Classic Movie Review: Bullitt (1968)

Bullitt (1968) 

Directed by: Peter Yates.

Written by: Alan Trustman and Harry Kleiner based on the novel by Robert L. Fish.

Starring: Steve McQueen (Bullitt), Robert Vaughn (Chalmers), Jacqueline Bisset (Cathy), Don Gordon (Delgetti), Robert Duvall (Weissberg), Simon Oakland (Captain Bennet), Norman Fell (Baker), Georg Stanford Brown (Dr. Willard), Justin Tarr (Eddy), Carl Reindel (Stanton), Felice Orlandi (Renick), Vic Tayback (Pete Ross), Robert Lipton (1st Aide),Ed Peck (Westcott), Pat Renella (John Ross), Paul Genge (Mike), John Aprea (Killer), Al Checco (Desk Clerk), Bill Hickman (Phil). 

 

Bullitt is primarily infamous for the car chase sequence that is right in the middle of the two-hour film. If you’ve never seen that chase, than watching it is thrilling – it really is one of the greatest car chases in cinema history – a chase that starts as a game of cat and mouse of the streets of San Francisco, and minute after minute builds its tension, excitement and speed – heading out to the freeway, and ending in explosions. It is a long car chase – and director Peter Yates let it play out for all that time. The style is the opposite of the quick cutting that dominates today’s action sequences – shots often last seconds at a time (Michael Bay averages under a second per shot) – and its all the more exciting for it. When movie car chases are mentioned – Bullitt’s almost justly ranks alongside the likes of William Friedkin’s The French Connection (1971) as the top two in history (depending on the list, either can take the top spot).

 

What’s strange about watching Bullitt though is the rest of the movie around that car chase – which has about 50 minutes on either side of that chase. In it, Steve McQueen plays the title detective in San Francisco. He is assigned to protect a witness at the behest of a politician – Robert Vaughn – who shows up repeatedly throughout the movie to remind everyone he needs this witness alive. Unfortunately, he’s dead pretty early on in the film – dead of Bullitt’s watch. But Bullitt doesn’t want to give up that easy – and disguises the body as a John Doe, and throws it in the morgue, as he tries to figure out what really happened. In terms of plot, well, there’s both a lot of it in Bullitt, and yet it doesn’t really matter. It’s not overly complicated – it could probably easily be the plot of a one-hour police procedural TV show, and not a particularly memorable one at that. What’s interesting in the rest of the movie is McQueen himself.

 

But this point in his career, McQueen was one of the biggest movie stars in the world, with one of the biggest egos. What’s interesting about his performance in Bullitt is how uninteresting a character Bullitt is. He is an emotionless void of a character – McQueen does nothing to try and bring him further into focus. In one of the most thankless roles in movie history Jacqueline Bisset plays Bullitt’s girlfriend Cathy – who complains about Bullitt and that emotionless void I talked about – and he cannot even really argue with her.

 

Perhaps this sounds like a criticism of McQueen – and to be fair, with most actors it probably would be. But not with McQueen – who could make even playing an emotionless void interesting. He plays Bullitt as a man with no emotions – one who is dead inside, who has seen it all, and none of it affects him anymore. I’m not sure you could find a better example of that mid-20^th Century American male tendency to not show weakness, to bury all the feelings deep inside, and not let anyone see it than McQueen in general, but certainly here.

 

The film was directed by Peter Yates – one of the better journeymen directors of the 1960s-1980s – making films like Breaking Away or The Dresser, along with my personal favorite The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973) – featuring the best late period Robert Mitchum performance. He perfectly handles that car chase – which is probably the single reason why the film won the editing Oscar that year – not to mention its climax, which almost certainly influenced the climax of Michael Mann’s Heat (1995). But he also knows just what to do with McQueen – who could take what could have been a dull role, and imbued it with something altogether different and interesting, by draining all the emotion out of it.

Movie Review: Extraction

Extraction ** ½ / *****

Directed by: Sam Hargrave.

Written by: Joe Russo base on the graphic novel by Russo.

Starring: Chris Hemsworth (Tyler Rake), Golshifteh Farahani (Nik Khan), Rudhraksh Jaiswal (Ovi Mahajan), Shivam Vichare (Sachin), Piyush Khati (Arjun), Randeep Hooda (Saju), Pankaj Tripathi (Ovi Mahajan Sr), Chris Jai Alex (Thiago), Adam Bessa (Yaz Kahn), Wayne Blair (Koen), Rayna Campbell (Ruthie), Vonzell Carter (Jose), Shataf Figar (Shadek Silver Haired Colonel), David Harbour (Gaspar), Sam Hargrave (Gaetan), Neha Mahajan (Neysa), Patrick Newall (Merc), Priyanshu Painyuli (Amir Asif), Suraj Rikame (Farhad). 

 

Chris Hemsworth is a fine actor – and an ideal action star, but it mystifies me as to why you would cast him in a role like Tyler Rake – the protagonist of Extraction. Rake has no sense of humor, really no personality whatsoever, and he basically spends the entire runtime of Extraction looking grim, and killing people. This doesn’t play to Hemsworth’s strengths – which Marvel eventually figured out including showing off his comedic side. As a humorless void of a character in Extraction, he just isn’t that interesting to watch.

 

The film was directed by Sam Hargrave, making his feature debut. He has spent most of his career as a stunt/fight coordinator, for Marvel among others, and it shows. He has basically made one long fight sequence with Extraction. This can work – the John Wick movies are basically that, as is The Raid, and they rank among the best pure action movies of the decade. But there is a fine line between the type of sustained energy that those film have, and the numbing sameness that ends up sinking Extraction. Each action scene here is basically the same – Chris Hemsworth with a gun, stalking through the streets Dhaka all in an effort to extract the son of an imprisoned drug lord, who has been kidnapped by another drug lord.

 

In movies like this, I often think of the (not very good) 1998 film Desperate Measures, that has the premise of a serial killer escaping in a hospital where he has been taken to have his bone marrow extracted to the save the life of a cop’s son. Over the course of the night many, many people get killed – but they never shoot the serial killer, because of the bone marrow, leading to the very logical question someone eventually asks “How many people need to die to save the life of one kid?”. I also found it amusing when the film pauses the action very briefly when Rake meets up with an old friend, played by David Harbour, who thinks Rake is being a hypocrite saying arguing that someone who has killed 100 people like Rake has, doesn’t get to be high and mighty. At which point, I wondered if Harbour was just talking about the last hour.

 

Which brings me to the uncomfortable heart of the movie. This kind is a white savior movie in which Hemsworth’s white guy comes in to save the Indian son. But because of that, it’s also a movie in which Hemsworth basically spends the movie killing dozens and dozens of brown people. You can kind of understand the logic that leads to this place – the Indian film industry clearly has a lot of actors and crew you can use, probably for less money than a Hollywood cast, and adding a star like Hemsworth adds to the international appeal of the film. The unintended result though cannot help but live a bad taste in your mouth.

