Tag Archives: funny

‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ Zany, Brilliant Fun

Leave a reply

GOTG-posterImagine “The Avengers” and “Star Wars” had a child and it listened to nothing but music from the 1970’s and 80’s. That’s pretty much what “Guardians of the Galaxy” is, and it’s about as awesome as you imagined when you read that description.

Directed and written by James Gunn, “Guardians of the Galaxy” is yet another film set in the Marvel Universe. It stars Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper as the Guardians, a group of rag-tag intergalactic criminals who set out to save the world from a radical tyrant.

The first time I saw the trailer for “Guardians”, I thought it was a joke; like a parody skit from a late night show. It was so sarcastic and over-the-top and self-referential that it couldn’t be an actual film. But it was, and the final product is as entertaining as that first trailer implied it to be.

Everything about “Guardians of the Galaxy” has been done before, yet the film manages to be fresh and new all at the same time. The heroes in the film, despite ranging from a walking tree to a talking raccoon, are more relatable than the average superhero. They curse, get drunk, and debate not saving people because it would endanger their own life. You know, people stuff.

Gunn, who directed “Super”, a film where a regular guy becomes a vigilante hero, has written a script that doesn’t forget about its hero’s humanity, as well as their humor, and it is what makes “Guardians” such a fun ride. Honestly, this is one of the funniest films of the year. All the Marvel movies have their share of wit and humor, especially “Iron Man”, but “Guardians” is different. It’s just plain zany. Characters will say things that on paper shouldn’t work, or may seem awkward in a superhero film, but on screen it turns to gold (“I have a plan! I have…I don’t know, 12% of a plan!”).

The only true flaw in “Guardians of the Galaxy” is the use of filler scenes. While I was never bored, and at times was having the most fun I had had at a cinema all year, there are a few scenes that just felt unnecessary, and created some pacing issues. If the film had been an hour 45, instead of pushing it to the two hour mark, I think it would have been perfect. But hey, I’m not complaining I got an additional 15 minutes of seeing a raccoon shooting a machine gun.

The villain was also very Darth Maul-ish in that he looks cool, but in actuality has a cliché plot and is just a puppet for the main villain of the series. But that’s neither here nor there.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” is like everything you’ve seen before in superhero and science-fiction films, yet unlike anything you’ve ever seen. It’s stupid, cliché, and over-the-top all while being brilliant, original and relatable. I honestly had a blast with this film and feel no guilt saying that it is just as good, and slightly funnier, than “The Avengers”. In a month of the year that normally has studios dumping out trash, “Guardians of the Galaxy” is anything but.

Critics Rating: 8/10

‘Lucy’ All Dumb, No Fun

Lucy_(2014_film)_poster            Oh, boy.

Well, here goes nothing. In “Lucy”, Scarlett Johansson stars as the title character who begins to access more and more of her brain after accidently being injected with an experimental drug. Morgan Freeman costars as Luc Besson writes and directs.

The trailer for this film made it look like the film was going to be very, very bad; awkward dialogue paired with that awful Besson “humor” where random violence is supposed to be funny (because it’s a riot and totally hashtag relatable when someone shoots a cab driver for not speaking English in Taiwan, right?). Well rest easy because “Lucy” isn’t as bad as the commercials made it out to be; it’s worse.

I don’t think I have ever seen a movie try to be so smart, and then end up being so dumb. For the whole film, “Lucy” tries to ask questions while giving the impression that it has all the answers. It then pulls the rug out from under the audience in a messy (and moronic) climax. Seriously, by the time the film was wrapping up its painfully long 88 minute run time, I didn’t know what was going on. And you know you you’ve lost a filmgoer’s interest when I was questioning why a character still had a flip phone in the year 2014 instead of pondering what had just happened during the climax.

The film’s main interest point (at least in its own pretentious mind) is “oh boy, what’s going to happen when Lucy reaches 100% access of her brain?!” Only thing is, you don’t care. The more intelligent Lucy gets, the more dumb the movie gets. By the time Lucy has accessed 30% of her brain (instead of the normal person’s 10%) she can already throw other human beings with her mind. So do I really care to wait and find out what is going to happen when she reaches 70%? Spoiler: No, I don’t.

If this was a sitcom, it would be called “I Hate Lucy” (OK that was a lob down the middle). I just didn’t like much of anything in this movie. Besson does know how to shoot an action sequence, as demonstrated by the final 15 minutes being the only enjoyable part of “The Family”, and once again his climatic action scene is the highlight of the film. It’s fun enough when the guns are going off, but the fight isn’t enough to distract you from a plot that has become unintentionally hilarious.

