Good Kill (4/10): Interesting premise that gets lost in the repetition.

“Don't ask me if this is a just war. It's just war.”

Director Andrew Niccol has proven in the past that he’s capable of directing smart and intelligent sci-fi films like Gattaca, but he can also direct duds like The Host. Good Kill is on the one hand a unique war film because it focuses on the army’s use of drones for fighting and the effects it has on the soldiers, but on the other hand it feels very repetitive and heavy handed with the message. Ethan Hawke plays Tom Egan, a former Air Force pilot who has served on six tours, but is currently fighting from inside a bunker near Las Vegas controlling the drones like if he was playing a video game. He is fighting the war in a way he isn’t accustomed to, and the effects of each long distance kill are taking a toll on him. As opposed to his tours, he can now return home each day to his beautiful wife Molly (January Jones) and two kids. But he can’t manage to separate his comfortable life at home with his service in the bunker. He’s desperate to get back on a real plane, but his superior, Jack Johns (Bruce Greenwood) needs him to continue fighting the war from the control room. Tom begins to question the ethics of what he’s doing, and he’s also having trouble communicating his feeling to his wife whom he feels more and more distanced to. He feels like a coward at times and it’s a feeling that his new partner, Vera (Zoe Kravitz) seems to share with him. When the crew begin receiving direct orders from the CIA, his ethical questioning gains more weight and his life begins to unravel at home. 

The film opens with a very interesting premise and the first fifteen minutes are gripping.  Ethan Hawke delivers a solid role in this character study that shows the effect that the war is taking on him, but after a while everything begins to feel extremely repetitive and the story begins to drag while continuing to hammer the nail in the same place. He questions each order he receives, he returns home to his nagging wife, he drowns himself in alcohol, and the next day the same thing happens. The film lacks subtlety and it focuses on the effects that fighting a war from home has on some of these soldiers in a rather conventional way. Ethan Hawke gives a much more subtle and restrained performance than what we are used to seeing him in. He delivers a very solid performance and we see the stress that he’s going through simply by looking at the wrinkles in his forehead (which explains the use of extreme close ups on Hawke’s face). He makes this a much better movie than what it really is, but it wasn’t enough for me to recommend it. Niccol is basically criticizing the new video game style of war policy by portraying the ethical dilemma the soldiers go through. Good Kill lacks subtlety but we do see a side of the war we hadn’t seen before. 

The secondary cast doesn’t get much to do here since the film basically focuses on Hawke’s character. January Jones probably suffers the most due to the stereotypical character she has to play. We’ve seen this role of the nagging wife who doesn’t understand what her husband’s going through played out many times before. The melodrama at home is what ultimately hurts this film and drags it down. Zoe Kravitz and Bruce Greenwood have some interesting scenes, but the repetitive nature of the story becomes unbearable at times. Good Kill tries to say a lot, but it ultimately doesn’t say much. Many have compared it to Eastwood’s American Sniper, but other than the long distance killings there’s not any more similarities. Niccol focuses more on the ethical dilemma of this new approach to war, but he does it by beating the audience over the head with the same idea and through the use of  heavy dialogue. It’s as if he’s forcing the audience to interpret things his way. Niccol’s greatest weakness in Good Kill is his own script overloaded with stereotypical characters which wasted an interesting premise.  

My Review: Gattaca (7/10)

“I got the better end of the deal. I only lent you my body. You lent me your dream.”

In Andrew Niccol’s directorial debut we are invited to imagine a world where humans are categorized according to their genetic make-up. In this world, genetic engineering is not only a possibility, but a very common thing. Society now classifies people according to their DNA, and social classes are determined by it. It is not a future too hard to envision considering over history we have categorized people according to the color of their skin, their race, or their gender. Niccol creates an interesting sci-fi premise by using this sort of allegory of our society and combining it with some action and romance. I have yet to see Niccol’s Lord of War, but from what I’ve seen his debut film has been his best. He had an interesting cast to work with as well. Ethan Hawke plays the lead role, Vincent Freeman, who was born with inferior genes and therefore not expected to live long. He must settle for unimportant jobs, and no matter how hard he tries, he is unable to achieve his dream of traveling to space. Those jobs are only available for humans with superior DNA. Jude Law plays a supporting role as Jerome Murrow, a man born with perfect genes, but after suffering an accident he is left paraplegic. Vincent assumes Jerome’s identity and by deceiving DNA testings he is able to follow his dream and is assigned on a space mission. It’s an engaging premise despite some flaws, but it is much more intelligent than some recent sci-fi Niccol films.

Ethan Hawke gives a solid performance, but he doesn’t really stand out here like he has in some of his other films. The best thing about Gattaca is its sci-fi futuristic premise which manages to thrill and keep the audience in suspense. Jude Law doesn’t add much to the story, but he is always an interesting presence. Uma Thurman plays Hawke’s love interest and gives the plot a romantic side. Her chemistry with Hawke is what makes the film emotionally engaging, because without her Vincent isn’t really engaging on his own. The film succeeds thanks to its strong narrative (written by Niccol himself) and the way it manages to adapt current prejudices in society to a future we don’t want to look forward to. It gets its point across of cautioning us and delivering meaning in a similar way that classic fairy tales did when our mothers read us the stories when we were kids. It has become a classic for some over the years. It’s not among my favorite films, but it was an enjoyable ride and i’m glad I finally got around to watching it.

My Review: The Host (2/10)

"Choose to believe. Choose to fight. Choose to love. Choose to listen."

Choose to stay away from this movie, unless like me you enjoy watching terrible films once in a while so you can say how terrible they were and be more grateful for the great ones when they come along. So let me begin by saying how terrible the script was. Andrew Niccol was once a great writer (Gattaca, The Truman Show, and The Terminal), but I don't know what he was thinking when he decided to adapt this script. I mean he had a wonderful novel to work with (note the irony here please). The Host was written by Stephenie Meyer, the successful novelist that brought us the Twilight saga. Meyer has a huge following, which mostly consists of preteen girls, but I have to say that this film was a lot worse than the Twilight saga and not even her fans went to see this movie. I actually enjoyed some of the Twilight films, but The Host was just too much for me. If you've seen the Twilight films then you know how ridiculous the scenes with the werewolves communicating with each other through voice over narration was. The Host is essentially the same thing as we see the main character speaking to her body's host and basically having a conversation with herself throughout the entire movie. Oh and how can I forget, you have yet another love triangle here although this time it gets a little weird because despite the fact that there are two boys in love with a girl she is two separate persons, so basically it is a love triangle between four people in three bodies. If I hadn't seen Saoirse Ronan before giving such wonderful performances in films like Adaptation or Hannah I would've thought that this young actress was going nowhere. She is terrible here, but I assume it's because of the poor script she had to work with because this is the first time she disappoints. With strong material she has been mesmerizing and I know she has a great career ahead of her. Meyer will probably continue writing best selling novels thanks to her fan base, but hopefully they will stay away from adapting such novels. 

Our planet has experienced several years of peace thanks to an alien race that has invaded us and taken over our bodies as hosts. A few humans have been able to survive by remaining hidden forming a resistance movement. Some of the aliens are in charge of finding these humans and inviting new hosts to take over those bodies. The leader is known as The Seeker (Diane Kruger), and after capturing a young girl named Melanie (Saoirse Ronan) she puts a host inside of her known as the Wanderer. The Seeker asks the Wanderer to get into Melanie's head and extract information of the whereabouts of the rest of the resistance movement. The only problem is that Melanie doesn't make it easy for the Wanderer to make decisions on her own, and she slowly begins to convince the Wanderer to help her instead of the Seeker. The Wanderer/Melanie escapes and reunites with her uncle Jeb (William Hurt), her boyfriend Jared (Max Irons), and her little brother Jamie (Chandler Canterbury) along with the rest of their community which remains hidden in some caves. At first they don't accept the host, but Jeb convinces everyone they should help her and they slowly begin to realize that the Wanderer has come in peace. Ian (Jake Abel) begins falling for the Wanderer, who they now call Wanda, due to her kind spirit, and thus complicating things between her and Melanie. Meanwhile the Seeker doesn't give up on her search and continues to pursue the remaining humans.

