The Gunman

I'd like to thank Liam Neeson. I imagine a lot of actors in the late 40's and 50's might want to thank Mr. Neeson. Why is that? Courtesy of his Taken movies (and several others), it seems the middle-aged action star is back and getting a crack at carrying their own movies. The winners? Me. Moviegoers who love to see genuinely talented actors doing fun, more commercial movies. And of course, any and all of us who love a good action flick. Next up, Sean Penn in 2015's The Gunman.

A former special forces operative, Jim Terrier (Penn) has moved onto private security and in 2006 finds himself working with a kill team posing as construction workers in the violent, revolution-worn Congo. Millions (maybe billions) of dollars are up for grabs, leading the team to take out a mining commissioner with Jim taking the shot. He's forced to leave the country, leaving the woman, Annie (Jasmine Trinca), he loves behind. He tries to put it all past him, a lifetime of violence and killing, but he's ripped back into the world. Some eight years later, he's working in Africa as part of a humanitarian project when three men attempt to kill him. Jim dispatches them first, but he knows his past has caught up with him. Other members of the team in the Congo have recently turned up dead. Is Jim next? Who can he trust in the meantime while he finds out?

This movie got panned by critics upon its release last winter. I mean absolutely ripped, just torn up. I thought it looked pretty cool, but the overwhelming amount of negative reviews convinced me not to seek it out. The verdict? I liked it. A lot. It's dark, moody, violent and plays a little bit like a more adult Bourne movie (hold the Matt Damon). 'Gunman' isn't a classic, and at times it does feel a little too familiar to other action genre pieces. The Rotten Tomatoes page refers to this sub-genre as the rapidly aging Over-50 Action Hero Genre (get it? Because the stars are older...so they're aging?!?). I disagree. Sometimes, it's just fun to watch a good, old-fashioned bloody action movie. This ain't a classic, but my goodness, I liked it. So neener-neener, movie critics.

I think Sean Penn is a bit of a nut case, but that's why I like him. His political opinions, he doesn't care what you think of him. He takes film roles he likes, ones that seem to appeal to him. So just like Liam Neeson, it is very cool to see him take on a bullet-riddled action hero role with an ever-increasing body count. Penn's Jim Terrier has been at it for years, killing and killing wherever and for whoever will pay him. It's worn him down to the point his physical condition is rapidly deteriorating (an unnecessary subplot). Pile on the feeling he's lost anything good in his life -- cough the girl cough -- and we've got our moody anti-hero looking for redemption no matter what it takes. In the action genre, it is a well-worn, familiar character but for a good reason. It can be easy to root for that character. He realizes his faults and wants to do something about them dammit! Some reviews said Penn looked bored, but I thought he was pretty damn good.

Now, onto something bigger...Sean Penn himself! In his early 50's while filming 'Gunman,' Penn got absolutely shredded. SHREDDED. His arms are like tree trunks and when he starts dispatching killers on his trail....man, he looks like he'd actually rip their heads off. He's in ridiculously good shape, giving the character an edge of authenticity. Penn's face is tan and weathered, giving you the impression he could have been this gun for hire. He's more than capable of handling his own in the action scenes, especially those with hand-to-hand combat. These are quick, bone-crunching fights that are graphic but in a flash. Nothing feels forced, stylized or glamourized. Just highly trained killing machines looking to tear each other apart.

Moving along, the rest of the cast with some halfway decent names. Javier Bardem is a misfire here as Felix, a civilian contractor working with Jim who may have ulterior motives. He's an incredibly talented actor in just about everything I've seen, but this performance is cliched, broad, and way too big, like he's playing a spoof. Trinca is solid in a thankless part as the script generates into a....love triangle. "Yeah." I'm excited...Ray Winstone is a scene-stealer as Stanley, Jim's longtime friend with a hand in everything in the criminal/mercenary underworld. Fun part with some good laughs. Idris Elba makes what amounts to a cameo (maybe 3 scenes) as Barnes, a mysterious...well, something who may or may not be up to something. Last but not least, watch out for Mark Rylance (also excellent in the recent Bridge of Spies) as Cox, the Congo team leader, with Peter Franzen as his brutally efficient enforcer. Some solid supporting parts.

