Taken into the Unknown

In 2008, Liam Neeson made an interesting career move when he starred in the thriller Taken. In that film, he played the vengeful father of a teen kidnapped by human traffickers while on a trip through Europe. It was considered a dark and startling film (no, I'm afraid I missed it), and the Irish-born actor really made an impact with his gritty, physical role that was unlike so much of his career to date. On top of that, it was a box office success, confirming that Neeson made an excellent choice moving to the thriller genre despite enjoying much success in more traditional dramas... and Star Wars. Typically when thinking of Neeson's career you imagine his romantic comedies, period pieces, and strictly serious fare. You think of Schindler's List. Taken probably shouldn't have worked. Instead, it put new life and a nice twist on Neeson's resume. Well, three years later he's trying to repeat history by doing the exact same thing. The film he's attempting to accomplish this with is Unknown, directed by Jaume Collet-Serra, based on the novel by French author Didier van Cauwelaert. In this new release, Neeson's character is faced with the loss of more than a mere daughter, and the film was the main reason people made their way to the theaters this past weekend.

"You're going to be Taken... no wait, wrong script"

Neeson plays Dr. Martin Harris, a scientist who arrives in Berlin to make a presentation at a biotechnology summit held in the city. Arriving with his wife Liz (Mad Men's January Jones), Martin suffers a head wound in a traffic accident involving his taxi and wakes up after several days in the hospital with no knowledge of how he got there. Worse, when he finally finds his wife, she doesn't seem to recognize him, along what we are led to believe is an impostor Martin Harris (Aiden Quinn) who has ample proof that he's who he says he is, while Neeson's Martin has none. Is the man who thinks his name is Martin Harris suffering from brain damage? Or is he somehow being replaced, for some nefarious purpose?

Still better than The Phantom Menace

While Taken seems to have had some basis in plausible real-world scenarios (the trailer came complete with basic statistics on human trafficking and sex slavery), the same cannot really be said for Unknown. While identity theft is certainly a major problem in the world, even moreso thanks to the wonder that is everybody's personal information online, the story presented here takes it to such a ridiculous degree as to be both unlikely and unbelievable. What comes of this is a film that doesn't make much sense from scene to scene, which actually works since we as the audience aren't meant to understand what's happening until nearly the final credits. We're constantly wondering whether Martin Prime is the real deal or somehow just very knowledgeable of the real thing; we really wonder whether the main character is simply suffering from serious brain damage or is really having his life stripped from him unceremoniously. This is helped by taut pacing that varies between supporting either side of the argument, while never dropping us into a situation where we have no interest.

Seriously... She's German... playing a Bosnian... IN BERLIN

There can be little doubt that this film wouldn't make a dent on the American psyche without the stellar acting of Neeson. Much of the movie has him playing the every-man, and his believable distrust of his own memory pretty much makes the film as inviting as it is. Of course, he also gets to play the bad-ass, but that comes slowly, with Neeson playing the reactor much of the time, not the instigator. As that builds, we get to see his whole world fall apart, until he gets the gumption to do something about it. Diane Kruger plays an illegal Bosnian immigrant who helps Martin try to figure out what has happened. While it's odd to see a German actress play a Bosnian immigrant IN GERMANY, Kruger does a decent job with the role. Like Neeson, she also plays an everyday person, like so many trying to get out of the rut in which they find themselves. January Jones is one of those actresses who seems so out of place in this era. She would have been a natural in the days of Marilyn Monroe, but in this era there's only one role she seems to play, the seemingly innocent and frustrated housewife. There are few actresses I would accuse of being merely a pretty face, but unless Jones shows some more variety in her acting talents, I really don't want to see her play anything other than Betty Draper. Aiden Quinn is great as the "impostor" Martin, with some of the film's better scenes involving the two Dr. Harris' dialogues. Sebastian Koch has a small and unimportant role, and is only notable for his earlier performance in the excellent Lives of Others. Frank Langella has an uninteresting role that is nonetheless important to the film's plot. Since being nominated for that Oscar, Langella has certainly enjoyed his career resurgence. It's a shame not all his roles he's carried since then are worth watching. The best of this cast (besides Neeson, of course) might be Swiss actor Bruno Ganz as a former Stasi agent who agrees to help Martin learn who he really is. Ganz's character Jurgen reflects on how the German people are so good at forgetting, citing their ignorance of Nazi rule and forty years of communism, and prides himself on never forgetting and being proud of his history, making him easily the film's most original and interesting role.

You REALLY don't want to know what they're seeing right now...

Unknown's story is almost completely unbelievable, lacking any restraint to bring the narrative down to a reasonable level. This at times results in the film being unintentionally funny. When Neeson and Quinn try to convince Dr. Bressler (Koch) that they alone are the real Martin Harris, they deliver the same lines at the same time and with the same tremors in their voices, resulting in roaring laughter from the audience in what is supposed to be a serious moment. I wouldn't be surprised if the scene had the same effect on the players during filming, either. The dark moods of the film also have the effect of making even small one liners much funnier than they actually are. Of course, then someone gets knocked off and you're back in first gear, but the sad thing is that these scenes aren't even the film at its silliest. Yes, the plot is THAT flimsy.

"It's okay, it's almost over"

It might be time to stop taking things from Liam Neeson. Seriously, I can only wonder what revenge he would seek upon those who switch his coffee for Folger's Crystals. Still, he's the one thing that made Unknown as enjoyable as it was, and good for #2 right now on the year's Top 10. Still, you know where this is headed. Every few years someone takes something special from Neeson, and he goes on a rampage trying to get it back. Eventually it has to stop. Don't get me wrong, I mostly enjoyed Unknown; I just think that after moonlighting the thriller genre for a few years, it's high time he went back to films that have the ability to use him at his full potential, not ones that use his many talents just getting closer to that glass ceiling. And no, I'm not talking about Star Wars.

