free counter with statistics Smokin' Aces | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

aces3.jpg
Let’s All Hug It Out

Smokin’ Aces / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | January 28, 2007 | Comments (48)


Like a lot of filmmakers who came of cinematic age in the late 1990s, writer-director Joe Carnahan owes a lot to Quentin Tarantino, at least as far as style and ideas and colors and pretty much anything else. And since Tarantino was nothing more than a mashup of the pop culture that raised him, you can see how it could get existentially messy to try and parse the different meanings and inspirations behind Carnahan’s third and latest feature, Smokin’ Aces. I mean, is it really possible to rip off a genre master who’s nothing but the apotheosis of all ripoff artists? While Smokin’ Aces isn’t as accomplished as Carnahan’s Narc, he’s managed to maintain most of its energy while transitioning from dark cop thriller to a mix of frenetic action, stunning violence, and oddball comedy that succeeds just barely more than it fails. Despite a flimsy plot and a few twists broadcast miles in advance, the film slides by on the strength of Carnahan’s energy. Its highest aim is to be a garish, amped-up thrill-ride, and at that, it shines.

Part of the problem is the sheer scope of the story: A set of title cards sets up that Las Vegas showman and low-level mobster Buddy “Aces” Israel (Jeremy Piven) is about to roll on the Cosa Nostra to the FBI in exchange for immunity from criminal charges, and among those to be ratted out is mob boss Primo Sparazza (Joseph Ruskin). But then Carnahan dives right into the extensive cast of characters, flashing their names onscreen and freezing the frame in a comfortably played-out manner that firmly entrenches the film alongside any other action-comedy in the past decade, a lá Guy Ritchie. (It is in no way surprising that both Ritchie and Carnahan each helmed installments of BMW’s “The Hire,” a series of commercials featuring Clive Owen driving very fast in a very nice car while listening to generic house music.) Carnahan shuttles between locations as he introduces FBI agents, hitmen, bail bondsmen, and lawyers, all the while building the backstory between Israel and the mob using pretty hefty exposition; it’s a lengthy sequence that stays afloat thanks to Carnahan’s solid ear for dialogue that progresses the story and the fact that, since the film is only a few minutes old, the sheen hasn’t yet begun to fade.

FBI agents Messner (Ryan Reynolds) and Carruthers (Ray Liotta) are staking out Sparazza’s house when they intercept a phone call in which Sparazza’s lieutenant reveals that there’s a hit out on Israel, and they plan to nab him first and ransom him back to Sparazza. Israel has skipped bail, which means bondsman Jack Dupree (Ben Affleck) is going to get him, with the help of buddies and ex-cops Pete (Peter Berg) and Hollis (Martin Henderson), who are sponsored by the lawyer Rip Reed, played by Jason Bateman, whose supporting comedic role is easily one of the film’s highlights. But word is spreading of the bounty on Israel’s head, and soon enough a random assortment of assassins are gearing up to snatch him, including the torturer Pasquale Acosta (Nestor Carbonell); master of disguise Lazlo Soot (Tommy Flanagan); the Tremor Brothers (Chris Pine, Kevin Durand, Maury Sterling), who look like extras from Mad Max; and the female killing team of Georgia (Alicia Keys) and Sharice (Taraji Henson). You can start to see how the story gets, well, complicated. The killers and feds converge on a Lake Tahoe resort, where Israel is holed up in the penthouse with a mountain of coke and a steady string of whores, and it doesn’t take much time before Carnahan unleashes the carnage.

That violence, when it comes, is always gripping. The flashy editing from John Gilroy that almost drowned parts of Narc and Carnahan’s Beamer spot has been replaced with Robert Frazen’s more focused but no less energetic approach; Frazen’s history in female-driven stories (“My So-Called Life,” “Felicity,” “Veronica Mars,” both of Nicole Holofcener’s films) is the perfect counterbalance for Caranahan’s testosterone-fueled bloodbaths, and together they create something almost beautiful in the choreographed hell of battle. Then again, it’s anything but ordinary when one particular assassin in a firefight gets his knees shot off, then his arms, then falls onto a chainsaw and screams as his legs and lower torso erupt in a fountain of blood. Carnahan keeps the body count high and constant, offing supporting players and major characters with equal gusto.