And last but not least, let's talk some blood-splattered action. 'Gunman' has it in droves. As Jim goes globe-trotting across Africa and Europe, a whole lot of people are trying to kill him, and he's more than willing to oblige them (well, the attempt at least). The best set piece has Jim and Annie tearing through an Italian villa as they're chased by a small army of gunmen. The hand-to-hand scenes (as previously mentioned) are quick and hard-hitting, uncomfortable and real. The finale too, set in a Spanish stadium hosting a bullfight, is a gem as well. A lot to offer for those seeking their action fill for the day.

Scenic locations from Africa to London to Spain, an appropriately dark, moody score from composer Marco Beltrami, a quick-moving story with some solid twists and turns, and a pretty good cast, especially Penn, Winstone and Rylance. The critics may disagree, but I definitely liked this action thriller from Pierre Morel. Hopefully you will too!

The Gunman (2015): ***/****

The Counselor

I have a love-hate relationship with author Cormac McCarthy. The highly respected author can flat out write, sometimes too well. His novels are very, VERY literary to the point I struggle to find a rhythm and even enjoy the stories. I'm a little late to the party, but McCarthy bypassed the novel and went right to the screenplay with his first such work, 2013's The Counselor. The reviews are mostly mixed to negative. Where did I fall?

A defense lawyer with a solid reputation but addressed only as 'Counselor' (Michael Fassbender) is joining the riskiest of business ventures against his better judgment. He has become involved with a business partner, Reiner (Javier Bardem), who he hopes to open a nightclub with but that's the far cleaner option. Dealing with some serious money issues, Counselor has gone in on a drug deal involving over 600 kilos of cocaine being transported, the end payday being potentially $20 million. The money is quite the incentive, but is the extreme risk even remotely worth it? The money is just too much to pass on even considering the risk, but even this talented, confident lawyer doesn't know what he's got into with the drug cartel involved. Bottom line is money, and anything that gets in the way is simply collateral damage.

I've read five McCarthy novels; No Country for Old Men, Blood Meridian, The Road, The Crossing and All the Pretty Horses. McCarthy is a bleak writer. These aren't stories of hope or faith or anything positive. They revolve around death, murder, and generally, a sense that the world is always nearing some sort of apocalypse, an end day. McCarthy is an extremely talented writer, no doubt about it. His books though, they can be difficult to get through because he is so talented. That bleakness, that readable difficulty, it is both positive and negative. I really have to be in the right frame of mind to read a McCarthy novel. If you finish it, you feel like you've truly accomplished something.

So how about McCarthy tackling a screenplay without the middle man of a published novel? That's 'Counselor.' The basic story of an outsider getting involved in a drug cartel is nothing new in films, TV and literature, but McCarthy does manage to put his own unique spin on it. There is NO hope in this world, only greed, death, betrayal and regret. 'Counselor' currently has a 34% rating at Rotten Tomatoes and a 5.4 at IMDB so it obviously didn't sit too well with viewers. I liked it -- as much as you're supposed to like a movie like this -- but my goodness, there are some amazingly obvious flaws. In its bleakness, it tries ridiculously hard in heavy-handed fashion to get that message across. We encounter one stilted, heavy conversation after another about death and life and evil and decent rights and horrific wrongs. In doses, these things work. But one after another? An already heavy, at times tedious story gets even heavier, even darker to the point it can be exhausting.

You know what I've forgotten by this fifth paragraph? 'Counselor' is directed by a talented director, Ridley Scott, who talented actors and actresses seemingly want to work with. Go figure. It's a great cast here, but the characters feel almost like cardboard cutouts. They're interesting because the cast goes for it -- sometimes too much -- but at no point does it feel like any of these people are real. Fassbender does an excellent job in the titular role, but that script, it pretentiously calls him 'Counselor' without ever giving him a real name. Yeah, heavy-handed literary devices! I was worried Bardem would ham it up too much as Reiner, but his part was fascinating just because of what drives the character, and that would be excess. Their scenes together are excellent as are Brad Pitt's scenes with Fassbender. Pitt plays Westray, the Counselor's middleman of sorts who continues to recommend his new partner bail and run before he's too deep into the deal.

