Guardians of the Galaxy

The summer of 2014 hasn’t exactly been a stellar one for big, huge, gigantic, popcorn-guzzling blockbuster flicks. Yeah, I liked 22 Jump Street, Edge of Tomorrow, and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, but for the most part, there hasn’t been a Batman, a Superman, an Avengers, a HUGE summer movie. What’s been the flick that made the most money? One that deserves its distinction as the summer’s highest-grossing flick, 2014’s Guardians of the Galaxy.

It’s 1988 and young Peter Quill runs from a hospital room where his mom just died. As he sits in an open field, a spaceship flies over him, a huge light shining on him. Some 20 years later and now all grown up, Peter (Chris Pratt) has become an outlaw, dubbing himself Star Lord, with a growing reputation (so he thinks) in a far-off universe made up of countless planets and species. He’s managed to steal a seemingly normal orb for a buyer, but he’s stumbled into something bigger than he knows. The orb is incredibly powerful and whoever possesses it could control the universe. With some unwilling allies, including Gamora (Zoe Saldana), an experienced assassin, Drax (Dave Bautista), an enormous warrior, Rocket (Bradley Cooper), a genetically-mutated, talking raccoon who’s become a bounty hunter, and Groot (Vin Diesel), a humanoid tree capable of regenerating), Peter must prevent the orb from falling into the wrong hands…if this crew can pull it together.

If there’s a such thing as a “risky” flick in the Marvel Universe, this one was it. No huge stars, no Iron Man or Captain America or Thor or Hulk, and a story in a far-off universe where many to most viewers have no history…yeah, I guess that is a little risky. Now all that said, $500 million at the international box office seems to indicate that movie-going audiences don’t really give a crap. If it looks good, we’ll give it a shot. Director James Gunn turns in a gem, a movie that shrugs off all those concerns to tell a story in a far-off universe with all sorts of weird characters and species that’s a heck of a lot of fun. Dramatic, funny, entertaining, well-written, action-packed, unique and transporting viewers to a really cool universe. An easy one to recommend.

This is a movie that knows where it comes from in terms of the science fiction genre. It has touches of everything from Star Wars and Star Trek and The Avengers. On another level, it eats up a chance to add a new layer to the men-on-a-mission concept with films like The Guns of Navarone and The Dirty Dozen. Touches, yes, but this is its own movie. It seeks out its own identity. This is a popcorn movie, a true blockbuster that is well-acted, well-told, but mostly? ‘Guardians’ just wants to have some fun. It is stylistically aware of itself without being overbearing. The soundtrack with a lot of 1970s/1980s pop could be aggressively over the top, but the script finds a way to blend it seamlessly into the story. A big, colorful movie that embraces all the good – and very little – of the blockbuster concept. Yeah, the story can be confusing at times with so many characters and planets and situations and history, but it finds a groove pretty quickly.

What’s the best thing going here? The aforementioned men-on-a-mission angle similar to The Avengers and countless other movies. The concept is simple. You put a disparate group of individuals together, some specialists, mostly outcasts in one way or another, and give them some impossible mission to achieve. Here, it works effortlessly, a tribute to the talented cast. Pratt is a huge rising star, the roguish Peter Quill who desperately wants to be an infamous outlaw who’s name precedes him. Saldana is sexy and smooth, Cooper is at his scene-stealing best as the fiery, feisty Rocket (yes, Bradley Cooper provides his voice to play a raccoon), Bautista – an MMA fighter/WWE wrestler – an underplayed laugh machine, and Diesel having some fun as the one-liner repeating Groot. Yes, Vin Diesel plays a tree who has one repeated line, albeit with some different inflections.

More than the action, more than the other-worldly exploration, more than all that flashy stuff, I found the script to be the best thing going here. Working with Nicole Perlman and based off a series of graphic novels, Gunn brings these people to life. That's the men-on-a-mission angle; five disparate, different individuals forced to put their differences aside to get the job done. So many scenes are memorable, most of them worthwhile because of a sight gag among the group or a quick, witty one-liner. They may not always get along, but our Guardians are gonna keep at it. My favorite scene comes late, a staple of the specialist idea. Faced with impossible odds, they have to decide if they should go on, knowing full well many may not make it back. The build-up is hysterical as they talk it out (some would say criticize each other), and the pay-off is sublime, Cooper's Rocket absolutely killing a quick monologue. It is those moments that stick with me days after seeing the movie.

