A Million and One Problems but This Ain't One

Seth MacFarlane never really gets the respect he deserves.

Oh, don't mistake me, because if you've seen any of his work, you know it's entirely his own fault. If you can stand watching TV shows Family Guy or American Dad! for more than a few minutes at a time, it's obvious he's a smart, clever entertainer. In terms of wordplay, he can blow his contemporaries away with ease, and he his timing is so smooth and perfect that he will not only catch you off guard with his witty repartee, but do so in the best, most efficient way possible. But he torpedoes his own talent in two ways. One, he's at times excessively vulgar. A byproduct of the "extreme gross-out" comedy format that became big at end of the 1990's, MacFarlane lives and dies on his ability to deliver whatever shock value that the FOX network won't censor on his TV shows. Sometimes it works... and more often than not he goes a little too far, depicting gags that go on too long, or are so vile as to disgust. Naturally, this is only my opinion; your mileage may vary. The second complaint about the filmmaker is that he has one joke: the nostalgic non-sequitor accompanied by immediate visual recreation. Now, while I wouldn't say it's his ONLY joke, he used it so often on Family Guy that it's become his signature style, and since he definitely doesn't do anything in moderation, it gets old. Again, my opinion.

"Get on with it!"

So when MacFarlane's directorial debut Ted came out in 2012, what came as the biggest shock was that, from a first-time live-action filmmaker whose TV shows were VERY hit-or-miss, Ted's gags were mostly hits. The humor was creative, the storytelling was solid, and the material was approachable and understandable while also undeniably being MacFarlane's usual brand of adult-only entertainment. A Million Ways to Die in the West, however, is more like the director's previous work. That is, it tries really hard to force gags that don't work and winks for the camera to make sure you got it. If Ted was an example of MacFarlane successfully refraining from his too-frequently used vices, then this is his movie where he revels in them. Appearing live on the big screen for the first time, MacFarlane plays a Albert Stark, a cowardly sheep farmer in the 1882 who regularly bemoans the danger of living in the Wild West, where everything from nature to outlaws to sickness is out to get you. This thinking drives away the love of his life Louise (Amanda Seyfried), and as she was the only happy thing in Albert's life, he tries to get her back from her new douchebag boyfriend Foy (a hilarious Neil Patrick Harris). Along the way he befriends Anna, a tough-as-nails female gunslinger (Charlize Theron), pisses off a notorious outlaw (Liam Neeson) and take a drug trip with a Native American tribe. Truly, this is a story for the ages.

The moustache is the real star of the show.

There is a lot wrong with MacFarlane's second feature, but the most obvious is that the story is so... ordinary. The themes are readily apparent, most of them drawn from the usual Western cliches. The only think that makes A Million Ways unique is the treatment of Albert, who readily admits that he is not a hero, but "the guy in the crowd making fun of the hero's shirt." It's a refreshing change of pace to not see a John Wayne or a Wayne-wannabe taking the top spotlight in this kind of movie. However, there's a definite message here for the "nice guy" (that they don't finish last if they try), and while that's kind of unique for a Western setting, we've seen it a million times in teen comedies, and it's no fresher for the change of locale. And MacFarlane's attack on the romanticizing of the old west comes out as not timeless, but out-of-time; the average movie-going public doesn't care about the Western genre, so making fun of it isn't so much a whimsical nostalgic homage as it is kicking someone while they're down.

Obviously, Theron's on a new diet...

It doesn't help that the characters are a bit of a bore as well, with most actors not nearly used to their best effect. MacFarlane could almost be called the exception, but for the fact that a man known for doing funny voices never once alters his speech, even as a joke. It's like having Michael Winslow in a movie and NOT having him do his human beatbox routine. In fact, the actor/director's performance highlights the holes in his acting talent, as he's just not the lead actor type. He's got some charisma, but his screen presence is just off, since he doesn't know how to actually work in front of a camera after years of work behind it and doing voice-over work. At least Harris knows how to mug for the camera effectively, adapting well to MacFarlane's brand of storytelling. He really is the film's best performer, even if he's not given nearly as much to do. It's not that the rest of the actors are BAD, but that they're just written poorly and have little to do, playing nothing but stereotypes. Seyfried is a classic "bitchy ex-girlfriend". Neeson is the deadly outlaw with no sense of humor (he doesn't even get good dialogue). Giovanni Ribisi is the "mild-mannered best friend". Sarah Silverman is Ribisi's golden-hearted, dim-witted girlfriend (points off for Silverman's limp performance, but I'll give the character credit for being a prostitute who wants to wait for sex with her boyfriend until marriage because she's Christian. That's clever.). Theron is the "cool girl friend (not girlfriend)", and Theron doesn't so much play her as show up to speak her lines. And no, I don't think the Academy Award-winning actress was doing such a good job that I couldn't tell the difference. At least she seems to be having fun, which is a trait most of the cast seem to be sharing. Again, Neeson appears to be the exception, because he's playing the villain so straight. A bit TOO straight, in face, considering this production.

Neeson: a straight shot in a winding narrative.

Thankfully, the dialogue and humor isn't bad, and redeems some of the film's more lifeless efforts. MacFarlane (who teamed up on the script with his Ted co-writers Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild) delves full into his chosen topic, the variety of deaths in the American West, and has a lot of fun playing around with the concept. And when he focuses his the story here and not on the primary plot, THAT is when A Million Ways lives up to its premise, with Albert ranting on about the dozens of diseases rampant in the area (dysentery is referred to as "the black $#!&"), to the occasional off-handed comments about the hostility of local Native Americans ("...we're basically sharing the country with them 50/50.") to the numerous surprising cameos that I will not spoil, because they're just too perfect. Finally, MacFarlane has always had a good feel when it came to music, and he and composer Joel McNeely do a great job scoring this picture, mixing classic western music with more modernistic parody songs like "If You've Only Got a Moustache" and title track "A Million Ways to Die", for which you will want to sit through the closing credits to hear. This is where we get the upper level of MacFarlane's creativity. It's just too bad that the main story needed some work, as if the director had put as much effort into the plot that as he did making it anachronistic and edgy and fun, this could have been a great movie.

