Open Letters Monthly: RED 2

The first RED, released in 2010, was both a surprise hit and a critical darling. Turning the action genre on its ear by taking the likes of John Malkovich and Helen Mirren, giving them guns, and allowing them to go wild. Now they're hoping that lightning strikes twice with RED 2, the flick that brings back everybody's favorite retired secret agents for a globe-trotting adventure full of twists and turns.

When retired CIA agents Frank Moses and Marvin Boggs are publicly outed as having taken part in a top-secret mission codenamed "Nightshade," both are surprised, mainly because they've never even heard of the operation. Now they've got dangerous people from around the world hunting both them and an experimental nuclear explosive that was smuggled into Russia at the height of the Cold War, piece by piece. On the run from just about every government agency on the planet and with perilously few friends, it'll take everything they've got left in the tank to stop a madman from detonating that device.

RED 2 is directed by Dean Parisot and stars Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Mary-Louise Parker, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Byung-Hun Lee, Anthony Hopkins, Neal McDonough and Helen Mirren.

CLICK here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

Average JOE

It looked like GI Joe: Retaliation was doing all the right things when it was getting ready for release early last year. After the uneven mess that was 2009's GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra, it was obvious that any sequels would have to make some massive changes to even come close to the success of its predecessor. Gone were director Stephen Sommers and most of the cast, including Rachel Nichols, Damon Wayans, Dennis Quaid, Sienna Miller, Christopher Eccleston and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. In Sommers' place was the inspired choice of  John M. Chu, whose previous works included the dance-heavy Step Up sequels and the 3D concert title Justin Bieber: Never Say Never. While Channing Tatum was returning for the sequel, it was obvious to everybody that he was going to get offed quickly to help pave the way for newcomers D.J. Cotrona, Adrianne Palicki, Elodie Yung and established stars Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis. While the Joe franchise as a whole has seen better days, Retaliation looked to at least kick it up to minimum respectability when it was to come out last July.

Don't get used to that guy on the left...

But two things happened that caused studio Paramount Pictures to delay until this past weekend. The first was the rise to stardom of Tatum. When the first GI Joe was released, the actor was still feeling his way through movies, and as a result he was responsible for some of the most wooden, dry performances of the past decade. His performance in the 2009 tentpole flick was a prime example, and it was one of the worst parts of the whole experience. But in 2012, Tatum broke out. While I never saw it, The Vow cemented his status as a romantic icon, and his work in three other exciting projects that solidified his hold on Hollywood: the low budget action flick Haywire, the hilarious 21 Jump Street and the Chippendales drama Magic Mike. Suddenly, the knee-jerk choice to kill off former cornerstone Duke seemed like a dumb move, and while it couldn't be wiped completely, time was taken to add some extra Tatum content to the beginning of Retaliation.

I like Cobra Commander's look much more this time around.

The second event was the crash and burn of Battleship, a similar action movie that nobody except studio heads thought to take seriously. Most damning about this failed blockbuster was that it was one of the few modern action flicks in recent years to eschew 3D visuals completely. That not only contributed to its domestic disappointment (lower ticket prices), but hurt it in the international market, where 3D hasn't yet lost its sheen. Retaliation was originally set to be released with no 3D, but facing diminishing returns and facing direct competition from big-budget movies The Avengers, The Amazing Spider-Man and The Dark Knight Rises (two of which were also 3D), the studio decided last-minute to utilize the technology to rectify that situation. Unfortunately, that meant waiting another eight months for a movie that was already on thin ice, hoping that perhaps Retaliation would be worth the wait.

Ninjas. Why did there have to be ninjas?

Talking place after the events of The Rise of Cobra, military organization GI Joe has maintained its position atop the worlds' covert military teams. But when the team is framed and then all but wiped out by their own government (under the orders of The President who is actually an enemy COBRA agent), the few survivors band together to try and uncover their plans. Roadblock (Johnson), Lady Jaye (Palicki) and Flint (Cotrona) are alone against the world, having to move between the shadows to avoid drawing attention to themselves. But even the best the Joes have to offer might not be enough when they are considered enemies of the state, and their own government has a weapon that threatens to topple the delicate balance of world power forever, and with endless destructive capability.

One of the coolest characters in both movies.

There is a lot more to like in Retaliation than there ever was in the first film, and you can't talk about what's right without pointing right at the special effects. Last time out, we were subjected to six SFX studios doing their best to out-disappoint one another, but here the effects shine as action sequences and explosions are much, MUCH prettier to take in. The fight scenes are not perfect (like most action directors, Chu keeps to camera WAY too close to the action), but for the most part they are effective enough, especially on the big IMAX screens. The sequence with ninjas rappelling across snow-covered mountaintops is especially exciting, though your mileage where ninjas are involved may vary. There are also some very good characters, from Johnson's charismatic leader Roadblock to the COBRA swordsman Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) to Palicki's covert operations expert Lady Jaye. At it's best, Retaliation does a better job of keeping your eyes glued to the screen than any action movie so far in 2013.

Obligatory "Team Success" strut.

