Directed by D.J. Caruso.
Written by John Glenn, Travis Wright, Hillary Seitz and Dan
Starring Shia LaBeouf, Michelle Monaghan, Billy Bob Thornton and
Release Year: 2008
Review Date: 10/7/08
There is something to be said for movie
pedigree, and even though you don't have to read any reviews,
sometimes it is fun to see who's going to be in a film and who
worked on a film before going to see it...it's amazing what the
story can be!
First, the director. Generally
(GENERALLY), you can look at a director that has made more than
three films and get a feel for what you'll get this time around.
The director of "Eagle Eye"--the new Shia LaBeouf action film--is
D.J. Caruso. Here's what he has made:
Sea"--great film, starring Val Kilmer; nobody saw it, but
its strongest feature is the lush nighttime photography of Los
Angeles...and, of course, Kilmer, who is up and down but up in
this one. Unfortunately, he made three films after this,
which is what we'll use to judge "Eagle Eye":
"Taking Lives", "Two for the Money" and
"Disturbia." Critics crushed all three of these films, and
the only one I almost saw was "Two for the Money", which you may
remember as that really bad-looking Al Pacino/Matthew McConaghey
sports bookie "thriller."
Knowing this, I then checked out the writers
for "Eagle Eye." Generally (GENERALLY), if any film was
written by more than two people, the script is not good because it
went through at least one or two writers, then a rewrite, then
possibly a third rewrite or more. The more writers, the worse
the film, and "Eagle Eye" has four credited writers.
So, the signs were already there for "Eagle
Eye" to not be good...and then, the movie started. Meg and I
both agreed that the film was not good, but in the end, I thought
this was total dogshit. In an amazing twist, Caruso actually
found a way to keep the normally charismatic LaBeouf mostly
uninteresting, although he did earn one chuckle from our audience
near the end of the film for a wise crack to no one in particular.
LaBeouf's main co-star in this adventure--detailing a pair's attempt
to figure out why an unseen female is manipulating them into all
sorts of nefarious actions--is Michelle Monaghan, a woman that
seemingly does NOT have stardom written all over her yet she is
continually cast in big-budget action adventures, like
Mrs. Smith" and
"M:I-3." Maybe I didn't get the fucking memo, but are
rail-thin white girls who appear to have exactly one facial
expression in these days?
Not to give much away here, but once you
figure out who the crazy woman on the phone is, the movie
predictably falls (completely) apart; this idea has been done
countless times before, which is okay, but why is the action here so
bad? The ideas here so stale? Sure, the technology has
changed, but really, why is the plot so ridiculous? You will
howl during the subway chase sequence, where crazy woman dials
random people's cell phones to keep annoying Shia's character; yep,
you'll wonder how it is even possible, and then you'll wonder why
you decided this drivel was worth your time. What a fucking
Rating: Hard Vice
Comments? Drop me a line at
Bellview Rating System:
"Opening Weekend": This is
the highest rating a movie can receive. Reserved for movies that
exhibit the highest level of acting, plot, character development,
setting...or Salma Hayek. Not necessarily in that order.
"$X.XX Show": This price
changes each year due to the inflation of movie prices; currently,
it is the $9.50 Show. While not technically perfect, this is a
movie that will still entertain you at a very high level.
"Undercover Brother" falls into this category; it's no "Casablanca",
but you'll have a great time watching. The $9.50 Show won't win any
Oscars, but you'll be quoting lines from the thing for ages (see
"Matinee": An average movie
that merits no more than a $6.50 viewing at your local theater.
Seeing it for less than $9.50 will make you feel a lot better about
yourself. A movie like "Blue Crush" fits this category; you leave
the theater saying "That wasn't too bad...man, did you see that
Lakers game last night?"
"Rental": This rating
indicates a movie that you see in the previews and say to your
friend, "I'll be sure to miss that one." Mostly forgettable, you
couldn't lose too much by going to Hollywood Video and paying $3 to
watch it with your sig other, but you would only do that if the
video store was out of copies of "Ronin." If you can, see this
movie for free. This is what your TV Guide would give "one and a
"Hard Vice": This rating is
the bottom of the barrel. A movie that only six other human beings
have witnessed, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. A Shannon
Tweed "thriller," it is so bad as to be funny during almost every
one of its 84 minutes, and includes the worst ending ever put into a
movie. Marginally worse than "Cabin Boy", "The Avengers" or
"Leonard, Part 6", this rating means that you should avoid this
movie at all costs, or no costs, EVEN IF YOU CAN SEE IT FOR FREE!
(Warning: strong profanity will be used in all reviews of "Hard