Category Archives: Movie News and Articles

REVIEW : “The Expendables 3”

by

19

EXPEND POSTER

The entire Expendables franchise started as a nostalgic rekindling of the once prominent over-the-top action genre. It wasn’t afraid to parody itself or play with the familiar action cliches of the 1980s and early 90s. And half of the fun was just seeing these actors together hamming it up and shooting a ton of bullets. The first film was entertaining and it set the table for the second installment which I thought was funnier and more self-deprecating while clinging to the all-important nostalgia. Now we have an inevitable third film which tries to keep the ball rolling.

“The Expendables 3” is made for a PG-13 audience (at least so it says), but don’t be misled. The body count is still astronomical and bullets fly aplenty. But the blood is reined in just enough to somehow keep it from an R rating. Unfortunately its desire for a broader audience, while noble in purpose, is undermined by the fact that the movie simply isn’t as fun or nostalgic as either of the first two pictures.

EXPEND1

Sylvester Stallone and his action ensemble returns minus Bruce Willis who declined because he wanted more money (one of the film’s funnier jokes takes a shot at the publicized dispute). And in keeping with the franchise’s trend, several new stars are added into the mix. Wesley Snipes, Antonio Banderas, Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, and action star extraordinaire (sarcasm absolutely intended) Kelsey Grammer. These are some interesting names and it would be fun to see what the movie would be like if they were all that was added to it.

But in an attempt to inject some youth and potentially pass the torch, a group of new Expendables are added to the group. This is one of the film’s major blunders because none of these youngsters are the slightest bit interesting. They are cardboard cutouts and sometimes their acting makes Stallone’s look good. In case you don’t know, that is no compliment. They are walking talking cliches and they zap the movie of its fun and playful energy.

But the film’s main dish is the action and as I mentioned there is plenty of it. The problem is it lacks the pop that we’ve seen in the other flicks. What I mean is the action scenes rarely energize the movie. In the earlier films regardless of whatever narrative problems they would be having you could count on the action to liven things up. Here it often feels generic and monotonous. There are moments when they do pull off one of those great over-the-top stunts that feels right at home in the 80s. There are other moments that just feel like a boring grind.

EXPEND2

Thankfully some of the old action veterans do save this from being a disaster. Mel Gibson is deliciously maniacal as the head baddie. While his grand scheme and ultimate motivations are murky, Gibson has a ball with the character and I loved every minute he was on screen. Harrison Ford was also a hoot as a grumpy hard-nosed CIA officer. Arnold Schwarzenegger is also fun and every line he has seems to be poking fun at himself. Same with Wesley Snipes. But many of the cast gets lost in the shuffle and rarely get their signature moment in the film. Too many characters and not enough screen time to go around.

In the end “The Expendables 3” lacks the fun, the excitement, and the charm that the franchise built itself on. The action isn’t good enough this time around to save the film from its clunky and paper-thin plot. And while some of the old guys are a lot of fun, namely Gibson and Ford, too many characters are shortchanged thanks to the introduction of an insipid younger crew. It’s unfortunate because I have always enjoyed these movies as entertaining nostalgic escapes. “The Expendables 3” has left me wondering if this ship has run its course.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

Versatile Blogger Award – Take 2

by

47

BLOGGER

A way way back I was nominated for the Versatile Blogger Award and I took part in it. Recently my pal Justine at Justine’s Movie Blog nominated me again. It has been a while so I thought it would be fun to do it again. Thanks Justine! If you don’t frequent her site you’re missing out. Loads of great content worth checking out. I know you’ll enjoy it.

The rules state that I nominate 15 other bloggers. No need for the nominees to feel obligated to join in. This is just my opportunity to offer up recognition to some very deserving bloggers who put out quality content. Check these folks out:

Now the rules state that I list 10 unique facts about myself that you might not know. Here ya go:

  1. I have been a die-hard video gamer since first getting an Atari 2600 back in the 1980’s. I was a gamer then, still am today. Love me some video games.
  2. I absolutely adore Paris, France. The city has cast a spell on me. I could live there in a heartbeat.
  3. I absolutely detest feet. Yours, mine, it doesn’t matter. They sicken me to my core. Baby’s and young children’s feet don’t bother me, but once they hit a certain age…Ewwwwwww.
  4. I’m a church deacon. Yep, betcha didn’t know that one, right?
  5. My wife and I are about to celebrate 20 years of marriage. That may not sound like something to put on here, but it’s something I’m extremely proud of.
  6. I was once told I look like George Clooney……by a long-haired hippie guy who I am fairly certain was ‘under the influence’. Sigh.
  7. Baseball Hall of Famer Bob Feller once bought me a chocolate milkshake at McDonald’s.
  8. I’m thoroughly and unshakably convinced that the 1980s were the best decade for music EVER (and I do mean EVER).
  9. I have a massive comic book collection and a collection of close to 1,000 sports autographs.
  10. I am one of the world’s biggest Humphrey Bogart fans. In addition to having nearly every film of his, I have a Bogart tie, Bogart stamps, a life-sized Bogart cutout standing next to my bed (my wife is awesome for allowing that), and even a certified copy of Bogart’s death certificate.

THE END

 

REVIEW: “St. Vincent”

by

21

VINCENT POSTER

Bill Murray is an interesting actor who has had an interesting career. It has been a long career marked by numerous successes in lead, supporting, or even cameo roles. Perhaps the most intriguing thing about Bill Murray is that most of the time he plays a variation of the same type of character. Sometimes he amps it up as high as it will go, other times he dials it down to subtle levels. Either way we often get some of the same characteristics in a Bill Murray character and it has served him well since his peculiar feature film debut all the way back in 1975.

His latest effort teams him up with writer and director Theodore Melfi. The movie is “St. Vincent”, a comedy/drama that plays with that familiar Murray onscreen personality yet offers the actor an opportunity to flex his dramatic muscles. Murray doesn’t disappoint. As you can probably guess, he plays a man named Vincent. He’s a Vietnam War veteran living in Brooklyn who seeks refuge from his misery in all the wrong places – alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling just to name a few. Vincent is right in Murray’s comfort zone. He is sarcastic and snarky and the humor we get from him is dry and subtly self-deprecating.

VINCENT1

Melfi’s film starts by clearly defining Vincent’s miserable circumstances. It also exposes us to Vincent’s numerous unpleasantries. It doesn’t take long for us to originate our opinions of this man. He’s rude, cranky, frequently drunk, dishonest, and shameless. His finances are a mess, he is in deep with racehorse bookies, and his self-destructive habits are wearing on his health. These problems are accentuated but also confronted when a recently divorced mother (Melissa McCarthy) and her young son Oliver (Jaeden Lieberher) move in next door. But at the same time we eventually see that there is more to Vincent than the gruff, jagged exterior.

“St. Vincent” is all about the characters and each has their own distinct personal problems to navigate. The central relationship is between Vincent and Oliver. From the very first moment they meet the direction of the film becomes obvious. As I watched I kept thinking of a darker, edgier, subtler “Uncle Buck” minus the family dynamic. But while things are pretty predictable that doesn’t mean the movie isn’t without value. The relationships evolve at a deliberate pace which actually works in the story’s favor. But perhaps the biggest surprise came in the movie’s final act. The melodrama is ratcheted up and I knew my emotions were being set up. Yet despite that I found myself responding to it even though it felt a bit manipulative.

VINCENT2

Bill Murray is such a natural performer at this stage in his career and he delivers a strong performance filled with more layers than you might initially think. Young Liberher is fine although it is a pretty standard performance for that type of child’s role. One of the big surprises was McCarthy. It’s not that she was great or groundbreaking. Instead I was just pleased to see a performance from her that I didn’t mind sitting through. We also get Naomi Watts as a Russian dancer and “woman of the night”. She is solid as always although I think her character is easily the most flimsy and uneven.