But for every cool moment the movie throws out there, there are two or three smaller bits that will drive you crazy. The Snake Eyes/Storm Shadow (a returning and still silent Ray Park) storyline, which had been the albatross around the neck of the first film, is better but is still almost laughably separate from the rest of the movie. It takes its most ridiculous form in the sadly necessary exposition commentary by hip-hop artist/filmmaker RZA that is so bad it makes his performance in The Man with the Iron Fist look like Shakespeare's greatest hits. Other actors - most notably Yung, Cotrona and even Willis - have painfully little to do, as the story is so bloated with side-stories, unnecessary characters and plot twists that little things like "character development" and "plot progression" often take a backseat to the next action scene. It's sad when  you bring in such a celebrated action star as Bruce Willis just to have him sit on the sidelines and spit out unnecessary one-liners (and didn't the last Die Hard already do that?). And that shot of the rampant destruction of London? Arguably the most intense moment in the trailer? It lasts a grand total of ten seconds, and is never, EVER revisited once it's done.

Consider this Road Blocked.

Make no mistake; GI Joe: Retaliation is a HUGE step above The Rise of Cobra, and does a lot to redeem the film franchise from the damage done by its predecessor. But while it's undeniably more fun than the original, it's still a long way from being a truly self-sustaining movie franchise, most notably because only die-hard JOE fans really care all that much, and those are definitely dwindling in numbers. Still, while the film is way too dumb and implausible to be taken seriously, this is also a huge part of its undeniable charm. Will you like this movie? It entirely depends on how tolerable you are towards dumb action flicks loosely based on childrens' toy lines, because that's exactly what we have here. Expect anything more, and you'll be sorely disappointed.

Open Letters Monthly: A Good Day to Die Hard

For those of you that have clamored for it, the ultimate blue collar hero has returned. John McClane travels to Russia in A Good Day to Die Hard, the fifth installment of the franchise that started twenty-five years ago and has seen our hero face a multitude of cartoonishly deadly villains.

This time it's about family as McClane visits Russia to try and help his son Jack, who has been arrested and faces life in prison. Little does he know that his estranged son is actually a CIA operative, tasked with rescuing a political prisoner and escaping with a file incriminating a high-ranking government official. Everything goes south when McClane arrives on the scene, and soon father and son must team up to prevent a major terrorist plot from coming to fruition.

A Good Day to Die Hard is directed by John Moore and stars Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Sebastian Koch, Yuliya Snigir, Cole Hauser and Rasha Bukvic.

Click here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

I Don't Want to Talk about Time Travel

It's odd to comprehend that the scrawny kid from 3'rd Rock from the Sun is seriously a movie star. I can still picture young Tommy Solomon, with his shoulder-length hair and carefree attitude, stealing many a scene from his older, more experienced costars. Since then, Joseph Gordon-Levitt has practically exploded onto the movie scene. He has been exploring a wide variety of film roles, starring in indie flicks like (500) Days of Summer, 50/50 and Hesher, and also major blockbusters G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises and the surprisingly good Premium Rush. But the film widely considered to have catapulted him to where he stands now is 2005's Brick, the neo-noir thriller and debut of director Rian Johnson for which Gordon-Levitt's performance was vastly praised. Seven years later, the actor reunites with his Brick director for the time-traveling thriller Looper, which sees Gordon-Levitt wearing some crazy prosthetics as a unique style of hit-man who is literally confronted by his future.

He's looking a little different...

In the not-too-distant future, crime and poverty have risen to stratospheric heights, and the corrupt government ensures that things won't change anytime soon. In thirty years time travel will be invented, immediately outlawed, and therefore operated by only the largest criminal organizations. Because trackers make disposing of murder victims practically impossible, anybody the mob wants removed is instead zipped into the past, to be disposed of by specially-chosen assassins, named Loopers, who can secretly murder these people and wipe clean of any evidence. It's no easy life of luxury, however, as letting a target escape is grounds for extreme termination. Eventually, Loopers are sent their future selves to "close the loop", paid a boatload of cash and get the next thirty years to live their lives. Joe (Gordon-Levitt) is a Looper who rose from the filth of the streets to make a name for himself as one of the most reliable men in the business. All that changes when he is confronted by his future self (Bruce Willis), who catches Joe off guard and manages to escape, and seems to be on an unknowable mission. Now Joe, on the run from his organization, will do anything to take down his older self, but what is Old Joe's goal? And how does a telekinetic single mother (Emily Blunt) fit into the picture?

"Eyyyyyyy!"

Looper's story is brightened by multiple intricately-managed mysteries, which refuse to be rushed in this two-hour film. The balancing act appears to be Johnson's strength as a writer and director; never revealing even the tiniest details before the timing is absolutely right. Johnson also knows that not everything in the universe needs to be told in vast detail; there are several instances of seemingly important facts glossed over - for instance, that about ten percent of the population can for some reason move small items with their mind -  and the reason for that is there is a major difference between needing to know something and needing to know everything about it. We don't need to know exactly WHY or HOW people have this talent, but we DO need to know that they have it, and Johnson wisely gives us just that. The character growth of Joe is also something of a big deal, as he goes from self-absorbed sociopath to... something else. I won't go into further detail as to avoid spoilers, but Joe's path is one of the better character stories I've seen in film this year, right up there with Judge Anderson in Dredd and the leads in For a Good Time, Call... It helps to be portrayed by a wunderkind like Gordon-Levitt and an underrated performer in Willis, but it is Johnson's direction that ensures that we demand to follow Joe's journey from beginning to end.

