HOMEFRONT (2013)

A action/thriller where the South is full of hillbillies and meth addicts/dealers.  Nice.  Directed by Gary Fleder.  Screenplay by  Sylvester Stallone, based on a book by Chuck Logan.  Movies stars: Jason Statham, James Franco, Winona Ryder, Kate Bosworth, Rachelle Lefevre, Frank Grillo, Clancy Brown, and Izabela Vidovic.

The story: an undercover DEA man moves to his wife's Southern, rural hometown with his daughter after his wife's death.  There he gets on the wrong side of a local meth dealer who sets out to get rid of him and his daughter.

Was it good?

Almost.  And what I mean by almost is there's a lot of good stuff here and it's worth watching, but it also gives hints of how good it really could have been, so while you are watching it the movie manages to be entertaining and disappointing at the same time.

The problem is the way pieces connect and grow.  For instance, I'm not real sure why Statham moves from the city to his wife's hometown.  His wife is dead, she doesn't seem to have any relatives there -- so why move there?  It's almost random.  Then once there, the build to his confrontation with Franco is all odd.  It starts with a confrontation between his daughter and a boy at school that somehow keeps building until it gets to Franco who happens to be a meth dealer.  Of course, his being a meth dealer doesn't really add to the direct conflict (even after Statham finds out he is a meth dealer he isn't trying to get him busted really).  Then Franco pulls in the drug dealers from the beginning of the film, but the father is in jail so it really is just random people that come down to kill Statham and his daughter.  There also is a side note between Statham and a school staffer his daughter likes, but that doesn't really add anything or go anything.  Eventually the conflict between the daughter and boy (and Statham and that family) seems to fall away for these random people from the drug lord. 

The story just lacks the clear focus that a good action movie needs, making it feel muddled and emotionally flat.  That said, there is a lot here that works.  Statham and Franco played their parts very well.  Statham is the stoic tough guy (as always), but seen as a father helps give him more than more of his action movies.  Franco as the meth dealer plays against the tough guy, he is more of a thinker, a plotter and schemer, and it makes the movie much more interesting. 

This is a good movie with some nice acting and pieces, but suffers from a muddled core and lack of compelling direct conflict between the two main characters.  An action movie with some heart (for Statham) and a smart villain (Franco) could have been intriguing.  This was entertaining, but didn't quite get to intriguing.

*** RENTAL ***

Watch also: DIE HARD (a classic), MOMENTO (Christopher Nolan's breakthru), BANK JOB (a very good Statham movie).

BOUNTY KILLER (2013) ** RENTAL ***

BOUNTY KILLER (2013)

A post-apocalyptic action comedy with sexy bounty hunters.  Directed by Henry Saine.  Stars Matthew Marsden and Christian Pitre with appearances by Kristanna Loken, Beverly D'Angelo, Eve,  Alexa Vega and Gary Busey.

The story: After corporate greed has left the world a giant wasteland, white collar crimes get a death penalty.  Bounty Killers are the people who go after them and are celebrities with fans.  The story follows Drifter (Matthew Marsden) and Mary Death (Christian Pitre) as a bounty is placed on Drifter and they team up (after she goes after him for the bounty) have to evade killers and gypsies to track down the council to find out what is going on.

Was it good?

It was entertaining for a bit.   The strange mix of desolation and celebrity was interesting, and this is certainly a movie that tries to do a lot more than most low budget films.  The co-star Christian Pitre is beautiful and energetic.  This is a movie that just wants to be a B-movie, almost more homage than
real film.  Where as other movies like DEATH RACE 2000 and MAD MAX used the concept to delve into something more, this is just all superficial fun.  Unfortunately, like most movies that are 70% recycling, the humor isn't funny, the characters are cardboard, the plot doesn't make sense and ultimately the movie feels like a pretty empty thing.

Still, Considering the title and cover, you get the feeling the renters will know what they are getting, and while it doesn't have enough to it to make it a cult classic, it has enough for people who like action, sexy women, and ridiculous sci-fi a watch.

***RENTAL ***

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)  *** RECOMMEND***

A twisted revisionist update to the classic fairy tale.  Stars Jeremy Renner (The Avengers, Bourne Ultimatum), Gemma Arterton, and Famke Janssen.  Written and directed by Tommy Wirkola.

