From Paris With Love

Directed by Pierre Morel

Starring Jonathan Rhys Meyers and John Travolta

Albert's take:
RETURN TO SENDER


At this point, I watch movies so consistently that I can pretty easily spot patterns in their release dates. Movie seasons aren’t just a buzzword in Entertainment Weekly to me anymore; they’re a gut-felt reality.

Like Oscar season, for example. The holidays are for contemplation. People are working less, spending more time with loved ones, winding down the year. They want serious stuff to chew on, so out with the statue bait.

With the start of the year, though, life’s busy on the home and work fronts -- New Year’s resolutions, work to catch up on, kids going back to school. Hence the low season for movies, of which “From Paris with Love” is a timely example.

I saw not one redeeming quality in “From Paris” as I watched it, and I still can’t even in hindsight. The only reason I can fathom for its release -- or its making, for that matter -- is the producers’ cynical hope that it’ll squeeze some dollars from the folks who happen to have some downtime this season and have already sat through three screenings of “Avatar.”

Forgive me now, but on account of how gracelessly the movie presents itself, I feel that a critique by bullet point is the only proper response.

1. The movie has a terminal identity crisis -- it’s a comedy trapped in the body of a thriller. Every attempted laugh is paired with the most inappropriate dire strokes on the soundtrack or explicit violence, which fast becomes unsettling. But that may be just as well, because I doubt the movie would have worked even as a comedy. (See “John Travolta,” below.)

2. The casting is a close second, as foul-ups are concerned. This is the third Hollywood movie in recent memory that casts an actor from the UK as an American (the other two being “Crazy Heart” and “The Men Who Stare at Goats”), and the third one to fail in the execution. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is a talented actor, cold but gentlemanly – when speaking in his native accent, that is. Here, he’s stiff and unconvincing in his every moment as an American secret agent, and it’s painful to watch. Note to casting directors: Not every UK actor can be Hugh Laurie, so stop arbitrarily casting them as Yanks.

And John Travolta -- why? As in, why cast him, and why did he agree to star? He’s done up as a Vin Diesel clone, embarrassing to behold, and he overacts the part by half, mugging as if he got paid per grin and shamelessly rehashing “Pulp Fiction” – and by that I mean Samuel L. Jackson’s role, the way he curses and jives his way through the entire movie. Note to casting directors, part two: Do not cast any white person above the age of 35 for a role that requires use of the word “motherfucker.”

3. The narrative is a mess. Long stretches of it consist of John Travolta kicking down doors, threatening violence on people deserving and undeserving, then carrying out said threats. Repeat ad infinitum -- never mind buildup, intrigue, segues, drama. At some point Travolta’s character -- a veteran agent, though God only knows how he got to be one -- explains the plot to a coke-addled Meyers, who hears the speech as a blur. I felt very much the same, sitting in the audience.

By movie’s end, which came about an hour and 20 minutes too late for me, I was embarrassed to be seen walking out of the auditorium. My only hope is that “From Paris with Love” represents some kind of winter solstice for movies -- an ultimate low point that’s unbearable on its own terms but otherwise exists to point out, Hey, things can’t get any worse!

1 out of 5

Don's take:
MOREL WITH CHEESE


This movie is one of two things. Pierre Morel may have been going for satire here with his portrayal of two American secret agents fighting terrorists while destroying everything in their path along the way. If it is that, the satire is weak, lacks insight, and frankly, already been done a lot better in Trey Parker and Matt Stone's Team America.

Of course, there's the chance that it's exactly what it looks like: a banal, homoerotic action flick with terrible dialogue and little intrigue. I suspect its the latter. Either way, its an utter waste of your time and money.

1 out of 5

And now... THE 180 DEGREE RULE


DON: You called it -- the post-Oscar pre-summer-blockbuster season is the nadir of the year for movies. My only reward for continuing to go to the movies in recent weeks is that I get to come here to our blog and complain about it.

ALBERT: I honestly didn't think movies could get more useless this season than "Legion" or "Edge of Darkness." This one came as a low blow to me. I mean, did a screenwriter and a director out there feel that much of a need to insult an audience?