Just saw the box office draw for The Cold Light of Day.

Unfortunately, that aforementioned lack of detail also leads to one of the few problems I had with Looper: the science. I like time travel stories, from  H.G. Wells to Doctor Who to The Terminator to any comic book reference (and there are many). But do you know what they all have in common? They have rules. Very elaborate rules. Going back in time and altering the past is usually portrayed as a big no-no in stories, most notably because it can cause a paradox that does serious damage to the future. In Marvel Comics and the recent Star Trek reboot, such things merely causes parallel time-lines that exist outside the accepted universe. Even in the Terminator and (admittedly not time time travel) Final Destination pictures, fighting to stop a tragic future is never really successful, as the universe tends to right itself and force those events to occur eventually. Nowhere in modern time travel lore does it say that you can alter the past on a whim and with no major repercussions, and the logic in the science appears tailored to the story Johnson wanted to tell rather than something the tale is built around. Looper does get around this by making sure none of its characters really understand how time travel works, and in the end it doesn't matter all that much. While a little more science wouldn't have hurt the overall story, neither does it's absence detract from the rest of the movie.

She can hold my gun anytime.

The movie's story is one of great characters, and Johnson puts together a stellar cast to patch the whole thing together. Great pains were taken to make Gordon-Levitt and Willis appear like versions of the other, and while Willis puts on one of his better Bruce Willis impersonations, Gordon-Levitt is masterful at representing Willis' younger self. Sure, the unnoticeable prosthetics he dons certainly play a part, but his ability to nuance himself into a role is all but unparalleled in the industry, making for one of the year's better genre performances. A supporting cast of the excellent Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels, Paul Dano, Piper Perabo, Garret Dillahunt, and Noah Segran flesh out what is already a generous amount of narration, and Johnson shows a keen eye for talent in his selections of his actors. Blunt especially stretches far from her comfort zone, a welcome sight for an actress of such talent, but everyone here is wonderful as well. Each has an important role to play, and more than fill their requisite storytelling needs.

"Just a tip from the future: stay away from the brisket."

Looper has deep and human characters, a generous dose of humor, and one of the best-written morality plays I've seen in this or any other year. This is probably the best science fiction film I've seen in recent years, perhaps only a tick behind District 9 or Moon, even though its a movie that will likely appeal more to mainstream audiences than the hardcore sci-fi fans that will frequent it. The lack of scientific logic might seem like a serious step back from traditional sci-fi, but I'll take the bad science when I'm offered both great characters and a worthy story that keeps me hooked. The only question is where to place it in my Top 10 for the year, a place it surely deserves to be listed. For genre films, it's better than just about everything Marvel has put out (besides The Avengers, of course), and perhaps just a bit higher than Dredd. #5 for 2012 seems just about right. Gordon-Levitt keeps proving that he deserves to be a star, and with fare like this constantly appearing on his resume, I'll gladly allow it.

Double Feature: 'The Words' and 'The Cold Light of Day'

Last weekend was something of an historic moment for Hollywood. While the beginning of September has kids going back to school and is often a weak time for theaters in general, and production companies shove out what they believe to be some of their less prestigious fare, a feat was achieved in the release of ensemble drama The Words and action thriller The Cold Light of Day. The pair of new releases added little to a weekend in which the top twelve grossing movies brought in only $51.9 million, the worst since 2008 and one of the lowest weekend grosses in recorded history. Both films featured rising stars and proven performers, so why did nobody turn out to see them? Where did it all go wrong?

Of the two releases, The Words was felt to have far more potential. Beyond the original story (centering around the harmful effects of plagiarism) that would on the surface appear to agree with the literary-minded set of Hollywood, this was a time-traveling ensemble piece that more than a few people expected to contend for awards this winter. Pulling it together is the talented cast led by The Hangover's Bradley Cooper but also featuring Jeremy Irons, Zoe Saldana, Dennis Quaid and Olivia Wilde, with Cooper giving a surprisingly soulful performance that stands far out from his previous, more light-hearted efforts. The only negative thing I can say about Cooper's work is that the script does its best to get away from him in order to tell the story; when he's center stage, however, he's electrifying.

Don't worry; you're not forgotten, Mr. Irons.

But if there's one performance that will be remembered this award season, it will be Jeremy Irons as the nameless Old Man from whom Cooper's desperate author accidentally cribs in creating his best-selling novel. It's funny how Irons has reinvented his career in the past year, with his success on the Showtime series The Borgias likely a major factor in his casting. The Old Man vocalizes wide swaths of the tale, but that's no problem; if Irons' throaty rasps could do all narrative voice overs for the rest of time, I'd never complain about them again. The work he puts in here is exemplary, and cannot be easily defined by a few lines of text. He's easily redefined himself as one of Hollywood's go-to scene-stealers.

Yup, this is me at crunch-time.

But The Words' rookie co-directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal just don't have enough narrative clout to make this film work overall. While most of the movie takes place in Cooper's present and Irons' past, a third time frame presenting the preceding events as a work of (maybe autobiographical?) fiction from ANOTHER author (Quaid) falls flat, although I can at least understand why the storytellers felt they had to go in this direction. However, the result is a choppy narrative that tries to delve too deeply into what shouldn't be all that difficult a message. Some great dialogue is wasted on a mediocre movie, though at least The Words was not the worst widely released movie to come out last weekend.

