The Beekeeper

 

I love it when a movie does exactly what it's supposed to do for you. Some films have a very simple objective, to entertain you in the genre that they're made in with the talent that is brought to bear. I can't say that every Jason Statham film I've seen has been satisfactory, but the majority of them fall into that category, and with “The Beekeeper", the average is going to go way up, because this film is exactly what it sets out to be.

As usual Jason Statham is wreaking revenge on individuals who strongly deserve to be punished. There is virtually no attempt to add humor to the story, or to make it dramatically deep, at least not past the requisite set up. Statham plays a man who has retired to take up beekeeping in its literal form, after serving in a Secret Agency where he was referred to as a Beekeeper, primarily to protect the hive when things go wrong. It's an agency so Secret that even the director of the CIA has little information about it, and that turns out to be a big part of the story.

Maybe someday Jason Statham will be recognized as an actor with Incredible thespian skills, but until that day he should definitely be recognized for his action star persona and credentials. Statham is a one-man Wrecking Crew, much like Bruce Lee in those early kung fu movies where he would take on an army of opponents and single-handedly crush them all, Statham does the same thing.  He usually uses his martial arts skills, he certainly does not limit himself to hand to hand combat. He is perfectly willing and able to engage in Small Arms combat, sabotage, booby traps, and assorted other violence to get his way. In this film Statham plays Adam Clay, which may or may not be his real name but it doesn't matter, what does matter is that he was a beekeeper. The beekeepers are warriors that make the SEAL Teams,  the Army Rangers, and assorted CIA Black Ops look like sissies by comparison. They strike fear into the hearts of even the most hardened assassins, and the antagonists in this film have crossed paths with maybe the most dangerous of the beekeepers. You know this is not going to end well for them.

It might be good to think of Adam Clay as The Terminator, because he is an Unstoppable Force that can't be bargained with,  that will never stop and absolutely will reach its goal. Fortunately for us, in this film, the Terminator is the good guy, and we can applaud the way he knocks down the pins that the bad guys represent to this bowling ball of a human being. Basically he hits a strike every time and the pins fall with mechanical precision in interesting ways each and every scene. John Wick would do most of this work with his gun, Adam clay does most of his with his fists, feet , elbows, and head. And when those don't work he'll find a gun or a flamethrower or some other handy tool that he can use to kick some more ass.

If the film needs any weight, it gets it from Phillicia Rashad in the opening section as an older woman who has offered Clay some assistance in his transition to actually taking care of beehives instead of international intrigue. When she is the victim of cybercrime, the perpetrators have crossed the wrong path and Statham is on them relentlessly. It doesn't hurt that three of the villains are so smarmy that you want to kick their ass yourself. And when they finally get their individual comeuppance, let's just say, it's the kind of satisfaction that people like me, who treat “Taken” as high art, are going to be applauding.

Jeremy Irons also lends some credibility to the film as the former CIA director who is tangentially connected to the Enterprise that ripped off Adam Clay's friend. He also knows what's coming, and half the fun of the movie is watching people who think they understand what they're getting into discovering that they are in way over their head. When Statham shows up at a call center with two gas cans and he tells everybody that he's going to burn the place down, you can bet that it's going to seem incredulous at first as if it can be laughed off. But when he proceeds to do it we're going to smile and think, hell yeah that's the way to handle a Consumer complaint.

This movie is not going to receive any awards for its dramatic integrity, but if the Academy finally caves and creates an award for stunts, then there's a good chance a film like this would get some appreciation. When these sorts of films are providing the backbone for keeping movie theaters in operation and for acting as tent poles for the rest of the theatrical releases by the major Studios, then it seems it would be an appropriate time to maybe have a category at the Academy Awards for face punching, ass kicking, straight shooting, and generally amazing creative fight sequences.

The Equalizer

Many people may be drawn to this film by it's roots. It is based on a popular TV show from more than twenty years ago. I knew of the show but I never watched it, not because it did not sound interesting, but because as a one hour drama in the good old days, you'd have to watch it with commercial and on a weekly basis, and I just did not have time for that in my life at that point. What brought me to the movie is almost certainly what will bring most of the rest of the audience this week: Denzel Washington being a badass.

I mentioned in my review of "A Soldier's Story" on the 30 Years on Project, that Denzel has become my favorite working actor. He has the intelligence, looks and attitude that make him the kind of character that I can usually appreciate in a film, even when he is not a good guy. When he plays the flawed good man in a bad situation, it always feels on screen to me that the other characters are encountering a venemous snake and they are ignoring the rattle. A decade ago, he was in one of my favorite revenge driven movies, "Man on Fire", playing almost the same character. Then it was young Dakota Fanning that he was defending but in today's movie it is Chloë Grace Moretz. He is a skilled ex-C.I.A. operative, trying to live a life without the violence that he knew but he is pulled back in. The bare bones of the story are similar to a dozen other revenge based thrillers that also use the hook of ex- black opps guys. Everyone from Rambo to Bryan Mills seems to have a special set of skills that the audience wants to see them use. 

