Deadpool

3.5 Stars (out of four)

I suppose it was inevitable that Deadpool would get his own movie.  This character is the 2000s version of Wolverine in its popularity.  Personally, I had never read a Deadpool story before this, so I had no expectations going in.  That may have been a good thing because, frankly, this was one of the funniest movies I have ever seen.  From the opening seconds of the opening credits to the final cut scene, this movie is one big ADULT hoot.

For those who don't know, Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds, playing the merc with a mouth) is a bad guy, as in he is a horrible person.  He plays a low-level assassin who falls in love with a hooker, Vanessa (Morena Baccarin).  He finds out he has incurable cancer, so he volunteers for an experimental treatment by a guy named Ajax (played with British super villain menace by Ed Skrein).  While his cancer is cured, after several scenes of intense brutal torture, he is left horribly scarred and a mutant ability to heal from any wound (hmm, sounds familiar, huh?).  Ajax has made him to be a slave killer, but Deadpool has other ideas and escapes.  For the rest of the movie, Deadpool is joking and killing his way though the criminal underworld to find Ajax to cure him.  There is also a subplot that deals with some X-men which seems tacked on, but still a lot of fun.

This is essentially an origin story, so you don't need a lot of background going in.  For me, that was a good thing as I had no pre knowledge of what would happen and what to expect, so I could take everything at face value.  The story is a teenage boy's wet dream, to be an invincible killer while getting a beautiful girl to bang, all while spurting wisecracking one-liners.  Deadpool is a murderous, psycho Spider-Man, and he is a joy to watch if you take it in the spirit which it's intended.  Particularly fun is that Deadpool breaks the fourth wall (he speaks directly to you) as he does in the comic, giving the whole film a very meta feel. This is pure escapist entertainment.  Nothing but stupid, disposable trash, but it is fun.

That doesn't mean it's perfect.  One of the biggest issues I had was that it was too long.  All good things must come to an end, and this went way too long.  The scenes with Ajax seemed to drag.  There are also several scenes with a super villainess, Angel, which were totally unnecessary.  For the life of me, I saw no reason for her to be in the movie other than give the X-Men something to do and to add a grrl power moment to the film.  There are also way too many scenes in the seedy bar that Deadpool frequents and the bartender whose a sort of middle management for all the killers in the bar.  The humor between him and Deadpool feel forced, and again, fairly unnecessary as he also doesn't really add anything to any scene he's in.

The biggest problem with the film is that now in a post-Crow, post-Blade, post-Underworld time, an R-rated superhero film has proven to be wildly popular, I am just bracing for the million other crappy and inferior copies that will inevitably follow.  I have already heard the brain-dead fanboys either hate the film or they want more like this.  I don't have a problem with good old bloody and naked fun, but Hollywood has a very bad habit of remaking the wheel and it always is worse.  I'm already hearing rumors the next Wolverine movie will be rated-R, so we will see what happens.  In any case, if you want a rip roaring time where you can turn your brain off and go, Deadpool is the movie for you, but for God's sake, leave the kids at home. I saw this film three times in 24 hours, and in each one, there were parents who brought in kids as young as 5.  If you are one of these people, you are a horrible parent and it will be little wonder when your kid stabs you to death in your sleep when he turns 13.  Even the movie company is telling parents not to bring their kids, so please, take some responsibility and stop breeding the future psychos of America and have your kid go to Kung Fu Panda 3 instead, please.

Michael Collins

2 Stars (out of four)

I had been meaning to watch Michael Collins for some time now.  I'm a little ignorant of the particulars of the Irish struggle, so I can't reasonably comment on how historically accurate the film is.  But the one thing to remember about all films like this, especially in America, they tend to venerate their subjects.  Especially when it comes to the Irish in this country, where everyone is Irish at least one day out of the year, to speak ill of the Irish struggle is tantamount to asking a bunch of drunk skinheads wearing green and orange to come to you door with foul intentions.  But this is not a review about the Irish struggle, it's about a movie, so let's dive right in.