 

As a director of action, Hargrave is pretty good. He isn’t at the level of Chad Stahelski or David Leitch – stunt coordinators turned directors of the John Wick movies, and Atomic Blonde respectively. He does try something bold – there is a 12-minute unbroken action sequence here, and it is the highlight of the film. It’s also very much like the rest of the movie though – so while I appreciate the skill and co-ordination it took to pull it off, you wish he tried something different. The reason the John Wick movies can get away with being one action sequence after the next, is because each one is different, and they keep trying to top themselves. Here, after you’ve seen one action scene, you’ve seen all the movie has to offer.

Movie Review: Sonic the Hedgehog

Sonic the Hedgehog * ½ / *****

Directed by: Jeff Fowler.

Written by: Patrick Casey & Josh Miller based on characters created by Yuji Naka & Naoto Ohshima & Hirokazu Yasuhara

Starring: Ben Schwartz (Sonic the Hedgehog), Jim Carrey (Dr. Ivo Robotnik), James Marsden (Tom Wachowski), Tika Sumpter (Maddie Wachowski), Natasha Rothwell (Rachel), Adam Pally (Billy Robb), Lee Majdoub (Agent Stone), Neal McDonough (Major Bennington), Tom Butler (Vice Chairman Walters), Frank C. Turner (Crazy Carl), Melody Nosipho Niemann (Jojo).

 

I really, truly try not to grow overly cynical about children’s entertainment these days, even as I know that most of it is about brand extension, and marketing opportunities, and synergies, etc. – and less about creating quality entertainment for children. It’s always been this way to a certain extent, and certainly most children don’t seem to realize it when they watch the movies aimed at them (given how nostalgic so many adults are for the marketing exercises disguised as movies from their youth are, many adults don’t realize – or more likely don’t care – either). And then something like Sonic the Hedgehog comes along, and to be honest, at least temporarily destroys what little faith I have that the filmmakers and studios have any real artistic goals in mind when they make these films. This takes crass marketing to a new level.

 

Sonic is, of course, the titular Hedgehog, who began his existence as in a Sega Genesis game – the game that came with the system when you purchased it in the 1990s – and their attempt to have a success like Nintendo had with the Super Mario Brothers. Since then, he has inspired more games, at least one animated TV show, and a lot of merchandise. Like Alvin the Chipmunks, this movie is a live action/animated hybrid meant to cash in on that nostalgia factor for parents of my generation who grew up with Sonic, who will take their kids, who may or may not him, to the movies because we have affinity for the brand – or at the very least, recognize the name.

 

I could go into the plot of the movie – but what really would be the point? It’s basically a chase film where Sonic, an alien hiding out on earth, has to go on the run (in a car, even though Sonic is the fastest being in existence) with a small town cop (James Marsden) to get away from the smartest man in the world (Jim Carrey) who, of course, just wants to use Sonic for his powers.

 

The cast is full of talented people. Ben Schwartz does the voice of Sonic, and brings the right manic energy to the role. Marsden is an actor I have always liked – especially when he’s being goofy and funny, and am disappointed that Hollywood seemingly doesn’t know what to do with him. Tika Sumpter, who plays Marsden’s wife, is a talented actress. As for Carrey, I’ve admired his willingness to try different things in recent years, to not fall back on his manic ways – which he excels at – over and over again. Here, I guess, the paycheque was too big to pass up – because it’s the schitickest performance of Carrey’s in years.

 

Will kids like the film? Well, mine did – they don’t seem to notice all the crass cynicism behind the marketing, the product placement just this side of Wayne’s World, and the lazy execution of just about everything in the film. They respond to the manic energy on display throughout the film – the juvenile jokes, and the fast moving action sequences. Kids are, well, they’re dumb when it comes to this sort of thing – they’ll eat this up, enjoy it, and forget about it until Sonic 2 comes out – and it will come out, considering what this film made in its opening weekend, and the final scene of the film that sets up a sequel.

 

But shouldn’t we, as parents, demand more for our kids? We should, shouldn’t we? Perhaps we shouldn’t go to films like this when we know they’re nothing but cynical marketing ploys, dreamed up by executives, not by filmmakers, and who have such lazy execution. We don’t though – and I’m as guilty as anyone. We feed our kids junk, which perpetuates the cycle. Most times, it doesn’t bother me. I ate up a lot of junk as a kid, and like most, I outgrew it eventually – demanded more from my entertainment. And it is a pivotal moment in a kid’s life when they first realize that what they are watching is crap. I just wish my kids would get there a little bit faster.

Movie Revies: Birds of Prey (and the Fantbulous Emanicipation of One Harley Quinn)

Birds of Prey: (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) **** / *****

Directed by: Cathy Yan.

Written by: Christina Hodson.

Starring: Margot Robbie (Harley Quinn), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Helena Bertinelli / Huntress), Jurnee Smollett-Bell (Dinah Lance / Black Canary), Rosie Perez (Renee Montoya), Ella Jay Basco (Cassandra Cain), Ewan McGregor (Black Mask), Chris Messina (Victor Zsasz), Ali Wong (Ellen Yee).

 

To say that the DCU got off to a rough start would be an understatement. They made the mistake of following Christopher Nolan’s lead after his Dark Knight trilogy in one film after another, which ended up becoming an increasingly grim slog in films like Man of Steel, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, Justice League and Suicide Squad. The Nolan Batman films worked, in large part, because Batman can be dark, and the villains were chosen wisely, and there was a thematic through line that took everything seriously. It didn’t really work with Superman – Batman’s polar opposite – and once you started to add in more fantastical elements, there was a clash between how goofy much of it was, and how seriously they took it all. This has started to turn around though – with Wonder Woman, which was fittingly inspiring and Aquaman and Shazam, which both, in different ways, embraced the inherent goofiness of their heroes. And now we get Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn), which may or may not be the best DCU movie so far, but is certainly the one I had the most fun watching.

 

2016’s Suicide Squad was probably the nadir of the DCU so far – and had they just left it dead and buried, and never brought it up again, you would have understood why. Instead, they decided to head back in, and salvage the one element of that film that worked – Margot Robbie’s delightful sociopath Harley Quinn, best known as the Joker’s girlfriend, and freeing her of Joker (who we’ve seen far too much of recently) – and just letting her freak flag fly. Robbie has increasingly shown just how great – and how versatile – an actress she can be, and here, she carries the film on her back in a performance that may remind you of Ryan Reynolds quipping his way through two Deadpool movies, but somehow, also grounded in some real (if larger than life) emotions. Robbie is given the chance to go all out here, and it’s a delightfully demented performance. The first act is all her, starting with a wonderful animated sequence, and going through some very strange chases and fights, which Robbie handles with ease. It’s a great performance.