Again, if you know this is a Bill Murray comedy you have an idea of what you’re going to get. But “St. Vincent” allows for enough nuances to let Murray extend himself beyond what we often see him do. This isn’t a film that breaks any new ground but it does tell a good story although a fairly predictable one. You won’t find a single surprise and there are moments where the movie could have dove into some unfamiliar waters. But at the same time it does offer a handful of intriguing characters whose lives draw us in for better or for worse. That’s something many movies never accomplish.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

2015 Blind Spot Series: “Goldfinger”

by

46

GOLDFINGER poster

I could probably fill half of my Blind Spot series lineup with James Bond films. I’ve just never been what you would call a big 007 fan. That said I do love the Craig films and a couple of Brosnan’s, but I’ve never felt compelled to give the older Bond films much of a chance. In an effort to do that I thought “Goldfinger” would be a good place to start. In fairness I have seen much of the film but never all of it and (obviously) never in one sitting. Yet I have heard so many good things about it especially from Bond aficionados who know and love the franchise a lot more than I do.

“Goldfinger” is the third film in the Bond series and the third of Sean Connery’s six Bond films. Watching Connery work it is easy to understand why many consider him to be the best Bond. “Goldfinger” is also recognized for its many firsts. It was the first 007 film categorized as a blockbuster. It’s budget equaled the previous two films combined and the movie’s promotion heralded it as a big box office draw. “Goldfinger” was also the film that made the extensive use of gadgets a fixture. It was also the first James Bond film to win an Academy Award and it was well received by both critics and audiences. The film would also influence the series in many other areas such as the title credits sequence and overall production quality. In many ways “Goldfinger” changed the standard of what a Bond film was to be.

GOLFINGER11

The story finds Bond lounging it up at a fancy Miami Beach resort, but soon he finds the true reason he was sent there and it wasn’t for vacation. At the same resort is Auric Goldfinger (Gert Fröbe), an obsessed gold smuggler. 007 is tasked with observing Goldfinger and finding out how his smuggling operation works. Bond’s mission takes him London, Switzerland, and bluegrass Kentucky. At each stop he finds himself getting a little too close to his objective and Goldfinger always seems one step ahead of him. But as 007 begins to piece together the inner workings of Goldfinger’s operation, he discovers a much bigger and more sinister plot.

Half of the fun in watching “Goldfinger” involves the characters Bond meets along the way. First there is Goldfinger himself. At first I wasn’t totally convinced in Fröbe’s portrayal but director Guy Hamilton never uses Fröbe beyond the actor’s capabilities. The big surprise was learning that the voice of Fröbe, who spoke practically no English, was dubbed. It’s a clever trick that is brilliantly pulled off. There is also Oddjob (Harold Sakata), Goldfinger’s enforcer and right-hand man. He’s a stout strong arm known for is lethal bowler hat. Silly and preposterous for sure, but he is also entertaining and a lot of fun.

Then of course there are the Bond girls. The stunningly beautiful Shirley Eaton meets Bond in Miami and gives us one of cinema’s most iconic images. Tania Mallett comes along next and aside from her shaky acting, she is a mysterious character that did little to serve the plot. But then you have Honor Blackman as the cool, confident, beautiful, and provocatively named Pussy Galore. Easily one of the most famous Bond girls, Galore had a tougher side which made her a lot more than the typical eye candy. For the rest of her career Blackman would always find herself connected to this classic character.

GOLDFINGER1

“Goldfinger” is absurd and it times in sanely over-the-top. But at the same time it never falls into the cheesy category that some of the later Bond films would. I never had a problem just going along with the craziness of the plot or the way things unfold. There’s a fine line there and “Goldfinger” navigates it beautifully. That’s not to say there weren’t moments where the story pushes believability too far, but that’s forgivable when you’re being so entertained. The film doesn’t allow you to concentrate on its absurdity. The pacing is so crisp and the direction so calculated. It’s also a beautiful film to look at. Some of the locales are breathtaking and the film utilizes them well. But I was even more impressed with some of the clever camera techniques that truly made the film feel spectacular.

