Category Archives: Movie Reviews – J

REVIEW: “Jason Bourne”

by

26

Bourne poster

Who would have guessed that Robert Ludlam’s trilogy of novels would spawn an immensely popular $1.2 billion movie franchise? That’s what happened with the Jason Bourne series. It began in 2002 with “The Bourne Identity”. Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass would make three films together. Throw in 2012’s ill-advised “The Bourne Legacy” (minus Damon and Greengrass) and that brings us to 2016 and the latest film, the generically titled “Jason Bourne”.

You could say it is an odd and unexpected return not only of Damon and Greengrass but of the series itself. The Jason Bourne character has lied dormant for nine years yet the new film is essentially a direct sequel to 2007’s “The Bourne Ultimatum”. You would think Greengrass (who also co-wrote the screenplay) had a big vision if he was bringing his lethal, conflicted amnesiac back out of the shadows. Turns out he really doesn’t. In fact, you could say that “Jason Bourne” follows the very familiar franchise blueprint.

Film Title: Jason Bourne

But that’s not saying it’s a bad movie. In fact I think a lot of the initial quick-triggered criticisms are undeserved. “Jason Bourne” has many of the same ingredients as the first three films – a good cast, some intense pacing, a handful of impressive action scenes. At the same time it’s tough to overlook the fact that somethings are clearly missing in certain areas of the film.

One of those areas is the story itself. Again, it isn’t bad, but nothing about it feels particularly fresh or original when compared to the past Bourne pictures. Bourne (Damon) is mistakingly implicated in the hacking of a CIA database. The actual culprit is Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) who unearths information that puts Bourne on yet another trail to find out more about his past. Hot on his heels is the ‘shoot first’ CIA led by their craggy director Robert Dewey (Tommy Lee Jones) and ambitious head of operations Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander).

Greengrass’ story globetrots around the world and features several interesting locations including Greece, Iceland, Berlin, London, and Las Vegas. You’ll also see plenty of text messages, computer screens, and keyboard tapping. But one thing you won’t see is even the slightest hint of a smile. Every single character is stern, dour, moody, or downbeat. It tends to fit with the tone Greengrass is going for, but I couldn’t help but find the ever-present, super-serious expressions a bit amusing. And don’t think about the story too much. Question marks and plot holes are everywhere.

Jason Bourne (2016)

The film sports around three big action set pieces which are overshadowed by the slick, methodical, surveillance-based buildup leading to them. As has become commonplace in many films, the action is hacked to pieces in the editing room. Shaky cameras and quick cuts are disorienting. Perhaps it’s needed for a now older Matt Damon (the Liam Neeson action flicks incorporate the same method), but it’s still annoying. The one exception is the big finale – a fantastic edge-of-your-seat sequence in Las Vegas. Greengrass calms his camera down a tad and gives us an action scene that rivals anything in the first three pictures.

So what to make of “Jason Bourne”. It’s a movie with plenty of the Bourne elements fans will be expecting. It is a bit slow out of the gate, but when it gets its footing it falls right in line with the franchise. But that’s also why the film felt a bit stale and routine. It does nothing to step outside the franchise’s strict established bounds. Ultimately it doesn’t do enough to avoid feeling like a tacked on chapter to the Bourne story. Still a well made and fairly entertaining chapter, but nothing fresh and nothing that reenergizes the series after so many years away.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

3 Stars

REVIEW: “Jupiter Ascending”

by

41

JUPITER POSTER

It took some time but I have finally come to an unimportant realization –   I am not a fan of the Wachowskis. I’m not sure why it took me so long to admit it because I’ve never had the best experiences with their films. “The Matrix” was a good movie, but I never saw it as the monumental classic others have. It’s sequels interested me less. “Speed Racer” was an unwatchable mess. “Cloud Atlas” was one of the most laborious theater experiences I’ve ever had. Yet despite these not-so-stellar reactions I always find myself watching whenever a new movie comes around.

The latest from the Wachowski siblings is “Jupiter Ascending”, an ambitious science fiction romp that has all the ingredients to be yet another slog. Six years ago Warner Brothers approached the Wachowskis about creating an original sci-fi franchise. Lots of money and resources were put behind the project in hopes of producing a profitable series. That hope looks unlikely. The film barely recovered its production costs and it found very little critical support. But here is the big surprise – it’s not a terrible movie. That being said it is another Wachowski movie whose ambition is only surpassed by its flaws.