I think I have written way too much for a film I really didn't like at all. This will certainly be on my list for the worst films of the year and it could be in the top 3. The cinematography wasn't bad here, the film does look good and the scenery is beautiful, but it suffers from a weak story with terrible characters. I can't blame the cast for their performance here because they really didn't have much to work with. I don't think they took their jobs seriously and just went for the easy money. The only character I liked here was Jeb and maybe it had to do with the fact that William Hurt is a great actor. I still don't know why he agreed to star in this film, but he still managed to do a decent job. I've defended Niccol in the past because he has directed some great films, I even enjoyed his sci-fi film In Time, but I can't defend him here. The Host is a terrible film. 

My Review: In Time (7/10)

¨For a few immortals to live, many people must die. ¨

In Time is the latest Andrew Niccol sci-fi futuristic flick where people are genetically developed to grow until they`re 25. People don`t age more than that, but the downside is that they are only guaranteed one more year of life. Once they turn 25 a clock starts ticking on their arm with a glowing neon light counting down the days. Time has also become the new currency as people work and are paid with time, and they also buy products with their time (bus ticket fares cost two dollars for example). The premise is a very interesting one as we see rich people living practically immortal lives as they continue to buy and buy more time. They don`t age so  they can be over a hundred years old and still look like a 25 year old. In one scene we are introduced to one of the character`s family and we see his mother, wife, and daughter all lined up looking like they were all recent college graduate friends. On the other hand it has become increasingly difficult for the poor to live past 26 since the cost of life exceeds their earnings so the people in the ghettos don’t have much life expectancy. That is precisely how the rich want things to balance out because according to them ¨for a few immortals to live, many people must die.¨ Niccol, who also directed the 1997 sci-fi film Gattaca (a much stronger film than this one) and wrote the screenplay for the critically acclaimed The Truman Show, perhaps has made one of his weakest films, but it never fails to entertain nevertheless with its engaging premise. Yes, there are many plot holes and if you dig in too deep some things might not make sense, but nonetheless I had a great time playing along with the premise and receiving the clear social message Niccol`s was trying to lay out.  

Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) has been 25 for three years now managing to survive in the ghetto at a day to day basis along with his mother Rachel (played by the hot Olivia Wilde) who should be fifty, but looks like his girlfriend. Will`s life changes when he runs into Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), a very wealthy man who apparently has arrived in the wrong neighborhood. Will saves Henry from a group of time thieves led by Fortis (Alex Pettyfer), but he didn`t really want to be saved. Henry tells Will that he is tired of living and that men were never meant to be immortal; his body might be 25 but his mind is old and weary. He gives away his time to Will (over a century) and commits suicide, not before telling Will to use his time wisely. Once Henry is found dead, the police (known as timekeepers) begin to investigate the alleged murder and Will becomes their prime suspect. Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) begins to pursue Will who has now traveled to the best neighborhood (called time zones), New Greenwich. Will doesn`t understand how the time keepers are so interested in investigating a suicide when there are hundreds of deaths everyday in the ghetto that they simply decide to ignore. That is when Will discovers that there is something wrong with the system and it`s time to balance things out. He meets a millionaire banker named Phillip Weis (Vincent Kartheiser) and ends up kidnapping his daughter, Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), in order to escape from the timekeepers.

From this point on the sci-fi flick begins to take a classic Robin Hood-ish turn as Will begins to steal time from the rich and give it to the poor. The action becomes non-stop, although predictable, but it doesn`t mean it becomes less interesting. I really was entertained with this movie and really enjoyed the premise although I recognize its many flaws and see why many people didn`t like it. The futuristic look of the film is also worth a watch considering that Roger Deakins (the best in his field) was in charge of the cinematography and it`s very stylish. The lead performances from Timberlake and Seyfried weren`t among my favorite; I think the best performance comes from Cillian Murphy who is great in his relentless pursuit of the fugitives. He is not the typical villain we see in most action films. The rest of the cast really doesn`t get enough time to show off their talents as they get little screen time. Once the premise is set the movie loses some of its groove, but I was still entertained and had a decent time. This might rank among Niccol`s worst projects, but it still is a fine good movie; although probably not worth watching again.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/