Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

The Bourne Legacy
Directed by Tony Gilroy.
2012. Rated PG-13, 135 minutes.
Cast:
Jeremy Renner
Rachel Weisz
Edward Norton
Scott Glenn
Stacy Keach
Donna Murphy
Michael Chernus
Corey Stoll
Joan Allen

For three movies we’ve watched the exploits of Jason Bourne as various secret government agencies try to get rid of him. What we didn’t know was that happening concurrently with The Bourne Ultimatum, Aaron Cross (Renner) is having the same problem. Yes, he’s also one of the super soldiers created by Green Brier, Black Stone, pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, green clovers or something. By this point, I can’t keep track. The important part is that the program is shutting down which means all of the little science projects running around, including Cross, have to be terminated. This seems easy enough. They just switch the meds that made these guys and gals super with a lethal pill that kills them a short while later. Luckily for him, our hero is out in the field and through a narrow escape of cruder attempt on his life by the same people, figures out what’s going on. After getting back to civilization, he rescues Dr. Marta Shearing (Weisz). She works for the program, but the powers that be want her dead, too. He hopes she can help him “viral off,” or make it so he no longer needs the meds to keep being a badass. This is Bourne flick, so you know what ensues.

Thoroughly weaving in the plotline of the star no longer with the franchise is an interesting tactic. For the most part, it works as it fosters the idea that The Bourne Legacy takes place in the same universe as the rest of the movies. This could very well have been going on at the same time. The problem with this is that we’re reminded of Matt Damon every few minutes for much of the film. The entire series is synonymous with him and his character, Jason Bourne. The title still bears his name. So even though Jeremy Renner is good in this movie, we can’t shake the felling we’re getting the knock-off label. It’s serviceable, but not the same as that name brand product.

Nostalgia for Matt Damon aside, TBL does many of the same things well as its predecessors. Action scenes are fast and brutal, shot in the franchise’s signature style. This includes some spectacular stunts. The numerous chase scenes are, of course, interspersed with guys in suits wringing their hands and trying to figure out what to do about their headache. It’s a formula that works, and they wisely stick to it.

Formula is a key word, though. There’s hardly a second of this movie that doesn’t feel like it’s part of a well-beaten path. Well, there are the very early scenes when our guy meets another agent, the first time he’s ever met one. The two men have an interesting time together where they size one another up. After this little bit of intrigue passes, we leap wholeheartedly into an attempt at duplicating the films that came before. While still a somewhat fun adventure with enough to sate the action junkies, it’s a less satisfying experience. It doesn’t seem like a continuation of the saga, but something to hold us over until they figure out what to do with the titular character.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

[dell71]

End of Watch
Directed by David Ayer.
2012. Rated R, 109 minutes.
Cast:
Jake Gyllenhaal
Michael Peña
Anna Kendrick
Natalie Martinez
America Ferrera
David Harbour
Frank Grillo
Cody Horn
Jaime FitzSimons

Brian (Gyllenhaal) and Mike (Peña) are partners in the LAPD. Together, they patrol some of the meanest streets in Los Angeles. Having spent countless hours in a squad car discussing anything and everything, they’ve grown to form a brotherly bond. Brian is a bachelor who studies law and shoots video of everything. We view most of the film through his lens. Mike is married with a baby on the way. We follow the dynamic duo as they serve and protect. Eventually, some overzealous tactics find them interfering with the business of a Mexican Cartel operating in the City of Angels. Hazards of the job ensue.

The main strength of End of Watch is that we come to know these officers as well as they know one another. We’re privy to some intimate conversations that inform us how each guy thinks. We appreciate them for who they are and can understand the choices they make, even if we don’t always agree. Both Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña help the process along with completely natural performances. We really feel as if we’re riding along with two cops on their day-to-day grind, passing downtime with both profundity and profanity. When off-duty, we even get to know their significant others: Mike’s wife Gabby (Martinez) and Brian’s girlfriend Janet (Kendrick). Even the other cops fit nicely into the story. Among these supporting players, look for America Ferrera who is very effective playing a role way off-type for her. It all helps create a well-rounded portrait of the two men at the eye of this particular storm.

Of course, watching a couple cops drive around in their squad car is only half the story. The more viscerally thrilling part is what happens when they’re actively fighting crime. These guys manage to stumble upon some really wild and gruesome scenarios. Some of them are more dangerous than others, a few of them heartbreaking, all of them heart-pounding. Though it all works itself into a coherent narrative, the plot doesn’t dominate every waking moment as it would in most movies. It’s something that develops on the very edges of the peripheral awareness of our heroes. What they do know they don’t even take that seriously. This gives the story a more organic feel.

