Category Archives: Movies

Movies

The Fate of the Furious (2017) a (for the most part on time) review

How does one go about reviewing a film like The Fate of the Furious, the eighth film in The Fast and the Furious franchise (F8 from here on in)?

I mean, if there is any franchise that seems impervious to critical reaction, it is this one.

Why?  Because the movies feature a wild assortment of big and very charismatic stars, big -and absolutely bonkers- action set pieces, humor, and that one ingredient many action blockbusters lack: A sense of heart.  Or is it family?

Don’t get me wrong:  The Fast and Furious films are ridiculous and, if you take even a few minutes to go over any of their plots, you realize the whole thing makes virtually zero sense.

Which is why F8 is no different than the last three films in the franchise yet another success.

The plot involves our F&F papa bear, Dom (Vin Diesel), going “dark” and working for the mysterious and well named Cipher (Charlize Theron, looking like she’s having a blast playing the movie’s central eeeeevvvvviiiillllleee character).

He betrays his group (which includes returning characters played by Dwayne Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Tyrese Gibson, and Ludacris).  The F&F group is, understandably, dumbfounded by this strange development.  Some can’t believe Dom would turn on them.  Others aren’t so certain.

However, things go from bad to strange when Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is imprisoned following Dom’s betrayal and winds up getting a cell directly across from the villainous Deckard (Jason Statham).  Through the machinations of Mr. Nobody (Kurt Russell) and his new sidekick Little Nobody (Scott Eastwood), the two are released and along with the rest of the F&F gang tasked with bringing in Cipher…and Dom, if indeed he has turned bad.

The film moves along at a brisk pace and, provided you don’t think too hard about what you’re seeing, will prove a pleasant diversion.

For those who care, I’ll get into a few SPOILERS following the trailer to point out some of the film’s… uh… story problems.  That is, if you care at all to hear about them.

Meanwhile and despite these issues, I can’t help but recommend the film.  It’s as good as the previous two or three which, if you liked them, is a good thing indeed.

Ok, now for some of those dastardly…

SPOILERS

LOOK AWAY!!!

YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!!!

 

Ok, so the movie’s basic plot, pretty well presented in the above trailer, points out how Dom apparently betrays his gang and goes rogue.  Anyone who believes the F&F’s papa bear would “actually” go evil needs to brush up on their Basic Moviewatching 101 skills.

So on the one side we got Dom and Cipher and on the other the “new” and remaining F&F gang, who are determined to stop them.

Sounds good, right?

Here’s the thing: the character of Deckard (Jason Statham), is suddenly presented as a good guy.  This despite the fact that he brutally immolated one of the F&F gang in a previous film and did all he could to eliminate the rest of them in the last film.

Ok, so that was brushed aside and now he’s not only a good guy, he comes to be accepted into the group!  All’s good because he interacts so well/humorously with Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson)!

Setting that aside, if one looks closer at the movie’s plot, there is very little reason for Cipher to take Dom and use him for her purposes.  In the course of the movie, Dom is tasked to do four things: 1. Betray his group so that he can steal the EMP bomb they are trying to get into the proper hands, 2. Break into Mr. Nobody’s headquarters so they can steal the “Gods-eye”, 3. Steal a Russian nuclear “football”, a briefcase with nuclear codes, from a Russian diplomat driving on a heavily fortified convoy through the streets of New York, and 4. Drive into a Russian naval base and set off that stolen EMP under a nuclear sub which will allow Cipher to gain control of it.

Of the four tasks, the first and last are the only ones that somewhat logically makes sense to force upon Dom.  The first because he’s right there, with the device within arm’s length, and can most easily steal it because the group doesn’t know he’s about to betray them. The last task, too, makes a certain sense as it involves Dom’s driving skills.

However…

The second task didn’t need Dom as in a matter of two seconds Cipher knocked out everyone at Mr. Nobody’s base and, while the F&F group were squirming on the floor, appropriated the God’s Eye.

Note that she had everyone in the F&F group at her mercy during this scene and could easily have shoot them all dead.

So why didn’t she?

There was no real reason to show any mercy and, worse, later in the film it is made clear Cipher has no compunction about killing people… which makes that act of mercy all the more baffling.

The third task is all but completed by Cipher and her right hand man through computer control of New York’s civilian vehicles.  The actual taking of the nuclear “football” could have been done by anyone in Cipher’s group and there was no real reason for making Dom do it.  Further, there’s an odd scene following the actual theft where Dom removes the mask he was wearing while taking the suitcase.  I strongly suspect this scene was added in later on down the line so audiences would realize he was the one who took the material.

That part of the film also involves the seeming “death” of Jason Statham’s Deckard, but that too is presented in a very weird way and never adequately explained.

How exactly does Deckard get fake “killed”?  Dom does this by seemingly shooting him dead yet later in the film Deckard is brought back to life by being injected with something (it should be noted whatever he was injected with isn’t explained either!).

