Tag Archives: film review

Age of Adeline – movie review

This image belongs to the owners of the film and its distribution rights - not me.

This image belongs to the owners of the film and its distribution rights – not me.

It has been a terribly long time since I posted. I apologize. There have been many reasons. I had password issues that meant I was unable to log onto the blog for a couple of months. I have been travelling (as Kevin has already mentioned). I have been busy living in Japan and so have consumed little media (certainly little worth comment) and I have been a little lazy. Well, I am back and while I do not make promises to be regular I will certainly try to do better.

The first thing I would like to review is a movie. It is not a new movie. In fact I watched it in August while on a 14 hour flight from Japan to Tokyo.

I knew practically nothing about The Age of Adeline when I selected from the limited pool of available movies. Whatever I might have thought it would be about (something through time based on the costume clips), it wasn’t. It was however, surprisingly good. A movie that I really enjoyed enough that I have actually watched it again.

The Age of Adeline was released in April 2015 to moderate reviews – apparently. I was just looking this up on the internet. Sometimes it is best to go into a film with as little information as possible. It certainly worked to my advantage for this one. The movie tells the story of Adeline, born January 1, 1908. Through an accident and science-magic she stops appearing to age when she is 29 years old. The story is mostly told from the present day with a few flashbacks to various points in her life. It is a romance in the classic, predictable way of romances. However, knowing how it is going to end does not spoil the journey, at least for me.

What I liked about this Sleeping Beauty-esq tale was the voice of the film. Not literally the man who did the voice-over exposition at the start and end of the movie, although I liked that choice. It was the feel. I liked the costumes, the cinematography, the way the characters conversed, and the flow of the story. I suppose I liked the clean, simple tale of life that had nothing to do with massive explosions, overly dramatic moments or superheroes. Perhaps it was the change that appealed most to me as other people didn’t seem to enjoy the film as much as I did.

This image is also from the movie and not owned by me.

This image is also from the movie and not owned by me.

I thought the story of Adeline Bowman to be interesting. It may not have touched on her past as much as I would have liked, but I think it hit all the key moments. I also enjoyed those small moments that connected past and present. For example when she is attending a New Year’s Eve party at a fancy hotel and looking at photos on the wall, which include her with a different group of people some fifty or sixty years earlier. She was a classy character and I found Blake Lively’s soft-spoken performance compelling. I liked the costume choices and the touch of old that even the modern Adeline incorporated into her wardrobe. Visually, the film was appealing.

The rest of the cast was also engaging. Adeline’s daughter was the most interesting relationship and unfortunately the weakest. It would have been interesting to explore more of the hardships of watching your child age as you do not. Though they did try to do some interesting things between the characters, it was not the greatest strength of the film. After all this was a romance. As such it focused mostly on the present day love interest of Ellis Jones and the older love interest of William Jones.

This is not my image and I do not own it.

This is not my image and I do not own it.

Yes, those two are related as father and son – one of the more … awkward moments. Though no one seems to really make much of a deal that William had been ready to propose to Adeline long before he married Ellis’ mother. I recognize the use of this sort of relationship (father and son both falling in love with the same ageless woman) was done in order to move the plot forward. It was used to force Adeline to face her own life and choices. Still I thought it a bit much that Adeline’s Prince Charming was the son of the man who wanted to marry her some 45-ish years earlier. I suppose it did add for an interesting exploration of William’s character and whether he was still happy with his choices after so much time had passed.

The Age of Adeline was a nice story. I really enjoyed watching and would recommend it as a good, sweet romance.

Malevolent Maleficent

As my brother has posted this is the holiday season, thus the lack of posting. It is also a time to catch up on entertainment. I have seen two movies of late: The third part of the Hobbit and Maleficent. Today I will write a short reflection on the latter.

Aurora, Maleficent and Crow (couldn't be bothered learning this one's name). Image from the internet.

Aurora, Maleficent and Crow (couldn’t be bothered learning this one’s name). Image from the internet.

Maleficent was meh. I had extremely low expectations having watched recent remakes like Mirror Mirror (very clean and simple) and Snow White and the Huntsman (truly terrible film). The movie did not exceed them. On the other hand, it was not frustratingly worse than I had expected.

Best scene in the movie - The Cursing of Baby Aurora by the Evil Maleficent. Image from the Internet.

Best scene in the movie – The Cursing of Baby Aurora by the Evil Maleficent. Image from the Internet.

