The Gunman

I'd like to thank Liam Neeson. I imagine a lot of actors in the late 40's and 50's might want to thank Mr. Neeson. Why is that? Courtesy of his Taken movies (and several others), it seems the middle-aged action star is back and getting a crack at carrying their own movies. The winners? Me. Moviegoers who love to see genuinely talented actors doing fun, more commercial movies. And of course, any and all of us who love a good action flick. Next up, Sean Penn in 2015's The Gunman.

A former special forces operative, Jim Terrier (Penn) has moved onto private security and in 2006 finds himself working with a kill team posing as construction workers in the violent, revolution-worn Congo. Millions (maybe billions) of dollars are up for grabs, leading the team to take out a mining commissioner with Jim taking the shot. He's forced to leave the country, leaving the woman, Annie (Jasmine Trinca), he loves behind. He tries to put it all past him, a lifetime of violence and killing, but he's ripped back into the world. Some eight years later, he's working in Africa as part of a humanitarian project when three men attempt to kill him. Jim dispatches them first, but he knows his past has caught up with him. Other members of the team in the Congo have recently turned up dead. Is Jim next? Who can he trust in the meantime while he finds out?

This movie got panned by critics upon its release last winter. I mean absolutely ripped, just torn up. I thought it looked pretty cool, but the overwhelming amount of negative reviews convinced me not to seek it out. The verdict? I liked it. A lot. It's dark, moody, violent and plays a little bit like a more adult Bourne movie (hold the Matt Damon). 'Gunman' isn't a classic, and at times it does feel a little too familiar to other action genre pieces. The Rotten Tomatoes page refers to this sub-genre as the rapidly aging Over-50 Action Hero Genre (get it? Because the stars are older...so they're aging?!?). I disagree. Sometimes, it's just fun to watch a good, old-fashioned bloody action movie. This ain't a classic, but my goodness, I liked it. So neener-neener, movie critics.

I think Sean Penn is a bit of a nut case, but that's why I like him. His political opinions, he doesn't care what you think of him. He takes film roles he likes, ones that seem to appeal to him. So just like Liam Neeson, it is very cool to see him take on a bullet-riddled action hero role with an ever-increasing body count. Penn's Jim Terrier has been at it for years, killing and killing wherever and for whoever will pay him. It's worn him down to the point his physical condition is rapidly deteriorating (an unnecessary subplot). Pile on the feeling he's lost anything good in his life -- cough the girl cough -- and we've got our moody anti-hero looking for redemption no matter what it takes. In the action genre, it is a well-worn, familiar character but for a good reason. It can be easy to root for that character. He realizes his faults and wants to do something about them dammit! Some reviews said Penn looked bored, but I thought he was pretty damn good.

Now, onto something bigger...Sean Penn himself! In his early 50's while filming 'Gunman,' Penn got absolutely shredded. SHREDDED. His arms are like tree trunks and when he starts dispatching killers on his trail....man, he looks like he'd actually rip their heads off. He's in ridiculously good shape, giving the character an edge of authenticity. Penn's face is tan and weathered, giving you the impression he could have been this gun for hire. He's more than capable of handling his own in the action scenes, especially those with hand-to-hand combat. These are quick, bone-crunching fights that are graphic but in a flash. Nothing feels forced, stylized or glamourized. Just highly trained killing machines looking to tear each other apart.

Moving along, the rest of the cast with some halfway decent names. Javier Bardem is a misfire here as Felix, a civilian contractor working with Jim who may have ulterior motives. He's an incredibly talented actor in just about everything I've seen, but this performance is cliched, broad, and way too big, like he's playing a spoof. Trinca is solid in a thankless part as the script generates into a....love triangle. "Yeah." I'm excited...Ray Winstone is a scene-stealer as Stanley, Jim's longtime friend with a hand in everything in the criminal/mercenary underworld. Fun part with some good laughs. Idris Elba makes what amounts to a cameo (maybe 3 scenes) as Barnes, a mysterious...well, something who may or may not be up to something. Last but not least, watch out for Mark Rylance (also excellent in the recent Bridge of Spies) as Cox, the Congo team leader, with Peter Franzen as his brutally efficient enforcer. Some solid supporting parts.

And last but not least, let's talk some blood-splattered action. 'Gunman' has it in droves. As Jim goes globe-trotting across Africa and Europe, a whole lot of people are trying to kill him, and he's more than willing to oblige them (well, the attempt at least). The best set piece has Jim and Annie tearing through an Italian villa as they're chased by a small army of gunmen. The hand-to-hand scenes (as previously mentioned) are quick and hard-hitting, uncomfortable and real. The finale too, set in a Spanish stadium hosting a bullfight, is a gem as well. A lot to offer for those seeking their action fill for the day.

Scenic locations from Africa to London to Spain, an appropriately dark, moody score from composer Marco Beltrami, a quick-moving story with some solid twists and turns, and a pretty good cast, especially Penn, Winstone and Rylance. The critics may disagree, but I definitely liked this action thriller from Pierre Morel. Hopefully you will too!

The Gunman (2015): ***/****

London Boulevard

A screenplay writer with movies like The Departed (where he won an Oscar), Kingdom of Heaven, Body of Lies, and Edge of Darkness, William Monahan has certainly built up a lot of credibility and respect for himself over the last six years. The writer has made the jump to a more involved role in the movie-making process, taking over the director's chair for 2010's London Boulevard.

Fresh out of prison after serving a three-year sentence, Mitchel (Colin Farrell) is readjusting to life and looking for work. He's not positive of what he wants from his new lease on life, but he certainly knows what he doesn't want. Mitchel wants to leave being a low-level hood, a gangster, behind, but it won't be so easy. He takes a job being a bodyguard, almost a consultant, for a recluse actress/model, Charlotte (Keira Knightley), who lives in a forted-up London house avoiding the paparazzi. It still isn't quite what he'd want, but he gets along with Charlotte and sees where it goes. Unfortunately, it won't be that easy. His old kind-of friend, Billy (Ben Chaplin), has a meeting set up with Gant (Ray Winstone), an unhinged gangster who wants Mitchel to work for him. What will Mitchel do?

Two movies came to mind as I watched this 2010 British crime drama; the original Get Carter starring Michael Caine and the more recent Layer Cake starring Daniel Craig. In terms of both style, story and character development, 'Boulevard' clearly is a movie influenced by its predecessors. In fact, that's why so many viewers seemed to intensely dislike this movie. They claim it borrows too much from previous crime dramas, and leaves itself without an ounce of originality. To a point, I think it is a fair criticism. It does borrow somewhat liberally from other stories/films, but it still manages to carve out its own niches. Monahan must have been influenced by working with Martin Scorsese because his soundtrack is very British retro-rock oriented, featuring everything from the Yardbirds (listen to Heart Full of Soul) to the more recent Kasabian, including a great use of The Green Fairy. Not groundbreaking in terms of style or story, but unique enough.

Much like both Get Carter and Layer Cake, I wasn't quite sure where 'Boulevard' was heading. Well, that's not true. You can predict the ending early, but the route getting there is a long and winding road. It's always enjoyable/interesting, but it does drift a bit at times. With as many characters as we meet, it serves as a who's who of the London criminal underworld. Lots of nasty, sleazy individuals, all looking out for themselves because with the snap of a finger, it could be lights out for them. There were times it reminded me of a western landscape (right down to composer Sergio Pizzorno's score, who's also an occasional lead for Kasabian), even reflecting a spaghetti western at times. Yes, I can bring everything back to the spaghetti western. So while the story may not be the most pointed, direct one, it is nonetheless a fun ride.

That can be attributed to star Colin Farrell who's long been one of my favorites. He's capable of playing a variety of roles, but here as the dark, capable and intense Mitchel, he's at his absolute best. This is a man simmering with intensity. He wants to be left alone, and given a clean slate in life intends to live up to it. Maybe more than anything, Farrell looks the part. His Mitchel has been burned in the past and answers to no one. He looks out for those around him -- at his own expense and pain -- because they can't do it themselves. It's a doomed, tragic character if there ever was one, a man trying to put his past behind him. Through Knightley's Charlotte, he can see that fresh start. Charlotte is as equally damaged as him, but they're a good fit together. Mitchel is that iconic crime figure; the bad guy, the anti-hero who we still root for knowing it can't end well for him or his hopes.

Weaving through the London criminal underworld, Monahan clearly saw the potential for a long list of characters with great potential, starting obviously with Farrell and Knightley. Winstone is an ideal villain as Gant, a gay gangster who always seems a word or two from snapping and ripping your head off quite literally. David Thewlis is a scene-stealer as Jordan, Charlotte's handler/friend/assistant, who gets along with Mitchel in all his weirdness despite being stoned/blitzed/high at all times. Chaplin is the slimy past associate, the lowest level of gangsters with Anna Friel playing Briony, Mitchel's slutty sister who he constantly has to save from herself. Also look for Eddie Marsan, Stephen Graham, Alan Williams and Sanjeev Bhaskar in key supporting roles.   

Maybe because the story and characters were more than a little familiar, I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. I'm a sucker for British crime drama/thrillers, and when they're handled correctly they can be a lot of fun (even considering a lack of originality). This is a dark, stylish crime story that is good, not great. It has style to burn. A shot of Farrell's Mitchel driving through London at night in a classic car, the Yardbirds playing as a soundtrack, it's just an effortless cool, a style that many films attain to be but never quite get there. Watch the scene HERE. Highly recommend this one. The trailer below is misleading. This is not a happy-go-lucky, quirky comedy about an ex-con, although it does have its incredibly dark humorous moments.

London Boulevard <---trailer (2010): *** 1/2 /****

King Arthur

Few stories have resonated through the centuries like the legend of King Arthur. There are some who question whether he actually existed or if this knight was just the stuff of legends passed down through the years.  However you want to interpret the person -- fictional or real -- the names instantly ring a bell when mentioned.  There's Arthur, Lancelot, Guinevere, the Round Table, and all Arthur's noble knights.  So how do you make a movie about a person/character who may or may not be real with little in the way of concrete information existing on him? Here's a doozy for you. Do the best you can, and fill in any necessary blanks with battle scenes.

That's basically 2004's King Arthur which claims to tell the most accurate account of the Arthurian legend. One of the biggest issues surrounding Arthur is when did he actually live?  Was he around in the Middle Ages and the Crusades searching for the Holy Grail? Was he around near the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth and sixth centuries?  Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, Tears of the Sun), this action-packed historical epic goes with the second premise and does a fair share of rewriting when it comes to the legend.  This is not your grandparent's King Arthur with a romantic view of a vicious, incredibly dark historical time.  It's down and dirty, and everyone is at risk.

After serving a 15-year term as a protector of Britain, half-Roman, half-Briton Knight Arthur (Clive Owen) is ready to go home to Rome.  His men, Sarmatian men enlisted as Roman soldiers, similarly want to return home after many years of service while seeing their fellow knights drop one by one. With their release coming though, they are enlisted for one more dangerous mission, a trek into Woad territory (natives trying to expel the Romans) where a Roman family's villa stands.  Bring them back and they will be free. Arthur convinces his men to go along on the nearly suicidal mission, but even he doesn't know what awaits them.  The Woads wait in ambush for them, but news drifts down from the north.  A Saxon army (led by Stellan Skarsgard) is marching south, killing everything in its path.  Arthur and his knights must now band together with the Woads (blue paint warrior Keira Knightley leading) to not only accomplish their mission, but somehow survive and get home.

Historical epics are right up my alley, I'll give just about anything a try.  But with an action-heavy director like Fuqua and producer Jerry Bruckheimer in charge, you're going to get a ridiculously action-heavy movie that's short on story.  How often can you say that for a movie that runs 138 minutes? There is a ton of potential here because of the money clearly spent in getting the movie made.  The cast is impressive, the action is on a huge scale, Hans Zimmer's musical score appropriately epic, and the story is the stuff of legend no matter what pretensions the movie has about being the most accurate telling of Arthur's story.  But with all that said, it's a mess of a movie overall.  An exciting, interesting mess, but still a mess.

I'm not an Arthur aficionado who will complain about the mangling of the legend's story, but this pushes even beyond my basic knowledge of the story.  It doesn't have to be the romantic portrayal of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, but some of the choices here were just odd.  Arthur's remaining Knights serving their 15-year tour of duty for Rome are Sarmatians, a people from Eastern Europe with an Iranian background.  That's fine, but they all look very British.  Guinevere is a Woad, a Briton barbarian by all accounts who is an expert with a long bow and fights alongside the men.  By the by, Knightley in a skimpy leather battle attire is never a bad thing.  Merlin (Stephen Dillane) is not a magician, but a Woad medicine man who looks like a barbarian heathen. Skarsgard sleepwalks through his performance, and Til Schweiger is laughably bad as his son, the also-evil Saxon warrior. Now I'm not sure what was or wasn't accurate -- history is always open for interpretation -- but this one just went too far for me.

What does work is the portrayal of Arthur and his knights, mostly because the actors playing the parts are so talented, not because these individual parts are well-written.  Owen is a suitable Arthur, a commander who is not like his men but has earned their respect through his leadership and in battle.  His Knights include shifty and intelligent Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), expert bowmen, falconer and scout Tristan (Mads Mikkelsen), quiet but capable Gawain (Joel Edgerton), young hopeful Galahad (Hugh Dancy), boorish, brutish fighter Bors (Ray Winstone), and ferocious man of few words Dagonet (Ray Stevenson). As a fan of men on a mission stories, I was a sucker for this part of the story, and all of the characters left an impression on me, especially Gruffudd, Mikkelsen, and Winstone.  I would have loved to see a story that focused more on these characters as opposed to such a large-scale story, but overall they are the best part of King Arthur.

Finishing the movie, I was more than a little surprised to find out it had a PG-13 rating.  This movie is VIOLENT.  We're not taking Braveheart violence, but it's close.  Battle scenes are incredibly graphic with blood spurts, decapitations, limbs being hacked off, and countless uses of axes, knives, spears, arrows impacting and tearing bodies apart.  All that said, the action is top-notch.  If anything it's too good and too much.  A showdown between a huge Saxon patrol and Arthur's small crew on an iced over lake especially stands out as memorable. The last battle is almost 40 minutes long and becomes tedious.  It's well-handled with CGI kept to a minimum (always a positive), and the action is done on an impressive scale, but it all becomes too much after the 98th stabbing or beheading.  There are only so many ways to see a man die.

King Arthur <---trailer (2004): ** 1/2 /****