That distinction gets to belong to The Cold Light of Day, a low-tech action thriller that riffs off of the Bourne series without any of the charm and excitement that made those films such unexpected hits. The story pits an everyday guy (Immortals' star Henry Cavill) in an unbelievable situation; despite the extremely long odds, we've no doubt as to who will come out on top. When I first saw trailers for this film I was under the assumption that this would be the one to catapult Cavill into recognizable status leading into next year's Superman reboot, but apparently it wasn't even going to get a wide release in the states following the drubbing it got overseas. But with The Words as their only competition, it seems Summit Entertainment had a change of heart and started throwing the film at whatever theater would carry it. Honestly, they probably would have been better off going the limited release route.

Simply put, this is a dry, unoriginal action piece that has some decent actors rattling off inane dialogue and performing stunts that have been done to death in better, more groundbreaking productions. French director Mabrouk el Mechri certainly knows how to work his chosen genre (as he proved in the surprisingly good JCVD), but this movie has none of fun, charm and wit that is needed to carry a really good action flick. I get that every director needs to pay their dues until they get a REAL Hollywood job, but making films like this just because you don't want to give someone a shot just yet is kind of ridiculous.

The most awkward father-son chat EVER.

To make things worse, most of the veteran talent seems intent on cashing their paychecks, for all the enthusiasm they shrug into their performances. This should have been a big year for Bruce Willis, but between the last second delay of the GI Joe sequel, the "been there done that" of Expendables 2, and his uninspired performance here, it's been a mixed bag for the action star. Moonrise Kingdom has been his only legitimately good gig lately, and he might earn some points sitting across from Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the upcoming Looper, but overall this has to be a disappointing year for him. Likewise preening for the camera is Sigourney Weaver, which is a personal pain for me. In recent years Weaver has stopped caring about the roles she takes, and for every great cameo in Paul or Cabin in the Woods is matched by even more godawful dreck not fit for public consumption. What on Earth happened to Ellen Ripley and Dana Barrett? This used to be an actress I loved to see in movies; now she's little more than a famous face brought in to spruce up a sorry paint job. Finally, Cold Light does little to showcase Cavill as a potential action star. He's definitely working harder than his veteran cast-mates, but still lacks that special something that makes someone a movie star. Maybe that will change come Man of Steel's arrival next year; maybe it won't. But for whatever reason he doesn't have the inhuman strength required to carry this particular movie all that far.

Trying to hold a nonexistent audience hostage is not a good idea...

Hmm, normal guy whose existence is stripped away with the revelation that his family is not what he thought it was? And then in Bourne-like fashion he fights against all odds to retain his life, only to succeed thanks to highly irregular coincidences? Where have I heard of this before? Oh, that's right, that was the same story as Abduction, one of the worst films of 2011! You know things aren't right when you're copying the mission statement of a Taylor Lautner vehicle, but hopefully Cavill's career won't take the downward spiral that will siren-call Lautner after the final Twilight film releases. Cavill has the talent and potential to be a bigger star than most of the current "Next-Gen" actors currently working their way up the Hollywood ladder. Thankfully, nobody really sat down and watched this film, so he is in no danger of becoming the next Brandon Routh just yet. But it does raise yet another red flag in relation to the upcoming Superman film; with almost nothing (especially director Zack Snyder) pointing towards a positive experience with Man of Steel, can everybody involved in the project really step up and do a better job than they've ever done before? Because for that movie to even meet the insanely high expectations placed upon it, Snyder, Cavill and company are going to have to do just that. And The Cold Light of Day does nothing to allay those fears that it won't.

Everyone's Expendable

Many of you might remember a review I wrote at about this time two years ago. In it, I spoke of a not-great film that pitted its heroes against completely unbelievable odds and saw them come out the other side successfully. But what made this film so different from its modern action counterparts were two things. One, it didn't take itself nearly as seriously as your standard movie by Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer. Secondly, the "heroes" in this instance were not young guns, but veterans of the action movie industry. If you haven't guessed by now, I'm talking about The Expendables, a comeback movie of sorts that was written by, directed by, and starred Sylvester Stallone as the leader of a veteran mercenary group who are generally hired to carry out impossible missions. While implausible, dumb, and a lot of other negative adjectives, The Expendables had one good thing going for it: it was FUN. And that is why fans of the original have been waiting patiently for the second chapter in Stallone's mercenary saga; unlike a lot of this year's summer movies, it's a safe bet that The Expendables 2 - despite not being directed by the remarkably-talented Stallone - would retain that same sense of excitement and good old-fashioned mayhem that made the original a box office champion.

Schwarzeneggar, Stallone and Willis: the holy trifecta.

After a battle in Nepal that likely defies any previous records in terms of body count, the Expendables return home for some rest and relaxation. It's slow in coming however, as Barney Ross (Stallone) is once again approached by the man known as Church (Bruce Willis). The CIA is a little miffed at the group's actions in the first film, to the point where Church believes that the Expendables owe him the money he paid them before. To pay him back, Ross agrees to go through with a mission to retrieve sensitive material from a downed plane in Albania. What starts off as a cakewalk gets more complicated when they lose the material - plans to a cache of stored Russian plutonium - to rival mercenary Jean Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme). It's up to the Expendables and their newest recruits (Yu Nan and Liam Hemsworth), along with a few allies, to track down the bad guys and put them down for good.

