Red 2

A good if not great success released back in 2010, Red was a good if not great summer-type blockbuster that earned almost $200 million worldwide. I liked it, a movie that was familiar but also really fun and action-packed. I can say I was pretty surprised to hear it was getting a sequel, but with all the duds out there, I wanted to give it a try, even if it was an unnecessary sequel. Here we go with 2013's Red 2.

Having survived the shady branches of the government trying to burn him (i.e. kill him), former C.I.A. operative Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) has moved onto a quieter life, moving in with his girlfriend and former customer service operator, Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker). Well, it was a quieter life. Friend, fellow former agent and all-around kook Marvin Boggins (John Malkovich) has tracked Frank down and is seeking his help. Dating back to a mission they accomplished in the early 1980s, an internet leak (hello, WikiLeak!) links them to placing a nuclear bomb somewhere in Moscow. There's a catch. Supposedly, it's still there, and a rogue government agency that's "interested in national security" wants to not only find the bomb, but kill Frank, Marvin and anyone with any knowledge of the bomb. Bringing Sarah along to protect her -- even though she's excited to come along -- Frank and Marvin (and some other friends along the way) hit the road looking to save millions and exonerate themselves.

Above all else, this sequel and its predecessor are what movies supposed to be. They're not great, they don't rewrite the genre, and at times, they're too schizophrenic for its own good. What are they then? They're a whole lot of fun, whole lot of action and a whole lot of talent assembled in the cast. Director Dean Parisot follows the same formula as the original, giving his retired agents (RED stands for Retired, Extremely Dangerous) an impossible mission to accomplish and letting them do so in multiple exotic locations around the world. Originally based on a graphic novel, some scene transitions reflect its background, the characters and action turning to animation with a quick blur to the next location. Even though it's a little long at 116 minutes, things never slow down long enough for it to actually be boring.

The biggest reason for the success here is that the cast is clearly having a lot of fun. That doesn't always translate, but in here it is definitely a positive. We're talking a talented cast here, Willis, Louise-Parker, Malkovich and Helen Mirren all returning from the first movie. There is an easy-going, friendly charm that brings the movie past its familiar, action-packed roots, another layer to appreciate. Willis as the very capable Moses is his usual action hero, but with a spin, a quasi-nerdy homebody who is the polar opposite of what you'd think a cold-blooded C.I.A. agent would be. Malkovich and Mirren are the best parts of the movie, legitimizing the movie just by being there, but also committing to their parts and having some fun. Malkovich's possibly unhinged Marvin is a scene-stealer, always ranting about conspiracies and plots for evil....except he's usually right. Mirren too is perfectly cast as Victoria, a very ladylike older woman who's also capable of pulling out the big guns to get the job done, doing her job and doing it well. It's a great, fun trio to lead the way.

What I noticed with this sequel is its got some touches of Sylverster Stallone's Expendables movies. You have your core cast, but then you fill out the rest of the parts with as much talent as humanly possible, and in this case with a lot of fun parts. Also returning briefly from the first Red is Brian Cox as Ivan, a former and now current love of Mirren's Victoria, with newcomers Anthony Hopkins, Catherine Zeta-Jones, David Thewlis and Neal McDonough all joining the story. I don't want to give too much away about the characters, each of them holding some good twists as the story develops. My favorite supporting part went to alum of the G.I. Joe series Byung-hun Lee, playing the Han Cho Bai, the world's best hired killer, this time hired to take out Moses and crew. It's a really entertaining part that is both dark and fun, his past history with Frank Moses and the ever-evolving killer/victim relationship developing with some fun jokes.

If there's a weakness in the cast, it's Mary-Louise Parker as Sarah, Frank's thrill-seeking girlfriend. She loves Frank, but she's also bored to tears with their new quiet home life. I saw a lot of movies this year, and I don't know if there was a more annoying movie character out there. The script really tries to involve her in the action, her oddball personality blending "well" with the group, but it tries too hard. She's supposed to be cute and quirky and adorable, but any dialogue involving her relationship (and its problems) with Frank can be painful to watch. It provides some good moments as Malkovich and Mirren offer solutions, but it's just window dressing on some painful moments.

The action is another thing here that surprises me. Red 2 is pretty violent, but because it's PG-13, it isn't as effective as it could be. I'm not always a proponent of graphic violence for the sake of the violence, but the on-screen killings, gunfire and explosions are pretty hardcore at times, making me question if a harsher, blood-splattered version wouldn't be a tad bit better. The action manages to blend that schizo, over the top stylish action with the harder, grittier shootouts, never going too long between sequences. It does give the cast some funny moments during these hellacious firefights, Frank at one point asking Marvin "Is that dynamite in your pocket?" to which Marvin answers "Yeah, I was saving it for an emergency." It's that type of goofiness that plays well in this action comedy.

Long story short....if you liked the original, you'll enjoy this follow-up. Not a classic, but very watchable and a good popcorn movie.

Red 2 (2013): ***/****

G.I. Joe: Retaliation

While it made over $300 million back in 2009, I can think of exactly one person I know who saw and liked G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra. Okay, one person other than me. It was mindless, stupid fun with a cool cast. Well, the makers didn't exactly strike while the iron was hot, but it didn't seem to matter. With little of the same cast returning, 2013's G.I. Joe: Retaliation was an immense box office success. Is it any good?

Having led a successful mission to recover stolen nuclear devices in Pakistan, a G.I. Joe force is prepping for evacuation when an air strike wipes out much of the force. What happened? Who ordered the attack? Only three G.I. Joes survive the air strike, including Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), Flint (D.J. Cotrona), and Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki). They manage to escape in the aftermath, vowing revenge. All evidence points to Cobra Commander being up to something, but no one knows that he's replaced the President of the United States (Jonathan Pryce) with one of his right-hand men, Zartan (Arnold Vosloo). The evil Commander is just waiting for the right opportunity to unleash his plan. The surviving Joes are back in America by now. Can they figure out what's going on before they're eliminated too?

