Request Review: "Eastern Promises"

Knowing David Cronenberg’s fascination with telling stories through the transformation of his subject’s bodies, it’s not hard to imagine that what originally drew the famed director to Eastern Promises is the notion of Russian convicts labelling themselves with tattoos to signify rank and advancement within the Russian mob.  And yet, whether because this is Cronenberg’s later career or because the script simply didn’t call for it, much of the brutality that made the director famous is absent from this installment in his filmography.  This isn’t by any means a bad thing, but it subverts expectations somewhat, and without Cronenberg’s signature flair, you have what amounts to a fairly good, yet unremarkable film.

Anna (Naomi Watts) works as a midwife at a London hospital, when one night a fourteen-year-old girl is brought in, gives birth to a premature child, and dies.  Her only belongings include a purse with a journal inside, written in Russian, and a card for a Russian establishment run by Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl).  Anna asks both her Russian uncle and Semyon to translate the journal to see what it contains.  Meanwhile, it turns out the Semyon is the head of the local Russian mafia, and the journal contains secrets that he would rather remain buried.  Enter Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen), a low-ranking chauffer to Semyon’s idiot son.  Semyon begins eyeing Nikolai for advancement within the mafia, and a parallel story develops as Anna tries to find a family for the newborn child and Nikolai battles his conscience to move up the ranks.

The plotting itself is very well written, with a plot twist in the final scenes of the film that genuinely caught me off-guard, though in retrospect I probably should have guessed it.  It is a solidly directed mafia film, full of intrigue and solid performances to tie everything together.  Viggo Mortensen in particular provides subtle nuances to Nikolai’s soft-spoken character that are much appreciated.

However, despite its good qualities, I can’t help but feel that its lack of any sort of individual identity holds it back.  Cronenberg’s penchant for blood only shines through in one major scene, and though that particular fight is satisfying to watch, it only emphasized how empty the rest of the film felt by comparison.  The film is primarily composed of one-on-one conversations that communicate vital plot information, while the actors only portray their characters through the exposition, rather than having room to breathe and develop naturally.  Some key scenes take place off camera, which was done intentionally to set up the ending twist, but the plotting can sometimes feel like a formality to get to that twist, which isn’t so ground-shaking as to justify the experience.

I don’t dislike Eastern Promises, but it’s hard to point out much about it that is especially likeable.  All the film’s components are assembled adequately (though the distinct lack of a background score did not particularly help some scenes) and that is precisely the problem; by merely being an adequate film, it feels safe and devoid of the kinds of risks that could have propelled it to greatness and memorability.  But as it stands, this is just another addition to the malaise of pretty good gangster films that I’ve seen before.

So, whatever happened to Viggo Mortensen?  He hasn’t been as prominent an actor lately.  Would you care to see him make a career comeback?  Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Request Review: "Iron Man 2"

The following review assumes you’ve seen the film.  If you have any interest in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, you probably already have, so I’m not going to pretend I’m making a recommendation to anyone who hasn’t seen this installment.  Groovy?  Groovy.

Allow me to preface this with a disclaimer: Iron Man 2 is not a bad movie.  However, it isn’t an especially good one, and is the worst of the post-Iron Man Marvel Cinematic Universe.  For being a franchise that has had nine installments as of this writing, the Cinematic Universe has been consistently above average for the superhero film genre, and Iron Man 2 is no exception.  But just barely.  This film is an obvious holding pattern to try to keep the character of Iron Man relevant in the period between the first film and The Avengers, and while it succeeds at being that, it doesn’t succeed at being much more.

To this film’s credit, though, I must compliment it on not opting for making the villain’s goal to attempt conquest on a global scale, but rather works on presenting a revenge tale.  Modern action films usually don’t settle for less than earth-shattering conflicts, so it’s nice to see Marvel willing to take a risk on a more personal story.  That said, though, Ivan Vanko is a really uninspired villain.  For the majority of the film he acts as a straight-man foil to Tony Stark’s annoying business rival, Anthony Hammer, and the few scenes where he does take direct action are brief, token, and inconsequential.  He feels like he’s there as the film’s obligatory villain, but he’s not really developed enough beyond his most basic motivation to be at all compelling.

Speaking of not being compelling, Tony Stark himself turns the clock back on all his previous character development, playing up his egotism to even greater heights in hopes of recreating his charm from this film's superior predecessor.  Robert Downey Jr. does a great job in his role, and I particularly like the developing chemistry between Tony and Pepper Potts (though I still don’t understand how the two kissing can look like “two seals fighting over a grape” as Rhodey so eloquently puts it.)  However, the way that Stark is scripted makes him feel juvenile in light of all the self-awareness he attained over the course of the first film, which is particularly striking in a franchise that has prided itself on its dedication to continuity.  I realize that the in-plot excuse for his behavior is that he’s dying and trying to cover it up through his antics, but all I saw was an attempt to give audiences more of the same antics from the first film when Stark’s character has grown past the point where it’s believable.  Yes, Stark is a narcissist, but he's supposed to be beyond the point where he's hurting others through his narcissism.  That was the entire point of the first film, and this greatly undermines it.

I also found S.H.I.E.L.D.’s presence to be incredibly forced.  They seem to exist here for three reasons: first, to further solidify their presence in the Cinematic Universe; second, to provide some plot-tidying exposition to further explain Vanko’s motivation; and third, to provide Stark with the means to discover his magic MacGuffin element to tie up that particular subplot.  I get the feeling that the original idea was to incorporate S.H.I.E.L.D. more heavily into the then-upcoming Thor, but the screenplay writer decided this would be easier to whip up short notice as his deadline fast approached.  It was a sloppy introduction to the agency that would play such a prominent role in the films to come.

Am I harsh on Iron Man 2?  Yes.  Does that mean I think it’s a bad movie?  Again, no I do not.  But I think it’s a fairly average one, and from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, that’s disappointing, which is why I am so harsh on it.  To be fair, this review is largely in retrospect, as it was the third installment in the Universe, and at that point, Iron Man was the only truly exceptional piece to the puzzle.  But even as a direct sequel, Iron Man 2 just isn’t up to snuff against its predecessor, and almost every subsequent Marvel film blew it right out of the water.

Think any of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s installments are worse than Iron Man 2?  Let me know in the comments below and, if you’d like, I’m more than willing to take a second look at any of them for another Request Review.

Request Review: "In Bruges"

In Bruges is a movie that took me by surprise.  When I read the synopsis before watching the film, I thought that I was in for a good dark comedy with some passable action scenes.  And while the movie is funny a truly bizarre way, I found myself engrossed in the film’s dramatic scenes more than anything.  This is a film rich in character, themes and symbolism, and it was a very welcome surprise to see such a good movie develop from what appears to be such a benign concept.

Hitmen Ray and Ken are sent to Bruges, Belgium to lay low after a hit goes wrong.  Ray killed someone he was not supposed to, and now the two hitmen must wait to hear from their employer to find out what their next move is.  Ray is young, brash, and perhaps the rudest person to ever walk the face of the earth, but Colin Ferrell’s portrayal makes him loveable nonetheless.  Ken is a more experienced and refined professional, interested in seeing the sights of Bruges and taking in the culture.  Of course, Ken acts as Ray’s comedic foil, though surprisingly enough, he isn’t present for many of the film’s funnier moments, like the scenes where Ray insults American tourists or goes on an awkward date.  The film isn’t content to rest its laurels on being a buddy comedy.

Instead, this film delves deep into concepts like guilt, honor, and loyalty throughout the course of a deeply emotional and thought-provoking story.  I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m vague on the details, but none of the twists are worth spoiling to tell how brilliantly implemented they are.  Just believe me when I say that you will be on the edge of your seat, and you’ll still get a few good laughs along the way.

The relationship between Ray and Ken is fantastically realized.  Ray drinks excessively and does drugs, but this is largely a ploy to distract from his own guilt.  Ken tries to be there to mentor the poor rookie, but is equally frustrated by Ray’s incessant childish antics.  The two together have a very strong on-screen chemistry, and it’s hard not to care about how their fates will resolve, especially when their hilariously insane boss enters the picture.  Speaking of, bravo to Ralph Fiennes for his role as said boss, Harry, for every scene he is in he exudes a feebly attempted level of professionalism that only barely hides a whiplash temper and a painfully absolute code of honor.  It’s a remarkably subtle, yet boisterous performance, and his presence is a fantastic addition to the film’s third act.  All three main characters are wonderfully unique and a joy to watch.

There’s also a surprising amount of subtext about purgatory, hell, and punishment for one’s sins, and it is more than welcome how the film takes advantage of its historic setting to play up those literary factors.  The climax in particular calls back to an earlier scene in the film through some fantastically surreal imagery, and it ends the film on a perfect note.  That’s not to say that the film is perfect, though.  I won’t say that I particularly cared for some of the film’s more vulgar jokes, but considering the vulgarity of the particular characters spouting them, I can let it slide.

Overall, In Bruges is a film well worth your time and Netflix subscription.  It’s smartly written, funny as hell, and impossible not to get emotionally invested in.  It’s great choice for an evening alone with a beer and some popcorn.

This was my first Request Review post!  If you have a film that you’d like see reviewed, please post it in the comments below, leave a comment on the PBF Facebook page, or email pretentiousbestfriend@gmail.com!