Retribution

 Liam Neeson action film. A Video Review

Blacklight

 

In one of the few instances I can think of, I went to this movie knowing nothing about it except that Liam Neeson was the star. I literally had heard nothing about it and it was only a passing listing on a theater web page that brought me to the movie. The trailer above I had never seen before writing this post, after seeing the film. When I posted it, there were 195,750 views, which does not shout out "Success!" or "Box Office!" in today's social media environment. That was OK because it is Winter and Liam Neeson is in a movie, so someone is going to do some killing. I am an admitted fan. I somehow missed his last two action films, "The Ice Road" and The Marksman", but I usually queue up immediately for one of these Winter Action Thrillers. This time I must admit I was disappointed.

This movie is so conventional, it feels like a Netflix retread of an eighties conspiracy film, not a seventies one, which would probably be worthwhile, but more like something drained of inventiveness but slick enough to look interesting for a few minutes. It turns out it never gets as interesting as you hoped it would be. The plot is so simple as to be a trope in and of itself, a government agency is killing citizens it thinks are a risk to the country. This time it is not the C.I.A. or the N.S.A. of some made up intelligence group, it's the F.B.I. and they have their own rogue operatives. It turns out Neeson's Travis Block isn't in on the program, he's not actually an agent. He works off the books, backing up agents who are in deep cover and need assistance. It's not clear if the whistle blower agent is his partner, which does not make much sense since Travis is not an agent, or if he is just a close friend. Either way, should he be stopped or praised for coming forward with his story?

No one should be advocating the assassination of someone you disagree with, but the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez plot device is probably going to amuse some people and outrage others. The idea that what she is doing is actually accomplishing something in the movie is silly, and whoever thought getting rid of her was a good idea is an idiot. Which brings us to the first of the two stupidest characters I have seen in a movie in a while. Aidan Quinn is the F.B.I. Director without a ounce of common sense. If you see this movie, see if you can pick out the three times he screws up in his decision making. There is one plot point where he almost goes BOO! and then runs away from the complication. It is the laziest writing I have watched in a theatrical movie in a long time. This could be one of those Bruce Willis Video films that requires no sophistication at all.

The "journalist" in this film is even more stupid. She seems to have no idea that you need evidence, sources and additional corroboration to make a charge in a news publication. Her editor seems to understand that, but he is even more stupid by publishing her work without verification under his own by-line. The truth is, this may unfortunately reflect the state of modern journalism, we are a long way from Woodward and Bernstein. 

There is a personal story about Travis having OCD and paranoia, so much so that it drives his daughter away from him and creates a potential problem with his granddaughter. You would think that the threat to the family would be a major element of the film, giving Neeson license to unleash his well known special skills. That turns out to mostly be a red herring. He does not go after the bad guys so much as he runs away from them and outwits them a couple of times. Mostly this is an excuse for chases, none of which are very good, although the idea of a garbage truck being used as a vehicle for local destruction is fun. 

I did not hate this film, I simply did not respect it and there are soo many better Neeson Action films, why waste your time? 

Honest Thief

 

Whatever you do, don't watch the trailer that is posted above. This is one of those too numerous examples where the trailer is basically a condensed version of the film and it gives away plot points, action beats and storyline without regard to what you want to know going in. I was lucky, I'd never heard anything about the movie, I never saw a trailer, I only knew that Liam Neeson was in it and it fits the action genre that he has owned for the last decade. The truth is, you will know most of where the movie is going as the story unfolds, there really are no big surprises in the film, but why would you want every highlight to be foreshadowed by an image from the trailer? 

So, not having seen the preview, I am watching this and I know immediately who the "bad guys" are going to be. All you needed to do was see Jai Courtney and Anthony Ramos sitting in their cubicle and you just know, these are going to turn out to be crooked cops (or FBI agents as it is). You also keep suspecting that Jeffery Donovan might be a bigger crook except they give him a dog that he actually takes care of. That would not be a scene in the movie if there was a turn for his character. I watched every season of "Burn Notice" and I was happy to see him in a movie, but he does have a somewhat dark persona. Two decades ago, instead of Jai Courtney as the obvious heavy, Robert Patrick would have fit the bill, but as time as marched on, he more naturally fits the senior agent with a case of cynicism and a short story arc. 

The whole point of these kinds of movies is to allow us to do some hero worshipping of Neeson, and watch him use his special skills to bring down the baddies. I think he still looks to be in good shape but it probably is a better idea to have him taking those guys out more with his wits than with his physical skills. The use of IEDs is more believable than a 70 something guy beating up a 30 something guy. Of course nothing in this movie is particularly believable. The premise is that this guy commits these crimes for no reason, never spends the money, and has principles that come back to haunt him only after he falls in love. That is a bit of a stretch. 

What is not a stretch is the chemistry between Liam Neeson and Kate Walsh. I don't really know her as an actor although she seemed really familiar to me for some reason.  Although she has extensive credits, the thing that I recognized her from was a Cadillac commercial from twelve years ago. She has a great line in the ad, and the same personality was on display in this movie. She is mature enough to feel like a romantic partner for Neeson, and still be someone that can be changed by the experiences the character is going through. The cute meet was maybe the best written scene in the film, and I think they could pull off a romantic movie about adults if anyone is willing to see such a movie anymore. 

So this is a suspense thriller with a revenge plotline about a heist that doesn't go according to plan. Does that sound like they mixed together enough genres to get your attention? For me it did not matter that it was derivative, soft edged in regard to the violence, and preposterous in concept. I went to this because it was a movie in theaters, not also streaming, just in theaters. It stars Liam Neeson who I love, and it was Sunday afternoon. There was popcorn and the world almost felt normal again. I want the theater experience to return, so I will be going as much as I can, and spending money at the concession stand so the Cinemas can remain open. If the movie is passable and stars someone I enjoy watching, so much the better.

