Saturday, August 28, 2010

Review: The Last Exorcism (2010) - 3 Buckets

Had you asked me before I saw The Last Exorcism, I don’t think I could have come up with one favorable example of deceptive film marketing. Usually, when a movie is sold as something it’s not, there’s reason to be pissed off; most viewers rightly expect to have a reasonably good idea of what their $10 are going towards. But there’s an exception to every rule and I’m happy The Last Exorcism is it. Sold by distributor Lionsgate as a Paranormal Activity-esque fright-fest, this actually may be the smartest motion picture American teenyboppers ever voluntarily see. It isn’t high art, but The Last Exorcism is surprisingly less a horror film than it is a thriller that uses its faux-documentary style to forge substantive social commentary about such topics as the blind following of organized religion and the camera’s ability to attract narcissism. The half-hour or so of material that’s intended to be scary in the conventional sense is the side dish, not the main course.

In fact, I’d expect early walkouts from those audience members who go in expecting blood and terror. The movie takes a lot of time—the full first act and more—setting up its lofty premise, free of any immediate scares. Filmed documentary-style from the start, the film introduces protagonist Reverend Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian) of Baton Rouge, La. At church, he appears to be your ordinary charistmatic, bible-thumping Evangelical preacher. But, in truth, he’s anything gbut. After going through the traumatic premature birth of his son, Cotton grew to find his faith less and less important in his life. The only reason he continues in his profession is because it’s the way he best knows to pay the bills.

The reason for the documentary is Cotton seeks to expose the con of the exorcism within his religion. (I guess he figures he’ll make enough money off of it to pay those bills when it leads to his excommunication?) In an interview segment, he humorously assures viewers that even though the ancient ritual is typically associated with Catholics because “they have The Exorcist,” it’s a actually common practice within many religions. In fact, Cotton was a child prodigy exorcist, with news-clippings showing him performing the ceremonies at as early as 10 years old. But he has come to view them as a hoax, never having seen a ghost or anything remotely supernatural during the many he’s conducted. After hearing news of deaths occurring during exorcisms, he saw the need to create positive change by rigging fake ones and then demonstrating the placebo effect they hold on participants. Of course, his good intentions are matched by his own cocky desire for the camera; he hams it up and has a huge ego throughout the documentary.

Cotton’s subject this time is, to his surprise, 16-year-old Nell Sweetzer (Ashley Bell). “I don’t like to work with kids,” he says, after realizing he won’t actually be exorcizing Nell’s religious-fanatic father Louis (Louis Herthum), who wrote the letter requesting the act be performed. Nell has allegedly been engaging in strange behavior she has no recollection of, such as killing livestock on the family farm. Cotton tells the Sweetzers—Nell, her dad, and her angry, skeptical brother Caleb (Caleb Landry Jones)—that the demon Abalam is possessing the girl, randomly picking one out of his weathered picture-book. Using a bunch of magic tricks that make disturbing noises, shake photos in the room, and cause his cross to smoke up, Cotton performs the phony exorcism and calls it a day. But then comes the real horror: Nell is still displaying demonic tendencies later that night. Is she just psychologically screwed up, or does Abalam really have a hold over her?

Just as interesting as The Last Exorcism’s style and grander plot is the character Cotton himself, credibly played by television actor Patrick Fabian. Whereas a less complex film would’ve depicted Cotton as your standard well-meaning citizen journalist, director Daniel Stamm and writers Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland don’t fall into this trap. They realize Cotton would have to be a hot-head who loves the camera to be staging this kind of elaborate set-up. Even when Nell starts to show signs of true problems beyond imagined demonic possession, Cotton never second-guesses his decisions regarding her welfare. That requires a certain degree of arrogance, which would be fitting of someone who was a local celebrity at a young age. And yet Cotton never becomes unsympathetic because he admittedly seems to be onto something, meaning the viewer never becomes irritated by or bored of the man who leads them on the journey. Actor Fabian is just as responsible as the script for this success, too, as he nails the dichotomy, turning Cotton from charismatic to flawed and back on a dime.

