By Brett Blake The brainchild of Sylvester Stallone, THE EXPENDABLES franchise is an odd one, in the sense that the installments feed on audience nostalgia and affection for old action movies and feature casts comprised - primarily - of actors getting up there in age. Mark Kermode, the respected U.K. film critic, calls these kinds of movies “geriaction” flicks; movies starring aging action stars (some perhaps even bordering on being washed up) that frequently play-up the age factor while attempting to be both a contemporary, relevant film and also a throwback to the kind of 1980’s cheese that most action movies of that era were. The first two EXPENDABLES have their charms, but are fairly flawed; with THE EXPENDABLES 3, however, the filmmakers have perfected the formula, and writer/star Stallone and director Patrick Hughes have delivered a surprisingly (shockingly!) entertaining action romp. The story this time revolves around Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) and his band of Expendables (comprised of too many actors to name here) doing battle with nefarious arms dealer Conrad Stonebanks (Mel Gibson), a former Expandable himself who has a dark history with Ross. That’s really all you need to know; you’ve seen the trailers (or the previous films), so there’s really no need to go into explicit narrative detail. Good guys murder their way through a ton of henchmen on their way to taking down the villainous mastermind. That’s the story in a nutshell, and the movie makes no apologies for it. The plot - though obviously thin - offers enough gas to keep things exciting, and it shoots from setpiece to setpiece at a fast clip. Buried under the mechanics of that basic plot, however, there’s actually an attempt at some thematic subtext. A pivotal section of the story involves Stallone’s Barney Ross forcibly retiring his old crew (ostensibly to keep them safe) and having to then construct a new, younger team to help him take down Gibson’s Stonebanks. The idea of the old guard being pushed aside for the young guns, but then also having to come to the rescue in the end is a prevalent part of what the script seems to be concerned with, and having a ghost from the Expandables’ past - in the form of Stonebanks - appear and wreak havoc underlines that "past vs. future" idea. It’s incredibly heavy handed stuff, and it doesn’t break any new ground on a thematic level, but it’s nice that the movie tries to actually be about something. The returning cast members don’t have too many surprises to offer in the way of performance, but it’s neat to have them all along for the ride. For his part, Stallone actually does get some meaty-ish material to chew on (by way of the aforementioned thematic stuff), and he sells it well. Stallone - sometimes deservedly - has been an acting punching bag over the years, but I maintain there’s a great actor in there, and we get some glimpses of that in this installment. It is with the new blood that THE EXPENDABLES 3 really shines, though. Harrison Ford is probably the biggest “name” to join the roster, and he’s at his most gruff and grumpy as the Expendables’ CIA handler; rather than being a poor acting choice, it actually works for the character, and it’s hard to deny that there’s some weird excitement to seeing Ford share scenes with the likes of Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Kelsey Grammer gets an extended sequence where his character helps Stallone recruit the new, younger Expendables (played in solid - if unremarkable - fashion by Kellan Lutz, Ronda Rousey, Victor Ortiz, and Glen Powell) that is so entertaining and funny I’m now convinced that Stallone and Grammer need to do a buddy comedy where they travel across the country, or something. Their chemistry is immediate, and you really buy that these two characters are old friends. Wesley Snipes is also a welcome addition, and he gets a chance to poke some fun at his own image in a self-deprecating way. Giving what is perhaps the performance of the film is Antonio Banderas as an eager-to-please, searching-for-a-connection recruit; it’s a wonderful role for Banderas, who gets to be charming and goofy and warm. The character is an instant winner, and should there ever be a fourth film in this franchise, Banderas MUST return. At all costs. He steals the film. And then, of course, there’s Mel Gibson. There are few performers working in the industry who carry as much baggage as Gibson (some of it unwarranted, but most of it of his own making). Your personal feelings towards the man may, no doubt, color your perception of his work in this film, and that’s fair. However, I think even the most rabid anti-Mel partisan would have to agree that he gives a legitimate performance as Stonebanks. He gets a couple of great speeches to play, and there’s an undercurrent of angry nuance that hangs over many moments he’s on the screen, just as there are also some lighter moments that fully remind us of why he was - at one time - a megastar. Stonebanks could have been just a generic nobody bad guy, but Gibson makes him highly memorable. The action is a marked improvement on the previous two films. Director Hughes handles the big beats with a decent amount of style and intensity, and there’s a really nice variety to the mayhem: you’ve got car chases, shoot-outs, aerial assualts, and good, old fashioned fisticuffs. There’s perhaps a bit too much (unconvincing) CGI to be found, but the tone of these sequences - never too dark, always with a tongue-in-cheek (but not spoofing) sense of humor - pushes them over the top (to borrow a phrase from one of Stallone’s more infamously bad ‘80s movies). They’re simply a lot of fun. And that sense of genuine fun, coupled with the winning performances from the likes of Gibson and Banderas, make THE EXPENDABLES 3 perhaps the most surprising movie of summer 2014. It’s not high art, but it is solidly entertaining, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake A tornado is one of the most fascinating expressions of the power of nature. As such, it’s kind of surprising that there haven’t been more high-profile movies with tornadoes as the focus. There’s 1996’s TWISTER, of course, but in the 18 years since then (and as CGI technology has become more capable of convincingly bringing them to life), there have been no successors. That has - finally - changed with INTO THE STORM, and those looking for “intense depictions of very bad weather” (per the ratings description for TWISTER) are likely to be satisfied by what INTO THE STORM has to offer. Those looking for a story with substance, however, or likable characters, are likely to be far less enthusiastic about it. Presenting dual narratives that eventually collide, the film follows two camps: a high school vice principal (Richard Armitage) and his two sons (Max Deacon and Nathan Kress) as they prepare for the school’s graduation, and a team of storm chasers (led by Matt Walsh and Sarah Wayne Callies) as they track a potentially deadly outbreak of tornadoes. After some buildup (during which the filmmakers vainly attempt to get the audience to invest in these characters), the tornadoes appear and begin to wreak havoc. That, in a nutshell, is INTO THE STORM. If you’ve seen the trailers or TV spots, you get a good picture of exactly what the movie has to offer, namely some spectacular mayhem, which most would probably have to concede is quite effective. Director Steven Quale stages the big setpieces with an inventive eye, and the movie - which employs a stylistic choice that involves bouncing in-and-out of first-person, found footage-ish POV moments - does have an intensely visceral, “You Are There!” quality that works really well. A sequence involving several small tornadoes (one of which turns into a “fire twister”) that pin down our heroes on a highway is particularly terrific, though obviously completely ridiculous. Where INTO THE STORM really stumbles (and honestly, it’s more a headlong dive face-first into the ground than a mere stumble) is in its handling of the characters, most of whom are given the most thudding, eye rollingly on-the-nose dialogue imaginable. A side effect of this mishandling is that we spend way too much time with a group of fairly unlikable high school students, as well as a redneck hillbilly thrill-seeking duo who don’t just annoy, but actively undermine the tension at several key points (seriously, the presence of these two is utterly inexplicable, and as an attempt at injecting comic relief, they’re a total failure). Coupled with a rather sluggish start (it’s easily 30 minutes until any tornado activity of substance takes place), the movie is actually occasionally tough to sit through with these people. It’s not really a fair comparison, but as the only major big studio release (from the same studio, in fact!) since 1996’s summer hit, TWISTER, it’s hard not to compare the two films. INTO THE STORM certainly ups the proverbial ante in the mayhem department (and, consequently, it feels more unbelievable), showcasing the very best CGI depiction of the wrath of nature thus far put on screen. What it lacks - and what TWISTER has in spades - is personality. TWISTER, love it or hate it (I love it), has a deep bench of supporting talent in the acting department, and all of the characters have quirks and leave surprisingly strong impressions. None of them are particularly deep, but they’re all energetically performed and memorable; it’s fun hanging around with that motley crew. INTO THE STORM, however, presents a fairly low-key lineup of very basic character types: the distant dad at odds with his kids, the dedicated-to-her-work-at-the-expense-of-her-daugher storm chaser, the slightly unscrupulous team leader, the shy high school student with a crush on the pretty (but really smart!) girl… They’re all thinly-drawn, at best, and the kind of people we’ve seen dozens of times before. That can be overcome by quirkier writing and acting (again, see TWISTER), but this movie just can’t seem to be bothered. It’s kind of a shame, because the skeleton of an interesting story could probably have grown out of the movie’s basic premise if just a little more care was taken at the scripting level. Depending on who you are, that might not sound like a big problem. After all, most summer blockbusters are of the mindless, “leave your brain at the door” variety, and on a pure “I want to see tornadoes mess some stuff up!” level, INTO THE STORM is not without its charms. The effects are definitely impressive, and the movie is peppered with some moments of proper spectacle, but there’s nothing beyond that to grab onto, no characters or lines of dialogue an audience member is likely to remember. In short, just about everything involving the tornadoes is good, and almost everything NOT involving the tornadoes is a bit of a chore. By Brenton Thom TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES is the 2014 summer flick directed by Jonathan Liebesman and produced by Michael Bay. Right off the bat, some people have a negative attitude with this flick just because it’s produced by Michael Bay. Well, I recently stepped out of the theater from seeing this movie and let me just say I was not disappointed. In fact, I enjoyed myself quite a lot. To prepare for this new summer movie, I had to refresh myself. Well, actually, I had to introduce myself. I never saw the Ninja Turtle movies growing up, so I spent the night before watching all 4 original movies (yes, there is a fourth one - the animated movie from 2007 known simply as TMNT). I will say this... after watching them all back-to-back, I’m surprised there is so much hype and nostalgia around these “classic” films. In fact, the whole creation of the characters started out as a joke. The original TMNT comics were developed as a spoof against all the clichés in other superhero comics, but it became such a hit, they expanded it into an ongoing series, animated TV show, and movie franchise. The first live action movie was in 1990, and I’ll admit, it looks pretty good, visually. However, as the movies progress, they get weaker and weaker... and by weaker, I mean campier and cornier. The costumes start to look bad, even cheap, and the stories get less and less interesting. I’m getting sidetracked, we are here to talk about this new movie. Digression aside, a bit about the story: this movie is hardly an origin story. Similar to the 1990 movie (and the '89 Tim Burton BATMAN), it does a quick recap of how the turtles and Master Splinter (their Sensei rat master) came to be. The origin here is not the same as the other movies or TV series, as this one involves more of the story of hungry young journalist April O’Neil (Megan Fox). The story of this movie is about the young turtles wanting to go above the surface and fight the evil-doers running amok in the city of New York. At the same time, April O’Neil is a young reporter trying to find her story in the mayhem. There is a rich man, Eric Sacks (William Fichtner), who worked with April O’Neil’s father in developing research in genetics. Long story short, Sacks is evil and is working with Shredder to take control of everything. The weakest part of the story is Sack’s motives for doing the things he’s doing - it wasn’t out of desire for revenge, or to make a difference, it was all just about greed. Some might argue about the use of CGI vs costumes to bring the turtles to life in this movie. Personally, I think costumes look more realistic, but I think the digital effects work just fine in this film. The characters move quickly and have such larger-than-life aspects it would have been difficult to replicate with costumes. I also think the new look of the turtles is a good one. It makes them individuals with their little quirks, gear, and trinkets they carry around with them. Not just bare bones shell and mask. If they collect stuff in the sewers why wouldn’t they collect stuff on their persons? One of the strong elements in the story is the focus around the turtles and their relationships. There are moments in the movie that show they have that brotherly connection. Plenty of funny moments and each character feels unique. The relationship between Leonardo and Raphael is spot on, and Michelangelo steals the show when it comes to humor. One thing I also really enjoyed was watching Master Splinter (voiced by Tony Shalhoub) hold his own in battle. He’s not just some old rat that taught the turtles, he’s also a ninja master and can fight, which was nice to see. Director Jonathan Liebesman, who’s probably best known for BATTLE: LOS ANGELES (2011) and THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE: THE BEGINNING (2006), brings the goods for this movie. He balances humor, action, and emotion at a nice pace. The most fun scene is definitely right after the turtles escape a fortress and end up skiing down a mountain. The scene has more going on than just that, but it is definitely a lot of fun. It’s hard to tell where Michael Bay’s influence comes in for this movie. The movie has a mix of colorful elements, fantastic lighting, and lots of action, which are all elements of Bay, but it doesn't feel as much like one of his flicks as some people might think. There are a lot of people are bitter about this movie and it’s hard to figure out why. Some people complain about the turtles being CGI. Okay, but that’s not affecting the story and characters. And if that’s not it, they’ll complain about the story. But let’s take a second here - review the past movies. In fact, I just did! If you watch those movies, those plots are very thin and, I might add, very hokey! Again, the origin of the TNMT was supposed to be corny. We’re not expecting SCHINDLER'S LIST, here. We are watching Mutant Turtles fight evil forces in NYC. This movie does just that, AND it’s a lot of fun. I’m not saying Megan Fox’s performance is stellar (because it's not), but they make up for that with her camera operator (played by Will Arnett) and the turtles' individual performances. Overall, I’m very happy with the movie and enjoyed my time watching it. The movie does have some really funny moments and there's plenty of action and exciting set pieces that make you worry for the characters. I think this movie is definitely a step up from the older movies, and I don’t mean that the old ones were bad. I just found myself growing bored with each new movie (with exception of the animated one, because of its different style). This movie was fun and not overlong, as some blockbusters can be. For people looking to have a fun time and (definitely) for kids. By Brett Blake GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY represents Marvel Studios’ biggest creative risk so far. The source material is so out there (with its cosmic mysteries and bizarre alien races) that it’s hard to imagine it coexisting in the same universe as the more grounded comic book stylings of the Captain America movies, for example. On the page (and in the wrong hands), the material could tip into the territory of the absurd, with so much weirdness on display that there’s nothing for the audience to invest in. Thankfully, that’s not the case here, and Marvel’s gamble has paid off in a huge way - GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY (in the hands of director James Gunn) is exuberantly entertaining, a grand and satisfying space adventure that is one of the most purely fun experiences I’ve had in a theater in years. The narrative revolves around Peter Quill AKA Star-Lord (Chris Pratt), an intergalactic relic hunter (abducted from Earth as a young boy in 1988) who gets his hands on a mysterious orb, something that brings him into contact with Gamora (Zoe Saldana), a trained assassin, Drax (Dave Bautista), a surprisingly literate beast of a man bent on vengeance, Rocket (Bradley Cooper), a machine gun-toting raccoon wiseass employed as a bounty hunter, and Groot (Vin Diesel), a walking tree-like alien with a big heart who can only say the words “I am Groot.” These characters find themselves having to work together to defeat the various interested parties in pursuit of the orb, namely Ronan The Accuser (Lee Pace) and his henchwoman Nebula (Karen Gillan), who seek the orb with the intention of using its power to conquer (read: destroy) entire planets. Also in the mix are a band of space pirates/cowboys led by Yondu (Michael Rooker), and hovering in the background over all of this is the so-called “Mad Titan” known as Thanos (Josh Brolin), a shadowy presence with ambitions of galactic domination, first introduced to audiences (quite cryptically) in the post-credits sequence of 2012’s THE AVENGERS. Given that very “Cliff’s Notes”-ish plot summation, it is something of a minor miracle that the film is as approachable as it is. Yes, numerous colorful, strange aliens and settings are here and in full force, but they are grounded in relatable, human emotion and a cheeky sense of humor. Even more importantly, the characters themselves are fundamentally relatable and well-drawn. As Quill, Pratt’s charisma explodes off the screen, and while it might be too soon to call Star-Lord the heir apparent to the likes of Han Solo, it’s a star-making performance from Pratt. Saldana’s Gamora finds her place as the moral center of the group, while Bautista’s Drax might be the biggest surprise of the film, bringing an ultra-dry sense of humor to the party (a sense of humor which the character himself seems delightfully unaware he possesses). Both Rocket and Groot (as voiced by Cooper and Diesel) get some wonderful moments of humor to play, as well, but writer/director Gunn wisely also supplies them with moments of genuine pathos; these are not “gag” characters - they’re fully fleshed-out beings with arcs of their own. Any one of these five would surely be considered the scene-stealers of any other movie, so it’s great fun to watch all of them steal scenes out from under the others, often several times within the same scene! Most important of all, the movie presents these characters initially as morally-sketchy, damaged individuals who begin the story at-odds with each other, and who then grow into genuine friends who are willing to risk their lives to protect innocents. This central dynamic is a powerful one, and it anchors the movie in a really satisfying way. GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY is also - far and away - the funniest film Marvel has released thus far; it never crosses the line into being an outright comedy or parody, but if pressed to describe the kind of tone the movie establishes, the phrase “comedic space adventure” seems quite suitable. There are some big, big laughs in here, and some lines of dialogue seem destined to be quoted in years to come. Several reviews have made the comparison to GHOSTBUSTERS, and while that movie is more explicitly a comedy first-and-foremost, that kind of vibe is not too far off the mark. Director Gunn’s handle on the humor is an outgrowth of his overall deft handling of the movie’s tone itself: yes, it’s often flat-out hilarious, but there are also big things at stake, and the characters deal with very human emotions and baggage. These emotional elements may be the most unexpected component of the film. Based simply on the trailers and other advertising, the studio has sold the movie based on its quirky assortment of characters, its humor, and its sizable “space opera”-flavored action (of which there is an abundance and variety; it’s not all “spaceships shooting at other spaceships”). The emotional content has been rather well-hidden in the ads, but this is probably to the audience’s benefit, as it allows them to discover the uncommon depth for themselves. Just as there are moments in the movie that will leave many gasping for breath due to laughter, so are there other moments that are incredibly moving on an emotional level. Aside from his contribution to the screenplay, director Gunn deserves to be commended for the visual style of the movie; he presents a huge canvas to the audience, one packed with imagination and executed with a vibrant color palette. There’s a true sense of scope to the story, and a feeling of wonder at the cosmic vistas and locales we visit is present, as well. It’s not without flaws, of course. The motivation of the villain, Ronan, is unfortunately undercooked (though Pace’s performance is excellent, conveying a sense of deep rage and entitlement that makes him a formidable presence even though he doesn’t have much to work with), and the film does spend perhaps too much time setting up further adventures for both the Guardians and, yes, even the Avengers back on Earth; the inclusion of the character of Thanos feels less like an organic outgrowth of this specific story and more a case of Marvel laying the (probably necessary) groundwork for the general direction of the next few films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But those are mostly nitpicks. On what could have been Marvel’s most dangerous commercial play, they’ve pulled it off in style. The core characters are so entertaining, so winning and charming, that it’s hard to see the movie as anything other than a complete success. GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY is an unbelievable amount of fun, and I’d happily watch (at least) ten more movies with this group. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|