The story:  Hansel and Gretel, after escaping from a witch when they were children, have grown up to become kick a** witch hunteres!  They come to a town where children have gone missing and learn a powerful witch is taking them for a ritual that will make her immune to fire.  Hansel and Gretel try to save the children and defeat the witch, while learning things about their past.

Was it good?

Yes!  Which surprised me.  It is such a silly, goofy idea, but here's the thing -- the filmmaker seemed to understand that and embraced it.  Instead of doing something grounded and dark, he made something vibrant and fun.  Hansel and Gretel aren't just witch hunters, they are witch hunters with a bunch of cool a** steam-punk inspired weapons.  The plot, while not inspired, does a good enough job to keep things interesting.  This isn't a deep, brain teaser of a movie -- it's popcorn for action/horror buffs.  My biggest complaint is that the movies seems divided whether it wants to be rated R or PG-13 (it's rated R).  Some times it would embrace the R-rated sexy/violence and other times it seemed to pull back from it.  Hopefully in the sequel (it was a big hit so I assume there will be one) they will embrace the R-nature and really give us a sexy, crazy action movie for adults who like to be giddy kids!

*** RECOMMEND ****

RED STATE (2011) (a review)

RED STATE (2011) (a review)

This is the new movie by Kevin Smith (Clerks, Jay and Silent Bob, Dogma, Cop Out). Unlike many of his movies that fall in the View Askew universe this is more of an action/horror movie. The movie stars John Goodman, Kevin Pollack, Michael Parks, Melissa Leo, and Stephen Root.

The story: a couple kids drive out into the woods to meet a woman for quick sex, but are taken hostage by religious cult who plan to kill them. The cops arrive and leads to a stand off between the FBI and the fundamentalists.

Was it good?

Kind of. It was interesting, but I'm not sure I would call it good.

The first half is a pretty standard horror movie. There's some humor and some odd little moments, but it's played much more grounded than, say, a Friday the 13th. The kids are taken hostage and one of them is killed and the others struggle to survive. The religious people are a cult full of wackos and the kids are kind of a-holes, but they don't deserve to die.

Then, around midpoint is when the FBI arrive and that's when the movie gets odd. Up until them it's pretty clear we root for the kids and are against the religious/anti-gay/people killers. However, the FBI isn't actually good. And even more oddly, the kids that we have been following virtually disappear from the story. It becomes a stand off between two sides that no one would really root for.

Now this might work if the story was told in a realistic way and wanted to really explore both sides of a difficult situation, but that's not the case. Both sides are so exaggerated they become parodies at times. And the loss of any character or storyline where there is anything really to root for, it leave you (or me or whoever the audience is) feeling adrift. It's like the story was designed not just to end badly (which a lot of horror movies do...people tend to die at the end of them) but it's meant to end in a way that make you feel useless.

Still it was an interesting movie. For cinephiles and fans of indy movies maybe this will work too. It's just not a movie I could recommend for most. Still, there's enough good here that if you are looking for a rental it might be worth your time.

*** RENTAL ***

HANNA (2011) (a review)

HANNA (2011) (a review)

Hey, look, it's a teen girl assassin movie! Maybe I'm just sensitive about the subject because I have an idea for one that I haven't gotten a chance to write yet, but with Hanna and Hit-Girl from the movie KICK ASS it seems to be the current trend. Directed by acclaimed director Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice, Atonement) with a script that landed on the Black List (a list of the best unproduced screenplays in America) not once but twice! Also stars Eric Bana and Cate Blanchet.

The story: Hanna is a teen girl who has been raised in complete isolation by her father who trains her to be a perfect fighter. However, she becomes bored of the isolation and wants to leave. To do that however will set the CIA operative who killed her mother and wants Hanna on her trail. Hanna does it anyway which sets a cat-and-mouse game to the powerful conclusion.

Was it good?

Kind of. I mean, it wasn't horrible and it had a lot of fun in it, but like with KICK ASS, it's one of those movies that you can't think about because none of it makes sense. At all. Really...at all.

And part of the diff with Hanna is that it seems to want to be about something, this idea of kids having to grow up and enter the world, but that metaphore (which I like) just doesn't work in the movie. Part of this is the central problem with the script -- things in a small scale might make sense, but then they don't. For instance, the female agent that wants to kill/capture them. Um, why? I get that she might want to finish the job when she killed the mom, but there really isn't anything behind it. If Hanna's desire to go into the world is a metaphore for kids wanting to grow up, then she is a metaphore for people that want to kill them? Or stop them from growing up...except that doesn't seem to be what she wants because she never mentions anything. She doesn't seem to want a relationship with the child or anything, it's just kill her.

