When I first heard about 2014’s The LEGO Movie, I shook my head and arrogantly thought: This sounds like childish trash.
Then the movie was about to be released and I was incredibly surprised to find critics nearly unanimously loved the film. (At this point in time, the movie has a 96% positive among critics and an equally impressive 87% positive among audiences over at Rottentomatoes.com)
Yet I didn’t see the film when it was released.
A few months later, it so happened the family and I were (don’t be jealous) vacationing in England and on the very long flight over there I checked out the films available for me to see and one of them was The LEGO Movie. I decided to give it a try because, frankly, I was curious why the critics so liked it. I still couldn’t believe it could be any good, yet I gave it a try and…
…I was smitten.
The film was incredibly creative, original, and hilarious.
One of the best things about the film was the way it incorporated so many characters into the story. Characters like, you guessed it, Batman.
In fact, its safe to say that of all the special guest stars within The LEGO Movie Batman was the most consistently amusing, which is why it isn’t too big of a surprise that the studios realized they had a damn good thing on their hands and green lit, and this past weekend released, The LEGO Batman Movie (I’ll refer to it as TLBM from now on).
Here’s a “Behind the Bricks” featurette:
Once again featuring Will Arnett voicing Batman, TLBM also features a host of other well known actors voicing other characters. There’s Michael Cera as Robin/Dick Grayson, Rosario Dawson as Barbara Gordon, Zach Galifianakis as The Joker, and Ralph Fiennes as Voldemor—no, he played Alfred (why exactly didn’t he voice Voldemort, whom he played in the Harry Potter films?! Oh, they got Eddie Izzard to do that!).
The big question is: How does TLBM compare to The Lego Movie? Is it on the same level? Is it as good, as creative?
Sadly, the answer is no.
That’s not to say TLBM is a bust. Far from it.
The movie’s first half, in particular, is incredibly amusing and often laugh out loud funny. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line this film, at least to me, lost its momentum and, while its second half wasn’t bad, neither was it quite as sharp and amusing as that first half.
Please don’t misunderstand me: TLBM is a damn good film and easily recommended to not just those who like the LEGO world but to anyone who wants to see a good comedy (it helps if you have a geek’s awareness of many of Batman’s iterations, too, especially the Batman TV show of the 1960’s). Just don’t expect the sustained highs of The Lego Movie.
Recommended but with that one little caveat. (BTW, and without spoiling too much, the absolute best joke comes at Marvel’s expense. Loved it.)
A while back, at the end of last March, I wrote about how director Sofia Coppola was remaking the Clint Eastwood starring, Don Siegel directed 1971 film The Beguiled. (You can read that original article here)
Those who know absolutely nothing at all about this film, quite understandable as I freely admit it isn’t one of Mr. Eastwood’s best remembered works, nonetheless are missing out on what is probably the weirdest film Mr. Eastwood ever made post stardom.
The Beguiled tells the story of John McBurney, an injured Yankee soldier during the Civil War, who is found by a Southern girl’s school and nursed back to health…and the sexual tensions/games played between this officer and the women around him.
This is a dark, dark, dark erotic fable which, because of the presence of Mr. Eastwood in this Civil War setting, plays on your and subverts your expectations (by this time Mr. Eastwood was very well known for his westerns, including the justifiably famous The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, a film which took place at roughly the same period of time).
In my original posting I noted Mr. Eastwood essentially was a “bad guy” in the film…or at least that’s what he ended up being in the end. However, to ascribe “good” and “bad” labels to characters in this film, in retrospect, is probably counterproductive.
This film goes beyond regular movie tropes and delivers a story which, it can be argued, is quite original and not easy to categorize.
Anyway, last March we got the news of Sofia Coppola doing a remake of the film and that it would star Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, and Elle Fanning. There was no word on who would play Mr. Eastwood’s role, at least at that time.
Now, with the release of the remake film’s trailer, we know: Its Colin Farrell…
I…I dunno.
I don’t dislike the casting of Mr. Farrell and certainly have nothing against him…
…but…
The original film benefited immensely from the casting of Clint Eastwood. Putting such a screen icon (he was most certainly there at that point) and having him play a character with such nuance was an incredibly risky move, one that I felt paid off very well.
So risky was the move that it should not be surprising to learn the original film was a box office failure. That same year, 1971, it is worth noting Mr. Eastwood and Siegel would also collaborate on and release Dirty Harry.
