Change Your Image
nvjs
Reviews
xXx (2002)
The "XXX" is actually a disclaimer
I didn't expect too much from Cohen since he's a schlock meister like Emmerich, and Bay. But he give us Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, and not much worth mentioning. The premise is so ludicrous, if stuntmen can take on terrorists, then why are the terrorists so problematic instead of inept? Diesel makes a wooden performance not only stiff, but obnoxious. Like we're supposed to laugh at his "funny" & "glib" remarks. The whole movie fails on every level. It's not funny, too predictable, far fetched, it doesn't have revolutionary effects or give us anything we haven't seen before. Like Diesel says in the diner: "Their performances were terrible." Talk about breaking the fourth wall.
Fast Five (2011)
The stars are NOT the cars in this one.
So when this entry skips the cars for the sake of an ensemble cast/heist movie, it does detract from the experience. There was only the opening and climax with any noteworthy driving sequences! No street races for titles or anything like that. Okay, then there's that whole eclectic ensemble of F&F stars who come together as a motley crew of thieving bastards. But now, the gang fancy themselves as neo-Robin Hoods. Whereas before, they were out for theirs. They still are, but now they need a contrast to frame themselves in a better light. Finally, the "climax" ? I don't think two Chargers, even with two 6.1 Hemis and even a 7.17:1 axle ratio, could heft a vault with the ease they expect us to believe. All in all ? The worst F&F entry in the series. Especially considering the cast and what Lin had to work with.
Something else, why did Diesel skip starring in the second and third ? Did his "career" not blossom as expected ? Is he trying to reignite that fire that did wonders for him 12 years ago with the original ? I'm inclined to believe so. Watch this film at your dismay. If you're expecting a lot of action around cars ?, be ready for sorrow. I'll 2nd the motion for a do-over.
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)
Smith is in way outta his depth with this one
Obviously, this "movie" is was targeting Smith's "useful idiot/fans" who care only about stringing together vulgarities with schoolyard efficiency. Now, I understand that with Smith, few "actors" can hardly be expected to "act." Essentially, I think it was probably more fun making this crap, than actually acting. There is no story, nothing in the way of narrative, and no character arcs in the classic sense. You'll get Smith performing fellatio to his god, George Lucas. And unclever, odiously contrived pothead homages. It all gets so dull, and bland so quick. While Jay and Silent Bob may be Smith's Beavis and Butt-Head, or Cheech and Chong, they are hardly worth devoting an entire picture to. Personally, I feel Smith decided to fill his coffers, but didn't want to actually do real work, since that undertaking of Dogma. What has always been Smith's niche, was florid, albeit very coarse dialog. It sometimes seemed insightful, or poignant. None of that here, skip this crap and stay "above the influence".
Tank (1984)
GROSSLY politically incorrect, but PG film!
While that is unheard of today, back in the 80's it wasn't so. Movies and popular culture didn't have that PC dogma. While this movie is...a jingoistic ballad for the Reagan era. Tank does have a great antagonist. Even the 80's produced despicable villains who you enjoyed hating. Not one of these overly polite "villains" who kill you with kindness and have the consideration of today's good guys. Garner and Spradlin are not at fault here. Garner's Master Sergeant Carey, and Spradlin's Cyrus Buelton actually gave performances above their salary. Not Oscar worthy, but that's not this kind of material and I think they saw that going in. It's everyone else who just delivers these perky and wooden performances that probably reflect their enthusiasm. Or salary. The "plot" begins with M.Sgt. Carey visiting a bar and chatting it up with a prostitute. Well, Carey's not a local and is unaware of local politics. When the deputy abuses a local pro (who lives in a cliché'd trailer), Carey chivalrously doles out repercussions to him. Well, the next morning, the big hoss sees that he's been dis-respected. Since Euclid has his face marked up, metaphorically, the Sheriff's "face is marked up." Well, that just encourages degenerates to start sassing their hoss.Apparently, Buelton fancies himself a surrogate father who views his subjects as belligerents. And enjoys that. Buelton runs his district like Caligula, Tiberius, Nero, and a 4 foot Napoleon combined! Well, things escalate as Buelton's petty ego demands extortion, and retribution. I love how Buelton; being a Sheriff, doesn't know much about law except what he chooses to know and enforce. Buelton has Carey's son, Billy framed to get to Carey and shows Carey who's the "massa" at a inmate labor farm. In a not-so-veiled threat to inspire compliance from Carey. Well, Carey's wife complicates matters by hiring a lawyer who is promptly incarcerated and Buelton provoked into upping the ante to show Carey he means business. While this story seems far fetched, it's supposed to be based on an incident with Patton. I couldn't see execs green-lighting a project like this today on this scale. But if you like these far fetched 80's films. I recommend writers take note of how a villain is should be portrayed. Tank did succeed in making Buelton so ruthlessly sadistic, that you yearned for Buelton to get his come-uppance. But that's all it succeeded in doing it. The result is far less gratifying. Short story long:What the movie's morality is saying; is that when you play by the rules, and the law doesn't, you have carte blanche to see that you get the justice you deserve. As long as you have ten grand, a wife of suspiciously infinite kindness, and a Sherman Tank at Fort Benning. This is sadistic film-making at it's best.
