You are here: Home / Archives for Matt V

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

October 18, 2010 by

I love a good time-travel story.  From the Terminator films, Back to the Future series, and ripping yarns like the 2000  film Frequency, there is something alluring and exciting about the past and future colliding.  Even the recent Star Trek reboot found a few wormholes.  Time travel will always come across in film as a tricky contradicting device full of paradoxes.  In Prince of Persia, the film bases its premise on the possibility that time travel and its power may fall into the wrong hands (as all films of this sort do), but it presents time travel in a limited arrangement.

The plot introduces the Persian empire at the height of its power.  Its king is paraded through the streets where he comes across a defiant young boy who seeks to protect another young man from punishment as a result of thievery.  In fact, it feels very similar to a live-action version of Disney’s Aladdin.  This protective boy, Dastan, stirs up the king’s heart, and the orphaned boy is taken into the royal family as a young prince.  Later on he grows up to become the adult Jake Gyllenhaal, bulked up with flowing dark hair and bronzed skin attributed to multiple trips to the tanning salon.  He is a trained warrior, and trusted commander in the nation’s army.  Dastan’s royal brothers are set to capture the peaceful city of  Almut.  Though Dastan’s skills as a fighter are commendable among his siblings, they feel he is not ready for such a massive attack.  To prove himself worthy, Dastan scaffolds the wall of Almut and lays siege to the city, leading a small band of soldiers to victory before the royal brothers arrive.  Dastan becomes a hero, and as such, takes a handsome dagger from Almut—one with mystical powers. 

During a celebration, the ceremony is interrupted when a prestigious cloak, laced with an acidic poison, is offered to the king and kills him very quickly.  Dastan, having been asked to offer the cloak before the ceremony, appears to be the traitor with the intent of taking the throne.  Quickly afoot from his own people, Dastan escapes with a princess of Almut, Tamina (Gemma Arterton) captured shortly following the attack.  Tamina’s sole interest is in protecting the dagger Dastan carries and returning it, as it has the power to rewind a minute (or roughly so) in time.  It soon becomes apparent to Dastan that someone, most likely his eldest brother, must have been after the dagger for its power.  The story eventually expands the power of the dagger in revealing an underground stone ruled by the gods that can ultimately lead to a total reversal of history and mankind’s complete destruction.  What else is new?

Caught in this storm of chaos, Dastan seeks out his uncle (Ben Kingsley), the only man he can trust to clear his name and restore order in the kingdom, as well as return the dagger to safety.

Regarding the dagger and its power, I love how the story has found a way to eliminate the paradox of time travel.  The dagger holds a button on it, that if pressed with the proper sand in it (dopey, I know), simply rewinds time back about a minute.  Only the holder of the dagger knows that any change has taken place.  So in essence, there really isn’t any traveling in time—time is simply rewinding itself, and this is the limit of the dagger.  I like the premise, and the limited power there.  But of course the premise takes things to a new level once man’s history is revealed.  The gods apparently had wiped out all of humanity but one young girl who pleaded to live and was granted her survival.  She was given this dagger of power and it has been kept in secret… blah, blah, blah.  The narrative makes a huge leap to potential world annihalation, and once this happens, the story gets incredibly sloppy and stitched together, when it could have stuck to this dagger’s original limit of power.  I’m sure that would have been more enjoyable.

Prince of Persia is based on a video game series I haven’t played, nor ever will I’m sure.  And of course, this coulda-shoulda-woulda blockbuster film from Producer Jerry Bruckheimer (hoping so desperately to turn this into a Pirates of the Caribbean franchise) delivers a very expensive product.  You can see it onscreen, even if a few of the digital shots look a little hammy.  With a lot opportunity here, the film turns to silliness to try and exact the charm of that Johnny Depp adventure.  The problem is that Gyllenhaal is no Depp.  And as much leaping and jumping around as Gyllenhaal’s stuntmen do, as muscle-bound as the actor has become, it doesn’t bring natural charisma or wit to his performance as a side effect. 