 

The film does slow down a little in act two, when the film really introduces the plot, and the other Birds of Prey. The bad guy is Black Mask (Ewan McGregor), the black sheep of a wealthy family, who wants to run Gotham’s criminal underworld, with the help of his psychopathic assistant Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina). The two are obviously telegraphed to be lovers as well – but I’m not giving any credit here unless a studio actually goes all in, and doesn’t simply imply people are gay anymore. Long story short, he wants a diamond, a young pickpocket, Cassandra Cain (Ella Jay Basco) has the diamond – and swallowed it – and is now with Harley, who needs the diamond to save her life. Eventually, we’ll also meet three other badass women – Dinah Lance (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), McGregor’s driver, but who has a conscience, Helena Bertinelli (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), who has spent her life wanting vengeance, and Renee Montoya (Rosie Perez), an honest cop, getting fed up with the system. If you’ve seen the preview, you know they’ll team up – but the movie spends a long time (too long, really) setting them up as individual characters, before getting to the cartoon violence of the finale.

 

The film was directed by Cathy Yan – doing her first big movie like this – and showing just how good she is at it. At its best, the film moves at a breakneck pace, and while it shoots out in all different directions, mirroring the way Harley goes through life, so the chaos is organized. The action sequences are over the top and goofy, even as they get incredibly violent. In short, they’re a blast.

 

It’s disappointing that Birds of Prey didn’t make more money it’s opening weekend – and confusing as well. Are men and teenage boys – let’s be honest, the target market for superhero movies – really this opposed to female superheroes, that they won’t show up to watch Margot Robbie and other beautiful women kicking ass in a profane, violent fun ride of a film. Sucks to be them I guess – because for me, this film was a blast.

Movie Review: The Rhythm Section

The Rhythm Section ** ½ / *****

Directed by: Reed Morano.

Written by: Mark Burnell based on his book.

Starring: Blake Lively (Stephanie Patrick), Jude Law (B), Sterling K. Brown (Mark Serra), Daniel Mays (Dean West), Max Casella (Leon Giler), Raza Jaffrey (Proctor), Richard Brake (Lehmans), Geoff Bell (Green), Jade Anouka (Laura Fuller), Jack McEvoy (Conor), Ivana Basic (Oksana), David Duggan (David Patrick), Nasser Memarzia (Suleman Kaif), Tawfeek Barhom (Reza), Ibrahim Renno (Vincent), Amira Ghazalla (Alia Kaif), Degnan Geraghty (Punter), Elly Curtis (Sarah Patrick), Hugh Scully (Lyle), Maceo Oliver (Jimmy), Shane Whisker (Christopher Patrick), Nuala Kelly (Joan).

 

I’m not sure Blake Lively quite gets enough credit for becoming a really interesting actress over the last few years. She anchored what could have been just another silly shark movie - The Shallows – turning it into a ridiculously entertaining silly shark movie, and delivered a hell of a movie star performance in the candy colored noir/comedy A Simple Favor. Even during the Gossip Girl years, she was trying to do interesting work in movies alongside that – The Private Lives of Pippa Lee, The Town, Savages, etc. She has now become a reliably interesting screen presence – taking on some challenging roles. And she does all she can with The Rhythm Section – a sort of thriller, sort of action movie, sort of character study, that tries to cover too much ground in 100 minutes, and ends up not doing it particularly well. The film is from the producers of the James Bond movies – and you can almost feel as if they are responding to the controversy where some want a female James Bond – and others just want a female action hero as badass as James Bond, and they are trying to force this square peg into a round hole to fill it. This is a globetrotting action movie, and one with interesting ideas, and some interesting visuals, that just doesn’t lead anywhere.

 

Perhaps the problem is that the screenplay was written by Mark Burnell, adapting his own novel – the first book in a series about Stephanie Patrick. In a way, the film is an origin story – one that has to both establish who Stephanie Patrick is, and tell an interesting story at the same time – and the screenplay is never able to do both – as both character development and plot seem rushed through. Authors, sometimes, cannot let go of what was in the novel – but sometimes you have to, to streamline for the screen.

 

When we meet Stephanie (Lively), it is a few years after her family – father, mother, sister – were killed in a terrorist attack when the plane they were on – and she was supposed to be on – is blown up. She has not responded well – becoming a drug addict and prostitute in London, numbing the pain of that loss (perhaps it’s just me, but I would have liked more backstory here – if all the surviving members of your family die like that, and they seem like an upper middle class family at minimum, she probably should have more than enough money to not have to resort to prostitution so quickly – and also, I always think it’s a little cheap that when men in movies lose their families and become addicts, we just see them wallowing in cheap bars, and women immediately become prostitutes). She is approached by a reporter who says he knows who is responsible for the bombing. This leads to a bizarre series of plot points that eventually hooks Stephanie up with B (Jude Law), a former MI6 officer, who takes Stephanie under his wing as the two retreat to his remote cabin in the woods for months, where he trains her to become an assassin. And then, the second half of the movie, is her tracking down those people responsible – with the help of a former CIA Officer (Sterling K. Brown) and getting her revenge.

 

The film is at its best during the action sequences. Directed by cinematographer turned director Reed Morano, she stages the action sequences in interesting way. Stephanie’s first job as it were, a fight in an apartment with a man who is seemingly incapacitated, is brutal and messy – the real world coming out here in a way, because of course training is different than actually doing it, and this is her first time killing. It is immediately followed by the best sequence in the film – a wonderfully staged car chase, shot in seemingly one take, inside the car as Lively tries to get away. Morano, best known for a couple of indie films and some episodes of The Handmaid’s Tale, proves to be an adept action director.

 

The plotting of the film though doesn’t really work. There are too many jumps in time and logic to really get invested in anything. We aren’t introduced to the people Stephanie is going to be assigned to kill until right before – and we never really know what they did, or how they all connect. You get a feeling immediately that Sterling K. Brown is going to end up being more important than they try to make him out to be – because if not, why the hell are you casting Sterling K. Brown? Jude Law is basically just playing the same character he did in Captain Marvel – except this time, you never believe he could possibly be good.

 

I do like Lively here though. There’s enough in her performance that is interesting – enough to make me interested in her as an action star, perhaps even this action star. Perhaps a TV show would have been better here – so we didn’t have to rush through character development that needed time, and a plot that also needed it. Here, we rush through everything, and basically get nowhere.

Movie Review: Bad Boys for Life

Bad Boys for Life *** / *****

Directed by: Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah.

Written by: Chris Bremner and Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan based on characters created by George Gallo.