Also look for Glenn Close and John C. Reilly as high-ranking officials and staff on Xandar, the universe's capital. If there's a relative weakness, it's the villains, including power-seeking Ronan (Lee Pace) and his fiery daughter, Nebula (Karen Gillan). Michael Rooker has a lot of fun as Yondu, leader of the Ravagers who kinda sorta likes Peter but also knows he can't fully trust him. Last seen in Thor 2, Benicio Del Toro makes a quick appearance as The Collector while Djimon Hounsou is wasted as a tough guard who is on Peter's trail. 

No point overanalyzing this one. Risky though it may have seemed, it is a gem, ranking up there with The Avengers as one of my favorite flicks from the Marvel Universe. Yeah, the story can be tough to follow early on. Yeah, the villains could use some pumping up, but these complaints are almost wasted. This is a FUNNY movie. I laughed here more than I did in intended comedies. For goodness sake, Bradley Cooper lends his voice to play a wisecracking, weapons slinging raccoon. Vin Diesel plays a tree. A TREE. 'Guardians' is everything that's right about summer blockbusters. Can't recommend this one enough. The easiest of recommendations.

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014): *** 1/2 /****

Thor: The Dark World

There are certain irrefutable things in life like death, taxes and the fact that all Avengers franchise movies will make a boatload of money. The Avengers was the top-earning film of 2012, becoming the third-highest grossing film of all-time. I've liked all of the movies to varying degrees with one major exception, 2011's Thor. I really didn't like this one, but come on, I've got to keep up with the franchise, right? Right?!? Here we go with 2013's Thor: The Dark World.

Following the adventures/misadventures in New York (in The Avengers), Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has returned to Asgard with his brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), in tow, set to waste away for his crimes. With the universe threatening to tear itself apart, Thor has gone about bringing about the Nine Realms back together. His quest though is halted when his love back on Earth, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), accidentally comes into the possession of the Aether, an ancient powerful weapon that dates back eons and has remained hidden and buried all that time. The Dark Elf who previously possessed it, Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), wants nothing more than to reacquire the Aether, hopefully to tear Asgard, Earth and the entire universe to pieces with his new-found power. Hoping to save the universe, Asgard and Jane, Thor is left with few options, forcing him to turn to an unlikely ally, Loki himself. Can his brother be trusted?

I don't know what it is. I can't peg it down exactly what doesn't work for me about these Thor movies. I can say that I liked this second movie more than the original. Director Alan Taylor's superhero flick still isn't perfect, but something just seems more self-assured. It's still heavily flawed, but it isn't the deal-killer that I found the original Thor to be. There's a lot of issues I have I guess. One, I'm being hypocritical. I've watched the Lord of the Ring series, the Star Wars movies and countless other science fiction and fantasy movies so that in itself isn't a deal-breaker, but I struggle to go along with all the Asgard history and lore. Writing that plot synopsis, I felt like I should be reading it in MOVIE TRAILER voice. All the mythology and history and Aethers, it's all very cartoonish and comic book. I can't say that for the other Avengers movies. Based in comic books but rising above it...except for Thor.

One thing above all else is not in question, AT ALL. That would be star Chris Hemsworth who has become an international movie star courtesy of these movies. Talk about epically perfect casting. From the visual look with his long blonde hair to his commandeering physique to his booming voice that deadpans his way through his scenes, Hemsworth is the best thing going for these movies by far. I won't go as far as saying he's the only good thing, but it's closer than you'd think unfortunately. He commits to the part completely but it never seems jokey or forced. It's serious with some laughs. Hemsworth handles the action effortlessly from beginning to end -- his Thor hammer is one of the best cinema weapons ever -- and adds a touch of humor too. Some quick, little scenes work perfectly, including Thor hanging up his hammer like a coat as he enters an apartment. Hemsworth's performance is the heart of the movie, a great lead.