JUPITER

The story isn’t nearly as intelligent as the Wachowskis probably think, but it’s also not as incoherent or convoluted as some critics proclaim. In fact, at times it is pretty basic stuff, but at other times it’s just downright silly. The story is basically a melding of Cinderella and the Wizard of Oz thrown into a big, vibrant science fiction world. Mila Kunis plays Jupiter Jones, a young woman who housecleans for wealthy Chicago elites. But actually Jupiter is the reincarnated heir of planet earth.

Make sense so far? Probably not so here’s the deal. Earth and a number of other planets are owned by a powerful alien royalty called the House of Abrasax. The Matriarch of the royal family has been murdered leaving the ownership of the planets split between three siblings: the power-hungry sociopath Balam (Eddie Redmayne), the conniving playboy Titus (Douglas Booth), and the sweet but equally devious Kalique (Tuppence Middleton). The planets are considered harvest grounds by the aliens and Earth is the most profitable. Jupiter’s existence means the siblings can’t control Earth and therefore the profit so she finds herself stuck in the middle of one big family squabble.

JUPITER2

Thankfully there is Channing Tatum as the ridiculously named Caine Wise. He is a genetically engineered “splice” – a half human and half….ahem….wolf. Yep, you read that right. To add to the character’s absurdity, he speed skates through the skies with a pair of rocket boots and has a penchant for eyeliner. His main contribution to the story is to constantly rescue Jupiter from various states of peril in the nick of time. We also get Sean Bean as Caine’s buddy Stinger. He is half human and half honeybee but do we really need to get into that?

I will say the Wachowskis know how to world build. The creativity behind some of the effects are impressive and the locations are a lot of fun. For example to get to Balam’s “refinery” you enter through the big red spot on Jupiter’s surface. On the flipside not all of the action sequences work as well. Watching Tatum skate through the sky or fly around in these bird-like ships is cool at first but the movie milks them and they grow tiresome. The movie relies heavily on its CGI which is both good and bad.

JUPITER3

But the film’s problems don’t stop there. The story is built upon a pretty interesting mythology and foundation but most of it is told through a ton of exposition. Rarely does the film show us anything. Also for all of the cool and interesting things the story does, there are also too many moments and details that are beyond. And then there are a couple of key performances that don’t work at all. Tatum is cold, emotionless, and uninteresting. Some of it is the role but Tatum does it no favors. And what on Earth is Eddie Redmayne doing? His husky mumbling and sudden outbursts are laughably bad at times.

In a weird way “Jupiter Ascending” was a nice surprise. After my past experiences with the Wachowskis I was expecting the worst. But this is a watchable bit of sci-fi and often entertaining. Unfortunately some of its ideas are shockingly silly, it relies too heavily on its special effects, and a couple of the more important performances hurt the film. So while this may be better than some Wachowski films, it’s only marginally better and definitely not enough for me to call myself a fan of their work.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

2.5 stars

REVIEW: “Jurassic World”

by

25

JURASSIC POSTER

When will they ever learn? Sure, the idea of mixing living, breathing dinosaurs with a theme park sounds like a lucrative can’t-miss idea. But three movies have proven that it leads to nothing but disaster (and a boatload of box office cash). The Jurassic Park franchise has laid dormant for 14 years so it shouldn’t be a big surprise that this sequel and reboot driven movie era would usher in a new installment. What made it an easier decision was the fact that all three of the previous movies did extremely well at the box office. So Universal Studios greenlights a $150 million budget and the result is “Jurassic World” – a poster child for safe, crowd pleasing, summer popcorn flicks.

“Jurassic World” recycles several things from the first film except this time things are a little cheesier, motivations are a little goofier, and many of the people are a little dumber. But that doesn’t mean the film is short on big cool dinosaur moments. There were times when I literally laughed and shook my head at the corny dialogue or stereotypical character. At the same time there were several scenes where I found myself absolutely thrilled at the action or the spectacle on the screen. It’s a conflicting mixture of good and bad which makes my final thoughts on the film hard to nail down.

Jurassic1

Chris Pratt is everywhere these days and in “Jurassic World” he stays within his ‘likable, everyday guy’ comfort zone. He plays a velociraptor trainer named Owen working in the Jurassic World theme park. He’s joined by a plump cast featuring Bryce Dallas Howard as Claire, the park’s director of operations, her two nephews (and obligatory kids) Zach and Grey, B.D. Wong as the park’s chief scientist responsible for creating the dinos, Irrfan Lhan as Simon, the owner and bankroller of the park, Vincent D’Onofrio as the sleazy, shady Hoskins, Omar Sy as Owen’s buddy and fellow trainer Barry, and a host of others.

Basically the story places all if these characters on the island park each with their own little threads of story. For example Claire has agreed to keep her nephews for the week even though she is too busy at the park to entertain them. The boys have the baggage of a possible divorce between their parents back home. Claire had a brief ‘thing’ with Owen in the past but that’s long gone. Now he is butting heads with Hoskins who wants to use Owen’s velociraptors for nefarious purposes. Simon has noble intentions but his demands for bigger attractions open the door for his aggressive science team to do some pretty questionable experiments. And on and on and on. Rarely do any of these subplots leave an impression, but they set the table for the movie’s main attractions – big dinosaurs.

One thing “Jurassic World” does well is presentation. Visually the world we see is vast and filled with impressive creatures and cool landscapes. The dinosaurs themselves look great. Their movements and the way they blend into the world almost allows the audience to completely forget the heavy CGI behind it. I was also impressed by the design and feel of the park. The rides, exhibits, and attractions were well thought out and genuinely believable taking elements from everything from Sea World to Disneyland. Overall the film is just as visually strong as you would expect, and those going for the wild dino-carnage will not be disappointed.

Jurassic2

But I can’t say the same if you’re going into “Jurassic World” hoping for an engaging story. At its very base level the story gets by, but there are plenty of other things that simply don’t work. Again, the characters are pretty one-dimensional, stereotypical, and forgettable. We aren’t given anyone to latch onto. Some are just flat-out bad. D’Onofrio’s Hoskins may be the prime example. The performance isn’t great but the way he is written is even worse. Then there are turns in the story that are too stupid to let slide. I won’t spoil anything but certain evil plans we see are beyond preposterous. Then throw in some incredibly cheesy dialogue and scenes which actually had me laughing and shaking my head in the theater.

So storytelling isn’t the strong point of “Jurassic World”. In fact, the writing keeps it from being the intelligent, engaging film that it could be. But at the same time I actually found myself entertained in the way that big budget summer popcorn flicks sometimes manage to pull off. The visual spectacle, the dinosaur fights, the theme park environment all work to immerse you in a really cool setting. It’s too bad the underwhelming story, narrative hiccups, and bland characters drag it down to passable but forgettable levels.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

3 Stars

REVIEW: “John Wick”

by

44

WICK POSTER

Let me say I have always liked Keanu Reeves even when his movies didn’t quite hit their mark. He has always come across as a likable guy which has often translated onto the screen. That’s why I’m glad to see him put out a movie like “John Wick”. Let’s face it, Keanu’s career reached its high point during the 1990s and early 2000s. Now at 50 years old he stars in a stylized revenge thriller that tips it hat to several films that came out during his heyday.

Let’s get this out of the way first, “John Wick” is a hyper-violent action movie and it doesn’t pretend to be anything else. There isn’t much character development. There isn’t a lot of shoehorned drama. There aren’t hidden deeper meanings. But there are a ton of bullets, blood splatters, and broken limbs not to mention a body count that would rival anything from Stallone or Schwarzenegger. In many ways it’s a throwback flick and I really appreciated what it set out to do.

WICK1

Reaves plays the title character John Wick, a retired hitman mourning the recent loss of his wife to an unspecified illness. We don’t get any drawn-out backstory about their relationship or the onset of the illness. Just quick flashes that indicate they had a very healthy and loving marriage. After her funeral he receives a delivery – a puppy his wife had arranged to be delivered upon her death in hopes that it would help John cope with her passing. It doesn’t take long for John to take a liking to the puppy and it appears that it may be helping him deal with his loss.

That changes when he meets three thugs tied to a Russian gang led by Iosef (Alfie Allen). Iosef takes a liking to John’s ’69 Mustang and is angry when John refuses to sell it. Later that night the trio attack John in his home, kill his puppy, and steal his car. This triggers the other side of John Wick – the side directly tied to his past as a lethal hitman. He sets out to find Iosef who we learn is the incompetent son of the Russian mob boss Viggo (played by Michael Nyqvist). Viggo knows John Wick which means he knows what’s coming so he sends his mob army out to kill John before John kills his son. Obviously that is no easy task.

From there directors Chad Stahelski and the uncredited David Leitch stomp the accelerator and rarely take a breather. The action comes furiously and without remorse. And the influence of Hong Kong action cinema is undeniable. Both the early martial arts flicks and the later stylized John Woo shoot-em-ups are represented in some form in “John Wick”. It’s that style and sense of homage that keeps this from being your run-of-the-mill action tripe. The fight choreography is intense and the gunplay is absurdly entertaining. It’s so insanely over-the-top but it never becomes dopey or farcical.

WICK2

Recently Keanu Reeves has shown his affection for foreign action movie formulas so he is right at home here. In fact you can even see reflections of his popular “Matrix” series which makes sense. He first met Stahelski and Leitch on the set of “The Matrix”. In “John Wick” he becomes the familiar but convincing blank-faced killing machine, but he isn’t restricted to that thanks to some subtle, timely humor and the feeling of sympathy we have for his character.

“John Wick” may not do anything to reinvent the revenge thriller or action genre, but does it really need to in order to be successful? Not for me. It’s definitely a movie made for a particular audience and if wall-to-wall action and stylized violence isn’t your cup of tea neither is “John Wick”. But as someone who grew up during the time when big action movies were topping the box office, this was a satisfying and entertaining retreat. It is a cool nostalgic trip that also managed to feel surprisingly new. It definitely had more to offer than I ever expected.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Jules and Jim”

by

6

JULESPOSTER

I consider François Truffaut’s “Jules and Jim” to be one of the acclaimed French director’s great films. Released in 1962, this movie was one of the pivotal films in the French New Wave movement. In fact, you can’t watch it without sensing that it’s doing something bold and new in terms of filmmaking. There’s such an energy and a freshness in both the technique and in the storytelling itself. More importantly it’s a fantastic bit of cinema that would go on to influence many other films including “Bonnie and Clyde” and “Thelma and Louise”

I really appreciate the filmmakers of the French New Wave. They left an unmistakable mark on motion pictures, and their styles and creative approaches stand out in every film they made. It was a movement of experimentation and of bucking the trends of moviemaking that they believed had grown stale. “Jules and Jim” showcases this in every facet of the movie. It’s playfully neorealistic both in its use of the camera and in its strikingly grounded narrative. But aside from its influential methods and techniques, I found the story itself to be an utterly fascinating look at friendship and the bumpy road that sometimes accompanies it.

JULES JIM

Jules and Jim first meet in Paris in 1912 and they immediately become friends. A narrator whisks us through their early days as young men in Paris and we watch as a foundation is laid for what should be a lifelong friendship. Jules (Oskar Werner) is a shy and reserved Austrian who can’t seem to find the right girl. Jim (Henri Serre) is just the opposite. He’s a confident and outgoing Frenchman whose never had a problem with the ladies. Both enjoy art and poetry and they spend a lot of time just sharing the good things from their cultures with each other. All of their earlier and happier days fly by in the opening few moments of the film but that’s okay. Truffaut is clearly setting the table for the more important part of the story that lies ahead. Yet while brief, these opening moments are beautifully woven together and Truffaut’s camera allows us to perfectly comprehend how close these two friends are.

Through a series of events the two cross paths with the free-spirited Catherine (Jeanne Moreau) who takes their lives down an unpredictable road. Eventually their jobs, a war, and other things separate Jules and Jim, but it’s Catherine who always serves as the new centerpiece to their friendship and it’s the complicated relationship between the three that keeps bringing them back together. Moreau is superb and her character is a difficult one to place. At times she’s energetic, vibrant, and full of life. But at other times she’s disconnected, neurotic, or in states of depression. The different dynamics she brings to her already complex relationships with Jules and Jim makes for incredible cinema.

The twists that the film applies to relationships and love are profound and almost feel experimental. Things take such unorthodox and unconventional turns and they seem destined to end badly. The most obvious casualty would seem to be the friendship between Jules and Jim yet no matter what trial or contention the two face, their loyalty to one another stands. I’m not sure how much sense all of this makes because I’m desperately trying to dance around the details and I refuse to spoil it for anyone. Let’s just say Truffaut takes Jules and Jim down some roads that few people could or would endure.

Jules Jim1

All of this is told through the lens of a true visionary. Truffaut and other influential groundbreakers like Godard and Chabrol were forging new paths into cinematic storytelling. You see it in every frame of “Jules and Jim”. Truffaut’s camera adheres to no common or popular formula of the time. It’s living and moving and so many times he captures the perfect angle or presents a new technique. It’s the picture of what the French New Wave was all about. It’s such a departure from the traditional moviemaking of the time both in terms of style and story.

“Jules and Jim” may not always be mentioned in the same breath with Truffaut’s own “The 400 Blows”, Godard’s “Breathless”, or Chabrol’s “Le Beau Serge” but it deserves to be considered as one of the French New Wave’s best. It’s a film that’s lively and spirited while at the same time being a bit disturbing and perplexing. There are layers to peel back and new things to discover. In other words “Jules and Jim” offers a wonderful experience both technically and emotionally. Moreover it’s a firm reminder of why we still go to the movies.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Joe”

by

31

Joe posterWhere on earth did Nicholas Cage’s career go? Cage’s early career was filled with good performances and good movies. He worked with top-notch directors such as the Coen Brothers and Spike Jonze and he even won an Academy Award. But movie fans know the story. His worldwide real estate spending spree led to financial woes and soon Cage was excepting any role he was given to help get out of his mess. There have been brief glimmers of the old Nick Cage but for the most part he has become so synonymous with crappy movies.

But Cage is still a likable guy which is why I’m so excited to talk about “Joe”. I’m not sure if I’m ready to say Nicholas Cage is back, but this is an eye-opening performance and a bold reminder of what he can do when given good material and a capable director to work with. David Gordon Green is a filmmaker who has had his share of misses especially when he jumped into the mainstream comedy arena. But he is also a smart and nuanced director who can draw so much out of his stories and characters. Last year’s “Prince Avalanche” was a great example of that and “Joe” makes him two-for-two.

The film is set in a low income, deep south community. Joe Ransom (Cage) is a timber worker who runs a hard working local crew. He has a good reputation among his men and some of the locals. He meets and befriends a 15-year old boy named Gary (Tye Sheridan). Gary has a tumultuous family life mainly due to his abusive and alcoholic father Wade (Gary Poulter). He finds an escape in Joe while also making some money to support his mother and sister.

JOE-day2-523.JPG

Early on Joe looks to be a good and stable mentor and father figure. He is a sharp antithesis to Gary’s real father who is despicable in ever regard. But perhaps the most compelling thing about the movie is how Joe’s character unfolds. Throughout the film one thin layer after another is peeled back revealing a deeply flawed man with an intensely troubled past. He is a tortured soul assaulted by demons that we don’t always fully meet. His inability to cope with them sometimes makes him his own worst enemy. This forms the central conflict which drives a lot of the story.

Cage absolutely owns this character. His performance is saturated with grit and authenticity. He is the centerpiece of the picture and for those not familiar with his once promising acting chops, this is a spectacular showcase. Tye Sheridan follows up his wonderful work in “Mud” with a darker and more mature performance. He handles the heavy and emotionally charged material with the skill of a veteran. His opening scene with Poulter is piercing and uncomfortable and it sets the table for the rest of the picture. Speaking of Poulter, the realism in his performance is surreal and effectively disturbing. Even more unnerving is Poulter’s real story. He was homeless and a terrible alcoholic when Green cast him. This undoubtedly fueled his performance with such honesty. Sadly Poulter was found dead on the streets of Austin, Texas shortly before the film was set to debut.

Joe2

Another key strength of the film is Green’s impeccable southern vision. The striking detail he puts in every little thing helps to create this otherworldly setting which is actually more real than many realize. The story flourishes in this sad and smothering environment and it just gets darker and darker as things progress. It could be said the film exploits southern stereotypes in order to create such a setting and sometimes the movie slips off the rails in its attempts. But ultimately it is a vivid and ferocious setting that never allows us to feel comfortable (and that is a good thing).

“Joe” isn’t an easy movie to digest. It is southern gothic to the core with an emphasis on the unpleasant and disturbing. It’s not a movie for the faint of heart. But it is an exciting return of sorts for Nicholas Cage and one can only hope it is a sign of things to come. “Joe” is uncomfortable and unflinching yet it is almost impossible to take your eyes off it. It may be a bit too abrasive, but the story at the heart of the film is what shines through in the end.

VERDICT – 4 STARS