Were the bullets in Dom’s gun some kind of tranquilizer rounds?  Assuming this is the case (understand: This is never explained!), how did Dom get those bullets?  For that matter, how did he get in touch with the Cuban fellow from the beginning of the film who then runs interference for him in the New York scenes to set up the meeting he takes shortly before that sequence?

That’s a lot of planning and scheming to do while under Cipher’s supposed all-seeing eyes!

Anyway, enough of the questions.

Sit back, put your brain in neutral (pun intended), and enjoy.

And whatever you do, don’t think too hard about what’s going on.

Movies

Justice League Dark (2017) a (mildly) belated review

DC Comics has been doing quite well with both their TV shows and animated films.  I don’t want to get into an argument over the merits of lack thereof of their movies, but they too have been great money-makers as well, if not critical darlings, so I suspect things in DC land are going quite well.

This year, to much anticipation, Justice League Dark (JLD from here on) was released to home video.  Here’s the movie’s trailer:

One of the film’s biggest draws was the return of Matt Ryan in the role of John Constantine, whom he voices in this animated movie and whom he famously played in the aborted Constantine TV series and, for one episode, in the Arrow TV show.

Also intriguing was the idea of seeing some of DC Comic’s most famous magical/mystical heroes in one setting.  In this film you get not only Constantine, but Deadman, Zatanna, Swamp Thing, Jason Blood/The Demon, and the Black Orchid, along with a couple of mystical villains from the company’s comic book pantheon (I don’t want to reveal too much there).

The movie was entertaining though the story may not be the most spectacular you’ve ever seen.  The animation, too, was decent but not out of this world.  Allowances can be made to both as we are dealing with a direct video release and not a higher level theatrical “A” movie.

Apart from seeing these wonderful characters drawn to life, we also get brief appearances by the Justice League and a larger role for Batman.  All were quite fun to see and, in the end, I recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of these characters and/or likes the DC animated features.

Note, however, that the film is rated “R” for language and violence and should probably not be shown to children younger than 13 or so.  You have been warned.

There is one major quibble I had with the movie’s conclusion or, more specifically, the way it leaves a couple of characters.  These two characters, part of the DC pantheon, are given very big changes and I’m not exactly certain why it was decided to do these things in this film.

Writing about these things demands a SPOILER, so here you have it…

SPOILER ALERT

DON’T READ ANY MORE UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE SPOILED!

 

 

YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!

 

Ok, so the film involves our mystical heroes banding together for an “end of the world”-type scenario.  They’re not certain who their enemy is -indeed, this is one of the stronger elements of the story- yet know there is considerable power behind them.

In the course of the film, Jason Blood, aka The Demon, joins the group.  Later still the Swamp Thing is called upon to help them get to one of the villains and, while reluctant (he and John Constantine are often presented as being at each other’s throats) toward the film’s end het comes to help.

During the film’s climax, Swamp Thing gets his “humanity” forcefully stripped from him and, while tears roll down his (its?) eyes, the creature melts away into a mass of vines and leaves.  Is Swamp Thing dead?  I’m guessing not although this plot point is left completely unresolved and with a huge (and imaginary) “to be continued” sign hung right next to it.

However, the fate of Jason Blood is presented in far more stark terms.  For those who don’t know, Jason Blood is the human “host” of the Demon Etrigan.  They are two different beings and when Jason Blood needs the Demon, he calls for him.

Anyway, Jason Blood dies at the end of the film, thus releasing the Demon Etrigan of the dual nature they share/are cursed with.

And I can’t help but wonder why this was done.

I mean, we are talking comic book stories and death has a way of being very impermanent yet why was there was a need to make such big change to this character?

Again, I suppose this could be another “to be continued” element but given that we were presented with Jason Blood’s grave and funeral, it seems unlikely.

When Tim Burton’s Batman film was released way back in 1989 the fact that the producers were able to hire Jack Nicholson to play the Joker was an incredible coup.  The actor seemed tailor made for the role and, for most of the movie, didn’t disappoint.

When I saw the film I was stunned, however, when at the movie’s conclusion the Joker falls to his death.  Unlike the comic books which often showed the Joker apparently dying but his body never found, thus leaving the door is open to his return, in the Batman movie we see the Joker’s dead corpse.

At the time I felt this was a big mistake.  Why not show Batman go down to the street and find a crater where Joker’s body should be, but find there is no body?

In time I understood there was a very slim, perhaps nonexistent, chance of getting Jack Nicholson to reprise the Joker role.  Given it probably took moving mountains -mountains of cash, that is- to get Jack Nicholson in once, perhaps the producers felt there was no sense in kidding themselves or audiences with the possibility that Mr. Nicholson could come back, so the decision was made to make his “death” in the film a permanent one.

Movie-wise this made sense even if it didn’t do so character-wise.

In the case of JLD, there are “only” voice actors involved in the feature and one could (and they have!) had multiple people play the various characters.  Unlike the Jack Nicholson situation, there is no real need to permanently “off” anyone because they can be replaced with far less fuss should they not return for a voice role.  We’ve had others do the work without missing too much of a beat, though there clearly are favorites, so why “kill” a character that can be used in other features?

