Non-Stop

Terror at 30,000 feet!!! There's all sorts of crazy, scary, terrifying situations out there. But what about those situations where you simply can't get away from it? Like literally, can't get away, like on a plane flying at 30,000 feet. There's a fun, little sub-genre of movies like this, including Air Force One, Flightplan, Red Eye, and most recently, Non-Stop.

A former police officer from New York City, Bill Marks (Liam Neeson) is a Federal Air Marshal who's been at it for years. After some family troubles years before, Marks struggles with the job, drinking heavily to the point his coworkers are aware of it as well. Boarding a six-hour flight from NYC to London, Marks is ready for whatever could be thrown at him...until now. An hour or so into the flight, he starts to receive ominous text messages from an unknown sender. His threat? Unless $150 million is deposited in a bank account, someone on board will be killed every 20 minutes. It has to be a joke, right? How could a killer get away with it? What could their escape plan be? Marks isn't sure how to proceed, but with the clock ticking, he's working against time. Can he find the supposed killer before he strikes?

I'm going to be honest here. When I first saw the trailer for director Jaume Collet-Serra's film, I will....I'll say, less than enthused. It looked exceptionally goofy, even dumb, in wasting a premise that sounded like it could be pretty cool. Now all that said, a local theater shows movies for $5 on Tuesdays so....yeah, I gave it a shot. 'Non-Stop' ends up being a lot of fun, taking advantage of a simple, straightforward premise. A killer on-board a plane? How could he possibly plan on getting away even if his plan somehow succeeds? At 106 minutes, it's basically the perfect length -- not too quick, doesn't overstay its welcome. The style is there, texts popping up on-screen as Neeson's Air Marshal interacts with the terrorist. With the exception of a quick introduction and the closing scene, the entire movie plays out on the plane as it flies across the Atlantic, almost like a stage play. Above all else, it is entertaining. It's fun, and sometimes that's all you need.

Another chapter to the Liam Neeson Badass chapter has been written. As I've written before, I'm a big fan of Mr. Neeson no matter the part, but I love him in these more commercial movies more than the more dramatic period pieces. It's like picking pizza though. There's not really bad pizza, just less good. Neeson was cut out to be an action star. It just took years to figure it out whether it was the Taken movies, The Grey, Star Wars, Unknown, and now here in Non-Stop. His grizzled Bill Marks is worn down, beaten up and struggling with alcoholism, but through it all, he still knows how to do his job and do it well, even when it seems he can do no right. Now in his early 1960s, Neeson for lack of a better description is a badass. It's fun to watch him on-screen, especially in ass-kicking mode. His weathered face, his gravelly voice, it all adds up and in a good way. Likable, believable and a hell of a good action star.

One of the biggest selling points for 'Non-Stop' for me was the catch. With a story like this, you know there's going to be a big twist, a big reveal, something that lays it all out there. There just is so deal with it. Here, the premise is a whodunit? Who is the person behind the diabolical plot that threatens to claim the lives of 150 people on-board this commercial airliner? Everyone in the supporting cast is a possible suspect so that's part of the fun. Can you piece it together before the big reveal? I had an inkling, but I couldn't peg this one. For starters, look for Julianne Moore as Jen, the fellow passenger who needs a window seat and ends up next to Neeson's Marks. Also look for Scoot McNairy, Michelle Dockery, Linus Roache, Nate Parker, Corey Stoll, Anson Mount, and Omar Metwally among others as assorted passengers and crew on-board who may or may not be working with the Air Marshal to find out exactly what's going on. Shea Whigham also makes a quick appearance as an agent on the ground communicating with Marks. It's a fun group with some solid variety. I was kept guessing until the very end as to who was behind the plot at 30,000 feet.

And then there's the reveal. I didn't love it, but it's a realistic ending so that's a win in itself. I was worried about some ridiculous, far-fetched twist coming out of left field. Thankfully, that never comes to fruition. So while I didn't love the ending, I didn't hate it each other. It was getting to the finale that's pretty cool. We see the responses, the contingency plans, the technology available from texting to filming video with a phone, all how it affects Marks' situation that gets progressively worse with each passing moment. This is a good, old-fashioned thriller with some nice modern touches. Uncomfortable, full of tension and adrenaline, with a lot going for it across the board. An easy movie to recommend.

Non-Stop (2014): ***/****

American Hustle

Although he worked semi-regularly in Hollywood since the late 1990s, director David O. Russell has definitely put his name on the map over the last few years, starting with 2010's The Fighter. He followed it up with the halfway decent Silver Linings Playbook, picking up an Oscar nomination while not winning, and if the buzz is right, he'll pick up another nomination for 2013's American Hustle. Will he? Will he win this time around? Only time will tell.

A self-made businessman, Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) owns a string of dry cleaners in New Jersey, but that's just a front for his far more lucrative job. Working as a con artist, he sells forged art, pulls shady deals, but mostly he embezzles money from desperate men who can't do a thing because they're so desperate when they realize they've been fleeced. One day at a Christmas party he meets Sydney (Amy Adams), a goal-oriented young woman without the means to reach those goals. Polar opposites, they hit it off immediately, Sydney becoming an involved part of Irving's running cons, the money rolling in in piles. Well, it does for quite awhile at least. They've caught the eye of an FBI agent, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper), who rather than have them serve a jail sentence, enlists them in helping him run his own operation, taking down corrupt politicians looking to take bribes. Irving and Sydney know the plan isn't so simple, but they're left with no other alternatives. None of them know how far this plan could really go.

Two things came to mind when watching this Russell-directed flick, working off a script written by Russell and Eric Singer. One, it pays tributes to films like it from the past, embracing a throwback, retro style that plays well from the opening credits. Those credits are the old studio credits that a movie from the 1970s would have used, not the polished ones greeting audiences now in 2013. The style is everywhere, the big hair, the ridiculously awesome-looking suits as style changed in a big way between the 1970s and 1980s, the giant, spacious cars, the great soundtrack featuring everything from folk rock to soft jazz and everything in between, just the general look of 'Hustle.' It's like a modern period piece, if a quick trip to the past in the 70s/80s. It feels like we're in that fun to watch, visual and a very fun trip in a time capsule. Russell clearly spared no expense, and it shows, the atmosphere, the look (even in the background) all adding another layer to the story.

As for that second thing, it's the casting, a very talented cast from top to bottom. Having worked with Russell last year in 'Playbook,' both Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence return here, both of them leaving their mark. Lawrence plays Irving's wife, Rosalyn, more than a little kooky in her conversations, beliefs and generally....yeah, everything she does. With Adams (vamping it up), Bale (chubbing it up), Lawrence (crazying it up) and Cooper (perming it up with an awesome hairdo), you've got an ensemble that should be able to carry any and all movies. And don't be fooled, this is the definition of an ensemble cast. Each of those actors are more than capable of carrying a movie on their shoulders, and they have so seeing their ample talents together in a single movie, it's a treat. Oh, and there's more. Also look for Jeremy Renner, comedian Louis C.K., Michael Pena, Shea Whigham, Anthony Zerbe, Elisabeth Rohm, Jack Huston, Alessandro Nivola and some actor named Robert De Niro appearing in a brutally efficient, uncredited one-scene cameo. Yeah, I guess that's a decent cast.

Heading into this movie, I had a general idea of what the story was about, an ever-moving story based somewhat loosely on a true story, dubbed Abscam. I don't want to give too much away, Russell's film covering a ton of ground in its 138-minute running time. It is a smart, well-written script that gives the cast a chance to show off their talents. Why does it work so well? It's simple; that story. Too often movies have to be about a gimmick, a message, about explosions, violence or sex. 'Hustle' instead chooses to focus on a crazy situation that keeps on getting crazy, all the cast getting their opportunities to step into the spotlight. It was refreshing to see a movie that's content to be just that; a good movie. The humor is never overdone, and there's a lot of it. I was surprised how funny the movie actually is, one laugh after another as this blackmail/entrapment scheme gets more and more complicated.

I can't pinpoint a weak acting performance in Russell's film, but for me, it's more than easy to identity the strongest performance here, and that goes to Christian Bale. Having already won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his part in Russell's The Fighter (also co-starring Adams), Bale leaves another lasting impression with his most recent part. First of all, physically he put on a fair amount of weight, giving himself a nice little gut, while also favoring a truly amazing combover. In a weird way, Bale just commits to his Irving's goofy, gentlemanly style, but it's more than that. He makes Irving a real flesh and blood character, and oddly enough, one of the more sympathetic characters around because he's such an accomplished con man. Backed into a corner, Irving is worrying about maybe 13 different plates spinning all around him, also planning 15 or 16 moves ahead so he's always in control, even if it doesn't seem that way. It isn't necessarily a showy role, but that's what I liked it. Subtle in his delivery, letting his physical appearance add some laughs. It could be a busy Oscar season, but I'm betting money that Bale gets a Best Acting nomination. I hope he does.