I suppose I’m willing to give the remake a try. I just don’t know if it can hold a place next to the so damn dark original.
Here’s a trailer for the original film. It sucks.
Clearly the studios had no freaking idea what they had with the original film and didn’t have a clue how to market it. Still, the film is worth a look see, especially if you are a fan of Clint Eastwood’s acting.
How can a film with a relatively big budget (as these things go),with plenty of exotic locale filming, with some pretty good stuntwork, with some intriguing stars…turn out so damn dull?
The opening action sequences were decent enough and helped re-establish the assassin/hitman character of Arthur Bishop (Jason Statham, natch)…and yet with each passing minute I couldn’t help but fight a too-strong sense of “been there, done that” with the proceedings, which involve Bishop trying to flee his previous life but getting “sucked back in” because he falls for Gina (Jessica Alba, not bad in the damsel in distress role but I really thought there would be one more twist regarding her character at the movie’s end) which allows the bad guys to kidnap her and force Bishop to take on three contracts. In theory, they will let her -and he- go after these three assassinations.
Yeah, sure they will.
So we follow Bishop to different locales around the world (the film’s makers were going for a James Bond/Mission Impossible vibe) as he takes out his targets while figuring a means of getting his girl free.
The movie features not only Mr. Statham and Ms. Alba but Michelle Yeoh in a completely wasted/pointless role. I can’t believe the film’s makers snagged one of the top Asian female action stars and put her in an action film yet couldn’t figure out a way to show off any of her athleticism or dexterity! That’s right, kids, Ms. Yeoh has zero action scenes in this film!
Then there’s the extended cameo toward the end of the film by Tommy Lee Jones. He plays Max Adams, the last of the three targets Bishop is being forced to kill. It is a testament to Tommy Lee Jones’ acting skills that when he appears in the film’s last quarter he single-handedly enlivens this whole dull mess with nothing more than solid, cheerful, and charismatic acting.
Again, I’m at a loss: How could a film with, at least on paper, so many positives turn out so damn bland?
Mechanic: Resurrection should have been far better than it is. Unfortunately, it fails to offer everything it promises and instead gives us a thriller without many thrills and a suspense film devoid of suspense. A big disappointment.
PERSONAL DISCLAIMER: Neither this film nor the original The Mechanic (Both the Bronson and Statham ones) have anything -other than the similar title- to do with my 2009 novel Mechanic, the first book in my Corrosive Knights series.
I admit the 1972 Bronson film was very familiar to me -indeed, I like that film and its nihilistic ending quite a bit- when I named my book, but the term “Mechanic” was used for many years before the release of that film to refer to hitmen and, at least in 2006/7/8/9 when I was working on the novel I figured no one remembered the Bronson film so there would be no confusion between it and my book.
I’ve owned a copy of last summer’s blockbuster Captain America: Civil War (CACW from here on) for many months now and consider the previous Captain America film, The Winter Soldier, which was also directed by the Russo Brothers, one of the best superhero films ever made.
Yet I’ve actively avoided seeing CACW until last night.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that all I’ve read about the film suggests its plot is incredibly similar to that of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, a film that got almost no love at all from critics and even today harshly divides fans. If you’ve read my blog here for any length of time, you’ll know I love BvS and feel in time it will come to be regarded as one of the better superhero films made. (Just for context, my three favorite superhero films at this point in time are Superman (1978), Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and Batman v Superman.)
The backlash against BvS was so damn strong in some parts that, against my better judgment, I found myself defending the film against its critics in some comment boards. A silly thing to do, I know, as opinions are just that and can be strong and ingrained and implacable. Nonetheless I attempted to express my opinions while not slamming others’ yet one thing recurred: People compared BvS with CACW, with CACW being held as a great feature while BvS being belittled by those who hated it as crap.
So as much as I wanted to see CACW, in time I feared these comments/comparisons threatened to taint my opinions of this movie. To put it bluntly: I worried that because I enjoyed BvS while others gleefully ripped it apart -and professed such love for CACW– I might take the opposite track and head into CACW with a far more critical eye than I should.
It’s happened before. I’ve had experiences where “everyone” says a film is great and you go into the theater carrying high expectations only to be disappointed because the film wasn’t as great as you thought/hoped it would be. On the other hand, I’ve also experienced occasions where “everyone” tells you a film is crap and you wind up being pleasantly surprised by what you’ve seen.