The movie is about the travails of the titular protagonist, Michael Collins (played by Liam Neeson), who essentially is responsible for the modern IRA as well as the modern Irish state.  In the beginning of the 20th century, the Irish had rebelled again and again against the English to be brutally suppressed again and again.  Obviously, this chain of events is not without precedent in other countries.  However, Collins set up a violent wing of the Irish cause that began what could be charitably described as urban warfare, but in reality, was essentially a terror campaign against British occupiers in Ireland.  At the same time, the legitimate political wing was run by Eamon de Valera (in a understated but well-acted turn by the late, great Alan Rickman).  Because of Collins' increasingly clever, but violent and ultimately successful campaign, he is sent to negotiate with the British for a free, but divided Irish state, essentially what exists today.  He then becomes a defender of this new state against an even more radical wing of the IRA that wants the whole nation freed, a wing led by his old ally and leader, de Valera.  Eventually, Collins is killed by an assassin working with de Valera.

Biopics are tricky things.  On the one hand, you want to illustrate the important events that happened to the subject in a relatively short amount of time.  2-3 hours is just not enough time to encapsulate anybody's life.  At the same time, a biopic is not a documentary.  It has to, in the end, be entertaining.  With this, the director must decide to compress time, omit or combine people and events and generally manipulate the story to tell his point of view.  This tends to eulogize characters and give them virtues that they may not have had.  It sentimentalizes a person.  Faults are overlooked, strengths are enhanced.  Director and writer Neil Jordan is Irish himself, and there is no shortage of martyrology in the film, both for the IRA and the nation of Ireland, but I can't blame him for that. It's tough to take objective views of things when you have grown up in the myths of them.  However, one of the points I did like about the film was at least an attempt at objectivity.  

Like the great biopic Malcolm X, Michael Collins attempts to show a man who tries to change his disreputable past for a brighter future for everyone.  As Collins becomes more enmeshed with the politics engendered after the successful terror campaign, he tries to find a genuine, albeit gradual path to peace.  Others, including de Valera don't see it that way and eventually kill him for it.  This is where the movie gets confusing, because it never explained de Valera's rationale for turning against and eventually killing Collins after everything Collins did for him.  That would be an interesting story.  Was it jealousy, fear, intolerance, or all three?  The movie doesn't say. 

Jordan is a very good director at establishing mood, and the mood is very dour indeed, considering the subject matter. In fact, the whole film is pretty good except for one, almost fatal flaw, and that is Julia Roberts.  Almost everyone involved in the film is either Irish or at least a Brit, outside of Aiden Quinn and Roberts.  But while Aiden Quinn is actually a good actor, Roberts is not.  Her best actress Oscar for Erin Brockovich was about as deserved as John Wayne's in The Shootist.  Neither are particularly good actors except for their own persona.  I spent half the movie trying to figure out if it was her, and then the rest in open-gaped amazement at how bad she was.  Remember, this was the height of Roberts' fame and power.  She's not particularly beautiful like other Hollywood actresses, nor can she really act very well.  In this movie, she frankly should not have even tried an Irish accent with how many times it slipped.  I guess I just have never gotten her and her appeal.  She's okay, but not great.  And in this film, she almost singlehandedly brings it crashing to a halt.

So, overall, the movie is okay.  Unfortunately, it could have been great.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

2 Stars (out of four)

So, I am a big fan of author Seth Grahame-Smiths books.  They are ludicrous, funny and subversive by the choice of their subject matter.  He originally wrote Pride and Prejudice and Zombies mostly as a writing exercise, taking Jane Austen's seminal work of the trials and tribulations of the five Bennet sisters trying to get married in the 19th Century while navigating the pressures of the times.  Grahame-Smith just adds the zombie apocalypse to the equation and you have a rollicking good time.

And this is precisely where the movie blows it.  Now don't misunderstand.  I did not dislike this film.  I was entertained by it.  But the problem is that the movie cannot figure out what it wants to be.  I think it is mostly a grrl power movie where men are essentially useless, stupid or mysogynous or a combination of all three.  All, of course, except for the forward-thinking father and Mr. Darcy, the romantic male lead, whom we are supposed to like anyway.  Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with movies with strong female protagonists.  Many of them are some of my favorites (Alien/Aliens, The Terminator, The Abyss, Strange Days, Mad Max: Fury Road immediately spring to mind).  Other times, approaches the T.V. show Batman level of campiness.  Other times, it feels like a post-feminist, ironic/satirical commentary on those days.  Sometimes, it even tries to be faithful to the spirit of the original text.