The story doesn’t help Gyllenhaal’s cause.  Pirates was silly, yes, but the characters carried the plot.  Once Prince of Persia evolves into a history lesson on the gods’ wiping out humanity, and their intent on doing so again if the dagger is misused, I felt the story crumbling in on itself, as if I could see the writers in the background trying to staple ideas together.  Ultimately, the film gets too big, too silly, and too careless for any of its original ambitions to prevail, and the filmmakers should have realized that a mammoth production wouldn’t sell itself.  Pirates of the Caribbean certainly didn’t.  Bruckheimer had his ace in the hole after all was said and done—Johnny Depp making an icon out of Jack Sparrow.  Unfortunately he failed to repeat that process.  While Persia still isn’t quite the mess that the third Pirates film became, it’s still about as silly and unpolished.  As a marginally enjoyable big-budget diversion, I found this film to be watchable, but I can’t heartily recommend it.

[Rating:2.5/5]

Filed Under: Action Tagged With: , , , , ,

The Social Network

October 5, 2010 by

Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world.  How did he do it?  Well, I think we all know full well what he did as most of you probably have your Facebook profile open as you read this.  The mere introduction of social networking changed the way people live their lives and communicate, in much the same way that the internet and e-mail changed communication in their fruition.

Today, hundreds of millions of lives are paraded to users and viewers of social networking sites, and Facebook stands out among crop.  I can remember the early days of MySpace until it became old news once Facebook hit the web.  When I joined Facebook, it was university-based, meant exclusively for college students.  Not long after, the site was opened up to high schools, and ultimately to anyone.  Now it has become a staple in society that anyone and their grandmother uses.

It is safe to say that Mark Zuckerberg has forever changed the world and our way of communication.  That is no small feat for a man in his 20s.  And while his story may be profound, I had my doubts that a feature film portraying his rise to success would be anything but a dull seminar of comuter mumbo-jumbo.  Even when the established director David Fincher came on board to helm the project, it is clear this makes for a striking departure from his previous thrillers Zodiac, Seven, and Fight Club.  How could the story of a young web page designer translate into an exciting drama?

Bringing in writer Aaron Sorkin changed things.  Responsible for A Few Good Men and Charlie Wilson’s War, Sorkin has a knack for biting, intelligent dialogue.  The Social Network survives because of two main ingredients: the fact that the subject couldn’t be more than timely, and the fact that Sorkin’s writing is nothing short of stunning.  Many viewers may be quick to dismiss this as what I feared it to be: a lot of techy computer babble.  The dialogue is so fresh, however, and so perfectly tuned that I became drawn to these actors simply speaking intelligently (which is rare for a Hollywood film these days, especially involving youth).  The characters, while most of them not likable (including Zuckerberg’s character), are sizzling without our approval.  Even when the script veers into instances of detailing uploading, downloading, hacking, lines of computer code, formulas, and so much more I wouldn’t even begin to comprehend, Sorkin doesn’t try to bring his audience to school.  He brings us into the lives of these characters, and David Fincher utilizes the talents of his actors to present the creation of a website as profound and impacting.

Jesse Eisenberg (Zombieland) plays the socially awkward Harvard student, Mark Zuckerberg.  Desperate for acceptance of his peers, he has trouble channeling his colliding intelligence and self-consciousness when in conversation.  This keeps him from enjoying intimate relationships (as evidenced in the film’s opening scene) and invisible to exclusive school clubs.  Even when his best friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), spends countless hours trying to get into these clubs through his own embarrassment, Mark mocks him out of jealousy.  The ‘day of Mark’ eventually arrives, as three Harvard club members, including the Winkelvoss brothers (Armie Hammer) “built of brawn” (as Ron Burgandy would say), recruit Zuckerberg to design a unique home page exclusive to Havard students.  Whether or not Mark’s creation would be an act of defiance and resentment against these club members remains a gray area, but eventually over many sleepless nights the design of “the facebook” comes to light with the help of Eduardo and his checkbook.  Ignoring the Winklevoss phone calls and e-mails, Zuckerberg launches the site and it becomes an instant hit with unseen potential.  Eduardo wants to find advertisers, but Mark wants to keep it clean and think bigger.  Enter former Napster co-founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) to tempt Mark into eating the forbidden fruit and turn Facebook into the hottest thing the world has seen, while leaving Eduardo in the dust.  According to Parker: “A million dollars isn’t cool. You know what’s cool? A billion dollars.”

These events ultimately lead Mark to a double lawsuit, one led by the Winklevoss brothers claiming Mark stole and capitalized on their idea.  The other lawsuit comes from Mark’s own best friend, Eduardo, seeking a pricey settlement after being sabotaged out of his original shares.  The movie cuts between deposition proceedings with this back story that leads up to Mark being the richest 24-year-old on the planet.  The material is handled extremely well as written by Sorkin.  He will be budding heads with the Nolan brothers for screenplay of the year.

Fincher applies a deft visual aid to Sorkin’s words.  The movie is gorgeously shot and continually exciting.  His four leads in Eisenberg, Garfield, Timberlake and Hammer deliver very distinct and engaging performances.  Eisenberg has sort of become the alternate-Michael Cera, but with the Zuckerberg role he has a chance to one-up his usual socially-awkward characters and make Mark a total jerk whose desires for friendship and status ultimately cost him the one friend he has.  Garfield is the heart of the film as the unknowing financial key to Mark’s early success in designing Facebook.  His performance details a sympathetic soul looking to share in the success he and his best friend collaborated on only to lose out to a fierce competitor: Mark’s jealousy and envy.  By the time Timberlake arrives, he gets to portray one of those juicy playboy roles that all actors dream of.  He’s like the Mark Wahlberg of The Departed, only Timberlake doesn’t need a running sarcastic mouth to be cool.  Each actor, big and small, complete this arresting movie.  However, as good as it is, it certainly isn’t for everyone.  If you haven’t been captured by the Facebook phenomenon, or have little interest in the digital landscape of society, then The Social Network may not seem like such a big deal.  Only once in a while does the film get lost in its information uploading.  That doesn’t keep it from being very good.  Is it the real story?  Is Mark Zuckerberg portrayed in a harsh light?  I really don’t know, but the lawsuits are real, and everyone has their side of a story.  Fincher and Sorkin attempt to capture multiple angles, and they do so quite successfully.  The Social Network is a writing and acting explosion of fine craftsmanship.

[Rating:4/5]

Filed Under: Drama Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Frozen

October 1, 2010 by

It is now officially the month of Halloween, and to start the season of horror off correctly, I recommend you check out Frozen, which doesn’t feature a deformed immortal axe-murderer stalking witless sex-starved teenagers.  Writer/Director Adam Green, whose former credits include the indie-slasher Hatchet turns to smart horror for a change, and in his attempt at taking a simple “what if” concept, he constructs a tightly-wound thriller that had me in its grip from beginning to end.

I wish to apologize to those who may be offended by referring to Frozen as smart horror, but the slasher genre has been done to death and beyond the grave.  When a horror-filmmaker turns to realistic terror, where the premise relies on a believable and fresh scenario, and a viewer can’t help but be caught up in the characters’ reality-based dilemma, that’s where horror really works—and perhaps more importantly—stands out.

Frozen finds three friends at ski resort on a Sunday afternoon.  Two of them are boyfriend, Dan (Kevin Zegers) and girlfriend, Parker (Emma Bell).  The third wheel of the group is Lynch (Shawn Ashmore), the best friend of Dan.  By the end of the night, a storm front is upon the resort, and the group decide to take the ski lift to the bottom of the mountain only to find out it has been closed, and so they convince the lift operator to allow them down before calling it a  night.  Reluctantly, he agrees and the three friends board the chair and start their descent.  When the operator is called away, his replacement is unaware that three people are still in transport, and he shuts down for the night leaving the protagonists trapped 50 feet above ground.  With the park closed until the following Friday, the youngsters remain trapped and soon realize they will not survive the week, which begs the question: “What do you do?”