Angelina Jolie had a great scene when she cursed the baby Aurora. Otherwise her acting was good, but not great. The acting of the other primary characters was terrible, while some of the tertiary characters were better acted. The visuals pulled heavily from Lord of the Rings. The vine monsters were kind of neat, but completely unnecessary (as were many of the elements). The story was a mess. The writing was terrible. And the world development was a mess.

The simple princess. Not the type to survive political intrigue, war, famine or even the hallways of her own castle. For an affectionate child, she was surprisingly unmoved by her father's demise. Image from the internet.

The simple princess. Not the type to survive political intrigue, war, famine or even the hallways of her own castle. For an affectionate child, she was surprisingly unmoved by her father’s demise. Image from the internet.

Maleficent was trying to give a different perspective to the class Disney Sleeping Beauty while at the same time still retreading very familiar material. Unfortunately in attempting to make the villain sympathetic, Disney cleaned her up to heroic level. In order to accomplish this unnecessary feet, the writers had to create a different villain (the king, Aurora’s father) and kill all characterization of the other characters. Aurora came off as simple, in the classical sense. For a princess, Aurora did not fill me with confidence for the future of her land. She seemed the sort of oblivious individual that would get lost in her own castle.

 

The sort of Scottish, increasingly Evil King Stefan. Probably because he is an orphan and if I learned anything from the film it is that orphans do lots of damage to the land. Image from the internet.

The sort of Scottish, increasingly Evil King Stefan. Probably because he is an orphan and if I learned anything from the film it is that orphans do lots of damage to the land. Image from the internet.

I found Stefan (the king) a poorly organized character. He was an orphan (and that is sad), in order to make a connection to the fey Maleficent (also a sad orphan). Stefan was driven by greed to excessive and unexplained proportions. His actions seemed as inconsistent as his vaguely and randomly Scottish accent. By the end he was so irrationally evil that no one, including his perfect daughter, mourned his death.

Actually, this reflects a problem with the world building. One human kingdom is located next to a full blown fey kingdom. Naturally an all-powerful king rules over the Human lands. While the Fey live via democracy, at least until Maleficent goes on a vengeance kick and subjugates all the other, conveniently smaller fairies. Of course, when Maleficent is finally redeemed as a character at the end of the film she then crowns Aurora as Queen of the Fey kingdom – and yet no one sees this as a problem?

Also, if the Humans had been living next to the Fey for so long, why were they so surprised and baffled by magic? It should have been normal or at least explained why it was not normal. Also, after the Humans spontaneously declare war on the fey and Maleficent repels them at cost, why do three little fairies go to help the king and bless his daughter?

Why the wings? Well 'cause she is a fairy of course. Why is Maleficent a fairy? Umm... hmm... still can't answer that one. Image from the internet.

Why the wings? Well ’cause she is a fairy of course. Why is Maleficent a fairy? Umm… hmm… still can’t answer that one. Image from the internet.

At the end of the day the motivations for Maleficent becoming the evil sorcerer that she is famous for, were far from compelling. Her redemption was contrived. It was … not good. A better direction to take the story would be to start with the cursing. Then work out the why behind the actions. As my brother suggested, I wouldn’t redeem Maleficent. I would however explain in sympathetic terms why she became evil. It would be done in a way that while Maleficent’s actions were explained and understood, the audience could also sit back and see she was still evil and should not have done the curse. I also wouldn’t have her as a fairy, just a sorcerous. Furthers, since we know the story of Sleeping Beauty, I would not worry about having all the familiar elements. Why rehash old material when time could be better spent telling a new and interesting story. I also wouldn’t randomly make the King evil just to have a villain – Maleficent is the villain, the story should be why.

The bottom line: Maleficent took one of the greatest, most recognizable villains and forced her to be a weakly explained, psuedo-hero.

Cinderella

Haha! It is not even the end of April and I am posting. On the downside I am procrastinating my novel writing … Don’t expect too much.

From the movie version.

From the movie version.

I am a fan of fairy tales. I was brought up with the Disney retelling of the Grim Brother’s classics. Over the years I have read a number of iterations and have watched numerous movie versions. Recently I found myself watching the film adaptation of Ella Enchanted, which urged me to reread the source material. Then as luck would have it another book arrived at the library for me – another Cinderella-based story.

