« Three studies in erotic insolence/indolence, with Linda Darnell |
| Stuck on my eyes...what a surprise...my brain hurts a lot... »
And Brooklyn—he's at DeKalb Avenue above. I liked Statham's latest, Safe, okay, and here's why, for MSN Movies.
Posted at 11:29 AM in Movies | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Not I hope to be confused with "Safe"
David Ehrenstein |
April 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM
But does he take Berlin?
April 25, 2012 at 12:32 PM
You really think the Stathe could put up with 13 years of boredom?
But always nice to see cinema's poet laureate of jump-kicking people in the face at work.
Well, except for Revolver. And that one Uwe Boll picture (his grandfather Heinrich must have been so disappointed).
April 25, 2012 at 02:56 PM
Anyone seen Boaz Yakin's last movie DEATH IN LOVE? It's a familial horror movie with holocaust overtones starring Josh Lucas, Jacqueline Bisset, and Adam Brody. Kind of awkward and stilted with parts that don't work at all, but man, what a fascinating and riveting film. You get the sense of a filmmaker using the canvas to work out a lot of personal issues, not unlike the last two Von Triers. On Netflix Instant. Worth a watch.
April 25, 2012 at 03:03 PM
Graig, I was circling that movie when it was on VOD a while back. I'll check it out now, thanks.
April 25, 2012 at 03:15 PM
Is it 'Safe'?
Yes, it's safe, it's very safe, it's so safe you wouldn't believe it.
Is it '[SAFE]'?
No. It's not safe, it's... very dangerous, be careful -- OWWW!!!!!
April 25, 2012 at 03:17 PM
JF: I'm seriously surprised Revolver hasn't developed a cult by now; the thematic overreach only fuels the genuine weirdness at play. It's not Statham's masterpiece--I'd plug for Transporter 2, the best parts of the Crank films, even the underrated War--but it's as close to one as Ritchie will ever get.
Bruce Reid |
April 25, 2012 at 04:17 PM
Whatever enjoyment I was hoping to find in the weirdness of Revolver was undermined by the fact that Ritchie's particular type of vapid flashiness bores me. That one shootout near the end is kind of nifty but Neveldine/Taylor come up with something that inventive every 3 minutes.
April 25, 2012 at 05:12 PM
Jackie is superb in "Latter Days"
one of the best love stories of recent vintage.
David Ehrenstein |
April 25, 2012 at 08:30 PM
I couldn't stand Revolver, probably for many of the same reasons that others find it so fascinating-- for example, the bizarre end-credits interviews with pop psychologists.
Ray Liotta's eyeshadow was, as usual, fascinating, but I can watch other, better movies for that-- for example, that Uwe Boll movie Statham was in, IN THE NAME OF THE KING, which, um, is actually pretty good.
No, really, I mean it. It's a very idiosyncratic work of high fantasy. Other films in the genre would cast an old British dude to be the evil wizard; Boll casts Ray Liotta. The secondary villain is Matthew Lilliard, and he plays a very specific type very well. The film oozes oddity and presents unusual takes on familiar tropes. That's its strength; too many high fantasy films, especially in the wake of Jackson's LOTR trilogy, are homogeneous: they all do things one way. Fantasy *should* be idiosyncratic, dammit.
Now, Ritchie's REVOLVER is also idiosyncratic and strange, and the argument could be made that that's a good thing, too. I dunno; I got more out of IN THE NAME OF THE KING-- I'm likely to see it again, whereas I have no desire to suffer through REVOLVER once more.
Tom Russell |
April 26, 2012 at 02:22 AM
SNATCH-HUMOR+WHAT THE BLEEP TO WE KNOW?=REVOLVER
I'm almost tempted to actually put myself through IN THE NAME OF THE KING: A DUNGEON SIEGE TALE (can't forget the subtitle) now. But some of the stuff Boll's put out in his post-Internet-infamy period is so repugnant (Darfur? Auschwitz? Da fug?) that I'm not inclined to give him a millisecond more of my time.
April 26, 2012 at 02:48 AM
At this point in the current cinema, Statham is probably the most consistent lead figure in action movies. His films are rarely exceptional or terrible, but instead typically make for reliable genre escapism.
Admittedly, I have not seen '13' or 'In the Name of the King' so I'm not taking those into consideration.
Aden Jordan |
April 26, 2012 at 03:32 AM
Statham is actually good in Roger Donaldson's solid The Bank Job, in a non-action role. He just chooses material that won't challenge him. Saying that, the thought of him as Richard Stark's Parker baffles me.
Revolver: seemed like Richie doesnt have the intelligence as a filmmaker for his own themes. "Overreach" is a kind way of putting it.
David N |
April 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Well, I certainly know how to read a room. For me, Ritchie's urge to suddenly have something to say without actually leaving his comfort zone (like how Larry Flynt got Jesus and proceeded to photograph naked ladies on the cross) made both his action-movie tropes and his underbaked philosophies stranger and more entertaining than either would be on their own.
And I do like that push-in shootout JF mentions.
Bruce Reid |
April 26, 2012 at 07:37 PM
I actually think he's a good choice to play Parker. The fact that the movie doesn't seem to be actually based on any of Stark/Westlake's original novels is troubling, though.
A friend who saw Mel Gibson in GET THE GRINGO (formerly HOW I SPENT MY SUMMER VACATION) said it's actually closer to Parker than PAYBACK was. So of course it's premiering on video-on-demand.
April 26, 2012 at 08:17 PM
It's based on one of the later - post comeback - Parker novels, Flashfire..
David N |
April 27, 2012 at 07:27 AM
I saw "The Bank Job" is a shoddy dollar theater. What a perfect theater experience.
Peter Labuza |
April 27, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Probably should take advantage of the Statham shot above to plug Oscilloscope Pictures' recent DVD special edition of 'Dark Days', a Manhattan subway documentary all the more remarkable for being the work of a neophyte filmmaker.
April 29, 2012 at 05:39 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.