action

Running Dark

alicia — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 08:00:00 +0000

Running Dark is the second book in Jamie Freveletti’s action-mystery-thriller series featuring chemist and long-distance runner Emma Caldridge. The first book, Running from the Devil, establishes the character of Caldridge as a strong scientist with a flair for quick thinking and physical endurance in the worst of situations. Running from the Devil followed Caldridge as her commercial plane was hijacked and crashed in the Colombian rainforest; Caldridge managed to get away from the group of surviving passengers as they were rounded up and lead through the forest by a group of Colombian fighters playing the middlemen for a drug cartel, intent on ransoming the survivors at their destination.

Caldridge demonstrated her physical and mental endurance as well as her scientific knowledge of natural chemistry, as she carefully followed the group through the Colombian jungle, surviving first on the remains of increasingly-rancid airplane food and then native plants. The group walked several miles a day; as Caldridge followed, she often had to race ahead or double back to avoid detection, landmines, and another mysterious group who begins to track her path with the help of trained dogs.

Occasionally, crash survivors were killed by the Colombian fighters, or left for dead on the path. When the kidnappers realize that Cameron Sumner, a U.S. government agent, might threaten their plan for ransoming the survivors, they hurt him badly. Caldridge eventually stumbles upon him, helps him through infection and fever, and makes an ally in the process. Their dependence on one another for personal survival and professional secrecy established the core relationships at work in the next book in the series.

Following on the heels of Freveletti’s first thriller, Running Dark takes place in South Africa, Somalia, and on the high seas of the Gulf of Aden as Caldridge makes her way from an endurance race during which she survives a roadside bomb and injection by an unknown substance to a cruise ship in peril of being overrun by Somali pirates. On that cruise ship is Cameron Sumner, working for Darkview, a United States-based independent security firm.

The pirate strike is a surprise to Sumner and the crew; because weapons are illegal on cruise ships, they barely manage to stave off several attacks using Sumner’s smuggled gun and the help of several passengers and crew members. Meanwhile, no one but Caldridge and the Darkview team back in the U.S. know that amongst the cargo on the ship might be several vials of Sarin, a colorless, odorless, and very deadly chemical weapon. When Caldridge finally reaches the imperiled boat, Sumner and Calderidge work with the crew and passengers of the ship to fight the invasion and try to safely operate the ship despite the nearly-constant threat of chemical and conventional attacks.

As was Running from the Devil, Running Dark is fast-paced and filled with interesting details about the characters’ lives, work habits, and career-oriented knowledge. The chapter narratives move back and forth in point of view from the bad guys to the good guys, keeping the reader on her/ his toes and introducing new and dangerous scenarios every few pages. Running Dark is not as all-absorbing as is Running from the Devil, and unfortunately there are several chapters that feel as if they are marking time until the final climax. I highly recommend reading the first novel before the second in order to contextualize the relationships and understand the back story of the events and characters revisited in Running Dark; if you’re a fan of international thrillers and/ or layered female characters, give Freveletti’s Emma Caldridge a try in this series.

Written by: Stefanie Snider, October 4th 2010

Salt

admin — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:00:00 +0000

Directed by Phillip Noyce

Columbia Pictures

The Cold War may be over (or not, given the recent New York City-based Russian spy scandal), but it’s alive and well in Salt, the new action adventure thriller directed by Phillip Noyce and starring Angelina Jolie. Originally intended to be a vehicle for Tom Cruise (until he bowed out, citing that the role would be too similar to his work in the Mission Impossible franchise), the film was then refashioned for Jolie. Here she plays Evelyn Salt, a CIA agent who is accused by a Russian defector of being a spy. In the wake of the news stories swirling around real-life Russian spy Anna Chapman, the release of this film couldn’t be more timely. Thankfully, it’s also tremendous fun, even if the plot is so outlandish that to truly enjoy it you’ll need to suspend all brain activity once you enter the theater.

One of my problems with Jolie is, unlike other actresses in her age range (e.g. Kate Winslet), she is not a particularly emotive actress; in fact, I often find both her onscreen and off-screen appearances to be utterly glacial, devoid of all warmth and vulnerability. That visceral frigidity works perfectly in Salt, and from a feminist point of view, it’s refreshing to see a woman (who does have a magnetic screen presence–coldness notwithstanding) headline an action adventure thriller.