In a nutshell “Goldfinger” is a really good movie and I can understand why Bond fans hold it in such high regard. For those who are not fans of the suave secret agent, well this is unquestionably a Bond film so take that as you will. But consider this, as a lukewarm fan of the franchise, I had a blast. Connery is superb, the action is well done, and the story is good crazy fun. The film was surrounded by lawsuits both prior to and during development so it’s a surprise it got off the ground. Thankfully it did and in doing so it gave audiences a classic 007 movie. Without a doubt this is Bond done right.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

5 Phenomenal Movie Betrayals

by

37

movie_theatre - Phenom 5

Movies have the amazing ability to capture all sorts of human actions and the emotions and motivations that drive them. Not all of those actions are good which leads to this particular Phenomenal 5. Today I’m looking at movie betrayals and there certainly have been a ton of them. The sheer number of characters who have stabbed another in the back was hard to narrow down. I decided to skip some of the obvious choices and go for more variety. So considering how many there were to choose from I wouldn’t call this the definitive list, but there’s no denying that these five movie betrayals are phenomenal (ummm, but not in a good way).

Obviously spoilers will follow!

#5 – “Total Recall” (1990)

BENNY

 

Call this the “I would betray anybody for a dollar” betrayal. In “Total Recall” (the fun original sci-fi actioner, not the unwatchable 2012 mess) . Schwarzenegger finds himself fighting with an underground mutant rebellion against a wicked and oppressive governor on Mars. Along the way he meets Benny, a good-natured taxicab driver who inadvertently joins Arnie in the fight. The problem is Benny is actually working for the tyrannical governor and he turns his back on the rebellion at the worst possible time. And not only has he lied about one thing after another, but it’s revealed that he’s a mutant and has turned on his own kind. It’s a pretty rotten betrayal.

#4 – “Goodfellas”

GOODFELLAS

Call this the “betraying isn’t always a bad thing” betrayal. Martin Scorsese’s quintessential gangster movie features a betrayal that is distinctly memorable.  And while it is most certainly a betrayal, it can easily be argued that it was a good one. Henry Hill made a good life for himself along with his wise-guy pals. But once the law comes down on their illegal activities Henry is offered an opportunity to leave his criminal life. But to do so would require him to turn on his buddies. That’s a pretty unsavory thing to do and living straight may be his biggest challenge. But turning from crime is a good thing even if turning on your friends is a bit shady.

#3 – “Dial M for Murder”

DIAL M

Call this one the “cheating never pays” betrayal. In Alfred Hitchcock’s wonderful 1954 thriller we see a pretty ugly deviation from holy matrimony. In fact it features two different betrayals. First you have a socialite wife (played by the stunning Grave Kelly) who cheats on her husband. That’s bad. But then the husband, who has secretly found out about his wife’s infidelity, devises a brutal betrayal of his own. He devises a plan to have his wife murdered. That’s bad too. Both husband and wife are flawed people and they both seem content to betray the other, just in wildly different but equally vile ways.

#2 – “Social Network”

The Social Network

Call this the “business over friendship” betrayal. I was surprised by how enthralling and effective a story about social media could be. David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin teamed up to tell the story of friendship, Facebook, and ultimately a shameful betrayal. It shows the creation of Facebook by two close college friends Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin. But Zuckerberg is lured by his lust for greed and success which leads to him deceiving and ultimately cutting the financial throat of his one time close friend. Conniving, self-centered, and shameful. Just a few of the many words that could describe this pathetic betrayal.

#1 – “The Empire Strikes Back”

EMPIRE

This could be called the “saving your own butt” betrayal. I mean Lando, how could you do it? Now to be fair the powerful and evil Darth Vader had Lando by the throat (quite literally). And as the head honcho of Cloud City, Lando had to worry about Vader blowing Bespin out of the sky. But I still remember the first time I saw Lando lure Han, Leia, and Chewie into Vader’s trap. As a kid I was absolutely furious. It really does set up one of the original trilogy’s best story angles and it should be said Lando was between a rock and a hard place. But it’s still a betrayal of epic proportions and it stands out as my easy #1.

So what do you think of my picks? See something I missed? What would’ve made your list? Please take time to share your thoughts in the comment section below.

REVIEW: “The Theory of Everything”

by

29

THEORY POSTER

Renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking has often found himself the object of a rather unusual fascination from the entertainment industry. Beyond the number of documentaries made about his life, he also appeared in everything from “Star Trek” to “The Simpsons”. But surprisingly there hasn’t been a biographical feature length drama until James Marsh’s “The Theory of Everything”. The film offers a unique romantic perspective by putting its main focus on the relationship between Stephen and his first wife Jane Wilde Hawking.

The film is based on Jane Hawking’s book “Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen”, an updated version of her previous released biography. The story begins in 1963 when a young cosmology student named Stephen (Eddie Redmayne) meets a literature student named Jane (Felicity Jones) at a Cambridge University party. The two are clearly opposites but there is an undeniable attraction between them. There relationship grows as Stephen excels in his studies of science and mathematics. He is particularly encouraged by his professor (David Thewlis) who sees the amazing potential in Stephen’s intelligence and ideas.

THEORY1

Redmayne and Jones have a surprisingly good chemistry which makes the relationship between their characters easy to buy into and digest. Stephen approaches Jane much like he does everything – systematically and very matter of fact. But she offers the perfect personality and balance to the unorthodox Stephen. Watching the relationship grow and flourish is the film’s most compelling dramatic component. But their affection is almost derailed after Stephen learns he has motor neuron disease. He is given two years to live and closes himself off from everyone especially Jane. But her love and determination not only keeps them together but gives Stephen the needed feeling of normalcy and the inspiration to keep fighting.

“The Theory of Everything” chronicles Hawking’s debilitating disease and the punishing toll it takes on his body and life. But it also highlighted his inspiring resilience and emphasized the unquestioned devotion of Jane. Redmayne is just superb offering several emotional levels to his character while also capturing the increasing physical impairments that end up leaving him bound to a wheelchair and unable to speak. The film is respectful in its handling of the illness and doesn’t exploit it for dramatic effect. But it’s Redmayne who makes it work by immersing himself into the character and avoiding many of the trappings that accompany this kind of role.

I was also surprised at just how much I enjoyed Felicity Jones. She’s charming, genuine, and energetic. Even more, there are times where she actually lifts up the material and makes a line of dialogue or emotional interaction work despite the occasional shortcomings of the script. James Marsh is a skilled documentarian and his work here shows that to be both an asset and a liability. This truly is a beautiful film to look at. There are a number of eye-grabbing shots and some interesting camera tricks. I particularly liked how the camera would sometimes move as if inspired by Hawking’s thorough perspective. It would scour a room or individual soaking up information much like Hawking himself.

THEORY2

But sadly the film isn’t without its problems. It does avoid drawn out discussions of thermal dynamics and cosmology while still representing Hawking’s scientific specialty. But there were moments where the science felt shoehorned in. The film also uses several common biopic devices which keeps it from being anything fresh in the crowded genre. And then there is the last 15 minutes which felt terrible rushed and seemed to cover a few random events meant to tidy everything up. It comes off feeling like the film ran out of time necessitating a quick and clunky ending.

There is still a good story to be found in “The Theory of Everything” despite its standard biopic flavor and rushed ending. In fact it has moments where it absolutely shines. But the performances are the real treat especially from Redmayne who gives us the best work of his young career. It’s hard to watch him and not be impressed with the effort and earnestness he puts into every facet of the Stephen Hawking character. For someone like myself it was a surprise performance and it is hard to argue with his Oscar nomination and win. Now let’s just hope that his “Jupiter Ascending” performance didn’t undo the recognition this film has earned him.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS