Stolen

I can give credit when it's due. The overall quality might not be there, but Nicolas Cage churns out the flicks like one crazy dude. Since 2010, Cage has starred in nine movies, and according to his IMDB page, he's got six others in pre/post production and development. There's been some duds in the group, but there's some decent ones too. Take 2012's Stolen, nothing flashy but entertaining throughout.

An accomplished bank robber and thief, Will Montgomery (Cage) has created quite a reputation for himself to the point a New Orleans FBI officer, Tim Harlend (Danny Huston), has become obsessed with catching him. In the aftermath of a successful job, Montgomery is caught but refuses to give up where he hid the $10 million he made away with, also refusing to turn on the rest of his crew. He serves an eight-year sentence, and upon his release tries to reconnect with his daughter, Alison (Sami Gayle), but she is kidnapped by a member of his crew, Vincent (Josh Lucas), who has fallen on hard times and wants his share of the cut. Montgomery maintains he doesn't have the money, but now it's a matter of life and death. Can he find Alison in time before Vincent kills her? If not, can he pull off a job -- with the police and the FBI tailing him -- to steal enough to appease an insane Vincent? The clock is ticking.

Does the basic plot sound familiar? A man forced to rescue his kidnapped daughter from some rather nasty people? Yeah, it sure sounds like Taken to me too. It isn't spot-on of course with more than enough differences to make it interesting. The weird thing is how little a release it was given. IMDB reports it had a budget of around $35 million, but when it was released in September 2012, it was shown in only 141 theaters (major releases typically are shown on thousands of screens) and banked just $180,000. What happened? Were reviews that bad? Did studios have that little faith in it? I can't really find a reason. It's nothing crazy good by any means, but I liked it enough to give it a mild recommendation.

With the cast and crew assembled here, there's definitely potential for a solid action thriller, and to a point, I think 'Stolen' is very entertaining with some third act flaws. Director Simon West has shown he can do a solid action flick with films like The Mechanic, The Expendables 2, Con Air, Tomb Raiders, and this one is certainly in that vein. It barely breaks the 90-minute mark, clocking in at 95 minutes, and from the word 'Go' it never slows down. It's enjoyable because this breakneck speed never stops. Cage robs vault, goes to jail, is freed and then spends an hour-plus racing around New Orleans looking for his daughter. There are plot holes, but the pacing is so ridiculously fast that the problems are never around long enough to really be an issue. Beyond that, this movie isn't meant to rewrite the action thriller. Just sit back and enjoy it.

I don't know the exact year or the movie where Nicolas Cage went wrong, but at some point he went from an actor able to play drama, action, even dark comedy effortlessly to an actor who seems unable to do anything more than a caricature of himself. He has a scene with Lucas early on that goes down that over the top, goofy road, but thankfully it's just one scene. As an action hero, Cage handles himself quite well here. He's a good bad guy (He's a father! He can't be completely bad!) just trying to save his daughter. The over the top moments are kept to a minimum thankfully although there has to be at least six different scenes where Cage is running for all he's worth. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's because he's such a ridiculously slow runner, but couple it with his 110 percent effort at running so slowly, it's quite a visual. I got sidetracked, sorry. Moral of the story, but Cage is pretty good here.

I liked the rest of the cast too. Besides the goofy New Orleans jazz daddio hat he keeps wearing, Huston is pretty good as the FBI investigator trying to catch Montgomery while balancing out an odd admiration he has for the master thief. Mark Valley plays Fletcher, Harlend's assistant. Lucas gets to ham it up as Vincent, the thief seeking revenge. Maybe that's where Cage's caricature went, go figure. Montgomery's team includes Malin Akerman as Riley, the getaway driver, and M.C. Gainey as Hoyt, the electronics specialist.

Things do fall apart some in the final showdown between Montgomery and Vincent at an abandoned amusement park. 'Stolen' almost goes down a pretty dark road with its ending before tapping the brakes. Mostly though, it reminds me a lot of so many 1970s action crime thrillers that were packed to the gills with almost non-stop action. Credit to Mark Isham's jazzy, fast-paced score for keeping that action going. Good but not great, just a solid popcorn flick. Sit back and watch Cage race through New Orleans.

Stolen (2012): ** 1/2 /****

The Expendables 2

I watched 2010's The Expendables all the while knowing I wasn't watching a good movie. Did I enjoy it? Yes, but it had massive flaws and issues that I was barely....barely....able to look past. Well, either I'm a glutton for punishment or just forgetful because I had to give the sequel, 2012's The Expendables 2, a shot. Rather than repeat and rewrite the original review (and trust me, I could), I'll give this one a shot. It's basically the same movie, but I liked it more.

Having completed a mission to rescue a hostage in Nepal, mercenaries Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone), his right-hand man Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), and their crew of specialists return to New Orleans to celebrate a successful mission and prep for their next one. Ross though is approached -- and basically blackmailed -- by Church (Bruce Willis), a mysterious CIA agent who Ross knows well from his past. The mission? Ross and his team must head to Albania and recover something from a downed plane. Now what that object is, Ross isn't told, only that he'll have someone along for the ride, Maggie (Nan Yu), to help accomplish the mission. It seems and sounds like a simple grab and bag job, but deep in enemy territory, anything could happen.

Here we are again. The make or break part of the review. The complaints/compliments I'm going to throw out there now come down to one simple thing; do you like-to-love action movies? If you even remotely like action movies, you should find something enjoyable about this....at least a little. From director Simon West, '2' improves on the formula laid out in the first one (for the most part). Assemble a ridiculous amount of action stars, give them lots of cool one-liners and lots of people to kill/maim/shoot/stab on a ridiculous mission. To its credit, '2' is more self-assured it knows what it's doing. The crazy amounts of action are still there on top of some more humor -- more on that humor later. It's the same more, but I enjoyed this one more than the first shoot 'em up flick.

What was never in question is the casting here. Still chugging along as a believable action star at 66 years old, Stallone is and always will be a badass. His Barney Ross is that requisite tough group leader, burned and warped for years by the death around him and the suicidal life he leads. Statham is once again, a great sidekick. The two bitch and moan at each other, reflecting a partnership that goes back for years. It seems in all his movies Stallone knows what his fans want to see, and he doesn't disappoint. Filling out Ross' team is returnees Jet Li (making basically a cameo), Randy Couture, and Terry Crews. Also returning from the first one and given more of a role is Dolph Lundgren with newcomer Liam Hemsworth joining the team as Billy the Kid, a disillusioned Army sniper. As more and more bigger names join the cast, Couture and Crews are given little to do and left in the background, but Lundgren and Hemsworth both represent themselves well.

Putting these movies together though, Stallone's goal has been to assemble any and all action stars. Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger return as Church and Trench, fellow personalities in the mercenary/espionage underworld, with both stars getting more screen-time and more to do. One of the huge names in action movies in the 1980s and 1990s, Jean-Claude Van Damme plays a villain named....Vilain (pretty original, huh?), an Eastern European hired killer with a gang of killers, the Sangs. Not enough? Chuck Norris....yes, CHUCK NORRIS....plays Booker, a loner mercenary content to work by himself but helping out the Expendables as needed. Scott Adkins plays Hector, Vilain's brutal right hand man while Yu holds her own in the testosterone-fueled action pic.

So what stops this ridiculously action-packed movie from being the classic that it wants? As was the case with the first movie, there's just something missing. I can't put my finger on it. In an attempt to craft a story full of action, badass characters and funny one-liners, everything else gets left by the wayside. E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G. Scenes lack any sort of transitions, bouncing from one location to the next without even an establishing shot or two. Oh, the story stalls? Enter Norris, Willis or Schwarzenegger out of nowhere, no explanation provided. The music score is anything but subtle and far from memorable. It's fun from the start, but several reviews point this out. An action movie doesn't have to be HUGE, but some scale certainly helps. Both Expendables movies are missing that scale. At times, it even feels like a straight-to-DVD action flick, and that's never a good comparison for any theatrical release.

More than that though, '2' feels rushed, much like the first film did. It clocks in at 103 minutes, but if you take away a 10-minute credits sequence, it's just 93 minutes long. Deep on story it is not, but in just over an hour and a half, this film covers a lot of ground. Yes, I know an action movie like this isn't going to be Shakespeare, but slow down even just a little. And then there's that script. It just has too many references to previous movies the cast has been in. We get it, Arnold was the Terminator, Bruce was in Die Hard, and Norris was in Lone Wolf McQuade. For goodness sake, there's even a Chuck Norris Fact dropped during his introduction. Humor is one thing, some clever references another, but one after another becomes downright tedious and even annoying.