Now the unfortunate thing is that as many big names and potentially cool characters as this movie has, very few leave a positive impression. The biggest exception to that statement is of course, Hiddleston as Loki, Thor's treacherous brother who is obsessed with power and taking over Asgard. The chemistry between the brothers is great, their scenes together in the last hour my personal high points for the movie. As for the rest? Meh. I like Natalie Portman a lot, but she still seems out of place in the Thor movies. Anthony Hopkins is cool but given little to do as Thor's father, Odin, while Rene Russo returns as Thor's mother, Frigga. Idris Elba is as cool as ever as Heimdall, all-seeing Asgardian sentry who watches over the entry point to Asgard. In the annoying comic relief department, the usually reliable Kat Dennings is shrill and annoying as Jane's assistant, Darcy, Stellan Skarsgard is relegated to crazy scientist in background duty, and Darcy even gets a goofy British intern (Jonathan Howard).

But wait, there's more! Eccleston is pretty decent as the villainous Malekith, obsessed with destruction, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje his freakishly strong enforcer, Algrim. In the wasted department are Thor's Warriors Three from the original, Ray Stevenson, Zachary Levi (a new arrival) and Tadanobu Asano, mostly given cameo-like appearances, Jaimie Alexander also returning as Asgardian love interest (of sorts), Sif. And because the Avengers franchise is interested in coverage across all their movies, Chris Evans makes a quick appearance as Captain America while Benicio Del Toro makes an appearance in the credits scene as a hint of where the Thor series will go.Also look for Chris O'Dowd in a small part.

And here we sit. I know what I want to say, but it's going to sound harsh. My biggest complaint of the Thor movies is that they seem almost generic without a whole lot of heart. They're fun and flashy, blending action and comedy, but that doesn't necessarily translate to "interesting." Thor is a really cool character, but what else is there to offer? 'Dark' clocks in at 112 minutes, but once you take away an incredibly long credits sequence (even taking away the minute scene added on) we're still looking at a movie that's now 101 minutes. Too much going on, too many ideas and characters, a story that bounces liberally among its countless options, and a coldness in general that the other Avengers movies manage to avoid in a big way. It's better than the first movie, but it's still not that good.

Thor: The Dark World (2013): **/****

Che: Part II

So where were we? Ah, yes, wrapping up director Steven Soderbergh's two-part historical epic about infamous revolutionary Che Guevara. My issues with 2008's Che: Part II are much the same as the ones I had with the first part. Interesting to watch, but in deciding not to take sides or pick a message, it remains a cold, even heartless movie.

It is 1965, six years since the successful Cuban Revolution overthrew the dictator and his government, and Ernesto 'Che' Guevara (Benicio Del Toro) is heading to Bolivia. After failed revolutionary ventures in Venezuela and the Congo, Guevara now hopes to lead another revolution, getting the poor lower class to depose a government that has become a military dictatorship. Driven by his ideals and beliefs from deep inside, Che starts from the ground up with a small group of like-minded fighters. Nothing comes easy though, and the walls begin to close in on Che and his followers.

Having watched Soderbergh's epic -- a total of 4 hours and 30 minutes -- I came away both impressed and disappointed. As moviegoers, we just don't see ventures like this anymore in films (in theaters at least). Soderbergh has made a true epic, one in principle at least that is reminiscent of such epics from the 1950s and 1960s. Principle and little else though unfortunately. Positives aside, I think Soderbergh made a fatal flaw in not choosing to take a side...even if it was a measured attempt. The fly-on-the-wall, quasi-documentary style is effective to a point, but not nearly as effective as it could have been. The story moves along from date to date (thanks to an abundance of title cards), but it feels like major chunks are missing.

This will sound ridiculous, but I've never seen a movie this long (Che: Part I and II) that had so little going on. It can be difficult to sit through some of these slow-moving portions, and there's plenty. Repetitious comes to mind. Countless shots of Che's followers traversing through the jungle, talking at their night camps, quick firefights with the Bolivian army. This is where a message would have been helpful. We know Che's objective; defeat the government, leading an uprising that will unite the Bolivian people. Other than a few brief asides as we meet some Bolivian peasants, the focus is on Che's efforts. I feel like I'm not doing a great job explaining myself, and my frustration is getting the best of me so I'm moving along.

