Oct. 2: A Double Team Review: Wrecked

"A man trapped in a car wreck at the bottom of a ravine must overcome incredible odds to survive."

Directed by: Michael Greenspan, Rated: R, 91 minutes

So I have done a couple of Double Team Reviews at this point, both of them with Joe from Two Dude Review. This time around, I'm teaming up with David Gilleand who writes for Examiner.com and can be found here, on his Facebook page. Today we're discussing the 2010, Adrien Brody survival thriller, Wrecked. Below, I am in blue and David is in green. 

N: Okay, so what are your initial thoughts on Wrecked?

D: I really liked the film's level of suspense, Adrien Brody did a great job at portraying his character as always, and thought it had great pacing. How about you?

N: I thought it had moments of brilliance, but there were a lot of problems with it for me, such as random animals popping up everywhere and what not. I did really enjoy Brody's performance though. When he's the only guy on the screen he has to bring it, and I feel he really did.

D: Of course. I had one major issue with it, and that was if he was in the middle of a vast forest, why he couldn't simply get a couple of logs to use as clutches instead of crawling around the entire way through.

N: That is a good point. I kind of wondered that, but then just went with it. Crawling around, I guess, adds to the suspense and desperation he was suffering through?

D: I could see it that way, I just try to find the difference between metaphors like that and realism. So I am on the fence there.

When has crawling through a forest ever been a good idea?

N: What did you think of the overall story of the film? There's not a lot at the heart of it, with most of the reveals being in the final scene of the movie.

D: I think because there wasn't a whole lot, it added to the suspense, and that's just not something we see everyday in movies, and it is good to step away from the usual to get an audience reeled into another perspective.

N: Speaking of perspective, the first twenty minutes or so, with Brody trapped in a car in a ditch, was all we saw. Everything from his crowded little perspective. Did you think that was done well? It's hard not to compare something like this to say, Buried. Although it wasn't as claustrophobic, I felt it really was closing in all around.

D: I wasn't a fan of Buried apart from the overall idea of shooting an entire movie in one place with one person, but I think they did it particularly well in this one. Brody is really a great actor, and he prepared for this movie by staying out in Canadian woods in the winter, stuck in the car while the rest of the crew went to the hotel. You really have to give the guy credit for that. I really think that added to the believability to his situation, which in turn made the film that much better.

N: Certainly. This film could have easily been thrown out the window had the lead actor been somebody else. Brody carries the movie completely.

D: Come to think of it, I can't remember the last time I disliked any role I have seen him play.

N. Yeah! Me too. It's just a shame that after his recognition for The Pianist, the guy's kind of faded off into nothing. He's a great actor.

Brody: "I won an Oscar and all I got was the lousy Predators". Seriously, how is this guy not in more big time stuff?

N. So, researching the film, I see that on IMDB it has a 5.1/10. While I felt that Wrecked is much more deserving than that score. What issues did you have with it that could explain such a low score by so many people?

D: I am guessing that because everyone's taste is different, some may not have been able to sense the suspense. It could be seen as repetitive  I could see someone saying "Okay, I get it, he's stuck. Get on with it".

N: True. Like I mentioned, the biggest complaint I had were the animals. The film really wanted to focus on a realism behind what Brody's character's situation is, but having random homicidal mountain lions pop up really pissed me off.

D: I never really thought about it. He was in the wilderness, things were bound to show up to add to that suspense, but you're right. Reminds me of how everyone complained about the cougar episode of 24.

N: That's the first thing I thought of! Thinking that f**king Kim Bauer was hiding somewhere.

D: This was definitely a spin-off.

N: Haha.

N: What did you think of the overall look of the film?

D: I think the massive size of the forest, and the fact that he went in circles was done very well. It was filmed in actual woods, so it looks real because it is. I never had any issues with the blood in the movie, and I often do. I guess the overall look had no flaws for me, what about you?

N: I really liked the look too. I've always been a fan of survival movies and I think this one captured the woods really well. And I agree, the blood looked good. It was that dark, realistic looking kind, and not that corn syrup and red food coloring look you see in a lot of low budget movies.

D: Which is why when I make movies, I stay away from the blood aspect.

The blood effects actually look real. Something you rarely find in films with this kind of budget. Thank God.

D: Well you said you are a fan of survival movies, so I guess how would you compare this to other survival movies?

N: I think Wrecked is up there, honestly. Sure, it's not as showy as a lot of the other ones, like The Edge, The Grey, or even 127 Hours, but it's still pretty suspenseful  The added plot-line that he can't remember anything that happened before the crash is also something new, that makes it more of a mystery thriller than a straight up horror movie.

D: Yeah I agree. I always like to say that presentation is key, not how big of a budget a movie has. I am a fan of survival films too, and I am really glad I saw this movie. I still think 127 Hours takes the cake, but this is up there as well.

N: To wrap things up then, what score would you give this movie on a scale of 1-10?

D: I'll give it an 8.

N: And what is your favorite part of the film?

D: Normally, I would say the end reveal, but my personal favorite part is when he finally got the dog to warm up to him.

N: I liked that part too. The look on his face when he realized he needed to share the tiny piece of beef jerky was genuine. I would give the movie a 7.4 out of 10. I thought the movie is filmed well and that Brody absolutely nails it with his performance.

Wrecked is a great little film that deserves your attention. It's slower than most movies of the survival genre, but it's beautifully shot and has an incredible actor in the leading role. It also packs a little mystery, with Brody's character waking up not knowing who he is. As we struggle along with him in his attempt to find rescue, we also begin to wonder what kind of man he is and what he was doing before the car crash. I would definitely recommend the film. 

The Good:

Adrian Brody delivering an exceptional performance, being the only man on screen for 90% of the film

The Bad:

homicidal mountain lions that pop up for no real reason but to add more suspense to something that's strong enough on its own without it

The Ugly:

the fact this movie isn't getting as much love as I believe it deserves, it's really good

Overall: 7.4/10

Trailer:

Want to team up with me for a future Double Team Review? Comment below with ideas or reach out to me on Twitter @CineKatz

Sept 26: A Double Team Review: Dredd

"In a violent, futuristic city where the police have the authority to act as judge, jury and executioner, a cop teams with a trainee to take down a gang that deals the reality-altering drug, SLO-MO."

Directed by: Pete Travis, Rated: R, 95 minutes

A couple of weeks ago, I partnered up with Joe from Two Dude Review for a Double Team Review of Lawless (see it here). Well, we're continuing the feature with Dredd this week, a flick we both were able to catch in 3D. The film is a loose remake/reboot of the comic book icon and is much grittier and darker than Sylvester Stallone's 1995 piece of crap. As before, I'm in blue and Joe is in red. 

J. So to get things started, did Dredd meet your expectations?

N. That's a loaded question. Why it wasn't as "action-packed" as I thought it would be, it surprised me a lot. The visuals were superb, even beautiful at times, and Karl Urban's Dredd made me chuckle quite a bit.

J. Yeah, I did that on purpose. I've struggled with my thoughts on the movie since I've seen it. I'll admit to liking Urban's version of the character. He masted the scowl unlike any other. I also liked that the film pretty much took place in an apartment complex. I expected quite a bit more action, and my want for more only intensified with how incredibly over the top the scenes were that were included.

N. Yeah, some were very over-the-top, but there was never any HUGE action sequence that blew me away. I was expecting huge set piece (packed with explosions) over and over and over and over.

J. There was one that bordered on being HUGE, but it happens too soon.

N. Yeah, it features a couple of artillery machine guns that I thought would go somewhere. But even then, it just kind of happens. Not a lot going on. It's really just Dredd running away and not really doing anything.

J. It could have been so much better, instead it just went on and on and nothing was really going on.

With obvious comparisons to The Raid: Redemption, Dredd makes up for what it lacks in action with a smart script and great visuals. 

J. What did you think of Slo-Mo?

N. The idea behind the drug is really cool but the way they explained it made it sound cheesy. "It's a drug that makes your brain work 1% the normal speed".

J. YES!

N. The effects behind it though, are phenomenal. I don't think I've ever actually liked slow motion camera work as much as I did with Dredd.

J. I thought the idea was pretty original, and the first time we see it done using the slow motion camera work was exceptional...but I grew tired of seeing it as much as they ended up showing it. It seemed anytime someone took a hit, we got the slow motion camera work and I'd rather have seen something action packed going on.

N. I can understand where you're coming from, but I thought the Slo-Mo portions were too damn good looking to pass up. The detail, the color, and the effects behind each "hit" look so beautiful. It's weird seeing something like that look so nice. Almost made the drug look more artistic than anything like heroin.

J. I can see your point. I just felt that the time could have been better spent elsewhere. What'd you think of the look of the film? aside from the slow motion scenes?

N. I liked it a lot. I thought that a large part of it would look too "video-gamey", but it ended up having a decently gritty feel to it. It was dark with a lot of grays, thus when the Slo-Mo came into play and the color jumps out, it's even more vibrant.

J. Agreed. I thought the look of the film was more realistic than most of the futuristic films we see. There were no flying cars, no outrageous electronic devices, it was dark and gritty and a future that's much easier to envision.

N. Minus the Mega Structures, it was a rather realistic look. A lot of what we have today mixed with the smallest bits of whatever from the future. It didn't try to be a sci-fi flick.

J. Aside from the drug and Dredd's gun, it really didn't. It felt like an action thriller more than anything.

Dredd's gun is linked to his DNA and voice. If he wants to change his ammunition (from say incendiary to stun), he says it out loud and BAM! awesome!

J. What'd you think of Anderson?

N. I've always liked Olivia Thirbly and was wondering if she'd just continue to make indie fluff over and over again. So seeing her kick ass (and she does quite a bit) was really fun to see. Plus, she's incredibly hot. And her sequences where she'd go into the minds of people is really cool.

J. Yeah, I wasn't sure I was going to like the character at first. I was concerned that the mind reading ability was going to be completely misused, but it was handled really well. And she is most definitely hot!

N. Ha. And I agree with the possible issue. I was worried at first that the psychic part would be weird, but it worked. A lot of what makes Dredd great can be attributed to screenwriter, Alex Garland, who also wrote 28 Days Later and Sunshine, two of my favorite movies. His script is much smarter than you're average action flick. 

J. I'm not familiar with Sunshine, but I can see where he has a knack for the gritty style that's used in 28 Days Later and Dredd.

N. Earlier, you mentioned Dredd's gun. How fricking awesome are the Judge's guns?

J. Oh hell, that shit was bad ass as it gets.

N. I also liked that Dredd continued to worry about ammo. He didn't have a continuous supply. That little smart bit of the script made me like the movie even more.

J. Yeah, I liked how subtle that was. Often times in movies like this you find yourself asking how many bullets a gun uses, and that wasn't the case here.

N. Yeah. He kept checking his gun and even told Anderson that she needed to reserve ammo. Multiple times.

J. So having pointed out so many things were handled better than a majority of films, I felt let down by the last 1/3 of the movie. It felt entirely too predictable. I don't think anything happened that I didn't expect or see coming a mile away.

N. Yes. I agree with you completely. Not only is the ending predictable, but it happens too fast. There's a huge buildup to something big and in just a couple of minutes it's over.

J. Yep, it just kind of ended without being climactic. Oh, and before I forget...MaMa is one of the worst bad guys ever!

N. Yeah, I was really disappointed with MaMa. I love Lena Headey (Game of Thrones) and thought she'd channel her inner Circe for the role, hell even get naked. But she kind of just existed. Her backstory is great, but her "presence" isn't nearly as strong as other villains.

J. C'mon man, you mean to tell me none of her weak ass cronies couldn't take her out. Christ, she was using the shit she was selling which breaks the biggest rule of a drug dealer...don't use your own supply. Thanks to Wesley Snipes' great role as Nino Brown in New Jack City!

Scars don't make a villain. Especially when they're very over the top. 

J. Yes, her back story was really well done. Which only made it even more of a letdown when she came across as poorly as she did. 

N. I was thinking she'd be more of a physical threat too. But she never really gets her hands dirty after her introduction.

J. Nope, she barely does anything more than give orders

J. Did anything else stand out in the film for you? Good or bad?

N. I just really like the world it creates and actually really want to see a sequel. Just bigger, badder, and more action.

J. Yeah, although I had problems with the film. I want to see more and see way more action sequences.

J. We didn't talk about the 3D. What was your thought on how it looked?

N. I honestly thought it's one of the best 3D movies I've seen. There was a lot of broken glass and stuff that came out at you, but it wasn't gimmicky as you'd think. I thought the use of it, especially during the Slo-Mo scenes was done really well and heightened the experience more than anything.

J. Yeah, I had the opposite reaction to it. I admit that the Slo-Mo scenes were enhanced by the 3D, and I did like the depth that was apparent throughout, but I felt it was another case of being unnecessary. I found msyelf watching some of the film without the glasses even on.

N. It was filmed in 3D though.. which I always have to give a tip of the hat to, as opposed to post production conversion.

J. Agreed. If you are going to make a 3D film, then film it that way. Enough with the conversions!

J. So, I think we pretty much covered everything, so what grade would you give Dredd?

N. On my scale of 1-10, I'd give it a solid 7.8. What about you and your canoli system?

J. I'd go with 3.5 cannoli. People familiar with the character and fanboys are going to love it, but people wanting a non-stop action filled flick are going to be somewhat disappointed.

Dredd has a handful of flaws, but it's a terrific re-introduction to an iconic comic book character. The world the film creates is great, and Karl Urban does an amazing job as the titular character. This combination really leaves you wanting more from the world and the Judge, only on a bigger and badder stage. Alex Garland takes a beloved character and gives me the snarl and swagger you'd expect. His script and terrific visuals save a rather average action flick and makes Dredd worth seeing. I would definitely recommend it (especially in 3D).

The Good:

Karl Urban kicking so much ass with pretty pictures, plenty of blood, and a dry humor that delivers a handful of laughs

The Bad:

not as explosive or intense as you'd expect, with each mid-level action sequence never building up to anything incredible

The Ugly:

a weak ending that leaves you wanting more

Overall: 7.8/10

Trailer:

Sept 5: A Double Team Review: Lawless

"Set in Depression-era Franklin County, Virginia, a bootlegging gang is threatened by a new deputy and other authorities who want a cut of their profits."

Directed by: John Hillcoat, Rated: R, 116 minutes

Here's something a little different today for The Cinematic Katzenjammer. Lately, I've been really wanting to change things up a bit and inject the site with a bit more variety so I decided to partner up with Joe from Two Dude Review (and fellow As You Watch member) for a review of Lawless, the new gangster movie about a group of moon-shining brothers in 1920s Virginia. Below, you can find our discussion. As a note, I am in blue and Joe is in red. 

Read more »