3 Days to Kill

I don't know what's gotten into Kevin Costner, but I'm not complaining. A huge star in the 1980s, he didn't have the same success in the 1990s, a couple big box office bombs to his name. He kept acting throughout, but there....just....weren't....as....many roles. Then 2014 came along, and Costner WAS EVERYWHERE with movies like Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, Draft Day, and for today's review, 3 Days to Kill.

An experienced CIA assassin with plenty of years of experience under his belt, Ethan Renner (Costner) has been tasked with another dangerous mission, capturing two terrorists in Belgrade suspected of selling a dirty bomb. Nothing goes right though, Ethan wounding one and unintentionally spotting the other, previously unknown to security forces. He's wounded in the process, only learning after that he has brain cancer that's spread to his lungs. The prognosis for survival? Three-to-five months at best. With his time running out, Ethan leaves the CIA behind and heads to Paris to try and make up for lost time with his ex-wife and teenage daughter, Zooey (Hailee Steinfeld). His plan is thrown for a loop though when a fellow CIA assassin, Vivi (Amber Heard), approaches him with an offer. She can give him an experimental drug that could significantly prolong his life, but she'll only give him the drug if he agrees to finish the job, killing the two dangerous terrorists, sited again in Paris.

So that Kevin Costner guy, he's pretty cool. The star of Field of Dreams, Bull Durham, No Way Out, he's a movie star that can act and as a movie fan, it is definitely cool to see him in more theatrical releases. In the Liam Neeson vein, Costner isn't necessarily a romantic lead anymore. Yeah, at 59 years old, he's just too old. I'm kidding of course. My girlfriend would certainly disagree. But like Neeson, there's potential for him to be that gruff, grizzled action star, and this seemed like a good jumping off point. As a tough guy, as an action star, Costner is the best thing going in this pretty bizarre 2014 action flick. The script has some fun with Ethan's portrayal as a modern-day American cowboy in Europe, and it works at times, even if it is overused. So Costner is an ideal action hero, more than capable of handling himself in said action scenes. How then does the rest of the movie hold up? Not nearly so well.

Dying secret agent, nuclear bomb potentially being sold to terrorists, the future of mankind on the line. A cool formula, don't you think? I do. It may be familiar for spy/espionage/thriller fans, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. So what did director McG and screenwriter Luc Besson (of Taken, Transporter fame) do with that movie? They make it a story about a family torn apart by the father's job -- expert CIA assassin -- trying to reunite because said father is months away from a tragically young death. Wow, I wasn't expecting an after school special when I sought out a movie about Kevin Costner saving the world all across stylish Europe. Costner is excellent at that gravelly, chiseled way and Steinfeld has shown with her limited roles that she could an actress to watch out for in the coming years. They do have some chemistry together, two talented actors working together, but when the script does them absolutely no favors? Well, this movie got bad, and it did so quickly.

I think that becomes the biggest issue. What kind of movie is this? Is is a stylish action movie with Belgrade and Paris serving as the film's backdrop? Or is more a family drama with some action thrown in. Unfortunately, it's both. There are some very cool moments, and wouldn't you know it? They're the action scenes! Renner's mission to catch The Wolf (Richard Sammel) and his malicious assistant, the Albino (Tomas Lemarquis) -- yes, there is a villain named the Albino, so you know he's a villain -- is especially cool as a gunfight goes pretty wrong pretty quickly. The same for a car chase through the streets of Paris, two cars slamming into each other, managing to not kill hundreds of folks, avoiding obstacles left and right, it's all those things that Besson can be so good at...when it works. Simply put, there aren't enough moments like this because....someone decided no one likes action movies? Your guess is as good as mine.