As mentioned, this sequel from director Jon M. Chu is a not so timely follow-up to the 2009 original. It earned over $370 million in theaters so it obviously landed well with audiences, a good thing considering it had some issues getting to theaters. A release date was pushed back almost a year to transition the film to 3-D (more on that later) amidst rumors of horrific audience screenings. Only a handful of cast members from the original even returned, and those parts are pretty weak in execution. It's not quite a sequel in name only because there are unifying links, but it sure is close to being a stand-alone movie. I'll be giving it a positive review based almost solely on some cool characters and action, but there's some big issues along the way. We'll get there in time.

Taking the helm for the franchise going ahead -- supposedly at least -- Johnson does a fine job as Roadblock. We learn little about him other than meet his two daughters (very briefly), and that he's a capable soldier with just about any weapon at his disposal. Cotrona and Palicki are okay as the rest of the Joes, Palicki there mostly to wear skimpy outfits and fire automatic weapons. Other member of the G.I. Joe organization are Snake Eyes (Ray Park), a helmeted, silent, sword-wielding ninja, and Jinx (Elodie Yung), a ninja who's....well, a ninja with no other background provided. Also joining the cast is Bruce Willis as General Joe Colton, the original inspiration for G.I. Joe. It's not a big part, but Willis makes the most of it, deadpanning his way through a couple good one-liners.

Now for the bad guys, cool because they're bad guys without any real background, reasoning and motivation. Price is the evil President, hamming it up and having some fun with it. Vosloo is there in appearance only, not uttering a word. Byung-hun Lee is the coolest villain as Storm Shadow, a sullen ninja with a tricked out pair of swords with only one rival, Snake Eyes. Ray Stevenson joins the villains too as Firefly, a mercenary working with Cobra. Luke Bracey plays Cobra Commander (replacing Joseph Gordon-Levitt), but it's a wasted part. Little in the way of lines or actual screen time, it's there because the G.I. Joes fight against Cobra commander. That's all. Walton Goggins has a small part as a sinister, brutal prison warden.

Not surprisingly, the best thing going here is the action. With a movie that runs about 100 minutes, I'm guessing no more than three to four minutes go by in between action scenes. We're never far from a chase, shootout, fist fight or cool one-liner. The opening raid to get back the Pakistani nuclear weapons is solid, and the finale at Fort Sumter (yes, Fort Sumter!) is cool because about 100 different things are going on at the same time. The high point is Snake Eyes and Jinx trying to capture Storm Shadow from a heavily guarded mountainside in the Himalayas. Using bungees, Snake Eyes, Jinx and a small army of Cobra ninjas swing perilously thousands off feet up in the air. The action is pretty good, making up for a script that isn't interested in character development at all (we're talking any background at all), scene to scene transitions and dialogue that isn't a snappy one-liner. This is an action movie, pure and simple. Literally, there's nothing else going on!

Okay, quasi-spoilers from here on out. When this sequel was made, producers/studios apparently decided 'Cobra' star Channing Tatum wasn't capable of carrying the franchise going forward. Well, their mistake, because in the time in between, Tatum shot to stardom with 21 Jump Street and Magic Mike among others. As for the pushed back release date? Supposedly audiences hated that Tatum was dispatched rather quickly in this sequel. Reshoots had some more development between Tatum's Duke and Johnson's Roadblock, scenes that are pretty decent but also pretty obvious in how forced they are into the story. Tatum has goatee, doesn't have goatee, does have goatee. It's a ridiculously forced, contrived "solution" that works because Tatum and Johnson have good chemistry, but it's hard not to notice.

In general, there is something missing here. 'Retaliation' is so ridiculously all over the place with so many freaking characters that it is almost frenetic in its final version. It's never dull so that's always a positive, but it is so mindlessly stupid it's hard to describe. A mildly positive review because even through all the flaws, I was entertained from beginning to end.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013): ** 1/2 /****

Looper

Here we are again. Want to start a fight on the Internet? Say something, anything, and someone will disagree with you. That's minor stuff. How about a smart, well-written movie about a complicated topic like time travel? For better or worse, there are certain rules to time travel (via the movies at least, I can't say I've time traveled....that I know of, ooohhh!!!!) so we get fun time travel (Back to the Future, Bill and Ted) and serious time travel (Terminator, Lost, Planet of the Apes). Our newest entry? That's 2012's Looper. Let the arguments continue!

It's 2074, and time travel has been invented and quickly deemed illegal. Organized crime still uses time travel though, sending people back through time 30 years to be killed and disposed. Waiting for them back in 2044 are hired killers called 'Loopers,' one of which is Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). At a prearranged time and place in the countryside, Joe waits with a blunderbuss shotgun for his victim to appear in front of him. He shoots, kills them and burns the body, getting his payment in silver for his work. There is a rule though that's been dubbed 'Closing the Loop.' At some point, your future self will be sent back, and the Looper has to kill his future self no questions asked. Joe is good at what he does, and even though he knows it's coming, he's still stunned when his future self, Old Joe (Bruce Willis), appears in front of him. He's so stunned though that future Joe escapes. Joe has broken a rule, and now his employer is gunning for him. His only solution? Kill his future self and make up for it.

That is a very limiting plot description. Describing the job director Rian Johnson did both directing and writing the script for 'Looper' could be an entire review in itself. It is a phenomenal script, smart, interesting, always entertaining and doesn't get too bogged down in the inane details that Internet-goers just love to argue about. Go ahead, try reading the message boards at....well, anywhere. It's beyond painful to read. Cut away any number of arguments and disagreements, and it comes down to this. There just aren't a whole lot of smart movies out there. More than that, there aren't many smart movies that are entertaining too. This one is. It presents an incredibly unique, well thought out premise, and lets it breathe a little. It's an action movie, but it's not packed to the seams with action. The script will no doubt present some opportunities for "discussion" (does that exist on the Internet?), but they're all for the good if you ask me.