Not that the fellas escape unscathed, but the female cast members are done no favor. Ripped straight out of a 1940s film noir and then injected with oozing sex and a general over the top quality, Cameron Diaz plays Malkina, Reiner's seemingly unhinged girlfriend. It's a scream watching Reiner's flashback about a sexual encounter they had in his car. Diaz commits, but the part feels overdone. Penelope Cruz on the other hand is the female goddess, there to represent beauty and love and all that good stuff. Her Laura character is the Counselor's girlfriend (and later fiance), mostly there as something that can be used against our intrepid lawyer should anything go wrong.

Without giving anything away in terms of character and some twists along the way, also look for Rosie Perez, Ruben Blades, Edgar Ramirez, Dean Norris, John Leguizamo, Toby Kebbell, Goran Visnjic, and Bruno Ganz in parts of varying importance and screentime.

It's the rare movie that doesn't have good and bad features. On top of its impeccable cast and time-transplanted film noir plot, 'Counselor' is dripping with tension, a feeling of foreboding and sense of doom, of something horrific to come. That's especially evident in a description of a horrific device used by the drug cartels to take out troublemakers. You hear about it early and then spend the rest of the film waiting to see it in horrifying action. This is one uncomfortable movie, and that's a good thing. Definitely a positive. That doom cloud hanging over the story though, it limits what the story can do. I never felt I had a read on the Counselor (the character). I would have liked some more exposition about the characters (all of them) and the set-up. No, not everything laid out on a silver platter, but a little something. As is the case at times when I've read McCarthy novels, it feels like he's trying to be the most literary person ever. That unfortunately is the feeling here.

Here we sit. Not a classic but not the complete dud so many made it out to be. Sometimes 'Counselor' gets too wrapped up in the sex and violence, but the guts of it is a disturbingly dark story that doesn't pull any punches. Know what you're getting into, but yikes, it is an interesting film experience for good and bad.

The Counselor (2013): ** 1/2 /**** 

Skyfall

The beauty and downfall of a successful film series is a razor-thin difference. How do you keep fans interested without showing the same movie over and over again? Now 50 years since the James Bond franchise started with 1962’s Dr. No, 007 himself has gone through funks of sorts. The producers and writers always seem to have a knack for bringing him back in high gear. So after the disappointing Quantum of Solace, Bond comes back with a vengeance in 2012’s Skyfall.

Working a mission in Turkey, MI6 agent James Bond (Daniel Craig) is in pursuit of a man who holds a stolen hard drive with the identities of every MI6 currently working deep within terrorist organizations. In pursuit with the threat the man could get away, Bond is accidentally shot by a fellow agent when M (Judi Dench) fears the hard drive will get out in the open. Feared dead, Bond disappears, only reappearing months later when MI6 Headquarters is attacked in a terrorist bombing. The culprit? A former MI6 agent and brilliant mind with technology and computers, Silva (Javier Bardem). The former agent is looking for revenge, and his sights are set on M herself. Severely wounded in Turkey and wasting away via pills and booze, Bond has his work cut out for him if he hopes to stop Silva from releasing the list of MI6 agents on an international level.

Like any Bond movie, that plot synopsis is about as concise as I think I’m going to get it. Moral of the story? It’s a gem. After the average but mostly disappointing Quantum of Solace, the Bond franchise gets back to basics for its 50th anniversary and 23rd film overall. For starters, they found the right man for the job directing, Sam Mendes of American Beauty, Revolutionary Road, Jarhead, Road to Perdition and many other non-Bond like movies. He brings a different eye to the franchise. The script from a trio of writers as well is about as good as it gets, but more on that later. As a visual medium, ‘Skyfall’ is a stunner, not just a great-looking Bond movie, but a great-looking movie in general. Credit there goes to Roger Deakins, director of photography. Also worth mentioning, composer Thomas Newman’s score, nothing flashy, but it’s different enough to be interesting. Of course, having the James Bond theme from Monty Norman never hurt any score….EVER. So again, it’s the little things that we might not always think of, but the behind-the-camera angle works perfectly.

I have long said Sean Connery is the best James Bond of the six actors who have portrayed him with Craig (his legacy still to be decided) in close second. After Skyfall, that opinion has changed. I think it’s a push. As I mentioned in the Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace reviews, Craig is able to make James Bond, 007 himself, a real-life, 3-D human being. He’s not some indestructible hired killer without emotion or feeling. Following the thrilling pre-credit sequence where Bond is shot, we see James at his lowest. When he comes back to MI6, we see an agent who has lost some of his edge, his hard-earned ability gone. Now, he must fight his way back to some sort of 007 normalcy. The story develops, and we see more of his character as Bond gets some development, including the first-ever (that I can think) revelation about his childhood. No real spoilers here, but the final 30-45 minutes delves into the myth of the Bond character like no others have even tried. I can’t wait to see where the character goes next.

This next statement is nothing new. Countless other reviews have made the point, but it’s key. It’s 2012. There is no Cold War, no enemy Russians hell-bent on destroying the free world. Worldwide, international villains are harder to identify. So what is MI6 supposed to do? It’s not Russkies vs. Brits anymore. These villains are different. M, her actions, and MI6 come under fire in ‘Skyfall.’ What’s the point of them even being around? Does a modern world need individual agents patrolling the world in the shadows (as M so simply and eloquently puts it)? Bond fans can now answer in unison…YES. So in that sense, Mendes, Craig and Co. get back to basics. In a world unlike anything we’ve seen before, maybe we need agents like Bond more than ever. That’s where I think Skyfall is special. Much of that extraneous “stuff” (for lack of a better word) is stripped away. This is Bond at his simplest. A highly-trained agent with a gun and a radio transmitter, nothing else. No gadgets, no gimmicks. The best part? Nothing else is needed.

So let’s dive in. Mendes assembled one impressive cast to work with here. Craig as mentioned is basically perfect as the very-human Bond. Judi Dench is given her most fleshed-out part as M, MI6 head of agents who must now defend every single one of her actions. Not surprisingly, Dench does not disappoint with more screentime. Already previously identified as one of the great villains of all-time from No Country for Old Men, Bardem is a breath of fresh air in the Bond villain department. His Silva quickly moves into the top 3 or 4 Bond villains. It’s not a stereotypical bad guy part though. We learn more about his back story, more about who he is and what drives him. Also making Bond aficionados happy, Ben Whishaw is cast as Q, Bond’s quartermaster, supplying him with everything he needs. Ralph Fiennes plays Gareth Mallory, a government higher-up associated with MI6 and working to help M. Naomie Harris plays Eve, another agent working with Bond while Berenice Marlohe is memorable in an underused part as Severigne, a link to Silva. Rory Kinnear is solid too as Tanner, M's assistant who works with Bond to get back his edge.

With a story focused on character development and a great visual appeal, fans need not worry. The action is incredible. The pre-credit sequence chase via foot-motorcycle-train gets things going at a lightning pace. Adele’s theme song – Skyfall, listen HERE – is a winner too. What works about the action is that it flows so well and effortlessly with the story. Bond fights a rival assassin in Shanghai in a back-lit skyscraper in a sequence that seems almost art-house in style. I don’t want to give too much away in terms of the action, but I’ll leave it at this. It works. It just does. It is stylish without being flashy, and thankfully leaves that hyper-active editing behind with Quantum. We can see the action, and that makes all the difference. The best is the end, a showdown with Bond, M, and Kincaid (Albert Finney, a scene-stealer as a man from Bond’s past) shooting it out western-style at an isolated Scottish manor house with Silva’s small army of machine gun-wielding henchmen.

In making Skyfall, I think the producers/creators made a wise decision. They didn’t try and change a successful franchise. They take what works and build off it. In that way, it comes across as a quasi-homage to the best Bond movies while still carving out its own identity. We see Bond’s original Aston Martin (ejector seat included), we learn more about Bond, and in the end, we have a final scene with two key points and sort-of twists. Again, no real details here. Enjoy and discover the movie for yourself. The point though is simple. While advancing the series, franchise and character, they’re sticking to what works. There is a simple perfection when these movies work well (Goldfinger, From Russia With Love, Casino Royale, Goldeneye, The Spy Who Loved Me), and Skyfall gets it done on a huge scale. A great movie, and another great Bond story. I can’t wait to see where 007 heads next. Check out the trailer below.

Skyfall (2012): ****/****