DON: Frankly, I don't know if this was an insult. I don't sense that Morel is some kind of genius that is putting out this drivel as commentary on how stupid he thinks the world is. This is the guy who gave us Taken after all. I think this is what he calls entertainment.


ALBERT: Did the movie get a single laugh at the screening you went to? At mine, no. And the movie was sort of avant garde in that way, how it would present something that you knew on some level was a joke, but then hopelessly sabotage it every time on the soundtrack and the cinematography and the directing and the acting and ... everything else.

DON: There was one guy in the back who was laughing, but he also laughed at the trailer for that time machine hot tub movie.

ALBERT: Did you have a problem with Jonathan Rhys Meyers' casting too? I can't figure out why casting directors keep doing this -- the British-as-American actors don't add anything to the movies they're in. They're practically novelties, and extremely wooden ones at that.

DON: If this were a better movie, I would have had a problem with it like I had with Colin Farrell (who is Irish) in Crazy Heart. I think you are on to something though. Maybe these guys have so much of their focus on getting the accent right that they can't relax in their role.

ALBERT: Yeah, and it's a shame. Jonathan Rhys Meyers was great in "Match Point." But here, he just seemed insecure and divested of all his power. Which made the pairing of him and Travolta even more awkward than it was.

DON: Yeah, it was pretty awkward. Morel may as well have written a sword fighting scene between the two into the movie. It was a veritable smorgasbord for students of Freudian psychology. I swear, Morel kills off Rhys-Meyer's character's fiancee to make possible a relationship between Travolta and his characters.

That does it for another week of The Alias Men. Join us next week for reviews of "The Wolfman," starring Anthony Hopkins and Benicio Del Toro, and we will also be reviewing "Valentine's Day." Until then, you stay classy, Alias Friends...

Edge of Darkness

Directed by Martin Campbell

Starring Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Bojana Novakovic and Danny Huston

Don's take:
BLUE BRAINS: THE INTELLECTUAL EQUIVALENT OF BLUE BALLS


With the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations must be viewed as people thereby giving them the ability to contribute to political parties without limitation and with the ensuing paranoia that our country is becoming increasingly controlled by corporate interests, the theme of "Edge of Darkness" seems decidedly apropos. Knowing little about the movie, as it began to reveal its motives, I found my interest piqued; would this movie be a scathing indictment of the corporatocracy that threatens to take over? I hoped so. But in the end, "Edge of Darkness" never amounted to more than a simple movie mystery, and one that was neither mysterious nor satisfying in its resolution.

Mel Gibson plays Thomas Craven, a hardened Boston police chief with a soft spot reserved for his only daughter, Emma. Not long after she arrives home for a long overdue visit, she falls ill, vomiting and bleeding out of her nose. As they rush out the door to take her to the hospital, she tries to confess to her father some terrible things she has gotten herself involved in, but before she can explain, they are met at the front door by a gunmen who yells "Craven" before blasting Emma with a shotgun. In seek of revenge, Craven conducts his own investigation as to the reason for his daughter's murder and unveils a conspiracy involving the corporation that his daughter worked for.

At a glance, "Edge of Darkness" looks and feels great. Its moody and gritty like a good mystery should be; think A History of Violence with a little Ransom. And Mel Gibson classes up pretty much any joint he's in. He is always great, too, as an avenging or protective father and this movie is no exception-- he just has this paternal vibe in him that you believe. It all had me ready to really dig my teeth into some mystery. The only thing is it never really came. I felt like the movie revealed itself too quickly and obviously. The foreshadowing was just a little too telling giving away what were no doubt meant to be the film's surprises. Without giving anything away, the film ends untidily with a fairly predictable shootout that left a lot unresolved and left me unsatisfied.

I have a hunch this was all somewhat deliberate on the part of its director, Martin Campbell. "Edge" appears to be conscious effort to make a mystery movie without employing the use of red herrings or "Scooby-Doo" endings and it's nearly pathological in its mission. If I am right, I applaud Campbell for his bold directorial decision. But like every Maverick, every now and then, you make a misstep.

3 out of 5


Albert's take:
LOOSE LIPS SINK FLICKS


Is this a movie or a table read? Aren’t thrillers based on conspiracies supposed to unfold with some intrigue, some subtlety, some moderate twisting and turning?

