Taken 2

There was almost no chance I would not like this movie, but there was also almost no chance that it would be as great as the original. Apparently I can predict the future because I was right on both counts. Taken 2 is a satisfying sequel to the original revenge story from 2008. It is hard to believe that it was nearly five years ago that the original came out. Liam Neeson has become a go to action star in his late fifties and early sixties and he looks completely credible doing so. In the time between the two Taken films, he has built up his bonifides by playing a series of tough guys in starring and featured roles.

I've enjoyed his work since I first saw him in "Excalibur" back in 1981, but in the last few years he has become a personal favorite. It may be that since Gene Hackman is no longer working, I am looking for an actor to trust when it comes to parts that feature traditional masculine traits. Tough and intelligent, with a sense of purpose in the way they walk and talk. My daughter would probably say I have a "mancrush" on him, but it is really just that he embodies a lot of the mannerisms and directness that actors like Spencer Tracy, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and Hackman possess. They all play real types much more effectively than any other role. I have sort of avoided the "Clash of the Titans" films, because the costumes and hair styles undermine the very things I like about Neeson as an actor. He is not affected in his portrayals, there is no method angst and no tics or traits that seem obviously to be actors crutches. An action movie like "Taken 2" requires a sense of heightened reality, but it has to be grounded in what is real.

This go round, Neeson's character Bryan Mills is the subject of a revenge plot, created by the families of the characters he wiped out in the first film. If there was any way to make sense of the notion that someone would be "Kidnapped" again, this is the lone plausible stream. Otherwise, the movie would seem like lightning striking the same spot or someone winning the lottery a couple of times in a row. The basic set up takes place pretty quickly and I think that may be a weakness of the film. The head of the family of gangsters is cast well and the Albanian environment seems believable, but we get no sense of the scope of the group and their power. I think some plot development that followed their planning of the whole revenge would be helpful. The only reference we get to the set up of their plan, was a scene with the corrupt French security official who was Bryan's friend in the first movie. After that, we barely see the evil doers except as faceless drivers of chase vehicles or thugs shooting innocent bystanders for almost no reason. In the first "Taken", Neeson has to track a guy down with only a brief vocal clue as to his identity. Along the way he interacts with members of the crime family for brief moments, which give him an opportunity to practice his spy-craft, and allows us to loath some of the bad guys individually. In this film, we see the bad guys working but without much sense of animosity or purpose; except for the head man. All of Bryan's tools are used this time against the setting or environment of the abduction. We can see he is clever in tracking the path of the van that is whisking him away, but none of his tricks has anything to do with the people involved (until the very last).

It's not that the first bunch of gangsters were so interesting because they were not. The weakness is that only two of the bad guys seem motivated. The best scene that brings us closest to the set up that I think I needed a little more, takes place with Bryan hanging from a bar in cellar and the evil "Godfather" character gloating over him. The threats he makes and the violence that he acts upon do mark him as the one person that we most want to see get a comeuppance. While the resolution works, it lacked the soul satisfying (or destroying if you are a pacifist) gut reaction of some of the first films multiple climax moments (Yeah, I see how it reads). To be honest there was never going to be a moment like in the first film when Bryan nails the bad guy in the legs, hooks up the electricity and then just walks out. It is a hard moment to top. This version tries to remind us that Bryan's character is not a monster, although he is a death dealing demon of vengeance. There is some slight hint of the emotional release we want, but it was less orgasmic than I hoped for.

There are some terrific fight sequences. The one where Neeson takes on a half dozen or so of the criminal crew with a piece of a baton or re-bar was exciting and well staged. There were a couple of shootout scenes that had the kind of tension and resolution that an action fan is looking for. The car chase sequences were only mildly effective to me, I think the crowded marketplace setting and the lack of a point of view from the pursuers weakened the suspense a little, but that could just be me. The set up of the story focuses too much on Bryan and his family drama, and not quite enough on the hateful (and should be hated) villains. It still works and an 80% dose of Liam Neeson whoop ass still makes for a great two hours at the movies.

ADELE - Skyfall

Ranking The Bond Opening Theme Songs | Feature | Dark Horizons

Ranking The Bond Opening Theme Songs | Feature | Dark Horizons

I am planning on doing this exact same thing. This site beat me to the punch.

LOOPER

When I saw the trailer for this film and that Bruce Willis was in it, I assumed it was simply another in a long line of fall action pictures that he has been in for the last few years; "Surrogates" and "Red" come to mind. They are enjoyable pictures and sometimes have something going for them, but the expectations are not really great. It did not bode well that it would be Joesph Gordon-Levitt's third or fourth film of the summer. Sometimes an actor gets hot and then the market gets over-saturated with product that has been around but was not on the front burner for the studio (Jennifer Lawrence in "House at the End of the Street"). So while I expected to see this, and liked the idea of a science fiction action film with Bruce Willis, I did not highly anticipate it. I was not looking for blogs that discussed it, I did not seek out clips that would shed light on the story, and this weekend, I did not read any reviews of the movie. For that I am truly grateful. This is a film where a minimal amount of information is needed before seeing it and anything more would spoil it. If you are planning on seeing this, stop reading now and come back after you are done and we can compare notes. I won't be giving up any plot points but by necessity, I will have to reveal a couple of tonal changes that occur in the movie and you should not be sitting there waiting for them.

This may be my favorite film of the year so far. It was intricately plotted, well acted, brought to life in a coherent manner and made me want to see it again immediately. The title of the film gives away some of the issues the story is concerned with. Are we in a perpetual loop of inevitable history or can we change it? Every Science Fiction film that has used time travel as a theme is ultimately faced with these kinds of questions. The first time I remember seeing this used as a plot point was a "Twilight Zone" episode with Russell Johnson (The Professor from Gilligan's Island) in a story attempting to stop the assassination of Lincoln. It has been used for serious dark stories like the "Terminator" series and for light comedy in the "Back to the Future" trilogy. "Looper" is concerned with both the possibilities of changing the past to alter the future and the morality of taking any action that may potentially alter the future. From the start of the movie and in the trailer, we learn that Time Travel is being used for criminal purposes of the worst kind. The limits that have been placed on the technology make it perfect for a particular kind of murder and apparently not much else. This is a plot issue that jumps up immediately and if you can accept the premise than the story should work. If you start exploring other possibilities and seeing the holes in the set up, everything else is going to fall flat. Fortunately, the fast pace of the story at the beginning steam rolls us along and before you know it you believe the circumstances.

Without going through all the characters and plot points, I want to point out how well the film works as an entertainment. So many movies these days are cookie cutter versions of a story that there is not much suspense and certainly no surprise in the outcome. I often feel like a product on an assembly line, waiting for the next standard piece to be added. Many film makers have attempted to maneuver around this by placing surprise twists into stories where the twists are either not really surprising or are simply implausible. "Looper" manages to constantly throw in another element or plot point that makes us reconsider our position as an audience repeatedly. It does this without resorting to cheats which have no connection to the story as set up. The movie it most reminded me of is not "Inception" which I can imagine many will compare it to, but "Memento"; interestingly both of those films came from Christopher Nolan and one of them featured the star of this movie. It is not that the writer/director Rian Johnson is stealing from Nolan, it is simply that the emotional depth of the characters as revealed by the passage of time is so similar. I thought "Inception" and "Shutter Island" were basically the same plot and starred the same actor. This movie feels distinctive and smart, without becoming overly enamored of the lead character.

Stories in movies need compelling characters to motivate us to watch. Usually we like the heroic but sometimes we will live with an antihero. Straight villains as lead characters have worked but in my opinion only in rare cases. "Sin City", another Willis film, is an example of a movie I disliked because not a single character felt worthwhile to me. At first I was afraid that was what was going to happen here. "Joe" the main character, is a murdering drug addict who only cares for himself and the criminal life he has acquired. We are not given any interesting back story, he does not possess a personality that we can latch on to (like any of the irredeemable but interesting characters in a Tarantino film). His life is on a downward, nihilistic spiral that no one would want to watch for two hours, regardless of the action in the movie. We get a brief summary of that life in a montage of events that sets up the older Joe's function in the film. It is with the introduction of the older version of Joe, that the character starts to develop into something we can care about. Our point of view about the two versions of Joe, shifts from loyalty and admiration towards one and then back again. The story is about redemption and what a person is willing to do to gain that redemption. It gets a lot darker than a science fiction film might be expected to do.

Midway through the film, there are some dramatic shifts in the story and the focus of the film changes in very noticeable ways. As I was watching, I almost felt as if I was watching a reel from another movie, accidentally inserted into this film. Of course it does start to connect all the threads of the story together and bring back into focus some of the ideas that were presented in the early part of the film. New characters appear, and there is a reason for their presence. They add a personable dimension to the movie and at the same time begin to bring in the real issues that the story is grappling with. In the long run the story is not about the survival of the two versions of Joe, but rather it becomes about which version of the redemption story is going to prevail. I liked the questions the movie wants us to ask ourselves and I like the solution that we get as the future is being revealed to us. All of this might sound a bit mysterious if you are reading this before seeing the film. I know that might be frustrating so let me get to the hard stuff that everyone can appreciate.

The action in the movie is well staged and easy to follow. The actors do a fine job selling the character they are playing at the point they are supposed to be playing them. There are some good science fiction elements that do not strain credulity but actually feel as if this might be a world toward which we are slipping. The technology is not over the top and mostly exists to service story points, sometimes it is not even referred to or explained. The two leads are excellent and it is definitely Joseph Gordon-Levitt's movie, but Bruce Willis has his best dramatic role in years and he runs with it. There is a quality in his version of Joe that reminded me of his lost soul in "Twelve Monkeys". He is still a tough guy, but the certainty of his moral position is never entirely clear. There is quite a bit of violence to go with the ideas and it is often brutal. When we see how the crime lord in the present manages to get an escaped looper from the future back in line, it is horrifying and brilliantly realized. I think I need to see it again to make sure I really saw everything I think the movie put into my head. It may be that my mind was working out things so much that I just created my own justification for the movie. Of course I don't think that is a bad thing.

How the James Bond Theme Was Born

With so much James Bond stuff coining out on line right now it may be impossible to keep up with it all. When I find something to add to the celebration of 50 Years and the Release of Skyfall, I'm going to add it to the Bond Festival here on the Kirkham A Movie A Day site.

I don't know that everything being said here is right, there have been a number of stories over the years but it sound pretty accurate, even if it is being delivered in a somewhat pompus way by one reporter and frivolously by the other.

Lawless

A couple of my students had recommended this movie to me in the last few weeks. I'd seen the trailer and it did seem like it would be something that I would be interested in. For some reason it slipped by and I had almost forgotten about it. This morning we actually headed to the theater in the hopes of catching up on a horror film that had been out even longer than "Lawless" had bee. The listed screening tome turned out to be 9:30 pm instead of am, and so Amanda and I were faced with a choice of what to do. We considered a couple of other films but this was starting the soonest so in we went. It's probably not the best way to make a decision about what to see but it happens occasionally.

This is a southern fried gangster movie about moonshiners and the corrupt state police that want to take their bite in the bad old days of Prohibition. Once in a while the city gangsters show up as well so there is plenty of rivalry and tension in the story. The art direction, cinematography, and costuming all sell the time period very effectively. As you look at the streets of the small towns, you see the different signs for products of the times, the cars look like they belong to the period and the way the actors are dressed, suggests every photograph I've seen of my grandparents back in the 1920s and 30s. The moon-shining business in the film is supposed to be set in Virgina, but all the big city folks are gangsters and lawmen out of Chicago so it did not always make geographic sense. The film is based on a book that is written by the one of the descendants of the three brothers featured in the story, so I suppose there is some truth in it, although the usual dose of Hollywood hyperbole is detectable in the marketing phrase "Based on a True Story".

The oldest brother in the family of moon-shining bootleggers is played by Tom Hardy. He is is on the brink of being one of the biggest stars in the world. Earlier this year he was the villain "Bane" in "The Dark Knight Rises", but even better he appeared as the damaged marine in last years fantastic "Warrior". His acting talent is not utilized in big strokes in this movie. Half of his performance depends on a gravely voiced southern accent which is used to utter half words such as might actually be said by someone of his status in life. He nails the dead eyed look and mumble pretty well. The other half of his performance however seems to come from the cardigan sweater he wears in the whole movie. He looks like a bulky grumpy grandad rather than a bad ass. At least up to the moment when the brass knuckles he has hidden in his pocket end up in the mouth of someone who crosses him. There are only a couple of scenes where his explosive persona comes out and gives the viewer the emotional outcome we are looking for. The climax of the picture renders him less imposing than other characters that the story is really more focused on.

If you read movie blogs of any type, you will almost certainly have encountered the hate that Shia LeBeouf has generated over the last few years. Despite being featured in the three "Transformers" movies, which have made a ton of money as well as appearing in a number of other successful film, he appears to be an irritant to a number of film goers. It may have started with the less than successful story in the last "Indiana Jones" film. There was a lot to criticize there and he was responsible in at least the on screen segments of the story that most fans find cringe worthy. In my view he has simply been a young actor who is trying to grow in his craft, sometimes failing because of weak material of poor casting. He has however been good in several movies and I would count this one among those. As the youngest brother of the hill country clan of distillers, he is a mix of eager puppy and screw up. The character is written for someone just like LeBeouf, wanting to be more than he is, preening when he makes his mark and believable when he makes a mistake. The match between actor and role is a good fit and the film succeeds in large part because of his presence.

There are some very good performances from other actors in the movie as well but none of them draws attention to the acting with one exception which I will discuss in a moment. Jessica Chastain, who was in two wildly different movies last year, one I loved and the other I loathed, is stuck in a thankless role as the eye candy that generates some emotion from the older brother but her character is just underdone. She has the part of the sexy temptress but I thought she was out-shined by the demur and luminous Mia Wasikowska. Her part is even less well developed but she has just the right look and smile to sell the character of a slightly rebellious Mennonite preacher's daughter. The performance that draws the most attention to itself is Guy Pearce as the corrupt D.A. enforcer Charlie Rakes. He chews a little scenery, but the biggest part of his performance is a legacy again of the costume and make up departments. Like Hardy's sweater, Pearce's hair cut and lack of eyebrows do most of the heavy lifting for the role. He is creepy without having to know much about him.

Gary Oldman is in the movie but other than two scenes, one of them a memorable costarring performance with a machine gun, you would not recall he is part of the story. The machine gun does remind me that this is a very violent film. None of it is the cartoon violence of "Dredd". This movie violence feels threatening and like it is a daily part of the lives of all the characters. Some of it is shown but thankfully the most brutal parts are mostly hinted at. I was glad not to see the castration and rape scenes that tell you just how depraved some of the characters are. You know that the danger was real and that's about as far as we need to go with it.

The music was authentic sounding with some tunes featuring Emmy Lou Harris and the final song performed by Willie Nelson. Much of the music reminded me of the southern inflected gospel music of "Oh Brother Where Art Thou". The story arc is pretty straight forward and the main point of the movie is the maturation of the central character of the Shia LeBeouf. That might keep away the haters but if you like a hard boiled gangster picture with some good performances and solid action, I think "Lawless" is worth the effort.

Dredd

If this is what you are looking for than this is what you are looking for. It meets all your expectations and satisfies the violence quotient you are jonesing for. There is a definite edge to the film that was lacking in the first big screen version of the story. Not being a fan of the comic that it is based on, I can't say how faithful they were to the story but it sure feels like the tone of the movie is in line with the no nonsense visualization that comes up here. The plot is straightforward, there are only a couple of twists and they occur within the confines of the story and don't scream "Hey we need to punch this up a bit".

Karl Urban plays the title character and it is a interesting performance because he never takes his helmet off. The Judges in  Mega city are all uniformed with armor and a head piece that hides the top half of their faces. It is never clear to me what the advantage of this is, but it was clear that Judge Dredd takes all of this very seriously. Since Urban has to perform with half a face, he needs to got the tone of the Judge right and make it work through action scenes and dialog. I thought he nailed it. There are not one liners or quips that make this character interesting, but his reaction and vocal tone speak volumes. He never plays a line for laughs, but there is sometimes a slight smirk and a odd pause that tells you the Judge just make a funny. Most of the time his world weary sigh is enough to tell you that the business end of his gun is about to do the rest of his speaking.

The only element of the movie that seemed like it might be a movie made plot point involves the rookie Judge that Dredd is evaluating. In the toxic irradiated world in which the story takes place, it appears that there are mutations. Most of these are not seen and when they are referred to, it is with a disparaging description of their lack of arms or legs. Judge Anderson however appears to have psychic abilities that raise her value despite a low set of  test scores. The psychic element also gives the female co-star the opportunity to skip wearing her helmet since it could interfere with her talent. In truth, this simply gives the actress, Olivia Thirby, the ability to play her part with a complete face. It's one thing to have a bunch of faceless hoods being dispatched in overwhelming numbers, but the audience needs some emotional connection to the main characters and if both of them remain anonymous that would be tough. The psychic ability plot line proves useful and it was not overly used but there were a couple of places where the rules regarding how it works were a bit inconsistent.

I have not been able to catch up with a movie out earlier this year, "Raid Redemption". I have heard that it has a very similar plot to this film and that there is also a lot of imaginative violence that drives it as an entertainment. I expect it will be right up my alley because the current film clearly was. Hundreds of gang members in a massive building are trying to wipe out the two judges. There is some technical mumbo jumbo used to make the battle remain between the gang and the judges without any outside assistance for the most part. This was another plot loophole toward the end of the film, and one of the twists that comes up, while not exactly a cheat, feels a little too pat. Still, this two against hundreds saga is filled with small scenarios that hold our attention. There is a nice use of the psychic skills to escape one situation, a technical trick to fix another, and finally there is the willingness of the minions to act recklessly, which allows our judges to be so efficient in dispensing justice.  In one extremely long outburst of violence, hundreds of bystanders are slaughtered in a pretty mechanical way. I appreciated that the glorification of violence was usually reserved for the wicked as they got their comeuppance.  If you are clearly as bad a person as I am, and take joy in the violent retribution that the criminal behavior brings, then you will want to see this in 3D. The viscera comes flying off the screen and splatters (metaphorically)  on the audience in abundance. It is shameful and base to take such delight in violent images such as these. So of course I loved the movie. Let's face it, this is an entertainment that derives its purpose from exploiting the violence.

There have been other violent soaked orgies of cinema excess that I have not enjoyed despite their bloody visage. "Sin City" comes to mind. I am also unwilling to endure what some have called "torture porn". Movies in which the innocent are mutilated as often as the guilty, are harder for me to justify to my own sensibility. I need to care about someone in the movie for there to be a value to the vengeance. I cared about the two judges. The rookie represents an innocent who is looking for a life purpose in a world that otherwise has no use for her, and the veteran Dredd, is the silent figure of justice that is as close to an ideal as one can come to in the world created by the film. He goes by the rules and follows the code. Those that cross the line do so at their peril. It's nice to think that someone so single minded and violent is on the side of justice rather than a criminal. In many ways he is "Robocop" without the cyborg trappings, and "Robocop" is one of my favorite cinematic heroes. All you need to know going into this is whether the premise appeals to you. If it does, if violent action in pursuit of "justice" is your kind of movie, than get to a theater because this is your kind of movie.