All three of these stories involve the same basic characteristic elements. They have a young girl whose mother dies when she is young and whose father is either mostly absent or dies. There is a stepmother who despises her stepdaughter and works to make her life miserable.  There is a charming suitor of prestigious background and a grand ball somewhere towards the end. Magic is thick through all three of these Cinderella retellings, though each one is different.

While the movie Ella Enchanted starring Anne Hathaway, Hugh Dancy, and Cary Elwes (and others) is based on the novel by the same title they should be treated as two different works. Certainly, I could not stop the flood of ‘that was not in the book; that was not how things happened, and where did that come from?’ comments while watching. The movie version takes the idea of freedom and runs with it. Everything is changed to make freedom the driving theme. Suddenly, there is a wicked uncle who is enslaving portions of the population. Of course Ella is the primary example, for she is under a curse of obedience which has stripped her of her freedom since birth. While this is not a bad way of dealing with the transition, I do think it removes much of the elegance found in the book. The movie is garish in colour and humour. It is loud, oversized and extreme. But it is also fun. It has an interesting mix of modern music, ideals and dance numbers set in a more medieval setting (with some visual quirks like the moving stairc

The book cover.

The book cover.

ase – also not found in the book). The evil stepsisters are even more comically driven to woo the prince than they are in the book. I would say it is fun, but childish and certainly lacks any depth.

I infinitely prefer the book version by Gail Carson Levine. Though my recent rereading reminded me it was written for a much younger audience. It is not the plot, by the simplicity of the writing, aimed more for early rather than late teens. Still, I really like the struggle the cursed Cinderella faces over the course of the novel. Her we can see how she has always fought against the curse. It also better explains how the orders work. Ella is not magically good at everything. When ordered to sing she does so, but being untrained her voice is awful. However, after a series of increasingly more specific commands, she can be ordered to do what is required. The specificity of the commands is not dealt with at all in the movie. Which actually brings me to the other thing I liked about the book, there is an incident with ogres in which Ella clearly helps the Prince – rather than being saved by him as is seen in the film. Being a book the story spans a year or more, in which Ella is allowed to slowly fall in love with her prince. It shows them building a relationship, something that is difficult to do on film because of time constraints.

cinderella - 2While both works could be described as dealing with Freedom they come across very different. The film is taking the most obvious route of oppressed and oppressor. The message being that no one should be ordered around and told what to do with their lives. The book is not so blatant. Here the author explores choice and responsibility in less obvious ways. Ella is still cursed and ordered around by those who know. However, the ogres are also capable of making unwary people do what they want. It is more manipulation of people and freedom on a very personal level being discussed in the book; the freedom to be yourself in expression and personality. It seems such a slim difference. However the manner in which these ideals are expressed produced two very different works.

Both of these works are targeting a younger audience with their Cinderella retellings. Glass slippers, another Disney element play only a nominal role in the novel version and are not present at all in the film.

cinderella - 4The glass slippers take on a slightly different role in Wayfarer: A Tale of Beauty and Madness by Lili St. Crow. Here the stepmother’s job is to manufacture high-end footwear. While many of the Cinderella elements are present in this book, much was done to create a different and unique fantasy world. I would say the world building was successful – I also enjoyed the first book in this series dealing with Snow White. However, my age started to show through while reading Wayfarer. Ellie Sinder – Cinderella – was not the spunky girl from Ella Enchanted. She was ultimately depressed, convinced that no one would believe how terrible her stepmother was (at least no adult) and that her friends only stayed next to her through pity. Even while she professed these ideas, Ellie also admitted that her friends were really good to her. And really, so many of Ellie’s problems would have been solved if she just told someone she needed help. Instead she flopped between bleak desperation that no one cared and the noble need to sacrifice herself to protect her friends. It was tiresome. Especially, since you get to the end of the book and the adults are quite reasonable and ready to believe the stepmother was evil (she really was). So, while there were many good ideas brought forth in this world it was simply too much self-pity and needless whining for me to really enjoy the story.

cinderella - 3

Superman – Man of Steel a review

Man-of-Steel_01I finally got around to watching the latest film version of Superman: Man of Steel, 2013. It was sadly disappointing.

Now, first I feel the need to point out I am not my brother. I do not hate everything. In fact, I like superhero movies. I don’t read the comics/graphic novels, so I am not hard-core fan. Still I enjoy the hero’s tale, good triumphing over evil, amazing powers and greater responsibility and all that fun stuff.

