Film Junk » Reed’s Bargain Bin

Reed’s Bargain Bin: Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever

Reed — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:39:47 +0000

Reed’s Bargain Bin is a recurring column where Reed Farrington tells us about a movie he bought for under $5, and whether or not he regrets the purchase. “Blowed ‘em up good, blowed ‘em up real good!” If Big Jim McBob and Billy Sol Hurok from SCTV’s Farm Film Report had been on Rotten Tomatoes’ (RT) staff, then there’s no way that Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (BEVS) would ever be in the list of RT’s worst movies of the past decade. So, in the opinion of Reed Farrington, does this movie deserve to be at the top of that list? Well, that “worst of” list was the impetus I needed to finish watching this film that had been sitting in my stockpile for the past three years. I hadn’t realized that I had watched all of it up to the last ten minutes. Perhaps this is indicative of how bad BEVS is, but I also have movies like The Lord of the Rings that I haven’t finished watching either. And some people seem to think LOTR is good. I get the impression that the title of BEVS is the main reason why this movie got placed at the top of the list. People seem to think it’s a silly title. I think the title gives some indication that the tone of the movie is comic book-like. And the word “ballistic” in the title is really appropriate given the amount of artillery that we see used in the movie. The plot is not terribly original. Basically, a woman secret agent named Sever (Lucy Liu) seeks revenge against a former boss, Robert Gant (Gregg Henry), gone bad. An FBI agent named Ecks (Antonio Banderas) is brought in to investigate Gant’s involvement with the destruction of a research facility creating assassin nanobots. As you might have guessed from the title of this movie, Ecks has some confrontations with Sever. The movie does avoid some clichés. I thought for sure that the Asian buddy cop with a young daughter was going to bite the bullet, so to speak. However, this movie does have Ecks walking towards the camera slowly from an explosion in the background. I thought Banderas does a nice job with his character. His use of a shotgun is pretty cool. The movie is somewhat lacking in humor, but there’s an amusing scene that Banderas pulls off really well. He’s sitting in a room with a cop’s young daughter who shyly doesn’t say anything. I’ll leave it at that. During the development of this movie, Sever was going to be male. When it was decided that making her female might be more interesting, it was actually Banderas who suggested Lucy Liu for the part. I like that these two agents have a respect for each other that doesn’t result in them ending up in bed with one another. You might know the bad guy, Gregg Henry. He’s a character actor who has worked steadily since the mid ‘70s to the present. Looking at his list of credits, I’m not sure which role he’s the best known for. I happen to have his autograph. Why, you might ask? Because I know him from his role as Gallatin, a member of the Son’a race from Star Trek: Insurrection. (I got his autograph from a box of collecting cards for Insurrection.) He plays a typical bad guy in this movie. The movie is directed by Kaos (short for Kaosayananda). Given the pretentiousness of his name, I think this is another reason why people would tend to dislike this film. From the “making of” documentary, Kaos appeared to be a young Asian guy. By young, I mean early 20s. (I did some research. Turns out he was 28 when he made BEVS.) It seems he got the job directing BEVS based on a heist film, Fah, that he had made in Thailand. Fah may have been popular in Thailand, but it has a low rating on IMDb. Interestingly, IMDb doesn’t list any directing credits for Kaos after BEVS. Maybe I should feature Kaos in a new installment of my series on why Asian directors fail in Hollywood. The movie was written by Alan McElroy who wrote Spawn. I admit Spawn was pretty terrible. McElroy is still writing movies like Wrong Turn