Mystery Monday: Hush

The impact of some films is ruined if a reviewer blathers on about it. This is one of those. Watch this one minute of cinematic brilliance. You won't regret it!

Hush (2018)
Starring: Kavya Trehan and Joy Chatterjee

Director: Kssheetij Saini

Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

'Knives Out' is a great Who-Dunnit

Knives Out (2019)
Starring: Ana de Armas, Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, Don Johnson, Michael Shannon, Christopher Plummer, and LaKeith Stanfield
Director: Rian Johnson
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

The famous private detective Benoit Blanc (Craig) teams with the local police to untangle the circumstances surrounding the death of an eccentric mystery writer (Plummer).

"Knives Out" is fun, tightly scripted update of the classic mystery novels/detective films where most of the characters in the tale had reason to see the victim dead, and the detective politely (for the most part) talks his way to unmasking the killer through interrogations in drawing rooms. Its main location is a throwback to both Agatha Christie novels and the Dark Old House movies of the 1920s and 1930s, while its all-star ensemble cast is like revisiting the movies of this genre from the 1970s and 1980s. Yet, with all these classic elements that will fill mystery movie lovers with nostalgia, this is a thoroughly modern story.

At all times, the film treats the "drawing room detective" and surrounding tropes with a level of respect that is rarely seen anymore, but, like the best films when the genre was in its heyday, it does it with equal degrees of drama and humor as it unfolds. There are many laugh-out-loud one-liners in the film, as well as a number of funny situations (my personal favorite is when the police detective played by LaKeith Stanfield declares "That was the dumbest car chase ever.", as the mystery is at its most convoluted), but the film never mocks or gets self-ironic with its subject matter--except in cases where characters are commenting on themselves.

Another element that makes "Knives Out" a great experience is that it plays fair. All the clues to the identity of the murderer (if there even was a murderer, because the victim's death would just have been written off as a suicide if a mysterious person hadn't sent Benoit Blanc an envelope of cash to investigate) are out there in the open, and all the stray bits that somehow relate to either including or excluding possible suspects as the story unfolds, eventually come into play. Even an apparent comment made by the man who will soon be a corpse in sorrowful reflection on his advanced age and the state of his family ends up being echoed with great effectiveness in the movie's climax.

At one point, I felt "Knives Out" was playing a little too fair with the viewers, because I thought I had figured out who the killer was early on--and even as more complications were thrown in and more actual details came to light, I remained certain I had guessed correctly. A few twists later, and I no longer cared if I was right or wrong... the ride to the solution getting more and more exciting and fun (and funny), and even if I thought I had the who, I still didn't have the complete how or why. Like Blanc says at one point, in what must be the most hilariously tortured metaphor in cinematic history, "Knives Out" was like a donut with a hole, within which another donut fit but it also has a hole...

If you enjoy classic murder mysteries and "who-dunnits" with an emphasis on wit, "Knives Out" is a great way to spend a couple of hours.

A great film about 'Bad Times at the El Royale'

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Cynthia Erivo, Jon Hamm, Lewis Pullman, Dakota Johnson, Chris Hemsworth, and Cailee Spaeny
Director: Drew Goddard
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

Four people (Bridges, Erivo, Hamm, and Johnson) check into the El Royale, a motel built across the California/Nevada state line. Each one of them has secrets, including the motel... and before the night is over, all those secrets will be revealed and writ large in blood.

Some films are nearly impossible to review without spoiling them... and "Bad Times at the El Royale" is one such picture. While it's visually gorgeous and expertly filmed; while the set design is perfect; while every actor gives a great performance, surrounded and supported by perfectly designed sets, which combine to bring to life a tightly woven tale about the most consequential night in the lives of the main characters... while all those things make the film worth watching, the real excitement comes from seeing the secrets come to light and discovering who these people really are. And if I were to comment on those, I would rob you of the greatest pleasure this film has to offer.

The clearest evidence that it's the revealing of secrets that drives this film is the way the film seems to slow down when Chris Hemsworth's character (Billy Lee) arrives on the scene, during the final act. It's a character that's pivotal to the story, and closely tied to the secrets held by a couple other characters, but Billy Lee himself has no hidden aspects to show. Further, his role in the story as the final catalyst to bring everything to a head is plain even before he arrives at the motel, so, even though the action around him is tense and thrilling, I found myself wishing the movie would get going toward the conclusion that was already foregone at that point. (Yes... there could have been another twist or two--and there was a split-second where I thought writer/director/producer Drew Goddard was going to introduce one--but he didn't.)

Hemsworth and the sequence involving him were absolutely necessary--this is a movie where EVERY second of screen time matters and is used to its fullest extent--it just isn't as engaging as what's led up to it, because there isn't any "oh wow!" moments in it. In a movie where even a motel has multiple secrets to surrender, the guy who is completely transparent is just a little dull, no matter how dangerous the character is, nor how brilliantly he is brought to life the actor.

Although I just spent who paragraphs being negative, I want to stress that this is the only thing I can be negative about with this movie without engaging in some serious nitpicking. If you like the film noir genre, if you like well-done and creatively executed thrillers, then I think you absolutely must see "Bad Times at the El Royale". Heck, this is a movie where even the title is perfect... it refers not only to the night the main characters are about to have, but to the decline of the motel itself.

'Hangman' is not worth your time

Hangman (2017)
Starring: Carl Urban, Brittany Snow, and Al Pacino
Director: Johnny Martin
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

A retired police detective (Pacino), a criminal profiler (Urban), and an investigative journalist (Snow) are drawn into a twisted game by a serial killer with ties to the past of one or more of them.

"Hangman" is a lazily written movie that stands at the intersection between the thriller, the police procedural, and the horror movie, in that it has elements of all three genres and deploys them all in a mediocre fashion. The cast gives the weak script the performances it deserves, with no one being especially good or bad... although Pacino pretty much just walks through a role he's probably played a dozen times in his career, so I suppose he gets a point for consistency and predictability if you're watching because you're a fan of his.

Although purely mediocre for most of its running time, it's the last five seconds that push the movie down from the low-end of average to just bad due to a misguided attempt to tack on a shock ending, or maybe leave the door open for a sequel. Whatever the motivation for the truly stupid final moment, it wipes away what little "Hangman" had going for it.

Unless you come across this turkey late night on cable, or you've watched everything there is to see on Amazon Prime or Netflix, you should avoid "Hangman." It is not worth your time.

'The Expendables 2' is very much expendable

The Expendables 2 (2012)
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, Nan Yu, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lliam Hemsworth, Jet Li, and Chuck Norris
Director: Simon West
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

When a CIA operative Church (Willis) forces The Expendables to escort a security expert (Yu) in a mission to recover stolen state secrets, they unexpectedly find themselves up against a Satanic group of mercenaries and their leader (Van Damme) who are persuing the same objective.

"The Expendables" was a decent homage to the action films of the 1980s and 1990s. It featured faces familiar from those days, in a story that made sense in an action-movie world kind of way.

"The Expendables 2" is a spoof of the action films of the 1980s and 1990s, and not even a good one. Its script is less of a story and more of  a string of catch-phrases and cameo appearances played more for the laughs than action and drama. Even the final showdown between the heroes and villains is played more for laughs than drama. In fact, it's such a spoof of action films that Chuck Norris's role in the film is basically a cinematic presentation of a few "Facts About Chuck Norris".

While every featured player gives the exact performance you'd expect them to give, and everyone is obviously in on the fact the movie is a spoof of action films, there's really little else here besides the aging stars that's note worthy. Average Willis, Average Schwartzenegger, Average Van Damme, Average Stallone, and Average Self-Mocking Post "Facts About Chuck Norris" Norris, all appearing in a disjointed and weakly written action comedy. Since I like all the featured actors, it's hard for me to hate this movie, but as it wore on the illogical of the story, the random way characters popped in and out of the plot, and ever-growing number of "wink-wink" moments started wearing on me.

The best thing I can say about "The Expandables 2" is that it's a far more effective spoof than anything that's ever come out of the creative team behind things like "Spyhard" and "Epic Movie"--but that's damning with faint praise, because I'm not sure it was intended to be quite as much a spoof as it turned out to be. I think it's just a badly conceived movie.

'The Mechanic' remake falls short of the original

Well, "The Expendables Week 2" didn't really get off the ground, especially since I haven't even had the time to see "The Expendables 2" yet... but I'll be posting reviews of films featuring the cast of the latest assembly of Action Movie Greats for the next few days anyway. Hell... Life might even cooperate to the point where I'll get to see the Big Movie this Thursday.

But first....

The Mechanic (2011)
Starring: Jason Statham, Ben Foster, Tony Goldwyn, and Donald Sutherland
Director: Simon West
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Bishop (Statham), ohe world's foremost assassins, is tasked with killing his long-time friend and handler (Sutherland) after it appears he has betrayed their employer. Bishop reluctantly performs the hit and then, motivated partly by guilt, takes on the friend's son (Foster) as an apprentice hit-man, teaching him the tricks of the trade.

The deep regard in which I hold the 1972 "The Mechanic", of which this is a remake, may be coloring my estimation of this film.

From beginning to end, this film is fairly solid. It's well-paced, the action scenes are all well-staged, the effects are nicely done (including the computer-generated blood-splatter... I only noticed it because I've developed a bad habit of looking for it; kudos to West and his special effects crew for being among the few filmmakers to know how to use that kind of CG effect properly on the screen), and the actors pretty much all deliver the type and quality of performances that we expect from them for the parts they are playing in a film like this.

Everything here is adequate... unless you have the misfortune of having seen the 1978 "The Mechanic." Then, you have the sense that you're watching a pale imitation based on a dumbed-down version of the original story.

It's not that Jason Statham is bad as assassin Arthur Bishop--it's just that his version doesn't come close to touching the icy cool of Charles Bronson's portrayal. It's not that Ben Foster is bad as Steve, the apprentice assassin--it's just that Jean-Michael Vincent made you so want to punch him in the face over and over. It's not that Donald Sutherland was bad as McKenna--it's that Keenan Wynn was dead-on perfect for the role as the doomed fixer.

And it might be that all the actors in the remake of "The Mechanic" would have come off better if the script they were working with had been as intelligent as the one in the original--it's as if they decided to trade flash for substance when they set about to make this version--and if the direction, cinematography, and editing would have been as perfectly artistic as in the original instead of just serviceable as it is here.

Finally, the filmmakers here manage to screw up the perfect ending of the original, muting whatever might have remained of the original film's tale about two violent men in a violent business.

If you're a Jason Statham fan, I'm sure you'll like this movie. It is very entertaining, and Statham does his usual solid job. However, if you want to see a more intelligent (if less action-packed) film about hitmen and the dangerous, amoral roads they travel, you need to check out the original.

Like the very best 'Punisher' comics!

It's not often that a fan-produced film starring professional actors comes along. It's even more rare that it captures the essence of what made the comic book upon which it was based so cool.

This sort-of sequel to the 2003 "The Punisher" is a must-see if you liked the original black-and-white comic stories... and the stand-alone stories that were scattered throughout the 1990s issues of "The Punisher" and "The Punisher War Journal"... the stories were he was far, far removed from the Marvel Universe of heroes.