Whether she’s creating a bomb out of office furniture or executing some insane stunt that has to be seen to be believed, Jolie acts with abandon and brio. She’s terrifically riveting as we follow Salt engaging in all sorts of high- and low-tech derring-do to elude capture. There doesn’t seem to be anything too preposterous for the character to do to get herself out of a bind. Watching Salt stage one mayhem after another is exciting in itself.

The screenplay by Kurt Wimmer is packed with action and dialogue that is equally absorbing and inane. But thanks to the velocity of the film’s direction, coupled with the the star’s investment and charisma, Salt emerges as this summer’s best popcorn film. Judging by the open-ended conclusion of the film, this could become another action franchise. Go see it, but remember to forget about logic when you buy your ticket.

Cross-posted at Films For Women

Written by: Iris Dorbian, July 27th 2010

Knight and Day

admin — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:02:00 +0000

Directed by James Mangold

20th Century Fox

I’ve read almost universally bad reviews for Knight and Day, and I read most of them before I saw the movie. I don’t usually read reviews of a movie before I see it, because I don’t want my opinion to be tainted; in this case, they might’ve been, because I went into the movie with hyper-low expectations. That may have played a hand, because I actually really enjoyed the movie.

In the world of most critics, this admission will mean I’m a sell out and have no taste whatsoever, but I’m getting to the age where I don’t care anymore. I’m not a studio plant, and I don’t love everything, as I get accused of so often when I admit liking a movie that bombs. I like what I like, I hate what I hate, and I’ll tell you why for both.

For starters, Knight and Day did a lot of things very right, like the casting. We all think Tom Cruise is a little bit crazy in real life, and whether you believe any of the hype or not, that’s what his public image has become. But here’s the thing about actors: they’re acting. And their personal beliefs shouldn't be a factor. Here, Cruise plays a wacky, at times out of control, spy. By embracing some of the stereotypes he has come to represent he’s saying, “I’m in on the joke.” It’s the best move he could’ve possibly made, and I haven’t enjoyed him this much in many, many moons.

Cameron Diaz is also perfectly cast as the neurotic female lead. She’s become well known for her high-strung roles, and here she is frequently given the chance to use that squealing and panicking for laughs. She gets a better story arc, unlike some of her other perma-wackos, like her character in Being John Malkovich, for example. Amazing movie and she’s great in it, but she doesn’t get the chance to change much in that. Here, we’re treated to seeing her character learn how to literally roll with the punches and find some long-missing fulfillment in her adventure as she learns how to handle herself and even begins to feed off of the danger she is surrounded by. (The more discerning viewer will look for character symbolism involving the car she is working on in the film.)

One of the greatest complaints about Knight and Day is that there is a device used to take us from scene to scene wherein Cameron Diaz’s character is drugged, meaning we miss out on some of the action of how they get from point A to point B. As a feminist, it would’ve bothered me for its potential date rape allusions, but after the first time, Diaz’s character asks to be drugged, so that pretty much solved my problem of her having her free will taken away. There's also a conclusion to the whole drugging thing that will bring closure to any one that still finds it troublesome.

The best thing about Knight and Day for me was the escapism. Beautiful locations shot well with some great action pieces is the definition of a fun summer popcorn movie. I do believe I’ll have to catch this again in theaters. That’s how much I liked it. All I wanted was to have fun and this movie delivered, and then some. I say, go see it. Just let yourself go and relax and try to forget the actor's personal lives and all the critics telling you to hate it. If you do hate it, hate it for your own reasons, and not because someone told you to on a movie review site.

[Excerpted from Born for Geekdom(http://www.bornforgeekdom.com/2010/06/grown-ups-movie-review-from-feminist.html)

Written by: Audrey M. Brown, July 2nd 2010

Iron Man 2

admin — Thu, 13 May 2010 11:17:00 +0000

Directed by Jon Favreau

Paramount Pictures

Before Iron Man hit theatres in 2008, most of us thought of Jon Favreau as the guy who was so money, baby—and he didn't even know it. Critics and audiences expected little from yet another Marvel Comic-inspired film. So when director Favreau delivered an entertaining film with tons of personality (mostly in the form of the amazing Robert Downey Jr.), it was an underdog smash. And what should logically follow an over-performing film (or an under-performing one, for that matter) but a sequel?

