Quick Reviews: “The Gift” “The Man from U.N.C.L.E” “Straight Outta Compton”

The past few months have been very busy for me. What with a summer stats class, driving tests, and filming a short film called “We Need to Talk About Colonel Sanders”, I’ve been run ragged. But I’m never too busy to go to the movies, and do I have some treats for you!

The Gift

I didn’t know what to make of The Gift. I love Joel Edgerton, and seeing him direct for the first time was an interesting proposition. However, I didn’t really care for any of the trailers, and I’m usually not a fan of “pretty rich people get terrorized by another pretty but troubled guy” movies. Well, I’m shocked to say that The Gift is surprisingly quite good, giving new life to a thriller subgenre that has lately been found wanting.

Premise: Simon and his wife Robyn are visited by Gordo, a “weirdo” from Simon’s school days. However, the connection turns toxic when Gordo starts making their lives a living Hell, culminating in a shocking revelation that could destroy Simon’s life.

Pros: Joel Edgerton makes a fantastic triple threat as writer-director-antagonist; the character of Gordo is very effective; Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall make a great couple; very effective plot twists; last act takes a dark turn that pays off, big time.

Cons: First half drags too much and is overly familiar; a few twists come far too out of left field (but NOT the big ones); weak supporting characters.

The Verdict: It may not quite be the second coming of Hitchcock some are proclaiming it, but The Gift is an interesting, tense, and well written thriller, not to mention a solid directorial debut for Edgerton.

Score: 7/10

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

Again, I wasn’t quite sure about The Man from U.N.C.L.E. The trailers were fine, nothing special, and I was worried that it would end up being a poor man’s Bond. However, with a great young cast and a talented director in Guy Ritchie, I was still looking forward to it. Now that I’ve seen it, although it’s my least favorite of the year’s spy movies, I had a blast with The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and think it deserved much better at the box office.

Premise: It’s the Cold War, and nuclear paranoia is at an all-time high. When a mysterious criminal syndicate starts selling nukes to unsavory people, two agents (one CIA, the other KGB) must team up to stop them before brinkmanship gets out of hand.

Pros: Style, baby! If Guy Ritchie does something best, it’s style, and this movie oozes 60s flair; Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer are terrific together and have some of the best banter this side of Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes; good, crazy action; Alicia Vikander, can I hang out with you some time? You are a fantastic actress and are absolutely beautiful.

Cons: About fifteen minutes too long; like Rogue Nation, weak villains; not enough Hugh Grant, who does a great job with very little.

The Verdict: Once again, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. a delight. Cavill and Hammer are great actors with tons of charisma, Alicia Vikander continues her hot streak (see Ex Machina if you haven’t yet), and that style is oh so cool. Please go out and see this movie, because it needs all the help it can get.

P.S. Alicia, if this review finds you, please consider my offer.

Score: 7.5/10

Straight Outta Compton

Ever since that first red-band trailer, Straight Outta Compton has been very high on my radar. I’ve read up on their story and listened to much of their library, and N.W.A. really did change the cultural landscape. They were a great rap group with a ton of classics and have a fascinating story. So how did this biopic turn out? Well…it turned out great, but with some major weaknesses.

Premise: Put simply, the meteoric rise and fall of the group that revolutionized rap and gave a whole generation its voice. A quintet of young black men from Compton form a rap group that completely changes the game, attracting rabid fans and equally venomous detractors, but circumstances and their own conflicting personalities threaten to tear them apart.

Pros: The first two acts are better than I could’ve imagined; the story of N.W.A. is brilliantly and lovingly told, and F. Gary Gray knows how to tell it; the acting is fabulous, particularly from Corey Hawkins (Dr. Dre) and Jason Mitchell (Eazy-E); despite my apprehension; O’Shea Jackson Jr. did just fine playing his father; great music! I squeed a bit when certain songs played.

Cons: A poor third act where everything happens too fast, especially in contrast to the very well paced first two; perhaps having Ice Cub and Dre as producers wasn’t a good idea, because the movie is heavily sugar-coated and the group comes out looking a little too good to be true. Dre’s actions in particular get some judicious whitewashing.

The Verdict: I was hoping for a good biopic and wasn’t disappointed. While Straight Outta Compton doesn’t reach the heights I was hoping for, I enjoyed it very much and think it’ll be a big success in the long run. Also, be on the lookout for Hawkins and Mitchell. These guys have some serious talent.

Score: 8/10

“The Imitation Game” Review

Biopics have got to be among the hardest films to make. Sure, they can turn out great, but more often than not they can turn into shameless promotion pieces for their subjects. You’ll also be raked over the coals by angry historians if you don’t get the most minute details exactly right. Fortunately, The Imitation Game has always shown a lot of potential. The story of Alan Turing’s breaking of the Enigma code is nothing short of fascinating, as are his personal struggles. The film has also garnered a solid cast led by the very talented Benedict Cumberbatch. When word got out that The Imitation Game could be an Oscar contender, my anticipation increased ever more. After seeing the film for myself, I can confidently say that it deserves all the praise it gets.

Premise: When World War II breaks out, Britain’s code-breakers are assembled to break Nazi intelligence codes. When new arrival Alan Turing (Cumberbatch) sees his coworkers’ lack of progress, he goes to work building a machine that could break the codes faster than any human ever could.

Pros: The Imitation Game wouldn’t have worked without a good leading performance, but Benedict Cumberbatch takes it even further and makes Alan Turing one of the most compelling characters of the year. The real-life Turing was a fascinating guy, and Cumberbatch (with the help of great direction) brings his personality and all of his subtle nuances to life. Even though he’s initially a cold and arrogant man, everything from his line delivery to his facial expressions to his body language is also very entertaining and endears you to him. It was an excellent performance that almost single-handedly made the movie work, and I’ll be shocked if Cumberbatch doesn’t get nominated for Best Actor come Oscar season.

This is clearly Cumberbatch’s show, but he’s not the only one who gets a chance to shine. Keira Knightley is great as Joan Clarke, the only woman on the team and the one who makes Turing come out of his shell. Charles Dance and Mark Strong don’t have a lot of screentime, but nonetheless give solid performances as the military higher-ups that Turing and his fellow code-breakers answer to. Even Matthew Goode, who I’ve never been particularly impressed with, gives what might be his best performance to date as cryptanalyst Hugh Alexander. All in all, everybody did nice work.

When you’ve got a true story this good, you’d better not screw it up. Well, director Morten Tyldum and writer Graham Moore have taken the life of Alan Turing and told a very interesting story. The main draw is probably going to be Turing’s work building his code-breaking machine, and that makes for great drama. But at its heart The Imitation Game is the story of a deeply complicated man and his personal life. He may be a hardass, but he also desperately wants to have friends. On another note, Turing must also conceal his SPOILER ALERT homosexuality, which was illegal in Britain until the 60s. All of this makes for a story that is both inspiring and heartbreaking.

Cons: There’s not a lot to dislike about The Imitation Game, but it does have a few minor issues. The film uses a framing device that allows it to jump back and forth between time periods, and it doesn’t always work. Certain scenes have awkward transitions to events that happened decades before or after, and sometimes the non-linearity of the story causes it to drag. I’m not going to say that going the non-linear route was the wrong choice, but the way the story was framed didn’t always work and there were times when the pacing suffered.

Verdict: Even though I had high expectations for The Imitation Game, I’m surprised at just how much I loved it. Folks, make sure not to miss this one. Even if you don’t know anything about Alan Turing (I didn’t before trailer inspired me to look into him), this is a fantastic movie with a lot of great performances and plenty of heart.

Score: 9/10 (going back to numerical scores)

“The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part I” Review

Sorry this one’s so late. I’ve been a little busy and have been working on other projects. I’m free for the time being and will try to post regularly.

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Julianne Moore, Donald Sutherland, Natalie Dormer, Sam Claflin, Jena Malone, Stanley Tucci, and Willow Shields. Written by Danny Strong and Peter Craig. Directed by Francis Lawrence. Rated PG-13 for for intense sequences of violence and action, some disturbing images and thematic material. 123 minutes.

I tend to get raked over the coals whenever I say this, but I wasn’t a big fan of the first Hunger Games. I thought it was okay, but it was nothing special or memorable. So imagine my surprise when I thought Catching Fire was great. It was everything that the first one should’ve been, with great action, great characters, and great storytelling, all in the surprisingly deft hands of director Francis Lawrence. Now we have the penultimate film, Mockingjay Part I. It’s had a lot of buzz and a great marketing campaign surrounding it, and has already made more money than the vast majority of people can even dream of. However, it’s has also been the most divisive film of the series, with reviews being more mixed than the previous two. How does it measure up? Read on to find out.

Premise: After accidentally sabotaging the most recent Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is spirited away to the mysterious District 13, home to a growing rebel group. Now she must become the face of the revolution in a propaganda war against the Capitol.

Pros: Ever since Catching Fire, I’ve been on the Jennifer Lawrence hype train full stop. Gone are the days when she was just an up-and-comer. She is the real deal, and Mockingjay continues the trend. Katniss has always been reluctant, not really wanting to be a hero at all. But here she’s growing into her role as the symbol around which the rebels can rally, while still being vulnerable. A lot of this is down to Lawrence, who is so good that she can make even an uninteresting character enthrall you just by her sheer screen presence.

A good villain can bring a lot to any movie, and President Snow is the perfect choice for this series. I thought Donald Sutherland did a superb job in the first two, and even though he’s not in Mockingjay all that much it just might show him at his best. Snow is a political force to be reckoned with, and you can tell why people would want to follow him, whether it’s out of fear, admiration, of both. But then you also see the destruction he and his government have caused, showing what an irredeemable prick he is. Also, bonus points for being extremely creepy.

The supporting cast (who aren’t in it nearly enough, but I’ll get to that later) is also solid. The two standouts are Julianne Moore and Philip Seymour Hoffman, two esteemed acting veterans (and Paul Thomas Anderson alumni). Hoffman reprises his role as Plutarch Heavensbee, now revealed to be utterly committed to the downfall of the Capitol. It’s very sad that he’s no longer with us, but we can at least marvel at what a great performer he was. Julianne Moore is also fantastic as President Coin, someone who has dedicated her life to ending the hardships of the common man but has lost her family and is willing to get her hands dirty. These two also play off each other very well, and are an absolute joy to watch together.

Mockingjay sets itself apart from the rest of the series in a very interesting way. There is very little action, and instead we got a sci-fi drama that is probably the most engaging thing the series has offered so far. Katniss has already been through so much, having to become a hardened killer and being celebrated for it by an upper-class that you’d be a saint not to resent. Now she sees the rebellion firsthand, and we get a good look at the brutality of the Capitol and just why President Snow should be overthrown. Powerful stuff, and a great setup for what I’m hoping is a terrific finale.

Cons: This might sound weird given that the film is about her, but there’s too much Katniss and not enough of everybody else. Peeta’s barely in it, and even though Gale has perhaps more screentime than either of the previous two movies, he’s not given a lot of focus either (not that Liam Hemsworth’s acting is a great loss). Great characters such as Hamitch, Finnick, and Joanna are also given hardly any focus. In fact, I don’t even think Joanna had a single line of dialogue. Even though she’s the protagonist, this series is ultimately too Katniss-centric. Even though I loved the movie, I wish I could’ve seen more development of the world around her, potentially cool characters like Cressida (played by the stunningly talented and stunningly…stunning Natalie Dormer) given more of a chance, and the hardships of the ordinary District citizens more fleshed out.

For the third time, I don’t buy the love story between Katniss and Peeta. They always seem more like really good friends, not soulmates. On the other hand, I’m glad the romance was downplayed.

Verdict: Mockingjay Part I is a magnificent drama that easily matches Catching Fire and blows the original Hunger Games out of the water. Were there weaknesses? Sure, and I get why some people are underwhelmed by it. Still, I had a blast, and now I can wait for the second part.

Score: B+

John Wick Review

Starring Keanu Reeves, Michael Nyqvist, Alfie Allen, Adrianne Palicki, Bridget Moynahan, Dean Winters, Ian McShane, John Leguizamo, and Willem Dafoe. Rated R for strong and bloody violence throughout, language and brief drug use. 101 minutes.

I had never even heard of John Wick until about two months ago, and I, like most people, was just waiting for a crapfest. However, the trailer completely won me over. It was cool, it was fun, and it looked like it could be Keanu Reeves’ return to form. Sure enough, I was totally right. John Wick is awesome, and other than Gone Girl better than any movie out right now.

Premise: John Wick (Keanu Reeves) is a retired assassin turned grieving widow. Then everything goes to pot when a trio of Russian mobsters (led by Game of Thrones’ Alfie Allen) break into his house, steal his car and kill his puppy, the final gift from his wife. Fueled by vengeance, John decides to get revenge on the men who destroyed the last good thing in his life.

Pros: If you can expect one thing from a typical Keanu Reeves film, it’s action. Well, the action in John Wick is terrific, probably some of the best I’ve seen all year. Director Chad Stahelski’s background in stunt coordination is obvious, with the action being well choreographed and well shot. It’s also violent and gritty, with a great deal more blood than we’ve come to expect in this Marvel-dominated landscape. It’s a nice change of pace to see a great action movie that also lets all Hell break loose.

I’m generally pretty cold toward Keanu Reeves as an actor, but if he’s put in the right role he can work toward the benefit of the film. John Wick is one of those roles. He’s a vengeful, heartbroken badass who has lost everything that matters to him, not very emotional or talkative but very good at charming, fighting and killing. In short, a role that plays to Reeves’ strengths and lets him do what he does best.

The supporting cast is also quite good. Michael Nyqvist (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Mission:Impossible-Ghost Protocol) and Alfie Allen are well cast as a father-son mobster duo, with Nyqvist playing the cool, responsible one, and Allen being hot-headed and more than a little foolish. The other standout is Ian McShane as Winston, who runs the Continental Hotel, a place where hitmen go to cool off after a hard job.

There’s also a lot of good, subtle humor. A lot of the best bit come from the fact that all the mobsters are so scared of John Wick. The best part is that none of it is accidental. John Wick could’ve been one of those movies that was so-stupid-it’s-funny, but thankfully avoids that trap and becomes a genuinely funny movie.

Cons: The movie starts with a scene that occurs much later chronologically. This is one of my pet peeves because it’s a real suspense-killer. Fortunately, it’s short and doesn’t affect the movie very much.

That’s it.

Verdict: John Wick is a fast-paced, fun, funny thrill ride that almost never falters. Even though I didn’t even know it existed until very recently, it ended but a wonderful experience and one of the defining films of 2014. Let’s hope Keanu Reeves can parlay this into a revitalized career.

Score: 9/10

Gone Girl Review

Starring Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler Perry, and Carrie Coon. Directed by David Fincher. Rated R for a scene of bloody violence, some strong sexual content/nudity, and language. 149 minutes.

Aside from The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Gone Girl has been my most anticipated movie of the year. Everything about it has looked great, from the cast to the crew to the trailers. David Fincher’s a great director, Ben Affleck’s a great actor, and I was excited to see Rosamund Pike in a lead role. When all the positive reviews came out I was even more stoked. So, was it as good as I was hoping? Yes, every bit.

Premise: Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) comes home to find that his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike) is missing. In the ensuing media circus, he must find out what happened to Amy and convince everyone that he’s not a criminal. But as with all great mysteries, nothing is as it seems.

Pros: Once again, David Fincher proves how good of a director he really is. Ever since Seven was released almost twenty years ago, Fincher has proven again and again that he’s the real deal. His streak continues with Gone Girl, possibly my favorite film of his since Seven. Fincher tells this story (from a screenplay written by the book’s author, Gillian Flynn) very well, keeping the pacing slow but always progressive, bringing the audience further in with each new revelation. He also knows how to make a non-linear story interesting, making sure the flashbacks are just as vital as the present day events. In taking on a popular mystery novel, Fincher could’ve fallen into the trap of losing his voice, but his talent is so great that he makes the film his own.

The two leads were amazing, even better than I thought they would be. Nick Dunne could’ve been a tough sell as a character; he’s nice and charming, but also unambitious and more than a little dishonest. However, Ben Affleck makes him immensely likable, and much of the movie’s success hinges on the fact that he does such a good job playing this complex character. Meanwhile, Rosamund Pike upstages everyone by giving the performance of a lifetime. Giving away the specifics would spoil a lot of the fun, but take my word for it when I say I will be shocked if he is not nominated for Best Actress come Oscar season.

Even with lead actors so marvelous, the supporting cast gets chances to shine, and two in particular stand out. First is Carrie Coon, playing Nick’s sister Margo. She’s fantastic, more than holding her own with Affleck in each of their shared scenes. But even better is Tyler Perry. He plays a lawyer who’s smooth and confident, even when defending those accused of heinous crimes. Every moment he’s onscreen was brilliant and left me with a smile on my face. I almost wish Perry had more screentime just so he could keep surprising me.

Gone Girl is a pretty dark movie, but it also has a lot of great humor. Granted, a lot of the humor is dark and biting, especially coming from Pike. But there’s also some lighter moments, usually supplied by Tyler Perry, who’s on his game throughout. I’m still shocked by funny he was, knowing some of his…other movies.

Cons: There are scenes that could’ve been cut down. This is especially noticeable with Neil Patrick Harris’ character, who has a few too many scenes that are sometimes pretty repetitive. Then again, there were some things that I would like to have seen expanded, so I wouldn’t say it was too long.

Early on, there’s some really bad sound mixing, with the Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross score drowning out some of the dialogue. Don’t worry, it gets better pretty quickly.

Verdict: Gone Girl is a suspenseful, brilliantly acted and directed film that deserves all the praise it gets and more. It earns my very enthusiastic recommendation, and I would love to see Oscar nominations for Fincher, Affleck, Pike, and Gillian Flynn. Brilliant movie, go see it, and then see it three more times.

Score: 9/10

An Update on the Past Two Weeks

Sorry I haven’t posted in a while. College is a lot of work. But don’t think that means I haven’t been watching movies, and boy have I seen a lot.

Let’s start with the one I’m sure at least some of you have seen, The Maze Runner.

I didn’t go into The Maze Runner with very high expectations. The premise (teenagers trapped in a maze trying to figure out a way to escape) was kind of intriguing, but the marketing was mediocre at best and I was worried that it would fall into a lot of the young adult book adaptation cliches. Fortunately, I was wrong, and the movie ended up being a blast. Unlike most of these teen literary films, this one’s actually got a lot going for it, with great dramatic tension, a solid mystery, lack of a pointless love story, and strong performances, especially from lead actor Dylan O’Brien. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not perfect. There’s points where things are over-explained, Kaya Scodelario’s character was kind of wasted, and it does seem awfully desperate to get a franchise started. But as a sci-fi thriller, The Maze Runner was a lot of fun.

Score: 7.5

Next came Walk Among the Tombstones, a Liam Neeson-led thriller that I was really looking forward to…

…and left me a little bit disappointed. That’s not to say it was bad, not at all, but I was expecting something much better. Of course Liam Neeson was fantastic, and the main plot (PI is hired by a grieving widower to find the man who killed his wife) was an appropriately thrilling. However, it had a lot of neo-noir cliches, was completely unsubtle, and had a poor subplot in Neeson’s character befriending a teenager. Still, Neeson’s performance and the strength of the central mystery make it worth the look.

Score: 6.5/10

And then there was The Equalizer, starring Denzel Washington, directed by Antoine Fuqua, and with a plot that sounds like the third act of Taxi Driver if Travis Bickle were a heroic super spy.

I ended up enjoying this one too, probably a bit more than I should’ve. It’s too long, the story is unoriginal, and the villains are pretty weak. But you know what, Denzel Washington is a masterful thespian, so none of those bad things really matter. He plays this character with more subtlety than I expected, making The Equalizer a lot better than it should’ve been and adding extra dimension. Add on some crazy action and you’ve got a winner.

Score: 7/10

As Above, So Below Review

Starring Perdita Weeks, Ben Feldman, Edwin Hodge, François Civil, Marion Lambert, and Ali Marhyar. Written by Drew Dowdle and John Erick Dowdle. Directed by John Erick Dowdle. Rated R for bloody violence/terror, and language throughout. 93 minutes.

Labor Day weekend is usually a bad time for the film industry. Everyone wants to stay home, spend time with family, watch football, maybe have a barbecue. As a result, box office revenues tend to be quite low. It looks like this year was no exception, with Guardians of the Galaxy once again the weekend’s victor, trumping all of the new releases. I didn’t have much hope for  the new horror thriller As Above, So Below. I thought it looked like a cheap third-rate found footage film that would be one of the post-summer season’s biggest failures. It’s directed by the guy that did Devil, for Heaven’s sake! But I checked it out anyway, probably out of morbid curiosity. So, you might be asking, was it as bad as I thought it would be? No, but not by much.

Premise: Scarlett Marlowe is on a quest to find the Philosopher’s Stone. All of her work has led her to the catacombs of Paris, and she and her team must descend. But the further they go, the more treacherous their journey becomes, and they soon become haunted by supernatural forces.

Pros: One thing about As Above, So Below was the performance of the lead actress, Perdita Weeks. I knew her name and face, but I hadn’t seen much of her work prior to this. Well, she did a really good job as Scarlett. She’s intelligent, strong-willed, confident, a little foolhardy, and always a joy to watch. Even in scenes that you’d think would be tricky to pull off, Weeks is believable and sympathetic. On the strength of this one performance, I’d really like to see more from her.

There are times when the claustrophobic nature of As Above, So Below creates some good scares. At certain points, especially toward the end, there’s a pervasive sense of dread, where the atmosphere is allowed to do its job, and you feel like you’re on this nightmarish journey. The movie certainly takes its sweet time getting to most of the good parts, but by the time you reach the end you’ll probably be on the edge of your seat.

The production design was terrific. Most of the movie takes place in a vast complex of underground tombs, and they really went the extra mile in making it look good. The look of the place really draws you in, so much that I now wouldn’t mind a visit to the Parisian catacombs, just as long as there aren’t any supernatural creatures.

Cons: The first two thirds of this movie are pretty terrible. They’re dull, boring, and poorly written. For long stretches of time, you’re left to wonder just what is happening, because the story is so sloppily told that the movie feels more like a series of random events than an actual cohesive narrative. Worst of all, most of the first two thirds just aren’t scary. For every time something actually scary happens, there’s two cheap jump scares. The film picks up in time for the final act, but it didn’t make up for the rest.

Aside from Scarlett, all of the characters are terrible. We hardly know a thing about them, they lack characterization, and they have no depth whatsoever. Beyond that, some of them extremely stupid, seemingly lacking any common sense. For example, one of the locals tries to touch a mysterious creature, and it tries to attack her. What does she do next? Try to touch it again! No sane person would do that!

Horrible shaky camera. I am not usually a fan of the found footage style because the director/cinematographer/whoever thinks that shaking the camera makes the movie feel intense. It doesn’t! It just makes everything hard to see and gets people annoyed. I’m fine with handheld camera, but there’s a difference between handheld and shaky.

Verdict: Even with a solid performance from Perdita Weeks and some scary moments, As Above, So Below can’t overcome terrible first and second acts, one-dimensional side-characters, and typical found footage pitfalls. It gets better toward the end, but by then it’s too little, too late.

Score: 4/10

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For Review

Starring Mickey Rourke, Jessica Alba, Josh Brolin, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Rosario Dawson, Bruce Willis, Eva Green, Powers Booth, Dennis Haysbert, Ray Liotta, Jaimie King, Christopher Lloyd, Jamie Chung, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Meloni, and Juno Temple. Rated R for strong brutal stylized violence throughout, sexual content, nudity, and brief drug use. 104 minutes.

I think the original Sin City is an absolute gem. It was over-the-top and lots of fun, but it also told some great stories of lost love, revenge, and redemption. So here we are nine years later, and Sin City: A Dame to Kill For comes out. I’ve been saying for a while that a sequel was too little, too late. The window for a sequel had closed and I didn’t think it would be very successful. Sure enough, it had an opening day gross of $2.62 million. Not a good start. But that didn’t mean it couldn’t still be a good movie, so I decided it check it out.

Premise: The name of the game is revenge. Nancy Callahan (Jessica Alba) has a vendetta against Senator Roarke (Powers Boothe) for killing her protector John Hartigan (Bruce Willis), while Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is after Roarke for shooting him in the leg and killing a girl he likes. Meanwhile, Dwight McCarthy (Josh Brolin) wants revenge after being double-crossed by his former lover (Eva Green).

Pros: Eva Green was fantastic. Her character, Ava Lord, makes men fall for her, getting them to do whatever she says, even unspeakable crimes. After she’s done with them, she kills them. As the archetypical vamp, Eva Green shines, relishing in every bit of villainy she commits. Her character is manipulative, cruel, and utterly lacking in empathy. And worse, she knows just how evil she is. What could’ve been a throwaway caricature becomes a memorable character in Green’s hands, and she’s always immensely entertaining. If only every actress could play villains as well as she does.

If the antagonists have Eva Green, then the protagonists have Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I think Gordon-Levitt is one of the best actors in the business today. He’s so witty and charming that he could tell you to rob a bank and you’d do it because he’s just that good. Sure enough, he does a great job as Johnny, a cocky scoundrel with a dark secret. He makes even the worst lines sound cool, and his story ends up being the most entertaining just because of him. I was very impressed.

Even after nine years and many films trying to ape its style, the Sin City visuals still hold up. Once again, Rodriguez and his crew have done a great job in making the world look very comic-booky, lending the film an old world charm of a noir flick from a bygone era. But then again, I am a sucker for this kind of style.

Cons: Even with all those good qualities, A Dame to Kill For just can’t match its predecessor. One of the biggest reasons is that it lacks the sense of fun that Sin City possessed in spades. There’s lots of bloody violence and attempts at pulpy thrills, but it doesn’t amount to much. This one’s more serious, but a lot of the attempts at pathos fail, making the movie just look silly. Silliness can be fun, but there’s a fine line between silly and balls-to-the-wall ridiculous.

A lot of the dialogue is pretty bad. Some people might say the same about the original. But I thought Sin City had dialogue that was pulpy but fun and charming. A Dame to Kill For doesn’t have the same effect, instead having the characters spout off ridiculous lines that you just can’t help but laugh at. Frank Miller should stick to writing comics. Honestly, I would rather have seen director Robert Rodriguez, no master wordsmith himself, write this screenplay.

In addition to laughable dialogue, there’s some pretty terrible acting. Once again, Jessica Alba, while not quite as annoying here as in many of her previous films, can’t act worth a damn. Josh Brolin, who I used to be quite fond of continues his trend of being stiff as a board. Bruce Willis, who did a fine job in the first film, just kind of lazes around. But the biggest disappointment is Mickey Rourke, reprising his role of Marv. I view Sin City as Rourke’s first step toward a comeback. He was wonderful as Marv, but here it seems that he didn’t care about the movie and was just waiting till the check cleared. A big letdown from an actor who is capable of better.

Verdict: While it certainly has things worth praising, Sin City: A Dame to Kill For ultimately wrings hollow. It lacks the first film’s sense of fun, has terrible dialogue, and some bad acting. A couple of winning performances make it almost worth it, but if you’re not a fan of the first one, don’t bother.

Score: 4/10

The Expendables 3 Review

Starring Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Antonio Banderas, Jet Li, Wesley Snipes, Dolph Lundgren, Kelsey Grammer, Randy Couture, Terry Cruz, Kellan Lutz, Ronda Rousey, Glen Powell, Victor Ortiz, Robert Davi, Mel Gibson, Harrison Ford, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Written by Creighton Rothenberger, Katrin Benedikt, and Sylvester Stallone. Rated PG-13 for violence including intense sustained gun battles and fight scenes, and for language. 126 minutes.

I’ve been curious about The Expendables 3 for several months now. I might’ve thought the first one was just okay, but I had a ton of fun with the second one and wanted to see if they could top it. I also thought Mel Gibson was a great choice for the new villain. But I haven’t heard a lot of buzz about it. Maybe it was the trailers, maybe it was the PG-13 rating, maybe it was Gibson’s casting, but I just haven’t heard people being excited about it. I wasn’t even really looking forward to it for some reason. But I saw it anyway, and I’ve gotta say it was the worst of the year.

Premise: After the original team is laid low, Barney Ross must form a new team to take down Conrad Stonebanks, a rogue member of the team.

Pros: My greatest hope for the movie was realized; Mel Gibson was amazing. He’s everything you could want from an action movie villain, smart, funny, and more than a little bit unbalanced, with emphasis on the last part. Yeah, Gibson goes all out in this movie, killing people without a second thought, cracking weird jokes, and just being an insane megalomaniac. The Expendables 3 proves that Mel Gibson can still be the star of the show, and I’d like to see him make a comeback. Despite the bad things he’s said, he remains a likable and interesting actor.

Some of the new cast members do a great job as well. Antonio Banderas is second only to Mel Gibson. As Galgo, he brings all of his comedic chops to the table and ultimately leaves you in stitches. I haven’t seen him do this well in a very long time. Also great is Wesley Snipes. He’s not in the movie for very long, but his every moment of screentime is dedicated to showing us that despite taking a lot of junk roles he can really knock it out of the park when he puts his mind to it.

When The Expendables 3 tries its hand at comedy, it does a fair job. Gibson has many of the best lines, playing up the hammy loose cannon persona so heavily that it’s gotta be a parody. But Banderas provides a few solid jokes, and there’s always the trademark banter between these action veterans. At times the movie worked really well…

Cons: …but most of time it doesn’t. Most of the time the main team (aside from Stallone) is sidelined for the fresh, new cast members. These newcomers are young, tough, and (aside from Kellan Lutz) terrible actors. Seriously, they were awful in this movie that I was wishing for the days when Stone Cold Steve Austin was one of the villains. You could tell these guys were trying, but nothing ever came of their efforts. Even their leader, the actually sometimes talented Sylvester Stallone, is sleepwalking in this. The characters we spend most of the film with are boring and unmemorable, making for a boring and unmemorable movie.

So we have bland central characters, ones that we couldn’t care less about. As a consequence, the action is boring, and not just because of the lower rating. Most people have been coming down hard on the PG-13 rating, but I’ve been saying that you can still have great violent action without an R rating. That didn’t happen here. We don’t care about the characters, so how are we supposed to care about what’s happening to them? On the other hand, there have been movies with characters I’m apathetic toward with great action. Maybe it was the shaky camera and poor editing.

At over two hours The Expendables 3 feels about twenty minutes too long. There’s a lot of lag-time between action sequences, and the material isn’t strong enough to make it bearable. This is definitely a movie that would’ve benefited from less plot. I guess you could say that about the previous movies, but here it’s most noticeable. 

Verdict: The Expendables 3 is a boring, overlong, aimless movie that not even hardcore fans of the series are likely to enjoy. There’s some good performances and some laughs, but it’s not enough to polish the turd. Skip this one.

Score: 4/10

George Lucas Retrospective: THX 1138 Review

Ah, George Lucas, the man who made and then proceeded to break millions of childhoods. The image of him that survives today is that of a man who had a promising career and threw it all away with all the changes to his masterpiece and its disappointing prequels (at least in eyes of hardcore fans, because he is richer than anyone’s wildest dreams). Today he’s the butt of every joke and a walking cautionary tale of what happens you don’t have anyone around to say no.

It can be easy to forget that it wasn’t always this away. In 1973, a young Lucas released American Graffiti. It was a huge financial and critical success and gave the opportunity to do whatever he wanted. What followed was momentous; the Star Wars and Indiana Jones trilogies defined a generation, are still monumentally popular today, and catapulted Lucas into the pantheon of the greatest and most influential directors of all time.

But before all of that, there was something else. George Lucas’ feature debut was actually an expansion of a short film he made in college. It was a cerebral science fiction thriller that was apparently too clinical for its own good. It failed to clicked with early 70s audiences, but has picked up more acclaim after the massive success of the rest of Lucas’ work. Yes, folks. It’s time I revisited THX 1138.

Starring Robert Duvall (what stereotypical 70s film doesn’t?), Donald Pleasence, Don Pedro Colley, Maggie McOmie, and Ian Wolfe. Written by George Lucas and Walter Murch. Directed by George Lucas. Rated R for some sexuality/nudity (originally rated GP, a precursor to PG). 86/88 minutes (depending on which version you’re watching).

Premise: It’s the future, and most definitely not a rose-tinted Star Trek: The Original Series version. Sex is prohibited and people are given drugs to cool their passions. However, THX 1138 (Robert Duvall) and LUH 3417 cut down on their drug intake and start to develop feelings for each other. The two lovers are soon forced to struggle to survive in a domineering system.

Pros: The visuals are gorgeous. It’s to be expected from George Lucas, but THX 1138 is especially striking given its low budget and lack of bombast. There’s not in the way of flashy special effects abundant in Lucas’ later work. Just stark, gritty, haunting imagery that’s very much influenced by Kubrick’s 2001. The cinematography has a lot to do with it; there’s a lot of brilliant lighting and framing techniques that probably indirectly influenced a lot of today’s indie sci-fi scene, and definitely gave audiences a preview of what was to come in 1977.

I don’t usual touch on sound design, but here it deserves special mention. Everything on the audio side of THX 1138 helps to add to the sense of alienation and oppression that the film strives for, and you often get the sense that each sound is beckoning to you, asking you to listen in on a new audio gem that Lucas and crew have put put together. A nice surprise in an art form that I frequently ignore.

Cons: The story is filled with more dystopian cliches than a post-Hunger Games young adult novel. I mean, seriously Lucas and Murch! People had already seen all of your themes before! You’ve got societal oppression right out of Orwell’s worst nightmare, sexual repression, and even monolithic AI. It’s not as egregious as some other examples, but as far as use of well-worn tropes goes, I’d pick Star Wars any day.

If THX 1138 does a good job at capturing the visual style of 2001, it also shares its arthritic pacing. Again, its pacing is not as bad as a lot of other films, I’ve got a say I was bored at several points. Good thing the visuals were so great.

Verdict: THX 1138 is an interesting movie with amazing but understated visuals that suffers from a cliched storyline and some poor pacing. If you’re not a hardcore Lucas fan, don’t bother. But if you are it’s a decent start to an incredible career.

Score: 6/10