#getyourassintoatheateryouwanks

Men In Black International

I did not have high hopes for this film, the trailers did not seem very interesting and the concept feels a little old. I happened to be in Austin this weekend and I wanted to see a movie in one of the Alamo Drafthouse Theaters and this was the one that was starting at the right time so it ended up being selected simply because of lucky timing. As it turned out it was very entertaining and there is nothing the makers of the film should hang their heads about. I think the lack of success is mostly franchise fatigue and an abundance of similar products in the marketplace.

Chris Hemsworth is still trying to break out as a star outside of the MCU, and you can see why he might choose a part like this. Although I liked him very much in some of the other films he has made, his charisma is still stuck in the God of Thunder role he has owned for a decade now. Tessa Thompson is re-matched with him and they have pretty good chemistry but neither character brings the persona the two original stars did to their parts. It seems you need more than a black suit and a lot of CGI to make this concept work.

Fortunately, there are some funny bits of dialogue and some visual gags that will keep things interesting, but it can never match the charm that the first movie had. If I were ranking however, it would certainly beat MIB 2 which had very little going for it. The concept here suggests there is a traitor in MIB. The trailer makes it seem as if the "Hive", the supposed antagonist in the story is replicating MIB agents and replacing them. That is misleading, although there is a pretty obvious character to suspect, not because of the script but because casting demands that you make use of someone of that stature in an appropriate manner.


The shift of the story to Europe is fine and it allows for a few ethnocentric jokes at the expense of Americans, the French, and the British. There is also a sequence set in North Africa and the Mediterranean, so we get a pretty good travelogue as we go through the acts in the film. There may be a little too much of the cutie pie alien in the story, but I did not find him annoying, just a little obvious as to his role function as comic relief. Rebecca Ferguson, Liam Neesen and Emma Thompson are also in the film, and they have slightly better roles. Everybody seems to have a letter code name, which would leave you to believe that there can't be more than 26 MIB agents at any given time, but that is clearly not the case. There must be some other explanation.






So MIB International is not an important movie or essential to any comic book narrative, but it is an entertaining couple of hours that is not too taxing on the brain. If you still like all the CGI transformations, gadgets and aliens, then you should have a pretty good time.

Cold Pursuit

I'm more that two weeks late on this post. Life has gotten in the way of many of my pursuits these days, so it is appropriate that this is the film who's trail I have let grow cold. If I need to be kept warm in the winter months, I need to see Liam Neeson kill people who deserve to die. It warms my heart to see rough justice since we so often miss true justice in real life.

The set up of the film is not complicated. Neeson's son is murdered by being given an overdose of heroin. The authorities think he was just another drug user who didn't know his limits. Neeson's character's wife thinks they didn't know their son at all. It is only as he is about to end his own pain that he discovers what really happened and begins to seek retribution on those responsible. Nels Coxman is not an ex assassin, a CIA agent, or a well trained bodyguard. He is a snowplow driver. His approach is not sophisticated, and the fights are not highly choreographed. He is however methodical and intelligent. Nels simply works his way up the food chain, and fresh fish fall into his lap.

At a certain point in the movie, the deaths start piling up as a consequence of his actions rather than his deliberate execution of offenders. Because his motive is not understood, and the bad guys have no idea why these things are happening, they make assumptions based on their vocation which leads to huge complications. This reminded me a great deal of the 70s films "The Stone Killer" and "The Seven Ups". Gangland crooks mistake their real enemy and start eating their own.

The nice part about this is that just about every crook who we see get his, earns the death that comes to him. The most effective part of the story other than Neeson is the characterization of the low lives. As each one does something horrible, we just get to start anticipating, "OK, you are next". The film is based on a Norwegian film "In Order of Disappearance". In the credits, the character names and actors are all listed and the  names vanish in reverse order in listing. It was a clever capstone to the running tally that we have been given during the film.

Laura Dern appears as Nels wife, but she also vanishes from the movie after barely making it into a couple of scenes. The criminals are all the focus in the film. They all have colorful nick names and while the actors are not household names, they add enough personality to make the movie feel worth a watch. William Forsythe shows up as Nels mob connected estranged brother. He provide a little exposition and a satisfying moment with the main villain, but he has only a little to do with the story.

A woman walked out at the end of the movie proclaiming this was the worst movie she's ever seen, [clearly she has not seen "Vice"]. I did not think it was a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but I was entertained...and it kept me warm.

Widows

A slow burn with a heist that does not carry much weight in the end. "Widows" is a quality film about a criminal enterprise, unfortunately, it is the political system in Chicago as opposed to the robbery that is at the heart of the film. The cast for the film is impressive and the story is full of unpleasant twists but there is something about it that holds me back from a strong endorsement. Those who want a slick crime film will be disappointed because this movie travels down some byzantine alleys and the thing that is around the next corner is usually a downer.

The grime and decay of the neighborhood featured in this movie should be enough to tell you this is not "Ocean's 4". There is nothing cute or charming or fun happening here. This is a story focusing on rich criminals robbing each other in the midst of urban decay and neglect. That the criminals are all politically connected should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with how things work in these big urban centers. One crooked deal makes way for another and the only thing more depressing is that everyone considers this de rigueur. The only thing that changes is who gets the power. This movie attempts to shift the power to a group of women by turning them into reflections of evil men. I'm not sure that is the best way to create a story of female empowerment.

