e.g.,: John Smith: Vampire Hunter where John Smith = obscure governor, senator, sheriff or I don't know what else), probably it would have greatly reduced the critics targeting the "attack" on the real history :). On the other hand the movie is based on a novel (who's author is also the screenwriter) that probably sold exactly due to the name on the cover :) And which after all (being a novel :p) has a story of more than five lines that mixes enough adventure, action, romance that depending on the mood to give good chances to be entertaining ;)

Rating:
3 out of 5 - totally objective
4 out of 5 - if you feel up to tolerate a "hardcore SF history hacking" without thinking too much about the real version .. + the 3D is nice here ;) even for me