City of Industry

I kinda knew the definition of the term but would have had trouble describing it. So thank you much, Internet, I looked up the term 'neo-noir.' The meaning? A film that uses the similar jumping off point of the classic film noir movies from the late 1940's and into the 1950's while adding something new, something fresh in terms of style or story that wasn't readily available. Today's neo-noir, 1997's City of Industry.

In Palm Springs, ex-con Lee Egan (Timothy Hutton) has bought his way into a potentially highly lucrative heist, one that could net over $3 million. His friend, Jorge (Wade Dominguez), is on-board to help with Lee's brother, Roy (Harvey Keitel), even agreeing to come out of retirement with such a payday awaiting them. Rounding out Lee's crew is their getaway driver, the fiery, feisty Skip (Stephen Dorff). What is the job exactly? Black market diamonds are scheduled to arrive at a Palm Springs diamond broker with a Russian mobster arriving to pick them up. While there's always the potential for craziness and the unexpected, this job seems pretty straightforward if potentially very dangerous. Lee, Roy and Co. go about putting all the pieces together, but with that much money on the line, you can never really fully trust anyone...can you?

So neo-noir, it's one of those weird descriptions. It's vague really, allowing for some personal interpretations depending on the film. When I think of it, I think of movies like the hyper-violent, hyper-stylized flicks like Drive and To Live and Die in L.A. (of which I loved both a whole freaking lot). 'City' is more traditional to its noir roots with its bleak, downright unpleasant world full of betrayals and back-stabbings where money is not only a powerful motivator; it may be the only motivator. I'd never heard of this crime drama from director John Irvin, but it's certainly an interesting flick. 

'City' is an interesting finished product. With its opening credits, I thought I was getting into an uber-stylish crime drama. Hyper-fast editing, black and white photography mixed with color photography, it felt like quite a scene-setter. A bit misleading because Irvin's film isn't that stylish. Hmm, what word to use instead? Let's say grim. Downright grim. This isn't a stylish criminal underworld where small-time crooks win in the end. This is a bloody, betrayal-riddled world where loyalty comes cheap and usually ends up with a knife/bullet (Your choice!) in your back. That lack of all hope reminded me some of so many French crime dramas where there's a sense of doom and foreboding that the characters seem fully aware of...but continue on regardless. Through all that bloody chaos, there's a hard-fought honor among thieves.

Who better to bring that to the forefront that one of the coolest actors ever, Mr. Harvey Keitel! I'd watch the man read a telephone book so watching him take a crack at a mostly silent anti-hero is a step above for me! Keitel's Roy is all business even when it comes to working with his brother, giving him no slack. He's a professional, a businessman when it comes to pulling a job. It's only in the second half of the movie when the story takes a severe turn do we see the depths Roy will go to when he's been wronged. Like the best anti-heroes, Keitel makes it look effortless. He steals scenes without doing much at all, but his presence alone carries whole stretches of movies. When there are outbursts -- whether it be emotionally or physically -- it comes out like a volcano erupting. Little warning but when you see it happen...just watch out. Excellent leading part for Mr. Keitel.

There's no huge star power here for 'City' but what's there is choice. Dorff is excellent at playing the possibly unhinged Skip, a worthy adversary when a massive amount of cash is on the line. Hutton and Dominguez are solid in smaller parts as well to round out the crew. Who else? How about Famke Janssen as Rachel, Jorge's wife who's become increasingly displeased with her husband's line of work. Lucy Liu -- a very topless Lucy Liu -- makes a quick appearance as a stripper who is holding onto some valuable information while Elliott Gould makes an uncredited appearance as a crime kingpin with his hand in everything dark and sinister in the city.

If 'City' has a weak point, it comes in the pacing and too-familiar story. There's a pretty major twist about the 30-minute mark -- I ain't much for giving away spoilers -- that seems to re-energize things nicely...for a touch. Then things fall back into a slower-paced rhythm that doesn't offer much in the way of surprises. The body count rises pretty quickly through the last hour-plus with some startling violence at times. As bleak as the general tone is throughout, the ending is actually pretty hopeful which is unfortunate if you ask me. The whole story seems to be building to something bleak, downbeat and downright unhappy, but that never quite comes together.

Still, there's just enough to give a slight recommendation. It's called the Harvey Keitel Effect.

City of Industry (1997): ** 1/2 /****

Taken 2

As far as action movies go, 2008's Taken was pretty decent. Some surprisingly effective casting, an impressive body count, and European locations provided quite the formula for success. A hit with audiences, it not surprisingly produced, what else? A sequel, an unnecessary repetitive one at that. Oh, boy, here we go with 2012's Taken 2.

