The Good Guy (2009)
★★ / ★★★★
Alexis Bledel once again plays an ambitious and smart young woman who was torn between two guys who worked on Wall Street. Tommy (Scott Porter) knew what he wanted, wasn’t afraid to act on his impulses, a sweet-talker and a womanizer. On the other hand, Daniel (Bryan Greenberg) was socially awkward, did not have much luck with the ladies, but his insight made it difficult for anyone to not fall head over heels with him. Due to some unforseen circumstances, Tommy enthusiastically took Daniel under his wing and tried to make Daniel be more like a cutthroat businessman than a poet who wore his heart on his sleeves. I enjoyed the movie because it was an observation of modern relationships set in an urban area but I felt like it did not take enough risks. I loved that Greenberg’s character highlighted the theme of the film in which he mentioned that his favorite book was “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen because it was about false first impressions. Although the lead characters had clear dominant personalities, I found subtleties in them and I was interested with what was about to happen among the relationship between the girl and the two guys. I wished that their strained relationship was explored more and that the picture had less scenes of Tommy and his friends (one of which was played by the amusing Aaron Yoo) teasing each other and trying to pick up women in bars. I was also interested in one of the guys who worked on Wall Street who said he valued his wife and children more than his job and money. Greenberg had one scene with him which I thought was handled well because they found similarities in each other but it ultimately felt superficial because it wasn’t further explored. Written and directed by Julio DePietro, “The Good Guy” had the right ingredients to make a solid movie about character studies because I came to understand the protagonists’ motivations. But there were far too many scenes that did not need to be in the final product and not enough scenes that should have made it in. It also needed a bit more edge because there were times when the picture reached an emotional plateau. I could easily relate to the characters because even though they were out in the real world, they were still young and trying to figure out who they really were when with friends, with a special someone, or when forced to look at themselves when they had nobody else to turn to.
Wall Street (1987)
★★★ / ★★★★
Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) believes in working hard and achieving little rewards which eventually add up to a big accomplishment. That is, until he one day decides that he wants to move up the economic ladder by teaming up with a corporate raider named Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas). Gekko assigns Fox to obtain illegal information via spying, lying, and basically throwing out his ethics out the window in order to be successful. But Fox eventually realizes Gekko’s true colors when Gekko decided to mess with Fox’s father’s business (Martin Sheen), without taking into consideration what would happen to the workers ad everything they’ve worked hard for. I enjoyed watching this film in many levels. For one, it had a plethora of brilliant one-liners and references to literature. Second, the acting is spot-on; Douglas as the greedy corporate raider was a bad person, but he had a certain charm that made me believe at times that his methods were justified. That characteristic was brilliantly painted during his speech in front of the stockholders. I also liked the fact that the lesson was “greed is bad” (the antithesis of the picture’s tagline) but it did not feel too heavy-handed. While it did show the glamorous side of achieving quick and easy ways to make money, it showed just enough serious consequences that would inevitably happen to those who choose to steal instead of patiently creating something for themselves. Lastly, I have to admit that I didn’t think the financial world was interesting, but by the end of the film, I understood it a bit better and, oddly enough, found it to be interesting. I also found it to be exciting with everyone wanting to sell and buy, and others in fear that they may lose a whole lot of money in the process. I guess the issues such as the fragile nature of loyalty, not realizing that one is standing on thin ice, and worries about not amounting to anything made the picture that much more interesting to me. Not to mention that there were a lot of notable supporting actors here such as Hal Holbrook, Daryl Hannah and James Spader. I definitely had to admire the film’s intelligence, but most importantly, its earnestness to entertain in both subtle and overt ways.
The Transporter (2002)
★★★ / ★★★★
I have to give it to Jason Statham for always impressing me in his movies even though the movie itself is pretty average. I guess it’s because I find him so charismatic to the point where I am able to watch him in any movie and maybe even convince myself that I like it even though I really don’t. Thankfully, I don’t need any convincing here. Sure, the action is over-the-top, there isn’t much story, and somehow pretty much all characters know martial arts but I didn’t care about its flaws at the end of the day because I was really entertained (not to mention it was over in just about an hour and twenty-five minutes). Statham is all over the place (in a good way): one minute he’s being shot from under a truck, the next minute he’s diving off a plane. He is so convincing as Frank Martin, the transporter who likes to adhere to his rules of business but one day decides to break the rules because he sees something in Lai (played by Qi Shu). Statham expertly balances quiet intensity and vulnerability and that’s what separates him from other action stars. Matt Schulze (as Wall Street) and Ric Young (as Mr. Kwai) are pretty good (but average) villains because they can look mean and shoot guns. I wish the two would’ve had two separate goals, which could’ve been a better movie because that would mean that the story wouldn’t be as predictable. “The Transporter” is harmless fun with one outstanding scene (the grease fight). It’s definitely more for the boys because it’s hyperkinetic, there’s a lot of bodies getting shot and bones being broken. However, there’s also eye candy for the girls.