1hr 35min/95min.
3/4 Stars, Thumbs Up
81 F-Bombs
"It wasn't no easy hit, man, they got T!"
-Vincent Downs(Jamie Foxx)
"Sleepless" has no business working in any way, shape or form, but for some odd reason, it does. As the film plays out, it reminds one more and more of an action film straight out of the 90's. Funny, because the movie is an American remake of the 2011 French film "Sleepless Night"(unseen by me). Maybe that's the way the filmmakers intended; that way its more accessible to an American Audience. Whatever the case, it works. It's entertaining, it's mildly suspenseful and, at the end of they, it gets it's job done. It is predictable as all hell and has a myriad of cliches that would make a direct-to-video movie blush, but if a movie can make those two things work, then by all means, it's doing it's job, even if some of the twists are seen from three miles away.
Jamie Foxx plays Vincent Downs, a cop who dabbles in some crooked criminal undertakings. Because of this, his relationships at home have been strained, due to his focus on work, or what he perceives as work. His ex(Gabrielle Union) works at the local hospital. He is to pick up his son, Thomas(Octavius J. Johnson) from the waiting room and take him to his baseball game, returning him promptly at 9:00. Things go haywire, very quickly, as Thomas is kidnapped and Vincent is stabbed by men from a business deal gone awry. What Stanley(Dermot Mulroney) wants are the bags containing 25 kilos of cocaine that were taken from the wrong people, so he can transfer it to Rob Novak(Scoot McNairy), in exchange for Thomas. Hot on Vincent's trail is Jennifer Bryant(Michelle Monaghan), a cop who knows something's up with him and is on his trail to sniff him out, exposing him for the person he really is.
The movies tropes are lied out onscreen as the movie goes on. We have double crosses, people who aren't who they initially seem or say they are, the main character's strained home life, a kidnapping plot, drug dealings, profane exclamations and ballistically, brutal, bloody violence galore. What's interesting to note is that most of the movie(at least 80%) takes place in one location, this one being a casino. The cinematography and set designs are top-notch and sleek, perfectly setting the scene so the film can get into the nitty gritty. The art-direction and use of color is also prominently on display. The film does, on occasion, get a little clunky; a scene involving a car on display in the casino driving off is an obvious example of poor CGI. The film also has a problem with explaining certain details too many times. Once a key revelation involving Downs is brought into play, it's expected that other characters bring it up, but not to the extent in which they explain it. Every time it's brought up, a character will go into the same exact explanation for why it's important. 
Jamie Foxx is solid in the role of Downs, but speaks too softly throughout most of the movie. At times, it's hard to decipher what he's saying. Michelle Monaghan is a brilliant actress and gives her all here as Bryant, a cop who's put up with too much guff and is looking to put a stop to it. Scoot McNairy is deliciously over the top, but doesn't over do it. Unfortunately, his character isn't that interesting. T.I. seems to be more effective as an actor than a rapper. I'm not too big a fan of his albums or music, but whenever I see him onscreen, I would be lying if I said he didn't exude a certain amount of charm. He should look into doing more acting. I'm not saying completely give up rap, just explore other avenues that you're good at. David Harbour is good, as always, as Bryant's partner Dennison. Gabrielle Union is fine, as usual, but is stuck in a five minute, one-dimensional role. Lastly, Dermot Mulroney is kind of bland as one of the central heavy's, Stanley Rubino.
At the time of writing this, "Sleepless" has been taken out of most theaters, due to underwhelming box office returns. Is the movie perfect? Absolutely not. Is it going to revitalize the world of movies as it stands? Probably not. But, as a fun movie to watch on a snowy or rainy Sunday, it fits perfectly. The movie has a sequel-baiting ending, which is kinda cute, but how, exactly, a sequel would play out for this movie is unclear. Sure, we could get one or two or seven direct to video follow-ups, but is it worth it? I say: "Not Really."
No comments:
Post a Comment