Starring: Will Smith (Detective Mike Lowrey), Martin Lawrence (Detective Marcus Burnett), Paola Nuñez (Rita), Vanessa Hudgens (Kelly), Alexander Ludwig (Dorn), Joe Pantoliano (Captain Howard), Kate del Castillo (Isabel Aretas), Charles Melton (Rafe), Jacob Scipio (Armando Armas), Bianca Bethune (Megan Burnett), Nicky Jam (Zway-Lo), Happy Anderson (Jenkins), DJ Haled (Manny).

 

Bad Boys for Life has all the earmarks of quick, cynical cash grab for all involved. It resurrects an old franchise – whose first two installments were 25 and 17 years ago, it’s two stars not quite the draws they used to be. It has a January release date, where studios often dump their problem children. And not even the series’ original director – Michael Bay – is back, in anything other than a cameo – and this is the man who made five Transformers films, and whose latest outing was a barely discussed Netflix original. And yet while Bad Boys for Life isn’t exactly a great movie – it’s fun. For two hours, it is an action comedy that works – gliding on the natural charm of its two leads, and some well-directed action sequences. The film delivers what January movies are supposed to – but so rarely do – cheap, disposable fun, to give you a break after the very long, serious Oscar movies have mostly come and gone.

 

Much of the reason why the film works is because of Martin Lawrence and Will Smith. There is a reason they both became stars, and there is a reason why the first two movies made enough money that they felt the need to do it again. They have an easy chemistry together, needling each other with jokes and quips, but really at the heart sharing a deep love for one another. Quite simply put, when these two are onscreen together, playing these characters, it just works. I particularly liked Lawrence here – freed of vanity and not having an action movie star image to protect, sinking easily into his aging character, who just wants to sit at home and relax, and be Pop Pop to his new granddaughter. Smith still wants those action star roles, so he takes a more active, violent role – but he still allows some jokes thrown out at his expense due to age. These are two performers who know what they do well – and do it well here.

 

The screenplay kind of plays like the writers read the screenplay for Smith’s last movie, Gemini Man, and added in more humor to the situation. There are motorcycle chases, like the last one, and the main antagonist – Armando Armas (Jacob Scipio) – well, maybe I shouldn’t say since that ventures into spoiler territory. Armando is in Miami at the behest of his mother Isabel (Kate del Castillo), who just pulled off a daring prison escape in the film’s opening scenes. She wants Armando to kill everyone involved in killing her husband, his father – saving Smith’s Lowrey for last – although he doesn’t listen to that piece of advice, but apparently he is nice enough to wait six months for Lowrey to recover for his first attempt on his life. Scipio isn’t given much to do except for glower menacingly – which he does well enough – and drop some hints that will pay off in the last act. Kate del Castillo is so much fun as Isabel – who refers to herself as a witch – I wish they gave her more to do as well. The screenplay brings back Joe Pantoliano as the boys exasperated Captain, and he does his Joe Pantoliano thing very well. It also brings in a new, younger team of cops – led by Paola Nunez, and featuring among other Vanessa Hudgens, who use new-fangled technology to get the job done. Thankfully, there’s only a few scenes of Smith getting cranky with wanting to do things the old school way.

 

The film was directed by Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah, who undeniably come from the Michael Bay school of filmmaking – lots of whip pans, and rapid editing. The difference is that they do it quite well – kind of how Bay used to, before he fell down this recent rabbit hole where his goal is seemingly to make every film he makes as visually incoherent as possible. The action sequences work – they are fun in that goofy sort of way, with lots of chases and explosions and collateral damage, that they at least acknowledge this time. And as in Bad Boys II, they do essentially invade another country for the big climax.

 

I’m not saying Bad Boys for Life is a great movie – not even a particularly good movie. I’m saying that it’s a fun one – a movie with no pretentions, no larger point to make, that just wants to blow stuff up and crack jokes for two hours. It is what it is.

Movie Review: Jumanji: The Next Level

Jumanji: The Next Level *** / *****

Directed by: Jake Kasdan.

Written by: Jake Kasdan and Jeff Pinkner & Scott Rosenberg based on the book by Chris Van Allsburg.

Starring: Dwayne Johnson (Bravestone), Jack Black (Dr. Sheldon “Shelly” Oberon), Kevin Hart (Mouse Finbar), Karen Gillan (Ruby Roundhouse), Awkafina (Ming), Danny DeVito (Eddie), Danny Glover (Milo), Nick Jonas (Alex), Alex Wolff (Young Spencer), Morgan Turner (Young Martha), Madison Iseman (Young Bethany), Ser’Darius Blain (Young Fridge), Colin Hanks (Young Alex), Rory McCann (Jurgen the Brutal), Rhys Darby (Nigel).

 

The two new Jumanji films from the last couple of years are basically inoffensive fun – action comedies for the whole family, that you can go in and enjoy. It has also been an actors showcase for the four stars – who of course, are not playing themselves, but playing teenagers in adult bodies. The first movie had the biggest action star in the world Dwayne Johnson having to embody a nervous, un-athletic teenage boy, who has to take some time to get used to the power his new body affords him. It has Karen Gillan play an insecure teenage girl, uncomfortable in her own body, now having to play a knockout in not very much clothing, and having to get comfortable there as well. Jack Black was basically playing a bubbly teenage cheerleader. Kevin Hart probably had to stretch himself the least – while the teenager in his body was a hulking football player, frustrated to be in a small body, it still required him to basically me a motor mouthed comic relief.

 

In the new film, appropriately subtitled The Next Level, the filmmakers push this even further. There was only gender swapped character in the first film, and for the most part, people didn’t cross racial lines either. This time though, everything is swapped all over the place – and most of the actors playing the video game avatars have to inhabit two different characters throughout the course of the movie. I don’t think the movie does all that much with all this gender and racial swapping – but its interesting just the same that they are doing it.

 

I won’t bore you with how the characters get sucked back into the video game Jumanji – it’s the least interesting aspect of the film. But basically, Spencer (Alex Wolff) heads back in first – and his friends follow to try and rescue him. When they get there though, there are some surprises. Fridge, who was Kevin Hart last time, is now Jack Black. Martha is still is Karen Gillian’s body. Bethany is nowhere to be seen – and it’s a while before they find Spencer. But they are joined by two new characters – Spencer’s grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) and his former best friend and partner Milo (Danny Glover) have been sucked in as well – and DeVito is no Dwayne Johnson, and Glover is Kevin Hart. Eventually another new avatar – played by Awkafina – will join them.

 

What follows is more of the same. The Next Level is bigger than the first film, the missions are harder. And the actors are clearly having more fun. Johnson seems to be loving playing Danny DeVito – a man who all of sudden feels good, for the first time in a long time – no aches and pain, and more power than ever. Kevin Hart slows his delivery way down to be more like Danny Glover, and is hilarious. Jack Black has some fun too – without pushing things too far. Gillian probably has the most thankless role – she doesn’t get to stretch, and has to be the voice of reason. Newcomer Awkafina is a delight – especially in her second incarnation.

