The Good Thief

I hadn't seen The Good Thief in many years when I stumbled across it on Netflix recently.  My recollection of it was pretty foggy; I recalled a distinctly European vibe and being surprised that Nick Nolte was capable of entertaining me without a mug shot.  As it turns out, The Good Thief is a remake of a Melville noir, Bob le Flambeur.  I haven't seen that yet, but that trivia nugget was enough to pique my curiosity.  Did I like this film so long ago because Nick Nolte was awesome, or because there was a heavy dose of French cool in the story?  Not that it matters, I suppose, as long as it's good.

The plot of The Good Thief is nothing new, even considering the fact that this is a remake.  Bob (Nick Nolte) is a retired thief that has given up the fast-paced life of criminal intrigue for a dull retirement, filled with needle drugs and compulsive gambling.  But he was a really good thief, even if he has been arrested six times; he's kind of like a Danny Ocean with bad habits, if that clarifies things at all. 

This is Bob's Eleven Seven

Even though he has been out of the game for years, his police nemesis, Roger (Tchéky Karyo), has made a habt of checking in on Bob, to keep him on the straight and narrow.  But when Bob inevitably gambles his last dime (or ruble or franc or whatever) away, he is desperate enough to entertain an impossible robbery.  All he needs is the right crew and a plan.  It could be a very cut-and-dry plot, if not for the inclusion of one x-factor: a girl.

The Good Thief is not the sort of move that is going to have overwhelming performances.  For the most part, the cast is comprised of little-known actors and the director leans toward subtler forms of expression.  That said, this is easily one of the best performances of Nick Nolte's career.  He is perfectly aged for the role of the seasoned clever guy who has been through rough times.  Hell, his glass-shards-in-gravel voice alone would highlight the film, but Nolte also managed to make excellent use of his nonverbal scenes.  I get why he wasn't nominated for an Oscar for this (it was a relatively tough year), but he is damn good here. 

Doesn't he look like someone who's been in prison six times?

The rest of the cast is less impressive.  Nutsa Kukhianidze was okay as the lost and manipulative Anne, but I think a role this manipulative could have been done better.  Still, she managed to convey illicit sexuality and heartbreaking innocence at the same time, so I can't legitimately claim that she did a bad job.  

Mostly because lingerie doesn't hide nipples

Tchéky Karyo was solid as the obsessive cop; I liked that he was not clearly outsmarted by Bob, but  he didn't really have much of a personality to counter the charm of Nolte's Bob.  Saïd Taghmaoui, Ouassini Embarek, Gérard Darmon, and Emir Kusturica were fine is basic-level roles.  Embarek was not very impressive, but his Judas-esque part didn't require much from him.  Oh, and for some reason, Ralph Fiennes plays an uncredited role as a shady art dealer.  He was pretty good; I don't know why he was left uncredited, since he was featured in the trailers.

"You think that's weird?  Look at the painting I'm holding!"

Neil Jordan directed The Good Thief, and it is clear that he was interested in trying some new ideas.  The cinematography is, as a whole, unimpressive.  It does, however, have some odd moments where the frame rate seems to drop well below that standard 24fps.  It's like Jordan is trying to convey a slow passage of time, but his method is the exact opposite film technique that would result in slow-motion.  I didn't like it, but it was an interesting (if choppy) try.  Aside from that, there are not a lot of surprises here, from a direction standpoint.  Jordan gets an excellent performance from his lead actor, while the rest of the cast is fairly sketchy. 

Nobody (except possibly Franco-Judas) was bad, but most of the characters felt underdeveloped and devoid of personality. 

The strange thing about The Good Thief is that it is, at its core, a heist movie.  Despite that, the main character isn't really involved in the heist.  That can work (as in Ocean's Eleven), but you really need to invest in the theft and not the character at that point.  That doesn't happen here.  Not only is the audience primarily interested in Nolte's character, but so is the camera; we follow Bob gambling while the heist is taking place.  That should plainly say something about the story, but I don't think it is conveyed well in this movie.

Also lacking: fashion

There is plenty to enjoy with The Good Thief, though.  Nolte was surprisingly charming in the gruffest manner possible.  I liked the relationship between Bob and Anne, even if it was all sorts of shades of grey.  I also enjoyed the friendly rivalry between Bob and Roger; it is an under-used movie subplot, and was one fun character (the cop) away from being fantastic. 

To Nolte: "Do you want to do all the work in this scene?"

The idea behind the heist is a clever execution of feints and counter-feints.  Unfortunately, the movie is a little under-paced and the ending --- while clever --- is more cerebral than emotional or sensational.  In other words, it's cute, but I was expecting more.