What follows becomes increasingly terrifying as each of the three friends tries to figure a way out of their situation.  Green manages to keep the story focused and in-the-moment.  Because of that constant focus, I was completely engulfed and left clutching my fingers together in suspense and shock as the predicament continues on a never-ending spiral of bad to worse.  Green accomplishes this without relying on excessive gratuitous gore (although there is some), and utilizes a real set in a real environment.  That certainly adds to the believability of it all.  The actors all deliver solid performances as well, and I stayed with them throughout.  Made on a low budget and barely earning a theatrical release, horror fans owe it to themselves to check out a plausible and original premise within the genre, and one of the best horror offerings I have seen in quite some time.  It is an emotionally-wringing, psychologically-exhausting experience.  Count me freaked out.

[Rating:4.5/5]

Filed Under: Horror Tagged With: , , ,

The Town

September 26, 2010 by

Ben Affleck continues to reinvent himself quite successfully with the engaging action-thriller The Town, his second outing as director following his debut with Gone Baby Gone three years ago.  Sticking with what works for him, Affleck returns to Boston-set crime dramas, and his abilities behind the camera prove that within this particular sub-genre he can compete with the best in the biz, including Michael Mann and Martin Scorsese.  The mere fact that he bests Mann’s recent Public Enemies and Ridley Scott’s American Gangster by a wide margin tells us we’ve got a new player in town.  No pun intended.

The Town tells the story of a band of thieves led by Doug McCray (Affleck).  The film opens with McCray and his three cohorts entering a bank under the veil of ghoulish skeletal masks and dark cloaks and armed with automatic weapons, escaping with the bank’s entire loot in a matter of minutes.  Upon their exit, James (Jeremy Renner), the reckless one of the bunch, decides to grab a bank teller, Claire (Rebecca Hall), as a hostage.  Blindfolded throughout her capture, she is eventually released and left unharmed.  The guys become worried that she might leak incriminating information to the feds, so Doug takes it upon himself to follow her.  She approaches him in a laundromat where they strike up conversation, and Doug (having taken an interest in her) decides to cross a dangerous line in asking her out for a drink.  Eventually, their casual friendship turns into something serious, and Doug is forced to hide his criminal life from her as he continues to participate in further high-risk heists.

These heists are orchestrated by a dangerous Irishman, Fergus (Pete Postlethwaite), the same operator that resulted in Doug’s father’s incarceration.  In fact, Doug has essentially been enslaved into his line of work as a professional thief.  I was never exactly sympathetic for him in his position, because despite his protective feelings for Claire, his loyalty to his family, and his longing to know of his disappeared mother, Doug never frowns upon stealing.  He is leery of James and his violent tendencies, not because someone may end up getting hurt, but that he may end up paying for James’ mistakes.

If I have one complaint about The Town, it’s that I don’t know what Affleck wants to say here.  He walks a fine line of upholding Doug’s character as a career criminal because he may have a soft heart.  His position is definitely conflicted, but does he really deserve to be painted as a hero?  One who shoots at police officers and keeps stolen government money…

I can’t say this complaint in any way pulled me out of the tension of the film.  Throughout two gripping hours of excitement, Affleck had me on the edge of my seat.  In much the same way, Gone Baby Gone had me conflicted regarding its moral position, however, I still found it to be 2007’s best and most overlooked film.  The Town proves Affleck knows what he’s doing, and perhaps purposefully chooses to push audiences into debate.  If Christopher Nolan can cause us to debate about the nature of reality, why can’t Affleck cause debate over moral issues?

I feel like I’m leaping the track here, so as for how well put-together The Town is, let me just say an action-crime picture hasn’t been this well-done since Heat.  Sure, The Departed is a better film, but it didn’t have rousing shootouts like Affleck conjures up.  Not only are they well-done, but they also have purpose.  The film itself becomes so engrossing from the opening scene, that what follows only adds to the suspense.  I cared about Doug McCray, even if I realized I didn’t quite agree with his position.  I felt for Claire, the hostage who unknowingly enters into a relationship with a man who quietly understand her trauma (for obvious reasons).  Even the character of James, compelled to one-up any sort of  opposition resulting in a penchant for violence is desperate for Doug’s loyalty, and longs for a semblance of a family.  The actors are extraordinary here, playing versions of characters we’ve seen in many crime-thrillers, but they pull it off remarkably well, and add authentic touches in their performances—most notably Affleck, himself, and Jeremy Renner (fresh off his Oscar nomination for The Hurt Locker).  We are even presented with the determined FBI detective, Adam Frawley (Jon Hamm) tracking McCray’s clan, desperate for useful evidence against a party he already knows to be guilty.  Every one of the performances feels spot-on, as does the authenticity of the film.

I was so impressed with how believable The Town is executed.  From the robberies, to the chases, throughout the FBI investigation, and Affleck’s presentation of his hometown, I never felt as though the film became overblown, even through certain contrivances of the story and the enormity of the action sequences.  Looking back on the film, I realize the entire romantic relationship between Claire and Doug only serves to construct a movie plot, but I still remain so impressed with Affleck’s film.  In many ways it is both wholly original, and yet completely unoriginal, with direct comparisons made available to the aforementioned Heat.  Affleck’s presentation of the material sidesteps all comparisons that could be made, as it truly feels fresh and exciting, and is the best action film in quite some time.  Look for The Town to be a front-runner for award attention this year, and certainly don’t miss it.

[Rating:4.5/5]

Filed Under: Action, Drama Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

The Other Guys

September 23, 2010 by

I can’t remember the last time I sat through a major comedy featuring prominent stars without at least a few good laughs finding their way out.  To my complete surprise, Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg have unsuccessfully lampooned the buddy-cop action flick with The Other Guys.  This latest Adam McKay–Will Ferrell collaboration hit with a thud, so much so I began questioning whether I even enjoy Ferrell as a comedian.

That simply can’t be the case.  He’s a gifted comic actor, and his performances in Elf, Anchorman, Zoolander, Wedding Crashers, Blades of Glory and other films have caused me side-splitting pains of laughter.  But lately with Semi-Pro, Step Brothers, Land of the Lost, and now The Other Guys (which is getting good reviews and making buckets of dough), I seem to be losing appreciation for the funnyman.  However, a likelier conclusion would be that he has simply been floundering in stink-pile projects.  Either way, The Other Guys happens to be an intriguing premise and allows Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg to trade zingers—an opportunity I was looking forward to immensely.  The script simply goes nowhere, and I didn’t care for any of the jokes.

Ferrell and Wahlberg play pencil-pushing cops Gamble and Hoitz, living in the shadows of destructive action-hero NYPD detectives (Samuel L. Jackson, Dwayne Johnson) living out Bad Boys-style stunts and rescues on a daily basis.  One such chase has them leap off a high-rise building in an effort to catch the bad guys, and their self-proclaimed indestructibility causes them to forget that gravity will pull them to their deaths. With these two larger-than-life boneheads out of the way, Hoitz wants in on the action and away from his desk, dragging the hesitant Gamble along with him.  Gamble wants to play it safe, while Hoitz is looking for a big case.  The two find one unexpectedly, and become knee-deep in some extortion plot resulting in their inevitable suspension, allowing action-movie cliches to ensue (although it’s intended for laughs).

Sadly, I found zero fun here.  I can appreciate what McKay and Ferrell were trying to do, and I can see this potentially being a great comedy, but the jokes continuously backfired and fell flat.  Even Wahlberg, usually the hard-nosed action-star, failed to do much more than shout obnoxiously throughout (hilarious Mark, I know).  The plot was simply lacking, the dialogue wasn’t funny, and the mash-up of Ferrell and Wahlberg was in fact inspired, but went nowhere with the material.  I am amazed that the critically-reviled Cop Out from Kevin Smith seemed more enjoyable.  If Other Guys has a redeeming quality, it is Michael Keaton throwing out lyrics from TLC hits and doubling as Police Captain and Manager of Bed Bath & Beyond.  Otherwise, Adam McKay and Will Ferrell continue down a slippery slope.  Step Brothers I hated, and Other Guys almost as much, just not in the same way.  Where Step Brothers was so idiotic and loud, Other Guys is simply tired and lazy.

[Rating:1.5/5]

Filed Under: Action, Comedy Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Machete

September 21, 2010 by

Mr. Robert Rodriguez dispenses his disposable grindhouse cinema upon us once again.  Don’t take that as a rip on the man.  As one of the few filmmakers allowed to take a film and design it from concept to execution, making it completely and utterly as he sees it, I commend him on all of his accomplishments.  He’s a fanboy movie-lover making fanboys all over the world jump for joy.  With Sin City and From Dusk Til Dawn, he’s proven himself a filmmaker in a distinct class of his own, even while turning his head to make Spy Kids movies for the youngsters.  Machete, the extended feature-length trailer to compliment his ‘fake trailer’ used in his and Tarantino’s Grindhouse experiment three years ago, turns out to be one of the goofiest action movies to approach self-parody without being a full-blown spoof on the genre.

Most comparable to the shoddy, bloody and dumb fun of Shoot Em Up, Rodriguez and his co-director Ethan Maniquis do not restrain from any of their most remote sensibilities in turning Machete into a cheese-fest, throwing everything that can spray blood and produce laughter at the screen.  It feels the only approach they saw to this Mexican revenge saga was to take it as a great big in-joke comedy.  For those expecting Death Wish or Man on Fire, look elsewhere.  Rodriguez and Maniquis bring Machete to the screen for actors like Robert DeNiro, Jeff Fahey, Lindsay Lohan and Jessica Alba—giving them ample opportunity to ham it up as much as they can.  They seem to be having fun, so I suppose we should too.

Machete, starring typical villain Danny Trejo at age 66 as the title character, is on a mission for revenge.  As a former federal agent working for the U.S., he opens the film betrayed and left for dead following a rescue operation that results in a crime boss (Steven Seagal) taking the lives of his wife and daughter.  Failing to learn from his mistakes, he hides out along the border of Mexico and takes a job of assassinating Senator McLaughlin (DeNiro) in an effort to prevent him from constructing a wall that will separate the U.S. and Mexico.  Could it be that the assassination is a major setup for Machete, and that his employers turn him into a target?  Now with every lawman looking for his head, Machete must dodge death continuously and succeeds in doing so (simply because he’s that guy that won’t die).  With the help of an underground immigrant smuggler (Michelle Rodriguez), another federal agent (Jessica Alba), and his own brother—a priest with an arsenal of weaponry (Cheech Marin), Machete brings the fight to Senator McLaughlin (DeNiro) and his adviser (Fahey) that hired him.  Oh, and everyone that has ever wronged him must pay too.

Nonsensical cutthroat violence culminates most of Rodriguez’s campy exploitation film, a prime B-movie belonging in a second Grindhouse feature.   The filmmaker even recycles clips from his original 2007 trailer and incorporates them into the movie—that was actually a nice touch.  The enjoyment of the film rests solely on what an audience is looking for.  I think it will work strictly for the Rodriguez fanbase, and all others need not apply.  I enjoyed it for what it was.  Rarely would an audience be treated to a film that throws Steven Seagal, Robert DeNiro, and Lindsay Lohan together.  That is all Machete is: a barrage of talent from all levels thrown into a campy thriller where an antihero with the face of Trejo can get the girls, kill the bad guys, and stick a thorn into illegal immigration.  Machete knows it is pure trash and flaunts it.    By the end, the movie sinks (or rises) to Monty Python-level hilarity in a scene pitting the aging Seagal against the aging Trejo.  Mr. Seagal, in all his years, has never seen better days on screen, giving us the film’s most bizarre moment.  However, we are meant to indulge in it and enjoy the stupidity, as with the entire movie.  Taking any single frame seriously would be a slap in the face to the filmmakers.

[Rating:3/5]

Filed Under: Action Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

The Expendables

September 3, 2010 by

Fans of 80’s classics Cobra, Commando, Rambo II, Above the Law, Bloodsport, and Missing in Action should be rejoicing over Sylvester Stallone’s pool of testosterone in The Expendables, his attempt at delivering the highest-caliber shoot-em-up/martial arts/men-on-a-mission thrill ride featuring a discounted menu of Senior action icons.  Why is it that perhaps the most promising film concept of the season turns out to be such a dud?

The answer: Sylvester Stallone, the writer/director.

I’ll give the man some credit as the lead star—at age 64, he’s bringing it, botox and all.  Ripped to shreds, and pumped up with steroids (there just can’t be any other way), Stallone returns to cinemas as Barney Ross, leader of a mercenary squad hired by Mr. Church (Bruce Willis) to take out a former CIA operative, Munroe (Eric Roberts) and his drug-trading South American general Garza (David Zayas).  Stallone wants a payment of $5 million for his team which includes a list of hand-me-down single-trait killers.

Among the line-up we have Jason Statham as Lee Christmas, a blade-wielding expert, believing wholeheartedly that knives travel faster than bullets.  Jet Li plays martial-artist Ying Yang, but his sole trait is that he’s made fun of for his height.  Why don’t they call him Short-Round?  UFC fighter Randy Couture really has no traits except for awkwardly explaining his cauliflower ear.  Terry Crews is only memorable for toting an AA-12 shotgun (much like Jesse Ventura being memorable for sporting a Gatling gun in Predator).  Finally, Dolph Lundgren plays Gunner, messed up on drugs and a thirst for blood, an uncontrollable rage that gets him tossed to the curb and wanting to exact revenge.

After Ross accepts the mission from Mr. Church, he and Christmas head out to their South American location to scope out their targets and who all is involved.  The two end up launching an attack on the entire base after nearly being captured along with their informant, Sandra (Giselle Itie), the daughter of Gen. Garza.  Upon the boys’ escape, Sandra refuses to leave and gets captured by her father’s army.  Ross returns to listen to the team’s mechanic, Tool (Mickey Rourke), tell a Vietnam story about a woman he failed to save that has haunted him ever since.  That story apparently shakes up Ross clogging his brain with guilt and remorse, and he decides to return to the island and rescue the woman, but his men refuse to let him go alone.  Meanwhile, former teammate Gunner has given up his old team to Munroe and has plans to stop the ‘expendables’ from succeeding.

The Expendables has only one good scene—where Rourke pours his heart out over his Vietnam regret.  As potentially forced as Stallone’s dramatic change of heart may be following Rourke’s speal, the scene still plays out very well, and it’s the only real ‘acting’ moment in the entire movie.  I know some will be questioning about the obligatory scene featuring Schwarzenegger and Willis hamming it up with Stallone.  Well, as much fun as the scene should be, it isn’t.  It’s forced.  It’s awkward.  It’s poorly written, if scripted at all—much like the rest of the film.  Schwarzenegger plays a competing mercenary leader that used to work with Stallone, but they went their separate ways.  He tells Willis, “Give this job to my friend, he loves playing in the jungle.”  Bruce says of Arnold, “What’s that guy’s problem?”  Stallone: “He wants to be president.”  So much for what could have been.  But that’s the problem with Stallone’s entire movie.

This had all the potential in the world, and the movie disappointingly feels like a cut-and-paste assignment thrown together so sloppily because of Stallone’s desire to cram a bunch of action stars together.  He delivers zero character development, the plot makes absolutely no sense, and I hardly believe Stallone’s sudden transition in wanting to rescue this younger woman (suggesting an awkward romance between her and the action star who is 30 years her senior).  Also be sure to watch out for any of the dialogue, as it hits you in the gut so hard with its stupidity that you’ll be puking within the first 20 minutes.  I’m not talking about funny camp-style 80s one-liners.  I’m talking about terribly-written dialogue meeting awful line readings, one after the other—particularly from Lundgren and Li.

