Expendables lll Review

Finally got to see Expendables lll

SPOILER FREE

Expendables lll has a sad legacy placed upon it. Not only did this film leak about a good three weeks before it came out in theaters, but also flopped and got harshly criticized for watering down the swearing and graphic violence to PG-13 levels. In all honesty, it wasn't that bad but it's a sad era in filmmaking when a director or studio compromises on their projects to meet a certain ratings standard in order to secure a theatrical release and make profits. One truly misses the old experimentation period of the 1980's where great action movies emerged such as The Terminator, Aliens, Robocop, Die Hard, First Blood, Lethal Weapon, Commando, and Predator. We've seen several franchises make the transition from being rated R to PG-13 with mixed to terrible results. Die Hard 4 went PG-13 and while that one was the most successful of the series, it turned off many fans of the first three films. Terminator Salvation went PG-13 and ended up driving the Terminator franchise into the ground even further than where it was at before the fact. The remake of Robocop did ok with PG-13, but one notices when watching that film, it lacks the energy and high level action of the original 1987 classic. So going back to what was said about Expendables lll not being too bad, it really wasn't.

The third entry in this joke of a series is actually quite fun, and kept the action pretty hardcore for PG-13. One does not notice that fact until near the end of the film. It feels just as energetic, goofy, and fun as the previous two films, and on some level better. The highlight of the movie is the action and the chemistry with the action stars, though some take backseats in place for newer stars to shine in this entry. This is a definite improvement from the second movie, and gives time to flesh out the characters more in this movie. The plot for Expendables lll is this: Sylvestor Stallone's character Barney puts together a new team of Expendables to take down an evil co-founder of the expendables and notorious arms trader Conrad Stonebacks, played impressively by Mel Gibson. Conrad is hell bent on wiping out Barney and all of his associates in the old and new team. The original team which included the likes of Jason Statham, Terry Crews, Dolph Lundgren, and Jet Li are present here, but they also are welcomed by an even more impressive selection of cameos ranging from Harrison Ford, to Wesley Snipes, and Antonio Banderas. The best actors in the film are those three plus Mel Gibson. Stallone does what he does best which is to be a likeable action star, even if he's getting older. Gibson serves to be a very strong villain, though lacks some of the spark Van Damme had as the villain in the second film. Wesley Snipes intro into the group comes with a hilarious comment about why he was in jail prior to joining the team. His comment marks the real life irony of Snipes predicament for going to jail himself. Of all the expendables movies, this one probably had the best screenplay and made you care more about the characters in this one compared to the others. This is not an endorsement to it being a great piece of filmmaking, but it's certainly not as bad as people make the film out to be. It's quite entertaining and deserves at least a 7 out of 10 for understanding exactly what type of film it is, and never straying away from that logic. Expendables lll is probably the best R rated turned PG-13 transformation thus far, and it really doesn't feel that much different. The hardcore violence is still there like Stallone promised it would be. Will this be the final installment for the series? It feels like it but I doubt it will be, they'll reboot it. Is it worth a redbox rental? Sure, and it might be even better to wait for the unrated cut that will follow it's release on DVD. Honestly guys, it really wasn't that bad.

                                                                                                                                           7/10

Lucy Review

Finally got to see Lucy

SPOILER FREE

Lucy is the type of film which ends up becoming a victim of it's own hype. It's storyline sounds promising and has potential, but it's greatest downfall is being 84 minutes. This is not the proper running time for a movie that wants to be so ambitious with it's plot, and present interesting concepts. This movie should've been 2 to 2.5 hours to properly flesh out the characters and plot angles, and coming from the man who did La Femme Nikita, Leon The Professional, The Fifth Element, The Messenger: Story of Joan of Arc, and Taken, that's really disappointing. Though he's had his share of screw ups recently, cough Taken 2 cough.