In addition to being a fiend for bloodshed, Carnahan remains committed to a severely masculine mode of storytelling, though not in the misogynistic way of Tarantino. For Carnahan, women aren’t anything outside of how they relate to men. Narc is a powerful police drama that relegates the wives of its two main characters to secondary status at best. A junkie’s hooker girlfriend winds up giving him an STD, which is played for sick laughs as the junkie cavorts naked around his apartment and complains of the pain. He’s been physically desexualized, which is one of the worst things that can happen to a Carnahan male; it’s only topped in Narc by that fact that Liotta’s character in that film had a wife who did him the ultimate wrong by getting cancer and dying. Smokin’ Aces continues the boys-will-be-rapey theme by stocking the story to the brim with angry men who slaughter other men freely and whose only weakness is the fairer sex. Even Georgia, despite her murderous tendencies, only gains access to Israel’s hotel by posing as one of the prostitutes Israel’s going through like Kleenex. She gets ogled by the Tremor brothers and even her own partner, and finds an unlikely connection with Ivy (Common), one of Israel’s bodyguards. It doesn’t matter how strong she may have been; she still had to have a man rescue her.

It’s becoming harder to separate Piven from Ari Gold, the ruthless agent he plays on HBO’s “Entourage,” and I’m not convinced that’s a bad thing. He’s been mining the same shtick for years now, and he’s honed the character of sarcastic outsider down to a fine art; he’s like a young David Spade, only charming. His turn as Israel isn’t markedly different from his TV work, which isn’t markedly different from the rest of his roles, but it’s almost impossible to imagine anyone else playing Israel with the same mix of swagger and self-loathing. And Reynolds’ leading man chops are finally starting to catch up to his smartass persona, and Carnahan is smart enough to have him rein in the humor and focus on the drama. But Reynolds is overshadowed at every step by Liotta, who seems to be Carnahan’s muse (he even starred in Carnahan’s car ad), and is still as powerful as they come. There’s a confidence in the strength Liotta brings to his character that’s often missing from the rest of the cast, who go in screaming where Liotta brings a cold focus.

For all its faults, though, Smokin’ Aces is an entertaining trip, slick despite its hollowness and visceral enough to keep things moving. Carnahan trades on most of the plot points he used in Narc, including a long-ago murder that might have more to do with the present than any of the characters know, though that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But Carnahan’s earlier feature is better than this one, in large part because while the cops in Narc pursued a series of criminals through the city’s underworld, Smokin’ Aces stalls out as the characters come together in one place, one hotel, one room. The narrative’s energy becomes centrally focused, and the result is an eye-catching but unaffecting spectacle.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Blood and Chocolate | Epic Movie



Comments

Great review. I've been excited about this movie just on the cast alone.

also: (he even starred in Carnahan's car as)..missing a 'd'

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at January 26, 2007 8:46 PM

Sounds good. I thought it was going to be stupid, which it may well be, but not as stupid as I thought.

Posted by: Candy at January 26, 2007 9:41 PM

It really is a blast to watch. The trailer really made it look like a generic shooter, but the script is pretty tight and it has some decent twists.

Posted by: Adam C at January 26, 2007 11:03 PM

My man-crush for Ryan Reynolds is more than enough to get me to see this one. But to hear that is not a bad film, certainly eases the guilty feeling in the morning.

Posted by: ScarletKnight at January 26, 2007 11:06 PM

I saw this today, did not regret it once. Yep, it's a rip-off of Tarantino, but it's a good rip-off. The actors are good, the action is good, and Ryan Reynolds is smokin hot as always. Best of all it didn't run longer than it needed to which seems to be the downfall of so many action movies for me. It is what it is: fun, fast and only slightly gory (compared to Tarantino), which is exactly what I wanted!

