A former DEA agent moves his family to a quiet town, where he soon tangles with a local meth druglord. From: IMDb.com

A former DEA agent moves his family to a quiet town, where he soon tangles with a local meth druglord. From: IMDb.com

Directed by: Gary Fleder

Starring: James Franco, Jason Statham, Winona Ryder and others

Current release date:  November 27, 2013

You can wonder; what is the actual point of this movie? What is it trying to do or tell you? And yes I have to say; this is a pretty pointless movie to watch but yet somehow I just can't call it a bad movie as well.

Of course this is the type of movie you have to be in the right mood to see. It's a very talkative movie, that isn't necessarily following a narrative story, in the sense of having a clear beginning, middle and end. It rather is a journey through a man's mind and I have to say that it was a journey that I liked going on.

The movie feels like a guy narrating from his own very personal diary, with some moving images accompanying it. I have to say that it worked out as a very pleasant storytelling style for me. What definitely also helps is the fact that it isn't a very slow and poetic movie but rather a fast going one, that doesn't ever dwells too long on anything. The movie is also only 81 minutes short, though normally these type of movies often tend to go on for twice as long. It's a real positive thing really that this movie keeps a tight pace, since it both helps to keep things going and interesting to watch, at basically all times.

I never felt bored while watching the movie, despite the fact that it wasn't following a classic narrative structure and didn't have a 'conflict' and solution toward the end in its story. It's just a story that meanders on but does it pleasantly, without ever becoming bad, dull or repetitive with anything.

It's a good looking movie, that's a period piece as well, set in the '60's. It's also obvious that it wasn't a very expensive movie to make, so it isn't ever showing off with anything but that's also a good thing in this case. It makes the movie a more personal and humble feeling one, that's all about its main character and his own 'small world' and not necessarily about the actual world and time period that he lived in.

It's clear that not everybody is going to like this movie but personally, I did really like it.

7/10

Watch trailer

A former DEA agent moves his family to a quiet town, where he soon tangles with a local meth druglord. From: IMDb.com

A recounting of Jack Kerouac's (here known by the name of his fictional alter-ego Jack Duluoz) three sojourns to the cabin in Big Sur, owned by poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti. From: IMDb.com

A former DEA agent moves his family to a quiet town, where he soon tangles with a local meth druglord. From: IMDb.com

Directed by: Gary Fleder

Starring: James Franco, Jason Statham, Rachelle Lefevre and others

Current release date:  November 27, 2013

A recounting of Jack Kerouac's (here known by the name of his fictional alter-ego Jack Duluoz) three sojourns to the cabin in Big Sur, owned by poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti. From: IMDb.com

Directed by: Michael Polish

Starring: Stana Katic, Kate Bosworth, Radha Mitchell and others

Current release date: November 1, 2013

A former DEA agent moves his family to a quiet town, where he soon tangles with a local meth druglord. From: IMDb.com

Directed by: Gary Fleder

Starring: James Franco, Rachelle Lefevre, Jason Statham and others

Current release date: November 27, 2013

Recounts the events surrounding Jack Kerouac's three brief sojourns to a cabin in Big Sur, California. From: IMDb.com

Directed by: Michael Polish

Starring: Stana Katic, Henry Thomas, Josh Lucas and others

Current release date: 2013

Three childhood friends set aside their personal issues and reunite for a girls' weekend on a remote island off the coast of Maine. One wrong move turns their weekend getaway into a deadly fight for survival. From: IMDb.com

Directed by: Katie Aselton

Starring: Katie Aselton, Lake Bell, Kate Bosworth and others

Current release date: May 17, 2013

It's not very hard to see why this movie doesn't work out as well as the original did. It's totally lacking the raw, gritty and bleak atmosphere of the 1971 original, which is for most part due to the fact it changed settings. Instead of the cold and depressing English landscapes, this movie is set in rural, warm Mississippi. It just gives the movie a totally different style and atmosphere to it, making this look and feel as a far more average genre flick.

But that of course is not the only thing the movie is lacking with. The storytelling forms another problem for the movie. Instead of slowly and steadily building up to things, the movie just lets stuff happen. Because things just happen, it doesn't ever feel like the story is being like a slippery slope and its main character never reaches a clear breaking point.

All of this are reasons why this isn't exactly being the most powerful or involving movie to watch. But having said that, I also still need to be honest and conclude that this is far from a bad genre movie. Especially when you aren't familiar with the 1971 Sam Peckinpah movie by the same name, starring Dustin Hoffman, this is still being a pretty good and enjoyable little genre movie.

The story still has some interesting elements to it, though it doesn't exactly ever goes deep with anything. Clearly it's not as much a psychological movie as the original was but that's OK, since the movie does has some other qualities to it with its thriller ingredients. There is still some tension and also mystery to the story and it features some pretty good and interesting characters in it.

It's true perhaps that James Marsden wasn't the best choice for the main lead but again, this is mostly due to it that you keep comparing him to the same character Hoffman played in the 1971 version. The reason why the Hoffman character worked out so well within the context of the movie was because his character not only was a pushover, he also looked like one. When his wife called him a coward you believed she really meant it, while in this movie it only sounds like a tease. Mardsen might look a bit dorky while wearing glasses, he still obviously is in good shape and has a square jaw, making him look nothing like a wimp or pushover. It also makes the transition his character goes through work out as something less effective and just not all that interesting because very little changes within the character.

Luckily it's a movie filled with plenty of other characters, playing a big and important role for the movie. Alexander Skarsgård and James Woods spice things up a little bit more, playing 'villainoush' characters and still help to give the movie and its story some more depth and dimensions.

The movie as it is, is nothing too special but everything in it still works out well enough to consider this a good and watchable enough genre movie. Still terrible as a remake though, of the 1971 Peckinpah classic.

6/10

Watch trailer

(Review originally written at 4 August 2006)

OK Superman is back (and I'm glad he is)! But not with a blast.

It's a recent trend in superhero movies to give the story and its character a deeper meaning and more realistic emotions. Most recent example of this is of course "Batman Begins" and other examples are "Spider-Man" and "Hulk". "Superman Returns" also tries to put this in the movie. It however does not suit the main character and is not true to the spirit and atmosphere of the other original previous Superman movies. The movie takes itself far too serious with as a result that it isn't always a fun or entertaining one to watch. It tries to be more than just another superhero movie but it never knows to fully convince.

The movie in the beginning takes it time to explain the story for the viewers who haven't seen the '78 original and its sequel, on which this movie is a direct sequel again. I can't say that I think this was the right choice. The movie would had been better of if the action, so to speak, started off immediately and didn't wasted any time on re-introducing all of the characters. The movie does however still show lots of respect to the original, mainly with its use of music. The opening credits are done in the exact same style as the original and they also didn't changed a not with its music, which really was the right thing to do. Let's be honest, the opening credits of the original '78 "Superman" movie are perhaps the most spectacular and most awesome opening credits of all time, which is mainly thanks to the John Williams music. Director Bryan Singer and John Ottman also seemed to realize and understand this and they use the John Williams at the exact right moments in the movie. John Ottman, on his turn, also composed a wonderful and suiting musical score on his own, complete with a wonderful new Superman theme.

The movie feels like two separate stories. One story concentrates on Superman/Clark Kent and the other on his eternal villain Lex Luthor, who is out of prison again, due to the absence of Superman during his court hearing. The movie doesn't feel as a complete whole and it is not until when the two stories mix that the movie starts to take pace and become truly interesting to watch. This however happens too late into the movie to completely save it.

The story itself is also very simple, a bit too simple for my taste. It also lacks some of the fundamental things a Superman movie needs. Superman movie needs to be fun, colorful and perhaps even a bit campy. Bryan Singer's Superman world is mostly dark. Also the humor is wrong. The movie does have humor in it but not the right kind. Superman movies needs slapstick, over-the-top sort of humor. The humor and atmosphere in this movie really doesn't suit the Superman character. It makes you wonder; Perhaps isn't the Superman character a bit too old fashioned for the 21th century? The movie concentrates too much on the dramatic and realistic aspects of the movie, such as the whole love triangle and problems between Superman, Lois Lane and her fiancée played by James Marsden, which is far from interesting or compelling.

The movie still could had a great one, despite its plot, if it had been a more entertaining one. The movie is lacking in some real good action. Basically the biggest and most spectacular action sequence of the movie is already in the beginning (the plane sequence). After that the movie and its action slows down and the end of the movie could had really used a big and spectacular finale. Instead now the movie doesn't know how and when to end. The ending is overlong, over-dramatic and completely unnecessary. They could had basically summed things up in 5 minutes but the movie chooses an overlong sentimental ending instead.

Brandon Routh is perfectly cast as Superman and he also really looks like Christopher Reeve. As expected Kevin Spacey steals the show as Lex Luthor but his presence is perhaps not as spectacular or as memorable as Gene Hackman's. Kate Bosworth is really miscast as Lois Lane. Lois Lane should be a strong, independent woman with lots of life experience. With all respect but Kate Bosworth looks like a fragile teenager.

Visually the movie is great and spectacular. All of the special effects are top-class (Oscar nod, no doubt) and they provide the movie with its best moments.

I'm glad Superman is back on the silver screen but the the movie itself is nothing too remarkable. In the end it's a pretty forgettable, overlong movie, that is too simple, even while it tries to be so much more than just a superhero movie.

I don't mean to sound cruel but you're better of waiting for the DVD. It's not really a movie worth seeing in cinemas.

6/10

Watch trailer