The bottom line is that I I don’t get to see as many films as I want to and when I do, I’m hoping to enjoy myself, not look for defects or carry burdensome expectations both pro and con. Thus I avoided seeing CACW because I feared the opinions revolving around the movie and its “rivalry” with BvS might impact my own enjoyment of it.
So time passes and yesterday turns out to be really rotten, weather-wise. It’s rainy and grim and the wife and I ventured out only once earlier in the day and were hunkered down at home for the rest. Come 7 P.M., we’ve seen some stuff we’d recorded on the DVR and its too early to head to bed and we’re wondering what to do.
I decide its time, finally, to see CACW.
As the movie opens, the inevitable comparisons to BvS start. Though I already knew this to be the case from so many spoilery blog entries, I’m nonetheless still surprised by how remarkably similar these stories are as they both involve our heroes dealing with the ramifications of the destruction they’ve made and ending in their confrontation.
In the case of BvS, the fight Superman had against General Zod in Man of Steel is witnessed first hand and on street level by Bruce Wayne (Batman), and after seeing this fearsome display, and the many thousands who died due to it, these visions unhinge the man to the point where he decides Superman has to go…something Lex Luthor is more than happy to exploit.
In CACW we have the Avengers being called out for the destruction they’ve caused in the previous films (and the current one) and they are told (not asked) to sign the “Sokovia Accords”, which will place them under a World/UN-type supervision. Captain America isn’t interested in signing the agreement while Tony Stark (Iron Man) is and this, along with the fact that evidence suggests the Winter Soldier is involved in some terrorist activities, drives a wedge between the superheroes.
What follows is a broad, filled-to-the-brim Superhero spectacle that was very enjoyable to watch, even if it didn’t reach the levels, to me, of Captain America: Winter Soldier or -gasp!- Batman v Superman.
The first problem is that unlike Winter Soldier, I couldn’t help but feel this particular plate was over-filled. CACW isn’t just a “Captain America” film and is too filled with characters to be an “Avengers” film. It is perhaps the first “entire Marvel Universe” film. I suspect that had the movie’s makers the ability to do so, we’d have seen the Fantastic Four and the X-Men in here as well…
…and it wouldn’t change the fact that this film’s plot, when all is said and done, isn’t all that great nor warrants such a large cast. The two biggest “new” add-on super-characters are The Black Panther and a “new” Spider Man but unlike others who loved seeing them I found their appearance OK at best though it was an interesting choice to have Marisa Tomei play the venerable Aunt May. Considering her character has always been presented in comics and film as a very old, very gray grandmotherly-looking person, the choice to cast Ms. Tomei is certainly interesting.
William Hurt and Martin Freeman also show up for what amounts to cameo roles and while Mr. Hurt’s Thaddeus Ross finds relevance in the story I felt Mr. Freeman’s Everette K. Ross didn’t need to be there other than to lock up the other half of the Sherlock duo into the Marvel film universe.
Going back to the movie’s plot, it is best not scrutinized too terribly much. While the villain of the piece has a genuinely good -perhaps even great!- reason to want to break up the Avengers, the way he goes about it involves so many things working out so very well that its impossible a single person, even a gifted intellectual one, could devise and execute this plan. Worse, am I wrong but I don’t believe his character knows, at least until close to the end of the film, if that one last piece of information (MILD SPOILERS: a video) which he hopes to use to break the “friendship” between Captain America and Iron Man, even still exists? He has gone through this insanely intricate process to get not only himself but the main heroes to place X to find and play said video without knowing if it is still there or has deteriorated to the point of being un-viewable. Had that been the case, then what? Did he have a plan B?!
Despite this, CACW is a fun, if sugary, roller coaster ride whose highlight is an airport fight between the various superhero factions. Unlike BvS, the movie’s makers never go as “dark” as that film and while the characters fight they did so in such a good-natured way and while issuing wise-cracks that you never took anything too terribly seriously…until the last fight that is, which is presented in a more “serious” manner. The movie ends on a curiously unresolved note and that, too, bothered me a bit as I wonder if these plot points will be dealt with later on, especially considering the next Avengers films seem to be going in the direction of outer space.
CACW is a good, if not quite outstanding chapter in Marvel’s highly successful movie universe. It’s not a bad way to spend your time but one can’t help but feel but the Rousso brothers took a step back from what they did the last time around.
To begin: Other than their identical names, the two films reviewed here have absolutely nothing to do with each other, OK? It just so happens I saw them both this past week and couldn’t help but review them together.
