Category Archives: Action

‘Logan’ a Depressing, Bloody Sendoff

Leave a reply

Logan_2017_posterI’m all for trying to shake up the typical superhero formula, but there has to be some sort of a means to an end…

 

“Logan” marks the ninth and final time of Hugh Jackman playing everyone’s favorite clawed X-Man, and this time he must escort Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and a young mutant (Dafne Keen) from Texas to the Canadian border. Richard E. Grant, Boyd Holbrook and Stephen Merchant also star as James Mangold returns to direct.

 

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” Jackman’s first solo outing as the character in 2009, was botched on almost every front (except for his performance) and is often cited as one of the worst superhero films ever made. His second attempt in 2013, “The Wolverine,” faired a better, with the Japanese and samurai mythos really carrying the film until it betrayed its tone with a cartoony climax. This time around, thanks to the success of R-rated “Deadpool” last February, Jackman got his R-rated swansong; it’s just a shame we aren’t ending things on better terms.

 

On a technical level, there isn’t much wrong with “Logan.” It looks good, with settings ranging from dusty, sun-soaked Texas to lush, green North Dakota, and for the most part the action is captured well by cinematographer John Mathieson. Mangold and company take advantage of the R rating and don’t shy away from Logan eviscerating henchmen left and right. There are some points where the action does get extra-bloody and they overcompensate, like showing a man get decapitated and having his bloody head roll around. It’s almost as if to make up for the past 17 years of us having to use our imaginations as to what happens when a man with claws impales a human.

 

Jackman portrays Logan at his most broken-down and vulnerable we’ve ever seen him, although at some points it is hard to see where Jackman’s take on the character ends and his own exhaustion of the role begins. No one is questioning his dedication to the character that he will forever be synonymous with, however there are times throughout the film it appears he is simply going through the motions, which may not even entirely be his fault, as stepping to the same shoes for almost two decades may make putting on that façade second nature.

 

There are some attempts at humor, and a lot of them do hit thanks to Patrick Stewart’s dry British wit, Jackman’s growling delivery or newcomer Dafne Keen’s nuanced actions, even if it is at the expense of creating a slightly-tonally confused narrative.

 

Which brings me to my biggest gripe about “Logan” and that is its tone and delivery of its story. Like I started off with, I have no problem with films trying to reinvent the wheel of their respective genre, so that “Logan” wants to be a gritty, grim and realistic take on one of the more tortured souls of the comic book world is fine with me. However the pacing of the story is equally as bleak, with the action all too often not coming across as fun and more so as numbing, and the character moments, as well-acted as they are, feel weary.

 

“Logan” is made with the best intentions and diehard fans of the character and comics will find more to love in here than the casual filmgoer, but otherwise the film is a letdown, and drags for many portions throughout. If this truly is Hugh Jackman’s final bow as the character of Wolverine then he deserved better, but just as the film strives to tell us: no matter how dark and unsatisfying the world is, you just have to keep on grinding along.

Critics Rating: 5/10

20th Century Fox

20th Century Fox

‘John Wick: Chapter 2’ Shoots Itself in the Foot

Leave a reply

John_Wick_Chapter_TwoIt’s a lot to ask lighting to strike in the same bottle twice…

 

“John Wick: Chapter 2” is the sequel to the 2014 surprise-hit-turned-cult-classic “John Wick” and features Keanu Reeves returning to the titular role of a hitman who just can’t seem to stay retired. Common, Laurence Fishburne, Riccardo Scamarcio, Ruby Rose, John Leguizamo and Ian McShane all co-star as Chad Stahelski returns to direct.

 

I thoroughly enjoyed the first “John Wick,” so much in fact that it found itself on my Top 10 films of that year. It was a film that was well-framed and brilliantly-choreographed, and even if Keanu Reeves isn’t the best actor in the world he gave a performance that worked for the role. This sequel has glimpses of what made the first film so much fun, but falls victim to what plagues many follow-ups and that is a mixture of too much sameness and trying to one-up the original.

 

For a film where its rules have already been written and world already established, this takes a while to get moving. The first time around it was fascinating seeing how the underworld of assassins operated, with their own currency and guidelines for where and when they can “conduct business.” Here the first act is a lot of talking about debts and obligations, and if you haven’t seen the first film you will probably be lost about a lot of what’s being discussed. Last time things were simple: people stole John Wick’s car and killed his dog so he goes out for revenge; here, the motivation is less intriguing. In fact a gun isn’t even fired for the first 45 minutes of the film, which is a problem when the selling point of your movie is “come watch Keanu Reeves shoot people with a gun.”

 

Once the action does get going it’s fun for a while, and I felt a big smile spread across my face at Reeves getting headshot after headshot in the catacombs of Rome. However after about five minutes it becomes a bit mundane, much like putting a video game on the easiest mode. When Reeves continuously gets headshots and seems to kill 30 men without breaking much of a sweat, there’s no real risk involved and that in turn makes it hard for the audience to feel nervous for our protagonist. Reeves also faces swarms of endless enemies, much like levels of a video game, so many in fact that is begins to jump the shark (it’s unclear whether this was the filmmakers’ satirical intentions or not, but either way it’s a sin).

 

Director Chad Stahelski, a career stuntman, does stage his hand-to-hand fights in wide shots, allowing the actors to breathe, and for that he is to be commended. He does not implement the close-up, shaky cam punches with quick edits that nauseate so many modern filmgoers and as with the first film, Reeves and the stuntmen have choreographed action sequences that look and feel real.

 

The film sets itself up for a third go-around and despite being disappointed by this I will still be eager to have Reeves return to this world. Maybe if they can find a story that works and a narrative that flows easier then we can return to what made the first film so much fun but as it stands now, “John Wick: Chapter 2” marks the first cinematic disappointment of 2017.

 

Critics Rating: 5/10

Summit Entertainment

Summit Entertainment

‘Allied’ a Slow-Burning Thriller Worth Watching

Leave a reply

Allied_(film)Part of me spent the entire runtime of this film hoping it would turn out to be an “Inglourious Basterds” spin-off…

 

“Allied” stars Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard as two spies in World War II who meet and fall in love during a mission to assassinate a German official. Jared Harris, Lizzy Caplan and Matthew Goode also star as Robert Zemeckis directs.

 

This is one of those films that on the surface screams awards season, if not Oscar-bait. Two Academy Award-winning stars and an acclaimed director teaming up to make a WWII period drama released in November? It’s clear what they want to sell this as. Well it turns out “Allied” isn’t really interested in awards (we’ll touch on that), nor is it really centered on the plot its trailers have been selling (again, more on that in a second) but is an old-fashioned adult spy thriller that, for the most part, is fine entertainment.

 

First things first, the performances are all solid here, but duh. Brad Pitt is never bad (as much as it’s near impossible to see him as a character and not just “Brad Pitt pretending to be [blank]”) and Marion Cotillard is hardly ever bad (we’ll give her a pass for “Dark Knight Rises,” there were way worse things about that film than her death scene). The two have good chemistry and sell their characters, making us buy into their romance but still question their motives.

 

The production value and costume design are both top notch and really put you into the 1942 settings of WWII North Africa and England. This is where my note about awards comes in, as this film will be what I pick for my Oscar ballot to win those two categories; the score is also mesmerizing.

 

The biggest problem with “Allied” is it isn’t fully sure what it wants to be, or at least refuses to commit to it. The trailers sell it like the whole film will revolve around Pitt trying to find out if Cotillard is a German spy, but in actuality that plot point doesn’t come into play until the halfway mark. The main plot of the film, at its core, is the love story between these two spies, with a war-torn city as its backdrop.

 

And I am fine with that, I dug the immersion into the world, but it creates some riffs and some slogs and the middle of the film, transitioning from their assassination mission to Pitt becoming aware of her possible spy-ness (a term?), does slow down and you just want something to happen that isn’t a picnic with their baby.

 

By the time the credits began to roll, I can say I enjoyed “Allied” enough to recommend it, but also issue a grain-of-salt warning that it is a slow-burner and there are some people who won’t be engrossed by love plot or distracted by the time period and will find the whole ordeal boring. But hey, this is my review and I’m saying if you like the stars, the setting or good ole fashioned spy thrillers, then this is a type of film seldom made anymore worth checking out.

