Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition

That's what Celestial and living-planet-turned-cool-daddy Ego (Kurt Russell) proudly proclaims at a climatic moment in this second installment of the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise. After centuries and centuries, he's not alone anymore. He has finally found a worthy son in Peter (Chris Pratt), which can help him achieve his ultimate goal.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 mostly follows this relationship, as Peter has to come to terms with his true self and the consequences it might have on the team. Meanwhile, Yondu (Michael Rooker) is tasked by Ayesha, the Golden Priestess of the Sovereign, to find the Guardians after she is slighted by them, something that Yondu takes as an opportunity to redeem himself as a Ravager and maybe something more.

Whatever the respective goals of Ego and Yondu are, the thing is that Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is ultimately a movie about lonely characters looking for ways to reconnect with others; whether it is a father and a son, sisters at odds, or characters that have never had a chance or a desire to connect with others (i.e. Mantis or Rocket?). For better or worse, this film offers them all a chance to finally find a connection with someone.

This was actually the third time I watch this film, but it's the first time that I can say I enjoyed it. First time, the conditions were simply not the best, but even the second time, it really didn't hit. Not sure why, but this time the central themes were clearer for me and, although I still think it has its flaws, I really appreciated it more.

One of my main issues is with the character of Yondu, and how his development and need for connection here feels pretty far from the Yondu we saw on the first film. This makes most of the emotional baggage in the third act to feel out of left field and somewhat forced. Still, Rooker's performance and Gunn's direction sell the material well enough.

The plot also feels a bit scattered as all of the characters are split with different subplots each, with some of them feeling wasted (like Drax). Still, some of them work pretty well, especially the Gamora and Nebula conflict. Plus, how can I write a review and not address how incredibly adorable Baby Groot is?

Being an MCU film, it really can't help to follow the MCU formula and devolve in the last act into the usual CGI Bash-a-thon, but the film still has enough solid action and good laughs for me to finally connect with it. Can't wait to check out Vol. 3 and see where Gunn takes this characters.

Grade:

__________________

I thought the 2nd Guardians of the Galaxy film was a significant step-down from the first - the 3rd one is a lot better. Still can't beat that first one, but there's a much better balance of comedy, wonderful visuals, action and story.

__________________

I haven't seen the third one yet, but I agree about the 2nd one being "a step-down" from the first. The first one is probably my #1 or #2 MCU film and this one's definitely not at that level. Still, like I said on my review, it went up for me on this third watch.

Set in the titular city in 1941 Morocco, Casablanca follows Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart), an American cafe owner with a cynical shell, but maybe a sentimentalist heart. So when a former lover, Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) unknowingly ends up at his cafe looking for safe passage to America for her husband, Rick has to decide whether to help them or not.

Casablanca has been a favorite of mine for a long time, but for some reason, I hadn't seen it in a while. So when the opportunity to rewatch it came this month, I really didn't hesitate much. What else can be said about a film like this? If anything, I think this time I appreciated more how seamlessly it moves between romance and drama to adventure and thrills; from the bitterness of Rick to the perfect comedic timings of Captain Renault (Claude Rains); from the romance between Rick and Ilsa to the powerful "La Marseillaise" scene.

Casablanca is the perfect example of a studio production coming to fruition in a way that feels harmoniously constructed from all angles. The film is a masterpiece and by most accounts, pretty much perfect; Curtiz direction is flawless, the script offers depth to the characters while giving an endless supply of memorable lines, the performances are all top-notch, and that ending!

Speaking about the cast, Bogart was born to play this role, while Bergman does so much with her eyes and body language. On the other hand, Rains crafts a truly compelling and layered character that happens to be funny, but that feels real and complex. If anything, Paul Henreid's Victor Lazslo is the character that I feel warranted maybe a tad more. The cast is rounded out by excellent supporting performances from Sidney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, Conrad Veidt, and Dooley Wilson.

I know that raving about this film can be seen as cliché and predictable, but it is so for a reason. It is the kind of film that I feel deserves praise about pretty much everything in it, from pretty much everybody; regardless of how cynical is your shell.

Grade:

That's how director and writer Brian Larsen describes the process of doing Smash and Grab. Those feelings of monotony, lack of accomplishment, and eventual freedom can be transposed to the feelings of the two titular robots on this Pixar short film; the second from their SparkShorts initiative.

Smash and Grab follows the titular robots, who are forced to continuously work inside the engine of a futuristic train, all while being tethered to the machine, unable to move freely and even "high five" themselves. However, much like Larsen did when making this short in order to "break free" and feel "fulfilled", Smash and Grab will try to find a way to do so.

