Embrace the bitter and post your own reviews!

Push (me off a roof)


Push opens up with a man looking for a place to hide eventually reaching a room where he dispenses some wisdom to his son, to help a child that gives him a flower. Years later we see that this child has grown up into the talented, but unlucky in landing a decent movie, Chris Evans, playing Nick Grant.

Cut to later where Nick is living in Hong Kong and has trouble pushing over a die, perhaps to win some gambling. Eventually he is met by Cassie Holmes that can see the future (more specifically possible futures) and draws them in a sketchbook. Cassie (Dakota Fanning), she’s somewhat arrogant, but that quickly fades. She has some early, confused, teenage angst, but it’s pretty flat. Her look is a mess, but that part actually fits her character.

Cassie’s mother is constantly referenced by characters good and bad. Even though everyone in the world seems to know about this woman, the audience never learns anything about her and never sees her. I found this particularly irritating since the vibe is that she is still alive.

The movie is about people with powers. They all seem to have one superhuman ability and there is a fancy nickname for each. Nicknames like: Bleeders, Pushers, and Sniffers to name a few. This is what you want to see and you do, but there is never a sense of scale or history. It is clear that 1. There are a few out there that have these powers. 2. The government knows about them and is messing with then. 3. That there is no desire from the writer or director to expand on history or details further than anything that involves the characters directly. Unless we are talking about the mother of Cassie, then we can mention an outside character until a pusher raises the sun over the horizon…

There are random music video scenes that really don’t accomplish much. There is a love scene that has the music so loud it just doesn’t really come off all that romantic. When a character can’t seductively whisper over the soundtrack there’s an issue.

An interesting cast of characters is in place for the good guys, but they are never expanded on and their motivations as to why they would help Nick Grant and Cassie Homes are never clear. In fact, there are times that it seems like they would rather not be helping, but they are doing it because… Beats me! Sure, there are noble people out there that help others just to help, but that’s not the sense we get from these people and there aren’t THAT MANY that are willing to stick their necks this far out for no reason.

The direction, by Paul McGuigan, is interesting. It is one of the very few (two I think) times I have seen so much energy pumped into a movie direction-wise, but at the same time it feels so flat. With this comes some odd editing that confuses more than aids the scenes. On the plus side, shooting in Hong Kong proved a great idea since the scenery is beautiful.

There is a lot to this story, by David Bourla, which might have sounded good on paper, but just doesn’t work in film. Two-dimensional villains that are so singularly focused on their objectives with only the motivation of “it’s my job” don’t really work. Speaking of which, what the hell happened to the writer when being creative in writing death scenes??? These are some of the most pointless trivial death scenes I’ve seen in quite some time. Hey, I’m going to scream at you until the roof caves in on me. I’m smart enough to survive and thrive as a criminal, but standing under a fragile structure shaking everything is a smart move. Riiiiight.

The antagonistic group here, called The Division, is apparently composed of 4 people. Yes, four people are in this group of highly trained, or not, operatives sent out on such an important mission. Henry Carver, is played by Djimon Hounsou, but it could have been anyone in the role and it would have been the same. There are never any higher ups, there are never any limits to what they can do, nothing. You would think that the government, trying to keep the existence of these people quiet would frown on smashing up restaurants for no reason, but I guess I’m wrong.

Push’s first act is good and grabs your attention, but after that it is a slow progression down the crappy flash that Hollywood loves to shove down our throats. This is as bad as it is good when you compare other movies that start off interesting then take a cliff dive to Crapville.

In conclusion, this movie takes all the ideas that are interesting and flatten them out with a steamroller. Much like Jumper, this movie fails in bringing the energy and interesting aspects of their respective universes to light. However, unlike Jumper this move does not start at the end, but tries to be a good movie from the start. It just never pushed over the edge to become it. ← Ha! I couldn’t help myself.



Apple iTunes

Source of the Bitter: JAS

Comments, rants and other stuffs below
KatanaDiva (not verified) on Sat, 07/25/2009 - 2:06pm

I can't summon up enough energy to review that life-sucking drek. I can't figure out what I hated more: the nonsensical storyline; that a studio wasted $$$ and resources making that waste of time; or that someone dressed up a 13-year-old Dakota Fanning as slutty pedophile bait.

JAS on Sat, 07/25/2009 - 2:21pm


LyndiT on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 10:35am

After reading your very well written review I feel compelled to at least watch the movie. Had I read the review would I have watched it? Eh... no... but now I am adding it to my Netflix queue. Push sounds like an Entertaining movie, the story eh? Yet to find out.

Mr. or Ms. Bitter Person Jr. on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 10:25am

"Bleeders, Pushers, and Sniffers" Sounds like STDs... LOL

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.