Nightwatch

I stumbled across Nightwatch as soon as it came out on DVD, back in '97 or '98.  I had never seen a preview for it, was completely unaware of its box-office performance, and knew nothing of its plot.  I did, however, recognize Ewan McGregor from Trainspotting, and that was good enough to warrant a rental.  It was the first real “thriller” I had ever seen --- I had still not experienced a true horror movie yet, either --- and the novelty of discovering a film on my own, free of the mass media and the recommendations of others made this a personal favorite for a few years.  Now, I hadn't watched Nightwatch in years, but I never forgot the positive impression it left on me.  As the years have passed, I have occasionally wondered why nobody else seems to fondly remember this pic.  Was I just a stupid kid with terrible taste in movies when I first watched Nightwatch, or is this an under-appreciated gem?  Only one way to find out, I suppose.

Martin (Ewan McGregor) is a student in law school, who enjoys typical law school things, like going out drinking with friends and laughing loudly.  He shares a gigantic loft apartment with his busty girlfriend (Patricia Arquette) and hangs out with his asshole best friend, James (Josh Brolin), and his smart-mouthed girlfriend (Lauren Graham).   The big difference between Martin and the others is that he doesn’t have any money.  And, apparently, “no money” is a relative term, because he still goes out to bars with his friends and has that badass apartment.  To fix that problem, Martin decides to take a job as a night watchman at a morgue.  

This was after a failed attempt to open a casino

 Because he is a normal college kid, and that is what normal college kids do, right?  Anyways, the job pays well and will give him ample time to study.  The morgue is, predictably, a creepy place, and everyone who works there is bizarre and horrible.  No surprises there.  It is weird, though, that the watchmen have to go into every room in the morgue every hour and essentially get a time punch to prove they were there.  There seems to only be one entrance to the building, which means that the only time anyone could get in without being noticed is when the security guard is doing his hourly rounds; I suppose that policy is in place only to mess with the minds of the employees. 

The labels on the bottles read "amorphous blob in formaldehyde"

A body is brought into the morgue one night, an apparent victim of a serial killer.  Martin meets Detective Cole (Nick Nolte), who lets him in on some of the grisly details; the victims have been hookers, and the killer is sadistic and has some knowledge of surgery.  Around this time, James starts acting bizarre; his actions appear to be those of a bored rich kid looking for adrenaline kicks.  He gets a particular rush from bar fights and hiring prostitutes to degrade themselves.  Sounds suspicious, doesn’t it?  This naturally leads the police to assume that James Martin is the serial killer.  That would suck on its own, but it is pretty obvious that the killer also has his/her eye on Martin, too...

McGregor's homage to "Scream"

The acting in Nightwatch definitely has its highs and its lows. Unfortunately, the highs fall in the realm of acceptability, while the lows are just incomprehensibly odd.  I liked Ewan McGregor’s natural charm and thought he was pretty likable, although a little dumb.  His character’s logic isn’t very impressive, but McGregor did a good job playing up some of the more childish aspects of his character.  Patricia Arquette was her typical self; she’s fairly blank for most of the film and when she has to act distressed, she sounds a little moronic. 

This would have been a great opportunity for her to say "These aren't my clothes"

Still, she has a very background role, so that never becomes problematic.  Lauren Graham had an even smaller part, which left even less of an impression.   That’s too bad, because I usually like her.  I liked Brad Dourif as the least sympathetic doctor ever, even if the character was hilariously unrealistic. Oh, and John C. Reilly had a very small role as Nolte’s partner/underling. Remember when he was an outstanding dramatic actor?  Man, those were the days.  Nick Nolte, though, was just bizarre.  

This film was made right around when he stopped playing romantic leads and began to embrace his creepy aging face.  And he definitely brought the creepy with this role.  It’s one thing to play a bad cop, or even a disturbed cop, but his Detective Cole immediately strikes you as the type of person who makes neckties out of human flesh.  Who would trust this guy?  That would be a more pressing question if it wasn’t for Josh Brolin’s character.  Here is a character that is all things to all people, depending on the needs of the script.  Do you need someone to be brash and fun?  How about unsettling and abrasive?  Maybe a murderer?  Or a voice of reason?  No problem --- JB will fill that role!  Honestly, I don’t think it is possible for Brolin to look remotely competent playing such a poorly written character, but I think he did as good a job as he could with what he was working with.

"Your motivation here is to want to punch Ewan in his damn face...for some reason"

I was shocked to find that Steven Soderbergh was responsible for co-writing this film.  I don’t know if there is some sordid behind-the-scenes story about the making of this film, but this is truly awful writing.  The characters are immune to logic, the police do not follow even the most basic of investigative steps, and the serial killer menacingly sings “This Old Man.”

