- Review: John Wick 3 (C)
Scott Sycamore - Weekend Box Office
May 17 - 19 - Crowd Reports
Avengers: Endgame - Us
Box office comparisons - Review: Justice League (C)
Craig Younkin
Movie Review
Stander
By Lee Tistaert Published August 27, 2004
US Release: August 6, 2004
Directed by: Bronwen Hughes
Starring: Thomas Jane , Deborah Unger
R
Running Time: 111 minutes
Domestic Box Office: $19,067
Directed by: Bronwen Hughes
Starring: Thomas Jane , Deborah Unger
R
Running Time: 111 minutes
Domestic Box Office: $19,067
C+
Stander has style, but not much for brains, which makes for one clich? cat and mouse movie.
Before I walked into the screening for Stander, I had heard someone say that it was actor Thomas Jane?s knockout role of his career to date, and quite a character to investigate. I also heard that the story was complex, balancing thought provoking world event elements with bank robbery heists, weaving these two ideas together convincingly.
When Stander opened with a hip beat over the opening credits, as we pan over a city from sky level in a vertical point of view, I was looking forward to its potential. The director obviously knew what he was doing, given the tone; I stayed in this state of mind a little further as the film continued to be engaging, and felt like it was leading to something special. When the real plot kicked into gear, though, my emotions swirled as I realized I was in for a disappointment.
The film is titled after its main character, Andre Stander (Thomas Jane), and the premise is based on a true story: a South African cop is devastated when he witnesses the severe brutality that civilians are put in by other infantry units. To deal with this rage, Stander decides that robbing banks is what he?d be good at, and brings together a group of people who are as good as he, and soon his clan of thieves are the hottest thing on the news as they?re hunted by police.
Stander is one of the most uneven films I?ve seen in recent time. It starts out convincingly as a social commentary, and then suddenly out of the blue the main character who we?re supposed to root for (note: anti-hero) decides to be a villain and rebels against his own merits. What really annoyed me about this story is that there?s not much reason for Stander wanting to rob banks, and it plays in a way in which we should be rooting for his mischievous success. The contending argument ends up being ?Why the hell should we care to begin with??
Andre gets a crew of robbers who are as talented, fearless (and supposedly charming) as he is, and director Bronwen Hughes tries to create a sense of goofball comedy within, much like something director Barry Levinson would attempt in a story as such. Levinson, however, usually has a good eye for the type of quirky material and performances that work, and in Stander the problem is that these other criminals don?t have a sympathy factor for the viewer to easily connect with. We?re immediately supposed to like them and think they?re cool and fun just because of their rebellion. I found their motives unconvincing, and everyone onboard painfully unfunny.
It is to be said that I saw this movie with an audience mostly of 50+ aged viewers, who were having a good time throughout, and who liked the bank robbery group. However, I saw Stander at a film program that I try to attend weekly, in which the same crowd is there every time. These moviegoers are usually not that hard to please (I?ve seen many, many movies here), and the writing in this movie is pretty broad like a television sitcom, and the folks here tend to like that.
Stander as a film has style and a flare that is cool to look at, but the film lacks so much needed substance that it?s hard to really admire that division of the movie. Thomas Jane proves he can act here, but the fact that I didn?t like his character once the plot kicked into gear diminished the praise that I would normally be able to give him. It is also to be said that Jane had a small but noticeable part in Paul Thomas Anderson?s film, Boogie Nights (A), in the third act; I?ve seen that film many times, and not until a recent viewing did I even know Jane was in there. That goes to prove that the actor has talent, and even knowing he?s in there it?s still hard to believe he is.
Payback (B), a film in which the viewer is expected to root for the anti-hero (being who Mel Gibson portrays), worked on me. I thought Gibson, who is usually a charming lead, worked gangbusters as the ruthless antagonist who wouldn?t let anything get in his way of his simple goal. He plays opposite his Hollywood image and sold a role that few actors get the chance to do. But Payback also has a nice, twisted sense of humor, and I thought it was funny. The film blends a dark story with offbeat comedy, a combination that proved to be weirdly successful.