My theory is that a movie like this is almost an inverted horror film. There is an implacable monster that is capable of killing everything in it's path. Where we cringe at the terror imposed on teen age lovers by hockey mask wearing slashers, we cheer when the monster is on our side. We want the deaths of the evil antagonists to be gruesome because we know that justice, unlike in real life, is being served to them. Robert McCall may not be a spiritual monster, but in his wake are as many bodies and horrifying deaths as you will find at Crystal Lake. Instead of averting our eyes and sinking back into our seats, as we would in the horror film, a revenge film pulls us in and moves us to the edge of the seat as if cheering on our gridiron heroes. It helps when the single minded killer is on the side of the righteous. If you look up the word "Righteous" in the dictionary, there will be a picture of Denzel starring at you with that very expression on his face. 

The movie builds slowly, with pieces of character coming in a bit at a time. The meticulous nature of Robert McCall is a warning that he is not the avuncular co-worker and mentor that he at first seems. His friendly kidding with the other guys at the Home Mart store belies his true nature. We have seen in his apartment that he lives life almost as an ascetic. The furnishings are sparse, the routine is severe and there are no symbols of worldly pleasure except for the collection of books that he is working his way through. He is a strong judge of character but he is not judgmental. His words to the young man he is coaching into a security position are direct and honest and he lets Ralphie decide for himself how to proceed when faced with a weakness. The young prostitute that he converses with in the 24 hour diner in the middle of the night gets the same treatment. He is direct, honest, and friendly without becoming close, and he never scolds her.  It is when he realizes that she can't make the choice for herself that he gets involved. 

There are several nice story elements in the movie that are not associated with the violent action. I like the fact that Robert can sleep once he has taken some action. I thought the image of the diner at night was clearly modeled after the well known boulevard of broken dreams variation of Edward Hopper's Nighthawks. All of that however is secondary to the bursts of violence that we are there to see and which arrive in very satisfying variations. The confrontation with the first set of gangsters is vividly gruesome and the smack talk that Denzel delivers to the one leader of the gang is notable for how it reflects the nature of the character that we have come to know. This episode is a prelude to a series of acts which will lead the audience to more and more satisfaction concerning the story of good versus evil. I've heard some suggest that we are addicted to on-screen violence, but the truth is, that we don't necessarily crave a higher or greater level of violence so much as we want a greater amount of satisfaction with the comeuppance that evil gets. 

Maybe I have a personal flaw in liking this type of film. From a moral perspective, many might find it reprehensible. In the equation of justice that these types of movies seek to provide, I think they usually play to our better selves rather than the morbid part of our character. That being said, a corkscrew and a power drill are like paintbrushes in the hands of a character like Robert McCall. The actor who brings us this work of strange ethically questionable components, should also get some of the credit. If the movie features Denzel Washington killing people, and those people deserve to die, put me down for a ticket. The only thing I did not like much about this movie was the poster.

The Other Woman

I think everybody knows the answer to this before it opened, but I'll go ahead and ask and answer the question anyway. Is there any way that this movie will be any good?     No.

I have liked Leslie Mann in other films, she is an every day kind of attractive. She is a talented comedic actress. She should have looked at this script and run the other way. Having made the movie, she should now sue the producers for turning her into a whining, needy, idiot, character who is made to look unattractive and stupid in nearly every sequence in the film. I have always had a thing for women in hats, maybe I saw Casablanca and and fell in love with Ingrid Bergman at a young age. This movie may have cured me of that fetish. Whenever the director wanted her to look awful, he put her in a hat that not even Bergman could have sold.

Cameron Diaz is still an attractive woman, but she is a little older now and sometimes looks a bit well worn at times. Her smile still twinkles, and her hair is cute in whatever form it shows up in, but either the sun or plastic surgery have given her a tougher look than she probably deserves. Now I will say there was a trailer for "The Sex Tape" playing before this movie and she looked terrific in that, so maybe the director of photography needs to share some of the blame here. She has been funny in a dozen movies. Many of which I liked but others have dismissed (eg. "Knight and Day") Here she has nothing funny to do or say. There are moments when I wondered if she knew what the tone of the film was supposed to be.

I don't really know Kate Upton. She is a beautiful woman and apparently world famous, probably for being beautiful. It turns out she has made three films now and I have seen all three of them. I have no memory of her from the other two at all. So while beauty is certainly a calling card, it is not a memory card, because unless she is on the beach in a bikini, I suspect her acting career will be limited. I hope that doesn't sound too mean, I don't want it to. I was just not convinced that she needed to even be in this movie.

This could almost be a remake of "The First Wives Club" from 1996. Except instead of three philanderers, we have one serial philanderer and the women he has cheated on. It's a woman's empowerment revenge story. Unfortunately, none of the main characters is likable enough to feel much sympathy for and at times they are downright irritating. The male character in the story is played with a tone that guns from suave James Bond sex machine to doofus Jeff Daniels in "Dumb and Dumber". Nothing in the way any of these characters act is in the realm of reality, which would be alright if it was all revenge fantasy, but it isn't. There is another romance shoehorned onto the story, a superfluous character played by Don Johnson, who looks great by the way, that is distracting and totally predictable, and some cultural references to  the French that might have worked if the story had stuck to the comedy and not veered into melodrama.

It doesn't work. I did not expect it to, and the two women who went with me agreed. It's the only new wide release this weekend, so maybe it will make some money, but you can look for a quick exit from theaters and an even quicker exit from your memory.

The Shawshank Redemption

There is nothing so wonderful as a free Sunday afternoon and a classic film playing on a big screen somewhere. AMC has been doing screenings of classic films consistently over the last six months. I applaud them making the effort and I wish I'd made more of them than I have. Fortunately, today I was able to see "The Shawshank Redemption" back in a theater in the twentieth anniversary year of it's original release. This is a movie that received critical attention but not box office love when it first played. In it's initial release it made about $16 million and then, when it was nominated for a bunch of Academy Awards, it added another $10 million or so. Today, it felt a little bit like a repeat because there were only five people in the screening, and I was the first one to buy a ticket according to the box office attendant. Those issues are still a little frustrating because this movie has built a reputation since it was released, like no other I have ever seen.

It is the number one rated film on the IMDB, and it ranks above another 1994 film that is often looked back upon as the film that should have won the Oscar that year "Pulp Fiction". For a movie so middling at the box office, it's reputation has to be based on secondary market exposure, so maybe now that everyone has seen it on DVD, Blu Ray, Pay Per View, Cable, Satellite and broadcast television people may feel it isn't necessary to revisit it. People out there, if that's you, you are wrong. The experience in the theater makes a movie sing like it can't anywhere else. I first saw this with my friend Anne at the old Hastings Theater in Pasadena. There was a sneak preview that was supposedly sold out but we went and got in anyway.  She loved it immediately and while I admired it, I thought maybe it was a little cliched. Over the years my opinion has changed and the main reason for that is an appreciation of the story structure. The whole segment with Brooks, the convict who got released seemed tired when I first watched it, but as I saw the movie again over the years, I realized that the segment is so much less about that character than about all the others in the story. It is a window into the mind of the reluctant "Red" and the hopeful "Andy".

I'm still not convinced that the Mozart moment would have played out the way it does in the film. but the narration by "Red", delivered by Morgan Freeman, makes the moment so poetic and beautiful, that I can now suspend my disbelief for two minutes and appreciate the scene for the moment of glory that it truly is. The shot of the yard with the transfixed faces and bodies of the prisoners and guards is visually arresting. The beatific expression on Andy's face as the Marriage of Figaro plays over the loudspeakers makes the punishment he will receive seem worthwhile.

The other sequence that is so worth watching on the big screen is the reveal of Andy's plan of escape and redemption. From the discovery of the exit, with the warden staring into the void in the wall, to the moment the warden enters the void himself, we get a perfect encapsulation of Andy's true brilliance. The just revenge that follows his exposure of the murder and corruption that takes place in the prison, is an incredibly satisfying moment. After having seen what Captain Hadley and Warden Norton were capable of, there is not an ounce of pity for either of them. Clancy Brown has been in many other films and made a great impression in them, but his sadistic guard makes most of the bad guys he has played over the years look tame. Whenever I see Bob Gunton in a film or TV show, I know that he is a good actor, but he has never had another part like this soulless bureaucrat again.

The Drew Struzan artwork for the tenth anniversary of the film.

Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins are both believable and heartbreaking in this film. While they have both subsequently won Academy Awards in the supporting actor category, this might have been the one time I can think of where a duo award for actor could be justified. They are two sides of a character trapped in prison, and they reflect the hopes and resignations of someone in that situation very memorably. Roger Deakin's photography looks amazing on the big screen and the shot of Andy in the sewer pipe will make you gag because it is lit just well enough to let us know how horrible that 500 yard crawl would be. Kudos to Thomas Newman's score which also sounded great in the theater today. It's playing again tonight at seven and on Wednesday, March 26 at 2 and 7 as well. Don't miss this opportunity, get busy living people.