Eagle Eye
January 1st 2009 04:54
CAUTION CONTAINS SOME SPOILERS
This movie has a lot more going on than first meets the eye--the "eagle eye" that is. --sorry, bad joke.
Both on the surface, as well as below, Eagle Eye succeeds in giving the viewer a gratifying cinematic experience. And though it seemingly presents the classic structure of Man vs. Machine it also dabbles in the classic Man vs. Self, and dare I say even Man vs. Government. It is reminiscent of films like Blade Runner, Terminator, Maximum Overdrive, IRobot, The Matrix and of course the classic 2001: A Space Odyssey. But in this case the "machine" is very much a product of the government and man, rather than an alien life form or some outside influence as is the case in some of these other films.
In Eagle Eye Shia LeBeouf (Jerry Shaw) plays his typical sarcastic, flippant, kid who is struggling inwardly to be better (this is where we first see the Man vs. Self). In this case he is struggling to live up to his recently deceased twin brother's reputation. It's a tough act to follow as he explains that his brother was the kid with "a rocket strapped to his back" while he was the kid in "lead shoes".
It is not Shakespeare by any means, nevertheless clichéd lines like these are pulled of successfully by LeBeouf who clearly lacks inflection in his voice, but more than makes up for it with facial expressions and body language that convey his haunted turmoil in an understated and highly effective way.
In fact both LeBeouf and Billy Bob Thorton (Agent Thomas Morgan) have excellent lines in this film. It is almost as if they were written for these exact actors.
Thorton seemed to morph into his character, seamlessly taking on the persona of the 50-something man who is so far removed from technology that in one scene he has to actually beg for a piece of paper from fellow Agent Toby Grant (played by Ethan Embry) because he can't read the text on his cell phone screen.
Silly? Yes, a bit. But it provokes a chuckle from anyone who has ever struggled with the fast pace of technology today.
On the flip side of the leading male characters in this film are the leading female characters, Rachel and Zoe. And if you ask me, their were one too many of them.
Actress Michelle Monaghan (who plays Rachel Holloman) resurfaces in what I would say has been her biggest role since Gone Baby Gone (though I know she has done some stuff in between). But the chemistry between Rachel (Monaghan) and Jerry (LeBeouf) just wasn't there. It's probably due to the almost 10 year gap in age between them.
I thought this was a poor casting decision if they were intended to be love interests. But it isn't really clear if they were or not. Even in the end when there is sort of an awkward exchange between the two.
Anyway, it could have been pulled off with either a different female lead, or by leaving out the love part all together and simply having them be partners in the pursuit to take out the enemy.
To top this off, I spent a good deal of the movie questioning what Rachel's role was in all of it anyway. And then despite the fact that mid way through they revealed the answer to this question, I still found it kind of a weak in relation to everything else. Basically I think that the film could have easily been carried off with Jerry alone. Sorry ladies.
But that isn't to say that there wasn't a strong female role in the film. There was. It was Agent Zoe Perez (Rosario Dawson). Though I don't think she even shared a scene with LeBeouf (or very few, if any) I feel like their was more chemistry between the two of them then between Rachel and Jerry. In fact the Zoe/Jerry thing could have even been developed a little more by someone clever enough to pull off something like that. You know the "romance" theme without the actors ever actually meeting... I have seen it done before, though can't think of a good example now .
As I mentioned before, the umbrella theme to this film seems to be more of Man vs. Government rather than Man vs. Machine or even Man vs. Self. Though I suppose that Man vs. Government is merely a sub-genre of Man vs. Self , since the government is made of men--but perhaps this is an argument for a different forum.
Overall I felt like the film was really saying: "America, you are acting too big for your britches" (to quote a phrase my mom often used with me during my teenage years). Because in this film, America has become so afraid of terrorism that it has developed a surveillance technology so advanced that it is tracking every move Americans makes at all times (a conspiracy theorist's worst nightmare!!)
Eventually (and obviously I suppose) this technology becomes so full of ego (much like the American government) that it gives itself permission to interpret the US Constitution (an organic structure laid out by men-not machine) and grants itself the right to play god with human lives. Hmm, sound familiar?
Cinematically this film was amazing. Lots of nice shot compositions, my favorite being the first action sequence with Jerry involving a TV screen used as a mirror to reveal what is to come...(I won't ruin it by telling you what he sees).
It's packed with well choreographed action scenes that truly warrant the oohs and aahs of the audience, and thankfully so because that is what carries the film during the middle where the plot seems to drag.
It was almost like they were afraid of loosing people in the complexity of the plot so things were a little over explained. But since I am one of those people who get lost easily, I didnt really mind.
However despite the over explaining, the film is excellent at revealing only as much as you need to know at any given moment, which ultimately compels you to watch further and allows for a certain self satisfaction on the viewers part. You know, the joy of "figuring out" what is going on. With clues dropped along the way and lots of visual foreshadowing, it truly makes every armchair film buff feel like a genius (myself included).
About the only thing missing from this film, given its sheer blatant commentary on the rise of technology, would have been if Jerry was actually Ethan's clone rather than his twin. And perhaps this had been in the plan at one point--who knows. But I suppose it would have drug down an already complex plot and maybe would have pushed it just over the edge of being too ambitious in its commentary .
Definitely worth renting, but only worth owning if you have an affinity for LeBeouf , Thorton, or you are a pop culture student.
This movie has a lot more going on than first meets the eye--the "eagle eye" that is. --sorry, bad joke.
Both on the surface, as well as below, Eagle Eye succeeds in giving the viewer a gratifying cinematic experience. And though it seemingly presents the classic structure of Man vs. Machine it also dabbles in the classic Man vs. Self, and dare I say even Man vs. Government. It is reminiscent of films like Blade Runner, Terminator, Maximum Overdrive, IRobot, The Matrix and of course the classic 2001: A Space Odyssey. But in this case the "machine" is very much a product of the government and man, rather than an alien life form or some outside influence as is the case in some of these other films.
In Eagle Eye Shia LeBeouf (Jerry Shaw) plays his typical sarcastic, flippant, kid who is struggling inwardly to be better (this is where we first see the Man vs. Self). In this case he is struggling to live up to his recently deceased twin brother's reputation. It's a tough act to follow as he explains that his brother was the kid with "a rocket strapped to his back" while he was the kid in "lead shoes".
It is not Shakespeare by any means, nevertheless clichéd lines like these are pulled of successfully by LeBeouf who clearly lacks inflection in his voice, but more than makes up for it with facial expressions and body language that convey his haunted turmoil in an understated and highly effective way.
In fact both LeBeouf and Billy Bob Thorton (Agent Thomas Morgan) have excellent lines in this film. It is almost as if they were written for these exact actors.
Thorton seemed to morph into his character, seamlessly taking on the persona of the 50-something man who is so far removed from technology that in one scene he has to actually beg for a piece of paper from fellow Agent Toby Grant (played by Ethan Embry) because he can't read the text on his cell phone screen.
Silly? Yes, a bit. But it provokes a chuckle from anyone who has ever struggled with the fast pace of technology today.
On the flip side of the leading male characters in this film are the leading female characters, Rachel and Zoe. And if you ask me, their were one too many of them.
Actress Michelle Monaghan (who plays Rachel Holloman) resurfaces in what I would say has been her biggest role since Gone Baby Gone (though I know she has done some stuff in between). But the chemistry between Rachel (Monaghan) and Jerry (LeBeouf) just wasn't there. It's probably due to the almost 10 year gap in age between them.
I thought this was a poor casting decision if they were intended to be love interests. But it isn't really clear if they were or not. Even in the end when there is sort of an awkward exchange between the two.
Anyway, it could have been pulled off with either a different female lead, or by leaving out the love part all together and simply having them be partners in the pursuit to take out the enemy.
To top this off, I spent a good deal of the movie questioning what Rachel's role was in all of it anyway. And then despite the fact that mid way through they revealed the answer to this question, I still found it kind of a weak in relation to everything else. Basically I think that the film could have easily been carried off with Jerry alone. Sorry ladies.
But that isn't to say that there wasn't a strong female role in the film. There was. It was Agent Zoe Perez (Rosario Dawson). Though I don't think she even shared a scene with LeBeouf (or very few, if any) I feel like their was more chemistry between the two of them then between Rachel and Jerry. In fact the Zoe/Jerry thing could have even been developed a little more by someone clever enough to pull off something like that. You know the "romance" theme without the actors ever actually meeting... I have seen it done before, though can't think of a good example now .
As I mentioned before, the umbrella theme to this film seems to be more of Man vs. Government rather than Man vs. Machine or even Man vs. Self. Though I suppose that Man vs. Government is merely a sub-genre of Man vs. Self , since the government is made of men--but perhaps this is an argument for a different forum.
Overall I felt like the film was really saying: "America, you are acting too big for your britches" (to quote a phrase my mom often used with me during my teenage years). Because in this film, America has become so afraid of terrorism that it has developed a surveillance technology so advanced that it is tracking every move Americans makes at all times (a conspiracy theorist's worst nightmare!!)
Eventually (and obviously I suppose) this technology becomes so full of ego (much like the American government) that it gives itself permission to interpret the US Constitution (an organic structure laid out by men-not machine) and grants itself the right to play god with human lives. Hmm, sound familiar?
Cinematically this film was amazing. Lots of nice shot compositions, my favorite being the first action sequence with Jerry involving a TV screen used as a mirror to reveal what is to come...(I won't ruin it by telling you what he sees).
It's packed with well choreographed action scenes that truly warrant the oohs and aahs of the audience, and thankfully so because that is what carries the film during the middle where the plot seems to drag.
It was almost like they were afraid of loosing people in the complexity of the plot so things were a little over explained. But since I am one of those people who get lost easily, I didnt really mind.
However despite the over explaining, the film is excellent at revealing only as much as you need to know at any given moment, which ultimately compels you to watch further and allows for a certain self satisfaction on the viewers part. You know, the joy of "figuring out" what is going on. With clues dropped along the way and lots of visual foreshadowing, it truly makes every armchair film buff feel like a genius (myself included).
About the only thing missing from this film, given its sheer blatant commentary on the rise of technology, would have been if Jerry was actually Ethan's clone rather than his twin. And perhaps this had been in the plan at one point--who knows. But I suppose it would have drug down an already complex plot and maybe would have pushed it just over the edge of being too ambitious in its commentary .
Definitely worth renting, but only worth owning if you have an affinity for LeBeouf , Thorton, or you are a pop culture student.
| 22 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Comment by The Girl in the Soapdish
on My favorite films
Deep Focus