Hey folks, Harry here with a pair of reviews from THE HUNTED. Hopefully some of the AICN folks that were in attendence will get their reviews in... Like Quint or Ravvy or Johnny Wad or Father Geek or Kraken or that lazy turd Massawyrm. So far though, this is what I've received. This first one is from Pyul MacTackle, who is some local guy that's reviewed one other film from Austin, but whom I've yet to meet. He seemed to really love it. Here ya go...
Hey Harry,
Saw you at the World Premiere of The Hunted tonight but didn't get a chance to say thanks for posting my last review. But I thought I'd chime in again since I took in one hell of a film tonight.
The Hunted is William Friedkin's latest starring Tommy Lee Jones and Benicio Del Toro that has been getting a tepid reaction based upon it's trailer. I myself, upon first viewing it said "Hmm...maybe, maybe not." But since Friedkin was going to be in attendence and give a Q&A I couldn't miss the chance to listen to him speak. And man was I blown away.
You see, this film LOOKS like "The Fugitive" meets "First Blood". Is it? Well, it is and it isn't. The basic plot elements are the same. Tommy Lee Jones does chase a fugitive through the woods and eventually the city. And yes, Benicio is a man suffering from battle stress who hasn't reaquainted himself with normal society. But while the plot elements remain similar, their execution is new, fresh and deliciously brutal. Tommy Lee Jones's L.T. Bonham is nothing like his determined lets-round-em-up Gerard from The Fugitive. This man is troubled by what he's done and really cares for everything and everyone with equal zeal. The metaphors surrounding him, especially in his introduction when we see him track and free a snared wolf, permeates his whole existence and everything he does. This isn't a man chasing a fugitive because its the lawful thing to do. he's doing it out of pity and in some small way to pay for his own sins. And L.T. is certainly no Col. Troutman (First Blood). Troutman is essentially an expository character, he's not really amazing proactive in the first film. His job in the film is to tell the cops just what they're messing with and explain Rambo's meathods to the audience. At the same time, Troutman acts as Rambo's conscience, his father figure, giving some humanity to the man in one hell of a great revenge film. L.T. on the otherhand is extremely proactive. While tied to Benicio's Aaron Hallam, he is not responsible for him nor is he a true father figure. Hallam on the other hand, wants L.T. to be Col. troutman. He wants the conscience. L.T. just wont give it. And Hallam isn't innocent, not like John Rambo or Dr. Richard Kimble. Sure, Benicio plays the hell out of him and we're given some great character moments with him, but he's definately not a good man. He's cracked and he can't figure out how to put himself back together. And now the one man he thought could halp him is working with those who want to put him back in the custody of the US Military.
Don't get me wrong, this film is a chase film, a brutal chase film that straddles the line of several sub genres. Is it a slasher film? A revenge Film? A conspiracy film? Well, it certainly could be any or all of these things if you want to corner it. The great thing is, Friedkin refuses to let this film get cornered. He toys with you, tosses out red herrings that make you cringe thinking he's going to swerve the plot into some traditional cliche ridden trainwreck. Then he smiles and waves as he takes you somewhere else entirely. You think there's a love interest developing? ZOT! Nope. You think that little bit of information from a while back is going to lead to an act hitchcock piracy? ZOT! Uh-Uh. Oh, well Benicio and Jones are gonna team up Negotiator style and give a beating to the real bad guys? ZOT! Try again. No baby, this thing plays out exactly as it should. Every moment is perfect, every character perfectly drawn.
And to top it off, not all of our questions are answered, but in the best way. Someone asked Friedkin if this ambiguity was intentional. He said very Frankly that yes, in his mind a good movie leaves you asking questions about the ultimate motives of the characters. I would agree with him. The open ended segments of this film had me thinking the whole way home, developing conspiracy laden theories around what really was going on with Aaron Hallam.