Superman may not be a childhood favour – I always found his story a little bland. However, I do have fond memories of watching the first several seasons of Smallville – before my source dried up (I was watching a housemate’s bother’s collection in university). I know the basics of Superman – he can do amazing things, including disguising himself with just a pair of clear glass frames. He can leap tall buildings, stop bullets with his chest and somehow fall victim to Lex Luther on a regular basis. I have seen some of the older films and was looking forward to the new reboot.

The cape looks foolish and why doesn't he realize that he is wearing his underwear infront of everyone?

The cape looks foolish and why doesn’t he realize that he is wearing his underwear infront of everyone?

Casting is probably one of the strongest elements of the movie. It had an incredible supporting cast of well-proven actors. And the main lead fit my visual of the title character perfectly. There was clearly a huge budget available for all the shiny, computer assisted cinematographic tricks used to push the visual appeal for good to great. And Christopher Nolan was also part of production.

So, what happened?

Well, not a lot of anything. Man of steel turned out to be one of the most boring movies I have seen in a while. The most exciting part was surmising that Superman’s ‘flight’ was gas-powered through flatulents. How else do you explain the puffs of air emerging from his backside as he leaps into space?

Poot and he goes a little higher!

Poot and he goes a little higher!

 

 

 

 

From the previews I had expected an origins story – but there was no character development. You could not even describe the film as an epic good vs evil as there was not progression of such a plot. It seemed at several moments the writers wanted to do something, they had half an idea, but then nothing came of it.

Superman’s history was interspersed throughout the long two hours in which nothing much occurs. Sure we see scenes of Clark being bullied (for undiscussed reasons), but what was the point? Why was he bullied? What did he learn from this experience? And why do all modern superheroes have to follow this over-done plot device? Can we not have a reformed bully become the hero?

Lois Lane was tossed into the film because even the director recognized you need a female on screen. But her role was so muddled and random to be completely irrelevant to the story. After doggedly hunting down her mysterious guy (Superman), she is suddenly caught by the FBI – how? And why does Superman, having met the woman once and told her to leave him alone, suddenly want to protect her more than anyone else? I think we are supposed to believe that they have some sort of romantic connection, but why? They interact for barely five minutes together over the course of the entire movie. Also, why is Lois taken by the bad guys? What use do they have for her?

Look I am evil. See, I am wearing black and a perpetual scowl. Oh and some facial hair, for twirling purposes only.

Look I am evil. See, I am wearing black and a perpetual scowl. Oh and some facial hair, for twirling purposes only.

The evil guy – with the ridiculous sounding but otherwise forgettable name – would have twirled a ludicrous moustache, if he wasn’t so two-dimensional to even lack that interesting aspect to his character. He was genetically evil – or so he claimed – without being consistent. He was a warrior bred to protect his people, but initiates a coup and tries to take out one of the few remaining people when he attacks Superman.

I also really struggled with the alien ancestors of Superman. For a species supposed to be different from our own (they are Aliens), they were disappointingly human: in appearance, behaviour and thought. There was nothing particularly interesting about them as all of their characteristics and problems were pulled unimaginatively from our own western-culture thought and history. Their evil plot to terraform earth and rebuild their population on our deaths was so poorly justified. There was no way the audience could sympathise with their actions – which given humanities propensity to do the same should have been an easy accomplishment. Actually, what little dialogue and … culture? … was littered at the beginning of the film I felt the writers wanted to comment on … something.

There were snippets of conversation and thought regarding over population on Krypton and the unfortunate consequences. This led to colonization in the galaxy that was mysteriously abandoned. Birth was controlled by use of test-tube babies. This in turn resulted in limited bloodlines and genetically engineered individuals. Questions arose about the role of genetics over an individual’s fate, free-choice, and natural birth. With our growing skill in genetic engineering this could have been a topic of relevance, but the science was botched (how do two individuals genetically modified not to breed miraculously give birth to a child?) and like everything else the topic fell to the side.

Also, why did the planet suddenly exploded for no particular reason? For those not in the know, planets do not suddenly and violently explode by themselves.

So, underdeveloped, bland and boring summarize my Superman experience. The visuals were nowhere near original or spectacular enough to compensate for story in which nothing really happens over a 2 hour period.

man-of-steel-5

Olympus Has Fallen Review (Olympus was Ballin’)

So, this weekend I saw Olympus Has Fallen. Which is unfortunate since I was planning on doing some more rambling on world creation. Instead, you get a shitty review. Here’s my Olympus has Fallen review.

olympus_has_fallen_500x250

But, Kevin, what is Olympus Has Fallen I hear you say. Is it some interesting movie dissecting the decline of Grecian cultural hegemony over western development? Why are there so many American flags being waved. And is that Morgan Freeman? I love that guy! I hope he plays Memnon.

Well, my beloved readership, Olympus Has Fallen (abbreviated to OHF which should be easy to remember since its so close to Oh F@#$!) is Gerard Butler’s grossly self-indulgent, narcissistic, fantasy indulgence centering around the ridiculous modern ubermensch and the failing of the outdated classical action hero trope in carrying current cinema. But that’s a bit long of a tag line so it’s normally billed as a story about the White House being taken over by terrorists.

That sounds like it could create a compelling story right? A movie that examines the frailty of the American illusion over its own supposed invincibility. Gosh, post 9/11 America has become really self critical and introspective has it not?

No, no it has not. OHF is easily the blandest, driest and boringest movie I’ve seen all year. Granted, it gets that through sheer convenience of being the only movie I’ve seen this year but I have high hopes for the new G.I. Joe flick. Suffice to say, the movie is more than deserving of its rotten status on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. Don’t expect this to be winning any awards. Don’t expect it to win anything period. I was literally bored ten minutes into the movie.

And let me tell you why.

The narrative, story and characters of this movie are about as cliched and one dimensional as you can possibly get. If you’re worried about spoilers well… you shouldn’t since this movie is about as predictable as the outcome of the Trojan War. Now, I could probably write thousands of sentences on how this movie is bad (I know my family has listened to just about as much Saturday afternoon) but I’ll try and keep with the initial stumblings of the film and not even touch the some of the more ludicrous elements that most viewers will probably notice (Cerberus and Dylan McDermott).

This movie is bad right out the gate. The story opens one blistery winter evening up at Camp David where we’re treated to some nonsensical moment where Gerard Butler and Aaron Eckhart are rolling around in some sweaty embrace that’s suppose to mimic boxing. No doubt this moment was meant to establish the close bond between Butler’s secret service agent and Eckhart’s President character. Perhaps we were meant to see these two at their most intimate time, when both their guards were lowered and they had shed all pretenses of job and protocol so they could express their own deep seated worries and fears.

Well, no, it’s nothing like that. It’s… something about Butler teaching the President to stop sucking at boxing. He gives him some times to improve his game but if you think this is foreshadowing a moment where Eckhart is going to knock some jerk out then you’re going to be sorely disappointed. In fact, this entire Camp David scene which ostensibly is suppose to be introducing us to the major players is nothing more than an enormous waste of twenty minutes. The only thing established in this time is that the secret service are incompetent drivers and could never survive in Canada. If the President had hired some Mounties to be his chauffeurs then maybe his wife wouldn’t have taken a forty foot plunge off the world’s flimsiest bridge.

At least the cars don’t explode when they crash against ice.

So, here the audience sits, twenty minutes in and the only thing of note is that the First Lady has died in a car crash. What does this have to do with terrorists and the White House? Absolutely nothing. Because if you think this moment is important in developing some deep character conflict between the President and his secret service agent then you’d be wrong. Because all that’s changed is that Butler has been moved to some cushy job at the Treasury since he reminds Eckhart “too much about that one time at band camp.”

The best part, is that the entire twenty minutes is literally recapped in the next scene when a bunch of secret service agents walk into a caffe where Butler is on break to explain that he doesn’t have a job with them anymore because the First Lady died eighteen months ago in a terrible car accident. Look, if you’re going to summarize immediately something that’s juts happened, why bother showing it in the first place?

On top of which, none of this matters for the overall narrative other than it delays Butler’s arrival at the scene when the White House inevitably comes under attack. So we’re twenty five minutes into the film and already you know that it’s going to be a stretched time sink padded with pointless moments because the writers and director really had nothing to tell with this film.

Speaking of a waste of time, cue Butler’s contrived marital troubles with a wife that thinks he “works too hard” and a man that is sad because he can no longer tell the brat of the most powerful man in America to stop playing violent video games. Wait, isn’t this the exact same conflict that the First Lady and the President had before the First Lady’s inappropriate bridge jumping exercise? How astute of you!

