Everest

When asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, English mountaineer George Mallory famously answered "Because it's there." The world's tallest point, Everest has long been a source of the impossible, of reaching up to the heavens and doing something humans simply aren't meant to do. In doing so though, climbers take an incredible risk that often results in death. Nowhere is that shown better than the recently released 2015's Everest.

It is 1996 and Mount Everest remains a climber's dream. Things have changed though as expert climbers now guide expeditions up the famous mountain -- the tallest point on planet Earth -- for hefty sums that hopefully get those climbers up to the top where they become one of the few to accomplish the feat. Among those expedition and guide leaders are Rob Hall (Jason Clarke) and Scott Fischer (Jake Gyllenhaal) who have different outlooks on what they do but are both expert climbers. In a crowded climbing season in '96 as many other expeditions go for the summit, both Rob and Scott lead their own teams up. Weeks of preparation and acclimatization ready the teams for a go at the top -- almost 30,000 feet up, the cruising altitude of a commercial airliner -- but no one can know what awaits them on Everest's slopes. There's only a small window to even make a go at the summit, and the window is closing fast.

From director Baltasar Kormakur (Contraband, 2 Guns), 'Everest' is based on the 1996 Mount Everest disaster that claimed five lives (as far as this story is concerned). Obviously, don't read that link if you don't want MASSIVE SPOILERS. The story itself gained notoriety when author Jon Krakauer -- who was part of the expedition -- wrote Into Thin Air, a bestselling book documenting the disaster. It was even quickly turned into an ABC TV movie. This retelling though? Wow. What a moving, uncomfortable and incredibly difficult movie to watch. Trailers and commercials portray this film as more of an adventure story, of spectacle, but it is far-more emotional and personal than I thought. All this is a compliment by the way. It isn't exactly tearing up the box office, but an easy movie to recommend.

Where 'Everest' succeeds best is in its on-mountain portrayal. Much of the first hour is spent establishing the hellish environment the climbers and guides will be attempting to climb. Even base camp is at 17,000-plus feet. By the time you reach anywhere near the summit, you're in what is called 'the Death Zone.' Your body isn't meant to survive in those situations and is literally dying. Kormakur's film gives a window into this terrifying world where ice crevasses and avalanches, frigid temperatures and impending death await around every corner. Even the experts struggle to do it, much less the climbers they're trying to help. The 1996 season for years was the most deadly as the mountain claimed double-digit lives, and you see why. To say you climbed Mount Everest is an incredible accomplishment, but it is far from a given that you will make it to the top.

So that cast...yeah, pretty decent. Jason Clarke is on the cusp of big things, and this is another part that shows off his impressive talent. He's likable, believable and delivers a very real, very human performance as a mount climber who knows the danger but also the glory of making it to the top and finds himself weighing that knowledge in a life-and-death situation. He has some great scenes with his wife (Keira Knightley, excellent as usual) that really help humanize him and give the Rob Hall portrayal another level. Another excellent performance comes from Gyllenhaal (one of my favorite actors) as Fischer, a free-spirit who thinks only legit climbers should see Everest's summit. Hall and Fischer are competitors but still good friends who make a business decision as the final go at the top of the mountain nears. Two excellent performances.

That's not enough though because...well, it just isn't. The main focus on the climbers is Josh Brolin's Beck Weathers, a 40-something Texan with a wife (Robin Wright) and two kids at home, John Hawkes' Doug Hansen, a mailman who's neared the summit twice but come up short both times, Naoko Mori as Yasuko, a climber who's reached six of the seven tallest summits in the world, and Michael Kelly as Krakauer, the journalist writing a story. For the rest of the guide teams, look for Sam Worthington (why is he not in more, better movies?!?), Emily Watson, Martin Henderson, Ingvar Eggert Sigurosson and Thomas M. Wright. Some good performances, especially Brolin and Hawkes and Worthington, among the bunch to round out an impressively assembled cast.

Two things worth mentioning that come as a surprise and make the movie difficult to watch. As I mentioned, previews, commercials and trailers portrayed 'Everest' as far more of a spectacle flick and adventure story because at its heart, it is. It's human beings doing the impossible and attempting to climb Mount Everest. So looking at it solely in that vein, it is a haunting, beautiful movie where Mount Everest becomes an incredible, eye-popping visual character. The long, intimidating and foreboding shots of the mountain in the distance or from far below are a sight to behold. Aided by composer Dario Marianelli's score, the snow-capped, windy, rocky set-up establishing shots are an easy success and a treat to watch. Then you see a speck of a human being traversing up the mountain and it all puts into perspective how difficult climbing the world's tallest summit really is.

