| Rating: | ★★★ |
| Category: | Movies |
| Genre: | Science Fiction & Fantasy |
I know, you don't yet know what I'm talking about.
So, some background.
I'm a geek. You may not know this already, but I have literally hundreds and hundreds of books, spread across many genres, with SF, fantasy, and horror pretty much dominating.
While I don't go to cons, and I don't cosplay, I can still totally geek out over a good SF box set.
I've read maybe 500 SF novels in my lifetime.
So, things like time travel, psychic powers, the supernatural, alternate universes... these things are old friends to me.
However, they're rarely treated well in the movies. For some reason the movies seem unable to take any of these subjects seriously, despite the enormous amount of fairly serious - and fairly good - literature devoted to them.
For example, what's the single movie in recent years to pay any attention to the alternate universes theory? "The One," in which the theory of a multiverse is used as an excuse to watch Jet Li fight...
...Jet Li.
Now, that can be quite enjoyable; but it's hardly a serious movie, you know?
So, of course, when a movie comes along that treats the subject of psychic powers, and alternate realities, fairly seriously, critics of course feel morally obligated to hate the eyebrows off it.
So: Tara and I just got through watching "Next," which has Nicholas Cage, Julianne Moore - in a fairly rare semi-villain role - and Jessica Biel, who mostly provides decoration, although she does have one good scene, in it.
Right.
Nicholas Cage may not be your cup of tea; personally I think he's underrated, if anything, but you have to give him credit - even if you don't like him - for picking interesting movies.
So: that's a good sign.
The movie begins in Vegas, where Cage plays a guy named Chris Johnson, who is a stage magician, who happens to be able to see the future. His future. For two minutes ahead.
That's all he can do. It's more impressive than it sounds; it's damn hard, for example, to fistfight with a guy who can see every swing you take in advance. But still; he's hiding in plain sight, trying to lead a fairly normal day-to-day life.
There's some babble about a stolen nuke, by a group which is never identified; I suppose that's because really other than "boom" their goals are pretty irrelevant to the story. At any rate, the FBI, led by Julianne Moore's civil-rights disregarding ass, decide the way to find the bomb is by snatching the psychic guy, and making him tell them where the bomb is. Of course, that's harder than it looks; after all, he can see them coming.
I was pleasantly surprised by several things in this movie, actually; the manner in which they treat Chris' ability is much less melodramatic than most movies of the type - in fact, the character is obviously mostly annoyed by the ongoing attempts to exploit it. The effects they used to display the way he perceives future events are really clever, although they only use the best version of the effect a couple of times, and only right at the end of the movie. There are a couple of fairly nice twists, and all in all, it was quite an enjoyable movie.
Ok, that's what I originally came here to say; it was fun, and more people should go see it; Tara and I both liked it, and since she's less into that sort of thing than I am, that should count for something.
However. I went to try to see which theaters in our area are showing it, and made the mistake of going to Yahoo Movies. The reviews were awful. So, off to www.rottentomatoes.com, the iconic movie uber-review site.
29%?!?
Were these folks watching the same movie I was?
EVERY critic complained about plot holes. EVERY critic claimed it was "dumb."
I guess SOMEONE *AHEM MR PRODUCER, AHEM I SAY* forgot to send out the "good review" bribes that week.
Because what they talk about as "plot holes" are explicitly explained in the movie; they claim the movie "breaks its own rules" after, again, explicitly explaining why; and I am forced to wonder, after reading the reviews, who was dumb? The screenwriters, who did a great job moving things right along, or the reviewers, who like to claim things make no sense, just because they are too simple to understand even the most overt, handholding explanations in movies if they don't come with five-figure checks attached.
It's no wonder, with reviews as dismal as this movie got, why it's not making money in the box office. That's a shame, because while it's not the best movie of the year, it's certainly enjoyable and entertaining, and when studios get this kind of treatment at the box office, it just reconfirms their ongoing decision to inflict endless remakes and sequels, and "romantic comedies," on the apathetic movie audiences, instead of attempting anything new and different.
Seriously; go check this movie out. It won't win best picture this year, but it sure deserves better than it's getting, and the only way to get the studios to stop making remake after remake and instead try new things is to vote with your wallet.