Which brings us to the boring ass characters. There is nothing to any of these people parading across the screen. I challenge any viewer to try and describe the characters without referring to their job. Because at most you might get one or two lines about how everyone seems whiny and that’s about it. These people have the emotional complexity and depth of second grader’s family portrait. And yet, oddly enough, the movie tries so hard to get the audience to feel some capacity of sympathy or emotion towards these beautiful, rich, white folk whose biggest troubles is that their husband missed the latest weekend barbecue and can’t remember who Patty or Paula is married to.

All this, and we haven’t even touched the silly terrorists yet. At any rate, we’re now thirty to forty minutes into the movie with the only established fact being an unnecessary job promotion for Gerard Butler that he’s going to just leave anyway to rush headlong into the White House to save the President. So, what was the point in having all this time wasted? It certainly wasn’t because the terrorists plot was so well co-ordinated that if Butler was there then he would have surely been killed. I mean, the first phase of their plan was to fly a heavily armoured military craft over DC and miraculously not get shot down before gunning its stupid escort and opening up a whole bunch of Gatling fire onto the unsuspecting tourists strolling through the National Mall.

Of course, our heroic Butler is the only one who can run through this gunfire while surprised men and police officers are mowed down like it’s the last charge on Vimy Ridge. He even has the time to rescue a woman and her little child by tackling them to the asphalt before sprinting to the White House before the airplane is shot down overhead, taking out the enormously phallic Washington Monument in its descent. There, he nearly foils the terrorists plans to irrevocably mar the cast iron fence before that’s blown up. But while he now runs through the gap in the fence, he has the opportunity to casually shoot the only two female Korean terrorists in the head before reuniting with the secret service on the steps of the White House.

Basically, this is a long winded way of saying that Butler is the only one capable of doing anything. This becomes painfully obvious as he’s the only one to survive the next wave of spawning baddies like the producers already had plans to turn this into a video game before rushing up into the White House’s interior to be the only man capable of finding the wayward President’s son. And, by now, I’m sure you’ve figured out he’s also the only one to single handedly rescue the President and kill the main baddie after single handedly disposing of the automatic, highly advanced and secretive turret the White House had installed by didn’t have the foresight to use when it was under attack (but the terrorists knew how to operate in order to shoot down the only back-up he was going to receive).

Needless to say, it’s all a little eye-roll inducing.

Which brings me to my original point. The biggest problem with OHF is that it didn’t know what it wanted to be. It tried taking itself far to seriously and realistically to be considered a throw-back to the bygone era of the 1990s action hero but had too much nonsense to be considered remotely logical even within its own narrative. I mean, three quarters of the way through the introduce an almost James Bond-esque plot contrivance because it seemed that the producers almost feared the audience wouldn’t care about troop movements in the Korean peninsula (or the life of a very bland President which was probably accurate).

So what could it have done? Well, first, suck less. Second, ditch Gerard Butler. No one cares about your Mary Sue superman that is the only bad enough dude capable of rescuing the President. I’d cut most of the pointless nonsense surrounding the First Lady’s death which, by the way, never once came into play (the briefly hinted emotional distress that President and son had over not yet getting over the grief was completely brushed aside by the end and never mentioned again). What I would have done was had four lead secret service agents who end up being the leaders and key players in the defence of the White House. Have most of the movie revolving around the attack and resolution of the assault on the building. Instead of having the terrorists “win” and then squat on the property for so long, have these four agents working together and with the Pentagon to try and stave off the assault and, ultimately, bring about the conclusion. Between the four of them and their different circumstances you could easily fill a movie with compelling situations and challenges. Have one agent end up holing up with a bunch of staff and tourists who then has to decide between abandoning their post as this groups sole defender for serving the greater duty of trying to rescue the President. Have another agent with the President holed up in the bunker doing her best to try and keep channels of communication open and the President alive while enemies close in on all sides. Hell, if we’re so hell bent on having the little brat play any role in this, one of the agents could be his personal detail and spend most of the time trying to evade the captors and get the kid to safety.

Between four different agents you can have four more compelling individuals and perspectives to detail one single ‘day of hell’ that could bring about that touch of humanity that Butler’s wooden acting could only dream of.

Also, can we have some female secret service agents? I’m sure they exist.

In total, I’d give this three Morgan Freemans out of ten illogical consistences.