Why did we need this movie? After last year's ""The Taking Pelham 123,"" did director Tony Scott need to prove to us again that he can't make an entertaining train movie? Did Denzel Washington need to cement his recent career in mediocrity with his second film for Scott? Did Chris Pine need to kill the positive buzz surrounding his latest performance as Captain Kirk in ""Star Trek""? Scott's latest film ""Unstoppable"" is uninteresting, unpleasant and unfortunate.
The plot is about as straight forward as narratives can be. An unmanned, half-mile-long freight train is heading towards a city, and two good looking, likeable actors portray American working class heroes who have to take matters into their own hands to prevent a big explosion.
First, if you think you know how this story starts, progresses and ends, you do. There's no way to spoil this movie because if you've ever seen a ""race against time"" film, then you've already seen this film. Second, if you noticed that the train might be a metaphor for our economy and the protagonist's actions might represent the American people preventing an economic crisis, then good for you. Scott loves to shove this message down our throats as an excuse for this film's existence, but his efforts are so obvious that it's embarrassing to watch. If Scott really cared about the economy, maybe he wouldn't have spent $100 million making another choo-choo thriller.
Washington and Pine play the film's main protagonists. If one were to walk out of a showing of ""Malcolm X"" or ""Star Trek,"" they might say neither actor is capable of delivering a bland or uncharismatic performance. Unfortunately, neither Pine nor Washington can overcome writer Mark Bomback's dismal screenplay.
Pine's performance as Will, a husband whose marriage is on the fringe, is completely forgettable. Scott will stop the action during the film to give the audience a little dose of ""this-is-why-you-should-care-about-this-character"" and then move on like he's earned the audience's emotions. Sorry, it's not that simple. If you want the audience to care about the characters, you either have to give them something new or deliver something familiar in a different way. ""Unstoppable"" does neither.
Washington plays Frank, a single dad trying to raise his two daughters alone because his wife died of cancer. The film is loosely based on true events, so perhaps Frank's wife really did have cancer, but within the context of the film the disease is there simply to manipulate the audience into caring about what's happening on screen.
Rosario Dawson plays Connie, the person responsible for telling the audience that the train is still on the tracks and still moving forward at a ridiculous speed. She is just another painful example of wasted talent. Dawson's entire performance encapsulates the reason that train films rarely make exciting action flicks: when your train is on the tracks, your narrative is on the tracks. There aren't a lot of places you can go. You can't make any kind of twist or diversion without ending the movie or changing its purpose.
Why be so hard on a film that clearly doesn't have any goals besides providing popcorn entertainment? Well, this film has received high approval from the critical community, especially for an action movie. Apparently critics these days can't tell the difference between loud obnoxious movies and legitimately stimulating crowd pleasers. If you've seen the trailer and though ""Unstoppable"" looked mediocre, but you also heard the critics are raving about the film, trust your initial instincts on this one. There is nothing here worth seeing.