Okay, Moses he ain't...

The man behind the camera this time around is Simon West, an experienced action director whose previous efforts include Con Air, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and The Mechanic. Yeah, that seems like a mixed bag of a recommendation, but what can I say? Stallone didn't want to do all the heavy lifting this time around, and at least West has a record of audience-pleasing that would seem to suit his expectant audience. It's not as though we expect a whole lot out of this sequel: stuff gets blown up, old action stars make cameos, and the dialogue doesn't so much move the story forward as it does spew out glib comments and hilarious gags about the history of the icons on the screen. In other words, it's an action director's low-maintenance dream.

Yes, the bad guy's name is 'Vilain'. I swear you can't make this stuff up...

Of course, those "great" actors of action's golden age don't quite stand up as straight in this second go-around. For one, while expanded roles for Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger are used to great effect, and new cast-mates Van Damme, Chuck Norris, Hemsworth and Nan work well with their material, the original heroes are the ones left with little to do. Only Stallone feels untouched, while Jason Statham, who was a major factor the first film, finds his role drastically reduced. While the original Expendables made an effort to include all the hero characters equally, that wasn't the case for the returning Randy Couture, Terry Crews and even Jet Li, who isn't even present for most of this outing. The over-sized cast is the main culprit, and while the new guys manage to give us plenty to laugh and be excited about, the final effect just isn't the same. Nobody steps up to claim the "soul" portion of the film and fill in for the departed Micky Rourke, either. That's a shame, because the first movie definitely benefited from his emotional and heartfelt monologue. At least Dolph Lundgren gets ample moments to shine, as he's a natural comedian when called upon. In fact, he's probably the biggest surprise of the cast, by far.

Tell me this wasn't your favorite part of the trailer.

While all the violence, explosives and smart-assery are all thankfully similar to The Expendables, the film does actually get better in one department with the casting of Nan in a major role. In the first movie, females were an afterthought, with only damsels in distress somehow needing to apply. I stated outright that plenty of female action stars, from Cynthia Rothrock to Michelle Yeoh, could have been tapped to fill the male-dominated scene and shown that women did - and still can - kick ass. Nan might not have the pedigree of those actresses, but her part here is definitely a step in the right direction for the franchise. She's got the rough stuff down, but while she most certainly can hold her own in a firefight, it's frustrating to see the script try and force her into a romantic subplot with one of her (much) older co-stars. Can't a woman be in an action film without automatically being a love interest? As I said, it's a step in the right direction. What we need now is a booty-busting femme fatale who doesn't respond to the testosterone factory that is this merc group and we'll be fine.

Just shooting a little shit before committing mass murder.

The inside jokes are really funny (favorites include mockery of Norris' Internet fame and a verbal interaction between Willis and Schwarzenegger), the action is solid, and even the story picks up in the latter half of the film. This all manages to make up for the a practically dull first half, rote and predictable plot devices, and Stallone's downright horrid moustache. Probably the worst thing the Expendables franchise has done is start up a whole sub-genre of action films starring past-their-prime stars, such as Stallone and Schwarzenegger in next year's The Tomb and the former "Governator" himself in the upcoming The Last Stand. The Expendables has managed to resurrect the careers of these once-dominant monsters of the big screen, and now they will not let go. If all such releases can be as entertaining as The Expendables 2, then good for them. But hopefully this won't be the catalyst for every major action film filling a quota for at least one geriatric to round out their roster. There's no need for it, and no reason to think that the magic found in The Expendables and its sequel can be artificially generated in any clone. The Expendables 2 is the real deal, and if you like action films, then you shouldn't turn up your nose to this particular brand. That said, I hope it's the last one, as I really don't want to see anyone break a hip, or Clint Eastwood blow anybody away from the comfort of a wheelchair. You've got to say 'Stop' eventually.

It's time.

And a big Boom for the win.

Kingdom Come

When it comes to Wes Anderson (no relation) films, there are two kinds of people: those who think his are the best movies ever, and everyone else.

Okay, that's an oversimplification. It certainly does seem though that those who love the works of the independent director do so with every fiber of their being. How many people like that have you known over the years? These are the ones who stand aghast that you have not seen The Royal Tenenbaums, and hold Rushmore as an unheralded classic. They insist that Anderson's 1996 feature film debut Bottle Rocket is his best, and that The Fantastic Mr. Fox was a better animated movie than Up in 2009. They've even seen The Darjeeling Limited, which I dare you to admit you even KNEW was a real thing. Anderson's deadpan style of humor and narrative criss-crossing are well known to his fans, but as he trends away from the style of most modern comedies, many don't get on board, making Anderson's a cult fandom at best. His latest hit theaters this past week, and Moonrise Kingdom certainly looked like an interesting movie-going option. The only one of his films that I've seen before was The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and while I hoped that Moonrise would at least be better than that, I honestly had no idea into what I was getting.

"Wes Anderson needs YOU."

The year is 1965, on a small island in New England. Two twelve year olds have packed up and left their unhappy homes, determined to make a life together. Orphan Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman) recently left a letter of resignation to the Boy Scouts of America, and Suzy Bishop (Kara Hayward) is leaving a family whose issues she cannot stand. As they attempt to flee and begin anew, a search is orchestrated by the island's Sheriff, Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis), Scout Master Randy Wright (Edward Norton), and Suzy's parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand). Little does anyone know that a monster hurricane is on its way, and none of the island's inhabitants will be safe, let alone two runaways in the wild.

