Machine Gun Preacher

The movie title certainly jumped off the page when I stumbled upon it, 2011's Machine Gun Preacher. It sounded like a schlocky action, drive-in movie from the 1970s that Quentin Tarantino would have loved. But no, it's actually a true story based on the life of Sam Childers, a drug-dealing biker turned obsessed missionary. The end result is a mixed bag, but there are certainly positives to take away.

Fresh out of jail, Sam Childers (Gerard Butler) returns to the exact things that put him in jail -- drugs, robbery, assault -- and quickly sees the error in his ways when he almost kills a man. Seeking help, some sort of redemption for all the bad he's done, Sam joins a church with his wife, Lynn (Michelle Monaghan), and tries to turn over a new leaf. He starts over, building a construction company from the ground up, starting a church for individuals like himself, but most importantly, he hears about the atrocities being committed in the Sudan and Uganda. Sam wants to do something to help the children living daily on the brink of death, but walking into a revolution, nothing will be simple.

This is an interesting mix of a movie, for good and bad reasons. Based on Childers' life, it has an authentic feel to it, and Butler does a fine job with the part (more on that later). But at the same time, it can't quite figure out what to say or do. At 127 minutes, it's both too short and too long. Focus on Sam's home life with his wife and daughter (Madeline Carroll) is necessary to show Sam's inner struggles and demons, but those scenes vary from dull to repetitive. Where the movie is at its strongest is when Sam travels to Sudan on multiple occasions to build an orphanage for children left on their own because of the revolution. It's just too bad more focus couldn't have been put there.

When the focus is on the fighting between the LRA and the freedom fighters, 'Preacher' is moving along at its best. There are moments of emotional perfection and sheer horror as Sam sees the atrocities being committed. In a startling opening sequence, we see a LRA attack on a peaceful village, a boy, William (Junior Magale), forced to kill his mother because the LRA demands a death. As Sam sees these horrors, he comes completely undone when he sees a boy killed by a land mine. Later ventures have him making choices that will end in someone's death, a decision that obviously weights heavy on his head. Butler's scenes later with Magale's William are about as perfect as you can. When the movie works, it really works.    

Also a producer on the film, this was clearly an important role to Gerard Butler, and he does a great job portraying Sam Childers. At times since the success of 300, Butler seems to have trouble picking the right roles, but this is an ideally suited one for him. Early on, Sam is a despicable person -- and an easy one to hate -- but he needs that low point to help turn things around. Butler is a live wire here, emotionally charged, driven and frustrated that he can't do more. All he wants is for others to see the brutal atrocities being committed and want to help, but even that's too much sometimes. Saving the orphaned children becomes an obsession with him to the point he blocks out his family and friends. A very good performance from Butler. Monaghan is good as Lynn, Michael Shannon is underused as Sam's similarly troubled friend, Donnie, with Souleymane Sy Savane a scene-stealer as Deng, a freedom fighter who comes to be Sam's friend and partner in fighting.

Because I felt a little misled, I'm going to point this out. Hearing the title 'Machine Gun Preacher,' I was expecting a slightly different movie. This is not an action blockbuster. While the action scenes are exciting and well-made, brutally efficient in their quickness, this is a personal story about Sam and what causes the violence. A lot of time -- too much for me -- is spent on the religious aspect, Sam's missionary work at home, and at times heavy-handed messages about God and religion. It never goes too far (but it gets close at times) so be forewarned going in. A good movie that could have been better, but one that's still worth a watch.

Machine Gun Preacher <---trailer (2011): ** 1/2 /****

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

It's already been 15 years since the first Mission: Impossible movie was released in theaters in 1996, and boy, how the time flies. The highly successful franchise spawned sequels in 2000, 2006 and the newest entry in the series, 2011's Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. Espionage and action galore. Fans will not be disappointed.

Busted out of a Moscow prison, IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is quickly assigned another mission. With a short window of time, Ethan must break into the Kremlin and get out with an important file that could trigger a nuclear war between Russia and the United States. The mission goes under on a double cross, the Kremlin blown up in the process, and now Ethan and his team are being blamed. Who's responsible? A brilliant Russian scientist/analyst, Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), who intends to "balance" the world by unleashing a nuclear missile in the United States. As he searches for the device and the launch codes, a disavowed Ethan and his team are the only thing in the way of stopping global nuclear war.