Because of Lucy's lack of development towards it's characters and plot, it falls into that category of being pretty damn generic.  Lucy deals with a woman who accidentally becomes caught in a dark deal, ends up turning the tables on her captors and transforms into a merciless warrior evolved beyond human logic. That is not the type of story that can be properly told and wrapped up with just 84 minutes of screentime. Scarlett Johanssen and Morgan Freeman do the absolute best with what they got to work with. They are to be applauded for this but not all the way. The one thing that works against this movie is it's script. The film is not terrible like a lot of people claim it to be, but logic and elaboration are two major factors missing in the screenplay. One cannot deny that the film has a level of energy to it, and comes off rather silly at times like the first Taken did. With that film, you had fun watching Liam Neeson cleverly outsmart the bad guys, taking them down one by one. You don't get that feeling here with Scarlett Johannsen's character. The characters in this movie feel like cardboard cutouts of typical heroes, sidekicks, and villains that you see in any other bizarre action movie of this magnitude. Luc Besson is a very stylistic director and his trademark style is visible here with cheesy thrills, fast pacing, foreign country setting, and vulnerable turned tough female chick kicking ass. Perhaps he was so focused on getting the style of the movie down directing wise, that he didn't have enough time to polish the script up the way he should. Whatever the problem was, Lucy suffers because of it. It's not a terrible movie in any sense of the word, nor is it great. It's entertaining because of the high level energy and enthusiasm carries, but if you're looking for strong character development and a cohesive plot, you're going to be quite out of luck. Even the ending of the film leaves you scratching your head on some level. Here's hoping that an extended version comes out sometime down the road that can give audiences more elaboration on the plot, and fill the gaps in the plot with more logic. A very crooked thumbs up. If this film was 2 hours long, it probably would've fared much better with moviegoers.

                                                                                                                                              6.5/10

                                                                                                                                              

The Maze Runner Review

Finally got to see The Maze Runner

SPOILER FREE

Twilight and Hunger Games are to blame for the new trend of turning books into movies scenario that Hollywood has been so hellbent on lately. The rule in Hollywood is if a movie comes out and is a huge success, then everyone must follow suit afterwards. Hunger Games is more responsible for this than Twilight, because now we have a stream of books turned movies, that are trying to formulate their own trilogies such as Divergent, The Giver, and now Maze Runner. Divergent was decent, not great but not terrible. I respected it and i'll go see the follow up out of curiosity to see what else happens in the story. That's because they had characters in that film who were somewhat interesting. Didn't see The Giver yet so I can't comment on that one, but now I can weigh in on The Maze Runner.

The Maze Runner was Ok at best, but not really that good of a movie. The problem is even though it's based on a book, it feels quite generic and a rip off to the other movies listed above. Everyone is trying to copy the same dark and gritty Holocaust atmosphere that Hunger Games presented. Those movies are good but even they're overrated to a certain extent by the die hard fanatics. My issues with Maze Runner is not only is it generic, but you don't really care about the characters in this film. There is not one character that sticks out in your mind or feels memorable. The Hunger Games trilogy had Jennifer Lawrence, and Liam Hemsworth to keep you engaged. You cared about them and their dilemma. Divergent had Shailene Woodley whose not a bad actress if I may say so. She did very well in Fault in Our Stars. There was also a strong supporting cast backing it up such as Kate Winslet, Tony Goldwyn, and Ashley Judd. Hunger Games had Donald Sutherland, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Stanley Tucci. Those had appealing actors to keep you engaged in the story. Maze Runners storyline feels dry, and recycled. There is no real actor you can latch onto or care about. Character development is almost nonexistent and dry here.

The pros of the movie that can be said are the dark setting in the Dystopian future. It's appealing and the creatures are interesting to watch. The acting was decent given the source material the actors had to work with, as well as the people chosen for the parts. Cinematography is good but that can also be said about Divergent and Hunger Games. It's not much different. Maze Runner is ultimately a product of the success of the other two movies mentioned, meaning that it wouldn't be made if the other two didn't appeal to the wide masses the way they did. Overall, the film can be summed up as being a watchable piece of entertainment, but that doesn't mean it's a film that'll stick out in your mind long after it ends. Not giving it a full thumbs down but not giving it a thumbs up either. Lovers of the book will like the movie, but casual moviegoers are going to find this one to be completely generic.

                                                                                                                                                 6/10

The November Man Review

Finally got to see Pierce Brosnan's The November Man

SPOILER FREE

I think anyone who saw this one can agree that it's actually quite nostalgic and cool to see Pierce Brosnan in this type of role again. This is the closest people will ever get to seeing him in another James Bond type of performance and he's entertaining. The best James Bond films with him in them are Goldeneye, and Tomorrow Never Dies. World Is Not Enough is decent but very slow-paced, and Die Another Day was just terrible. We knew just as Brosnan did that the time had come to hang up the tuxedo and put away the martini.  What November Man is to Brosnan fans, is a nice glimpse into the what if scenario had he still be playing Bond today. Does it succeed?

The November Man is an entertaining yet somewhat generic action movie, in which Brosnan plays an ex CIA agent, whose brought back on a personal mission and finds himself put against a former pupil in a deadly game that involves high-tech CIA officials and the new Russian elect president. That storyline is
one that has been done before numerous times by other films such as The Bourne Trilogy, 3 Days to Kill, Salt, etc. It's not a storyline that we haven't seen before nor anything groundbreaking, but that's not why people go to see this film. They went to see Pierce Brosnan open a can of whoop ass once more as an older and more wiser Spy hero. From watching the movie, he does just that and it appears as if he's getting more tougher and aggressive with the older he gets. He brings a sense of class to the part, and appears to be having fun with the role. One wishes that somehow he could be brought back into the future James Bond films as a possible villain to Daniel Craig's Bond. Hey Sean Connery should've been in Skyfall if you were to ask me. That "WELCOME TO SCOTLAND" line was written for only one person.

The good of The November Man is that it has a lead actor, who knows how to play this type of role. Brosnan is good here, and keeps you focused on his part. The rest of the movie however, coasts by with a lot of old tired cliches. While it's got some decent action sequences, it recycles the same spy formula that's been done to death, and better if I might add in a ton of other movies in the last decade. That's not saying that the movie isn't watchable in anyway shape or form, it's just stating that it's not a memorable venture into the Spy genre. The film ultimately deserves a thumbs up because of it's main star alone. He's fantastic here, but everything else leaves you feeling kinda empty afterwards. It's worth watching once then just reverting back to the Bond series if you really wanna see Pierce Brosnan kick some ass.

                                                                                                                                                    7/10

Gone Girl Review

Finally got to see David Fincher and Ben Affleck's Gone Girl

SPOILER FREE

Let me start off by saying that David Fincher is one of the greatest filmmakers working in mainstream Hollywood today. All of his movies have been fantastic. Alien 3 Assembly Cut is probably his least successful effort quality wise, but that was more of the studios fault than Fincher's. It remains one of the best extended versions of any film outside of James Cameron's directors cuts and the 2004 directors cut of Daredevil. Seven is fantastic, The Game is awesome, Fight Club is a masterpiece, Panic Room is good, Zodiac is really cool, Curious Case of Benjamin Button was a nice departure from Fincher's typical style of making movies, Social Network was a good morality tale about friendship and corruption, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo remains one of the better American remakes in modern day filmmaking, and now we have Gone Girl. What is there to say about Gone Girl?

It's really good and engaging. From the opening monologue that Ben Affleck delivers, you're pulled into this unique and intriguing storyline. It does kinda feel like the real life scenario of Scott Peterson at times, but doesn't go down the same route entirely. This is Affleck's show and he hits the right notes with his part, showing confusion, uncertainty, as well as an ounce of mystery and suspicion. His wife goes missing and even he doesn't know where she's at, or so were led to believe. His wife's disappearance becomes an international media circus, and soon the tables turn when it's suspected that Affleck's character may not be so innocent. The reason I keep drawing comparisons to Scott Peterson's real life story is because this feels very real. The same scenario happened with Peterson's wife going missing and him being suspected of her disappearance and murder. The latter turned out to be painfully true. This movie succeeds because of the strong performance Affleck delivers, making you feel for him but also suspect him once it becomes apparent that he's got a few skeletons of his own. The other great performer in this movie is Rosamund Pike, she's great here. An Oscar nomination is in store for her in the near future. No major spoilers for her but her performance is utterly captivating. Everyone will emerge from this experience completely blown away by her acting and character arc. The supporting cast of Tyler Perry as Affleck's lawyer is surprising good here. They make a great duo and Perry shows that he can do more than just dress up as an old granny in his own directorial efforts. Neil Patrick Harris and Carrie Coon shine here in their respective roles creating a lot of energy for the film, and asking the lead character questions that are going to be on the audience minds. This movie works great after watching Prisoners, as the same style and feel of that movie is present here. That film was heavy much like this one, but what both movies do so well is they project a great feeling of realism to the audience with their stories. When you pay to see this movie, you're going to get exactly what a David Fincher movie showcases, which is brilliant filmmaking.

