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): ***/****

Michael

There are some things you just don't make fun of, and for many people, that's religion or anything even remotely similar. Me on the other hand, I eat that stuff up. I'm not talking about mocking Jesus or the saints, or ripping something that people hold dear to them. What about just having a little fun with preconceived notions, things you to a point take for granted? That's part of the fun of 1996's Michael.

Working for the National Mirror -- a sensationalist tabloid magazine -- in Chicago, reporter Frank Quinlan (William Hurt) has fallen on some tough times after losing his job with the Chicago Tribune. Now, he finds himself tracking down one ridiculous angle after another, including his latest, a true whopper. A woman in Iowa (Jean Stapleton) claims to be housing an angel named Michael (John Travolta), wings and all. With some company from another down luckless writer, Huey (Robert Pastorelli), and a supposed company stooge, Dorothy (Andie MacDowell), Quinlan heads to Iowa to see if the woman's claim could actually be true. It couldn't, could it?

So what do you think an angel would look like should you stumble across one? I go two ways here. One, a blonde child with pale skin so a cherub basically.  Two, a full-grown man in his 20s or so, an impressive physical specimen who is strong and capable, able to fight for and represent some sort of god. And how about this 1996 movie's portrayal from director Nora Ephron? This angel is a middle-aged, overweight man with long, messy hair and stubble on his face at all times. The script certainly has some fun with that premise, playing on those notions you had coming in of what an angel is. The same goes for what an angel would/should act like. Travolta certainly doesn't go for typical here, and that ends up being the best thing about the movie.

Following his return to mainstream Hollywood with his part in Pulp Fiction, Travolta went through a stretch of some really good movies and some truly bad ones. While 'Michael' on the whole isn't a great movie, it is worth recommending because of Travolta's scene-stealing part in the lead as the archangel Michael.  It is a fun character, and one Travolta clearly has some fun developing and playing against type. Michael has an overpowering charm on women wherever he goes, some magnetic power that goes unexplained. Travolta gets to ham it up a bit, improvise a dance scene in a packed country bar (watch it HERE), and ends up being the heart of the movie. A surprising revelation comes out late about his character's revelations, providing a good twist that provides a very moving ending as well. From start to finish, it's Travolta's movie.

And then there's the rest of the cast in Hurt, MacDowell and Pastorelli. All three are talented actors/actresses, but their characters here held little interest for me other than as foils to Michael's antics. Travolta's part is obviously the showy one, and in comparison the other parts pale. Hurt and MacDowell falling for each other? Aw, that's sweet, but boring. Pastorelli caring for a little dog? Yeah, necessary for the story, but getting there isn't too interesting. Oh, and MacDowell is an aspiring country singer? Can't wait for that story to develop. Bob Hoskins has a small part as the screaming managing editor of the Mirror, yelling at his employees to break more stories, with Joey Lauren Adams and Carla Gugino having small supporting parts. As Michael's first encounter, Stapleton is a bright spot too, making the most of a quick appearance.

Movies about religion, God, angels and faith can be tricky. They can be overbearing and obnoxious in a lot of different directions or they can be too afraid to actually say anything meaningful. 'Michael' isn't trying to deliver any profound message. A story of an angel making a visit to Earth and experiencing all the little things we might take for granted on a daily basis provides some heartfelt, moving and funny moments. It is at its best when its focusing on Travolta's Michael, and for his performance alone, this is a movie worth checking out.

Michael <---Youtube clip/Michael's appearance (1996): ** 1/2 /****

Get Shorty

With his role in Quentin Tarantino's 1994 movie Pulp Fiction, John Travolta burst back onto the Hollywood scene in a big way.  He was in the Look Who's Talking Movies up to that point, but not much else over a 10-plus year time span. But starting in 1994, Travolta seemed to be marketable again, someone audiences wanted to see in theaters.  Over the next several years, he starred in Michael, Phenomenon, Face/Off, and in one of his best parts, 1995's Get Shorty.

Not to sound smarmy or condescending, but from director Barry Sonnenfeld, this is a movie about movies...literally.  All the characters are working toward (and against each other) about a supposedly can't miss script which we discover little about, which then turns into another movie.  It is stylish and fun with a story that does its fair share of twisting and turning as characters turn on each other over and over again. But more than that, it is a self conscious movie -- in a good way. The story quotes other movies, characters appreciate movie history (especially Travolta), and the movie even ends in a film within a film. Don't be confused though, it all works nicely.

