Showing posts with label Aiden Quinn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aiden Quinn. Show all posts

Saturday, February 19, 2011

'Unknown' is worth exploring on the cheap

Unknown (2011)
Starring: Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, January Jones, Bruno Ganz, Aiden Quinn, and Frank Langella
Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

While in Berlin for a scientific conference, Dr. Martin Harris (Neeson) wakes up after a serious car accident to find a stranger has assumed his life in every detail, even apparently the affections of his wife (Jones). Martin turns to the only witness of the accident he can find (Kruger) and a retired East German spy (Ganz) for help in proving he really is who he says he is. And that's when the assassins start stalking him and killing everyone he makes contact with....


"Unknown" is one of those movies it's hard to talk about without ruining the whole thing, because it relies on plot twists and secrets for its effectiveness. Without spoiling too much, I can say that the story is sort of a cross between the 1956 version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" and the 1938 version of "The Lady Vanishes", except in this case it's the main character who has, basically, vanished and he has to pick his way through a deadly cloud of lies and violent spies. The twists and reversals as the film unfolds sets it apart from those two Hitchcock classics, but I think if you enjoyed those films, you'll be entertained by this one as well.

Overall, the film is well-paced and it's revelations are timed appropriately to keep the story going. There's a car chase in the middle of the film that is extremely ridiculous as it's unfolding--suddenly, a university researcher and biologist is able to drive a stick-shift in a fashion that most racecar- and stunt drivers envious--but once all the pieces of the puzzle have been revealed--it makes sense. It's a weak point of the film that just a few lines of dialogue between Martin and his wife at the beginning of the film could have dealt with and the film would have been better for it.

The film would also have been better if the director had been a little less in love with shaky-cam footage, jump-cuts, and extreme close-ups during action sequences. I'm there are viewers out there for whom such techniques make the film more exciting--why else would so many directors over-use them as severely as they do?--but for me they become very, very annoying when used in excess like they are here. Give me Hitchcock's nice steady shots any day over the Alcoholic Monkey with the DTs technique on display in so many scenes, as well as the ADD editing style. Admittedly, it's not as bad here as in some movies, but it's enough to get annoying.

Despite its flaws, "Unknown" still emerges as an entertaining thriller. Just see it at a matinee, or go on days when the popcorn is cheap. Or, better yet, wait three months for the DVD to be available. You'll be more satisfied, because you won't feel like you've wasted money.


Saturday, February 13, 2010

Psychic madman stalks innocent family

In Dreams (1999)
Starring: Annette Bening, Aiden Quinn, Paul Guilfoyle, Stephen Rea, Katie Sagona and Robert Downey, Jr.
Director: Neil Jordan
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

Claire (Bening) finds herself connected psychically to a madman (Downey) who starts targeting her family for reasons only he understands. Will she able to convince anyone that she isn't crazy before he kills everyone she loves, including Claire herself?


"In Dreams" is an interesting supernatural thriller where the film takes its time revealing whether the main character is psychic, telepathically linked with a serial killer, or just plain crazy. That aspect of the film is very well done. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is dragged down by over-acting and poorly developed story elements.

Take for example the psychiatrist that plays a key role in getting Claire committed to a mental hospital. It's one thing to for him to do so initially, but why does it take him and the orderlies a couple of days to notice the carvings on the wall of Claire's cell, carvings that she could not have made? Well... no reason other than some time needed to pass for plot reasons. And it really is too much of a coincidence that Claire just happened to be placed in the same cell that her "psychic twin" had inhabited a decade or so earlier.

Too much of the movie's story relies on such far-feteched coincidences to be fully effective. If just a little more care and effort had been put into the script and if Annette Bening had dailed back the histronics and melodrama just a tad, this could have been an excellent little chiller. It's still entertaining--Robert Downey, Jr. makes a great madman and his final fate is one that will cause most viewers to chuckle evilly to themselves--but there are too many moments where the attentive viewer will be annoyed by the sloppy story. (Actually, even the ending, which I am fond of, is a bit underdeveloped.)

This flawed film is worth checking out if you notice it showing on TV, but it's not worth going out of your way for. It has some great and creepy moments and it has a neat ending, but those aren't enough to save it.



Tuesday, December 29, 2009

A blind woman sees the killer in 'Blink'

Blink (1994)
Starring: Madeleine Stowe, Aidan Quinn, James Remar, Peter Friedman and Bruce A. Young
Director: Michael Apted
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Emma Brody (Stowe), blinded by abuse as a child, has her vision restored through cornea transplants. But even before her eyes have fully healed and she's gotten used to seeing again, she becomes the only person to have seen a serial killer at the scene of one of his killings.


"Blink" is a fairly run-of-the-mill crime thriller that infuses enough of originality in its "unreliable witness that really saw something and is being targeted" protaganist that it will draw you in.

The film is also helped by Madeleine Stowe and Aidan Quinn giving strong performances. Quinn in particular is remarkable, as his character transforms from a jerk to a genuinely likeable guy as the film progresses.

It's worth seeing if you're in the mood for a fairly light thriller and it's airing on television or avaiable for rent. It's not the sort of movie with replay value, so it wouldn't be worth owning (unless you get it really cheap).