With his script and film, Johnson has created his own unique world. His script, his rules. All the Loopers work for Abe (Jeff Daniels), a man from the future sent back through time to run the Loopers for the man in charge. He finds troubled teenagers and "puts a gun in their hand." Working for Abe are a small army of  'Gat Men,' hired killers who help him keep his grip over the city. Who do they work for? A mysterious man in the future called the Rainmaker. No one knows how he came to power or any of his background. He simply puts everything in motion and rules with an iron fist. Then there's the "tweak" of the future. A small percentage of people have telekinetic powers. It's nothing major, just an ability to hold things up with your mind, but the people are looked upon strangely just the same. Johnson does a great job with all these little touches that give this future version of life touches of reality.

I loved the style of Looper from the very beginning. It's set in 2044 Kansas City which doesn't look too far removed from modern day. Some sort of cataclysmic event has changed how we live, but it's never spelled out for us in great detail. This is our modern world with a slight tweak here and there. The technology is basically the same with a few advances -- hoverbikes, advanced helicopters -- but there's also been a step back. Vagrants and homeless people live on the streets in large numbers. Food is scarce. In a sense, the world has righted itself to a point. The wardrobe is worth noting too. Gordon-Levitt's Joe has a retro look; leather jacket, shirt and tie, jeans. He almost looks like a man right out of the 1950s. The Gat Men hunting him look like stylized wild west gunfighters, all using a long-barrel pistol and wearing black clothes and ankle-length dusters. In the gunfights, we see dusters swooping through the air, something simple that looks incredibly cool.

And oh right, the characters. I almost forgot about them. Gordon-Levitt is one of my favorite actors, and he turns in another solid performance here as Joe, a tragic, scarred character if there ever was. He knows his road will not end well, and he's trying to put his life on the right track. How then does he react when he sees his future self appear in front of him? How would you react? Understandably a little freaked out. Willis does a fine job too in a particularly nasty part as future Joe. Having seen what happens with his life, future Joe wants to right and wrong, and that involves killing several people. The physical similarity isn't perfect with Gordon-Levitt wearing some eye/nose makeup, but it's good enough. The scenes between the two are perfect, especially a mind-bending conversation at an isolated country diner. Joe is talking to himself from the future. Really try and wrap your head around that. Pretty cool premise, huh?

Joining the duo in the cast is Emily Blunt as Sara, a single mom trying to protect her son, Cid (Pierce Gagnon), who may hold a key to the future. Gagnon delivers an incredible performance as Cid, layered and nuanced like an actor with 20, 30 years of experience. It's a great part. Paul Dano has a small part as Seth, a fellow Looper, while Garret Dillahunt and Noah Segan play Jesse and Kid Blue, two of Abe's Gat Men. Piper Perabo nudes up as Suzie, Joe's quasi-girlfriend and stripper/dancer.

Now for a little time travel analysis, but even I'm not exactly sure of every single detail so bear with me. You meet your future self. The logical thought is that everything you do in the moment should already be a memory in your future self, right? Well, because you're meeting your future self, aren't you changing that memory? 'Looper' finds a logical way around that. Future Joe's memory (Willis) is cloudy, things changing as Young Joe (Gordon-Levitt) does different things. Young Joe learns something, Future Joe is instantly aware of it because it is in fact....a memory. Head hurt much? Yeah, mine too. Willis' Joe delivers a perfect line for anyone who gets too hung up on the time travel aspect, plot holes or not. He explains "I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws." Call it a cop out, but it works for me.

I really enjoyed this movie, especially the ending. It can be taken one specific way, but who knows? It leaves the door open for interpretation. Joe makes a choice that he thinks should right things for the future, but anything could happen. Time and the universe have a way of course-correcting (thank you, TV's Lost). The movie itself is a gem though. I loved the premise, the style, the characters, seeing Gordon-Levitt become Willis in a highly stylized montage, and I loved the ending. Can't recommend it enough.

Looper (2012): *** 1/2 /****

Moonrise Kingdom

One thing comes to mind when I hear director Wes Anderson's name. He is one quirky dude. With movies like Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and The Life Aquatic, he's created a niche for himself in the smart (usually), quirky comedy department. That generally off-the-wall, unique humor can be dividing among viewers so head into 2012's Moonrise Kingdom knowing what you're getting into.

It's 1965 on a small New England island called New Penzance and a major storm is rolling in, and in more ways than one. A Khaki scout camping with his troop, 12-year old Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman) is a bit of an odd duck, and now he's up to something. One night, he escapes from the troop at Camp Ivanhoe, forcing Scout Master Randy Ward (Edward Norton), to start searching for him. Sam isn't alone though. He's running away with 12-year old Suzy (Kara Hayward), the oldest daughter in a family with three younger brothers and two lawyer parents. The whole island scrambles to find them, but what are the two pre-teens up to, and where do they hope to get?

Watching an Anderson film, you really, really need to know what you're watching. The comedy is so ridiculously underplayed and understated that you've really got to pay attention to every line, every delivery and facial reaction or you're going to miss something. It's quirky humor with style though. Anderson's camera is pretty stationary, rarely moving into the action, shooting the film almost like a stage play, occasionally moving in for a close-up. Setting the story here in 1965 adds to a quirky, retro style from the throwback clothes and cars to the general awesomeness of the 1960s (a documented scientific fact). It's a beautiful movie, full of colors that could make up paintings if need be. Get in rhythm with the style and generally kooky humor early, and things should fall into place for you.

Actors and actresses certainly like working with Anderson as a director because he continues to attract big names to his films. Along with Norton as Scout Master Randy, Frances McDormand, Bruce Willis, Tilda Swinton, Bob Balaban, and Harvey Keitel (buried far down in the credits) and Anderson regulars Bill Murray and Jason Schwartzman round out the cast. There isn't a bad performance in the bunch. Willis especially stands out as Captain Sharp, Penzance's police officer, Schwartzman is a crazy scream as Cousin Ben, an older scout, and McDormand and Murray as Suzy's parents working through some personal things. I won't list all the names, but Scout Master Randy's troop features some solid performances from some young actors while Suzy's brothers also have some funny moments.