 

Critics Rating: 7/10

Paramount Pictures

Paramount Pictures

‘Hacksaw Ridge’ a Bloody, Moving Story of Conviction

Leave a reply

Hacksaw_Ridge_posterI thought it was interesting the trailer for this said “from the director of ‘Braveheart’;” apparently it’s still too soon to use Mel Gibson’s name as a brand…

 

“Hacksaw Ridge” is the true story of World War II Army medic Desmond Doss, a pacifist who refuses to bear arms despite enlisting in the military and being thrown into the belly of the Pacific Theater.  Andrew Garfield portrays Doss as Sam Worthington, Luke Bracey, Teresa Palmer, Hugo Weaving and Vince Vaughn co-star with Mel Gibson directing.

 

Gibson is a talented director, although no one has ever accused him of being subtle. He last directed 2006’s “Apocalypto” (an underrated gem) and is best known for directing “Braveheart” (an overrated flick, don’t @ me). “Hacksaw Ridge” puts the best and the worst of Gibson on display (to varying degrees), with two halves featuring conflicting tones and pacing, but powerful messages and impactful violence that make for one of the most moving films of the year.

 

Andrew Garfield is best known for starring in the failed “Amazing Spider-Man” reboot, but his best performances have come in “The Social Network” and “99 Homes” (which if you haven’t seen I implore you to check it out; one of 2015’s best). He is a great “young” talent (I put young in quotes because he’s 33 years old, despite looking 23) and after this and Martin Scorsese’s upcoming “Silence” he should finally get the award attention he deserves.

 

Garfield’s Doss is a soft-spoken Southerner who is strong in his convictions to not pick up a weapon, and we fully buy into his reasoning. The film isn’t overly preachy about its Christian-based backing, but it does make you see why Doss truly would rather be court-martialed and go to prison than even practice firing a gun.

 

What really is surprising and pleasant to see, however, are the performances from the supporting cast, many of whom we are not used to seeing in dramatic roles. Sam Worthington, Luke Bracey and Vince Vaughn all fit their roles perfectly as the doubting Captain, bully solider and yelling, dark-humored drill Sergeant, respectively. Vaughn is a little jarring when he first walks on screen (visions of “True Detective” flashed before my eyes) but he carries his own and has a few funny insults that he yells at the new recruits.

 

Per classic Gibson, the film is brutally accurate in its depiction of war. Especially since this is Okinawa, where things did not go easy-breezy for the Americans, there is a lot of blood and loss of life in this film, and those with weak stomachs need not apply. But it is a necessary evil, as it only begins to display the horrors of war that Doss and his men endured, but after a while things do grow a tad repetitive.

 

Which brings me to my central gripe about the film and that’s that it can grow a tad monotonous. The first half is filled with constant instances of Doss refusing to fire a gun and getting punished for it in one way or another; we get it, he won’t kill. The second half is filled with constant instances of gratuitous violence and Doss running men to safety, which as awesome and lump-in-the-throat-inducing as it is, you can’t help but get a sense of emotional manipulation after a while. There is even a cheesy low-angle shot of Doss slowly standing up and putting on his helmet like something out of a Captain America comic.

 

Teresa Palmer is almost nothing but a plot device and while it is important to give Doss a little bit of backstory, her girlfriend character really doesn’t do much besides add runtime and a bit of romantic comedy relief to the film.

 

“Hacksaw Ridge” isn’t the war epic is sometimes thinks it is, nor is it as memorable as I’m sure many people were hoping, but in-the-moment there are few that know how to put the power of the human spirit on screen better than Mel Gibson. On an unrelated note, it must’ve been dusty in the theater I was in because by the end of the film I was tearing up from my allergies…

Critics Rating: 7/10

Summit Entertainment

Summit Entertainment

‘The Account’ Fun and Thrilling Shoot-em-up

Leave a reply

The_Accountant_(2016_film)First Sam Rockwell in “Mr. Right” and now Ben Affleck in this; Anna Kendrick really has a thing for falling for men who like to shoot people.

 

“The Accountant” stars Ben Affleck as an autistic certified public accountant who cooks the books for mobsters and drug dealers. Kendrick, J. K. Simmons, Jon Bernthal, Jeffrey Tambor and John Lithgow also star as Gavin O’Connor directs.

 

I had wanted to see this for a while, mostly just because Ben Affleck is one of the three actors whom I will pay to see in anything (the other two being Leonardo DiCaprio and Seth Rogen; quite the contrast, I know). The trailer intrigued me further, although as my friend and I joked for the past several months, the commercials really don’t give a coherent description of what the film was actually about. But after finally seeing “The Accountant” I am strongly suggesting you do the same, as it is a very fun, mostly engaging film that is above all else, original.

 

Affleck played dumb second fiddle to Matt Damon’s math genius Will Hunting in 1997, and Damon went on to star in his “Jason Bourne” films. While Affleck wins at life for now being (the best ever) Batman, he decided while on a break spandex films he would make up for lost time and finally get to be both the math genius and the gun-toting badass all at once.

 

Affleck’s Christian Wolff is autistic, but he is portrayed in such a nuanced way that even though that is arguably his defining trait, it isn’t what we think about when we watch him onscreen. His Wolff is awkwardly funny, acknowledging other people’s tones and reactions out loud, often to their chagrin. We are shown flashbacks throughout the film that fill in the blanks about his past and how he got to where he is, and while some are pointless filler, others are interesting and develop depth.

 

Most of this is thanks to a relatively fun script from Bill Dubuque (who co-wrote “The Judge”). The script landed on the Black List a few years back (the record of best unproduced screenplays) and in interviews all the cast praised it, and for the most part it is easy to see why. Each character, even those simply here as plot devices (read: Anna Kendrick’s pointless but dorkably charming Dana) get fleshed out and feel like people, and each gets a scene to give fans of their work something to smile about. Arguably my favorite non-Affleck character was Jon Bernthal’s Brax, an assassin with a dark sense of humor. He is charming, intimidating and just oozes cool, and I just wish he had more scenes.

 

Everything was going great and for the first hour I really thought this had potential to be the best film of the year; but then things slow down. The most damning sequence is a (no lie) 20 minute exposition segment where J. K. Simmons’ government agent (in his obligatory “one last case before retirement”) reads a laundry list of things Affleck has done and how he became The Accountant. It is interesting at first but then gets tedious and by the end you’re confused why they didn’t just include these scenes as part of the film, not as flashbacks and montages.

 

The end shootout is also nothing to write home about, especially when the isolated, smaller action sequence sprinkled throughout the rest of the film were so impactful and well shot.

 

“The Accountant” dares you to take it seriously while at the same time knowing not to do so to itself. It has a surprising amount of laughs (some of which had the audience laughing riotously) and enough accounting and book cooking to be interesting without making you start to head bob. I was a-counting (huh?!) on Ben Affleck to come through in the clutch and he and the rest of the cast delivered a film that is smart, fun and, if I do say so myself, one of 2016’s best.

 

Critics Rating: 8/10

Warner Bros.

Warner Bros.

‘Deepwater Horizon’ Big on Booms, Low on Story

Leave a reply

Deepwater_Horizon_(film)It’s official: Peter Berg is a more toned down version of Michael Bay.

“Deepwater Horizon” is based on the true story of the 2010 explosion and oil spill by the titular drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Mark Wahlberg stars alongside Kurt Russell, John Malkovich, Gina Rodriguez, Dylan O’Brien and Kate Hudson as Peter Berg directs.

I don’t think many people thought we needed a film based off of this tragedy; I mean, 210 million gallons of oil being spilled into Gulf of Mexico and 11 people losing their lives doesn’t exactly scream “Friday night fun.” And after seeing the movie I can tell you Wahlberg and Berg (teaming up again after “Lone Survivor” and before this year’s “Patriots Day”) certainly handle the subject with respect towards those involved and resentment towards BP Oil; however that doesn’t mean their finished product is as good as their intentions.

Mark Wahlberg is a movie star for sure, but I do believe he is underappreciated as an actor. I think he plays “everyday man” better than anyone, and if a muscular, handsome millionaire can make himself feel relatable to an average 20-something like me then clearly he is doing something right. Here, Wahlberg plays Mike Williams, but truly isn’t given too much to do. Williams is pretty much “Mark Wahlberg playing a drilling engineer” and by the time the disaster starts we know very little about him besides he has a wife and daughter and quips like Mark Wahlberg. By the climax he is able to show a range of emotion, but it’s a long journey there.

No characters, in fact, are given much development. Gina Rodriguez is shown having her car’s engine give out on her in the opening scene and that is the only character trait referred to her throughout the duration of the film. There are even characters (I won’t say who to avoid spoilers) who we don’t find out have wives and kids until they’re reunited with them at the climax! Would that have made for some (albeit forced) emotional heft? Yup, but Berg is more concerned with having things go boom.

Which brings me to my main point and circles back to my opening line: Peter Berg has way too much in common with Michael Bay. Berg is a more competent filmmaker, don’t get me wrong, but there are so many gratuitous shots of the American flag in this film it would make Colin Kaepernick’d knee get sore. The first hour of this film is pretty much nothing but explaining how oil drilling works, even though the film (brilliantly and without pandering) conveys in the first five minutes; I guess Berg really wants you to understand how we get stuff from the ground to tubes. The first hour is also filled with shoving it in our faces how negligent and ignorant British Petroleum was. Honestly the first half of this film is really monotonous and (dare I say) boring; I guess this should’ve been called “Deepwater HoriZZZon,” right?!

The second half is better, but it’s overly chaotic and things are constantly spilling and exploding and it is hard to figure out who is who and what is truly going on. Symbolic and a fair representation of the real-life event? Sure. But this is a film, not a documentary, you can take some liberties to streamline your narrative and clear up your sequences.

This one pains me, it really does; I really wanted “Deepwater Horizon” to be good. And I am sick and tired of 2016 films almost all exclusively being, “mehh like it’s fine, I guess?” because we deserve better than “meh, alright,” especially when ticket prices continue to rise. But that’s an argument and complaint for another day. As far as *this* “meh” film goes, it features solid enough performances from actors playing one-dimensional characters and you feel some attachment to the story. But that is purely because this is a real-life tragedy in which 11 people died and corrupt BP officials got off way too easy, not because Berg or Wahlberg earn anything with their big budget booms.

Critics Rating: 4/10

Summit Entertainment

Summit Entertainment

‘Magnificent Seven’ a Surprisingly Dull Western

Leave a reply

Magnificent_Seven_2016Do yourself a favor and instead of watching this, go watch “3:10 to Yuma” and then “Seven Samurai” (after reading this review of course).

 

“The Magnificent Seven” is a remake of the 1960 western film of the same name, which in turn was a remake of the 1954 Japanese film, “Seven Samurai.” It stars Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D’Onofrio, Lee Byung-hun, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo and Martin Sensmeier as seven outlaws in the 1870s Old West who are hired to save a town from a corrupt industrialist (Peter Sarsgaard). Antoine Fuqua directs.

 

Fuqua has always been a mixed bag with me. When he tries to make popcorn action films like “Shooter” or “Olympus Has Fallen” the results are good, and the films are fun. However when he tries to elevate his craft to a more serious tone like “The Equalizer” or “Southpaw,” the finished products are meh at best (the exception being “Training Day,” but I haven’t seen that film in a minute). And unfortunately, Fuqua tries to make “Seven” too serious but yet keep a playful tone, and much like “Suicide Squad” the end result is a monotonous mess.

 

Denzel Washington, much like Tom Hanks, will never turn in a bad performance, no matter what kind of role he is in and he again shows why he is one of the biggest actors of his generation. Washington plays a man with a clouded past and acts in his own self-interests, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a sympathetic heart. Chris Pratt, who is quickly becoming Hollywood’s next big action star, is pretty fun in his role and provides most of the film’s laughs, however at times his character comes off as annoying.

 

And that is one of the film’s biggest problems: most every character besides Denzel, to varying degrees, is a cartoon. Ethan Hawke hisses during a gunfight, Vincent D’Onofrio speaks in a high-pitch for the entire film and Peter Sarsgaard’s villain is straight out of a Western comic book. Often it gets tedious and at times it becomes laughable, because all these different and quirky personalities never gel.

 

Fuqua has always been able shoot action scenes well however he also is used to being able to play with an R rating, a luxury he is not allowed here. The film has two main shootout sequences and the final one at the climax (which runs for an ungodly 45 minutes) falls victim to “PG-13 violence,” meaning there is a lot (*a lot*) of rapid fire editing and close-ups of people getting killed.

 

And let’s talk about that end fight. I touched on how it lasts way too long but it is also the only thing to truly happen in the entire film. The first hour and a half consists of the Seven riding horses and training the townspeople to fire guns. It wasn’t until they were doing the obligatory “final supper before battle” that I realized we were about to enter the climax of the film and nothing had happened yet. The stakes don’t feel earned and since the one single event is dragged out for the entire runtime it makes it difficult for them to be acknowledged at all.

 

“The Magnificent Seven” is fun in small bursts, and there’s a “summer movie season” vibe about it that is inviting, but the whole film drags along and with its polished, attractive cast and elaborate set pieces, it feels very “2016,” not like a dirty, gritty Western. The film is not magnificent, nor does it score a 7, but look on the bright side: at least Pratt and Washington both get chances to redeem themselves with their new films come December…

 

Critics Rating: 5/10

Columbia Pictures

Columbia Pictures

‘Ben-Hur,’ Done That

Leave a reply

Ben-Hur_2016_poster“Ben-Hur?” I hardly knew her! [cough] Well now that I got that out of my system (and I’ve wanted to use that line for a while now), on with the review!

“Ben-Hur” is the fifth adaption of the 1880 novel and the first live-action version since the famous 1959 film starring Charlton Heston. Jack Huston takes over the titular role as a Jewish prince who is betrayed by his adoptive brother (Toby Kebbell) and forced into slavery for the Roman Empire. Morgan Freeman also stars as Timur Bekmambetov directs.

There really is no reason for this film to exist, but if this summer has taught us anything it’s that sequels and remakes will always be made, even if there is no demand or purpose for them. But hey, it’s directed by the man who gave us “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter,” stars a guy who is best known for a small supporting role in an HBO series and is from the writer of “Undercover Brother” (in John Ridley’s defense, he also wrote the overrated “12 Years a Slave”)! The studio gave this picture a $100 million budget, so surely they had faith in it, right? Well if that were the case, any and all faith was horribly misplaced.

“Ben-Hur” the novel has been praised for nearly 150 years for its story, and rightfully so. At this point there are cliffnotes of things we have seen in films before (brother vs brother, slave against empire, etc) but somehow this latest “Ben-Hur” manages to squash all those interesting and possibly emotionally investing storylines beneath sluggish pacing. It takes nearly an hour for anything of note to truly occur, and even then still nothing truly engaging happens until the chariot race in the film’s climax.

This falls on the shoulders of director Bekmambetov, who all too often lets scenes drag on. He also implements *way* too much use of handheld shakycam, and for a film with a $100 million he sure loves to use GoPros. There was a film earlier this year, “Risen,” that cost $20 million and was set during the same time period, 33 AD; that film wasn’t very good but that’s not my point. What I’m getting at is “Ben-Hur” looks no better than that film yet it cost $80 million more.

I genuinely have no idea what all that money went to, because it certainly wasn’t on stars. Jack Huston is serviceable in the main role but he doesn’t convey the brutality or at least rage that the character of Ben-Hur should feel towards his brother and the Romans. His face is too pretty and his voice too soft (except when he’s growling) to really be taken as a threat; it is a role designed for Russell Crowe. Toby Kebbell is fine but he needs to stick to motion capture; he was great in “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” and the bright spot of “Warcraft” but live action isn’t his thing. Morgan Freeman, the film’s only recognizable name to mainstream audiences, cashes a paycheck while wearing hilarious dreadlocks. That’s really all I can say about him.

A few moments are genuinely thrilling and there are a couple scenes that do make you feel for the characters, but these are quickly stomped out by Bekmambetov’s heavy-handed attempts to create an epic story but try and keep it personable at the same time. The film also falls victim to being too “Hollywood.” Prior to the chariot race, Huston cuts his long hair and scraggly beard with a knife; the next scene he has a trimmed, gelled hairstyle and clean 5 o’clock shadow. It is just lazy filmmaking.

There is nothing special or truly great about “Ben-Hur” and it just feels like every other generic sword-and-sandal ever made (I guess you could say we’ve “Ben-Hur, done that”). It is going to flop hard at the box office for a dozen reasons, and it being a bad film is just one of them. It is boring, a lot of the time ugly to look at and doesn’t have any charismatic or gripping characters to hold your hand along the way.

Critics Rating: 3/10

Paramount

Paramount

‘Jason Bourne’ Too Familiar, Sloppy to Fully Enjoy

Leave a reply

Jason_Bourne_(film)I kept thinking two things while watching this: (1) Alicia Vikander is unfairly attractive and (2) I still can’t believe that Matt Damon and “The Martian” won Best Comedy at the Globes last year…

“Jason Bourne” is the fifth installment of the Bourne franchise and the first one to feature Damon since 2007’s “Ultimatum.” This time around, Bourne finally discovers the secrets to his past and comes after the head of the CIA (Tommy Lee Jones) for the final answers. Vikander, Vincent Cassel and Riz Ahmed also star as Paul Greengrass returns to direct.

I love “The Bourne Identity” and “The Bourne Ultimatum,” they’re two of the best action films of all-time; “Supremacy” and “Legacy” have their moments but are fully forgettable. So when they announced Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon were teaming back up to return to the franchise that arguably made both of their careers, I was excited. So maybe it was the nine years of anticipation or the incredibly high bar set by “Ultimatum,” but “Jason Bourne” is a just alright action film.

The opening sequence sets the tone for the entire film, in that it is engaging and visceral at times but is confusingly shot and edited and lasts too long. The film opens with a foot chase that turns into a motorcycle chase and each of them have their intense moments; but Greengrass’ trademark handheld shaky cam and rapid editing often make it muddled what is going on.

Franchise newcomers Alicia Vikander and Tommy Lee Jones both add some intrigue to the film, with Vikander being, aside from being beyond bae-able, the voice of reason for the audience. She is dedicated to her job but also has her own motives and senses that maybe the CIA is going after Bourne for the wrong reasons. Meanwhile Tommy Lee Jones plays Tommy Lee Jones in that he scowls and growls as the Director of the CIA who knows more about Bourne than he is leading on.

Riz Ahmed gives the film’s most (only) charismatic performance as the CEO of a social media giant caught in the middle of a conspiracy, although his role could be removed from the film and the plot would be entirely unchanged.

Damon is a bit perplexing. He doesn’t turn in a bad performance, but he just seems tired and is sleepwalking through the role. For a movie with his character in the title, the film actually revolves more around Vikander, with Damon just running around plugging USBs into laptops.

The film’s climax is more of the same as the opening sequence. Set in Vegas, it begins with an incredibly intense ten minutes but is followed by a choppily edited and way overlong car chase. It is almost as if Greengrass and crew had spent so much money on the big set pieces and car crashes that they felt obligated to include everything they shot.

“Jason Bourne” doesn’t do much to answer any of the burning questions left from the original trilogy nor does it leave us wanting more Bourne, but it isn’t completely without intriguing action scenes and exotic locations. But it is more of the same which is fun for a while however in the end just isn’t enough.

Critics Rating: 6/10

Universal

Universal

‘Nerve’ Colorful, Manic Summer Fun

Leave a reply

Nerve_2016_posterVery rarely is a movie exactly what its trailer paints it out to look like, but this is fortunately one of the times where that is the case.

“Nerve” stars Emma Roberts as a high school senior (looks like she still hasn’t graduated since she was a senior in 2011’s “Scream 4”) who starts playing an online game that dares players to do real-world activities for money. Along the way she meets Dave Franco, a fellow player. Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman direct.

The trailers made this out to be a fast, colorful, breezy summer movie and that is exactly what it is. It doesn’t take itself too seriously yet offers some smart social commentary, and isn’t too ludicrous but still knows how to have fun with the audience. This is just one of those movies you can sit back and enjoy and I truly had a blast with it.

The whole film felt like a mix of “Catfish” and “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” which makes sense as Joost and Schulman directed the original “Catfish” documentary, as well as some “Paranormal Activity” films. A lot of times, “Nerve” transitions to the view of someone’s phone which for the most part is a nice way to get a different viewpoint, even if at times it is a bit distracting and other times just aren’t plausible from the angle the character is supposedly at.

Roberts and Franco have solid chemistry, even if they’re no Gosling and Stone. Roberts is the play-it-safe shy girl and Franco does his normal Cool Guy Joe routine and the contrasts play off each other nicely. Some other cast members do turn in bad performances, especially one by Machine Gun Kelly who is just plain awkward as the film’s antagonist.

While the first half of the film is at a fun, rapid fire pace, the second act does take a noticeable step back and I know exactly when that point is. Without spoiling anything, there is one dare that is insanely intense (I was getting sweaty palms) but once that scene is over and the audience stops holding their breath the film lets out some air, too. It would’ve been a lot to ask the film to keep up at the pace it was going, but until we reach the climax it doesn’t even compare the first hour.

I really did enjoy “Nerve,” just about as much as I hoped and thought I would. It is a lot of fun, and not even in a turn-your-brain off kind of way. The film actually says some smart things to say about teenagers, their phones and what people will do to get internet famous and it is all delivered in a colorful little package. Talk about a mid-summer dream.

Critics Rating: 7/10

Lionsgate

Lionsgate