Safe House

2 Stars (out of four)

Safe House is one of those movies that looks great from its previews, but falls short on almost everything.  That is not o say it is bad, because it's not, but it just isn't good, either.  The movie's plot is simplicity itself.  Ryan Reynolds plays a mid-level CIA guy who runs an agency safe house in Capetown, South Africa.  It is a boring assignment for him, not having seen anyone for a year.  In that time, he has made a life in Capetown, having a girlfriend and ball.  One day, an agent named Frost, played by Denzel Washington surrenders himself to the US Consulate after being chased by some mean bad guys.  Frost has been a rogue agent for several years, and he is going to be transferred to DC.  He is taken to the safe house run by Reynolds.  The bad guys show up, kill everybody, and Reynolds and Washington go on the run.  The rest of the film is one long chase scene.  As the movie unfolds, we find out that there are corrupt guys in the CIA trying to bring in the guys and degenerates into a series of cheesy cliches that are part and parcel of this type of film.

Reynolds is actually the best part of this film.  His performance actually works and is quite sympathetic.  I really liked his character.  He has just he right amount of toughness and vulnerability to come off realistically.  Denzel is getting o the point where all he needs to do is phone in the role.  You have seen this character in Man On Fire, Training Day, The Book of Eli, and American Gangster, only better.  Denzel has pretty much got the quiet, tough guy down pat.  He has his signature tics, as I like to call them.  DeNiro, Pacino, Malkovich all have them.  Denzel has his, too.  The problem with these tics is that they make the movie predictable and sometimes, even dull.  The problem with this film, primarily, is that it is chock full of every single espionage ciche there is.  After five minutes, you know who the bad guys are, what they will do, and who will die.  It's too bad, too, because this movie had potential.  Besides Reynolds' performance, the direction is quite good by Daniel Espinosa.  He appears to be a clone of Tony Scott, with the colorful and stylistic direction, which makes it beautiful to watch.  Between Reynolds and the direction, this raises a dumb film to at least a mildly entertaining one.  So if you want to pass a couple hours, you may want to check it out, but it is not particularly good.

Total Recall (1990) vs. Total Recall (2012)

Total Recall (1990) 3.5 Stars (out of four)

Total Recall (2012) 3.5 Stars (out of four)

Okay, this is something I wanted to write for awhile and have finally gotten around to it.  As you can see, I rated both versions of the movie with the same amount of stars (3.5).  Does this mean I like them both equally?  Not necessarily.  I enjoyed each of them immensely for different reasons.  So this is not going to be like one of my normal reviews, but rather a rumination on each film and their place in cinematic history.  As always, I would love to hear your opinions as well (please post below), this is supposed to be a fun exchange of ideas.  So let's dive in.

What I like about both is that they are indicators and showpieces for the time in which they are made.  For those of you who don't know, they are based on the Philip K. Dick short story, We Can Remember It For You Wholesale.  Dick is more famously known for writing the story on which Blade Runner is based, as well as Minority Report, Paycheck, The Adjustment Bureau, and A Scanner Darkly.  Total Recall is about a Joe Everyman named Douglas Quaid who thinks his humdrum life is not all that it seems to be.  He goes to a facility that give you virtual reality trips that seem as real as any other memory.  During the procedure, something goes wrong and it turns out he is a badass secret agent on a critical mission that failed and the bad guys made him an ordinary shlub.  He joins a resistance unit, meets a hot woman who he knew as a secret agent, and fights back against the bad guys.  At some point, the bad guys try to convince him that this is all a fantasy.  Quaid doesn't believe it and defeats them in the end and lives the rest of his life as Doug Quaid.  Pretty cool stuff.

Now, to be fair, I tend toward the 1989 version starring Arnold Schwarzeneggar, because, well, I like Arnold and always have.  That said, the 2012 version starring Colin Farrell in the Quaid role is good for other reasons.  But first, let's look at the Arnold version.  The 1989 version was a textbook example of the high-concept film, popularized in the 1980s.  These films emphasized spectacle over story and are best illustrated by the Don Simpson/Jerry Bruckheimer actioneers.  Typical high-concept films include:  Top Gun, Die Hard, True Lies, Bad Boys, Armageddon, Independence Day, Beverly Hills Cop, Basic Instinct, Robocop, Flashdance, and Preedator.  The movie was tongue firmly in cheek, ultraviolent and humorously over-the-top that it can never be taken quite seriously.  Arnold was a master at these films. His dumb Austrian-accented one-liners and scenery-chewing mugging for the camera reach Shatner-levels of stratospheric cheesiness (see example below).  The special effects, while cutting edge in their day, are creaky and old now.  The sets and props are cheap and plastic-looking, and the mutants on Mars are about as politically incorrect as they get, with a three-boobed AND another midget hooker put in strictly for laughs.  But underneath all of this teetering-close-to-camp gaudiness, beats a heart of pure joy and idealism. The film brings in themes of the downtrodden and how they will rise up in the end for a righteous cause.  And in the end, it is revealed that Quaid really was a bad guy named Hauser in one of the best twists I have ever seen.  I was spellbound the whole wild ride of the way.  Somehow, this film manages to keep from drowning in a sea of awful camp and comes out ahead in the end.  The film is ultimately optimistic in its outlook, but the final twist that it may not have happened at all is the best wrinkle of all.  A true mind bender disguised as camp.