Well, I suppose it's a bit creepier if you interpret "played knick-knack" as "made molesting motions with his hands."  Actually, the story isn't really Soderbergh's fault; Nightwatch is an American remake of the Danish film Nattevagten, so it's pretty obvious that Soderbergh was hired primarily to translate the script into Americanese.  The original story (and the Danish script) was written by Ole Bornedal, who also directed both the Danish film and the American remake.  As frustrated as I was watching the characters act so damnably odd, I have to give Bornedal some credit --- he does a nice job building the suspense in this film.  He doesn't do it artfully, so it isn't subliminal like clever camera shots can be.  Instead, he slowly builds the tension and makes even the smallest and stupidest plot point seem threatening.  

"Actually, I am interested in changing my long distance.  Very interested..."

Thankfully, he focused almost entirely on Ewan McGregor's character --- the only one in the movie that is even remotely believable --- so you might not notice just how ridiculously over the top the entire supporting cast is.  I'll give Bornedal an "A" for effort and execution, but a "D" for his actual script and characters.

I don't know...it almost feels like I am being a little too harsh on Nightwatch, like I'm overcompensating for having such a high opinion of it as a youngster.  But then I glance at my notes and feel a whole lot better.  Sure, I can look the other way on some of the dumb stuff in this movie --- like the fact that the police apparently do not check alibis because it builds suspense, or the acreage of the allegedly college apartments --- but there are some things I just can't ignore.  For example, I can sympathize with Martin when he is audibly confused when a prostitute starts to give him a surprise handjob in a fancy restaurant --- that would be a little weird and socially awkward --- but I don't think yelping repeatedly like she was wearing a joy buzzer was a natural reaction. 

Although it does explain his attraction to that alarm...

I also doubt that a tough, muscle-bound guy at a bar who apparently likes to fight would be wearing a Jennifer Beal's torn sweatshirt from Flashdance.  And then there’s the final confrontation between Martin and the killer.  It works perfectly well as a sadistic killer preying on an innocent, but when you remember that the killer is trying to frame Martin, the weapons being employed make a whole lot less sense; you can make it look like Martin is a killer who committed suicide if you use, say, a gun, but not if you're attacking him with a bone saw, moron.

Man, what a letdown.  I remembered this movie being so cool.  Now, I see it as just an exercise in how to do the best you can with a crappy script.  The suspense is genuinely well done.  The script is genuinely wretched.  If it wasn't for McGregor's energy, this movie would be nigh-unwatchable.  And it's really too bad, because this movie comes very close to being genuinely creepy.  Sadly the lack of believable characters makes this a promising movie that just isn't very good.

Warrior

Before I begin my review of Warrior, I would like to address the elephant in the room.  No, this is not the prequel to The Warriors.  Sorry to crush your hopes and dreams.

Warrior is the tale of two brothers, Brendan Conlan (Joel Edgerton) and Tommy Riordan (Tom Hardy).  The film begins with an angry and drunken Tommy showing up at his childhood home and confronting Paddy (Nick Nolte), his recovering alcoholic father.  It has been years since the two have spoken, and all we learn is that Tommy left with his mother, she died and he joined the Marines.  Unwilling to talk about his past, Tommy spends his time working out and manages to humiliate a top-ranking MMA fighter in a sparring match.  This gets him attention from the right promoters, and pretty soon Tommy is entered into an elite 16-man MMA tournament, Sparta, with a five million dollar purse on the line.

It's humiliating when the ref starts spanking you in the ring

Meanwhile, Brendan is in serious trouble with his home mortgage; his family will lose their home in three months.  Brendan is a high school teacher and his wife (Jennifer Morrison) apparently works in the short skirt industry, and Brendan even occasionally moonlights as an amateur MMA fighter for a couple hundred bucks a pop.  There's really no way for them to make much more money than they already are.  When Brendan shows up for school with visible bruises on his face, he is suspended from work without pay.  With no other real options, he starts to train full-time and winds up being a last-minute replacement for an injured fighter in the Sparta tournament.

Don't fighters usually show off their chests and abs?

You can figure out where the basic plot goes from there.  Yes, both men are unknown underdogs.  Yes, family is of utmost importance to both brothers.  Yes, they have the good luck of being in opposite sides of the tournament bracket, which will allow the climax of the film to have brother fighting brother to win the tournament.  What will win the day: Tommy's fury, or Brendan's desperation?