On a narrative level, the movie is distinguished by its superior building of suspense. What’s really going on with Nell? If she is possessed, then are Cotton and the two documentarians accompanying him in danger, as the bloody drawings that Nell creates while “under the influence” suggest? Nell’s brother Caleb and the local pastor (Tony Bentley) appear to be hiding something; if really they are, what is it? Nothing is resolved with certainty until the film’s final scene, which is sure to be vigorously debated. However, even if one doesn’t like the ultimate outcome artistically, one would be hard-pressed to claim they predicted it.

As the cherry on top of it all, there’s what The Last Exorcism says about organized religion and religious figureheads in America. Louis, who’s been estranged from the local church since the passing of his wife, seems to blindly trust the allegedly expert Cotton to save his daughter from the demon within her… that is, until after Cotton’s exorcism “fails,” and he claims it isn’t a demon at all, but a psychiatric issue. Louis then returns to the scripture, which turns him towards violence. Yes, this is all fun and games and not meant to be taken seriously, but Cotton’s use of religion for selfish purposes and Louis’ literalist backlash bear striking resemblance to certain public figures today. It amounts to a very clever movie that gets the viewer thinking about how Christianity is abused in all kinds of ways, especially when media (in this case a documentary) is involved.

But even after all this praise, I probably still haven’t convinced you that the scare-quotient is irrelevant, have I? Truth be told, if you’re looking for the movie that will raise your heart-rate the highest, you should look elsewhere. There are admittedly some eerie sequences in The Last Exorcism that are shrouded in anxiety-producing mystery, but the number of outright terrifying moments is low. In fact, those who would be likely to jump out of their seats at the “scary stuff” in the final act are probably the same people who would walk out at the beginning of the movie because they find the other elements boring. For those moviegoers who like to be thrilled and think a little bit while they’re at it, however, The Last Exorcism represents multiplex fare at its best.

* * *

The Last Exorcism (2010, USA). Produced by Marc Abraham, Thomas A. Bliss, Patrick Curd, Ron Halpern, Patty Long, Eric Newman, and Eli Roth. Directed by Daniel Stamm. Written for the screen by Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland. Starring Patrick Fabian, Ashley Bell, Iris Bahr, Louis Herthum, Caleb Landry Jones, and Tony Bentley. Distributed by Lionsgate. Rated PG-13, with a running time of 90 minutes.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 8/27

