A Movie Called Trespass

So, I'm a little half-way through this movie tonight and just had to pause it so I could gripe a little.

Never mind that I might be getting a little tired of seeing Mr. Cage in every other movie, or that Nichole Kidman only seems to have two facial expressions (otherwise I really don't mind them in movies to be honest).

What I want to point out is that halfway through this movie I became tired of seeing guns pointed at people's heads. When done right, a threatening move makes for some nice drama, but as with anything, too much is just too much.

This movie has already had two or three moments that could have been played out very well but were used so often they have simply become played out...and I'm only a little over half-way. How many times does Cage need to say "no" when told to open the safe, for that matter, how many times does he need to be staring at the safe when he says it? How many times does he or his wife need to be tossed to the floor? And again, how many times does a gun need to be pointed a someone's head?

Repetitive moments lose their impact very quickly in cinema.

Is the movie actually any good?

I'm not sure.

There's a bit of mystery...maybe, but beyond that the movie is just full of repetitive moments. Even that movie that only showed a guy buried in a box had more originality than this.

On the other hand, I do like the elongated art-deco lights on the wall.

The Company Men

First, don't confuse this movie with the similarly-titled, In the Company of Men. Two different movies.

Second, this movie is a farce.

I enjoyed it well enough and will likely watch it again but it has some issues that reminded me of Wallstreet 2.

The main character loses his cushy corporate job and finds himself in the wonky world of the Blue-Collar man.

I think we are supposed to feel like he learns something important about how lucky he is to be living the corporate lifestyle and that the Blue-Collars are important too. But that message is lost somewhere. Maybe I'm wrong and only suspected that to be the plot since most of the White-Collar-man-turns-Blue-Collar stories go that route.

But not this one.

We find out he's been working with his company for about twelve years. He is currently making 120k per year. After a few weeks of being unemployed he has to sell the house and move in with his wife's parents. Sell the Porsche. Get a job with his brother-in-law the carpenter...oh and spend some quality time with his son...I guess.

The problem here is that there is only one major splurge...a golf club membership.

At 120k a year, with only one child, why is he still making payments on the car? Maybe the house was a little big for a three-person family, but it's in the middle of an average middle-class neighborhood...or maybe slightly higher than middle class. It couldn't have cost more than 500k. I'm actually thinking is was more like 200-300k.

So, he's got the house, the car, and a club membership. There is no boat in the driveway or mention of one elsewhere. No additional properties. No evidence of lavish expenditures (we see one corporate wife has just purchased a table that costs a few thousand dollars). He seems to be an average man with average luxuries. Yet with his high income, he is actually ushered into the poor house after only a couple of months. I think we missed something here.

Anyway, he throws a hissy fit an out-state job offer, gets angry over the competition he faces, snubs his nose at his secretary when she asks about her own job security, reluctantly accepts the carpentry job with his brother-in-law...but thankfully gets back into the corporate setting after losing everything.

So, what was the point of this movie?

Was it just to show that corporate executives are people too?

Because with winning quotes like, "I don't want to be just another asshole with a resume!", I think something was lost in translation. Yet, it sums up exactly what the movie is about.

Wallstreet 2

I think Oliver Stone was a little off his game with this one. He didn't seem to have much of a point. This would have been a good time to show how technology has largely taken the middle man out of the picture and left the most of the action to near-light-speed information transfer systems. The industry calls them black boxes, I guess. Anyway, Wallstreet is a shell of what it once was, almost all the of businesses that once thrived there are gone now. And the floor isn't as full as it used to be.

So then, what was this movie about?

It jumped around a lot. We got a glimpse of banks collapsing, getting handouts, and investors shutting out green technologies to keep the oil profitable.

The lead character was just as fractured as the story. His mother shows up in the middle of the movie but we don't really know why. Then she shows up later asking for money and we learn that her son (our lead character) is having financial problems and can't help her. We missed something here. We know he got fired, but when did he become broke?

His girlfriend breaks up with him because he is a liar and a manipulator, but everything turns out ok because her daddy has a change of heart? How does this change her relationship with our lead character?

So, yeah, this movie lacking in the story department. View at your own risk.

Swing Vote

The short and sweet of it is that this movie ALMOST makes a good point.

You see, someone has to choose the questions that are asked at the presidential debates. Have you ever asked yourself WHO is doing the asking and WHY the questions seem to be the same every four years?

I thought for a moment that this movie was going to have bite. That it was going to be about what happens when the nominees are forced to look an actual working American in the eyes and answer HIS questions.

Unfortunately, this movie ends with only one question asked and we don't even get to hear an answer. Instead, the movie takes the more obvious turn and shoves the lethargic voter issue down your throat.

We fade out with an image of a very pleased, finally happy, previously apathetic voter doing his civic duty. Yes, sometimes 2+2 can equal five. Yeah, I went there. And why not? The movie does not deserve a more thoughtful and intellectual comparison than the overly cliched 1984 novel.

As for Kevin Costner, I thought his acting was well done. He's not Hollywood's greatest or most popular face to put to film, but I do think he does well here. If you want to see a decent Kevin Costner film, go ahead and give this one a shot, although he does an awful lot of cussing, but it makes his role more believable here. Just don't get fooled into thinking that you are watching a meaningful political commentary, the end message is simply, "Get out there and vote!"