The counter is the depths of emotions that get thrown at the viewer. Quasi-SPOILER alert, but the climb doesn't go anywhere near as planned and several lives are lost. Some of the deaths are quick and shocking as we see the Death Zone tear the climbers up as the frigid temperatures and lack of oxygen wreak havoc. The other deaths are slow and drawn out -- with some surprises along the way -- that produce some truly heartbreaking scenes. Surprisingly emotional with a haunting final shot. Not an easy movie to "like," but a very pleasant surprise and a big success on just about every level, regardless of how its doing at the box office. I definitely recommend NOT reading about the 1996 expedition before going to see this one. Go in with a clean slate.

Everest (2015): *** 1/2 /****

The Imitation Game

Ever heard of Alan Turing? Until about 24 hours ago, I hadn't although I unknowingly was quite aware of his ridiculously important historical contributions. How about something called Enigma? Yes? No? No matter how you answered, here's an easy recommendation as the movie awards season jumps into the full swing. History, World War II, just a film fan, check out 2014's The Imitation Game.

It's 1939 and World War II isn't going well for the Allied effort, especially in England as the German Luftwaffe wreaks havoc with its bombing all over the country. British intelligence is working hard behind the scenes, a huge effort meant to crack one of Germany's essentially unbreakable code, the Enigma. A brilliant mathematician and professor, Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) is working with British intelligence to break Enigma, but the effort seems impossible. There are literally millions and millions and millions of possibilities to break Enigma, and Alan and a small group of cryptanalysts have a limited window each day to break it before they have to start from scratch the next morning when the Enigma settings are changed. Turing especially is confident he can do it, but as the war rages on and the casualties pile up, even Turing's difficult personality may prove to be the biggest roadblock.

Here's another example of how powerful and interesting and truly, downright interesting history can be. Based on a true story -- with some artistic license taken here and there -- and from director Morten Tyldum tells a truly remarkable story, one that the British government kept under wraps for over 50 years after the end of WWII. The soldiers did the fighting, civilians back home built much of the materiel, the politicians fought and negotiated, all of it essential to the war effort. 'Imitation' does a great job of showing how Turing, a single man, drastically changed the course of the war for the Allies. It is a large-scale story in terms of content but small-scale in its focus. This is a movie about Turing and the men and women in intelligence who helped to break Germany's seemingly perfect code, saving millions of lives and cutting years off the war. Oscar bait? Sure, but it's a goodie.

That Benedict Cumberbatch fellow, he seems to be an actor with some potential (besides having a really cool name). Though he's been working in film and television since the early 2000s, he seems to have hit his groove as an actor, able to do fun blockbusters like the Star Trek sequels and as he shows here, act his freaking butt off. What a performance, one that will hopefully earn him an Oscar nomination, if not a win. It's always tough portraying a historical figure, even if it is one without a ton of name recognition. This is a brilliant, tortured man who was years ahead of his field, an individual who developed one of the first computers, one that helped Turing and Co. eventually break Enigma (relative spoiler I guess). The story also takes a personal detour in the second half of the movie, Cumberbatch truly bringing the individual to life.

It's the little nuances that Cumberbatch does so well, so effortlessly. His Turing is a socially awkward, brilliant individual with a troubled background. He commits himself to his work in almost dangerous fashion. It is an entire commitment. He hits people in the wrong way because his Alan is short, curt, abrupt and believes entirely in himself. All negative, right? He adds these little snippets as he tries to put his pride aside (although I wouldn't consider it pride in Alan's eyes, he just thinks he's right) that humanize him. We see that a lot in his scenes with Keira Knightley's Joan Clarke, a similarly brilliant young woman who doesn't get the respect she deserves because she's a woman and obviously can't be good at math. Kudos to Cumberbatch though, delivering a low-key performance that isn't necessarily a huge LOOK AT ME part that nonetheless steals the movie.

