Dom Hemingway

I don't know if you can peg it down definitely to one film or one year. But somewhere around 2000, Jude Law seemed poise to become the next big thing. An incredibly talented actor, he was also a fan favorite for the ladies and more than capable of handling an action movie or heavy drama. Then...it never quite happened. He's got a long list of really good movies to his name, but it's been interesting watching his career over the last 10 years or so. Today's entry? A dark, truly fun performance from Law in 2013's Dom Hemingway.

It's been a long, slow 12 years, but Dom Hemingway (Law) has put his time in. Sentenced to a lengthy jail sentence after being caught red-handed during a robbery, Dom opted to not rat out his employer and paid the price. His time is up though, and he's finally free. Dom meets up with his friend and former partner, Dickie (Richard E. Grant), as soon as he gets out and proceeds to Live It Up for several days, more than making up for lost time. Now though, it's time to get down to business. Dom is supposed to meet that employer he never ratted out, Mr. Fontaine (Demian Bichir), a menacing, powerful crime boss who could wipe out a rival with the snap of a finger. Dom has an idea of what to expect from their meeting, hopefully receiving a sizable reward for keeping his mouth shut. Ever the live-wire though, Dom catching up with the spirits blows up in spectacular fashion when he meets Fontaine. Well, things just got interesting. Has this low-level safecracker pushed his luck too far?

Yowza. What a movie. There's something to be said for British crime movies, especially those like 'Hemingway' that just throw caution to the wind and go for it. From director and screenwriter Richard Shepard, this is an extremely dark, truly funny, vulgar, vicious crime flick. I loved it. It is highly stylized and clearly influenced by both Guy Ritchie and Quentin Tarantino, both in terms of that style but also the dialogue and the violence (mostly kept off-screen). Title cards introduce new chapters almost like we're reading a book. Everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) is particularly nasty in this crime-riddled world where all our players typically look out for No. 1 above all else. Now all that said, this is pretty vulgar basically from the get-go so it most definitely is NOT for everyone. If you're looking for a good test, here it is. The opening scene has a woman performing a sexual act on Dom as he talks up a freaking, filthy storm. It goes on for at least a couple minutes.

Easily offended? Probably not for you.

And there's that Jude Law fella. I saw a trailer for this crime drama/comedy at least a year ago and was curious immediately. Reviews were almost uniformly mixed, but they all seemingly loved what Mr. Law did with the titular character. They were right. Law makes this movie. He just goes for it from the opening scene and things are off and running. His energy can only be described as manic mixed with rage, fury, frustration and fear. If you combine those things, how can't it be entertaining?!? He's not the most likable individual, but my goodness, is Law's Dom Hemingway endlessly fascinating. You see the ups -- getting out of prison, reuniting with Dickie -- and the bad that's usually self-inflicted as he puts his foot in his mouth over and over again.

Kudos to Jude Law for playing this part. It isn't a pretty boy performance or even remotely glamorous. He reportedly gained 20-plus pounds to play Dom Hemingway, doesn't hide his receding hairline, and favors an amazing beard that blends well with his suit that's...well, 12 years old. There is a dark, dirty and funny style to this safecracker trying to prove he's not past his prime. I loved the dynamic he has with Grant's Dickie, two friends and partners who bitch and moan at each other like brothers. Differences and heated arguments aside, they are friends, however twisted. Their dialogue crackles, and their scenes together just flow so effortlessly. It is in those moments that the movie is at its fast-moving, stylish best.

This is Law's movie, and the cast doesn't feature a ton of huge names but there are some solid parts just the same. As I mentioned, I especially liked Grant as Dickie, Dom's longtime partner and friend. Bichir doesn't have a huge part, but his scenes are certainly memorable, a seductively intimidating crime boss who could kill with a snap of his finger. Madalina Diana Ghenea is his girlfriend, accustomed to the finer things in life. Emilia Clarke (of Game of Thrones fame) plays Dom's estranged daughter, now married and with a son while Kerry Condon plays Melody, a prostitute Dom keeps crossing paths with. And last but not least, Jumayn Hunter as Lestor, the son of Dom's old nemesis, potentially holding a job offer but who might -- just might -- still be holding a grudge for a past transgression.

I wasn't always sure where this film was going. When the storyline featuring Dom's estranged daughter was brought up, I was worried things might get a little sappy, too familiar. It doesn't. Like so much else here, it all blends together pretty seamlessly. It does know where it's going, and often times via impeccable timing and some lucky coincidences. Here's the thing though. Yeah, this is dark and dirty and downright filthy at times, but I can't remember the last time I laughed this much at a movie. True, real, out-loud laughs. A highly recommended flick, especially for those fans who love dark British humor mixed with the almost always reliable British crime angle. Well worth a watch.

Dom Hemingway (2013): *** 1/2 /****

The Heat

Right or wrong, what do you think of when you hear 'buddy cop'? I think of Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in the Lethal Weapon series, Will Smith and Martin Lawrence in Bad Boys, Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte in 48 Hrs. What's the common link? For lack of a better description......it's usually dude buddy cop movies. Until now that is!!! Here we go with 2013's The Heat.

Working out of the branch office, FBI agent Sarah Ashburn (Sandra Bullock) is a very capable agent who's closed her fair share of cases, but all her fellow agents despise her. A supervisor position has opened up, and Ashburn wants nothing more than that promotion but because of her all-around popularity her chances of getting is are slim. She's tasked with going to Boston to help take down a new drug supplier on the scene, a man with no witnesses against him and little evidence. Where to start? Ashburn meets Shannon Mullins (Melissa McCarthy), a hard-edged police officer not too interested in physical appearance or...well, following the rules most police officers live by. Ashburn wants to do things her way but Mullins knows Boston, her sources and the streets. Forming an unlikely partnership that's more of a rivalry, they jump head first into the case, if they don't kill each other first.

Is it a bad thing if you call a movie 'predictable'? I suppose it can be depending on the description, but I don't intend it here. This buddy cop movie with female cops from director Paul Feig (written by Katie Dippold) is very good, very funny and very entertaining from beginning to end. Audiences certainly liked it this past summer, 'Heat' earning over $200 million in theaters. It is R-rated so in the vein of Bridesmaids -- also starring McCarthy -- we get a darker, filthier and far more foul-mouthed comedy with female actresses and comedians getting a chance to be funny. Novel concept, isn't it? There's cursing, raunchiness, some surprising (if not truly graphic) violence and plenty of laughs along the way. Went in hoping for a funny movie if nothing else but came away impressed with a very funny movie with lots of memorable bits and lines.

It is a buddy cop flick though so let's talk about some buddy cops. That type of movie -- male, female, monkeys -- and their successes or failures depend almost entirely on the casting and chemistry. Do you like the buddies? It's hard not to like the pairing here, Bullock and McCarthy showing off that effortless back and forth banter that elevates Dippold's script a notch or two just by their line deliveries. Bullock's Ashburn is the buttoned-down, suit-wearing, all business, all professional agent who does things by the book. McCarthy's Mullins is all about results, wears sweat pants at basically all times, lives in a filthy apartment, isn't worried about making people happy, and generally just has fun with life. Yes, the Odd Couple of Cops. You can tell they like working together, and that's nothing but a positive. The duo is in virtually every scene together so that ain't bad either.

My issue with previous McCarthy parts has nothing to do with whether she's funny or not. She is. She's hilarious. But in Identity Thief and her supporting part in This is 40, it just goes too far. Her improvised bits go on to the point that it's painful to watch. That being said.........ready for a 180 degree change.......'Heat' avoids all those issues. Sure, a fair share of jokes are in horrific taste, but with the right dosage, horrific taste can be funny. McCarthy is as good at physical comedy as just delivering a line, a real double comedic threat. The story is predictable because we know they'll butt heads, see they have to work together, and then become the unlikeliest of friends. The jokes keep things moving in an episodic story that follows the case. The end game, the twist, the reveal, it's all pretty unnecessary. We know where things are going. The jokes are funny, and the purpose is to let Bullock and McCarthy have a ton of fun together. Do we really care who the drug dealer is? Nah, just go along for the ride.

The rest of the cast is solid if unspectacular, filling in the parts around our buddy cop duo in the spotlight. Demian Bichir is Hale, Ashburn's FBI supervisor, with Marlon Wayans playing an FBI agent in Boston aiding the case. Dan Bakkedahl and Taran Killam are two DEA agents following their own evidence on the case, Spoken Reasons is Rojas, a dealer Mullins keeps running into, Michael McDonald is Julian, the right-hand man to the drug supplier, Jane Curtin (underused) and Michael Rapaport as some of Mullins' family, and Thomas F. Wilson as Captain Woods, Mullins' much-maligned precinct commander.

Just a good funny movie. If it doesn't rewrite the comedy or buddy cop genre, so be it. Sit back and enjoy Bullock and McCarthy having a ton of fun together.

The Heat (2013): ***/****

Che: Part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Che: Part One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Savages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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