Tag Archives: movies

THE THROWDOWN : Stallone vs. Schwarzenegger

by

22

Wednesday is Throwdown day at Keith & the Movies. It’s when we take two movie subjects, pit them against each other, and see who’s left standing. Each Wednesday we’ll look at actors, actresses, movies, genres, scenes, and more. I’ll make a case for each and then see how they stand up one-on-one. And it’s not just my opinion that counts. I’ll share my take and then open up the polls to you. Visit each week for a new Throwdown. Vote each week to decide the true winner!

*Last week Christian Bale (74%) manhandled Michael Keaton (26%) in a Batman battle to the death.*

This week it’s an action movie face-off between the two biggest names of the 80’s. The 80’s and early 90’s were the glory days of the action genre and no one was bigger than Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Forget the critical acclaim, the stuffy Academy Awards, and the overrated importance of good acting. These guys were all about biceps, blood, and bullets. Before they teamed up in the recent “The Expendables” movies, these two had a huge box office rivalry that lasted several years. Now it’s time to settle the big question. Which of these action movie icons is truly the best? Their guns are loaded, their knives are sharpened, and their muscles are flexed. But it’s your votes that will decide the outcome.

STALLONE vs. SCHWARZENEGGER

At 66-years old, Sly Stallone is still kicking bad guy’s butts on the big screen. But then again, he’s been doing it for almost 40 years. His career really took off in 1976 with “Rocky”. But it was “First Blood” and “Rambo: First Blood Part 2” that laid the foundation for what would become an amazing action movie career. He would go on to clean up a psycho cult in “Cobra”, team up with Kurt Russell in “Tango & Cash”, hang from mountain cliffs in “Cliffhanger”, battle baddies in the future with “Demolition Man” and “Judge Dredd”, and rescue survivors trapped in a collapsed tunnel in “Daylight”. He’s also made several more “Rocky” pictures and two more “Rambo” films. He has several new projects ahead but he’ll always be remembered for his incredible run that helped make the action genre so popular.

Arnold Schwarzenegger may have more memorable scenes and memorable one-liners than anyone in cinema history. He also has an action movie resume that’s as impressive as any you will see. This one-time Austrian bodybuilder made a name for himself in the early 80’s with his “Conan” films. But his career really took off when he traded his sword for a gun in the sci-fi classic “The Terminator”. He then cemented his one-man-army status in “Commando” and “Raw Deal”. He would battle an alien threat in the spectacular military sci-fi film “Predator”. He also ventured into the future with “The Running Man” and “Total Recall” before making what is one of the best sequels of all time, “Terminator 2: Judgement Day”. He mad several more action films including “True Lies” and another successful “Terminator” flick. This 65-year old has no plans on slowing down and you’ll see him plenty in 2013.

So there’s a case for both. Now you decide who’s the winner. The action movie genre wouldn’t be what it is without the contributions of these two icons. So vote now. Who’s the heavier hitter, Arnie or Sly? You decide!

“Taken 2” – 2 STARS

by

10

It’s still a little hard to believe that the man who played Oscar Schindler has evolved into a bonafide action movie star. Such is the case with 60-year old Liam Neeson. Neeson’s 2008 action thriller “Taken” was a surprise hit that moved his career in a new direction. And while I enjoyed “Taken” and it was a huge success, it wasn’t a movie that I expected to have a sequel. Yet writer Luc Besson returns with a new story (well, kinda) and with Neeson, Famke Janssen, and Maggie Grace back onboard. Now when watching “Taken 2” you’ll undoubtedly question why it was made (other than the obvious cash in) and it will strike you as very similar to the first movie. But while critics have shelled it, overall I didn’t have the sharp negative reaction to the film that many have had. Still “Taken 2” is a movie that doesn’t do a lot to stand out and ultimately it’s a standard “watch it once and you’re done” kind of film.

This movie is pretty much a direct sequel to the first film. It’s been a year since Neeson’s Bryan Mills killed those evil Albanian mobsters who kidnapped his daughter. Now the head of the mob and father of one of those killed is out for revenge. He puts together a plan to kidnap Bryan, his ex-wife Lenore (Janssen), and daughter Kim (Grace) who are spending time together in Istanbul. After Lenore is taken and with Kim running for her life, it’s up Bryan to kill a bunch more evil Albanians in order to save his family. Luckily he still has that “particular set of skills”, right?

There’s nothing unwatchable about “Taken 2” and it does try to make itself an extension of the first film instead of a rehash. It begins by showing the lives of Bryan and his family since the events of “Taken”. These scenes are fine and I didn’t mind being reacquainted with these characters. But quite honestly they are irrelevant and do nothing to drive the narrative forward. Things do pick up when Bryan goes to Istanbul on some unspecified business. Both his family and the Albanian mob pay him surprise visits which sends the movie careening from action sequence to action sequence. That wouldn’t be a bad thing if “Taken 2” could shake the burdens of predictability and familiarity. It also embraces some pretty conventional action movie techniques that I couldn’t help but shake my head at. But there’s still a degree of fun to the movie and even though it’s not one that will stick with you, it always kept my attention.

But let me say a little bit more about the action. These are some of the most poorly edited action sequences I have ever seen. The fight scenes are made up of rapid-fire quick cuts that make it impossible to know what’s going on. The movie keeps the action toned down enough to get a PG-13 rating but in several instances it hurts the film. There’s almost no edge to the action and even some of the bigger payback scenes at the end are unsatisfying because of this. One more thing, “Taken 2’s” bad guys are some of the dopiest in movie history. Tell me if this sounds like a good idea: You capture your prime target and one of the most deadliest men in the world and you leave him tied up and unattended in a room while you go down the hall to eat and watch soccer on TV. Seriously?

No matter how much I wanted to love “Taken 2” I just can’t. It never had me checking my watch and at a compact 90 minutes it never overstays its welcome. But there are so many flaws with this movie. Sure I love a snarling Liam Neeson and I love watching him bust the heads of bad guys. Unfortunately this movie just gives us more of the same but at a much lower and lazier production level. Even Liam can’t fully overcome that.

5 Phenomenal but Utterly Detestable Movie Villains

by

39

The topic of villains has cropped up here several times over the past few weeks. In today’s Phenomenal 5 I want to look at villains but with a slight twist. Obviously the audience isn’t supposed to root for the villains when watching a film. But we all know that some movie antagonists and more evil than others. In fact, some are down right detestable. Those are ones we are exploring in this list. I’m sharing 5 phenomenal yet utterly detestable bad guys. These are the guys that you grow to dislike so much that you end up anxious for their demise – the messier the better. There are plenty to choose from so I wouldn’t say this was the definitive list. But there’s no doubt that these 5 phenomenal villains are unquestionably detestable.

#5 – AGENT STANSFIELD (“Leon: The Professional”)

Gary Oldman has a history of playing deplorable villains. But I don’t think any are as detestable as his Agent Stanfield in Luc Beeson’s “Leon: The Professional”. Stanfield is a corrupt DEA Agent who is a stylishly dressed pill-popping addict. We hate this guy immediately as we see him fly off the handle and murder an entire family including a young child. The slaughter is all over some missing cocaine that was being stashed in their apartment. The only survivor is 12-year old Mathilda (Natalie Portman) who can identify and tie Stanfield to the slaughter. Stanfield makes Mathilda and her protector, a hitman named Leon (Jean Reno) his prime target. Stanfield is a slimy and despicable villain who is willing to waste anyone that inconveniences him, even children. How can he not be on this list?

#4 – SEAN NOKES (“Sleepers”)

My wife still says she has a hard time liking Kevin Bacon due to his performance as reform school guard Sean Nokes in 1996’s “Sleepers”. I can’t say I blame her. A group of mischievous boys from Hell’s Kitchen end up being sent to Wilkinson Home for Boys after their antics finally catch up to them. But one of the heads of the school is a disgustingly vile guard who uses his authority and power to abuse the boys in every way possible. He verbally abuses them. He beats them. He and his guard buddies even sexually assault them. It’s a strong but disturbing and uncomfortable performance from Bacon which is one reason this character is perfect for this list. The movie leaps ahead 14 years later where two of the boys run into Nokes. They reintroduce themselves to him and lets just say that the results are certainly satisfying.

#3 – COLONEL TAVINGTON (“The Patriot”)

In “The Patriot” Mel Gibson plays a respected man who due to past experiences is reluctant to support the colonies decision to go to war with England. But his perspective changes when he encounters Colonel Tavington (Jason Isaacs), a vicious and ruthless English officer whose known as “The Butcher” by his fellow Englishman. Isaacs’ arrogance and calloused view of human life is never more evident than in the scene where he takes the life of Gibson’s son followed by the comment “Stupid boy”. Also locking an entire village in a church and flippantly burning them alive does nothing to endear Tavington to us. And then there’s his showdown with Heath Ledger’s character, Gibson’s oldest son. Tavington is about as detestable as a villain can be and when he meets up with Mel Gibson on the battlefield we are ready for him to get whats coming to him.

#2 – CAPTAIN VIDAL (“Pan’s Labyrinth”)

Writer and director Guillermo del Toro created a dark but fantastical world in his 2006 fantasy film Pan’s Labyrinth. In the film, young Ofelia and her pregnant mother come to live with her new stepfather Vidal. He’s a military officer stationed in the mountains of Spain and tasked with squelching a rebel movement against his cause. We quickly learn that Vidal is not only a brutal military man but also extremely hateful and eventually abusive towards Ofelia and her mother. Vidal is one of those characters that is so cruel and so evil that he makes your skin crawl. This violent sociopath soon completely loses touch with reality and the pure evil in his heart is realized. It all leads to a heart-breaking final scene with Ofelia face-to-face with an unbridled Vidal who ends up solidifying his spot on this list.

#1 – AMON GOTH (“Schindler’s List”)

One of the things that makes Ralph Fiennes’ Amon Goth from “Schindler’s List” so terrifying and detestable is the fact that he is based on a real person. This Nazi SS officer oversaw the slaughter of thousands of Jews in his brutal death camps. Fiennes gives a tremendous performance bringing this vile and psychopathic mass murderer to life on screen. We see him issue orders that results in the deaths of so many. He personally shoots men and women in the head in order to make examples out of them. He even sits on the terrace of his hilltop home overlooking the camp and shoots random prisoners with his high-powered sniper rifle for no real purpose other than his sadistic hatred. We’ve seen lots of Nazis in cinema history but none are as unnerving and deplorable as to murderous savage Amon Goth.

And there they are, 5 phenomenal villains that we can all agree are detestable. See someone I missed? Please take time to let me know who you would have included on this list.

REVIEW: “Frankenweenie” (2012)

by

15

It’s October so it makes sense that we have a new Tim Burton movie. Burton is one of those filmmakers with an undeniably unique style in both the look and tone of his films as well as the subject matter he dabbles in. But while you can always recognize a Tim Burton film, it is fair to say that he is a polarizing filmmaker. You either like him or you don’t. I happen to appreciate when a filmmaker can inexorably define themselves with their work. But from a purely entertainment point of view, I’m not one you would categorize as a Tim Burton fan. Seldom are his movies as good as advertised and I find he often sacrifices quality storytelling for style. But he definitely has a following which is evident by the loads of money studios are willing to pay for his creations.

Now we have Burton’s latest concoction, in theaters just in time for Halloween. “Frankenweenie” has its roots in a 30 minute live-action short that Burton did in 1984 before his career took off. Here he adds an hour’s worth of story to make it a feature-length film. He also ditches the live-action and goes with stop-motion animation. This is familiar territory for Burton and you can see his fingerprints from the opening scene to the ending credits. But surprisingly there are some things that separate this movie from Burton’s past efforts – movies that didn’t work for me. More specifically, “Frankenweenie” is a rare film where Burton embraces his style but never allows it to overwhelm his story. Even more, I would go as far as to call this his best film since 1989’s “Batman”.

At its core, this is the story of a boy and his dog dressed up as a classic horror movie homage. Victor Frankenstein is a young introvert with an affection for science and movie making. He has no friends to speak of with the exception of his extremely loyal and loving dog Sparky. But one day Victor is devastated after Sparky is hit by a car and killed after chasing a ball into the street. Inspired by his eccentric science teacher and true to his last name, Victor sets out to use the power of electricity to bring his canine companion back to life. He succeeds but he soon learns there are some pretty serious consequences that effect the entire town.

It doesn’t take long to see an almost childlike enthusiasm from Burton that permeates every scene of this movie. There’s a playfulness to both his story and presentation that I’ve never seen from him before. But the movie also has a lot of heart as it deals with topics such as reclusive children and a child facing loss. It’s an incredibly straightforward and honest look as these issues that are comfortably nestled in Burton’s ghoulish and amusing landscape. But I have to admit that I was impressed with his heartwarming narrative and I can see where this film may connect with audiences unlike any of his other pictures.

But don’t think for a minute that “Frankenweenie” doesn’t have the dark, eerie aesthetic and offbeat imagination that you would expect from Burton. It’s very much a light-hearted horror film sprinkled with dashes of humor. There are so many nods to old horror pictures from the original 1931 “Frankenstein” to “Gremlins” to “Godzilla”. And perhaps my favorite tips of the hat comes through the assortment of side characters. There’s the strange girl next door named Elsa Van Helsing. There’s Victor’s creepy (and hilarious) hunchbacked classmate named Edgar E. Gore who sounds just like Peter Lorre. And then there’s my personal favorite Mr. Rzykruski, Victor’s science teacher who’s an animated carbon copy of the great Vincent Price. Another big plus is the gorgeous, crisp stop-motion animation. I’m a big fan of the technique and here it shines especially in Burton’s glorious black and white.

I loved “Frankenweenie”. It’s a compact and well conceived movie that should strike a chord with all ages. I was absorbed in its authentic emotion, clever social satire, macabre sense of humor, and appreciation for the horror classics. I laughed, I jumped, I teared up. What’s most impressive is Burton’s creative self-control which allowed him to create a wonderful story while maintaining his own wacky sense of style. There’s just so much to like about “Frankenweenie” and it’s a particularly pleasurable experience for moviegoers like me who aren’t always fans of Tim Burton’s work. Sure it’s weird, spooky, and goofy. But it’s also beautiful, imaginative, and nostalgic and it’s a prime example of why we go to the movies.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Shadow of a Doubt”

by

12

Alfred Hitchcock gets a lot of praise for his classic films such as “Vertigo”, “Psycho”, “Rear Window”, and “The Birds” and rightly so. But for those who aren’t familiar with the director’s full body of work, “Shadow of a Doubt” is one of his movies that may be easily overlooked. But to miss out on this wonderful early Hitchcock classic would be to miss out on one of his very best movies. This 1943 thriller has all of trademarks of a Hitchcock film and one of the strongest stories that he has brought to film.

“Shadow of a Doubt” was shot and set in Santa Rosa, California, a location picked for its picture of small town America. Charlie Oakley (Joseph Cotten) arrives in Santa Rosa to pay a visit to his sister Emma (Patricia Collinge) and her family. He hasn’t seen them in years and they receive him with open arms, especially his niece Charley (Teresa Wright) who was named after him. Charley has become bored with her life in her small town and the arrival of her uncle gives her a spark. But her uncle’s visit isn’t without purpose and Charley soon finds out that he is far from the wonderful man she thinks him to be.

The opening scenes let us know that there’s something mysterious going on with Charlie. Later he arrives in Santa Rosa and is doted on by his enamored family. He also draws the attention of and captivates many of the locals from bankers to widows. But he’s also hiding a very dark secret that eventually becomes a key driving force behind the film. In fact, Hitchcock gives us a compelling look at the dark reality of the real world infecting the innocent, idyllic life of a small town. Young Charley soon learns that the world can be a dangerous place and watching Teresa Wright portray Charley and her emotional transformation is a joy. Wright is brilliant. She’s lovely in her innocence and naivity and heart-breaking as we watch her face terrible things and bear huge burdens. I’m being vague and don’t want to spoil things for those who haven’t seen the film, but Charley is a wonderful character and Wright nails the performance.

I also loved Joseph Cotten as her Uncle Charlie. At first we love him just as much as the family does. He’s like that distant uncle who you haven’t seen in forever but you still think he hung the moon. But the problem is that you haven’t seen him therefore you really don’t know him. I bought into Charlie, the nice compassionate man, and was unnerved as he evolved into an entirely different person. This is due to how wonderfully he is written and to Cotten’s brilliant performance.

The movie also works due to what has come to be recognized as Hitchcock’s unique visual style. As with every Hitchcock picture, the camera is extremely important to his storytelling. We are treated to some slick camera angles and tricks as well as some clever use of lighting and shadows which helps inject the movie with moments of tension and suspense. Some of the best scenes involve moving cameras or perfectly timed close up shots and overall the visual style is vintage Hitchcock.

“Shadow of a Doubt” is an exceptional thriller built upon a very good story, some pitch-perfect performances, and slick direction. It’s not as well-known as some of Hitchcock’s bigger films but it’s just as good as them and it has certainly earned its spot as a true classic. The story moves at a great pace and it keeps you involved all the way to its startling ending. I really like “Shadow of a Doubt” and its one of those movies that I could watch again and again.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

THE THROWDOWN : Christian Bale vs. Michael Keaton

by

29

Wednesday is Throwdown day at Keith & the Movies. It’s when we take two movie subjects and pit them against each other and see who’s left standing. Each Wednesday we’ll look at actors, actresses, movies, genres, scenes, and so much more and see how they stand up one-on-one. And it’s not just my opinion that counts. I’ll share my take and then open up the polls to you. Visit each week for a new Throwdown. Vote each week to decide the true winner!

This week’s Throwdown is a Bat-Battle to the death between Michael Keaton and Christian Bale. Both of these men wore the cape and the cowl and were undeniably the best that did so. This isn’t measuring which had the better movies. This is all about who was the better Batman and whose performance you liked the best. Forget Kilmer and please, please, please forget Clooney. These two guys WERE Batman. Now you vote and decide who was the best.

BALE vs. KEATON

Christian Bale was a fantastic choice to help revive the Batman franchise after Joel Schumacher’s disastrous “Batman and Robin”. Director Christopher Nolan took Bale and built a more grounded and believable Bruce Wayne and took him through some pretty dark places during his immensely popular trilogy. But it’s Bale’s performance that’s key. He unquestionably gets better and better with each movie and by the end of the trilogy he made the character his own. He also has the physical abilities to sell it all. Bale was a wonderful Batman and there’s an easy argument to make that he’s the best caped crusader to hit the big screen.

It may be easy for some people to dismiss Michael Keaton’s two movie tenure as Gotham’s Caped Crusader. But for those of us who remember standing in line in 1989 to see Tim Burton’s “Batman”, we most certainly appreciate how well the actor embodied Bruce Wayne. I’ve always been a fan of Keaton’s but I wasn’t sure about him taking on this role. He was a pleasant surprise and he’s a key reason that the first film worked so well. He’s a much different Batman that Bale but that’s in large part due to the material. Even in the second picture “Batman Returns”, a movie I’m not crazy about, Keaton shines. He left the role just before the franchise was destroyed but his stint still holds up today.

So who is it? You’ve got two very different actors giving two very different depictions of Batman. Forget their movies. This is about the men behind the masks. Bale or Keaton…your votes decide.