Non-Stop

Posted on February 28, 2014 by Tom

Release: Friday, February 28, 2014

[Theater]

In this episode, Liam’s on a mission to make sure one hundred and fifty million doll-hairs are transferred into the proper account otherwise. . . . .well, you can probably guess what the otherwise is.

This is another one of those instances where you can glean everything you need to know about the film — for the better or for the worse — just by taking a quick look at the poster. Does it catch your eye? No? Well then enjoy spending your time watching the Son of God movie this weekend, what looks to be a made-for-TV film that already seems to be faring much worse than this action-thriller.

Needless to say, this weekend isn’t exactly jam-packed with high-quality releases. Priorities are elsewhere, as are the great actors and actresses. Well, with the exception of a pair found in Non-Stop, a thriller about a packed flight that gets hijacked, terrorized and perhaps scariest of all, seriously Liam Neeson-ed.

Neeson and Julianne Moore together bring much-needed gravitas to a story that shoots first and answers questions later. But whereas the ‘shooting’ and suspense-building aspects are quite compelling, director Jaume Collet-Serra — and I love this — who is known for Unknown, as well as Orphan, doesn’t really know how to provide logical, inventive solutions to what is admittedly an intriguing puzzle, a veritable whodunnit at 35,000 feet.

When Bill Marks (Neeson), an experienced albeit troubled air marshal receives a series of threats via text message on a secure network on his 6-plus-hour flight to London, his blood boils. Now, instead of getting to join the Mile High Club with his cute seat-mate Jen (Moore), he has to jump into action to save the entire plane full of “innocent” passengers from impending doom. God, work is such a pain in the ass.

It’s a film in which anyone and everyone can and does become a suspect — most importantly, Bill Marks himself. It’s a film where trailers undersell the production and in this particular case, that’s a very good thing. Attention spans are likely to be held far longer than what the previews might suggest due to some surprising twists and turns throughout.

Unfortunately, this plane ride is rigged with one twist too many, and it’s the major one that really does some damage. As one expects from the Liam Neeson action vehicle, a fair amount of liberties are bound to be taken. To that end, Non-Stop falls short of the impressive 2008 thriller Taken, a movie where Neeson is given the green light to single-handedly slaughter half of Western Europe. It falls quite short of the bodycount of that film for sure, but surprisingly the implications of both situations are almost on par with one another, with Taken bearing only a slight advantage in that department as well. However, and to reiterate, the last twenty minutes of this pulse-pounder threaten to tear apart the film with some heavy-handed (and slightly awkwardly placed) political points and a discreditable reveal.

This isn’t one that you can easily separate from many time-conscious, white-knuckle thrill-rides but it does just enough to leave a somewhat lasting impression. It’ll be good for audiences who find themselves wanting some excitement in the earlygoing of 2014, but needless to say it’s going to be far better for Mr. Neeson’s wallet.

Now, who wants some frequent flyer mileage after seeing this? I’m giving all of mine away because I am sure as Neeson never stepping foot on an airplane again.

Recommendation: Fan of Liam Neeson? Appreciate taut suspenseful films that don’t drain your patience completely? Non-Stop delivers, despite the god-awful title. It is good at immersing the viewer in the experience of flying, so if you add any personal biases for or against traveling in a little metal tube at 500 miles an hour thousands of feet above the Earth’s surface, the experience only improves. This film was a nice surprise. Not great, but it will do.

Rated: PG-13

Running Time: 106 mins.

Quoted: “I’m not hijacking this plane; I’m trying to save it!”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.impawards.com; http://www.imdb.com

Top Ten Action Films Seen In The Last Year: Digital Shortbread

Posted on February 28, 2014 by Tom

Thanks very kindly to my friend Zoe at the fabulous Sporadic Chronicles blog for posting up my selection of the Best Action/Thriller films I had seen in the last year (December ’12 to December ’13). I am honored to be featured on such a quality site and hope you all have a chance to go and check out not only my list but her writing as well.

The Sporadic Chronicles

Tom from Digital Shortbread rose gloriously to the occasion of submitting a Top Ten list to my site, and he brought an interesting theme to the table: Top Ten Actions Films Seen In The Last Year. Well, this list was tons of fun. If you have not checked out Tom’s site, I would highly recommend that you stop by and have a look see what is going on, and how much pie he awards any and all things that he comes across. Well-written and presented reviews and plenty of cool features, Digital Shortbread is the place to be!

Should you be interested in submitting a Top Ten list, draw up a list of either your top ten personal favourite movies or a top ten list by a specific genre/theme and send it along to me at sporadiczoe@hotmail.com. Hope to see a few more lists!

In the past year, I have…

View original post 1,101 more words

TBT: Munich (2005)

Posted on February 27, 2014 by Tom

And finally we come to the closing ceremonies of the Olympic theme TBT this February. Thank you all for joining in on the fun, and I hope you have enjoyed the spirit of competitive action for the last couple of weeks. Which TBT was your favorite event? Your least? Any surprises? With one entry left to go for today, maybe it’s this one. Despite it not having anything to do with the Winter Olympics, this last installment still touches on the Summer Games, and in a way that no other film has before. Personally, I think I discovered my favorite film of the Olympic TBTs and am very glad I didn’t go with my original choice.

Today’s food for thought: Munich.

Release: My Birthday, 2005 🙂

[Netflix]

May there never be another like the Games of the XX Olympiad in Munich, Germany.

Really, the nation has never had the best of luck when it comes time for them to play host to this global stage of sports competition, since the 1936 Summer Games took place in Berlin during the height of the Nazi regime. Nearly four decades later and the Olympic flame is yet again doused by the murky waters of political tension when two Israeli competitors are murdered and another nine are taken hostage only to be killed later as well. Instead of being known as the Summer Games in Munich, the far more popular term thrown around when referring to the event sadly has become quite simply ‘the Munich Massacre.’

Steven Spielberg was keen on limiting the focus of the better part of the film’s three hours on the Games themselves, instead opting for an increasingly disturbing and suspenseful journey to find the men responsible for the attacks. A counter-terrorist unit was assembled in an effort to eliminate 11 names still at large (a number that would later increase to roughly 20-30) — needles in an impossibly deep haystack. The covert mission, codenamed Operation Wrath of God, was authorized by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (here portrayed by Lynn Cohen) in order to make a statement that the world would not allow for these acts of terrorism to go unpunished. Vengeful retaliation was the name of the game, and arrest warrants simply would not do.

So a squad of assassins (known as Mossad) led by Avner (Eric Bana) and including sharpshooters Steve (Daniel Craig), Carl (Ciarán Hinds), and Hans (Hanns Zischler) and bomb-maker/diffuser Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz) were tasked with carrying out the highly risky mission, unforeseen challenges and implications lurking around every corner. Perhaps the greatest threat of all that loomed over each and every one of them, though, was the psychological aspect to the activities they would be engaging in over the course of several years. In Spielberg’s masterful recreation of this extraordinary mission, it is Bana’s Avner who suffers this the most. When he finally returns to his wife and newborn daughter, he is overwhelmed with paranoia, traumatized by the things he had seen, and generally unable to separate his personal and professional lives anymore.

This is of course to suggest that the film is broken up into three well-defined phases — the first of which sets the stage for the dramatics forthcoming by bloodily depicting the initial hostage situation in Munich; the second focuses on the Mossad mission itself and the subsequent fall-out and finally the last half hour or so of the film spends its time on the lingering, long-term effects of the Olympic Games on Germany and Israel in equal measure, simultaneously addressing the covert operation’s impacts on its key players. Bana is spectacular in selling the latter.

Grief-stricken by being separated from his family for so long, he is also plagued with horrible nightmares of the terrorist acts and of a much larger-scale vision of what his actions say about his political and religious affiliations. As a German-born Jew, Avner is a complex and morally conflicted lead role who bears the brunt of the film’s emotional component. He may have been the Dr. Banner/The Hulk at one point, but this is a substantially dramatic role that he makes entirely his own. The rest of the supporting characters form quite the entertaining repartee, with Daniel Craig’s Steve often playing the comic relief in a film that’s reticent to take its subject matter lightheartedly.

Though he’d be quick to brush it aside because he is none other than Mr. Steven Spielberg and quite acclimated to receiving praise (and so he should be), much credit still should be bestowed upon this legendary director for balancing the humorous and dramatic aspects throughout. Without touching up what is essentially a horror story with some sense of humor, the tragic and disturbing nature of the contents would be suffocating and difficult to plod through. It’s tough enough as it is.

Munich is, with the obvious exception of Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg’s bloodiest and darkest epic. It also features a level of social and political complexity that might be unmatched by any of his other works. Spielberg is, for lack of a better word, a thoughtful director, evidenced by his unwillingness to draw specific conclusions about the conflict that arose in the midst of these Olympic Games. He paints a horrifying picture of a world gone mad as it pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian disagreement. He doesn’t afford a great deal of dignity to the assassins trying to avenge the deaths of the Olympic athletes, nor does he much care to judge the opposition, either. He walks a tightrope that had to have been intensely difficult to cross, and while the film did spark controversy, Spielberg ultimately managed to strike a balance between Hollywood drama and real-world drama. Without a doubt that would be a very tough challenge to face, something perhaps any other director might not have been able to handle with such aplomb.

What happened in Munich is, in a word, dismaying. Since the events occurred in 1972 there has been no shortage of terrorist activity across the globe, and there’s been no sign of these disturbances slowing down or lessening in their intensity or frequency. We occupy shared space, something that may sound like a simple concept but is inherently not. This isn’t a game of Sims wherein every action is mostly harmless and bears no consequence. People are animals. This isn’t what the movie tried to tell us, but it is a notion I have not only had for some time, but one that has been cemented by an experience like this one.

Recommendation: Often uncomfortable viewing, Munich‘s existence is also important. Perhaps even essential. Incredibly well-crafted and visually arresting, the scope and depth of the material will most likely appeal to more politically-minded viewers, though it is in no way an elitist film. I encourage anyone who wants to watch a thoroughly engaging film who has yet to see Spielberg’s near-masterpiece to devote some time out of their day to this one. It may even be a new favorite Spielberg film for yours truly. Whatever that may mean to you.

Rated: R

Running Time: 164 mins.

Quoted: “We inhabit a world of intersecting secrecies, living and dying at the places where these secrecies meet. This is what we accept.”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.imfdb.org; http://www.imdb.com

Pompeii

Posted on February 23, 2014 by Tom

Release: Friday, February 21, 2014

[Theater]

No warning. No escape. No plot. No problem. . .

. . .at least, to an extent. The thing about disaster films is that not a great deal is expected out of them, so it’s a little difficult to believe anyone who says they left the theater having seen one and felt nothing but disappointment. Were these people expecting some profound statement on the human condition whilst entire populations descended into chaos, or that certain and total annihilation metaphorically signaled “the beginning of something new” for all those involved?

Expectation levels for the genre are (or should be) uniformly pretty low: as long as big shit explodes in spectacular fashion, and a cute guy has a chance to meet (and maybe even finally kiss) a cute gal, everyone should go home happy. The forced romance that appears in virtually every story involving a natural catastrophe proves these sorts of things aren’t the entertainment one seeks out for a cerebral exercise. By that token its also proof that disaster films are orgies in which the eyeball gets to participate.

But for Pompeii, I’m going to play devil’s advocate and risk undermining everything I just have argued for above. This film had real potential to rise above the smoldering ashes of typical special effects-laden action films. Is this the one that can buck the trend?

Given that this one is based on real events and that its first half concerns itself with the lives of slaves who are converted into bloodthirsty gladiators, there was hope. However, a certain level of dissatisfaction comes from the fact that the solitary goal of the film then becomes showing how destructive Mother Nature can be by building up a romance and destroying it just as quickly. If we can’t appreciate that an entire city is about to be scorched into the ground (literally) perhaps there’s a chance we feel empathy towards a young love about to go down in flames. . . . (Sorry for the pun. I was actually really hoping to keep this one free of those, but. . . guess not.)

Milo (Kit Harington) bore witness to his entire family and townspeople’s butchering as a wee lad, at the hands of the terrible Senator Corvus (Kiefer Sutherland) and Proculus (Sasha Roiz). Subsequently sold into slavery as an orphan, Milo would know no other life than misery. That’s until a horse changes everything. That’s right, a horse. No, not the Trojan thing that tricked a bunch of stupid people into lowering their guard, but the kind that falls over when the carriage it’s pulling hits a convenient pothole in the dirt road. Milo requests that he be let off the chain to help the horse and get the high-ranking officials, including the token girl Cassia (Emily Browning), on their way to the festival that’s ongoing in the beautiful bay area of Pompeii, a town tucked into the foothills of an ominous-looking volcano — Mt. Vesuvius.

Milo’s single act of kindness scores him some brownie points with the beautiful daughter of Pompeii’s ruler Severus (Jared Harris) and wife, Aurelia (Carrie-Anne Moss), a development intended to create the romantic heartbeat of this ill-fated story. However, this is a woefully underdeveloped relationship that distracts from an otherwise action-packed affair. It’s so poorly realized in fact, that in one fell swoop my theory is confirmed that the only two things needed in the disaster film are dramatic explosions that cause bystanders to go flying into things that you really don’t want to go flying into, and the compulsory romance element. But this is a romance without romance at all. It doesn’t help that neither the acting nor the script are very sturdy.

What’s more to the point here, though, is that director Paul W.S. Anderson chooses to introduce historical weight to the proceedings and then bails on the idea at the last second. Gladiator battles may extend into the ending moments, but they exist at this point just as an excuse to show the badassery set against an even more badass backdrop. Watching Milo (a.k.a. ‘The Celt’) duke it out with his sworn enemies in Corvus and Proculus while fireballs are falling like bombs around them is entertaining to a certain degree. But the fighting is academic knowing that this mountain has just blown its top.

Other options Anderson might have explored include the politics of Roman Emperor Titus (who never makes an appearance in the film) and how the town of Pompeii is directly impacted by them; or how about the devastation and its impact on the Roman empire? Even the nature of Milo and Cassie’s so-called love affair and how it goes against the grain of relationships in this hostile society could have been intriguing if we were shown specifically why it was a forbidden love and not just told that it was so. For all of the attention the director gives Harrington and Browning, he doesn’t know how to make them matter in the slightest. Hence the disappointingly quiet conclusion.

With that said, it’s a simple-minded outing and because it is, there shouldn’t be much of a surprise that Pompeii is nothing more than middling. The marketing for the film blasted any hopes of this being an accurate rendering of a terrifying time in Italy’s colorful history. When the promotional poster features a couple kissing before an erupting giant like Mt. Vesuvius, we knew we were being duped before the duping officially began. All the same, the film upholds at least part of the bargain: the action sequences are intense. When the volcano decides to rain all over everyone’s parade (or Senator Corvus’ rigged gladiator battle, if you rather) the action is relentless until the end. As well, the sparring and fighting earns its keep, even despite the glaring lack of blood and gore that should accompany any gladiator fight.

So the disaster film that is Pompeii is ultimately predictable and frustratingly lackluster in equal doses but it finds a way to maintain interest in the action/adrenaline department. As well, the eruption effects are impressive. This is no Dante’s Peak, Volcano or other volcanic activity-related films whose CGI now look embarrassing by comparison.

Recommendation: Genre fans will find the last half of the film quite entertaining, but even these folks are sure to find the many cracks in the story disappointing, maybe even irritating. Given the set-up in the first hour, the climax is less than it should be, considering we know what exactly awaits this town when the mountain/gods eventually lose its/their temper. This is a pretty easy one to avoid, at least until it becomes available for streaming.

Rated: PG-13

Running Time: 98 mins.

Quoted: “The slave that lives earns their freedom.”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.impawards.com; http://www.imdb.com

3 Days to Kill

Posted on February 22, 2014 by Tom

Release: Friday, February 21, 2014

[Theater]

Yes, we are indeed struggling through February, aren’t we? Officially in the shadow of Judgment Day, otherwise known as the 86th Academy Awards Ceremony — an event so big its given a whole new name to the day on which it falls. Oscars Sunday has all but ensured that the six-ish weeks leading up to it will be filled with film releases that don’t even bother trying to be good.

For anyone who doesn’t have a cot set up in back of their local theater, this time period makes no difference, but for those who consider the theater home away from home already know January and February to be the infamously treacherous part of the calendar year. To have so much influence as to cause quality filmmakers to go into hibernating for a couple of months is the kind of influence I’d like to have. That’s power you can’t buy, but that good old Oscar has.

Kevin Costner gives off a similar effect in his latest film 3 Days to Kill, a film that from the outside looks like a terribly lazy afterthought of an action-thriller. Costner lumbers across the screen with a sense of sarcasm and indifference towards the material that just screams he’s getting paid pretty handsomely to be “that guy.” That guy we all wish we were because he effortlessly gets his way with the baddies; that guy we all wish we were because he gets to stand beside Amber Heard in yet another over-the-top provocative role; that guy we all wish we were because he gets the best of both worlds — being the biggest box office draw for the film and being the best thing about it (coincidence, I think not).

But I will not lie to you, I went to see this for Amber Heard. I know, I know, there goes all my credibility. . .

In McG’s latest directorial effort, “that guy” is a dying Secret Service agent named Ethan Renner who is particularly good at his job but not at being a family man. He has spent years away from wife Christine (Connie Nielsen) and has barely known his daughter Zoey (Hailee Steinfield) but when he learns he has a terminal cancer, he tries his hardest to get back in contact with them in Paris, where they currently live. But due to a development during a mission shown at the opening of the film, we realize his work life will seemingly never leave him alone. A mysterious and unapologetically attractive agent, Vivi (Heard) tracks him down and offers him an experimental drug that could improve his life span, in exchange for one last job. He is tasked with finding and killing ‘The Wolf,’ a really, really bad man who has done a bunch of bad stuff.

Now Ethan finds himself in between a rock and a hard place trying to reacquaint himself with his own family and keeping them out of danger — which is what he apparently has been doing by being separated from them for years. His guilt over the circumstances is met with cold indifference from Vivi, and his wife and daughter aren’t fans of him at first to say the least. Slowly though, Zoey allows Ethan into her life when mom goes out of town on a business trip, leaving Ethan with the parental responsibilities. This is all while he’s coughing and spluttering like a baby refusing Gerber’s food, an ailment his daughter finds ‘annoying’ but isn’t aware is actually a serious problem.

The sum total of 3 Days to Kill is a surprisingly entertaining movie about mixing business with personal lives. Indeed it’s a release in the dreaded month of February, but watching a Kevin Costner having fun with a considerably underdeveloped story is an experience actually worth having. Even Heard doesn’t take herself too seriously this time around, which has been the issue I’ve had in defending her as a decent actress all this time. She is not great in this one either, but she shares a few moments with Costner that do nothing but slap a goofy grin on the viewer’s face.

There are many moments when the pair aren’t sharing the screen that offer up some good chuckles as well. A scene in which Ethan is extracting cooking advice from one of his hostages and giving it to his daughter on the phone right before he proceeds to presumably torture the poor Italian. . .with duct tape. . .stands out above the rest. Ethan gets to know a man named Mitat (Marc Andréoni) who is a loving husband and father of two “good” girls, but who also suffers from dirty hand syndrome thanks to his shady business dealings with Ethan’s targets. Together they form a mismatched pair of men trying to do the right thing but failing more often than succeeding. Their repeated mistakes are a bit baffling, but in a movie like this trying to wring logic from the film is a little like peeing into the wind.

3 Days to Kill does fall into that ever-broadening category of being dumb, loud entertainment but at this stage in the game, that’s as good as it is going to get prior to the Oscars ceremony. An action-thriller that’s unburdened by standards and expectations, and has no chance of being remembered in two months’ time, McG has had far worse to offer. Surely there are going to be contenders for much more quality-depraved releases this time of year.

She ain’t talkin’ to nun of ya’s . . .

Recommendation: A film that is much better than it had any right to be, 3 Days to Kill offers fun and engaging action sequences with an emphasis on family values. At times the two themes conflict in very distracting ways but more often than not the film is harmless fun, especially seeing Kevin Costner all but sleepwalk through the role of an estranged father/husband while getting hit on by a sumptuous Vivi. It’s all ridiculous, but isn’t this why you’re curious about this review in the first place?

Rated: PG-13

Running Time: 113 mins.

Quoted: “Hello, I am a Guido.”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.impawards.com; http://www.imdb.com

TBT: Cool Runnings (1993)

Posted on February 20, 2014 by Tom

East Tennessee weather, Jamaican me crazy. It’s been unseasonably warm these past couple of days even for our standards. As I’m blogging today I’m sitting outside in shorts and t-shirt in February, and the thought just crossed my mind that today’s entry is twice as appropriate. We have a movie that will not only warm the hearts, but one that should warm up the body after watching nearly a fortnight of winter Olympic competition — a movie about the first Jamaican Olympic bobsled team. Even though these winter games are my preferred version, I really am not a fan of the cold, and I’m really slacking on my winter activities as of late. I haven’t skied in nearly two years. And I sure as hell have never been in a bobsled, or know anyone who bobsleds for sport or as a career. So what, exactly, drew me to this throwback? Simple. This is supposedly a classic sports story, one that would fit my February theme and also one that should appeal to me because it’s the winter Olympics. And, after last week’s letdown, I figured I should seek out something with a little more appeal, something that everyone knows or at least has heard something about.

Today’s food for thought: Cool Runnings.

Release: October 1, 1993

[YouTube]

Four young men from the tropical island of Jamaica learn to bond with each other as they make history in their bid to become the nation’s first Olympic bobsled team.

If you’re a director taking on the task of crafting a sports drama, you are well aware of the nature of the challenge you’re up against. It’s no secret that this genre is rich in cliché, steeped in emotional manipulation, and burdened by an ever-deepening track of a formulaic storyline. Those who appreciate these kinds of films are able to overlook the pitfalls because if there’s one thing they do right, its that they remind us that sometimes real-world events play out in a dramatic fashion that can sometimes surpass the drama that fictitious films provide. As great as the next Christopher Nolan saga may be, there’s escapism in recounting the amazing feats performed by “ordinary” people (read: those who do not spend their lives in the performance arts). If you’re that director or that actor involved in the sports-moment recreation process, you have a wonderful opportunity and responsibility to cause audiences to sit back and think, “Wow, imagine that.”

Cool Runnings is a film that checks all of the boxes as far as opponents to the genre are concerned: it’s really cheesy, the story is nothing if not predictable, and the script won’t come close to receiving any nominations from stuffy high-brows. However, this is a film that has a chance to win over even the most judgmental of film snobs. John Turteltaub’s film is not only a great deal of fun, it’s soulful.

Talented track athlete Derice Bannock (Leon) has his Olympic dreams quickly dashed during a qualifying 100-meter race when he is tripped up by the small, quiet and unconfident Junior Bevil (Rawle D. Lewis) and fails to pass the finish line. However, he’s not quick to give up hope entirely when he bumps into a large man by the name of Irv Blitzer (John Candy), a two-time Olympic bobsled winner who was teammates with Derice’s father a good many years ago. Derice’s fierce determination and genuine likability slowly — and here’s the manipulative aspect coming into the fold — but surely convinces the recently-turned-bookie to put together an unlikely team for a shot at the 1988 Winter Olympic Games in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The team is required to have a total of four, so Derice drafts Junior and the other track athlete involved in the tripping incident, a hard-headed jock named Yul Brenner (Malik Yoba) to round out the numbers.

Often times in films that have such an extraordinary set of circumstances unfolding the director’s greatest challenge — ignoring the avoiding sports cliches (which is damn near impossible to begin with) — is setting up a premise that will not only make sense, but that will fit the blueprint of a 90ish-minute movie. Given the odds against team Jamaica in these winter games, it wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine this movie potentially clocking in at over two and a half hours, considering the vast amount of detail Turteltaub could have injected.

Opting for a fast-paced and heartwarming experience set to the beat of an inspirational tone, he opted to exclude a great many developments that may have occurred in reality in order to suit the Disney image. This results in a few of the major moments in Cool Runnings coming across as contrived and seemingly underdeveloped. While it’s ludicrous to think that the same four men who were unable to control a slapped-together chunk of metal down grassy Jamaican hillsides are the same four who experience a modicum of success and glory at the ’88 Winter Games in the vortex of tight competition, the film is bolstered by lovable characters who make every step of the way a pleasure to take.

John Candy is as per usual a delight as the boys’ coach and team leader, a man with an axe to grind since his last Olympic attendance was blemished when it was revealed that he placed a weight at the very front of his sled, causing his Gold medals to be taken away and his reputation to become permanently tainted. With this young and obscure team from Jamaica he now finds redemption. He must overcome obstacles of his own when he discovers that one of the qualifying judges of this event is none other than his former Coach, Kurt Hemphill (Raymond J. Barry), who initially disqualifies the team out of spite. Cue the requisite inspirational speech moment in which Coach manages to sway the judging panel decision in Jamaica’s favor. It’s one of many moments that could have used some more work, but it satisfies enough

So the cynics can have their opinion. Cool Runnings isn’t perfect. Not by a long shot. But taking place of technical complexity and innovation is a vibrant, beating heart. Performances delivered by a largely unknown cast give off vibes of clever improvisation, although they likely were working from a less-than-impressive script. Doug E. Doug’s Sanka is especially memorable and together with a decent character arc provided for Lewis’ Junior, the essence of this highly improbable escapade is evident and also sufficient to consider this sports drama a successful one.

Recommendation: This section seems pretty obsolete for Cool Runnings, because I feel like I’m the last person on Earth who has seen this film. That said, if you haven’t yet, please change that. It’s a great time and makes you yearn for the days when we had films with John Candy in them. (I believe this was his third-to-last big screen appearance before his tragic death in 1994.) And I haven’t said it yet, but. . .GO TEAM JAMAICA!!!

Rated: PG

Running Time: 98 mins.

Quoted: “Feel the rhythm, feel the rhyme; get on up, it’s bobsled time! Cool Runnings!”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.bustle.com; http://www.imdb.com

A.C.O.D. (Adult Children of Divorce)

Posted on February 18, 2014 by Tom

Release: Friday, October 4, 2013

[Redbox]

If ever you wanted to test the limits of your moviegoing patience and goodwill, rent a little flick by the name of Adult Children of Divorce, or A.C.O.D. for short.

A nail biter, a fist-clencher, an intensely palm-sweating experience for all of the wrong reasons, first-time director Stu Zicherman’s romantic comedy is the most unromantic comedy this reviewer has seen in ages. So why the nail biting, fist-clenching, etcetera? Though not an exhaustive list, these are the physical reactions a viewer is likely to have while enduring a film like this. (See also: head-bashing, eyeball-gouging, and the immediate chugging of rubbing alcohol to induce permanent blindness.)

Phew. Well, after flushing the system of those reactions, I have to concede that A.C.O.D. is not quite that despicable. But it’s not a good film, not by any stretch. It strands a talented cast in a story that is exasperatingly dull, one that misses its potential like the Titanic missed its final destination. The snail’s pace and amateur plot development together result in some of the longest 87 minutes you’re likely to experience, at least while watching a comedy.

Let’s back up a little bit before I go into a full-fledged rant. The premise is about a grown man, Carter (played by Adam Scott) whose parents have been divorced for most of his life and haven’t so much as spoken for the majority of that time. When his younger brother Trey (Clark Duke) drops the news of his upcoming wedding to his “super hot girlfriend,” Carter’s horrified to learn that Trey wants their now-remarried parents to attend the wedding. That sounds awkward enough, but the nature of Hugh (Richard Jenkins) and Melissa (Catherine O’Hara)’s separation has rubbed salt into the wound. And thus, the movie being the most unromantic romantic-comedy created in years. A family dynamic that’s this dysfunctional begs the question as to who decided this would fit the description of a rom-com.

Making matters worse, Carter learns one day that a family friend who is also a psychotherapist (Jane Lynch) has been studying people like him for years, tracking the rippling effects a divorce has on the children of separated parents. He’s unwittingly become a caricature in Dr. Judith’s book, titled ‘Children of Divorce.’ Though Carter wants to believe he only shares physical traits of those who raised him, the doc thinks there’s something lurking underneath the surface that makes him more like his parents than he’d care to admit. So she approaches him for a follow-up, a sequel to her highly successful book. She’ll call it ‘Adult Children of Divorce,’ with the intent being. . .well, that much isn’t so clear. The movie falls down on its knees in this department, providing the greatest flaw in the design.

Not only does the movie not take advantage of what appears to be, on paper anyway, a poignant statement on the nature of love and commitment in modern society, the damn thing’s not funny. Save for the odd guffaw caused by good old Richard Jenkins, everyone else in this film suffers from over-dramatization (Amy Poehler’s bitchy sorority alum Sondra, who is also Hugh’s latest wife, being the worst offender — seriously, can we please go back to the days of SNL, where she was actually funny. . .and live in that time?) and limited character development.

There’s a goldmine that Zicherman fails to tap into here. One cannot deny the appeal of the film’s title. It has real potential, although a comedic approach to the matter is questionable in the first place. With the divorce rate — as it pertains to the United States — hovering at or around 50%, a statement on the alarming rate at which the phrase ‘for as long as you both shall live’ is being cast aside- in present-day marriages should make for a really great movie. Channelling my inner Arnold Schwarzenegger here: negative.

Despite a select few moments in which Jenkins and O’Hara try their hardest to pull a rabbit out of the hat with regards to this conceit-, the vast majority of the story is bogged down in footage that would seem more useful in B-roll takes. Adult children of divorce is apparently a ‘real’ concept, as the end credits introduces the viewer to people involved in the making of the film who describe themselves as such; it’s a shame we can’t really care by the time they introduce themselves.

Recommendation: This is a frustratingly mediocre product that begins with promise and steadily declines over the course of less than 90 minutes — and to reiterate, the film feels more like a two-hour affair than something that registers just shy of a standard full-length feature. Performances all around aren’t that memorable. If you are a die-hard Richard Jenkins fan, you might check this out but that is the most positive recommendation I can really give the film. Otherwise, it’s a squandering of potential in any other way.

Rated: R

Running Time: 87 mins.

Quoted: “You know, the thing about Portuguese whores is some are born in Portugal, some are born in Africa. It’s a real mix.”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.moviefone.com; http://www.imdb.com

RoboCop

Posted on February 14, 2014 by Tom

Release: Wednesday, February 12, 2014

[Theater]

It takes guts to be RoboCop. Almost quite literally, nothing more and nothing less.

Swedish hunk Joel Kinnaman assumes the iconic role of Detroit police officer Alex Murphy in José Padilha’s controversial decision to ignore the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality, as it were. Kinnaman (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; Easy Money) trusted in the material enough to provide his signature on this modern reboot — a film that features impressive visual flare but perhaps not quite enough intelligence to fully justify its existence for the legions of fans of the original.

Given the overwhelming disappointment associated with the 2012 repackaging of Total Recall, the cause for concern over revisiting another of Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi classics is more than understandable. Fortunately, it was mostly overblown. Padilha doesn’t do anything with the material that’s revolutionary, but, like the predicament facing the half-machine, half-human protagonist, there are just enough parts laying about to construct something out of what appears to be nothing.

Alex Murphy is one of many of Detroit’s finest, seen at the beginning of the film tracking down a local crime boss named Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow). He’s patrolling dangerous streets in the year 2028, in an era where great controversy has been stirred over the concept of replacing entire (human) police forces with robots and machines. Fueling the debate is the immense tech conglomeration OmniCorp whose CEO, Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton), is particularly interested in adopting a new method for keeping the domestic peace. The United States has already been implementing robots-as-soldiers over seas, where they have proved to be effective at eliminating threats, while preserving the lives of soldiers who would ordinarily be in their place. But it goes a little beyond that for Sellars. He’s looking for not just another blunt instrument, he’s searching for the right gimmick that he can sell to the public in an effort to increase his company’s (ergo his personal) stock.

As luck would have it, it would be an early Christmas for Sellars. When a bomb that Vallon’s men plant underneath Detective Murphy’s car detonates upon his opening of the driver’s side door, the officer is left with fourth degree burns over 80% of his body and a slim chance of survival. OmniCorp’s brilliant medical staff, spearheaded by Dr. Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman), pounces on the opportunity to put a man inside a machine. It is hoped that the marriage of a human conscience to the calculating perfection of advanced robot technology would create the ideal law enforcer. And so begins the film’s ethical tug-of-war: at what point does man stop and machine begin? Does it make sense to strip away some of Murphy’s stronger emotions so as to ensure the organic part of the robot complies with “company policy?” Is ‘ideal’ really the right word to describe Murphy’s unique situation?

The moral dilemma at hand, which is emphasized by the performance of the reliable-as-ever Gary Oldman, is this contemporary crime satire’s real strengths. (Well, that and the suit — it is entirely badass.) Joshua Zetumer’s screenplay strikes an uncomfortable balance (in a good way) between medical, social and political ethics. All three converge at a point, through Kinnaman’s portrayal of Murphy’s struggle. He turns out to be an incredibly effective weapon that quickly cleans up Detroit’s streets, but he lacks virtually everything else that once made him a father, a husband, and a good partner in the police force.

To a lesser effect, the cold and heartless way in which OmniCorp operates seems to echo society’s demands for keeping crime at zero percent. Those who portray the company’s head honchos aren’t exactly inspired. Keaton is bad at playing the human with a metaphorical robotic heart and without a conscience; ditto that to anyone else in that building not named Dennett Norton and Tom Pope (played by a surprisingly charismatic Jay Baruchel). Supporting actors are minimally used and unconvincing as well, including Murphy’s wife Clara (Abbie Cornish). Jackie Earle Haley has a little bit of fun with his role as the inexplicably hostile Rick Mattox, though his demise is supremely underwhelming.

Samuel L. Jackson plays the humorous pundit, Pat Novak, whose presence bookends the film. Though he does offer the film its few bits of comedy, he’s too distracting and ultimately plays a more trumped-up version of his real-life persona. He is an odd selection for the tone of this film.

The RoboCop of the new age is actually pretty ironic. Like it’s 27-year-old predecessor, it attempts to satirize the ineffectiveness of real-world crime-solving. Whereas Verhoeven’s much bloodier film used excessive gore to make a point, this version tones down the violence significantly to make room for a more general audience, but in so doing it loses heart. It comes across far more mechanical and seems to go through the motions in far too many scenes to generate much of a sense of identity.

That said, there are numerous action sequences throughout that provide heightened tension and cause heart rates to rise rapidly; a battle sequence in a darkened warehouse sits atop the pile of memorable scenes. Moments like this and the revelation of what Officer Murphy’s guts look like without his high-tech gadgetry protecting them allow RoboCop to squeak by and into acceptable territory, even if a great deal of the material remains as emotionally distant junk metal.

Recommendation: For anyone who hasn’t seen the 1987 version, going into the 2014 edition would prove to be a great advantage. On its own, Padilha’s vision is somewhat exciting but it’s not outstanding. As an action film, it suits just fine, especially on a day like Valentine’s Day if you’re sitting by yourself getting irritated by seeing a bunch of pink stuff all over the place. RoboCop offers a great alternative on this day in particular, but if you want a truly imaginative satirization of crime, best stick with the original on any other day.

Rated: PG-13

Running Time: 108 mins.

Quoted: “Why is America so robo-phobic?”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.impawards.com; http://www.imdb.com

TBT: Blades of Glory (2007)

Posted on February 13, 2014 by Tom

And I guess we are going to switch tones here quickly, by choosing a comedy vehicle for Mr. Will Ferrell for this Thursday. A comedy that has blades. Because that is really the only thing I can say about it that’s mostly positive and truthful; or I could lie and say something really cheesy, like. . .this is a comedy with a razor-sharp wit. Eh, that line actually sounded a lot better in my head. ANYway, moving on. . . .Today is our second edition of the Olympic throwbacks, and. . .well, to be completely truthful. . .this ain’t no world-class affair. With all due respect to figure skating, there are some subjects that not even the Ferrell school of comedy can save for podium placement.

Today’s food for thought: Blades of Glory.

Release: March 30, 2007

[Netflix]

As if it weren’t abundantly clear before, Will Ferrell will do anything to wring satire from some real world events that, admittedly, do seem ripe for comedy. Seems he really stretched himself thin here though, putting on a performance that causes more eye-rolls and face-palms than chuckles. Because his career has been molded from a prolific number of feature-length SNL skits, most of which have proven his ability to be consistently funny, there was always going to be speculation as to where and when he would take the inevitable misstep.

That moment doesn’t seem to get any more obvious than his participation in this excruciatingly bad spoof of the world of competitive figure skating. For the most part, the Will Ferrell spirit is in tact with Blades of Glory, as he is the source of the movie’s few and far between moments of chuckle-inducing comedy; but the film — directed by the people who would be responsible for 2010’s offensively unfunny The Switch — turns out to be nothing more than an Adam McKay wannabe.

It’s not like Ferrell’s many collaborations with McKay have all been successful, and even the best of their efforts have moments that tend to paint targets on the back of their heads for anyone willing to take aim at their levels of silliness. But rare is the Will Ferrell movie that is so over-the-top, so dumb that it ceases to be a movie and slowly slides into the status of being a terrible, terrible spectacle. Beginning with a premise that is as generic as a bowl of Corn Flakes, let’s hope that this is the worst Will Ferrell movie yours truly will ever lay eyes on.

Talented male ice skaters Chazz Michael Michaels (Ferrell) and Jimmy MacElroy (Jon Heder) disgrace themselves at an elite ice skating competition when their egos prove to be too unwieldy to be held upon a single podium. The result of a massive fight is their lifetime ban from the division of singles skating. Jimmy, an orphan having been raised by his coldhearted foster father (William Fichtner), is a sensitive, dignified male skater who apparently has so much grace his hair looks as though it has been plucked from the feathers of the finest quail; he’s a stark contrast to Chazz, who is described as the “leather-clad lothario” of ice skating. Fitting description, really. They forgot to add, “classless douche who soils the image of figure skating permanently, and seemingly out of spite.” Such ruination is obviously the aim here, but it seems as though the same effect could have been achieved had Ferrell not overacted so much, trying to make a terrible script work in whatever way he could.

Back to the storyline: the fruity pair of star-crossed nitwits discover a loophole in the bylaws, which would allow them to still participate in pairs skating, should they find a partner. Of course, neither of them are able to do that, and the only option they have left is to skate with each other and form the world’s first all-male skating couple. This is an opportunity first recognized by Jimmy’s former trainer (Craig T. Nelson) when he watches footage of the two fighting and realizes they seem to have chemistry. Over the next several days — they find out they have extremely limited time to put together a routine in time for the next World Skating Competition (a less cool Olympic-esque stage) — Coach attempts to tone down the pair’s hostility towards one another and get them focused on the task at hand.

There’s nothing here that should surprise: an extremely convenient storyline yielding hilariously unrealistic results. Except, scratch out the word ‘hilariously.’ The sole visual gag that truly works with this film is the chubby body of Will Ferrell, a blobby mess that is so clearly not the body of an ice skater. At the heart of this story there should be some chemistry between Ferrell and Heder, and while there is some to be found, it’s not enough to take attention away from this very poorly realized script.

The villains are even less threatening than usual here, and are portrayed by the exceedingly irritating tandem of Will Arnett and Amy Poehler. They play the brother-and-sister pair, Stranz and Fairchild Waldenberg, who are the favorites to win it all. They use their other sibling, Katie (Jenna Fischer) in an attempt to sabotage Jimmy and Chazz at every turn. This subplot is added to no great effect and comes off as filler material for an already anorexic movie.

Blades of Glory ostensibly is nothing different from the other Ferrell comedies that take a subject and make fun of it until there’s nothing left to make fun of. But it is just bad. Jokes land less often than the fabled ‘iron lotus’ trick. Heder’s act wears thin quick, and Ferrell can’t shake the shadows of some of his better creations. The rest of the cast fair no better. Even Craig T. Nelson seems to be phoning every one of his lines in. I like stupid schtick as much as the next person, but there apparently seems to be a limit to the stupidity that can pass for tolerable. The flimsiness of Blades of Glory doesn’t cut it.

Recommendation: There are far better comedy vehicles driven by one of the greatest SNL alums of all time. Unless you have literally nothing else going on, avoid this film. It skates on thin ice from beginning to end, and now it makes sense why it took me until today to actually watch this one.

Rated: PG-13

Running Time: 93 mins.

Quoted: “Chazz Michael Michaels: an ice-devouring sex tornado.”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.joblo.com; http://www.imdb.com

The Lego Movie

Posted on February 11, 2014 by Tom

Release: Friday, February 7, 2014

[Theater]

The 7-year-old in me nearly wet his bedsheets in anticipation of the first ever full-length feature film involving his favorite toys from childhood. The essential. . . . . . . . . .e-hem. . .building blocks of my youth have come to life on the big screen in 2014 in ways I never could have imagined.

In light of this special occasion, let’s make things a little more fun in this review. I am going to style this piece in an interview format, with my 7-year-old self asking my future self what a film would be like if it were ever made, and me in the present now being able to answer all (or at least most) of his questions. In the process, I’ll let him know that the many hours he spent on the carpets building up and destroying Lego villages and whatnot were not spent in vain. (Not that they were without this film, but the arrival of The Lego Movie proves that grown-ups can have just as much fun with the stuff as kids have had for years.)

Do you think they will ever make a movie with my Legos? I really like them, and I hope that they do that. I think it would be so cool!

Hey buddy, you know what? That is a really great question. And I am here to tell you that yes, yes they will. You are going to someday be watching a movie with all of your toys and characters — and a bunch of new ones you never even thought about — brought to life.

Really? Do they have any of my favorite characters in it?

Well, who were your favorite characters? I seriously can’t remember who those were! Haha. If you mean things like Spaceman Benny, the little put-together shark and maybe an alligator piece, then yes. You’ll recognize a few guys. But the rest is a bunch of insanely imaginative characters that you are just going to have to wait to grow up a little more to fully appreciate. That’s a good thing, though pal.

What happens in the movie?

Welp. It mostly focuses on this regular, average-Joe Lego man named Emmet (voiced by Chris Pratt. . .I don’t know why I just told you that, you don’t know him). He’s an obedient little construction worker who stumbles into a most unusual situation. After a typical day at work, Emmet discovers a secret power that has been lost through the ages. He comes across this thing called the Kragle, which is a huge, enormous super-weapon that, if in the wrong hands, could destroy the entire world. When he finds it, he becomes the target of the evil Lord/President Business (voiced by Will Ferrell — don’t worry, you’ll know him later), who sends his good cop/bad cop henchman out to get him and inadvertently sets the guy on a date with destiny.

. . .I’m confused.

Tee-hee. It is pretty complex. But just wait until you see this thing, and learn how many different people this ordinary guy meets! He may seem like a boring old fart (like your older self is going to inevitably become) but he’s really pretty exciting to watch. Don’t be put off by the complicated situation. Little Tom, it’s actually even better because I enjoyed the film as much as you would. . .maybe even more. And I often can’t get out of my mind sometimes and think in terms of innocent things like Legoland anymore. Although, that place is pretty awesome. . .Granddad is going to take you there sometime.

Is there a really bad guy in the movie? Am I going to be scared of him?

There is a pretty nasty villain in the movie, yes. Scared? Hmm. . .I don’t think so. He has some funny parts and yes, he’s a real mean guy but he’s not that scary. That’s what’s so good about this movie, bud. It’s really, really clever. You’ll know who’s evil and who’s nice but there’s never a point where you get really scared. It’s just good old-fashioned fun. I swear, I didn’t think they’d be making kids films like this ever since Toy Story, but I was wrong.

Toy Story, I don’t know what that is. . .

Damn it! Nevermind. . .I had a really awesome follow-up reference there but. . .apparently YOU’RE TOO YOUNG!!!

I guess. So, would mommy and daddy like this movie? To me, if they make a movie on my Legos, I don’t know how they would be interested. . .

Oh man. How they would be! The Lego Movie is going to be just as much fun for them as it’s going to be for you. In fact, I’d even argue that there’s more material here for them to think on and laugh about than little kids. There’s a lot of stuff here that could go right over you youngsters’ heads. Themes like corporate greed and monopolization (big word, right?) are just as clear as the themes of believing in yourself, and not giving up on dreams and living your life as you want to. This is a classic film for all ages, in my snobby opinion. Tee-hee.

Who’s the best character in the movie?

Wow buddy, you’re just firing out all sorts of good questions, aren’t you? That’s a tough one to answer since there are so many people to like here. But. If I just had to make a choice, it would be the Batman character, who is voiced by Will Arn. . .you know what, it’s just someone you don’t know yet. And maybe won’t ever know. But he’s awesome because he makes fun of the Batman legend so much. It’s great!

Does anyone die? I hope not.

Now that is one I can’t answer man. There’s a little thing in the movie reviewing business that we call ‘spoilers,’ information that can possibly reveal too much information about a movie so as to ruin the fun of the whole thing. So I won’t answer that one. Sorry buddy.

What was your favorite part about the movie, and do you think I would think the same thing? Do you still like Legos twenty years later?

Wow. Gosh. You know, my favorite thing about The Lego Movie was something so very simple. And so I guess I’ll answer the third part of that first: I loved, loved, loved Legos then, and I still love them to this day. The creators of that product are simply geniuses. I don’t think I have any laying around anymore, which is kind of a bummer, but I tell you, this film made me want to break out any boxes that I might still have stored at the ‘rents house. My favorite part of this movie was the way the simple shapes were realized. Those awkward, cup-shaped hands; the basic facial expressions. . .actually, some of those become more complicated in the movie, which is even better. And the fact that everything, and I do mean everything in this film is either made out of pieces of Legos or is edited using stop-motion to make the non-Lego elements move realistically (or like Lego pieces would). I’m pretty sure this is the biggest appeal for kids your age, is the Lego men. Their faces, their movements and their actions. The dialogue and story is almost more appropriate for us grown-ups.

Was there anything about it you didn’t like?

In all honesty, this was a pretty perfect little diddy. Actually, I shouldn’t call it ‘little.’ It is very much large-scale. It’s epic, and the marketing for it is a little unclear. Is it for kids of the now generation, or for the 80s? My guess is, given the amount of stuff covered here it’s meant for both. But sometimes it gets overwhelming. That’s not really a bad thing, but it’s definitely at times too much for a little kid like you to handle! Sorry buddy! Wait until that brain of yours develops a little bit more and maybe when you grow up you’ll understand it more. Oh wait. Too late.

If I were with you right now, if I was your kid, would you take me to see this Tom?

What a precocious little dude you are! Aw, and that really kind of breaks my heart, because I know this isn’t possible. But yes, I absolutely would take “you” with “me” to this movie. I guess, in a way I have. Watching this movie was one of the most nostalgic film experiences I have ever had. It was remarkable what these guys have accomplished. I so badly want to be back where you are. You may not like where you are now because you have to go to bed early, but trust me. Things get a little harder later on. This movie is a nice reminder that things don’t always have to be so serious.

Recommendation: The Lego Movie is a jolt of energetic vibrance the film industry has needed for awhile. On several levels. First of all, it’s only February, so to have a movie released that is of this kind of quality seems like a rarity; secondly, it’s probably the best animated film I have seen since Toy Story, almost without question. And third, there were so many red flags I saw before this movie was coming out. My main concerns were: how could they possibly animate such limited figurines in a full-length movie? How could they maintain interest for that length of time? And even if they did that, would they just submit to being a silly, childish story that doesn’t really appeal to general audiences (which, of the three concerns I had, was the least problematic. . .sometimes dumb kid fun is what you need from a film). But Warner Brothers struck gold with this. Good for them. This is a must-see.

Rated: PG

Running Time: 101 mins.

Quoted: “A house divided against itself. . .would be better than this.”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.impawards.com; http://www.imdb.com

Thomas J

My Journey Through Film

Monthly Archives: February 2014

Non-Stop

Top Ten Action Films Seen In The Last Year: Digital Shortbread

TBT: Munich (2005)

Pompeii

3 Days to Kill

TBT: Cool Runnings (1993)

A.C.O.D. (Adult Children of Divorce)

RoboCop

TBT: Blades of Glory (2007)

The Lego Movie