Tag Archives: trailer

‘Interstellar’ Reaches for the Stars, Scratches Greatness

interstellar            In his first directorial effort since completing his Dark Knight trilogy, Christopher Nolan returns to the visually striking and mind-bending side of films with “Interstellar”.

Set in the future on a dying planet Earth, several astronauts (Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway) set out into a wormhole near Saturn to try and find a new planet suitable for human life. Nolan favorite Michael Caine plays the intellectual head of the project and Jessica Chastain also stars.

Say what you will about Christopher Nolan films, but one thing that is undeniable is that every one of his movies has large scopes and ambitions. The problem most of his films not named “Inception” and “The Dark Knight” have are that the scope is often too big to fill. “Interstellar” sets the bar incredibly high (that bar being an entirely different galaxy) and for most of the film it appears like it will reach that bar and be something great; before the wheels come off in the final act.

The acting in the film is great across the board. McConaughey, fresh off his first Oscar for the superb “Dallas Buyers Club”, shows that his 2013 was no fluke. He plays a father who is conflicted with possibly saving the human race, but while leaving his children behind for years in the process. He still has his signature droll and charm, but this is a side of McConaughey we’ve never seen. My future wife Anne Hathaway is equally as solid as McConaughey’s fellow astronaut, a woman torn between morals and emotion.

The visuals in the film are striking and much like last year’s “Gravity” there are shots that show the pure magnitude of space that will leave you breathless. On numerous occasions the camera pulls up to show the small ship riding among the sea of stars in complete silence, and for a split second it puts everything in perspective.

Everything was going great with “Interstellar”, and for a moment I thought maybe this could be the next space classic a la “2001”, but then the final act happens. I obviously can’t say much of anything without spoiling it, but it is one of those moments that while you watch it transpire you just think, “Oh. Well. Um…ok. Sure, I guess.” I really think the studio gave Nolan complete control of this project, and that may have been a slip-up on their end.

There are also the classic (at this point cliché) “Nolan-isms”, such as underdeveloped side characters, plot holes and the aforementioned unfillable scope, but they aren’t as prevalent or glaring here as with his other projects.

“Interstellar” has no right being nearly three hours long, but there was not a second during it that I was bored. The performances are great, the visuals are outstanding and there are several very well-directed moments of tension, one of which had the entire audience gasp at the same time. “Interstellar” reaches for the stars and they just barely evade its grasp, but just because it is not a stellar movie (*snickers*) does not mean it is a trip you can afford not to take.

Critics Rating: 8/10

Bill Murray Shines as ‘St. Vincent’

Leave a reply

St_Vincent_posterWelcome back, funny Bill Murray. After several years of making cameos and starring in indie dramas, Murray returns to his roots of comedy in “St. Vincent”, where he plays a cranky old drunk who is saddled with babysitting the son of his new neighbor, played by Melissa McCarthy. Hollywood rookie Theodore Melfi writes and directs.

It is a testament to a film when it can overcome all of its genre clichés and narrative familiarities and still be generally entertaining. “St. Vincent” is pretty standard, as we’ve seen the “grumpy guy bonds with the nerdy young kid and the two go on crazy adventures together” formula numerous times before (“Bad Santa” or “Bad Words”, for example). But in spite of all this, Murray shines in an honest, emotional and at times very funny performance.

Without Murray, chances are this movie would not work, and would have been stuck in the “schmaltzy and overdone” category. However Murray elevates the film with his dry wit, and it is a blast seeing him teach the young boy (played by Jaeden Lieberher) how to gamble on horses, mow dirt patches and stand up to bullies.

Melissa McCarthy, toning down her performance here, gives one of her best performances because she isn’t playing the swearing slob. She portrays a single mother who is simply trying to make a better life for her son, and in that he gets a few chuckles, but for the most part just displays true emotion and relatability.