The most quirky part of the story is definitely the teenage crush turned love that develops between Sam and Suzy, two pre-teens that find a common bond that brings them together. They're both loners, what most would consider weird to other kids their age (probably because they're wise beyond their ages), and they don't like what their lives are. Solution-oriented? Run away with plenty of supplies...on an island. While the duo is both obsessively quirky and appropriately odd, there's also a real charm to their relationship. Because neither is the accepted 'norm,' they must automatically be vastly different. Their runaway has some really funny moments, some truly odd and even unsettling moments, but it ends up being a good mix. Sam wears a coonskin cap, smokes a pipe, and is quite the Khaki scout in terms of skills. Suzy loves a French record given to her by her godmother, loves fantasy books, and always wears binoculars. How is that not a match made in heaven?

I think Anderson is a talented director who treads that fine line. He's really close to being too quirky, too cute, too disgustingly quirky even. There are times it tries too hard to be different in its humor. To his credit, Anderson seems to know when to tap the brakes as he approaches that fine line. There are moments he seems like he's losing it, but he regains control quickly. I don't mean it as a huge criticism -- he's very talented and a very good director -- but each of his movies have those moments that are just too odd for their own sake.

It's still a funny movie, worthwhile to check out for sure. When it works, it is clicking on all cylinders. Phone calls with a split screen are simple but effective. Norton's Scout Master exploring the camp with all its eccentricities is pretty perfect, as is the surreal scenes when Schwartzman arrives to help Sam and Suzy. Weird? Yes. Enjoyable? Oh, yes, that too.

Moonrise Kingdom (2012): ***/****

The Expendables 2

I watched 2010's The Expendables all the while knowing I wasn't watching a good movie. Did I enjoy it? Yes, but it had massive flaws and issues that I was barely....barely....able to look past. Well, either I'm a glutton for punishment or just forgetful because I had to give the sequel, 2012's The Expendables 2, a shot. Rather than repeat and rewrite the original review (and trust me, I could), I'll give this one a shot. It's basically the same movie, but I liked it more.

Having completed a mission to rescue a hostage in Nepal, mercenaries Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone), his right-hand man Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), and their crew of specialists return to New Orleans to celebrate a successful mission and prep for their next one. Ross though is approached -- and basically blackmailed -- by Church (Bruce Willis), a mysterious CIA agent who Ross knows well from his past. The mission? Ross and his team must head to Albania and recover something from a downed plane. Now what that object is, Ross isn't told, only that he'll have someone along for the ride, Maggie (Nan Yu), to help accomplish the mission. It seems and sounds like a simple grab and bag job, but deep in enemy territory, anything could happen.

Here we are again. The make or break part of the review. The complaints/compliments I'm going to throw out there now come down to one simple thing; do you like-to-love action movies? If you even remotely like action movies, you should find something enjoyable about this....at least a little. From director Simon West, '2' improves on the formula laid out in the first one (for the most part). Assemble a ridiculous amount of action stars, give them lots of cool one-liners and lots of people to kill/maim/shoot/stab on a ridiculous mission. To its credit, '2' is more self-assured it knows what it's doing. The crazy amounts of action are still there on top of some more humor -- more on that humor later. It's the same more, but I enjoyed this one more than the first shoot 'em up flick.

What was never in question is the casting here. Still chugging along as a believable action star at 66 years old, Stallone is and always will be a badass. His Barney Ross is that requisite tough group leader, burned and warped for years by the death around him and the suicidal life he leads. Statham is once again, a great sidekick. The two bitch and moan at each other, reflecting a partnership that goes back for years. It seems in all his movies Stallone knows what his fans want to see, and he doesn't disappoint. Filling out Ross' team is returnees Jet Li (making basically a cameo), Randy Couture, and Terry Crews. Also returning from the first one and given more of a role is Dolph Lundgren with newcomer Liam Hemsworth joining the team as Billy the Kid, a disillusioned Army sniper. As more and more bigger names join the cast, Couture and Crews are given little to do and left in the background, but Lundgren and Hemsworth both represent themselves well.

Putting these movies together though, Stallone's goal has been to assemble any and all action stars. Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger return as Church and Trench, fellow personalities in the mercenary/espionage underworld, with both stars getting more screen-time and more to do. One of the huge names in action movies in the 1980s and 1990s, Jean-Claude Van Damme plays a villain named....Vilain (pretty original, huh?), an Eastern European hired killer with a gang of killers, the Sangs. Not enough? Chuck Norris....yes, CHUCK NORRIS....plays Booker, a loner mercenary content to work by himself but helping out the Expendables as needed. Scott Adkins plays Hector, Vilain's brutal right hand man while Yu holds her own in the testosterone-fueled action pic.

So what stops this ridiculously action-packed movie from being the classic that it wants? As was the case with the first movie, there's just something missing. I can't put my finger on it. In an attempt to craft a story full of action, badass characters and funny one-liners, everything else gets left by the wayside. E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G. Scenes lack any sort of transitions, bouncing from one location to the next without even an establishing shot or two. Oh, the story stalls? Enter Norris, Willis or Schwarzenegger out of nowhere, no explanation provided. The music score is anything but subtle and far from memorable. It's fun from the start, but several reviews point this out. An action movie doesn't have to be HUGE, but some scale certainly helps. Both Expendables movies are missing that scale. At times, it even feels like a straight-to-DVD action flick, and that's never a good comparison for any theatrical release.

More than that though, '2' feels rushed, much like the first film did. It clocks in at 103 minutes, but if you take away a 10-minute credits sequence, it's just 93 minutes long. Deep on story it is not, but in just over an hour and a half, this film covers a lot of ground. Yes, I know an action movie like this isn't going to be Shakespeare, but slow down even just a little. And then there's that script. It just has too many references to previous movies the cast has been in. We get it, Arnold was the Terminator, Bruce was in Die Hard, and Norris was in Lone Wolf McQuade. For goodness sake, there's even a Chuck Norris Fact dropped during his introduction. Humor is one thing, some clever references another, but one after another becomes downright tedious and even annoying.

