Non-Stop
3/4
Starring: Liam Neeson, Julianne Moore, Michelle Dockery, Shea Whigham, Corey Stoll, Linus Roache, Scoot McNairy, Anson Mount
Rated PG-13 for Intense Sequences of Action and Violence, Some Language, Sensuality and Drug References
I love a good whodunit. I'm notoriously bad at guessing who is the culprit, but the difference between a good whodunit and a bad one is one that actively involves you and keeps you hungering for the answer. There are very few good members of the genre (the constraints make them difficult to film effectively). Off the top of my head, the only one that comes to mind is "Identity." Fortunately, "Non-Stop" is one of the good ones. As much as we're wondering what is going to happen next, director Jaume Collet-Serra keeps us guessing who the killer is.
Bill Marks (Neeson) is a bitter, alcoholic U.S. Marshal. He's on a transatlantic flight over Europe, when he gets a text message on an encrypted service. Someone on the plane is demanding $150 million, and will kill a passenger every 20 minutes until he gets it. But who is it, and which passenger is next?
Alfred Hitchcock coined the term "refrigerator movie" for films just like "Non-Stop." They make total sense while they're unspooling, but after you get home and get a nighttime snack, you see the holes in the plot. "Non-Stop" is like that. It moves too fast and is too exciting to think about the plotholes (of which there are a few) until long after the end credits have finished.
The performances are fine, although this isn't an actor's show. Liam Neeson is as unlikely as they come for an action hero (he looks ready for his AARP card), but the "Taken" movies have cemented his bankability in the genre. Actually, the connection between these two movies is a misnomer. There's not much action, so to speak, in this movie. This is a thriller, not something that could feature Arnold Schwarzenegger or The Rock. Julianne Moore is also in fine form as Jen, the ever-helpful (maybe too helpful...?) woman sitting next to him.
Director Jaume Collet-Serra proves that, with a good script, he knows what he's doing (I'm pointing to "Orphan," not "House of Wax," because lets face it, that movie had a lousy script). He doesn't go for the quick payoffs. He allows the suspense to build slowly, although not slowly enough. There are a few too many slo-mo shots in this film; one or two would be effective if used judiciously, but he overplays the technique. Also, he commits one of my biggest pet peeves: unintelligible dialogue. I hate it when I can't understand what the character is saying (either because of their accent or because of their low tone of voice). If someone is talking, you should make sure that the audience can understand what they are saying.
Making an action movie set on a passenger jet is a tricky thing after 9/11. It's impossible not to think about it when watching a film like this, and for the most part, the film stays on the right side of the line. It mentions the disaster (how could it not?), but there is one big action scene that, considering what happens and the context in which it occurs, comes a little too close to exploitation to comfort. However, the film recovers well, and provides a suitable resolution for the scene. Of greater concern is that the climax has a speech that is almost sickeningly preachy.
The question that Universal had to ask themselves is, are we ready for a movie like this? The box office says yes. The film has been doing really well (it has already made back its budget after a week), and it shows no signs of stopping. I think that is a good sign. We've not forgotten 9/11 (and never will), but we are able to have action movies in the sky again.
Starring: Liam Neeson, Julianne Moore, Michelle Dockery, Shea Whigham, Corey Stoll, Linus Roache, Scoot McNairy, Anson Mount
Rated PG-13 for Intense Sequences of Action and Violence, Some Language, Sensuality and Drug References
I love a good whodunit. I'm notoriously bad at guessing who is the culprit, but the difference between a good whodunit and a bad one is one that actively involves you and keeps you hungering for the answer. There are very few good members of the genre (the constraints make them difficult to film effectively). Off the top of my head, the only one that comes to mind is "Identity." Fortunately, "Non-Stop" is one of the good ones. As much as we're wondering what is going to happen next, director Jaume Collet-Serra keeps us guessing who the killer is.
Bill Marks (Neeson) is a bitter, alcoholic U.S. Marshal. He's on a transatlantic flight over Europe, when he gets a text message on an encrypted service. Someone on the plane is demanding $150 million, and will kill a passenger every 20 minutes until he gets it. But who is it, and which passenger is next?
Alfred Hitchcock coined the term "refrigerator movie" for films just like "Non-Stop." They make total sense while they're unspooling, but after you get home and get a nighttime snack, you see the holes in the plot. "Non-Stop" is like that. It moves too fast and is too exciting to think about the plotholes (of which there are a few) until long after the end credits have finished.
The performances are fine, although this isn't an actor's show. Liam Neeson is as unlikely as they come for an action hero (he looks ready for his AARP card), but the "Taken" movies have cemented his bankability in the genre. Actually, the connection between these two movies is a misnomer. There's not much action, so to speak, in this movie. This is a thriller, not something that could feature Arnold Schwarzenegger or The Rock. Julianne Moore is also in fine form as Jen, the ever-helpful (maybe too helpful...?) woman sitting next to him.
Director Jaume Collet-Serra proves that, with a good script, he knows what he's doing (I'm pointing to "Orphan," not "House of Wax," because lets face it, that movie had a lousy script). He doesn't go for the quick payoffs. He allows the suspense to build slowly, although not slowly enough. There are a few too many slo-mo shots in this film; one or two would be effective if used judiciously, but he overplays the technique. Also, he commits one of my biggest pet peeves: unintelligible dialogue. I hate it when I can't understand what the character is saying (either because of their accent or because of their low tone of voice). If someone is talking, you should make sure that the audience can understand what they are saying.
Making an action movie set on a passenger jet is a tricky thing after 9/11. It's impossible not to think about it when watching a film like this, and for the most part, the film stays on the right side of the line. It mentions the disaster (how could it not?), but there is one big action scene that, considering what happens and the context in which it occurs, comes a little too close to exploitation to comfort. However, the film recovers well, and provides a suitable resolution for the scene. Of greater concern is that the climax has a speech that is almost sickeningly preachy.
The question that Universal had to ask themselves is, are we ready for a movie like this? The box office says yes. The film has been doing really well (it has already made back its budget after a week), and it shows no signs of stopping. I think that is a good sign. We've not forgotten 9/11 (and never will), but we are able to have action movies in the sky again.
Comments
Post a Comment