The 'Imitation' cast is uniformly solid. The queen of the period piece, Knightley is perfectly at home in the WWII story in providing an ideal counter to Cumberbatch's Alan. Their chemistry is smooth and easy, two individuals with different backgrounds but plenty of common ground. The other individuals working with Turing include an excellent Matthew Goode, Matthew Beard, Allen Leech, and James Northcote. Charles Dance and Mark Strong are very good too as intelligence officials, one more helpful than the other in assisting Turing's seemingly impossible plan to break the code. Rory Kinnear makes a quick appearance in a flash-forward of sorts as we see Turing living in England in the 1950s.

Let's say this. 'Imitation' tries to accomplish a lot. A LOT. The actual story is astounding that this happened. It wasn't a handful of people but thousands, but THIS HAPPENED. The story never feels disjointed which is a big compliment when you consider how much ground is covered, three-plus years is the crux of the story during the WWII portions. It's fascinating watching Turing's early-model computer come to fruition, the frustration when breaking the code doesn't happen both inward and outward, and eventually when it does happen the unintended consequences. Think of this. Okay, they've broken the code. They now CAN'T ADMIT they've both broken it because then the Germans would know they have broken it. What do you do now? How do you put the code to best use without revealing it has been broken? It is those moments where the movie is at its strongest.

So yeah, we've got some good, old-fashioned Oscar bait here. This is a good movie with a fascinating, always interesting story with some great performances. It isn't though, a great movie. When the story reveals a secret part of Alan's life, but it takes away from the power of the WWII/Enigma story. It is a tragic secret that alters Alan's life in a huge way but at times it feels tacked on like the story didn't exactly know how to handle it, especially in the finale. It is a complaint but nothing even remotely being close to a dealbreaker. Still a must-see movie.

The Imitation Game (2014): ***/****

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

I think the first 14 years of the 21st Century have earned a new nickname, a new era. We are residents of the Reboot Era!!! Basically any successful franchise series from the past, from any decade with any potential for earning money is going to get a reboot. Young audiences can't be trusted to actually look to the past, can they? Some are good, some are worthy, and some are clearly ploys to make boatloads of money. Enter 2014's Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit because there was audiences knocking down doors for a reboot of the famous Tom Clancy character.

Studying in London when the 9/11 attacks occur in New York, Jack Ryan (Chris Pine) decides to put his academics on hold, joining the Marines and becoming a hero in Afghanistan in a helicopter accident, saving two fellow Marines. The accident almost cripples him, but as he goes through extreme rehab, Ryan is approached by Thomas Harper (Kevin Costner), a C.I.A. official interested in recruiting Ryan as an agent. His hope? Harper wants Jack to work as a compliance officer at a brokerage house on Wall Street, looking for patterns and algorithms in the sales and deals. Ryan heads back to school, gets his degree, gets a job and goes to work for the C.I.A. deep undercover. Ten years pass, Ryan staying in touch with Harper, especially when he starts to find hidden accounts from Russian organizations that are doing the exact opposite of what the market suggests. This is enough money to cripple the United States, its government and its economy. Looking to get some answers, Jack heads to Moscow to investigate.

Before his surprising passing in October 2013, Tom Clancy was a go-to author for anyone interested in espionage and military science and technology. His most iconic character? That would be Jack Ryan who has been played by Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck in four Ryan movies. All four movies are good in their own right, but it's been since 12 years since 2002's The Sum of All Fears. Did we really need a reboot? Were audiences clamoring for a new movie? For me, it seems like a ploy to make money, pure and simple. Naive of me? Probably, but here we sit. Still, there was a lot of talent assembled here, and as a Jack Ryan fan, I wanted to give it a shot even if I wasn't dying to see this new espionage thriller from director and co-star Kenneth Branagh.

So is it worth it? Yes and no. I've got some issues with it. This is the first Ryan movie not to be based off a Clancy novel, and I think it shows. We're re-introduced to the character, tweaking his backstory to make it more modern, more appropriate for the 2010s, not the 1980s/1990s. For starters, the movie clocks in at just 105 minutes. Take away a seven or eight minute credit sequence at the end, and we're talking a movie just over 90 minutes long (about the length of your average screwball comedy). From the opening 10-15 minutes, things are far too rush. Ten-plus years of Jack's backstory are jammed into that first 15 minutes. We go from London to Afghanistan to Walter Reed in a flash, and then we're off to international intrigue as Jack really delves into things in the financial world. The character is too cool for it not to be at least remotely interesting. While it has its moments though, it feels like James Bond meets Jason Bourne meets the Mission Impossible series. Not unique enough to really stand out. Still entertaining? Yes, but nowhere near as good as it could have been.