Now, the 2012 version, while similar in the general outline of the story, is much more pessimistic in its view of human nature.  I would not classify the movie as high-concept, although the case could be made easily.  The action is amped up a lot of notches and drops us into the middle of it, as most movies do today.  The original, you feel like a spectator to what's going on.  In this one, you are more a participant.  It is also far less bloody.  The movie is actually more realistic, if that is possible.  Colin Farrell is not a superman like Arnold, but rather fits the Everyman mold much better.  The film is a triumph of production design, calling to mind images of  Blade Runner and Minority Report, both movies which brilliantly conceived their environments in their respective production design.  But for me, the critical flaw with the 2012 version is its deeply pessimistic tone. It is much more focused on the proletarian revolution than the original, giving it a meaner and harder edge.  It could be argued that the movie was channeling the negative malaise of the time that spawned such things as the Occupy Movement.  There is a sinister air that pervades the whole film and I think, in the final analysis, taints it. In the end, it is just not as much fun.  That doesn't make it worse, just different.  Both are worth seeing and I would recommend either wholeheartedly.

Red Tails

So Close and Yet So Far

2.5 Stars (out of four)

Red Tails tells the story about a squadron of the Tuskegee Airmen, the first black fighter pilots in World War II. We follow the exploits of one unit and the trials and tribulations they must face and overcome to become one of the most highly decorated units in WWII.

I want to preface this review with the fact there is nothing particularly wrong with this film. It is perfectly acceptable, white-bread entertainment. A spectacle for those who want their "message film" to not challenge them too much or actually make them think. I don't think anyone is to really blame (outside of the screenwriter), but I don't even suspect him. I hate to keep jumping on this bandwagon, but I blame George Lucas. And I really hate to do that because this is the man primarily responsible for many of my happy childhood memories. This was the man who made Star Wars, after all, and I will be forever grateful for that. But he is ALSO the man who singlehandedly tore apart all those happy memories for so many years with those awful, misbegotten prequels. "And THAT," to quote Marlon Brando in The Godfather, "I cannot forgive.". Red Letter Media, in its excellent 70-minute review (go to YouTube) of The Phantom Menace, made this salient point about the script Lucas penned. They said its as if he did it in one draft and no one had the guts to tell him it made no sense. At this point, who's going to argue with George? And I think Red Tails has his fingerprints all over it.

As the Executive Producer, he would have final say on all aspects of production, and he is famous for inserting himself at all levels. While Lucas is an excellent producer and at least a competent director, he is a horrible writer. He's a little like Spock, he has no discernible emotions and cannot communicate any emotion in his writing. When you look at the Star Wars Prequels and now Red Tails, everything seems to be geared to get us to the new, computer-generated action sequence. And while, at times, they can be thrilling, they are not emotional. You cannot connect with any of the characters to ground you into the story and give you an emotional stake into that you care what happens to them. This is crucial for effective storytelling. Again, Red Letter Media suggested this test for characters: Without describing the actor, what they do, what they look like or what they wear, describe any character as if explaining them to someone who has never seen the movie. The more adjectives and descriptions you can come up with, the better the character. Try it for a minute. Describe Han Solo and then Qwi Gon Jinn. Leia Organa or Padme Amidala. Go ahead, I'll wait.