and its sequel. To the filmmakers’ credit, the city of Vancouver is actually used as the city of Vancouver rather than an American city. The movie does make good use of locations. Aerial views of the city streets and panoramic shots of the surrounding mountains highlight the beauty of the area. There are some nicely photographed scenes. There’s a slow-motion scene of Ecks smoking and walking in the rain. The scenes at Vancouver Aquarium where Ecks rendezvous with his wife were beautifully done. The action is competently choreographed and shot. The fighting doesn’t get too boring and Antonio Banderas and Lucy Liu handle the fight scenes well. Banderas and Liu tried to handle as much of the stunt work as possible. I could not tell when a stunt double was used. During a motorcycle and car chase, Banderas can be definitely recognized riding the motorcycle. In another sequence, Banderas runs through a bunch of explosions with shrapnel clearly being blown into his face. I don’t see how this could be safe to do. There is a climactic battle between Sever and a henchman played by Ray Park. Since Ray Park has a background in fighting skills (he played Darth Maul in The Phantom Menace), then I’m guessing he didn’t need a fight double. The stunts are nicely done with nothing fake looking. There’s a nice stunt scene with the camera looking down and following a guy as he falls from several stories up onto the top of a cop car. We actually see the impact of the guy with the car as its roof caves in and the windows blow out. Later on, there’s a nice double car twist in the air with the cars flying over a stunt person. No one reading this probably knows who an actress named Sandrine Holt is. She was a lead character on a John Woo television series back in the late ‘90s called Once a Thief. Anyway, she appears in a non-speaking role for less than thirty seconds in the movie, and yet, she managed to get an actor credit in the opening movie titles. Her agent deserves to get some credit for arranging that. Unfortunately, I doubt she would want this notorious movie in her acting credits. So what are some reasons for why this movie is considered to be so bad? The movie’s duration is under an hour and a half, so it moves along at an adequate pace. There are some plot developments that may seem outlandish. Some might question how Sever is able to defeat armies of people with weapons. Some might also question why she does certain things in the movie if her sole motive is to get revenge on Gant. But I think the ending is appropriate and explains why she did the things she did. I admit that the dialog is less than sparkling, but this is the case for most movies, I think. There are occasional exchanges and lines that I guess are so “bad” that they’re “good”:

Ecks: Where did you get all the ordnance from? Sever: Some women like to collect shoes.

Cop: Where’s the mysterious killer? Ecks: She’s not a killer. Cop: Then what is she. Ecks: She’s a mother.

Cop (speaking to Ecks): My daughter asked me why you look so sad. I told her that you got beaten up by a girl.

I think there are many films that are pretty bland and that would not generate a single RT fresh review. For BEVS, I can sort of believe that out of 107 reviews on RT, none were fresh. Richard Reid of the Northwest Cable News is obviously not included among the 107 reviewers because he is quoted on the BEVS’s DVD cover as saying, “Smart, lethal and sexy. One hell of a wild ride!” (Yeah, I know. Sometimes these blurbs are made up.) I did read over some of the reviews and I did think the criticisms were exaggeratedly harsh. The Critics Consensus summary for the film is undeserved. “A startlingly inept film”? I don’t think so. I wouldn’t recommend BEVS to anyone, but I enjoyed watching it. Based on the ending of the movie, I’m going to advance a theory that I’m going to claim credit for and that answers why Sever is so hard to kill. Sever is a replicant. Amount I paid: $1.99. Bargain bin rating: $2.50.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Reed’s Bargain Bin: Babylon A.D.

