Cool News
cbebop007 Targets The Neil Jordan / Jodie Foster Revenge Thriller THE BRAVE ONE!!
Merrick here...
cbebop007 sent in some thoughts after an early screening of THE BRAVE ONE, which releases mid-September. This review is similar to (but a tad more negative than) the piece we ran a while back.
You can see the film's trailer HERE!
Be warned, there are SOME SPOILERS WITHIN THIS REVIEW; more about the general structure of the film than anything else, but they're SPOILERS nonetheless.
So, if you're wanting to remain completely pure...be warned!!
Here's cbebop007...
I'm back with another test-screening review. With my tarnishing thoughts about the original "Halloween" and the "killing dead animals," I was brutally welcomed to the world of AICN talkbacks. I sure hope there isn't such a strong reaction to a new Jodi Foster movie...if there is, AICN is in trouble.
Anyway. Yesterday I attended a test screening for Foster's new movie "The Brave One," (worst title ever?) also starring the excellent Terrence Howard and Lost's Naveen Andrews. How did it fare? I'll attempt to tell you. Obviously this is a review, so some SPOILERS will be ahead.
This was a test screening, but the reps didn't even tell us it was a work in progress...I'd say this film is done, baby. Nothing seemed out of place...technically speaking.
From a film standpoint...meh. I'd have to honestly say it was quite a disappointment, especially after the trailer that had overall impressed me (disregarding the whole "I want my dog back!", a line that is not only in the film but basically the climax of the entire movie. Nice job trailer guys.)
Foster plays a New York City radio show host where she seemingly babbles on about the city and plays recordings of city noises. It's a profession they never flesh out but try to make it play a part in her story. One of only many missteps.
She's engaged to Andrews, and the film starts off just as you'd predict. We see her discuss wedding plans with him, meet a friend at an art gallery where they discuss how much she's in love in that sickening way only a movie can provide, and we see him and her take their dog for a walk. Surely nothing can go wrong, right?
Well, on their walk they meet your typical non-descript New York hoodlums. They proceed to steal the dog (oh noes!) and, to put it bluntly, fuck up Foster and her soon-to-be hubby. As she comes out of a several weeks-long coma, she learns her fiance has died. And guess what? She's a little upset about it.
During her coma session, we are introduced to Terrence Howard's character, a New York City detective. Howard is easily the best part of the entire movie, but even then, aspects of his character are treated poorly by the film's structure. His introduction is awkward and startlingly random-seeming. He spends 10 minutes in a hospital talking to some girl who's mom was apparently killed by her step-dad, and Howard then has to keep the step-dad away from the daughter. The whole time you'll ask yourself..."Um, did we just change movies?" This bit ends with him coming across Foster in her hospital bed, and he remarks that he sometimes listens to her show.
Cut to Foster waking up, and a series of brief scenes melded together in a disruptive fashion. This is the first moment that director Neil Jordan's annoying "unique" touches to the film first show up. He tends to abuse certain techniques such as quick flashbacks, rotating cameras and "hallucinations" where Foster seems to be talking to her dead boyfriend. It's all jarring and unnecessary.
After her "only in a movie" recovery, Foster is understandably nervous and apprehensive about going out onto the city streets and seems to fear every stranger that passes her by. At one point she goes to the police station to try and learn what they know about her husband's murder case. She sits there for an hour or so while no one come to talk to her. Apparently, after this, she's just HAD ENOUGH!
She goes to a gun shop and wants to buy one. The dude tells her she needs a license, needs to wait 30 days, yadda yadda yadda. "But I need one!" "Sorry." She ends up buying one from some shady dealer for a grand. It seems funny that, for someone who is so afraid of your average New York pedestrian, she's all too willing to follow this stranger down some seedy alley. Oh well.
She gets her gun, and then it's on. From here on out the film makes it apparent that if you live in New York, every other day you're gonna be witness to a convenience store shooting, threatened by a couple of thugs on the subway or be solicited by a creepy pervert. All of these end in death thanks to her new-found vigilance.
Then we're back to Howard, who's on the case. Some say this new vigilante is good, others bad. He wants to know who's doing it. In a great movie coincidence, he starts becoming friends with Foster after she interviews him regarding that evil step-dad from earlier. Howard tells Foster all the horrible things he's done. You think Foster is gonna go after him next? Shocker.
A huge problem that should/could have been fixed, but wasn't, is the film's idea of comedic relief. There are numerous lines that are genuinely funny and clever (most of them come from Howard's partner, which seems to be his only purpose in the film). However, in the context of the what the film is trying to accomplish, it feels awkward and completely out of place. Nevertheless, the audience howled in laughter. In another movie I would have laughed, but it seemed to me this film shouldn't be about that.