It is a little hard to tell what the basis of the opening theft is. The story starts mid-crime when there is a shootout between the robbers and the security team for a local thug who has delusions of political grandeur. Half an hour later we see what happens to those crooks who were supposed to be providing security and got taken. They should have just asked to jump in the van and take off with the money. As it turns out, getting tagged and tracked down to a local warehouse is part of the plan. I can tell you that this detail was not included in the notebook containing the plans for all of the criminal masterminds plans. Viola Davis is an excellent actress and she shows her worth in a couple of grieving scenes. Her husband has been killed in the robbery and her moment trying to gather herself rings very true. In a flashback, we see another death that she mourns and again, it plays realistically although that death plays like a note from a producer on the film who is a little too "woke".

As the widows begin to plan their robbery, there are several tasks they have to accomplish. Michelle Rodriguez has a very solid scene where she gets caught in a lie and still manages to get a piece of human behavior awkwardly into the moment. Had it gone any further, the moment would seem unrealistic but the guilt and the loneliness of the two people involved really does provide some emotional core for what is otherwise a very cold film. Elizabeth Debicki has the only moments in the film that could be thought of as light. As she tries to get a proxy to buy guns for her, she uses a story that is grimly amusing. Unfortunately, as we have learned, physical abuse at the hands of a man is not a fiction in her life. Cynthia Erivo who I just saw in "Bad Times at the El Royale" is equally good here as a babysitter/hairdresser who gets recruited for the job and turns out to be just the right touch of bad ass under the skin.

As for the rest of the cast, well there are a lot of them and most are solid. Lukas Haas who I just realized was in "First Man", is a man with a cynically realistic view of romance who enables the women to get a key piece of information. Garret Dillahut makes a second appearance in a Steve McQueen film and this time he is a lot more sympathetic. Colin Farrel, Bryan Tyree Henry and Robert Duvall, dance around each other as political hacks with ambitions that confound each other. Jackie Weaver is the most cynical Mother you will ever hope to meet. It is Liam Neeson however who manages to turn a small roll into a strong performance and with one plot twist turn most of our assumptions around. What starts off as grief turns to long term resentment and finally to the worst sort of betrayal you can imagine. Finally, Daniel Kaluuya lurks in the background, menacing everyone with his crazy eyes and and reckless disregard for humanity.

The exposition that goes on in long conversations between the characters often reflects danger but it is not just physical danger but moral danger we are facing. Only the very last shot in the film provides any hope that the world might be an OK place to live.There was a point in the story where the worst crime we can see coming is directed at an animal, but at least the immorality of all of the characters is not taken out on the dog.  

The Commuter

Liam Neeson and I have a standing date in the winter months. He shows up to kick some ass and I show up to watch him do it. For the last two years however he has stood me up. Unless I'm willing to give him credit for "A Monster Calls" where he did a vocal performance, he has made me go six months of winter without killing anyone on screen. That's too long and I don't like it. So of course I was happy to see that he had a January mind numb-er coming out this year.  He has make some exceptionally good action films but he has also made some that are there to simply divert us for a couple of hours, no complaint, and this is a genre picture with no aspirations except to entertain us.

This is the fourth film he has made with Jaume Collet-Serra as director, and like the other three, it is an action film with a unique premise. Neeson is a guy who has been doing a middle class job, in a mundane corporate life, for a decade now, and suddenly he is immersed in a conspiracy and is forced to call on some old skills. You see he is also a former cop. That at least explains why he is able to think the way he does and handle himself pretty well when the fan makes contact with the feces.

Collet-Serra is a competent action director. I really liked his shark movie from two years ago, it was stylish and beautifully shot. There is one fairly artistic touch to this film and it happens during the opening. Neeson's character goes through a number of days, minute by minute, almost Groundhog Day like.  We see how similar each day of his life has been. There are minor variations of daily issues but the routine is the same. It is as if the life is mundane and you don't really need to see everything that happens each day because it changes so little. The montage is the pre-title sequence and it does a nice job creating exposition without ever telling us a plot point. We know his life from the outset. This day however turns out a bit different. His work situation changes, his routine is disrupted and a stranger enters his life with a weird proposition. The next thing we know, he is jumping between train cars, engaging in deadly hand to hand combat and trying to outwit a antagonist who apparently knows everything except the one piece of information she wants Neeson's character to find out.

There is no real surprise that the reason he is connected to the plot here is that he was a cop. Now just which one of the former co-workers is the bad guy? When you have name actors in parts that seem much to small for them, that is usually a tip-off that more is coming. In this film there are two possibilities, and the story keeps you guessing up to the climax, when it seems it could be either of the two, and then there is the turn and it is revealed. So we had some cat and mouse, some procedural and a couple of action sequences up to this point. Finally, there is a Spartacus moment and you will appreciate characters that maybe you didn't think much of before. There are two Macguffins, a person and something they are carrying. In the end, neither is very interesting but we do get to see the psychological test that the antagonist has set up for us. Vera Farmiga has about the same number of scenes as her costar from the Conjuring films, Patrick Wilson, has. They never have any scenes together and it does seem odd that the casting went this way given their history together in movies. It's not important, it's just a quirk I noticed.

Long time character actor Johnathan Banks has a brief role and he was fine. Sam Neil is another name that is dangled as a suspect for us and you can certainly see why they went that way. Elizabeth McGovern is Neeson's wife, with very little screen time and no character at all. This is an entertaining couple of hours that will leave no marks and doesn't require additional viewings once everything has been revealed. I'm just glad there are still mid-level action films being produced for weekend consumption in the deadest part of the year. 

A Monster Calls

It's January, so I'm ready for my annual dose of Liam Neeson kicking someone's ass. So today we saw this and he did it, the only problem is that it was my ass he kicked. This is a sad story about the worst thing that can happen to a kid. As it builds up to the climax, I became more and more effected by it. At first I thought I was withstanding the story pretty well but then I turn around and there is Mr. Neeson's voice, ready to help knock me down and remind me that I am a human being who is a big cupcake.

This is a story that seems like it should be familiar but it is told in a very unique way. As I mentioned, the arc of the narrative concerns the loss of a loved one and the young man that has to face this truth is struggling with a way to confront it. The Monster that comes is not friendly but in a strange way is very supportive. The story is direct but there are three specific moments when the monster tells a tale to young Conor. Much like A Christmas Carol, Conor is visited on separate occasions and each time he a story is shared with him. Buried inside of each tale is a lesson, but it is never a clear lesson and Conor finds the stories increasingly confounding to the task he has of finding a cure for his mother.

A third of the way into the film, Conor's Grandmother appears. She is played by Sigourney Weaver, using the slight British accent that she probably picked up in "The Year of Living Dangerously" or "Half Moon Street". The Grandmother is stern and foreboding in young Conors life. He sees the future that he despairs of in her and does not sense the warmth that he and his own mother have. Part of the story will have to manage that relationship more delicately. His father is an expatriate living in Los Angeles. He does not appear to be a practical lifeline even though he wants what is best for his son. Mom is played by Felicity Jones  and she is suitably beautiful and haggard as the path of her disease progresses. Louis MacDougal plays Connor and his most affecting scenes are with his Father, the bully who abuses him, and ultimately the two women who have and will dominate his life.

The real story here is a child trying desperately to reconcile himself with the loss of the most important person in his life. The Monster represents the turmoil and the tragedy that he is facing, but it never acts exactly the way you expect the story to go. Ultimately there is a turning point, and we can see that coming, but the path there is torturous and may leave some audience members a bit slack jawed. One of my favorite things about the film is that it contains some beautifully animated sequences that illustrate the tales being told. I suspect the water color paintings are based on the illustrations used in the book from which this film derives. Although containing some fairy tale elements, they are not really Disney friendly. Conor has to try to make sense of them and it is a final turn in the story that helps bring it all together.

Neeson is the voice of the Monster but his image does appear in a photograph that suggests Conor's Mother in her childhood with her own father. Neeson has done voice work before. As Aslan (or God if you like) in the Chronicles of Narnia he was suitably ponderous. His two faced cop in the Lego Movie was just the right touch of sardonic indifference. In this film his voice is ferocious and soothing and sometimes harsh. In the end it is a comforting voice, maybe like all of our fathers, a bit scary at times but also a voice that we feel we can trust. Grief and guilt need to be met with a purposeful and supportive figure. Until Conor can find that in the adults around him, he has a Monster to call upon. This is a sad story that may be tough for children to endure as well as soft hearted adults. It is however a worthy drama and ultimately redemptive, but in a painful way.

Run All Night

There will be cynics out there who will dismiss this movie as another reach for your wallet, simply because of our love of Liam Neeson. I am as guilty as the next person of perpetuating the chain of Neeson badass characters showing up in the first part of the year and giving us some meaningless action pieces. "Unknown", "Taken 2", "Non-Stop", and "Taken 3" are all about an inch deep and are really just an attempt to allow Liam to play a hard case. The storytelling in those movies is not well thought out and the action is usually shot in a manner designed to give us a memorable moment with Liam Neeson with a gun in his hand. While there is a moment like that in this film, the rest of the movie strays far from the formula and builds a real story around a sad character that we should have no sympathy for but who ultimately tries to redeem himself for his son and for all of us watching.

"Run All Night" comes much closer to the great Neeson action films of the last few years; the original "Taken", "The Grey" and last years criminally under appreciated "A Walk Among the Tombstones". Like those films, his character's weaknesses are developed as part of the story, not just laid on to create background. His character, Jimmy Conlon, is a mob enforcer formerly known as "The Gravedigger". Jimmy's fortunes have fallen by the wayside as he drowns his nightmares in drink and sloth that barely keep him alive. His best, friend and former employer makes sure that he is taken care of but no longer entrusts him to do the dirty jobs he was once responsible for. That friend, Shawn McGuire, played by Ed Harris, no longer needs that help because his business is more legitimate and less violent than it once was, at least until his son Danny tries to make a name for himself in the rackets. If you have seen the trailer, you know the set up of the movie and it looks like it will be standard action killings for a couple of hours. There are indeed several action sequences and a lot of people get dead, but unlike the disposable types of perfunctory death that Neeson's characters usually provide, these all take a toll on him one way or another. As he attempts to protect his son, Jimmy is forced to confront his legacy as well and it is not a pretty picture.

Neeson plays a real character here not simply some automaton  that walks through the door with guns blazing. The strained relationship with his son makes the process of trying to protect his boy more difficult. The fact that he understands his enemy so well because he once was that enemy is a slap in the face for the kind of person he has been most of his life. Ed Harris give a very strong performance in the film as the conflicted best friend and boss who now wants to make his former associate suffer for what are really his own faults as a father. He knew his kid was a bad seed, but he loved him. The tough love he tries when Danny attempts to build a drug kingdom, is directly responsible for the death of his son. No one will be able to accept that when he can put the blame on a boogie man that he helped create. Jimmy and his son Michael (Joel Kinnaman), become the fall guys for McGuire's own faults. Everybody knows this except Michael, the grown son of Jimmy with a young family of his own and the good sense to stay away from his father's old life.  When Michael tries to do the right thing, it leads to all hell breaking loose. Some cops are crooked, old haunts become dangerous and old friends want to kill the father and son. Reason was never a strong suit with these characters and there is no way of making this right. Ed Harris just received a Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and it was timed to go with this films opening. He can be proud that his work here is more vital than some of his recent efforts like "Snowpiercer".

Even though it is a well told story, there are still a few trite elements that are inevitable. Michel's family is in jeopardy so there will be scenes of them being stalked. The father-son dynamic is stress filled so there will be some defiance of orders/advice given by a criminal to his honest as the day is long son. An implacable hitman is put on the job to dispose of the pair, regardless of the fact that Shawn already has nearly two dozen guys and insiders in the police department working on the task. So if there is so much SOP in this movie, why do I see it as being so much better than the rest of these films? One reason is that there is a side story of a dedicated but frustrated cop who knows what Jimmy has done in his life and he still wants answers for those who have been gone for years. Vincent D'Onofrio is the weary but dogged honest cop who could be a key to saving Michael, if Jimmy plays it straight. An uncredited big name shows up for one scene and delivers a heart rending piece of information that makes it even more impossible for Michael to trust his Dad. There are also good supporting performances from the thugs and victims of the story. Whenever Bruce McGill shows up in a movie, it gets a little better, I only wish he had more to do in this.

The director Jaume Collet-Serra, who made "Non-Stop" and "Unknown" with Neeson before, has a much better story here and he uses the camera and the city of New York in an interesting way to tell it. Ultimately though, it is the story arc of Jimmy that makes this work. He is legitimately troubled by his past but lives through it in daily misery as a penance for what he has done. He never sees this as a chance to redeem his relationship with his son, he knows that he is a dead man, he just wants to do the right thing at the end of his life. The relationship he and Shawn had is brought to life by the solid work done by Liam Neeson and Ed Harris. Their scenes together are sad but reflect a deep bond in spite of the circumstances. You will get a requisite amount of mayhem, but you will also get a tragic story of wasted lives and lost friendships.

Taken 3

This should not take too long. This is a perfunctory sequel to a sequel to a terrific movie. It has little to offer on it's own, except for standard action sequences and interminable car chases and crashes. The story is convoluted nonsense that  fits into many of today's thrillers where criminals lurk around every corner and there is a convenient betrayal behind every door. All the actors do their jobs but it is mostly going through the motions rather than creating something memorable or essential. None of this is a surprise after the lackluster second entry, also directed by Olivier Megaton. When I looked back, I was more enthusiastic than I remember, and I know I must have been somewhat blinded because I have never revisited the sequel.

There are three things that make this movie worth a visit. Forrest Whitaker does a nice job playing a sharp LAPD Detective. At some point in his career, someone decides that he would make a good cop. I think he has been an FBI agent or a cop in the last two or three things I saw him in. The part is not especially well written but he adds some thoughtfulness to it through his performance and especially his voice. The second element that makes this somewhat worthy is the use of Bryan Mills team of buddies. That actually get to do something in this movie and they show they are pretty clever also. They still could have been utilized more but at least they don't just show up and drop something off for him.

The third thing that makes this somewhat worth seeing is the star himself. Liam Neeson can now play these parts without breaking much of a sweat. Whether that is a good or a bad thing depends on your view of Neeson. I have always liked him as an actor, my family jokes a little that I have a mancrush on him. I'm a fan, and I will probably always be available if Liam wants to show up on screen and kill a bunch of people. I do think it is interesting that he became an action star at the point in life when other action stars who have been doing these kinds of movies much longer, are sometimes mocked for being geriatric. He did star as "Darkman" in 1990, but his career did not really become littered with action roles until maybe ten years ago. I suppose he still feels fresh enough to the audience that we can still go with it.

Now the other things that made this movie a problem for me. I already mentioned the frequency of car chase sequences but they are problematic for some other reasons as well. The director shoots the car scenes in such frequent close ups that at times you might forget that the characters are in cars. The action of the cars is also so tight that you can't really get a sense of what is happening to whom, except that there is a lot of mayhem in most of these parts. The ubiquitous shaky cam is present in all of these scenes as well, and once again instead of creating tension or a feeling of being in the action, it creates a sense of vertigo that made at least one member of our part nauseous enough that they had to leave the theater. The action sequences also have that problem, but they suffer from a bigger deficiency, "sanitized brutality". There is a minimum of blood, the broken bones and cracked skulls don't jump out and make you winch they way they did in the first film. There is something too "PG-13" in the way the material is being put together. I did however appreciate Bryan's impromptu waterboarding sequence. It can't hold a candle to the electric shock scene in the original "Taken", but it does show what a nasty customer Bryan can be.


I liked the movie a little more than the second film, but neither will be very memorable. If you are a connoisseur of Liam Neeson action films, than you can't really skip this one. It is a part of a Neeson Franchise and so it is necessary for you. If you are interested in an average action thriller for a date night, this will suffice. If you wanted a good movie, move along, this will not give you what you need. The fact that i enjoyed it probably says more about my faults than it does about the quality of the film.

A Walk Among the Tombstones

There are some things that you just can't unwatch, so you better be sure that you can handle what you choose to spend your time on in a movie theater. There are plenty of horror films, and graphic experimental sick point of view art pieces that I hope never to encounter. I know my limitations. "Irreversible", "Salo" and "The Human Centipede" give off enough warning signs to tell me to stay away. I knew this thriller was going to be tough, and it was. It does not rise to the level that I regret having seen it, but it will leave me with some nightmares about the brutality of human beings. "The Silence of the Lambs" defined the serial killer genre almost twenty-five years ago, and film makers have been chasing it's path ever since. Once in a while they get close, usually when a movie is directed by David Fincher. "A Walk Among the Tombstones" succeeds, much in the way "Zodiac" did, by creating suspense with a horror element and putting it into a procedural.

Director Scott Frank has made only one other film as the director, "The Lookout" which used an interesting premise to build a story around. He is not however a novice at films, having written and contributed to several excellent efforts in the past, things like "Minority Report", "Dead Again", and "Out of Sight". He has created a very tense thriller here based on Lawrence Block's well know series of novels concerning ex-cop Matthew Scudder. I've not read any of these novels but I certainly intend to now, this is a great character with real background and gravitas. The choice of Liam Neeson to portray Scudder is terrific because Neeson can play guys like this in his sleep (and has) but he knows that this character needs more depth. It seems strange to see Neeson killing people at the start of Fall instead of the dead of Winter, but this movie is different. It's not just another action flick where he picks off the bad guys, he has to solve the puzzle and manage his own failings along the way. This feels like a real movie and not just a popcorn filler for the afternoon.

The opening credits of the movie should be enough to give anyone with empathy some nightmares. This is another comparison to Fincher, who in Se7en, created a horrifying world through nightmare entries in a journal that is displayed in a gruesome, flashing manner. This set of titles is disturbing for a very different reason but it is equally horrifying. There are two shots in an otherwise artfully photographed set of images of a beautiful woman. When those two images are revealed, your breath will suck in and you will let out a moan of anguish. All of this happens without a spot of blood or gore. For the rest of the movie, there are additional sequences that will raise the hackles on the back of your neck. The sight of a van is going to make me look twice over my shoulder for weeks. This movie builds suspense, and does so with a limited amount of visual gore. It is exactly the kind of film I love. There are a number of moments that will remind you of gritty urban films from the seventies, and the paranoia that comes from a well developed monster.

Another homage, or ripoff, to Fincher is the use of a Donovan song. In "Zodiac" we hear Hurdy Gurdy Man as the first murders occur. While stalking a victim in this story, the killers have Atlantis playing on the stereo in their van. There must be something about the ethereal sound of Donovan's voice that perfectly matches the creepy vibe the directors are going for. For the first part of the movie we don't really see the killers but they are revealed to us in mundane ways that will also provoke a shudder. At the climax of the movie, the most frightening moment for me was not the face coming out of the shadows, it was a peek through a window, revealing a man simply sitting at a kitchen table, eating a bowl of cereal. If it doesn't freak you out, you must have the same kind of cold blood running through your veins.

I did not recognize a single actor in the movie beyond Liam Neeson. Sometimes that type of anonymity is good because we are not carrying the baggage of other roles and different movies as we watch. The Two actors playing brothers in the story are both excellent and their story arc is another bonus to the depth of the movie. The two guys playing the psychos are so banal in appearance that everybody looks like they could be a killer by comparison. There is a young actor, playing a kids role that feels perfectly natural in the circumstances in which he meets Scudder. The only problem I had with the movie was the frequency with which that character has to act in a manner that belies his well established intelligence. Still, a storytelling short cut or two is inevitable in a complicated movie. Except for the fact that this is a thriller, it should be competing for awards at the end of the year. Since these types of movies rarely get the critical accolades they deserve, it is better for you not to wait. If you are not faint of heart, "A Walk Among the Tombstones" is just what is called for by movie lovers.

Steven Spielberg Blogathon: Directing Actors

Steven Spielberg is rightly credited with being the most effective visualizer of stories working in the last forty years. He took a liability like a non-functioning mechanical shark and managed to create an extremely visceral film out of it. That "Jaws" works is largely a function of his ability to feel how a movie will play to an audience. He took the extra step when making that film, of shooting additional material in the pool of one of his collaborators, to get the audience reaction right. The opening of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a litany of visual and emotional elements from the Saturday serialized films of the Golden Age, but updated and intensified as only Spielberg has been able to manage. The brutality and honesty of the first half hour of "Saving Private Ryan" is a testament to being able to connect with an audience's emotions in the strongest possible ways. Plenty of horror films have been as graphic and disturbing, but none have carried the power of those horrifying images the way that this World War II film managed to do.

Many have criticized his sentimentality in visual language. "Warhorse" although successful has been savaged by some for the Spielberg palate of color, lighting and cinematography. Had the film been made by someone other than Spielberg, it would be seen as a piece of artistic achievement rather than a three handkerchief cash grab. Some pretty picky elements of "War of the Worlds" earned that film scorn from some, even as it delivers the kind of frenzied panic and fear that audiences had not experienced since "Jaws" thirty years before it. He was hammered again for "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" for letting CGI and Shia LeBeof come between the fans of the series and the story being told. The same creative elements in "Minority Report", at least the visual ones, become a source of strife in other pictures. Like all artists, he cannot please every audience every time. There is one skill that he has managed to use consistently, without the same kind of criticism his visualization of a story sometimes gets. That talent is the directing of actors to excellence on the screen. Some of the finest performances over the last four decades have come from actors working with Steven Spielberg.

It is true that a talented actor can pull the weight of a movie on their shoulders and carry it for the audience, but they can only do that with a supportive director who knows what the story counts on. With young actors or inexperienced film actors, the role of the director is even more important. George Lucas has a great instinct for what looks good on screen. He can tell a story that will pull the audience in most of the time, but he does not seem to have the right touch with actors in the same way that Spielberg does. Martin Scorsese develops a troop of actors to work with and as they tune into him, they become more and more reflective of his sensibility. Robert DeNiro and Leonardo DeCaprio have worked with Scorsese on multiple projects. Spielberg has only one actor that he has featured in more than three films (Unless you are pretending that Crystal Skull does not exist). People may not realize it but Tom Hanks has only been directed by Spielberg three times in a starring part. To get a great performance out of a great actor is still difficult. There are plenty of pairings that did not pan out, but Spielberg manages to get actors in the right frame of mind, to give them the space to do their best work or maybe he just exerts enough control to stifle the actors excesses.

Casting and script are part of the process as well. I don't mean to suggest that Spielberg can magically turn a marginal performer into an Olivier, but he can make sure that the right actor is in the part and that their strengths are played to. A good example is Christopher Walken.

Walken is an actor loved for his eccentricities and quirks in delivery. He may be the most imitated actor around because his voice and mannerisms are so distinctive and therefore more easy to imitate. In "Catch Me If You Can" he gives an Academy Award nominated performance that is largely successful because the usual quirks are held to a minimum. Instead of being a cartoon, which is how he is usually used in movies, Walken is given a chance to be a real human being. His flaws are not overplayed and the natural way in which he interacts with the other performers is far different than, oh let's say, his three minutes in "Pulp Fiction". Spielberg knows what he wants from his actors and it appears from the product that he knows how to get it.

He is perhaps best known as a director of actors for his work with children. The main child performances in "E.T." are the source of this reputation. Henry Thomas is the lead, and he carries the movie, but he could not have done it without the help of a patient director. I recently watched Thomas's next film, "Cloak and Dagger" and while he is a good screen presence, he lacks the depth and naturalness that came from working with a knowledgeable actors director. It had to have helped the kids immensely to have shot the film in continuity so the kids always knew where they were in the story for their performances.  Christian Bale delivers an amazing child performance in "Empire of the Sun". Both of these young men are talented performers but it took Bale almost twenty more years to break thorough as a widely recognized acting powerhouse. Both of these films depend on the child performer to carry the picture. Unless you are cast because you are cute, hot or a well known commodity, it is hard to imagine a kid without a strong director being able to hold an audience in their hands.  

His one obvious failure in this area was with "Hook" which was filled with so many kids that most of them don't get a chance to have personality and those that do are burdened with the broadest kinds of direction possible. Maybe Charlie Korsmo was adequate in his role but the other kids ran over Spielberg with their quirks. On the other hand, the kids in "Jurassic Park" are excellent, and you will believe Haley Joel Osment is an android.


Spielberg has had the advantage of working with many established stars but it is the first time or novice performers that he has been able to get the most out of. First time stars Oprah Winfrey, Whoopie Goldberg, and journeyman actress Margaret Avery were nominated for the Academy Award in their first major roles. Directors get credit for so many things on the set that they may have little input on but the one thing they have the most control over is the casting and performance of the actors. Sometimes the director does get lucky. In the movie "Lincoln", Spielberg had had his heart set on Liam Neeson for the title role at first, but as time went on, minor differences emerged in how the two saw the character being portrayed. After the project was repeatedly put on hold Nesson bowed out. I have no doubt that he would have given a towering performance but when Daniel Day-Lewis is your fallback casting, and he is driven to make the character come to life, fortune has smiled on you.

I've not read enough to know how important Spielberg was to Day-Lewis' performance, but I do know they kept late hours and shared information and inspiration even in the middle of the night. It is an interesting piece of trivia to note that of the dozen actors Spielberg directed to Academy nominations, Daniel Day-Lewis is the only one to have actually won.

Tom Cruise made two appearances in Spielberg films as distraught fathers. He has to sell the characters demons and weaknesses in both films while also handling an incredibly physical performance in front of green screens and doing stunt work. If you compare his performances in "Minority Report" and "War of the Worlds" to other roles in action films, there is a level of quality to those performances that certainly was enhanced by working with Spielberg. Nothing in "Oblivion" comes close to the anguish that Cruise displays when confronting the pre-crime scenario that John Anderson goes through as he confronts the man he believes took his child. Because this performance is buried in an action film it is easy to overlook the quality of work that the two of them achieved here.

 While all three leads in the movie "Jaws" were excellent, there are two performances that stand out. The flashy role and the greatest match of actor to part I can think of is the pairing of Robert Shaw with the character Quint. At least four sets of hands were on the script for the famous monologue, Spielberg knew what words mattered and enhanced the performance with camera work and sound design that makes that moment one of the essential film scenes ever.  The second performance is one that is often overlooked, Roy Scheider as Chief Brody is subtle and sometimes heartbreaking. Spielberg knows how long to let some of those moments linger in time. The dinner table scene is a wonderful example of the creativity that can come out when the director and the actor work together.

"...as an adult, filmmaking is all about appreciating the talents of the people you surround yourself with and knowing you could never have made any of these films by yourself.”--Steven Spielberg

A Million Ways to Die in the West

I've not seen "Ted", I don't care for "Family Guy" and I thought his hosting of the Academy Awards was probably not appropriate. That does not mean I don't think Seth Macfarlane is funny, there are a lot of things about this movie that are amusing. I think that in limited doses and with some strong story telling, he could have made this a classic comedy that will be laughed at by audiences for years. As it is, it feels a little tired about halfway through and it fails to take full advantage of some of it's assets.

Let me start by mentioning a couple of things that worked really well for me, the songs and Charlieze Theron. The title song is actually sung over the end credits and it was funny as heck without descending to some of the sad punchlines the rest of the movie relied on. It was the one element that reminded me of "Blazing Saddles". The other song in the movie that also worked well was a dance number that did give Neil Patrick Harris the chance to show off some of his talent. It was a reworking of a Steven Foster song, so while not completely original, I know that the lyrics have been juiced up a bit by the screenwriters.

Charlieze is the one performer who seems to be trying to play a character in a story. Everyone else is mostly mugging for the camera, she plays sweet, and tough and winsome all at once. Even when she is doing comedy shtick, she still seems like a real person. Maybe not always an 1882 person, but not just a joke on two legs. MacFarlane, Giovanni Ribisi, Sarah Silverman, and even Liam Neeson, are camping it up for the camera. Silverman especially, because her part is the broadest and most risque, plays it like a live action cartoon character. After getting the great dance scene, Harris is subjected to a remake of a scene from "Dumb and Dumber" and "Bridesmaids" and it feels tired and the visual punch is for shock value only.

Part of the problem is too much of the premise is given away in the title and the trailers. We are constantly on the lookout and waiting for the next horrifying thing to happen. Instead of being surprised, we are anticipating and the lack of payoff can probably be lain at the feet of the marketing department. Rapid jokes and punchlines are fine, I loved "Airplane!" and it's successors. Here it was just more redundant than it needed to be. I think a lot of the humor relies on being politically incorrect, but that is as far as it goes. When Mel Brooks or Richard Pryor made a joke about race or religion, it was in aid of a bigger laugh, it was not the laugh itself. So much of what MacFarlane does just feels like poking the bear for the sake of getting a rise out of him.

I enjoyed seeing several cameo appearances in the movie, but I also liked seeing several familiar actors from television and movies show up in smaller parts. Matt Clark has been making movies since the 1960s and he has a nice part as a grizzled prospector in this film. He has appeared in several Clint Eastwood Westerns, at least one John Wayne film and several TV westerns. The movie needed a few more references to those roots rather than just the contemporary stunt casting used for quick visual jokes. This movie was entertaining but not special enough to make it essential repeat viewing. I don't know that there are in fact a million ways to die in the west, but I do know that there are a million ways to make a potty joke, and this movie uses about half of them.

Non-Stop

Click on the Poster for the Video Review on the KAMAD Vlog.

The Lego Movie

I have a vague notion of playing with Tinker Toys when I was a kid and I know my older brother had an Erector set that I envied because it had gears and motors and a lot of shiny metal pieces.  I never knew the joy of Legos as a kid . When I became a parent, I must have deliberately chosen to keep legos out of the house for fear of the mess and pain they might represent (stepping on a sharp plastic item, barefoot and in the dark was something I wanted to avoid). We did play with the Legos at the daycare or at the doctors office but there were never any sets or instructions, just building blocks. Sometime in the last twenty years, Legos marketing figured out that connecting with brand-name icons would move even more product for kids who wanted their toys to resemble their movies and TV shows. So characters and action figures became part of the Lego Universe and it has all lead to this, a movie about building blocks.

Way back in the early eighties I was listening to speeches that criticized half hour kids cartoons that were basically shilling for toys. You know, G.I. Joe, Masters of the Universe, and My Little Pony. All of those toys eventually had movies made out of them and if you judged by those films, you would know what my students were worried about, but if you started with this film, you would have no worries at all. This is a movie, featuring toys, that is less about selling a product and more about playing creatively. While you will never be able to see this film and not think of the product, you will certainly not think of it in the same way. This movie is anarchistic, colorful and somewhat demented. It is also funnier than most of the comedies that you see being advertised. I have not yet seen , nor am I likely to, "Ride Along", but the jokes in the trailers and ads for that have not made me smile once much less laugh out loud. "The Lego Movie" had me chuckling at the first trailer and seeing the film today, basically repeated the experience for ninety minutes. This movie is a kick and a contender for best animated feature in next years award lineups. 

The story is a hero's quest featuring the "Legos" figures from most of the popular play sets and some that I'm sure were invented for the movie. There is a funky wizard modeled  after "Gandalf" but don't think it is Gandalf because he appears as himself briefly in one sequence. The ancient giver of wisdom is voiced by the marvelous Morgan Freeman, whose voice was delivered to us by the Gods. Backing up Freeman are the voices of dozens of well known movie and TV personalities, all cast for the unique qualities of their voices. I was listening to the voice of our hero, Emmet, and I confused it with the voice of Chris Parnell. Emmet's range is a little higher than Cyril Figus but they both have that plain, somewhat emasculated tone that makes them the vanilla of the cast of crazy vocal performances. The movie features voice acting from; Jonah Hill, Will Ferrell, Will Arnet, Will Forte, Shaquille O'Neil, Billy Dee Williams, Channing Tatum, Elizabeth Banks and a whole bunch more.  Drawing special mention along with Morgan Freeman, is the king of Winter badassery, Liam Neeson himself. I missed his work in "The Nut Job" a couple of weeks ago, but it seems that Mr. Neeson has been regularly employed because this is the second of three films he has coming out in January and February. His dual role here as "Good Cop"/"Bad Cop" is a jewel of comic vocal variety. Freeman and Neeson alone might have been worth the price of admission but there is also the visual spectacular to bring you in.

The city scapes, oceans, clouds and just about everything else is rendered in "lego" form. The effect is hypnotically amazing and very surreal at times. The space craft and cars and building, you sort of expect from the toys, but the backgrounds and scenery are also visualized as lego constructions and it give the movie an odd sense of "pop" art and engineering genius.  This movie is really well imagined and the look might be worth a 3D investment although I was happy with the traditional view that we experienced it through. 

All the crazy visuals would be only interesting to look at for a short while. You need a story and some dialogue to go along with it. The plot is not especially surprising, although the idea of the alternate universes of "Legos" colliding is a fun and creative addition to the story process. The characters are realized in the most creative part of the film. The action figures talk like they would be the characters, as if they were being voiced by a creative child. Ferrell's President Business drops in an aside here and there to reveal his true colors in some most amusing comments. Will Arnet parodies both Bruce Wayne and Batman with a voice that is deep and dark and silly at the same time. It took a delicate mind to write some of these lines and not have them come off as loud and obvious at times. Pratt's timing in delivering the gee whiz cliches and oh oh jokes is just perfect. Although we do get sucker punched into more Will Ferrell than I would have preferred, in the end he does a good job as well, keeping his usual screaming persona to a minimum. 

There are some serious attempts to make the movie a message about the faults of conformity, but to do so without kicking the kids that can actually follow directions in the teeth for doing so. The number one song in the "Lego" universe is a parody of upbeat dance infected pop that passes for entertainment these days, but it is also catchy as heck and like the pop music it is making fun of, it is very entertaining. 
Listen to this clip to get a sense of what I mean:


I would strongly recommend this film to adults and children. You will find plenty to enjoy, and a confusing set of messages that don't detract from the spirit of the film. It is hard to imagine that the one film made from a specific toy, that I liked was one about a toy that I know next to nothing about and would seem to be incredibly boring. It is the opposite of boring and it is a terrific way to build your weekend into a winner.