Wednesday, March 9, 2011
LUDICROUS BUT ENJOYABLE
A movie like The Next Three Days has to be taken only for what it is, totally in the moment, and it can't be given much thought afterwards. Otherwise, this totally ridiculous but entertaining thriller wouldn't work. The idea is preposterous -- a husband busts his wife out of prison for a crime she didn't commit -- but because of the way writer/director Paul Haggis goes about doing things, the film stays believable just enough for you to move from scene to scene without really being pissed off. I am sure you could nitpick this movie to death, and yes, soooo many things need to happen via the contrived plot in such precise ways that it seems like the movie could break down from some sort of mechanical malfunction. But as always, Russell Crowe totally demands your attention and does an excellent job portraying a regular guy thrust into an insane situation. He's long been one of my favorite actors and that'll never change. Elizabeth Banks (big fan) gets to shade her morally questionable character in some interesting ways which helps in keeping things slightly unpredictable (Haggis's decision to fracture the narrative at times contributes as well). The Next Three Days has a polished but unshowy visual style (Stefane Fontaine was the cinematographer) and it moves at a consistent pace so that nothing is ever boring. There's one big action set-piece and I will say this -- I've never seen a car-stunt like that one before. Overall, The Next Three Days is a totally competent genre entry that while never going above and beyond the call of duty, delivers a solid night's worth of cinematic thriller idiocy. It's a minor film for Haggis (In the Valley of Elah was phenomenal) but one that satisfies on a simple thriller level.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Unrelated: holy God, "Battle: Los Angeles" sounds awful. All these reviews...even Ebert (!) hated it.
Meanwhile, I just saw "Red Riding Hood" and it was a disaster. If "Battle: Los Angeles" manages to be worse...we're looking at a zero-star worthless piece of shit.
ZERO interest in Red Riding Hood --a movie couldn't interest me LESS to be honest.
Don't care about the reviews on Battle LA -- just want to see destruction.
And Joel, keep in mind, Ebert also didn't appreciate Bay's work on TF2
I'm seeing "Battle" tonight at midnight possibly.
All I know is, a critic and friend I trust said it made him long for "Skyline" (which made my list of the worst films from last year).
I'm keeping an open mind, but my expectations couldn't be any lower right now.
(Not that I don't trust you, lol.)
all i am expecting is 2 hours of pure combat/fighting with lots of cool looking cinematography. nothing more, nothing less.
and I still didn't see Skyline yet...
"Skyline" is bar none one of the most numbskulled, idiotic, painfully-acted science fiction movies ever. To put it this way: it was as unbelievably awful as "Dragon Wars" for about 80 minutes, then really cool for five. It's one of the few big-budget films that would look absolutely atrocious on Blu-ray (yeah). It's a D- movie at best and not one you need to see. I say this as a sci-fi enthusiast and a film-lover.
So, obviously, if someone said "Battle: Los Angeles" made them long for "Skyline," I can only imagine how unbelievably awful this movie must be.
And I'm hoping that it is a "Transformers 2" situation, simply because it looks like beautiful destruction. But they're not QUITE in the same genre, and "Skyline" is, so the comparison worries me.
But, like I said, I'll keep my mind open. I may love it.
Post a Comment