Skip to main content

The elderly rebel! RED!!!

I love Warren Ellis' work in comics. I think he's a brilliant writer especially his work on Planetary, The Authority and The Astonishing X-Men. Most of the titles that I've read from him dealt with superheroes or at least some in that realm of reality. So when I first heard about Red, I was kinda surprised in that I've never read any of his "real world" material. But anyhow.

Red follows a group of retired CIA agents as they flee from government agents who are chasing them for some unknown reason. The retirees are a unique group and in fact are labeled as R.E.D. because they are "Retired and Extremely Dangerous". The team is led by Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) who is a retired ex-black ops agent. He swoons a pension officer (Mary Louise Parker) who is then whisked away into the James Bond-ian like adventure that she's always dreamed of. They're joined by a bevy of retirees as they balance fleeing with crime solving as they try to crack the mystery behind their being chased.

The movie is tonally similar to Kick-Ass (in fact, both were filmed in Toronto!). It's in a pseudo-real world, where all the background players and civilians are normal, but the main actors are outright cartoony. What would otherwise be a serious story of retirees on a mission is parsed with comedy throughout, giving it this light-hearted feel... with blood and bullets. I haven't read the comics, but from what I can gather, the tone in the books is radically different from the movie. It's more of a serious story, whereas the movie is played for its comedy bits. It's like two different mediums using the same premise and producing two different results.

Helen Mirren is pretty damn awesome in the role as Victoria, a once cold-blooded killer. Mirren, who normally exudes with elegance, is juxtaposed with her blood thirsty trigger finger. There is just something hilarious about seeing her clad in arctic camo gear, wielding a sniper rifle. But really, as if I really needed to say it, John Malkovich steals the show. Anytime they focused too long on another character, I wanted Malkovich back on the screen. He was just damn hilarious playing the wacky old paranoid character. Bruce Willis probably has the most straight-up role as far as the main cast goes, and he does what he does. I was kind of disappointed with Mary-Louise Parker, who is supposed to be excited that she's on this wild adventure, but I just never bought it. I think Cameron Diaz did a better job playing a similar kind of character from Knight and Day earlier this summer.

The movie was entertaining, and in the end, was good, but didn't reach levels of greatness. The casting of such talented older actors is superb and each does great with what they are given. I think the problem is that they weren't given much. However, it's still worth a DVD rent at best, when it comes out. Til next time, later geeks!

Comments

the kuster said…
I just watched this yesterday and thought to myself - I wonder what Jeff thought. Funny, because as I came to reflect upon this, I realized none of my immediate friends and I watch movies anymore - so obviously, when it comes to movies, I go to you.

Anyways, I never saw Kick-Ass because I started reading the graphic novel and decided I didn't like the title character but if its tonally similar to Red, I may give it a try.

My friend and I were having a really rough day which is mainly the reason we went to the theatre, thinking a bit of Bruce Willis and explosions might be mind-numbingly enough. I don't remember the last time I had so much fun with Bruce Willis! (Maybe Lucky Number Sleven?) I enjoyed it immensely - and you're right, John Malkovich was a brilliantly neurotic character; I bet he's like that in real life :P

As a final note - thanks for being my go-to guy for movie discussion :) I don't watch much, but when I do, at least I got you!

Popular posts from this blog

Dreamers, Achievers, Believers

It was quite a week last week. It started off on a more heavy note last Sunday, but as the week wore on, things became better and more clear. So let's do a little recap. This is going to be kind of long, so if you find this kind of stuff boring I've inserted pictures of funny cats for your entertainment. So... 1.5 Weeks Ago About 1.5 weeks ago, my friend Jon from Living Room gave me the contact info for his uncle. His uncle is an engineer and apparently was looking for new grads and new hands to hire. That week, I gave him a few calls but he wasn't there when I called him and when he returned my calls, I wasn't here either. We were playing phone tag that week *insert schoolgirl giggle*. Sunday Morning So last Sunday morning, his uncle gave me a call at 9 am (The morning! My weakness! HISS!) and we talked about stuff. I was telling him a bit about school as well as elaborating my work/coop experience as he didn't have my resume yet. So he goes on to tell

The Science of God

Not too long ago, two of my friends had posted their thoughts on evolution and creationism. Both friends shared similar sentiments on the topic (you can view Skylar's here and Keith's here ). Coincidence or not, shortly before they made their postings, I purchased a book called The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, which was based on the same topic. Unfortunately, at the time of my friend's postings, I had not finished the book, but now I have. In The Science of God , Schroeder attempts to debunk the dichotomy that exists between science/evolution and creationism. He tries to show that there can exist a duality between the two and that discoveries in science actually prove the story of creation in the bible. The book can be roughly divided into three categories that being the concepts of time, the second with the biology of evolution, and lastly the concept of free will. In describing time, he focuses on the 6 days that are explained in the beginning of Genes

MAX PAYNE was oh so PAYNEFUL!!!

What a failure this was. An EPIC FAILURE~! And I'll tell you why. This movie had everything going for it which was why it made the failure seem so huge. It had star power. It had a very competent director. The visual style was there. It had a simple storyline... a storyline that was basically fuck-proof because it's so basic. The effects (when there were any) were also pretty great. So where did they go wrong? Pacing. If the first two-thirds of the film was like the last third, I think it would have been a fine film. Not great by any means, but fine. I mean, there was hardly any action in the first hour. It was all talk and build up. Every 5 minutes I was saying to myself, "okay, something cool is gonna happen now". But it never came. I think had they added 2 or 3 big action sequences during that hour, that it would have helped the film breathe and flow better. I mean, didn't they realize that the source material was an action game? Max Payne is