I know, I can't believe I'm giving this a decent review, either.

So no, it's no Ted, but A Million Ways to Die in the West isn't that bad, either. Does MacFarlane have the chops to be a lead actor? Absolutely not. Does he need a filter on occasion? Yes, the man never found a barrier he wouldn't cross just to say that he did. Is the script surprisingly and incredibly lazy? Yes, but the actors do try to have fun with it anyway. There are enough laughs to get you through the surprisingly long (nearly two hours, unheard of for a modern comedy) run time, and they hit more often than they miss. Heck, even when they miss, they aren't as bad as say... the worst bits from his Oscar hosting performance. There's no denying that those who do not think much of MacFarlane's brand will do best to stay away, but that's not to say that you have to be a fan to "get" this movie. It's harmless fun, albeit of a decidedly adult nature. The biggest complaint I have is that MacFarlane definitely half-assed this production, and that's the main reason it doesn't compare to even his best televised work. He relies too much on his usual schtick, and that's just not good enough to succeed at this level. Maybe one day he'll live up to his true potential (as he got close with Ted) but for now he'll just have to settle for not getting that respect a little bit longer.

Sweet Revenge

It's really not rare for a studio to create a sequel to a popular movie. It's also not rare for said sequel to change little in what made the dynamic of the first movie work so well. It IS however rare for that sequel to then match the actual quality of the original, without feeling like more of the same. Expendables 2, anyone? The Hangover: Part 2? Ghostbusters 2, Home Alone 2, Rocky II, the list goes on. And on, and on, and on. With few exceptions, these sequels changed only cosmetic details of the plot, resulting in the exact same tale all over again. And almost all of them were of lesser quality than their predecessors, to boot. So when you see the trailers for Taken 2, with all the violence and action of Pierre Morel's Taken but with none of lead actor Liam Neeson's patented "certain set of skills" speech, you have to wonder if this sequel was just going to be a poorly-made copy. On the other hand, with Taken hardly holding a complicated premise, perhaps more of the same wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Just turned 60: can still kick ass.

Taken 2 plays straight out of a classic revenge tale; former CIA agent Bryan Mills (Neeson) has reunited with his family after the events of Taken, and continued with his bodyguard work. With ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) split from her new husband and daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) still recovering from the shock of her kidnapping in Paris, Bryan invites them to Istanbul, where he has just completed a security contract, to help take their minds off of their troubles. But while they think the evils of the world are long gone, they don't realize that Bryan is a hunted man. The families of the men he killed in France have sworn revenge, and now an Albanian hit squad has infiltrated Istanbul. Their mission? To kidnap Bryan and his family, and to make him suffer for their losses. Our hero will have to fall back on all his "special skills" to neutralize the threat and keep his family out of danger and get them back home safely.

Talking on the phone while committing mass murder may soon be against the law.

Yes, it's clearly the same plot as the first movie; hell, for a few minor details, it's EXACTLY the same thing. Director Olivier Megaton picks up everything Morel did the first time around and ran with it, but while the man behind the fun Colombiana  has possibly the best name for an action director, he doesn't have the cajones to let the action carry the movie as much as it should. Besides filming way too many establishing shots, Megaton's idea of fight choreography is to zoom the camera in as closely as he can to disguise what is actually happening. There might be a good reason to do so (Neeson was 59 at the time of filming and is potentially on his last legs as an action star), but it doesn't change the fact that closeup cams are one of the worse crimes Hollywood perpetrates, especially when compared to the expertly captured work of something like Raid: The Redemption (Jeez, I keep referencing this one; maybe I should just own it). When Megaton isn't half-assing fight scenes, he's pitting Bryan Mills against such high odds that what happens on the screen runs the gamut of "Mildly Unbelievable" to "No way in Hell", for instance when he and Kim survive an assault from a heavy machine gun in what must be an armored taxi (well, it IS Turkey...). While I liked the idea that the deaths of all those faceless goons in Taken had consequences in the production of this sequel, it's a concept they barely take so far as to point out that killing all the faceless goons HERE might have a similar effect. Action movies always have to be taken with a grain of salt, but the list of things Bryan manages to survive with barely a scratch gets more and more ridiculous as the story progresses.

Don't worry, she's not in this one much.

Of course, there was really only one good reason to see Taken 2, and that was Neeson himself. Despite treading this ground frequently the past few years (not only in Taken but also Unknown and The Grey), the Irish thespian never fails to make you believe that, given the opportunity, he could and would use your skull as a target and your spine as a punching bag should you piss him off. While he doesn't get a chance to offer up any chilling monologues, Bryan's characterization becomes a "less is more" endeavor, playing up Neeson's pure screen presence. Besides his menacing profile, Neeson does a great job in the investigative side of his character, showing us almost effortlessly why Bryan is so good at his job. He absolutely MAKES Taken 2, and I have no doubt that without his talent as part of the package, this would have just been another mediocre Jason Statham flick.

Putting a face to all the Eastern European criminals out there.

The rest of the cast is, how shall we say it, a mixed bag. You will quickly become tired of Grace and Janssen, the former of which is barely a step up from the simpering mess that was her role in Taken, while the latter not benefiting at all from the extended screen time. Grace, who is following up a VERY similar job in April's Lockout, either doesn't have what it takes to make it as an actress or just doesn't care about the roles she takes. Either way ought to see her doing bad teen slasher flicks in a few years, which might actually force her to emote, so that would be an improvement. And I couldn't get out of my mind that Janssen once was one of Hollywood's darlings, especially in her recurring role as Jean Grey in the X-Men films. Here her emotions are visibly forced, and she is simply out of her element as a performer. The one major cast addition also turns out to be the best: Rade Serbedzija's role as the main baddie might seem like a transparent attempt to put a face to all the corruption and crime in places like Albania, but he does an amazing job chewing scenery, rattling off excellent dialogue and holding his own in the few scenes opposite Neeson. Serbedzija has recently made American audiences aware of his presence, with roles in 24 and Harry Potter, so hopefully this will translate to more Hollywood roles in his future.