It becomes laughable, even painful. Tasked with finding that terrorist duo, Renner is also trying to redeem himself in the eyes of his daughter. At different points, he menacingly looks at her very French boyfriend, teaches her how to dance, teaches her how to ride a bike (are you kidding me?!?), all these cutesy little things that scream 'Lifetime Movie gone wrong!' more than action-packed thriller. For goodness sake, he teaches his teenage daughter to ride her bike!!! It's awful, all the attempts at humor falling short basically across the board. By the time the Wolf shows up at the most ridiculously convenient place to set up the finale, wow, I was just done. Renner also yells at a snitch tied up in his trunk "Shut up! I'm trying to have a conversation with my daughter!" and later asks a kidnapped, about to be tortured Italian (appropriately named Guido) what his family recipe is for making pasta sauce is because.....Renner's daughter needs advice. Eek, just eek. That's not good.

Who else to look for in this pile? Heard goes from button-downed, plain-looking CIA agent to puppet master and CIA assassin expert specialist in the matter of like 4 days, bringing countless cool outfits and wigs with her. Connie Nielsen plays Renner's wife, tasked with gasping and covering up tears every time she sees her ex-husband bonding with her angry daughter. Oh, and the daughter sets her Dad's ringtone as I Love It by Icona Pop, an annoying shrill song you can listen to here. Don't say I didn't warn you though.

So yeah, this movie was rough to get through. Almost two hours long, it drags anytime action gets left in the background. Costner is exceptionally cool, but even that cool factor couldn't save this one. Steer clear in a big way.

3 Days to Kill (2014): */****

Ender's Game

Originally published in 1985 from author Orson Scott Card, the novel Ender's Game has become a fan and cult favorite for readers over the last 25-plus years. For years, it never got that big screen adaptation, that big-budget science fiction flick that would appease diehard fans and newbies alike. Well, we got it, and maybe with the advances in technology, it was worth the wait. Hitting theaters a few weeks ago and struggling a bit at the box office as I write this review, 2013's Ender's Game.

Fifty years into the future, Earth has moved on from an alien invasion by a race known as the Formics. The war and invasion was costly, millions of people killed in the blink of an eye and the subsequent attacks. Five decades later, the International Fleet continues to prepare for a counterattack, turning to children and teenagers to lead the defense. Among the trainers are Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) and his right hand officer, Major Anderson (Viola Davis), always trying to find the child best suited to lead the defense of mankind. Among the thousands of trainees, Graff thinks he's found the right subject, the perfect individual to lead the defense, a young boy named Ender Wiggins (Asa Butterfield), the youngest of three children who is brilliant in his analysis and clear-thinking in almost all his actions. He displays all the characteristics they're looking for, but is he really the best choice? Is he almost too smart? Can young Ender keep his own demons under wraps to live up to his potential?

I never read Card's novel the movie is based on. Deal with it. Okay, that's a little harsh. Just want to get that out there. I'm not a fan, haven't read it, and went into this movie without any expectations of what this movie had to live up to it. From director/screenwriter Gavin Hood (X-Men Origins: Wolverine), 'Game' is a pretty entertaining, polished, well-told science fiction story that I loved for half of its 114-minute running time. It has a ton of potential, plenty to the point I'm still looking forward to checking out Card's original novel. 'Game' asks a lot of questions, some pretty dark considering this is a movie at least somewhat aimed at a teenage audience. On a familiar level, there's growing up and discovering who you are as a person, but there's much more. It's living and dealing with your flaws, embracing on them or working at them, becoming part of a group or becoming a leader and on a far bigger level, the loss of a few for the savior of many. It's pretty heady stuff.

Visually, 'Game' is what a science fiction film can be when computer-generated images are used to aid a story rather than overwhelm it. The CGI blends seamlessly at all times here, a future down the road some but not so far removed from the 2013 world we know now. When Ender is sent to Battle School, we're introduced to a West Point-like culture in Space Station form floating through space far above Earth. The school and its tech-heavy hallways and corridors looks familiar, like something we've seen in countless other sci-fi movies, but with a new spin. The coolest thing is the Battle Room, an expansive, enclosed zero gravity circle where the Armies of the Battle School learn strategy and battle theory, all while floating through space while still doing battle. As we see more, I thought it's cool to see that Ender and his fellow trainees use touch screen-like technology to lead armies of spaceships, drones, fighters and thousands of people. It ain't too far removed from iPads, iPhones and any number of other modern tech items. Yeah, it could have a cool charm if it had been made in the 1980s, but how about 2013? It's a pretty ideal time for a story like this with that sort of technology.

