You are here: Home / Archives for Movies

Invictus

July 9, 2010 by

InvictusMJV already gave Invictus a mini-review in his Best of 2009/Pre Academy Awards Analysis, but having just watched I thought I’d give the movie a full treatment.  While Invictus doesn’t quite live up to the heights to which it aspires, it contains some genuinely inspired performances and a storyline that ranks among the best of what the greatest sports movies have to offer.  It is an engaging, if sometimes muddled, tale of a scrappy underdog rugby team pulling together to win the highest prize the sport has to offer:  the World Cup trophy.  Directed by the great Clint Eastwood, one of Hollywood’s most storied personalities, the film is as much about Rugby as it is about prejudice, hatred, and the healing of a nation–a task that few directors would be willing to tackle, and despite the movie’s flaws, Eastwood is to be commended for embarking on a project with such a massive, yet still deeply intimate, scope.

Immediately following his election as president of South Africa, Mandela, impeccably played by Morgan Freeman, one of the greatest actors of this or any generation, seeks out a way to unite the country in a way that has never been done before.  While apartheid has officially been abolished, his country still carries the deep scars that decades of government-sanctioned segregation have wreaked on the populace.  Knowing that legal changes cannot alter hearts and minds, Mandela engages in a political calculation of deeply human proportion:  he entreats François Pienaar (a muscled-up, heavily accented Matt Damon ), captain of the Springboks, the South African rugby team, to do nothing less than win the world cup.  What follows is predictable but engaging nonetheless:  The Springboks and their captain rise to the challenge, bond over tough training regimens and shared victories, face a series of ever-more-difficult rugby teams until finally reaching the championship match against the New Zealand Allblacks.  If you can guess the outcome, I’ll give you a hot cup of jack squat for predicting the most obvious of sports movie endings.

Invictus Rugby Francois Pienaar

"Soccer is gentleman's game played by hooligans. Rugby is a hooligan's game played by gentlemen."

But Invictus, despite being entirely about a rugby team, isn’t really a movie about sports.  Eastwood instead wisely keeps the focus on Mandela and the political ramifications of his election and the cabinet-level implications of his personal interest in the tournament. He also includes several scenes that could have easily ended up in a DVD “Extras” menu, such as Mandela’s security guards discussing protective procedures and rules of engagement.  A bold move to be sure, as the movie does tend to drag on and even lose focus from time to time.  But Eastwood isn’t catering to a Michael Bay audience here.  He knows that the social ramifications of Mandela’s election, which affect every individual in South Africa even up to staff of the president, are the true soul of Invictus.  One of the most poignant scenes, which certainly would have been shed were the film in the hands of a lesser director, takes place not on the rugby field or presidential office, but inside Mandela’s actual cell when Pienaar and his team tour the prison.  And by adding these layers to the movie, Eastwood creates a tapestry that is far richer than just a story about a rugby team.

That Morgan Freeman did not win Best Actor at the Academy Awards is probably a tragedy, though having not seen Crazy Heart I can’t make that claim with all certainty. But his performance as Nelson Mandela was absolutely stunning.  The way he inhabited every bit of Mandela’s character was mesmerizing:  his gait, his speech and vocal patterns, his interactions with friends and colleagues…it is the stuff of acting legend.  Stanislavski himself would be hard pressed to find a greater master of method acting.

As a certified octogenarian, Clint Eastwood has officially retired from acting in order to focus on contributing as much as he can to the world through his directoral skills for as long as he is physically able.  I have no doubt he was keenly aware that the inconsistent pacing and occasional meandering would keep Invictus from achieving greatness.  But the result is a film that, while not as commercially viable as some other sports films, does an excellent job of showing what it takes to shed the chains of hatred and embrace a brighter, glorious future.

Rating:[Rating:4/5]

Filed Under: Drama Tagged With:

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

July 5, 2010 by

After the monotonous disaster of “New Moon,” David Slade (30 Days of Night) takes the reigns of The Twilight Saga and gives “Eclipse” something the last installment hadn’t: a pulse.  I’m sure that really has more to do with the source novel from Stephanie Meyer, and Slade merely delivered the series a kick in the pants.