Also, for a girl that wants to leave the weird life of isolation, the only other people she stumbles on are the strange kind of hippy people that she befriends for a short time. Again, it's not like she gets a shot at normal. So is it just that she wants adventure? Because that isn't the feel and the fact that *** SPOILER *** her father dies *** ----------- doesn't really make it seem worth it. In the end, she might have her freedom (unless the agency sends someone else after her now that she has killed a dozen operatives), but she is lost in a world totally strange to her, with no family, no friends...how the hell is that a good thing? What has she really won?

It reminded me of the end of FROM DUSK TIL DAWN when Clooney leaves the girl stranded there by the bar and she just has nothing. Um...yay?

That said, there is a lot of fun stuff in the movie, and as a mindless action movie it does a good job. But this is a movie that screams that it wants to be something more, and the something more just doesn't work.

Still, there's enough good stuff that if you are in the mood with an action movie with a European sensibilty (i.e. slower pacing, weird characters, some plotless mood segments) then it's a good one to check out.

**** RENTAL ****

SANCTUM (a review)

SACTUM (2011) (a review)

This is the 3-D movie produced by James Cameron about people who go cave diving and become trapped.

The story: there's this guy who is a rich adventurer and he's diving in these deep caves to see the last bit of unexplored parts of the world. He brings his son along who resents him because the dad is more into adventuring than parenting. However, a massive storm floods the entrance and they become trapped in the cave and have to find a new way out and the son finds new respect for his father (sort of).

Was it good?

Not really. It wasn't horrible, and there is a lot of exciting stuff, but it doesn't really work for the whole movie. As with many of Cameron's films, the first 1/4 of this is much more character driven, showing the kid and the dad and their relationship, while introducing us to the caves and cave diving. All that is okay, but the relationship between father and son is too simple -- it never hits that spot where it becomes really interesting by itself. Thne the storm hits and they become trapped inside and for a while it's pretty exciting. However, after a while it starts to feel like a lot of the same stuff over and over. They move deeper, they get trapped and have to do something dangerous, they get out but someone dies, repeat. For all the tense stuff that keeps happening, it starts to feel flat and that's mainly because the character work just wasn't smart enough. Action should reveal character, but if the relationships are flat there isn't much to reveal. The only thing left to do is have people turn on each other, bu even that is never really done in an interesting way or done in a way that reveals something deeper thematically. Compare that to THE THING (Carpenter's) and THE DESCENT, which sets up much more interesting character dynamic and then finds interesting ways to explore it when they are trapped in the cave.

The other problem is with the action set up. There's a lot of stuff in the movie that I'm sure to people with the right technical understand is fascinating, but for a pleeb it's kind of confusing and hard to understand. They need to do a better job of educating the audience so we understand each predicament better. Most people think it is bad for an audience to get ahead of the story, but in places it is actually really good. It's foreshadowing. It's dramatic irony. It's tension. And those are all things this movie lacks.

And will all the people dying, I gotta say, this movie felt like a downer. I know the idea is that people have to die to show it is really dangerous, but when they are picked off one by one, again and again, it feels more like a horror movie that thinks it is an action movie than an actual action movie or thriller.

For action movie buffs there is probably enough here to enjoy a rental. For everyone else it's a pass.

*** AVOID (unless you're an action buff) ***

GREEN HORNET (a reivew)

GREEN HORNET (a reivew)

This is the latest movie versoin of the 1940's superhero. The movie stars lovable doofus Seth Rogan as the Green Hornet and Jay Chou as Kato.

The story: Britt (seth Rogan) is the fun loving, incompetant son of a wealthy newspaper owner. When his father dies, he has to take over the family business. He and the chauffeur (Jay Chou) get drunk and go out where they fight some thugs who are trying to hurt a girl. They get such a kick out of it they decide to become superheroes. But with a twist, they decide they will pretend to be villains while really being heroes. During this Britt uses his ownership of the paper to enflame anger at the Green Hornet while engages in a turf war with a dangerous mobster. This also angers the District Attourney who doesn't want articles printed about crime in his city while he is trying to turn for re-election. Eventually all this comes together -- the mobster, the DA, his fathers death -- all the while Britt and Kato fight over a girl.

Was it good?

No, but it wasn't as horrible as you might think. The problem is the story is WAAAAYYY too slow to get going. Action movies tend to be driven by the villain, but really the villain is almost an afterthought until the movie is over half over, and it is a full 3/4 into the movie until all these threads come together. And, oddly enough, instead of a hero movie where the hero is reacting to the villain, this is a movie where the villain is reacting to the hero's plan. Unfortunately this undercuts a lot of the tension since for the most part he could just stop at any time and everything would be fine. So for an action movie, it is lacking in tension.

Now, there are movies that get away with this but they do it by giving the character something they are desperate to achieve, so the audience watches that as they build into the main action thru-line. This is what happens in SPIDER-MAN and BATMAN BEGINS. Spider-Man has Peter Parker and MJ -- that's what the story is about, a boy who loves a girl. BAT-BEGINS has Bruce Wayne trying to deal with the death of his parents and find himself again.

This movie...not so much. It's like they tried to make the superhero version of TOMMY BOY, but it just doesn't quite work. They should have made it more like a superhero version of FLETCH. Move up the action, add some mystery elements early on to catch the viewer's attention...

Even then, the movie isn't horrible. It is just awkward and for the first half not very compelling to watch. If you are doing something else, then throw it on in the background and it'll be pretty enjoyable and there will be plenty of spots where you will want to look up and watch. So while I couldn't recommend it to see in the theaters, I'd recommend it to rent, especially if you are multitasking.

*** RENT (to watch while multitasking) ****

DEATH RACE 2 (a review)

DEATH RACE 2 (a review)

The straight to dvd sequel to the reboot of the Death Race franchise. This is a prequel that goes into the origins of the first Frankenstein.

The story: in the year 2012, a man is caught while robbing a bank and sent to prison where they telecast prisoners fighting to the death. The man fights and wins but gets enemies who put a bounty on his head. Then rating for the show are falling, so they come up with something different -- a car race with all sorts of traps to help the prisoners kill each other -- and everyone tries to kill the main guy. Eventually his car burns and everyone thinks he is dead but he isn't and he becomes the first Frankenstein.

Was it good?

No. Actually it was all kind of boring. There wasn't anything especially cool here. The violence was fairly tame. The girls looked hot, but skin-wise it was pg-13 which makes no sense since this is going to be marketed as an ultra-violent straight to dvd movie which means you don't have to worry about the MPAA.

And here's the thing I don't get about this movie or the other reboot Death Race (or for that matter a lot of the remakes/reboots). The original DEATH RACE 2000 was great because it satirized America's love of violence by making everything completely over-the-top. It at once embraced with plenty of violence and nudity, and had something to say, AND it managed to do it while being pretty funny. Those might seem contradictory (feeding people's desire for sex and death while commenting on people's desire for sex and death) and yet the movie worked. But here in the reboots they have stripped away all that worked -- this doesn't have any insight/anything to say, it doesn't do a good job of feeding people's desire for sex and violence, and it doesn't have any humor. WHY BOTHER? I mean, sure you get some extra cash by using the name but is it really that much extra money? Both these films were different enough from the original that they could have been called something totally different and been fine. I just don't get it. But whatever....

*** AVOID ***

TITANIC II ( a review)

TITANIC II ( a review)

From Asylum, the company that did a straight to dvd version of Sherlock Holmes, War of the Worlds, and Princess of Mars.

The story: a new gigantic, unsinkable boat called Titanic 2 sets sail and has problems with an iceberg, getting hit once by the iceberg and then getting hit by a tidal wave that capsizes the boat and kills everyone in the life rafts. The two main characters are trapped in the sinking boat and have to be rescued by the girl's father.

Was it good?

No.

But like with all the Asylum titles it isn't really as horrible as it should. It's a bad b-movie. It's a shame because these titles could be made a little smarter and a little better and be actually good. For instance, there is no characterization here, no arc, no people that we care about. It would have taken no more money (production-wise) to change the characters so we care about them as this disaster is happening. And like I've said before -- stories are about fascination. So what here was supposed to be fascinating? It's not the global warming aspect of the iceberg -- that's given short shrift. It's not the giant disaster aspect -- they don't really go into any details about what is going on. It's all buzz words and lots of running around. So how hard would it be to find one thing that was especially fascinating and really take the time (writing wise) to bring that out? It could be about the billionaire and the folly of money, or about people vs nature or about self-sacrifice as people tried to save others. But here there's none of that. It's all just flat.

Still, for a bad b-movie it at least movies along. But if you're looking for a movie, you can do better.

*** AVOID ***

SLYLINE (a review)

SLYLINE (a review)

New sci-fi action flick by a couple visual f/x guys. Made on a micro budget ($500K) that they then throw a ton of money at for the F/X ($10M). So the F/X are probably good, but how's the story?

The story: a group of friends are at a birthday party in a high rise apartment building when aliens attack and begin killing everything in sight and this group and a few others struggle to survive.

Was it good?

No. There are some cool things to it (and as a wanna-be-filmmaker I was impressed they made it for under $11M), but ultimately the story just doesn't have anything to it. The alien attack from the people's POV is fine, but there isn't really anything to the characters (in fact they are pretty annoying), and there isn't any character arc or anything else to really draw you in. It feels like a lot of plot, some neat weird moments, a lot of not-neat action moments and then an ending that is almost laughably bad.

This is one that has enough interesting elements that you might want to see it, but I doubt many people will be glad they did.

***AVOID **

WAR OF THE WORLDS 2 (a review)

WAR OF THE WORLDS 2 (a review)

Not a sequel to the Spielberg/Cruise worldwide hit sci-fi action movie. This instead is a sequel of the very cheap straight to dvd War of the Worlds starring C Thomas Howell that tried to piggyback off the other's success.

The story: after the first invasion, the survivors try to fight off a second wave. Some use planes to launch an assault on Mars, while the main character gets captured and brought to Mars to try to save his son who has been captured.

Was it good?

No...and yes. It was good in a Creature Feature sort of way -- very cheesy with lame F/X and bad acting, but it moves quickly and does some cool stuff so it's kind of entertaining if you feel like watching a bad movie. The thing I'm constantly amazed at by these bad movies are the bad acting and dialog. It's the cheapest thing to fix. There are plenty of good actors looking for work, and plenty of cheap writers to do a little dialog polish. C Thomas Howell is especially bad which is weird because I remember liking him in movies like Secret Admirer. Plus he directed it. You'd think he would make sure his acting came off good, right?

So I won't recommend it because it's just too cheesy and the acting is too bad, but if you are in the mood for cheesy/actiony/sci-fi-ish then this isn't bad.

**** AVOID (except if you want cheesy sci-fi) ****

KNIGHT AND DAY (a review)

KNIGHT AND DAY (a review)

A weird, crazy action comedy starring Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz. I think a lot of people remember this movie as being a bomb, but it's grossed over $250M worldwide.

The story: Diaz gets on a plane to go to her sister's wedding and meets a handsome man (Cruise) who it turns out is a super spy wanted by the government for stealing this device and now the government is after them to get it back.

Was it good?

Yes. Kind of. Maybe. In a weird way, but yeah, I guess I'd say yes. Maybe.

First I want to say I watches this movie right after watching the comedy The Other Guys (recommended, see review). That's an over-the-top action comedy with emphasis on the comedy. This movie made a nice second feature to that. If I hadn't seen that movie first, I don't know that I would have liked this one. It's a weird combination of over-the-top action and comedy with some quiet character work thrown in there too. Now, for me it worked as this over-the-top comedy. But I can see some people not getting it. Tom Cruise isn't a comedy guy and the way the story is written it seems to want to be a lot more grounded than it is. It's like it wanted to be SALT, and then got twisted into THE OTHER GUYS, so there are some problems all around. The comedy is uneven, and Tom Cruise doesn't feels awkward as an action/comedy star, and Diaz has great energy for comedy, but her character is supposed to be more grounded so that doesn't really work either. During the first half I thought they should have reversed them -- get a comedic star for the action hero role (which is so o-t-t it's hard to imagine anyone taking it seriously) and then a more dramatic actress for the female lead so that the role can be grounded and have some emotion. However, after thinking about it I'm not sure. Maybe this is what's needed to even out the two sides, much like THE OTHER GUYS has a comedic actor paired with a dramatic actor.

It's a tough call. This is a movie that had a lot of cool, neat things, but also a lot of problems. Like I said, watching it right after T-O-GUYS made it work for me, but I can understand the people that had problems with it. Still since it worked for me, I'm going to give it a slight recommend.

*** SLIGHT RECOMMEND (especially as the second in a double feature with THE OTHER GUYS) ***