Eric D. Snider

Push

Movie Review

"Push"

Review by Eric D. Snider

Grade: C

Rating: PG-13

Released: Friday, February 6, 2009

Directed by:

Cast:

Fans of TV's "Heroes" have been frustrated by the show's declining quality ever since about the end of the first season. But take heart, friends! It could be worse. It could be "Push."

"Push" has ordinary people with super powers being pursued by agents from a top-secret organization called Division. Some of these empowered individuals doodle the future on sketch pads. Some can move objects with their minds. Some have multiple powers. Some of their eyes turn inky black when their powers activate. "Heroes" didn't invent any of this stuff, either, but it's hard not to be reminded of the show when so many elements of "Push" feel so familiar.

None of which is a problem, really, except that "Push" doesn't do anything useful with its derivative ideas. Directed very stylishly by Paul McGuigan ("Lucky Number Slevin," "Gangster No. 1"), with assistance from the terrific cinematographer Peter Sova, "Push" boasts beautiful shot compositions, makes great use of color, and has a bevy of other things to recommend it, visually speaking. It just doesn't have any atmosphere. And not for nothin', but shouldn't a movie about people with extraordinary powers NOT BE BORING??!

Basically, you got your people with magic powers, and Division wants to use them as lab rats to try to turn them into soldiers. So if you have these powers, you're always on the run. Our hero, using the term loosely, is Nick (Chris Evans), a telegenic telekinetic holed up in Hong Kong, where Division's tentacles have trouble reaching. He's found by Cassie (Dakota Fanning), a street-wise 13-year-old who sees constant visions of an ever-changing future. Her mother, also a seer, is in Division's possession, and Cassie has had visions of a suitcase whose contents, she believes, will help them get her out. This suitcase is in Hong Kong.

Also in Hong Kong, as of recently: Kira (Camilla Belle), a recent escapee of Division's laboratory. Division wants her back because they injected her with some kind of super-serum and she's the first person ever to not die from it. She teams up with Nick and Cassie to find the suitcase. Save the cheerleader, save the world. You know the drill.

David Bourla's original screenplay (nope, it's not based on a comic book) is burdened by too much dialogue, most of it purely functional. There's no panache, no wit, just words. If someone wrote a high school textbook about super powers, it would sound like this. The scenes focused on lukewarm dialogue outnumber the action scenes ten to one, giving the film a listless, low-energy vibe -- precisely the opposite of what you'd want a movie like this to feel like.

Grade: C

Rated PG-13, moderate action violence, one F-word

1 hr., 51 min.

Digg! Stumble It!

This item has 5 comments

  1. Russ says:

    Such a short review. :( I guess there really wasn't much funny to write.

    I just got back from this movie, and I have to agree with you. The color and camera shots were very impressive, I much enjoyed them.

    You'd probably be better off putting your fingers in your ears and coming up with your own version of the dialogue while watching the excellent visuals.

    I thought they could have done a LOT better with the Telekinetic power (the main character's one), what they came up with was very bland and inconsistent.

    Also the future telling. First they could predict like every move, and randomly see what they needed too, but that was too powerful. Thus, all the future tellers can suddenly only read intentions, and they have to be specifically looking for it, and you can uncreate the future by giving people letters telling them what to do.

    o.O

    Anyway, I agree with your letter grade completely, don't forget to mention that this is yet another movie where Hollywood is openly greedy and lazy and doesn't even provide a conclusion, just writes it directly for a sequel.

  2. Pushed over the edge says:

    I would say that grade letter is too nice. I'm thinking "D". the visuals were nice but the best scene was in the first ten minutes in the fish market. Then the rest of the movie is an assault on intelligence. Just to punctuate that sentiment: The couple behind me in the theater was compelled to be vocal about their whole experience. It was very annoying but I believe they would give rave reviews (if they could write). It put me in mind of simpletons being entertained by their bug-zapper on the back porch.

    All the clever set-ups were wasted. All the dialogue was boring. All the logic was (not at all).

    I would tell people not to go see this movie. Save your money and watch the bug zapper.

  3. M.S says:

    I have to disagree with you. I really enjoyed the movie, even though I'm not a professsional movie critic. It could have been better, it could have been MUCH better- But I don't think it desserves a C. Maybe a C+ or you could talk about what you at least liked about it [if you liked anything about it]. It was a good review though.

  4. L.R says:

    I honestly thought it was a pretty good movie, like everyone else said it could have been better... But cant most movies they make these days be better? there could have been more action, but it really wasnt that bad.

  5. Dave says:

    "a telegenic telekinetic holed up in Hong Kong"

    Say it ten times fast, I dare ya! :)

Add your comment:

The following HTML elements are allowed: <span class="spoiler">content</span>, <strong>, <em>, <a>, and <img>.

Before posting, please read the rules.


Subscription Center

Eric D. Snider's "Snide Remarks"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly humor column, "Snide Remarks." For more information, go here.

Subscribe

Eric D. Snider's "In the Dark"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly movie-review e-zine. For more information on it, go here.

Subscribe
 
This site created and maintained by Jeff J. Snider