Not according to “Edge of Darkness.” Every plot point in the narrative might as well be a station on a subway line, the way Mel Gibson finds the right bad guy at just the right place and time, and gets a full, bald-faced confession by doing nothing more clever than brandishing a gun in said bad guy’s face. And I don’t care how much Gibson and others underact in this film; it doesn’t make their hopelessly expository dialogue any more credible.


The one bright point in this movie, one that’s totally wasted, is Ray Winstone as a special-ops freelancer with a philosophy -- he steals every scene he’s in, and could easily have carried the movie on his own. BBC Films co-produced this picture, but they might have been better off investing in a vehicle for Winstone.

2 out of 5


And now... THE 180 DEGREE RULE


ALBERT: I'm glad you saw what I saw: The movie is an anti-thriller. I'm sure the premise could have been worked into something intriguing, but the movie lacked any sort of grace or acrobatics in its narrative.


DON: Apparently, I saw a little more artistry in what Campbell was trying to achieve here. I could be projecting it--I suspect I am not. This is the man who brought us the superb Casino Royale after all. I'm glad you mentioned WInstone -- he is the UK's answer to Michael Madsen.

ALBERT: He made Casino Royale? Good Lord, then I'm even more disappointed. I see here on Wikipedia that the movie is an adaptation of an old BBC series. That and Campbell's 007 connection explain the BBC's involvement. The dialogue in this movie was what killed it for me -- it was all too expository, and it came out with not enough prodding. You'd think people covering up a nuclear weapons program and multiple murders would be a little more tight-lipped than this. And I didn't like that sometimes Gibson's character wouldn't even be involved in the beans-spilling -- the villains would just chat away amongst themselves, filling the audience in on everything they didn't know.

DON: Yes, many many plot holes in this movie... To add to the list, (SPOILER WARNING) why did they bother to shoot the girl if they had already poisoned her. And then there was the scene where the girl steps out of the car and gets hit. It was bad enough that you could predict that minutes before it happened, but how could the killer have possibly known exactly what moment the girl would be stepping out of the car? It was going full speed when it made impact. (END SPOILERS)


ALBERT: There were a lot of cheap, unbelievable, only-in-the-movies thrills like that. And as much as I liked Ray Winstone in this movie, I didn't buy that he could sneak up on people like a ninja -- the guy's carrying, what, 40, 50 extra pounds? And he wasn't even panting.

DON: Hey! That's not fair! It's 25 kilos! He's a Brit. I have to admit, part of the reason I was so disappointed is because I have developed a taste for cheesy revenge movies since I saw Taken. This movie in particular has drawn a lot of comparisons to Taken, but it wasn't nearly as fun.

ALBERT: Ah, yes. Not only was this movie an anti-thriller, it was an anti-Taken. I liked Taken for what it was -- preposterous and over-the-top. It stuck to its guns. Edge of Darkness went too much for realism of some sort, in that it was talky and underacted. Maybe another sign of the British influence?


DON: Perhaps. I actually didn't mind Gibson or Winstone. I thought they were fine given the material, but the supporting cast was godawful. Particularly the boyfriend. He made Sofia Coppola in Godfather III look like Julia Roberts.

ALBERT: Yeah, what was with giving so much screen time to these non-actors? I guess the studios wanted to save on casting, because most of the characters who talk end up biting it at the end of their big scene. I thought the use of guns was a copout in this movie. Just about everyone dies in a graphic, hamfisted way, it seems, because the screenwriter wasn't clever enough to figure out an alternative. I thought of the final scenes of "The Departed," and not in a good way.

DON: As I scoured the internet for pictures of this movie, I found myself naming most of them "(insert character's name) Pointing Gun." That's pretty telling. The sad thing is that for a movie that involves so much gunplay, it was done very poorly. Directorial decision or just poor choreography? Either way, it was uninteresting.

Well, that does it for another Alias Men. This will be our only review this week as even we weren't masochistic enough to go see When In Rome. We'll be back Tuesday, February 9th with a review of Pierre Morel's "From Paris With Love." Morel is better known as the director of one of my guiltiest pleasures, "Taken." So until next time, Alias Don... OUT!