I couldn’t believe that events and actions actually take place. Dialogue doesn’t make you gag…constantly. The special effects and action sequences were impressive.  Characters have depth, detail, and explanation.  Everything that was absent from Chris Weitz’s attempt on the first sequel ceases to be quite so problematic.  I have to go back again to the first film and remind readers that I actually gave a pass to Catherine Hardwicke’s work.  Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart had something to their performances that held the low-budget “Twilight” together, when the production values couldn’t match them.  Then “New Moon” was unleashed upon audiences a little over eight months ago.  Absolutely nothing happens for over two hours.  Sure, we got a lot of moping, whining, horrific dialogue, and poor performances–but that doesn’t exactly make for a story.

With “Eclipse,” the series is still bogged down by its teeny-bopper trappings regarding ‘Edward or Jacob,’ but it finally addresses a bigger picture and some other-world mythology.  In the previous entries, I kept wondering about other vampire clans, wolf packs, where these characters have come from, and how these movies fit in with vampire/werewolf history. Director  David Slade and Screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg may have warring specialties (Slade wants to rev things up, Rosenberg wants to play it safe), but “Eclipse” satisfies as a more intense story of warring vampires and wolves.

Edward (Robert Pattinson), the dusty vampire, and Jacob (Taylor Lautner), the fiery wolf, continue to battle for Bella’s (Kristen Stewart) affections.  Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard), the red-headed bloodsucker still running around to exact revenge on Bella and Edward for the death of her brother, James (from Part I), finally has conjured up a plan to eliminate the Cullen clan.  She will assemble a ‘newborn’ army of vampires to take them down.  Newborn vampires are driven purely by an uncontrolled thirst for blood, making them faster, stronger, and harder to kill.  The Cullens catch on to Victoria’s thoughts and manage to make temporary allies with the wolves, or spirit warriors, in an effort to defend themselves.  Meanwhile, the Volturi (led by Dakota Fanning) are watching the situation closely, and may potentially step in.  What they actually would do, I don’t know, but I would assume it has something to do with death.  In the middle of the warring effort, Edward tries to convince Bella to marry him.  She is conflicted as her feelings for Jacob continue fuel doubt towards her love for her vamp-candy.  Jacob wants her to stay human and grow old with him.  Bella would prefer to stay human as well.  But she wants to be with Edward more–even if that means becoming the living dead.  Hmmm… what to do… what to do?

Aside from the Bella-Edward-Jacob mumbo-jumbo, the series actually has time to look at other characters and their histories.  It also introduces a world outside of Edward, Bella, and Jacob.  Would you believe that other vampires actually exist?  There is a threat of bloodsuckers overtaking Seattle that the police are miscalculating as the work of a serial killer.  The wolves get a piece of the story pie too, as their hatred for vampires is illustrated through a back story.  I had no idea the vampires in Stephanie Meyer’s world were made of stone.  I also didn’t realize that the wolves are not werewolves.  They are more like hulks in dog form.  “Eclipse” has actual substance, and that was most refreshing, even though it still contains all that love triangle stuff–but even much of that aspect was handled better this time around.

Edward and Jacob actually have interactions.  There’s a good scene where Edward and Bella are in hiding shortly before the battle with the newborn army is to happen.  The temperature outside is freezing, and the characters take refuge inside a tent.  Bella is getting much too cold, and Edward has no body heat to help her, so Jacob has to come inside to keep her warm.  This doesn’t sit too well with Edward.  The two end up sharing a comical and interesting conversation that amounts to more than just a bunch of poorly delivered line readings.  The actors deliver more than they did in the last movie.  It helps that Pattinson and Stewart, the best actors in the movie, have more screen time together here.

Slade amps up the action too.  The battle between the wolves and vamps is a doozy, and is a large improvement in the special effects department.  The wolves look much better.  The vampires’ speed looks leagues better than it did in the first film.  Finally, “Twilight” is startling to look like the money it brings in.  I still think the final installment needs further increased intensity, and less soap opera, but there is a particular audience for the movie that can’t be competed with.  David Slade does his best to broaden that audience.  And the difference is more than noticeable, enough so that I was able to enjoy the movie and acknowledge its accomplishments despite it being a movie definitely meant for someone else entirely.

[Rating:3.5/5]

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

Is Anybody There?

July 3, 2010 by

Here it is, venture number one into the world of Walking Taco film reviews. I will try not to disappoint.

From time to time there are smaller films, usually produced in a foreign market, that just capture my interest with a trailer. I find myself inexplicably drawn toward them, and when I find them at the local video store, I end up picking up a copy to see if all the mental hype I gave the film was worth it after all. This was one of those films.

Is Anybody There? stars the indomitably pouty-sounding Michael Caine as an aging magician who has recently been admitted to a retirement home to begin the slow descent into senility. While there, he’s befriended by a boy whose family runs the home, played by Bill Milner, only notably recognized for his role in the film Son of Rambow, but who does a fine job playing opposite of an Oscar Winner. The only other actor of notoriety is Rosemary Harris, who plays a bit part as one of the retirement residents, but is most well-known for her portrayal of Aunt May in the Spider-man movies.

I wanted to like this movie. All the reviews herald Caine’s performance as one of the best of his career. (Mind you we should all realize that reviews must be taken with a grain of salt… says the guy writing a review on a film review website.) I did think Caine did well with the role, so at least I can see why all the positive press focused around that. But the film itself seemed to lose a lot of the uplifting heart that shows up in the trailer. The fun seems to bleed away to be replaced with a much more bleak view in the pursuit of some form of an authentic realism.

Michael Caine and Bill Milner seem to ponder - wasn't this supposed to be some kind of unlikely-buddy film?

Instead of cherishing the brilliant moments of watching an elderly magician taking a socially awkward boy under his wing to bring him out of his shell, we’re focused on the depressing instability and grim ending we all face in our lives all of which gets more and more rushed by the end of the film. (No spoiler there, the film is about old people who go to a retirement home to die. That’s presented in the opening minutes of the film.)

Like I said, I wanted to like this film, and ultimately I enjoyed the performances, but thought the film focused too much on the down side of things to really leave the audience with a warm fuzzy feeling inside. If this one comes up on TV (doubt it will) or you feel like taking in a few good performances through your Netflix, give it a shot, but otherwise check out Caine in Inception when it comes out, and call yourself good.

[Rating:2/5]

Filed Under: Drama, Independent Tagged With: ,

The Wolfman

July 1, 2010 by

“She exerts enormous power, doesn’t she, Lawrence?” Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins) gazes into a telescope at “That orb’d maiden with white fire laden, whom mortals call the moon.” At his side is his estranged son (Benicio del Toro). Lawrence, of course, has no idea just how strong a pull the moon will soon have over him.

The full moon still holds sway over the imaginations, and debatably, physiological responses, of mortals. Again and again, it draws us back to werewolf mythology. Then again, if you think werewolves are only mythology, you’re probably not one of the souls who has run into the Bray Road Beast, or one of the 102 French peasants who met their end in the jaws of the Beast of Gevaudan. The Wolfman is worth watching. I will say, it isn’t very scary. But then again, scary is hard to do.

While I wouldn’t want to tangle with a werewolf in real life, they are not among Hollywood’s scariest of monsters. Their existence is limited to two or three days a month. They have none of the intellect of Dracula, the omnipresence of Pazuzu, or the reproductive speed of Aliens. This, of course left the writers with the problem of how to build suspense and terror in between full moons and, of course, fill the movie up with enough jump-scares and bloodshed to keep a 21st century audience interested. They actually did a pretty good job. While some werewolf movies act like they have the authority to summon a full moon at their whim, The Wolfman actually allows such phenomena to happen at their natural time, bothering to fill the weeks in between with plausible plot developments.

Full moon #1: Ben Talbot, walking through Stock Scary Scene #F785, strolls alone into the woods, shouting “I know you’re out there! Show yourself!” He is then fatally mauled by the Wolfman. Never walk alone into the dark shouting “show yourself,” kids, it won’t end well.

His brother, Lawrence is summoned from London for Ben’s funeral. He returns to Talbot Hall in Blackmoore, where we meet his father, Sir John, and Ben’s fiancé, Gwen Conliff (Emily Blunt). We then get a lot of back-story about their family history and hear the locals talk of two other gruesome deaths the night of Ben’s. “Whatever did it was big, had claws, and didn’t mind a load of buckshot.”

Full moon #2: Talbot goes to a nearby Gypsy camp to inquire about a medallion he found among Ben’s belongings. A group of villagers shows up armed, suspecting the Gypsies’ performing bear caused the deaths. However, during the ensuing confrontation, a strange creature, visible only as a blur and a shadow, attacks the camp, killing Brittons and Gypsyies alike. Talbot sees the creature chasing a panicked boy, intervenes, and is, you guessed it, bitten but not killed.

As Talbot lies in bed, recovering, we get more dialogue, flashbacks, a doctor who shakes his head when Talbot is up and walking around after a week, and a visit from a rational-minded inspector (Hugo Weaving), trying to get to the bottom of the murders. By now, of course, the villagers know what’s up, and everyone is making silver bullets, though we later find out that most of them can’t hit the broad side of a barn.

Make up has come a long way since 1941.

Full moon #3, of course, is Talbot’s first transformation, after which, he is arrested, believed to be a homicidal lunatic, and suffers four weeks of, well, somewhat realistic torment at the hands of a 19th century asylum. And of course, there are more flashbacks, more hallucinations, and more back-story.

Full moon #4: We see Talbot running amok in Downtown London, which is pretty cool. Then Talbot returns to Blackmoore for Full moon #5.

The Bray Road Beast

The Wolfman is a fairly faithful adaptation of the 1941 film of the same name starring Lon Chaney, Jr. (If anybody cares.) It does, however, contain some plot enhancements worthy of modern special effects, including a great monster-vs.-monster sequence toward the end. There is also a climactic scene between Lawrence as the Wolfman and Gwen that plays out beautifully.

That said, there are also some eye-roll-worthy techniques that they use, such as cramming the movie full of dream sequences and hallucinations, mainly to give themselves enough  jump-scares and severed heads to fill up the trailer. Even without the hallucinations, this is one of the goriest movies I have ever seen. If the body count of The Wolfman doesn’t break 100, it’s got to be close, especially if you count each of the pieces most of the bodies wind up in. Think When Animals Attack on steroids. Then again, I doubt lupine predation was ever a tidy affair.

Overall, this is a highly engaging picture with an interesting story and some good action. If you’ve got a strong stomach, rent it, make some popcorn, and enjoy. Then go outside, and see if you can fight the urge to howl at the moon!

[Rating:3.5/5]

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

Knight and Day

June 28, 2010 by

If “Knight and Day” does anything particularly well, it proves that star-power is absolutely crucial in elevating haphazard writing.  Any hack writer can jot down “Action sequence. Car chase.” and proceed with details regarding grandiose explosion after explosion without one shred of an idea on how to pen stretches of dialogue or convincing human interaction.  Sometimes actors have to fill in the gaps, and their natural talent and improvisation can jack up a lazy script.  Such is the case with the overly-amplified vehicle starring the aging Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, two veterans in a movie about ten years too late for them, and still looking pretty good for their age.  Heck, who am I kidding?  We have ‘The Expendables’ ready to wreak havoc in a few months, so maybe Cruise and Diaz are shining in their prime.  Either way, their seniority is only one of many winks at the audience throughout “Knight and Day.”

I’ve heard all the rumors surrounding the pain and sweat (and multiple writers) that went into getting this movie to the screen.  While I’m sorry to say the final product isn’t a masterpiece for anyone involved, it does what it can.  I wonder how many writers it actually takes to deliver next to nothing as far as the plot goes.  Seriously, the plot seems to be recycled out of Cruise’s own ‘Mission: Impossible III.’  The punchline of a star turns the punchline on the audience, playing an eccentric and wildfire secret agent, Roy Miller, involving an unsuspecting mechanic, June (Cameron Diaz), in the middle of a one-man war against the F.B.I. (or so they claim they are).  Why is Roy on the run and bagging a bunch of other agents with machine guns?  Well, because they are after a new scientific breakthrough that can antiquate the world’s primary energy sources, and Miller may be out to protect it–or steal it.  For better or worse, June is Miller’s captive, and no matter where she runs, she can’t escape trouble.  To her own dismay and hesitation, she bargains for Miller’s ‘protection’ as he sends her into firestorm of one-man army battles involving warehouse shootouts, freeway chase shootouts, and jumping out of airliners probably involving shootouts.  If you want action, you have action and then some.

Saving this mess of a script is primarily Cruise, whose charisma and self-parody adds a necessary charm and hilarity to the proceedings.  The man knows his current public image, and the only way to absolve it is to acknowledge it and play it up for all it’s worth.  There’s little to no depth to the character of Miller, only a lunatic surface that could be real or fake. Let’s face it, he’s a secret agent and everything he does is for a reason.  Maybe he’s not crazy, but he spends most of his time killing off enemies in the most outrageously dangerous fashion at his disposal.  In fact, I think many audiences will be surprised how violent the film is.  Cruise acts like he’s finished a load of laundry after killing off 30 assassins.  Diaz starts out shocked by all the chaos early on in the film’s opening sequence where Cruise single-handedly takes out a plane full of killers and proceeds to land the airliner.  Gradually she becomes engulfed in her secret agent boy toy and eventually finds herself taking part in the mayhem.  Comedy holds it all together, as Cruise and Diaz riff off each other quite nicely.  They don’t so much create characters as much as exchange banter and crooked looks.  Surprisingly, that’s enough to keep “Knight and Day” in check.  The romance goes out the window–there’s no wild passionate love scenes or heated chemistry between the two–they simply coexist in this whacked out adventure.

James Mangold directed the movie, and to my surprise you would have no idea.  The man has “Walk the Line” and “3:10 to Yuma (2007)” to his credit.   Why he decided to jump into a loosely-plotted action-extravaganza is beyond me.  He may have had a heck of a time divulging in sugar-filled summer filmmaking.  The stars couldn’t be of higher-caliber or more glamorous, the worldwide locations for filming probably made for quite the treat, and the action sequences allow him to go as big as he possibly can.  He pulls it off surprisingly well.  I really have no complaints as generic summer action-pictures go.  This one is for laughs, audacious stunts, and two veteran actors taking ten years off their age or more.  It’s no ‘True Lies,’ but it’s about on par with ‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith.’

[Rating:3.5/5]

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

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

June 26, 2010 by

Star Trek IV: The Voyage HomeThe Star Trek franchise is known for many things, but humor is typically not one of them.  The TV shows are enjoyable but largely devoid of out-and-out humor, aside from a few tongue-in-cheek quips that would only make sense to avid Trek fans.  And the original series was often funny, but unintentionally so.  When the series was making somewhat of a comeback in the 1980s thanks to the original cast starring in a string of Star Trek movies, humor was once again relegated to the backburner or eliminated altogether.  The Star Trek universe, it would seem, was one of adventure, exploration, and soul-searching.  But it sure didn’t seem like it was all that fun.  After the pair of heady soul-searching, philosophizing, and Melleville-quoting, Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock, it was time for the series to lighten up.  And who better to man the director’s chair for Star Trek’s fourth celluloid outing than series straight man Leonard Nimoy, who famously plays the emotionless Spock.

In a classic fish-out-of-water tale, the crew of the Enterprise, whom are now piloting the stolen Klingon ship HMS Bounty, must travel back to earth circa 1986 to find (get this!) a pair of humpback whales (no, really) in order to bring them to the 24th century where (it gets better!) a giant alien probe that only speaks Humpback Whalian (seriously!) is destroying earth as it tries to communicate with the giant water-bound mammals that have been eliminated due to poaching.  The plot is incidental, really, as it’s really just an excuse to inject some lighthearted humor and good old fashioned adventuring into a franchise that was spending far too much time brooding over existential questions of life and death.  The result is a film that easily appeals to a wide range of audiences and doesn’t take itself too seriously, and in doing so becomes one of the best Star Trek movies of all time.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Somehow they got the entire Star Trek cast to shuffle their busy acting schedules around and come back to film a fourth movie.

When Kirk and his intrepid crew arrive in 1986 they are put in a number of situations that are designed to create a deliberate contrast with the Star Trek universe and conventions we all know and love.  Sans transporters and shuttlecraft, the crew must traverse San Francisco on foot, by bus, and the occasional hitchhike. Unaware of 1986 culture, Spock meditates on the purpose of profanity while Dr. McCoy pontificates about the sorry state of “dark ages” medical care.  And in one of the most endearing scenes, Scotty is forced to interact with what was then an ultra-sophisticated piece of computing hardware by using “quaint” input devices such as a keyboard and mouse.  There’s even a good joke made at the expense of Chekov’s native tongue as he attempts to ascertain directions to the nuclear vessels.  It’s all played for laughs, and comes off as heartwarming, endearing, and downright enjoyable–adjectives that are not often applied to Star Trek outside of certain circles of geekdom.

Of course Kirk and Spock are the stars of the show, and Kirk plays his usual Alpha Captain character to the hilt, even wining and dining (if pizza and beer count) the female marine biologist Gillian (Catherine Hicks) in order to get information about the humpback whales in her charge at the local marina. Star Trek IV deftly walks a line between catering to the fans (at one point Kirk pawns the specs that McCoy gave him as a birthday present in Star Trek II, only to postulate that the very act of hawking the glasses is what ultimately leads to McCoy being able to give them to Kirk hundreds of years in the future–a classic Star Trek ontological paradox if there ever was one) and opening the franchise up to a much wider audience.   And in doing so, the series successfully goes where it has never gone before.

Rating:[Rating:4.5/5]

Filed Under: Comedy, Science Fiction Tagged With: , ,

Toy Story 3

June 22, 2010 by

Leave it to Pixar Studios to deliver one of the year’s best films in June.  “Toy Story 3” enters the summer arena and livens up screens, delivering as a sequel that can entertain audiences of all ages.

The Toy Story canon kickstarted Pixar and full-on CGI animation back in 1995.  Fifteen years later, the franchise still has juice, as kids that loved the original are now potentially parents taking their little ones to the multiplex.  They should be pleased.  “3” doesn’t just capitalize on a popular title as the last two Shrek sequels have done, but it follows a palpable storyline and takes the series in a logical direction to a fitting conclusion.

Young little Andy isn’t so young and little anymore.  He’s a high-school graduate off to start a new chapter in college.  In the process of cleaning out his bedroom, he is forced to decide what to do with his childhood toys.  His mother says to bag them up for storage in the attic or toss them in the trash.  Most of the gang (including Buzz, Rex, Mr. and Mrs. Potatohead, Ham, etc.) get bagged up for the attic, while Andy decides to keep his favorite toy, Woody.  Due to a misunderstanding, Andy’s mother assumes the bagged up toys are headed for the trash.  Woody makes a last ditch effort to save them, and the toys escape the garbage truck and land themselves in a box of used toys headed for Sunnyside Daycare.  Upon arrival, the toys believe they have found the perfect paradise to find affection and purpose from children all day long, while Woody has his doubts and begs his friends to head back to Andy’s.  The gang makes the decision to stay, and Woody is left on his own.  Soon enough, the toys realize they are meager pawns for destructive toddlers to torment.  Looking to escape, the the group faces opposition from a soul-scarred purple bear named Lotso who has taken control of Sunnyside and will not allow the new toys to leave.  Woody gets word of how destructive and enslaving his friends’ situation has become, and plans a rescue mission to save them.

Following in the footsteps of the previous “Toy Story” films, the final installment stands just about as classic, but probably for different reasons than one might expect.  The plot actually heads into some very dark and dramatic territory as issues of abandonment, imprisonment, purpose and demise culminate the proceedings.  Where the first two films may have been a little more lighthearted and comedy-driven, “Toy Story 3”, while still having its humor, actually builds out of heartbreak, stirred emotion, and a lot of suspense.  In some ways, I was surprised this secured a G-rating.  Pixar’s creative team of writers have recently excelled at exploring deeper thematic material in brilliant ways.  I think of man’s destruction of Earth in ‘Wall-E’ to the loss of a significant other in ‘Up.’  “Toy Story 3” continues that trend.  The film is smart enough for adults and entertaining enough for kids.  Luckily, the entire cast of voice actors return and bring back these characters we all know and love.  Forget the 3D, it’s not necessary.  See “Toy Story 3” for its brilliant writing, its comedic value, its dramatic nature, and its expert animation.

[Rating:4.5/5]

Filed Under: Animation, Comedy, Drama, Family Tagged With: , , , , , ,

The A-Team

June 14, 2010 by

I’m trying to discern how ashamed I should be for enjoying the heck out of this movie.  It’s a ballistic action picture for audiences with limited attention spans, and boy oh boy, does it ever zip along.  “The A-Team” arrives at just the right time to liven things up in a summer full of fallen princes and ugly sex-hounds.  To say Joe Carnahan has made the year’s ‘explosiest’ film would be an understatement.

I’ll be honest: I’ve never seen a single episode of “The A-Team.”  Perhaps it’s better that way, but honestly I don’t know.  Critics seem split down the middle on this movie, and I’m not sure what the core fan base would have to say.  Mr. T claims the film is too violent and full of sex.  Well there is about as much sex in this movie as there is in a family film, but the violence certainly has a high-amperage, even if it’s all cartoonish.  I’m guessing ol’ T-Man still holds a grudge for his absence in the flick.  But let’s talk about what Carnahan has put together.
After a frenetic final bout in “Smokin’ Aces,” Director Joe Carnahan has pulled out all the stops in making “The A-Team” a reality-defying movie full of sensational stunts and shootouts.  His story begins early on and glimpses the Alpha Team’s origins.  Col. Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson) must rescue one of his fellow team members, Face Peck (Bradley Cooper) with the help of another former Army Ranger, BA Baracus (Quinton Jackson).  Following the success of the rescue, the three team up with a lunatic pilot named Murdock (Sharlto Copley) and they become the ultimate mercenary team “specializing in the ridiculous.”  In a mission gone wrong , another military unit has managed to steal currency engraving plates and frame the A-Team for counterfeiting and murder.  All four members face criminal incarceration for sixth months until they are reunited by a federal agent (Patrick Wilson) who breaks them out of prison.  Hannibal assumes command and forms a plan to clear the names of himself and his team members, as well as retrieve the stolen plates.  Mayhem inevitably ensues.

In some of the most outrageous action sequences, chief among them an armored tank that flies, anything goes.  “The A-Team” delivers some knockout energy boosted by the infectious fun of the stars.  The camaradere among the stars holds the film’s greatest strength, as the firepower and explosions would be meaningless.  Don’t get me wrong–in some ways they are meaningless, but with the actors having a good time, the goofball excitement becomes increasingly infectious.  Bradley Cooper and Sharlto Copley especially deliver big laughs.  Some of the action is choppy and Quinton Jackson may mumble a bit much at times, but overall I didn’t find much to complain about, being that this is a film where checking one’s brain at the door is required.  The movie moves along incredibly fast, I didn’t even have time to check my watch, and I was entertained throughout.  Seriously, there is not a dull moment to be found here. Turn off your brain and grab some popcorn.

[Rating:3.5/5]

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