A mobster and loan shark based out of Miami, Chili Palmer (Travolta) is feeling the wrath of new boss and possibly nuts mobster Ray 'Bones' Barboni (Dennis Farina). Palmer heads west after an unpaid debt, finding out that someone who owes him money defrauded the insurance company out of $300,000 and is now in Los Angeles after a successful trip to Las Vegas.  Chili quickly and easily finds the man, but in the process meets B-movie director/producer extraordinaire Harry Zimm (Gene Hackman) with who he quickly hits it off through their appreciation of movies. Harry has a can't miss script on his desk and enlists Chili to help him get it made with all his "talents." Not so easy though, even with Chili's ability to get things done because another loan shark, Bo Catlett (Delroy Lindo), wants in on the movie and isn't worried about ruffling some feathers.

With how wrapped up celebrities and the movie business can get with themselves, it is always nice to see those celebrities poke fun in their own direction. Sonnenfeld's movie paints a big target and rips anyone and everyone involved with the movie business, but it never comes across as mean-spirited or cruel humor, just an honest look at a shady business.  We meet primadonna actors, has-been and never will-be stars, past their prime directors, and loan sharks with an eye for a quick and easy payday.  More than anything though, it is a fun dig at all these people and professions.  If you're going to do that, you'd better have a lot of talent on-board, and Sonnenfeld assembles quite a cast to do so.

I have always liked John Travolta as an actor. The man can act, but when he is at his best, I like to think it is because of his presence, his ability to ham it up at times as his character requires.  His Chili Palmer is a strong mix of both so we get a chance to see Travolta act but also have a lot of fun with a part that allows him to explore some.  He is supremely confident in his abilities but never cocky or arrogant.  He knows he will get a job done.  Most importantly though in his line of work, he is one persuasive S.O.B. but never in an intimidating way. He just has a knack for convincing you that what he needs is what you need to do. The change Chili makes is great too, trying to sell his story of what he's doing at the moment (chasing down a debt) as a feature film. Loan shark and mobster maybe, but he's a movie fan above all else, quoting everything from John Wayne to Bette Davis. Good to see you back, Mr. Travolta.

With Travolta's Chili Palmer, you have a character capable of carrying a movie, and at times, he does, dominating his scenes with ease.  Of course that's not all the movie got. Hackman is perfectly cast as Harry Zimm, a veteran aging director looking for one more hit. I'd like to think this is a spin on Roger Corman, but I could be off-base.  Rene Russo plays Karen Flores, a B-movie scream queen who never quite reached stardom but is still a recognizable face in the movie. Danny DeVito is hilarious and beyond perfect as Martin Weir, an actor's actor, a method actor who wants to BECOME the role he's playing. His scenes with Travolta are priceless as Martin tries to become a loan shark. Farina and Lindo get to milk their bad guy roles, hamming it up as the relatively bad guys with James Gandolfini playing Bear, Lindo's henchman and a former stunt man himself. It would be easy for a cast like this to fight it out for screen-time, but this group has an ease working together that never throws the movie off. Watch out late for a quick but perfect cameo from Harvey Keitel in the finale too.

I'm looking for more to say but coming up with nothing. There is nothing really new or groundbreaking about Sonnenfeld's well-made, stylish comedy. But every weekend when you see really stupid comedies and lazy remakes hitting theaters or being released on DVD, it is nice to see a movie like this. There is an abundance of talent involved, and they're having as much fun making the movie as we are watching it (hopefully at least, I enjoyed it). It is smart and funny right from the start. Now as for the sequel that came 10 years later, 2005's Be Cool? I'll let you know about that one.

Get Shorty <---trailer (1995): ***/****

The Thin Red Line

With just five movies to his names over a 39-year span, director Terrence Malick's movies have been few and far between to say the least. He doesn't take just any movie. He takes on projects that appeal to him. Malick is a director that was probably born a generation too late because he would have fit perfectly with the French auteurs of the 1950s and 1960s.  Not making a movie for 20 years after 1978's Days of Heaven, Malick returned in 1998 with a heavily anticipated WWII film based off a James Jones novel, The Thin Red Line.

The timing of the release no matter how anticipated this movie was could not have been much worse.  'Red Line' was released in early 1999 after a limited release in December '98, just five months removed from Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan was shown in theaters.  It's not fair to compare the two movies, but the damage was done. Malick's film is the complete opposite of Private Ryan, and in the years since has been lost in the shadow of the Spielberg film.  I revisited The Thin Red Line, remembering enjoying it through several viewings. Instead this time around, I found a deeply flawed, even boring movie that I struggled to get through.