 

The film moves quickly, with a lot of humor, and a lot of action adventure style action sequences that are a lot of fun – a herd of ostriches, a pack of monkeys, a climax involving the new villain appropriately named Jurgen the Brutal. The movie is light and quick, funny and entertaining from beginning to end. They could push deeper I presume if they wanted to, but they want to keep it that light – and keep having making them. In the audience, I had fun watching it. I’ll likely forget it all by the time the third film comes out – but these films deliver exactly what they plan on – and just a little bit more.

Movie Review: 6 Underground

6 Underground * ½ / *****

Directed by: Michael Bay.

Written by: Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick.

Starring: Ryan Reynolds (One), Mélanie Laurent (Two), Manuel Garcia-Rulfo (Three), Ben Hardy (Four), Adria Arjona (Five), Dave Franco (Six), Corey Hawkins (Seven), Lior Raz (Rovach Alimov), Payman Maadi (Murat Alimov), Yuri Kolokolnikov (Baasha Zia), Kim Kold (Daqeeq).

 

Michael Bay is a talented director. Even at his absolute worst – and he has made films I have called the worst of their respective years – he usually has a moment or two that makes your jaw drop. He can do things that few other directors can do – and even if he is one of the main reasons why we have shaky camera, rapid fire editing dominating so many action movies now (and I hate that) – he manages to do it better than most, at least most of the time. And I can always tell a Bay film from one of his imitators. This may be controversial – but I do consider him to be an auteur, although I should point out I have never really viewed that term as a qualitative term – there are people who are undeniably auteurs, who I downright loath. Bay is not one of them. I really do go into each one of his films hoping I will see something as good as The Rock, as bonkers as Bad Boys II, or just as out and out entertaining as Pain & Gain. Most of the time, I am left disappointed. And with 6 Underground, I was very, very disappointed.

 

I can bet that writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick and Bay pitched the film as Fast & Furious meets Mission Impossible – because that is clearly what they’re going for here. The film stars Ryan Reynolds as One – a mysterious tech billionaire, who has faked his death, and started a covert team dedicated to making the world a better place by blowing shit up, and killing a lot of people. Two is Melanie Laurent, a badass, former CIA Agent, Three is Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, a wise-cracking hitman, Four is Ben Hardy, who is a parkour expert, Five is Adria Arjona, who I believe is a doctor, but doesn’t do much. Six is Dave Franco, the getaway driver, and Seven is Corey Hawkins, a sniper with PTSD – and yes, there is a reason why the movie is called 6 Underground, and not 7 Underground. Their mission, which they choose to except, is to overthrown the brutal dictator of the fictional Middle Eastern country of Turgistan, and install his democracy loving brother in his place.

 

Bay’s approach to Middle Eastern politics is about as blunt as hammer to the face. If you are like me, you will likely be unsettled – even offended – at scenes of the dictator gassing his own people, shot in the style of every other Michael Bay action sequence in the film. There are more of course, but Bay has essentially made an action film about Syria – and that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It would be more offensive if he, or anyone involved, seemed to take it at all seriously. But he doesn’t – it’s just another excuse to kill a lot of people.

 

And that is what happens in the film. Reynolds wisecracks his way through his lead role – probably induced by the same writers as Deadpool to take the roll, but here it all rings so hollow, so false. Really, out of all the seven people on the crew, only the great Melanie Laurent comes out unscathed – I wouldn’t say she is brilliant, but she at least seems to be playing a character, and understands who she is. The rest of them just feel like pawns for Bay to move around and shoot people before things go boom.

 

Because that is, after all, why Bay made this film. From its 20-minute opening car chase, to the climax is which I would say dozens, if not hundreds, are killed Bay doesn’t take his foot off the gas pedal for a second. It’s one, loud, thudding, incoherent action sequence after another for more than two hours. Even when the screenplay slows down for a minute – to give everyone a chance to breath – Bay doesn’t as he shoots dialogue scenes with the same incoherent flash as everything else.

 

This sort of unrelenting approach can work – just look at the brilliant Uncut Gems in theaters now, which pulls this off brilliantly – but it’s got to be anchored in something, you have to care about something, or be involved in the film in some way. That’s impossible here. It’s all just one loud bang after another, after another. I really, truly do hope that Michael Bay makes another great film at some point. I also really, truly do hope that the franchise this movie is clearly meant to start never happens.

Movie Review: Charlie's Angels

Charlie's Angels *** / *****

Directed by: Elizabeth Banks.

Written by: Elizabeth Banks and Carlo Bernard and Semi Chellas and Craig Mazin and Doug Miro and Jay Basu and Evan Spiliotopoulos and David Auburn based on characters created by Ivan Goff and Ben Roberts.

Starring: Kristen Stewart (Sabina Wilson), Naomi Scott (Elena Houghlin), Ella Balinska (Jane Kano), Elizabeth Banks (Bosley), Patrick Stewart (Bosley), Djimon Hounsou (Edgar Bosley), Sam Claflin (Alexander Brock), Jonathan Tucker (Hodak), Nat Faxon (Peter Fleming), Chris Pang (Jonny Smith), Luis Gerardo Méndez (The Saint), Noah Centineo (Langston). 

 

I’m really starting to wonder if there is anything that Kristen Stewart cannot do. She held together the awful Twilight franchise, and since then has mainly done daring indies with a variety of great directors like Olivier Assayas. She has the kind of screen presence that you cannot teach – and has been one of the most consistently great actresses of her generation for a while now. Now, in a reboot of Charlie’s Angels of all things, Stewart delivers the kind of delightful, somewhat demented movie star turn that you didn’t quite know she had in her. It’s a funny, eccentric, genuinely weird performance – and it completely works in the center of this would-be franchise starter that won’t (it made no money opening weekend – which is a pity). The rest of co-star/co-writer/director Elizabeth Banks’ reboot is fun as well. It’s not deep in anyway, the plot is completely meaningless and instantly forgettable, and you will likely forget anything in the movie that isn’t Stewart – but as the movie plays, it’s a lot of silly fun – a corrective to the jiggle fest TV show and the male gaze of McG that had defined the franchise up until now.

 

In the film, Stewart is Sabina – an heiress turned criminal turned Angel, who is teamed up with former MI:6 agent Jane (Ella Balinska) to help tech genius Elena (Naomi Scott), who has created some sort of MacGuffin that can revolutionize energy, but could also be used to kill people without a trace. Her boss has it now, and she needs to get it back and fix it – but now there is an assassin on their tail, and they have to hop all over Europe to try and track it down, and there are a lot of people named Bosley (mainly, Banks herself) and the trio of women fight, quip and occasionally dance their way through everything, and look amazing while doing it – the clothing budget on this film must have been through the roof.