I really enjoyed the creativity and animation from this short. The energy and pace of the short is good, and the futuristic/art deco look to the structures and the robots looks really cool. For how "robotic" they look, there's a charm to their interactions that makes it easy to root for them as they strive for freedom and breaking out from routine. So hey, if it worked for Smash and Grab, and it worked for Larsen, it should work for you.

Grade:

Float follows Alex, a young boy that can somehow float; something that his father goes to great lengths to hide in order to shield him from ridicule or obsessive lookers. However, sometimes Alex can't help but float, which sparks his father's desperate scream of anguish with the above quote.

Director/writer Bobby Rubio decided to use his son's autism as an inspiration for this short film. The short is an invitation to parents and people to accept their children for who they are, regardless of any diagnose or condition, or how diverse and different they might be. This is something that hit close to home for me, which has me struggling on how much to write here.

But I will rather keep it simple and not that personal. Regardless of how much it hit me, I still felt the short needed a bit more to close things up. That small quibble aside, I think this is a really creative and powerful way to put that message of acceptance out. There's no such thing as "normal", and we all should do our best to love our kids without reserves, and let them "float".

Grade:

That's how writer and director Louis Gonzales describes a crucial moment in the development of his short film, Nona. Developed during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, while working remotely, Gonzales struggled with the project as it went through several drafts, changes, and rewrites. However, this is a wrestling match that he ended up winning in the end.

Nona follows the titular grandmother (Wilma Bonet), a huge wrestling fan, who is just preparing to watch her favorite wrestling event. As she's "turning off the world" to focus on the show, her granddaughter is unexpectedly dropped at her apartment, forcing her to choose between her beloved wrestling show and her family.

There really isn't much to the short. It's very simple and cute. Apparently, the biggest conflict between Gonzales and his team was in how "neglectful" the grandmother should be with her granddaughter, and how "confrontational" should she be as a result. After all, Gonzales jokingly describes the two characters as "opponents" in an interview.

Much like the "wrestling" event depicted in the short, and the "wrestling" between grandmother and granddaughter, Gonzales had to "wrestle" with many obstacles to get to where he wanted. From creative differences with his team, to the struggles of working remotely. It's nice to see he was able to work with it long enough to come up with a version he was satisfied with. It's probably my least favorite of these Pixar SparkShorts, but it's still a charming one.

Grade:

Twenty Something follows Gia, as she deals with the insecurities of becoming an adult on her 21st birthday. When she goes to a club to celebrate with her older sister Nicole, Gia personifies her feelings in the form of three children of 16, 10, and 1 year old hiding inside a trenchcoat.

Maybe I'm spoiling the twist, since the short starts as we see the "three girls" struggling to be inconspicuous at the club, making you think they ran out. It is in the last act that it is revealed that this is indeed a "twenty something" trying to get a grip on herself. Regardless, I thought it was a clever way to visualize the pains of "adulting" as some of the things we go through might make us feel like we're reverting to our previous "child selves".

The above quote is the realization that Gia comes to in those last minutes, and as harsh as it might sound, it's a realization that I came to several years ago. The fact that as much as we pretend to have a grip on things as adults, the fact is that none of us knows what we're doing and that we're all essentially "wingin' it" through life, just like every generation before us. What's left for us to do is to "get better at it", as Nicole tells Gia, and enjoy the ride.

Twenty Something is probably one of the most adult-oriented of these Pixar SparkShorts, which I thought was refreshing. The 2D animation is pretty cool and, like I said, the way to tell this story was creative and cool. Maybe as adults, we don't know what we're doing, but as far as this short goes, director/writer Apthon Corbin surely knows what she's doing.

Grade:

It is the '60s and a rag-tag group of friends set out to uncover a mystery in their home town! If this sounds like probably a dozen of films and TV shows, it is because there are a dozen of films and TV shows with a similar premise. Change the '60s to the '80s and you have Stand by Me, The Goonies, It, and more recently Stranger Things and It. Why? Probably because this formula lends itself to likable characters and an intriguing plot, and this film is no exception.

Set in Croatia, The Mystery of Green Hill follows a group of five friends as they set out to investigate a series of burglaries in their rural home town of Green Hill. As is usual, the five kids fit the typical stereotypes: there's the main kid, Koko (Marko Tocilj), there's the romantic one, the "nerdy" one (big glasses and all), the cynical one, and the "fat" one. Fortunately, the five actors have a solid chemistry, and although none of them are bad actors, it anyway compensates for whatever they may lack in acting talent.