If there is a weakness, it's that Russell's film covers so much ground with so many characters that by the end, it drags in parts. They all know what the ending will be, what it will offer and how it affects all the characters, but there are stretches getting to that point that slow things down needlessly. By no means is any of that complaint a dealbreaker. 'Hustle' is still an incredibly easy film to recommend. Could it use some tightening up? Probably, but you'll no doubt enjoy this one. Lots of talent, lots of fun.

American Hustle (2013): ***/****

Silver Linings Playbook

Each movie awards season, some movies gain crazy amounts of momentum. Little films turn into BIG films thanks to some critical buzz, others because of word of mouth. Too put it lightly, I can be a little wary of these films, especially when everyone is shoving it down your throats. Case in point, 2012's Silver Linings Playbook. I needn't have worried. I liked it....a lot.

After an eight month stay at a mental institution, Pat Solitano Jr. (Bradley Cooper) is finally released and moves back in with his parents, Pat Sr. (Robert De Niro) and Dolores (Jacki Weaver), at their home in Philadelphia. The incident that put him in the institution still hangs over Pat though, and though he's trying his best, he's struggling to adjust. His parents have their own issues going on while Pat tries his best to get back together with his wife, proving he's changed. It doesn't go particularly well until he meets Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a young widow who struggled with sex addiction following her husband's tragic death. Tiffany offers a solution though; she'll help Pat get back together with Nikki if he helps her in an amateur dance competition that requires a partner. He bristles at first but decides to go along. Maybe these two can end up helping each other.

One of the most talented directors currently working, David O. Russell delivers a gem here. He earned a Best Director nod, ultimately losing to Ang Lee for Life of Pi. While it is a drama, it has some very funny moments. It isn't a drama or comedy, refusing to be hamstrung by either genre description, and it's the better for it. The drama, laughs and emotions come from the personal reality of the story. While the amateur dance competition seems a little out of left field, it isn't an issue. It fits in with the story effortlessly. 'Playbook' also deftly handles a story that focuses so heavily on mental health issues. Pat, Tiffany and others struggle with depression, addictions and other assorted things that can't be seen like a disease or a sickness. There aren't easily seen symptoms, but the diseases are very, very real. It's a human drama, and a good one.

An awards season darling, 'Playbook' didn't catch all that buzz because of any huge style, crazy cinematography or groundbreaking new storytelling technique. Plain and simple, it's the acting with a nomination for each of the Best Acting categories. Cooper and Lawrence aren't close age-wise at all, Cooper 37 and Lawrence 21 at the time of filming, but the age difference isn't an issue in the least. Talk about chemistry, it's pretty perfect every time they have a scene together. They drive each other nuts but can't quite get away each other. Cooper does a fine job showing a pissed off frustration at the world while still being sympathetic. Lawrence was the lone Oscar winner, taking the Best Actress award, and she deserves it. There are moments where her armor is up, protecting herself, but revealing her worries and concerns in these horrifically dramatic moments that are difficult to watch. Very likable actors in just about every part they do, and as the hearts of the film here, they don't disappoint.

Also earning supporting nominations were De Niro and Weaver. Of the two, I was more impressed with De Niro, his Pat Sr. an epic Philadelphia Eagles fan who lives on superstitions and luck, struggling with his own past demons and current issues while trying to help out his son. He has a scene late that's perfect with Lawrence, a confrontation that gets defused in a great back-and-forth. Weaver's role is more familiar but still worth watching, a mother who worries and worries about everyone around her. In some other key supporting parts look for a subdued Chris Tucker as Pat's friend from the institution, Anupam Kher as Dr. Cliff, Pat's psychiatrist, John Ortiz as Ronnie, a friend of Pat's who's married to Nikki's nagging sister (Julia Stiles), and Shea Whigham as Jake, Pat's older brother who doesn't know how to deal with his brother's mental health issues.

I liked the movie throughout, but I wasn't sure early on exactly where it was heading. It's never slow, but an episodic story that runs 122 minutes does cover a lot of ground. I never thought I would write this in a review, but the story really comes together as the amateur dance competition and the training for it steps to the forefront. Go figure. All the different personal issues come together in a scene that could have gone poorly if handled a little differently. It's high on emotion -- maybe a little too much -- but like so much else here, it works. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does. The dance competition ends up being a great scene and a fitting finale. I'm not one who is typically in favor of a movie having a happy ending, but this is one where it is required/necessary. Great ending to a really good movie with a handful of worthwhile acting performances.