Posted by: Jen at January 26, 2007 11:12 PM

Solid movie. I was so glad that the trailer did not disappoint (because I was worried that I was getting my hopes up for this movie, and was glad to see it deliver). And it was soooo great to see Jason Bateman, albeit for too short a time than I would have liked. I sure missed my Bluth boy!

Add to that excellent performances from the whole cast, especially Pivert, Common and Alicia Keys, and top it off with an intense-but-still-unbelievably-hot Ryan Reynolds, and you have a mindless couple hours of fun.

Posted by: Kristi at January 27, 2007 1:14 AM

It's actually Jason Statham that stars in those BMW films, the star of The Transporter.

Posted by: John at January 27, 2007 2:28 AM

John--

Wikipedia page on the BMW Films: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_films

The BMW ad starring Clive Owen directed by Joe Carnahan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Q4MDWHtm8

-Dan

Posted by: Daniel at January 27, 2007 2:36 AM

"I mean, is it really possible to rip off a genre master who's nothing but the apotheosis of all ripoff artists?"

Careful, you just described The Bard.

(Yes, I went there. No, I'm not suggesting QT is WS. And yes, I do apologize for throwing out such a hackneyed Survey of English Literature 101 saw.)

And PS, after reading this review right after the Epic Movie review, isn't it funny how intertext works in some cases and results in caustic brain-assault in others?

Posted by: ranylt at January 27, 2007 10:16 AM

I haven't been that bored in a cinema in a very long time. Smokin' Aces is a crappy film and I am not sure what went wrong. The story has potential, interesting and good cast (incl. the phenomenal Jason Bateman), nice visuals, etc. but it's just trying waaaaay too hard.
BTW, I missed the last 5 minutes (I was talking to my friend about the couple who actually had the guts to leave during the film) and never wondered what happened in those minutes - that's got to say something.

Posted by: jd at January 27, 2007 6:14 PM

since when is Tarantino misogynistic? seems to me he's one of the few mainstream directors out there providing truly interesting, complex roles for women within action movies.

Posted by: Sputnik at January 27, 2007 6:20 PM

Ben Affleck's porn beard. I can't find words for it. This film sucked ... set-up way too long, too many characters and too many situations where I had to laugh because it was so stupid, contrived and more than unreal. My friend still owes me a chick flick in exchange.

Posted by: CapitaineJanvier at January 27, 2007 7:13 PM

"since when is Tarantino misogynistic?"

Me, too, Sputnik. Although it's clear whose side he is on, QT does depict misogynists in a misogynistic world. A lot of people find this confusing. The same people are confused by Hitchcock, so whatever.

Since I have no plans to see this film, the thing I hate most about SA is that the main character has both a nickname ("Buddy") and an uber-nickname ("'Aces'").

Piques me.

Posted by: Janis at January 27, 2007 10:27 PM

Are people missing the point here? Is this "Armageddon?" Is it "Poseidon?" Is it even something as craptacular as "Fantastic Four?" God no.

It is what it's intended to be...an action-comedy movie. One that's complex yet shallow, paced well (for the most part), and allows it's characters to be real people (this means Fantastic Four). So even despite the lack of depth, the abundance of violence, and the misogyny (which I think is coincidental rather than implicit) it is at least well-made for what it is.

Basically, you could call it this year's Running Scared (also known as last year's well-done action-comedy movie that no one saw, which has an imdb score of 7.5). At least admit the Acting, Dialogue, Direction, Editing, Cinematography were good. Even if the plot was lacking in depth. Come on, people, it wasn't supposed to be the Gone with the Wind.

Posted by: G at January 28, 2007 5:18 AM

Seen it and I abso-fucking-ly loved it.
One word start to finish Booyutiful.

Posted by: Jean at January 28, 2007 10:06 AM

Can someone who has seen both movies let me know: Is this one as good as Crank? It sounds like it's sort of in the same spirit.

I laughed and squeed all through Crank. Delicious empty calories, and mad, mad fun. Also, if you've ever watched movie car chases and wondered what the one missing thrill element was, Crank provides the definitive answer.

Posted by: Jerce at January 28, 2007 12:46 PM

Saw this movie last night and really enjoyed. The Ritalin Karate Kid especially had me in stitches.

If you'd like Crank, you'll probably be able to enjoy Smokin Aces. The good parts in SA were better than the good parts in Crank, but overall Crank was better at not letting your attention wander at any point.

Posted by: Leaf at January 28, 2007 3:46 PM

Speaking of Crank, anyone heard any rumours about the directors' next project? IMDb is being chicly mysterious (apparently Neveldine and Taylor are too cool for their IMDb pages), but I find it hard to believe those two don't have offers being thrown at them...hard.

Since I'm already in question mode: I'm trying to find something definitive about N American release of Herzog's Dieter rehash, Rescue Dawn with Christan Bale. Lousy absurd title--but film could be amazing. Even the film's "official site" is being vague (sign of problems of some kind, but advance reviews are positive). At any rate, Apple.com has placed the trailer in its main rotation so I'm sensing imminence...

Anyone?

Posted by: ranylt at January 28, 2007 4:36 PM

You know at first seeing the preview I was like, great, yet ANOTHER Quentin Tarantino rip-off...as if the sinking feeling that Hollywood is REALLY running out ideas wasn't bad enough...I really didn't have to read the entire review to know that this film would suck monkey cum...and Tarantino shouldn't be flattered at all, in fact, he should make another film reviling this one...like maybe a self-parody on how directors who are his "fans" make films that are mindless and just shit poor imitations of his own films, and especially of the same exact ones, Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs...i mean aren't these people predictable enough as is...PLEASE!

Posted by: Gina at January 28, 2007 6:09 PM

So not having seen the film or even read the review in its entirety, you know exactly what the film is like, eh? Impressive.

Posted by: Leaf at January 28, 2007 9:19 PM

"the torturer Pasquale Acosta (Nestor Campbell)"

omg, i'm such a dork, but it's actually Nestor Carbonell. he was in "suddenly susan", how can u not know his name? :D

[Apologies for the error, and thanks for the correction. He's also going to be on "Lost" when it returns, as a pretty creepy villain. --Dan]

Posted by: irina at January 29, 2007 1:27 AM

It doesn't matter how strong she may have been; she still had to have a man rescue her.

Um, no. You might want to recall that, even wounded and gutshot, she saved his life - twice. Where does the "have a man rescue her" come in?

Posted by: Chinedum Ofoegbu at January 29, 2007 7:46 AM

OMFG! I saw this movie last night. Granted the exposition in the opening 20 minutes kinda forces the setup down your throat...but this movie does exactly what it should. It builds and builds to a climax and an ending, both of which occur in the final 10-15 mins, as well as a couple tied up loose ends...like "When is that bitch on the 50 gonna get killed?" (am I the only one who was waiting for that excitedly?)

And who's with me...Ryan Reynolds has officially made the turn. I think this is the first movie I've seen him in where he wasn't playing himself.

Posted by: PissBoy at January 29, 2007 7:57 AM

though not in the misogynistic way of Tarantino. For Carnahan, women aren't anything outside of how they relate to men.

In my book, that IS misogyny. Isn't anyone bored and tired of it yet? Thank you for that paragraph; you have guaranteed I will never see this film.

Posted by: Lilly at January 29, 2007 9:20 AM

I can't belive it. This movie is SO BAD. By the time I was halfway through the movie I couldn't help but roll my eyes at the terrible, shallow script, cliche one liners and cookie cutter "twist" ending. Not to mention the terrible acting. This is the first "popular" movie I've seen in a long time and it just reminded me of why it has been such awhile. I actually wanted my $10 back!
I expect more from Pajiba than this!

Posted by: Elizabeth at January 29, 2007 11:35 AM

Oh, and the violence was predictable and ridiculous. It didn't even come close to the unpredicatble but plot enforcing violence that Tarintino is so famous for.
PUH-LEESE!

Posted by: Elizabeth at January 29, 2007 11:37 AM

"parts of Narc and Carnahan's BIMMER spot"

Posted by: tl at January 29, 2007 11:48 AM

Takea chill pill, people...it wasn't Citizen Kane, but it wasn't "Epic Movie"-style absolute shit either. Ben Affleck's death scene? The shootout in the elevator? The Ritalin kid? And let's not forget the cinematography and editing. This movie had shots and transitions that were pure sex.

Posted by: Justin at January 29, 2007 1:40 PM

Call me a sexist ass...but it always drives me bonkers when I see a woman take on a man in some kind of physical fight. TV's "Alias" used to do it all the time. Exceptions:

  • The man is unsuspecting (hit in the back of the head with a skillet or some kind of trophy)
  • The man is not trained or in shape at all (super-woman killer versus your average World of Warcraft addict)
  • The man is distracted by her exposed breasteses (like the scene near the end of Half-Baked ;-) )
  • Other daffy outliers

...but a woman versus an alert man with some kind of experience, let alone multiple men? It's never going to happen. Never.

No, not ever.

Posted by: brutus at January 29, 2007 1:51 PM

BRUTUS SAYS "...but a woman versus an alert man with some kind of experience, let alone multiple man? It's never going to happen. Never. No, not ever."

Perhaps if the woman had special high-level training it could be possible. However, generally men are physically larger and stronger than women so the possibility of a woman defeating a man in physical combat is slight. Just as slight as your chances of taking on a man who is larger than stronger than you.

Yep, ... you versus an alert man physically larger than you with experience? It's never going to happen. Never.

No, not ever.

Posted by: Elle at January 29, 2007 4:53 PM

Brutus, your comment isn't sexist at all, just realistic.

Posted by: Lilly at January 29, 2007 5:29 PM

A woman can kick your windpipe in or gouge your eyes out, same as a man. You only need enough power to achieve the desired effect, anything over that is pointless, and it does NOT take much power to get your shit ruined if you're hit in the right places, in the right way. I don't care how big or alert you are, if some highly trained chick shatters your knee, she owns you.

Posted by: Leaf at January 29, 2007 5:36 PM

You know the funny part about what brutus is saying is that skinny attractive women kicking ass probably has more to do with comic book addicts not getting out much in high school than it does to do with empowerment of women.

That being said, I always wonder how many scrawny men get their asses kicked by neanderthals after playing too many video games and watching too many David-and-Goliath storylines in movies, particularly the ones that convince you that a rudimentary knowledge of martial arts will overcome a significant size and strength advantage. I suppose the same applies to women who see themselves in Jennifer Garner's shoes, but I somehow doubt that happens quite as often.

Posted by: Eep at January 29, 2007 6:20 PM

Hey Brutus--about the women not being able to kill the alert male---most of the time violent films are fantasies in which the lone man fighting a group of men wouldn't be able to survive, no matter how in shape they are.

It's fantasy violence. But if you want to get some nun chucks and get into the fray, by all means you big man, you. Good luck.

Posted by: ecp at January 30, 2007 6:01 PM

This movie sucked, and before somebody says "It ain't Gone With The Wind and it ain't supposed to be." No, but it ain't Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, and it's blatantly trying to be. I would go so far as to say that it makes 2 Days in the Valley look like The Maltese Falcon. It was a copy of a copy of a copy, with some of the most over-stylized dialogue ever. The fact that anybody would defend this movie is a sign of the dumbing down of our moviegoing culture, the worst sign I've seen since Revenge of the Sith.

Oh, but Jason Bateman's scene was hilarious. I'm hoping somebody will post that on Youtube, because it's great.

Posted by: Sean at January 30, 2007 11:42 PM

Sooner or later, all women who need rescuing need said rescuing by a man. If it weren't for men with guns; ie. cops, military, whathaveya, the women's movement would never have happened. I'm not saying that it was a totally bad thing, but women are always going to be women and men men. The state of affairs here, in the US, has as much to blame on the women as the men.

Posted by: New Millenium Craka at January 31, 2007 11:02 AM

"since when is Tarantino mysoginistic"- I don't get that either. I think his female characters are awesome and empowering. A filmmaker with tough complex women in lead roles, who else does that besides Ang Lee?

I've never posted here before, although I read often, I had to object to this perception of QT's female characters.

Posted by: Athena at January 31, 2007 11:05 AM

Flame on, you trolls from Hell. Those of us with serious thoughts on the male/female power struggle as it plays out both socially and physically won't be drawn into your web of circular reasoning.
Nay- I will FOCUS ON THE MOVIE. It sounds like a good diversion when a well-made action flick is in order. Maybe it's not Kill Bill or Snatch or whatever, but I've seen them and when the time comes I'm in the mood for total escapism (with Jason Bateman no less) I now know where to go. Thanks 'Jibers!

Posted by: Go Big Red at January 31, 2007 1:02 PM

New Millenium Craka, i think your forgetting that many women work in the professions, army police etc that you have listed. also if it wern't for especially strong women-none of us woud have been born, if you get my drift :)

Posted by: Mr fantastic at January 31, 2007 5:35 PM

I don't disagree with what you guys are saying, just the overabundance in movies (or TV) of some hot skinny model chick acting tough (Bones, Kill Bill, Crossing Jordan, Serenity, The 5th Element, Alias, Underworld, Resident Evil, Van Helsing, Blade 3, Charlie's Angels...hell, even The Tuxedo and The Medallion).

Okay, okay...some of the women are supposed to have super-powers or something, but the idea that normal ol' Alicia Keys is going to do anything remotely threatening is kind of insulting. She looks like you could give her a hard shaking and break a few of her bones.

Elle - I'd say that the probability of me losing (percentage wise) in that situation is somewhere in the 90s. That said - I'm 6'4", 225lbs...I'd have a shot. Alica Keys would have a 0.00 percent chance.

Leaf - I agree that one good strike is all it takes, but I just don't see the women that movies portray being able to pull off said strike without the element of surprise.

ecp - You're right, but at least I can buy into his punch knocking someone out, or his kick knocking someone down. The skinny hot "tough" girl would just piss someone off. I'm not saying that all women are weak (look at Laila Ali, or many of the women in the armed forces), just the ones you always see in the movies.

Posted by: brutus at February 1, 2007 9:11 AM

I see what brutus is saying. He isn't saying that women in general cannot, with proper conditioning and training, defeat a alert man in physical combat. He is saying that the type of women portrayed in TV shows and movies doing such thing don't have the physicality needed to realistically do such a thing. Most of these 'superwomen' look like they don't weigh 100 lbs. soaking wet, and yet we are to believe they can take down soldiers/bouncers/thugs that are supposedly trained to handle combatants of similar strength as themselves. If a man had the same proportionate weight ad build as some of these women, the same problem would emerge.

Posted by: Vermillion at February 1, 2007 2:55 PM

Were there NO other hearts avaliable... ANYWHERE?.... in the ENTIRE WORLD?

... nice "twist".

Posted by: Thrash at February 2, 2007 6:23 AM

Were there NO other hearts avaliable... ANYWHERE?.... in the ENTIRE WORLD?

... nice "twist".

Posted by: Thrash at February 2, 2007 6:23 AM

Yes, yes, your "serious thoughts" Mr. Go Big Red. You can FOCUS ON THE MOVIE, I could care less about it. This movie appears to be just as much trash as the rest of them that come out weekly, and are viewed by YOU, in need of escapism for an absurd amount of money each week.

And for the record, I'm well aware that many of these women couldn't kick anyone's butt, but it's a start. At least they get an actual role that isn't blumbering, doll-faced romantic interest only.

Posted by: Athena at February 2, 2007 12:37 PM

Ending ruined this for me. I thought it was drawn out. It was liked Carnahan really didnt know what to do after all the action unfolded. Otherwise, the action itself was fun and built to a solid crescendo with a disappointing let-down to follow.

Posted by: Rich at February 2, 2007 2:18 PM

Whew - having seen what little result the talent pool (deathpool?) this flick has come up with, I'd still have to take issue with your (more literate than the subject) review:

"Carnahan remains committed to a severely masculine mode of storytelling, though not in the misogynistic way of Tarantino. For Carnahan, women aren't anything outside of how they relate to men. Narc is a powerful police drama that relegates the wives of its two main characters to secondary status at best."

I'd have to say that Tarantino is a bit too smart to be the simpleton misogynist you glibly pass him to be.
I don't see anything Carnahan has made as having anything but mirror moves to his banal mode of gender portrayal.
QT's always had layers and understands maculine and feminine archtypal behaviour as existing _outside_ of physical gender as well as being rooted to our biology. His cultural products are similarly smarter than much of what they draw from. Aren't Kill Bill (I think of it as one film) and Jackie Brown close to the source material (kung fu and heist genre) and better for all the right reasons?
I think of Stephen Chow's work getting exposure in North America thanks to QT, and both of these cats are smarter than the films they make, with a wink and ribbing at the male and female roles they get to play with.

Dusk to Dawn aside (produced by QT plus that loathsome character and shitty script), as it fails to rise above its reference material beyond more T&A (HELLO, Ms.Hayek!), I think better of Tarantino's profile than Carnahans because only one of them rises from the mud and makes it clear they know better. Carnahan seems to indulge his characters within a vicarious wish-fulfillment scenario and wants to be called an artist. QT has done a hell of a lot more homework, and it shows.

Where's the development of character in Smokin' Aces? Oh, that's right, since so many of the actors are NAMES and the supporting cast are CARTOONS or PORN STARS, you don't need much - credit has to go to Piven for making it fun to watch him. Liotta, maybe. He's tiresome, and I think Tom Berenger could have given this film as much meaty stuff.
I also think you'd have done more justice to this film by not drawing the (obvious or wrong) comparisons to Tarantino, who has more in common with F.F. Coppola and John Ford than he does Carnahan.

I think you also left out the more appropriate Transporter/Crank direct comparisons that would reveal straight up what degree of intelligence this film requires. We get to see a lot of talent (Yeah, I hope to see more Piven and Reynolds in quality roles but this is a bus stop, not the next station) and a lot of "bullet booty". Meh!

But to its credit, Aces is still just a _little_ smarter than Fast and Furious styled films.
But I'd say that's splitting hairs, cause this is really big-budget exploitation movie making We're all expected to _want_ to wallow in the (expensive) mud and feel better for it (cue The Player's spa scene, killer) - and since its clear _somebody_ paid $$$ for the party, hell yeah, "let's snort coke of that hooker's ass" seems apropos behaviour. This movie is serving that grade of stimulation without you having to worry about (Ha!) narcs.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Crank, really - or (HELLO?) John Woo.

In closing: This film is exhibit A, showing that we're close to the end of Hollywood's string, and there's not much left for this "style" to do except explode and implode like the cheesy time bomb it mimics.

Posted by: damien walder at February 3, 2007 3:52 PM

Ooops! Typos on Masculine, and "glibly pass _off_" among others. Be kind, I've only had one coffee since seeing the film.
Smokin' Aces could be summed up a guilty pleasure, like wanting to see another Paris Hilton gaffe, or Disaster videos (Filmmakers Gone Wild!). In other words, wait fot the DVD and watch it on a big plasma with your stereo up.
"Trashy Fun is hot" - P.H.

Posted by: damien walder at February 3, 2007 4:01 PM

It's funny you mention that Piven is like a young Spade, since he's actually older. They were both also in a movie together called P.C.U., it was a typical college movie, but had its moments none the less.

Posted by: mike at February 5, 2007 12:23 PM