“Lucy” is too moronic to be a smart sci-fi and too boring to constitute as dumb fun. The film doesn’t know what it wants to be, nor what message it wants to send. Really all I got out of it is “drugs are bad, m’kay?”. Johansson is an emotionless robot for most of the film, and nothing in the film is engaging. The film maintains that human beings use 10% of their brain; this film would be lucky if the people who made it exhumed anything over two.

Critics Rating: 3/10

‘Hercules’ Much More Brawn than Brain

Hercules_(2014_film)            Because there truly are no original ideas left in Hollywood, we now have the second film in 2014 about the legendary mythical character of Hercules. The first movie, which few people remember and even fewer liked, was released in January. This second attempt features Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson in the titular role, so it should be awesome right? (That was rhetorical)

Directed by Brett Ratner, “Hercules” follows The Rock as a sword-for-hire, having completed his legendary twelve labours. When a king’s daughter approaches Hercules to save her father’s kingdom, his skills will be put to the test. Ian McShane and John Hurt costar.

Walking into a film directed by Ratner and starring Dwayne Johnson in a loincloth and sandals, one shouldn’t have very high expectations. However I still expected more than what this film ends up delivering.

The world of Greek myths and gods is an incredibly immersing one, and has created some amazing stories and movies. And this telling of Hercules takes an interesting twist on the legend, implying that perhaps Hercules really is a mortal man, and his legendary triumphs are just that: legend. But instead of taking these questions somewhere, the film breezes over all of the stories and confirms them as fact or fiction in the first 10 minutes of the film, leaving the rest of the time for you to simply wonder what could come next. No, literally wonder what could be possibly be next; most everything shown in the trailers are part of the opening montage.

Johnson does a solid job as Hercules however he is given surprisingly little to do. He is pretty one-note, just having to play the solider with bulging muscles who yells things during battle. Many of the other performances range from hammy to awkward, especially those of the princess and her son. Both shriek and scream most of their dialogue (in distracting British accents, I might add), and you actually debate rooting for the villains when the two are put in danger. Plus, a lot of the characters have that forced, unfunny Brett Ratner humor, which rivals Michael Bay for the worst in films.

There are two main battle sequences in the film, and both are shot well by Ratner, especially by PG-13 standards, so I must give him props there. There isn’t an overabundance of shaky-cam or slowmo, and there are a few fun camera shots that put you in the action. However in both instances the scenes overstay their welcome, and become redundant and derivative instead of exciting and invigorating.

The special effects are nothing special, the dialogue is at times abysmal and the story flips between rushed and underdeveloped. I went in wanting an over-the-top sword-and-sandal blockbuster and “Hercules” doesn’t delivery even that. The Rock tries his best but it was just too big a Herculean task (pats self on back) to save this drawn out, and awkwardly paced, adventure that we’ve seen many, many times before.

Critics Rating: 4/10

‘The Purge: Anarchy’ Vastly Better than First

Leave a reply

The_Purge_–_Anarchy_Poster            “Spider-Man 2”. “The Two Towers”. “The Purge: Anarchy.” Bet you never guessed those three films would be mentioned together, yet here they are. And what do all these films have in common? They are all sequels that vastly improve upon their predecessors.

Set in the year 2023, America has been “reborn” (as the film reminds you a dozen times) due to one night a year where all crime is legal. A stranded couple, a kidnapped mother and daughter, and a man out for revenge are all left on the streets when the annual “Purge” commences, and must team up to survive the night. James DeMonaco, writer/director from the first film, returns.

The first “Purge” film was very meh. It had an interesting premise, but that’s about as far as it got. It really didn’t take advantage of its “no laws” world, and instead opted to become a basic shoot-em-up home invasion thriller. With “Purge: Anarchy”, the filmmakers actually listened to the audience and gave us what we wanted: a glance at a world where all crime is legal.

The characters in this sequel are much more relatable, and much more intelligent, than those in the first. Frank Grillo, who is very underrated but a boss in most every role he takes, steals the show as a man who is trying to get revenge for his son’s wrongful death. He is the leader of the ragtag group, and is the glue that holds the film together. He’s much more entertaining than Ethan Hawke’s rich daddy role in the last film. You feel sympathy for the other characters, too, but you never feel any real emotional connection to them, which is pretty standard in a horror-action film.