That's not to say that the film doesn't have a few flaws of it's own. The pacing can be rather slow in the beginning but as the film progresses, things become more intense and exciting. The way the filmmakers chose to end this movie was disappointing, because it feels like there is more to this story that could've been shown with an extra 10 to 15 minutes. The same issue happened with Girl With The Dragon Tattoo where Fincher ends the movie in an awkward spot. Should the ending of Gone Girl gotten more elaboration? Without a doubt because it will leave a lot of audience members anxious to know what happened afterwards, but that's also where the book comes into play. Putting those issues aside, Gone Girl is hands down one of the years best filmmaking achievements, and a movie that is sure to stir up some controversy, maybe some award recognition for it's lead actress in the process. It may also give Batman fans more hope that Affleck can pull off such a complex character like Bruce Wayne, because he is pretty likeable in this part. If you haven't seen this movie yet, it's most definitely worth the 10 bucks. You will not be disappointed.

                                                                                                                                                   8.5/10

Clooney/Tarentino's Revenge night.

Tonight's marathon is all about experiencing revenge from the angles of two fantastic directors, George Clooney and Quentin Tarentino. The similarities that the two filmmakers both hold is they're both very outspoken directors combining history with satire along with an unapologetic thirst for justice. Whether it's dealing with the Nazis, a team of assassins who shoot up a bride and her groom in a church, or a freed slave along with the help of a compassionate German joining forces to free his enslaved wife from the clutches of a ruthless plantation owner. It is an exciting, hilarious, and slick stylized marathon. We have on tonight's menu:

   The Monuments Men 2014, Inglorious Basterds 2009, Kill Bill Vol 1 2003, and Django Unchained 2012

The lineup says it all. This is one exciting marathon that gets progressively better as it goes, along with being more grittier and powerful. Everyone of these movies follows the same theme of revenge and getting back what's rightfully yours. For George Clooney's Monuments Men, it's about a platoon
in World War ll being tasked to rescue stolen art pieces from the Nazis and return them to their owners. This one comes with a star-studded cast among the likes of George Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, John Goodman, and Cate Blanchett. Monuments Men got unfairly bashed during it's initial theatrical release in February with criticisms stemming from an off narrative, slow-pacing, and blending of humor with the issue of war. Frankly, those arguments seem to imply that many people miss the whole point of the movie. Not all war stories need to be dark and gritty, and can be just as powerful without dark endings. Glooney gave the film a style that isn't much different than what Tarentino did with Inglorious Bastards. It's got a great cast, has clear and noble intentions, and carries with it heart and humor to make it entertaining. It's a shame that come Oscar season early next year, Monuments Men will be missing from the list of nominees in all categories. The next film Inglorious Bastards begins the Tarentino stream of revenge flicks. Also set in World War ll during a Nazi occupied France, a group of Jewish U.S soldiers come up with a plan to assassinate Nazi leaders with a vengeful theater owner having the same idea. All that can be said about Inglorious Bastards to represent how memorable of a film it became is Christoph Waltz. That best supporting actor Oscar win is one of the most well deserved wins for one of the greatest movie villains in film history. The third film Kill Bill Vol 1, strays away from the theme of war but maintains the concept of revenge. In this classic Tarentino tale, a Bride wakes up from a four year coma to seek revenge on a group of assassins for attempted murder while also killing her husband to be. The irony of this group is that the Bride was once apart of the team led by a man named Bill. Kill Bill pays homage to the martial arts films of the 1970's while taking the genre and giving it a new spin. The first Kill Bill remains a vengeful tail about a woman who had everything taken from her, but decides to seek vengeance for what was done to her family. The final film of the evening is perhaps the biggest of them all in terms of scope, and the most controversial of Tarentino's career. Django Unchained reunites the talents of Waltz and Tarentino, but pairs them up with the talents of Jamie Foxx, Kerry Washington, Leonardo Dicaprio, and Samuel Jackson. Like Inglorious Bastards going backwards in history to cover World War ll, this film takes place during the era of slavery. This movie has a freed slave named Django, being aided by a German bounty hunter in the quest to help rescue his enslaved wife from a Mississippi plantation owner played by Leonardo Dicaprio. If there was any actor who needed to get a nomination for best supporting actor and win it, it's him. This is Tarentino's darkest and most personal film since Pulp Fiction. It is quite simply brilliant. Not only is it the best film of 2012, but it also serves as a great contrast to the brutality and serious tone of the great 12 Years A Slave.

What these movies do so well together is to blend history with satire, combining revenge themes that stem from the era of slavery to the holocaust and finally to modern times. The combination of the styles of Clooney and Tarentino compliment each other nicely, making for an evening of great entertainment.

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly With Extraterrestrial Life

Tonight's marathon is about the arrival of alien species into our universe, as well as witnessing the good, the bad, and the ugly in terms of whether they come in peace or not. In the case of Steven Spielberg and his incredible filmography, the man knows how to captivate audiences with his sense of imagination and spectacle. Tonight's marathon pays homage to the great extraterrestrial stories that Spielberg gave us during the 1970's and 1980's, and showing the good and bad of the arrival of aliens. We have on our menu for this evening:

Close Encounters of The Third King 1977, ET: The Extra Terrestrial 1982, War of the Worlds 2005, and The Edge of Tomorrow 2014

One word to describe this marathon is quite simply badass. Spielbergs entire alien filmography is present here (minus Indy 4), and it blends in well with the epic battle between the U.S army and the soldiers in Edge of Tomorrow. Before Schindlers List, Spielberg's early days was about delivering
thrills to the audience, while building emotional connections between humans and aliens. What other director can make you care about an alien like ET, and want him to stay on Earth? It takes a real filmmaker and someone with a genuine heart to make you feel emotion like that, and we are grateful to have Spielberg giving us his imagination. He is truly one of a kind. The first film Close Encounters of the Third Time is Spielberg's first film after Jaws, and this time he flirts with the concept of Extraterrestrial life. In this tale, a line worker has an encounter with a UFO in the night sky, and becomes drawn to an isolated area in the desert where an arrival of a UFO ship is about to happen. This is the beginning of the theme of alien arrival on Earth with their presence appearing to be friendly. The second film ET is about a troubled child mustering up the courage to take care of a peaceful alien, while also helping him return to his home world. This film runs far deeper than Close
Encounters in terms of emotion and character development. Whereas that one you feel compelled to follow Richard Dreyfuss character in his quest to seek the truth about the governments secrecy towards the existence of UFO'S, you really care for the character of Elliot in the film and his relationship with ET. This movie unfortunately lost the Best Picture Oscar to Gandhi in 1982, another great film but not on the same pop culture level of impact. The entrance of War of the Worlds into the marathon is where the shift begins in terms of alien arrivals on Earth being peaceful. This time they come, but now it's for hostile reasons. In this story, Tom Cruise fights to protect his family for survival while Earth is being invaded by alien Tripod forces. This is Spielberg getting dark with the invaders, and here he doesn't hold back. The aliens are frightening, the fight for survival is one of the most intense scenarios ever put on film, and Tim Robbins cameo steals the show. War of the Worlds serves as a great prelude to the grand finale of the night titled The Edge of Tomorrow. This film places Tom Cruise as an officer who places himself in a time loop in a war the alien race. Not being trained for war, his skills increase as he battles brute combat forces in different scenarios, and his partnership with a female officer puts him one step closer towards figuring out the way to destroy the enemy. With all four of these films, the experience of alien arrival on Earth is realized through the side of good and evil. As for Spielberg, the man is a genius and a magician. He knows how to captivate his audience and take us on wild experiences that burn in the memory. Here's to one of the great filmmakers of our time.