Well, after last weekend's predictions, my credibility in this arena has reached a new low. The only opener I came close to predicting with 100% accuracy was Piranha 3D. And that's unfortunate, because the highly entertaining bloodbath deserved better than its paltry box office total of $10.1m, much like fellow bomb Scott Pilgrim vs. the World did two weeks ago. But fear not... unlike Scott Pilgrim, Piranha 3D didn't cost very much to make and a sequel is already in the works. So long as another penis is dismembered by a flesh-hungry ancient fish in spectacular 3D, I'm totally game.
This weekend brings us two new films and another in re-release: the low-budget horror mock-doc The Last Exorcism, the urban action flick Takers, and a certain indie with 3D blue people that grossed next to nothing (I forget what it's called).
With a viral Internet marketing campaign and abundant use of handheld camera, The Last Exorcism is most conveniently compared to last year's smash-hit Paranormal Activity. But that's a tricky proposition because of two factors: 1) The Last Exorcism is rated PG-13 whereas Paranormal Activity was R, meaning they may find different audiences, and 2) Paranormal Activity's release pattern (midnight only, then limited, then wide) makes it impossible to form a true opening weekend comparison. For the record, Paranormal Activity made $21.1m in its first weekend of wide release, but I'm only including that figure because I may have gotten you to wondering.
I think a better comparison is The Haunting in Connecticut, which had a different style but similarly supernatural themes. It was also similarly PG-13, catered to a younger audience, and was distributed by mini-major Lionsgate. Also, The Haunting in Connecticut debuted the first week after many teens and college students went back to school from spring break, just as they doing are now from summer break. That Virginia Madsen-starrer grossed an even $23m opening weekend.
Another potential comparison of teen horror with better-than-average reviews and marketing is The Ring, which made $15m in its opening weekend back in 2002. Adjusting for inflation, that number would be around $17.8m today. However, if we want an August PG-13 horror comparison, we have to go back to 2001's The Others, which made $14.1m opening weekend but had legs that took it to $96.5m total, which The Last Exorcism is unlikely to have. If you appropriate The Others' run to be more front-loaded and account for inflation, the number comes close to $30m... which'd be a great, strong surprise for The Last Exorcism.
Other similar PG-13 horror comparisons include The Exorcism of Emily Rose ($30m, a true surprise when it was released), The Stepfather ($11.6m), The Unborn ($19.8m), and 1408 ($20.6m). So, removing outliers, the range seems to be high teens to mid-twenties. Because it falls within that range, I'm sticking with the Haunting in Connecticut comparison and saying $23 million.
Takers, on the other hand, has far fewer easy comparisons. The only example of a similarly-targeted August action film I can think of is S.W.A.T., which played to a massive $37.1m back in 2003. I think it's safe to say that isn't going to happen here. Takers doesn't have the buzz, the big theater count, or the widely-appealing stars. In fact, in terms of that last part, the presence of everybody's least favorite abusive boyfriend Chris Brown may actually hurt its box office take.
That being said, I think those prognosticators who are calling Takers an August dump-job that will gross in the single digits are wrong. Comparisons to Armored ($6.5m) and The Losers ($9.4m) just don't sit right with me, especially given the film has an ad campaign that has done a solid job targeting the African-American community. In this regard, I think Takers has more in common with its distributor Sony/Screen Gems' big hit last summer, Obsessed, which opened to a huge $28.6m. Of course, it doesn't have Beyoncé or that film's high theater count, so it has absolutely no chance of breaking into the 20s or even the mid-teens. But I say it's good for at least 2/5 of Obsessed's gross--yep, I'm sure feeling arbitrary tonight--which is $11.4 million.
Then there's the matter of the Avatar re-release. Even more so than is the case with Takers, there is a complete lack of applicable comparisons here. This substantial a re-release (811 theaters) hasn't occurred at this interval (9 months since initial release) in a very long time. Thus, trying to compare it to the re-releases of the Star Wars or Toy Story movies is just silly. All we know is that there probably is some degree of interest in seeing the film again on the big-screen despite the fact it's on DVD and Blu-Ray because A) it's the highest grossing film of all time so some people must be interested in an additional nine minutes of footage, B) audiences clearly identified the 3D and the IMAX factors as special the first time around, and C) it's being re-released in a dead month with little desirable competition. So what is there to do but throw out a number? I'll say the movie does a solid $7,500 per theater accounting for increased 3D and IMAX ticket prices (yep, I'm really pulling numbers out of my ass now), meaning a total of $6.1 million on the weekend. That'll easily get it past the $750m threshold Fox wants it to exceed for prestige.

My prediction of what the full top 10 will look like:
1. The Last Exorcism ... $23m ($8,003 Per Theater Average)
2. Takers ... $11.4m ($5,168 PTA)
3. The Expendables ... $8.5m ($2,501 PTA) -50.0%
4. Eat Pray Love ... $7.4m ($2,381 PTA) -38.9%
5. The Other Guys ... $6.4m ($2,012 PTA) -37.3%
6. Nanny McPhee Returns ... $6.3m ($2,252 PTA) -25.1%
7. Avatar ... $6.1m ($7,512 PTA0
8. Vampires Suck ... $5.5m ($1,701 PTA) -54.9%
9. Inception ... $4.9m ($2,357 PTA) -37.5%
10. Lottery Ticket ... $4.8m ($2,433 PTA) -54.9%
-No longer in the top 10- The Switch ... $4.5m ($2,231 PTA) -46.7%
-No longer in the top 10- Piranha 3D ... $3.9m ($1,566 PTA) -61.4%

Looks like late August, smells like late August, feels like late August. Next weekend, good movies will hopefully bloom anew.