Unfortunately, some well-worn Hollywood tropes figure into our finale. While it is effective at making us sad, it’s still predictable. While I don’t find it to be quite racist, I might not argue with anyone who thinks otherwise. Point being, cinematic history certainly has its favorites which this movie doesn’t deviate from. That said, the film creates a dilemma for itself. A slightly darker ending would likely be too cynical, a lighter one too easy. An inversion of what happens might be the braver conclusion, but less commercially viable. None of this is to say End of Watch is ruined by its climax. We’re still emotionally taxed by t he last few frames. We’ve still had an enjoyable, if torturous, experience.

MY SCORE: 8.5/10

[dell71]

Taken 2
Directed by Olivier Megaton.
2012. Rated PG-13, 92 minutes.
Cast:
Liam Neeson
Famke Janssen
Maggie Grace
Rade Sherbedgia
Leland Orser
Jon Gries
D.B. Sweeney
Luke Grimes
Kevork Malikyan

In case you’ve forgotten, Bryan Mills (Neeson) is a man with a very particular set of skills. He showcased them in the first Taken by killing a bunch of bad guys involved in the kidnapping of his daughter. It raked in all sorts of dough at the box office proving the world hasn’t lost its penchant for Steven Seagal movies, so long as they don’t actually star Steven Seagal. This time around, the families of the deceased criminals want revenge against our hero. They descend upon Istanbul, where he is working – mostly at reconciling with his baby-mama Lenore (Janssen), herself going through a terrible break-up with her new hubby. Meanwhile, their still traumatized daughter Kim (Grace) hangs out by the hotel pool. She’s the last one to find out that mommy and daddy do indeed get taken. Of course, our hero manages to escape. Now he must work his way back to save his damsel in distress while also keeping his little girl safe.

In a continuation of the right-wing fantasies of its predecessor, itself a throwback to the 80s, Taken 2 does what it sets out to: show us Liam Neeson kicking Middle Eastern ass. Still, this aspect of the film is fun to watch regardless of your socio-political leanings because it is well executed action. Some of it is shot a little too tight for my taste, presumably to mask the star’s lack of athleticism, but it still looks good. Besides, the first thing most viewers will pick up on is that this is a guy trying to save his loved ones. Surprisingly, we take a little longer to get to the meat of the picture this time, but there’s still plenty of it.

Everything surrounding the action is generic, at best. It’s so much so, it feels like a copy and paste job from one of any number of movies. Most egregiously, it drops the ball on the easiest opportunity to build upon its predecessor and include some character development. We already understand Kim is still psychologically suffering from what happened not that long ago. However, being a teenager, she’s still upset when she finds out her old man used GPS to track her down at her boyfriend’s house, a guy he’s never met. Okay, fine. When she presses him on why he would do such a thing he sheepishly offers that he hears a lot of horror stories about things happening to young folks these days. Hears stories? Excuse me? What about the fact that I just recently had to go through hell and high water to rescue your taken ass? No mention of this? Sorry, but I would’ve had to lay into that ungrateful little…sigh. Let me take a deep breath.

Okay, enough about me. Suffice it to say the fact Bryan doesn’t even mention the abduction both he and his daughter are still smarting from proves the people who wrote the movie have no passion for its story and view it as filler until the action starts. Why should we even pay attention when they can’t even be bother to make the hero seem like a real person. He wasn’t a very deep guy the first time around, but there was something there. We felt for the guy. This time, he’s even more of a booming-voiced and unstoppable machine. Therefore, we have no reason to do anything other than doze off until we hear a loud noise.

MY SCORE: 5/10

[dell71]

Killing Them Softly
Directed by Andrew Dominik.
2012. Rated R, 97 minutes.
Cast:
Brad Pitt
Richard Jenkins
Ray Liotta
James Gandolfini
Scoot McNairy
Sam Shepard
Ben Mendelsohn
Slaine
Vincent Curatola
Max Casella
Trevor Long
Linara Washington

When a mob run card game gets robbed, the local economy is severely affected. It pretty much comes to a halt and won’t get going again until the people responsible are dealt with. And I don’t mean by the police, either. This is where enforcer Jackie Cogan (Pitt) comes in. He promptly gets to work figuring out the issues. Of course, his taking any action requires permission he has to work through his unnamed liaison (Jenkins) to get. Meanwhile, we also watch the schmucks who did it assess the situation from their point of view.

Brad Pitt is excellent in the lead. He hits every note perfectly. His cold-blooded arrogance is difficult to look away from. The supporting cast, mostly of sporadic screen-time is wonderful, as well. Each one makes us feel what’s at stake for them more than just by the words they speak. Of course, two characters never fully understand the potential consequences, but we feel that too. There is one performance that stands head and shoulders above the rest, though. James Gandolfini as overly seasoned vet hitman Mickey is absolutely fantastic. He’s a very bad guy with a bad attitude and some serious personal problems. Somehow, the actor crafts him into someone we feel sorry for in spite of who and what he is. He commands your attention whenever he’s on screen, even away from Pitt.

This is not a movie heavy on action. However, what is there is visually arresting. Unfortunately for him, Markie (Liotta) is on the receiving end of two of these scenes. One is spectacularly brutal and the other is an amazing slo-mo sequence. Other than that latter scene, all of the action has an real feel to it. I’ll admit to flinching once or twice.

As great as the performances and the visuals are, the hardly concealed subtext has to be addressed. The movie is set during the financial crisis that marred the final days of George W. Bush’s presidency and set the table for Barack Obama’s. Just so you don’t forget this, political news is constantly used as background noise, either on television or radio. From time to time, the focus even shifts directly to it. It comes across as totally cynical and, perhaps, a way right leaning view on America. It’s possible I could be misreading the latter, but not the former. It’s fairly clear that everything happening on the screen is a metaphor for what went on in late 2008. In case somehow, after an hour and a half, you’re not so sure this movie isn’t too excited about the country’s future, it’s last spoken line will confirm it for you. For some, it might decide whether or not you like the film.

For me, the last line doesn’t dictate either as I figured out that was the movie’s outlook early on. Regardless of whether I agree or not, Killing Them Softly is a fascinating experience with a different take on the mafia and how it operates, presenting them more symbollically than anything else. I rather enjoyed it. Sadly, I was disappointed that despite the movie’s title, we never get to hear Roberta Flack’s nor The Fugees’, or anyone’s rendition of the classic song from which it is derived. Hmph.

(Note: I’m generally a little slow getting reviews up. Depending on what’s going on in real life, it usually takes me three or four days to write a review and get it posted, but it can be over a week. This is my hobby, not my job. Yet. I only mention this because I actually watched this and had the review hand-written a few days before the passing of one of this movie’s stars, James Gandolfini. He was an amazing talent that I’ve praised in other reviews and, of course, he IS Tony Soprano. That said, I really do think his performance in this movie is amazing and I’m not just saying nice things because he’s recently deceased.)

MY SCORE: 8/10

[dell71]

Seven Psychopaths
Directed by Martin McDonagh.
2012. Rated R, 110 minutes.
Cast:
Colin Farrell
Sam Rockwell
Woody Harrelson
Christopher Walken
Tom Waits
Abbie Cornish
Linda Bright Clay
Olga Kurylenko
Gabourey Sidibe
Michael Stuhlbarg
Helena Mattsson
Kevin Corrigan

Marty (Farrell) is a Hollywood screenwriter and the world is anxiously awaiting his next masterpiece. He’s titled it “Seven Psychopaths,” but that’s pretty much as far as he’s gotten. His bestest buddy Billy (Rockwell) wants to help him write the thing and offers up some inspiration in the form of a story he heard in a bar and a newspaper article about an actual nutjob, still at large, called the Jack ‘O Diamonds killer who goes around murdering members of the mob. Before long, real life intervenes when Billy’s “job” brings a genuine psychopath their way. He’s part of a dog-napping scheme with Hans (Walken). The two snatch up some poor unsuspecting canine then later return it to the owner for the reward money. It just so happens that their latest acquisition belongs to local gangster Charlie (Harrelson). Let’s just say he’s not planning on paying to get his dog back.

From the outset, we realize this is going to be a hyper-violent comedy. That the scenery will be blood-soaked is a given. The question is whether or not it can maintain the humor aspect. Thankfully it does, for the most part. Writer-director Martin McDonagh, who gave us the incredible In Bruges, crafts a script that’s borderline self-parody. It echoes sentiments others may have about his own work or of these sorts of movies, in general, purposely and sarcastically reinforcing them. Most noticeably, this includes apparent misogyny. Through other characters questioning Marty on his handling of his female characters, it becomes McDonagh fielding questions from critics. Through the course of the movie, his answer seems to be a defiantly waved middle finger. This doesn’t make what happens pro-feminist in any way, but makes it easier to take because we sense the movie is aware of what it’s doing and simply trying to push our buttons.

The actors themselves also help push our buttons. Pulling off the delicate balance between graphic violence and snarky humor always requires strong performances. This movie has them in spades. The constant banter between Farrell and Rockwell works wonderfully as both men turn in stellar work. To compliment them, Woody Harrelson and Chrisopher Walken absolutely steal every scene either of them are in. This keeps the movie moving along at a snappy pace. Between the action and these guys tearing up the screen, Seven Psychopaths is a hard film to take your eyes off.