The editing in this steals the show, however. It's just awesome. There is this sequence in the beginning, when two hunters encounter Hallam and the editing is just genius. Hallam ceases to be the man we were introduced to. He's mythic. Shadows and whispers. His appearance smacks and hints of the Native American Manitou spirits. He talks of nature, of respect of the land whilst darting in and out of the light. He stalks these two guys and toys with them. But he never stares them down. He's a phantom, a ghost. It's a beautiful sequence that really brings out just what kind of guy this is and how dangerous he's become. But at the same time, it's oddly reverent. It's emotionally effecting and not nearly as cliched as I might have made it sound. This isn't Patrick Swayze from "Next of Kin". This is Shere Kahn from Rudyard Kipling's "The Jungle Book" (The book).
This movie, simply put, just kicks unholy ass. It is a non-stop, relentless assault of tension, action and bad assed knife fights. This is one of those films that truly pays off, and come on, let's face it: any movie that begins and ends with Johnny Cash doesn't suck. But just because I said that, someone will prove me wrong. But at least the statement holds up here. This is a perfectly layered, perfectly edited, perfectly executed action film. It is highly reccomended viewing.
Pyul MacTackle
Next we have a fellow that wasn't at my screening, but some other screening, I believe a critics screening in Los Angeles, not sure. However, I can't really imagine saying William Friedkin made nothing for horseshit after EXORCIST, unless of course you've never seen SORCEROR or CRUISING or TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. or even RULES OF ENGAGEMENT... but to each their own. Here ya go...
Hey Harry, whassup?
Just returning for a screening of William Friedkin's The Hunted with Benicio Del Toro in a leading role and Tommy Lee Jones. Here's my review.
William Friedkin is one the great 70's directors who survived all these years. Of course, after The French Connection and the Exorcist he made a lot of horseshit, but every time I read about him prepping a film I hope it will get him back on the saddle again. Unfortunaley, The Hunted is not his big comeback movie.
Benicio is a special trained soldier sent on missions all over the world. He is a ruthless assassin, a sort of ninja type of a guy who hides and slices you with his diminutive hunting knife in the cheek without even noticing him. He won a Purple Heart for his military actions in Kosovo ("military action"= killing a lot of bad guys, in this case a Kosovar general and his henchmen). Back in the States, he looses it (the movie tries to explain why: some kind of war and massacre nightmares and shit) and start killing deer hunters in the forests of Oregon. Now, on to Tommy Lee Jones. He was Benicio's trainer in the military. Now he works for the WWF in British Columbia saving wolves from wicked hunters. Jones is a master tracker, some kind of modern Aragorn who sees footprints, traces and snares where we, normal people, will see just a lot of bat dung. Also he is a knife-wielding bad-ass who never killed anybody. Just teached his pupils how to do it.
He is called and sent to track and capture Benicio.
That's about it. Sort of. (Spoilers ahead) The movie pits these two guys in the forest, then in the city, then in the forest again. It's a showdown between two commandos with the FBI for witness (their leader is Connie Nielsen, beautiful as ever). I went to the movie without knowing much and for a couple of minutes I was surprised. Jones captures Benicio early in the film, he departs to his Greenpeace deeds, and Benicio escapes. He returns, he tracks him (this time in Portland) he corners him at his mistress' home and he escapes again. I didn't count how many times Benicio escapes, but they were an awful lot.
The movie is short, just a couple of minutes above the hour and half mark. When it ended I kept thinking what went wrong. This is the first movie Benicio made after winning an Academy Award for Traffic. So why choose a film so similar to First Blood? I love that movie, but Benicio is not a action hero although he does a lot of jumping, running, swimming and knife-wielding (I spotted a couple of CGI head replacements also in some stunts). Later I read that the production has its problems, Nielsen's role was pretty much reduced to pump up Benicio's and he hurt his hand filming the climax, stalling the production for seven months.
But that doesn't account for an obvious and shallow story to begin with. I can see the pitch "two well trained men must in some sort of different warground this time: the city". Ho, ho, ho.
Billy Friedking, please, start reading the scripts like you used to in the seventies.
One thing that was good in the film was the violence. In these times of political correctness where all the actions films don't go above PG-13 it's nice to see a movie made for adults. There's a lot of blood and violent acts, especially in the opening (the Kosovo scenes) and in the final duel, where both men get sliced like cheese. Take care Harry
Johann Hofzinser