Now THAT'S a story they'll tell the kids someday...

It's difficult to describe exactly what I liked about seeing Moonrise Kingdom, mostly because the damn thing's so quirky it defies explanation. Anderson infuses several themes - including abandonment, infidelity, family infighting, anger issues, and intolerance - into the screenplay he co-wrote with Roman Coppola, and the result is not the illiterate mishmash you would get from lesser directors, but a cohesive, multi-staged narrative that properly builds the film's story from perfect beginning to poignant ending. One Anderson staple is to have his characters display little, if any, emotion, and while that might not be very realistic overall, it's an interesting allegory on how we censor ourselves around others, even in moments of distress and frustration. Moonrise Kingdom is smart most of the time, and silly only when it absolutely needs to be, creating a dynamic that pushes it far ahead of where Life Aquatic could reach.

She sees you!

The cast does a great job of telling that tale, and not just those actors like Murray and Jason Schwartzman, who have worked on films with Anderson in the past. Murray is of course amazing as usual, managing to play the practical father figure who occasionally allows signs of his mental depression and anger issues to pass his screen, making for one of his best performances in years. In fact, this might his best work since the excellent Lost in Translation. Bruce Willis and Frances McDormand are also impressive in their Wes Anderson debuts, with Willis actually playing it somewhat subtle as the island's Sheriff, who is also having an affair with McDormand. As for the actress, how McDormand hasn't appeared in one of Anderson's films before now is a mystery; seeing as she is all-around wonderful, delivering each line (whether normally or through Laura Bishop's trademark megaphone) perfectly. Edward Norton and Tilda Swinton round out the cast; Norton plays the squeaky clean Scout Master with the level of talent we are all used to from him, while Swinton is positively delicious as the woman considered so reprehensibly wrong that she doesn't have a name, referred to only as "Social Services".

All we need is a butcher, a baker and a candle-stick maker.

It's the preteen stars Gilman and Hayward who make the biggest impact, however. While their introductions are perhaps a bit slow, they quickly become the center of the whole film, and Anderson wisely uses them to their fullest abilities without stretching them too thin. These are their first appearances in movies, after all, and from their performances as outcast lovers, I'd be shocked if either failed to make it work with real Hollywood careers sometime in the future, should they so desire. As the our heroes, their story of finding their first love is spectacularly told, and the acting of the two kids helps properly convey their attraction, their similarities and their differences. Their outward fight against those that would keep them apart is the same as the struggle of new lovers to discover common ground and compromise, all while learning new things about the other. While Anderson does his best to make the supporting characters stand out, it is these two who are rightfully the heart and soul of Moonrise Kingdom. You could argue that twelve year olds have no real clue what love is, but this movie just wouldn't be the same without their innocence to carry it.

Because kids running off to get married is totally cool.

Obviously I can't really compare this to the best of Wes Anderson's films; I've only seen the one, and Life Aquatic has nothing that Moonrise Kingdom does not easily overpass on its way to becoming the year's #4 Film. Anderson takes a deft hand to what can be best described as the most artistic movie so far in 2012, and he is helped both by his amazing screenplay and the excellent acting of all involved. I honestly wasn't sure what I was getting into when I went to see this, but if it comes to a theater near you, do yourself a favor and check it out. It may not be for everyone, but it is a film everyone should try, just for the sake of seeing something different.

Got Some Red on Me

So last week I took the opportunity to catch Red in the theater. Loosely based on the three-issue comic series by DC comics, the action/comedy proved to have an entertaining trailer, and with such a cast as Willis, Freeman, Mirren and Malkovich it seemed to be one of the "can't-miss" films of the year. But would seeing Red make you see red?

The story apparently has little to do with that of the original comic series (which is fine, since I never read it) but centers around a group of retired former wetworks operatives codenamed RED (Retired, Extremely Dangerous) who are temporarily brought out of their relatively listless lives due to C.I.A. hit squads suddenly try to take out retired operative Frank Moses (Bruce Willis), and not in the date sense. In questing to find out why he's being targeted for death, Willis is joined by his former mentor Joe (Morgan Freeman), madman Marvin (John Malkovich), successfully retired S.A.S. agent Victoria (Helen Mirren), and Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker), a benefits worker who Frank has taken a liking to and is therefore also being targeted. The mission takes them to locales around the United States and proves that these folks can still perform like spring chickens when they need to.

Season's greetings!