See what I mean? Red Tails has the same problem. First, there is no protagonist, no main character to anchor our viewpoint. Second, while there are some lame attempts to develop character (one falls in love with an Italian, one drinks, one's the stereotypical newbie), the attempts feel hollow and ungenuine, if there is such a word. While watching the movie, I felt neither elation at their victories, sadness at their losses, anger at the racism and injustice they were subjected to, or satisfaction as they rightfully earn the respect of their fellow, white aviators. I feel I am watching events unfold in a cold, calculated and clinical way. It feels almost as if I was reading an encyclopedia. This is not the actors' fault. They do the best with what they have been given. There is not a bad one in the bunch, with Terrence Howard and Nate Parker being particular standouts. Third, the film is too "clean.". There is no dirt to be seen anywhere, from the muddy airbase, to the battle damaged airplanes, to the racist remarks by the white officers. There is no ugliness in anything. This is not cheery subject material. It is about war and conflict, both on a grand scale and a personal and interpersonal scale, yet oddly devoid of any drama. The real story of the Tuskegee Airmen is one of great sacrifice and indignity to ultimately win honor and respect. This has none of that. The film does not touch on their formation, training or any of the real life drama surrounding these brave men. It merely plunks us down in the middle of the action and ends abruptly. They are mannequins rehearsing canned dialogue to a predetermined end, making sure to hit every stale, moth-eaten cliche on the way down.

As I said, it is not bad, it just isn't that good, and the subjects deserved far better than that.

Zero Dark Thirty

4 Stars (out of four)

Hard to believe I'm on number 15 already.  For those of you who have stuck with me up to this point, thank you.  It has been fun so far.

First of all, let me preface this by saying I don't really care about all the controversy that has surrounded this film, specifically the torture scenes.  Yes, they are over the top, but are we also to believe only one person (recruited right out of high school, even!) had the gumption and sticktoittiveness to be able to track down Osama bin Laden?  They are both what are called PLOT DEVICES for those of you that are prone to thinking this movie is a documentary.  Specific techniques in storytelling to synthesize a complex story down into its most basic elements so an audience does not become confused.  PLEASE do not think this movie is meant to illustrate reality in every detail.  It is, first and foremost, a movie, which means it must be entertaining, and not necessarily factual in every aspect.  We all tracking?  Good!  Then on with the review!

I saw this movie with a good friend of mine, and as we discussed it afterward, he made some salient points,which I think bear repeating, so when it's not mine, I'll give him credit.  When you come done to it, this is a genuinely entertaining, slick, fantastic movie.  This is the sixth movie I've seen from Kathryn Bigelow (the others being The Hurt Locker, K-19: The Widowmaker, Strange Days, Point Break, and Near Dark), all very different from each other, but all superior to what most of her counterparts have done.  She is one of those rare directors who can pick pretty obscure material and make it gold.  I have been consistently entertained, mystified, challenged and irritated by her films, but they are never boring.  Zero Dark Thirty is no exception.  It is also probably the most mainstream thing I think she has done.

I break down Zero Dark Thirty, like most well-written movies, into three acts.  In this case, Act 1 is the torture stuff, Act 2 is the manhunt, and Act 3 is the minute-by-minute recreation of the raid where Navy Seals SPOILER ALERT!!! kill bin Laden.  The movie started getting me into a great, angry mood.  It starts in black and all you hear are 911 messages of people who were in the World Trade Center when it was hit on 9/11.  We then jump straight into act 1, a perfect setup.  We're good and angry, and now we see various scumbags being tortured.  A masterful bit of manipulation on Bigelow's part.  We are also introduced to Maya, Jessica Chastaine's role and our surrogate narrator for the rest of the film.  It is through her eyes and actions which propel this movie through at a breakneck pace.  Once the torture brings about the name of al-Kuwaiti, bin-Laden's trusted courier, we move into act 2.  Act 1 is the only thing I can really find wrong in the film.  My friend pointed out that the rest of the movie is coherent and logical, but act 1 is somewhat disjointed, throwing random facts at you.  He surmises, I think correctly, that we, the general public, know the least about how we came by this information, so the torture scenes fill in that missing information conveniently.  It is what most people want to believe, whether correct or not.  Once we are in act 2, where we know more facts about the hunt, the movie is spot on.  Dates, timelines and details are perfect, though necessarily truncated for dramatic purposes.  The manhunt speeds into act 3, the actual raid, which is thrilling and gives the movie, in my opinion, a happy ending when bin-Laden is finally shot.  In any case, my friend pointed out that the movie had the right setup, enough detective work to build tension, and just the right amount of action to bring the movie to a satisfying end.

Now, those of you who think the movie is a propaganda piece for the current administration, I say please get over yourselves.  The film hardly mentions Presidents Bush or Obama.  It makes no attempt at moral judgement on which President was right or wrong, it merely presents the case as plainly as possible.  Whether you think the movie makes moral judgements largely is based on what frame of mind you are coming from.  The film leans heavily towards torture is a bad thing, but it also says it got results.  Do the ends justify the means?  I leave that for you to decide on your own.  But I will say go see this movie.  Whatever your feelings in the end, you will think, you will be thrilled, and you will not be bored.

John Carter

Truth, Justice and the Confederate Way?

3 Stars (Out of 4)

See if this storyline sounds familiar. Through a set of circumstances not under his control, an alien ends up on another planet. Because of the planet's particular set of environmental habitat is vastly different from his own, he gets super powers, among them flight and greatly increased strength. He uses these powers to help the local inhabitants in a quest to bring justice to the planet. Of course, you say, his name is...John Carter? And his story is 101 years old this year? Yes, John Carter was written 20 years before Superman by the same guy who brought us the very popular Tarzan series.

The movie is one of those movies that, while not quite great, is a solid, entertaining yarn that suffered from toxic pre-release news and a badly fumbled publicity campaign. Because the $200 million plus movie was such a flop, we may not necessarily see another one, which is too bad. When we are being continually inundated with crap like the Chipmunks, The Smurfs and Madagascar, another good, family-friendly adventure story like John Carter will never be seen again. There really isn't a lot to criticize in the film. Most of the money obviously went into the special effects (which are quite spectacular), and not into casting large names. This actually works in the movie's favor because they actually got the best people for the role, and didn't rewrite the role to fit a big star. It is well acted, the special effects as I said before, are magnificent. It doesn't look as static as Lucas' horrible Star Wars prequels. The motion capture for he aliens is fluid and works well with the real elements. The story is a tad confusing. This is the biggest downfall, but not a bad one. It feels as if Disney was trying to shoehorn more than one of he novels in the movie, but this is not particularly bad. They were trying to set up for a franchise.

So what went wrong? Why did it flop? Who knows? Why does this flop but Tron do well? Or (shudder) The Chipmunks or Smurfs? My opinion is because most people haven't read or heard of the Barsoom series by Edgar Rice Burroughs (Barsoom is the native name for Mars). I would be willing to bet most people know Tarzan, though. This is the tack Disney should have taken. "See the OTHER great series from the mind that brought you Tarzan", and build on the story's built-in pedigree. A lot of people like Tarzan, or at least are familiar with it. As it was, the ad campaign was mostly another sci-fi film that nobody knows anything about. Why, then, should a parent shell out a lot of money on something that will quite possibly be stupid rather than going to a known product like The Chipmunks (shudder)? Hollywood tries to over think things a lot in that mad quest to find the next franchise. This is exhibit A. They tried to force a product on us, rather than put out a good story and let us make up our own minds. Try as they can, Hollywood cannot manufacture a cult hit. They cannot create good word of mouth. This tends to happen spontaneously. So, instead of Iron Man, they got The Punisher. Instead of Star Wars, they got Flash Gordon. The real tragedy here, is that John Carter is pretty darn good, and is worth a watch.

Miracle-2004

3 Stars (out of 4)

A good test of a film, especially one that depicts a well-known historical event, is for it to be tense and entertaining. It is funny how history can make for great drama. Films like Apollo 13, Braveheart and Patton are great examples of this. When they are lesser-known events, it can be a bit easier, like The Great Raid, Rob Roy or Argo. But it is possible to screw it up, like MacArthur. Miracle is one of those that fall in the middle. It is a very entertaining film and hits all the right notes, but in the end, falls a little flat. That is not a criticism, it is just not a great film. There are other sports films I liked better, like Rocky or Brian's Song, but I liked it and was engaged throughout the whole film.

For those of you who don't know, the movie is a dramatization of the "Miracle on ice" in the 1980 Olympics in Lake Placid where the extreme underdogs USA Hockey team beat the undisputed world champion hockey team from the USSR. The movie covers the whole story from the selection of the coach, Herb Brooks (played understated by Kurt Russell), through the awarding of the gold medals to the USA team on the podium. It is fun to watch how the team evolves from a group of individuals to a team. It is a bit of a cliche, and other movies have shown the process better, like Cool Runnings, but it is a fun film. Especially if you grew up in the USA during the Cold War and remember watching the game, it may bring a swell of pride. The final game is tense and fun for anyone. You don't have to be a huge sports or hockey fan to enjoy it, and while it is a famous event, many people probably have not seen it, so this is a fun movie. Check it out, you might like it.

Real Steel

2 Stars (out of 4)

I know this one's a little late, but I just saw it for the first time. I have to say, for a kid flick, it is surprisingly good. This movie reminds me a lot of the 60's and 70's Disney kid flicks like The Cat From Outer Space, Follow Me Boys, Unidentified Flying Oddball and the Herbie series. It has been a long time since such resources have been put into what is essentially a stupid little film. But, frankly, this movie is a lot more fun, and a lot deeper, than it has any right to be.

There has been a lot of movies recently based on old toys and games (Transformers, the horrible Battleship, etc), a very dumb trend; but this one, based on a Richard Matheson short story, (but mostly Rock Em Sock Em Robots) is surprisingly entertaining. It stars Hugh Jackman, a washed up boxer in the future. The movie takes place in the near future where boxing is now done by large robots. Hugh Jackman's character has been scraping the bottom of the barrel in underground fights when he finds out an ex-girlfriend dies. He finds out that he has an 11-year old son who he walked out on. The kid ends up with Jackman and they go on the road trying to make money. What follows is a fairly by-the-numbers movie about the reconciliation between the father and his son. This is where the movie is a cut above the rest. There is a good message underneath the mindless stupidity of the actual movie.

The movie is a lot like the old Disney films in the sense that all the adults are one level above mental retardation and the kids are the smart ones. This one is no different. Hugh is a short-sighted, greedy idiot with the one skill that propels the movie along, he can box. The kid, on the other hand, can speak Japanese (from playing video games, don't you know), program and install voice recognition hardware in robots, to building advanced robots. He makes all the smart decisions, he is wise beyond his years and inspires everyone in the movie. That said, it's fun to watch him in the film. The film is also riddled with about every corny cliche in the entire language of movies. Yet somehow, it all works. The movie is not necessarily deep, but it has heart, and that it what makes it good.

Jack Reacher

Dirty "Cruise?"

2 Stars (out of four)

I will first start this off by saying the movie is not that bad in the sense that it is enjoyable to watch. That said, the movie promises much, but delivers little of its promise. Tom Cruise plays Jack Reacher, an ex-Army investigative cop who seems to have trained in every tactical discipline ever. It starts out in Pittsburg where an ex-Army sniper randomly guns down five people in broad daylight, leaves a ton of evidence behind, and is caught shortly thereafter. All the evidence leads than open and shut case straight to death row, or does it? While the sniper is in custody, he asks for Jack Reacher, the investigator who once caught him murdering in Iraq and who is now a ghost off the grid. What follows is a confusing mishmash of characters and events, none of which are particularly well explained in their motivations and raisin d'être for being in the movie in the first place. While the possibility of a hidden motive nestled among seemingly random murders is interesting, it is never particularly compelling because anyone with half a brain for picking up clues can guess the motive in about 20 minutes. After that, it is a pretty straightforward, by the numbers murder mystery, with a not quite so surprise ending.

This movie is all Cruise. Not a surprise considering he produces and stars in it. But what is odd is that he has played good guys (almost everything he's done), and bad guys (Taps, Collateral). But I don't think has ever played the mysterious stranger who does bad things to set the situation right. While this has been a winning formula from everything from The Lone Ranger, to The Green Hornet, to Batman, to The Untouchables, to Death Wish, to Dirty Harry and almost all of Clint Eastwood's westerns, it doesn't work very well here. This is not the lawless west where a good man was needed to battle the immoral baddies. This is modern day Pittsburg that ostensibly has primo law enforcement force. The motive, outside of greed, is not evident in the chief crazy villain, played by crazy director Werner Hertzog. He is supposed to be scary bad, but we don't know exactly what for. He pulls the strings in a puppet master kind of way, but we don't know what he has done in the past to deserve such a rep. At one point, a grizzled, old former marine played by Robert Duvall shows up to help, but we don't know why he would do that. There is a frosty relationship with Cruise's partner, a lawyer played by Rosamund Pike (whose chief function in this film seems to be exposition and showing off her ample breasts and cleavage under low cut suits) and her father who is the Pittsburg DA that doesn't really go anywhere and isn't really explained. There are bad guys who come in and out of the picture with no real logic.

In the end, this is a stew of a lot of other, better films. I read the glowing review by Pete Travers who says this is a great show at the seedy underworld. Other films have done it better, like: Pulp Fiction, Drive, 8mm, Reservoir Dogs, The Killing, Hard Core, The Warriors, and many others. It tries to be a vigilante film like The Outlaw Josey Wales, The Seven Samurai, The Punisher, Dirty Harry and others. It tries to be a police murder investigation like Insomnia, Basic Instinct and it tries to be a lawyer/family drama like Class Action and The Verdict. Ultimately, it falls short on all counts. It is neither thrilling, suspenseful, mysterious or dramatic, although it tries for all of them at once. Ultimately, it is a quaintly entertaining, fairly dumb movie. Wait for it on DVD. Is it worth watching? Sure, but not before crossing other movies off your list.