First off, I'm a sucker for spy movies of any sorts. When they are quality spy movies? Like shooting fish in a barrel, and I'm the fish. I love where the series has gone, keeping things fresh. The first was a twisting smart thriller, the second an action extravaganza, the third more of an old-fashioned popcorn movie, and the fourth a mix of them all. 'Ghost Protocol' is the combination of all of those things, blending a twisting, turning story with crazy action and ridiculous amounts of entertainment. It's got the smart qualities that have been present in all the M:I movies, the style, charm and gadgets of the Bond movies, and the stylized action of the Bourne movies. All the while, it keeps things entertaining and maintaining its own unique flavor and style.

Through the ups and downs of his career, I've long been a fan of Tom Cruise (even when he was jumping up and down on Oprah's couch). He is an actor, but he's also a movie star, and those are few and far between nowadays. He's aged obviously since 1996, but he's still Tom Cruise. Ethan has a revenge motive here, giving this very capable secret agent an even darker edge. He's looking for vengeance while also clearing his name. More detail on this later, but he also does most if not all of the crazy, ridiculous, off-the-wall stunts. And don't be confused. They are crazy, ridiculous and off the wall. His IMF team includes Brandt (Jeremy Renner), a supposed analyst, Benjy (Simon Pegg), the tech expert, and Carter (ass-kicking and sexy Paula Patton), an agent new to the scene who's also got revenge on her mind. Also look for Lost alum Josh Holloway in a small but cool part and the always reliable Tom Wilkinson as the U.S. secretary of state in a one-scene cameo. Even franchise alums Ving Rhames and Michelle Monaghan appear, albeit very briefly.

A whole review could very easily be devoted to just M:I4's action sequences, and there are a lot. Big, flashy action movies have been watered down by CGI and in general, a quality of 'been there, done that' and most specifically 'seen that.' Director Brad Bird and his script take your typical action sequence, and amp up the ante. We've all seen countless car chases so what do you do? You have a car chase in a Dubai sand storm. Heist-like situation? How about having it in the world's tallest building where you have to scale it from the outside? All I'm typically looking for in an action movie is to try and do something different, throw something at us as an audience we haven't seen. If it flops, so be it. You tried. When it works though? You've got a real winner on your hands.

Where to start with Ghost Protocol's action? The movie opens with the Moscow prison break continues to the Kremlin infiltration, jumps to a chase through Moscow in the dead of night and then goes globe-hopping to Dubai and Mumbai. It's not of the hyper-kinetic Bourne variety either. You can see all of it....which is kinda nice. The action is the type where 18 different things are going on, all dependent on the other happening at the precise, necessary time, especially the ending involving a Mumbai parking garage with rising and falling platforms. As with any movies, you need one character laying things out, explaining the ludicrous nature of what's being attempted, Renner's Brandt handling it nicely.

The high point though -- and it isn't even close -- is the middle portion of the movie, the mission taking the team to Dubai and the Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest building, to pull off a switch with international assassin Moreau (Lea Seydoux) and Hendricks' man, Wistrom (Samuli Edelmann), and a briefcase full of nuclear launch codes. Ethan has to scale part of the massive building 130 stories up, just a pair of high tech "glue" gloves holding him up. Credit to Cruise for doing most of his own stunts hundreds of feet up, but in general to Bird for providing one of the adrenaline-pumping sequences I can remember. Total it runs about 20, maybe 25 minutes, including the fallout when things don't go quite as planned, culminating in the sand storm car chase. The movie's action is a step above on the whole, but this extended sequence will certainly be a major factor in this spy flick being remembered down the road.