To that point, I would love to see another animated feature with the Demon in it but if one were made, the producers would now have to explain/resolve how it is the character is alive given what happened in JLD.

Further, if a Swamp Thing animated film were made (not an out of this world possibility), you would also have to explain what happened to that character following the events of JLD.

My point is that a story like the one presented in JLD, regardless of how much one may like it, has things occur within it that lay down some strong continuity which, for better or worse, will now have to be dealt with in future animated films that might feature these two characters.

And if such films are made and this continuity is ignored (another possibility, certainly) many may wonder why.

Movies

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) a (mildly) belated review

Back in 2012 actor Tom Cruise starred as Lee Child’s literary hero Jack Reacher in the film that went by the same name.  The collaboration between Mr. Cruise and the film’s director/screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie would prove a fruitful one.  The two have gone on to make Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation and Mission Impossible 6 (currently filming) together.

The original Jack Reacher film, to me, was at best an “ok” actioner that benefited enormously from the various stars littered about (Robert Duvall, Rosamund Pike, and, in a delicious villainous turn, director Werner Herzog) but, as I put it in my original review (you can read the whole thing here):

…the main problem with Jack Reacher and what keeps it from rising from being a good action film to being a truly great one is that there is never a point you don’t feel like you’re watching a movie.  There is an artificiality to the product…

So a few years pass and in 2016 Tom Cruise returns to the role of Jack Reacher in Jack Reacher: Never Go Back.  Gone is director/screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie (I guess he was too busy with the last two MI films) and in his place is Edward Zwick, who collaborated previously with Mr. Cruise on 2003’s The Last Samurai.

What immediately, to my mind, distinguishes Jack Reacher from Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (JRNGB from now on) is that while the first film appeared to be well funded and the makers attempted to create an “A” level action film (though, again, I felt it didn’t succeed quite like it should have), JRNGB plays out like a far cheaper product, as if the producers slashed the budget considerably and, apart from the presence of Tom Cruise, the rest of the film plays out like any number of cheaper “B” movies out there.

JRNGB does not feature any very big star, in a cameo role or longer, other than Mr. Cruise and the action set pieces are relatively modest and never spectacular.  Though I don’t mean to denigrate him, this movie falls more in the range of the many Jason Statham’s “B” movies versus the usual Tom Cruise ones.  It says something that I could just as easily see Mr. Statham as this movie’s hero as I could Mr. Cruise.

As for the movie’s plot, Cobie Smulders plays Major Turner, a woman who now occupies the office and job that Jack Reacher held when he was a Major in the army.  As with the first film, Reacher is essentially a hobo, wandering from town to town with very little money on him and helping out anyone in need.

He is curious to meet the person who replaced him in the army and heads to Washington to see her but, when he arrives, he finds she is imprisoned and charged with treason.  Worse, Jack Reacher immediately smells a rat and realizes she’s being railroaded.  The chances she’ll live long enough to see a trial are slim indeed.

While meeting up with Turner’s lawyer, Reacher is also told (in a bit of information which is plopped into this movie in a truly clumsy way) that he may have a teenage daughter named Samantha (Danika Yarosh) and that he’s viewed by the military as a deadbeat dad.

The two story lines intersect, of course, because the movie wants to make Turner a woman capable of taking care of herself and therefore the “damsel in distress” role goes to the teenage Samantha.

I will say this about JRNGB: The artificiality I felt in the first film is no longer there.  But, again, this movie plays out like a low budget actioner, with our characters running from one place to the next and building up the information needed to arrest the big bad guy while staying one step ahead of his very deadly henchman.

Unfortunately, this is nothing we haven’t seen many, many times before and, now and again, done much better.

Despite this, the worst one can say about JRNGB is that it falls in the middle of the action/adventure film pack.  Its a film you don’t hate as you watch it but, after you’re done, you realize there wasn’t all that much “there” there.

If you have absolutely nothing better to do and have a couple of hours to kill, you could do far worse than spend the time with JRNGB.  Having said that, there are far better things you could do with that time as well.

Take that as you will.

Books/Literature, Movies

On Writing: Foreshadowing

Foreshadowing has existed in storytelling since, well, almost from the moment stories were first conceived.

What is foreshadowing?  This is one of the definitions found on vocabulary.com:

Foreshadowing is used as a literary device to tease readers about plot turns that will occur later in the story.

When my daughter was reading the very famous (and quite ancient) Greek play Oedipus Rex, I was struck by how many times characters, in talking to Oedipus, foreshadow/explain/hint to how he is the one who committed the sins which in turn has lead to what plagues his kingdom and how he will have to atone for them by the end of the play.  In fact, it got to the point where a seer all but says: “Listen carefully, knucklehead, your actions are the problem here.  You did the deed(s)!”

I won’t spoil what the “deed(s)” were, but in fiction, there are few who created a worse situation for themselves and those around them (family and friends) than good ol’ Oedipus.