Now if you're still reading, you must sorta like action movies....kinda, maybe, I could be wrong. The action here is pretty cool, and thankfully, director West doesn't utilize the ultra-schizo technique used in the Bourne movies. For the most part, we see the action. All the cliches/stereotypes are there. We've got small armies of bad guys who can't hit the broad side of a barn, the heroes who can hit every single thing they aim at, and so on and so forth. It's a pretty good movie, just know that it's mindless entertainment at its best, nothing else.    

The Expendables 2 (2012): ***/****

The Mechanic (2011)

Jason Statham is an action star, not an actor. That's not a dig no matter how it sounds. He plays an almost identical role from movie to movie; quiet, intense, loner anti-hero who says little but can take you out with any variety of weapons, improvised or not. As I watched one of his latest offerings, the unnecessary but mindlessly entertaining 2011's The Mechanic, that's all I could think of. He's Charles Bronson meets Chuck Norris meets any number of other action stars. No what you're watching with him, and you will normally enjoy it....to a point.

Working for a mysterious agency with seemingly infinite funds available to them, Arthur Bishop (Statham) is the best at what he does. His job? He's a mechanic; a man who takes assignments, researches them, fixes them and gets the job done. Translation = He's a hit man, and there are none better. Finally though, he's given a task that hits him the wrong way; Bishop must kill Harry McKenna (Donald Sutherland), his longtime employer who's been accused of turning on the agency. Testing his loyalty, Bishop goes through with it only to run into Steve McKenna (Ben Foster) soon after. Through some combination of guilt, regret and confusion, Bishop takes Steve under his wing, teaching him all he knows about pulling off a successful hit.

First off, this movie -- as mentioned earlier -- is completely unnecessary. It is a remake of a cult classic from 1972 (same title) starring Charles Bronson and Jan Michael Vincent that is oddly perfect in that 1970s B-movie quality. Why touch it? Why remake it? I suppose someone said 'Why not?' So with that said, let's move on. To his credit, director Simon West commits to this movie. It is a no frills action story, brutal in its depiction of violence, not subtle in its random sex scenes, and generally has the feel of a 1970s crime thriller. New Orleans and the surrounding swamps serve as the background, a gritty down South feel permeating the story. It doesn't try to be anything profound, groundbreaking or new. That's all great, but it begs the question I so often ask when watching a remake of a movie that didn't need to be remade.....why?

If you're a fan of the original with Bronson, you will no doubt enjoy this one to a point. If you haven't seen it, who knows, maybe you will like it more. The only change in the tone of the story is the agency Bishop works for. 'Mechanic' thankfully does not try to make Bishop a hero, but at the same time, he's not just a hitman. His targets end up being the scum of the Earth, people who deserve to get killed including a pedophile rival hitman and a corrupt TV evangelical preacher. Just have him kill lots and lots of really bad dudes. Don't try and shove a message down my throat. He's a badass. Leave it at that.

Remaking the Bronson original, it is only fitting then that Statham is cast in the titular role. I'm not saying Jason Statham is Charles Bronson, but there are certain similarities in the roles they played. Neither is ever talkative on-screen, and there is a coldness and natural brutality and callousness in their performances. That translates well playing a hit man who knows the ins and outs of everything about his business. A clean kill, make it look like an accident, send a message, Statham's Bishop can do it all. Channeling some other movie hit men that have come before him, Statham makes his character stoic, almost monk-like who meticulously prepares for his next assignment. Prone to overacting at times, Foster is a good counter to Statham's quietness. He tones it down some while still managing to get a few good laughs from some dark, dark humor. Sutherland's part amounts to a cameo so it's cool to see him but little else with Tony Goldwyn playing Dean, Arthur's employer and contact for assignments.

The one thing I was genuinely looking forward to here was how the 2011 version handled the ending. The 1972 version is a classic in its shock value. Well, I have to say I think I'm losing my mind when it comes to botched endings. 'Mechanic' goes for that similar ending -- still effective even knowing what's coming -- and then taps the brakes similar to what Oliver Stone did in this summer's Savages. Why do directors feel the need to tweak nearly perfect endings? Does everything have to be wrapped up nicely in a bow? Here, it is a quick scene that throws a stupid twist our way, reversing what could have been a great ending. But no, we're forced to have it all end pleasantly. Overall, I came away entertained somewhat but mostly unimpressed. Technically, it's a good enough movie, but it never really gives us a reason to enjoy it.

The Mechanic <---trailer (2011): **/****