bjhex1

I have to say, while not expecting a whole lot from the trailers, I kind of loved this film!

First of all, there's the Linklater hyper-realism in the cinematography, which could lead some viewers to expect to take the story very literally. Don't fall into that trap. Go in with a healthy dose of philosophical fantasy. Not the kind of fantasy where wizards cast spells or dragons magically save the day, nothing so silly. But rather a fantasy where the surface plot of the film is subservient to the philosophical examination of the nature of self.

To wit, don't sleep on the college scenes, they are laying the groundwork. And (no spoiler) the scene with the students on the grass is *integral* to understanding. If you can comprehend how what is discussed applies to all that has led up to that point, the latter part of the film will fall in place perfectly. (Honestly, I feel like this shouldn't need to be highlighted, but I've seen so many reviews which completely miss these points). And setting the story in modern-ish time also helps to lend a surreal feel, as we discover, in strictly literal terms this would have had to been set no later than the 1980s. Or in any case, prior to smartphones.

I've seen a lot of reviews which present issues that might be legitimate in a standard film of this type (illogical police procedure, a conveniently narrow universe of character interaction, etc.). But as mentioned earlier, this film may require a bit more suspension of disbelief, but it is well worth it, to explore the needs, wants, desires and compromises we make when 'seizing' who we want to be. I was put in mind of the Vonnegut quote, while watching the film. "We are who we pretend to be. So we must be careful who we pretend to be."

And finally, the performances were superb. At first, I was skeptical, thinking "this casting should have been done 20+ years ago, with a Brad Pitt and a Salma Hayek, or higher profile 30-somethings today. Point is, Glen Powell and Adria Arjona did masterful jobs, as did Austin Amelio in the juicy, scuzzy role of Jasper.

First of all Scarlett Johansson is the preeminent star of this movie. I know there are other big names, but this project is nowhere without ScarJo. Just as witty and charming as she was in Hail Caesar and Jojo Rabbit, she has terrific comedic timing. Channing Tatum is very good (and has the quintessential look for the role), but I'd be lying if I said I didn't think at times that they could have gone another way with casting. Woody Harrelson is also great as always, but as with Tatum, not an iconic portrayal. A Willem Dafoe type could have had a greater impact, with the lighter moments more of a contrast (we all expect Woody to smile and laugh eventually, don't we?). But none of that is really at all a problem.

Where the picture wobbles, if at all, can be summed up in two words. Writing and pacing. Now, the writing is generally quite good, but the structure can be awkward at times. The jokes in particular, while quite good, and delivered perfectly, send like they could have used some fine tuning for optimal effect. (A thoroughly predictable, and totally unnecessary, cliche line by Tatum's character on the moon set, no spoiler, is one of weak points). And for the most part, the film is quickly paced. So, when one supporting character, the director, has such inexplicably long scenes (maybe only 20-30 seconds in truth, but it's noticeable), in an otherwise snappy movie, the story risks losing momentum. It's a shame, because it's a good character, but needed to be shared in small-ish doses. The other quibble with the direction was the cloying obsession with presenting the liftoff of Apollo 11, which was not exactly on point for the movie. Clearly the landing and moonwalk are the focus, and again, it risked making the payoff become anti-climactic. Thankfully, it didn't, but as a viewer, it was a worry.

Overall, an enjoyable experience. I'm even kicking it up from 7 to 8, as I think it's certainly above 7.5. The rom-com aspect was largely subsumed by the mission and deception themes, but never lost its inevitability. Which is to say, whether you love or hate rom-coms, there's nothing here to be terribly angry about. I just kind of wish, with all the talk of Kubrick in the film, that there had been an auteur director helming this project to give distinctive flashes (such as punching up the humor). Wes Anderson might be the closest, off the top of my head, but it's all wrong, different movie altogether. But the idea still stands. Maybe an Edgar Wright type. I'll have to give it more thought.

To its credit, the film does have a certain sense of humor about itself. Which is more the pity, because it's not actually good enough to deflect the criticism of its glaring shortcomings as an action picture. And it most definitely wants to be taken seriously as an action picture... but with a cute wink, in case you don't like it.

It'd be obvious to try and compare this to Die Hard or The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3 (original), but it hardly stacks up to either. For one, Roger Moore, even with the collection of tropishly parodic traits (loves cats, hates women, fierce taskmaster, abundant imbiber of Scotch) just can't sell the character. He's at his most charismatic doing needlepoint, which unfortunately, is not as ironically humorous as it ought to, or was meant to, be. Anthony Perkins is kind of fun being randomly over the top. James Mason looks like he'd do anything to get out of this fiasco (the picture that is, not the hijacking).