That brings up another aspect where “Anarchy” improves: it doesn’t try to be an actual horror film and instead knows it’s an action thriller, that implements moments of tension and shock. There are some genuinely edgy parts of this film, especially when the group is lurking around the dark streets of Los Angeles, trying to stay out of sight from maniacs.

Now the film isn’t perfect, and most of the flaws are the same thing that held the first film down, albeit this time they aren’t as prevalent. There are still some dull moments, particularly those leading up to the commencement of the Purge, and there are still some horror film clichés, such as people tripping for no reason and cars dying just as they are needed most. Although, the film does give a solid explanation for the car’s battery failing, enough that I didn’t roll my eyes, so I’ll give them some points.

I enjoyed “The Purge: Anarchy”, probably for the same reasons most people will: it’s much better than the first film, and it actually delivers on its creative promise. Grillo is engaging, the action is very well shot and the immersing into this twisted world is very convincing. You can’t take a film like this too seriously, and it may try and reach too far towards social and political commentary, but if you take it at face value, “The Purge: Anarchy” is a fun time at the movies.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Sex Tape’ a Satisfying Comedy

Sex_Tape_(film)“Sex Tape” is pretty much what “The Wolf of Wall Street” would be on Casual Friday’s. The drugs, sex and language are all still present, just at a much more toned down level.

Cameron Diaz and Jason Segal star as a married couple who haven’t had as much personal time as they would like due to their two kids. So one day, in an effort to spice things up, Diaz suggests the duo makes a…sex tape! [cue applause for most inventive movie title ever] However when the tape is uploaded to the internet, they set out to destroy every copy. Jake Kasdan, who directed Diaz and Segal in “Bad Teacher”, directs here.

I went into this film hoping for the best but expecting the worst. While Jason Segal is always a likable presence, the last time he, Diaz and Kasdan teamed up was “Bad Teacher”, which was should have been entitled “Bad Movie” (ok, that one was a lob down the middle of the plate). But, to my surprise, I walked out of “Sex Tape” with a smile on my face.

Segal and Diaz have very solid chemistry together and that is obviously crucial in a comedy. They have some good back-and-forth, including several fantastic one-liners from Segal. Every supporting character lends a hand and has great give-and-take, too.

Rob Corddry and Ellie Kemper play another married couple and they have one of the best jokes in the whole film. The real show stealer, however, is Rob Lowe, who plays Diaz’s boss. In a role that breaks his normal mold, Lowe seems to be having a ball, and it’s a shame he only received 15 minutes of screen time.

What holds “Sex Tape” back, and what some people may not be able to overlook, is the script. While there are moments of true inspired comedy gems, there are also some forced jokes, and other juvenile ones that feel like they belong in an Adam Sander film. The tone sometimes shifts rapidly, too. This is probably due to there being three screenwriters credited; Segal, his writing partner Nicholas Stoller and Kate Angelo. One can assume Segal and Stoller did rewrites on Angelo’s earlier script, which would explain the sometimes messy storyline.

The film is also pretty tame, considering its plot and title. Save for an opening montage, the movie really never fully utilizes its R rating, which makes one wonder why they chose to play it so safe?

In a lot of ways, “Sex Tape” is like last year’s “We’re the Millers”; multiple screenwriters make for an uneven and bumpy trip, but you are willing to overlook most of the flaws because you are having such an enjoyable time. Plus it features a lead actress who proves that she is still very attractive, err talented. You know, at acting.

“Sex Tape” may not be for everyone, but I found it had enough laughs to warrant a viewing, and an entertaining one at that. In a summer of poor comedies (“Tammy”) and great comedies (“22 Jump Street” and “Transformers 4”), “Sex Tape” falls somewhere in the middle. If you can turn your brain off and just watch it for its entertainment value, then Segal and Diaz deliver the goods. (Upon rereading that last line, it sounded much dirtier than I intended and I apologize…)

Critics Rating: 6/10

‘Dawn of Apes’ a Step Down from First Film

Dawn_of_the_Planet_of_the_Apes            It wouldn’t be shocking if the sequel to the second attempted reboot of a film franchise that started in the 1960’s was not any good. In fact, it may be expected. And while “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”, the eighth film in the franchise and sequel to 2011’s “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”, is not a bad movie, it is a step down from its predecessor.

Featuring an entirely new human cast, and a new director, “Dawn” picks up 10 years after “Rise”, where a virus has wiped out almost all of mankind (or maybe it was eight years. The film never actually picks a timeline and sticks with it). When a group of human survivors, led by Jason Clarke, comes in contact with the apes, led by motion-capture Andy Serkis, it lights a powder keg that may just begin all-out war. Matt Reeves directs.

I enjoyed “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” because it wasn’t the Tim Burton mess, seemed to know the line to walk between cheesy and serious, and saved its action scene for an emotional climax. While the set pieces and direction in “Dawn” are an improvement over “Rises”, it seems the filmmakers forgot everything else that made the first film a surprise hit.

As with everything he does, Andy Serkis knocks his performance out of the park as Caesar, leader of the apes. Using motion capture, just like he did with King Kong and Gollum, Serkis’ every facial wrinkle and nostril flare are captured, and the man really does deserve an Oscar nomination for something because he has changed CGI in movies. When Caesar is not on screen, you feel his lack of presence, and when he is there he demands your attention.

The special effects are all outstanding and the creative team deserves all the props in the world. You truly believe that you are watching actual apes run around, and every battle scene features glorious explosions. The set pieces are also top notch; whether it is a barricaded ape village or an abandoned human construction site, you are immersed into the world.

Unfortunately, pretty on the surface is really all “Dawn” has to offer. Right from the opening scene, which featured the apes herding deer (or hunting them? Once again, the movie never explains half of what it introduces), I knew this wasn’t going to be the same as the first Apes movie.

First off, the whole thing seems familiar, and not just because it’s a sequel. Whether it is the surviving group finding sanctuary from “Walking Dead” or the encountering of seemingly hostile enemies from “Dances with Wolves”, we’ve seen everything in this film before.

The second thing the film gets wrong is its action scenes. “Rise” knew to hold its action until the climax, that way there is emotional buildup. “Dawn” forces its action scenes, or scene rather, and by the end of the film it seems like it was all pointless to the plot. (Leave pointless action scenes to Michael Bay, please)

The film wants to seem smart and satirical, with its messages of “war is bad” and “let’s all be friends”, but those are both themes most everyone can already agree on. I’m not paying to see a movie that features talking apes riding horses and shooting guns to get any sort of popular propaganda force fed to me.

Serkis is great, and Reeves’ direction and set pieces look fantastic, but the emotion and action, two of the attractions to a movie like this, fall short. There’s going to be a third film, the ending of this one is all but a trailer for it, and I hope the filmmakers can learn from their mistakes and create a solid trilogy (or however long they plan to milk this for), but as it stands now, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” is an alright film in a historic franchise.

Critics Rating: 6/10

‘Transformers’ is Less Than Meets The Eye

Leave a reply

Transformers_Age_of_Extinction_Poster_jpeg

               I have a new expression I hope catches on: fool me once, shame on me. Fool me four times, you’re Michael Bay.

“Transformers: Age of Extinction” is the fourth film in Michael Bay’s Transformers series. It  features an all-new human cast, including Mark Wahlberg as Cade Yeager, the only Texan with a Boston accent. This time around the Autobots are being hunted by the US government to avenge the events from the last film.

I don’t really know where to begin to review “Extinction”, so I’ll start with the script. It’s awful. Like on every conceivable level. From the dialogue to the plot, everything is atrocious. There’s a part in the film when Wahlberg’s daughter turns to her boyfriend and says “still glad that we met?”. She says that 100% out of the blue; he didn’t say anything to make that a coherent sentence. The screenwriter just thought he should have the girl say something cute to show that the couple cares about each other.

Still want proof the dialogue is awful? Ok, I have plenty of ammo. When the CIA storms into Wahlberg’s front yard and begins to search the grounds, he tells the guy that he needs a warrant. The agent turns to Marky Mark and says “my face is my warrant”. [sigh]

On my way out the theater I heard a 5-year-old boy tell his mom that the movie was poorly written and didn’t make sense. A child recognized that.

But you don’t pay to see a Michael Bay film for an elaborate script, you pay for the action. And how is it in “Extinction”? Its fine…for the first ten minutes. But after near THREE HOURS of boom, boom, boom, boom boom boom, boom. Boom. Boom. Boom, you get bored. Think the climax of “Man of Steel”, just metal on metal and with less character development (if that’s possible).

Its like this: imagine a nine year old boy is smashing pots and pans in front of his action figures. No give that boy a few million dollars. That’s Bay’s “Age of Extinction”.

And the run time, oh my God the run time. The film has a runtime to match its budget (160 for both), and you feel every minute of it. There was a point in the film I was sitting in the chair thinking “well, the climax of this film is boring”. Oh no, that wasn’t the climax, it was somewhere in the middle of the movie. The best part of this movie is at the beginning, before the Transformers even show up.

I really don’t know what more to say about this movie. It has impressive visuals but eye candy can only get you so far. “Transformers: Age of Extinction” is an assault on the eyes, ears, common sense, common decency and the desire to be entertained. It is also has awful dialogue, disgraceful depictions of women, over-the-top explosions and unfunny racial jokes. In other words, it’s a Michael Bay film.

Look, if you are one of those people who can turn your brain off 100% and the idea of robots throwing each other in nonsensical action scenes intersts you, then you may be able to tolerate this movie. But all others I implore you: don’t give Michael Bay three hours of your life, nonetheless 10 of your dollars.

Critics Rating: 4/10

’22 Jump Street’ is a Sequel that Soars

22_Jump_Street_Poster               You know the old saying: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. This usually is the model for comedy sequels, and more often than not it results in a familiar, lackluster film (see: “The Hangover Part II”). And here comes “22 Jump Street”, a sequel that once again uses the exact same formula as the first film; the only difference is it knows it.

Once again starring the perfectly paired Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum, this time around the duo has a new mission: they must infiltrate a college in order to find the supplier of an extreme new drug that is posing a threat to teenagers (yeah, sound familiar?). Phil Lord and Christopher Miller once again direct.

Self-relevant humor, when done right, can be the funniest version of comedy (just look at “This Is the End”, “Seven Psychopaths” and even the first “Jump Street”). Much like how “21 Jump Street” knew it was an unnecessary spin-off of an old TV show, “22 Jump Street” knows that it is an unnecessary sequel, and pokes fun of that fact. It notes that Hill and Tatum’s second undercover mission now has twice the budget, and that they should investigate everything as they did the last time; the characters do everything short of turning and winking towards the camera.

The chemistry between Hill and Tatum is so good, it’s almost unfair. There may not be a pair of actors that work better together in Hollywood than these two, and there has certainly never been a better buddy cop couple. Tatum looks like he’s having the time of his life, and there is one scene where he parades around that had my sides hurting.

Directors Miller and Lord once again show that they are perfect for this project, as they insert sound effects and animation into the most random of scenes, and it only adds to the comedy, as if giving the audience a cue of when is the perfect time to laugh.

Because this is a sequel, the film takes advantage of every stereotype that accompanies sequels: from larger, over-the-top action scenes (exploding goalposts), to more colorful sets (the climax takes place in spring break Mexico), all the way to unneeded (but not unwelcomed) returning characters.

Now for all the funny self-deprecating sequel jokes, the film does make a bit too many (they literally say “just like last time” until the film’s final scene), and at times it does feel like they were beating a dead horse with the same one-line. There are also some plot points that are never resolved, but they aren’t glaring enough to ruin the film.

“22 Jump Street” is what every sequel should do, but very few attain: it makes improvements upon the first film while at the same time doesn’t ruin the legacy of the original. “22 Jump Street” is just as funny as its predecessor, and I would very quickly shut up and give Lord and Miller my money if and when “23 Jump Street” comes around…even if this film jokes that a third film may not be the best idea (culinary school, anyone?)

Critics Rating: 8/10

‘Edge of Tomorrow’ Return to Form for Cruise

Leave a reply

Edge_of_Tomorrow_PosterIf there was any doubt that Tom Cruise could still carry an action film, “Edge of Tomorrow” makes those doubts a thing of the past.

When Earth is invaded by aliens, a military officer (Cruise) finds himself repeating the same day over-and-over again every time he dies. The only person who believes him and knows how to use this as an advantage is a Special Forces solider, played by Emily Blunt. Doug Liman directs.

Tom Cruise is a movie star, and a dedicated one at that (even at age 51 he is still doing his own stunts), but he has been in some very average films the past few years (here’s looking at you, “Oblivion”). However, “Edge of Tomorrow” returns Cruise to his former glory, and does so in a very enjoyable way.

If you mix “Groundhog Day” with “Saving Private Ryan” and “Elysium”, that’s pretty much what you get with “Tomorrow”. At times the plot sags, but it never gets repetitive or boring, which is a high compliment about a movie that is essentially set in the same 24 hour period over-and-over. The film knows how to use the “live-die-repeat” premise to its advantage, and the audience gets a few chuckle moments thrown in every now and again.

As good as Cruise is, Emily Blunt holds her own, too. Walking into the film it may be hard to picture her as the deadliest killer mankind has to offer, however Blunt quickly sells you on the character, and that she isn’t to be messed with. Her and Cruise have solid chemistry, even if at times her hardened exterior may seem a bit unrealistic.

Most of the action is shot well. It is a PG-13 film, so there are obviously some shaky cam moments and some of the kills are a little too close up, but overall it is very solid direction and cinematography.

There really isn’t much “Edge of Tomorrow” does wrong. The ending may be a little cliché or blah for some people, and the alien’s invasion plot does resemble that of Hitler’s (first conquer France, then Europe, then the world), but in a world of remakes and over-the-top action films that are nothing but one-liners and explosions (*cough* Michael Bay), it is nice to watch something that is at least trying to be original.

If you can deal with the “every time the hero repeats the day he learns a little more” storyline, and especially if you enjoy the idea of Tom Cruise running around in a robot suit killing aliens that look like the robots from the Matrix, then “Edge of Tomorrow” is the film for you. If those things don’t appeal to you… then I think there’s some teenage rom-com about stars that is also playing.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Sabotage’ is Messy, but Very Fun

sabotageWhat do you get when you combine Arnold Schwarzenegger, “End of Watch” and “A Good Day to Die Hard”? The answer is “Sabotage”, the new Arnie movie from the director of “Watch” David Ayer, and the writer of “Good Day”, Skip Woods. Schwarzenegger stars as the leader of an elite DEA task force who must find out who is killing the members of his team after they bust a cartel safe house. Ayer directs.

The commercials for “Sabotage” have been a little misleading in that it brags it is “from the writer of Training Day”. While this is true, Ayer did write “Training Day”, he merely did touchups on “Sabotage”. The true screenwriter is Skip Woods, who wrote such gems as “Die Hard 5”, “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” and “Hitman” (in case you are unfamiliar with those films they’re all awful, and I was being sarcastic). If you want your films to feature a organized plot, characters with depth, or sentences that make sense, then Woods probably isn’t high on your radar.

Besides being a poor screenwriter, no one knows anything about Woods. I kid you not, Google him. There are no pictures or any biographical information on him. There is even a conspiracy on whether the guy actually exists. The one thing that is known is he has not written a good movie.

So at face value “Sabotage” shouldn’t work. It was written by the genius of awful Woods, and stars Schwarzenegger, who has never been a fantastic actor, as well as a bunch of other actors who you probably recognize but could not name. But thanks to steady direction from Ayer, I found myself enjoying the majority of the film.

When characters have guns in their hands, “Sabotage” is immensely entertaining and very well shot. Much like the other films he has directed like “Street Kings” and “End of Watch”, Ayer knows where to creatively put a camera in order to place the audience in the action, and you get your money’s worth.

Schwarzenegger doesn’t do a bad job, either. He plays a man who is out for revenge after the Mexican cartel kidnapped his wife and kid, as well as trying to evade whoever is taking out the members of his team. He has his share of chuckle inducing one-liners, as well as his signature cigar smoking (in practically every scene).

The largest issues with “Sabotage” lay mostly with its script. Aside from Arnold, none of the characters are likable. They all are angry, selfish and ignorant individuals, as well as underdeveloped, so when they begin to get killed by the cartel you simply don’t care. Like at all. The movie also tries to have a big plot twist ending but then makes no effort whatsoever in explaining how or why what just happened in fact happened.

There are also two scenes that are very awkwardly edited. In one, you see Arnold and his partner approaching a house, guns drawn, and then see the man they’re looking for gunned down by assailants. Then suddenly it cuts back to Arnold finding the dead man, and apparently the man had been killed several days prior. It took me out of the movie and came off as somewhat lazy.

With a film like “Sabotage” you have to take the good with the bad. When guns are going off, the film is fun, exciting and very well made. The problem is the other half of the movie is a wannabe political thriller involving the DEA and internal affairs and who knows what else (Skip Woods certainly didn’t know, and he wrote it).

Usually I criticize action films for being nothing more than shoot-em-ups, but there was something about “Sabotage” that made me enjoy the film, much more than I’m sure it had any right to be liked.

Critics Rating: 6/10