What does work? The darkness. The sense of doom hovering over Che. Part I had some humorous -- if dark -- moments, but there is none of that here. Also from the word 'Go,' we see that Che's Bolivian efforts will go for naught. His men argue over food, over working rather than fighting, and that the Bolivian people will not back him. Seeing him try to counter and combat those efforts produces some of the more dramatic moments. Del Toro again is solid as Che. It's such a quiet, understated performance that it's hard to judge to harshly or too glowingly. The film is a visual stunner, contrasting the deep, vivid colors of the towns and villages with the harsh, washed-out feel of the mountains. Alberto Iglesias' score is again a winner, a bright spot in the slower moments.

Beyond Del Toro though, no one stands out in the supporting cast. Demian Bichir returns briefly as Fidel Castro as does Catalina Sandino Moreno as Alieda, Che's wife, and Rodrigo Santoro as Raul, Fidel's brother. As far as Che's followers go, the movie swings and misses. We hear countless names but learn nothing about any of them. They're the same sea of faces covered by unkempt facial hair and green uniforms and caps. They make no impact, lessening any degree of effectiveness the movie is shooting for when they are eventually killed. Franka Potente plays Tania, a loyal follower of Che's, while Joaquim de Almeida plays Bolivian president/dictator Rene Barrientos. Jordi Molla and Yul Vazquez are effective in small parts as officers leading the hunt for Che. Also look for Lou Diamond Phillips and Matt Damon in small, one-scene parts.

A ton of potential here, especially considering Soderbergh takes an honest, un-opinionated look at the life and death of such a divisive individual as Che Guevara. I came away feeling untouched though. When Che is finally captured and executed, the scene had no emotional impact on me in the least. Do I feel for him? Do I hate him? Instead, there's nothing, and that's never a good sign. I come away disappointed. I wanted to enjoy these more, but with no message or objective, we get four-plus hours of tedium. There are positives, but you have to find them amongst a sea of negatives.

Che: Part Two <---trailer (2008): ** 1/2 /****    

Che: Part One

Few historical figures stir up as much as controversy as revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, an Argentinian man who fought with Fidel Castro in the Cuban revolution. Some look at him as an idealist revolutionary, someone to look up to for having fought oppression. Others look to him as a murderer, an individual one step above the dirt. Any movie about Che's life is then taking on quite a mission. Here's the review of the first half of director Steven Soderbergh's two-part movie about the infamous revolutionary, 2008's Che: Part One.

Working with fellow revolutionaries in 1956 Mexico, Ernesto Guevara (Benicio Del Toro), known as Che to his friends, has become fast friends with Fidel Castro (Demian Bichir), a Cuban national hoping to overthrow the oppressive Batista regime. With a group of just 80 followers, Castro and Guevara sail for Cuba, hoping to start a revolution from the ground up. The effort is slow and plodding, but they begin to see results. The cause grows and expands as more Cubans come to fight with the revolutionaries trying to overthrow not just the actual government, but the idea of what the government has become. Months and years pass, but the cause seemingly cannot be stopped with Havana and Batista as the end-game.

How do you start an argument online? Form an opinion, publish it in some way and let people immediately say 'No, you're wrong.' No movie about a divisive individual such as Che Guevara will please everyone. I've long been fascinated by the man without knowing much about him, but an IMDB poster of all people made an interesting point of all place (go figure). Some portray Che as good, others as bad. Wouldn't it make sense then that he was somewhere in between? Soderbergh leans more toward a positive portrayal (through Part 1 at least), but more than positive or negative, I think the objective was to show Guevara as a human being. He's not scum of the Earth, nor is he a perfect individual without flaws. He is a person if a somewhat idealistic individual.

As far as actors currently working in Hollywood go, I'm hard pressed to come up with too many that are better than Benicio Del Toro. His performance -- like the film itself -- as Che is a veritable minefield. There is no way to play this man without stirring up emotions, both positive and negative, among moviegoers. Soderbergh's film (through the 1st part at least) didn't seem too interested in taking a judgmental stance one way or another so Del Toro just gets to play the man. He is intelligent, well-spoken, a quiet but highly effective leader, and a man obsessed with revolution (and it doesn't hurt that Del Toro physically is a spot-on match for Che). In the process he performs actions that even now are controversial. It's an effective part if not a great part. Again, I come back to the movie on the whole, not just his performance.