To write a plot synopsis of a Malick movie would be a waste of words so I'm not going to bother. He doesn't have stories in the linear sense. The Jones novel and this film are based on the fighting at Guadalcanal in 1942, but for Malick's purposes and his screenplay the setting is unnecessary. It could as easily have been Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Okinawa or any number of other Pacific islands that saw fighting in WWII. This isn't a story about the scope of war or the immensity of it all.  This is soldiers at their most basic, the thoughts racing through their heads as they take part in the unnatural act of killing another human being. Malick's screenplay does its best to delve into that aspect of war but ends up assembling an uneven, odd finished product that I can only qualify as an 'art house World War II movie.'

A trademark of Malick's in all his films is narration filling in for actual dialogue which is so often nuts and bolts conversation in his screenplays. When used correctly, narration can carry a movie, bringing emotion and power to a story that simple dialogue just couldn't do. Among the cast at different points just about everyone gets a crack at their own narration, but most prominently used are Jim Caviezel, Ben Chaplin, and John Dee Smith who appears only at the beginning and the end but narrates throughout. First, all three of these narrators are Southerners with a heavy drawl, making it nearly impossible to distinguish which one of them is which in their narration.

More than some tough accents to get used to though is the fact that these narrations are so poetic, so lyrical, so ethereal and from another world that very little of it registers.  I've seen the movie several times, but only an exchange or two sticks with me.  Chaplin's Pvt. Bell constantly thinks of his wife, the love and desire he feels for her.  It is so mind-numbingly tedious that I completely lost interest anytime he started talking, his thoughts drifting back to the time he spent with her (played in flashback by Miranda Otto). All of the soldiers -- who end up being dirt-covered, nameless individuals -- wonder about life, love, death, God, pain, suffering, righteousness, faith, and so much more. It is well written, but it is so unnatural that it sounds like a poetry jam. The eerily calm toning and pacing will no doubt put some viewers to sleep. Malick is in absolutely no rush to speed things up to get where he wants.

That's the problem I've had with this movie though since I first saw it. What is Malick trying to accomplish? What's he trying to say? Anti-war message for sure, but in what way?  We see the horrendous physical and psychological efforts war and combat can take on the individual. We see the inner turmoil tearing soldiers apart as they battle with their inner demons. But the tone of the movie is so odd I don't quite know what the intention was. 

The background of this film is interesting in itself, worthy of its own review. When Malick came out of the woodwork to make a movie, actors -- big, big name stars -- lined up to fill out the cast for this WWII story. Rumors persist of some epic five or six hour movie. Malick had to make cuts to his final movie, completely editing out parts for Bill Pullman, Gary Oldman, Viggo Mortensen, and Mickey Rourke among others. As is, the finished product is 170 minutes long and still features an interesting cast full of recognizable names. Along with those mentioned earlier, there's Nick Nolte, Sean Penn, John Cusack, Elias Koteas, Woody Harrelson, Adrien Brody and Thomas Jane. That's some of the cast. Check out the IMDB page for a complete listing. Even George Clooney and John Travolta make brief, pointless cameos.

With so many speaking parts, only a few get a chance to leave an impression -- positive or negative. Caviezel is the best as Pvt. Witt, a man who just doesn't belong in the army. His Heaven is the little Pacific village he deserts to, but he's torn away and brought back to the fighting as he's reunited with his company. He joins the fighting but doesn't quite know why. Sean Penn is great as Sgt. Welsh, the veteran sergeant who serves as the sounding board for all his men. His scenes with Caviezel's Pvt. Witt provide some of the movie's most memorable and more importantly, most moving movements as they question what they're accomplishing. Koteas too is a scene-stealer among the faceless soldiers as Capt. Staros, Charlie Company commander who refuses to waste his men in a frontal assault that has little hope of succeeding and feels the wrath from above.

That's probably the most frustrating part of this movie for me. There are moments of perfection that you just sit back and revel in, let them wash over you. Malick's directorial eye is never in question, his movies beyond gorgeous. Some directors work best with scripts and actors. Malick is a visual director, here Australia filling in for Guadalcanal. This is a story of nature and its beauty torn apart by the fighting. Malick is quite content to show a hillside with its long, green grass blowing in the wind.  Add in the musical score from Hans Zimmer, and you've got a winner. His main theme with the Melanesian choirs send chills down my back every time I hear it. Listen HERE. The rest of the score is more subdued than Zimmer's more well-known scores, but it soothes, it meditates, playing almost constantly in hushed tones over the action in some cases and the narration in others (Try HERE). There is something soothing about this movie in its execution and its message. It just can't keep up the momentum throughout.