But what the producers did not understand is what made this story so good in the first place.  Grahame-Smith's book works precisely because it is not ironic at all.  He stays totally faithful to Austen's style and feeling, and the juxtaposition of the zombie apocalypse mixed with the stolid propriety of pre-Victorian England is what makes it funny and intriguing at the same time.  Conjuring images of young, Victorian women who are deadly practioners of martial arts using those skills in the same banality of drinking tea and biscuits is absolutely hysterical and pure fun.  This movie is a jumbled mass of trying to please as many audiences as possible without completely serving any of them.  Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is not a particularly high or difficult concept, and the writers and producers just made an incoherent botch of the whole thing.  And that was disappointing because this movie had a lot of promise.  It even ends on a tacked-on cliffhanger in the vain hope it will become another franchise series.

And incoherence is the watchword for this movie.  There appear to be a lot of inside jokes that are obvious to people who have read Pride and Prejudice.  I have never read the book and, God willing, never will.  But because of my ignorance of the source material, I think I missed out on some good jokes.  On the other hand, the movie had plot holes so large you could sail an aircraft carrier through them.  I think it also suffers from some severe post-production cutting because some storylines inexplicably end or meander down an odd path.  In the end, you really need to look at this film like a Monty Python movie.  Don't try to make sense of the zaniness.  Just turn your brain off and just go with it.

The Fifth Element---A Reconsideration

3 Stars (out of four)

So, when I saw The Fifth Element for the first time when it came out in 1997, I absolutely hated it. Since then, the film, while maybe not being a true cult classic like director Luc Besson's other offerings like La Femme Nikita (made into another horrible movie called Point of No Return and not one, but two spinoff TV series-La Femme Nikita and Nikita) and Leon: The Professional), it has gained a cult status all its own. So now that I have had some distance from it, I thought I'd give it another try.

For those of you who don't know, The Fifth Element was written by Luc Besson since he was sixteen.  In the future, a planet of literal evil is coming to destroy the Earth in some kind of apocalyptic whatever.  The only thing standing in its way is former soldier Korben Dallas (Bruce Willis) and the ultimate weapon in the universe, Leeloo (Milla Jovovich), whose ultimate power seems to be looking hot while wearing the least amount of clothes possible (not that I'm complaining mind you).

See, Leeloo is the personification of the fifth element (with fire, earth, air and water being the other four, you see) and is the most powerful being in the universe as well as the least powerful because she needs love.  Enter Bruce Willis.  Anyway, they get sent to a pleasure planet cruise ship, hosted by intergalactic TV host Ruby Rhod (played by Chris Tucker in a wonderful over-top-performance that makes his character in Rush Hour seem like a narcoleptic zombie in comparison) to retrieve some stones that will kill the evil force and stave off the end of the world.

Got all that?  Good.  If not, it doesn't particularly matter.  Remember, this was a sixteen-year-old's labor of love for over 20 years.  Coherency isn't the point or goal here.  It is a series of breathtaking images punctuated by incredible kinetic motion, even in its quieter (not that many) moments.  A small sampling of the sumptuous visual overload:

If this seems like a fever dream from a coked-up, paranoid, insomniac who hasn't slept for four and a half days, I would say you're not far off from the feeling this film puts out.  It is a joy to behold, to immerse yourself in the visual feast of images here.  But as I said, I hated it when I saw it for the first time in 1997.  Why?  I guess it was because it was the exact opposite of what I was expecting.  Luc Besson, up to this point, was known for very ultraviolent, kinetic films, and while this has elements of his earlier works, it is also very funny when you don't expect it to be.  The humor is spot on and gives this very ridiculous film a likability akin to The Princess Bride or Galaxy Quest.  When I was younger with other expectations, this juxtaposition was jarring, but now I find it quite charming in a obtrusive, but easy to take way.  Indeed, the comedy in the movie is needed to cover up story flaws or when the pace begins to drag.

The actors are clearly having fun with these roles.  Bruce Willis toning down his tough-guy persona so much he barely speaks to Chris a Tucker am ping up his gerbil metabolism energy to record heights, everything is a surprise here.   Milla Jovovich, who made me fall in love with her in this movie, is actually pretty good.  She displays several startling moments of pathos, vulnerability and strength at different points of the film.  Her expressive eyes sell it, and is her secret weapon in just about every film she does.  Gary Oldman seems to be the only one who doesn't belong here.  He seems to be sleepwalking through the film in a phoned-in performance with a God-awful southern accent that keeps slipping at the most inopportune times.  I would have expected more from him as he has unfailingly impressed me with his ability to disappear into any role.

The direction and editing are also very quirky.  The movie feels like a roller coaster with hyper-kinetic motion, and a funky soundtrack that keeps you grooving to the action.  Besson uses well-composed groupings of people using close ups with a long lens.  This combination distorts people's faces, especially curves like noses, cheeks and chins.  He also directed his actors to be a tad off-kilter, not quite right ways of emoting and reacting.  All of these elements together give the movie a somewhat "off" feel which disorients you, and heightens the style of the film.  I personally loved the feel as it makes it, in the end, a little different and stands out on its own.

So that is why I reassessed my earlier distaste for the film and give it a fairly high ranking now.  When I was younger, I may have given this 1 star (based solely on Jovovich's wardrobe).  I get what other people see in it, and I agree with those opinions of this inspired lunacy.  It is a joy to watch and I would heartily recommend you throw yourself into it and go with the flow.  Don't think about it, just experience it.

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

2 Stars (out of four)

15 years ago, Blackhawk Down was released to wide critical acclaim.  It is a harrowing, exciting and ultimately very good account for an operation that ended in disaster for US policy in Somalia, very similar to the Vietnam effect.  The most infamous incident was the dragging of dead helicopter pilots through the streets of jeering crowds in Mogadishu.  It is interesting that that incident is brought up in 13 Hours, because this movie is almost a direct sequel/remake to that movie.

13 Hours tells the ground story behind the events in Benghazi, Libya that ultimately led to the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens.  It sets up the situation beforehand and the attacks on the Ambassadorial compound and nearby CIA compound.  It paints itself as a pretty straightforward action film, telling what happened without trying to politicize it, a fight still continuing at the time of this writing.

In the end, this movie, like all Michael Bay movies, is a very exciting, slick action film and it makes no apologies for being so.  Despite the criticism that Michael Bay makes nothing but audience-pleasing blockbuster crap, and therefore is a sellout hack, there is a reason he is given big movie after big movie to make.  And that reason is...

He's really good.

Yes, I said it!  Michael Bay, despite the stupid movies he makes, is a director par excellence.  (For a fascinating video article on why his style "Bayhem" is so captivating. http://www.avclub.com/article/heres-learned-analysis-why-michael-bay-movies-are--206582). Movies, by their very design, are meant to manipulate the audience into feeling a certain way.  Many people will vehemently deny it, thinking they know better and that they can't be manipulated.  But film language is very subtle and deeply ingrained into out collective psyche, and that's why they are the most effective forms of propaganda/presentation out there.  Every element is specifically chosen to make you feel a certain way from choice of actors to costuming to angles to lighting to script to choice of music.  13 Hours is a rousing actioneer that is exciting to watch.  So why am I bringing all this up?  Because 13 Hours is also a huge propaganda piece criticizing US foreign policy (specifically Bush and Clinton) and the CIA masquerading as a slick action film.

This is in no way a critique of the men that the piece was about or the events surrounding it.  It has all the Bay flag-waving trademarks so prevalent in Armageddon and other Bay films, stoking feelings of patriotic pride in the fight of the individual.  But it also critiques the US as weak and hapless with close ups of the American flag being riddled with buckets in closeup and a closing shot of the same flag floating in a pool at the film's closing shot.  But it is most egregious with the treatment of the CIA chief, "Bob."  It initially portrays him as an arrogant, dismissive, power-hungry S.O.B. at the beginning, berating and not listening to the sage advice of his more knowledgeable contractors, all former military.  As the plot moves on, he becomes obstinate, ineffectual, almost cowardly and finally, stubborn because he won't leave the compound at the end with everyone else.  But let's break this down.  It is being told by the operator, so it has a point of view, a take on events that are true and not at the same time.  While I am not defending actions of an arrogant boss, Bob has his own responsibilities to his own people. As is often pointed out in the film, everyone knows it is a shady area and was ripe for attack.  The compound held several CIA operatives and analysts, who, if captured, would certainly have been horrifically tortured for the information and propaganda value they had.  Bob's responsibility (and the operators), were ultimately to this facility.  They were not a quick reaction force, and while it was laudible what the operators did in the face of US inaction to save Ambassador Stevens, they ultimately failed to do anything to change his fate, while putting over 30 other Americans at risk.

Also, in the end of the movie, in the smoking aftermath, Bob refuses to leave because he has to keep collecting intelligence, which is painted as ludicrous and childishly petulant.  But I couldn't help but feel a little admiration for Bob.  Despite the fact he was almost killed and is in an incredibly dangerous area, he still wants to do his job, which ultimately protects Americans.  Despite all the obstacles and danger, he still wants to do what he is charged to do.  This is the type of behavior is rightfully lauded in our armed forces, but because we aren't supposed to like Bob, so it is used to deride him, which I took a little offense to.  When I came out of this movie, I was asking myself, what was the point of the film?  Despite being fun to watch, there is no context to what is happening here, no wider story.  It is a moment in time with terrible consequences.  Unlike the far superior Blackhawk Down, there is no theme, no context and ultimately no point.

But it's pretty cool to watch.

The Revenant

3 Stars (out of four)

The Revenant is more of an experience than a movie.  Movies entertain, preach, thrill, chill and sadden.  The Revenant beats you into submission with its portrait of man's inhumanity to man and cold permeates every aspect of its presentation, both physically and emotionally.

Using the five most dangerous words in cinematic history, "Based on a true story...", The Revenant tells the story (sort of) of real-life early 1800's trapper Hugh Glass (in an astonishing role for Leo DiCaprio) who was mauled by a grizzly bear, left for dead by his team including John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), and walks what would appear to be thousands of miles in the Missouri wilderness to kill Fitzgerald in righteous revenge. 

The movie bears little resemblance to actual events (admittedly sketchy since most of the exploits were not witnessed by anybody but in true frontier fashion, grow with each subsequent retelling.  For an interesting and short article on the real events read http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/the-revenant/leonardo-dicaprio-hugh-glass-true-story/), but this isn't a documentary.  It is spectacularly, yet very depressingly told.  Director Alejandro Iñárritu (last year's Oscar winner for Best Director in Birdman) is quite possibly the next Stanley Kubrick, both in his directorial prowess and black-hearted view of human nature.  This movie radiates pain and cruelty in every frame.  But everything is expertly depicted.  From his frequent Sergio Leone-esque close ups for us to read the agony on each actor's face, to his amazingly choreographed battle scenes, to his chilling landscapes (with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezski) that create an atmosphere where I actually felt the cold in the theater, Iñárritu is finally coming into his due, despite the fact of already creating several great movies already.  But he is too engaged with the craft of the making of rather than the telling of his story, which tends to make the movie drag.  It brings to mind the work of Werner Herzog, another great director who is too in love with his craft and will go to any length to show it, despite the effect on a coherent storyline.

But this movie is all DiCaprio, who for some reason, a lot of people think he can't act.  Ever since This Boy's Life and The Basketball Diaries, Leo has been churning out one great performance after another, many of which are unheralded.  Maybe because of his movie star looks combined with a lot of jealousy, most people don't want to acknowledge how good he really is.  I think he is on par with some of the greatest actors ever like DeNiro, Pacino, Brando, Penn and Stewert.  Like Castaway, this is less a movie than it is an acting exercise.  If DiCaprio didn't deliver, the movie falls apart like a house of cards.  Everything is in his expression as he says very little through the entire film.  There have been several articles published already detailing the extremes Iñárritu and DiCaprio went through to make this film that I won't repeat.  Suffice to say, it is reflected on DiCaprio's face and in his performance.  Some say his movie-star looks hold him back from greatness.  I say this movie proves it wrong and I am pretty sure he that with this fifth Oscar nomination, he will finally win a deservedly and long-overdue statue.

The comparatively low-rating I give this film is not a reflection of its quality and craftsmanship.  It is because, in the end, movies should entertain.  This is craftsmanship for its own sake.  A laudible goal, but in the end, the movie leaves one a bit unfulfilled.  Many directors fall into this trap, chief among them Terrence Malik, who eschew audience engagement in favor of art for its own sake.  They fall in love with the craft at the expense of what movies are meant to do in the first place, tell an engaging story.  It is possible to marry both art and entertainment together, which is the hallmark of a great director.  Chaplin, Ford, Wilder, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Coppola, Spielberg, Scorsese, Cameron, and yes, even Michael Bay have all done it, and without necessarily showing off (with the possible exception of Scorsese).  If Iñárritu wants to be remembered in that company of greats instead of being relegated to that group of great directors who toil in relative obscurity except in art houses (Welles, Fellini, Buñel, Malik, Cimino, Lynch, Aronovsky, Van Sant), he needs to remember that.  Making great, audience-pleasing stories does not necessarily mean sell-out.