The strongest points of the film are its opening act and its climax, for two very different reasons. The first scenes when we first meet Murray are genuinely funny and harken back to the golden days of his career. The final minutes of this scene are masterfully acted by the entire cast, especially Murray, who for much of the final scene speaks only with his facial expressions. The scene is very well done and will hit you right in the feels (seriously, I had a lump in my throat).

There is a point about halfway through “St. Vincent”, though, where the film seems to be aware that it is being too goofy and sentimental, and thinks it needs to fix this by adding extreme drama. This would have been fine, except the tone switch comes completely out of left field, and just doesn’t seem natural. Suddenly the movie becomes a dark, almost depressing drama, and it really just felt out of place. This likely falls on the shoulders of rookie director Melfi, but other than this one segment he does a great job mixing emotion and laughs, both with his direction and the script.

“St. Vincent” won’t win any awards for originality, but I really hope it wins something for Murray. He is the reason this film is as good and enjoyable as it is, and he alone is the reason to see this movie. It is an entertaining, multi-layered performance, and every scene he is not in, as few as there are, you notice his absence.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Annabelle’ Boring, Lazy and Unscary

Annabelle-posterThere’s a trend I’ve noticed with Hollywood in 2014: if a title of a film is simply a female name, then the end product is trash. First we had “Tammy”, then “Lucy” and now “Annabelle”.

A prequel/spin-off/rip-off of “The Conjuring”, “Annabelle” tells the tale of how the creepy little doll became possessed in the first place, and how it torments the lives of a married couple and their newborn baby. The couple is played by Ward Horton and Annabelle Wallis (crazy first name, right?!) and the film is directed by John R. Leonetti.

I wasn’t the biggest “Conjuring” fan. I appreciated its production value and acting but I just didn’t find the film very scary. And like I said in my review, a horror film that isn’t scary is like a comedy without any laughs; it failed at its objective. That being said, if “Annabelle” was intended to be a horror film, then it botched even harder than “Conjuring” ever could have hoped to.

Nothing in this film works. Let’s start with the acting. It’s as wooden as the rocking chair that the Annabelle doll sits in the entire film. The actor’s deliveries are off and their emotions are non-existent. As my one friend brilliantly said to me, “you know you’re in trouble when the doll is the best actor in the movie.”

The script is just as awful as the acting. The plot makes no sense and puts no effort into explaining how Annabelle actually comes possessed, and it takes until the final scene to tell us why the demon is after the family. The dialogue is equally as dreadful. Like I’m perplexed as to how some of these scenes made it into the finished product. At one point the husband says “ha ha it’s true; everyone HATES her grandmother”. Like, in the most awkward tone possible. And nearly completely out of context to the conversation. That would mean the director had to have looked at that take and said, “Perfect! Cut. Print.”

Speaking of direction, Leonetti does nothing special here at all. All my issues with “Conjuring” aside, director James Wan (who produced “Annabelle”) knew how to build tension in a scene using practical effects (his mistake was never having much of the tension boil over and lead anywhere). Leonetti lingers on actors faces for too long and stares at a still Annabelle for extended durations. There were a couple interesting camera tricks he employs, such as showing a little girl running past an open door only to have her turn into a full-grown woman upon entering, but I think if you had simply put a camera on a tripod it would have done a more engaging job.

All of this could be forgiven if the film was scary, or even interesting, but “Annabelle” is neither. It is boring and uneventful, and by using all no-name actors to ensure the budget was as low as possible it’s not even like we have a big-name star to hold our hand (I would pay good money to see Nicolas Cage scream and throw the Annabelle doll).

I can go on and on bashing “Annabelle”, but then I would be just hurting my brain more than this film did by itself. It is a lazily constructed and awfully executed horror film that should be condemned alongside the demons that control its title character. The silver lining about nearing the end of this review is I will never have to revisit this film ever again. Well, except when I write my Year’s Worst Films list in December. Or until they milk yet another sequel out of this already dried up franchise and I have to relive it all over again…

Critics Rating: 3/10

‘Fury’ Is Powerful, Gritty and One of Year’s Best

Leave a reply

Fury_2014_posterBrad Pitt and World War II. So far, it has proven to be a potent combonation. First Pitt was hunting Nazis in “Inglorious Basterds”, now he is commanding a tank in Germany.

“Fury”, written and directed by “End of Watch’s” David Ayer, tells the tale of five American soldiers who get stuck in their tank behind enemy lines. Outnumbered and outgunned, they must fight their way through and defeat the surrounding Nazi forces. Brad Pitt, Logan Lerman, Shia LaBeouf, Michael Peña and Jon Bernthal portray the members of the tank.

There’s really no point of sugar coating it or beating around the bush: “Fury” is one of the year’s best movies and one of the better, and most realistic, war films of all-time. From the haunting depictions of battle, to the heart-wrenching performances, to the high production value everything about this film is as beautiful as it is chilling.

The performances across the board are nothing short of fantastic, with the standouts being Pitt and Lerman. Pitt plays a man who has clearly let the evils of war shatter any morals and sensitivity he ever had, and this is demonstrated when on the first day of the job for the tank’s new recruit (Lerman), Pitt orders him to execute an unarmed German solider.

I have never been a Logan Lerman fan, I believe he plays a pretentious, spoiled boy in every role he takes (“Noah” and “3:10 to Yuma”, just to name two), but the man shut me up with his performance here. He is a soldier who was pulled away from his desk and put on the front lines, and it seems like he will never get used to the idea of taking a human life. But throughout the film we see him begin to change and become more desensitized to the notion of war, but he never loses the innocence that we empathize with.

The rest of the cast are all cookie-cutter roles (minority member, jerky sociopath and Bible-thumper), but the actors all have their moments to shine.

Ayer has proven that he is more than capable of shooting an engaging action scene, but never while sacrificing drama or content. Even when the bullets are flying and shells are being rocketed off, we see the characters’ weaknesses and at times hesitation in their actions. Even at the end of the film, in the midst of an extended battle, the action never feels derivative or redundant, because we are getting heavy doses of human drama, accompanied by a fantastic score from composer Steven Price.

What holds “Fury” back from the greatness it so clearly was striving for is a scene in the middle of the film. After taking a town, Pitt and Lerman come across two German women, who proceed to make lunch. The scene drags on for 22 minutes (I remember looking at my phone twice), and in the end the entire interaction took place simply for a plot point down the road.

If that one scene had been shorter, which it should have been, then “Fury” may have been able to be mentioned in the same breath as “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Hurt Locker” for greatest war movie of all-time. That being said, “Fury” is still a fantastically shot, grittily depicted and powerfully acted war story, which features a climax that had my theater silent when the credits began to roll.

Critics Rating: 9/10

‘Judge’ Clichéd, but Charasmatic

The_Judge_2014_film_poster                As if it needed to be confirmed, I don’t think there’s a more charismatic actor in the business than Robert Downey Jr. He once again lends his charm and talents to “The Judge”, in which he plays Hank, a slimy big city defense lawyer (is there any other kind?). When visiting his small hometown in Indiana for his mother’s funeral, Hank’s elderly father (played by Robert Duvall) is accused of murder, and Hank must defend now him. David Dobkin directs as Vera Farmiga and Billy Bob Thorton costar.

“The Judge” is an interesting movie. Not because it is perplexing or fresh (because it’s pretty straightforward and standard), but because it has moments of brilliance that are then followed by 10 very slow, sometimes awkwardly schmaltzy minutes. Honestly, the best thing I can compare it to is “Jersey Boys”: it’s overlong and at times too self-serious, but also has some soaring scenes and is certainly worth a view.

The best part of “Judge”, by far, is Downey and Duvall going at it. One of the film’s many clichés is that they are a father and son with a strained relationship, but they make sure that this plot point does not feel stale or derivative. Duvall growls and Downey does his fast-talking thing; it all elevates the film higher than it would have been in the hands of less-capable actors.

While the courtroom scenes aren’t as nail-biting or riveting as they could have or should have been, they are still entertaining, and seeing Downey spit out lawyer lingo will always make me say “shut up and take my money!”.

The director of the film, David Dobkin, is known for such classy dramas as “The Change-Up” and “Wedding Crashers” (sarcasm, of course). I can respect that he wants to make a serious Hollywood film but I can’t help but feel he’s a little out of place. It is a lot like Ruben Fleischer, who directed comedies “Zombieland” and “30 Minutes or Less”, then tried to make a serious film with “Gangster Squad”. My personal feelings for “Squad” aside, you can tell the film’s narrative and tone are not quite confident, or consistent, and that inhibits the movie from reaching higher levels.

Dobkin, who wrote the story for “Judge” as well, knows how to make a shot look pretty or show character emotion, but his scenes draw on too long, and moments of attempted humor will come at such random times that you aren’t sure whether to laugh or cringe.

Like I hinted at earlier, the movie has a lot of clichés. From the estranged son, to a character maybe having a daughter they never knew about, all the way to the diner full of townspeople with one of them literally saying “we’ve eaten breakfast here every week for over twenty years” (which is followed by you rolling your eyes). If there’s a book about “Things to Include in a Movie about a Small Town”, the screenwriter probably has it on his shelf.

“The Judge” is pretty much going to be as good as you thought it was going to be when you saw the trailer. If you’re like me and you thought, “oh, there’s a drama with forced comedic moments but will feature two great performances from the Roberts”, then you’ll enjoy yourself. If you thought, “this thing looks like a sappy, unfunny version of ‘My Cousin Vinny’ meets ‘Doc Hollywood’”, well then I can’t tell you you’re completely wrong; that’s how perplexing this movie is.

Critics Rating: 6/10

‘Gone Girl’ Powerfully Acted, Capably Executed Thriller

Leave a reply

Gone_Girl_Poster                Do you smell that? It’s the smell of Oscar Season returning to grace us with its presence, and it is brought upon by director David Fincher’s newest film, “Gone Girl”.

On the morning of his fifth wedding anniversary, Nick (Ben Affleck) arrives home to find his house in shambles and his wife (Rosamund Pike) missing. When the media begins to put the spotlight on him, the police and American public start to wonder if Nick is an innocent victim, or a killer? Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry also star.

It is hard to say why “Gone Girl” is a good film without spoiling anything. In fact it is hard to really talk at all about this film without giving away one of its many twists. But it’s my job, so here we go.

The always reliable David Fincher, who directed films ranging cult classics “Fight Club” and “Se7en” to the fantastic “Social Network” and American version of “Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”, directs “Gone Girl” in such a stepped-back, impartial way that at times you forget you are watching a movie. It is almost like you are simply watching events unfold, and you do not know who to trust.

Gillian Flynn, who wrote the novel on which the film is based, as well as penned the screenplay for the movie, has such a way with words that she is able to work in moments of dark humor that just feel natural. Sometimes in movies characters are deadly serious all the time and it almost takes you out of the film, but never with “Gone Girl”. It makes sure to have a little strategically placed bits of humor or lightheartedness just when a moment may be getting too serious or stale.

If you hear anything about the film, it will likely be one of two things: Rosamund Pike’s performance, or the twists. This film has more twists than a pastry from Cinnabon. At first they are small things, like the police finding a clue, but as the film goes on, they get more and more elaborate and hit harder and harder, until the ultimate punch to the stomach in the film’s final moments.

As for Pike, there is so much that could be said but I’ll keep it brief. As she narrates the film via her diary passages and flashbacks, we see at first the fairytale marriage that she and Affleck have, but then how they begin to become more and more distant, until finally she begins to fear her own husband. It is a multi-layered performance that is sure to earn her award talk.

Now as much as the film wants to front itself as a brilliant Oscar contender, there are some glaring flaws. The first act of the film, when police are collecting initial clues and samples and Affleck is doing interviews, can drag a little, as we aren’t really learning anything new or earth shattering, but still are sitting through it all. It is a little like watching a behind-the-scenes, paperwork-only edition of “Law and Order”, just with more awkward pacing. The film may also leave some viewers, including myself, craving a better delivery of the climax.

“Gone Girl” is a perfectly cast, capably directed film that just suffers from some narrative and pacing issues, as well as a possible weak finale. That being said, it is an engrossing, dark and intelligent, and may leave your brain hurting when the credits start to roll. Is “Gone Girl” as entertaining or memorable as it wants to be? No. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t come close.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘The Equalizer’ Big on Blood, Bores

The_Equalizer_poster            If you thought Liam Neeson was the only middle aged action star in Hollywood capable of being typecast, think again.

Denzel Washington stars in “The Equalizer”, a film that reunites Washington with his “Training Day” director, Antoine Fuqua. Washington plays a retired intelligence officer who now works at a home improvement store. One day he gets mixed up with the Russian mob while protecting a young call girl, and these Russians must have never seen a Denzel movie before because he sets on a violent path of vengeance. Chloë Grace Moretz and Marton Csokas also star.

Nearing 60 years old and two Oscars in hand, Denzel Washington is at the point in his career that he can pretty much chose whatever role he wants. And as of late, those roles are all men with mysterious pasts and a particular set of skills, such as his parts in “Safe House” and “2 Guns”. “The Equalizer” continues the trend of Denzel killing it in the starring role, but the film itself failing to match his energy.

“The Equalizer” is an over-the-top action film, which acts as more of a highlight reel of cool kills with forced dialogue and backstories used as filler space than a genuine film. Every character not played by Denzel Washington in this film has no true development. Even the girl that the film supposedly revolves around, played by Chloë Grace Moretz, isn’t a true character; she’s just a plot device.

When you’re making an action film, obviously the script isn’t immensely important, but you still can’t be lazy. The script for “Equalizer” involves a man coming out of secret service retirement to get revenge (you know, like “Taken”) in order to face off against the Russian mob (“Training Day”) and features a big finale with elaborate traps inside a house of horrors (“Home Alone”).

The action in the film is competently shot by Fuqua, including a few slowed down “observation shots”, ala “Sherlock Holmes” but the scenes often draw on for too long. I’m all for extended shootouts or seeing Denzel Washington kill a man with a corkscrew, but don’t make it overstay its welcome.

Oh, that’s another thing about this movie, the runtime. It is 131 minutes long (emphasis on “long”). That’s over two hours, and I wager that only 20 of those minutes involve Denzel killing someone, which is what you pay to see. That means about 16% of the film is what we want to see, the rest of the time is spent learning about Washington’s past (which is never fully explained) and meeting characters who are not crucial to the plot, or worse yet, are only there to satisfy a plot point way down the road.

I cannot say “The Equalizer” is a horrible film, because it is not. There are a handful of things it gets right, especially the tension and unease at the start of the film when you know Washington is more than this mild-mannered store employee that he is leading on to be. But there is just so much more I wanted out of this film, and even Denzel Washington’s charming smile and dedicated performance couldn’t win me over. In the end, “The Equalizer” is twice as long and half as fun as it should have been.

Critics Rating: 5/10

‘November Man’ a Fun, By-the-Numbers Spy Thriller

The_November_Man_poster            It’s hard to watch Pierce Brosnan run around in “The November Man” without imagining him from his glory 007 days, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Brosnan steps into his spy shoes once again, only this time instead of being a Brit he is an ex-CIA agent who is called out of retirement for one last job (if it sounds cliché, that’s because it is). After the rescue mission goes wrong, Brosnan is on a path for revenge; a path that will pit him against his old protégé (Luke Bracey) and right in the middle of a government conspiracy (if that sounds cliché, it’s because it is. See the pattern yet?). Roger Donaldson directs.

“The November Man” really is an interesting film. It uses every spy thriller cliché in the book, from student vs teacher to an agent being told “don’t start a family” and then promptly starting a family. However, despite all these clichés, the film still manages to implement some interesting twists, and a lot of fun, engaging action, to make it worth your time.

First things first, despite being 61 years old, Pierce Brosnan shows that he still has some fight left in him, and he can still kick some serious butt. Even though his attempt at an American accent is awkward, and completely abandoned when he yells (which is more often than you may think), he never hams up his performance, like you may see an aging action star do in “The Expendables”.

The movie’s action is top of the notch, if not at times a bit ridiculous. There are plenty of CAR CHASES! EXPLOSIONS! SHOVELS TO THE HEAD! but there are also numerous well-staged shootouts in the film. Most every one of these shootouts is built up by several minutes of cat-and-mouse tension. You don’t know when the spark is going to hit the powder keg, but when it does it results in well-shot, exciting and downright easily enjoyable fun.

What keeps “November Man” from being a better-than-average spy thriller, aside from the genre clichés, is the plot. There a few fun twists, however by the end of the film, it felt like they were trying to fit in as many “gotcha!” moments as they could. Some of the twists are more plausible than others, while one will make you groan because of how unnecessary it is.

There is also a 20 minute segment where not a bullet is fired, because the film tries to make you care about the characters (or something like that). It gets almost so dry that you just want to grab Brosnan and shout “would you shoot someone already?!”

What you expect out of “The November Man” will determine how much fun you have with it. If you want a new, fresh spy thriller with a hot young gun stealing the show, you’ll be disappointed. If you want to see well-shot action and some fun spy dialogue, like I did, then you’ve come to the right place. And if you wanted an over-the-top action film with a stupid plot and even worse script, go watch “Die Hard 5”.

Critics Rating: 6/10

‘Boyhood’ Is Honest, Moving and Nostalgic

Leave a reply

Boyhood_filmTrue story: when I was 10 and watching “Racing Stripes”, a thought came to me: what if a director filmed flashback scenes with children, and then finished the movie with the same kids when they got older? The idea never returned to my mind until I heard about the movie “Boyhood”, a movie filmed over 12 years using the same actors.

Directed and written by Richard Linklater, “Boyhood” follows one boy, Mason, from the ages of six to 18. Ellar Coletrane, who was seven when cast, portrays Mason, Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette play his parents and Linklater’s real-life daughter, Lorelei, plays Mason’s sister.

Just the production story behind this film is enough to make someone interested to see it. The crew got together for 12 days a year for 12 years beginning in 2002, so we get to see the young actors grow and the adults age before our eyes. There is so much that could have gone wrong, yet somehow it all went right.

I personally have some additional ties to the film. Since I was 8 years old in 2002, many of the songs and pop culture references in the film played large parts in my own childhood. Nostalgic things such as the Oregon Trail computer game, or waiting in line for the midnight release of a Harry Potter book were enough to bring a lump to my throat. There’s a part where Mason says “the best movies of 2008” were Tropic Thunder, Dark Knight and Pineapple Express, which is absolutely true and instantly brought me back to that wonderful summer.

It is almost as if Linklater knew how to timestamp his film, using things that are relevant, but never doing it to be lazy or contrived, like some films do when trying too hard to convince you a scene takes place during a certain point in time.

The acting in the film is superb, save for maybe the first years of the children’s lives (you know, because kid actors). Ethan Hawke gives perhaps the best performance of his career as Mason’s dad. He is a man who is at first somewhat distant from his kids, and is trying to connect with them but just doesn’t know how. Over time he begins to form bonds with them, and we see how tough parenting, especially when single, really is.

Linklater just has such a delicate touch with the emotional scenes, and has written an honest script, looking at everything we all experience growing up, from awkward talks with our parents to peer pressure. We all know Linklater is a talented director (the guy has gotten two Golden Globe nominations out of Jack Black), and he cements his place among the Hollywood greats with this film.

There are a few scenes that could have been cut, however I understand why Linklater kept them in; cutting them would mean an entire year of filming, and an entire year of Mason’s life, would have been not seen and all for naught. The movie does have a running time of two hours, 45 minutes but it never gets boring and rarely lags.

You can believe the hype: “Boyhood” is as creatively impressive and emotionally moving as they say. But while the scope of the film is massive and ambitious, it truly is the little, intimate moments that make “Boyhood” so good. Everyone, parent, preteen or especially 20-something, should see this film and will have something to connect with. I enjoyed the movie, even when it was uncomfortably honest, and I almost feel like I should be thanking Richard Linklater for allowing me to relive my childhood over one last time.

Critics Rating: 8/10

Third Time’s the Charm for ‘Expendables’

Leave a reply

Expendables_3_posterThe “Expendables” franchise in a nutshell: Sylvester Stallone has gathered the biggest action stars from the past 30 years, thrown in a few old jokes and sprinkled it all with excessive violence and gunplay. The results have been mixed, with the first film being fun but taking itself way too seriously, while the sequel was a little more self-relevant but was still sloppy.

With “The Expendables 3”, Stallone and his team have clearly taken notes because, while not a masterpiece or even particularly good film, the third time is the charm for this group for the steroid and Botox mercenaries.

Directed by Australian newcomer Patrick Hughes, “Expendables 3” follows Barney Ross (Stallone) as he tries to find new, younger blood in order to bring down an arms dealer, and former Expendables member, played by Mel Gibson. Wesley Snipes, Antonio Banderas and Arnold Schwarzenegger are among the many costars.

First things first, the jokes are much more prevalent than in past films. Stallone brought onboard Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedikt, writers of “Olympus Has Fallen”, to co-write the script with him, and it results in the same irrelevant, intentionally awful jokes that not only made “Olympus” so much fun, but the action films from the 80’s. Harrison Ford, filling in for Bruce Willis who was fired after demanding $1 million a day, has the most fun of the newcomers, and unlike Willis looks like he actually gives a darn about being there. He has smile on his face the entire film, and has one funny running gag where he tells Jason Statham to “stop mumbling” whenever he speaks in his British accent.

Also, unlike the first two films, we know and actually empathize with the villain. Gibson’s weapons dealing character is given an actual backstory and there is one scene where he is talking to Stallone about why he does what he does and feels genuine.

Of all the newcomers, two stand out for reasons they may not like, the first being the lone female Expendable, played by UFC fighter Ronda Rousey. Her acting has a lot of opportunity for improvement (nice way of saying she’s not very good), and on more than one occasion she clichély says “men” when a group of the guys do something stupid. The other “standout” is Antonio Banderas, who, I swear to God, pulls a Jar Jar Binks. He is just over-the-top, quickly saying unfunny lines and never stopping the talking.

When news broke that this film was PG-13 instead of R, most people freaked out. We saw what happened when an R-rated franchise goes PG-13 earlier with RoboCop, so many people were nervous that this one. However the 4th Die Hard was rated PG-13, and that is arguably featured the best action of the series. And “Expendables 3” luckily falls closer to the Die Hard side of things.

Director Patrick Hughes stages some fantastic action sequences, and right from the start of the film you know you’re in for a thrill ride as it opens up on a train during a hostage rescue. Yes, there are the obligatory close-ups and shaky cams that accompany PG-13 films, but it never distracts you (this was shot as R but was cut to PG-13, because money).

At this point you know whether you like these films or not. I personally found the mix of new age tech versus old school fist fights an entertaining step in a new direction for the franchise, and is the best film in the series (take that statement for what it’s worth). There’s a part in the film when Ford turns to Stallone and says “that’s some of the most fun I’ve had in years”. I wouldn’t be lying if I said “Expendables 3” is some of the most fun I’ve had all summer.

Critics Rating: 7/10