There's a great novelty about Kick-Ass. It's about a teenager who decides he's had enough of his boring high school life and takes to the city to fight crime. The problem, though, is that he hasn't been bitten by a radioactive spider, wasn't born with mutant genes, or didn't crash-land on Earth from an alien planet. He doesn't have superpowers. Hell, he doesn't even have powers. He's just an ordinary kid. And because he's just an ordinary kid, Kick-Ass gets his Ass-Kicked. The only thing that saves him is his eventual team-up with a better trained ten-year old heroine named Hit-Girl. Together, they do pretty damned well.
Fast forward a few years and now we have Kick-Ass 2. The actions of our heroes from the first film have inspired several changes. While ordinary citizens are donning costumes and taking to the streets as vigilantes like Kick-Ass and Hit-Girl did to fight crime, we now have a new villain, The Mother F@#$er, intent on hunting down Kick-Ass to get revenge for what he did in the climactic finale during the original movie. Kick-Ass, still interested in fighting street crime, joins a team of "good guys". The MFer, wanting his revenge, pays off a team of assassins to hunt him down... a team of "bad guys". Two posses. Sharks and Jets, I guess. But wait a minute - what about Hit-Girl, scene stealer of the first movie? She's hanging up the cape and struggling with her own problems in high school...
Noooooo! Really? But it's Hit-Girl! You can't do that to Hit-Girl!
I suppose that was inevitable. If you're making sequels and keeping the same cast, the one thing you can't fight is the aging process. The charm of Hit-Girl is that she's not just the sidekick. She might be younger than Kick-Ass, but she's the hero doing the real damage - bouncing off walls, jumping off roofs, smashing through windows. She's been trained and she's not nearly as vulnerable as our other heroes. But she's still a little kid! That's the fun of it!
Again, can't fight it. Chloe Moretz is a few years older now and the story needs to be adjusted to fit on-screen. Now, it probably seems like I'm complaining... "recast Hit-Girl!" or "leave Hit-Girl out of the sequel!" Actually, I'm saying just the opposite. Chloe is such a scene stealer as Hit-Girl... If you're going to adjust the script to accommodate an older Hit-Girl, then you could have left Kick-Ass out of this movie and made this her film.
While I thought the movie was okay, it felt like I was watching two stories - 1) what happens when Kick-Ass joins a team and 2) what happens when Hit-Girl adjusts to older life. While it sounds like #2 would be the obviously boring choice, it wasn't. I actually enjoyed her struggle. I thought it was Hit-Girl meets the movie Mean Girls. If they had expanded that and framed her as The MFer's target (easily done), then I think it would've made a really good movie.
So what about Kick-Ass and his adventures with the new team? Good, but kind of boring. The new director, Jeff Wadlow, did a few things well enough. If you saw the original, directed by Matthew Vaughn, then you expected the vulgarity and the over-the-top action scenes... lots of blood and ridiculousness. But was it engrossing? No. And I just didn't really care about Kick-Ass! Honestly, I was much more interested this time in the secondary characters and even The MFer as the villain than I was the hero of the movie. Jim Carrey nailed it as Colonel Stars and Stripes and didn't get as much play time as I would have liked. Neither did the rest of the team - Night Bitch, Dr. Gravity, Insect Man. I know that if you develop these kinds of characters, then you risk the movie being three hours long... but what does it say if I'm more invested in them than Kick-Ass? It ain't good.
My other complaint is that I was hoping the movie would be a little bit more "comic book-y". Can we make that a word, please? I'm not talking to the extent of Scott Pilgrim, but more than just a few "Meanwhile..." ink bubbles. Obviously, the movie doesn't take itself very seriously, so why not play that up? I thought the best combination of comic action was the fight between Hit-Girl and Mother Russia. To those who aren't fans of the slow motion camera direction, you won't be impressed, but it definitely beat Wadlow's shaky cam fights used earlier in the movie. I thought the Hit-Girl / Mother Russia throw-down was the best-of-the-best. Definitely left me wanting more.
Although I was late watching this flick, I heard a lot of fans clamoring for another sequel after this was released. I have no idea what you're smoking. It's not that I'm screaming against it, but ... again, the novelty is gone. Our heroes are aging, they aren't as much fun, it rubs across the grain of the graphic novels. I'll certainly admit that they left the movie open for another sequel (wasn't hard to do), but it didn't make a ton of money either. The studio isn't going to jump at the chance.
It must seem like I'm crapping all over it. I'm not. It was okay and even rewatchable. I think my expectations were too high... I really enjoyed the first film (and love the comic). When I'm watching the movie, though, and have to hold back from skipping scenes until Hit-Girl or Colonel Stars and Stripes is the main attraction again, then I know I'm forcing myself to like it. That's no good.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Robocop (Feb 2014)
I loved the original Robocop. What wasn't to love? There were cyborgs, robots, and graphic, graphic violence. The bad guys were BAD guys. Between the gang violence and corporate corruption, the few good guys didn't have much of a chance in this futuristic Detroit. Even Detroit itself could be counted as a bad guy - seedy, dirty, filthy, worthless. It reeked. Everything in the original Robocop was intense, dialed to the max.
And that was always Verhoeven's trademark. I have a love / hate relationship with his movies. Yes, I loved Robocop. But do I need to see Officer Murphy shotgunned to chunks? No. Do I need to see Emil's skin melt away? No. Do I need to see ED-209 perforate that employee in the boardroom? Well... lol, kind of. It's making me giggle a little. Robocop's concept was great, but some of its direction was stupid. Same with Total Recall (give the concept credit there to Philip Dick). Same with Starship Troopers. I saw Showgirls at the theater and I think I left early. Verhoeven has this need to turn everything extreme, to the point he desensitizes his viewers and leaves them uncaring.
So, I was very happy when I heard that Robocop was coming to theaters again (not rebooted, right? remade?). I was hoping that whoever took the reins - Jose Padilha - would dial it back just a tad. I have this image of Spinal Tap turning their amps from 11 to maybe 9. I still want the action, I just don't need to be shocked. It had a great story! Let's spend a little more time on Murph's human struggles or on OCP's political corruption rather than melting someone's skin off?
Instead, this is what I got:
The story is only roughly the same. In this movie, OCP, the corporation, is making money hand-over-fist with its robotic security deployed worldwide. Here at home, however, the citizens of America won't allow the replacement of their police force with OCP's technology because robots lack conscience, judgment, heart... all those things that make us human. America doesn't trust them. So OCP establishes a pilot program in Robocop. It takes a cop who's just been obliterated by a car bomb, creates a cyborg with his left-overs, and puts him on the street to see if he can gain some of the public trust. Call it a compromise. And it works! He's on the street for just a few days and crime rates drop 80%! Wow! (That's really in the movie... I'm going to gloss over this.) His crime fighting is astonishingly efficient until he stumbles upon his own unsolved attempted murder, prompting him to break protocol and hunt down the filthiness hiding within his own police department. Barely related, he also finds that OCP might be a little corrupt, too.
And that's a HUGE problem with this movie. Everything that was bad was also intertwined in the original film. OCP was the end-all, be-all bad guy. It had dirty hands from the top of the food chain all the way down to the seediest of alley ways. Gang members even paid the OCP offices a visit, if you remember! Instead, this 2014 Robocop had the gang/police and OCP storylines play out distinctly. It was as if the writers and director finished filming the gang/police story and said, "Uh oh, we're way under time. Is there any way we can keep this film moving? Maybe add another bad guy?" So, as an afterthought, they decided to flesh out OCP into something more wretched later in the movie to keep us in our seats. Sure, OCP was contemptible, but corrupt? Like, point a gun at a kid and pull the trigger kind of corrupt? Not really. Not until the end, all of a sudden. How'd they go from selling robots to hostage takers? I guess I should gloss over that, too.
Another departure from the original movie was that Murphy's memory wasn't wiped, leaving him to struggle with his robo-humanity throughout the film. Most of this story element was fairly flat (if you're going to keep his wife and son in the movie, then play them up, damn it!), but it did mean more screen time with Gary Oldman, who played the doctor who "saved" Murph by creating the Robocop suit and talked Murphy through some of his emotional struggles. Anytime Oldman is onscreen, it's a treasure, and he brought the only emotional depth this film served. I won't deny that Michael Keaton did a fantastic job, as well (given the story's parameters), but Gary Oldman's supporting role was really the star of this film. Robocop himself didn't matter - Joel Kinnaman, Peter Weller... walk like a robot and you've got the role. I don't think Kinnaman showed much range, even when he was with his son, unfortunately.
A quick note about Keaton - I said he did a great job. He did. But his character was no Dick Jones. Dick Jones in the first Robocop was the ultimate weasel. One way or another, everything tied to him. If he had to throw a baby off a roof to get what he wanted, you wouldn't be surprised when he went through with it. Keaton's character, Raymond Sellars, was a weasel, but a baby killer? We're supposed to believe that at the end, apparently.
Finally, Detroit, city of sin. Honestly? Because if you took the gang scenes out of the movie, all you were left with was a couple alleyway drug deals. You didn't feel like Detroit was the sinkhole portrayed in the original Robocop. When they were panning shots through the police station, I swear I think every cop was at their desk. Maybe if they were out patrolling their city, they wouldn't need a cyborg helping out?
Other than these gripes, the action was fine for a PG-13 CGI movie. I asked for dialed down violence and, to my chagrin, I got it. There weren't many big sequences. Hell, half the time, Robocop was using a taser. It was nice to see ED-209 back on the big screen, but there was no thrill or tension to the fights. At least I liked Robocop's suit. That's something, right?
I didn't mind the movie in that I was mildly entertained for two hours, but I could have waited for the DVD. You know when you order a soda from a fast food restaurant and it has too much caramel and it's only mildly carbonated, but you're too lazy to take it back... so you drink it anyway? It's fine, but it's not the fizzy goodness you were hoping for. That was Robocop 2014.
And that was always Verhoeven's trademark. I have a love / hate relationship with his movies. Yes, I loved Robocop. But do I need to see Officer Murphy shotgunned to chunks? No. Do I need to see Emil's skin melt away? No. Do I need to see ED-209 perforate that employee in the boardroom? Well... lol, kind of. It's making me giggle a little. Robocop's concept was great, but some of its direction was stupid. Same with Total Recall (give the concept credit there to Philip Dick). Same with Starship Troopers. I saw Showgirls at the theater and I think I left early. Verhoeven has this need to turn everything extreme, to the point he desensitizes his viewers and leaves them uncaring.
So, I was very happy when I heard that Robocop was coming to theaters again (not rebooted, right? remade?). I was hoping that whoever took the reins - Jose Padilha - would dial it back just a tad. I have this image of Spinal Tap turning their amps from 11 to maybe 9. I still want the action, I just don't need to be shocked. It had a great story! Let's spend a little more time on Murph's human struggles or on OCP's political corruption rather than melting someone's skin off?
Instead, this is what I got:
The story is only roughly the same. In this movie, OCP, the corporation, is making money hand-over-fist with its robotic security deployed worldwide. Here at home, however, the citizens of America won't allow the replacement of their police force with OCP's technology because robots lack conscience, judgment, heart... all those things that make us human. America doesn't trust them. So OCP establishes a pilot program in Robocop. It takes a cop who's just been obliterated by a car bomb, creates a cyborg with his left-overs, and puts him on the street to see if he can gain some of the public trust. Call it a compromise. And it works! He's on the street for just a few days and crime rates drop 80%! Wow! (That's really in the movie... I'm going to gloss over this.) His crime fighting is astonishingly efficient until he stumbles upon his own unsolved attempted murder, prompting him to break protocol and hunt down the filthiness hiding within his own police department. Barely related, he also finds that OCP might be a little corrupt, too.
And that's a HUGE problem with this movie. Everything that was bad was also intertwined in the original film. OCP was the end-all, be-all bad guy. It had dirty hands from the top of the food chain all the way down to the seediest of alley ways. Gang members even paid the OCP offices a visit, if you remember! Instead, this 2014 Robocop had the gang/police and OCP storylines play out distinctly. It was as if the writers and director finished filming the gang/police story and said, "Uh oh, we're way under time. Is there any way we can keep this film moving? Maybe add another bad guy?" So, as an afterthought, they decided to flesh out OCP into something more wretched later in the movie to keep us in our seats. Sure, OCP was contemptible, but corrupt? Like, point a gun at a kid and pull the trigger kind of corrupt? Not really. Not until the end, all of a sudden. How'd they go from selling robots to hostage takers? I guess I should gloss over that, too.
Another departure from the original movie was that Murphy's memory wasn't wiped, leaving him to struggle with his robo-humanity throughout the film. Most of this story element was fairly flat (if you're going to keep his wife and son in the movie, then play them up, damn it!), but it did mean more screen time with Gary Oldman, who played the doctor who "saved" Murph by creating the Robocop suit and talked Murphy through some of his emotional struggles. Anytime Oldman is onscreen, it's a treasure, and he brought the only emotional depth this film served. I won't deny that Michael Keaton did a fantastic job, as well (given the story's parameters), but Gary Oldman's supporting role was really the star of this film. Robocop himself didn't matter - Joel Kinnaman, Peter Weller... walk like a robot and you've got the role. I don't think Kinnaman showed much range, even when he was with his son, unfortunately.
A quick note about Keaton - I said he did a great job. He did. But his character was no Dick Jones. Dick Jones in the first Robocop was the ultimate weasel. One way or another, everything tied to him. If he had to throw a baby off a roof to get what he wanted, you wouldn't be surprised when he went through with it. Keaton's character, Raymond Sellars, was a weasel, but a baby killer? We're supposed to believe that at the end, apparently.
Finally, Detroit, city of sin. Honestly? Because if you took the gang scenes out of the movie, all you were left with was a couple alleyway drug deals. You didn't feel like Detroit was the sinkhole portrayed in the original Robocop. When they were panning shots through the police station, I swear I think every cop was at their desk. Maybe if they were out patrolling their city, they wouldn't need a cyborg helping out?
Other than these gripes, the action was fine for a PG-13 CGI movie. I asked for dialed down violence and, to my chagrin, I got it. There weren't many big sequences. Hell, half the time, Robocop was using a taser. It was nice to see ED-209 back on the big screen, but there was no thrill or tension to the fights. At least I liked Robocop's suit. That's something, right?
I didn't mind the movie in that I was mildly entertained for two hours, but I could have waited for the DVD. You know when you order a soda from a fast food restaurant and it has too much caramel and it's only mildly carbonated, but you're too lazy to take it back... so you drink it anyway? It's fine, but it's not the fizzy goodness you were hoping for. That was Robocop 2014.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
The Lego Movie (Feb 2014)
"Everything is awesome!" (<-- click me!)
I don't know how I'm going to write this little review with that song stuck in my head. I think it deserves an Academy Award for putting such a smile on my face. Unless How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a surprise success during the summer, I think Lego is already the frontrunner for the Best Animated Movie. It's only February.
The Lego Movie is directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller, the same team responsible for Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs (written and directed) and its 2013 sequel (written). Both were box office hits, each grossing roughly $125 million just domestically. The Lego Movie, with a budget of only $60 million - half of the first Cloudy - is toying proudly with breaking even in its first domestic weekend alone. No wonder the studio already has plans for its sequel! To keep the monetary comparisons going, Disney's Frozen, an absolute juggernaut, also made a little over $60 million in it's opening US weekend... BUT cost almost $150 million to make. We'll see what happens when the worldwide numbers are accounted, but if you smell profit around The Lego Movie, you're not wrong. At all.
This movie is straight-up fun! It's exactly what an animated blockbuster should be nowadays - smart, funny, colorful, engaging and quick... but not too quick (100 minutes)! The plot is wonderfully basic: our very ordinary Emmet is living a very ordinary life in a very ordinary town governed by the evil Lord Business, whose ultimate plan is to use his secret weapon, The Kragle, to freeze the world in place to prevent any non-conformity. Little does Emmet know, he has the power within himself as a Master Builder, to stop The Kragle and Lord Business, freeing everyone from their ordinary lives. But it'll take other Master Builders, like WyldStyle, Vitruvius, and Batman (yes!) to convince him that he can truly make a difference. Also, there's Unikitty. I loved Unikitty.
The animation in the film was wonderful, a blast of stop-motion style CGI, and it never stopped moving. Things didn't necessarily need to explode in order to feel like there was plenty of action on-screen. Driving to the coffee shop or dropping off dry cleaning felt somewhat frantic. But it was in no way similar to the seizure-provoking scene changes that we're used to in children's cartoons these days (Spongebob comes to mind). And it was all true to the spirit and accuracy of building Legos - to ride a horse, the holes in Emmet's behind had to interlock with the pegs in the horse's back (he missed, leaving him to bounce around awkwardly on his trip); when something did explode, plastic Lego flames bits were used rather than real fire; ocean waves were choppy as the animators built and rebuilt the pieces to give them an ebb and flow effect. Constant, but fun, movement.
It didn't take long for me to start laughing - picture a Lego, no elbows and no knees, trying to perform jumping jacks. Or walking around a construction site with a Lego croissant in one hand and a Lego hot dog in the other (who does that?). But I did worry during the first third of the movie that maybe this wasn't as clever as I had hoped it would be. Some of the early jokes were drawn out, aiming to engage kids rather than parents (not all... Emmet's commute to work was wonderful). I started to fear that I might have stumbled into a Despicable Me 2... loved the Minions, hated the fart jokes. That wasn't the case, however. By the time the movie really started progressing, there was plenty of humor, some nostalgic, for the older audience. All of the old Lego sets were in the movie, in their entirety, and many figures that we played with as kids had either cameos or starring roles (80's Lego space man!). I also was impressed with the time they took to include bits like Lego model numbers. When the Master Builders were assembling new sets, model numbers would appear on-screen in CGI white near them - something that kids might not understand, but parents who dropped a good deal of money on them for Christmas might (I know I heard more than one chuckle and groan).
I would love to talk about the end of the movie... slap a *spoiler* alert and give it all away. I won't. But it's the end of the movie that is going to make it completely rewatchable. That's where everything came together, especially humor and heart. Where I felt like the beginning of the film was a little more childish (not immature, but for kids), the end was tailored more for the parents. Little kids will appreciate the climactic action in Bricksburg, but may get bored with the other dramatic cutscenes that transform the movie into one on par with the Toy Story franchise. For us, it all comes together into something so wonderful, I wanted to buy a ticket for the next screening.
This was a great animated film and the voice casting was like the cherry on top. I generally don't care beforehand who's cast in these roles. Unless it's a travesty of a casting job, you get used to the voice actors or actresses within a few minutes of seeing their alter-egos on-screen. This was a real treat, though, like John C. Reilly playing Wreck-It Ralph. There wasn't a single miscast on the entire list (I would have paid money to see Morgan Freeman or Will Arnett do their lines). And to the genius who gave the villain role to Will Ferrell, you deserve a bonus. You'll all understand when you see... bah, I can't spoil it!
This will, no doubt, be in my movie collection - for me and my son. I can't think of the last time I've wanted to rewatch an animated movie so soon. It will also be on the 'white noise' list - that list of movies my son has that we can replay over and over in a single day without making me insane. Without delay, hop in line for The Lego Movie. It's a great little escape.
Everything is awesome!
I don't know how I'm going to write this little review with that song stuck in my head. I think it deserves an Academy Award for putting such a smile on my face. Unless How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a surprise success during the summer, I think Lego is already the frontrunner for the Best Animated Movie. It's only February.
The Lego Movie is directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller, the same team responsible for Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs (written and directed) and its 2013 sequel (written). Both were box office hits, each grossing roughly $125 million just domestically. The Lego Movie, with a budget of only $60 million - half of the first Cloudy - is toying proudly with breaking even in its first domestic weekend alone. No wonder the studio already has plans for its sequel! To keep the monetary comparisons going, Disney's Frozen, an absolute juggernaut, also made a little over $60 million in it's opening US weekend... BUT cost almost $150 million to make. We'll see what happens when the worldwide numbers are accounted, but if you smell profit around The Lego Movie, you're not wrong. At all.
This movie is straight-up fun! It's exactly what an animated blockbuster should be nowadays - smart, funny, colorful, engaging and quick... but not too quick (100 minutes)! The plot is wonderfully basic: our very ordinary Emmet is living a very ordinary life in a very ordinary town governed by the evil Lord Business, whose ultimate plan is to use his secret weapon, The Kragle, to freeze the world in place to prevent any non-conformity. Little does Emmet know, he has the power within himself as a Master Builder, to stop The Kragle and Lord Business, freeing everyone from their ordinary lives. But it'll take other Master Builders, like WyldStyle, Vitruvius, and Batman (yes!) to convince him that he can truly make a difference. Also, there's Unikitty. I loved Unikitty.
The animation in the film was wonderful, a blast of stop-motion style CGI, and it never stopped moving. Things didn't necessarily need to explode in order to feel like there was plenty of action on-screen. Driving to the coffee shop or dropping off dry cleaning felt somewhat frantic. But it was in no way similar to the seizure-provoking scene changes that we're used to in children's cartoons these days (Spongebob comes to mind). And it was all true to the spirit and accuracy of building Legos - to ride a horse, the holes in Emmet's behind had to interlock with the pegs in the horse's back (he missed, leaving him to bounce around awkwardly on his trip); when something did explode, plastic Lego flames bits were used rather than real fire; ocean waves were choppy as the animators built and rebuilt the pieces to give them an ebb and flow effect. Constant, but fun, movement.
It didn't take long for me to start laughing - picture a Lego, no elbows and no knees, trying to perform jumping jacks. Or walking around a construction site with a Lego croissant in one hand and a Lego hot dog in the other (who does that?). But I did worry during the first third of the movie that maybe this wasn't as clever as I had hoped it would be. Some of the early jokes were drawn out, aiming to engage kids rather than parents (not all... Emmet's commute to work was wonderful). I started to fear that I might have stumbled into a Despicable Me 2... loved the Minions, hated the fart jokes. That wasn't the case, however. By the time the movie really started progressing, there was plenty of humor, some nostalgic, for the older audience. All of the old Lego sets were in the movie, in their entirety, and many figures that we played with as kids had either cameos or starring roles (80's Lego space man!). I also was impressed with the time they took to include bits like Lego model numbers. When the Master Builders were assembling new sets, model numbers would appear on-screen in CGI white near them - something that kids might not understand, but parents who dropped a good deal of money on them for Christmas might (I know I heard more than one chuckle and groan).
I would love to talk about the end of the movie... slap a *spoiler* alert and give it all away. I won't. But it's the end of the movie that is going to make it completely rewatchable. That's where everything came together, especially humor and heart. Where I felt like the beginning of the film was a little more childish (not immature, but for kids), the end was tailored more for the parents. Little kids will appreciate the climactic action in Bricksburg, but may get bored with the other dramatic cutscenes that transform the movie into one on par with the Toy Story franchise. For us, it all comes together into something so wonderful, I wanted to buy a ticket for the next screening.
This was a great animated film and the voice casting was like the cherry on top. I generally don't care beforehand who's cast in these roles. Unless it's a travesty of a casting job, you get used to the voice actors or actresses within a few minutes of seeing their alter-egos on-screen. This was a real treat, though, like John C. Reilly playing Wreck-It Ralph. There wasn't a single miscast on the entire list (I would have paid money to see Morgan Freeman or Will Arnett do their lines). And to the genius who gave the villain role to Will Ferrell, you deserve a bonus. You'll all understand when you see... bah, I can't spoil it!
This will, no doubt, be in my movie collection - for me and my son. I can't think of the last time I've wanted to rewatch an animated movie so soon. It will also be on the 'white noise' list - that list of movies my son has that we can replay over and over in a single day without making me insane. Without delay, hop in line for The Lego Movie. It's a great little escape.
Everything is awesome!
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Lone Survivor (Jan 2014)
I probably made a foolish decision, but there was a choice to be made - either see Lone Survivor, reportedly a good movie, but not one living up to its hype, or see 12 Years a Slave, nominated for umpteen Academy Awards. Figuring Lone Survivor would be nearing the end of its run and 12 Years a Slave might be picking up renewed steam because of the Oscar nods, I chose Survivor.
Lone Survivor is directed by Peter Berg and stars Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, and Ben Foster. This SEAL team of four is given a solo recon-mission in the hills of Afghanistan that will lead to the eventual kill or capture of a dangerous al Qaeda leader nearby. Their mission is jeopardized when they are stumbled across by Afghan civilians (maybe?), prompting the team to make a quick decision that ultimately leaves them under fire in a terrifying fight.
The more favorable reviews that I had heard going into this movie had compared it to Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down, of course - two of the best war movies we've seen in years. It didn't compare to those, nor did I expect them to. I'm not a fan of Peter Berg and the best that I could give him credit for was Hancock, which was fairly lifeless. I admit that it (Hancock) had some fun moments and the action would have excited me if I had seen it as a teenager. Based on Hancock, there was no way I was seeing Battleship. So imagine my complete and utter shock when I saw Lone Survivor. It was well worth the watch.
No, it didn't compare to Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down. I think that was for two reasons: 1) character development and 2) scale. The development between these 'bros' was weak, at best. Aside from the real-life SEAL training montage at the beginning of the movie and a couple of shirtless exercise scenes with the actual actors, there wasn't much to build the audience relationship with the team (I thought they were going to throw in a Top Gun-esque volleyball game... they didn't. phew). You actually traveled with the platoon in Saving Private Ryan - you felt like you were taking the exhausting trek with them. In Black Hawk Down, there were enough breather moments running through the city or back at the barracks to get inside the soldiers' heads. I didn't feel like you had that in Lone Survivor - you went from team briefing to getting your ass handed to you. Sure, you obviously had enough connection to want the heroes to survive and you knew they were a band of brothers, but your main concern was "GET ME THE @#% OUT OF HERE!"
Just typing that gave me a knot in my gut again. Scale - scale worked for and against the movie. I was expecting the kind of vast, epic scale that we've become used to, not just in war movies, but any action movie. You expect something grand. When I heard and read the movie was set in the hills of Afghanistan, I expected (incorrectly) a fire-fight running through valleys and plains and hills and wow! My assumptions were wrong - those Saving Private Ryan-type scenes weren't there and it made me feel like something was missing. Quite frankly, it felt like you could have shot this movie in any recreational state park in the United States. Trees, yup. Rocks, yup. Big deal. Until shit really, really turned bad. That's when the scale absolutely worked.
That's when things got completely claustrophobic. Four guys, completely out-gunned by a hundred other soldiers with automatic weapons and RPGs, with nowhere to go but down, for the most part, in a very big hurry. This wasn't your Schwarzenneger flick - the enemy was trained, shot back, and didn't miss. Our heroes got bruised, broken, shot, maimed... and look at the title, folks - killed. I exclaimed a couple of times. You FELT what they were going through.
Not a bad word to say about the actors. It was a great cast and the real-world training they were put through in preparation for the roles paid off. But because it was a cast that was well-assembled, it makes me wish that the character development had been so much better. Of course, I felt the brotherhood while they were fighting on that mountain... I just wish there had been a little more. And again, aside from a couple plot and relationship jumbles, Berg knocked this one out. Maybe it was the inspiration he drew from the book itself, but this was a very good, powerful movie.
These soldiers do this in real life, people. If you keep that in mind (and I don't think that'll be a problem), you'll be glued.
Lone Survivor is directed by Peter Berg and stars Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, and Ben Foster. This SEAL team of four is given a solo recon-mission in the hills of Afghanistan that will lead to the eventual kill or capture of a dangerous al Qaeda leader nearby. Their mission is jeopardized when they are stumbled across by Afghan civilians (maybe?), prompting the team to make a quick decision that ultimately leaves them under fire in a terrifying fight.
The more favorable reviews that I had heard going into this movie had compared it to Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down, of course - two of the best war movies we've seen in years. It didn't compare to those, nor did I expect them to. I'm not a fan of Peter Berg and the best that I could give him credit for was Hancock, which was fairly lifeless. I admit that it (Hancock) had some fun moments and the action would have excited me if I had seen it as a teenager. Based on Hancock, there was no way I was seeing Battleship. So imagine my complete and utter shock when I saw Lone Survivor. It was well worth the watch.
No, it didn't compare to Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down. I think that was for two reasons: 1) character development and 2) scale. The development between these 'bros' was weak, at best. Aside from the real-life SEAL training montage at the beginning of the movie and a couple of shirtless exercise scenes with the actual actors, there wasn't much to build the audience relationship with the team (I thought they were going to throw in a Top Gun-esque volleyball game... they didn't. phew). You actually traveled with the platoon in Saving Private Ryan - you felt like you were taking the exhausting trek with them. In Black Hawk Down, there were enough breather moments running through the city or back at the barracks to get inside the soldiers' heads. I didn't feel like you had that in Lone Survivor - you went from team briefing to getting your ass handed to you. Sure, you obviously had enough connection to want the heroes to survive and you knew they were a band of brothers, but your main concern was "GET ME THE @#% OUT OF HERE!"
Just typing that gave me a knot in my gut again. Scale - scale worked for and against the movie. I was expecting the kind of vast, epic scale that we've become used to, not just in war movies, but any action movie. You expect something grand. When I heard and read the movie was set in the hills of Afghanistan, I expected (incorrectly) a fire-fight running through valleys and plains and hills and wow! My assumptions were wrong - those Saving Private Ryan-type scenes weren't there and it made me feel like something was missing. Quite frankly, it felt like you could have shot this movie in any recreational state park in the United States. Trees, yup. Rocks, yup. Big deal. Until shit really, really turned bad. That's when the scale absolutely worked.
That's when things got completely claustrophobic. Four guys, completely out-gunned by a hundred other soldiers with automatic weapons and RPGs, with nowhere to go but down, for the most part, in a very big hurry. This wasn't your Schwarzenneger flick - the enemy was trained, shot back, and didn't miss. Our heroes got bruised, broken, shot, maimed... and look at the title, folks - killed. I exclaimed a couple of times. You FELT what they were going through.
Not a bad word to say about the actors. It was a great cast and the real-world training they were put through in preparation for the roles paid off. But because it was a cast that was well-assembled, it makes me wish that the character development had been so much better. Of course, I felt the brotherhood while they were fighting on that mountain... I just wish there had been a little more. And again, aside from a couple plot and relationship jumbles, Berg knocked this one out. Maybe it was the inspiration he drew from the book itself, but this was a very good, powerful movie.
These soldiers do this in real life, people. If you keep that in mind (and I don't think that'll be a problem), you'll be glued.
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Man of Tai Chi (2013)
(Just released on Netflix streaming - released summer 2013 overseas and November 2013 in the US, though limited, I think.)
Ludicrous! My first actual review in a movie blog and I think I'll be taken seriously if I write about a martial arts film starring Tiger Chen (who?) and Keanu Reeves, who also happens to be making this film his directorial debut. You must have heard about it - Michael Cooney wrote it. Wait, who?
I missed almost every Oscar worthy movie in 2013, but Man of Tai Chi... yeah, I saw it.
First, please give me the benefit of the doubt - you stick to the subject matter with which you're most familiar. Anything testosterone driven has me at "Hello." I had heard about the movie eons ago and it finally popped up on the list of on-demand Netflix streams, so I had to give it a chance. Plus, I absolutely couldn't resist the temptation of... Keanu Reeves - Director.
Second, that said, *it wasn't that bad*. I can't believe I wrote that and I'll even write it again for good measure - it wasn't that bad. I didn't jump out of my seat at any point during the movie, but I'll give it it's due.
Man of Tai Chi, briefly, is about a Tai Chi student (Tiger Chen) who inadvertently becomes involved in an underground, reality-show fight club, directed by a blood-thirsty businessman (Keanu Reeves) who won't let the student leave without paying a very deadly price. Ugh.
The easiest thing to say about the movie is that, overall, it felt like a video game. Anybody can say and write that because, if you spend the energy to find out "Who the hell is Michael Cooney?", then you'll see he has almost nothing to his name but shorts and video games. And that's absolutely fine. The movie has a very standard plot - student gets roped into something he knows he shouldn't (and against his master's good lessons) because he needs the money for noble causes - simply to move the film from fight scene to fight scene. And as the character travels further along this standard, but tried-and-true, plot, the danger becomes greater and culminates with an "end boss" scene. It's no Ip Man, but it's definitely not a Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat. So I can't fault Cooney for writing a perfectly mediocre film and putting it into the hands of -
Keanu Reeves. Maybe I'm more forgiving of this man than others. If he's in an action film, I'll watch it. Now, if he's associated with an action film, I'll watch it. He's had enough action movies under his belt so that, if he's given a film that's not expecting much from its director, he can deal with it. There were no twists and no real surprises... everything was fairly linear. The scenes were straightforward, the landscapes weren't grand, the dialogue was sufficient, and the fighting was very well choreographed and filmed.
And the casting was certainly to his benefit - the member with the least amount of credit to his name was Tiger Chen, who performed solidly throughout the entire film. The supporting cast (Karen Mok, Simon Yam), those primarily consisting of the police force looking to take down the illegal fight club, are well-established and required little direction to make them work. The worst actor in the film, solely in my opinion - Keanu. Of course, it was Keanu! But as long as he's not making A Walk in the Clouds 2 (please burn my eyes out now), it works. The roles tend to work for Keanu, not the other way around. There always seems to be something around his characters that make me forget how bad Reeves is. The Matrix? Sure, Neo needs to take the stick out of his ass, but... he's "The One." Point Break? Johnny Utah is a fish on land, but who cares... he's hanging with Bodhi and the cool kids!
*I was going to say, "The action (only) roles tend to work for Keanu," but that's not necessarily true. He's been board-stiff in plenty of roles and they've worked fine for him - The Replacements is still a guilty pleasure of mine. A Scanner Darkly is also on my rewatch list (granted, also containing Robert Downey, Jr.). And if you try to tell me you flip the channel when Bill & Ted's is on, you're a liar.
So, don't expect much. Typical video game, action movie: one good guy, one bad guy, action scene after action scene, straight-forward story arc (good guy innocent, good guy hangs with bad lunch crowd, good guy falls from grace, good guy redemption). It had just enough heart to make me feel like I hadn't wasted my time at the end, which was refreshing. Try saying that about the Expendables.
If you're looking for a decent fight film with a character that you can root for, but a bad guy you can give or take, then put your Keanu prejudices at the door and see this film. You'll get more believable action than a generic Jason Stathom flick (and I love those) and a hero you can get behind.
Ludicrous! My first actual review in a movie blog and I think I'll be taken seriously if I write about a martial arts film starring Tiger Chen (who?) and Keanu Reeves, who also happens to be making this film his directorial debut. You must have heard about it - Michael Cooney wrote it. Wait, who?
I missed almost every Oscar worthy movie in 2013, but Man of Tai Chi... yeah, I saw it.
First, please give me the benefit of the doubt - you stick to the subject matter with which you're most familiar. Anything testosterone driven has me at "Hello." I had heard about the movie eons ago and it finally popped up on the list of on-demand Netflix streams, so I had to give it a chance. Plus, I absolutely couldn't resist the temptation of... Keanu Reeves - Director.
Second, that said, *it wasn't that bad*. I can't believe I wrote that and I'll even write it again for good measure - it wasn't that bad. I didn't jump out of my seat at any point during the movie, but I'll give it it's due.
Man of Tai Chi, briefly, is about a Tai Chi student (Tiger Chen) who inadvertently becomes involved in an underground, reality-show fight club, directed by a blood-thirsty businessman (Keanu Reeves) who won't let the student leave without paying a very deadly price. Ugh.
The easiest thing to say about the movie is that, overall, it felt like a video game. Anybody can say and write that because, if you spend the energy to find out "Who the hell is Michael Cooney?", then you'll see he has almost nothing to his name but shorts and video games. And that's absolutely fine. The movie has a very standard plot - student gets roped into something he knows he shouldn't (and against his master's good lessons) because he needs the money for noble causes - simply to move the film from fight scene to fight scene. And as the character travels further along this standard, but tried-and-true, plot, the danger becomes greater and culminates with an "end boss" scene. It's no Ip Man, but it's definitely not a Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat. So I can't fault Cooney for writing a perfectly mediocre film and putting it into the hands of -
Keanu Reeves. Maybe I'm more forgiving of this man than others. If he's in an action film, I'll watch it. Now, if he's associated with an action film, I'll watch it. He's had enough action movies under his belt so that, if he's given a film that's not expecting much from its director, he can deal with it. There were no twists and no real surprises... everything was fairly linear. The scenes were straightforward, the landscapes weren't grand, the dialogue was sufficient, and the fighting was very well choreographed and filmed.
And the casting was certainly to his benefit - the member with the least amount of credit to his name was Tiger Chen, who performed solidly throughout the entire film. The supporting cast (Karen Mok, Simon Yam), those primarily consisting of the police force looking to take down the illegal fight club, are well-established and required little direction to make them work. The worst actor in the film, solely in my opinion - Keanu. Of course, it was Keanu! But as long as he's not making A Walk in the Clouds 2 (please burn my eyes out now), it works. The roles tend to work for Keanu, not the other way around. There always seems to be something around his characters that make me forget how bad Reeves is. The Matrix? Sure, Neo needs to take the stick out of his ass, but... he's "The One." Point Break? Johnny Utah is a fish on land, but who cares... he's hanging with Bodhi and the cool kids!
*I was going to say, "The action (only) roles tend to work for Keanu," but that's not necessarily true. He's been board-stiff in plenty of roles and they've worked fine for him - The Replacements is still a guilty pleasure of mine. A Scanner Darkly is also on my rewatch list (granted, also containing Robert Downey, Jr.). And if you try to tell me you flip the channel when Bill & Ted's is on, you're a liar.
So, don't expect much. Typical video game, action movie: one good guy, one bad guy, action scene after action scene, straight-forward story arc (good guy innocent, good guy hangs with bad lunch crowd, good guy falls from grace, good guy redemption). It had just enough heart to make me feel like I hadn't wasted my time at the end, which was refreshing. Try saying that about the Expendables.
If you're looking for a decent fight film with a character that you can root for, but a bad guy you can give or take, then put your Keanu prejudices at the door and see this film. You'll get more believable action than a generic Jason Stathom flick (and I love those) and a hero you can get behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)