But like most literary devices, foreshadowing can be mis-used and/or abused.  To that end, the reason for this post is to present an example of what I feel is a case of foreshadowing gone a little too far.  It happens to have occurred in a film directed by Steven Spielberg and which many, including myself, feel it is one of his all-time best works: Jaws.

Now I’ll caution you in advance here: What I’m about to write about here may well be construed as “nit-picking” and I don’t deny that.

And to be perfectly clear, Jaws, to me is an absolutely terrific film that very much deserves all the kudos it got when first released and deservedly sits in the pantheon of all time great films.

Having said that, this one scene in the film, too heavy with foreshadowing, is the only scene in the film that really bugs me.

Your mileage, as they say, most certainly will vary.

If you’ve seen Jaws, you know the basic story: Small coastal town has a shark problem and eventually three people, Police Chief Brody (played by Roy Schneider), shark hunter/ornery old bastard Quint (a magnificent Robert Shaw), and young/book-wise yet green/spoiled rich kid Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) head out into the sea to hunt the shark down.

Things go from bad to worse as the shark turns out to be an extraordinary -and very frightening!- creature who very quickly turns the tables on our protagonists and the old cliché of “the hunters become the hunted” proves very true.

Jaws is taunt, exciting, funny, and terrifying but let’s hone in on that one scene -actually that one little bit of dialogue- which bugs me.  It’s so ham-handed and obvious and practically screams to the viewers what’s going to happen in the movie’s climax.

I’m referring to the scene where Brody accidentally loosens the air tanks from their place which in turn causes Hooper to go ape-shit.

Now, before I go any further, a BIG SPOILER: These same air tanks, and their supposed volatility, play a key role in the movie’s conclusion.  I’ll say no more.

Going back to that scene, Hooper’s physical action following the air tanks being loosened tells the audiences that these tanks are dangerous while telling Brody the very same.

I looked around YouTube for the full clip of what I’m talking about but, alas, couldn’t find it in its entirety.  Someone used the start of the scene in question to create the following -somewhat- humorous bit…

Of course this does not actually happen in the movie.

What happens is that, as I mentioned before, Brody accidentally unties the tanks and Hooper goes ballistic.  He is very frightened by what Brody accidentally did and goes on to state, among other things, the following:

“You screw around with these tanks and they’re going to blow up.”

At this point the audience now has two very strong bits of foreshadowing regarding these air tanks.  One was presented by Richard Dreyfuss’ physical acting and his very animated reaction to the tanks coming loose.  The other is this scary bit of dialogue.

Unless they’ve dozed off, by now the audience should be all too clear on the notion that if these tanks are handled incorrectly, they can blow up on you.

So where does this foreshadowing go wrong?

Immediately after what I explained above, we get a third foreshadowing element, this one coming from Robert Shaw’s Quint.  He states the following which, to me, goes (pardon the pun) overboard:

“Expensive gear you’ve brought out here, Mister Hooper.  I don’t know what that bastard shark is going to do with it.  Might eat it, I suppose.  Seen one eat a rocking chair one time.”

Again, we’re dealing with one tiny bit of dialogue here and, yes, as I mentioned above you’re not wrong to accuse me of nit-picking, especially when almost every line that comes out of Robert Shaw’s mouth in this film is pure acting gold.

However, can you agree with me that by the time Quint states this curious line and after the danger of the tanks has been well established (twice!), Quint noting a shark might “eat” the air tank, especially given what happens at the movie’s climax, feels like a bit…much?

Of course, it could have been worse.  Quint could have continued rambling on…

“So yeah, I’ve seen one eat a rocking chair one time but boy, if one of those tanks should find its way into a shark’s mouth -I’m not saying our shark’s mouth, mind you- and that bastard tries to eat it and someone -I’m not saying who- fires a round into the tank while the shark’s chewing on it… Man, that sure would create some explosion, wouldn’t it?  A real blast, right Mr. Hooper?  Mr. Hooper?  Where are you, Mr. Hooper?”

Okay, okay, I suppose that’s just me.

Movies

Keeping Up With The Joneses (2016) a (mildly) belated review

Disappointments come in sizes large and small.  In part, being disappointed about something can be the result of expectations and, in the case of Keeping Up With The Joneses, that may well be the biggest problem with this film.

With a cast consisting of Zach Galifianakis, Isla Fisher, Jon Hamm, and Gal Gadot (plus at least one more surprise star who shows up at the end of the film…you can easily look up who it is but its better to let the film surprise you at least once there) and directed by Greg Mottola (who directed episodes of Arrested Development along with films like Superbad and Adventureland), one comes into the film hoping, nay, expecting to be entertained by the hilarity.

Yet following seeing this pleasant but forgettable film, one can’t help but be, as I said above, disappointed.

Look, Keeping Up With The Joneses is not a terrible film.  What it is is a surprising toothless comedy wherein the cast and situations presented are often so tame as to make you wonder exactly what the makers of this film were up to.

I’m not saying the movie would have been better as some kind of bawdy hard “R” comedy, its just that everyone here seems so pleasant and nice and the situations they encounter, with the exception of two action sequences, so mild and toothless that you wonder why anyone bothered.

Zach Galifianakis, who has been quite good in past comedies, plays Jeff Gaffney, a boring family man who works for the Human Resources division in a high tech company.  He and Karen (Isla Fisher), his wife, let their kids go to summer camp and, for the first time in years, have an “empty nest”.  Instead of getting down to that lovin’ business, they continue their boring lives while across the street and in their cul de sac neighborhood a house is sold and its new owners, played by Jon Hamm and Gal Gadot, move in.

They have movie star looks (duh) and what appears to be a very exciting life versus the boring ones this suburban neighborhood has.

They are also, as you know from the commercials, more than they’re letting on.  It turns out they’re some kind of super-spies investigating the company Jeff Gaffney works for.

Of the plot, there’s little else to be said.  The movie rolls along, pleasant enough and with a few chuckles here and there (and, to be fair, a few bigger laughs as well, though they are few and far between) but when all is said and done you can’t help but wonder why everyone bothered.

This is a film that could have used a far sharper script and perhaps an edgier presentation.  Something, anything, to get it out of being what it is: Mediocre.

Movies

The Killer Elite (1975) a (very) belated review

Its been said that if you work in the creative field, it is often more instructive to look at fellow artist’s failures versus their successes; that you can learn more about what not to do and, therefore, avoid those pitfalls.

For me and as a writer, I often find myself reading a book or seeing a film not only to get enjoyment out of them (their primary goals, obviously!) but also to scrutinize their strengths and weaknesses.  And to that extent I agree strongly with what I wrote above, that sometimes seeing what does not work in a movie/book/story/etc. is more instructive than seeing what does.

Which brings us to the 1975 film The Killer Elite.  Here’s the movie’s trailer (sorry for the quality, its the best I could find):

I’ve seen the film before and found it a fascinating failure.  Directed by the legendary -and controversial- Sam Peckinpah, it can be argued that after achieving a high level of both praise for his at times incendiary works (The Wild Bunch, Straw Dogs), The Killer Elite marks the moment his career first began to falter.  Those who know of Mr. Peckinpah know he was a very heavy drinker and combative writer/director who had many run ins with the studios.  Following the release of 1978’s Convoy, he all but burned every bridge he had within the Hollywood establishment.  Including that later film, Mr. Peckinpah would direct only three more films following The Killer Elite before passing away in 1984.

The Killer Elite, as the above trailer indicates, concerns Mike Locken (James Caan, quite good) who, along with his partner George Hansen (Robert Duvall, also quite good) are wetworks specialists who work for an agency that the CIA contracts when they need someone to do that “special” job.  By hiring this agency, the CIA keeps their hands clean should anything go wrong.

Following a mission presented in the film’s opening, things do indeed go very wrong.  Hansen turns on Locken and, as the trailer shows, cripples him with two well placed bullets.  Down and seemingly out, Locken doesn’t give up on himself even as his employers do.  He trains and strengthens himself as best he can with his limitations.

Meanwhile, a dissident Chinese national arrives in the US and is instantly targeted for assassination.  This national is an asset to the US and therefore the CIA.  The CIA goes to Locken’s employers and wants to hire them to protect the National.  The agency, stung by Hansen’s betrayal and suspicious the CIA might have secretly sanctioned it, at first rejects the job.

They instantly change their mind when the CIA operative reveals it is Hansen who was hired to assassinate the Chinese national and they not only want to protect this national, they also want Hansen taken out.

Because of his intimate knowledge of Hansen, Locken is brought back into the fold to take on this job but as the movie progresses, it becomes clear there is even more intrigue hiding beneath the surface.

As I re-read my description, I can’t help but think this film is just so in my wheelhouse.  Assassins, betrayal, intrigue.

What could possibly go wrong?

Well, based on what I wrote in the very first paragraph of this review, plenty.  As I said before, The Killer Elite marks, in my opinion, Sam Peckinpah’s first major misstep following creating a string of classic and cult hit movies.

The reason The Killer Elite fails, despite some really good acting by both James Caan and Robert Duvall (sharing the screen together for the first time since the classic The Godfather), is in the fact that Sam Peckinpah seemed unable to take the material seriously.  The moment the Chinese national appeared, and then the ninjas coming after him, things turn mighty silly and tongue in cheek.

Further, the action sequences, while decent, aren’t quite up to the classic nihilism found in The Wild Bunch.

And then there are the scenes that, frankly, are complete head-scratchers.

One of the bigger ones is presented in the above trailer above, the “bomb planted under the taxi” scene.  I don’t want to spoil too much, but during the course of the film the taxi’s driver, one of Locken’s men, suddenly stops his cab.  He’s asked, in voice over, why he’s stopped the cab and replies -also in voice over- that he hears a strange rattling.

This after a major car chase and slamming the taxi against another car!  I’d find it strange if he didn’t hear any strange rattling!

Anyway, he goes under the cab and, voila, finds and removes the explosive device, which as you see in the trailer he then gives to a motorcycle cop and -hilarity!- the motorcycle cop runs away with it to dump it in the bay.

That whole sequence, it seems to me, was a very late add-on/fix-up to the film.  First off, there’s the fact that important information is given via voice over.  If the scene was originally meant to play out as it was, why not show the characters saying these words?  After they get away from the motorcycle cop and drive off, they stop their cab elsewhere and get out.  As they do, you hear the distant sound of the explosion yet don’t react to it at all.  It was as if that whole bomb and explosion was something created in post-production!

Why?

I truly don’t know.  Perhaps the sequence was more “serious” initially.  Could it be the motorcycle cop was a bad guy in disguise and our heroes had to kill him to get away?  Is it possible that as filmed, this sequence was too confusing and maybe audiences thought our “heroes” were forced to kill a real cop?  Perhaps they originally did kill a “real” cop to get away?

I truly don’t know but the scene, as presented, is a mess and feels like the product of some very hasty last minute work.

Later in the film, when the ninjas appear, any attempt at hard-hitting realism is thoroughly flung out the window, but not before we get one really odd scene involving James Caan’s Locken talking with the Chinese national’s daughter, who talks to him about sex and then, bizarrely, confesses she’s a virgin.  I suppose it was meant to be a humorous scene as the bewildered Locken tells her to go away.

More bewildered was I as to the inclusion of the scene, which was not only silly but completely unnecessary.  It added absolutely nothing to the film and felt like something you would expect would be clipped and discarded well before the film is released to the theaters.

But perhaps the film’s biggest sin is that even as it builds up the confrontation and cat/mouse struggle between Hansen and Locken, it subsequently deals with it well before the film’s climax.

Unforgivable!

I obviously can’t recommend The Killer Elite to anyone yet it still fascinated me.  A failure, certainly, but an interesting one that features some interesting actors in a film that should have been a lot better than it ultimately was.

Ah well!

POSTSCRIPT: In 2011 Jason Statham, Clive Owen, and Robert DeNiro stared in a film called Killer Elite.  While it looks like its a remake/reworking of The Killer Elite, it appears not to be.  Here’s its trailer, if you’re curious…

Movies

Doctor Strange (2016) a (mildly) belated review

When I was very young I was a voracious reader.  Almost any book and comic I got my hands on I would read.  In time the first “adult” book I read, a meaty 500+ pager, turned out to be Clive Cussler’s Vixen 03.  I was entranced by the book’s cover and, to this day, still love the image…

Related image

The book, my younger self thought after reading it, was terrific.  So impressed was I with it I quickly looked up and read all the other Clive Cussler books available out there, which at the time amounted to only four, including the also terrific Raise The Titanic!

As the years passed and Mr. Cussler released more books, I read them as well.  However, after a while I came to realize that every one of his books post-Raise The Titanic! were curiously similar, plot-wise.  It was as if Mr. Cussler hit upon a successful formula and was determined to repeat it…over and over and over again.

Sometime into the 1980’s I gave up on Mr. Cussler’s novels and this was due completely to that repetition.  Mr. Cussler (and his various co-writers) have continued making books up to today and I honestly have no idea if he continues to present the same general plots (I would hope not), but the damage was done and I completely lost interest in reading any of the man’s works.

When Doctor Strange came out last year, I was curious to see it.  I like actor Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays the good Doctor, and have found the Marvel movies, at least until roughly last year, to be by and large pleasant entertainment even as the more I saw of them, the more I realized they were, like Clive Cussler and his novels, works that followed a certain formula.

(There is one big exception, the wonderful, and I would argue best Marvel film, Captain America: Winter Soldier)

Worse, many reviews of Doctor Strange released concurrently with its release noted the film was essentially a magic themed remake of the film that started the whole Marvel movie industry rolling, the original Iron Man.

As good as Iron Man was, that film’s fingerprints have indeed been all over just about every Marvel film since.  Robert Downey Jr. was terrific as Tony Stark, the troubled, arrogant, and brilliant head of his self-named company who, thanks to a personal misfortune and a near death experience (his heart is very weak), devises the Iron Man armor and essentially makes himself a hero.  But this hero, unlike others on the screen to that point, retained his cockiness and glib attitude even in the face of death.  And, I repeat, Robert Downey Jr. was terrific in the role.

Unfortunately, not everyone fits that type of role as well.

Subsequent Marvel films have featured the “glib” hero in various stages, even if they don’t have the same arrogance.  It seems with every new Marvel film released, we have heroes -and villains!- offering jokes in the middle of what should be life and death situations.  Sometimes this works but, increasingly, it doesn’t.  At least not for me.

I was not blown away by Captain America: Civil War, though in my original review (you can read it here) I thought it was an enjoyable enough confection whose main problems lay in too many characters running around and too broad -and incomprehensible- a plot.  My opinion of the film, I must say, has taken a bit of a downturn since that original review.  While I still think the airport fight was good and Robert Downey Jr.’s meeting with Aunt May was fun, today I feel the film was more of a wiff than a success.  The very best films are those you are willing to come back to and see again and I seriously doubt I’ll ever watch CA:CW again.

With Doctor Strange, I hoped for the best but, frankly and based on those reviews I mentioned, anticipated the worst.  I feared the critics were right and the film would indeed be Magic Iron Man and I’d turn into my younger self and decide I’d had enough of the Marvel movie universe and their repetitive nature.

Doctor Strange starts with Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelsen, sadly underused), breaking into an ancient library, killing the man in charge of securing it, and stealing pages from an ancient tome.  He is then pursed by a mysterious figure who, we find, is the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton, easily the film’s best element).  Despite the Ancient One’s pursuit, Kaecilius nonetheless gets away and we then cut to…

Doctor Stephen Strange, neurosurgeon/surgeon extraordinaire.  The Iron Man comparisons are apt as he is glib, ultra-wealthy, arrogant, and, shortly after we’re introduced to him, has a life changing accident which destroys his hands and, therefore, wipes out his ability to be a surgeon.

His girlfriend, Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams, truly and sadly wasted in a thankless role) tries to make Dr. Strange see that his life isn’t over but the arrogant and bitter man will not listen to her.  He chases her away while spending all his remaining money on experimental procedures to try to fix his hands.

While in rehab, Dr. Strange hears the story of a man who overcame what should have been paralysis and meets up with him.  The man tells Dr. Strange of a trip he made to the orient and Dr. Strange follows the man’s path, eventually coming upon the Ancient One and her/his (I’m not sure what his/her sex is supposed to be) magic arts study group.

It is there that the skeptical Stephen Strange gains knowledge of the magic arts and not a moment too soon as Kaecilius -conveniently- has waited all this time and politely allowed Dr. Strange to become reasonably proficient in the magic arts before making his move and attempting to destroy Earth.

I’ll get to the bottom line here: I didn’t like Doctor Strange all that much even as I’ll acknowledge it is a perfectly acceptable Marvel film and far from the stable’s worst (I know I’m in a very small minority here, but I really didn’t like Guardians of the Galaxy and feel it is easily the worst of the Marvel films).

The problem with Doctor Strange winds up being similar to the problem I had with the books of Clive Cussler.  I’ve seen this stuff before and, while there are new wrinkles here and there, the repetition is becoming tiresome.

Worse, though, is that the film never engages as much as one would hope.  The direction and editing never give us any big rush or sense of breathless action. The effects, good as they are, also become repetitious after a while.

As good as Robert Downey Jr. was/is at playing the Tony Stark role, even a great actor like Benedict Cumberbatch looks a bit lost trying to emulate that glib/arrogant-yet-funny/heroic type.  The others around him with one notable exception don’t really contribute all that much either.  Chiwetel Ejiofor is only OK as Mordo and his character’s change in the last minutes of the film feels like a plot contrivance rather than something his character logically earns.  I’ve already noted that I felt Rachel McAdams was wasted and Mads Mikkelsen was also underused and presented in a silly way.  He too engages in the glib/”funny” dialogue in inappropriate moments and this further destroys whatever threat levels we should have to the confrontations between Strange and he.

The big exception, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, is Tilda Swinton’s Ancient One.  She’s just enigmatic and stern enough to be intriguing but, when all is said and done, she’s in the film for no more than perhaps 15 minutes.  Nonetheless, I enjoyed just about every scene she was in and it says a lot that I would have rather seen a film about her/him than Dr. Strange!

In the end, while Doctor Strange isn’t a total disaster, it was just…there.  It was only okay.  Perhaps a little above mediocre.

Now that I’ve seen it, I seriously doubt I’ll ever bother watching it again.

Movies

Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence (2004) a (very) belated review

With the upcoming release of the Scarlett Johansson live action Ghost in the Shell, I admit to having gotten curious to revisit what I could of the original series.

I picked up the three new trade hardbacks reprinting the comic books and found them…ok.  The first book was the best but even that one, alas, didn’t impress me here and now as much as it probably would have when it was first released.  The original 1995 animated Ghost in the Shell movie, likewise, was recently revisited by me and while I enjoyed the film, I was surprised by its non-ending (you can read my full review here).  It was almost like the movie was a prologue to a longer, more involved story, one that I suppose came with 2004’s Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence.

While I enjoyed the original Ghost in the Shell animated film, I must admit its sequel left me…weary.

The story, what there is of it, involves robots that are turning on their masters and killing them, and the investigation lead by Batô, the original cyborg partner of the Major (the character Scarlett Johansson plays in the new movie), and Togusa (also a character from the original film) into those killings.

Their partnership, in true movie form, is an uncomfortable one, with the more “human” Togusa worrying about his wife and child and the far less emotional Batô willing to push things as far as needed to solve the case.  He’s also not afraid of violence.

I’ll be blunt here: I didn’t like the film.

While its premise was intriguing enough, the film, to me, had difficulties setting a tone and sticking with it.  What should have been a good action/adventure with some intriguing questions about humanity in the age of cybernetics instead became too often too dull with those ruminations.  Further, it was so clear, even from the opening minutes, that (SPOILER, I suppose) the Major would make a re-appearance after her “disappearance” in the original film that this proved to be the only thing keeping me watching.

As a character Batô isn’t bad, but in the first film he worked because he was a secondary character and our focus was on the enigmatic Major.  In this film, Batô is the main character and his emotionlessness becomes…dull.

Indeed, there was only one sequence in the film that I found incredibly enjoyable, and that was Batô and Togusa’s visit to a Yakuza den.  It was action filled and, especially, hilarious in the set-up and payoff.

I just wish the rest of the film had that vibe.

Visually, this film, like the original Ghost in the Shell, is very pretty, though some of the computer generated images show their age.  When the film was released in 2004, I suspect the computer graphics were quite state of the art but in terms of computer graphics 2004 is a very, very long time ago and it shows.

Anyway, if you liked the original animated Ghost in the Shell and are curious to see the story’s continuation, you should probably check out Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence, if only to see where things go.

Just tamper down your hopes.  The sequel, while enjoyable in spurts, doesn’t do so as a whole.

Movies

The success of Netflix…

I use Netflix.  I suppose most people do.

It’s a nice service that offers both streaming films as well as, if you want to, DVD/BluRays sent to you that are not currently streaming.

Of late they’ve been busy making original shows and features, perhaps most preeminent being the Marvel related series.

Now, according to Devindra Hardawar at engadget.com, they’re expanding into big budget movies…

Netflix’s big budget Death Note remake lands on August 25th

While the headline is about the Death Note movie (included is an intriguing, if not quite great, trailer), Mr. Hardawar notes:

Netflix is no stranger to original films these days, but Death Note is one of the first big budget gambles for the company. It won’t be the last, though: Netflix has also shelled out $90 million for the Will Smith film Bright, $60 million for Brad Pitt’s War Machine and it reportedly spent over $100 million on Martin Scorsese’s next movie, The Irishman, starring Robert DeNiro.

Netflix makes a hell of a lot of money and it seems natural they should invest in movies/TV shows they can show on their services.

…however…

As much as Netflix makes, if one counts the supposed budgets of all these films (Death Note cost 45 million to make), they represent a total investment of (gulp) $295 million dollars.  That’s a terrific amount of cash to invest in what amounts to “only” four movies, regardless of the big names attached to them.

It’s not my money, of course, and if the films are successful they will pave the way toward making Netflix not only a movie provider, a proper movie maker.

I just hope they’re wise with their investments.

Movies

The Other Side of the Wind…finally released?!

In the history of film, there is perhaps no more triumphant/tragic figure than Orson Welles.  Despite a troubled and tragic youth, Mr. Welles would rise to prominence in the New York theater circuit and radio (including notoriety for his War of the Worlds broadcast) before releasing his first film, the critically acclaimed -and the film many consider the best ever made- Citizen Kane.

But despite critical acclaim, Citizen Kane was not a huge financial hit at the time of its release and its reputation grew over the years and at a time when the studios couldn’t make much money off the film, either through video release or TV presentation.

Mr. Welles’ career following the release of Citizen Kane was up and down.  Mr. Welles’ followup film, The Magnificent Ambersons, was ultimately taken from his hands and as he assembled a rough cut and at least an hour of footage was cut and a “happier” ending tacked on.  Mr. Welles’ notes on the movie and his views of what he wanted to make with it are available but, unfortunately, the footage cut is lost forever.  Still, the film as it stands is considered another classic despite the fact that it clearly did not represent Mr. Welles’ vision.

After this, Mr. Welles took on acting jobs and, when he found the funds, directing work.  Many consider Touch of Evil (1958) his last great directorial film but even this work was taken from his hands by the studios and reworked before its theatrical release.  For many years that version was the only version of the film available.  Mr. Welles would pass away in 1985 but years later his notes on how he envisioned the film were rediscovered and, in 1998 a version closer to Mr. Welles’ was released to home video and proved a far better cut (certainly IMHO) than the theatrical version.

Mr. Welles’ last directed film, The Other Side of the Wind, was filmed in the early 1970’s and starred John Huston and Dennis Hopper, among others, but was never completed.  Unlike Touch of Evil, a rough cut of the film was never made and due to financial and legal issues, Mr. Welles never was able to finish it.

Now, in an article by Elyse Wanshel for Huffington Post, it appears the film will eventually be released after all:

Netflix will complete and release Orson Welles’ unfinished film

Though Mr. Welles never created a rough cut of the film as he did with Touch of Evil, his notes were available and, after Netflix cleared the legal/financial issues surrounding this movie, they now have the right to complete and release The Other Side of the Wind.

I’m a fan of Mr. Welles’ work and am curious to see the assembled product.  Because Mr. Welles passed away so many years ago, it is obvious what will eventually be available, by necessity, has to be assembled by other hands.  Nonetheless, given the great results for Touch of Evil, a film which I thought was only “ok” in its theatrical cut and nothing short of a revelation in the new, closer to Welles’ vision cut, I’m curious to see what the people working on The Other Side of the Wind do with that film.