Killing folks makes him sad... that doesn't mean he won't do it.

Despite being a carbon copy of the original and featuring more logic holes than an unfinished puzzle book, seeing Bryan Mills (and by extension, Neeson) out for another round of bad-assery will be well worth your time if you enjoyed Taken, and I know that a lot of people did. I went to see this over the weekend with Todd and a few of her co-workers, and we all agreed that while this was one of the stupider movies released in 2012 (the year of Battleship, mind you), it was still a lot of fun if you don't expect too much. This is one of those movies that delivers exactly what it promises, and to be fair if you thought you were getting something more then you don't really understand what Taken is all about. Another sequel would certainly be too much, but for now Neeson and company satisfy your desire for that good action flick you might have been waiting months for, and manages to at least get close to the majesty that was its progenitor. Just turn your brain off, ignore all those silly inconsistencies, and enjoy.

All reviews should end with milkshakes.

Movie Monday: Battleship

It's that time again! Hello, Mr. Anderson and Open Letters Monthly are happy to once again team up and bring you reviews of the latest films to hit theaters. This week, we take a look at the expensive and officially-licensed naval action board game adaption, Battleship.

Directed by Peter Berg and starring Taylor Kitsch, Alexander Skarsgard, Liam Neeson, Rihanna, Brooklyn Decker and Tadanobu Asano, Battleship takes you to the beautiful waters of the Pacific Ocean, where the navies of the world are coming together in the spirit of cooperation and competition for their biannual RIMPAC war games. A strange contact at sea draws the attention of three ships, whose crews find themselves facing unbelievable odds as they are suddenly the world's only hope against an alien invasion.

Click here to read the whole Battleship review at Open Letters Monthly!

It's a Monster Mash

Two years ago, Clash of the Titans was remade for the big screen, directed by Transporter helmsman Louis Leterrier and starring the action genre's newest hero Sam Worthington. Buoyed by those names, the film was a huge success by any standards, grossing almost $500 million worldwide. Looking back on it today, it's difficult to consolidate that success with what we see now as one of the worst excesses of Hollywood moviemaking in the modern era. Clash was one of the first films to embrace 3D conversion following James Cameron's Avatar; but unlike the Oscar-nominated epic, criticism for it generally revolved around the effects, which were nowhere near the same standard as Cameron's piece. Worse, the film never felt like anything more than an endless hall of action sequences, character development apparently crushed beneath the technical designs of a released Kraken. I saw the film on DVD and so never had to witness its 3D conversion, but for the most part I enjoyed Clash as a mindless diversion, if not necessarily a good focus for my free time. Now Clash of the Titans has succeeded in one way in which the 1981 Harryhausen classic never did: it spawned a sequel. With the bland name Wrath of the Titans, the trailers made the film look little more than same as what I'd already seen on DVD. Still, a chance to witness a monster mash of classic mythological creatures was too much to ignore, and became the primary target of my weekend film trip.

Ray Feinnes, adding to his bank account

A decade after defeating the Kraken and saving the world in Clash, demigod Perseus (Worthington) lives the life of a simple fisherman and family man. Despite losing his wife Io some time back, Perseus is dedicated to the raising of his son Helios. While he has not accepted his role as half-immortal, he cannot avoid the problems coming to his world; people no longer pray to the Gods, whose powers wane without support from mortals. This has the unfortunate side effect of weakening the walls of Mount Tartarus, prison of the ancient Titans. Now monsters are breaking free and being loosed upon the world, but even that is not the worst. Kronos, King of the Titans, will soon be able to escape his confinement and wreak havoc on the world. It is up to Perseus and a small force to stop it, but it will not be easy. God of the Underworld Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and God of War Ares (Edgar Ramirez) are desperate to retain their godly powers, and in doing so they have made a deal with Kronos: limitless power by sacrificing Perseus' father Zeus (Liam Neeson) to the power-hungry Titan.

Apparently in this film Perseus prefers blondes.

As in Clash, the plot in Wrath of the Titans is very simple: Perseus leads a small party consisting of a few important characters and a bunch of cannon fodder against supernatural beasts, and by the end all the cannon fodder has died in horrific and violent ways, while the heroes stand triumphant. Thankfully the characters here are more varied and entertaining than the dry, humorless personalities of the first film. The best example might be Agenor, played by War Horse's Toby Kebbell. Described as a "disappointing" demigod, Agenor has comedic timing, adequate character development and a solid foundation, and Kebbell manages to master both Poseidon's Trident and the audience's attentions with his wit and charm. Another stroke of casting genius is elder funnyman Bill Nighy as Hephaestus, a god who assists the party with their quest. Nighy's is a small role, but since it's fricking Bill Nighy, he does better with it than anybody else could. Rosamund Pike takes over the role of Andromeda from Clash's Alexa Davalos, and the transformation in Andromeda from helpless princess to warrior queen is probably the biggest change (besides the apparent invention of hair dye, anyway) in the sequel. Pike does a good job overall, even if Andromeda's change doesn't do much when she tries to take on Gods like Ares in a stand-up fight. Still, it's nice to see the film's lone female not stuck in the "damsel in distress" role, and I've generally liked Pike's performances in general. Worthington himself seems almost like dead weight. The man doesn't even bother to hide his Australian accent, as if challenging director Jonathan Liebesman to make him change his tune. He also doesn't seem on board with the film's almost humorous direction, and his performance is even more charmless and dry than it was the original Clash. If it wasn't for last year's under-appreciated The Debt, I doubt I would have any faith in Worthington to carry on with a successful Hollywood career, so lackluster is his effort. I know he can act; I just wish he'd stop turning it on and off at whim and get to work.

Zeus forgot to bring the beer again. D'oh!