Now if you're still reading, you must sorta like action movies....kinda, maybe, I could be wrong. The action here is pretty cool, and thankfully, director West doesn't utilize the ultra-schizo technique used in the Bourne movies. For the most part, we see the action. All the cliches/stereotypes are there. We've got small armies of bad guys who can't hit the broad side of a barn, the heroes who can hit every single thing they aim at, and so on and so forth. It's a pretty good movie, just know that it's mindless entertainment at its best, nothing else.    

The Expendables 2 (2012): ***/****

Lucky Number Slevin

I don't know what to say about 2006's Lucky Number Slevin.  On a friend's recommendation, I got around to seeing this movie with my latest Netflix movie. Besides the impressive cast, I went into this movie looking forward to it based off a trailer that made it look like a fast-paced, stylish, shoot 'em up case of mistaken identity.  Well, sort of.  The trailer basically flat out lies to you.  It's smarter than just a good old-fashioned action movie.  Is it good though? I'm not sure.

This is a smart (maybe too smart), well-written movie that is meant to deceive you. It just is, plain and simple.  It involves an epic case of mistaken identity, think of North by Northwest on steroids or some sort of performance-enhancing drugs.  The movie is very much one for movie afficionados, paying tribute to other movies like Hitchcock's classic and many others.  I felt like it did enough to stand on its own, and be enjoyed without all the references, but I couldn't help wondering if maybe things went too far.  In hopes of deceiving the viewer, the end result is both easy to predict and convoluted to follow along the way. Make any sense? Yeah, I didn't think so.

His whole life basically crashing down around him, Slevin (Josh Hartnett) visits a friend's apartment in New York City. He is almost immediately kidnapped by thugs from the Boss (Morgan Freeman) who believes that he's Nick, his friend, who owes him some $96,000.  Slevin tries to explain but finds out the only way out of this predicament is to pull off a hit for the Boss. The target? Kill the son of a rival gangster, the Rabbi (Ben Kingsley). That's not enough though because the Rabbi also wants to see him, also believing he's the friend, Nick. Apparently Nick owed some $33,000, and the Rabbi wants it back. An extreme case of mistaken identity, and Slevin is left in the middle. What to do? Run to the police for help or go along with the plan and hope to somehow make it out alive?

Throwing the shoot 'em up angle out the window from the trailer, this is much more a modern film noir than it is an action flick.  All the noir conventions are there in a story that introduces characters as quickly as it can.  Director Paul McGuigan has made a stylish, well-done, and always intriguing movie.  The problem is that I think McGuigan and this movie know it too. Is it a bad thing if a movie knows that it's freakishly stylish and very smart?  Can dialogue be too quick-paced, too rapid fire, too comically smart?  'Slevin' has some great dialogue, but I felt like groaning at times because it's too smart. The filming techniques used include flashbacks, flash-sideways, and in general the most non-linear story line you're going to find.  Usually a good thing, but there's a such thing as too much of a good thing.

The cast though is impeccable. It'd be hard not to be with this many big names. Hartnett's performance as Slevin has taken some heat, but it's a supremely cool part for the actor. He's suave and cool even as all these ridiculously crazy situations are thrown at him.  Freeman and Kingsley are and always will be cool, and seeing them as rival gangsters is a treat.  A one-on-one between them late in the movie is classic.  There's more.  Bruce Willis is a scene-stealer as Smith, a mysterious hired gun seemingly working for both sides. Lucy Liu is the good girl, the neighbor who takes a liking to Slevin and tries to keep up with him as everything is thrown at him. Then for good measure, Stanley Tucci plays Brikowski, the detective desperately trying to piece everything together before it is all too late. These are all fun parts for very talented actors who look to be having a lot of fun making the movie.

I am all for a movie that is trying to deceive you, trying to throw you a curve when you're expecting a fastball.  Lucky Number Slevin's sole purpose seems to be doing that exact thing.  The only problem is that it tells you it is trying to confuse you in a great opening sequence that runs almost 15 minutes before any characters are introduced.  It explains the Kansas City Shuffle, a con that makes you think you're going right when you're really going left.  That's the whole movie right there.  Can you predict the twist? I would think not in any sort of specific detail.  But big picture? I thought it was ridiculously easy to see where things were going.  'Slevin' tries too hard to confuse you, and ends up giving away too much in the effort.  Not a deal breaker, but the attempt doesn't work as well as it should.

That said, the ending is well-executed as all the little details, all the little pieces of the puzzle start to click together for good.  That is the key to the whole house of cards standing up.  Do you go along for the ride?  It would be easy to take the movie apart plot hole by plot hole, but what's the fun in that?  I enjoyed the movie through all its flaws and all the ridiculousness.  The cast is too good to pass up so I'm going to give this movie a mild recommendation, almost in spite of itself.

Lucky Number Slevin <---trailer (2006): ** 1/2 /****      

Red

What do action stars do when they're past their prime?  I'm not talking about actors who happen to be in some action movies either.  We're talking rough and ready action stars always willing to mix things up if needed.  Do you age gracefully and take some supporting roles in movies you used to star in?  Do you find another gig out of the action genre?  Bruce Willis is an interesting example of this situation, the 56-year old star not the box office sure thing he used to be, but still a reliable enough star that audiences will come out to see. In 2010's Red, his character is even a variation on that idea, a man slightly past his best days (no offense, Mr. Willis, I'm a big fan) who refuses to move on. 

The first time I saw the trailer for Red, I smiled.  I couldn't help it.  This is some cast for this action-heavy popcorn flick with a dose of comedic value added for good measure.  It reminds me of a lot of movies from the 1960s and 1970s that brought together casts of huge stars that maybe just didn't shine as bright as they used to.  I don't mean any of that as a dig at this cast -- just the opposite -- but it's almost like The Expendables plus 15 or 20 years.  Loosely based on a series of three graphic novels, this movie is just a lot of fun.  Seeing half the cast together would have been worth it, but all together? We're talking can't miss, no matter how much the movie might have struggled in theaters.