Reed — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:20:43 +0000

Reed’s Bargain Bin is a recurring column where Reed Farrington tells us about a movie he bought for under $5, and whether or not he regrets the purchase. Even though Film Junk followers would probably prefer to read current TIFF film reviews than a review of an older science fiction film, I have decided to submit this review of “Babylon A.D.” And at the risk of further enforcing the view that I have a poor taste in films, my review is generally a favorable one in contrast to popular opinion. I was aware that this film did poorly at the box office, but I didn’t realize how many bad reviews this film received until after I had watched the film and checked out the reviews on the Internet. The reason why I watched this film is that I try to watch all the high profile science fiction movies regardless of audience reception. Given that this movie was not screened for critics and that advertising was minimal, I wonder why this movie did not get a straight-to-DVD release instead. Perhaps Vin Diesel’s name attached to an action movie was seen as critic-proof. I admit that I was curious why the director, Mathieu Kassovitz, had said negative things about the movie prior to its theatrical release. I had never heard a director be so negative about his own movie during pre-release publicity. Kassovitz disparaged his producers for not being supportive of his vision for the film. One would think that saying negative things about people in the industry would be career suicide. Kassovitz does have his own production company and despite his honesty, he seems to be still active in film production since having made Babylon A.D. Earlier, he had shown his talent by winning the Best Director award at the 1995 Cannes Film Festival for a race relations film called La Haine (which translates to “The Hatred”). The American release of Babylon A.D. was edited to be 10 minutes shorter than the European version. The version on DVD is labeled as “Raw and Uncut” with “over 10 minutes of additional explosive action!” I wonder if this unrated extended cut is the European version. The theatrical cut is also provided on the DVD. My opinion of the film is based on the extended cut. Many reviewers complained about the incoherent and illogical plot for the theatrical release, so maybe the extended cut did fix some of this. I did end up watching the theatrical version before finishing this review. I’ll get back to this later in the review. In Babylon A.D., Vin Diesel portrays a character, Toorop, not unlike Riddick in my opinion. I even find his XXX character to be like Riddick. I liked Pitch Black, but I found The Chronicles of Riddick to be boring. I am not a big fan of Vin Diesel, but I find his action character persona to be likable. He’s gruff and blunt, but his heart seems to be in the right place. I wonder if Vin Diesel fans would be even more forgiving of this film’s perceived flaws. Many reviewers thought Diesel acted like he was bored in the film and that he wasn’t much of a protagonist, but I’m fine with that kind of portrayal even though I disagree with these reviewers. I thought that Kevin Costner took a bold move by making his character in Waterworld unlikable, even going so far to have his character take food from a child. Toorop is a reluctant hero, but one that can be relied on to do the right thing in the end. He even seems to take food from a child at one point, but he goes out of his way to give food back. Toorop is hired by a mercenary boss (Gérard Depardieu) to smuggle a young woman (Mélanie Thierry) from a Mongolian convent to New York City. Sister Rebeka (Michelle Yeoh) accompanies them. Thus the film is basically structured as a simple chase film with the importance of the young woman being a mystery that slowly unravels with possible misdirection. There is also a mysterious Noelite organization (headed by Charlotte Rampling) that supports the Mongolian convent. The casting of Hong Kong action star Michelle Yeoh as Sister Rebeka should probably be a clue that Sister Rebeka is no ordinary escort for the young woman. Yeoh does add tenderness to her character that one might not expect from an action star. She seems to genuinely care for the well being of the young woman in her care. As the young woman, Aurora, Mélanie Thierry has a wide-eyed innocence necessary for a character that has been raised in isolation. Through her, we get the perspective of how badly society has deteriorated. It is understandable how a character like Toorop would be affected by her outlook. As a mercenary, Toorop can’t give a second thought to a human life. The film makes a point that Toorop has never had a family life. The extreme circumstances of their journey bond Toorop, Aurora, and Sister Rebeka. I thought the performances in the interactions of all three actors were very well done, and I found the dialogue interesting. When Sister Rebeka first meets Toorop, she lays ground rules for the journey. One of the rules is that she has no tolerance for foul language. Well, you can probably expect what Toorup’s response will include. At the beginning of the film, Eastern Europe is shown as a place where society has broken down with people