Read more »

The Ballad of Rich People

Oliver Stone is arguably well past his career peak. His films haven't received any major award nominations in over fifteen years. Many of his recent titles have barely made back the money spent in making them. W was the presidential film nobody who lived through Dubya's two terms really wanted to see. Alexander was on the same historical fiction plateau as Kingdom of Heaven that filmmakers wanted to create despite nobody filled audience chairs to see them. Any Given Sunday and World Trade Center were successful, but harbor no hopes of being remembered decades from now. No, Oliver Stone will be remembered not for his recent releases, but those released twenty years ago that we still talk about today: titles like JFK, Platoon, and Wall Street. Having not had ample opportunity to make it to the theaters this week (and with few exceptions any reason to go anyway), I dropped by the Redbox and grabbed the sequel to one of Stone's classics Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, taking the chance to catch a film I'd missed last year in the theaters. Though I've never seen the original, this seemed ample opportunity to catch up on the role that won Michael Douglas his Academy Award, and the trailer had been appealing enough to me that I was sure I didn't need to see the original to understand what was going on.

Didn't I see this the same street on Sex and the City?

WSMNS is a revenge tale set astride a backdrop of the current global recession. After eight years of imprisonment for insider trading and securities fraud, Gordon Gekko (Douglas) is released from prison in 2001. Fast forward seven years, and Gekko has become a best-selling author and celebrity lecturer, his face all over CNN and any major network that will have him. Meanwhile, Jake Moore (Shia LaBoeuf) is doing well as an investment banker with Keller Zabel (KZI), a major Wall Street bank. He may be relatively wealthy, but he has good influences in his life, like his girlfriend (and Gekko's estranged daughter) Winnie (Carrie Mulligan), a successful blogger and social activist. He is also raising money for his pet project, a green energy company. All in all, he's a good kid. That changes when  That changes overnight when KZI, which had apparently been just treading water, finally goes under. A bailout to get the company back on track fails thanks to rival banker (Josh Brolin) and with the company in ruins, Jake teams up with Gekko to try and strike back at the man who destroyed Jake's company.

In an attempt to make them more sympathetic, Stone put them on a train. Genius!

If it all seems overly simplistic, that's because I haven't explained everything. There's a LOT going on in the plot, mostly involving character development over moving the actual story forward. This is a positive turn, as far too often character development can be strewn along the wayside in making a concise story, easily followed by the audience. Unfortunately, the story itself is not as good as the characters portrayed, and while the backdrop especially is relevant to the issues we face today, the fact that this story is told from the perspective of which collar rich folk dulls the impact for the average viewer somewhat. Even the poorest characters in the film are a Blogger who racks up fifty times more hits daily than I've had for the entire run on my blog and an author whose media attention is more than that of Steven Levitt and Ben Mezrich COMBINED. Even though some of their causes are noble, not one character's motivation isn't to be wealthier than they currently are.

Brolin still has the occasional Jonah Hex flashback

The acting is pretty amazing here. Of course most of the attention (and rightfully so) has fallen on the shoulders of Douglas, who was nominated for a Golden Globe for his reprisal of the inimitable Gekko. Though it's been more than twenty years since he played this role, Douglas took to it like a second skin, adding bits of new to the comfortable layers of greed and manipulation that he's famous for. Most notable is his desire to reconnect with his daughter. LaBoeuf is surprisingly good as the story's protagonist, Jake. I say "surprisingly" even though he's been good in the few things I've actually seen him in. I guess it's more his choice of movies that puts me off, from Disturbia to Eagle Eye to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. These are NOT good movies, but LaBoeuf is a good performer, and as a good-hearted conniver who sees everything spiral out of control around him, It's easy to forget how privileged he is when you see how hard he works and his faith in good will. I didn't see An Education, so this was the first film I've seen Carrie Mulligan in, and she's also quite good. Torn between her social ethics, the man she loves and the father she can't forgive, she's probably the most sympathetic character in this tale. Brolin once again rides high on his late-career surge, this time as the film's main antagonist. While Brolin does a good job overall, his role is perhaps a tad oversimplified and while still a serious threat, not one you can't imagine being overcome. Frank Langella and Susan Sarandon appear in the film also, and though Langella's role is somewhat on the smallish side as Jake's boss and mentor, he does a good job early on setting the table for the rest of the film. Sadly, Sarandon is a cipher as Jake's real estate investor mother and hence cannot add a lot to the small role she has been assigned.

Obviously never told not to sit with his eyes that close to the screen

For what the original film represents, it's almost too bad this sequel wasn't better reviewed upon release. Then again, since the original existed in Stone's "golden age", it simply simply be that this new film is nowhere near the quality of the first. That wouldn't be surprising, especially given Stone's propensity for visual elements, such as the NYC skyline overlaid with a stock price chart. Stunts like that alone wouldn't be bad, but Stone seems to enjoy doing things like this a bit too much, since every time there's a break in the story, he fills the void with endless similar visual trickery as a bridge. At best, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is a timely, relevant look at the market crash through the eyes of those directly involved, a great exercise in character development, and hosts at least good performances from all involved, and a great one from Michael Douglas. At its worst you have largely useless characters, meandering plot threads and unnecessary twists that make the finale predictable and anti-climactic. In the end, I liked this film, though I feel my appreciation for it would dwindle were I to revisit the original. Stone might no longer be at his peak, but if this is the standard fare he introduces these days, I certainly won't reject any future films of his out of hand.

Read more »