Iron Man 2 reintroduces weapons contractor and physicist extraordinaire Tony Stark as the unmasked Iron Man, combating politicians who want Stark to share his Iron Man technology with the U.S. government for security. There's plenty to glean about private property rights and government corruption in this conflict, but you'll have to visit some other blog to satisfy your government paranoia.

While Stark tries to keep his intellectual property out of U.S. government's and the military's hands, he's also contending with an old, Russian grudge-holder (Mickey Rourke), a suspicious but ogle-worthy new executive assistant (Scarlett Johansson), and his ever-nagging, inexplicable love interest Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). All the while, he's scrambling to find the combination of elements that will power his suit and his heart without slowly poisoning his blood.

There are plenty of feminist elements at play here. First, we deal with the Pepper problem. The original film featured the frigid and nagging yet doggedly loyal Pepper Pots in a supportive role to the womanizing and sarcastic Tony. The only thing that really distinguished her was that she slut-shames the women Tony sleeps with, and Paltrow looks bad in bangs. In the sequel, Tony promotes her to CEO of his company on a whim. Although she faces major scrutiny for her complete lack of experience, she deftly handles the company's affairs in a turbulent time. Unfortunately, Pepper's main purpose here is still to hurl more insults at the reporter Tony slept with in the first film (Leslie Bibb), whose investigation played a key role in the plot, and glare at the new women Tony wants to sleep with: Natalie Rushman. After Tony meets Natalie for the first time, he declares, "I want one."

For her part, Natalie could have been the classic femme fatale. Her character is smart, accomplished, all business, and completely badass. She's an excellent employee, and although Tony attempts to play Pepper and Natalie off each other in a competition of feminine wiles, Natalie doesn't seem interested in anything but getting the job done, even in spite of Tony's constant sexual harassment. The two women do briefly talk to each other about something other than a man a time or two, so Iron Man 2 does (barely) pass the Bechdel Test.

However, these two female characters face some sexism individually, in addition to some more general woman-hating. At one point, the leader of the secret 'good guys club' (Samuel L. Jackson) uses the fact that Tony "made a girl your CEO" to prove that he is going off the deep end. (The other reason was that he got drunk, and basically destroyed his house with his Iron Man suit.) The problem isn't that Pepper has no experience leading a multi-billion dollar company or that she doesn't have the necessary leadership style, it's that she's a "girl." (Although Pepper's age isn't specified, Paltrow is 38-years-old, by the way; she is hardly a girl.) Apparently it's just as stupid to hire a 'girl' to be a CEO as it is to basically drunk-drive a weaponized suit around dozens of party guests.

In another scene, creepy contractor Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) asks his colleagues to get "these bitches out of here" when Pepper and Natalie take over the reins of Hammer's weapons demonstration that turned deadly. Luckily for my temper, Natalie puts him in a headlock moments later, and the two women clean up his mess before Pepper has him arrested.

Finally, in a well-trodden cheap shot at married women (oh, what ballbusting harpies we are), Hammer describes the potential for utter devastation held by a missile he's selling to the U.S. Air Force. What does he dub this harbinger of death? The Ex-Wife.

There's more to say, especially about Pepper and Tony's fraught and completely uninteresting flirtation (I know how to shut her up: I'll kiss her), but I've hit on the main points: slut-shaming, sexual harassment, girls are stupid, girls are bitches, and marriage sucks the life out of men. Thanks for making analysis so simple, Iron Man 2.

Yes, it's possible to like a movie and still deplore its messaging on women. But be aware of what you're watching.

Written by: Hannah Moulton Belec, May 13th 2010

Kick-Ass

admin — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:00:00 +0000

Directed by Matthew Vaughn

Marv Films

Kick-Ass, the movie, ruled. And though I thought the central character's journey was an interesting one, by far the movie appealed to me because of eleven-year-old Hit Girl. I had a big plan to dissect the movie here, but then this gal over at Jezebel totally stole my brain and wrote the most eloquent review ever. (I'll get to that in a minute.)

In a nutshell, this movie made me cringe, laugh, turn my head away from the screen in horror, and many times think, "I'm really uncomfortable with that," followed by, "I think. Am I?" For an action movie that originated in comic form, that's saying something. I usually have clear and distinct opinions about things, and use my mental arsenal of academic blatherings to back it all up. At the end of this film I knew two things for sure:

1) I liked it. It made me think. About violence, gender, and heroes.