Silver Linings Playbook (2012): *** 1/2 /****

Machete

Use the term 'exploitation film' and it's about as vague as you can get in describing a genre as a whole. So how to describe them? Basically any movie made on the cheap -- to a point at least -- that appeals to a mass audience. This is not The Godfather or Lawrence of Arabia. These films through the 1960s and 1970s can be amazingly bad to watch (in a good way), and influenced directors like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, both modern day directors who have done their own exploitation films, including Rodriguez's 2010's Machete.

It's been three years since ex-Federale, Machete (Danny Trejo), was betrayed by his boss, saw his wife and daughter killed and was left for dead. Now working as a day laborer in Texas, Machete is approached by the mysterious Booth (Jeff Fahey) who offers him $150,000 to assassinate Senator John McLaughlin (Robert De Niro), currently running for re-election. Machete agrees and takes the money, but he is double-crossed during the attempt. It was all a set-up, and McLaughlin was in on it to boost his re-election effort. Severely wounded and on the run, Machete is on his own, but he's looking for answers. You can follow his trail by the mangled bodies he's going to leave behind.

As a director, Rodriguez shot to fame with his ultra-low budget El Mariachi and kept climbing with Desperado, From Dusk Til Dawn and the Spy Kids series (I suppose on that last one). He already did a tribute to exploitation with Sin City and Grindhouse, but thanks to the fictional trailers from Grindhouse, he had the potential for this film. I understand the appeal of the genre; no pretensions about sex, violence, sex, drugs, sex, whatever. I love low-budget schlock, and all those touches are there. The grainy film, that distinct low-budget look, the ridiculous story, all there for us to enjoy. But the problem for me was obvious. You make an exploitation film and do it. Made for a little over $10 million, something just ain't right here.

The only thing I can figure? Instead of just being an exploitation flick, it comes across as a spoof. It has its moments, especially Trejo's stone-faced one-liners and reactions, including my favorite, "Machete don't text." Rodriguez just tries too hard to make those films he grew up on and loved. How many different ways can you see a machete decapitate, cripple, mangle and generally destroy a human being? I lost count, but the effort was surely made here. It's supposed to be cartoonish violence, but it ends up looking laughable. I don't know if it was just poorly done CGI or what, but the final product is bad. Low brow is one thing (and can certainly be a positive), but when Machete jumps out a window and uses a man's intestines as a bungee cord, I knew I was in trouble.

A veteran of 150-plus flicks, Danny Trejo doesn't disappoint as the titular character. He basically expresses no emotion, doesn't crack a smile and is required to look tough and be a badass who dispatches nameless henchmen in creative ways with a machete....oh, and usually saying a cheesy one-liner while doing it. That's all. Trejo nails the part. Give Rodriguez credit. The man can put a cast together. De Niro hams it up as McLaughlin with Fahey being a gravelly-voiced scene stealer as Booth, the senator's aide. In the eye candy department, we've got Jessica Alba (can't act, semi-nude scene), Michelle Rodriguez (can act, no nude scene), and Lindsay Lohan (can't act, topless). In the flashback department, we've got an enormous-looking Steven Seagal as a Mexican drug lord and Don Johnson as a vigilante "protecting" the U.S./Mexico border. Rodriguez favorite Cheech Marin is another scene-stealer as Padre, Machete's shotgun-toting brother who happens to be a priest. Also look for Shea Whigham as Booth's inept henchman.

The story that revolves around Machete's revenge efforts include De Niro's Senator, Seagal's drug lord, Johnson's border vigilante, and an evil conspiracy to control the border to curtail illegal immigrants coming into America. I'm all sorts of democratic, but I don't want any message shoved in my face in a movie named 'Machete.' The whole angle, the angelic underground network helping people across and the dastardly evil big business, gets to be too much in a movie that had a whole lot of too much for me.

Look, I get it. This isn't a movie meant to be over-analyzed and critiqued within an inch of its life. It's about seeing Machete bed down every woman he meets (almost), about twin nurses in short skirts firing machine guns, about a tricked-out, machine gun packed motorcycle, countless decapitations, perfectly slimy bad guys, topless Lindsay Lohan, and all that beautiful low-brow humor and violence that most films just can't get away with. I just didn't like it. Exploitation is one thing, but I can't get over the fact that it plays far too much like a spoof. I of course might be alone in this sentiment. The sequel, Machete Kills, is due in theaters next summer.