Certain moments of this movie have stuck with me over the years. Almost an hour is spent in excruciating detail as C Company tries to take a Japanese bunker on a grassy hillside. Later, a running firefight takes the company through a ravaged Japanese camp, Zimmer's score combining with the action to make it one of the great realistic battle sequences ever, the aftermath as moving as the actual fighting. Witt's conversations with Welsh have always stuck with me, and Witt's final scenes as C Company goes on a patrol bring the movie full-circle in an inevitable way that you know is coming.

Is the movie pretentious and even tedious at times? Oh hell yes. There were times I wanted to fast forward through vast stretches of narration and shots of nature. The narration is done to death by the end of the movie, little lines of dialogue straight from a poet that I didn't even always comprehend what I'm hearing. But with all that said, I just can't give this movie a negative rating. The moments that work are so good they overpower and overshadow the weaker moments.  You have to know what you're getting into when you watch this movie, and even then, there's no guarantee you will like it. It is a movie experience though, and one every movie fan should at least try.

The Thin Red Line <---trailer (1998): ***/**** 

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 /****   

From Paris With Love

Directing 2008's Taken, French director Pierre Morel basically made the most perfect action movie around.  No sense of humor, no tongue in cheek action, just all-around badass Liam Neeson taking people out left and right in some cool, exotic European locations.  Well, if you look at Taken and add in all those elements that typically ruin or at least bring a movie down a notch, you've got Morel's follow-up movie in 2009's From Paris With Love.

This is an action movie that got mixed reviews, both positive and negative saying the same thing.  This is a stupid action movie that requires no real work watching it and is instantly forgettable the second it's over.  I guess it depends from critic to critic what mood they were in when reviewing the movie.  It's a flick that doesn't seem to know what to do with itself, making nods left and right to other similar but better movies of the same ilk.  I'm okay with some winks at the audience, but this felt like one big wink the whole time.  Buddy cop, no real plot, lots of action, you've seen it all before and probably in a better movie.

As a low-level intelligence agent working for the U.S. Embassy in Paris, James Reese (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) is bored out of his mind, just waiting for his chance to become a field agent. After months and years of tedious paperwork and menial tasks, Reese gets his chance when he's ordered to pick up a highly efficient, highly touted field agent, Charlie Wax (John Travolta), and basically serve as his chauffeur through Paris. Get the job done and he'll get his promotion.  Reese doesn't know what he's in for though as Wax's mission ranges from cocaine and drug dealers to pimps and terrorists planning an attack on a U.S./Africa delegation meeting in Paris.

Written by Luc Besson, I was expecting a little bit more out of this story, if you can call it that. After Reese is introduced at work and home, we're basically treated to a series of running gun battles as Reese desperately tries to keep up with Wax, an agent who actually knows what he's doing.  They spend a day, maybe a day and a half, running through Paris shooting bad guys in every direction as the story jumps from a hit mission to a narco takeout to a terrorist cell.  The writing is more of an excuse for this Odd Couple pairing of agents to drive around Paris yelling at each other.  The bright spot is the last 30 minutes which does deliver a twist I didn't see coming.

Surprisingly after seeing Taken's action, the gun battles and hand-to-hand combat set pieces are incredibly dull as they pull out just about every cliche in the Action Movies 101 textbook.  Lots of bullet impacts tearing props apart, bad guys unable to hit the good guys despite firing thousands of rounds of ammo, slow-motion used to death, and a blaring in your face soundtrack.  These scenes sample everybody from John Woo to Sam Peckinpah and everyone in between, but not in a good way as they produce a tedious pace.  The action comes together in the end as Travolta's Charlie hangs out the window of a car on a freeway outside Paris, trying to pick off a terrorist's car with a big honking rocket launcher.  Now, that's an action scene.

Not so surprisingly is that Travolta is the main reason to waste 93 minutes and watch this flick.  I've always liked Travolta in over the top mode (like the Pelham 123 remake) where he gets to scream, swear and shoot things up.  With a shaved head, goatee and a unique sense of style, his Charlie Wax certainly doesn't blend in as a secret agent, but Travolta looks to be having a ton of fun with the part in all its outrageous glory.  The same can't be said for Rhys Meyers who just doesn't seem like much of an actor to me.  He's pretty monotone throughout, and his character is downright dull at times.  Thankfully, Travolta carries the movie and manages to infuse some energy into this otherwise awkward buddy cop relationship.

Other than that, I don't know what else to say about this one.  It's just there as opposed to leaving any sort of mark or impression on the audience.  It's an unpretentious action film if nothing else, content to stay in a comfort zone instead of trying something new, but even in that respect it fails.  Travolta as ultra-crazy, loony secret agent Charlie Wax is pretty much the only reason to check this out.  Instead, save yourself the time and go rent Taken instead.

From Paris With Love <----trailer (2009): * 1/2 /**** 

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

Asking movie fans about remakes can be a touchy subject. I tend to agree most of the time that remakes aren't necessary depending on the movie and studios should just come up with new, creative ideas instead of going back to the well repeatedly. On the other hand, I don't get it when fans are against ANY remake. If you don't want to see it, don't. I've rarely gone into a remake thinking, "Hey, I bet this is better than the original." I'm usually looking for an entertaining story with some alterations to the story, casting, whatever. I got that with the new The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.

The original Pelham One Two Three is a cult classic in its own right with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw as the two leads with one big claim to fame, providing inspiration for Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs. So the remake, with bigger names headlining, still had some pretty big shoes to fill. Is it as good as the original? I'll have to think about that, but gut reaction, close but not as good.

The story is the same with a few slight changes. On a New York subway train, Pelham 123, four men led by Ryder (John Travolta) hijack a single car with its 18 passengers. Getting in contact with the Metro Transit Authority headquarters, they make their demands. They want $10 million in one hour or else they will start shooting a passenger for every minute they're late. At the other end of the radio at MTA HQ is Walter Garber (Denzel Washington), a former supervisor demoted to a desk job while under investigation for supposedly taking a bribe. What follows is a cat and mouse game as Ryder and Garber talk back and forth while NY desperately tries to put together the $10 million ransom.

The heist-like premise is a good one that quickly brings up interesting questions. They've hijacked a train, but how will they escape once they get the money? They're underground after all. It's a tense movie as Ryder, either the sanest villain ever or the craziest, I just can't decide, plays mind games with Garber and hostage negotiator Camonetti (John Turturro, good as always). A SWAT team waits at either end of the single car waiting for the order to take down the hijackers while inside the quartet are one push away from blowing away the hostages.

Enough has been changed that director Tony Scott left his mark on the movie to set it apart from the original. There's an element of technology added to the heist as Ryder has a wireless connection to Google his counterpart on the other end of the radio, and the aspect of the stock market comes up. The heist isn't as straightforward as the original with bigger plans at work, but with a reveal of Ryder's identity late in the movie the additions work. Scott's movies are often more known for their style and flash than story, and that's true here to a point, lots of slow motion blurry shots, quick cuts that can be hard to keep up with, but the director doesn't go too far with it.

There's a natural tension in the story that would be hard to mess up from the director's chair. An hour is not a long time, especially when talking about getting $10 million from a bank and then driving it through NY traffic with the time remaining. The mayor (James Gandolfini in a great part) does question at some point, "Why didn't we just use a helicopter?" Because Mr. Mayor, then we couldn't have the cool race through Manhattan as a squad car with motorcycle escort weaves through traffic.

Working with Scott for the fourth time, Washington is the heart of the movie. His Garber character is an everyman, John Smith trying to care for his family, go to work and pay his mortgage and his kids' tuition. It's the type of part that Washington could do with his eyes closed, and he doesn't disappoint. Most of the running time, all Garber can do is talk, desperately trying to stop Ryder or at least slow him down. There's a twist that works to a fault and does come as a surprise because well....he's Denzel Washington. Hamming it up as the villain, Travolta goes too far at times, but for the character his theatrics are appropriate. He's the bad guy you love to hate but can laugh at too with how off the wall some of his comments can be.

'Pelham' is Washington's and Travolta's movie. The rest of the cast makes the most of smaller parts, especially Turturro and Gandolfini, but other than those two parts no one stands out. One of my favorite character actors Luis Guzman is criminally underused in his part as Ramos, one of the four hijackers. The other two hijackers, Victor Gojcaj and Robert Vataj, are intimidating, but I don't even recall hearing their names. The two are characters with automatic weapons, and that's it, but I guess that is what the script called for. Michael Rispoli and Ramon Rodriguez are good in smaller roles as two members of MTA headquarters.

I didn't love the remake like I wanted to, but I did enjoy it. I can chalk up a lot of that to the trailer which really convinced me to see it. The ending is forced a little too much for me, but the build-up makes up for that. So overall, it lived up to my expectations of a remake. Good but not great, and worth a watch. I do recommend seeing the original, if for nothing else than to compare the two. Go see the Pelham remake, if for nothing else than Washington in a great part going toe to toe with villainous Travolta.