scrounging to survive. The production design seems very simple, and one wonders if a limited budget is the reason. There are some glimpses of a futuristic society with a mercenary tank’s hi-tech interior being notable. A folding map made of electronic paper is a nice touch. (I don’t think they’ve solved the problem of how to fold a map back after unfolding though.) A motel shower that sprays water based on paid time increments seems logical in a future world where fresh water might be more precious. When the locale switches to New York, it becomes obvious that the film is set in a future time. The blatant exorbitant use of electricity or energy for lighting the city is a stark contrast to the earlier European setting, but it visually displays the class hierarchy that exists between people from different areas of the world. Scored by composers Hans Zimmer and Atli Örvarsson, the music is a mix of hip-hop, rock, choral and classical music with the emphasis on the latter. Achozen (Shavo Odadjian and RZA) performed the score. Given the theme of the film, I thought the use of choral music was most appropriate. I would think that the use of hip-hop music will date this film when hip-hop has died in a decade or so. (I’m sure Sean will add a Film Junk disclaimer here that this opinion only reflects the reviewer’s personal opinion.) Some reviewers have noted that the plot is a mess. At one point, a group of people skilled in parkour attempt to snatch Aurora away. They are easily scared away when Toorop wounds one of them with a rifle shot. One might wonder why they don’t carry weapons or why they aren’t more persistent afterwards. We do find out later who they are. I simply think they are non-violent in keeping with who they are. I guess one has to wonder why Aurora was kept in the Mongolian convent in the first place rather than closer to New York City. Also why is her trip to New York City entrusted to only one individual? I suppose the Noelites might not have wanted to attract too much attention to Aurora, but I must admit that I think the Noelites should have taken precautions for Aurora’s safety. There is a snowmobile action sequence that would seem unnecessary if they simply flew across the snowy region, but maybe with the aerial attack drones, traveling on land offers a better chance of survival. I’m guessing that North America has somehow isolated itself from the rest of the world so that aerial transportation across the border is impossible. In any case, I was not distracted enough by possible plot-holes for me to come away with a negative reaction to the entire film. The meaning of the title of this film is not overt in the film. The film is based on a French cyberpunk novel, Babylon Babies, written by Maurice G. Dantec who was formerly a punk rocker. The novel has a cult following in France with a New York Times Book Review reviewer stating that the novel is under-appreciated. Derived from an ancient city during biblical times, the word “Babylon” is applied to a place of luxury and sensuality with the unfortunate consequences of corruption and sin. It can also carry the connotation of a place of exile. In the film, the decadence of New York City is reflected in the bright lights. On the other hand, cities in Eastern Europe and Russia are places of exile from what we see. Terrorism seems to afflict Europe and Asia whereas New York City seems unaffected. I got the impression that terrorism was maintained or at least supported by corporations. I should note that Babylon Babies was published in 1999 before 9/11. The film has been Americanized in that the final destination in the novel was in Quebec, Canada rather than New York City. The “A.D.” in the title is a foreshadowing although Toorop does narrate in the opening minutes of the film that he “died.” When applied to dates, I always think of “A.D.” as meaning “after death” (i.e., of Christ) when it actually stands for “Anno Domini” which is Latin for “in the year of the Lord.” To avoid spoiling the plot too much, there are religious overtones that make the use of “A.D” in the title significant. Admittedly, my review might be imposing a thoughtful interpretation that this film doesn’t merit. But I think this film also works as an entertaining, mindless action film. The action sequences aren’t really exceptional, but there are a few cool moments. I thought the camera placement and movement was excellent throughout the film. I thought the movie was paced well and I didn’t find any scenes to be extraneous. I guess if I were to find fault, I would say that the film doesn’t offer much new to say about its subject matter. However, there was the strange new idea to me that the hotel room’s massive television screen couldn’t be turned off. You could only change the channel. Or maybe Toorop was making a joke. As I had mentioned near the beginning of this review, I decided to watch the theatrical version of this film weeks after watching the extended unrated cut. I found myself engrossed in the narrative again, so I guess this is a testament to the movie standing up to repeated viewings. The DVD doesn’t have any feature that tells you the differences between the two versions on the DVD. And since Kassovitz has pretty much disowned