The biggest drawback to SP is that, at times, it feels overly influenced by early Guy Ritchie and Quentin Tarantino. This could very easily be mistaken as part of either director’s filmography (sans the British accents for Ritchie). Honestly though, McDonagh is a skilled enough filmmaker to make this is a good thing. More than just aping the movies we love, it stands alongside them as a sharp-tongued and mercilessly violent dark comedy that is at once absurd and sublime.

MY SCORE: 8.5/10

[wingsfan77]

"Put your hands up!"

"No."

"But I have a shotgun pointed at you..."

"So what?"

[dell71]

Speed Racer
Directed by The Wachowski Brothers.
2008. Rated PG, 135 minutes.
Cast:
Emile Hirsch
Christina Ricci
John Goodman
Susan Sarandon
Matthew Fox
Scott Porter
Rain
Ariel Winter
Paulie Litt
Kick Gurry

Speed Racer (Hirsch) takes on the corrupt corporations and organized crime figures who control the World Racing League.

It looks great. There are lots of bright colors, cars zipping across the screen and colorful explosions. It stays true to its anime roots by giving us a visually arresting movie. The cast all hams it up appropriately, John Goodman in particular. The opening sequence is an amazing piece of storytelling.

It looks great but that’s about it. After that opening sequence it’s straight downhill. The story after that point is strictly paint-by-numbers, most attempts at comedy fall flat and at 2 hours and 15 minutes it runs way too long for such a waifishly thin movie. Whenever your film gets to Goodman doing helicopters with bumbling ninjas you know it should’ve ended long ago. And just about anything involving Speed’s younger brother Spritle (Litt) and the monkey is just horribly unfunny. Finally, what starts off as cool action scenes degenerates into a lot of loud and bright stuff that you wish would just stop.

This is definitely one for the pre-teen set. It has the look and feel of a video game. By itself, this isn't a problem. The problem is that it feels like you’re just sitting around watch someone else play and might possibly have a seizure due to all the flashing lights.

MY SCORE: 4/10

[dell71]

Skyfall
Directed by Sam Mendes.
2012. Rated PG-13, 143 minutes.
Cast:
Daniel Craig
Judi Dench
Javier Bardem
Ralph Fiennes
Naomie Harris
Bérénice Marlohe
Albert Finney
Ben Whishaw
Ola Rapace
Bill Buckhurst

Skyfall opens with the death of James Bond (Craig), in spectacular fashion, of course. No worries, or spoiler alert necessary. His condition doesn’t last long. After all, this is a 007 movie. You just can’t go killing him before the opening credits. Besides, both MI6 and M (Dench) are in great danger. Who else is gonna save the day? However, the genius of this movie is that it’s not really so simple as the hero saving the day, despite appearances.

Someone has stolen a list that reveals the identities of all of MI6’s undercover agents around the world and is fond of sending M personal, if cryptic, messages. This is a big problem, as you might imagine. The already difficult task of retrieving this list and/or tracking down the person responsible is made that much more so by the fact that our hero is suffering from fairly significant physical and emotional issues.

Beginning with Bond himself, extending to M, the entire movie is a dissertation on old vs. new. The franchise itself has long understood that its main character is a relic of the Cold War. He is even referred to as such in one of those abysmal Pierce Brosnan outings. Here, the point is driven home. MI6 is under fire from its own government for being antiquated and clinging to its old ways. We’re also reminded numerous times that Bond is not of this generation. His time seems to have past. As evidence, his edges are more frayed than ever before. Daniel Craig continues to play the role brilliantly, both as a man and a super-spy. With three 007 flicks under his belt, it’s debatable whether or not he’s the best Bond ever. It’s inarguable that his is the most human rendition of the character. And the actor is not alone on his quest to make this true. He’s been given scripts that not only allow him to bleed, but to actually feel.

No matter how much emotion our hero has to deal with, it couldn’t be a great Bond movie without heart-pounding action and an eccentric villain. The action is terrifically ridiculous. All manner of vehicle is given a whirl, most notably trains. Lots of fun with trains. There’s lots of exciting hand-to-hand combat and plenty of shooting. Oh, and we have some rather large man-eating lizards. The only drawback in the action department is the best sequence opens the movie. We keep hoping something will top it, but none can. What happens with the helicopter during the last big set gets closest. Still, it’s all loads of fun.

As far as our bad guy, Silver, he’s gleefully played by Javier Bardem who brings his usual excellence to the role and has fun with it. Unfortunately, he may have a little too much fun. Silver comes off more amusing, if creepy and eventually pathetic, than menacing. True, he puts our hero into some harrowing situations. I’m just not so sure he inspires feelings of dread. That’s a bit disappointing since the same actor gave us one of this century’s most frightening film villains in No Country for Old Men.

Luckily for us, this is the rare Bond film that doesn’t sink or swim based on its bad guy. That’s because, at the end of the day, Skyfall is probably the most self-aware Bond film ever made. Of the three Daniel Craig entries into the canon, two of them are excellent. The first, Casino Royale, is a brilliant series reboot. Also self-aware, it purposely avoids the cheesiest and most over-the-top aspects of the franchise. Most noticeably, Bond’s gadgets, which the Brosnan flicks were overrun by, are nowhere to be found. In their absence we begin to delve into the psychology of the character along with the action. This is where some tenets of Bond, such as his love for scotch, are no longer seen as just things that a cool and manly superspy does. Quantum of Solace, an incoherent mess, is the oddball. It’s somewhat enjoyable, but a far cry from its predecessor. Skyfall is a return to greatness. It continuously questions its own place in today’s world. It questions the way its hero and, by extension, the movie itself goes about its business. It even gives us a few gadgets, simultaneously paying homage to Bond’s glorious past and wondering whether they have any place in his future. Even M must face this same judgment, both explicitly by members of Parliament and within the film’s subtext. Much more than just another Bond flick, or an excuse to showcase shootouts and car chases, this is a movie that recognizes the status of its protagonist as a pop-culture icon and his battle to stay relevant.

MY SCORE: 9/10

[Senser81]

I thought Skyfall was a weird movie. Agree with most of what you said. I think the movie tried to cover too much ground, yet also fell short in developing the Bardem character. Lots of action (too much?), and as you said lots of "self-aware" Bond, but I thought the plot was kind of thin, in that it was just a vehicle to place Bond/Craig in different self-aware situations. I never felt like I was following a story...I felt like I was watching an assortment of the trials and tribulations of Bond. I think Skyfall would appeal to the hardcore Bond fans in this sense. It seemed like this movie had two phases...super action or super reflection, with nothing inbetween. I thought Casino Royale did a much better job of blending everything in to a "movie"...Skyfall was more like a Bond "documentary".

Hope that made sense.

[dell71]

I thought Skyfall was a weird movie. Agree with most of what you said. I think the movie tried to cover too much ground, yet also fell short in developing the Bardem character. Lots of action (too much?), and as you said lots of "self-aware" Bond, but I thought the plot was kind of thin, in that it was just a vehicle to place Bond/Craig in different self-aware situations. I never felt like I was following a story...I felt like I was watching an assortment of the trials and tribulations of Bond. I think Skyfall would appeal to the hardcore Bond fans in this sense. It seemed like this movie had two phases...super action or super reflection, with nothing inbetween. I thought Casino Royale did a much better job of blending everything in to a "movie"...Skyfall was more like a Bond "documentary".

Hope that made sense.

It makes perfect sense. The plot is thin, recycled from any number of movies and tv shows. And it is second-fiddle to "the trials and tribulations of Bond." We've already got something like 30 movies of Bond saving the world from a megalomaniac, so I didn't mind one bit if that aspect of it was placed on the back burner. The other stuff was just way more interesting to me.

[dell71]

Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame
Directed by Hark Tsui.
2010. Rated PG-13, 119 minutes.
Cast:
Andy Lau
Carina Lau
Bingbing Li
Chao Deng
Tony Leung Ka Fai

We kick things off in the year 689 A.D. Empress Wu (Carina Lau) is about to crowned as the first female ruler of China. As you might imagine, this ruffles the feathers of many men. It probably doesn’t help that she’s having a giant monument to herself built a mere sixty-six yards from where her coronation is to take place. During the final days of its construction, a high-ranking government official who is giving a tour to a visiting dignitary, spontaneously bursts into flames and falls to his death. Not much is left of him, save for his shoes. A short while later, another official suffers the same fate, suddenly catching fire and dying right in full view of the empress. A couple of clues lead everyone to think this has something to do with what happened in the province of Dee eight years ago. Therefore, they must hire the only man who can possibly solve this case, Detective Dee (Andy Lau). Of course, Detective Dee has been in prison over that span for treason. You see, he was one of those men and publicly opposed Wu’s ascension to the throne. Now that she needs his help, she’s willing to let bygones be bygones and sends Jing’er (Li), her most trusted bodyguard to retrieve the detective and get this case cracked so her coronation can go off without a hitch.

Since this is a martial arts picture, we must first judge this movie on just that, martial arts. The legendary Sammo Hung handles the choreography here and, truthfully, I’m disappointed with his effort. There’s lots of wire work, fitting for a story that incorporates a lot of magic. Therefore, characters fly around effortlessly and perform unbelievably acrobatic feats. This is fine, but the fighting itself is less than thrilling, save for one or two sequences nearer to the start of the movie than the end. It seems there is often a lot more chasing than kung-fuing.

Now, about that story. It’s cluttered, to say the least. It moves forward as a police procedural with the very Sherlock Holmes-esque Dee trying to solve the crime (murder, if I hadn’t made that clear). He simply intuits an awful lot (everyone does, actually) and, naturally, he’s always right. This creates so many strands it gets to be a very crowded picture. There is another high-ranking official trying to keep Wu from the throne and/or get Dee to join his cause, he and Jing’er’s infatuation with each other, a couple different trips to magical locales, the possibly evil and supernatural chaplain, the back-story of Dee’s weapon (“the dragon taming mace”), fun with transfiguration, and talking deer. Um, yeah, talking deer. One shows up periodically to, more or less, explain character motivations. The beast itself is eventually explained, but it’s all very goofy. It only gets goofier when a bunch of bad cgi deer are used during a fight scene. It’s a bad idea and worse execution.

Even worse than the execution of everything involving deer is that scene where the bad guy spills the beans. You know the scene, the one where the villain appears to have the hero beat so he proceeds to explain his entire plan that he says is too late to foil while cackling maniacally. Yeah, that scene. In general, I’m okay with this because I know it’s coming and, just like the bad guy always says, there’s nothing I can do to stop it. The problem here is that once everything has been explained, we come to the realization that, in this case, if the bad guy had done absolutely nothing, committed no crime whatsoever, he would’ve realized his ultimate goal without so much as a hiccup. In other words, I could have been spared this entire movie. Sigh. Consider my loss your gain and avoid this flick even if you are a hardcore martial arts junkie.

MY SCORE: 3/10

[dell71]

Compliance
Directed by Craig Zobel.
2012. Rated R, 90 minutes.
Cast:
Ann Dowd
Dreama Walker
Pat Healy
Ashlie Atkinson
Bill Camp
James McCaffrey
Philip Ettinger
Nikiya Mathis
Ralph Rodriguez

Sandra (Dowd) is the manager at Chickwich, a fast-food restaurant, and her day starts off on the wrong foot. One of her employees left the freezer open last night and almost fifteen hundred dollars worth of food is ruined. This includes much of the all-important bacon supply. She’s fairly certain it was the dopey Kevin (Ettinger), but doesn’t have any proof. Oh well. Becky (Walker), the young blond who works one of the registers, thinks that Sandra thinks it was her. Becky professes her innocence and makes it known she can’t afford to lose her job. Smack dab in the middle of the busiest time of day, a police officer, Officer Daniels (Healy) calls the store and tells Sandra that he is with a woman who says Becky stole money from her. He instructs Sandra to bring Becky into the back so they can all get to the bottom of this matter. This begins with Sandra checking Becky’s pockets and even her purse. From there, things escalate to dizzying heights.

As events unfold, we’re simultaneously amazed and appalled by what we’re seeing. Our stomachs churn, forcing us to vocalize our displeasure. Not only are we upset with the man on the phone, but also with Sandra and others physically present for their roles in what happens to Becky. We pray in vain for one of them to grow a brain and get over their blind allegiance to authority, to simply ask themselves how any of this makes any sense. Sandra only occasionally shows the slightest reluctance while marching forward with her orders. The others only momentarily question her when she involves them at the officer’s behest, but fall in line. Only Kevin, the one we thought wasn’t so smart, takes any sort of stand before it’s too late. The entire situation gets beneath our skin.

Our hearts bleed for Becky. As viewers, we share in her helplessness. Whatever belief we have in our fellow man to do what’s right, not necessarily the same as what they’re told is right, is dismantled right before our eyes. However, we wonder at what point will she stand up for herself, if at all. How complicit is she in her own victimization? To be clear, we don’t want to blame the victim. Still, even the movie itself wonders aloud if she could’ve put a stop to the whole thing herself rather early on. That said, we realize she is totally taken advantage of.

The performances of the two women in the lead roles are excellent conduits for our anger and sympathy. Dowd, as Sandra, perfectly echoes many we’ve all encountered in lower/middle management positions. She’s doing what she thinks is right from an organizational standpoint without actually thinking about what is really right. This is why she’s so willing to comply with a voice on the phone. We marvel at how naïve she is, but don’t doubt for a second that there are plenty of real Sandra’s out there. As Becky, Walker pulls off a remarkable innocence that combines with the situation itself to make many portions of the movie very tough to watch.

That Compliance is so tough to watch is what makes it a compelling piece of American horror. The fact that the victims never see their boogeyman doesn’t make him any less scary. In fact, it makes him moreso. He does what anyone can. Behind a veil of anonymity, and with the illusion of power, it is much easier to get others to do your bidding, no matter how twisted. To make matters even more terrifying, the movie is inspired by true events from a few years ago. Many of the things that happen here really did take place. Again, there are real Sandra’s out there. And Beckys.

Now that I’ve built this movie up as a great horror film, get that idea out of your head. It is, but many will think it isn’t. The problem is Compliance bypasses most of the genre’s traditional tropes and resembles nothing of the sort. There is no masked madman dismembering co-eds or ghosts trying to make us jump. If that’s what you’re looking for, look elsewhere. If you’re interested in a truly disturbing picture that deserves to be seen, this is for you.

MY SCORE: 9/10

[dell71]

Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Directed by Doug Liman.
2005. Rated PG-13, 120 minutes.
Cast:
Brad Pitt
Angelina Jolie
Vince Vaughn
Kerry Washington
Adam Brody
Keith David
Chris Weitz
Michelle Monaghan
Jennifer Morrison
Stephanie March
Angela Bassett

Ah yes, the birth of “Brangelina,” AKA Jennifer Aniston’s least favorite movie of all time. Possibly. You know what? That’s about all the celebrity gossip I can stand so we’ll move on. With your permission, of course.

The actual movie revolves around John (Pitt) and Jane Smith (Jolie). They met five or six years ago, depending on which one you ask, at a hotel in Bogota. Due to an assassination within that country, local police were looking for someone traveling alone. As luck would have it, and their wits, they managed to convince everyone they were together. This inadvertently sparks a romance and the two were married shortly thereafter. Like many couples, particularly those having problems, they keep secrets from one another. Theirs are probably a little bigger than the ones in your marriage. Neither of them knows that the other is a paid assassin. That all changes when they find themselves in the same place, at the same time, trying to kill the same target.

Unsurprising in hind sight, Pitt and Jolie share a playful chemistry. It carries the movie rather nicely. The jokes, aimed directly at anyone who has ever been in a long-term relationship, and the double entrendres, are all smooth, delivered with the perfect amount of sarcasm. It keeps us chuckling pretty consistently, even during their action scenes together, of which there are plenty. Our two leads appear to be having a great time. Pitt’s scenes with Vince Vaughn also work very well. It’s basically the usual schtick we get from Vaughn, but it works.

Back to the action. It is very well done. Things blow up real good while bullets and fists fly everywhere. Again, our stars are to be commended as both pull off the physicality of their roles without issue. Of course, there are some things that are too much to be believed, but they’re worked in nicely and become part of the fun. Therefore, we laugh and don’t really analyze things that probably shouldn’t, or couldn’t, happen.

In my world, maybe not the same as yours, Mr. & Mrs. Smith is a movie that’s stood up to repeated viewings. I’ve seen it several times and enjoyed it immensely each time. Our heroes work great together on the screen and it is exciting. The script they’re working with is clever and completely tongue-in-cheek. For my money, this is one of 2005’s most underappreciated films.

MY SCORE: 8/10

[dell71]

How to Survive a Plague
Directed by David France.
2012. Not Rated, 120 minutes.
Cast:
Bob Rafsky
Larry Kramer
Jim Eigo
Iris Long
David Barr
Mark Harrington
Bill Bahlman
Gregg Bordowitz
Dr. Ellen Cooper
Franke-Ruta Garance

In the late 1970s, AIDS became a known disease and it seemed to only affect gay men. By the early 1980s it had become an epidemic and a death sentence for the stricken. Hundreds of thousands of people were dying around the world on an annual basis. The development of effective medication was slow. How to Survive a Plague is the story of a group of activists, collectively known as Act Up, who fought to expedite the process.

The people of Act Up diligently filmed seemingly everything they did. As a result we get a documentary that tells its story mostly through actual footage, relying very little on interviews and less prone to the possible misrememberings of the people involved. There is not only video documentation of their rather public protests and run-ins with public figures, but of many of the group’s private meetings. This is where the movie’s real power lies. Though it is present, this isn’t another documentary built upon a bunch of seniors reminiscing on the good ol’ days.

In this case, the ol’ days were actually pretty bad. The situation was bleak and spreading as the world slowly came to realize anyone could become infected with AIDS. Act Up formed out of a mass sense of urgency. That urgency is poignantly conveyed byt the use of all that footage I mentioned. We see on the faces, and hear in the voices of the people involved, real emotion, real passion for the work they’re doing. It’s hard for the viewer to not root for them. Also helping in that regard is an ominous ticker that marks the passing of each year by displaying how many people had died of the disease to that point.

During the course of the movie, we’re introduced to a number of dynamic personalities. Some of these people have succumbed to the disease and are no longer with us. Nonetheless, we can understand why these folks became leaders of a movement. We see how much their lives, and in some cases, their deaths impacted the community and their cause.

Perhaps best of all, we learn that Act Up and its leadership weren’t always right and they most certainly were not always operating in harmony. We see rifts form within the organization, even to the point some very prominent members of the group break off and do their own thing. Among those that remain, we witness more in-fighting as their best efforts seem to be going for naught and they try to come up with new strategies. It eventually comes to light that the sheer panic that drove them in the early days led them to push for things that may not have been all that beneficial.

The movie ends in 1996 after a major medical breakthrough. Despite growing up in New York City, where the group was based, much of this happened on the very edges of my periphery awareness. This is particularly true of the stuff from the 80s as I was very young and had only the knowledge of AIDS that most regular junior high and high school kids of that era possessed, which isn’t much. I heard about AIDS protests in the city, but not much more than that they happened. From this outsider’s point of view, it seems two topics are wholly missing from Plague. This first is how basketball legend Magic Johnson contracting HIV affected their cause, if at all. Magic’s announcement marked a tectonic shift in the way many people though about the disease. He himself, become a crusader for finding a cure and joined a presidential committee. Did any of this matter to Act Up? Did it help them, hurt them, or neither?

The other topic is the country’s, even the world’s, changing outlook on and attitude toward homosexuals and homosexuality. From the time AIDS was discovered until ’96, I’d like to think the world became a bit more enlightened and/or tolerant. Again I’m left wondering how the people of Act Up felt about this. Granted, the main point of the movie is their battle for effective medication, but those things could easily fit into the narrative.

Despite the absence of these issues, Plague is still an enthralling documentary. Its story is very well told. It is also a reminder that even though AIDS isn’t the immediate nailing up of the coffin it once was, it’s still out there and plenty of people continue to die from it. That said, this showcases a remarkable group of human beings who helped make the world a better place.

MY SCORE: 9/10

[dell71]

Man on a Ledge
Directed by Asger Leth.
2012. Rated PG-13, 102 minutes.
Cast:
Sam Worthington
Elizabeth Banks
Anthony Mackie
Jamie Bell
Genesis Rodriguez
Kyra Sedgwick
Ed Harris
William Sadler
Edward Burns
Titus Welliver

Shortly after we meet Nick Cassidy (Worthington), his father dies. Nick’s a former police officer serving time for stealing The Monarch Diamond, a forty million dollar jewel, from David Englander (Harris). Of course, he’s maintained his innocence all along. He’s allowed to attend his father’s funeral and uses the opportunity to escape from prison. Next thing we know, he’s stepping out onto a ledge, quite a few stories up, of a hotel in mid-town Manhattan. Crowds gather and scream for him to jump, while overzealous TV news correspondent Suzie Morales (Sedgwick) gives audiences at home the play-by-play. The police show up and Nick demands that his negotiator be none other than Lydia Mercer (Banks). She shows up and tries to talk Nick out of jumping. Meanwhile, Nick’s brother Joey (Bell) and Joey’s girlfriend Angie (Rodriguez) are breaking in to the bowels of the building across the street.

It’s an intriguing premise, not least of all because our protagonist is confined to this ledge for much of the movie. He plays a verbal game of cat and mouse with Det. Mercer. Meanwhile, others are responsible for handling whatever action there is. The movie is then split into two parts: one part character study, one part heist movie. Unfortunately, neither part quite gets it right. The psychological part never really grabs hold of us as Nick and Mercer chat an awful lot about her now infamous screw-up while she every once in a while asks him to tell her what’s really going on since this is obviously not a real suicide attempt. He brushes her off and they repeat the cycle. It doesn’t help that Worthington and Banks are generally bland actors.

The heist part of the picture is of a completely different tone than the rest of the movie. It’s played for laughs. Joey and Angie go about their business while incessantly bickering. This is mildly amusing for a short while, but becomes increasingly annoying. Their jokes are not funny and we just wish they would both shut up and finish their job in silence. Granted, Genesis Rodriguez is more than nice to look at, in my opinion, but by the time this movie was over I’d truly had enough of her. At least partly because he’s not nearly as nice to look at, since I’m being honest, I was through with Jamie Bell long before then.

Aside from these two main things, there are other problems with Man on a Ledge. The subplot involving Anthony Mackie’s character feels shoehorned in, totally extraneous. Our villain, played ferociously by Ed Harris, fares better, but is still just another generic corporate bad guy. He falls short of being memorable regardless of how much yelling he does. Finally, I’ll just say I rolled my eyes and sucked my teeth at two things: our hero’s one big stunt and how the story line plays out for Bill Sadler’s character.

Sadly, Man on a Ledge is another case of a film not being as good as the idea of it. It just doesn’t congeal sufficiently and never really thrills us. As a result it seems to go on too long and the ending too easy. To be fair, it’s not completely boring. Worthington and Banks do manage a few nice exchanges and things even get sort of interesting for our arguing couple when people actually start looking for them. Still, we’re never really drawn to the edge of our seat.

MY SCORE: 5/10