A very talented young actor, Butterfield is excellent as young, talented, even troubled Ender Wiggins. The movie depends on him so that he steps up to the plate is a huge positive. The fact that the character has touches of the Christ figure -- the One to save us all, the Savior -- is subtle without beating us over the head with the message too. The young actors are solid across the board, especially Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit) as Petra, a fellow Battle School student who befriends Ender, and Abigail Breslin making the most of a stereotypical part as Ender's worrying sister, Valentine. As for the rest of the students, look for Aramis Knight, Suraj Partha, Moises Arias as a violent rival for Ender, and a handful of other parts that all handle themselves really well. It's encouraging to see this many young actors perform so well, and all in one movie.

The focus is on the child parts, but the adult actors don't disappoint either. Harrison Ford has a good part, playing against type a bit, as Colonel Graff, the commanding officer who's intentions are not perfectly clear. How far is he willing to go to accomplish his goals? What is he willing to sacrifice? Viola Davis provides the perfect counter, a voice of reason and clear-thinking, to Ford's Graff. Ben Kingsley is poorly used as Mazer Rackham, a legendary pilot who provides quite the example for the young students. Nonso Anozie has a fun part as Sergeant Dap, the drill sergeant hovering over the students with an iron fist.

So what's the problem? It's hard to peg. I think there's just too much going on for its own good with a movie that runs just under two hours. The training sequences become repetitive quickly, and then all the sudden we're at the finale! There's the ending and then a quasi-twist that continues the movie for another 10 minutes that limp to the finish. It's not a bad movie by any means. There's a lot of positives, A LOT of them, but I came away mildly disappointed because the start was so strong. I still feel very comfortable recommending it, but I could have recommended it more if that makes any sense.

Ender's Game (2013): ** 1/2 /****

True Grit (2010)

My usual stance on remakes is why bother remaking a good movie? There's hundreds and thousands of bad movies made over the years that would benefit from a do-over.  So with that idea, I was both excited and skeptical when I heard the news that the Coen brothers were remaking the 1969 western True Grit.  It's a solid western best known for John Wayne's performance, one that earned him the only Oscar of his already impressive career.  I love westerns, but this was one -- even with its flaws -- that really didn't need to be remade.  Well, my curiosity got the best of me, and all suspicions aside I did want to see this 2010's True Grit.

Joel and Ethan Coen have shown a knack for making great movies out of the simplest ideas.  With the talent involved and a strong source novel to work off of by Charles Portis, it would be hard for such two talented directors to mess this up.  I read all the reviews and the on-set reports when the movie was being filmed.  The remake would stick closer to the period appropriate dialogue of the novel and not the 1969 version, it would have little of the comedy Coen fans have come to expect, and most of all it would be consistently period authentic.  I was more skeptical because the trailer looked to mimic the movie, not the book.  And what did I take away? It's a completely unnecessary remake of a movie, but an entertaining and well-made (if a little cold) remake.

After her father was murdered by a hired hand, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), 14-year old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) travels to Fort Smith, Arkansas to pick up her father's body.  Of course, she has some other plans. Chaney rode out of town after the murder and disappeared into the Indian Territory, but no law intends to follow him.  Mattie hires a fat, one-eyed drunk of a U.S. Marshal with a hard-earned reputation, Ruben 'Rooster' Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), to bring Chaney to justice so he can hang for what he did.  A Texas Ranger, LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), is also on Chaney's trail and decides to tag along with Cogburn who inteds to leave the strong-willed Mattie behind. Mattie has other ideas, joining them on the trail as they head into the territory after her father's killer.