And, once again, I have to say... Thomas Jane IS Frank Castle. Check out this excellent short film... and see if you can answer the question, "What is the difference between justice and punishment?"

Dirty Laundry (2012)
Starring: Thmas Jane
Director: Thomas Jane
Rating: Ten of Ten Stars

Here's what Jane had to say about this film: "I wanted to make a fan film for a character I've always loved and believed in - a love letter to Frank Castle & his fans. It was an incredible experience with everyone on the project throwing in their time just for the fun of it. It's been a blast to be a part of from start to finish -- we hope the friends of Frank enjoy watching it as much as we did making it."

Fun mystery with Edgar Allan Poe hunting killer

The Raven (2012)
Starring: John Cusack, Luke Evans, Alice Eve, Kevin McNally, and Brendan Gleeson
Director: John McTiernan
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

In 1849, a madman launches on a series of grisly murders inspired by the writings of Edgar Allan Poe. When Baltimore Police Detective Fields (Evans) turns to Poe himself (Cusack) for help in the investigation, he plays into the killer's hand and draws not only Poe but his young lady love (Eve) into a web of terror and destruction rivaled only by Poe's horror stories.

"The Raven" is a neat, if not terribly deep, mystery film. It has an atmosphere that brought to mind a little bit Poe's stories--with their twisted intrigues, darkly romantic atmosphere, and downbeat endings where nobody wins and all is horror and misery--and a lot of the Edgar Wallace-inspired movies from the 1960s--with their masked maniacal villains undertaking impossible schemes of murder. It's a combination that I enjoyed immensely as the film unfolded. I liked the film's denouement, because until the film's last moment it looked like they were setting up a sequel... and I was relieved that they backed away from that. (Although... the way it did ultimately end, the door was left open for one, depending on what you imagine happened as the credits start to roll.)

While there were some aspects of the film that seemed a bit far-fetched--with the killer built a massive contraption to re-enact "The Pit and the Pendulum" alone and undetected being the worst of these--the biggest complaint I have with the movie is the use of those CGI blood-spatter effects that every filmmaker, from the most budget-starved backyard productions to the money-gorged opening-on-2000-screens studio extravaganzas. As in every other film I've seen them used in, theses look so fake that they break the illusion and wrecks the scene far more than even the worst practical blood effects. Is it really so much more expensive to hook an actor up to some tubes and pump red liquid through them? The effects crew did it when a couple of throats got slit during the course of the movie, so would it really have been that much harder and that much more expensive to just same effect on a larger when a guy gets cut in half by a giant, swinging blade?

Overall, though, this is a film worth taking a trip to the Cineplex for... although you can just as easily wait for it to be released on DVD or VOD, because there's really nothing here that will be lost by not seeing in on the theatre. Heck, maybe those terrible blood effects will seem less terrible when on a smaller screen.

Neat action flick built around time travel

Time Again (2011)
Starring: Angela Rachelle, Tara Smoker, John T. Woods, Scott F. Evans, and Gigi Perreau
Director: Ray Karwel
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

After he loses a set of magical coins that allows the possessor to travel in time and alter events is lost in a local diner, a power mad gangster (Evans) goes on a murderous rampage in the establishment, killing or maiming who were present. Six months later, her sister, Marlo (Smoker), is still dealing with the guilt of having traded shifts with her and thus avoided getting killed, when the gangster catches up with her. He is still looking for his magical coins, and he believes she has them. But as she is trying to escape, she encounters a mysterious old woman (Perreau) who actually DOES have the coins. She gives them to Marlo, thus giving the girl the chance to save her sister and everyone else in the diner by changing the past.

I love time travel stories, so it is a given that I liked "Time Again" a great deal; it basically takes a real crappy bunch of filmmakers to make a time travel movie I don't like. Fortunately, first-time director Ray Karwel and the cast in his film are far from crappy.

The story moves at a quick pace and is lots of fun with its repeating time loops--each one a little different as Marlo tries to undo events that seem destined to happen, and each one getting increasingly fun to watch as she takes advantage of knowledge gained during one trip to effect events in the other.

The acting is also better than one finds in many films made at this budget level. It's about as good as what you find in the 1980s films from Crown International or Andy Sidaris, which means it's mostly solid if a little stagy at times, but nowhere near as brain-achingly amateurish as what seems to have become the norm in the low-budget films these days. But that's not too surprising given that Karwel's leads are all experienced actors, most with a dozen more films or television appearances under their belts. Angela Rachelle and Scott F. Evans are particularly strong in their parts, and I will have to keep an eye out for other films they're in.

Karwel also has mostly firm control over all the technical aspects of the film. He understands how to place a camera to make a fight scene seem like people are actually throwing punches instead of playing Cops & Robbers in the backyard, and the film's CGI muzzle-flashes and gunshot wounds are generally well done as well. There are only a couple of times where the film's low budget shines clearly through in the sense that close-ups or off-camera events are used in order to cover effects that would be too expensive or complicated to pull off. But, in my book, that also puts Karwel in a different class than many of his peers, as they would have attempted the effect anyway to the detriment of the over all picture.

I also have to admire the post-production efforts that went into the picture, as there isn't a single instance where I can mount my standard gripes about lack of color correction, bad use of sound, or inappropriate use of soundtrack music.

All in all, this is a fun, swift-moving action flick that makes great use of its time travel story elements and its talented cast. Karwel and everyone else involved with this film are names and faces to watch for in the future.

Sherlock Holmes goes over the top

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)
Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Noomi Rapace, Jared Harris, and Kelly Reilly
Director: Guy Ritchie
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Downey and Law)track and fight anarchists and Holmes' nemesis Professor Moriarity (Harris) across Europe in a desperate bid to stop them from triggering war on a global scale.

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" picks up where the Downey and Law's first outing as Arthur Conan Doyle's legendary characters left off and carries forward along the trajectory of that first movie--the action is wilder and well over the top, and the scope of what's at stake if Moriarity bests Holmes has likewise been ratcheted up. Basically, if you hated the first movie because you felt it wasn't "Sherlock Holmes", you're going to hate this one.

Me, I hated the first movie, because director Guy Richie didn't seem able to tell a story, which is odd because he seemed pretty good at it with his early films like "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels". And then there was the moronic way he and the script-writers chose to establish Holmes' prowess as a boxer and thus showed Holmes to be a bit of dolt at the same time--which he possessed in the Doyle stories, as those who paid attention to them rather than old Universal Pictures films or British TV shows would know--and the painful overuse of slow motion action sequences.

While Richie still made an obnoxious overuse of both slow motion and still-frame shots during action sequences, his story-telling was a little less muddled because the story really wasn't all that complicated and he didn't inadvertently paint Holmes as an idiot by having him engage in self-destructive behaviors beyond what we're used to from the Doyle stories and other films.

The acting was serviceable all around, and neither Holmes nor Watson were the exclusive butt of jokes; like the first Downey/Law pairing, one can actually understand why Holmes keeps Watson around... although I did find myself wondering sometimes why Watson puts up with Holmes. The comedy in the film was balanced nicely with action sequences, and it a very entertaining movie over all.

It is, however, an action film and not a mystery movie. There is really no mystery that Holmes is trying to unravel, but he is instead trying to outmaneuver Moriarty and the evil genius' master plan. The exact nature of that plan is hidden for a time, but it's not really relevant what Moriarity is up to when it comes right down to it. All in all, it's a film that is probably more entertaining if you watch it with the attitude you might watch a Jean Claude Van Damme vehicle, or maybe a James Bond movie.

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" is a rare sequel that's better than the film it follows. But if you want "classic Holmes", you're better off with almost any of the Holmes' films I've written about here.

'Unknown' is worth exploring on the cheap

Unknown (2011)
Starring: Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, January Jones, Bruno Ganz, Aiden Quinn, and Frank Langella
Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

While in Berlin for a scientific conference, Dr. Martin Harris (Neeson) wakes up after a serious car accident to find a stranger has assumed his life in every detail, even apparently the affections of his wife (Jones). Martin turns to the only witness of the accident he can find (Kruger) and a retired East German spy (Ganz) for help in proving he really is who he says he is. And that's when the assassins start stalking him and killing everyone he makes contact with....

"Unknown" is one of those movies it's hard to talk about without ruining the whole thing, because it relies on plot twists and secrets for its effectiveness. Without spoiling too much, I can say that the story is sort of a cross between the 1956 version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" and the 1938 version of "The Lady Vanishes", except in this case it's the main character who has, basically, vanished and he has to pick his way through a deadly cloud of lies and violent spies. The twists and reversals as the film unfolds sets it apart from those two Hitchcock classics, but I think if you enjoyed those films, you'll be entertained by this one as well.

Overall, the film is well-paced and it's revelations are timed appropriately to keep the story going. There's a car chase in the middle of the film that is extremely ridiculous as it's unfolding--suddenly, a university researcher and biologist is able to drive a stick-shift in a fashion that most racecar- and stunt drivers envious--but once all the pieces of the puzzle have been revealed--it makes sense. It's a weak point of the film that just a few lines of dialogue between Martin and his wife at the beginning of the film could have dealt with and the film would have been better for it.

The film would also have been better if the director had been a little less in love with shaky-cam footage, jump-cuts, and extreme close-ups during action sequences. I'm there are viewers out there for whom such techniques make the film more exciting--why else would so many directors over-use them as severely as they do?--but for me they become very, very annoying when used in excess like they are here. Give me Hitchcock's nice steady shots any day over the Alcoholic Monkey with the DTs technique on display in so many scenes, as well as the ADD editing style. Admittedly, it's not as bad here as in some movies, but it's enough to get annoying.

Despite its flaws, "Unknown" still emerges as an entertaining thriller. Just see it at a matinee, or go on days when the popcorn is cheap. Or, better yet, wait three months for the DVD to be available. You'll be more satisfied, because you won't feel like you've wasted money.

Was there a point to 'The American'?

The American (2010)
Starring: George Clooney, Violante Placido, Paolo Bonacelli, Johan Leysen, and Thekla Reuten
Director: Anton Corbijn
Rating: Two of Ten Stars

A freelance assassin and gunsmith (Clooney) finds that he himself may be targeted by assassins. He retreats to a small Italian village where he sets about making one last weapon before retirement... and gradually starts to reconnect with humanity.


This is probably the best-looking, best-acted film that will ever be featured on this blog.

Every single shot is absolutely perfectly composed and gorgeous to look at. George Clooney is better here than even in the films he did for the Coen Brothers. The rest of the cast likewise show themselves to be masters of their craft--they have to, because much of this film is conveyed through body language and subtle facial expressions instead of dialogue. To call this movie "quiet" is almost an understatement... there is barely even soundtrack music.

But for all the good things here, it is lacking one very important element: A story.

As gorgeous as this movie is and as great as the acting was, nothing of any consequence happens in this film. Sure, there's a little action. Sure, there's a gorgeous babe who spends most of her time on screen completely naked. Sure, George Clooney makes a gun for a mysterious hit-woman. But what passes for the plot here adds up to a whole lot of nothing.

Not having a strong plot isn't necessarily a bad thing for a film that is first and foremost a character piece. But what is bad here is that it's a character piece where we never go below the surface of the characters. The actors are giving the script their all, but nothing is brought to light with those performances because the story goes nowhere. Hell, we barely learn anything about their daily lives, other than the most superficial things. (I referred to Clooney as an assassin in my summary, but I'm not convinced that's an accurate description. The preview for the film refers to him as an assassin, there are moments in the film where I believe he's an assassin--especially in the opening sequence--but he seemed more like a master gunsmith who sometimes takes to the front lines to me. Maybe I missed a key exchange?)

Maybe I nodded off during a key moment of the film; as I said, this is very quiet movie... perhaps the most quiet I've ever seen that involves gunplay and killing. I don't think that I did, because the visuals were mostly engaging. However, it's fairly early in the film that it becomes apparent that things are going nowhere... and no matter how beautiful the scenery is, it gets dull watching it when you know there's no point. Heck, even the Big Sex Scene seemed like it went on and on and on and on and on.

I really wish I liked this movie more than I do, but I think the Two Stars may be even too generous a rating. They are being awarded for the great acting and beautiful visuals, because in all other areas, this movie is a complete failure.

'Stone' should sink like a rock

Stone (2010)
Starring: Robert De Niro, Edward Norton, Milla Jovovich, and Francis Conroy
Director: John Curran
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

A sociopathic arsonist (Norton) and his wife (Jovovich) set into motion a scheme to manipulate a prison parole officer (De Niro) to secure his release from prison.

Take a half-baked drama inspired by classic film noir pictures, tack on some poorly developed ideas about redemption and the transformitive power of spirituality, and conclude the story with a limp and overly vague montage in an attempt to hide the fact that no one really bothered to come up with a solid story arc or real motivations for any of the characters in the film, and you have "Stone".

I've said many times that a good actor can elevate a bad script, but they seen something to work with. Despite the fact we have three good actors in this film, there's really nothing for any of them to do a whole lot with, other than to speak their lines and hope no one notices the only thing consistent about this film is that it is unrelentingly boring. Every time it looks like it might finally be building some momentum, we're treated to another scene of De Niro driving in his car and listening to Christian talk radio, or a shot of the prison at dawn with Christian talk radio heard on the soundtrack.

There was the potential here for this film to a good old fashioned thriller with De Niro as the man facing destruction after being manipulated into making a bad call, Jovovich as a borderline psycho femme fatale, and Norton as the mastermind behind it all. It could even had possessed a nice twist, as Norton's character finds spiritual redemption but his crazy wife won't stop the plan and the now-desperate parole officer won't believe his new-found good intentions. But the filmmakers here were obviously not content with making a straight-forward potboiler, and they had to throw in a bunch of "deep" material that required far more real character development and just plain characterization than the stereotypes in this get. (Norton and Jovovich are playing to the material; their performances are good but not spectacular or anything we haven't seen them do before. De Niro seems to be giving his part all he can, which is almost a shame because he's better than this movie deserves.)

"Stone" is a film to either rent on DVD, or wait for it to show up on television. It's not worth the bother of going to the theatre, and it's certainly not worth a paid admission.

The Adventures of Lemon Drop!

Lemon Drop (2010)
Starring: Ali Larter, Martin Kove, and Erica McIntyre
Director: Traktor
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Lemon Drop (Larter) is a sexy defender of cute animals, and when a pair of kittens are abducted from the pet store that serves as the front for her operation, she swings into immediate action. Clues lead her to a night club, but why would singing sensation Johnny Thunderbird (Kove) want to abduct kittens?

Absolut Vodka has a cute ad campaign going for their lemon flavored vodka, the center piece of which is an online short film that tries to look like one of those discarded drive-in B-movies that show up in less-than-perfect condition in the DVD multi-packs with titles like "Tough Dames" and "Drive-In Movie Classics."

Although it's not a "full-length movie" as banner ads at Rottentomatoes.com and elsewhere claim, it is still a cute little spoof. Although I'm usually a Three Olives kinda guy--with chocolate and cherry flavored vodkas being my favorites--I might reward them by giving their product a test next time I'm restocking the liquor cabinet. The jokes are funnier and the performances are better in this little ad are better than in some real movies I've been subjected to in recent years.

You can check out "Lemon Drop" without needing to go anywhere but here. Just click "play" on the imbedded video, below. (For what it's worth, it's strictly a soft-sell ad.)



(For more on Ali Larter and her recurring part in the "Resident Evil" series, click here to visit my Terror Titans blog.)

'Machete' is a well-made exploitation retread

Machete (2010)
Starring: Danny Trejo, Jeff Fahey, Jessica Alba, Robert De Niro, Cheech Marin, Michelle Rodriguez, Don Johnson, Lindsay Lohan, and Steven Seagal
Directors: Ethan Maniquis and Robert Rodriguez
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A former Mexican police officer (Trejo) is betrayed by corrupt superiors to a powerful drug kingpin (Seagal). He ultimately flees to the United States, crossing the border secretly and disappears into the semi-hidden underworld of illegal aliens. Yet, Fate draws him into conflict with the drug lord once again, when a sinister political operative on his pay-roll(Fahey) attempts to make him a patsy in a staged assassination of a state senator whose career is in trouble (Di Nero).


This seems to be the summer of throwbacks. First there was "Predators", the movie that took the "Most Dangerous Game"-hunting aliens back to their jungle roots. Then there was "The Expendables", which set out to recreate the feel of a late 1980s action flick. And now there's "Machete", a film that casts itself in the mold of a 1970s exploitation flicks. While there hasn't really been much new under the sun since circa 1965, I don't know that "hey, we have nothing original to offer!" has ever been quite such a marketing point.

Not that it's necessarily bad, at least in the specific cases of the three films mentioned above. All three succeed quite well at what they set out to do--which was to be entertaining yet not-terribly-original action films. So long as the movies are good, and the audience is warned up front that there's nothing fresh between the main title card and the end credits crawl, I have no issue with them being derivative.

And "Machete" is about as derivative as they come. It's like one of the sleazier blaxploitation flicks where small-time hoods or drug-pushers were glorified and set up as if they were heroic figures, because, in this one particular story, they were actually pitted against bigger scum-bags than they were--more evil criminals and corrupt politicians and cops. (And the only way I could fully root for The Network, the group dedicated to smuggling illegal aliens across the United States border with Mexico and find them crap jobs just one step up from slavery, so a select few might be able to work their way into a decent living, is to ignore the fact that the reason they come into conflict with Steven Seagal's drug kingpin is the detail offered in passing that The Network itself is funded by illegal drug smuggling and the money generated by it.)

As for the acting, it's also in line with what you'd expect in a movie derived from the 1970s exploitation/blaxploitation films. Almost everyone is being overly dramatic and chewing up the scenery to a degree that would have you rolling your eyes if they were doing it in any other kind of movie.

Robert Di Nero, Jeff Fahey, Michelle Rodriguez, and Danny Trejo--even if that last one goes without saying--all give over-the-top performances that are in perfect keeping with the genre. Cheech Marin, Don Johnson (even if I'm not sure I get the "introducing Don Johnson" joke in the credits), and Steven Seagal are also fun to watch, each giving performances of the kind we know they're capable based on some of their best previous work. Heck, the directors even manage to make Seagal look good, even if it's plain to the sharp observer that he isn't doing much in the way of physical activity; he was probably wise in choosing this project over Stallone's as he gets to have a big dramatic final scene. Maybe he'll be smart and trade in the acting for strictly behind-the-scenes functions... we can almost see the old Steven Seagal--the guy who was in "Marked For Death" and "Under Siege"--in the performance he gives here. It would be nice if he would let this stand as his final acting job.


Of the major featured players, only Jessica Alba and Lindsay Lohan disappoint.

Perhaps I can't say that Alba disappoints, because she is as good here as she was the last time I saw her, in "The Love Guru." But she's completely out of place. Alba seems to be the only performer who isn't "playing to the gallery," who isn't going way over the top. Her performance would be far better suited on an episode of "Law & Order" than this film. (Actually, as I think about it, the only time I remember really liking Alba in a part was "Into the Blue". Maybe all the bare flesh addled the brain?)

As for Lohan, she serves no purpose in the film other than to appear as a slutty character that seems to fit right in with the image she's developed over the past few years. It's the sort of part the likes of John Carradine took during the 1970s at the end of his career, parts that were little more than glorified cameos, parts that didn't add anything to the film but merely traded on Carradine's name. The film would have been better without Lohan's character, because it adds nothing except the opportunity for everyone to chuckle at Lohan and perhaps reflect on wasted potential.

The only other problem with the film is uneven, choppy pacing. There are times, usually during or leading up to unimpressive scenes with Lohan and Alba, where the film drags. Sometimes these slow points arise from badly conceived comic relief (such as the two security guards exchanging sage views on Mexican gardeners), and other times they are pointless scenes of expository dialogue that I'm sure the writers and directors believed were "character development" (such as when Alba's I.C.E. agent character finds The Network's headquarters) but whenever they occur, you will start to be very bored and wish that the film would get back to the shootings and stabbings.

Speaking of shooting and stabbings, this is ANOTHER movie that features computer-generated blood-splatter. It even features computer generated bullet impacts--and badly matched bullet impacts at that, as we're shown the top of a church pew get riddled with bullets in one shot, yet no pews are damaged in later ones. The effects are a little less obvious than they were in the low-budget films that pioneered this technique (or in recent big-budget ones like "The Expendables" or "MacGruber"), but you can still tell cartoon gore from old-fashioned syrup-spray.

Bottom line, this is not a perfect movie. Then again, neither were the films it is trying to emulate... even if those old timers could probably have made 20 movies on the budget of this single film. It's worth checking out if you enjoy blaxploitation flicks--because that's what this is exactly like, only with Mexican illegal aliens and others of Mexican descent standing in for the black characters.





Fun Fact: Exactly 20 years ago, Steven Seagal's character beat the hell out of Danny Trejo's character in the opening scene of "Marked For Death". This has been a rematch long in the making.

The first great 'Rizzoli and Isles' episode

Rizolli and Isles 1.7: Born to Run (2010)
Starring: Angie Harmon, Sasha Alexander, Bruce McGill, Lee Thompson Young, and Jordan Bridges
Director: Matthew Penn
Rating: Eight of Ten Star

Seven episodes in, TNT's new detective show "Rizzoli and Isles" finally delivers something new and unpredictable with "Born to Run," the episode that aired on August 23. They've come closest to excellence previously with "The Boston Strangler Redux" on July 19, but the series debut episode--which started in an odd sort of in medias res place with Rizzoli being haunted by a serial killer who almost cost her life and who scarred her both physically and mentally--and the other ones so far have all had a been-there, seen-that feel to them. Which is a shame, because this show has a great cast.


"Rizzoli and Isles" centers on a tomboyish, tough-as-nails homicide detective from a working-class Italian background (Harmon) and an overly bookish, somewhat socially maladjusted coroner of an upper-crust, Boston First Family background (Alexander), co-workers and best friends despite their different personalities. They are supported by a great collection of actors with been-around-forever Bruce McGill being particularly fun as a gruff veteran detective and Rizzoli's ex-partner who's caused so much trouble that he's on permanent desk assignment.

For the most part, the show plays as an inferior copy of Fox's long-running "Bones," with the odd couple of Rizzoli and Isles being an almost direct rip-off of Boothe and Bones from the other show. The main difference here is that the focus is mostly on the police work, with Isle's lab activities being about as central as Quincy's lab work as on that show. However, the way Rizzoli's family plays into the story lines adds a slightly different flavor to the show... not quite enough to bring it out of the shadow of "Bones," but enough to make it somewhat distinct.

Perhaps if I were familiar with the Jane Rizzoli-starring novels the series is based upon, the differences between this show and "Bones" would be more evident. But a good adaptation means I should be able to come to the series with no prior knowledge whatsoever. And coming to it cold, the show mostly feels like a run-of-the-mill detective show that's copying "Bones" and trying to sell itself on the fact it's got two women as its main characters. For the most part, this hasn't been enough for me. And I was about to give up on the show.


With episode #7, however, the writers finally delivered an episode that wasn't predictable and that didn't make me think of "Bones" every five minutes. In "Born to Run," Rizzoli is badgered by Isles into signing up for the Boston Marathon, so the two can something together as friends. This being a cop show, a couple of runners get shot, and Rizzoli must solve the mystery while trying to keep the shootings secret in order to prevent a mass panic. The story was unpredictable, the setting was unusual, and the way the various characters worked to solve the crime on many different levels, both police-wise and management-wise, was very nicely done. The red herrings subtly tossed into the mix were also nicely executed; I thought I knew who the killers were because of them, but thankfully I was wrong. I also appreciated the way Rizzoli's family played into the story... they emerged as characters rather than just flavoring in this episode.

I'm going to give "Rizzoli and Isles" a few more episodes before I make up my mind. It would be nice to see Angie Harmon in a new series that lasts more than a couple of seasons. She's an interesting and quirky actress who deserves a higher profile than the one she currently enjoys. It's also nice to see Sasha Alexander again... I enjoyed her very much on "N.C.I.S."

"Rizzoli and Isles" currently airs on TNT on Monday nights, with a second airing on Tuesdays.

'The Expendables' is a great action flick

The Expendables (2010)
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Eric Roberts, David Zayas, Giselle Itie, Terry Crews, Randy Coutre, Mickey Rourke, and Charisma Carpenter
Director: Sylvester Stallone
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

An elite team of mercenaries (Li, Statham, Stallone) turn down a contract to overthrow the military dictator of a small South American nation (Zayas). They change their minds when when the drug-runners who are the power-behind-the-power (Austin and Roberts) abduct the dictator's kindhearted daughter (Itie), and they set out to overthrow a government and kill every bad guy they come across--free of charge.


Forget the race-baiting self-consciously referential "Machete" that's coming out later this year. This is the film that captures the real mood and spirit of everything that was great about the explosion-laden action movies of yesteryear, without any posturing, preaching, or pandering.

Like "Predators" from earlier this summer, "The Expendables" is a throw-back movie that succeeds at what it sets out to do--to evoke the feeling of a 1980s action flick and to the movie days when men were men and every day brought another suicide mission. It does this with all the fight scenes, gunplay, car chases, and macho banter than even the most discriminating fan would want. It also does so by reviving a common 1980s villain (the corrupt CIA operative whose gone into the drug trade), by providing us lead characters who can be chivalrous when damsels are in distress, completely coldhearted and unforgiving to those who put them there, and forgiving to their friends even when they betray them.

In "The Expendables," Sylvester Stallone gathered such an array of stars--several of whom have cameos, such as Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger--that I was afraid the film would collapse under the weight of egoes vying for screentime and recognition. Thankfully, I was wrong.

Stallone, who is also the co-writer and director of the flick, retains complete control of the straight-forward action narrative in the film, with every character and actor portraying it, playing their part in the story with no allowance for star-status, past or present. It goes without saying that three of the biggest stars appearing in the film--Stallone, Statham, and Li--also get the most screen time, but the rest of the almost equally famous cast play their parts without any particular acknowledgement beyond what any other actor might get. The only exception to this is the scene featuring Willis and Schwarzenegger. While it is needed for the plot, its execution feels a little forced, with the dialogue between Stallone, Willis, and Schwarzenegger being just a little too cute and too aware that it's an exchange among movie super-stars and one-time box office rivals.


Aside from that one minor misstep, Stallone keeps the film centered around Barney Ross (played by Stallone himself) and his friend and main partner Lee Christmas (played by Statham), men of violence who nonetheless hold to a strong code of honor and chivalry that they expect everyone who works with them to obey as well. This is established in the film's first scene, and it is carried throughout, as Ross and Lee's honorable natures are ultimately the motivating factor behind every event of the film. They are a pair of cool unapologetic tough guys with the sort of strong moral center that one wishes all such tough guys had both in fiction and reality.

Technically, this is is also an excellent film. It's well-written (aside from the aforementioned scene between between Stallone, Willis, and Schwarzenegger), expertly paced and edited, with every action scene being lean, mean, and exactly what is called for in order to get maximum impact. The only drawback is that this film makes the mistake that so many other action films have done of late--they use computer graphics to add blood spatter and gore to scenes. Unfortunately, it's no less obvious and fake-looking here than it was in the low-budget films that originated the practice, nor any better looking than in the other big-budget film I've recently seen that made use of the unfortunate practice ("MacGruber"). It's a shame really, because those obviously fake bits of CGI were very distracting during the otherwise exciting and fun climactic orgy of explosions, death, and mayhem.

'Inception' is most unusual action film ever

Inception (2010)
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Ken Watanabe, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Dileep Rao, and Marion Cotillard
Director: Christopher Nolan
Rating: Ten of Ten Stars

A corporate espionage expert, Dom (DiCaprio), specializing in stealing ideas straight from the minds of targets is hired to enter the dreams of the heir-apparent of a massive energy company (Murphy) and plant an idea that he should break it up and sell of the pieces. With a team of similarly talented experts, he enters the dreamscape... but the job is complicated by unexpected resistance generated both from the mind of the target and from dark secrets lurking within Dom's own subconscious.



I don't like to use absolutes when writing reviews, partly because I have not seen every movie ever made, and partly because too many reviewers look like morons when they declare multiple films in the same year as "the best movie ever" or even just "best movie of the year."

However, I am going to make an exception with "Inception." This is, without question, the most unusual and unexpected action movie ever made.

First, it is a near-perfect fusion of the standard Heist Movie with an almost Gibson-esque futuristic setting where mega-corporations operate almost as independent nations, and technology has broken down the barriers between mind and machine in almost unimaginable ways. Nolan wisely stayed away from "cyberware," but almost every other element is here, and he handles those elements with a level of skill and effectiveness that has rarely been seen. (Nolan also stays away from cliches like "evil corporations will always double-cross you" and "it was a simple job gone wrong," which elevates the movie even further.)

Second, the film asks viewers to follow the action and story threads through the "real world" and five different dreamscapes. Not only that, but while following the story lines, the viewers need to be introduced to the "physics" of existing within the dreamworlds and juggle almost as many complexities as the characters when they undertake their "grand heist" by creating and penetrating a dream within a dream within a dream. With completely different worlds interacting with and impacting upon each other--the team at one point is operating on four different dream-levels after the mission "goes bad"--this is a film that could easily have either collapsed into chaos or gotten bogged down in unnecessary exposition. Neither happens here, because the parts of the film are so specifically thought out and the plot so carefully constructed that it all turns and spins like the works in a perfectly made Swiss watch; and because Nolan trusts in the intelligence of his audience to understand the unusual setting with just one purely expository scene, and some dashes of additional explanation between characters as the film progresses. (Ellen Page plays a character who is new to the profession, so she functions in many ways as the "proxy" for the viewer, allowing for things to be explained without it appearing out of place and heavy-handed. And even so, Nolan chooses more often to "show, not tell," an approach that more filmmakers need to develop.)

Third, the film has some fantastic fight scenes and exceptionally well-staged chase scenes. It's actually astonishing to me that no element of a spectacular, extended Zero-Gravity action sequence in a hotel corridor was not used in any of the previews and television ads for the film. Believe, the scenes of Paris exploding around DiCaprio and Page, and the image of a city street and buildings folding up at a 90-degree angle are nothing compared to to the truly exciting visuals and action sequences in the film.


Along with the action is the fact that everything is perfectly timed, like that Swiss watch I mentioned above. There is not a single piece of padding anywhere, no unnecessary or redundant scenes, no establishing shots that go on for too long... everything here is timed perfectly for maximum suspense and maximum excitement. I often get impatient with a film when it hits the 85-minute mark, but this one runs almost two-and-a-half hours, and I barely noticed the time pass. There was always something going on, and it was all important and relevant. In fact, this is one of those very rare films in this genre that sets out to be more intelligent and thought-provoking than the average action film or crime drama where I never had the sense that the writer/director was trying to show me how clever he thought he was... then again, Nolan didn't have to, because "Inception" actually is as clever and well-wrought as he probably thinks it is.

Finally, the actors are all very good in their roles. I'm not saying that anyone up there gets to have a Marlon Brando "Stellaaaaaaa!" moment, but the entire cast gives performances that are believable and suitable for the roles they're playing. Every character comes across as extremely intelligent and creative, just like I would expect someone who engages in manipulating the dreams of others would have to be, but also cold enough that they would violate those very private places without compunction. Only Ellen Page's character doesn't have that cold edge to her, yet even her character is ultimately enamored with the chance to build worlds from scratch and not terribly concerned with the impact on the group's target. The characters are all likable--even Cillian Murphy has a chance to play a likable character, something I have never seen him do before--and they are all portrayed by actors whose performances all seem absolutely real and believable. Heck, this film even gives me cause to reconsider whether Leonardo DiCaprio has any talent or not... this is the first film I've seen him in where I didn't feel like he hired just for his pretty face.


Fourth, there's the nearly perfect score by Hans Zimmer. It's been a while since I've seen a film where the soundtrack music so perfectly complimented and heightened the action and suspense as it did here. The beginning of the third act, where the team has scant minutes to escape from three different dreamworlds, or be lost for what will seem like decades in a mental limbo, wouldn't have been nearly as exciting as it was with that music. And, most of the time, you won't even notice it's there, because it is so well done. Zimmer's contribution here in on the level of what Bernard Hermann did for Alfred Hitchcock's "North by Northwest".

This is probably another hyperbole I should stay away from, but, with this being the fifth film in a row from Nolan that I have been able to find very few faults with, I think he may this generation's Alfred Hitchcock. He seems to have a perfect eye for pacing suspense films, for getting just the right performances out of the actors, and for bringing every tool at his disposal to bear in order to shape a fantastic movie. Of course, it's not a judgement that one can really make without the sort of hindsight that we have on the likes of Hitchcock, but there is no doubt in my mind that Nolan is an extremely talented filmmaker, and that someone will be writing long retrospectives about a grand career seventy years from.

I said last week in my review of "Predators" that it would be remembered as one of the best action films this summer. I think "Inception" will be counted among the best movies of the year, period. Hell, it may even end up being one of the best of the decade when it comes time to look back. At any rate, I don't think it's going to be successfully imitated any time soon, nor do I think it's going to be matched.

See it. You won't regret it.