My first reaction was to give this 4 stars, but I can't quite go there....yet.  Maybe down the road I will. All the movies can be judged/criticized/loved/hated on their own so it's hard to compare them. Initial thoughts, it ranks with the original 1996 movie as the best of the series. This is what movies should be like. Fun, damn entertaining and just an enjoyable experience. Throw in Michael Giacchino's score -- using the retro theme from the TV show, listen HERE, and a great title sequence -- and everything here is firing on all cylinders. Cruise leads a great cast, and original action like you haven't seen before. GO see this movie....NOW.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol <---trailer (2011): *** 1/2 /****

Source Code

The beauty of science fiction movies is that anything can happen. Can a real, red-blooded person do what is being portrayed in real life? No, of course not, but that is what a movie or a book or a graphic novel can do. They allow you to believe, to experience, to question, to ask, to wonder, and that's part of the reason what works so well in science fiction and across countless other genres.  That's what I thought about quite a bit as I watched 2011's Source Code.

Part science fiction, part mystery/thriller, 'Code' was a moderate success in theaters this past spring, earning over $50 million. Reviews were somewhat mixed, one claiming it was a poor man's Vantage Point because of a plot gimmick the story uses where we see the same (or at least a similar thing) on repeated viewings.  Just one more review that made me mad. It's not fair to compare movies at times, especially on something as minor as a plot device that has little to do with two completely different movies. Maybe you missed 'Code' in theaters, but don't miss it this time around. It is an above average, sometimes great science fiction thriller.

Army captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) doesn't know where he is or who he really is. He keeps waking up in the body of a complete stranger on a train outside of Chicago heading to Union Station. Across from him is Christine (Michelle Monaghan), a woman who apparently knows who he is. As Stevens tries to figure out what's going on, the train explodes as a bomb rips it to pieces, killing everyone on-board. He wakes up in some sort of hydraulic chamber, greeted on a television screen by an army officer, Goodwin (Vera Farmiga), and a scientist, Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright), who in cryptic snippets of conversation explain what they expect from him. A terrorist -- domestic or foreign -- bombed the train and indications are another attack is imminent. Through a controversial but innovative technology, Stevens can be transported into the body of one of the passengers just eight minutes before his death. He now is given the unwelcome challenge of finding out if the bomber was on-board, gathering any clues he can before he is "killed" over and over again. Can he do his mission in time though?

I'm not proud of that plot synopsis, but I think that's about the best I'm going to be able to do.  Attempting to explain too much will ruin your first viewing because the fun -- or the gimmick depending your level of cynicism -- is going along for the ride. How do all the pieces fit together? Is there something more sinister going on that we're not aware of at first?  All the questions are answered though, and unless I missed something major, I felt like the pieces fit together perfectly.  The science actually makes sense -- to my naive analytical, not so science oriented mind at least -- and doesn't try too hard to WOW! you with a new concept. Director Duncan Jones lays out the premise, explains it, and either you go along for it or you don't. I went along with it, falling for it hook, line and sinker. 

What took the movie to another level for me was the last half hour.  There was a moment where I got a little worried, sure the story was going down a road it just didn't need to go down.  I was wrong in my worries.  Some criticisms of the movie were about the ending, viewers and critics upset that the story went for a so-called happy ending.  I really couldn't disagree more. This is not a happy ending by any means if you actually think things through as to what the 'source code' really is.  Instead, we get an ending that is emotionally effective, delivering a message about the simplicity of life, enjoying the little things in a big world where it can feel like one person can't make a bit of difference.  Sappy? Maybe a little bit, but with ideas of fate, predetermination and destiny thrown around, the ending worked for me.

Now for the gimmick, and again, I don't want to ruin the movie for you by trying to explain the science. Here's a cliff notes version. When a person dies, the brain stores the short term memory going back about eight minutes. Imagine a light bulb being switched off, and that light that remains for the quickest of seconds. That is the source code, an alternate reality that exists in some other plane.  That is where Gyllenhaal's Colter Stevens continually finds himself in, always being killed once his eight minutes are up. From the director's chair, Jones never overplays the angle of repeating the same thing over and over, Ben Ripley's screenplay to smart to make that choice. The script has some fun with the repeating 8-minutes, making it enjoyable and never tedious for us. A truly unique premise, and one that delivers. If it fails, the movie sinks quickly.

One of the rising stars in Hollywood, Gyllenhaal is a great choice as the lead here. An actor who can also do thrillers and action, the 31-year old actor is convincing and believable in his part at all times. He handles the action and high-intensity scenes as easily as the softer moments, giving this character a heart as we find out his background (a surprisingly moving, effective sub-plot). Monaghan is good too in a part that through no fault of her own just doesn't have much for her to do.  She looks good though so there's always that. Farmiga and Wright are the opposite sides of the spectrum, those two people with all the answers, but will they be used for good or bad?  Four all-around really solid performances.