2) I disliked intensely the parents who brought their kids (some of whom were as young as six years old) to this film. They didn't even seem distressed walking out of the theater. It was, like, no big deal that their young kids had watched a man being put into a giant microwave and exploding into bits. And now I had to feel shitty for vocalizing my love for gratuitous violence and vengeance-fueled murder because I just endorsed that ideology in front of kindergarteners. So thanks.

Anywayz.

I like super-violent films, I love comics, I love female characters, and so I tolerate a lot of crap movies and am willing to suspend a certain measure of disbelief and accept that some jerk-off was hired to "punch up" a script to sell the movie to a teen male demographic. And I know that if this movie got greenlit primarily because someone managed to get Halle Barry to play the female lead, you probably aren't gonna try to butch her up and have her wear something that would be more realistic for running after bad guys. I get that it's a business run by dudes, for dudes, and that it primarily showcases the fantasies of dudes. But for a small shining moment, we got Hit-Girl. And I am all for a sequel based totally on her.

"In Defense of Hit Girl" over at Jezebel should be read even if you never plan on seeing this movie. It's a great defense of the action genre by a feminist, and not the "it's just entertainment" or the "it's not a movie you should spend time thinking too much about" defense. And for the record, I'm a pacifist and a scaredy-cat. I've never been in a fight, nor do I plan to, but I ♥ violent cinema, especially warrior women characters. It's a thing.

I'm thinking this will make for an awesome Halloween costume, btw.

Cross-posted from Sweet Lady

Written by: Sandra Falero, April 25th 2010

31 Hours

admin — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:02:00 +0000

By Masha Hamilton

Unbridled Books

Following the event, I promised myself I would never read "a 9/11 book," fiction or not. Having admitted that, I can't explain what exactly led me to almost eagerly pick up John Updike's Terrorist in the year it was published, save for the vague hope that this was a writer who could help make some sense out of a senseless situation. As long as I was breaking my vow, lifting the corner of Pandora's box long enough to peak in, I wanted assurance the hands of the author were skilled, strong hands - hands experienced enough to explain the unexplainable.

Ironically, it turned out Terrorist was abysmal, almost cartoonish in its depiction of the "kind of" person who willingly sacrifices his own life in an attempt to advance the cause of Muslim extremism. Instead of a moment of enlightenment, I received a disappointment so great it achieved the same effect I'd originally hoped for, failing to come anywhere near invoking the same degree of terror as 9/11 itself.

Having failed once makes it all the more surprising that, when offered dozens of choices, I actively chose to review Masha Hamilton's 31 Hours —a book with a very similar theme. Only this time, the premise hit much closer to home. Hamilton's novel is told through the lens of a close relationship between a mother and son, a relationship I know times two. The theoretical suddenly became personal.

The plot itself is simple. Thirty-one hours is both how long a mother has to reach her son—whom she knows to be in dire straits—and the length of time her son has to prepare himself to die. In this time frame each goes through eerily similar situations. First, the initial phase of realization: the mother (Carol) that something is terribly wrong and the son (Jonas) that what he'd worked for since training in Pakistan was imminent. Next, the preparation: the mother, in desperation, following all known leads and the son purifying himself, as he's been taught by his mentor. Finally, the act of magnetic repulsion, as the mother tries to reach her son in time, and the son she raised slips out of her hands.

Meanwhile, the other two major characters orbit, providing the context in which the rest of the story plays out. There is Vic, Jonas' neglected girlfriend, who is too caught up in her own ambition to become a dancer to be an effective deterrent, and Sonny, a homeless man with the preternatural ability to smell evil in a person, a character interesting in premise, though poorly executed through the author's inability to create believable dialogue.

The novel capitalizes on a post-9/11 world in which acts of brutality are a daily reality. It brings to the surface the terrifying realization some terrorists are homegrown, produced from the same soil as patriots, and hell-bent on bloodshed in order to right the balance of the world. Unfortunately for the reader, the book falters. A fast-paced thriller promising in its concept, in many ways it lacks in execution. 31 Hours hovers midway between mass market and literary fiction, unable to quite hit the literary mark due to its off-target attempts at a lyrical writing style, as well as passages of dialogue that clunk in the ear.

