Skip to main content

If you don't give over that envelope, you have no idea what's coming for you.


Premium Rush
(2012)

One wonders at complaints of absurdity directed at a film like this, as if its title isn’t warning enough of what’s in store. Premium Rush most definitely does not have believability high on the list of its priorities but, with plot and characters as amped up as its direction, if you’re willing to go with it this is a highly enjoyable, taut little thriller.

For some reason, I get the CVs of writer-directors David Twohy and David Koepp confused. Twohy edges Koepp, perhaps because he has concentrated more on a directing career lately. He’s best known for the Riddick films, but I’d advise anyone to check out his deliriously OTT Hawaiian psycho thriller A Perfect Getaway for a real taste of what he can do. Koepp has proved less consistent. To a greater of lesser extent I've liked all his pictures (not so much Ghost Town), but ironically he’s tended to prove more proficient calling the shots than with his scripts. Premium Rush follows course; his work here (basically as an action movie director) is technically leaps and bounds beyond anything hitherto.

The plot has Manhattan bike messenger Wilee (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a cocky law school dropout who cycles hell-for-leather on his “fixie” (a brakeless bicycle with no freewheel), picks up an envelope that dirty cop Bobby Monday (Michael Shannon) wants to get his mitts on. But Wilee obeys the messenger creed and won’t turn it over to Monday. And thus a white-knuckle chase about the streets of NYC ensues, with Koepp flashing back to the whys and wherefores of the ticket and its would-be owner (the ticket is, essentially, a MacGuffin, and you’d be forgiven for not being absolutely clear on its details come end credits).

 Just the character names tell you that Koepp sees this in very much larger-than-life fashion. Wilee is more Road Runner than Coyote, the latter role delegated to Shannon’s ever-more confounded agent of destruction. And he’s called Bobby Monday!

Bug-eyed Shannon can do this kind of crazed villainy in his sleep, and he’s hyperactively watchable; one could almost believe he took the role just for his final scene (well, that and a sizeable pay cheque). Koepp, clearly a geek, furnishes him with the pseudonym Forrest J Ackerman (a pre-eminent science fiction fan, collector and writer). Gordon-Levitt is as dependable as you'd expect; he may not be pushing himself in terms of the art but presumably the attraction was the physicality (obviously he had a stunt man for the more extreme stuff, but he’s in shot enough to make his endurance levels here most impressive). Dania Ramirez, as his cyclist squeeze, is sweatily delectable.

The occasional cheesy touch (Wilee visualises alternate routes and their consequences) does nothing to lessen an adrenalised experience that brings to mind Point Break (but also, conversely, Phone Booth) in its upbeat embrace of extreme sports (extreme in the way Wilee approaches cycling anyway). David Sardy’s score is energetic, but perhaps not as honed or memorable as it could be.

Koepp realises how slender this is, and inflates the running time with by jumping about with the timeframe. He’s unable to make the plight of the ticker owner anything other than crudely sentimental although, to be fair, it’s not as if over-statement isn’t the order of the day. The climactic cycling extravaganza might be a bit of silliness too far, but this a movie going for, and getting, a giddy grin, not a searching analysis.

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.