Stander leads up to a very formulaic conclusion, but your compassion for the events may depend on whether you believed the story and liked the characters. Considering I never connected with any of them throughout, I was grossly bored, and even more frustrated at the ending. Stander has style, but not much for brains, which makes for one clich? cat and mouse movie.
When Stander opened with a hip beat over the opening credits, as we pan over a city from sky level in a vertical point of view, I was looking forward to its potential. The director obviously knew what he was doing, given the tone; I stayed in this state of mind a little further as the film continued to be engaging, and felt like it was leading to something special. When the real plot kicked into gear, though, my emotions swirled as I realized I was in for a disappointment.
The film is titled after its main character, Andre Stander (Thomas Jane), and the premise is based on a true story: a South African cop is devastated when he witnesses the severe brutality that civilians are put in by other infantry units. To deal with this rage, Stander decides that robbing banks is what he?d be good at, and brings together a group of people who are as good as he, and soon his clan of thieves are the hottest thing on the news as they?re hunted by police.
Stander is one of the most uneven films I?ve seen in recent time. It starts out convincingly as a social commentary, and then suddenly out of the blue the main character who we?re supposed to root for (note: anti-hero) decides to be a villain and rebels against his own merits. What really annoyed me about this story is that there?s not much reason for Stander wanting to rob banks, and it plays in a way in which we should be rooting for his mischievous success. The contending argument ends up being ?Why the hell should we care to begin with??
Andre gets a crew of robbers who are as talented, fearless (and supposedly charming) as he is, and director Bronwen Hughes tries to create a sense of goofball comedy within, much like something director Barry Levinson would attempt in a story as such. Levinson, however, usually has a good eye for the type of quirky material and performances that work, and in Stander the problem is that these other criminals don?t have a sympathy factor for the viewer to easily connect with. We?re immediately supposed to like them and think they?re cool and fun just because of their rebellion. I found their motives unconvincing, and everyone onboard painfully unfunny.
It is to be said that I saw this movie with an audience mostly of 50+ aged viewers, who were having a good time throughout, and who liked the bank robbery group. However, I saw Stander at a film program that I try to attend weekly, in which the same crowd is there every time. These moviegoers are usually not that hard to please (I?ve seen many, many movies here), and the writing in this movie is pretty broad like a television sitcom, and the folks here tend to like that.
Stander as a film has style and a flare that is cool to look at, but the film lacks so much needed substance that it?s hard to really admire that division of the movie. Thomas Jane proves he can act here, but the fact that I didn?t like his character once the plot kicked into gear diminished the praise that I would normally be able to give him. It is also to be said that Jane had a small but noticeable part in Paul Thomas Anderson?s film, Boogie Nights (A), in the third act; I?ve seen that film many times, and not until a recent viewing did I even know Jane was in there. That goes to prove that the actor has talent, and even knowing he?s in there it?s still hard to believe he is.
Payback (B), a film in which the viewer is expected to root for the anti-hero (being who Mel Gibson portrays), worked on me. I thought Gibson, who is usually a charming lead, worked gangbusters as the ruthless antagonist who wouldn?t let anything get in his way of his simple goal. He plays opposite his Hollywood image and sold a role that few actors get the chance to do. But Payback also has a nice, twisted sense of humor, and I thought it was funny. The film blends a dark story with offbeat comedy, a combination that proved to be weirdly successful.
Stander leads up to a very formulaic conclusion, but your compassion for the events may depend on whether you believed the story and liked the characters. Considering I never connected with any of them throughout, I was grossly bored, and even more frustrated at the ending. Stander has style, but not much for brains, which makes for one clich? cat and mouse movie.
Lee's Grade: C+
Lee's Overall Grading: 3025 graded movies
| A | 0.4% | |
| B | 30.0% | |
| C | 61.7% | |
| D | 8.0% | |
| F | 0.0% |