Soderbergh's intention doesn't seem to be vilifying or making Guevara a hero. That's good. On the other hand, it doesn't take much of a stance at all. It feels instead like a fly on the wall documentary. Brief snippets/asides try to illustrate the bigger picture -- Castro, Cuba, Batista, the U.S. involvement -- but it is handled so quickly that it doesn't leave an impression at all. At 136 minutes, the movie is sometimes tedious and repetitious. It is a story about the growing Cuban revolution, and what do we see? Lots of jungle scenes, lots of walking through jungle scenes, lots of Che and his fellow officers addressing revolutionaries about their effort. Maybe Soderbergh just wanted to bring to life the revolution without trying to shove a message down our throats, but having no message at all doesn't work as well as it could have been.

Now those are all issues that I had with the movie, but there were positives, including Del Toro's performance. Soderbergh is a talented director to begin with, and when I think of his movies I think of style. A real-life style, a flair. 'Che' uses a framing device of Guevara visiting New York City and delivering a speech at the United Nations in 1964, the story bouncing between the visit and the fighting in Cuba between 1956-1959. The NYC scenes are shot in a grainy black and white, the Cuban jungle in vivid colors. Title cards introduce locations and times, and Soderbergh's camera always makes it a visually interesting movie to watch if not necessarily a story-driven interesting. Composer Albeto Iglesias' score is a gem, covering multiple genres and types of music that fit the story perfectly. Stylistically, 'Che' is an unquestioned winner.

Because of the almost free-flowing, story-less plot, the characters drift in and out, limiting their effectiveness. Bichir as Castro is a high point, more fiery and outwardly emotional in his revolutionary methods (if equally driven) as Che is. Catalina Sandino Moreno plays Aleida, a young revolutionary who joins the fighting as a guide for Che as the fighting nears Cuba's major cities. Rodrigo Santoro, Edgar Ramirez, and Santiago Cabrera play some of Che's fellow officers and revolutionaries, all with the potential for cool characters, but they end up being interchangeable. Also look for Julia Ormond as an American journalist interviewing Che during his NYC visit. This is definitely Del Toro's movie though.

Certain moments are highly effective, much of them coming late as Batista's regime starts to crumble. A half-hour plus is spent on the vicious street fighting in Santa Clara, and these battle sequences are effective in their reality. Cases of handfuls of revolutionaries fighting handfuls of army soldiers in the empty streets is tense and uncomfortable. The movie on the whole though is hit or miss with its fair share of flaws that I hope Part II fixes some. Review to come in a day or so.

Che: Part One <---trailer (2008): ** 1/2 /****

Savages

First released in 2010, author Don Winslow's novel Savages is a mostly entertaining, sometimes maddening and uniquely written story. The trailer for 2012's Savages -- the feature film version -- had me intrigued so I read the book first and was glad I did. The movie? Mostly entertaining, sometimes maddening and....yeah, that ending. Wow, what a mess. Still worth a watch, but I'll have some advice on the ending later.

Selling and distributing some of the best marijuana that southern California has ever seen, Iraq war vet Chon (Taylor Kitsch) and pacifist/botanist Ben (Aaron Johnson) are making money hand over fist and have been doing so for years. In fact, their business is too good because now they've attracted the attention of the powerful Baja Cartel in Mexico, run with an iron fist by the brutal Elena (Salma Hayek) and her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro). Seeing through the ruse of an offer, Chon and Ben turn down an offer to become "partners" with the cartel, and quickly feel the repercussions when their mutual girlfriend, O, short for Ophelia (Blake Lively), is kidnapped by the Baja cartel. What to do now? Go along with the previously offered plan, or come up with a new one that will bring O back to them?

With movies like World Trade Center, W., and his Wall Street sequel, director Oliver Stone got away from that brutal, in your face, aggressive style that shot him to stardom behind the cameras. It's safe to say that with this drug crime thriller, he's back to basics. This is a world where our heroes are drug dealers, somewhat idealistic drug dealers (well, Ben at least), but you get the point. It's a down and dirty world where lives come cheap, and the end result is accepted if there is enough money or supply to justify the means. The bad guys are bad whether they be the indie drug dealers, the sadistically evil cartel, or even the corrupt DEA agents involved. It's good to see Stone get back to that darker view of the world. Hopefully he keeps up with movies like this.

What allows the movie to be entertaining considering it deals with such a dark, nasty occupation is the style Stone brings to it. It's the type of style you're either going to go along with it and enjoy it or resent it almost immediately. The intro gets things rolling, Lively's O stating "Just because I'm telling this story doesn't mean I'm alive in the end." There are artsy retro title cards to introduce where the action takes place. Stone films with a variety of film styles; black and white, digital, good old-fashioned formatting, hyper edited in a few instances. And the Laguna Beach/Mexico location sure adds a lot of color to the proceedings. The soundtrack too is a positive boost, an eclectic mix of classical music, choirs, modern pop/rock, and an almost ethereal sound of beach music. Throwing so much at the wall and seeing what sticks shouldn't work like this -- it just shouldn't -- but the completely random collection ends up doing just that.

Opinions will vary no doubt, but the casting department did a fine job selecting its three young leads. The dynamic among O, Chon and Ben is certainly unique; two well-to-do, attractive 20-somethings sharing a girlfriend? Hayek's Elena has some fun with that, telling O they'll never love her as much as they love each other. However you interpret that odd triangle, Kitsch, Johnson and Lively are all surprisingly good. Kitsch especially stands out, his Chon a veteran of a 2-year stretch in Iraq and Afghanistan where he saw the worst the world can offer. His enforcer attitude works well alongside Johnson's Ben, his highly intelligent, idealistic business partner. Ben struggles to comprehend the violence the duo will have to undertake if they hope to succeed. My least favorite character in the book as well as the movie, O as done by Lively is the weakest link, but it's not a bad performance, especially late when the kidnapping goes down. Her narration is beyond bad at times (not her fault), that awful mix of trying to be smart and pretentiously unique. She says at one point "I have orgasms, Chon has wargasms." Oh, clever!

Then there's the fun, more over the top, and in some cases, stereotypical roles, but dammit, these actors are enjoying themselves. Start with Salma Hayek as Elena, the leader of the Baja cartel who does it with as little humanity as possible. She's cold, sinister, intimidating and seems to be channeling some Spanish soap operas at times, but it's a solid performance. Del Toro as Lado is a scene-stealer. He is callous in his brutality, less than honest in his dealings, and interested in saving his own backside first and foremost. Rounding out the bigger parts, John Travolta is also a scene-stealer right up there with Del Toro as he plays Dennis, the DEA agent working with Ben and Chon -- and seemingly everyone else -- to keep the drug wars away....and a little extra cash in his pocket. Also look for Emile Hirsch in a quick, memorable part as Spin, Ben and Chon's money launderer, and recent Oscar nominee Demian Bichir as Alex, Elena's "accountant" of sorts.

So here we are. The ending. Winslow's ending in the novel is a bloody, chaotic gem that worked on so many levels, both for the characters, the story and the general darkness of the story. The odd thing? Stone uses that ending too, and then literally rewinds back and erases that ending, O explaining 'And this is how it really happened.' It is the definition of a cop out. Not only that, you feel duped as a viewer. We see one ending -- a highly effective one -- and then are introduced to a genuinely dumb, tacked-on ending. What was Stone thinking? This new ending is single-handedly able to ruin the movie. So rather than rip the entire movie, I'm trying to think outside of the box a little. For me, the ending comes right before "O's rewind." That epilogue, explaining how everything turned out, doesn't exist in my mind. I can't believe Stone willingly changed that "alternate" ending though. It's that bad. The movie though is still very entertaining and worth a watch.

Savages <---trailer (2012): ***/****

Snatch.

I find it hard to criticize a director for sticking with what he does best. Michael Bay does huge action movies, John Ford did westerns, Billy Wilder did smart comedies. There always seem to be departures from the norm, but when you're good at doing something, why go too far? I'm finding that's more the case with British director Guy Ritchie who is quickly climbing my list of currently working film directors.