Perhaps my biggest issue with the film isn’t the bad acting, or the horrible writing, or the lacking camradery among the Expendables, but it is Stallone’s way of filming most of the scenes.  Shot almost completely in close-up the entire time, Stallone zooms in on these stars’ individual faces, even in multi-character moments, and it is beyond awkward.  Trust me, he’s not doing these old-timers any favors.  Even in scenes showcasing the location of the island, the extras in the town are shot in close-up, and it becomes unbelievably distracting.

If that’s not enough, even the fight sequences have little creativity and energy.  Granted, the final action bout on the island featuring the entire mercenary squad against a hundred or so faceless enemy soldiers works about as best as it can, if you can tell what’s going on—which is a rare occasion.  The battles also feature hilariously cheesy CGI blood and sloppy special effects surrounding the mayhem as the film’s MPAA rating was never decided on until late in the game.  Since the movie could have ended up being PG-13, I guess no physical fake blood was used during filming, and it really shows.

In fact, all of the film’s flaws really show.  It seems to be an embarrassing exercise in rushed filmmaking with little substance to build on from the get-go.  I love the concept of The Expendables, and I really feel as though I wasn’t expecting top-notch quality here.  But Stallone, who actually put out a solid and gratuitous fourth Rambo installment just two years ago, ought to know how to write and direct at this point.  It feels as though he did neither here, having his film fare about the same as these Direct-to-DVD actioners we see Steven Seagal and Van Damme releasing five of a year.  For the inevitable sequel, I hope Sly stays in front of the camera and allows another filmmaker to take the reigns, perhaps Quentin Tarantino?  Hey, I can dream.

[Rating:1.5/5]

Filed Under: Action Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Death at a Funeral (2010)

August 11, 2010 by

I sat through Neil LaBute’s attempt at reincarnating the British farce “Death at a Funeral” (which I hadn’t seen prior), and I can only imagine that fans of the original film are either outraged or easy to dismiss the Americanized version that has been tailored to fit the Tyler Perry crowd.  Overall, I have little to say about the movie.  It has a major ensemble cast, and not any one of the actors (including: Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, Danny Glover, Luke Wilson, Zoe Saldana, Tracy Morgan, and James Mardsen) had a genuine moment in the entire film, and perhaps that is why about five minutes after it was over, it is hard to revisit any of the movie’s events.

The story centers on Chris Rock’s character, Aaron, preparing for the funeral of his father at his own home.  His entire family will be reunited for the ceremony, and Aaron is nervous about his prepared eulogy, as everyone expects his younger brother (Martin Lawrence) Ryan, the professional author, to do the honor.  The plot kicks into motion due to Zoe Saldana’s boyfriend character, Oscar (James Mardsen) , mistaking a cocaine/acid pill for Valium which causes him to hallucinate and make a scene throughout the afternoon, which includes him opening the father’s casket during the ceremony, and tipping it over—spilling his body onto the floor.  Eventually, Aaron finds more trouble in the form of Frank (Peter Dinklage, of the 2007 version as well), a dwarf on a mission to expose a shocking secret about Aaron’s father unless he receives a hefty payment.  Other chaotic events surround and multiply, putting Aaron at the center, including Ryan’s inability to pay his share of the funeral costs.  All the right elements for a great stage play farce are here, but the movie simply can’t deliver.

Perhaps I’m not exactly fond of any of the comedic talents here, but that shouldn’t matter.  Even if I’ve never found Rock, Lawrence, or Morgan to be all that hilarious, the movie should be about the farce, and the chaos of events that take place.  But I never found myself included in the mayhem.  I observed one-note characters and a handful of big-name actors going through the paces of tired situational comedy, and I didn’t buy any of it—especially once the final eulogy is delivered, the scene couldn’t be more forced and awkward.  Not one plot turn or gag had enough shock, surprise, or wit to fuel my interest, and so this remake left me feeling decidedly blah and unmoved to the core.

[Rating:1.5/5]

Filed Under: Comedy Tagged With: , , , , , , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »