So I love most of Luc Besson’s work– from the brilliance of the (original) “La Femme Nikita” and “Leon”, to the solid action’ers “Taken”, “Wasabi”, “District B13″, & even “Kiss of the Dragon” (having a young daughter myself really makes the last 1/3 of that movie work brilliantly). And hey- give Besson props for “Angel-A”, a very nice ode to Wenders’ triumphant “Wings of Desire”.
So of course I couldn’t wait for “Columbiana”, & was a bit stunned how much the critics slammed it…
But know what? I think there’s some kind of hubris running thru most reviewers when confronted with an action movie… regardless if it’s a ‘Thinking Action’ movie. They feel ‘cheap’, & feel it’s their duty to diss… even to the extent of tuning out 1/2-way thru the film, & or even making shit up (cf Ebert’s review of “King of New York”: it’s clear he never watched the full movie).
Even famous multiple Oscar-winning screenwriter William Goldman lamented this, noting that “action films will never win a Best Picture Oscar” [Note: "Braveheart" or "LOTR" are 'Epic/Adventure', not 'Action'] & he even joked, “maybe an action film about medical malpractice could win”. Well, we had that film, “Constant Gardener”, & it was brilliant, Rachel Weisz got her well-deserved Oscar, but nope it still didn’t win “Best Picture”.
Ironically- lots of the ‘great’ filmmakers have made ‘Thinking Action’ films:
- “Runaway Train”: scenario written by Kurosawa
- “Blade Runner”: based on & ‘approved’ by Philip K. Dick
- “Heat”: written by Mann, based on work by Edward Bunker (“No Beast so Fierce”)
- “City of God”: written by director of “Constant Gardner”
- “Apocalypse Now”: written by Milius, directed by Coppola
So- let’s get into a few examples from the reviews[sic] trashing “Columbiana”, shall we?
“If that sounds like an intensely generic plot outline that because it is”
“Action aside, what ultimately kills the film is a complete lack of originality or initiative”
-> Perfect straw dog for a Reviewer who’s already decided to dislike the film. Did they even watch with both eyes open? Let’s take 4 examples:
-
1) “with a smart FBI agent (Lennie James) right on her tail, she needs to execute before it’s too late”
-> You’re right- that does sound hackneyed. Oh wait- that’s NOT WHAT HAPPENS AT ALL IN THE FILM.
In the *actual* film “Columbiana”, Cataleya not only isn’t ‘worried’, ‘rushed’ nor even ‘inconvenienced’ by the FBI; she casually abandons her digs w/o a murmur nor even anger at her boyfriend when SWAT blows a hole in her door. She then casually outwits said FBI guy, & turns him into her stalking horse, & then scares the shit out of the suave CIA guy as well, w/ the very .50cal she pulled right out from under the FBI’s noses. “Before it’s too late”?! This is even more elegant than “Taken”‘s Liam Nielson messing about with cellular gadgets to outwit triangulation!
2. “the script makes little attempt to establish [Saldana & Vartan's] personal connection”.
-> So, you’ve just ignored 3 separate scenes, plus the underlying theme running thru *all* their scenes together: “Can’t we do something together like normal people?” Vartan asks the very first scene. Then he (tries) to withold sex to ‘ask questions’ [now c'mon! that's pretty Original right there! We've seen 'female love interest's do this in Action films, but a MALE love-interest?! Nice!]. Then she’s willing to risk phone triangulation to let him “ask three questions” as she’s running away. IOW- she’s not into ‘talky/feely’ ways of showing she cares, but she just took an ‘Action’ one. Sure it’s not a ton of character development, but saying “makes little attempt” is just ridiculous.
3. “it’s never explained how the men she murdered are connected to the Colombian kingpin.”
-> Now it’s clear the Reviewer definitely ‘tuned out’ 1/3 of the way thru the film. Sure, we think that when we first see her wax the scary Danny Trejo-looking guy… & the screenplay throws us a feint, letting us think “oh she’s killing her father’s murderer’s crew”. But wait- then she’s killing a Madoff-like white guy: CLEARLY NOT RELATED TO DON LUIS! Huh? And then for the duffers, just like said Reviewers, the film actually SPELLS IT OUT, TWICE: “Oh, [she's] sending a message” says FBI guy, -&- “Oh, you’re sending a message to Don Luis, not us!” says FBI guy again(!)
It’s not “Who” is being killed, it’s the Orchid Drawing on their chest! In lipstick, to just nail that point home. And guess what? Don Luis figures it out IMMEDIATELY!
4. “That’s nothing, however, compared to the fact that Cataleya and Don Luis never share a single scene together in the entire film.”
-> I suppose the very climax of the film, a ‘telephone two-shot’, doesn’t count? And especially when she resolves it so elegantly? “Eat!”
For a film with so much similarity to “Taken”, plus the added spice of a woman in the lead role, it’s curious sites would rate “Taken” a 3, & “Columbiana” a 1.5 Perhaps the Reviewer doesn’t appreciate “B” movies? And wishes he was watching Bergman instead? Or worse, it’s “ok” to have “guilty pleasure” of male-based Action, but somehow disquieting if women kick ass too?
FWIW- I just watched “Debt” & found it long, turgid, morally corrupt & philosophically inept. A paean to whining, the film manages to make the ‘heroes’ come-off as petty incompetent bureaucrats, while the Bad Guy comes-off as more morally honest, & successful to boot! What more perfect ‘evil villain’ exists than a Nazi Torturer, & yet these pathetic liars incompetently screw-up twice, then take-credit & brag for 30 years for a success that never happened. “I knew it was going to come-back and haunt me?” Shit lady- quit thinking of your pitiful life, & consider the thousands of murdered people whom you just cheated of JUSTICE!
Mirren was much, much better in “Red”: “I kill people, dear”. And Justice was much, much better served in “Columbiana”: “Eat!”
… let me leave w/ 2 good things to say about #7: