Showing posts with label Action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Action. Show all posts

Monday, August 13, 2012

Drive (2011)

Drive (2011)
Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston
Trailer

It is quite possible that I am the only woman alive who does not find Ryan Gosling appealing. I don't dislike the man, but I have never felt strongly one way or the other, either about his acting or his looks. Frankly, he always looks rather sleepy to me. Recently, while saying this very same thing to a friend of mine (who happens to be a straight male), I received the usual jaw-open-in-disbelief response. He added, however, that the movie Drive would change my mind. Challenge accepted.

As the film opens on a sparsely-furnished apartment, we listen to Gosling's voice outlining the terms of a clearly criminal agreement to an unseen/unheard client. In the living room, a television set displays the score of a baseball game in progress. By the time this game is over, so is the job. If the name of the movie doesn't make it apparent, the audience now knows that Gosling's character is a getaway driver for hire. He is a pretty slick one at that, but of course we all knew he would be. As it turns out, Gosling (his character does not have a name) isn't just into cars when he's aiding and abetting. He also has a job as a mechanic AND a stunt driver AND he does a little stock car racing on the side. It seems our car guy is a loner without much of a social life. That is, until he meets his neighbor Irene (Mulligan) and her young son Benicio (Kaden Leos). Their budding relationship suffers a major downer when Irene's husband is released from prison. And while Standard (Oscar Isaac) is a little suspicious of Irene's new friend, he appears to be a fairly decent family man. Well, maybe not so much. It doesn't take long before some of his prison buddies come around to collect a debt. This debt, naturally, isn't one that Standard can pay and in steps our hero Driver to save the day. He agrees to do a little driving in the interest of keeping Irene and Benicio out of danger. So, the heist goes smoothly, nobody gets hurt, and all of the characters go home rich and happy. Well, maybe not so much.

I really did want to give this movie a chance. About fifty percent of it is made up of really fine elements that warrant serious credit. However, the other fifty percent of it consists of such colossally bad elements that they almost negate the positive ones.

To its merit, Drive was very nicely filmed with a few particularly stellar shots - Gosling's first entrance into his buddy Shannon's garage is a lovely example. The plot, although not a particularly original one, is carried out with a few detours from the typical testosterone-fueled, grand-theft auto, jock-fest. For that, the movie gets a good measure of respect. Irene is a pretty girl-next-door sort of person who doesn't spend any time jiggling her boobs for the camera. She and Gosling don't hit the sheets like horny teenagers either. I also enjoyed the driving in this movie. While there are moments of tire-squealing and metal crunching, there are also more subtle, graceful maneuvers that make the action seem a little more intelligent. (Pay close attention as Gosling executes the perfect parking job without the slightest glimpse at anything but the two suspicious characters strolling through the parking garage.)

On the flip side, what the eff is going on with the soundtrack in this movie? Let's set aside the fact I wouldn't be caught dead with a single track from it on my iPod. The volume and timing of the music is entirely inappropriate. It fades in at odd moments and doesn't add a single embellishment to the plot, mood or style of any scene. The lyrics are irrelevant. Now, I'm not implying that every song in a movie needs to have vocals that narrate the action. I am saying, however, that lacking all other aforementioned redeemable qualities, a song should at least speak to what's going on with the characters. 

Now that that's off my chest, let's talk about the nearly complete lack of interesting characters. Everyone in this movie is so incredibly bland! First of all, Gosling's character is the mysterious, brooding type. So, for approximately the first half of the movie he hardly changes facial expression. Granted, it adds to the mystery of who he is and what his past might be, etc., but it doesn't make for much in the way of exciting dialog. Irene isn't chock full of personality either. She is very quiet, polite, tentative, nervous. Apparently, there isn't much going on in her life that isn't domestic and there's no sign of a hobby or quirky character flaw anywhere. The husband, Standard is, ironically, the only character who surprised me. Despite being a hoodlum, he appears to genuinely care for his son and show appreciation and respect to his wife. While that should be the "standard" way for a man to treat his family, in the scope of action films, it's not the usual case for his type of character. All of the other characters are beneath mentioning.

I even have a problem with the opening credits. Was that Purple Rain font? WTF?

In summary, I felt about Drive the way that I still feel about Ryan Gosling, which is, "meh". It was just on the verge of being an exquisitely Grindhouse homage that truly honors the subtle greatness of the genre. Left to age, it could have been a cult classic in ten or so years. But, a few absurdly lame details wrecked this movie's potential ambiance. That, coupled with acting that could put a crack-head to sleep, left me truly disappointed. Sorry Ryan. Better luck next time.

Bechdel Test Results: Fail
Second Opinion

Hottie Rating: 3 of 5
Overall Rating: 2 1/2 of 5




Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Let's Hear It For The Girls

It's about time to heat things up again here at GP. Gummi Awards prizes will go out this week and I'm feeling the itch to start some new reviews! But, I want to take a moment to see who's still with us out there. So, a fun little question to get everyone playing along:

What is your favorite "girl power" movie?

I'm not talking about "chick flicks" here; I want titles with a little kick-butt. For example, movies like Teeth or Enough. Guys, don't be afraid to answer this one too. We all know tough girls know how to turn the fellas' heads.

My personal favorite? It's Tarantino's Death Proof. It could be because it was filmed (partially, at least) in Austin, TX, it could be because it features badass muscle cars, and it could even be that Zoe Bell is my new idol. Whatever the reason, if you haven't seen it yet, you should!

Now I want to hear from you (in the comments section)! Tell me the title of your favorite "girl power" flick and why you like it!

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Casino Royale (2006)



Directed by: Martin Campbell
Format: On Demand
Starring: Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judy Dench, Giancarlo Giannini
trailer

I used to adore 007. The first six Connery movies have always been my favorites, but I imagine that I've seen the Roger Moore films several times over as well. When GoldenEye, with Pierce Brosnan, was released, I was excited for the genre to continue. However, I quickly grew tired of the franchise after that. The formula had gotten stale and I just wasn't enough of a die-hard Bond fan to stick around. So, I let Die Another Day, The World is Not Enough and Tomorrow Never Dies slip by practically unnoticed. (In fact, I still haven't seen those three.) I also admit to never having read anything by Ian Fleming, the novelist who created the character. So, although I've seen the majority of James Bond films, I can't hardly call myself a dyed-in-the-wool "fan". A new friend of mine, however, is and convinced me to give Daniel Craig a shot in the famous role.

If the movies had been made in the same order as the books, Casino Royale would have been the first. When the film opens, Bond doesn't even have his "double-O" status yet. When he gets it, he doesn't waste any time following rules. His first mission ends in a dead bomb maker and an explosion that sends an embassy in Uganda up in flames. Then, 007 proceeds to break into M's house, which doesn't make her terribly happy either. But, she seems more concerned about the fact that the bomb maker they were hoping would lead to a major arms dealer is now dead. James isn't flustered. He picks up on the trail again in The Bahamas and eventually follows it to a high-stakes poker game in Montenegro. His goal there will be to beat international terrorism's favorite banker, Le Chiffre, in a game of Texas Hold 'Em. If he loses, Le Chiffre gets away and the British government will have made a 10 million dollar donation to terror.

Casino Royale is set apart from all other Bond movies. Not only has the lead actor changed, but several previously common elements are missing. There are no flirtatious exchanges with Money Penney, for example. She's not even in the film. Also absent is the character Q and his gadgets. Bond's car had a very useful glove box, but there's no fancy introduction and no John Cleese. Both are ingredients I'd always enjoyed before, but was willing to let go - however reluctantly - in favor of fresh footage. Also noticeable is the greatly reduced presence of cheesy one-liners and sexual innuendo. A fond farewell to that!

What isn't missing in this newer film is action. If possible, it's even more amped up than before. One of the very first scenes involved Bond chasing a man through a construction site. I had to pause and re-watch it just to make sure I didn't miss anything. The stunts are fantastic and there's hardly any time at all to catch one's breath. It's almost super-human the way Marvin Campbell (stunt double for Sebastian Foucan) bounces around the set. Mad props to the stunt team! Another staple of the genre, namely beautiful women with unusual names, has also held its ground. This time, however, Bond uncharacteristically falls for one of them.

So, how is Daniel Craig as the new Bond? While I've never really found Craig to be an attractive man, I have to admit that he's got a marble figure in Casino Royale. He's a rougher version of the character; hard core and not afraid to get dirty. At the same time, he also manages the suave side of Bond quite convincingly. The gritty edge that Craig lends to the role is very appealing and refreshing. I was not disappointed. While Sean Connery will always have a special place in my heart, I have to call Craig a close second. James' love interest this time is Vesper Lynd, an accountant played by Eva Green. Green is a more elegant, intelligent "Bond-girl" than most and is strikingly lovely sans makeup. A witty match for Bond, I nonetheless never felt she was entirely trustworthy. The asthma afflicted, bloody-eyed La Chiffre owes his excellent portrayal to chisel-jawed Mads Mikkelsen. While not as dramatically intense as many previous villains, La Chiffre makes up for it in cold, calculating insanity. While the character himself could have used a few more examples of evilness (probably not a a real word), Mikkelsen made my skin crawl.

I whole-heartedly recommend this version (yes, there are others) of Casino Royale to anyone who's become jaded when it comes to movies about British agents with a license to kill. The opening credits kick some serious ass as well, accompanied by Chris Cornell's "You Know My Name". I enjoyed this film so much that I watched it again immediately after the first time. I just hate that Bond's signature card game - Baccarat - is eliminated in favor of Texas Hold 'Em; a game that's a little too "redneck" for my taste. It looks like I'm going to have to see Quantum of Solace now - despite the awful title - since it's the conclusion to this movie. That's right, Casino Royale is also the first 007 two-parter.

Overall Rating: 4 stars
Hottie Rating: 4 stars (Holy chiseled bod, Batman!)

Alternate Recommendation: Dr. No
Official Site
IMDB Page
A Nutshell Review review

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Into the Blue (2005)



Directed by: John Stockwell
Format: DVD
DVD Features: trailers, commentary, screen tests, deleted scenes, star interviews
Starring: Jessica Alba, Paul Walker, Scott Caan, Ashley Scott, Josh Brolin
extra long trailer

***This movie has been nominated for a Gummi Award in the Best Gratuitous Display of Abdominal Muscles category.**

Ah, the ocean. The wide open sea. The boundless horizon of waves and adventure. The bounty of life teeming just below its surface...The myriad of terrifying ways to die...the lack of oxygen...the raging storms..the minuscule jellyfish that can cause days of incredible pain... Yeah, the ocean? Not so much fun for me. The ocean is something that demands respect and if you forget that for a moment, that's the moment she kills you. Nothing short of a bottle full of Valium and a million dollars will ever get me on a boat. While I'm content to view its amazing glory from shore and play cautiously in the surf, there are millions of people who make their living on ships.

In fact, the heroes of Into the Blue hardly spend a moment on dry land. Jared is a diver and amateur treasure hunter who dreams of the big score. His girlfriend, Sam, studies sharks (or maybe just works at Sea World) and is perfectly content with the humble life they lead. Enter Jared's buddy and cocky young lawyer, Bryce. Bryce has his newly acquired young whor..I mean "girlfriend" in tow and the pair have flown in to vacation in the Bahamas. The four borrow a yacht from one of Bryce's clients and go out for a dive. While poking around in the sand, Jared and Sam find some clues that could lead them to a major discovery. The trouble is, the group also finds an airplane wreck and it's full of cocaine. Trying to keep the buried treasure to themselves until they can acquire the equipment to dig it up and stake their claim could be difficult. Nobody looses a cargo plane full of blow and neglects to go looking for it.

So, naturally the plot here leaves much to be desired. Poor Jared is so down and out that he can't afford a ship of his own or any treasure hunting equipment. However, I wonder where this twenty-something guy got the dough to be living in the Bahamas in the first place. Plus, he's dating Jessica Alba so it's a little hard to feel sorry for him. His former boss and gold seeking rival, played by Josh Brolin, appears whenever it's important to egg on the main characters, but is he really making money digging up sunken artifacts? I realize that The Bahamas are just a small group of islands, but I didn't realize that it's the kind of place where everybody knows everybody else. In Into the Blue, the whole scenario wraps up as neatly as a Guy Ritchie flick, but without all the style and class. Awfully convenient but terribly uninspired.

The acting is tolerable on the part of Alba and Paul Walker (who plays Jared), but everyone else, including Brolin, sink to the watery depths of forgetful performances. There are only two real reasons why this movie was made. Reason one: to show off Jessica Alba's nearly naked body. The girl is undeniably hot, but in this film, she's almost skeletal. As a vegetarian, I never thought I'd say this, but girlfriend needs a Big Mac. Besides, how many shots of her ass can they fit into one movie anyway? The second reason, and the only thing that redeems this crappy movie, is the beautiful underwater cinematography. It far outshines any other aspect of this movie. If only they could cut out the scenes of the mediocre gangsters, snore-inducing plot and empty air tank gauges and just show the spectacular fish and crystal blue heaven, I might actually be willing to watch Into the Blue a second time.

The verdict? This movie sucks and not just because I'm a confirmed landlubber. Hell, Jaws, The Abyss and Pirates of the Caribbean all get the "thumbs up" from yours truly (I guess you don't have to wait for those reviews). I was all prepared to nod approvingly at the movie's fair depiction of sharks too, and then Mr. Seven Rows of Teeth took a chunk out of someone. Sigh. This was one of those movies that I saw the trailer for and thought, "Not gonna see that one". But then someone (thank you Kris) had to go and nominate it for a Gummi Award!

Overall Rating: 2 stars
Hottie Rating: 2 stars

Alternate Recommendation: The Abyss
Official Site
IMDB Page
The Village Voice review

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Iron Man (2008)



Directed by: Jon Favreau
Format: On Demand
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow
Trailer

Good prospects seem to hit the movie theaters in waves. For a while, the sea of offerings lap dully at the shore of mediocraty. Then, a string of features with enticing trailers swells up and drenches the box offices. Again, the wave dies down and it's back to chick flicks and Will Ferrell comedies. Trouble is, I'm a poor surfer. I either get so wrapped up in the rest of life that I forget to make it to a show or I end up waiting on the same jerk who keeps promising to take me to the theater and never follows through. When I have money, there's nothing playing and when I'm broke the latest Scorsese or Wes Anderson flick comes out. Murphy's Law of movie going? Perhaps. Consider also the fact that I can hardly stand to spend my evening rushing to make a screen time only to be viciously wallet-raped at the ticket counter and then have the best parts ruined by some inconsiderate anus with a cell phone. Sigh. The fact that I missed watching Robert Downey Jr. zip around the big screen in a material representation of a Black Sabbath song is entirely due to the aforementioned jerk and my reluctance to give up on him. When will I learn?

Tony Stark is a millionaire playboy of the Bruce Wayne variety. He also happens to be an engineering genius. The corporation he inherited, Stark Industries, profits by conceptualizing and manufacturing arms. In an interview with a Vouge Magazine reporter (Sure, like Vouge is any kind of reputable news source.), he makes clear his apathetic and cynical views on heading a company that enables soldiers to blow each other up. In Filmland, a comment like that is sure to land you in Just Dessertsville, and so it does.

Stark is headed back from a demonstration of his newest missile, when his Hummer is attacked and its accompanying troops slaughtered. When he regains consiousness, he finds himself in the clutches of Raza (Faran Tahir), leader of some type of desert-dwelling tribesmen bent on destruction (shall we assume Al Quaeda here?). Guess who's weapons the bad guys are armed with? Guess what Raza wants Tony to make? And so, with the aid of fellow captive Yinsen (Shaun Toub), he builds a robotic suit of armor instead. Thus, Iron Man is born. Upon returning to civilization, Tony Stark announces that he's had a change of heart. He says his company will no longer be producing weapons, which of course, sends his business partner, Obadiah Stane (Bridges) into cardiac arrest.

While I've long been aware of the Iron Man comic's existence, I can't claim the ability to judge how the movie adaptation measures up. So, someone more qualified than I will have to chime in (hint, hint). What I can say is that the movie is chock-full of eye candy. Whether it's Downey's bulging (dare I say..."throbbing"?) deltoids (..yummy..) or wicked-bad CGI, Iron Man doesn't disappoint on the asthetic front. The effects are truly top-notch and if the film has no further redeeming qualities, it's almost worth it for this aspect alone.

The acting is pretty solid all around. I've got a serious crush on Robert Downey Jr. (gee, could you tell?) for some mysterious reason. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be afraid to admit if he'd done a lousy job. I think he was a great choice for Iron Man; he's fun to watch. What really impressed me was that the techies who drew up the costume CGI managed to capture the character's body language. Jeff Bridges, however, always makes me suspicious. I'm not sure if that speaks to his acting skills, or typecasting. In this case, my suspicions were justified. I could have sworn that Terrence Howard was the guy from Scrubs (turns out that's Donald Faison), but the guy is a lousy best friend. When Tony calls up his buddy Turk Dr. Christopher Turk (oh, now I see why I was confused) to show him the new toy he's working on, Howard's character just tells him that he needs to rest and think about producing more weapons of mass destruction. Some pal. The film's answer to Bond's Money Penny is Ms. Pepper Potts. Paltrow, as the sultry secretary/love interest, slinks around the screen in a wardrobe that Carrie Bradshaw would be envious of. She doesn't honestly do much, except bitch when Stark gets all ethical on her. But, she sure looks good doing it. It's not Gwyn's fault really; her character was written as an ornament. The only horrible acting was Shaun Toub (the bad guy) who was nearly as terrible as Dominic Purcell in Blade Trinity (or anything else for that matter).

Iron Man was marginally better than I had expected it to be. I've almost had enough of the comic-to-movie genre. But, Downey's performance was great as a jerk turned hero genius scientist and the CGI was eye-popping. I was pleased to see no time wasted on obligitory love scenes or weak comeback lines. The movie isn't, by far, any Oscar winning goldmine here, but it is a solid, entertaining piece of cinema. Go ahead and rent this baby and have yourself a good time. In many ways, Iron Man is what Hancock should have been.

Overall Rating: 3 1/2
Hottie Rating: 3 3/4

Alternate Recommendation: The Maxx
Official Site
IMDB Page
353 Haiku review

Sunday, August 10, 2008

The Dark Knight (2008)

I heart Joker

Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Format: Theater
Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal
Trailer

Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, Daniel Craig - Bond. Michael Keaton, George Clooney, Val Kilmer, Christain Bale - Batman. No matter who you put in the suit, some franchises live on. Some men fill out the suit better. Some men play the ladies' man with more finesse. But no matter how good or how bad, people always flock to the characters they know the best. That, my friends, is why movies like the 007 series and the Batman series will be revisited by the film industry over and over again. After Batman and Robin in 1997, I thought Hollywood had murdered my favorite caped crusader. When Batman Begins resurrected Gotham in 2005, my hopes were lifted a bit. So, did Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale disappoint in round 2? Does Heath Ledger's last performance live up to the "legendary" status his death has created?

In The Dark Knight, Batman is beginning to get a little bit of help. Officer Gordon (Oldman) has become Commissioner Gordon and a new district attorney, Harvey Dent (Eckhart), is ambitious enough to take on the mob. It looks as if Gotham City may finally see a ray of light at the end of a dark reign of crime. Hold off on that sigh of relief though, because organized crime may not be the biggest menace the city faces. A new face has arrived to challenge Batman, and it's a painted one. The Joker's got no fingerprints and no identity and he doesn't seem to crave power or money. So, how do you fight a man you don't understand? How do you deal with this new flavor of criminal?

In the original comic book series, The Dark Knight represented a more grim and introspective side of Batman. He was a Batman with a shadow over his head and one who was inherently more dangerous. But, the movie version doesn't present that same troubled hero. Instead, it makes Harvey Dent the shining light and Batman not much more than a ready and willing scapegoat. The plot, however, has intensified since Batman Begins. There's more at stake and not everyone will come out alive or unharmed. The appearance of The Joker does make an impact and it isn't business as usual anymore. There's more of a puzzle to be solved in this new movie. The new movie isn't without its' faults, however. There are a lot of unanswered questions at the end of 152 minutes. What happened to the Chinese crook who was so prominent a threat in the beginning? How did The Scarecrow get out of custody? Why isn't Wayne all that upset that his girlfriend is dating Dent?

Whenever a new actor comes along to fill the shoes of another, there's always a comparison. So, naturally, the question comes about, "Is Heath Ledger as good as Jack Nicholson as The Joker?" Well, my answer to that is, "perspective". It was 1989 when Nicholson donned the purple suit and clown makeup of Batman's greatest foe. There were a different set of expectations back then, and Nicholson filled them memorably. But, it's nearly twenty years since that moment and we're all expecting something different. Ledger is not the same Joker as Nicholson was. But, he wasn't trying to be. Initially, when I saw the trailers for The Dark Knight, I had the opposite impression. However, Ledger is a more thoughful character. There's more mystery behind him and a certain twisted logic that added depth. There's no goofy side this time. Granted, he wasn't nearly as "dark" as everyone told me he would be. Nonetheless, I loved him. Ledger did not disappoint.

Bale, as in the last film, isn't quite as satisfying. He doesn't suit the playboy Wayne role as well and he doesn't look as good in the mask. Something about Bale's mouth has always bugged me. And, what's with the voice? Caine as Alfred plays the perfect, if nagging, butler of Wayne manor. Morgan Freeman is a great new addition to the Bat-verse as Gotham's version of Q. Maggie Gyllenhaal was just annoying in The Dark Kight, although she wasn't bad in the previous film. Oldman is the perfect choice for Gordon and I applaud that casting call in particular.

Ever since the death of Ledger, The Dark Knight has been hyped beyond reason. There was a lot of expectation. I, for one, judged it even more harshly than I might have otherwise; approached the movie with more skepticism. It wasn't the directing, the script or the production team that made this movie a success. It was the actors. My faith in Batman remains strong. I never noticed the time go by.

Overall Rating
: 3 1/2
Hottie Rating: Hmm...2

Alternate Recommendation: Batman
Official Site
IMDB Site
rave Rolling Stone review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Saturday, July 05, 2008

Hancock (2008)

look at those arms!

Directed by: Peter Berg
Format: Theater
Starring: Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman, Jae Head
Trailer

Ah, superhero movies. America just doesn't seem to get tired of them. Batman, Superman, Spiderman and Xmen have all jumped the pages of comic books onto the silver screen. Even lesser known characters have sprung forth to have their own feature films; Ironman, The Flash, The Shadow, Electra, Jay & Silent Bob...the list goes on. One of the most surprising developments I've seen in this vein has been The Mask. Originally, yes, it was a comic book. Then, of course, it was a string of films. Oddly, after the films came a children's cartoon. What I find strange about that series of events is that, in its original comic form, the story was so violent, so gruesome and gory, that buyers had to be 18 or older to get their hands on it. That's a far cry from Saturday morning television programming. What peaked my interest in Will Smith's latest feature, Hancock, was that this superhero seemed different. Instead of the latex costume and cape, Hancock appeared as a drunken, unshaven mess, fighting crime in sort of a half-assed fashion. It was encouraging.

Immortal, impervious, inebriated Hancock sails to the rescue during the opening scene of the movie. He's got a bottle of whiskey in one hand, having just woken from a park bench and flies gracelessly toward a police pursuit in progress. He saves the day from a truckload of machine gun wielding gangsters, but not without causing millions of dollars in property damage and leaving the vehicle skewered atop a high rise. Rather than applauding Hancock's latest escapade, the city sees him as a menace. When he saves PR man Ray Embrey, he causes a massive train wreck. But, while the witnessing citizens gather around to call him an asshole (his least favorite insult), Embrey stands up and defends his rescuer. That's when he gets the idea that Hancock could use a little polish.

As mentioned earlier, I was excited to see a new type of hero; one without the goody-two-shoes attitude and shiny uniform. But, as the trailers will show, Hancock cleans up his act. He learns how to land softly and say, "good job" to the police force. Even though he struggles with politeness and opening up in anger management therapy, he manages the transformation to respectable do-gooder. I would have enjoyed him more as a misfit. Hancock says to Ray and his wife Mary (Theron) over dinner, that he knows nothing about his past. That aspect of the man is barely touched on in the beginning, yet it becomes a major focal point halfway though the plot. The way the movie arrives at that stage is somewhat sloppy and ill conceived. The person who's the key to his past, one which he didn't seem to care about until then, is awfully convenient. It seems as if the writers were stuck mid-script and pulled up the nearest character as an answer. Even the follow through with that thread is sloppy. After pausing to work out the logistics, none of it really fits together.

Sadly, even the wonderful cast isn't enough to save Hancock's pathetic plot line. Will Smith is just as entertaining as ever, but a weak script and lackluster dialogue doesn't give the superstar much to work with. It is nice to see Smith, after many serious roles, to return to something with a little humor. However, I fear that Hancock will go down under his list of not-so-fantastic roles. Theron is beautiful and does her part to the best of her ability. But, I haven't seen her top Monster yet, and this movie certainly wasn't even close. Jason Bateman is an admirable character, a PR man with a conscience is hard to find. Bateman fit the bill nicely. He's convincing, mildly annoying and well cast. There aren't many other characters in the film worth mentioning. Hancock makes an enemy, as all superheroes must, but Eddie Marsan as Red is no Lex Luthor. It's a sad performance and in a not much developed role.

Basically, Hancock amounts to only mild amusement and gobs of eye candy. These days, eye candy will only get one so far. With a better script, a more thoughtful plot and a worthy adversary, Hancock might have been a truly entertaining cinematic experience. As it is, the movie is seriously disappointing. If you still plan to see Smith's latest feature, I recommend the theater setting over rental. What there is of this movie to enjoy, will fall to pieces once it's off the big screen.

Oh, and if you do pony up the cash for a movie ticket to Hancock, make sure you sit through the credits for a bit.

Overall Rating: 3 stars
Hottie Rating: 2 stars (no rippling abs in this one)

Alternate Recommendation: Unbreakable
Official Site
IMDB Page
SF Gate review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Wanted (2008)

Why does a textile factory have a meat locker????

Directed by: Timur Bekmambetov
Format: Theater
Starring: Angelina Jolie, James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, Thomas Kretschmann

Movies involving hit men, secret societies and slo-mo gun shots aren't scarce these days, nor have they been for quite some time. So, why do they keep showing up in theaters? Well, the reason is obvious - they make money. People world-wide love to see a good shoot-out. But, the spaghetti westerns of old have given way to more high-tech weaponry and flashy special effects. I think the art of the gunfight was renewed here in the United States, when John Woo was discovered. His films in Hong Kong, like Hard Boiled and The Killer, made battling with guns beautiful. Seeing Chow Yun Fat and Danny Lee face off was like well-choreographed Kung-Fu. Sadly, much of Woo's magic was lost upon arriving on American shores. Then in 1999, The Matrix showed us that, if you can slow down bullets you can be a superstar. Watching Wanted reminded me a lot of the Wachowski brothers' successful debut.

Wesley Gibson (McAvoy) is a typical cube-farm drone with no backbone to speak of. His girlfriend's cheating on him, his boss is a royal bitch and his bank account is overdrawn. However, this sniveling anxiety-ridden excuse for a man soon discovers that he's meant for greater things. While filling his prescription at the local pharmacy, Wesley suddenly becomes the target of a mysterious gunman. As it so happens, he's the son of a magnificent assassin - one that just recently met a grim fate. Now the killer is after the young Gibson. Luckily for him, a member of a secret society of talented killers, Fox (Jolie), comes to his rescue. When ringleader Sloan (Freeman) and Fox reveal to Wesley his inheritance - mad gun fighting skills and a sizable chunk of money - he tells his boss to piss off and goes into training to become a badass.

Wanted borrows many plot devices from other films, but it doesn't feel like a rip-off. As in classic 70's-style martial arts films, the young star finds himself facing a fierce enemy and is defeated. So, the character spends the rest of the movie in training for a rematch. Wesley Gibson is a pathetic mess at first, but then finds a series of "masters" from which he can gain expert training so that he can hunt down his father's killer. Another oft-repeated element in recent films has been that of the disgruntled office worker shrugging off the shackles of modern society. Wanted has that feature too, somewhat reminiscent of an angry Edward Norton in Fight Club (but not quite as cool). Slow motion camera work and creative fight scenes are highly suggestive of The Matrix trilogy, complete with a sexy senior partner to guide the main character along.

So what is it, despite all the commonalities, that separates Wanted from so many other action genre fodder? Part of what makes this movie stand apart is the cast and director. Angelina Jolie, for me, is a gamble when it comes to performance. In films like Mr. & Mrs. Smith and The Good Shepherd, I found her a bit annoying and lacking any special spark. She performs terrifically, however, in this movie. She's sexy and mysterious, but very dedicated (not to mention her bitchin' tattoos). (I nearly wrote "not just eye candy", but everything in this movie is eye candy) Morgan Freeman is generally a safe bet as a seasoned actor, but is very similar to his character in Lucky Number Slevin. Would you have recognized James McAvoy from his role as the fawn in Narnia? I think not. He manages to make the transformation from wormy loser to steamy assassin in Wanted without much trouble. I always have a tendency to respect an actor more if he's shown a bit of range. Even the side characters, like The Butcher (Dato Khabensky) and The Repairman (Marc Warren) are fun to watch. My favorite of them was probably The Exterminator, played by Konstantin Khabensky. Khabensky has worked with Russian director Bekmambetov before as his supernatural anti-hero in Night Watch and Day Watch. As a fan of those films, it was a treat to see the actor have a small part in Wanted.

Bekmambetov was a good choice to helm this film. There's something fresh in his work that may lie in his use of light and colors. He's also got skills when it comes to using the slo-mo effect without over saturating. I'm sometimes reluctant to see successful directors in other countries make a movie in the U.S. Rarely do the producers here allow them to really be themselves without white-washing the film for our domestic audiences. However, Wanted, though not as dark and moody as Night Watch, still has plenty of the director's flavor intact.

Wanted was not a disappointment. Some of what you may have seen in the trailers does not actually show up in the final cut of this film, but that doesn't make it less of a cool flick. There aren't any lulls long enough in this movie to detract from the pulsating action. The dialog could have used a bit of a pick-me-up, but that's hardly more than a minor note in an otherwise fun time. I'd check out Wanted while it's still in theaters, as it's liable to lose some of its impact on a small screen.

Overall Rating: 3 1/2 stars
Hottie Rating: 4 stars

Alternate Recommendation: La Femme Nikita
Official Site
IMDB Page
Movie Cynics review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Van Helsing (2004)

WTF am I doing in this movie?

Directed by: Stephen Sommers
Format: DVD
DVD Features: Explore Dracula’s Castle, bloopers, making of features, “You Are In The Movie”, legend of Van Helsing, commentaries, trailers, DVD rom, Xbox game
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, David Wenham, Richard Roxburgh

(**nominated for The Gummi Awards: Best Geek Sidekick**)

Dracula, ever since his creation by Bram Stoker in 1897, has been considered the lord of vampires. If Stoker had gotten royalties for every time his Count has been depicted in film alone (not to mention comics, television and cereal boxes), he’d have been very wealthy indeed. Dracula is the oldest, most feared and most powerful in vampire lore. However, just as Holmes had his Moriarty and Kahn had his Captain Kirk, Dracula has his arch nemesis in Van Helsing. Almost all of the films based upon Stoker’s novel feature Van Helsing in one regard or another. Sommers chooses to turn the ancient protagonist into an action hero, with just about as many weapons as Batman.

In the beginning of this movie, it appears that maybe the wrong disc is playing. A hunchbacked lab assistant throws a giant switch and amidst flying sparks and arching electricity, a mad scientist cries, “It’s aliiiiiiive!!” Um...Dr. Frankenstein? But, just as your hand reaches for the remote control, Dracula appears in the lab. It seems that The Count has ordered this monster’s creation and has come to collect him. But, his plans are thwarted by a white-haired undertaker and a torch wielding mob. Frankenstein and his monster disappear in a blazing windmill inferno.

One year later, we find Gabriel Van Helsing (the first name is another deviation from the novel) in hot pursuit of the beast known as Mr. Hyde. After an entertaining battle, chock full of spinning blades and pretty good CGI, Van Helsing vanquishes the villain and heads back to headquarters. It appears that our hero is a hit man, hired by The Vatican to rid the world of ghouls and ancient evils. He is in search of a past he can’t remember and the order believes that his next assignment might lead him to some answers. He and his sidekick, a friar named Carl, are sent to Transylvania to rescue the last remaining members of the Valerious family, who all look as though they’ve leapt from the cover of a trashy romance novel. Naturally, he falls for the only lady in town that’s not a vampire, Anna Valerious, and the two of them endeavor to find out what Dracula could possibly want with a young werewolf and the Frankenstein monster.

There are so many problems with the movie Van Helsing, that I hardly know where to begin. Should I start with the exceptionally poor dialogue, delivered through thin and inconsistent accents? Should I complain about the clumsy sentimentality, inserted into the film with awkward and pathetic timing? What about the extraordinarily tired male/female power struggle, (i.e. lame flirting) between Van Helsing and Anna? Someone forgot to tell Sommers that bats don’t lay eggs and that absinthe isn’t customarily drunk straight from the bottle. But, why should I dwell on those minor faults when I could easily point out that the half-assed “puzzle” that Carl takes so long to solve is about as challenging as going fishing with dynamite? I could wonder for a bit about Dracula’s weird, gas masked minions or even ponder why, when Carl and Van Helsing bust into a church, Carl is so concerned about breaking commandments when he’s already used the line, “I’m just a friar” to excuse himself from swearing and getting laid. Oh, and don’t forget that Dracula does more prancing about than his three “brides” who are hardly more than a trio of screeching boob displays. Why doesn’t Van Helsing, legendary vampire hunter, know fact one about vampires and how did he suddenly become the archangel Gabriel?????????

Whew. Now that I’ve unloaded those remarks like so many poorly aimed arrows from Van Helsing’s semi-automatic crossbow (the guy couldn’t hit the broad side of Transylvanian castle), let’s see if there’s anything good to be gleaned from the experience. If the movie Van Helsing has any saving graces, it’s the spectacular CGI and efforts of a few actors.

Hugh Jackman, while lovely to watch, is basically just Wolverine all over again (were-Wolverine?) and doesn’t make much of a leap in range here. Kate Beckinsale, who plays Anna, has just as much eye candy to offer as Jackman does, but little else. Would it be too much to ask for a heroine who could care less about the leading man and wears less than a D cup? I could see Jackman and Beckinsale performing much better if they actually had good material to work with. The best actor by far in this film is Shuler Hensley, who plays Frankenstein’s monster and even he seems to struggle against the horrific script.

The movie’s best feature - hands down – is its beautiful CGI. The Jekyll/Hyde battle is grossly entertaining and nicely choreographed. All of the transformation scenes in the film, whether they were Dracula, his brides’ or the werewolves’, were seamless. It’s too bad that it takes much more than badass visuals to make a movie. Had there been any good dialogue, consistency, or thought put into the mix, Van Helsing would have been bearable to watch more than once.

Overall Rating: 2
Hottie Rating: 4 (Um...shirtless male bondage? Hello!)

Alternate recommendation: Underworld
Official site
IMDB Page
Slate Review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Collateral (2004)

Yeah, I'm taking over for this guy named Travis Bickle.

Director: Michael Mann
Format: DVD
DVD Features: making of, deleted scenes, featurettes, trailers
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Tom Cruise, Mark Ruffalo
Trailer

I’d seen the trailer for Collateral go by on the disks of a few of my other films before. One night, I apparently had enough and buckled under the pressure of Hollywood advertising. So, this week, I found it in my mailbox from Netflix. Since I usually make my selections when I’m a bit inebriated, it’s always an adventure to see what the postman will bring. It’s not the kind of movie I would usually rent. I’m frequently viewing action films, it’s true, but not usually with the cast that Collateral has to offer. So, with some trepidation, I popped this disc into my player.

Jamie Foxx plays Max, a cab driver in L.A. with big plans for the future, plans that he’s been procrastinating on for 12 years. One night, he picks up grey haired, sharp suited Vincent (Tom Cruise), who offers him several hundred dollars to break regulations and chauffer him around for the rest of the night. Max gets his first inkling that it won’t be a quiet evening when Vincent’s latest victim drops out of a window and slams into the cab’s windshield. But, the dead man who finds his way into the trunk of Max’s cab wasn’t just another lowlife. He happens to be the target of an undercover investigation. When Detective Fanning (Mark Ruffalo) discovers that his lead has disappeared in a shower of blood and broken glass, he starts to suspect that there’s something bigger going on. And, when the hospital mortician shows him the collection of recent corpses, Fanning connects the string of murders to an FBI investigation.

I’ve never been particularly fond of Jamie Foxx. I’d had the impression that the actor had quite a high opinion of himself, an opinion that hasn’t been earned. However, his portrayal of Max in this film has changed my views. Max is by no means a big and powerful man. Neither is he a fast action hero or a clever spy. Max is a very nervous, slightly obsessive compulsive, humble fellow who’s frankly just terrified of the whole situation. And Foxx does a very convincing job in the role. On the other side of the coin is costar Cruise. I remember a time when I actually liked the guy – the movies Legend and Top Gun spring to mind. But it seems that no matter what character he’s played since, he’s always Tom Cruise. He’s arrogant, egotistical, and rough with the ladies. The man seems to have his nose so far up in the air these days and I almost never make it a point to see his films. Granted, he was good in Collateral. He was still Tom Cruise though and he’s good at being Tom Cruise. I’m surprised there weren’t any love scenes.

Some of the cinematography is a bit strange. Most of the movie is shot with run of the mill film. Every now and then, though, the movie footage becomes gritty and unpolished like a home video tape. While I’ve often seen this technique used with a positive impact, I didn’t think it was well used in Collateral. There didn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to its placement or particular plot point that it accentuated. Although there aren’t any CGI or amazing stunts in the movie, it’s not necessary.

I was pleasantly surprised by Collateral. The plot was clever and some of the dialogue brings forth some very true points about society. Likewise, the performances were unexpectedly superb. Although the movie is not chock full of gore and explosions, the point comes across without the need for flashy antics. It’s a little more thoughtful than the average action flick, but manages to maintain the fun aspects of the genre. I think it’d be a candidate for a successful girlfriend/boyfriend movie night compromise.

Overall Rating: 4
Hottie Rating: 0 (Cruise is not hot)

Alternate Viewing: The Borne Supremacy (or The Borne Identity)
Official Site
IMDB Site
Entertainmentopia Review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Spiderman 3 (2007)

Spiderman: Superhero, yoga master.

Director: Sam Raimi
Format: theater
Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Topher Grace, James Franco

I’ll admit to having been a comic book geek once upon a time. I’ve still got a small collection, but I don’t spend $100 a week on them anymore. It’s an art form like any other; to be respected and appreciated. The history of movie adaptations from comics is spotty. The first two Batman movies were decent, as was the most recent Batman Begins (2005). A few of the early Superman movies were good and the X-Men movies to date have met with success. Contrast those with the painfully horrible Batman & Robin (1997) and Hulk (2003). The Catwoman movie, starring Halle Berry, is on my list of worst movies of all time. So, I think it takes just the right combination of elements to make a good comic hero movie. The first two films in Sam Raimi’s Spiderman series have been wildly popular and anticipation for the third was widespread. I even got goose bumps during the trailer. But, how long can our friendly neighborhood Spidey keep up the good work on screen?

In the third and latest installment of the Spiderman trifecta, a mysterious life form arrives on the planet in the shape of a black goo. Unbeknownst to Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), the tar-like alien attaches itself to the Spidey suit. When Parker reaches for his costume, he discovers that it has turned from the usual red and black to a sinister black and silver. And when he dons the outfit, he learns that he’s got even more strength and power than before. Meanwhile, misunderstood convict Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) finds himself trapped in a research experiment that jumbles up his molecules with a pile of sand and turns him into The Sandman. Electing, of course, to use his new qualities for criminal gain, he terrorizes the city’s bank vaults. While fighting this new menace, Spiderman discovers that Marko is the man truly responsible for his Uncle Ben’s death.

Remember Harry Osborn (James Franco)? Well, he’s still a little sore at Spiderman for killing his father. So, he decides to take on the guise of The New Goblin and even the score. And, as if these two villains weren’t enough for our hero to battle, there’s another character with a bone to pick. But, this time it’s with Peter. Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) is contending with Parker for a photography job at The Daily Planet and almost convinces Jameson (J.K. Simmons) to replace him. When Parker points out that Brock’s snapshots of Spiderman are fraudulent, Brock loses the position and develops a grudge.

On top of all the new villains to contend with, Peter has internal issues to fight. The new, black Spidey suit not only makes Peter stronger, it also amplifies his darker urges. He lands his relationship with Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) on the rocks by planting a kiss on the police captain’s daughter, Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard). But, then he upsets Gwen when he uses her to make MJ jealous. He gets up in Brock’s face in an uncharacteristic show of aggression at the newspaper and demands freshly baked cookies from his neighbor Ursula (Mageine Tovah). Before long, Parker realizes that he’s out of control and manages to detach the alien goo from his suit. When the creature finds a new host in Brock, Brock is transformed into Venom, one of Spiderman’s deadliest foes yet.

Since I seem to be in the mood for confessions, I might as well admit that I’ve been carrying a little torch for Topher Grace since the first episode of That 70’s Show. So, it was great to see him outside of the basement and in a feature film. Add to that the wicked nature and devilish fangs and we have a grin of approval for his performance as Eddie Brock/Venom. Maguire and Dunst are just as fantastic as they were in the first film. In fact, I cannot call to mind any actor in Spiderman 3 who didn’t do a great job. I was impressed by Church’s portrayal of Flint/Sandman. He was able to give the villain a softer side without making it terribly sappy or comical. Even though he’s the killer Spiderman thought he’d already punished, it’s difficult not to be sympathetic towards him. As expected, Raimi’s good friend Bruce Campbell makes it onto the cast and keep your eyes open for comic book legend Stan Lee to make a cameo appearance.

My main criticism of Spiderman 3 is that there are too many new characters squeezed into the plot at once. Like a Cirque du Soleil show, there’s so much going on at the same time, that it’s hard to fully enjoy everything. There’s Flint, Sandman, Gwen, Brock, and the ooze as both Venom and the black suit and they all have separate issues. I did enjoy the brief reuniting of Parker and Osborn, after Harry temporarily loses his memory. But, when he comes back as New Goblin (I thought it was Hob Goblin in the comics? Anyone?), it’s almost a waste of energy.

Although the third movie didn’t have the impact of the first two, it was still great fun to watch. Seeing Parker act out his less honorable intentions made me smile. It reminded me of the scene in one of the old Superman movies, when Superman gets his powers back and goes to return a beat-down to a trucker at a bar. I think that, as average individuals, it’s refreshing to see our heroes express some negativity from time to time. It makes the character seem more human, and thus, easier to identify with. Nobody likes a goody-two-shoes, do they?

Spiderman 3 has just as much web-slinging action as the first two, but maybe just a little too much action all at once. While the concept has been around for a while, the Raimi’s (Sam & Ivan wrote the screenplay) have done a great job in keeping the series from going wrong. So many other trilogies have gone horribly stale by their third go-round and I was relieved to see that Spidey still has most of the old magic.

Overall Rating: 3 ½
Hottie Rating: 4 (Grace is a cutie and no one has looked as good as Maguire in the Spidey suit)

Alternate viewing: Unbreakable
Official site
IMDB site
ReelViews review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Thursday, August 02, 2007

Domino (2005)

Kiera showing off her new party trick.

Director: Tony Scott
Format: DVD
DVD Features: trailer, commentary, deleted scenes, featurette
Starring: Kiera Knightly, Mickey Rourke, Christoper Walken, Edgar Ramirez
Trailer

One of the taglines for this movie is, “Based on a true story. Sort of.” The real Domino Harvey was the daughter of actor Laurence Harvey and model Paulene Stone. She ran a nightclub in London, was a volunteer firefighter, was arrested on drug-related charges and died while Tony Scott’s film was being made. If you watch Domino clear through to the credits, you will catch a glimpse of the real woman. You might also spy her cameo in the movie Constantine. But if you notice the real Domino Harvey in either of those instances, you might notice something else….She doesn’t look a thing like Keira Knightley.

Domino the movie focuses mainly on Harvey’s career as a bounty hunter. We are introduced to her life story via her interrogation by FBI agent Taryn Miles (Lucy Liu), who is questioning her about her latest caper. Always the rebellious, weapon wielding misfit, Domino never felt suited to her life growing up in her Hollywood high-society surroundings. After college, she briefly took on the runway as a fashion model, but didn’t take to that any more fondly. Then came the day she discovered a course on bounty hunting and signed up to learn a thing or two from Ed Mosbey (Mickey Rourke). After convincing him that “bail recovery” was her true calling, she teamed up with Mosbey and his fellow agent Choco (Edgar Ramirez). Before long, the threesome attract the attention of reality show producer Mark Heiss (Christopher Walken), who wants to follow them into action. When things get messy with the mob, Ed, Domino and Choco feel the heat.

I wouldn’t classify Keira Knightly as a bad actress. However, she’s much more believeable as depressed alcoholic Jackie Price in The Jacket than she is as a gritty, thrill seeking bounty hunter. I was never quite convinced of her character in this movie, the act was just too transparent. Rourke has been playing the grizzled bounty hunter role, or something close to it, for a long time now. So, it wasn’t refreshing or different to see him in Domino. Despite the addition of Walken, Macy Gray, Tom Waits and even Jerry Springer to the cast, the film was terribly boring. Ian Ziering and Brian Austin Green, formerly of the television show Beverly Hills 90210, appear as themselves and provide comic example of how whitewashed and stale Hollywood has become. It’s almost amusing, but I think that’s just because I’ve always wanted to see the two of them get beat up.

For a man with a resume that includes Top Gun, True Romance and The Hunger, I expected far more out of Tony Scott. The action is so choppy and the cuts are so random and frequent that it’s hard to tolerate at times. Because that type of technique has become the trend in action films these days, Domino comes off as neither exciting nor innovative, just annoying and trite. The diced up storyline doesn’t work magic either. From reading what little I have about the real Domino Harvey, it seems a shame that the last movie made about her life ended up being so much less entertaining than her actual exploits were.

Basically, I wouldn’t recommend buying Domino. I wouldn’t recommend renting Domino. I wouldn’t even recommend pausing in front of the DVD player if someone else was watching Domino. Unless you’re a die hard Keira Knightley fanatic (and even then it’s barely justifiable)stay well away from this boring film. Even the website sucks.

Overall Rating: 2
Hottie Rating: 3 (for sexual tension between Choco and Domino)

Alternate viewing: True Romance
Official site
IMDB site
Reel.com review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Lord of War (2005)



Director: Andrew Niccol
Format: DVD
DVD Features: making of, documentary, deleted scenes, commentaries
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Jared Leto, Ethan Hawke, Bridget Moynahan
Trailer

This is the third movie in a row that I’ve seen starring Nicolas Cage. The two movies that I have to compare Lord of War to are Wild At Heart and The Weather Man. Wild At Heart was shot in 1990, 15 years before The Weather Man and Lord of War were released. So, do I prefer the young Cage or the more modern, more cynical Cage? I don’t know that I’m quite ready to end my Cage-fest just yet, although it seems to have been postponed, according to the random fate dealt to me via my Netflix queue. I long to re-experience the classic Raising Arizona and the fuzzy recollection of 8MM. Looking at his filmography, it’s astonishing how prolific Cage is as an actor, sometimes doing 4 movies in a year. It looks like I’ll have plenty of ammunition for my next Cage-O-Rama.

In Lord of War, Nicolas Cage plays Ukrainian immigrant Yuri Orlov (although that’s just the first in a string of aliases). Dissatisfied with his lower class surroundings, he discovers that his calling in life is illegal arms dealing. He asks his brother Vitaly (Jared Leto) to partner with him and the two begin supplying weapons to the neighborhood gangsters. Before too long, he’s dealing weapons to top ranking military officials and bringing in a hefty profit. Orlov finally attracts the attention of model Ava Fontaine (Bridget Moynahan) and the two of them have a son. He’s also attracts the attention of ATF agent Jack Valentine (Ethan Hawke) who is intent on making sure Yuri won’t enjoy a comfortable life.

In both Lord of War and The Weather Man, the story is narrated by the main character. I didn’t feel it was a necessary feature in either. In fact, it seemed like the screenwriter’s way of cheating. The narration is a bit spotty in both films; a little heavier in the beginning, and fairly infrequent during the rest of the story. However, it seemed to me that a better film would cut out the narration and use other techniques to move the tale along during those lulls in action. The subject matter involved is so much more exciting in Lord of War. Yuri is involved with an insane dictator, a drunken Soviet official and truck loads of ammunition. He’s got to stay on top of the world politics that signal who’s about to go to war and who’s got army surplus to unload. All the while, he keeps his profession a secret from his family. There is some attempt at bringing morality into the picture. Is he just a necessary evil or is he the reason people are killing each other? Lord of War doesn’t attempt to do much more than raise the question though and delves no deeper into the issue. Vitaly Orlov, his brother, is primarily a character in the film to provide juxtaposition for Yuri (oh, AND for eye candy). Even though he is a hopeless drug addict, he has a stronger conscience than his brother. It’s not all about the money with Vitaly. Actually, it’s not all about the money with Yuri either. He does it because he’s good at it.

I really did like Cage in his role as Lord of War. It was a fitting position for his wry humor and cool under pressure personality. It feels good to see him succeed despite his questionable occupation. However, the morality of his acts doesn’t seem to sink in at all. He has conveniently settled on an excuse for himself as only a facilitator of an eventuality. Even when he tries to fly straight at the request of his wife, there’s no fire in his attitude. And that’s a credit to Cage’s acting. I wasn’t terribly fond of his wife, Ava. She wasn’t much of a character in the film until near the ending. All the while, she enjoys the fruits of Yuri’s labor, never questioning how he provides her with luxury. Then, when she discovers the truth of her husbands extended business trips, she suddenly becomes a pillar of morality. Shallow to say the least.

From what I’ve read about the film, many aspects were authentic. Most of the arsenal being traded is the real thing. That supply of Soviet tanks are all actually sitting there, even waiting to be shipped off to a battle. There were actual arms dealers consulted in making the movie. Lord of War was supposedly based on true events and I wouldn’t really doubt it. After all, doesn’t it seem logical that there are men facilitating the sale and purchase of helicopters, rocket launchers and missles from country to country? In cinema, it always seems that what we should be worried about are computer switches for nuclear arms and stolen warheads. At one point in Lord of War, the point is made that nuclear warheads are hardly ever used in war, that it’s the M-16 and the AK47 that do the dirty work.

On the surface, Lord of War was an enjoyable movie. As long as you don’t look to the film for any deep, moral content, it’s good. The acting was about average. There are some nerve-wracking sceens and in general, the audience can root for the bad guy. It was certainly better than the mundane depression of The Weather Man, but not nearly as disturbing as Wild At Heart. To answer the question I posed earlier; the young Nicolas Cage or the current Nicolas Cage? I think I’ll go for the Raizing Arizona version. He’s so much more random and fun.

Overall Rating: 3
Hottie Rating: 5 (love that Leto!)

Alternate Viewing: The Good Shepard
Official Site
IMDB Site
Roger Ebert’s review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Monday, September 04, 2006

Crank (2006)

What a load of crank!
Director: Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor
Venue: Theater
Trailer

I had decided on a whim to take my little brother and his girlfriend to see a movie. We were on the way home and I had the sudden urge to go to the theater. So, instead of checking my local listings, I just parked the car at an AMC and went to the box office. What I’d been hoping for, was to catch one of the new horror flicks just released. What I settled for was Crank.

If you happened to catch the preview for this film, you already know the plot line. Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) has been injected with a synthetic Asian poison. The drug will take over his system and slow his heart to a stop if he doesn’t keep the adrenaline pumping through his blood. Chelios contacts his doctor and his girlfriend and speeds off to find the gangsters who sentenced him to die.

Plot: 1 star

Statham first drew my attention through a series of British films (Snatch, Mean Machine and Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels). He went on to do The Transporter and its sequel. While he’s not really a bad actor, he typically only plays one type of character. But, it’s always a character with a sexy accent. His girlfriend Eve (Amy Smart) is the kind of ditzy blone stoner girl I generally hate in movies. However, for some reason I enjoyed her acting in Crank. The interaction between the two characters is cute and not overdone. All of the gangsters were terrible actors playing awfully sterotypical parts. Chev’s little gay friend (Efren Ramirez) is kind of amusing, but not terribly necessary to the story line.

Acting: 2 stars

Since Crank is one big adrenaline quest, it is packed with action. There are gun battles, fist fights, cars flipping over, chases and one final battle aboard a helicopter. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of Hollywood action choreography. The camera is always focused to tightly on the actors during the hand-to-hand sequences to show the full range of each punch, kick, or head-butt. What Americans are good at, generally speaking, are explosions and car stunts. The very last scene, in which Celios and his enemy Verona (Jose Pablo Cantillo) battle in the air smacks way too much of blue-screen cut-and-paste photography. In other words, it’s very obviously fake. For a movie that packs so much action, it wasn’t enough to get my adrenaline pumping.

Action: 2 stars

The visual effects in Crank, blue screen excluded, are interesting. Since Chev is doped up with poison, the perspective through his eyes is wavy and distorted. The scenes shown through the character’s eyes do a good job of conveying the disorientation that he is struggling with. A good deal of the film is alternately sped up and slowed down, which was an effect that worked well in some scenes, but not so well in others. The naked girls in the plastic bubbles were a nice touch.

Visual: 3 stars

The dialogue in Crank is fairly weak. There was no original style to any of the character’s lines. Most of the gangsters have very tired, stereotypical Latino accents and deliver lines that are just as tired and stereotypical. There is a lot of macho posturing and not much in the way of cool comebacks.

Dialogue: 1 star

To conclude, Crank was a movie that I much rather would have liked to have rented than have forked over the admission for three. It wouldn’t have been worth the cost of one ticket.

Alternate viewing choice: Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels
IMDB site
Official site
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Just a little closer and they'd be kissing. God what I wouldn't give to see that!
Director: Gore Verbinski
Venue: Theater
Starring: Johnny Depp, Keira Knightly, Orlando Bloom
trailer

If you haven’t seen the prequel to this movie, go and rent it now. There are loads of jokes and plot devices that require having seen the first movie to appreciate. Eventually, I will review that one as well, but take my word for it now – it’s great! I only wish there were more pirate movies of this caliber to enjoy. Oh please, oh please, let part 3 come out soon! In the past, I have dreaded follow-ups to my favorite movies. Lately though, movies like Spiderman and Lord of the Rings have proven that the rest of the series can be just as good as their predecessors.

Dead Man’s Chest picks up very near to where we last left Capt. Jack Sparrow (Depp), Will Turner (Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Knightley). On the day of her wedding to Will, Swann is abducted from the altar and thrown in jail. The head of a powerful trading company has an interest in Jack Sparrow’s mysterious compass and knows that Will is the most likely person to be able to find it. So, Elizabeth will be pardoned if Turner can accomplish this task. Capt. Sparrow, meanwhile, is aboard the Black Pearl and has a quest of his own to fulfill. He needs the key to the Dead Man’s Chest, but his compass doesn’t seem to be leading him in the right direction anymore. The Dead Man in question is Davey Jones, an undead sailor with command over the Kraken, a feared and legendary tentacled beast. Swann has no intention of remaining in prison, however, and finds her way out to join the adventure. The plot is original, entertaining, and moves at a good pace.

Plot: 5 stars

All of the original characters from the first Pirates movie are back (with the original stars) along with a few interesting new ones. My favorites of the latter have got to be Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris), the voodoo priestess that helps our friends on their journey and the villain, Davey Jones. She could have worked on her accent a little more though. Depp, Bloom and Knightly are all wonderful in their parts. I have to say that I feel a twinge of jealousy over Kiera and her close proximity to the two leading men (not to mention her role in The Jacket), but I can’t honestly say that she’s a poor actress. Johnny Depp has always been one of my favorite actors, not just because he’s smokin’ hot, but also because he isn’t afraid to step out of Hollywood and take a few obscure roles here and there. In my humble opinion, he’s one of the most under-appreciated men in the business.

Acting: 5 stars

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest can boast to having loads of action. There isn’t a dull moment between the running, the fighting and the thrills. I would say that it is as well paced as the first film. Still, Yuen Woo Ping isn’t the action director, so I can’t possibly give a full star rating to anything less.

Action: 4 stars

This second film is as loaded, if not more so, with CGI as the first. All of the “bad guys” are varying abominations from the depths of the sea. One man has barnacles growing out of his face, while another has the head of a hermit crab. My favorite special effect is Davey Jones (Bill Nighy). His head is basically an octopus, but the undulating tentacles that make up his beard are mesmerizing. The Kraken is a well-created beast as well. Dead Man’s Chest manages to fill the screen with graphics that are obviously computer generated, and at the same time, fascinating and non-cheesy.

Visual: 4 ½ stars

The dialogue in this film is snappy and fun. Although not deep in levels of context, it’s entertaining. No favorite lines spring to mind, but it’s always fun to imitate pirate lingo.

Dialogue: 3 ½ stars

As soon as it’s feasible, I will be purchasing both the first and second films on DVD as well as a ticket to the next feature. I don’t claim to have heard any rumors regarding this movie’s follow-up, but the end is an obvious clue that we haven’t seen the end of the story.

Alternate viewing choice: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
IMDB site
Official site (you’ll need to download the latest version of Flash)
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Sunday, August 06, 2006

The Matador (2005)

Bang!
Director: Richard Shepard
Venue: DVD
DVD Features: making of, commentary, deleted scenes, radio program, trailers

Once again, I’ve been misled by another trailer. (I should start a list.) The trailer for The Matador never peaked my interest. I thought, “Oh great, yet another Pierce Brosnan spy/action flick.” However, the opportunity to see it came my way and we all know that Neko never passes up a free movie. I’m glad I gave it a chance, because it was not at all what I expected. Brosnan plays a hit man, employed by a certain mysterious party, but, he’s cracking up, losing it, and the wires in his head are getting crossed. Enter Greg Kinnear (i.e. comic relief)

The two characters meet in Mexico. Both are there for business, each of a different sort, of course. They share a few drinks, go to a bullfight, and become sort of awkward friends. They are definitely a mismatched pair. That’s where the comedy derives from. I expected the comedy in this to be cheesy at best, but I was once again surprised. The Matador manages a good blend of laughs and excitement. Julian Noble (Brosnan) begins to find that he can’t handle “the business” anymore, but he can’t get his employer to give him a vacation. So, he travels the world on a few more jobs until one goes awry. Now, he finds himself on the hit list and there’s only one person he can go to for help. Although, in most regards, the plot of this film isn’t terribly original, it’s pulled off very well. My only gripe is, “Couldn’t they have thought up a better title?”

Plot: 3 1/2 stars

Brosnan, of course is a fine actor. When I first saw Kinnear appear in the film, I rolled my eyes. I’ve never liked the characters Kinnear played in any film. I suppose that it’s not the man’s acting ability that I dislike, but the roles he chooses to play. So, I thought that his role in the Matador would be equally as irritating. While he does play somewhat similar to his previous roles, it somehow works well to juxtapoz Brosnan’s role. The supporting cast does a fine job as well, but these two men steal the show.

Acting: 5 stars

The Matador is as exciting as it is funny. Sure, there are no car chases, I don’t recall any explosions, and there certainly isn’t any Kung Fu. However, there is an element of danger, suspense, and anxiety. Whenever Julian shows up, tension is built from wondering what this man will do next and how he’s going to screw up. And then, on top of that, is Danny (Kinnear) going to go along with his hair-brained plans, or back out? There’s also the fact that Julian Noble is employed as a hit man and that’s exciting too.

Action: 2 ½ stars

The lack of international flavor that I experienced with Munich, was made up for with The Matador. Firstly, when the scene switches to a new country, a great, big, full-screen title announces the new venue. Sure, it sounds dopey, but it’s actually kinda cool. Secondly, when the title flashes, “MEXICO”, the sun is bright and tropical, the atmosphere is laid back, and the bartender speaks Spanish. It really feels like Mexico. When the title says, “RUSSIA”, the flavor of the scene changes completely. There are pictures of monuments and recognizable landmarks. The weather is appropriate, the costumes are appropriate and all the intangible essence of the place comes alive. The cinematography is superb and the sets are very well done.

Visual: 4 1/2 stars

Since most of the tension and comedy in the film stems from the dialogue, it would have been difficult to make the movie as entertaining without it. There aren’t any lines out of place or mismatched with the characters. However, I like to find catch phrases in movies that would make a good tattoo, neat to work into daily dialogue, or plaster on a t-shirt. There weren’t any in The Matador.

Dialogue: 3 ½ stars

To summarize, The Matador is a worthwhile movie experience. It wasn’t at all what I expected, and didn’t disappoint. Macey and Kinnear are a good match and the movie has all the elements for an entertaining evening in front of the DVD player. I’m not going to be purchasing the DVD however, because I don’t think the film has repeat viewing value.

Alternate viewing choice: The Man Who Wasn’t There
IMDB site
Official site
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Munich (2005)

This is how depressed you'll be
Director: Steven Spielberg
Venue: DVD
DVD Features: audio, subtitles, intro by Spielberg

The movie Munich was inspired by the terrorist abduction and massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. It features actual television news coverage from the event. However, instead of focusing on the attack itself, the movie revolves around the subsequent activities of a team of agents assigned to hunt down the men responsible. It centers on the man chosen to lead these clandestine activities and the psychological effects the mission has on him.

Munich is heavily charged with political commentary that is as relevant now as it was in 1972. I imagine that is why Spielberg chose to release this movie when he did. I also think this director likes to make movies from time to time that remind the film making community that he’s still very Jewish. Not being much of a history buff, and not having been around in 1972, I wasn’t previously aware of the Olympic tragedy in Munich. My lack of knowledge, however, didn’t detract from my enjoyment of the film. The opening scenes give enough background of the event to prepare the audience for the rest of the movie and does so quickly and actively enough to hold its interest. The movie’s basis on true events also serves to generate more of a desire to focus on what’s happening between the various players involved.

Plot: 4 stars

I really enjoyed the way Munich showed how effected these men were by everything going on around them. I found the acting in the movie convincing. The decline of the main character’s state of mind is consistent and apparent. It seems believable for a man in his situation. The men on his team are made up of the usual assortment of specialists, like an episode of Mission Impossible or The A-Team. There is the explosives specialist, the testosterone junky, and the clean-up expert. In this regard, Munich lost points for originality.

Acting: 3 stars

As should be expected of any espionage drama, there are plenty of action sequences. Although there isn’t much in the way of hand-to-hand combat, the movie is loaded with explosions and gunplay. Munich fills the in-between moments with tension and suspense. All of these ingredients are well paced and there aren’t any dull or boring scenes.

Action: 4 stars

The only category in which this Spielberg feature seriously lacks, is atmosphere. Although a large majority of the story takes place on foreign soil, there isn’t much of an international feel. Whether it was a sunny day in Italy, a rainy night in Brussels, or an industrial compound in Lebanon, I still felt like I hadn’t left the Hollywood lot. It takes more than a backdrop of the Eiffel Tower to make Paris come alive. Likewise, it takes more than a few colorful explosions to impress me.

Visual: 2 stars

Avner (Eric Bana) and his team are charged with the task of assassinating the 11 Palesinian men behind the athlete’s deaths. All of them are Jewish and, consequently, Munich is peppered with dialogue illustrating the characters’ convictions and beliefs. There are several points in the film, during which, the men involved question whether or not what they’re doing is right or justified. However, even the conversations that required subtitles didn’t do much to convince me of the regional differences.

Dialogue: 3 ½ stars

In summary, Munich was a satisfying cinematic experience. I neglected to view any of the DVD’s special features, but I do know that an intro by the director is available as an option to preceed the film. If you are into international espionage, Munich is solid, but don’t expect any James Bond type romance. Rent this movie only if you’ve got 2 hours and 44 minutes of uninterrupted viewing time (it sounds longer than it feels). This is definitely a movie that you’ll regret not giving your full attention to.

Alternate viewing choice: Syriana
IMDB site
Official site
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Friday, July 14, 2006

Superman Returns (2006)



Director: Bryan Singer
Venue: theater
Starring: Bryan Singer, Kate Bosworth, Parker Posey
Trailer

Neko's Rating:
Plot: 3 stars
Acting: 3 stars
Action: 3 stars
CGI: 4 stars
Dialogue: 3 stars

Review:

So they finally made another Superman movie, eh? There seems to be a rash of superhero movies being released lately. I’d be curious to know what Christopher Reeves thinks of the new guy. Naturally, the new film will be compared to it’s prequels by reviewers, audiences, and pop media. There will be no exception here.

The movie opens with Superman’s return to Earth after a long quest to find the remains of his home planet, Krypton. While he was away, the rest of the world has been going about its business, especially Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth). She’s got a new man and a son in tow, as well as a Pulitzer Prize she earned for her article entitled, “Why the world doesn’t need Superman”. Uh oh, looks like someone is bitter. The plot of the film centers around two issues: the relationship between Lois and Superman (Bryan Singer) and Lex Luthor‘s new plan to drown a large portion of the U.S. So, what else is new?

Now, let’s pick this sucker apart. Plot. Watching a Superman movie is much like watching an episode of Scooby Doo or Sailor Moon. The same thing basically happens in each one. I think I can excuse this movie’s lack of originality in light of the fact that it’s been so long since the previous film. New audiences need to be with the way the writers kept the continuity of the story line intact. Lex Luthor is out of prison and I love the explaination of why he was released. Sure, Superman brings the baddies in, but does he ever appear in court? Good point. I also enjoyed the fact that Lois’s new fella isn’t an unlikeable replacement. Otherwise, it would be easy to hate him and begrudge Lois for making poor choices. Lane also has a son and he seems to be the only one to notice the similarity between Clark Kent and the Man of Steel. I have one question though. The way I understand it, Kryptonite is part of Superman’s home planet. So, shouldn’t exposure to Kryptonite make him just like a normal guy? If that’s true, why does he always get his ass kicked when his powers are taken away? I mean, the guy is pretty buff to begin with. Shouldn’t he be able to fight like a really buff human could?

Acting. My favorite casting choice is the new Lex Luthor. I’m not going to mention who the new actor is, but I never thought anyone could replace Gene Hackman as the arch nemesis. I was pleasantly surprised! The part is played with just as much villany, but not as much goofy. In fact, the new Luthor seems to be a lot better at planning than before. His sidekick is played by Parker Posey. I’m not her biggest fan. Think “Blade Trinity” without the fangs (literally and figuratively). Bryan Singer does, in fact, make a good Superman/Kent. He’s got the strong jaw, trademark curl, and sparkling smile required for the job. Oh, and he doesn’t look bad in tights either. I think Singer does a good job and I hope he doesn’t get too much flack for trying to fill Reeve’s costume. How about Lois Lane? No, I can’t say that I’m happy with Kate Bosworth as a replacement. Visually, I think she’s too manly and she comes off as a complete bitch during the entire film. Margot Kidder needn’t loose sleep over her status as the best Lois ever.

Action. For the most part, the action flows nicely in Superman Returns. Aside from the first half hour or so, there aren’t any long periods of boredom. I don’t have any complaints about the camera angles or the choreography. There weren’t any scenes that had me at the edge of my seat either.

CGI. Obviously, a superhero movie in this day and age is going to be chock full of special effects. Although they weren’t particularly astounding, I think they were relatively seamless and believeable. My favorite CGI scene is when Lois and family are rescued from the sinking ship. I think it was more the style in which it’s done, rather than the graphics particularly, but it was cool nonetheless.

Dialogue. The dialogue, like the action, was well done, but not fantastic. I don’t remember any moment where I laughed out loud at any of the comedy. I also can’t recall any lines that would make a good tattoo. However, I don’t think I moaned in disgust either. So-so.

In summary, I definitely recommend going to see Superman Returns. It’s fun and worth what I paid for admission to see it on the big screen. Fans of the old movies won’t be disappointed. However, if you’re unfamiliar with the Superman saga, you might want to bone up with some rentals first.

Alternate viewing choice: Spiderman 2
Official Site
IMDB Site
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***