this film, there isn’t a director’s commentary or any commentary at all to help. There also aren’t any “making of” featurettes. Because I had watched the unrated extended cut weeks earlier and my memory fades rather quickly, I didn’t notice which scenes were missing from the shorter theatrical cut. I did notice that the ending had been altered. One review I had read said that the theatrical version had the worst ending of any movie he had ever seen! So I guess the people involved in the unrated extended cut agreed with this assessment. Surprisingly, the theatrical cut contains an ending action sequence that is omitted from the unrated extended cut. If you’re a science fiction film fan, then you’re probably aware of many versions of Blade Runner. The theatrical release of that movie had a Dekker narration that was added in order to make the film understandable to film audiences. At the theatres, many reviewers found the plot of Babylon A.D. incomprehensible (or at least illogical as I’ve halfheartedly explained with examples earlier). So in the case of Babylon A.D., it appears that additional Toorop narration was added to the unrated extended cut for DVD to make the film understandable. I don’t have an immediate preference for either cut of Babylon A.D. I can see why some people might find the “feel-good” ending of the theatrical cut to be schmaltzy. I hope I’m not spoiling the ending by saying this, but Babylon A.D. could be an unintended prequel to Vin Diesel’s movie The Pacifier. Amount I paid: $3.33. Bargain bin rating: $4.25.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Reed’s Bargain Bin: S1m0ne

Reed — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:15:02 +0000

Reed’s Bargain Bin is a recurring column where Reed Farrington tells us about a movie he bought for under $5, and whether or not he regrets the purchase. Despite the clever title and participation of Al Pacino, S1m0ne did not receive much attention from critics or movie theatre audiences when it came out in 2002. The director, Andrew Niccol, had some acclaim as a result of having directed Gattaca (a smart science fiction film about a physically defective human in a genetically manipulated world) and having written The Truman Show (a smart allegorical film about a man who's oblivious to the fact that his life has been manufactured for the purposes of a television show). S1m0ne also has a high concept idea behind it: a movie director creates a computer generated actor who becomes a star while only he knows that the actor is computer generated. I think I’ve had S1m0ne in my bargain bin stockpile for at least two years. I had watched the first 10 minutes when I had bought the DVD. Despite the appearance of Winona Ryder, who I’ve adored ever since Lucas (though, that love was tempered as a result of her shoplifting incident), I wasn’t sufficiently induced to finish watching the movie at the time. My best friend who shared my tastes had even liked the film. I guess I had assumed the film would be more drama than action, and given a choice, I prefer adrenal stimulation. At this point, I should warn you that if you continue reading without having seen the film, then your expectations may be ruined. Every review of this film that I’ve come across spoils this film in explaining why this film is unsatisfying, so I feel I should be allowed the same leeway. I am not a fan of Al Pacino despite having seen The Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico, Scarface, and even The Scent of a Woman. So I suppose this was another reason why S1m0ne sat in my bargain bin stockpile. Niccol has stated that he wanted an actor like Pacino as the movie director character, Viktor, because he needed an actor who could be compelling during the scenes where he sits at a computer creating the computer generated actor. I suspect that this movie might be the only science fiction movie that we will ever see in Pacino’s list of acting credits. For some reason, there are certain actors who I can never imagine being able to pull off the role of a starship captain. I would include Robert DeNiro in this list. I guess this is why great actors can be miscast. Pacino is good at playing harried characters who are railing against an authoritative or entrenched system, so in a sense, he is good for this part. The audience is drawn into his scheme. Being somewhat a pessimist, I was expecting a bad outcome for Viktor even though he has the best intentions behind his actions. Pacino is supported by a noteworthy cast. Catherine Keener (Synecdoche, New York, The 40 Year Old Virgin) plays his ex-wife who he still loves. Evan Rachel Wood (The Wrestler, Across the Universe) plays his daughter. Pruitt Taylor Vince (Deadwood, The X-Files) and Jason Schwartzman (The Darjeeling Limited, Rushmore) play skeptical investigative reporters, or should I say tabloid journalists, who we think will unravel Pacino’s scheme. Elias Koteas (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), a Canadian actor who reminds me of Robert DeNiro, plays the part of the inventor of the technology behind the computer generated actor. (He was also in Gattaca.) Now I suppose the implausibility of Pacino’s scheme in fooling everyone with his computer generated character is a major point that most audience members will balk at. Even when Viktor comes clean after the authorities think that he has murdered Simone, no one will believe that Simone was not a real person. I’m guessing that the filmmakers are satirizing the gullibility of people when it comes to celebrity worship. In the real world, most people would suspect that at least one person would see through the ruse and reveal the deception; however, there are quite a few people who side with conspiracy theorists, so maybe it is possible to deceive everyone. By the way, Viktor “destroys” Simone with a virus that is contained on a 5.25 inch floppy! Were we still using 5.25 inch floppies in 2002? The technology behind Simone is glossed over, but this is fine since the point of the movie is not about actors being replaced in the future. Some reviewers think there were missed opportunities in the premise. I was almost expecting that the filmmakers would take the obvious route of having Simone become sentient. If you take the view that even life is not as rational as a tightly plotted script, then you can accept what transpires in S1m0ne. Perhaps you can criticize the movie for its blandness and obviousness, but I enjoyed watching Viktor handle his predicament and the prevalent issues between creator and creation. Oh, this movie has an additional somewhat amusing throwaway scene after the end credits. At the time the movie was made, the filmmakers had been thinking of actually using a fully computer generated character for Simone. I’m not sure if that would have been possible at the time. Even the characters in the Final Fantasy film that was released a year earlier weren’t fully realistic. I’m not even sure a character could be generated nowadays that would fool people. Supposedly, the Screen Actors Guild had reservations about the filmmakers attempting to use a CGI character, so the filmmakers decided to hire an actress. Part of the film’s publicity was to conceal the fact that an actress was used. The actress wasn’t even credited in the original prints of the film that was shown in movie theatres. Rachel Roberts, who’s Canadian, plays the computer generated actor who achieves stardom. Ironically, she has only had some small television roles ever since this movie. She did marry Niccol shortly after S1m0ne. I guess that’s one of the perks for a big-time movie director. Niccol's movies seem to have a common thread of deception. His last movie was the 2005 film, Lord of War, with Nicolas Cage. His next movie, The Cross, currently shooting in Australia, stars Orlando Bloom whom we haven’t seen since the last Pirates movie. This science fiction movie set in the near future is about a man trying to cross a border that has never been crossed. Shades of The Truman Show! In closing, I wanted to draw attention to an interesting list of names in S1m0ne's end credit scroll with the following heading: Simone wishes to thank the following for their contribution to the making of Simone Lauren Bacall Ingrid Bergman Mary J. Blige Ernest Borgnine Marlene Dietrich Claire Forlani Greta Garbo Rita Hayworth Audrey Hepburn Katharine Hepburn Grace Kelly Veronica Lake Sophia Loren Jayne Mansfield Marilyn Monroe Rachel Roberts & Hank Aleno Software, Inc. I imagine elements of the actresses in this list were used somehow in the modification of Rachel Roberts. To me, Simone does seem pretty perfect physically. In comparing photographs of Rachel Roberts with Simone, Simone does seem to be subtly different, but I couldn’t tell you which of Rachel Roberts’ features have been modified. Perhaps the influence of the above actresses was more in Simone’s voice. I’m guessing the actresses listed provided inspiration rather than actual characteristics. My mind is drawn to the comedic feature on Conan O’Brien where he would take photographs of two beautiful people and morph their images to produce a composite photograph to illustrate what their offspring would look like. (In case you’re not familiar with this comedy bit, let me tell you that the images would always be grotesque.) If you actually read through that list of actresses, then you should have noticed a peculiar name in that list. Ernest Borgnine! Some of you younger folk may not know who he is. Look up his image on IMDb. I wouldn’t call him a pretty boy. Borgnine was in Niccol’s Gattaca. There must be an in-joke attached to this. By the way, Hank Aleno is the name of the movie character that created the software that Viktor uses to create Simone. There are several names in the movie that are anagram-like or homonym-like, or that serve as allusions. For example, the name Viktor is a reference to Victor Frankenstein. For my own edification (or should I say gratification), I thought I would compile a more contemporary list of actresses that I would use to create a physically perfect woman: Jessica Alba Elizabeth Banks Halle Berry Cecilia Cheung Heather Graham Katie Holmes Kristin Kreuk Winona Ryder Michelle Williams Kitty Zhang & Ziyi Zhang I can’t come up with a witty name for a sequel. The closest I’ve come are variations of Tuesday and Gertrude. Amount I paid: $2.50. Bargain bin rating: $2.99. (Note: Rating has been adjusted for inflation. Ha ha.)

