Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
I got a number of phone calls today from readers who saw THE LAST CASTLE and really enjoyed it, and a few more e-mails also came in. Those who dug the film seem quite willing to defend it, and that bodes well for Rod Lurie's third feature. Hell, even the people with problems keep saying it's a crowd-pleaser, that Gandolfini is great in it. Here's hoping it's as good as I keep hearing...
First up is "DotPattern," who has some reservations about the film:
I, too, was at last nights test screening in San Diego. I won't bore you with the details of the story as you already have two, fairly in-depth reports.
First, I must admit that the film is very entertaining. There truly was not a moment where I was bored by the drama or action as the film progressed. As you've already heard, the film was definitely a crowd pleaser. But does that make it a good movie? No.
As has already been stated, there are too many cliches, too many references to other, better films, and each scene is easily predictable. Almost instantly, you know which character is going to die, thus spawning the obligatory "we've got to get out of here, Johnny" sentiment by all of the prisoners. You know that early on some of the inmates will somehow challenge Redford, that he will prevail and win their respect. What you don't know is where the inmates collect, develope or find time to create (or hide) their custom-made weapons that they use during their third act "great escape." We don't know because Lurie never attempts to forshadow the weapons - he just expects us to accept that they have always existed.
The biggest problem for me, however, is Col. Winters (Gandolfini). In the first few minutes of the film, after learning that Irwin is being transferred to his prison, Winters says with disgust, "They should be naming bases after that man, not sending him to a place like this." Not only does this indicate that he respects Irwin, but when we learn that he has read a book written by Irwin, he obviously admires him too. But with a single line from Irwin, who does not intend to show disrespect, all the respect and admiration go out the window. I refuse to believe that a mature, disciplined career officer would react so sensitively to a simple quip.
The film wants to be merely an action film when it should have been an intelligent one. Sure, it's easy to make Winters a son of a bitch so that the audience will hate him. But what about making him a rational man who has a job to do - after all, these are CRIMINALS in this "castle." One of the better aspects of "Crimson Tide" was that Gene Hackman was not simply a bad guy to which all blame could be placed. He believed in his actions, just as Denzel Washington believed in his own. The dynamics of the story were such that they were both right based on their backgrounds and experiences.
Perhaps this is where "The Last Castle" fails the most - where Lurie could have shown us a "mental" chess game between these two "kings" that would've helped to build the tension between them and revealed Winters' insecurities as a man (which would've provided a stronger motivation for his disliking Irwin), he is simply interested in showing us a "cool" fight.
Thanks for your time,
Dotpattern
Hmmm... some good points raised there. One of my complaints about A FEW GOOD MEN is that things are just too convenient. When a hardened military man like Nicolson snaps on a witness stand during a trial for something he knows is punishable, he wouldn't be bullied into a confession by Tom Cruise and his empty hisitronics. He'd chew Cruise up and spit him out. I hope Gandolfini's character is justified in the lengths he goes to in the movie. Very important stuff.
But then Roy Hobbs, the best there ever was, stepped up to the plate and had this to say...
I too was able to see the test screening last night; my wife and I were lucky enough to squeeze into some of the last seats! Since you already have the plot spelled out for you by others, I'll just focus on some stuff my wife and I liked and disliked.
Acting: Not only were the stars VERY strong (Redford, Gandolfini, and Mark Ruffalo), but the supporting cast was just as good. Del Roy Lindo has a great scene with James Gandolfini, and all of the actors playing the assorted Military convicts were great (as one preview scooper pointed out, the character of Aguilar was a definite stand-out). As for people wondering if James Gandolfini being able to lay anyone other than Tony Soprano, don't worry; he was amazing. He acted with such subtle intensity relying on facial expressions, breathing, and body language to convey his pseudo-sadistic command.
The look of the film was fairly dark (this might change, as the audience was told that the coloring, as well as some of the special affects were unfinished) and kind of gritty, but nothing got in the way of the story. The direction, in my opinion, was great and every look, every shot, propelled the story, not distracted from it. In AI, I felt that Steven Spielberg was trying to tell us a story through dialog, and kind of forcing his plot down our throats. In The Last Castle, the story was told to us through image, and it felt as is the audience is watching everything as it happens, and not being spoon fed the plot. There were a couple of very impressive camera shots, and nothing felt pretensious to me.
The plot was good enough, and the flow of the film was near flawless. I think the movie was near two hours (give or take), but I never once felt that the movie was dragging. The movie wasn't super predictable, but it wasn't a complete surprise, either. For example, you know that Redford is going to take over the prison, and you pretty much know he'll be successful, but you don't know how he's going to pull it off (it's kind of like knowing Apollo 13 lands safely back to earth, but you have no clue how it makes it back until you see the movie). The only thing that looked unfinished is an action sequence involving a helicopter. That scene was the weakest part of the movie, in my opinion, as the action seemed kind of unrealistic and 'hokey,' but I'll reserve my judgement on that until I see the finished product. They used temp music for the soundtrack, and honestly, they couldn't have picked better music. I'm a huge fan of soundtrack music, and my wife and I were able to sit back and call out the movie music through out the film. They used tons of music from Born on the Fourth of July, and honestly, I can't imagine the final original score working better than that music!
As for anything my wife and I didn't like, I thought that the movie started unusual. It started with a scene in the prison yard, where 'fuck' was said dozens of times. You immediately saw the grit, harsh lives that these inmates were living, and soon after Redford lands in prison you have the requisite inmate fight scene. At this point, I was thinking that I was watching Lock Up, or some other prison crap, and I was ready to walk out. I was glad I didn't, and I guess these scenes set up the fact that this is really a violent crime Military Prison, and not Disney Land. But that was really the only fault that I could really think of for the movie. Also, all of the literature I've read about this movie mentions Robin Wright Penn prominently, yet for the life of me I didn't see her at all; in fact, there were really no female leads in the movie.
Anyway, this movie has good action, GREAT drama, as well as fun dialog ("I stole the flag you murdering fuck!" a point where the audience basically wanted to stand up and cheer; you'll see what I mean when you see the movie). I recommend this movie when it comes out in October, and it was great to see it right now; it reminded me that there was a silver lining in this murky cloud of summer movie season!
You can call me Roy Hobbs: the best there ever was...
Sounds like it's still up in the air, and I can't wait to be able to chime in with my own take on things.
"Moriarty" out.