Quick addition as I realize the review is getting a little long in the tooth, the on-location shooting in my hometown, Chicago, is a great choice for this science fiction thriller.  The ending especially utilizes the beauty of the city on a crisp, clear fall day.  That's all.  Just wanted to put that out there. Chicago is awesome.

Source Code <---trailer (2011): *** 1/2 /****

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Right up there with westerns, WWII, historical epics, and spaghetti westerns, I've reviewed my fair share of film noir movies over the last several years. At their height of the genre's popularity in the 1940s and 1950s, they were a breath of fresh air, dark (in terms of story and literally shot in dark alleys and smokey bars) and cynical, throwing audiences for a loop. They never really went away, they're just not around as much or as readily available now. Some recent entries are more quasi-noirs. Is that a word? Well, it is now. Like 2005's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

One of the best and worst things a movie can have going for it (or working against it) is a deep, extensive knowledge of the movies that came before it, the predecessors who paved the way. The good? You pay homage while putting your own spin on those things. The bad? You get so wrapped up in paying homage and showing how smart your movie is it never ends up being a good movie. 'Kiss Bang' is of the good variety. It's a modern film noir with a darkly comedic vibe to it that features one of the best-written scripts I can remember from the last 10 years. Story is great (and funny to boot), the cast is perfect, and it never takes itself too seriously. That's a perfect 3-for-3 in my book. Bear with me though, this plot description could be a doozy.

A small-time crook in New York, Harry Lockhart (Robert Downey Jr.) stumbles into an acting gig through an odd set of circumstances and ends up in Los Angeles just a day after being shot in the arm in a botched robbery. In line to get an acting job as a private detective, Harry is set up with a real P.I. and consultant for Hollywood studios, Perry (Val Kilmer), to get to know the business. Riding with Perry on a job, Harry is witness to a murder as they find a dead girl in the trunk of a car driven into a lake. So as not to get pegged as the killers, Perry and Harry bail only to have the body show up in Harry's hotel room the next day. At the same time, Harry's long-time crush, Harmony (Michelle Monaghan), is back in the picture asking him for help when her younger sister shows up in Los Angeles, dead of an apparent suicide. He agrees to help her out, and wonders, is there any way the two seemingly unrelated crimes are connected in some way?

I should qualify that description in two ways. One, it is nowhere near as serious and darkly-toned as I made it out to be.  Two, that's a very basic, general description. Director/writer Shane Black is at the helms of one of the smartest, funniest movies I've seen in quite awhile. Naturally because this movie wasn't ridiculously popular in theaters, Black has since written one thing -- a short film -- and directed exactly zero projects. Meanwhile, hundreds of sequels, reboots and remakes (yeah, a long-awaited Footloose remake!) are hitting theaters every single week. As smart and funny as this movie is though, it's never an aggressive, 'hey, look at how funny we're being!' type of humor.  It reminded me in a lot of ways of the Coen Brothers' Burn After Reading, a movie that is funny in both smart and stupid humor.

The two leads -- Downey Jr. and Kilmer -- play variations on characters that were ingrained into the noir genre.  Downey's Harry is the small-time crook brought into something much bigger than he is. Where it differs is that he goes along with all the craziness, getting himself fully involved in it all.  Kilmer's Perry -- Gay Perry is his nickname because he's...well, because he's gay -- is the experienced professional, knowing the ins and outs of the business.  They're the characters you know and are well aware of ratcheted up a notch or two.  They keep the movie grounded as all the craziness unfolds all around them, and don't be confused. The story bounces off the walls at all times.  Throw in the lovely and very talented Ms. Monaghan to complete the triangle of lead characters, and you've got a winner.

Throwing all that talent together is one thing, but will they work well together?  A resounding 'yes' is the answer here.  Harry is the high-wire, fast-talking crook, and the movie's narrator (one of the funniest, most honest and blunt narrations you'll ever see/hear). Perry is easily agitated by Harry's antics but never shows it. Kilmer delivers his lines so deadpan it takes a second for them to land. When they do, they produce big laughs. Even taken out of context with no knowledge of the movie, the quotes are funny. Give them a read HERE. Add in Monaghan's Harmony (an aspiring actress) and her genuine frustration with Harry and worry about her sister, and you've got this oddly perfect setting and casting. Also look for Corbin Bernsen as a Hollywood big-wig, Larry Miller as Harry's agent, Dash Mihok and Rockmond Dunbar as two thugs tailing Harry, and Shannyn Sossamon as a mysterious girl involved with all of the above.

I don't know how to classify this movie though as I try to wrap things up. The IMDB page has 'action, comedy, and crime' listed, and all three are legitimate descriptions.  A modern film noir doesn't even do it justice, it just happened to be the thing that came to mind.  It is all those things, and it's much more.  Imagine a typical film noir with some action, throw in a touch of romance and even romantic comedy -- gasp! -- with plenty of genuinely funny laughs (smart humor and physical humor), and you've got this movie. It probably should be an awful movie because all those things together just shouldn't gel at all.  But it does, and we get to watch it all come together in one of the most underrated movies of the last 20 years.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang <---trailer (2005): ****/****

Due Date

If there was ever a mantra to live by in Hollywood, it's to strike when the iron is hot because you just don't know how long that iron is going to stay hot. The director of comedies Old School (a near classic) and more average flicks like Road Trip, School for Scoundrels and Starsky and Hutch, Todd Phillips hit the jackpot two years ago with the surprise success of 2009's The Hangover. One of the hotter directors around, Phillips followed up his hit with 2010's Due Date, a comedy for adults in a similar vein to his previous flicks.

Where Phillips is one of hotter comedic directors around, comedian turned star Zach Galifianakis is one of the most popular comedic actors around, thanks in great part to his hilarious role in Phillips' The Hangover. The director-actor combo teams up here again, and the results are equally as entertaining.  Galifianakis has been around in the spotlight since the late 1990s, starring in movies and TV shows while also making a name for himself as a comedian.  Given his chance to shine, he hit it out of the park in Hangover, and continues that trend with Due Date.

Traveling on business, architect Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) is trying to get from Atlanta to Los Angeles so he can be there for the birth of his firstborn child with wife, Sarah (Michelle Monaghan). Her C-section is scheduled for several days away so Peter has plenty of time...at first. Thanks to an incident on the plane with fellow passenger, Ethan Tremblay (Galifianakis), Peter is taken off the flight and placed on a no-fly list.  So now what would have taken a few hours is going to take him a few days to get home. Making his situation even worse, he's lost his wallet with any sort of ID, money, or credit card. His one option to get home? Drive with Ethan who was able to rent a car for his trip to L.A. where he intends to make it big as an actor. Desperate to get home on time, Peter decides to go along, having no idea what awaits him on the open road with Ethan.

Sound familiar? It should. It's called Planes, Trains and Automobiles from 1987 starring Steve Martin and John Candy. Due Date isn't a remake of any sort, instead just using a similar storyline. It certainly has more in your face humor than P, T and A, and things have been changed enough to make the movie interesting thankfully.  The humor is easy, put two complete opposites together in a situation completely out of their control and sit back, let the hi-jinx and shenanigans commence.  It's traveling across the country. Has a cross country trip ever gone smoothly in the history of time? It's almost fated not to end well.  This is a genuinely funny flick though, partially because everyone can appreciate the hell that is traveling long distances.

What surprised me some was the mean-spirited nature of Due Date, much of that coming from Downey Jr. as Peter, a high strung father to be.  A character in a movie does not have to be easy to like, that's a given, but for lack of a better description, Peter is an asshole.  He seems to revel in it too.  He realizes he has anger management issues and has agreed to work on the problem for his wife, but let's say that Ethan brings out the worst in him.  The humor of course comes from this jackass of a man who is not likable in the least. You come to like him -- to a point -- but watching him lose his mind one interaction at a time is great. Downer Jr. is a great comedic actor, and he doesn't disappoint, going through ups and downs, lefts and rights around every corner on this trip from hell.

As good as he is though, this is Galifianakis' movie.  He gets all the great lines and ends up delivering some easily quotable one-liners for the audience. His Ethan is a spin on The Hangover's Alan, a little less crazy but with all the eccentricities and oddities still present.  He manages to make this character creepy, innocent, crazy at times, naive, innocent, frightfully slow at other times, an eccentric, and a man with no boundaries. Through it all though, Galifianakis makes Ethan a character, and one you like in spite of all his weird, little quirks.  It's his line delivery, his general cluelessness at what's going on around him, his physical mannerisms, everything adds up to make this great character.

While Downey Jr. and Galifianakis dominate the screen and don't disappoint, Due Date has a handful of cameos that play well off its two stars.  Former Wu Tang Clan member RZA plays a racially paranoid airport security screener, Jamie Foxx is Darryl, Peter's long-time friend who helps him out in Texas (sort of), Juliette Lewis is great as Heidi, a drug dealer in Birmingham Ethan goes to see, Danny McBride as an Iraq vet with a secret, and Phillips favorite Matt Walsh as a TSA agent. None of these parts are in the movie for more than five or six minutes, but they all make the most of their screentime.

The humor is all over the place here, ranging from good to bad.  Some of the gross-out humor -- Ethan's dog Sonny masturbates while Ethan does -- doesn't work as well as some of the more subtle laughs.  Downey Jr. and Galifianakis play off each other so well that their conversations are sublimely perfect, especially an acting challenge Peter gives to Ethan in a gas station bathroom that ends with a surprisingly real, touching moment. The physical humor doesn't disappoint either, especially some highway craziness that includes a breakout from Mexico. Yes, you read that right. A breakout from Mexico. Sure, it's crazy, but like the rest of the movie, just go along with it.

Due Date <---trailer (2010): ***/****

Eagle Eye

As far back as Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 1968, movies have been warning us not to become too reliant on technology, be it computers, cell phones, automated weapons systems, you get my drift. But as the movies show, we're pretty dumb overall so if technology makes things easier then we're all for it. Last year's Eagle Eye continued this trend in the form of an action thriller that I enjoyed a lot more than I thought I would going in.

Shia LaBeouf plays Jerry Shaw, your typical underachiever who has some potential to do things with his life but chooses to do otherwise. He works at the Copy Cabana after dropping out from Stanford, but one day finds $750,000 in his bank account and an apartment full of ammonium nitrate and high-tech military weapons. His cell phone rings and a woman tells him he has 30 seconds to get out of his apartment before the FBI shows up to arrest him. Of course, Jerry is suspicious, I guess I would be too, and doesn't believe her.

Across town, a similar thing is happening to Rachel Holloman, played by the very beautiful Michelle Monaghan, a single mom who has just sent her son to Washington DC with his class to play at the Kennedy Center. The woman on the phone tells Rachel she must do everything she says or else her son's train will derail. So begins a movie that doesn't slow down until the very end. Is the whole movie kinda ridiculous? You bet, but that's part of the fun. In this day and age, most people's lives are so closely tied to their phones, Blackberries, IPODS, and other technological advances, so a movie that plays on the fear that it's the technology ruling us is as timely as it will ever be.

Going into Eagle Eye, I hadn't liked either big LaBeouf movie, he was okay in Indy 4, and all-around bad/annoying in Transformers, so I had low expectations. With the right part here where his character is as much in the dark as the viewer as to what's happening, he was pretty good. However, the pessimist in me says the ending was a bit of a cop-out as to how his character is dealt with. Monaghan joins Shia as the female lead and does a reliable job with a stereotypical character. There isn't much development in either character, the basic outline is explained with their backgrounds, and vamoose, we're off! In the supporting cast, Billy Bob Thornton jumps out as one of the better parts, a wisecracking FBI agent just trying to figure out what exactly is going on.

The movie has its flaws, but it isn't enough to distract from the overall product. The story moves along too fast for you to even think about the flaws. It's an exciting movie, and a timely one, that's worth a watch if nothing else. And always remember that someone is listening, in this case, your cell phone. I always knew those things were evil.

One thing I'll never complain about, the original teaser trailer that was shown in theaters. It's one of the better teasers I've seen in quite awhile.