There are positives, starting with the cast. A star of another successful franchise reboot with the Star Trek movies, Pine is a strong choice to play Jack. He's likable, funny, and more than capable of handling himself in an action scene (but more on that little thing later). Too much time is spent on his relationship with his fiance, Cathy (Kiera Knightley, rocking an American accent), as they try to figure out what their future holds. Oh, by the way, he can't tell her he's a C.I.A. agent, Cathy a young, successful doctor relegated to paranoid girlfriend mode. The human element is one thing, a good thing, but focus on the espionage more! Costner has officially become that Actor, the older actor who isn't the A-list star who carries a movie. Instead, he has become that great actor who now plays the key supporting part, stealing scenes left and right. His Thomas Harper is a great supporting part. As for the villain, Branagh plays Viktor Cherevin with relish, a fun bad guy who's smart and sinister and extremist. A fun part, up there with Costner as the best characters.

Rushed though the story may be, it has some really cool set pieces. Upon arriving in Moscow, Ryan must face off with a hired killer (Nonso Anozie), a brutal, knock down fight in a high-class hotel room. The fallout and payoff is just as good, a CIA team coming in to remove any traces of the fight, including the body. Later in a scene reminiscent of 1996's Mission: Impossible, Ryan must sneak into Cherevin's highly-guarded office with every sort of security imaginable. Knightley's Cathy helps distract Cherevin while Costner's Harper looks on as security from the building across the street. It is a perfectly tense extended sequence that shows you don't need huge special effects or explosions or gimmicks to work. Definitely the high point of the movie.

Where are the gimmicks then? In the immediate follow-up, and that's where the rushed feeling of the entire movie becomes an issue. It's the type of scene that drives me nuts. With time running out, Jack figures out in about 37 seconds what Cherevin's plan is, how he'll execute it, where he'll do it, when, how his sleeper agent (Alec Utgoff) will accomplish it, how he created the bomb, blah blah blah. It's an almost painful scene, agents sitting around a command post and plane while Ryan rattles off numbers and names and questions, clues coming together at an alarming rate. Yeah, I get it. He's a brilliant analyst, but he's able to do in minutes what the C.I.A. and all the government agents couldn't do in years? Come on, man! I'm not buying it. The one actual action sequence in the movie follows it up, a sequence with a complete lack of a payoff. It counts far too much on coincidence to work, characters doing things that need to happen for the story to continue, not because it makes any sense.

I realize I'm really ripping this one. I can't help it. When it is bad, it is really bad, but I still found myself liking it. I walked away disappointed because the finale is so dumb, but the build-up was entertaining. 'Shadow' does have the feel of a throwback spy movie where the Russians are evil, the Americans angelically good, and dammit, we've gotta save the world. Definitely a mixed bag, but just enough to recommend in the mindless entertainment department. I just expect more from a Jack Ryan movie.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014): ** 1/2 /****

Anna Karenina

Thanks to high school and college honors classes in English and literature, certain names and genres scare me to death. Yeah, Shakespearean anything isn't my favorite, nor is Victorian literature. But anything Russian absolutely sends a shiver up my back, especially Leo Tolstoy. I've never had the guts to try one of his behemoth novels, but movies? Sure, why not?!? Let's give 2012's Anna Karenina a shot.

It is 1874 in imperialist Russia and Anna Karenina (Keira Knightley) visits her brother's family in Moscow from St. Petersburg. Her brother, Stiva (Matthew Macfayden), has been kicked out of his home by his wife who caught him with a mistress. During her visit, Anna attends a ball, meeting Count Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a young, handsome, glamorous cavalry officer with quite the reputation as a ladies man. She is immediately drawn to him, putting her in quite the morally questionable spot. Anna is married to Alexei Karenin (Jude Law) for years and very much loves him, her life and her young son. She can't help what she feels though, and her emotions for Vronsky seem very real. Pursuing anything with the young Count though could tear her life apart as well as the lives of her family.

A Tolstoy novel from the 1870s, 'Anna' is a classic novel that ranks with War and Peace as the Russian author's best. It has been adapted to film countless times (okay, 15 according to Wikipedia) and with director Joe Wright (Atonement, Pride and Prejudice) at the helm of a very talented cast and crew, this 2012 version seemed like a gimme. I'm a huge fan of historical epics and periods pieces, and I was psyched to check this one out. Even Netflix thought I'd like it, recommending a 4.1 on a 5 scale. The movie is a stunner to watch -- kudos to cinematographer Seamus McGarvey -- and features great uses of wardrobe and period appropriate attire. Even the music from composer Dario Marianelli is solid, a good mix of stirring epic and soothing classical, stands out from the crowd.

Unfortunately, not much else stands out from the crowd. Stylistically, there are issues which I'll get to in a bit, but the biggest issue kneecapping the story is the casting and the script. I like Knightley a lot, but she keeps playing the same part over and over again, a strong historical woman who's forced to deal with some gutwrenchingly emotional issue. Much of the movie follows her relationship with Taylor-Johnson's Vronsky, maybe the dullest relationship I can think of in recent memory. They exchange glances at the ball and are instantly in love. For some reason, Anna falls madly in love with him -- obviously because of his stirring personality -- and ruins her life. I liked Taylor-Johnson in Savages, and by all accounts, he's good in Kick-Ass, but other than his good looks, I thought his Vronsky had the personality of cardboard. It's hard to see why they're drawn to each other. Is it just a physical connection? That's all I was seeing.

Some of the supporting performances stand out for the better, even if their purpose is distracting. I especially liked Jude Law as Alexei, Anna's husband who comes out smelling like roses here. With their marriage possibly crumbling, Alexei must decide what is most important to him. As a powerful government statesman, his name and reputation are on the line, but that doesn't seem to bother him in the least. A solid, understated and emotional performance from Law. Macfayden is good as Stiva with Kelly McDonald playing his wife, Dolly. Also worth mentioning is Domhnall Gleeson as Levin, a young man from a well-to do family who wants to create a life for himself with Kitty (Alicia Vikander), a beautiful young woman and Dolly's younger sister. At a certain point though, faces start to look alike, characters run together, and none make too much of an impression.

One major style choice ends up handcuffing the movie in a big way. Filming his movie, Wright actually shot much of it on an old stage in an abandoned theater. Scenes transition from one to another, the camera whirling around to follow the characters. The sets, designs and backgrounds change, but much of the movie quite literally takes place on a stage. Is he going for a truly artsy look? If so, it doesn't work. It took me completely out of the movie itself, making me question if I was watching a stage-based adaptation instead of a theatrical release. While the thought was there to try something new/unique, it came across as pretentious a little bit. "Oh, look at me, look what I can do!" Too bad, because the visuals are certainly there to make an above average period piece.

Most of all, it's just the characters. For lack of a more thought out, articulate description, they're annoying. Anna and Vronsky look adoringly into each others' eyes, each imploring the other to tell them how much they love the other one. Anna is beyond stupid, not seeing what consequences her actions are going to produce. It's just disappointing. You can have all the great sets and designs, all the impressive set pieces, but it comes down to this. If you're not interested in the characters, it's hard to be interested in the film.

Anna Karenina (2012): **/****

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World

Everyone has seen Armageddon, right? No? Shame on you. Everyone should see it, but here's the gist. What if Bruce Willis and his motley crew didn't destroy a world-ending asteroid on a collision course with Earth? Those left behind would be limited to a few days of survival before the asteroid ultimately struck the planet. An interesting premise for sure brought to life in 2012's Seeking a Friend for the End of the World.

A 70-mile wide asteroid named Matilda is hurtling toward Earth, and now that a NASA mission (think the one in Armageddon I'd assume) has failed, it is only a matter of time before the asteroid impacts and destroys the planet. Matilda is still several weeks away from impact, leaving the population of Earth a limited time to come to terms with their coming doom. Dodge (Steve Carell) is one of those people, struggling to cope with what's coming, more so when his wife jumps out of their car and runs away. People are looking for answers, for happiness, but Dodge doesn't know what he wants.....and then it clicks. He wants to go find his long lost teenage love and see her once more. Along for the ride is his neighbor, Penny (Kiera Knightley), fresh off a breakup. They hit the road as the asteroid plummets closer and closer.

More than anything else, it was the premise/story that caught my attention here. This isn't one person who knows they're going to die in a set amount of time. This is the entire planet. Everyone. No one is going to survive this world-ending asteroid. How then do you think you would react in that situation? If you knew you only had a few weeks to live -- as does everyone else -- what would you do? Director Lorene Scafaria's film delves into that topic with varying degrees of success. It is neither a comedy or a drama, but instead, it's somewhere in that messy ground in between. My biggest issue is that the tone changes with the wind. One scene, it's trying to be a comedy, but the next scene, here comes the gloom and doom from the drama department.

When it does work, the movie is excellent. There are little snippets in the episodic story that are near perfection. Carell's Dodge goes to a dinner party (seems reasonable, doesn't it?) at the home of his long-time friend (Rob Corddry) and his wife (Connie Britton). Corddry's Warren has adapted a 'Screw 'em all!' mentality, intending to live up his last few weeks. He passes vodka to his kids, encouraging them to chug martinis, jokes that firecrackers are dynamite, but they can't hurt you unless you stand this close. Varieties of hardcore drugs pop up, Patton Oswalt's Roache trying some to check off his bucket list while also trying to get Dodge to get involved in a threesome (or maybe only a two-some...wink). It's these moments that work to perfection. No one is going to react to the end of the world in exactly the same way, and we see a lot of those tendencies. Dodge for one, continues to go to work.

I'll get into the cast more later, but the spotlight is on Carell as Dodge and Knightley as Penny. They're opposites in a lot of ways, but they find a common bond, a link, as the end of the world nears. The story is a quasi-buddy story with a road trip along for the ride so we the coming doom from their eyes. Dodge doesn't see the point in really getting to know someone new because let's face it, they'll all be dead in a few weeks. Penny -- fresh off a breakup with stoner mess-up Adam Brody -- wants to see her family one last time. I like both actors, but I didn't especially care for either character here. Carell seems pegged into this part as a quiet, worrisome guy. It's supposed to be understated, but I wasn't interested. Knightley as the quirky Penny is okay, but she seems to be trying too hard to be quirky, and that's never a good thing. The story starts off at a lightning-pace, funny, smart and dark, but as it progresses (and it's only about 94 minutes without the credits) it loses all the dark humor and is just.....dark.

The episodic story allows for some interesting characters and appearances, none of them around for more than a scene. Corddry especially is a scene-stealer, as is Oswalt in his awkwardness. Along with Britton and Brody, also look for Rob Huebel as Dodge's suicidal co-worker, Tonita Castro as his persistent cleaning lady in a great running bit, Melanie Lynskey as a woman with a crush on Dodge, William Petersen as a helpful truck driver, and Derek Luke as Speck, Penny's ex preparing for the end of the world in military fashion. The best part though goes to Martin Sheen in a quick appearance late as Frank, Dodge's father who he hasn't seen in years. The parts work because they're quick and effective without brow-beating you with a message.

I really liked parts of 'World' and struggled to keep up with the sometimes severely slow pacing in other parts. I loved Mark Moses as a national news broadcaster, providing a face of calm and serenity for viewers as the world is torn apart. We see some react with riots, others in peaceful fashion, embracing what little time they have left. There's no twist or huge surprise in the finale, an ending that works exceptionally well. I just wish more of the movie could have been like that. Still worth a watch, and maybe I'd like it more on a second viewing, but for now it gets a slightly above average review.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012): ** 1/2 /****   

London Boulevard

A screenplay writer with movies like The Departed (where he won an Oscar), Kingdom of Heaven, Body of Lies, and Edge of Darkness, William Monahan has certainly built up a lot of credibility and respect for himself over the last six years. The writer has made the jump to a more involved role in the movie-making process, taking over the director's chair for 2010's London Boulevard.

Fresh out of prison after serving a three-year sentence, Mitchel (Colin Farrell) is readjusting to life and looking for work. He's not positive of what he wants from his new lease on life, but he certainly knows what he doesn't want. Mitchel wants to leave being a low-level hood, a gangster, behind, but it won't be so easy. He takes a job being a bodyguard, almost a consultant, for a recluse actress/model, Charlotte (Keira Knightley), who lives in a forted-up London house avoiding the paparazzi. It still isn't quite what he'd want, but he gets along with Charlotte and sees where it goes. Unfortunately, it won't be that easy. His old kind-of friend, Billy (Ben Chaplin), has a meeting set up with Gant (Ray Winstone), an unhinged gangster who wants Mitchel to work for him. What will Mitchel do?

Two movies came to mind as I watched this 2010 British crime drama; the original Get Carter starring Michael Caine and the more recent Layer Cake starring Daniel Craig. In terms of both style, story and character development, 'Boulevard' clearly is a movie influenced by its predecessors. In fact, that's why so many viewers seemed to intensely dislike this movie. They claim it borrows too much from previous crime dramas, and leaves itself without an ounce of originality. To a point, I think it is a fair criticism. It does borrow somewhat liberally from other stories/films, but it still manages to carve out its own niches. Monahan must have been influenced by working with Martin Scorsese because his soundtrack is very British retro-rock oriented, featuring everything from the Yardbirds (listen to Heart Full of Soul) to the more recent Kasabian, including a great use of The Green Fairy. Not groundbreaking in terms of style or story, but unique enough.

Much like both Get Carter and Layer Cake, I wasn't quite sure where 'Boulevard' was heading. Well, that's not true. You can predict the ending early, but the route getting there is a long and winding road. It's always enjoyable/interesting, but it does drift a bit at times. With as many characters as we meet, it serves as a who's who of the London criminal underworld. Lots of nasty, sleazy individuals, all looking out for themselves because with the snap of a finger, it could be lights out for them. There were times it reminded me of a western landscape (right down to composer Sergio Pizzorno's score, who's also an occasional lead for Kasabian), even reflecting a spaghetti western at times. Yes, I can bring everything back to the spaghetti western. So while the story may not be the most pointed, direct one, it is nonetheless a fun ride.

That can be attributed to star Colin Farrell who's long been one of my favorites. He's capable of playing a variety of roles, but here as the dark, capable and intense Mitchel, he's at his absolute best. This is a man simmering with intensity. He wants to be left alone, and given a clean slate in life intends to live up to it. Maybe more than anything, Farrell looks the part. His Mitchel has been burned in the past and answers to no one. He looks out for those around him -- at his own expense and pain -- because they can't do it themselves. It's a doomed, tragic character if there ever was one, a man trying to put his past behind him. Through Knightley's Charlotte, he can see that fresh start. Charlotte is as equally damaged as him, but they're a good fit together. Mitchel is that iconic crime figure; the bad guy, the anti-hero who we still root for knowing it can't end well for him or his hopes.

Weaving through the London criminal underworld, Monahan clearly saw the potential for a long list of characters with great potential, starting obviously with Farrell and Knightley. Winstone is an ideal villain as Gant, a gay gangster who always seems a word or two from snapping and ripping your head off quite literally. David Thewlis is a scene-stealer as Jordan, Charlotte's handler/friend/assistant, who gets along with Mitchel in all his weirdness despite being stoned/blitzed/high at all times. Chaplin is the slimy past associate, the lowest level of gangsters with Anna Friel playing Briony, Mitchel's slutty sister who he constantly has to save from herself. Also look for Eddie Marsan, Stephen Graham, Alan Williams and Sanjeev Bhaskar in key supporting roles.   

Maybe because the story and characters were more than a little familiar, I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. I'm a sucker for British crime drama/thrillers, and when they're handled correctly they can be a lot of fun (even considering a lack of originality). This is a dark, stylish crime story that is good, not great. It has style to burn. A shot of Farrell's Mitchel driving through London at night in a classic car, the Yardbirds playing as a soundtrack, it's just an effortless cool, a style that many films attain to be but never quite get there. Watch the scene HERE. Highly recommend this one. The trailer below is misleading. This is not a happy-go-lucky, quirky comedy about an ex-con, although it does have its incredibly dark humorous moments.

London Boulevard <---trailer (2010): *** 1/2 /****

King Arthur

Few stories have resonated through the centuries like the legend of King Arthur. There are some who question whether he actually existed or if this knight was just the stuff of legends passed down through the years.  However you want to interpret the person -- fictional or real -- the names instantly ring a bell when mentioned.  There's Arthur, Lancelot, Guinevere, the Round Table, and all Arthur's noble knights.  So how do you make a movie about a person/character who may or may not be real with little in the way of concrete information existing on him? Here's a doozy for you. Do the best you can, and fill in any necessary blanks with battle scenes.

That's basically 2004's King Arthur which claims to tell the most accurate account of the Arthurian legend. One of the biggest issues surrounding Arthur is when did he actually live?  Was he around in the Middle Ages and the Crusades searching for the Holy Grail? Was he around near the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth and sixth centuries?  Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, Tears of the Sun), this action-packed historical epic goes with the second premise and does a fair share of rewriting when it comes to the legend.  This is not your grandparent's King Arthur with a romantic view of a vicious, incredibly dark historical time.  It's down and dirty, and everyone is at risk.

After serving a 15-year term as a protector of Britain, half-Roman, half-Briton Knight Arthur (Clive Owen) is ready to go home to Rome.  His men, Sarmatian men enlisted as Roman soldiers, similarly want to return home after many years of service while seeing their fellow knights drop one by one. With their release coming though, they are enlisted for one more dangerous mission, a trek into Woad territory (natives trying to expel the Romans) where a Roman family's villa stands.  Bring them back and they will be free. Arthur convinces his men to go along on the nearly suicidal mission, but even he doesn't know what awaits them.  The Woads wait in ambush for them, but news drifts down from the north.  A Saxon army (led by Stellan Skarsgard) is marching south, killing everything in its path.  Arthur and his knights must now band together with the Woads (blue paint warrior Keira Knightley leading) to not only accomplish their mission, but somehow survive and get home.

Historical epics are right up my alley, I'll give just about anything a try.  But with an action-heavy director like Fuqua and producer Jerry Bruckheimer in charge, you're going to get a ridiculously action-heavy movie that's short on story.  How often can you say that for a movie that runs 138 minutes? There is a ton of potential here because of the money clearly spent in getting the movie made.  The cast is impressive, the action is on a huge scale, Hans Zimmer's musical score appropriately epic, and the story is the stuff of legend no matter what pretensions the movie has about being the most accurate telling of Arthur's story.  But with all that said, it's a mess of a movie overall.  An exciting, interesting mess, but still a mess.

I'm not an Arthur aficionado who will complain about the mangling of the legend's story, but this pushes even beyond my basic knowledge of the story.  It doesn't have to be the romantic portrayal of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, but some of the choices here were just odd.  Arthur's remaining Knights serving their 15-year tour of duty for Rome are Sarmatians, a people from Eastern Europe with an Iranian background.  That's fine, but they all look very British.  Guinevere is a Woad, a Briton barbarian by all accounts who is an expert with a long bow and fights alongside the men.  By the by, Knightley in a skimpy leather battle attire is never a bad thing.  Merlin (Stephen Dillane) is not a magician, but a Woad medicine man who looks like a barbarian heathen. Skarsgard sleepwalks through his performance, and Til Schweiger is laughably bad as his son, the also-evil Saxon warrior. Now I'm not sure what was or wasn't accurate -- history is always open for interpretation -- but this one just went too far for me.

What does work is the portrayal of Arthur and his knights, mostly because the actors playing the parts are so talented, not because these individual parts are well-written.  Owen is a suitable Arthur, a commander who is not like his men but has earned their respect through his leadership and in battle.  His Knights include shifty and intelligent Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), expert bowmen, falconer and scout Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), quiet but capable Gawain (Joel Edgerton), young hopeful Galahad (Hugh Dancy), boorish, brutish fighter Bors (Ray Winstone), and ferocious man of few words Dagonet (Ray Stevenson). As a fan of men on a mission stories, I was a sucker for this part of the story, and all of the characters left an impression on me, especially Gruffudd, Mikkelsen, and Winstone.  I would have loved to see a story that focused more on these characters as opposed to such a large-scale story, but overall they are the best part of King Arthur.

Finishing the movie, I was more than a little surprised to find out it had a PG-13 rating.  This movie is VIOLENT.  We're not taking Braveheart violence, but it's close.  Battle scenes are incredibly graphic with blood spurts, decapitations, limbs being hacked off, and countless uses of axes, knives, spears, arrows impacting and tearing bodies apart.  All that said, the action is top-notch.  If anything it's too good and too much.  A showdown between a huge Saxon patrol and Arthur's small crew on an iced over lake especially stands out as memorable. The last battle is almost 40 minutes long and becomes tedious.  It's well-handled with CGI kept to a minimum (always a positive), and the action is done on an impressive scale, but it all becomes too much after the 98th stabbing or beheading.  There are only so many ways to see a man die.

King Arthur <---trailer (2004): ** 1/2 /****