Machete <---trailer (2010): * 1/2 /****

Tigerland

One of the more controversial movies to come out about the Vietnam War, Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket is a divisive movie among fans because of its makeup.  It is two radically different halves of a story, the first being boot camp for a company of Marines, the second following one main character as he's shipped overseas to fight in Vietnam.  I like both halves, but many fans/critics maintain that the boot camp first half is far and away the better half (I tend to agree).  So why not make a whole movie about the boot camp aspect of being a soldier preparing for Vietnam?  That's 2000's Tigerland.

Director Joel Schumacher is known more for his ability to make the big, booming, heartless blockbuster than a documentary-like portrayal of a true story (sort of).  But in a departure from his usual, Schumacher turns in a winner with a vastly different style.  Telling the story of an American platoon of soldiers training at Fort Polk in Louisiana, Tigerland feels like a documentary made in the 1970s.  He films with handi-cams that does produce some stomach-turning editing -- hold the camera steady for God's sake! -- but also uses a filter that gives the movie a retro, even fuzzy look at times.  The end result though is that you feel like you're there with the soldiers as they struggle with the reality that in a few short weeks they'll be fighting in Vietnam.

It's 1971 at Fort Polk in Louisiana, and a platoon of American soldiers is just eight quick weeks away from being shipped to Vietnam.  The officers and NCOs push them to their limits to prepare them for the hell they will fight with in Vietnam, but nothing can really prepare them for what awaits.  Among this platoon is Jim Paxton (Matthew Davis), a Northern college student who volunteered in the army where most were drafted, and Roland Bozz (Colin Farrell), a rebellious Texan doing everything he can to get kicked out of the army. The two very different soldiers have a completely opposite viewpoint on the war, but they share a common goal in just wanting to survive.  But as big a troublemaker as he is, Bozz is seen by his superiors as an ideal leader.  Looming ahead though is a week-long trek to Tigerland, a camp meant to simulate Vietnam and all its horrors.

First off, this is not a Vietnam movie like Platoon or Apocalypse Movie where combat and jungle fighting dominate the story.  Tigerland is about the training plain and simple.  Vietnam is only an idea, a place none of these young men have ever been yet.  It's a refreshing change of pace though because the Viet Cong and NVA aren't the enemies here.  It is the infighting that takes place among a melting pot of American soldiers from a laundry list of backgrounds and experiences.  These are 18 and 19 year old kids getting ready to fight in a very unpopular war and are very much aware of that.  By 1971, the backing of the war had taken a huge turn to the negative in public sentiment. Going to fight a lost war where chances of survival are slim? I'd be pissed too.

I was worried early on that the pretentious, cliche-filled story was going to be more than a little boring to watch...again.  I'd seen this movie before.  Thankfully, Schumacher establishes all these well-worn, known cliches and builds on them.  We see characters that we know from other movies, but he doesn't stop there, allowing us to get to know these individuals rather than resting on the audience being comfortable with what they've seen before.  Some of the supporting characters include Thomas Guiry as Pvt. Cantwell, a father of four with a schizophrenic wife, Clifton Collins Jr. as Miter, the appointed platoon guide who begins to crumble under the pressure, Shea Whigham as Pvt. Wilson, a soldier dripping with hate, and Russell Richardson as Pvt. Johnson.  The training officer and commanders include Nick Searcy, Afemo Omilami, and James MacDonald.  

Still a relative unknown in the United States when he made this movie, Colin Farrell is the hands down breakout star.  I've long been a fan of Farrell as an actor, but this might be his part overall role.  He creates a mess of a character in Roland Bozz, a soldier who you find yourself rooting for almost in spite of him at times.  A loner, a rebel, Bozz does anything he can to fight the system and push the limits.  He is an idealist who opposes the war but not for anything far-flung ideas or principles.  He just thinks it's wrong what one human being can do to another.  Doing his best to get kicked out of the army, Bozz ends up getting a leadership role.  All his objections aside, Bozz is a natural leader who gains the respect of his fellow trainees, but that doesn't mean he's still not looking for an out.  His character gets all twisted around into making decisions that obviously impact him, but all those around him.

The highlight of the movie was the last 25-30 minutes, the actual trip into Tigerland, a portion of the Louisiana swamp serving as a testing ground for what Vietnam will be like. The trainers are recent vets of Vietnam -- Cole Hauser impresses as a sergeant just days removed from a tour -- who know they're fighting a losing battle but nonetheless have a job to do in training these green soldiers. The movie's more startling moments come to the forefront here as the trainees are pushed to their limits and respond accordingly.  The ending does supply a bit of a surprise and is both appropriate and frustrating.  You'd like closure as to what happens, but it's just not in the cards.

Tigerland <---trailer (2000): *** 1/2 /****