The Hateful Eight

3.5 Stars (out of four)

Anytime Quentin Tarantino decides to put out a new movie is a cause for celebration.  While his style may not be for all tastes, it cannot be denied that he is one of the most original voices of his generation and has close to a perfect record in great films.  In a time when remakes, sequels and cookie-cutter, more or less identical family-friendly fare keeps getting churned out and attended by essentially brain-dead patrons numbed with mediocrity, Tarantino is still one of the freshest and most originally vibrant voices in filmdom.  The Hateful Eight, his eighth movie he has directed (10.5 if you count movies he had a lot to do with), while not being his finest outing, is still better than most others' best.

The Hateful Eight is actually a fairly simple premise.  During a horrific blizzard in the late 1800s, eight people are trapped in a haberdashery and must wait it out.  Each of the people are not what they seem and eventually come to blows in a characteristically "Tarantino-esque" climax of blood-soaked denouement.  The movie is part whodunnit mystery, part suspense.  The best way to describe it is Key Largo meets Ten Little Indians meets Straw Dogs.

The specifics of this particular movie are less important than the journey.  Like Inglorius Basterds, this is a movie of talking, not action.  The is a sheer joy of the spoken word and dialogue that crackles and sparks in this movie.  This is a movie that lets actors act, so you can see the craft.  There is not a bad one in this bunch.  Aside from Tarantino regulars like Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, and Michael Madsen, there is also Bruce Dern, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walton Goggins and Kurt Russell.  Every one of them puts on one of their most intense performances to date and all are a joy to watch.

But the real star of this film is the auteur himself, Tarantino.  Much has been made of the fact that it was shot in the largest format available, 70mm CinemaScope.  The interesting thing about this choice of format is that it is more appropriate for movies with wide vistas like Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia or The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.  And while this movie has many great shots of the expansive Wyoming landscape, most the film takes place in very intimate quarters inside a cramped cabin.  Yet somehow, Tarantino makes it work beautifully.  For a guy who never went to film school, he has enormous talent for direction.  It is amazing that such a good writer and director exist in the same guy. It makes it all the worst when he keeps threatening to quit the business with only eight movies under his belt.

A quick thought about the four-hundred-pound gorilla in the room whenever discussing Tarantino-the violence.  It is no secret that the biggest hallmark of all Tarantino films is the level of violence in them.  In this one especially, with as intimate as the quarters get, so does the level of violence.  Jennifer Jason Leigh's outlaw suffers the worst at the hands of lawman and hangman Kurt Russell.  Some have said the violence borders on mysogynistic with the level of abuse leveled on her.  But it turns out she can take it and dish it back like a vengeful harpy.  She is easily the toughest and arguably most brutal character in the film, so I think the mysogynous criticism is people trying to make a name for themselves making mountains out of molehills.  But the point I am making is that it's too bad that Tarantino feels his signature must be written in blood.  It is now expected.  When I left the theater, I heard two dim-witted twenty-somethings lamenting that the film looked like it wasn't going to have the violence level one expects from Tarantino's movies.  They, and other brain-dead specimens like them completely miss the point if that is why they are coming.  But unfortunately, Tarantino has now painted himself in a corner as people now have certain expectations of him.  I love it when directors move out of their comfort zones and do something completely unexpected.  What would be interesting would be if Tarantino did a love story (different than True Romance) or a straightforward drama.  I would love to see what he could do outside the crime/action genre.  He certainly tries to do very different movies each time, and he certainly has the talent to visually and aurally tell a compelling story.  I would love to see him do one that didn't necessarily require he fall back on extreme violence like a crutch.  He's better than that and it is long time that he demonstrated it, but that's just my opinion.  In any case, if you love great film storytelling, this is a required movie to see.  And while you're at it, try it's artistic ancestor, Key Largo.