Have thoughts on this new feature? Like it, don't like it, want something added? Shoot me an e-mail at webmaster@bucketreviews.com.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Box Office Predictions: Weekend of 8/20

Another weekend means new box office predictions. My inaugural guesses faired OK last weekend--I got the order mostly right and got within 10% on most of the holdovers--but there's a lot of room for improvement. This upcoming weekend is really anyone's guess; it brings us five new films that are basically August dump-jobs. Audiences get to pick from the family sequel Nanny McPhee Returns (read my review here), the urban comedy Lottery Ticket, the latest Friedberg/Seltzer paro-trocity Vampires Suck, the 3D-gorefest Piranha, and an old Miramax release called The Switch that has been gathering dust on the shelf for awhile.
With the exception of maybe Nanny McPhee Returns, I don't think any of those films have a chance at seizing the #1 slot. Once again, it would seem the battle is between Sylvester Stallone's The Expendables and the Julia Roberts-vehicle Eat Pray Love. Sly's action-extravaganza dominated the box office last weekend with a strong $34.8 million, but it's likely to have a big drop this weekend. Sly's 2008 Rambo dropped 60.9% week-over-week and I don't think there's a better comparison. That would put The Expendables in line for a weekend of $13.6m.
Eat Pray Love, on the other hand, opened to significantly less last weekend ($23.1m), but its drop should be comparatively soft. Last year's Julie & Julia, the best comparison, dropped 39.8% on its second weekend. I think Eat Pray Love will fall a little more than that because selling-point Roberts and the beloved source material suggest more front-loading. On this one, I'll go with a drop of 42.5%. That'd put Eat Pray Love in the neighborhood of $13.3m -- it'll be a real cage match for #1 among these two holdovers.
Close behind (if not ahead), undoubtedly, will be Nanny McPhee Returns. Yes, on one hand, the original did open to a very strong $14.5m in only about 2/3 of the theaters of this sequel. But the follow-up has two things going wrong for it: 1) it isn't as good as the first (contrary to the critical consensus) and 2) lots of kids are going back to school Monday, meaning they may spend the weekend shopping for supplies and getting ready rather than going to the movies. Last year, the kids film Shorts debuted in the same frame to a paltry $6.4m. That being said, I could definitely eat my words on this one come Sunday. For now, I'll go with my gut and pick a moderate number out of the sky -- $13.1m, I think.
Another noteworthy debut is Lottery Ticket. Over the years, box office prognosticators have been taught to never underestimate the urban comedy, which has a tendency to be marketed in African-American areas and nowhere else. Thus, those of us who live in other places are often unaware of the potential for success. Lottery Ticket could represent such a case. Marketing-wise, I sense a lot in common with First Sunday, which was likewise "dumped" in January to the unexpectedly profitable tune of $17.7m. However, the presence of the church in that film may have attracted the potent Tyler Perry audience more than this film will. Not to mention, Lottery Ticket skews pretty young, with once kid-rapper Bow Wow headlining. Bow Wow's previous film, 2005's Roll Bounce, opened in about 300 less theaters (1,625 vs. 1,937) to only $7.6m. Even calculating for inflation from 2005, that'd put Lottery Ticket at only around $8.3m by direct comparison. But my gut tells me the best comparison here is 2006's similarly young, African-American targeted ATL, which opened to $11.6m. Accounting for a little inflation, that'd put Lottery Ticket in line for an opening of $12.3m.
Next up is Friedberg/Selzer's Vampires Suck, which debuted yesterday to the tune of $4m. With most of the audience still out of school and the potential for front-loading rife, my guess is that Friday only matches that gross, and maybe even sees less. Not to mention, the Wednesday opening should fare worse for its over-the-weekend internal multiplier than the writer/director duo's previous August release, Disaster Movie, as most of the first-choice audience will have seen it already by Friday. Disaster Movie managed to multiply its Friday gross by an impressive 2.88, but I think Vampires Suck will be more in the realm of 2.5. That'd put its weekend at an even $10m.
Then there's the very-adult Piranha 3D, which has nifty ads, momentum online, and good early reviews funneling in. (After last weekend's Scott Pilgrim vs. the World bombing, however, one must be skeptical of all three things.) With a similar theater count to last year's My Bloody Valentine 3D, one could make a case that this one has a chance at coming out of left-field and replicating that picture's successful $21.2m opening, even considering internal problems at distributor Weinstein. But I wouldn't buy that argument for a second. Murderous piranhas and washed up '80s stars may sound cool to me and many other geeks online, but they don't make for the kind of mainstream success that the former 3D horror film enjoyed. The camp factor is high here. Very optimistically, I could go for the argument that this matches Snakes on a Plane's $13.8m, including the 3D-surcharge. But I think it will probably be lower, as the mainstream appeal just doesn't seem to be there. Another significant factor is that urban audiences make up a big percentage of the horror demographic, and they will be siphoned away by Lottery Ticket. Ultimately, I'm going to be a pessimist on this one. I'll go with last year's tropical horror film A Perfect Getaway's $6m opening, plus a big increase for 3D (I'd expect about 75% of tickets to be sold in that format), plus another $1.5m for additional geek interest. That'd put Piranha 3D at $9.9m, figuring average 2D ticket-prices of $8 and 3D of $11.
The last film of the lot is The Switch, which boasts all of the signs of a huuuge bomb. My best guess is it ends up splitting the difference between stars Jennifer Aniston and Jason Bateman's previous late-summer releases. Those would be Love Happens ($8.1m) and Extract ($4.3m), respectively, putting my prediction at $6.2m, well below the standards of these actors and the genre.
So, if I'm on the right track, what we end up with are some OK holds and some OK openings, but nothing special. Sounds like late August to me...

My prediction of what the full top 10 will look like:
1. The Expendables ... $13.6m ($4,159 Per Theater Average) -60.9%
2. Eat Pray Love ... $13.3m ($4,315 PTA) -42.5%
3. Nanny McPhee Returns ... $13.1m ($4,707 PTA)
4. Lottery Ticket ... $12.3m ($6,234 PTA)
5. Vampires Suck ... $10m ($3,358 PTA)
6. Piranha 3D ... $9.9m ($4,008 PTA)
7. The Other Guys ... $9.4m ($2,707 PTA) -46.0%
8. Inception ... $7m ($2,915 PTA) -38.0%
9. The Switch ... $6.2m ($3,082 PTA)
10. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World ... $6.2m ($2,199 PTA) -41.6%

Have thoughts on this new feature? Like it, don't like it, want something added? Shoot me an e-mail at webmaster@bucketreviews.com.

Nanny McPhee Returns (2010) - 2 1/2 Buckets

The original Nanny McPhee was a pleasant surprise, arriving on the scene billed as just another dumper of a January kids’ flick but then proving itself to actually be rather funny and touching. The magic of the movie was that it allowed the audience to both laugh at its child cast’s mischievous antics and root for the title Nanny (an unrecognizable Emma Thompson) in rearing them. A then 16-year-old friend and I went to see it because it was the only thing we hadn’t yet caught and I could get us in for free as an employee of the theater. We came out floored that even we, the antithesis of the target audience, had laughed and had ourselves a jolly good time.

Nanny McPhee Returns is not a bad movie, but its lack of originality and humor compared to the first film seem like more severe offenses than they really are because of the high standards in place. This time, writer/star Thompson and new director Susanna White place Nanny McPhee and her subjects into a conventional wartime weepy and, while it beats Tooth Fairy or The Spy Next Door as family fare any day, one could definitely argue that viewers would be better off watching its predecessor again instead.

This time around, the ill-behaved children are those of Isabel Green (Maggie Gyllenhaal, doing her best British accent), who live on a farm in the English countryside circa World War II. Their father (Ewan McGregor) is off fighting and his lack of presence is obviously taking a toll on the family. The kids’ antics wear on Isabel, who’s already stressed because she may have to sell the farm if she can’t come up with her monthly tractor payment. So what better idea but to add two more to the mix? The Cousins, as they’re dubbed, arrive at the farm, apparently because their London home is unsafe due to the firebombing. More ruckus ensues. Enter Nanny McPhee, who will surely teach the kids how to behave and how to care.

The biggest error Thompson and Grant make is not using Nanny McPhee enough. It feels as though the staple of the franchise is reduced to a footnote here, showing up when the strike of her whimsical cane is needed but otherwise simply looming in the background. This character is who audiences are paying to see, so why minimize her part?

Then again, maybe Nanny McPhee’s role in the first movie only seems comparatively larger because the surrounding story was better, meaning her absences were less of an issue. Unlike this sequel, the original film offered a lot of juicy narrative elements, like the love story between dad Colin Firth and maid Kelly Macdonald. While the original was hardly unpredictable, it was always entertaining because it engaged the viewer’s sense of wonder. Nanny McPhee Returns, on the other hand, features a family story that is conventional not only in plot, but emotion. We know from the beginning that the two main crisis-points for the family will be 1) whether or not their father dies in combat and 2) whether or not they have to sell the farm. Based on this short synopsis, I bet you can guess the outcomes of both story threads.

Nanny McPhee Returns also relies on cutesy trifles that are mildly amusing, but that simply amount to diversion where the first would have relied on heart. Yes, CGI pigs performing a synchronized swimming routine are worth a laugh and will undoubtedly amuse kids, but then again, are they really that funny and aren’t kids amused by anything? The same goes for the CGI baby elephant and Nanny McPhee’s trusty bird that uses its gas problem for the greater good.

But all this criticism is simply an indicator of the fact that I feel Nanny McPhee Returns is inferior to the first film, not that it’s a very bad film itself. As a Saturday matinee babysitter, it may not be Pixar, but it certainly won’t be a painful watch for parents. Maggie Gyllenhaal, for one, is delightful in the lead role. Her character may be too standard-issue to make much of an emotional impact, but viewers will enjoy Gyllenhaal’s sparkling presence throughout. The entire cast of kids, too, delivers strong performances that don’t suffer from the typical difficulties child actors often face. And, minimized as she may be, Nanny McPhee is just as charming as ever, so much so that one might still find oneself hoping Thompson reprises this role again, despite the sequel’s significant drop in quality. Nanny McPhee Returns settles for pleasant, moderate fun, but is unlikely to elicit strong enthusiasm from any moviegoer over the age of 10.

* * *

Nanny McPhee Returns (2010; UK, France, USA). Produced by Tim Bevan, David Brown, Liza Chasin, Lindsay Duran, Eric Fellner, Debra Hayward, Debra Osbourne, and Emma Thompson. Directed by Susanna Grant. Written for the screen by Emma Thompson, based on the characters created by Christianna Brand. Starring Emma Thompson, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Oscar Steer, Asa Butterfield, Lil Woods, Eros Vlahos, Rosie Taylor-Ritson, Rhys Ifans, Maggie Smith, and Ewan McGregor. Distributed by Universal Pictures. Rated PG, with a running time of 109 minutes.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Review: Salt (2010) - 3 Buckets

My requirements of a thriller break down like this: 1) it’s suspenseful and keeps me guessing until the final reveal, 2) it features an interesting protagonist and villain, even if who’s who is often in question, and 3) it handles action deftly, without any additional fat to bog up the plot. Salt holds to these core values. While detractors of the film may argue it’s pretty empty, with a thin story only designed to move the characters from one improbable action set piece to another, I think they’re overanalyzing things. There’s nothing ignoble about what Salt sets out to do—entertain with supreme skill and style—and it executes its plan masterfully. This certainly doesn’t make it a masterpiece, but it will make for a jolly good Friday night guessing-game at the cinema. I can’t think of anything released in the past three months that better embodies the spirit of summer movie-going, thanks to star Angelina Jolie and director Philip Noyce.

The movie’s tagline summarizes it pretty well: “Who is Salt?” We first meet Evelyn Salt (Jolie) as an American CIA agent, in a flashback sequence where we see her being freed from a torture camp in North Korea. Flash-forward several years and she’s still with the organization, working out of Washington D.C. She’s asked to interrogate a Russian national named Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski), who claims she is a Russian spy who will participate in a doomsday plot called Day X. He alleges that this will begin the next day when Salt assassinates the President of Russia at the late U.S. Vice President’s funeral. Provided he has not “beat” the lie detector test, Orlov is telling the truth.

It’s clear Evelyn has some part in Day X when she breaks out in a sprint, fighting to make her way out of the secured building in a grandiose chase sequence involving even a makeshift fire-gun. And surprise, surprise—we learn Orlov is aligned with Salt, as he kills two guards and escapes. Surely enough, the next day, Salt shoots the Russian President at point-blank range at the funeral in yet another extravagant, preposterous action sequence. She’s momentarily taken into custody but once again—you guessed it—escapes, only to then kill Orlov at their secret meeting place before continuing on with the Day X plot. The viewer quickly realizes there must be more to the story, but what? Just who is Salt and who exactly is she working for? Could she be a triple-agent?

Angelina Jolie was born to play this role. It’s ideal for her because, not only does she have the chops to handle the action sequences, the character also doesn’t require her to be likable. Jolie, despised as a public figure and an actress by a vocal minority, usually plays powerful women the viewer must love in order to truly get absorbed in the plot. But here, her character is shrouded in mystery and the viewer isn’t supposed to know whether they like her or not. As a result, even those who don’t consider themselves Jolie fans will make for potential fans of Salt. You don’t find many action films or thrillers where you don’t need to root for the main character to find them engaging, but this is that rare exception. And, man oh man, is Jolie photogenic as ever in the wham-bam action sequences. Rumored to have done many of her own stunts, she delivers a strong physical performance that keeps the adrenaline-level at maximum throughout. Whether Salt is actually with the good guys or the bad, there’s no denying she kicks ass.

Sealing the deal is the superior staging and pacing of director Philip Noyce, who hasn’t made an action film since 1997’s The Saint starring Val Kilmer. Noyce moves from one action-packed sequence to the next, making Salt a supreme popcorn movie if there ever was one. (I might be compelled to use the phrase “testosterone-filled” if not for the fact that there’s a female lead.) And yet, even though Noyce is unrelenting in his approach, the action is very clear and understandable, making it so much more engrossing than that of the music video-style genre-efforts that have become ubiquitous in Hollywood. Noyce’s vision puts the audience in a visceral position, making them feel the thrust of each punch and the sound of each gunshot. In a silly movie with no real consequences such as this one, this sort of feeling is very important for a director to maintain in order to keep hold of the audience. In this respect, Noyce is even more integral to the film’s success than Jolie; he’s the true puppeteer of the play.

If you require more of a thriller than that it is well-constructed action with audiovisual power, Salt may not be your cup of tea. But for the rest of us, it’s a good reminder that a simple, lean popcorn flick can actually be done satisfyingly. (When condemning the latest Michael Bay film mainly for lacking in the substance department, I usually forget that there are movies like Salt and the recent Scott Pilgrim vs. the World that actually do the style-only thing pretty well.) Noyce’s movie is filled with enough technical prowess that viewers don’t need to follow that dumb old adage: “Turn off your brain.” They simply need to redirect their mind’s attention to the good stuff Salt has to offer, which is admittedly not intellectual, but it sure is entertaining.

* * *

Salt (2010, USA). Produced by William M. Connor, Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Samuel Dickerman, Ric Kidney, Hannah Minghella, Sunil Perkash, and Mark Vahradian. Directed by Philip Noyce. Written for the screen by Kurt Wimmer. Starring Angelina Jolie, Liev Schrieber, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Daniel Olbrychski, and August Diehl. Distributed by Columbia Pictures. Rated PG-13, with a running time of 95 minutes.