The main problem with the film is an unwillingness to commit to the tone. For the majority of the running time the film seems to be begging to plunge the depths of moral gray areas regarding what Foster's character is up to, and how she feels about it. Unfortunately, any headway they make in the area is predictable and not engaging. To it's credit, it seems to reach a consensus about the morality of what she's doing late in the movie, and it's executed well, but it's also a case of too-little, too-late. (She just wants her fucking dog back, alright?)
Ultimately the film is standard, blase and disappointing. Howard and Foster have some good moments together, and I hope both of them can find better projects in the future. I don't think it'll be a problem for Howard, but what's the deal with Foster? Despite a decent supporting role in "Inside Man," she's had nothing worth mentioning since "Panic Room." I wish she'd find something that she could really shine in.
Once again, I was invited to attend the smaller focus group of 25 people after the screening. And once again, I seemed to be one of the few who didn't absolutely love it. I'm convinced either I have incredibly poor taste in movies, or your average American is out of their fucking mind. I tend to lean toward the latter.
- cbebop007
Anyway. Yesterday I attended a test screening for Foster's new movie "The Brave One," (worst title ever?) also starring the excellent Terrence Howard and Lost's Naveen Andrews. How did it fare? I'll attempt to tell you. Obviously this is a review, so some SPOILERS will be ahead.
This was a test screening, but the reps didn't even tell us it was a work in progress...I'd say this film is done, baby. Nothing seemed out of place...technically speaking.
From a film standpoint...meh. I'd have to honestly say it was quite a disappointment, especially after the trailer that had overall impressed me (disregarding the whole "I want my dog back!", a line that is not only in the film but basically the climax of the entire movie. Nice job trailer guys.)
Foster plays a New York City radio show host where she seemingly babbles on about the city and plays recordings of city noises. It's a profession they never flesh out but try to make it play a part in her story. One of only many missteps.
She's engaged to Andrews, and the film starts off just as you'd predict. We see her discuss wedding plans with him, meet a friend at an art gallery where they discuss how much she's in love in that sickening way only a movie can provide, and we see him and her take their dog for a walk. Surely nothing can go wrong, right?
Well, on their walk they meet your typical non-descript New York hoodlums. They proceed to steal the dog (oh noes!) and, to put it bluntly, fuck up Foster and her soon-to-be hubby. As she comes out of a several weeks-long coma, she learns her fiance has died. And guess what? She's a little upset about it.
During her coma session, we are introduced to Terrence Howard's character, a New York City detective. Howard is easily the best part of the entire movie, but even then, aspects of his character are treated poorly by the film's structure. His introduction is awkward and startlingly random-seeming. He spends 10 minutes in a hospital talking to some girl who's mom was apparently killed by her step-dad, and Howard then has to keep the step-dad away from the daughter. The whole time you'll ask yourself..."Um, did we just change movies?" This bit ends with him coming across Foster in her hospital bed, and he remarks that he sometimes listens to her show.
Cut to Foster waking up, and a series of brief scenes melded together in a disruptive fashion. This is the first moment that director Neil Jordan's annoying "unique" touches to the film first show up. He tends to abuse certain techniques such as quick flashbacks, rotating cameras and "hallucinations" where Foster seems to be talking to her dead boyfriend. It's all jarring and unnecessary.
After her "only in a movie" recovery, Foster is understandably nervous and apprehensive about going out onto the city streets and seems to fear every stranger that passes her by. At one point she goes to the police station to try and learn what they know about her husband's murder case. She sits there for an hour or so while no one come to talk to her. Apparently, after this, she's just HAD ENOUGH!
She goes to a gun shop and wants to buy one. The dude tells her she needs a license, needs to wait 30 days, yadda yadda yadda. "But I need one!" "Sorry." She ends up buying one from some shady dealer for a grand. It seems funny that, for someone who is so afraid of your average New York pedestrian, she's all too willing to follow this stranger down some seedy alley. Oh well.
She gets her gun, and then it's on. From here on out the film makes it apparent that if you live in New York, every other day you're gonna be witness to a convenience store shooting, threatened by a couple of thugs on the subway or be solicited by a creepy pervert. All of these end in death thanks to her new-found vigilance.
Then we're back to Howard, who's on the case. Some say this new vigilante is good, others bad. He wants to know who's doing it. In a great movie coincidence, he starts becoming friends with Foster after she interviews him regarding that evil step-dad from earlier. Howard tells Foster all the horrible things he's done. You think Foster is gonna go after him next? Shocker.
A huge problem that should/could have been fixed, but wasn't, is the film's idea of comedic relief. There are numerous lines that are genuinely funny and clever (most of them come from Howard's partner, which seems to be his only purpose in the film). However, in the context of the what the film is trying to accomplish, it feels awkward and completely out of place. Nevertheless, the audience howled in laughter. In another movie I would have laughed, but it seemed to me this film shouldn't be about that.
The main problem with the film is an unwillingness to commit to the tone. For the majority of the running time the film seems to be begging to plunge the depths of moral gray areas regarding what Foster's character is up to, and how she feels about it. Unfortunately, any headway they make in the area is predictable and not engaging. To it's credit, it seems to reach a consensus about the morality of what she's doing late in the movie, and it's executed well, but it's also a case of too-little, too-late. (She just wants her fucking dog back, alright?)
Ultimately the film is standard, blase and disappointing. Howard and Foster have some good moments together, and I hope both of them can find better projects in the future. I don't think it'll be a problem for Howard, but what's the deal with Foster? Despite a decent supporting role in "Inside Man," she's had nothing worth mentioning since "Panic Room." I wish she'd find something that she could really shine in.
Once again, I was invited to attend the smaller focus group of 25 people after the screening. And once again, I seemed to be one of the few who didn't absolutely love it. I'm convinced either I have incredibly poor taste in movies, or your average American is out of their fucking mind. I tend to lean toward the latter.
- cbebop007
-
+ Expand All
-
Just to be a dick.
-
Just how similar is this to that, because from the trailer it looks like the same movie, just with a woman in the lead role.Didn't Stallone ask if he should do a Death Wish re-make, back when he did his Q & A? I wonder if this is what Hollywood decided we wanted.
-
this is probably another typical run of the mill thriller that will be forgotten in two weeks and you end up watching pieces of it on TNT months later. But who knows. Could be good.
-
fucking ridiculous...basically gave away what I'm assuming is the setup for the climax!!! that is 100% pure stupid. I guess they figure the audience for standard run of the mill thrillers like this is too dumb to care. but fucking hell...leave SOMETHING to the imagination...I could write a review of this movie from that trailer...
-
without fail they always just kiss the filmmakers ass. It's pathetic and completely contradictory to what the filmmakers are actually trying to accomplish
-
The only thing this movie doesn't have is Charles B. baby. It's justa fucking Death Wish remake. Of course Jeff Goldblum is missing as well. No one plays a rape sceen like Jeff.
-
Inquiring minds want to know!
-
and now Jodie Foster in a Death Wish remake? What's up with this trend of vigilante crap movies.
Why in hell did Foster commit to this kind of appealing to the Neanderthal set of morals?
It seems she really doesn't care anymore in what kind of movie she appears. -
What do you think?
-
Is it just Death Wish/redux?
-
In a possible resurgence of AICN scorn, I have not seen "Death Wish."
Trust me, I HAVE seen some classic movies that I also genuinely liked! -
And tell me it isn't the same story.At this point in time I can't tell you for sure, but from what I've seen and what you've said (written) it is almost the same, sans vagina(s).
-
"I want my dog back!" BANG! shoots Harvey Keitel in the gut, and the rampage begins
-
heh.
-
From Foster's progressive public image, it seems a strange choice for her. Running around, blasting holes in black and brown people. In my audience, black and brown people cheered the loudest during the trailer. And what about the root causes of their criminality? (I'm just kidding, I could care less about root causes. I just like seeing people get blasted, regardless of color) Anyway, the whole movie seems strange from a political point-of-view.
-
owns. think i'll pass on this.
-
I'll see it.
-
And didn't it originally star Charles Bronson?
-
Jul 26, 2007 10:45:34 AM CDT
Did Cowboy Bebop fall asleep while watching Death Wish?
by stalin vs predator
Mewonders.
-
Lets face facts though, shes probably the most watchable actress out there today. She made Panic Room and Flightplan worth watching.
-
As everyone said, it's clearly just a warmed over Death Wish.Back in school, they used to fail you for plagarism this blatant.
-
I'm going to go slit my wrist, right now.I'll end on a high note, and at the same time keep me from, eventually, watching this.On second thought, maybe I should go to sleep.
-
My fiancee dragged me to a screening this past Tuesday. I guess I'm one of your average Americans that's out of their fucking minds because I (and my fiancee) loved it! It starts off slow (and lovey-dovey cheesy), but once the thug fucks them up, it hooks you in, and you can forgive the beginning. You could say it's kinda an homage to Deathwish, but it's NOT a remake. Honestly, Jodie Foster is the only actress that can pull this kind of thing off. Any other actress and you'd be howling with laughter. Anyway, if you find yourself at the movies and this is one of your choices, you WON'T be sorry. I might even be willing to see it again.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts