Great Scotts

Rating: Null/10 (4 August 2007)

Why did I think "Transformers" was great and this not? They use the same cinematic engineering at root. This is simpler and because it is not a cartoon and chase-oriented rather than battle-oriented it grabs better.
Both are made by untalented men advised by brilliant producers. In this case, its Doug Liman, who has made study of how the eye can be diced. What he's done is take the standard camera techniques for excitement and toned them up a bit.
The model is Tony Scott. In fact, the Scott model is followed so stringently, we have that teletype effect and sound when we are told where the action has moved to. Can we finally get rid of that, please? Its as disruptive as that business of the red line moving across a map used to be.
The camera is otherwise inherently cinematic and "there." By there, I mean even in the quiet segments, we are reminded that it is a hand-held camera. The interesting thing is that you can see that a machine is putting those jiggles in as no cameraman could be that random. Its not a human eye but a robot one pretending to be so.
But you probably won't notice that. You'll notice, as I did, that when the fights happen, you see flashes as the participants would, When you run, you see irrelevant motion as a runner and someone following him would, and taking cues from that amazing section at the beginning of "Casino Royale."
So why did I like "Transformers" better? You'll laugh when I tell you. Because the story is more intelligent, and elements of it relevant to the cinematic adventure. Here's an example: the concept in Transformers is that we have a hyperactive, flitting eye. So we are prepared for this by being shown a robot with the same hyperactive vision disorder (and we see things through its eyes).
That's not the case here. The story is one of recovered memory, of bits coming together to make sense. The cinematic basis is the opposite. Oh, there's some cinematic memory, the type of stuff from "Manchurin Candidate," (with the "memory" film incongruously striped with use and faded by exposure). That's old model, and it fits the story such as it is.
The new cinematic vision is merely bolted on, the way that car chase was bolted on in "French Connection." That was about as exciting in its day. Go and watch that movie today and see how bad it is, and you'll see what we'll be thinking about this in 35 years. But it IS a rush if you see it now.
Scott Glenn does a good job. Everyone else is a prop.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.