The story here is a slightly unrealistic one involving conspiracy theories, government cover-ups, unlikely coincidences and unlikely romances. So it has to be held together by a band of characters and actors who can center the attention of the audience on themselves and make the story more palatable than it is. To that effort, it's commendable that this is in fact an amazing cast who work well together, from the big name stars to the lower tiered yet no less talented performers. Willis is usually not known for his pleasant demeanor on-screen. In fact, he does get his "yippie-ki-yay" game face on for much of the film. I don't know if it stems from working with older actors, however, but Willis somehow in Red gains something I've not seen from him in many of his performances: an almost boy-like wonder, especially when he's in scenes with his character's crush, Sarah. For once, he's not the top dog, at least not in all things, and it makes his character and his acting all the better. Malkovich is a hoot as a partially-psychotic former agent first seen hiding out in the Louisiana bayou. The part of Marvin was originally to be played by John C. Reilly, and while I've liked Reilly and can see him being successful in this type of role, he's simply outclassed by Malkovich in all aspects. Playing Marvin as defiant, schizophrenic, and, of course, paranoid of any number of possible conspiracies, Malkovich puts on one of his more memorable performances, certainly a step up from his last major role in the seriously underperforming Changeling. Of course, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you, and so his character turns out to at times be more insightful than he would be otherwise. I simply can't imagine anyone but Malkovich in that role. Mirren is fantastic, with looks that could kill (sorry, I couldn't resist) and the demeanor you would expect from a true secret agent. She really takes to the somewhat humorous role with the same professionalism as she has in her multiple-nominated roles in the films The Queen and The Last Station, not to mention dozens of other similarly-lauded roles over the course of her career. Both the irony of seeing such a serious actress wielding high-caliber machine guns and the perfection of seeing the same thing lend a lot of credence to her ability as an actress. Of the main four, only Morgan Freeman disappoints, as there's simply not enough for him to do with his role, with all the best bits belonging to Willis, Malkovich and Mirren.

Not sure what to make of this scene

I was prepared to dislike Parker in this. Obviously most people know the actress as Nancy Botwin on Showtime's Weeds, but it's easy to forget that she has a long career in film and television preceding this, as I did. Frankly, the only film I've seen her in was Red Dragon, and her role was so small that I had completely forgotten about her not long after the fact. However, she shines here as an initially reluctant sidekick to Frank who gradually gets more and more excited as the terror and thrill of sneaking around and blowing stuff up puts a heavy emphasis on how dull and boring her regular life is. Parker is funny both physically and in her verbal delivery, a dual trait not many can claim to master. Also good though underutilized is Karl Urban as a C.I.A. agent tasked with taking out Frank. Urban has long been under-appreciated by Hollywood, with last year's Star Trek being his biggest and best opportunity to showcase his talents, and damned if he didn't make the best Doc McCoy since Deforest Kelly. Hopefully his role in Red is simply a gateway to bigger things and not a return to more of the same because he's far too talented to keep perpetually on the shelf. Brian Cox makes a surprise appearance as a former Russian agent who Frank goes to for help. I didn't even recognize Cox at first, his transformation so complete that it took me nearly half the film before it struck me who was uttering his lines, and his ability to meld into his part - as well as his charismatic interaction with the other characters, especially Mirren - makes for a great performance. Ernest Borgnine is simply wonderful as a records-keeper at the Agency, and Richard Dreyfus does a good if hammy job in a small but important role as a weapons' dealer and smuggler who is somehow involved with the conspiracy. These supporting performances, in conjunction with the larger star-held roles, mean that there are no weak moments with less-interesting characters pitted throughout the film, and the enjoyment level never dips because of that.

"He's dead, Jim. I killed him."

But great characters can't entirely keep together a plot secured by duct tape and staples. While interesting, the story is barely able to keep momentum throughout the film, and truly falters in the final act, when humor alone seems to be sustaining the plot threads, not suspense or drama, or even suspension of disbelief. We're never under the assumption that Frank and his team won't achieve their objective (though they never really GET an objective until near the end of the film) and that, unfortunately, makes the final payoff much less than it could have been. Also, the humor involving young upstarts calling members of the team "old man" or "grandpa" get old after a few turns, though the heroes' humorous (and often quite violent) responses make up for a lackluster effort by the screenwriters to get a cheap laugh at an older character's expense. It's a shame, but when your director's previous work was the same one who made The Time Traveler's Wife (Robert Schwentke), you have to expect that things won't be as good as you want them to be.

So THAT'S what John Malkovich looks like!

For it's sake, I wish Red had been released earlier this year. If it had, I would have grouped it with several action or comedic films I'd seen this year that rated favorably on my 2010 Top 10 List such as Alice in Wonderland, The Losers, and Date Night, all of which at one point dotted the list. However, all those titles were eventually knocked off the list by better films, and so Red, though it compares favorably with all those films, is denied a it's chance in the sun. It has great characters, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Malkovich get a Golden Globe nom for his performance (though I'd never expect him to win it), but the plot is simply too jumpy and the story poorly told and filled with extremely silly bits. Is it funny? Yes. Did I enjoy it? Indeed. Can I recommend it to people who want a cheap and silly film to see? Sure. Is it one of the best films of the year? A "can't miss"?

Sorry, machine-gun Mirren, no.

Resistance is Futile

Not long ago, I was bemoaning how poorly a well-known graphic novel, Whiteout, had been translated to the big screen. Among other things, the film simply didn't translate into the riveting entertainment I'd hoped for when I rented it. In writing that review, I neglected to mention two other films that had also been born from graphic novel format. One is obvious, the biggest blockbuster of them all, Watchmen, which I did not enjoy (in the immortal words of Jay Sherman: "It Stinks") nearly as much as I should have.

The other was released last fall to much less fanfare: Surrogates, based on the relatively little-known comic series of the same name which ran from 2005 to 2006, and was written by Robert Venditti and drawn by Brett Weldele. Despite never having heard of the graphic novel, my first impressions of the movie trailers that preceded the movie's release were mostly positive: In a world where humans control synthetic bodies called surrogates to carry out everyday tasks, the future almost looks idylic as violent crime is down to a standstill and even if an operator's surrogate is accidentally damaged or destroyed, no harm can come to the user. People never even have to leave their homes.

Of course, this wouldn't be much of a film if that was all there was to it. When two people are murdered by a weapon that somehow manages to kill the user as well as disable the surrogate - and one of them happens to be the son of the Surrogate's creator, Dr. Lionel Canter (James Cromwell), it's immensely remarkable because these have become the first murders in fifteen years. Also throwing trouble into the mix are nationwide pockets of people who live on anti-surrogate land that they call Dread Reservations and are led by the charismatic Prophet (Ving Rhames). Claiming that Surrogacy has caused people to forget how to be human, a Surrogate attempting to enter these zones would be violently opposed by the Prophet's fanatical followers.

What I had at first found fascinating about Surrogates was that it had been filmed in my hometown (and where I still call home) of Boston, MA, and some of the surrounding towns. It was actually interesting for once to see familiar territory, as far too often films claiming to be in Boston film elsewhere, Toronto for instance. I was sure that would be the only thing I would enjoy about the movie, especially after a less-than-stellar opening which was informative as to how this universe came to be but otherwise not entertaining. However, the slick storytelling and visuals quickly vacated those thoughts from my mind, and I proceeded to mindlessly enjoy one of last year's more underrated films.

The story moves along as a brisk pace as we're introduced to FBI agents Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) and Jennifer Peters (Radha Mitchell) as they take on the double murder case. Like most people, they use surrogates for their daily tasks, though Greer seems to tire of the entire surrogate idea, especially as his wife (Rosamund Pike) seems to use their surrogacy to escape the trauma of losing their son to a car accident. In fact, we barely see most people's real faces, as almost every major character is using a surrogate in place of their real bodies. In a major turning point of the film, Greer irreperably damages his surrogate in pursuit of the man suspected of committing the murders and must continue his investigation in person. He doesn't even remember the last time he left his home, and the movie does a good job explaining that, even seeing the world through a surrogate, reintroducing someone to the outside world after so long would introduce all kinds of mental trauma (such as anxiety, which is depicted). In his pursuit of the people responsible for the murders, he is also discovering a conspiracy to destroy the surrogates, and perhaps even those who would use them at all.

I've never read the graphic novel (or it's prequel, Surrogates: Flesh and Bone), but while I can't comment on the comic's art styles in comparison to the movie's, I can definitely say that from a quick synopsis of the comic's plot that the movie took numerous liberties with the plot, one for instance being that in the comic, there are no murders that push the book forward, only the desire to eliminate surrogacy by destroying the bodies. It's a good thing the movie changed that aspect, as in the comic's story, that would add to little more than vandalism. Also, in a positive turn, the leads of the comic, which had been two men, change, with one of them having eventually become Peters. Remember those few weeks ago when I decried the reduction of Whiteout's two lead females to one female because the studios wouldn't buy two female leads? Here's one for Surrogates showing some guts. And it's not as if Peters has been changed that way just so she can become someone's romantic angle, it's just a case of someone saying that they wanted a female for this role and made it happen.

Acting performances will never be considered the highlights of your typical action movie, that's why I was actually surprised by the level of performances shown in this film. Willis does a little above his typical acting level, while others like Cromwell, Mitchell, Pike, Jack Noseworthy and Boris Kodjoe puting forth solid performances, with nobody dragging the acting talent down. The only one I wasn't crazy about was was Rhames as the Prophet, as the character seemed a little too cliche in it's portrayal. I assume it was intentional, but I didn't think it was particularly smart to show one of the main villains of the movie in this way, though perhaps that aspect was derived from the comic. But the best performances may have been a collaborative. There's just something about the way a surrogate move and speaks that lets on that they're not the same as you and me. Besides the startling attractiveness of the surrogate, there's almost a robotic, unnatural way that they walk, talk, dance and interact that makes it easy to discern the differences, and whoever was responsible for making sure every last extra was moving just the right way deserves a ton of credit, as it did tons to assure the legitimacy of the piece's atmosphere.

The movie can hardly expect to be perfect, however. Though I understand that most people who are bigots rarely are well informed about the thing they're bigoted towards, it was a drag that no further intelligence could have been gleamed for the people in the Dread Reservation towards surrogacy. They were mostly portratyed as redneck gun-toting racists for the most part, and that, while accurate, was not wholely welcome when I hoped they would have some more higher understanding about why their way was better (or perhaps get an explanation for why the military didn't put a clamp down military-style on these pockets of resistance where they basically seceded from the Union). Critics have stated that the movie devolves to pure action-y for the final act of the film, and while that's at least partially true, it's done smartly with enough surprises that you want to find the next piece of the puzzle. It's all done smartly and never makes you feel like you're riding the wave, going only where they take you.

Smart is the best word I can associate with Surrogates, in fact. It's a slick film and probably the best film by occasional director Jonathan Mostow, who hadn't directed a film since 2003's Terminator 3. It's a great comeback film for Mostow and an extremely entertaining film in it's own right. Mostow might give Zack Snyder or Dominic Sena a lesson in how to make a good comic-movie adaptation. Maybe they'd learn something.