A recently retired CIA agent, Frank Moses (Willis) lives in his suburban house outside Cleveland, leading a quiet, orderly, lonely and generally boring life. The one enjoyment he gets out of life is his weekly calls to his pension agent/representative, Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker), with whom he clicked with right away. One night though, Frank's house is attacked by a hit squad, but he manages to escape, heading to Kansas City to find Sarah because she'll eventually be tracked down too.  Of all the dangerous jobs he pulled off, why years later is someone gunning for him and all his associates? With some help from those past associates, including crazy conspiracy theorist Marvin (John Malkovich), aging ex-agent Joe (Morgan Freeman), and killer extraordinaire Victoria (Helen Mirren), Frank goes about figuring it out. One of the CIA's top agents, Cooper (Karl Urban) is on the hunt too, trying to figure out exactly what the legendary Moses is up to.

When I see that a movie is based off a graphic novel, I'm usually pretty skeptical.  For every 300, there are a lot of really awful movies to counter with that just didn't translate well to the screen.  This is one of the exceptions.  It's good, mostly because of the cast, but more on that later.  While I liked The Expendables which I watched a few weeks back, it could have been better.  It took itself too seriously.  Not the case here because director Robert Schwentke knows how far to push it and still have fun with it. The tone is both serious while still maintaining a bit of the crazy, off the wall humor that works so well.  It's not quite tongue in cheek, but Red is close without trying too hard to be the end-all classic action comedy.

Okay, I don't care who you are, but if a cast that includes Willis, Mirren, Freeman, Malkovich, Parker and others (keep reading, next paragraph) doesn't get you interested, I don't know what to tell you.  Movies just may not be for you.  Willis plays the steely-eyed former agent to perfection, a variation on many of the action heroes he played over the last 20-plus years.  The sub-plot with Parker is pretty good too, not distracting from the main story but interesting enough it doesn't detract overall. Mirren is dead sexy as Victoria, plain and simple.  She doesn't make an appearance until almost an hour in, but she makes up for lost time. Freeman too isn't in it much, but it's Morgan Freeman.  Come on, that's not a bad thing. Malkovich is hysterical, and the main reason to see Red.  His paranoid agent was dosed LSD once a day for 11 years, and he's clearly a little off his rocker.  Physical comedy, subtle facial reactions, throwaway one-liners, he does it all, his Marvin Boggs the breakout star here.

With an ensemble like that, it's hard to go wrong, but three more supporting parts jumped out at me.  They're the type of parts that could have been thrown away, but with the right actor in the parts, they bring the movie up a notch on their own.  First, Brian Cox as Ivan, a Russian adversary turned ally in Moses' battle against the CIA. He has a past with Mirren's Victoria, but he's that relic from the Cold War who misses the old days.  His one-on-one scene with Willis discussing those days is priceless.  Second, Richard Dreyfuss as Dunning, a black market arms dealer who is involved with the past mission that now has Moses in the CIA's crosshairs.  I've always been a fan, but it's great to see Dreyfuss in full-on, evil bad guy role.  Third, Hollywood legend Ernest Borgnine (still chugging along at 90-plus) as Henry, the CIA's basement records keeper.  In just two quick scenes, he shows what makes him the legend he is.

Why did this movie struggle so badly in theaters late last summer and early fall?  I can't put my finger on it.  It's nothing new when it comes to movies, but how many new movies are particularly unique? I didn't love the movie, but I did really like it.  There are some genuinely funny, laugh out loud moments, including one of my new all-time favorite lines.  Malkovich deadpans after an epic shootout, "How about we get some pancakes?" It's a really good movie that could have been great.  Still, with a cast like this, it's impossible to pass it up.

Red <---trailer (2010): ***/****

The Expendables

For several years, the Hollywood rumor mill turned out rumors and reports one after another about an epic action movie meant to be a throwback to the mindless, popcorn entertainment of the 1980s. It was supposed to reunite basically every great action star in a movie that would blow the cast away from every other movie out of the water. No one was going to stop this behemoth, and it would be a modern classic to rival all action movies. So what happened? Names were attached and let go, things change, but by 2010, the movie was finished and released. What movie? The Expendables.

Director and star Sylvester Stallone has been a fan favorite among audiences since he made Rocky Balboa a household name, and criticize him for whatever you want, the man knows what audiences want to see. The Expendables is a prime example, an action-heavy story with cool settings, cooler characters, some impressive hand to hand combat, and in general a sense, an awareness of how cool the whole thing is. So while I liked this movie, I can't help but feel disappointed in some ways.  It is entertaining. It is a lot of fun. But even a couple days later, something was missing that I just can't put my finger on. Still, the action is solid, and the cast impressive no matter how many bigger names dropped out.

After pulling off a successful hostage rescue on the high seas, veteran mercenary and very talented Barney Ross (Stallone) is approached by a shady, mysterious operator, Church (Bruce Willis), with a new proposition for Barney and his team. The mission is dangerous and maybe even suicidal, but the pay-off will be huge. Barney and his team must sneak onto a small South American island and assassinate the brutal dictator who has taken over with his small army.  The odds are impossibly stacked against them as Barney's Expendables will have to take on a small army of soldiers and security. But as they scout out the mission, Barney finds out there's more going on than is being told to them. A former CIA agent (Eric Roberts) is pulling the strings on the island. What have they gotten themselves into? Do they accept the mission, risking almost certain death?

From the first time I heard about this movie a few years back, I was psyched. A men-on-a-mission movie with a cast jam-packed with action stars of the past decades? Count me in. Joining Stallone's team are right-hand man and throwing knife master Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), martial arts expert Yin Yang (Jet Li), rough and ready brawler Toll Road (MMA fighter Randy Couture), and muscle-headed, shotgun-wielding Caesar (Terry Crews). As cool as this group is though, beyond Stallone and Statham, the other three are wasted. They're introduced, disappear, and then reappear at the end for the last suicidal mission. Helping the cause is that Stallone and Statham are perfectly cast alongside each other, throwing one-liners left and right, bitching and moaning like an old married couple. So it's good and bad with the chance for more there.