Starting with the claims that the Coens insisted on period accuracy, well, it's spot on.  The dialogue sounds like conversations someone would have had in the late 1860s and early 1870s in Arkanas and Oklahoma, a tribute to Portis' source novel.  The pitch, sound and even the give and take of the dialogue sound more authentic than just about any other western I've seen.  That's the whole movie, authentic down to the smallest details.  The west was a nasty place where men would spend days and weeks on the trail without a chance at a bath or a soft bed.  That lack of niceties reflects on how they looked as you'll see in the movie.  Everything from the clothes to the hats to the guns and firearms is real.  This is no glamorized look at what the romantic wild west was like.  This was a time where only the tough survived because if you weren't, you'd be dead in minutes.

If you're going to hire an actor to play a role that many consider to be among John Wayne's best, you had better choose someone who is up to the task.  Wisely, Jeff Bridges does not play Rooster Cogburn like Wayne did, putting his own spin on this already well-known character.  Yes, the basics are there, the ratty eye-patch, the constant drinking, the unkempt look.  Bridges still manages to make Rooster endearing through all his flaws and faults with an honesty and a code of honor that's helped him survive several years working as  a U.S. Marshal.  He isn't a particularly heroic man, but he does what's necessary to get the job done, principles be damned.  Bridges is one of my favorite actors, and I'm glad he was given a chance to play a role like this.  Immediately talk of Oscar buzz started around his performance.  I don't know if it's Oscar worthy, but with a part that could have blown up in his face, he made it his own.

One of the biggest flaws of the 1969 True Grit is the casting of the Mattie and LaBoeuf characters, but here the casting of those two integral parts is a strong point of the movie.  Young 14-year old Steinfeld is a scene-stealer as strong-willed, downright stubborn Mattie Ross.  She intends to see her father's killer brought to justice, and nothing is going to stop her.  Every so often, a glimmer of the fact that she's still a kid shines through, including one early campfire scene.  More than that though, what works so well is her ease in scenes with such accomplished actors.  She has a great chemistry with Bridges especially and shares a great scene with Damon late in the movie.  As for Damon as the Texas Ranger, he too puts his own unique spin on the part.  He's got a twang to his voice and provides a suitable counter to Cogburn's drunken antics.  Brolin's part as Tom Chaney amounts to an extended cameo, and also look for the underrated Barry Pepper as Lucky Ned Pepper, the leader of the gang Chaney signs on with.

So what's missing from the movie? I've thought about it, and just can't come up with anything.  I read Portis' novel years ago and don't remember it making much of an impression on me so I can't say if the tone is dead-on.  It's a beautiful movie, starkly filmed in Texas with Carter Burwell's period-appropriate score playing in the background. The story can be a little slow getting where it wants, but even then it's about 20 minutes shorter than the 1969 version.  There isn't much in the way of action, but when it comes around, it's startling and violent although not as graphic as other Coen brothers movies.  Some major things have changed -- including one key character's demise and another surprising twist in an epilogue -- but for the better.  The ending (like much of the movie overall) left me cold even considering it is scary in how appropriate it is for both the characters involved and the story overall.

Now no matter how good the 2010 version is it's impossible not to compare it to the 1969 version which I'm planning on reviewing in a week or so.  My biggest question is the iconic scene where Cogburn charges across a field, reins in his teeth, a six-shooter in either hand at Pepper's gang with the famous line 'Fill your hands, you son of a bitch!' Thankfully Bridges and Co. nail the scene and the following fall-out.  So how do I rate this movie? I liked it but didn't love it.  It's nothing particularly new, but it is a good old-fashioned western story, good guys vs. bad guys.  It is completely unnecessary, but I liked it in the end because of the immense talents involved in making it.

True Grit <---trailer (2010): ***/****