New on DVD Jan 04 2009 @ 02:49 am
REVIEW: Eagle Eye
Directed By: D.J. Caruso
Written By: Dan McDermott, John Glenn, Travis Wright, Hillary Seitz
Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Michelle Monaghan, Billy Bob Thornton, Rosario Dawson, Michael Chiklis, Ethan Embry
Running Time: 118 minutes
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, and for language
“We should have total freedom to do as we like, just so long as it’s not dull. A critic who talks to me about plausibility is a dull fellow.” – Alfred Hitchcock, on the artistic freedom of filmmakers.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I’ve never worried much about the plausibility, or rather implausibility, of a given movie. Enforcing an outside reality on a piece of insular entertainment seems to be on par with showing up at an all-you-can-eat buffet with a calorie counter in hand. Watching your waistline certainly is an admirable goal, you’ve just come to the wrong place to do it. Director D. J. Caruso seemingly shares this viewpoint. Thus far in his career he has gravitated towards stories that allow him to throw the physics and expectations of the real world out the door, in the service of making an entertaining flick.
With Eagle Eye, Caruso lets us know from the moment he introduces hero Jerry Shaw (Shia LeBeouf) that even though he pays lip service to (and cribs liberally from) the great canon of 70’s thrillers such as The French Connection and The Parallax View that we’re here for a “thrill ride”. None of those pesky character arcs here, ladies and gentlemen! Arms and hands inside the car, no flash photography please. How do we know that Jerry is our hero-to-be? Just watch the way that this put-upon copy clerk plays quad aces. Any wannabe rounder would be jealous of that kind of calm. To be fair, I doubt that anyone pops in this DVD looking for insight or introspection. We’re on the boardwalk buying tickets to the Tilt-A-Whirl, and unlike the questionable quality of carny construction, what we have here is a thrill ride made with great care that moves along fairly briskly. The action set-pieces are fun, flashy and fairly realistic looking, which in this day and age is deserves some credit.
Unfortunately, the film nearly grinds to a halt when Jerry isn’t running to or from something. Co-stars Michelle Monaghan, Billy Bob Thornton and Rosario Dawson are given little to do except yell incredibly silly things. (Honestly, pay special attention to the next-to-last scene, in which a character is forced to state the theme of the movie in a soundbite so stilted it belongs in a circus.) To misuse such a varied and interesting troupe is a shame really — I’m sure that I’ve seen almost every member of this cast in action movies that were both smart and exciting. I won’t expose my personal prejudices here by stating which films those are, but I’m sure the avid researcher could learn a lot about this writer by sussing out the correct flicks.
At least as enjoyable as the film itself, though, was an interesting extra contained on the second DVD of the set, entitled “Shall We Play A Game?” Director Caruso chats with one of his mentors, John Badham, the director of War Games (a personal favorite). As an aspiring filmmaker myself (yes, I’m one of those), I always enjoy seeing the enthusiasm of creative types. Caruso clearly enjoys his work and doesn’t take it too seriously, which is a good quality to have when you make silly action movies, now that I think about it.
While not as unexpectedly enjoyable as the last Caruso/LaBeouf paring (the underrated Disturbia), Eagle Eye is more than watchable in a lazy-evening-with-the-family sort of way.
on Jan 04 2009 @ 12:07 pm 1. Alexander Coleman said …
Good review, Josh. I’ve always loved Hitchcock’s quote that you have used here to great effect.
The film was far from great, but it was enjoyable in a diverting manner.
My own review.
on Jan 04 2009 @ 12:30 pm 2. Film-Book dot Com said …
I was entertained by this film but if a movie is going to be over the top, I would rather watch a film like wanted.
Director D. J. Caruso must have read 2001: A Space Odyssey because there is a plot point in Eagle Eye not present in the film version of 2001 in this film. It was very cool to see.
on Jan 04 2009 @ 11:18 pm 3. Josh Ickes said …
Thank you Alex (can I call you Alex, that’s not too informal is it?) I found it amusing that not once during the supplemental material for both Disturbia and Eagle Eye did the words Alfred Hitchcock come up (that I can recall anyway).
Sir dot Com, I’m in the same boat as you, if it’s to be over the top, then a mile is better than an inch. Sukiyaki Western Django anyone?
on Jan 07 2009 @ 12:22 pm 4. Evan Derrick said …
“Enforcing an outside reality on a piece of insular entertainment seems to be on par with showing up at an all-you-can-eat buffet with a calorie counter in hand.”
That’s an interesting point, Josh, but perhaps it only works in certain situations? Inevitably we bring our own prejudices into the movie theater. It’s unavoidable. And our own experience will ALWAYS color the way in which we view a film. For example, since I work with computers, I always groan whenever some flashy GUI pops up that can hijack 30 cell phone calls at once, route them through a satellite, and then use the signal to blow up the white house. Or whatever. It’s an act of the will for me to suspend disbelief in such instances. However, since I’m not a doctor, you can pretty much spout whatever medical jargon you want at me in a film and I’ll accept at face value. A brain surgeon is going to be more picky in that area.