What's disappointing more than the lack of screen-time for the other three are the actors who weren't cast. Now were these names ever seriously attached to the project? Who knows, but in pre-production when all the rumors were being leaked, names like Chuck Norris, Willis, Steven Seagal, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Arnold Schwarzenegger were all mentioned.  One by one, they seemed to drop out, Willis and the Governator eventually taking small cameo parts. I don't even know how it all would have worked, but I would have loved to see the attempt. It's hard to judge a movie based on what could have been, but this movie was in the news so much, it's nearly impossible not to think of the potential here.

Making this movie, Stallone promised action, action, and more action.  You get it here, and he wasn't kidding. I didn't time this or anything, but I'd wager no more than five minutes goes by in between action sequences.  Gun fights, vicious hand to hand combat, aerial attacks (Statham in badass mode there), car chases, gigantic explosions, The Expendables has it all. My question, and I'll pause here...is it too much action? It's non-stop fun, no question about that. But it gets repetitive. How many times can you see Statham throw a knife into someone's throat/chest? The hand to hand scenes also have a case of Jason Bourne editing, sequences cut so quickly it's hard to keep up. A showdown between quick, agile Li vs. big, brawling Dolph Lundgren should have been epic, but you can barely see what's going on. For the most part, it's all good. But when it's bad, the action trends toward that horrific editing that ruins what you're actually seeing.

I get it. I understand the appeal of those mindless action movies. They're great. No thinking required, just enjoy.  But at 103 minutes (and take away 7 or 8 more for the end credits), the movie is just too short. It feels rushed like Stallone did not know what to do in between action scenes. With this good of a cast, explore the background more of these mercenaries, and hell, even the bad guys. Oh, stereotypical evil, scorned CIA agent gone rogue? Why, what else? How'd this team get together? Even better, some quick scenes explore the mindset of these hired killers. Are they fated to die horrifically in combat? Can anything save them? What drives them to do this, the adrenaline rush, or are they just good at it? I'm not talking a deep, involved look at the mind of a mercenary that sacrifices the action. I'm just looking for a good mix of both, still clocking in at around 2 hours. Is that too much to ask?

Even with all the names mentioned above, that's about half of all the names worth mentioning.  Mickey Rourke is underused but still is a scene-stealer as Tool, a former member of the team and now their contact who hooks them up with assignments. Roberts is Roberts as evil CIA agent, a part he plays to smarmy, slimy perfection. Former wrestler Steve Austin is Roberts' main henchman, looking tough and growling as necessary. Willis and Schwarzenegger are wasted completely, but it's a cool, one-scene appearance. Giselle Itie is the ridiculously gorgeous eye candy, the Expendables' link on the island.

So as I read back over this, I'm seeing how negative this review sounds.  There are flaws here, big flaws you could drive a truck through. But for all my complaints, I can't think of one good reason not to watch this movie. If you like action and some dark humor, you are going to like this movie. Stallone and Statham were the main reasons, but The Expendables is just too fun to pass up. Besides, you don't want to be behind when the rumored sequel comes out in a couple years.

The Expendables <---trailer (2010): ***/****

Pulp Fiction

When I reviewed Inglorious Basterds over a year ago, I said that there isn't as divisive a director as Quentin Tarantino currently working in Hollywood.  I stand by that statement still.  Is he immensely talented, an eccentric movie lover? Or is he a hack, taking here and there from previously successful movies and making them his own?  Is it a bad thing that it seems he falls somewhere in between?  I think he's both. Of course, if you're not a fan of his, it's going to take more than that to appreciate the man's films.  To each his own.  Like anything with movies, it comes down to personal preference.

What's impressive about Tarantino and the love-hate relationship moviegoers have with him is that the man just doesn't have a lot of films to his name.  He picks projects that appeal to him, not just taking anything that comes down the road.  Of the 15 directorial claims IMDB makes, only eight are feature length projects.  In their own right, each can be called in a classic (okay, a minor classic in some cases), and fans have their own individual favorites.  For many, it's an easy decision, and the movie that always seems to come up is 1994's Pulp Fiction, Tarantino's first movie after the surprising success of 1992's Reservoir Dogs.

I don't put much stock in the IMDB's fan rating system which allows fan voting to show how good/bad a movie is.  Pulp Fiction currently sits at No. 5 all-time.  I don't think it's close to being one of the top five greatest movies of all-time, but then again, IMDB voters have The Shawshank Redemption as No. 1 so take that for what's it worth.  This is a good intro to Tarantino for fans not familiar with him.  Long scenes of uninterrupted dialogue broken up by brief but extreme moments of graphic violence, style to spare, and a cast that any movie fan should be able to appreciate.  Here goes an attempt to give some sort of plot synopsis, however muddled it may be. Interweaving storylines, characters in and out of the story, and a non-linear plot certainly keep you on your toes.

Two low-level enforcer/hit men, Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson), have been dispatched on a mission from their boss, Marsellus Graham (Ving Rhames). Someone owes him money, and Vincent and Jules intend to get it back.  Vincent's also been assigned an unusual task, go on a date with Marsellus' wife, Mia (Uma Thurman) while the boss is out of town. Also going on, Marsellus has arranged for aging boxer, Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis), to throw a fight for big money, but Butch has other plans that only he knows about.  On top of that, two bottom-tier thieves (Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer) are planning their next job, and everyone is involved whether they know it or not.

Where to start, where to start? Tarantino uses his usual chapters storytelling device, breaking up the 153-minute movie into smaller segments that aren't told in chronological order. For example, we see someone get killed in one chapter, but they're alive in the next.  Gimmicky, yes, but when handled right, it's a home run, and Tarantino brings it full circle, ending the movie exactly where it started. The soundtrack is full of classic rock songs, and really runs the gamut across genres.  Style-wise, Tarantino tells a story with his camera, blending long unedited takes with quick in your face editing at other times.  Question if you will what the director is showing, but just in terms of pure movie-making skill, it's hard to beat this guy.

