Jordana Brewster

  • Random Acts of Violence (2019)

    Random Acts of Violence (2019)

    (On Cable TV, October 2020) I was really curious to see what Jay Baruchel had in mind as a writer-director for Random Acts of Violence. Alas, that turns out to be a slasher horror movie that gets bogged down into a muddled hypocritical critique of horror as incitement to real-life murders. To be fair, there are quite a few nice things here—The stylistic outlandishness of the result is noticeable (even the credit sequence seems to be from Gaspard Noé’s playbook) and the film does a lot with a rather small budget. Jordana Brewster brings a lot to every movie she’s in, and Baruchel himself has a supporting role. Alas, I don’t have as many nice things to say about the thematic underpinning of the premise, as a creator of horror-themed comic book (making the serial killer a hero, sigh) goes on a road trip to refuel his inspiration, and then ends up inspiring a real-life psycho to murder as many times as the red syrup budget will stand it. Cloaking itself in pseudo-profound artistic pretensions, Random Acts of Violence does remain the kind of horror film that prides itself on the goriness of its kills, which disqualifies it from any serious attempt at critiquing the genre—not that it particularly cares to, as it seems nihilistically indifferent to the very issues it raises. There may be a mouthpiece character arguing for the victim’s perspective, but the film itself is fairly clear about what it wants to do all the way to the final stab. There isn’t much comedy to either soften the blow or actually make itself subversive, leading to many missed opportunities. And that extends to much of the film itself—Random Acts of Violence does seem dimly aware of what it could be talking about, but takes the easy way out by featuring murders rather than what it could be saying about the murders. I see more horror movies in an average year than the average person will see in a lifetime, but I’m halfway to thinking that there may be a corrosive effect to making a horror movie if you get seduced by the easy allure of catering to the horror fans.

  • D.E.B.S. (2004)

    D.E.B.S. (2004)

    (On Cable TV, October 2016) I expected more from D.E.B.S. The initial setup (Young women recruited in a bubble-gum spy organization through SAT test results) isn’t bad and the overall premise (same-sex romance between spy and terrorist mastermind) does have a kick to it. But the way D.E.B.S. is executed usually falls flat. While the film embraces campiness, low-budget production techniques and ridiculous humour, the overall result feels a bit too forced to be enjoyable. The campiness isn’t an antidote for bland dialogue and dumb humour, and there’s a feeling throughout the film that the filmmakers would rather wink and nudge to the audience rather than beef up the script. The low-budget aesthetics (constant green screens, artificial staging, excessive cross-cutting without establishing shots) get tiresome after a while and reinforce the amateurish nature of the film. D.E.B.S. occasionally jolts to life whenever there’s a good line or two, and greatly benefits from the presence of Fast and the Furious alumni Jordana Brewster and Devon Aoki, but ultimately it looks like a punchline in search of a decent setup. The first few minutes’ comic inventiveness is quickly reduced to nearly nothing, while the girl-girl hero/villain romance doesn’t quite gel into something more than moderately interesting. I will certainly give it points for being something self-assuredly different from the norm (and, obviously, being a passion project for writer/director Angela Robinson), but there’s a leap from there to a genuinely enjoyable film that D.E.B.S. doesn’t quite take. It may be worth a look as a curiosity, but otherwise it’s a disappointment even without high expectations.

  • The Fast And The Furious (2001)

    The Fast And The Furious (2001)

    (In theaters, June 2001) Yes! After a diet of pretentious pseudo-profound cinema and ultra-hyped moronic flicks aimed at retarded teens, it’s such a relief to find a honest B-movie that fully acknowledge what it is. If you like cars, you’ll go bonkers over The Fast And The Furious, one of the most enjoyable popcorn film seen so far in 2001. The plot structure is stolen almost beat-for-beat from Point Break, which should allow you to relax and concentrate on the driving scenes. There aren’t quite enough of those, but what’s there on the screen is so much better than recent car-flick predecessors like Gone In Sixty Seconds and Driven that director Rob Cohen can now justifiably park in the space formerly reserved for Dominic Sena and Renny Harlin. The film’s not without problems, but at least they’re so basic that they’re almost added features. The protagonist is supposed to be played by Paul Walker, but don’t worry; bland blond-boy gets each and every one of his scenes stolen by ascending superstar Vin Diesel, whose screen presence is of a rare distinction. Feminists will howl over the retrograde place of women in the film, but even wannabee-sensitive-guys like me will be indulgent and revel in Jordana Brewster and Michelle Rodriguez—not to mention the other obligatory car-babes kissing each other. Despite the disappointing lack of racing in the first half, there is a pair of great action sequences by the end, the best involving a botched robbery attempt on a rig with an armed driver. That scene hurts, okay? I still would have loved a better ending, but otherwise, don’t hesitate and rush to The Fast And The Furious if you’re looking for a good, fun B-movie.

    (Second viewing, On DVD, March 2002) There isn’t much to that film, if you look closely; three or four action scenes, conventional plotting, a few hot young actors and that’s it. But once again in B-movie-land, it all depends on the execution. Here, the young actors are really hot (from Walker to Diesel to Brewster to Rodriguez), the direction is unobtrusive enough and the film is infused with a love of speed that manages to make all quibbles insignificant. The ending is still problematic, with all its unresolved plot-lines, but the film holds up very well to another viewing. The DVD includes an amusing director’s commentary, deleted scenes (some good, some less. Unfortunately, the director once refers to an alternate ending that’s not included), a rather good making-of, three rather bad music videos and a bunch of other stuff.

    (Third viewing, Streaming, December 2025) Decades later, the publication of Barry Hertz’s history of the Fast and Furious franchise suddenly had me hankering for a re-watch of the series’ first instalment. As many have since said, The Fast and the Furious really holds up.  At its core, it remains a solid genre thriller, streamlined to focus on the essentials.  The story moves fast except when it slows down for just-enough background for the characters, the Los Angeles setting or the car culture that’s central to the film’s comfort.  The few action sequences are handled with a professional’s touch, with just enough non-mimetic material (such as some brief CGI, or the sped-up transitions from day to nighttime highlighting the different realms of the film) to highlight the metal-on-metal tactility of the stunts.  It’s easily watchable without too many dull or dumb moments.  And the soundtrack is terrific — although that may just be me recognizing the tracks I was listening at the time. But it’s the the halo effect of its many sequels’ blockbuster success that helps lift it up even further: Paul Walker is quite good here, and Vin Diesel is remarkable. Even comparing this relatively grounded first installment to its increasingly bombastic follow-ups isn’t that big of a jump: You can see where the most successful bits of the sequels come from, and where some of the characters are introduced.  The sequels also manage to tie up the loose ends of the abrupt ending, and develop some half-baked ideas.  But even taken on its own, The Fast and the Furious is a slick, fast, well-made action movie — well worth a look even a quarter-mile, er, a quarter-century later.