Point being that sometimes plausibility is in the eye of the beholder, and we shouldn’t hold it against the viewer who says, “Oh come on, that couldn’t happen!” A filmmaker’s job is to lessen that reaction amongst as many people as possible, but it’s still inevitable.
on Jan 07 2009 @ 12:24 pm 5. Evan Derrick said …
BTW, nice piece. You did a good job of embracing the limitations of the film and arguing in favor of its apparent “silliness.”
on Jan 07 2009 @ 12:40 pm 6. Luke Harrington said …
I think you make a fair point, Evan…but it seems to me that if you walk into a film knowing that it’s fictional, it’s a little silly to demand that it be realistic. If you’re truly going to be that anal about things, shouldn’t you have just gone to a documentary?
on Jan 07 2009 @ 12:47 pm 7. G said …
I think I’m somewhere in between you and Josh on the plausibility, thing, Evan, or maybe I’m just coming at it from a different angle. I understand you pointing out that, with your specialized knowledge, certain things seem implausible that would pass other people by, and vice versa. This I understand (I enjoyed Starting Out in the Evening very much, but her grad work made no sense. If this is a master’s thesis, why is she writing it dissertation length? And her other published work is in magazines, not academic journals – that wouldn’t help her career! etc) but I think it mostly misses the point – sure you should try not to have every expert in a given area rolling their eyes, but that’s really no biggie.
Where I would disagree with Josh is when he writes “Perhaps unsurprisingly, I’ve never worried much about the plausibility, or rather implausibility, of a given movie.” The key here is “given.” Certain movies are, as Josh mentions, “insular entertainments” and, when the critic is given one of those (like Eagle Eye), plausibility arguments are, if not strictly forbidden, at least unlikely to be too important.
If the critic is given, on the other hand, a film like 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days or Chop Shop, realism is the watchword and the filmmakers are not being insular nor even barely concerned with entertainment. In films like those, the given movie demands that you consider plausibility.
These are extreme examples, and thus I try to use a sliding scale of plausibility; some middle-brow Oscar bait like As Good as it Gets should be more plausible than Eagle Eye but less than Chop Shop, etc.
So I agree with Josh that insular entertainments shouldn’t be judged on plausibility, but that’s a relatively small class of movies. And most films are more or less in the middle of this – even Hitchcock’s. Sure, he can get away with certain plot twists and turns that might seem unlikely in real life, as in North by Northwest, but it’s not like he’d make the sort of fantastical movie where everyday animals suddenly declare war on humankind or anything.
on Jan 07 2009 @ 1:01 pm 8. Evan Derrick said …
The line is a pretty fuzzy one, but it is certainly there. I don’t demand that my fictional films be completely realistic, but they have to ascribe to some sort of reality.
Each film has its own “rules” that it sets up early on, and if it follows those rules, no matter how ludicrous the events, I’m fine. Take Die Hard for example. What are the rules of Die Hard? The only one, really, is that John McClane is a total mother of a cop, almost superhuman, and can do things that no ordinary man can do. I accept that. So when he jumps off of an exploding building with nothing but a firehose attached to his midsection, then shoots out the glass on a lower floor and swings himself in, I accept that. It follows the rule. No prob, fun times.
Ok, now lets take Jumper, that quasi sci-fi flick with Hayden Christensen in it. What rule does it set up early on? That certain human beings can teleport themselves at will to any place they have seen before. Ok, I accept that. However, early on in the film, Christensen’s character disappears for an entire decade (people think he’s dead). Then, without warning, he shows back up in his hometown and drops in on his high school sweetheart (who, mind you, also thinks he’s dead and hasn’t seen him in ages). He then proposes that they fly to France for a little vacation, the plane is leaving in an hour, and she accepts. Now, while the film has established the rule that people can teleport themselves at will, it has NOT established the rule that people will respond to relational situations in entirely absurd ways. Teleportation? Ok, I can believe that. Girl instantly dropping everything and leaving on a cross-continent trip with a boy she thought was dead and hasn’t spoken to in over 10 years? I don’t buy that for a second. It’s absurd.
So filmmakers don’t have to make realistic films, but they have to adhere to their own rules. Just because you’re making a silly action adventure film in which ludicrous things happen doesn’t mean you can chuck common sense and basic human nature out the window as well. There are limits to an audiences suspension of disbelief.
on Jan 07 2009 @ 1:07 pm 9. Evan Derrick said …
Saw your comment you posted while I was writing mine, G. Good points, all, and what you said about Hitchcock making talking animal films ties into what I was saying, I think. Climbing to the top of the Statue of Liberty in Saboteur and having a ridiculously implausible fist fight? Sure, I can buy that, it follows the rules that Hitchcock is setting up. But if the Statue of Liberty all of a sudden became sentient and crushed the bad guy with her fist? Yeah, that would present some problems (an extreme example, certainly, but you see what I’m going for).
on Jun 14 2009 @ 5:29 am 10. Eagle Eye MovieZeal | garden statues said …
[...] Eagle Eye MovieZeal Posted by root 2 minutes ago (http://www.moviezeal.com) Saw your comment you posted while i was writing mine g good points all climbing to the top of the statue of liberty in saboteur and having a Discuss | Bury | News | Eagle Eye MovieZeal [...]