By 1994, John Travolta's career was all but mainlining when he accepted this part to play hitman Vincent Vega.  It was the part that put him back in the limelight and earned him an Oscar nomination in the process.  For me personally, Travolta (and his interactions with Jackson) are what makes this movie special.  It's the little things that make it work.  I couldn't place Vince's accent if I tried, but it adds something to the character.  He's a little off, maybe a little crazy, but at the same time perfectly sane.  His dance scene with Uma Thurman (watch it HERE) is about as iconic, as memorable as anything to hit theaters in the last 20 years and is so sublimely perfect it's not even worth trying to explain. I loved this character and wish there was more of him.

With a story that bounces around as much as Pulp Fiction does, some characters/storylines get more in-depth than others.  On top of all those names mentioned above, there's also parts for Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette, Steve Buscemi as a smarmy waiter, Tarantino stepping in front of the camera for a quick appearance, and two perfect parts for Christopher Walken and Harvey Keitel. Walken is on-screen for no more than two minutes but delivers one of the most movingly effective and equally funny monologues I've ever seen (watch it HERE).  Keitel nails his part as 'the Wolf,' a cleaner who fixes other people's messes.  Check out Keitel's entrance HERE. These are two small parts that Tarantino clearly loved writing, stylish and unnecessary but nonetheless giving a movie those little touches that can bring it up a notch.

As much as I loved certain parts of the movie, others just fell flat.  The Bruce Willis boxer subplot didn't work as well for me as the rest of the movie -- with the exception of the Walken scene -- and I found myself fast-forwarding through it.  Tarantino can be too self-indulgent at times, and the dialogue goes on too long at times.  That said, the positives make the negatives a minor problem.  Travolta, Jackson, Rhames, Walken, Keitel, Thurman, deliver amazingly memorable performances.  For all the dialogue that never stops, there's monologues (like Jackson's in the finale SPOILERS, HERE) that make you appreciate what good writing really is.  Flawed as a movie overall, yes, but one of the best flawed movies I've seen in awhile.

Pulp Fiction <---trailer (1994): *** 1/2 /****   

Hart's War

Following WWII, a whole sub-genre of movies came out dealing with a part of the war that you'd think would be hard to turn into a movie, the prisoner of war story, examples being The Great Escape and The Bridge on the River Kwai. There were others, but those two have stood the test of time over the years. But at a certain point, the stories must have dried up. Then came 2002's Hart's War.

A mix between a courtroom drama and a prisoner of war story, the movie walks that fine line between both types and is mostly successful although there are major problems with the ending. Money was clearly spent on making Hart's War look and feel authentic from the winter locations in the Czech Republic to the gaunt appearances of the actors. As much as I love 1963's The Great Escape, I can admit those prisoners sure looked like they were living a decent life. Not so much here.

It's December 1944 and Lt. Thomas Hart (Colin Farrell) is escorting an officer to the front lines. A Senator's son, Hart is destined to work at a desk until the end of the war so he takes his chance to get away from HQ. But on the road, his jeep is attacked by German paratroopers posing as American MPs and he is sent to a German Luft Stalag, a prison camp. Right away, something is wrong because the ranking American officer Colonel McNamara (Bruce Willis) bunks Hart with the enlisted men even though there is an open bunk in the officers barracks.

That's the least of Hart's problems though when two new prisoners are brought to the camp, two black fliers, Lt. Lincoln Scott (Terrence Howard) and Lt. Archer (Vicellous Reon Shannon). The prisoners' true colors come out, and it's not long before Archer is framed for robbery and summarily shot by the German guards. It looks like a frame-up organized by Sgt. Vic Bedford (Cole Hauser), the ringleader of the racist prisoners. Only a few days pass before Bedford's dead body is found in the compound, Lt. Scott standing over the body. In a court martial/murder trial, Lt. Hart (a 2nd year law student at Yale) is assigned defense council for Scott in a case that looks like it will have no hope of being fair.

The first hour or so hits all the right notes of a tense prisoner of war drama. Like Hart, the viewer is seeing everything for the first time. The conditions are cramped, the food is of low-quality, and it's freezing cold in the German winter. Even when the murder/courtroom drama is introduced, the movie still stays on the right track. It's a twist that comes with about 30 minutes to go where the story comes apart. It even goes beyond Lt. Scott's trial in a twist that doesn't quite make sense and stretches the imagination just a bit too far.

SPOILERS if you don't want to know the twist, stop reading SPOILERS Col. McNamara is using the trial as a diversion for an escape attempt combined with some sabotage of a nearby munitions plant. There's no real hints of what's to come, and when it does come on-screen, it's never fully explained. For example, where did McNamara and Co. get their hands on German uniforms, and then rifles and explosives for God's sake? It's a prison camp deep in Germany, and I don't care how bad the war is looking, German guards wouldn't trade cigarettes for rifles and explosives. End of SPOILERS.

Anywho, on to the rest of the movie. The casting is good, especially Farrell in one of his first starring roles. His Hart is a torn character, one trying to prove himself because of who his father is but also what he did under interrogation after being captured. He's put on the defensive right away, and at least for me, he's the one I was rooting for in the end. Being appointed defense counsel, Hart is put in a lose-lose situation, especially when he finds out the trial is a sham. As his opposite, Willis has the less developed character but still makes the most of it. McNamara is a career soldier, a West Pointer who wants to prove he's still in the war.

Two other parts are key to the movie's success, especially Howard as Lt. Scott. Locked away in a cell for long portions of the movie, Howard rises to the occasion when given the chance. His testimony on the stand is one of the best scenes in the movie and really illustrates what black soldiers/fliers had to go through in the South during WWII. The one good thing about the ending is Scott's reaction which could have come off as cheesy and cliched, but Howard sells it. The other important part is Marcel Iures as Colonel Visser, the German commandant who does everything he can to keep the camp running and in order, even if that means helping an inexperienced Hart at the trial.

As a fan of WWII POW movies, I wanted to love this movie and for about an hour I did just that. I really got the feel of what living in a prison camp must have felt like, especially that feeling of claustrophobia and being packed into an environment you can't get out of. The courtroom drama is not as good but still worthwhile, and that's what makes the sudden shift in story so disappointing. A good movie, but certainly a flawed one.

Hart's War <-----trailer (2002): ***/****