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Reed’s Bargain Bin: The Good Night

Reed — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:14:46 +0000

Reed's Bargain Bin is a recurring column where Reed Farrington tells us about a movie he bought for under $5, and whether or not he regrets the purchase. On a recent foray to a local video store for bargain bin videos, I picked up a movie called The Good Night, written and directed by Jake Paltrow, Gwyneth’s brother. I’m not sure how obscure this movie is (Sean had heard of it and correctly named one of the stars, Martin Freeman), but it had a limited theatrical release in 2007 after premiering at the Sundance Film Festival. Besides Freeman, it also stars Penelope Cruz, Gwyneth, Simon Pegg, and Danny DeVito. (One of the photos on the DVD cover is of Martin Freeman, but I initially thought the photo was of Ewan McGregor.) Now if you know your actors and also that I have an unusual penchant for collecting anything obscurely related to Star Trek, then you’ll have realized why I bought this movie. In case you’re puzzled, I’ll tell you why. Simon Pegg played Scotty in the recent Star Trek movie. I used to be able to pick up relatively recent popular movies in the 2 for $5 bargain bin, but the video store wised up and introduced a 2 for $7 bargain bin for these movies. So lately, the 2 for $5 bargain bin has had Slim Pickens, I mean slim pickings. When I find only one movie I like, I usually take my chances and leave the movie until next time when hopefully no one will have purchased the movie and there’s a chance another movie would have been added that I like. You see, if you only buy one movie, the video store charges $3.99. So the pricing is meant to encourage you to buy movies in multiples of two. Normally I might not have bought The Good Night even with Simon Pegg in it, but I happened to find John Carpenter’s Masters of Horror entry Pro-Life and I didn’t want to take the chance of waiting until next time, so I picked up The Good Night to complete my multiple of two. Okay, back to the movie. The Good Night is billed as a comedic fantasy. The movie opens with short interview segments and one of the interviewees is Jarvis Cocker of Pulp fame. On the filmmaker’s commentary, Jake Paltrow opines that Cocker is probably the most brilliant of the musicians of his era. I thought that Jake unintentionally slammed Gwyneth’s hubby, Chris Martin, but perhaps Coldplay and Pulp aren’t considered contemporaries of each other as Coldplay’s success occurred after Pulp’s. The film quickly gets into the relationship between Gary (Freeman) and Dora (Paltrow). It’s obvious that the relationship is on the downside, and I found the banter realistic and funny. But since I’ve never been in a relationship, I’m only imagining that this is how couples can get on each other’s nerves. Gary’s best friend is Paul (Pegg). In his younger days, Gary was in a relatively popular band (thus the reason for the Cocker interview segments) with Paul. Paul has moved onto being a recently promoted advertising executive giving direction to Gary, who is stuck being a jingle writer for commercials. Gary’s moribund life leads to conflict with Dora, and Gary finds himself having recurring dreams about another woman, Anna (Cruz), who is seemingly imaginary. While Paul cheats on his wife, Gary’s obsession with Anna leads him to investigating lucid dreaming techniques with an expert, Mel (DeVito). I must admit that this subject of lucid dreaming holds a certain fascination with me. Lucid dreaming is a way of trying to control your dreams by making yourself able to realize when you’re in a dream. Have you ever been dreaming and coincidentally realized that you’re in a dream? And then you try to take advantage of the situation by doing something in your dream that you would never do in real life? (On a side note, have you ever had the nightmarish temporary situation when your mind wakes up in darkness and your physical body is paralyzed? This occurs when your brain wakes up, but your body hasn’t received the signals to wake itself up, yet!) I’ve never researched lucid dreaming so I can’t verify the techniques shown in the film like looking at your hands and wall switches before going to sleep, but the movie isn’t about lucid dreaming per se. (In the director’s commentary, Jake admits that the movie shows only a superficial level of lucid dreaming.) Gary gets into lucid dreaming so that he can hopefully prolong and enjoy his experiences with Anna without actually cheating on Dora although this is a grey area in human relations. In Gary’s initial dream meeting with Anna, Jake Paltrow cleverly has Anna communicating telepathically with Gary to convey the strange quality of a dream. As Gary has more dreams of Anna, her lips move and her voice gradually changes from garbled to intelligible. Occasionally and tellingly, Anna speaks with Gwyneth’s voice. At first, Cruz’s role as a dream woman doesn’t seem like much of an acting stretch, but she does get more to do in the film. I thought all the acting performances were strong, and the intelligent script surely helped the actors. I enjoyed the silly humor provided during the DeVito segments. I haven’t had a chance to watch Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz yet, but Pegg’s comedic performance in this movie is rather restrained and believable in the best friend role. Since Pegg and Freeman are friends in real-life, perhaps there wasn’t much of an acting stretch for Pegg. Looking at Freeman’s extensive acting credits, I must confess that this is the first role I’ve ever seen him in. I’ve never seen the British version of The Office. I had completely forgotten about The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy movie which I’m curious to watch someday; I guess I can look forward to Freeman’s performance as Arthur Dent. The beginning interview segments sort of hint at the ending, but the ending was satisfying nevertheless and not really typical of a Hollywood film, I don’t think. The movie made me think about the choices we make in life. Perhaps nothing extraordinarily profound is raised, but it’s always good to pause and remind ourselves that what we have might be pretty good after all. This is Jake Paltrow’s motion picture directorial debut after successfully building a resume directing television, notably several episodes of NYPD Blue. The direction suited the subject matter and was appropriately unobtrusive, not drawing attention to itself. This is his first writing credit. Interestingly, for Chuck Palahniuck's novel, Survivor, he had written a screenplay that David Fincher was set to direct; however, fate intervened with 9/11. Since the novel has an airplane hijacker involved, the project was shelved. Along with the composed music for the film, I liked the musical song choices in the film. Because I haven’t listened to much Pulp music, the few Pulp compositions used were fresh to me. There was even a great Troggs’ song I was not familiar with, and no, the song wasn’t “Wild Thing.” And as a bit of obscure Trekkie trivia, there’s also a song by T’Pau, the band’s name having been taken from a Vulcan matriarch from the Original Series. I can’t think of another film that I can draw comparisons with or that might give you an idea whether or not this film would appeal to you. As an example of the droll humor used by the film, Gary is seen in bed reading a Dummies’ Guide to The Middle East Conflict. I didn’t bother to check if this book actually exists, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. It’s the kind of humor that makes me smile inside. Even without the humor, I was caught up in Gary’s mid-life crisis and wondering how it would turn out. Perhaps I got greater enjoyment from the film because I could relate to the protagonist. For The Good Night, I cannot think of anything negative to say about it. I was totally entertained. Having been stung by criticism that I don’t offer my own opinions, I wrote my opinions down before I went on-line to see what other critics had to say. Um, Rotten Tomatoes only has it at 28%. I’ve also been criticized for on purposely going against popular opinion (recently, I’m thinking of my review for Star Trek) so it’s going to appear that I’m doing that again. If you think about it, when someone disagrees with your assessment, it’s always easy for him or her to think of external factors having nothing to do with the film as excuses for your contrary opinion. For this film, I think the major criticism is that it seems dour, but that’s not necessarily a negative in my book. As expected, there are some reviews that echo my praise. Before I offer my rating for The Good Night, let me explain the bargain bin rating scale. The lowest rating is $0.00, indicating that no amount of money is worth paying for this movie. Although I don’t believe in charity, I’ll pretty much award a few cents for effort alone since I know how difficult it is to get a movie made, so I’ll probably never give a film a $0.00 rating. The highest rating is $5.00, which is the highest amount I’ll ever pay for a DVD of a film. Note that when two films get the same bargain bin rating, this does not necessarily indicate that I would rate the films of being equal quality. I’ll also indicate the actual amount I paid for the film to help you know how much you can expect to pay for the film. For those with a more liberal budget, you can ignore the actual amount I paid. Ha ha. (I must give credit to Sean for coming up with the idea for this scale.) Amount I Paid: $2.50. Bargain Bin Rating: $5.00.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!