 

As a filmmaker, Banks doesn’t really try and reinvent anything here – but she certainly shifts the perspective of the gaze involved. There is no leering here, and while all three women (to say nothing of Banks herself) are of course gorgeous, and look amazing at every stage of the movie – it’s not the kind of thing that makes you feel guilty or sleazy for looking. It is about their own empowerment – or about playing men for the idiots we so clearly often are. It’s a nice change of pace.

 

The film moves along at a brisk pace – and for the most part is fun. I’m not sure I could tell you what the thingamajig at the center of the movie actually was supposed to do, but I don’t think anyone else could either – it was designed to fit in a suitcase for plot purposes, and it works. The performances, aside from Stewart, are all quite good in their own way. Scott, one of my favorite things in the otherwise poor Aladdin remake this year, makes a nice every woman – the woman who goes to work every day, and has to deal with the causal misogyny from everyone from her boss to the security guard, and do it with a smile. Ella Balinska as Jane is probably best when she is kicking ass – which she does well.

 

In short, Charlie’s Angels is goofy fun – and that is all it aspires to be. It doesn’t reinvent anything, but it does change things enough to make it somewhat refreshing. And every time Stewart is onscreen, you are seeing a truly bizarrely great performance in a movie that mostly plays it safe.

Movie Review: Terminator: Dark Fate

Terminator: Dark Fate ** ½ / *****

Directed by: Tim Miller.

Written by: David S. Goyer & Justin Rhodes and Billy Ray and James Cameron & Charles H. Eglee & Josh Friedman based on characters created by James Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd.

Starring: Linda Hamilton (Sarah Connor), Arnold Schwarzenegger (T-800/Carl), Mackenzie Davis (Grace), Natalia Reyes (Dani Ramos), Gabriel Luna (Gabriel/REV-9), Diego Boneta (Diego Ramos), Tom Hopper (Hadrell), Steven Cree (Rigby), Stephanie Gil (Young Grace), Edward Furlong (John Connor),

 

I don’t like to tell filmmakers what they should do – not that they’d listen anyway -because I want great filmmakers to make whatever movies they want to make. When it comes to James Cameron however, I have to say that I’m more than a little sad that one of the best directors of large scale Hollywood blockbusters has basically decided not to make much anymore. He’s only directed one film since his Oscar winning Titanic (1997) – and although we keep hearing about new Avatar films, who knows when they will come out. Cameron is, I know, a divisive figure – but he really does do these types of massive blockbusters better than almost anyone – in particular when he doesn’t write them. But there has not been a film in his career since The Terminator (1984) that isn’t great, or doesn’t at least have major technological advances (perhaps both). I would love to see him direct more – and show others how it is done.

 

I thought about all of this while watching Terminator: Dark Fate – which apparently is Cameron’s return to the franchise he started, in part because there was little else to think about in the movie. Is it an improvement over the last two installments in the franchise – 2009’s Terminator: Salvation and 2015’s Terminator: Genisys? Yes, but that’s not much of an accomplishment now is it. But the film isn’t even half as good as 2003’s unjustly maligned Terminator: Rise of the Machine – let alone the first two films in the series, legitimate masterworks both. Yes, it’s nice to see Linda Hamilton back in the role that she made her own – and realizing perhaps that she is the real anchor of those first two films, not Arnold – but it’s disappointing how little they give Hamilton to do. They would have been better to follow the lead of Halloween (2018) – which made the film all about Jamie Lee Curtis’ Laurie, and the PTSD she has lived with for 40 years. There are nods to that in Terminator: Dark Fate – but it gets quickly shunted aside. This is a film that seemingly wanted to take the lead of Terminator 2 – and essentially be a chase sequence stretched to feature length – but forgot to make us care about anything in the film for that to work.

 

In this new film, we once again get two people from the future war sent back to protect a woman that will be vital to the revolution in the future. That woman is Dani Ramos (Natalia Reyes) – a Mexican woman, working in a car plant. Her protector is Grace (Mackenzie Davis) – who is human, but a human that has been “upgraded” into a hybrid of person and machine. The Terminator sent back is a REV-9 – who takes the name Gabriel (Gabriel Luna) most of the time, and is basically an even badder ass, more unstoppable version of Robert Patrick’s T-1000. And Arnold is back again as well – having succeeded in his mission, he has “retired” and has been living as drape installer named Carl for decades – raising a family (not his own). But he has a debt to pay, so he’ll pay. And Sarah Connor (Hamilton) shows up as well – wanted to protect Dani, the new her.

 

The film is essentially one big chase sequence, with stops along the way for the heroes to try and fight off the REV-9, which they don’t think they can kill, but they just try and get through (why doesn’t either side ever send more than one back? The bad guys send five REV-9’s back, the movie’s over in 10 minutes). Perhaps in Cameron’s hands, the film would work. He’s clearly a director who knows how to do action sequences better than anyone, and suspect they he wouldn’t have done with Tim Miller does here – which is to speed everything up to make it seem more exciting, when really, it’s just a distraction more than anything. I won’t even mention the fact that while Cameron can clearly lay it on too thick in terms of sentimentality at times – he would have made you care about Sarah Connor, Dani, Grace, and yes, even Carl. Here, you don’t care about any of them.

 

It’s sad to see the Terminator franchise go out like this. Those first two films are legitimately great, and yes, I’ll say it again, I quite like Rise of the Machines – an unapologetically bleak blockbuster if ever there was one. But it’s clear now that the people in charge don’t understand what made the films work – or perhaps they don’t care, and are just trying to make money. But audiences are staying away now – which is sad. The Terminator films should be the type of blockbusters we need – not generic, by the number superhero films, but films with a real point-of-view, and something to say. But they haven’t been that in a long time now. Hopefully, they’ll just let the franchise die now.

The Films of Bong Joon-ho: Snowpiercer (2013)

Snowpiercer (2013) 

Directed by: Joon-ho Bong.

Written by: Joon-ho Bong and Kelly Masterson based on the book by Jacques Lob & Benjamin Legrand and Jean-Marc Rochette.

Starring: Chris Evans (Curtis), Kang-ho Song (Namgoong Minsoo), Ed Harris (Wilford), John Hurt (Gilliam), Tilda Swinton (Mason), Jamie Bell (Edgar), Octavia Spencer (Tanya), Ewen Bremner (Andrew), Ko Asung (Yona), Alison Pill (Teacher), Luke Pasqualino (Grey), Vlad Ivanov (Franco the Elder), Adnan Haskovic (Franco the Younger), Emma Levie (Claude), Steve Park (Fuyu), Marcanthonee Reis (Tim), Paul Lazar (Paul), Tómas Lemarquis (Egg-Head), Robert Russell (Gerald), Magda Weigertová (Doris), Ana Braun (Ylfa), Tyler John Williams (Young Wilford), Luna Sophia Bar-Cohen (Magdalena), Sean Connor Renwick (Sergio), Karel Veselý (Andy), Sung-taek Park (Chan). 

 

Watching Snowpiercer for the first time since seeing it in theaters back in 2013, I was once again struck by just how magnificently directed this film is. After perhaps too talky a first act – too much setup – the film is basically one thrilling set piece after another – one achievement in art direction, cinematography and action choreography after another, all handled brilliantly. And then the ending comes, and I cannot help but feel let down – because this movie that seems that perhaps its pushing for something wholly unique, ends up just not quite being able to get there. It’s still a thrilling achievement – an example of how to do a large scale, international co-production, action blockbuster, and how to do it well. I just wish the film had pushed itself a little harder in the end.

 

The basic premise of Snowpiercer is simple (which is why the setup goes on too long) – 17-years ago, humanity messed everything up, and basically created a new ice age. The only people who were able to survive are the ones who were able to board a massive train, designed by Wilford (Ed Harris), which has been in constant motion, circumnavigating the globe at the rate of one time per year ever since. The people at the front of the train were the rich and powerful – and they continue to live in luxury. The people at the back of the train were poor, and continue to be just cogs in the machine – used for manual, dirty labor, and subsisting on black gelatin rectangles of “protein bars”. Then the front people come and take two children from the back – for some undisclosed purpose – and those at the back have finally had enough. Led by Curtis (Chris Evans) they stage an uprising, and start to take back the train one car at a time.

 

The train itself really is a stunning feat of production design – several in fact, because each and every car is completely different than the one that came before it, and often they are stunning to look at (my favorite is probably the fish car – but there are many to choose from). The cinematography by Kyung-pyo Hong is also quite stunning – the color palette changes as they make their way through the cars, and the action camera work is brilliant – as Bong and company let most of the scenes play out in longer takes, so you get a sense of what is happening. All of this is set to the pulsating score of Marco Beltrami – which keeps the movie humming along.

 

In an action movie like this, character development is often sacrificed – and for the most part, that happens here as well. Evans is playing the square jawed hero he already was in Captain America, and he does that very well. The film tries to give him a tragic backstory – and a monologue to tell said backstory – buts it a little too on the nose. The film does reunite father and daughter from The Hose with Kang-ho Song and Ko Asung, playing again, father and daughter – and it works, although I’m not quite sure I buy the various reveals throughout the movie about them that the film tries to spring. The best of the major performances in by Tilda Swinton as the representative from the front who has to deal with the revolution in the back – and is eventually taken hostage. It’s one of those demented Swinton performances, where a lesser actress would simple rely on the heavy makeup (brilliantly done) – but which Swinton takes, and runs with it in bizarre, memorable ways. Out of all the smaller performance, Allison Pill’s one scene wonder as a very chipper teacher is brilliant.

 

Watching it this second time though, I was struck by the fact that no matter how brilliantly made Snowpiercer is – and it is on every level – it just isn’t as interesting on a narrative or character level – or even a thematic one. It’s a rather typical dystopian future narrative, right down to the final reveals. Yes, everything works – the film moves rather quickly for an action movie that runs over two-hours (although, it is a movie that could probably stand to lose 20 minutes or so). This time through though, I wanted more depth to go along with the spectacle – which still delivers. – and shows what a brilliant director Bong is. I just wanted a little bit more from the film.

Movie Review: Gemini Man

Gemini Man ** ½ / *****

Directed by: Ang Lee.

Written by: David Benioff and Billy Ray and Darren Lemke.

Starring: Will Smith (Henry Brogan / Junior), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Danny Zakarweski), Clive Owen (Clay Verris), Benedict Wong (Baron), Douglas Hodge (Jack Willis), Ralph Brown (Del Patterson), Linda Emond (Janet Lassiter).

 

Ang Lee certainly isn’t the first great director to fall down a technological rabbit hole and not be able to find his way out. Robert Zemeckis spent well over a decade doing those animated films – which I liked for the most part, but he seemed convinced they were the future until they weren’t. James Cameron has become so obsessed with the different technologies, that we’ve only gotten two films from him in the last 20 years – a sad thing from one of the great action directors of his generation. Ang Lee is the one that confuses me the most however. Sure, he’s worked with special effects on and off since Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon nearly 20 years ago – but I wouldn’t have guess that the director of Sense and Sensibility, The Ice Storm, Brokeback Mountain and Lust, Caution would become so obsessed with frame rates and 3-D that it would become the entire reason for his output. Apparently it started because he was frustrated with what he could and couldn’t do working on the Oscar winning Life of Pi – and he wanted more control – hence the experimenting with frame rates that has led to Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk and now Gemini Man. The 120 frames per second is way more than the regular 24 frames of regular film – and allows more information into the frame – and more control of it. It also makes, it must be said, everything look kind of strange. On one level I get it – Lee was a late convert to digital in the first place, but his basic point was a solid one – digital is a different format than film, so why spend all your time trying to make it look like film rather than exploring what it can be. And it is wholly possibly that at some point we’ll look back at these films as groundbreaking – experiments along the way towards something truly new and revolutionary. I just kind of wish Ang Lee would let someone else do the experimenting – and he went back to just making films.

 

If Lee learned something from Billy Lynn’s failure it may well have been he shouldn’t have tried to make a drama – anything with much emotional heft or dramatic moments, but just go straight ahead action movie. Gemini Man is that – an action thriller about a long time government hit man, Henry Brogan (Will Smith) who stumbles upon the information that the last hit he did before retirement wasn’t exactly above board – and so his former bosses come looking for him. Henry, of course, is the greatest soldier America has ever produced though – and he won’t so easily be killed. He ends up on the run with Danny Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and agent first assigned to watch him (he figures out the ruse, quickly, of course) and eventually his old army buddy Baron (Benedict Wong). Henry’s old bosses, Clay Verris (Clive Owen) meanwhile tries to get permission to unless Gemini on Henry.

 

For a movie that has given away its premise in every preview – and hell, every poster – that the man sent to kill Henry is really his clone – Junior – 25 years younger, played by Smith again with digital de-aging effects – it takes a shocking long time (nearly half the two-hour runtime) to get there in the film. Until then, we do get some action sequences of course – but we also get a lot of tin eared dialogue – delivered by Smith in his “very serious” mode (not the lifeless very serious mode of After Earth – but certainly lacking the charm that made Smith one of the biggest stars in the world). Winstead does what she can – she at least doesn’t seem to be taking anything very seriously, while Owen seems to spend the movie wishing he had a mustache to twirl.