The story about the burglaries is intriguing, and so are the ways the kids go to try to solve it. However, the pace is a bit off, as it juggles the main story with some brief subplots about the kid's relatives, as well as their daily mingling as they hang out around town or in the lake fishing (hence the above quote as they have fun fishing). There is a bit of a payoff with these subplots in the end, but I think the execution in the middle could've been better. Overall, the direction is pretty solid and the film is entertaining, even if feels a bit generic.

I found out later that this was based on a set of children/teen novels from writer Ivan Kušan. He ended up writing several others with the same characters, primarily Koko. Two of these were actually adapted in 2011 and 2013 by his own son, Daniel. Both films feature the main kid dealing with some kind of mystery, and were successfully received in Croatia. You know, some are lucky with fish, some are lucky with thieves, some are lucky with mystery novels for children/teens.

Grade:

That's the principle by which Pastor and Dionisio (Ever Enciso and Aníbal Ortíz) live by. Their job is to bury the bodies of political victims of the 1978 dictatorship in Paraguay. But when one of these "bodies" turns up not as "dead" as he should be, Pastor and Dionisio must figure out whether to follow their rules and protect both their lives or follow their conscience endangering all three in the aptly titled drama, Killing the Dead (or Matar a un Muerto).

Directed by Hugo Giménez, this was Paraguay's submission for the Academy Awards in 2020, and you can easily see why. Matar a un Muerto is gorgeously shot and directed, taking a lot of advantage of its rural setting, the vegetation, and the resulting lights and shadows. Giménez does a great job of putting his actors in places where these natural elements either hide them or highlight them, depending on their situation.

The film features dialogue in Spanish and in Guaraní, a native language of the region. Unfortunately, I realized late that the version had none of these native language, substituting it with some not-so-good dubbing. Because of that, I felt that Enciso's performance felt a bit forced, but judging from some clips I saw on the trailer, where he speaks Guaraní, it seems it was a result of the dubbing.

But putting his vocal performances aside, both Enciso and Ortíz do a great job of conveying the moral dilemma that their characters find themselves in with their expressions and body language. However, even though the focus should be them, I wish the character of the surviving victim (Jorge Román) had been fleshed out a bit more. As it is, he feels more like a plot device than an actual character.

Finally, not only is the pace of the film on the slow side, but it lacks a true climatic moment to heighten the end result. There is some tension in the last act as the two men are visited by a superior, but it never really feels like the rhythm spikes too much. Regardless of that, Matar a un Muerto is a contemplative drama that looks at the far reaching consequences of the ruthlessness of those above, and how willing we might be to just go with the flow and bury what needs to be buried, instead of standing up for what's right.

Grade:

Here's my summary for MAY 2023:

A film from the recent Sight & Sound Greatest Films of All Time whose ranking includes the number 5: Casablanca (#65)
A film mostly set on a train (Nat'l Train Day, May 13): The Train (1964)
A film from the 1950s: I Confess
A film from Croatia (Statehood Day, May 30): The Mystery of Green Hill
A film from Paraguay (Independence Day, May 14-15): Matar un Muerto


Other films seen, not for the challenge

MCU Films: Eternals, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (rewatch)
Pixar animated shorts: Purl, Smash and Grab, Float, Nona, Twenty-Something
Other films: Passage of Venus



Not counting rewatches, my favorite first-time watch was John Frankenheimer's The Train. A great film!

My least favorite was probably Eternals, but I don't think it was nearly as bad as people make it to be.

For anybody that follows The Movie Loot, here is our latest episode: The Hidden Loot, 2023 version. In this episode, me and my friend Justin (from The Film Effect Podcast) talk about "hidden gems" and little known films, and close the episode sharing a batch of five films we feel should be seen by more people. Check it out!

The Movie Loot 84: The Hidden Loot (with Justin from The Film Effect Podcast)

Look for it also on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, etc.

In May 3, 2002, Marvel and Sony released Spider-Man to much critical acclaim, eventually spawning two sequels. I will apologize in advance, but it is impossible for me to talk about The Amazing Spider-Man without looking back to these films. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man was the first time that the superhero, created in 1962, appeared on screen in an official feature film, but most importantly, it was the first Spider-Man film I saw.