At least one of my main criticisms of the original film has been addressed: the Gods are AWESOME now! The characters of Zeus and Hades have been legitimately beefed up, as befitting the talents that are Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes. While I won't go into details for spoiler reasons, it's nice to see these characters become a little more relevant even as they have little overall importance to the people of their own universe. It was also nice to see other gods get in on the act, from Nighy's Hephaestus to Edgar Ramirez as Ares, the God of War. Ramirez in particular gets afforded some well-deserved attention, his biggest role to this point being in the miniseries Carlos in 2010. Here, his performance is not necessarily varied but powerful, and he arguably out-grimaces Worthington in their shared scenes. I'd definitely be interested in seeing more of him, whether it be in Kathryn Bigelow's new bin Laden film or simply going back to finally watch Carlos.

Somehow I don't think he wants to play "patty cake."

The film's special effects are a decent improvement over the original (I didn't see the sequel in 3D either, due to timing), but I had a serious issue with the way Liebesman, who made last year's Battle: Los Angeles, handled things on the action front. Taking over for Leterrier, Liebesman tries to do the same thing the Frenchman did in going from action sequence to action sequence, with barely a character moment in between. The real problem with that is that Liebesman is a major proponent of the "shaky cam" effect in trying to make events more exciting. When are directors going to learn that shaky cam doesn't engage the audience, but confuses them? There are almost a dozen major battles throughout the film, featuring such massive creatures as the Chimera, Cyclops, Minotaur and Kronos, but Liebesman manages to make every single fight feel small and unworthy of our attention. What I had hoped would be the film's greatest strength ends up being its biggest flaw, as nothing is ever clear, and like a drunken excursion we're not really ever sure what's happening until it's over.

Not quite as endearing as the Kraken, no...

After seeing the trailers for Wrath of the Titans, I would have been more than happy if the film had just been a collection of Perseus taking on mythological creatures from beginning to the end. With amazing special effects, it was all for which I could have hoped. But with the narrow view of Liebesman, that unambitious idea was more than the film actually attain. While it tries its hardest to charm itself into your hearts, lousy action in an action film is inexcusable, and really sinks Wrath down near the bottom of 2012's rankings. Another potential blockbuster that missed wide, seeing a film like this makes me long for the days of summer, when dreck like this will be replaced by far more tantalizing fare such as Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises and The Amazing Spider-Man.

I really can't wait.

Bare-Knuckle Boxes with Wolves

In Taken they kidnapped Liam Neeson's daughter. In Unknown they stole his identity. In this film, they take... his wife, his civilization and his body heat? As awkward as comparisons get, it's an apt one for Neeson's newest thriller, The Grey. Once known for his thinking man's roles, Neeson has reinvented himself as an action hero these past couple of years. While the actor has more than enough talent to be believable in such roles, I commented last year how the trope of taking things from his characters in order to elicit payback was already getting a bit old. So when The Grey promised to deliver that same plot thread - taking everything away from Neeson while pitting him against man-eating wolves - one could be forgiven for thinking that things would not be so different. Sure, Neeson's great white hunter is plopped in the wintry wilds of Alaska with little enough to keep him vertical, but with all that, isn't this just another film where we take stuff from him to see what happens? Haven't we seen all this before? As it so happens, perhaps not.

A failed proposal for a seventh Lost season

John Ottoway (Neeson) is a security guard at a remote Alaskan oil drilling site, protecting the workers from the hunting wolves who creep into the territory. He hasn't been happy since his wife left him, and considers it his lot to live amongst the ex-cons and assholes who inhabit this type of workplace in the middle of nowhere. On the last day on the job, he and several of his crew are flying back to civilization when their plane crashes amid a wild snow storm, it is up to the survivalist Ottoway to lead the other survivors to safety. It's not just the sub-freezing temperatures and the lack of food that threatens to shorten their lifespans however, as the half-dozen men find themselves relentlessly hunted by a large pack of predatory wolves, who are happy to pick the men off one by one to fill their own bellies.

You won't recognize those faces after they've been ripped clean off

Based on the Ian Mackenzie short story "Ghost Walker", The Grey reunites Neeson with director Joe Carnahan, who was the creative force behind 2010's underrated The A-Team. Unlike that exciting popcorn action thriller, however, things are a bit more believable in this go around. Though the tale has its fair share of close calls, there are no mid-air escapes from flying aircraft in parachuting tanks. By grounding the story firmly in reality, Carnahan had to do an excellent job to avoid the entire narrative becoming "party goes to point A, character X dies, party goes to point B" throughout. Thankfully, Carnahan was indeed up to the job, and he does some amazing things by using weather elements to obscure attacking wolves and creating tension through obscuring what the audience can see to only slightly more than the characters can. He even lines up some beautiful shots when given the option, though that's kept thankfully to a minimum to make the wide open spaces of the outside world feel extremely claustrophobic. Despite the talent involved, it's mother nature that becomes the true star of The Grey; every time we find our eyes searching an entire shot for potential dangers, the film has succeeded in scaring the living crap out of us, seemingly without trying.

Is there no problem booze can't solve?

Back to the talent, however; this might be the best performance I've seen from Neeson in years, and John Ottoway is easily the best of his action-themed characters, with flaws, demons, and burdens to overcome beyond the physical. Neeson is actually allowed to express depth in his character beyond displaying a throaty growl when annoyed, and the effect is staggering: Ottoway becomes easy to root for and sympathize with, even as his backstory is slowly plumbed through over the course of the film. Another surprising development is how many of the secondary characters are actually detailed to the point of likable, especially Frank Grillo as Diaz, a hard-shelled bastard and chief rival of Ottoway. Also managing to stand out were Dermot Mulroney, Joe Anderson (who I last saw in the great 2010 film The Crazies) and Dallas Roberts as fellow survivors caught in an unbelievable scenario. What impressed me most was that Carnahan did not just allow these characters to be disposable stand-ins and let Neeson run the show. While those who get in-depth introspection do so only after a few of their fellows have become dog chow, the levels to which they are risen to is remarkable, and by the end you're hoping your favorite can make that leap, can escape those sharp teeth just a little while longer.

Next stop for these guys: Cancun!

Another nice addition was the question of faith, and how people can believe in an almighty God or an afterlife even in the face of such disaster (or in the case of some characters, their inability to embrace the idea). It's no minor plot thread, as the film's hardships are as much spiritual as they are physical. In one scene, Ottoway curses God, demanding that he offer some proof of his existence so that he can believe in something, only to bitterly come to the conclusion that he can only rely on himself. The elements of fear and fighting for survival also play major parts, and none of these things feel forced or out of place when actively present in the film. These characters aren't planning to survive for the plain sake of surviving, and it's refreshing to see that here.

Yup, he's getting too old for this shit...

But in the end, it's Neeson's show, as we all knew it would be. What we didn't know was that for all intents and purposes, The Grey would raise Neeson to new heights. The aging star expects that he'll work these kinds of films for another year or so (as long as his knees can handle it, he says). If his action films could all be up to the same caliber as The Grey, I'd have no cause to argue. Far better than much of his recent work, it's the #2 movie of 2012. It's not just an action flick. It's not just a Liam Neeson vehicle. It's quality cinema, and well worth your time.

2009 Backtrack

Last Wednesday I reviewed Unknown, the latest film starring outstanding actor Liam Neeson as an amnesic tourist who goes from trying to rediscover his life to fighting for it. I mentioned the similarities pointed out by others to his earlier film from two years ago, another thriller called Taken. A startling turning point in Neeson's career, it was easy to bridge the gap between the two films. With similar mood, plenty of violence and enough action to pique the senses, it was obvious filmmakers were trying to copy the commercial success of Taken, which debuted number one at the box office and was one of the most talked-about films of the year. Some of you noticed however my admittance that I had not actually seen Taken, and commented to me as to how amazing a film it was. Considering I wasn't seeing a whole lot of modern films at the time it was released, I knew it by mainly reputation. Despite being ultimately underwhelmed by Unknown's unbelievability, I was intrigued enough to get on board with seeing this earlier film. And so, getting my hands on a copy (thanks to Jeff for that) I got home from work, ordered some take-out, popped the DVD in the player, and sat back to see what everybody has been talking about.

They're not exactly the perfect family

Liam Neeson stars as a former CIA operative named Bryan Mills, who is living in retirement after a long career. Serving his country did a lot of good for the world but strained his relationships with his wife and daughter. His wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) divorced him and eventually got a new, rich husband (Xander Berkeley), and Bryan is trying desperately to stay in tough with his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace), but the long years apart and a controlling Lenore keep Bryan at arm's length. Just turned seventeen, Kim and a friend want to travel to Paris, but need Milton's permission because she's underage. He eventually gives it, but his initial concerns are confirmed when, the day the pair arrive in Paris, they are kidnapped by an Albanian group that focuses on human sex trafficking. Immediately setting off for France, Milton decides to call upon all his years of training to get his daughter back as quickly as possible, because in ninety-six hours' time she will have disappeared forever.

Yeah, I would surrender right about now

Taken is an excellently-made film and much of what the film does well can be directly attributed to director Pierre Moret. An experienced cinematographer, this was only his second feature film but doesn't feel like a rookie job. It's obvious he learned a lot from working with directors such as Louis Leterrier, Corey Yuen and Luc Besson, who also produced the film and is credited as one of its screenwriters. The camerawork is amazing, the action sequences impeccably filmed, and the story told strongly enough to stand up under some scrutiny. Most well done (and possibly most important) is Moret's ability to properly set the mood of each scene, from a joyous birthday party to a gritty slum setting. Getting that scene right so your actors give a more believable performance is key here, and the director nails it.

"... Are you calling me COLLECT??"

Speaking of acting, THIS was exactly the performance I had been hoping to see from Liam Neeson ever since this film's debut. Even though early on, Neeson plays the guy more than happy to get away from the career he left behind, he also looks completely at home in scenes which might not have been condoned by the Geneva Convention. When he tells one of Kim's kidnappers over the phone "I will kill you," you give yourself willingly over to the idea that he WILL do it, and anything else to get his daughter back. The film often feels like a one-man show, but that works out fine considering Neeson is that one man. Maggie Grace was okay, but she doesn't quite pull off playing a seventeen-year-old. Trying a bit too hard to play the "adorable" daughter, she comes off as somewhat false in most of her scenes, only really any good during the pivotal scene in which she's kidnapped. Famke Janssen could have been more interesting as Bryan's ex, but the role never goes beyond the cliche of "distrustful ex." Her ignorance of the world outside her tiny bubble is supposed to be a foil to our hero's near-paranoid experience, but the part is so small and somewhat brief as to dull that sensation. Other potentially interesting characters played by Berkeley, Leland Orser and Olivier Rabourdin don't get as much attention as they probably could have, either. It really is all Neeson, all the time, but I'd be lying if I said that wasn't satisfying all by itself.

Eventually he decided to go beyond just showing the photo around

The film lacks in anything akin to a main antagonist. The reason for this is when Bryan meets one, he kills the bad guy with such efficiency that it's time to move up to the next challenge. Taking bad guys out constantly actually works a lot toward exposing the several layers that expose how real sex trafficking works, from the makeshift brothels and the kidnapping squads to the corrupt police and major businessmen who see kidnapped women as "assets" and not humans. You might not even realize it until after the final credits roll just how scary the real thing is to the women who simply disappear from polite society by the hundreds. That alone puts this film far ahead of its contemporaries by painting a real world problem into a fictional tale of redemption and rescue.

A traffic dispute gone horribly wrong

Taking a page from "current" action films, most notably the Bourne series of films, Taken is an explosive thrill ride with some real social messages to convey. Without Neeson's obvious talents to raise it up, it would probably have been a fine, above-average enjoyable and forgettable genre film with some interesting ideas. Neeson's perfect casting however means that for the ninety-plus minutes you are watching this film, you will be unable to take your eyes from what is happening on the screen. The ending might be a little too pat, but I would still easily argue it as among the best modern action films based on Neeson alone.