 

I will say this – the de-aged Smith looks good – perhaps not quite “we shot these scenes in the movie 25 years ago Boyhood style and have just been waiting for everyone to age” – but good enough. The problem may be that I’m not quite sure Smith pulls off the performance of the younger version of himself – I think he leans into the naiveté too much, and constantly looks too astonished, and on then on the verge of tears. But hey it works.

 

Shocking, what doesn’t work as much for me is the action scenes themselves – especially everything involving Junior. I’m not quite sure what they did to them, but everything moves too fast – in particular, Junior himself, who almost looks like what they make the Flash or Quiksilver look like in action sequences, and something feels off about them. If you cannot enjoy a scene of a young Will Smith launching a motorcycle at an older Will Smith because something about the picture seems off, you’ve messed up.

 

I guess this is the point to point out that I didn’t see Gemini Man in the format Ang Lee intended – I would have to travel a good 45 minutes each way to find a theater playing Gemini Man in 3-D in the frame rate, so I just saw it at the multiplex five minutes from my house. Watching it projected in regular 2-D digital, you can definitely tell that something is different about this film. Visually, the film can be distracting – even without the super speed action sequences of Junior. But that’s not always a bad thing. There are shots and moments here that don’t quite look like anything else I’ve seen. When I watched Billy Lynn – in IMAX 3-D as Lee intended (I think there were like three of us in the audience) – that film really did look like watching a film with motion smoothing on like a high definition TV – which some critics have complained about this film looking as well. There are moments of that here as well – but they are few and far between. Perhaps projecting it in a format other than intended actually improved the look of this film.

 

There is probably a future for this type of filmmaking – as more and more filmmakers come on board, and experiment. Apparently Cameron is using the same format for the Avatar sequels. And every new technology has their early struggles before the concept is proven, and it starts looking better and better. We probably need to go through those experiments. I just wish it wasn’t Ang Lee doing the experimenting. There are lots of filmmakers who do the experimenting (Michael Bay for example) – but there’s only one Ang Lee – and we haven’t really seen him in a while.

Movie Review: Rambo: Last Blood

Rambo: Last Blood * ½ / *****

Directed by: Adrian Grunberg.

Written by: Matthew Cirulnick and Sylvester Stallone based on characters created by David Morrell.

Starring: Sylvester Stallone (Rambo), Paz Vega (Carmen Delgado), Yvette Monreal (Gabrielle), Óscar Jaenada (Victor Martinez), Adriana Barraza (Maria Beltran), Sergio Peris-Mencheta (Hugo Martínez), Fenessa Pineda (Jezel), Marco de la O (Miguel).

 

They really should have left John Rambo alone after his last outing – 2008’s Rambo, which was the best film in the series next only to the original First Blood, and ended on kind of a perfect note. After perhaps the bloodiest shootout in the entire series – truly, it was Stallone (the director) trying to outdo The Wild Bunch - he didn’t succeed, but you have to give him credit for the sustained chaos he created, and because it lasted so long you were forced to deal with the violence in the way you normally don’t in these films – the film ended with Rambo returning home to the farm he left all those years ago – looking finally for some piece. 2008’s Rambo really was Stallone’s version of Eastwood’s Unforgiven – although, of course, because Stallone isn’t the artist Eastwood was, it played as a cartoon version of Eastwood masterpiece – but I gave Stallone credit for trying, and that film really does work – and is perhaps even underrated.

 

Now, 11 years later, we get Rambo: Last Blood (although, as the ending makes clear, perhaps Last doesn’t really mean last) – which is Rambo for the Trump era – in that it paints a portrait of Mexico that Trump would love, and ends with an extended sequence that is basically an ultra-violent Home Alone, in which Rambo kills perhaps dozens of Mexicans. I’m sure Stallone and company would argue that the film isn’t racist – that he has “good” Mexicans in the film as well – like the journalist played by Paz Vega (who I would point doesn’t actually do anything in the film) or Rambo’s beloved niece Gabrielle (Yvette Monreal) and her grandmother Maria (Adriana Barraza). But it’s hard to deny that the film is basically Stallone killing a lot of Mexicans criminals in grisly, gruesome fashion.  (Not to get sidetracked here, but I would love someone to explain this whole niece thing – as the film never does. If she is an actual niece, that would mean that she is the daughter of Rambo’s sister – who is dead – as we see Gabrielle’s no-good father in the film. But if that’s the case, then that would mean that the father is the son of Maria, who makes no reference to him being her son, and really, deeply, truly despises him. If she’s not an actual niece, then you would think that would be addressed in some way – and yet, it isn’t really. End rant).

 

The niece Gabrielle really is a poorly thought out, written and performed character. Her basic job in the film is to be the portrait of beauty and innocence, only so we can watch as she is defiled and debased for the majority of the runtime, to give Rambo the excuse he needs to kill everyone he clearly wants to kill. It’s horribly uncomfortable to watch her scenes in the film – as she really is a complete innocent – impossibly naïve about the real world for a teenager in 2019, and she suffers constantly despite the fact that her only sin is going to Mexico.

 

Basically what happens is that Gabrielle wants to find the father that abandoned her years ago, and hears from a friend in Mexico where he is now living. Against the wishes of Rambo and her grandmother, she goes anyway – and with the assistance of her “friend” is basically sold into sex slavery. Rambo gallantly tries to save her – but is too late. So, he decides to get his revenge – first by going back to Mexico, then luring the rest of the gang to his Arizona farm, where he has constructed a series of insane tunnels underground, that he’ll booby-trap to kill all these evil, evil men.

 

Rambo: Last Blood would be more offensive if it weren’t such a cartoon. This film clearly hasn’t been thought through very much, and was made quickly and cheaply by director Adrian Grunberg – who, it must be said, is able to keep the pace of the movie up, and able to disguise what was perhaps limited budget in the kills that are mainly in the dark. It’s not a movie where people have put a lot of thought into anything like plot or characters. Everything is just an excuse to let Stallone kill a lot of people.

 

What’s disappointing about the film is that Stallone seems to think this is a proper send off for his second most famous character. It has always struck me as odd that the good first film – about a Vietnam vet with PTSD who has not been able to fit in at home, and becomes a killer when pushed too far, essentially became a series in which Rambo was a superhero in the second and third installments (the latter of which is a film remember that Stallone helps what would become the Taliban). You would think that at Stallone’s age – and given what the two Creed films have done for his most famous creation – that Stallone may have wanted to do something similar with Rambo. To bring him into the real world, or at least treat the character with respect. Instead, Rambo: Last Blood plays like a cheapie exploitation film – the type of film a movie star makes when they have tax trouble (I haven’t heard that about Stallone). It’s impossible to really accuse Stallone of selling out (if he did that, it was decades ago) – but you would think he would have more respect for Rambo’s legacy then he clearly does.