Throw out Sherlock Holmes as a fun historical/period piece, and we're not even going to mention his ill-fated flick with then-wife Madonna, Swept Away. He has only had six feature length movies with his seventh coming this winter, a Sherlock sequel. I recently reviewed his first movie -- cult hit Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels which I loved -- and last fall was introduced to Ritchie's British crime thrillers with RocknRolla. With a limited filmography, it is easy to catch up with the whole Ritchie catalog, and I'm getting there after watching 2000's Snatch., his most highly rated movie to date.

Working with his longtime partner, Tommy (Stephen Graham), underground illegal boxing promoter Turkish (Jason Statham) is in it deep with old-time gangster, Brick Top (Alan Ford). Turkish needs a fighter to take a dive in the fourth round of a fight, picking gypsy, bare-knuckle fighter, Mickey O'Neil (Brad Pitt), but even he isn't sure if the unpredictable gypsy will take a dive. At the same time, a gambler/crook named Frankie Four Fingers (Benicio del Toro) pulls off a heist with an 86-karat diamond. He's trying to unload the diamond for some quick cash, setting up a deal with New York City broker, Cousin Avi (Dennis Farina), but before he can reach London, everything is thrown up for grabs. Pawn shop owners turned crooks, greedy bookies, low-level gangsters, enforcers and thugs, everyone wants their hands on this diamond, and by the end everyone and anyone will cross paths.

The story itself is cookie-cutter in terms of Ritchie's talents and ability. RockNRolla had a painting, Lock/Stock had two shotguns, and Snatch has a big, freaking diamond. Throw this one item into a pack of wild dogs -- crooks, criminals, thugs, gangsters -- and let them go to work on each other. What sets it apart though from other similar movies (Ritchie's style has inspired countless knockoffs) is this unique style and blend of black, dark humor, surprising graphic violence, and dialogue that crackles in every scene. His camerawork is fun to watch, and the pace nears frenetic but never becomes indecipherable. Ritchie makes his movie on a small budget, but it never reflects it in the finished product.

With countless characters to work with and a positive reputation following 'Lock, Stock,' Ritchie remains true to his roots here while still adding some big names to the cast. Brad Pitt is obviously the biggest name as the heavily bearded, heavily tattooed, gypsy, bare-knuckle fighter Mickey O'Neil.  The part is a credit to Pitt for taking a smaller role that ends up being one of the movie's best. He speaks in this lightning quick, mumbling, heavy Irish accent that makes it nearly impossible to follow without subtitles, but there's a charm to this character that Pitt brings to the table. Dennis Farina gets to play straight man to all the comedic chaos around him as Cousin Avi, a NYC diamond broker totally out of his element in the London underworld. Benicio Del Toro is in the movie for about six seconds so don't go in expecting him to be around long.

That is only three characters though in a sea of memorable characters. Statham and Graham are great together as Turkish and Tommy, two low level boxing promoters maneuvering for their lives when a deal goes wrong. Ritchie favorite Vinnie Jones plays Bullet Tooth Tony, an enforcer similar to the character he played two years earlier in 'Lock, Stock.' Rade Serbedzija is foreboding, intimidating and even funny as Boris the Bullet Dodger, a guns dealer who used to be a KGB agent. Ford as Brick Top provides some of the movie's funniest lines, ones you wouldn't think would be funny but his delivery sells it. Lennie James and Robbie Gee play Sol and Vinny, two pawn shop owners turned robbers with their not-so svelte getaway driver, Tyrone (Ade). What makes all this craziness work is that with limited screentime, each and every one of these characters gets a chance to shine. Some are more memorable than others, but not a one disappoints.

Beyond all the stylish camera work, the crazy, convoluted story, and graphic violence, I think the biggest selling point for Ritchie's movies is the incredibly dark -- and therefore a whole lot funnier -- humor. Ade's Tyrone is an obese getaway driver who can barely get in and out of his car. He refuses to park in a suitable parking spot because he claims there isn't room (there's plenty) and then shows what a crappy driver he is. Ford's Brick Top explains in graphic detail how to dispose of a body at a pig farm, a story that in no way should be funny but somehow is. Avi wants Tony to kill a dog because he believes the diamond is inside him, producing a series of great one-liners and reactions that had me roaring. Tony later tries to dispatch a rival, emptying a clip into him only to hear him deliver one line after another as he refuses to die. Out of context, maybe it's not that funny. But this movie is funnier than most straight comedies out there.

With Guy Ritchie movies, I think you're either going to love them or hate them. You will either embrace the crazy antics and the lunacy of what's going on, or it's just not going to appeal to you. As good as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels was, I think this is Ritchie's best movie up to now. Twisting and turning story, great script (written by Ritchie), and more memorable characters than I care to mention.

Snatch. <---trailer (2000): *** 1/2 /****

Netflix review #24: License to Kill

It's official, I've seen every James Bond movie from Dr. No to Quantum of Solace. I haven't watched the Pierce Brosnan entries straight through since their initial release so I won't rank them all just yet, but with 1989's License to Kill now checked off, I've seen 'em all.

What set the two Timothy Dalton Bond movies apart from the rest was that they weren't content to go with the status quo. The Moore movies started off strong but got too jokey, too satirical by the end of the run. The Living Daylights righted the ship with a great action/spy movie, and LtK expands on the James Bond character. Several posts at IMDB talk about LtK as a sort of spiritual sequel to On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and it's hard to disagree with.

Bond is on the vengeance trail here, going up against a drug dealer, not Ernst Blofeld trying to ransom off the world. On the way to old CIA buddy Felix Leiter's wedding, Bond joins Leiter (David Hedison) in an effort with the DEA to scoop up infamous drug kingpin Franz Sanchez (Robert Davi) who comes into jurisdiction for a quick snatch and grab job. Watch it here if curious. But when Sanchez is caught, he offers $2 million to anyone who can help him escape. Of course, there's a treacherous agent in the midst who helps Sanchez escape. The drug dealer begins his own path of revenge, maiming Leiter and killing his new wife.

Looking to avenge his friend and wife, Bond resigns from MI6 when he's told to take no part in the case against Sanchez. With no limits on his actions, Bond can move freely and act as viciously as the men he's chasing. It's good to see Bond go out on his own here instead of being tied down by MI6's rules and regulations. To a certan point we've seen similar stories in other movies, like Quantum of Solace, but this is the first time he's completely on his own although Q (Desmond Llewelyn) does show up and offer his support with a few gadgets. It's always great to see Q, especially here where he's allowed out of his lab.

On the vengeance trail, Bond tries to infiltrate Sanchez's inner circle, pitting the dealer against his most loyal men. It's as he gets closer to him that Bond discovers a bigger plan at work, a system of organizing the drug cartels from the east and west. They've developed a new way of transporting heroin, a system that makes the drug impossible to detect. It does provide for a great closing sequence with four oil tankers transporting the heroin racing down a mountain road, Bond doing his best to slow them down.

As Sanchez, Davi is a good if not great villain. He's not a maniacal hothead, instead a businessman with a plan to make millions. Sanchez insists on loyalty from his men and pays well to get it so when Bond shows up saying his men are looking to betray him the obvious problems arise. As for his henchmen, they're some of the best. Always a reliable bad guy/sidekick, Don Stroud is Heller, a mysterious American with a past in the armed forces, and a young Benicio Del Toro makes a frightening appearance as Dario, an ex-contra who does Sanchez's dirty work. Del Toro is only in a handful of scenes, but with some crazy eyes and his maniacal laughing makes the most of his smaller part.

On to the Bond girls, one good, one not so good. A pre-Law and Order Carrie Lowell plays Pam Bouvier, a former Army pilot who worked as one of Leiter's informants. Somewhat wooden in the part, Lowell is good in the part because she's not the helpless Bond girl who constantly needs 007 to save her. She's tough, able to handle herself, although when it comes down to it, she's got the hots for Bond. As for the not so good, Talisa Soto plays Lupe, Sanchez's girlfriend who wants out. Does she look good? Of course. Does her character serve a purpose? Not really. Others in the supporting cast include Anthony Zerbe and for the must-have odd casting in a Bond movie, Wayne Newton.

Unfortunately for the Bond series, this was the last movie in the bunch for six years until 1995's Goldeneye with Pierce Brosnan taking over the title role. LtK wasn't received that well in the U.S. at the box office, but I enjoyed it as much for a change of pace as anything. I went into the two Timothy Dalton movies with somewhat low expectations, but I can say now I think he's one of the better Bonds behind Connery and Craig.

License to Kill, <----trailer (1989): ***/****