Having rescued his daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace), from sex traffickers and the Albanian mob in Europe, former CIA specialist Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) is back in Los Angeles working as a security official for all sorts of international types. He's grown closer to Kim since the rescue, and is even on good terms with ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen). The relationship is good enough that Kim and Lenore visit Bryan after he finishes a job in Istanbul, a hopefully relaxing trip. Not so fast. The Albanian gangsters who he dispatched saving his daughter have organized and want nothing more than exacting revenge for their fallen comrades, especially mafioso Murad Krasniqi (Rade Serbedzija). All the underworld is looking for Bryan, and Murad and his army of vengeful mobsters are closing in. Can Bryan save his family from a brutal death?

I've had this conversation with my aunt several times before, and I keep coming back to the same thing. She questions why Neeson takes these more commercial (some would say dumb) action movies as opposed to showing off his acting chops. I love Neeson in either so let's say this; Liam Neeson is cooler than you. He's cooler than me. There aren't many people who can keep up with him in terms of pure badass-ness (Yes, I'm making up words again). Seeing him as a brutally capable CIA operative has been my biggest reasoning for checking out both movies, and he doesn't disappoint. He's more than believable as Mills, trained and ready to use a very unique set of skills to get some very dangerous missions done. Above all else, it's fun to see Neeson in these more commercial parts.

Unfortunately though, having watched this unnecessary sequel, I'm forced to say that Neeson is one of the only good things about this flick. Having written and directed the first movie, Luc Besson only writes this one, passing off the directing reins to Olivier Megaton. Did he not like his script? I certainly didn't. It comes across as both lazy and rushed at the same time. Take away the closing credits, and it only runs 86 minutes. Not bad for an action movie? You'd think, but the first half hour plays like an after school special about a single dad looking out for his daughter -- who has a new boyfriend (Luke Grimes) -- while also trying to get ex-wife Lenore through some difficult times in her second marriage. Who cares?!? Let's get to Neeson killing nameless bad guys! The final scene actually has Neeson, Grace, Janssen and Grimes sitting at an ice cream parlor laughing it up over.....I don't know, something amusing.

I'm not against all sequels when handled correctly. Take the characters and situation we like, and develop something, add something new. Don't settle for the same old, same old. So it doesn't seem like I'm completely ripping this one, '2' does try something new. What is that you ask? Take what made the first one entertaining, and pack it into about 48 minutes of non-stop action. By my count, Bryan and Lenore are kidnapped, but everything is righted and back to normal within an hour or two in real-time. Escaping from the Albanians (Oh, no, quasi-spoilers!), he finds Kim and manages to re-find the place within maybe 12 minutes. He chases some Albanians, some Albanians chase him, usually meeting a graphic PG-13 ending, and then -- as mentioned -- Bryan and family go out for some well-deserved ice cream. It is fun to watch because it plays so quickly, never slowing down, but that doesn't mean it's even remotely good.

As for that action, '2' continues to use the ultra-fast, hyper-kinetic editing that makes the actual action pretty much indecipherable. What exactly is the point? Do producers/directors/editors/studios think this looks cool? It never did. Slow things down, and actually let the viewing audience see all the cool fight moves, not a blur that's gone in a second. Oh, and in the criminally underused department, Leland Orser, Jon Gries, and D.B. Sweeney play Bryan's former C.I.A. cohorts. They're introduced -- just like in the original -- but do absolutely nothing except for a horrifically stupid scene late in the movie.

Beyond all the dumb choices in storyline and over-edited action, I think this is a movie that is simply stupid. It reminded me of The Expendables I and II, movies interested in nothing other than action. Scene transitions, explanations, all those good little things that average movies take advantage of are brushed off to the side here. At one point, Bryan literally disappears from a car while cornered. There is no physical way for him to have escaped sight unseen other than he's really cool and has cool guy skills. Later, Bryan and Kim crash through the security gate at the American Embassy in Istanbul. Bryan calls Orser's Sam and tells him to call the Embassy and tell them not to shoot him and Kim. That's dumb in itself, but when we next see Bryan? He's hunting Albanians again. The movie is in too much of a rush to even show how him and Kim got out of that sticky situation in a freaking heavily guarded American Embassy. Dumb much?

Okay, I'm surprising myself here. I'm disliking this movie more and more as I write this review. Neeson is cool, but it's just not very good. And come on, are you telling me that Kim, survivor of almost being a sex slave, would be so willing to go back to international travel? Eh, that's just one apparently minor complaint I had for a pretty bad movie. Ouch, this one lands with a thud. Oh, Istanbul looks cool so there's a positive.

Taken 2 (2012): */****