Despite the familiar and predictable plot, Warrior stands out with some excellent performances.  Joel Edgerton was quite good as the workhorse for the film; his was the character with the most relatable and understandable emotions, and he conveyed these emotions well.  Edgerton also gave an impressive physical performance; his character's style --- wear 'em down and make them submit --- matches his age and body type.  He was very convincing as an underdog that could, in the right circumstances, win.

Like Rocky, he blocks their punches with his face until they get tired

Tom Hardy's performance was much more visceral.  Thanks to the bulk he put on for the role and the crazy eyes he showed during the fight scenes, Hardy looked and acted like an angry violent man.  His non-fighting scenes were fine --- he certainly had more of a Philadelphia accent than Edgerton --- but it was how fully he threw himself into the furious physicality of his role that impressed me.

Where'd his neck go?

The rest of the cast was decent.  Nick Nolte had a fairly complex role and he showed off a bit; Nolte's the sort of actor that seems to meet the difficulty level of his role, so it was nice to see him playing a part that relied on hints and subtleties in the script.  Jennifer Morrison was fine, but her character's logic bothered me; she bounced too easily from being protective to supportive for my liking, and she switched over at the worst possible time.  Kurt Angle was cast to basically serve as the Russian MMA bogeyman, and he certainly looked fierce, although I don't think that required much acting.  Noah Emmerich made a brief appearance as a somewhat mean bank officer, which is not surprising, since he always seems to play heels.  Kevin Dunn was inconsequential as the principal at Brendan's school.  Rounding out the notable cast, Frank Grillo looked the part of a physical trainer, complete with stupid haircut, but I found him considerably less annoying than his character might have been.


Gavin O'Connor directed Warrior, and I thought he did a pretty good job.  At its core, Warrior is an extremely predictable film.  O'Connor makes sure to do it very well, though.  Better than simply telling the story competently, though, is the fact that O'Connor invests a lot of effort in the dramatic scenes.  The acting is very well done --- I would argue that it is far better than the script deserved --- and those scenes are powerful enough to make you forget that you know in your heart exactly how the film will end.  You will probably have at least a moment where you don't know which brother you want to win the championship, and that is a huge accomplishment for O'Connor's direction.  I also liked how he handled certain obligatory scenes.  Yes, there is a training montage, but it goes by faster because O'Connor splits up the screen to show both brothers training at the same time.  I thought the fight scenes were shot very well; my wife and I agreed that if real UFC fights were as exciting as these scenes, we might actually give a crap about MMA.  Honestly, I was not excited about this movie because I don't care about mixed martial arts.  I was pleasantly surprised to not only care about the characters in Warrior, but I genuinely enjoyed the fight scenes, too.

"Are you sure you want to fight this guy?"

Warrior certainly has its flaws, though.  The familiar story is the most obvious example, but the script isn't very good, either.  Even if you ignore some of the boring dialogue, the script is plagued with shallow characters with poorly explained motives (although the cast does a fantastic job of disguising that) and a climax that is missing falling action and explicit conflict resolution.  And it is pretty ridiculous to believe that two unknown fighters --- one considered too old to compete and the other apparently without a valid US ID --- would be able to enter a highly competitive 16-man tournament for a large prize.  Even if that was believable, none of the fighters are described as UFC fighters; I understand why Anderson Silva wouldn't want to play a loser, but the script references the UFC, and yet none of the fighters are supposed to be current UFC champions or contenders.  Really?  Not even for $5 million?  That makes no sense to me.

Despite some logical gaps, the emotional performances were enough to keep me engaged with Warrior.  Whenever I felt a knowing eye-roll coming on, the acting of Hardy and Edgerton drew me back into the story.  Knowing (or guessing) the ending doesn't hurt this movie --- it's all about caring for the characters, instead.

Hotel Rwanda

I borrowed this DVD from a friend when the movie first came out, intent on watching Don Cheadle's acclaimed performance.  I never got around to it.  I always looked at the film as inevitably depressing, and I didn't know much about the Rwandan genocide of 1994, and I always feel sketchy if I let a movie educate me on world events.  In the intervening years, I've educated myself to a point where, when I saw the movie available On Demand through my cable, I finally felt I was ready to watch it.

The movie takes place during the genocide, but thankfully is not a document of the killings.  Instead, it tells the tale of Paul (Don Cheadle), a manager for the finest hotel around.  Paul is very talented at using words to get what he wants; when that fails, bribery usually does the trick.  This serves him well as manager, allowing him to get his hands on high end cigars, liquor, and more.  These treats are not for him, but to gain favor with local politicians, international military leaders, and anyone else.  It's a good thing he is good at his job, because ethnic tensions in Rwanda reach their boiling point, with paramilitary groups of the Hutu ethnic majority gathering and executing any of the Tutsi minority they can find.  Paul is Hutu, but his wife (Sophie Okonedo) is Tutsi.  Seeing his neighborhood quickly becoming a war zone, Paul manages to sneak and bribe his family's way into the hotel.  There, he tries to keep things business-as-usual.  It doesn't really work.  First of all, a war was going on, just outside the hotel.  Secondly, it's the old any-port-in-a-storm rule.  The hotel quickly acts as a shelter for overflow from the United Nations camps, the Red Cross, and for war orphans.  Why don't the Hutu militias just attack the hotel?  Good question.  The answer seems to be because Paul maintains the image of a professional European hotel; it feels like another country, or at least an embassy.  That means that, if the locals attack, there could possibly be some retaliation from the Western world.  Seeing the importance of maintaining this image, Paul must keep the hotel running for appearances' sake, care for the refugees, and act as the support for his own family.  For a while, Paul has his hopes set on the United Nations sending in a peacekeeping force to stop the massacre, but that never happens.  The burden for saving the 1200+ refugees in his hotel ultimately falls on Paul's shoulders.

This is an important movie to watch.  Hearing the abstract numbers (about 800,000 dead in an area about the size of a New England state) doesn't really sink in.  Seeing people being shot in the streets is more effective.  Showing trucks drive over miles of road, clogged with dead bodies is better still.  This movie doesn't set out to over-horrify you, which is good.  This is an exhausting viewing experience, and I say that in the best way possible; at the time of this genocide, Americans were either upset over Kurt Cobain's suicide, or fascinated by OJ Simpson's car chase in a white Ford Bronco.  Sure, those are obviously important things, but I have no recollection of Rwanda from school or news at that time, and that embarrasses me.  Still, this could have easily become a testament to the horrific things humans do to each other, but director and co-writer Terry George wisely chose to avoid making this movie an unwatchable guilt trip.  Instead, we have these terrible things framing a true story of heroic humanitarianism.

I was surprised that this movie did not show off the director or cinematographer's skills more.  Usually, when directors make an "important" movie, they make sure to show their skills or make things a little artsy.  This movie is shot in a straightforward fashion, with no artistic embellishments.

The film clearly focuses on Cheadle's character, but there are several recognizable actors with supporting roles.  Nick Nolte plays a Canadian UN military forces member, and he delivers the best white-versus-black speech I have heard in a long while.  Joaquin Phoenix is a news cameraman that asks many questions about the Hutu and the Tutsi for the benefits of the viewers; since his character is essentially there for exposition, his role is less impressive.  Jean Reno makes a brief, uncredited cameo just for recognition purposes.  Cara Seymour is the Red Cross worker that helps Paul save refugees; she's not in the movie much, but I thought she did a pretty good job.  Sophie Okonedo plays Paul's wife, and it is a demanding performance; she basically spends the whole movie terrified.

As I mentioned earlier, though, the real acting burden belongs to Don Cheadle.  It's rare to see a movie about death and destruction where the hero is not a man of action.  There are several points where Cheadle's character reaches a breaking point, and you watch him crumble in private, only to put himself back together in front of others.  It's fairly common for a low-key drama to have a nuanced grieving performance given by the lead actor or actress; this movie is not low-key, but Cheadle is still able to channel that same sort of private, subtle performance here.  There are two great scenes in particular that show this off.  The first is when he tells his wife to kill herself and their kids if the hotel is invaded; this could have easily been overacted, but his control here made his loss of control later all the more effective.  The second scene is just Cheadle cleaning himself up after unwittingly stumbling upon thousands of fresh corpses.  Cheadle has always been pretty good, but this role really showed what he is capable of.

Despite Cheadle's performance, this isn't a movie I will ever watch over and over again.  That's probably not the point of this movie, I get that, but it should be a little better.  Joaquin Phoenix's character is a little too guilt-ridden and a little too clueless to not be offensive.  I understand that Americans don't know what Hutus and Tutsis are; I think a short prologue would have worked better than having a stupid American make obvious comments about how he can't tell the difference between the two groups (there's a racist joke there, but I'm passing it by).  I think it's funny that Nick Nolte's character expressed his guilt more creatively and accurately (basically, the West sees Africa as a crap pile) as a Canadian than Phoenix's American could.  I also would have enjoyed a little more time spent adding symbolism and the like to make this a little more technically interesting.  I'm not saying the movie needed a Schindler's List red jacket, but a few little touches would have been nice.  Other than that, though, this is an interesting subject with one excellent performance.