Beginning chronologically, the 1959 film Warlock features a trio of big name actors in the principle roles. Here’s the movie’s trailer…
Though Henry Fonda at that time was likely the biggest “name” actor in the cast, the movie’s main character is Johnny Gannon (Richard Widmark, quite good), a member of a group of roughneck cowboys who, in the movie’s opening minutes, are shown to terrorize the town of Warlock (that, folks, is where the movie’s name comes from). In those opening minutes it is clear his character is very conflicted.
While his brother and friends are part of this group of roughnecks who run the town’s sheriff out, it is clear he feels they’re going too far. As the film’s story is revealed, there is very good reason for his conflicted feelings.
One day, the roughnecks go a little too far and one of them murders the town’s barber. The town folk meet and decide they will hire a “Marshall” to come in and make law and order. The man they hire is Clay Blaisedell (Henry Fonda) who brings along his companion Tom Morgan (Anthony Quinn). The two are fearsome gunfighters and, upon meeting those who hired them, Blaisedell tells them at first they’ll love him for what he does but eventually they’ll come to fear -and hate- him for the exact same reasons. Indeed, the implication is that Blaisedell and his companion move from town to town ending the rampant violence caused there but when the job is done, not only are they no longer needed, they’re no longer wanted.
Into this mix come two female characters, Lilly Dollar (Dorothy Malone, quite good as a woman with a grudge against Blaisedell) and seemingly meek townswoman Jessie Marlowe (Dolores Michaels, absolutely stunning, who develops feelings for the same man).
The movie, directed by the legendary Edward Dmytryk, creates a Greek tragedy-type drama with the notion of mercenary justice versus proper law and order. While Blaisedell is presented as a decent man, the fact is his job involves being a great terror to the people who are are terrors to others. Meanwhile his good friend Tom Morgan uses his own means of keeping their partnership going while Gannon wrestles with family issues (his brother is a member of the roughneck group) while wanting to bring genuine law and order to this town he lives in.
Add to the mix a delightful turn by DeForest Kelley as Curley Burne, one of the roughnecks who just may, in the end, renounce his ways and you have an entertaining film that lands, IMHO, just shy of some of the great westerns of that era even as it strives to join them.
The problem with this film is that we’re presented an awful lot of characters with various motivations and, while the film runs a healthy 2 hours, it feels like at times the film presents these motivations -and changes in the characters- a little too abruptly for my taste. The movie was based on a novel by Oakley Hall and, while I never read the novel, it is my understanding the book presented far more characterization than the movie could, and certain characters were discarded which may have hurt the overall presentation.
Still, the film was entertaining and, while it may not have quite delivered a High Noon or Shane-type classic western experience, if you’ve got the time, you’d do far worse than giving Warlock a try.
And now for something completely different…the trailer for the 1989 horror film called…Warlock!
Taking its general plot -and inverts it- from (of all things) The Terminator, Warlock is nonetheless and entertaining, if somewhat dated, horror film involving two time travelers, one of which is a…witch. Or rather, a Warlock, the male version of a witch.
The Warlock, played with a delightful evil edge by Julian Sands, is apprehended in the late 1600’s and set to be executed but manages to use a spell to escape to the movie’s present (ie, 1989). Hot on his tail and entering the spell as it is cast is Giles Redferne (Richard E. Grant, also quite fun), that era’s Witch Hunter.
They land at separate points and the Warlock starts his search for the three parts of the “Devil’s Bible”, an artifact that when put together reveals the true name of God, and can undo all of creation.
His search takes him to a home in which Kassandra (Lori Singer), a down on her luck (money wise) new wave woman lives. Within the home and hidden in a table the Warlock finds the first of the three parts of the Bible he seeks. He also takes out the home’s owner and casts a spell on Kassandra which ages her very quickly and will kill her in a matter of days.
Redferne appears, hot on the tail of the Warlock, and together with Kassandra they set out to find -and stop- the Warlock before he finds the last two parts of the Bible and destroys all of creation. So, like The Terminator, we have time traveling duelists coming to the present but, as mentioned above, the plot is inverted because the bad guy is the one being pursued by the present day female and the good time traveler.
Warlock’s screenplay was written by David Twohy who today is probably best known for writing and directing the “Riddick” films, from Pitch Black to The Chronicles of Riddick to Riddick to the upcoming Furia.
The movie is at times cheesy and I suspect many of its scares have been diluted with the passage of time. While reading some of the original reviews/opinions regarding the film, it appeared when it was originally released it was considered very scary but in watching it today, nearly thirty years after its original release, I suspect the film could be shown intact on TV today and nobody would blink an eye. Worse, some of the special effects presented have aged tremendously and therefore are pretty weak.
Still, the interactions between the characters was fun and, while cheesy, the film created an interesting reality in which the fight against the Warlock incorporates some (I’m assuming) historical methods for dealing with the beast.
Though I enjoyed seeing the film, I have to admit this is a hard one to recommend, especially to today’s audiences. Warlock is most certainly a product of its era and, when viewed today, may try people’s patience, especially with regard to the not so-special effects.
Nonetheless, if what I’ve written above intrigues you, give the film a try. It might just entertain you as much as it did me.
Just before the 2017 Oscar nominees are named (which just happened), the 2017 “Razzies” were named.
The Razzies, for those who don’t know, are a tongue in cheek “award” for the “worst” films of the year. The full list can be found here, though the headline spoils at least two of the films on the list:
When the Razzies first came to predominance, they were a funny lark. They pointed out terrible films and, for the most part justifiably, roasted them.
As for this year’s nominees, I’ve seen only two of the “Worst Picture” nominees, and those are the two that are listed in the article’s headline. The others, which I have yet to see (and, frankly, have little interest in) are: Dirty Grandpa, Gods of Egypt, Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party, and Independence Day: Resurgence.
Of the two I have seen, I feel Zoolander 2 is, sadly, an appropriate choice. I reviewed the film a while back (you can read the full review here) and while admitting to laughing at some of the movie’s jokes, ultimately felt it was one of the stupidest things I’d ever seen…and I do not say this as a compliment.
So we’re back to Batman v Superman.
It seems like I can’t get away from defending that film. Today, many months after its release, there remain sharp divisions between fans of the film and detractors and I find it so damn curious.
I stated before that over time the film would get a re-evaluation and I remain certain this will be the case.
Yet I can’t deny the fact that those who hate, hate, hate the film seem to do so with a passion I’ve not seen directed at other films.
I suspect the reason is that we have three comic book icons presented, for the very first time, all together in a film…and instead of presenting us with a colorful, “fun” action-fest, we’re given a dour, at times dark and depressing work that is more meditative than action filled (there are long stretches of the film that don’t feature any action at all, while some of the bigger action sequences are very dark indeed).
If the film had featured three “new” superhero characters, I suspect people might not have reacted quite as negatively as they did, though that’s pure supposition on my part.
Regardless, for a large segment of the country, hating on BvS is something to do while, for people like me, defending the film seems to also be something people do.
I still think in time, when passions finally cool and people can look at the film with “fresh” eyes, they may come to realize its a far more ambitious -and successful- film than they thing it is.
A couple of months ago and on a website devoted to upcoming films I read about a low budget indie film that was about to be released called Kill Command. Here is its trailer:
I don’t know about you, but I loved what I saw.
The movie was released to VOD and was made available for purchase and I had her on my list of films to see via Netflix. Yesterday, I finally had a chance to see the film and…
Not bad. Not bad at all.
To begin, the film is indeed a low budget affair but despite this, and as should be evident in the trailer above, the effects are nonetheless quite impressive…for the most part. I won’t lie: There are times the effects aren’t as good and this is when the homicidal machines are on the move or being shot at (in general the effects for the creatures when they’re not moving all that quickly are quite good. When they’re moving quickly…not so good).
So how’s the story?
Pretty engaging, at least until the very end (I’ll get to that in a moment).
In the near future, a group of soldiers are ordered to train against robotic machines on an isolated island. Joining them in the group is Mills (Vanessa Kirby, who is quite good), a human with cyber “augmentations” which allows her to link up with machines. The soldiers in the group generally don’t trust her and, once they arrive on the island, that trust is strained even more as outgoing and incoming radio communications are blocked. The soldier group’s leader, Captain Bukes (Thure Lindhardt, also quite good), suspects something is up and is very weary of Mills’ presence.
For her part Mills tries to help the others out. She “sees” robotic machinery deep in the woods and, eventually, scout ships fly in (sometimes very close) to watch over what the human soldiers are up to.
Eventually, the soldiers’ target, a group of robotic armed soldiers moving along a path in the island’s forest, is spotted. The soldiers set up an ambush and quickly get to the business of dispatching these machines. While they do, Mills notices something off in the distance and behind their group. She goes to investigate and finds a larger, frightening looking robot fighting machine. She links up with it and receives odd messages and images before blanking out…
When she recovers, the machine is gone.
She returns to the group and they continue their movements…until it becomes clear the hunters have become the hunted.
Kill Command is certainly not The-Most-Original-Movie-Ever-Created™. Indeed, the trailer above offers a positive review which, quite correctly, states the movie is something of a mash up of Predator and The Terminator, which to me is far from a bad thing.
The actors take their roles seriously and the threat -and suspense- becomes quite real. Kudos to director/writer Steven Gomez for infusing his film with this palpable sense of dread and managing to get some top effect-work out of what was, again, a very low budget.
If there is one flaw in the film, for me it was the movie’s conclusion (told you I’d get back to this). Given that talking about it will reveal some rather big SPOILERS, I’ll get to that in a moment.
In the meantime, if the above trailer intrigues you, I recommend you give Kill Command a try. Its a damn good sci-fi/suspenser which may not quite be up to the level of either Predator or the original Terminator but nonetheless acquits itself quite nicely before that aforementioned ending.
Still not sure you want to see it? Here are the film’s first few minutes (though there are a couple of scenes, if memory serves, not shown and therefore it is not exactly accurate that this is the first eight minutes of the movie):
Anyway, what follows are…
SPOILERS
YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!!
If you’re still here, I hope you’ve given the film a try or are genuinely not interested in seeing it and curious about what bothered me about the film’s end.
Here goes.
As the soldiers are attacked by the machines, they are picked off one by one (a rather standard, even cliched concept that nonetheless ramps up the suspense nicely). The big mystery of what the machines are up to isn’t such a big mystery in the end. Basically, the “main machine” behind the others is becoming self-aware and, as it was programmed to be a war robot, it has turned the tables on the human soldiers and made its robotic army use the humans for training.
Mills tries to break into the machine and make it stand down at various stages of the film, but she is unsuccessful.
By the end of the movie, three soldiers and Mills are all that’s left alive. They set up a final stand and the movie’s climax becomes a “siege”, with the overwhelming number of robots coming in for the kill.
However, Mills at this point has an Electromagnetic Pulse bomb (EMP) which she tells Captain Mills will wipe the mad machine’s internal programming and, therefore, end its threat. Only problem is that to do this she has to lure it close to the EMP and that, in turn might wipe out Mills’ cybernetic memory as well.
Captain Bukes, who started the movie off very weary about Mills and her place in this training mission, nonetheless now doesn’t want her to sacrifice herself. Nonetheless, circumstances eventually dictate that both Mills and the killer robot be far closer together than hoped for when the EMP is detonated.
Both machine and Mills suffer serious injury to their cybernetic cortex yet the fight continues. Mills, facing memory shut down, manages to lure the homicidal robot up into a building and, using her control over a sniper rifle, shoots the creature through its “head”.
As the creature dies and Mills’ memory is wiped, we see that the creature has downloaded itself into the now “blank” memory banks within Mills.
The remaining soldiers, thankful they have survived the onslaught, take Mills with them to their awaiting transport, unaware that she may now be carrying the homicidal creature’s mind within her. However, she is still a human and we must assume that not all her personality is carried within her programming. Therefore we’re left to wonder: What will this programming do? What will happen from here on?
And that, my friends, is the type of ending that drives me freaking nuts.
They might as well put a giant “THE END….?” or “TO BE CONTINUED” title after the final fade out.
Frankly, I’m tired of movies pulling this too-ambiguous crap.
Is it so damn hard to give audiences a story which features a complete beginning, middle, and ending while resisting the temptation to add sequel fare at the very end?
Worse, this ending is an inverse copy of David Cronenberg’s famous 1981 film Scanners. In that film we follow good and bad telepaths and, at that movie’s climax, they face off and use their psychokinetic abilities against each other. The good guy takes the worse of it and his body disintegrates. However, before its completely gone his mind “jumps” into the bad-guy’s body and takes it over. Thus we have the good guy “win” in the end even though audiences see the bad guy’s *body* left standing.
We don’t know where Kill Command goes from here because there’s too much ambiguity about this programming jump. Clearly we’re supposed to suspect things might go very bad when Mills makes it back to the mainland.
But, again, why do this to us? Why not give us an unambiguous ending and perhaps hint that the machine is still alive elsewhere and in another of the robotic units? Why go this route?
Sorry for the rant, but it genuinely hurts me to see a film that, IMHO, is 98% good/decent which then stumbles during its final five minutes.
Taking up where 2016 left off, yesterday came news of the passing of Miguel Ferrer, who was only 61 years old and suffered from throat cancer.
While his name may not be as familiar to the public as that of his famous cousin George Clooney, Miguel Ferrer, who was the son of noted actor Mel Ferrer and Rosemary Clooney, leaves behind a great body of cinematic and television role work.
Perhaps his best known role, and likely the one that catapulted him the most to being a “star”, may be that of the slimy, yet ultimately oddly sympathetic yuppie Bob Morton from the original 1987 RoboCop. Here’s a behind the scenes examination of his character’s exit from the movie…
Mr. Ferrer would often play these arrogant, slimy characters yet manage to make audiences feel for them even if they are, on paper anyway, off-putting.
However, though perhaps known for that persona, Mr. Ferrer appeared in many other works and I’ll remember him for roles in TV and film as diverse as Deepstar Six (cheesy fun), Twin Peaks, Hot Shots Part Deux (he is quite funny in this somewhat forgotten Charlie Sheen starring Airplane!-like comedy), and The Night Flier.
61 years of age is far too young an age to pass. Rest in peace, Mr. Ferrer.
It is impossible to review a relatively new movie featuring Mel Gibson without first addressing the controversy surrounding the man. While what happened to him occurred a long time ago, there are many who still cannot stomach watching a film featuring the actor.
I can’t blame people for having that opinion.
It seemed Mel Gibson’s life went seriously off the rails at that time and he himself has stated he was in another frame of mind at that time and heavily into drinking…a mix that could have resulted in tragedy instead of what actually happened: Mel Gibson became a Hollywood pariah.
To some extent, he’s still there and the proof is obvious. When Hacksaw Ridge, the critically acclaimed WWII drama he directed was released this year, TV commercials for the film stated something along the lines of: “From the director who brought you Braveheart” yet nowhere was it mentioned that director happened to be Mel Gibson.
So for those who simply cannot see a Mel Gibson film without being reminded of the things he did, Blood Father is obviously not for you. For the rest, here’s my review…
Blood Father is a low budget “B” action movie featuring Mel Gibson in the title role. His character, Link, is a curious amalgam of the “real” Mel Gibson and the types of characters he is best known to play. Characters who hide an inner rage and may be just a little crazy yet are, in the end, noble and trying to do what’s right. Like Mad Max or Martin Riggs, these people aren’t supermen. They carry a lot of hurt inside and can barely contain it. They will also fight for their loved ones and, quite literally, step in front of a bullet for them.
As the movie begins, we see Link in an AA meeting (here’s where real life, I suppose, mixes with fantasy). Link talks before the group, offering a “state of the state”-type statement, that he’s been sober for two years and living clean. Clearly the past has scarred him, bad, yet he’s fighting along, trying to do what’s right.
Link lives in a shabby trailer (not unlike Martin Riggs!) and works as a tattoo artist. On the walls of his trailer are posters for his lost child. Clearly, he misses her badly and wants to get back to her.
Meanwhile, we catch up on Link’s daughter, Lydia (Erin Moriarty) and find she’s mixed up with the wrong crowd. They’re a group of violent, drug dealing Mexican traffickers who are in the process of strong-arming (and killing) people who worked for them. Lydia can’t handle the scene and, accidentally, shoots her boyfriend and flees his violent friends.
Having no one to turn to, she calls Link and asks for some money so she can disappear. Link hurries to get her but soon enough he’s confronting the violent Mexican traffickers as well as the police while trying to save his daughter’s life.
As mentioned above, Blood Father is a low budget “B” action film and I suspect if it wasn’t for Mel Gibson’s presence, and pretty damn good acting, the film might easily have disappeared without much of a trace. Mind you, the way it was handled by the studios did a pretty good job in burying it anyway (I heard almost nothing about the film until it was available on VOD), so any success the movie has -modest though it likely was- is a testament to the quality of the film alone.
And there is quality here.
For most of the film’s run I enjoyed the movie, though I have to admit I groaned more than a little at the way Lydia allowed the bad guys to track her (Come on, girl, its understandable your old man doesn’t know about modern technology but don’t you know Apple iPhones can be tracked?!).
Anyway, regardless of this, the film moved along well and the action sequences were tightly cut, exciting, and never over the top. There is even one action sequence involving Mel on a motorcycle that echoed Mad Max in the very best way possible and was, to me, the highlight of the film.
But having said all that, the film did have issues.
The biggest flaw, to me was the casting of Ms. Moriarty in the role of Lydia. Don’t get me wrong, Ms. Moriarty is a damn fine actress. I think she played her role as well as she could. But she just didn’t fit the part of a drug snorting/boozing runaway who was at the edge of a precipice and coming down the drugs/booze while in the care of her father. In this movie she’s supposed to be a young version of Link, something her father is all too painfully aware of so he hopes to clean her up and offers her something he never had: A second chance.
Again, Ms. Moriarty, IMHO, is a good actress but she looked a little too “clean” for this role and I found it hard to believe she was someone who lived on the streets for several years before returning to her father.
However, this was a minor problem compared to the movie’s climax, which for me was something of an abrupt dud.
As I said before, this was a low budget film and the climax of the movie makes that all too clear. The final shootout proved to be the film’s least exciting action sequence, and it boggles my mind that was the case. There was little tension and a resolution that felt hurried and, ultimately, hurt the film more than the miscasting of Ms. Moriarty.
Sadly, one can have 3/4ths of a damn good film ruined by the last 1/4ths. While I don’t believe the lame ending of Blood Father completely wiped the film out, it took all that good will and, unfortunately, squandered it in a less than exciting shootout.
I truly, truly wish the film had done something a little better here.
Regardless, while Blood Father may have its flaws, it is an exciting (for the most part) film that features Mel Gibson in a familiar type role, one that he handles quite well. Considering some of the other “geriatric” action films of late, even with its missteps Blood Father is worth a look see.
Here’s the film’s trailer which, unfortunately, gives a little too much away…
Confession time: I love the Absolutely Fabulous (or AbFab) TV series which originally ran from 1992 until 2012.
Like most British TV shows, the episodes presented each season were fewer than those found on U.S. TV shows. AbFab’s first season, for instance, featured 6 thirty minute episodes. Subsequent seasons ran between 6 and 9 episodes each, with the final “season” being a mere 3 episodes long.
After that last season, I figured that was it for Absolutely Fabulous. Not so, as the above headline clearly makes obvious. Here’s the trailer for the 2016 film…
Now, if you’re not a fan of Absolutely Fabulous and have no idea what the heck it is about…I suspect the trailer won’t do much for you. Heavens knows, I’m a fan of the show and the trailer didn’t do all that much for me.
Alas, this trailer is, unfortunately, a pretty good indication of what you’re getting with the movie. Let me reiterate: I’m a fan of the series. I loved the misadventures of the ditzy Edina (Jennifer Sanders, who created and wrote most of the series episodes and wrote the screenplay to the movie) and her best friend, the spectacular vampiric Patsy (Joanna Lumley in the role of a lifetime…and several more!).
So, clearly, I hated the film, right? It’s not worth it at all, right?
No.
There are funny moments to be found in the AbFab film and many of the cameos are quite funny. But the problem is this film never really hits the “hilarious” stride I was hoping for.
While I’m glad to see the whole gang again -and then some- this movie moves along at a rather slow pace and some of the comedic set pieces work (the flight to France, a rather unique karaoke club, and the fate of Kate Moss) while others (Patsy dressing as a man, as seen in the trailer) absolutely…don’t.
The film’s biggest problem ultimately is that as good as the good stuff is, it simply isn’t enough to offset both the leisurely pace and the many parts that don’t work as well.
By the time the film reaches its climax and you expect things to get frantic, the film seems lost and, curiously, decides to crib its climax from The Return of the Pink Panther. Don’t believe me? Check out the AbFab movie trailer above and pay particular attention to the scenes where Edina and Patsy are in a very small red car…and what happens to them in it.
Now check out the scenes presented below from The Return of the Pink Panther. Pay particular attention to what happens between the 49 second mark through approximately 1:50…
Strange.
Anyway, if you are a fan of Absolutely Fabulous, the TV show, you’ll probably like the film alot more than if you’re a newbie. However, even fans of the show, I suspect, will be surprised at how (by the Gods, I’m turning into Donald Trump!!!) low energy this movie is.
While the AbFab film is not a total disaster and there are some very amusing scenes, one nonetheless can’t help but feel this was a missed opportunity.