What Hamilton does achieve is edge-of-your-seat action in a book slim enough to be consumed in a day, taking the wait out of discovering the abrupt—and some would say breathtaking—denouement. Her premise is also a good one, coming at a now well-worn genre from a unique angle of the relationship between a mother and a child raised to know right, yet going terribly wrong.

31 Hours is not a great book. Nor is it the sort of book to perch near the top of the bestseller lists. Yet, it presents an original approach to a difficult subject and story threads that, though not always tied up satisfactorily, at least venture into new territory. And in these days of cookie-cutter bestsellers, sometimes that is enough.

Written by: Lisa Guidarini, November 30th 2009

Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle, and the American Action Movie

admin — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:21:00 +0000

By Eric Lichtenfeld

Wesleyan University Press

In Action Speaks Louder, Eric Lichtenfeld's illuminating history of the action film genre, the author claims that “the action film has deserved the right to be discussed in the same terms as those used to qualify other more established genres.” This idea, while not brought up until the book’s conclusion, forms the basis of Lichtenfeld’s study, which traces action film trends from the early hard-bodied heroes and martial arts stars like Stallone and Seagal all the way through recent comic book adaptations. Along the way, he covers post-apocalyptic action films, modern disaster movies, and the concept of “terror and the confined arena” originated by Die Hard and continued by a large number of films, including Speed and Air Force One.

As he discusses each film, Lichtenfeld traces the progression of common plotlines and hero and villain archetypes, keeping in mind the given time period, both in terms of available special effects and political and social concerns. Quotes from publicity materials and film reviews help to place each film in the content of how it was originally presented and received. Also discussed are the technical aspects of filmmaking, including editing, cinematography and production design.

Lichtenfeld makes a number interesting points about masculinity in action films, in relation to both physicality and weapons. Unfortunately, one major topic he barely touches on is the role of women in these films. While there are few action films that feature female heroes, he could have easily engaged in an ongoing discussion of the genre's stereotypical female characters, including “the victim” and “the prize.”

Overall, Action Speaks Louder accomplishes two things: it establishes action films as legitimate creative endeavors undertaken with the same considerations as other types of films, and it shows how action films are a window into the politics of the time at which they are made. Whether you're an action fanatic, casual fan or someone who always equated the genre with mindless entertainment, Action Speaks Louder will surely change the way you think about, and watch, action films.

Written by: Kiri Oliver, July 24th 2007

The Lookout

admin — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:53:00 +0000

Directed by Scott Frank

Miramax Films

Before the accident, Chris Pratt (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) had a beautiful girlfriend and was his high school’s star hockey player. Four years later, the victim of a serious head injury, he works as a night janitor at a bank and tends to forget things he’s told unless he writes them in his notepad. All he wants is to be who he was. Short of that, he would like to move up to being a bank teller, or to open a restaurant with his roommate Lewis (Jeff Daniels), an older blind man who looks out for him and appears to care about him more than his disappointed parents do.

When Chris befriends Gary Spargo (Matthew Goode) at a bar, he doesn’t realize, at first, that he is being recruited help rob the bank he works at. Lured initially by the promise of a return to his former glory and later by violent threats, Chris finds himself, and Lewis, in the middle of a dangerous crime. He must find a way to overcome his mental roadblocks, save Lewis and prove that while he will never again be a hockey hero, he can be a hero of a different kind.

Gordon-Levitt gives a powerful, understated performance as a man struggling with both the difficulties of everyday tasks and the devastating loss of his former self. As Lewis, Daniels brings warmth, humor and wisdom to the film. Although the construct of Chris’s vaguely and generically perfect past isn’t necessary to demonstrate the tragedy of his situation, it adds a layer of complexity to Goode’s two-faced Gary, who attended the same high school as Chris and is still in awe of the former hockey star even as he takes advantage of him.

While The Lookout is being billed as a heist movie, this label is misleading because the heist is simply a catalyst for Chris’s journey of self-discovery. First conceived by writer and director Scott Frank many years ago, the film is clearly a labor of love for him, with every detail (and actor) carefully chosen and every character outfitted with complex emotions and motives. A skillfully rendered cross between a fast-paced crime story and a compelling character study, The Lookout will be on your mind long after it ends.

Written by: Kiri Oliver, April 11th 2007