20 years later, and we've seen the release of 8 live-action Spider-Man feature films and two animated ones, all within roughly four separate series, or "universes" (Raimi, Webb, Watts/MCU, etc.) That is more films than they've made Batman or Superman films within similar spans. Why? It is almost as if Sony was in a quest to find something that they feel wasn't achieved by the Raimi series or the Webb series, and maybe even the Watts/MCU series.

Maybe that's why I pushed back a bit when this came out, not seeing it until last week. I just wasn't interested in seeing another take of the character less than 5 years after the last Raimi film. Not because of any particular allegiance I felt to that series, but just because it felt like walking down the same road again. But, being the weird completist that I am, as I am getting ready to watch Spider-Man: No Way Home, I decided to finally give this a shot and close the Spider-Man cinematic circle, so to speak.

The Amazing Spider-Man follows Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) as he tries to juggle his newfound spider-powers with his regular life as a high school teenager. This is complicated by the mysterious disappearance of his father years before, who was employed by Oscorp to develop a regenerative serum along with Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans). Caught in the crossfire of his life are his Uncle Ben and Aunt May (Martin Sheen and Sally Field) as well as his love interest, Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone).

So it was indeed like walking down that same road again. The film goes through the already known origin story of Peter being bitten by a genetically enhanced spider while "allowing" the murder of his uncle at the hands of a nameless burglar. Been there, done that. Most of the time it feels as if the journey through these familiar road was led by a guide who was in a hurry, going through a list of Spider-Man checkboxes to cover ("there he is, bitten by the spider... oh, and there he is, Uncle Ben is shot"). As a result, most of these moments feel neutered and with little room to breathe.

Where the film ends up shining is when it manages to lean into the characters of Peter and Gwen, and their interactions together. Even if at times it feels like a bit of a stretch to see them as high schoolers, Garfield and Stone have an undeniable chemistry and they are both great in their roles. Most of the cast is solid as well and they would work better, if only their characters were given the space to grow instead of using them as moving pieces for the potential sequels.

Marc Webb's direction is competent, the special effects are decent, and again, the performances of the two lead characters elevate the rehashed material above what one would expect. Even though most of what I've written feels negative, I don't regret having walked down this road, even if there wasn't a lot of new things to see. Maybe for someone who hasn't experienced the Raimi films first, the journey will feel significantly better.

Grade:

That is the defiant claim of Janet to take control of his life, right before a freaky explosion at the movie theater ends up fatally impaling her. But that's what we should expect from a Final Destination film; witty soundbites followed by the freaky deaths of those that were supposed to die, in this case, in a bizarre car crash at an auto race as "Death" recoups them one by one.

This fourth installment in the popular franchise focuses on Nick (Bobby Campo) who has a vision of the car crash minutes before it happens, which prompts him to flee the stands with his friends (as well as a handful of others that follow). But of course, as we know from this franchise and as it is told by Nick himself later, "sooner or later... you're up."

This is a franchise that, although it's never at the top of my lists of anything, I always have fun with. I had already read this was the weakest one, so I didn't really have a lot of expectations other than to see freaky kills; because if this franchise has taught me anything is that nobody really cares about the characters, but rather about how and when they die. The real star of these films are the Rube-Goldberg-like contrivances that lead to each character's death.

Unfortunately, most of the deaths here feel a bit uninspired, but also hampered by bad CGI and cheap 3-D effects. In addition, the absence of Tony Todd as the mysterious coroner/Grim Reaper means that the characters reasoning of what's happening has to be reduced to them "googling" some stuff and deducing the rest through a weaksauce expository dialogue.

Regardless of its flaws, the film still manages to milk some fun out of its premise. For some reason, I had only seen the first two back in the day, but have been catching up with the rest lately in order to finish the series. This one does feel a bit detached from the others and it is indeed the weakest, but I guess this is where I was supposed to be in the first place: I was meant to see this movie.

Grade:

That's Gwen Stacey's love proclamation to boyfriend/superhero Peter (Andrew Garfield) during the first half of this film. Following up Marc Webb's 2012 film, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 follows Parker as he struggles with his superhero "duties", as well as the burden of trying and wanting to protect those around him; from Stacey (Emma Stone) to his childhood friend, Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan). Oh, and there's also the geek-turned-supervillain Electro (Jamie Foxx) and the Russian criminal that turns into Rhino (Paul Giamatti).

If that sounds like a lot, it's because it is. For some reason, Marc Webb decides to cram as much as he can into the 2+ hours runtime and the results are, to say the least, a mess. The abrupt and clumsy introduction of Harry into the story is one of the worst offenders. If I complained that the first film felt like "going through a list of Spider-Man checkboxes to cover", this one amps that up to the max. Most people know what will happen with Harry, and most people probably know what will happen with Gwen, so it's all a matter of rushing through these checkpoints just because.

But then there's also Electro, who is the main villain for the first half of the film and whose motivations are as flimsy as the film's script, and finally Rhino, who I honestly don't know what the hell is doing here (spoiler, he's only in the last 5 minutes). Then there are some corporate machinations surrounding Oscorp and it's VP (Colm Feore), and also their connections to Peter's father, I tell you, it's a lot and just like the first film, it all feels like moving pieces for potential sequels, instead of actual characters and stories.

The saving grace once again is in the performances of Garfield and Stone. Once again, their chemistry shines and their relationship serves as an anchor to the messy story. Same can be said about some solid moments between Peter and Aunt May (Sally Field). It is in these personal and intimate moments that the film and its actors excel. Moments when they are allowed to be humans and not indestructible superheroes, ciphers, or plot devices.

That is until they're dragged again into another convoluted CGI bash-a-thon with the villain of the moment, whether it is Electro, Green Goblin, or Rhino. In these moments, I can't help but feel like Gwen, pleading to his love, i.e. Peter/Garfield: You're Spider-Man... but I love Peter Parker more.

Grade:

Benjamin Franklin famously wrote "in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." I've read director Guillermo del Toro say that we "walk life side-by-side with death" and that "everybody in this planet boarded a train that was... final destination: Death". But aside of being certain for all of us, is it set? That is the premise that the films in the Final Destination franchise explores; can we cheat death and live for a while longer? Based on all five films, it seems not.

Like all four films before it, Final Destination 5 follows a group of friends and co-workers that end up surviving a deadly bridge collapse when Sam (Nicholas D'Agosto) has a vision about it. But as it's usual in these films, "death comes for them all" to fix those "wrinkles" and set things straight again.

Like I said when I wrote about the fourth part last week, this is a franchise that knows how to balance horror and fun in a very twisted way, but without feeling as abrasive or convoluted as, say, the Saw franchise. As gory and shocking as some deaths might be, there is always a darkly humorous vibe to it all, which comes in part, thanks to the numerous contrivances that lead to each death.

It was nice to see that, after the fourth one which felt a bit stale, the writer and director here still managed to throw a couple of misdirections and surprise us with some of the deaths. Plus, some of them were really gory, surprising, or just cringe-inducing (the eye laser one had me squirming in pain). The opening bridge collapse scene was also well executed, and it was nice to see the return of Tony Todd as the mysterious "seer".

But more important, I think that the filmmakers succeeded in making us care about the characters. The story about the paper company, the impact that the bridge collapse has in the business and its employees, plus the subplot of Sam wanting to move to Paris for a chef internship add a nice and effective subtext to everything. Plus, that last bit leads to a wicked twist that, even though I knew, still works.

After the average fourth part, it was nice to see the franchise bounce back with a final installment that knew how to balance gore and humor with decent characters, while also looping back to the first installment in a way that feels organic and meant to be. Kinda like straightening a wrinkle.

Grade:

Just for fun, here is my ranking of the franchise...

Final Destination (haven't seen it in a long time, though)
Final Destination 5
Final Destination 2
Final Destination 3
The Final Destination


I also put out this Twitter poll a couple of days ago, in case anybody wants to vote There's still a couple of hours left in it

That's the stance from Peter Parker (Tom Holland) as he vows to help a group of troubled characters in this second sequel to the MCU Spider-Man films. Regardless of how things would've gone for them, Parker is determined to give these characters a "second chance" and help them. That's why he's here. But in true meta way, the film ends up feeling like a second (or third?) chance also for a lot of the peripheral cast and crew members of this franchise, as well as their fans.

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man starring Tobey Maguire came out in 2002, sparking a new era in comic book films (along with 2000's X-Men). The second sequel, however, wasn't that well received and killed any chances for a fourth film. Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man came out in 2012, and despite some praise for Andrew Garfield's performance as Peter Parker, the reception was mostly lukewarm, or in the case of the sequel, just plain bad prompting Sony to strike out any plans for a third film in that series.

Marvel successfully brought back the "friendly neighborhood" as part of their Marvel Cinematic Universe in 2017 with Holland as the "web slinger". No Way Home, the second sequel in that series, follows Peter Parker (Holland) as he's trying to find some sense of normalcy after being far from home, snapped out of existence by Thanos, and trying to "get back home again". However, when his identity is revealed to the whole world, affecting the lives of his girlfriend MJ (Zendaya) and his best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon), Peter tries desperately to give them a "second chance".

How? Well, he asks Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) for help. Unfortunately, his insecurities lead to a botched spell, which results in the visit from several characters from "Spider-Man's past" trying to get a "second chance" at finishing their enemy. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past years, you know what (or who) I'm talking about, which is why, like I said before, this film feels like a "second chance" to pretty much everybody involved.

I'm still conflicted about my feelings on this film. There are some clever aspects to its meta approach and it was certainly nice to see people like Alfred Molina, Willem Dafoe, Tobey Maguire, and Andrew Garfield take another shot at their characters. However, it still can't help but feel like a heavy-handed wink, wink to the audience; especially when you have characters throwing meme-like lines ("I'm something of a scientist myself") just to make us chuckle.

To complicate things, the attempt to bring back these retro villains feels half-baked; from two mostly realized ones in Doctor Octopus and Green Goblin, to Electro (Jamie Foxx) who feels a bit inconsistent and half-assed when compared to the previous incarnation, and finally Sandman and Lizard, both of which feel more like an afterthought. Even though they are still voiced by the actual original actors (Thomas Haden Church and Rhys Ifans), the fact that they are pretty much CGI creations makes the whole thing feel like an incomplete project, with the studio saying "we already have Molina, Dafoe, and Foxx, so let's just cut corners with these two".

Despite my reservations and issues, the film still manages to give us several great moments of movie magic. There is a conversation in a rooftop between the three Peter Parkers as they exchange their respective burdens that is quite powerful. In addition, the overall chemistry between Holland, Tobey Maguire, and Andrew Garfield is genius, and their moments together are full of earnest charm. There are also a couple of cleverly executed climatic moments that give some of these characters a "second chance" at redemption.

I'm still not sure what to think about the overall logistics of the story, Holland's motivations and the whole "save the villains" premise. Despite that, Spider-Man: No Way Home is mostly a fun experience packed with some well-thought use of past characters and solid action. I wish they would've been able to extend that cleverness and those good thoughts to wrap the whole present, but if they continue the story, I'm willing to give them a second (or third?) chance.

Grade:

Ambush follows an unnamed driver (Clive Owen) as he is transporting an old man (Tomas Milian). As the title and the above quote implies, they are ambushed on a remote road by a van full of armed men determined to capture the old man as they claim he is the courier for "2 million dollars in stolen, uncut diamonds". Will the driver deviate from their instructions or will he follow them?

This is the fourth of these BMW short films dubbed The Hire that I see, but it's actually the first from the series. It is directed by John Frankenheimer and it features one of the things that he's been known for: thrilling car chases (see Ronin). I think it's safe to say that the driver does deviate from the instructions and tries to make a way out of this ambush, which puts him face to face with incoming trucks, road blocks, and whatnot.

Owen and Milian are pretty good but this is not a performance or character-driven short. This is purely done for the thrill of the ambush and the chase and Frankenheimer does a great job keeping the direction tight and concise. Everything does happen very quickly and they do open fire, but you should listen carefully and follow my instructions: watch this, because it's short and it's a lot of fun.

Grade:

Some people believe we are put in certain places, moments, situations with a special purpose. That we all have important roles to play in other people's lives. That belief permeates within the aptly titled Chosen, another BMW short film from The Hire series. This time, our nameless driver (Owen) is "chosen" to drive an Asian boy (Mason Lee) who is believed to be "chosen" for some holy task by the monks protecting him. Of course, that means our driver won't have an easy task ahead of him while driving him from the docks to a safe house.

As the driver has to evade a group of kidnappers around the docks, director Ang Lee combines the use of some classical music with an almost operatic movement of the cars through the cargo containers. Considering the short has almost no dialogue, it is nice to see the way Lee uses a combination of music, clever direction, editing, silences, and glances between the driver and the boy to build a simple story. There are also a couple of neat twists and touches in the end that I found to be effective and well executed.

Seeing this right after Ambush, directed by John Frankenheimer, it's interesting to see the approach that both directors take to a similar premise (drive a character from A to B) and still have both work on different levels. Frankenheimer going for a more adrenaline-filled intense approach, while Lee goes for a more operatic and meditative one that ends up being just as thrilling. Seems like Lee was perfectly "chosen" for this role and for that, we are very grateful.

Grade: