The Book of Eli.

Review #2175: The Book of Eli.

Cast: 

Denzel Washington (Eli), Gary Oldman (Bill Carnegie), Mila Kunis (Solara), Ray Stevenson (Redridge), Jennifer Beals (Claudia), Evan Jones (Martz), Joe Pingue (Hoyt), Frances de la Tour (Martha), Michael Gambon (George), and Tom Waits (Engineer) Directed by Albert and Allen Hughes.

Review: 

"Allen deals with the actors, I deal with the technical side. Outside of that, we both do everything. I think it came up that way because I went to film school (at Los Angeles City College) and learned more of the technical side. Film school was just putting names on things me and my brother were already doing, different ways of doctoring up stuff. But even when we work together on the set, we both have opinions on each others' area."

Sometimes it matters to be two of a kind. The Hughes Brothers, composed of Allen and Albert, were born in Detroit but raised in California with a clear interest in film from a young age (as helped by their mother, who bought them two VHS machines and a video camera when they were 12). They honed their craft with music videos. At the age of 20, they made their first feature film with Menace II Society (1993). They followed this with Dead Presidents (1995), the documentary American Pimp (1999) and From Hell (2001); Albert moved to the Czech Republic in 2004. At any rate, this film was written by Gary Whitta, but re-writes were done by Anthony Peckham. This is currently the last film made together by the Hughes brothers, although each have continued to direct for separate features and television, such as The Defiant Ones (2017) and Alpha (2018), respectively.

Really one could just interpret the film as a slightly less hokey version of The Postman (1997). Think about it: both movies involve a wandering drifter with a particular vision in mind on their travels that run into someone wanting to maintain control of their part of a post-apocalyptic America that eventually leads to some sort of semblance of hope (hey, one gets a statue and the other gets a gravestone after doing what they set out to do), and both happen to feature a musician in a bit part. Of course, one has hand-to-hand combat and a runtime under two hours (118, but still) with this film, which is set...30 years after some sort of thing happened. Honestly, it probably would've looked the same regardless of if it was 5 or 10 years, but so be it. The result is a mildly involving attempt at parable that comes and goes on just how much one is interested in its eventual climax, which, well, is more a Western than anything (Pale Rider (1985) referred to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in its title, chew on that). The blind leading the blind, in good ol' browns and greys with some brand references (just how big were iPods anyway?), I think you get the idea of where things will go besides the part that really attracts my attention: a few moments of kick-ass with the hands. Of course, Washington is pretty good as the headline enigma to hold the film as long as it can, which exudes faith in the assured manner that fits what you would picture in your head in terms of trying to stay on the path that seems most obvious to him. That, and, well, he does make a quality presence to see handle a bunch of fools in their place that would fit a samurai film. Oldman handles the other side of the coin in just how much knowledge can lead a man on a certain path, which mostly involves craven nature, and this is mildly successful. It isn't exactly a role begging for scene-chewing, because Gambon and de la Tour can do that instead. Kunis makes a blank slate that may or may not work depending on one's patience for, well, seeing where a slate goes for a road movie. The film gives me more of a chuckle in its attempt at playing bleakness and religious nature in a familiar package that is only as good as the commitment to make it something worth sticking with. As a whole, it meanders in a certain type of meandering that could only come from something that is hazy in both construction and look that works best for those who don't look for the obvious signposts but instead just sit for the ride and relax.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Other Guys.

Review #1707: The Other Guys.

Cast: 

Will Ferrell (Detective Allen "Gator" Gamble), Mark Wahlberg (Detective Terry Hoitz), Eva Mendes (Dr. Sheila Ramos Gamble), Michael Keaton (Captain Gene Mauch), Steve Coogan (Sir David Ershon), Ray Stevenson (Roger Wesley), Samuel L. Jackson (Detective P.K. Highsmith), Dwayne Johnson (Detective Christopher Danson), Lindsay Sloane (Francine), Natalie Zea (Christinith), Rob Riggle (Detective Evan Martin), Damon Wayans Jr. (Detective Fosse), and Viola Harris (Mama Ramos) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, #693 - Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, #1574 - The Big Short, and #1706 - Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby)

Review: 

Well, if you can make a movie that has fun with the conventions of the sports movie in stock car racing and make it intriguing for the whole family (at least the teenager kind), why not do a buddy cop movie? The idea for the film sprung from a dinner that McKay had with Ferrell and Wahlberg, as McKay noticed the chemistry present between the two that seemed ripe for a project. Of course, with the handful of buddy cop movies present, having it involve white-collar crime probably seems to prove an interesting way to mark it away from other examples (like 48 Hours or even stuff I haven't seen like Hot Fuzz) or seem too much like a copy of something like Law & Order (I joke, but listen carefully to who narrates the film anyway). This is the fourth of fifth collaborations between Ferrell and McKay, and it is the only one with Ferrell not serving as a co-writer (in this case, McKay wrote it with Chris Henchy), although he did provide input on ideas.

As a whole, it certainly has its hits and misses when it comes to landing its gags and moments, but it manages to land enough times for 107 minutes to make a somewhat worthy story about the ordinary (at least, for the police); it rides the clichés out for enough humor to make worthy entertainment, one that doesn't suffer when compared to McKay or Ferrell's other works. McKay certainly has an eye for trying to make each of his films have their own distinct little features that don't keep him pegged as just an improvisational director, and this works to his advantage when it comes to keeping interest on the level for the story at hand without being derailed by distractions. The film rides hard on how one views the chemistry between Ferrell and Wahlberg. It takes a bit of time for that dynamic to really hit it off, but it eventually gets its footing down with how they click within their differences (namely in their neuroses of manners and temper). While I might be more curious as how it would have been if they had reversed the roles (Ferrell playing a tough guy probably isn't a bigger stretch than Wahlberg playing an accountant), at least it seems like a game collaboration that doesn't seem constrained or forced, and Ferrell rides it out for a quite a few chuckles. Wahlberg adjusts fine to what has to happen with a film that could make either the straight man (depending on the scenario), and it does mean that he draws some laughs that eventually give way to a few action beats that work more to his advantage. Coogan plays things well when it comes to offbeat brashness that serves him well with the climax with Wahlberg & Ferrell, while Stevenson proves just as engaging as the snappy heavy. Mendes does fine, placed with Ferrell for a few little moments that hit okay as the one couple to show that a bunch of cop movies usually dance around. One can't tire of seeing Keaton on the screen, because even him playing a beleaguered captain (with a baseball reference I can appreciate) doesn't mean he can't make it charming to see from bit to bit. I do appreciate the brief moments between Johnson and Jackson, who get to chew on action clichés for a bit that makes for a worthy zinger (namely in trying to jump off more than one can chew). On the action side, the movie certainly does well enough with spacing out its sequences that doesn't delude the senses, and the story generally holds enough water to keep it mostly as a dutiful procedural. The chemistry between Ferrell and Wahlberg combined with a few supporting presences as a whole make for an engaging experience, one firmly in the middle as a buddy film that doesn't have too many hitches while hitting its overall targets with useful enterprise from folks who certainly know best.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

Review #1702: G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

Cast: 

Dwayne Johnson (Marvin F. Hinton / Roadblock), Bruce Willis (General Joe Colton), Channing Tatum (Conrad S. Hauser / Duke), Jonathan Pryce (Zartan / President of the United States), Byung-hun Lee (Thomas Arashikage / Storm Shadow), Ray Park (Snake Eyes), Elodie Yung (Kim Arashikage / Jinx), Ray Stevenson (Firefly), D.J. Cotrona (Dashiell R. Faireborn / Flint), Adrianne Palicki (Jaye Burnett / Lady Jaye), Luke Bracey (Rexford G. 'Rex' Lewis / Cobra Commander; Robert Baker as voice), Walton Goggins (Warden Nigel James), Arnold Vosloo (Zartan), and Joseph Mazzello (Morris L. Sanderson / Mouse) Directed by Jon M. Chu.

Review: 

Do you remember G.I. Joe? All power to you then, because it has been essentially nine years since I last thought about it. G.I. Joe is a series of doll-I mean action figures that Hasbro began production on in 1964. There had been comics involving G.Is for decades, but Hasbro eventually came up with their own attempts at comics, with the most notable being a G.I. Joe series with Marvel Comics in the 1980s; an animated series also ran during that time that promoted the toy line and had its own film (which went from plans for a theatrical release to television after the failure of The Transformers: The Movie). At any rate, it should only make sense that a Hasbro property like this would eventually be turned into a live-action feature, seeing how Transformers (2007) turned out so "well". Five writers later, G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra (2009) came out to box office success amid ridicule from anybody looking for a good one to make fun of. I remember being twelve years old and seeing this movie in theaters only because I got a gift card to the movie theater as a present around that time,; I've probably seen that movie once or twice ever since, and its qualities haven't exactly improved since then. You don't really need me to tell you in a long spiel that it was a dumb movie, one catered to the tastes of script-logic akin to Transformers that had plenty of clunky moments.

So yeah, a sequel was warranted, and I guess it only makes some sort of arcane sense to get a director best known for dance movies to direct. The sequel was meant to be released in 2012, but Paramount Pictures (who in their odd wisdom wanted to do a reboot but not a reboot) shifted its release five weeks before its intended release because they wanted to convert the film to be shown in 3-D (because they wanted to make more money with a fad-I mean a great process for experiencing movies). Despite all of the hubbub, it was essentially just as successful as the original feature was (i.e. making back twice its budget). Eight years later, here we are talking about the release of a new G.I. Joe film...an origins story, which is amusing to think about (because hey, Transformers did it, so...). Anyway, this feature film was written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, who were best known for their work on Zombieland (2009). You would think that making an ensemble cast movie series would mean that there is a bit of cast continuity between features...well, try again. Five cast members (Lee, Park, Pryce, Vosloo, Tatum) return from the previous film, and only two of them has a substantial speaking role as a hero (Park plays a mostly quiet ninja commando, but still). For a run-time of 110 minutes, this is a film that does the bare minimum in every department and flails slightly less than its predecessor in the art of balancing spectacle and the little thing they call "substance". Some movies can get away with being a fun time without having the greatest plot (like Commando, for example), but this is not one of those movies. There are not many sequels that are better than the first one that are also quite forgettable, but this sure is one of them. It is just a middling movie, one that fundamentally has no one great (or terrible) sequence to think about, because there are just a bunch of "eh" scenes with a plot that kind of floats around with a cast that doesn't have much footing to go around besides a few attempts at humor. Johnson surely seems like the kind of presence one would see coming to try and invigorate interest in a film, particularly since action seems to be right up his alley. While I can't say his performance is exactly anything good, he at least seems game for a movie with plastic ambitions at action with fairly solid composure; somehow, the filmmakers had the bright idea to kill off the lead guy of their first film with Tatum, and he looks about as interested as waiting for soup to cool off. Honestly, I can't tell which actor seems more in it for the money, Willis or Pryce (one gets to play the President and the other doesn't have to show up for almost a hour), and it is almost amusing to see them see them try to make these lines seem anything other than lines spoken by committee. I guess Lee does well here, in that he gets to a bit of swordplay and not have to wear a mask the whole time (as opposed to Park). The other members of the ensemble don't fare too well, seeming about as interested in talking action spiel as one would be interested in talking about the dynamics of why baseball is the greatest sport to follow to a bunch of Yankees fans. As a whole, what we have is a bland movie that goes boom a few times but never really goes farther than "do something!" in terms of maneuvering an interesting plot or characters beyond cliché. If one needs some sort of action fix in the modern era or need to waste time with people who should know better, at least make sure you check the whole totem pole of options before thinking about this one.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Thor: The Dark World.

Review #827: Thor: The Dark World.

Cast
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Natalie Portman (Jane Foster), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Stellan Skarsgård (Erik Selvig), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Christopher Eccleston (Malekith), Jaimie Alexander (Sif), Zachary Levi (Fandral), Ray Stevenson (Volstagg), Tadanobu Asano (Hogun), Rene Russo (Frigga), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Algrim / Kurse), Kat Dennings (Darcy Lewis), and Alice Krige (Eir) Directed by Alan Taylor.

Review
In retrospect, Thor (#041) was an exciting (if not somewhat flawed) movie. It may have taken a bit of time to get rolling, but it had a fine enough climax and established Thor as a quality hero, with Hemsworth doing a fine job in that film. In the sequel, he is also excellent, even if the film around is not exactly as thrilling as before. Hemsworth is believeable as ever, and his chemistry with others in the cast being good highlights. Portman is alright, though it seems she really isn't given that much to do. Her scenes with Hemsworth are fine. Hiddleston is memorable as ever, with enough trickery and charm, highlighted by his scenes with Hemsworth. Eccleston (admist a bunch of makeup) isn't that great a villain (a problem one could say about other villains in the Marvel films), but he is at least somewhat threatening.

While the effects are pretty good (aside from times when everything seems to be photographed in blue-greyish), the plot doesn't really seem to gel itself well, particularly with the Aether, though the Loki-Thor parts do help the movie get back its footing. The action is alright, with the climax being fairly decent enough. The rest of the cast is fine enough. It may not be up to the caliber of the other Marvel films, but it is entertaining and I'm sure that others likely will like this film a good deal more than I did. Take it for what it's worth, a comic book film with some instances of flair that work in most of the right places.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.