Taken into the Unknown

In 2008, Liam Neeson made an interesting career move when he starred in the thriller Taken. In that film, he played the vengeful father of a teen kidnapped by human traffickers while on a trip through Europe. It was considered a dark and startling film (no, I'm afraid I missed it), and the Irish-born actor really made an impact with his gritty, physical role that was unlike so much of his career to date. On top of that, it was a box office success, confirming that Neeson made an excellent choice moving to the thriller genre despite enjoying much success in more traditional dramas... and Star Wars. Typically when thinking of Neeson's career you imagine his romantic comedies, period pieces, and strictly serious fare. You think of Schindler's List. Taken probably shouldn't have worked. Instead, it put new life and a nice twist on Neeson's resume. Well, three years later he's trying to repeat history by doing the exact same thing. The film he's attempting to accomplish this with is Unknown, directed by Jaume Collet-Serra, based on the novel by French author Didier van Cauwelaert. In this new release, Neeson's character is faced with the loss of more than a mere daughter, and the film was the main reason people made their way to the theaters this past weekend.

"You're going to be Taken... no wait, wrong script"

Neeson plays Dr. Martin Harris, a scientist who arrives in Berlin to make a presentation at a biotechnology summit held in the city. Arriving with his wife Liz (Mad Men's January Jones), Martin suffers a head wound in a traffic accident involving his taxi and wakes up after several days in the hospital with no knowledge of how he got there. Worse, when he finally finds his wife, she doesn't seem to recognize him, along what we are led to believe is an impostor Martin Harris (Aiden Quinn) who has ample proof that he's who he says he is, while Neeson's Martin has none. Is the man who thinks his name is Martin Harris suffering from brain damage? Or is he somehow being replaced, for some nefarious purpose?

Still better than The Phantom Menace

While Taken seems to have had some basis in plausible real-world scenarios (the trailer came complete with basic statistics on human trafficking and sex slavery), the same cannot really be said for Unknown. While identity theft is certainly a major problem in the world, even moreso thanks to the wonder that is everybody's personal information online, the story presented here takes it to such a ridiculous degree as to be both unlikely and unbelievable. What comes of this is a film that doesn't make much sense from scene to scene, which actually works since we as the audience aren't meant to understand what's happening until nearly the final credits. We're constantly wondering whether Martin Prime is the real deal or somehow just very knowledgeable of the real thing; we really wonder whether the main character is simply suffering from serious brain damage or is really having his life stripped from him unceremoniously. This is helped by taut pacing that varies between supporting either side of the argument, while never dropping us into a situation where we have no interest.

Seriously... She's German... playing a Bosnian... IN BERLIN

There can be little doubt that this film wouldn't make a dent on the American psyche without the stellar acting of Neeson. Much of the movie has him playing the every-man, and his believable distrust of his own memory pretty much makes the film as inviting as it is. Of course, he also gets to play the bad-ass, but that comes slowly, with Neeson playing the reactor much of the time, not the instigator. As that builds, we get to see his whole world fall apart, until he gets the gumption to do something about it. Diane Kruger plays an illegal Bosnian immigrant who helps Martin try to figure out what has happened. While it's odd to see a German actress play a Bosnian immigrant IN GERMANY, Kruger does a decent job with the role. Like Neeson, she also plays an everyday person, like so many trying to get out of the rut in which they find themselves. January Jones is one of those actresses who seems so out of place in this era. She would have been a natural in the days of Marilyn Monroe, but in this era there's only one role she seems to play, the seemingly innocent and frustrated housewife. There are few actresses I would accuse of being merely a pretty face, but unless Jones shows some more variety in her acting talents, I really don't want to see her play anything other than Betty Draper. Aiden Quinn is great as the "impostor" Martin, with some of the film's better scenes involving the two Dr. Harris' dialogues. Sebastian Koch has a small and unimportant role, and is only notable for his earlier performance in the excellent Lives of Others. Frank Langella has an uninteresting role that is nonetheless important to the film's plot. Since being nominated for that Oscar, Langella has certainly enjoyed his career resurgence. It's a shame not all his roles he's carried since then are worth watching. The best of this cast (besides Neeson, of course) might be Swiss actor Bruno Ganz as a former Stasi agent who agrees to help Martin learn who he really is. Ganz's character Jurgen reflects on how the German people are so good at forgetting, citing their ignorance of Nazi rule and forty years of communism, and prides himself on never forgetting and being proud of his history, making him easily the film's most original and interesting role.

You REALLY don't want to know what they're seeing right now...

Unknown's story is almost completely unbelievable, lacking any restraint to bring the narrative down to a reasonable level. This at times results in the film being unintentionally funny. When Neeson and Quinn try to convince Dr. Bressler (Koch) that they alone are the real Martin Harris, they deliver the same lines at the same time and with the same tremors in their voices, resulting in roaring laughter from the audience in what is supposed to be a serious moment. I wouldn't be surprised if the scene had the same effect on the players during filming, either. The dark moods of the film also have the effect of making even small one liners much funnier than they actually are. Of course, then someone gets knocked off and you're back in first gear, but the sad thing is that these scenes aren't even the film at its silliest. Yes, the plot is THAT flimsy.

"It's okay, it's almost over"

It might be time to stop taking things from Liam Neeson. Seriously, I can only wonder what revenge he would seek upon those who switch his coffee for Folger's Crystals. Still, he's the one thing that made Unknown as enjoyable as it was, and good for #2 right now on the year's Top 10. Still, you know where this is headed. Every few years someone takes something special from Neeson, and he goes on a rampage trying to get it back. Eventually it has to stop. Don't get me wrong, I mostly enjoyed Unknown; I just think that after moonlighting the thriller genre for a few years, it's high time he went back to films that have the ability to use him at his full potential, not ones that use his many talents just getting closer to that glass ceiling. And no, I'm not talking about Star Wars.

God of War IV

When I saw Avatar in the theaters last winter, I was greeted by a number of 3D trailers before the show. The long-awaited James Cameron film had revolutionized what had once been a cheap gimmick for movie theaters into a full-blown mainstream must-have, as seemingly every movie studio has rushed forward with their movie using 3D technology to wow and astound audiences. Already ten films released this year have used 3D technology in their release, from family films like How to Train Your Dragon, Toy Story 3 and Shrek Forever After to the much more mature Piranha 3-D, with a dozen more due to be released by year's end. 3D has become for the film industry what the e-book has become for the publishing world: a huge trend for the present with tons of good potential but also the chance to stunt industry growth with shoddy implementation.

Clash of the Titans caught a lot of flak when it was released in April for it's slipshod 3D conversion technology, and was panned by many critics (this seems to be a regular complaint for movies released in both 2D and 3D). In fact, director Louis Leterrier had approached the studio with ideas to make the film in 3D, but at the time it was considered too expensive and the technology too new. It wasn't until after Avatar's success that the studio took real interest in 3D, and pushed Leterrier to convert the film from the filmed 2D version. Despite positive opinions of the technology by the studio, the critics mostly panned the film, the basic agreement being that the film would have been good enough but for poorly-executed 3D and poorly-scripted action sequences, both thrown at the feet of Leterrier. The action scene snafu seems somewhat surprising for the French director who brought us The Transporter, but perhaps his talents in that field didn't quite translate to larger-scale scorpion battles.

Sam Worthington as Perseus

I however did not have that problem. In fact, when I rented the film last week I was quite content with the idea that I would not be seeing the movie in 3D, since I'm not quite convinced of the commercial application of the technology in more than a few different instances anyway. Alice in Wonderland didn't need 3D to be entertaining, and I was sure the same would be true here. Thankfully, I was not disappointed.

The story begins with the Greek Gods' disapproval of the rebellion by their creations. Humans, most notably soldiers of the city of Argos, have been desecrating temples and statues of the Gods, on the orders of the king and queen. Naturally, the Gods don't like this. Humans need to be put in their place, and Zeus (Liam Neeson), needing to feel loved by his creations, calls upon his brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) to put the fear of the Gods in them. Hades does so, demanding Argos sacrifice one who the royal family dared to compare to the goddess Aphrodite, the princess Andromeda (Alexa Davalos), or else face the wrath of the Kraken, a monster created by Hades and used by the Gods to defeat their forefathers, the Titans.

Monsters come in all sizes, and are ripe for killing

The only thing standing in their way? A recently orphaned fisherman who happens to be the illegitimate son of Zeus, named Perseus (Sam Worthington). Worthington's become the next big thing of late, starting with his starring role in last summer's Terminator: Salvation, continuing with Avatar and now headlining his own action movie. That success should continue with a number of movies scheduled for release in the near future, and now he's become the shining star of Australia, though that hardly comes with a guarantee for success (just ask Eric Bana). As the demigod Perseus, Worthington plays the role completely straight, showing a glaring hatred that he focuses on his enemies in this film, whether they be the Gods (whom he blames for the death of his family) or the creatures the Gods sire to put in his way. The journey to defeat the Kraken and Hades takes him on a journey across a world of Tolkienesque scale, facing creatures both familiar and not, against giant scorpions, hideous blind Stygian Witches and of course, the dread gorgon Medusa, who can turn her victims into solid stone statues.

Gemma Arterton as Io

Don't feel too bad for the obstacles thrown in Perseus's path, though, he has his allies. However, his allies are not all of the "good actor" variety. Easily the best performer in the group is Mads Mikkelsen as Draco, leader of Argos's Praetorian Guard. Bond fans may recognize Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre, the scarred villain from the recent Casino Royale, and Mikkelsen is quite good in Clash, especially in scenes where he helps train Perseus in his swordplay for the battles ahead. A dark and pessimistic character, Mikkelsen was perfectly cast. Also surprisingly good was Gemma Arterton as Io, a woman cursed by the gods to never age. This curse may not technically be the true curse on Io as postulated in Greek myth, but Arterton is still very good in her role as Perseus's romantic interest (also nowhere in Greek myth), and as the film's muse and guide.

Oh, Ray, why hast thou forsaken us?

It's a shame that those chosen to play the gods couldn't have put together better performances themselves. Neeson is over the top and campy as the golden-armored Zeus, and it's obvious he's not invested in the role here, he's just playing for a paycheck. Better but still not up to his usual quality of performance is Fiennes, who usually has a head for the good movies (Okay, The Avengers was an exception) doesn't put his best work forward here, merely playing a prototypical villain. It's a shame, because these two were the veteran actors that gave the film merit, and their halfhearted work didn't do anyone any good, if you don't take their accountants into consideration.

'

"Don't look, don't look, don't look, aw crap"

The story itself only loosely bases itself on the actual Greek myths (Translation: it doesn't follow the myths AT ALL) but is still easy to follow, and better if you're ignorant of the massive disparities between the source material and the final product. The story rarely takes a break to ponder itself, not surprising for a Leterrier film, and keeps the brisk pace up straight from beginning to end. It makes for a dumber story, surely, but keeping the focus more on the action than on the story seems to work for this director, I'd be surprised to see anything different.

Everybody loves a good old-fashioned sacrifice

It's just too bad the action element of the tale is so inconsistent. Despite a fabulous sequence depicting the fight between Perseus's merry men and Medusa, most of the  other action scenes are frantic and difficult to follow, with far too much close-up and things moving much too quickly to be followed. The special effects are wonderful, though, especially in the 2D sense. This was never a film that NEEDED 3D for it's effects to work, and seeing the lesser-dimensioned variation suits the graphical art better than forcing it to jump out at the viewer. It's too bad the film couldn't have been augmented by better acting performances, however, as that sort of thing might have taken the film from campy cult hit possibility to an epic tale.

With Clash of the Titans, we have a film that WANTS to be a bigger movie, but just can't seem to pull the trigger. I was able to ignore the mythic irregularities and enjoy the film for what it was, a popcorn film with outstanding special effects that you didn't miss by not seeing it in the theater. It certainly did not crack the 2010 Top 10, but for an action-oriented epic drama it wasn't bad. There are better options out there, to be sure, but this one isn't too big a risk if you'd like something to shut your brain off to.

We are "A" Go

Seeing a movie in the theater is a trying experience.

Now I don't know if it's different in the suburbs' multiplexes and I know it's not the same as the above statement would suggest at smaller, independent theaters that would show you something like, say, Cyrus. I'm talking about the multiplexes in the city. I live in Boston, and when I want to see a big blockbuster movie, I head down to the AMC Loews Boston Common to watch it. And for the most part, the theaters are in great shape. Everything works. Then you take into account the people around you.

To be fair, most of your fellow viewers in the theater are quite normal. But all it takes is one pair of teenaged parents bringing an infant into a PG-13 movie or one guy shouting out "Yeah, boyeeeee!" When the guy on the screen gets the girl. It's annoying. It's disrespectful, and I can only think to myself how the hell do these people graduate to regular society? Be a jackass at home, leave the outside world to the more mature of us.

And that's what's wrong with watching movies in city multiplexes. And yet even those people can't disturb the image of one of the best action films I've seen in years. The A-Team is everything you expect, fantastic action, unbelievable circumstances, and, possibly most importantly, a believable group of friends who'd go to hell and back for one another in a heartbeat.

Director Joe Carnahan, producers Ridley and Tony Scott and original series creator and producer Stephen J. Cannell and their crew have done something amazing here. Not only did they create a fantastic action movie (lately an oxymoron with more examples than will be recounted here) but in the first thirty minutes they created a sequence that, rest of the movie be damned, I could watch back-to-back for days with a smile if I had to. That I could enjoy the rest of the movie after a chase on land and in the air is a tribute to the overall quality of the film, and the charisma of the characters.

Ah, the casting. It's always a challenge to cast actors when the parts they're trying to land are characters beloved by millions around the globe, perhaps most notably Mr. T's B.A. Baracus. So to land four actors who can perfectly embody the souls of such characters it's a glorious thing indeed. Starting with Baracus, we have an almost-unknown (except perhaps to fans of UFC or Pride Fighing) Quinton "Rampage" Jackson, who for all anybody outside Hollywood was going to be a disaster. And you know what? Label Jackson "B.A." right now because I honestly thought he captured the part perfectly. It helps that the character was written very faithfully to the original, complete with Baracus' fear of flying and physicality (though thankfully leaving out the gold chains). He truly pities fools and that's what the part needed to keep the film afloat.

District 9's Sharlito Copley was perhaps the surprise casting decision of the foursome. Copley, who's only prior major role had been in last year's Oscar-nominated sci-fi film, worked out great in Dwight Schultz's "Howling Mad" Murdock shoes. It helps that in District 9, Copley had to be a bit crazy, because that was a perfect lead-in to this role, which makes R.P. McMurphy look like the man on the street. Copley is afforded the best comedic dialog, which he delivers with perfect precision, such as in one scene in a customs gate in which he gets a chance to show off his Swahili, an allusion to his African descent.

The most unsurprising of the cast is possibly Bradley Cooper as the lothario Templeton "Faceman" Peck. Originally portrayed by Dirk Benedict, Cooper makes the perfect chameleon, able to mask his appearance via subtle methods and also seduce the ladies, his specialty. This is the first movie I've actually seen Cooper in (That's right, I've yet to see his breakout in The Hangover) and I was definitely pleased by his performance. He toed the line between charm and honesty perfectly, and the performance was all the better for it.

Finally we get to Hannibal. Who would have thought that such a distinguished and serious actor like Liam Neeson would do a film like this, but something must've been right in his mind, because he's here, he's awesome, and he kicks ass as John "Hannibal" Smith, the leader and brains of this rag-tag outfit on the run from the law and out to get back at those who set them up. Neeson, like the others, gives a fantastic performance, not allowing himself to be bogged down by his signature catchphrase. He comes into this role as a more believable military leader than in the original series (with respect to the late George Peppard) and doesn't fail to inspire us with his ability to totally become his character completely: There's Hannibal, and there's Neeson. Two different souls.

The cast is rounded out by Patrick Wilson as CIA operative Lynch (a reference to the original series' first season villain, Colonel Lynch) and Jessica Biel as Lt. Charisa Sosa, A DOD operative who once had a relationship with Face before leaving him and is now in charge of hunting him and his fellow teammates down. Both are good in their roles, with Wilson doing an outstanding job in developing his character throughout the film, and Biel being solid overall pulling double duty as Face's love interest as well as s serious hunter with killer instincts. She doesn't let feeling get in her way, and she could be the team's most dangerous enemy.

It may be somewhat unbelievable for a group of men to escape an exploding plane in the safety of a parachuting tank and then safely land in a lake in sed tank, but that's the A-Team. I don't expect normal people to do it, but then again, when were these people ever normal? Most importantly, the effects are actually believable, unlike those you occasionally see where it's obvious it's green screen, or it's obvious it's CGI, and so on and so forth. The effects actually feel fluid to the rest of the film, and it simply makes the experience even better. Some film editing, however, seems a little choppy, but that's just picking at gnats at this point. A great editing job would have secured the incentives, not nailed the contract.

The A-Team is not only a great action film, but a good movie overall with great effects, perfect casting and a sense of humor that didn't get too out of hand. I'm glad I was in the theater to see it, even if the jackasses of the world continue to congregate there. And on top of that, I saw for the first time theatrical trailers of Predators and Scott Pilgrim, so I came away with perhaps two future posts for you guys. It's win-win-win, and as Hannibal says early on, "I believe that no matter how random things may appear, there's still a plan."

 And I love it when a plan comes together.