RoboCop (1987)
A FILM in the sci-fi genre. Not a "movie"...
Despite all the setbacks in production of this film. Note that RoboCop is a film. Not a movie. The wonderful narrative of RoboCop is that despite being an armored-clad cop, Murphy is portrayed as vulnerable. That is unfortunate in movies today. Too often, many a protagonist faces off with a half-assed antagonist and barely breaks a sweat en route. What RoboCop is up against is simply politics. Awesomely portrayed as a neo-Roman Empire with unlimited and ruthless conglomerate. This is not too far-fetched as one would think with the "Great Recession" in vogue. The conflict is that RoboCop is built by an ambitious exec who has a rivalry with the VP of the same conglomerate. While this may seem like a permeation of Mad Men, it's manifested in the plausible future where the municipalities of Detroit are literally bankrupt. The VP brokers a deal with Boddicker the prominent crime czar who parallels dick Jones VP in the conglomerate, only difference is that Boddicker is not employed by any official entity. Boddicker is a VILLAIN. He has no delusions or justification of what he does. He does it gleefully and makes no apologies afterward. Producers take note of this antagonist. I get so tired of all these civilized Blofeld types who "kill you with kindness". Boddicker is a villain you enjoy hating. That provokes emotions which...well, the film has done it's job! There is violence, but for today's standards, is pretty tame. It's not the gory kind, rather the kind that shows violence without implying. Just straight to the carnage. The film is really grounded in the way it portrays the future. No flying vehicles, time travel, or teleportation here. Just a raw gritty dystopia in the context of a political thriller dabbled with a satirical throwback to the yester-years of Reagan-ism. Truly, a sci-fi entry in the annals of the genre. I'll just say this much: RoboCop is not a "movie", it is a film in the boneyard of ghastly crap. Audaciously calling itself "sci-fi". Total Rekall, Blade Runner, Aliens, and 2001 are all films. Not "movies".
2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
Superficial at best
What disturbed me about this movie, was that Singleton helmed it! The director of "Boyz n the Hood", and "Higher Learning". Well, those clearly were films with some talent in characters. But this one ? I know that this movie was produced clearly without much if any attention to acting. Remar, I hold accountable especially. With 24 years in the biz ? His "acting" hasn't gotten any better. Stiff, emotion-less, and autonomous. Either Singleton was too pre-occupied with aesthetics, or was too polite to ask for any emotions. Did Singleton just skip rehearsals and print the first and only takes ? I don't know, but I guess mediocre acting in a action film is too much to ask for. The villain was over-hyped to be so formidable. He was far from that. I find it hard to buy that stock. He doesn't have scores of henchmen or indulges in wanton, sadistic, violence arbitrarily. So aside from any acting, if you're a motorhead like me, the cars are the only characters who give any semblance of talent.
Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)
Too much of an effort
I saw this "flick" and what I took away from it was that Rodriguez overdid the story. It's as though Rodriguez was trying to give the finale an epic scope. Well, that works, but not with something that follows Desperado. There were just too many characters that detracted from the protagonist. It was unnecessary to have that many players to convey the exposition. The plot get's confusing with all the characters working against or for the others. The action is nothing innovative, but done in such a way to add some humor. Banderas probably got a good deal signing on; considering he probably was the first actor signed on for the lead. But consequentially, was no more than a supporting actor rather than the lead. All for the sake of redundant characters to establish their M.O. during the course of the flick. So while this isn't a bad flick, it's just an overly ambitious one. If this weren't the finale in a run-of-the-mill actioneer, it probably would've made a good political thriller/ neo-noir film.
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)
Worst in the hexology
While the actors in this "movie" give un-noteworthy performance, sans Sung Kang, the rest of them only "succeed" at delivering lines. They do not emote or act engaging with one another. Were they interacting with blue/green screens ? I'm inclined to believe so. Black's "drawl" sounds like he tried his version instead of a dialect coach's. Or that's how he believes all ruralites speak. The "story" is neither plot or character driven, Tee is far from intimidating with his soft Jack Palance/ Steven Seagal emulation. Unless he was inspired from Mike Tyson for his role. Neela's Australian accent is inconsistent, and Lin seemed more tuned into action and cinematography. Another thing was why Han died, and as a consequence; Lin had to plug the inconsistencies with the sequels. Han has mentioned in 4 and 5 about Tokyo. Obviously, no foresight into what's entailed if you're trying to explain why a character croaked in three more movies. Furthermore,where this one had no trace of story, the next two tried to substantiate that. Which doesn't hold water. Also, if Sean commits a petty offense in Tokyo, how could that possibly incriminate him in the U.S.? Does jurisdiction exist in this universe ? How can high schoolers afford such high end cars ? Are they all in collusion with the Yakuza ? I'll tell you something else: If you sacrilegiously stab a import motor into a classic domestic, you'll go to hell where Hitler is admiring Ford.
Fast & Furious (2009)
Great. For auto enthusiasts mainly.
OK, clearly FF was clearly aimed at exploiting fellow gearheads like myself. But while appeasing us, it's also not excluding non-enthusiasts. For the "jargon" of shop talk, those who are not in the know, it may sound Greek. What I didn't like about the film; was the formulaic clichés of countless antagonists.The "sudden twist" ? Been there, done it. Paul Walker seems content with his flying off the handle shtick and while that suits Running Scared, it seems as though he doesn't pull anything else off. Don't get me started on Diesel though! This movie, did the genre of car related themes, pretty good. For instance: Han. Did Lin not consider the ramifications of killing him in the third film ? That feels like he was back-tracking to make it work.
The story is supplemental in a effort to actually...well have a story! For, a car themed movie, It probably seems unnecessary, excessive, or outlandish. What this movie has going for it is plenty of hotties, coveted cars, and eye candy stunts. I will say this much: in contrast to Gone in 60 Seconds, F&F is Hemingway. Gone in...dumped plot in lieu of action. Bruckheimer's trademark. Just don't view F&F hoping for intellectual stimulation. If you want to see bad ass cars, this IMHO, is the best of the quadrilogy. That's my un-wanted $0.02. Ultimately, I think the franchise's attempt to add a cohesive, integral plot has yet to be pulled off. Maybe, it's better off sticking to car chases and a lot less...ambition in story.
Soldier (1998)
Meandering "story", but loyal to clichés!
What Anderson managed to achieve on this film was probably pay his bills. Now, before we go on blaming any directors for the final cut, bear in mind that studios have the final word in all aspects to their "investment". However, I don't believe Russell was desperate enough to sign on an other "by the numbers" production. Be that as it may, Soldier has nothing going for it. A "sidequel" to Blade Runner ? I do not see ANY consistencies between the two besides the scribe; David Webb Peoples. He also scribed Unforgiven. Ironically,that's the impression I have for Anderson on this film. We get a automaton, unemotional Soldier who is obsolete and is out-casted then finds himself in situations unimaginable. Well, you could do a lot with that and make it work. But Anderson feels that it makes for a kick-ass reason to jack up a body-count. The survivors seem to exist as a catalyst for unfortunate events and thereby give a man who knows nothing about being a person. But everything about being the alpha soldier. Anyway, I do see a lot of effort from an action perspective, but not as much as on a narrative one. I don't understand why Anderson feels action will make the movie over plot ? Is it a stretch ? For Anderson ? Yes! While I do like the final fight, that is not enough to substantiate a good movie. As I said, the survivors act as a catalyst to ramp up the "I must avenge..." cliché/turning point body-count. What works on paper and in Anderson's head, may not work on a film. Apparently, Anderson is trying to pigeonhole himself with mindless actioneers with that other no talent, hack; Michael Bay. What's worse, is that Anderson usually writes his own material and that they keep selling. Thus, his motivation for stronger stories is lacking. Russell knew quick $ when he sees it. All he did was deliver a mute and stoic soldier. But there was no humanity to him. So introverted and invulnerable except for his "arc" where he weeps alligator tears for banishment. I have a feeling, that Russell had a guilty feeling regarding his participation and had foresight to see that this wasn't going to work.
Vampires (1998)
What happened John ?!
Seriously, what happened to Carpenter ? This guy has done for Horror/Sci-Fi, what Michael Mann has done to bio-pics/crime dramas. The Thing, They Live!, Christine, Escape From New York, Halloween, The Fog, Prince of Darkness, Big Trouble...And he delivers another flop! Now, he has the trilogy of flops; L.A.,Vampires, and Ghosts of Mars. I hate to admit it, but Carpenter will; he apparently disdains the new wave of CGI. Well, Carpenter. I don't see much CGI in Vampires. Bad story, character development, and Woods attempting to roll clever quips out his lithping mouf. Woods only has two modes here; internalizing anger, and external anger. Oh, but he has a mean albeit playful streaks with his clergymen. Valek looks like the make-up artist's first attempt at composing anything. White powder and black garb.C'mon Carp, you gave us Mike Myers and Trouser "Snake" Plissken ! Maybe some CGI to accentuate Valek would've certainly helped. Hell, he's a vamp. Make him specterlike or ethereal to sell it. So Woods's "team" are elite enough to kill vamps ? But are totally incompetent when attacked un-expectedly ? Also, how does one decapitate scores in a motel without even a person getting wise ? When Woods isn't lithping infantile profanity, he's unhinged. So aside from all that, this is a...Carpenter movie. Just not THE John Carpenter we all know.
Constantine (2005)
If Hell has cars...
If Hell has cars, then I'd hate to be there to see what's occupying the hot country. Probably '77-'78 Mustang II's, Pontiac Azteks, and newer Fords. Let's clear this once and for all: Reeves is NOT an actor. He's a celebrity. Besides Bill and Ted, I thought he was offensively appalling. If you've seen Point Break, you can observe that Reeves was still nursing that Valley boy drawl. If he's such an actor, why can't he play anyone besides an apathetic savior in The Matrix or pompous Jonathan Harker in Dracula ? I hear Reeves is a perfectionist and pretty unforgiving of his "performances". Well did Lawrence bother to screen the dailies of Constantine in front of him to rectify that ? Or is Lawrence fond of printing EVERY take ? Reeves doesn't convey the range of emotions like his peers. The same stoic, introverted character who guzzles whiskey and chain-smokes. It seems Reeves had struggled to eek out a comic character who's pretty self-destructive. The movie doesn't fail completely, it's just the weight of it, is on Reeves who's grossly miscast. The frivolous responses just seem to evade any semblance of capability. There's no over-acting here. That would impugn Reeves knows how to act. Otherwise, he just seems to go through the motions and gave Lawrence a plethora of apathetic takes where he just doesn't cut it. Did the requisites for the role say: "No enthusiasm needed" ? I deduce...Yes. I mean Reeves can probably relate on some level and click with Constantine's moral constituition if not his over-indulgent tendencies. It's not like asking him to portray Vo Nguyen Giap. Reeves has no range. I don't mean he has unlimited range. I mean no diversity. Stormare and Swinton had fun and it shows. Cam't say that for Reeves. Unless he wasn't in character the whole shoot.
Platoon (1986)
The "logic" behind Taylor and Elias
My beef, with this movie is that though it's set in the Vietnam War in '67-68; it doesn't quite jive as an drama with action picture. It seems as though Stone felt obligated to have firefights since NOT having any would be detrimental for audiences and undermine the chaos of war by portraying it as "uneventful". Or, he didn't want to "glorify" any war. The battles seem too meandering. No real outcome is implied or alluded to. Furthermore, Sheen's acting while not underacting, certainly is overdone. Specifically when he snaps in the ville at suspected VC. Alligator tears and wrought brows were probably not character requisites, but Stone's "method directing". If you watch the special features, you'll learn of Stone's madness to "inspire" great acting. The final thing that bothered me, was how Elias and Taylor rationalize. "We're gonna lose this war. We've been kicking other peoples' asses for so long, it's time we got ours kicked." So that's what America failed to see in that quagmire ? "The truth's in the eyes! When you know, you know!" So a gut instinct is substantial enough to warrant a summary execution ? This is ethically flawed judgment at it's worst and apparently, Stone's best. Or, a reflection of Stone's own rationale ?
Miami Vice (2006)
Strong intentioned story, but...
What I found was lacking in "Miami Vice"; was how Nicholas, Eddie Marsan's character alluded that "...they're A.U.C...a player negotiates too hard and you never hear from them again. 'Cuz these guys kill everything!" Well, on the contrary, the Colombians and their "pecker-wood proxies" came off as pretty civil. I didn't see them as intimidating as Nicholas described, or as the great Michael Mann intended. In fact, besides their lackluster delivery of "killing everything" which was no fault of their own, it was probably an oversight Mann compromised on. Either that, or he wanted Crockett and Tubbs to appear as uber efficient with dialogue comparative to a sixth-grader who'd ascertained how to roll "tough" vernacular from just watching all of Mann's movies. I've always felt that way with Mann's dialogue. He may be great at story, but tremendously lacking in that vector.
In fact, I perceive Crockett and Tubbs to come off as primadonna, jock-ish, bullies and their inadequate foes of the month as weaklings. That's my two cents on it anyway. I've read, that Jamie Foxx went all celebrity post-"Ray" with his Oscar and tried to throw that heavy-weight around. Even forcing Mann to re-write the ending since Foxx absconded from the Dominican Republic after *gasp* "hearing gunshots erupt"! Afterall, in the extras on "Collateral", Foxx boasted on how he was from the "ghetto". Well, if the "ghetto" meant Carmel, Malibu, or Beverly Hills...so perhaps that compromised the end result which we are watching ?
Blade II (2002)
The best of the trilogy
Let me start by saying this is by far the best in the franchise. Goyer makes a better writer and producer than a director calling the shots. Pun intended. What lacked in the first one, was a worthy foe to match Blade's force of nature and efficient dispatcher. Dorff just seemed like a trashy-chic vampire who spouts cliché'd one-liners in between over-acted fits of spontaneous, narcissistic rage.
This one has Nomak who isn't a villain for story sake. He's a tormented, estranged hybrid of a crack-head and vampire. He's an experiment of his father, Damaskinos's.A baddie by circumstance.
While the story is good enough here, I feel that a lot of little things add up to detract from the Blade series. First is the set design. Clearly this is where del Toro either skimped, or overlooked. The sets look so bland while the characters obviously were where the money was spent. Next, the Reapers look a little "barebones" and "neatly un-imaginative". del Toro spent too much into their anatomy and not enough anywhere else.
Third is the color palette. del Toro is such a renowned film maker and for good reason. His films look so rich and evoke emotion. The "blue days and amber nights" just don't pull it off. Look at "Hellboy" 1 & 2! Nobody and I mean nobody, does the amber filter like del Toro. It's so over used and now it's old hat. Nobody uses the color palette/filter as a tool for storytelling. Instead they "utilize" it strictly for aesthetics.
As I've said, "Blade II" is still entertaining, just that all of these flaws detract from the perfection it could have easily attained.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
The franchise comes full circle
For those seeking more mayhem of Batman, be patient with TDKR, since Wayne has been in exile from authorities for obvious reasons. We find he's been out of "uniform" for some years and is now dependent on a cane to hobble about. But this film has more in common with Begins since it is coming back to 359 degrees. While Wayne has gotten older, he hasn't lost his abilities or his deductive prowess.
I'm gonna skip the synopsis since it's been explained profusely. While the plot line has NOT really changed from the previous ones, it's just as they say: "same book, different chapter".
But since Ledger gave us the iconic Joker, it really left big shoes to fill. I don't quite think Bane is fair to compare to Joker since they are quite different, the grandiose story does the narrative justice. It does come close to being too contrived, but if it weren't, it'd be a simple linear, no frills, run-of-the-mill plot.
What I noticed was the themes from the graphic novels like "The Dark Knight Returns", "No Man's Land", and the "Knightfall" books. Also, don't expect the gadgets to be so prominent here. This one goes for raw, visceral action. Even a Batman in daylight! If you pay close attention, you can pick up the subtle and not so subtle shout-outs to the Dark Knight universe.
A robust, and satiating finale to a venerable character and trilogy.
Spawn (1997)
2nd worst comic book adaptation
The only reason I'm not giving this waste of celluloid a single point is because it is not the worst comic book adaptation. I think that goes got Captain America. Not Joe Johnston's, but Albert Pyun's in 1990.
Anyway, this crap is what happens when you get someone like Dippe who came in off Jurassic Park and T2... For CGI. Needless to say, Sheen was seemingly hired to have an A-list name attached. Jai White is at his worst with his best Shatner impersonation, he comes off as surprised he even got the role and it appears that he was picked because he wasn't asking much for a salary. Actually, with his portrayal, he should have done a respectable thing and returned some of it.
The "movie" depends too heavily on the outdated CGI and the production design than the actors and story. Then there's Leguizamo who seems so insecure that Dippe told him he was "doing good. Keep that momentum. I see Oscars!" And Leguizamo seems so gullible to believe he was actually stealing the show. There isn't really a show to steal. McFarlane should've exercised his clout to veto some of the director's choices like Jai White, single takes, and dependence on CGI which has not stood the test of time. I'm willing to bet, Dippe did a lot of the CGI himself to save money and that's why it looks so crappy.
Man on Fire (2004)
Tony Scott's best flick since True Romance
This film works so well, partly due to the fact it's based on a true story, is a revenge flick but has a soul to it without being a vehicle to justify copious and profusely bleeding baddies for Denzel.
The story takes a while to get going, but once it does, it doesn't really let up. Denzel is Creasey, a mysterious and stoic former soldier now turned soldier of fortune/ bodyguard with a strong predilection for booze. Walken is now trying to shake the creepy villain role with him as Creasey's war buddy who does private security "ferrying workers" across the Rio Grande from El Paso to Mexico to work. He takes on a job merely to ingratiate himself to Rayburn, Walken's character.
Then the daughter, Pita takes a fondness to Creasey much to his chagrin as he's not particularly social or fond of anything besides Jack Daniels. What works is the reticent chemistry between Pita and Creasey who later comes to reciprocate his fondness of Pita's charm. Much like Mathilda and Leon in The Professional. Sans the sexual innuendo and alcohol.
The narrative actually has a poignancy as it begins with Creasey's self-destruction, and becomes a love story and eventually descends into the dark recesses of a revenge flick. Scott actually let the story breathe and didn't try to cut corners for the sake of action. Actually, he did the story justice by exploring the relationship of Pita and Creasey, thereby giving the viewer a place as the 3rd person among Pita and Creasey.
All of this culminates in a dark juxtaposition to the jovial friendship as Creasey goes to seeking trouble in the form of revenge, and finds Pita's abductors.
This is evidence that Scott is capable like his brother Ridley to tell a story that does not necessitate blowing things up when he works with Bruckheimer.
Maybe Scott had something to say or prove to his critics . Because he followed this up with...Domino? A movie made just to justify his "exorcising his rock and roll demons" in the same aesthetic he uses in Man on Fire. More kinectic and saturated shots combined with rapid fire editing and under/overexposed frames.
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (2001)
Contrived yet Convoluted
In my opinion, MGS 2 is the least playable of the series. It's overly convoluted plot is so complicated with it's twists and turns and barrel rolls, you have to wonder how much Ritalin Kojima was taking in addition to the prescribed dosage.
Just when you start to think that you've got a clue as to what's going on, a wrench is thrown into the gears of the narrative. But even to decipher the saga as a series since it's now beyond a quintology, is definitely a feat Kojima himself was quoted as saying he doesn't even understand it.
What really ruined the game to me, was how Kojima went with an emasculated hero strictly to accommodate female gamers. What was so brilliant about the first one, MGS is that it had a rough and tumble hero, a nice ensemble of villains this side of Batman's rogues gallery, and an innovative game design which made Tenchu, and Splinter Cell possible. The villains, by no means realistic, were plausible.
This time, we've got Dead Cell. A name that works to well as a metaphor compared to Foxhound, The Cobra Unit, or Beauties and Beasts. Vamp, Fortune, Fatman ? These guys don't hold a candle to any of the other motley crews.
On the plus side, we do get a 128 bit graphics, longer gameplay, and the best antagonist face-off in the series in the form of Solidus Snake.
Conan the Barbarian (2011)
Nispel CAN'T do Action, the least difficult genre!
I thought Pathfinder was mediocre at best, and considering it was Nispel's first attempt at the action genre, that his skills at the least difficult genre had nowhere to go but get better. Nah uh! Not here. He just can't do the genre or this venerable cult film any justice. There was little homage to the original. The narrative and story weren't engaging. The reason I say that is because Ahnuld, Milius, and Stone actually delivered a rags-to-riches story that Stone had previously done. You may have heard about it.
It starred Pacino, Pfeiffer, Loggia and Bauer. Scarface. Nispel didn't give Lang much if any weight as a villain that Jones did with his silent charisma that was eerie in his silent moments. You don't have much empathy for the new Conan since he only does rage and cockiness. There isn't much for Ron Perlman to do either, since he's just wasted as a village elder and Conan's father.Nispel doesn't invest anytime with character development so you don't have an emotional investment to care about any of the characters. Even though the village was alive for a brief moment, you felt Conan's sudden loss and desolation. He grew through the course of a movie to be come a reaver, bandit, warrior as Robert E.Howard wrote him.
But here, Nispel just decided to fore go the saga and just went (yawn) with your popcorn flick that ran under 120 minutes. Never do you feel that Conan was against the wall, outnumbered or even threatened. Actually, I felt more sympathy for Lang's hammy villain since he actually made an endearing effort to do the cliché'd villain's ultimate goal.
Conan came off as a high school football jock against the brainiest nerd's fellow minded legion. Rotten through and through. I don't understand why Nispel can't pull off the actioneer ? This is where most aspiring film-makers start. So if you're reading this Marcus Nispel, You seem to do horror remakes... "well", why deviate ? You don't win Oscars doing this crap.
Rambo (2008)
Back to the roots of the franchise
I wondered why, after directing four Rocky films and Staying Alive, did Stallone not grace any of the Rambo sequels with his directorial expertise. With each Rambo after First Blood, the series grew farther and farther away from what made the first one such a stellar success. It was plausible. Well plausible in comparison to the 2nd and 3rd ones anyway.
What's brilliant about Rambo, is that it gives Stallone a vehicle while also bringing attention to the human rights violations genocide being perpetrated by the Burmese military under government orders if not wanton and blatant condonment
After a little hiatus from big productions sans Rocky Balboa, Stallone still has something to prove despite his over-the-hill age clocking in at 62 years "young" to Stallone. This installment brings back the modest production and plot with a budget of about 50 million when action films today cost about 65+ million depending on release date and cast. But Stallone did away with the over-inflated, and grandiose production with a no frills follow-up. This time Rambo is back in Thailand snatching up constrictors and venomous cobras for the local tourist spot and traversing up and down the river to get said snakes. It's when a condescending missionary who's portrayed by Paul Schulze, comes to Rambo after doing some footwork to get upriver into Burma or Myanmar as it's named, that Rambo curtly refuses. Citing their naivete and the danger as well as what appears to the missionaries, as him being apathetic. Well, the missionaries don't have any other option and need Rambo's boat to get upriver and Sarah, played by Julie Benz. The fiancée of Michael, Paul Schulzes's character, tries her hand and desperation to get that ride. After three tries, Sarah succeeds and then the convoy is held up by pirates. And Rambo is forced after trying to peacefully negotiate an amiable agreement, and much to the humane Michaels's dismay, kills the pirates to save their own lives. This is what helps the audience realize that Rambo is not just a bloodthirsty killing machine and has found some solace in himself while simultaneously maintaining a misanthropic disposition. It's good storytelling that Rambo wasn't so quick to kill. Opting to settle things peacefully rather than the Rambo way.
Another thing Rambo does well, is take some of the limelight off of himself and let's the mercenaries charged with rescuing the captive missionaries. Stallone didn't just bogart the camera and let all the supporting actors die just to show you Rambo is a superman. Contrary to the perception established by the 2nd and 3rd films.
Another example of the modest production, is the absence of the trademarked Mi-24 Hind-Ds that were in the 2nd and 3rd or any helicopters for that fact. There isn't any tank battles or Rambo dispatching a battalion from a tree armed with just his compound bow and a quiver of arrows. Also, the baddie in this film is someone you truly hate and want to see him get his come uppance, that is what's lacking in a lot of actioneers these days.
This film is indeed gory, but it serves it well since the atrocities committed by the Burmese military junta are quite graphic. To depict it lightly would be downplaying the plight suffered by the Karen. It also serves the underdogs as you see justice dealt out properly:Like a dish, best served cold. The inclusion of the mercenaries makes the story a little more grounded since they are a small elite contingent who accompanied by a one man army, could probably tackle their foes. But the casualties would be almost 100%.
Hopefully, the fifth installment will capitalize on the dynamics and "realism" re-set by Rambo. I'm also glad we didn't see Rambo remove his shirt this time. Something that probably would have been done by another director and made the film just another action vehicle.
Jonah Hex (2010)
The result of a conflicted production
Jonah Hex had the capacity of a great comic based film. A fairly good cast with Brolin, Malkovich, Fassbender, and Arnett in a less sleazier or sycophantic role. But conflicts during production resulted in a half-baked movie and a new director during post-production. The acting was clearly mostly left up to the actors since Hayward was a a greenhorn to live-action. The performances aren't what hurt the movie so much as it's condensed story with a running time of just 81 minutes ! It's obvious that the substitute director decided to discard most of the movie since not a lot of movies have such an abbreviated run time.
The movie leaves you wondering what happened with the 3rd act since it just ends without warning. Malkovich is okay with the acting but with what he has to work with, he makes it less campy than a lesser actor. Brolin gives a performance he takes seriously almost in a one man effort to salvage the film by giving the critics one good reason not to pan the film.
The CGI doesn't look up to snuff, rather it looks like that was where the studio skimped. With Neveldine/Taylor on writing duties, it's a bit much to ask of them to script anything without going too screwball, like the Crank films. Or flat out bad like Gamer. Did Warner Bros., not grasp the fact that all good comic films clock in at 120+ minutes ? Or did they just get cold feet about green-lighting and did a half-assed effort at truncating what could have been a worthy DC feature since Green Lantern and Superman Returns were just so...lackluster without the concerted effort of delivering a film with the story, engaging plot and characters worth watching, like 65 % of Marvel's or even WB own Dark Knight franchise ?
From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
Horrible blandpire flick
With names on this "movie" that have then newcomers Tarantino and Rodriguez on them, you'd probably expect something half-way decent. If you have an discerning taste in quality films, you'll quickly realize that this "movie" is probably one that when mentioned to Clooney, Tarantino, or Rodriguez, will probably get you those contemptuous stares of "you're just being an a$$hole". But in my opinion, it isn't trash talking if it's true. This venture starts out with Tarantino and Clooney as brothers who're hiding out from the law. In particular a bigoted sheriff played by veteran actor, Michael Parks, who's in a liquor store shooting the breeze with a backwood, desert rat named Benny about what nosey, small hicktown, busybodys talk about. Then the sheriff does his job of exposition on two a-hole brothers who're in the middle of a robbing/murder spree which started in Kansas after Tarantino's character busted Clooney's character out of a corrections facility. Now if the "movie" had taken a more serious tone from the beginning, in true Tarantino and Rodriguez fashion, it might have actually been good. Where I think it all goes bad is when the two plus Harvey Keitel's character and his adopted Chinese son and daughter take temporary refuge in Mexico at a dive against their will. Since the family are captives hijacked for their "self-contained" R.V. by the brothers.
What follows is mess of cliché'd special effects and fairly cheap make-up effects and gratuitous violence preceded by oodles of topless women who are *gasp* blandpires.This "movie" is just gory for gore's sake. To compensate for a lack of story, imagination, and for Tarantino a lack of clever dialogue. The only redeeming virtue in the entire movie is Salma Hayek's exotic/erotic dancing with a yellow boa constrictor for good exotic measure. This is the only semblance of class or sophistication in the entire "movie" since she remains clothed in a luscious, velvet bikini.
Then the festivities end when the blandpires show their true colors by slaughtering en masse a whole barroom of patrons. It is as dumb as it sounds. This "movie" makes no contribution to the blandpire sub-genre. Interview with the Vampire and Bram Stoker's Dracula brought back the romanticized and urbane blandpire established by Stoker and Lugosi, Blade Agave gave blandpires a more realistic and scientific weight to their folklorish nomenclature of sunlight, garlic, silver and so on. Then 30 Days of Night stripped all that away and made blandpires nothing more than savage parasites truly to be feared.
All From Dusk til Dawn manages is...uh...well you got gratuitous profanity by a master dialogue scribe and equally copious amounts of gore. What is kind of funny about it, is that all of the "actors" behave as though this isn't the first, second, or even tenth time they went to a dive and encountered this sort of a debacle! And to think this is what Clooney gave up E.R. for. But it get's worse, he followed this up with that dreadful Batman and Robin and all it's ingloriousness and homo-eroticism. But hey, not every movie can have the same pedigree of Heat, Braveheart, or Citizen Kane. It's because of crap like this that you truly appreciate when a good movie graces our televisions.
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
Vastly superior to the previous 3
Raimi tried and failed, to depict Spider-Man as a neo-Hamlet with the love triangles, deceit, betrayals, and revenge. He likened Shakespeare to...Spider-Man ? I don't like Raimi's theme of "Love story with some comic book action" It should be the other way around.
Then there was Maguire who didn't resemble anything like Peter Parker. He was just a caricature of nerds abroad. Andrew Garfield looked and sold the part as a more grounded, sarcastic, and presumptuous Spidey. Webb did a superb job of what Raimi failed to do 3 times. Show what Peter Parker did between being sappy and overly dramatic to being Spidey. In this one, we see a more vulnerable, more accessible Spidey repair his suit, training, and asserting his opinions. Abrasively, if he needs to. He also tries to adjust to his newly gained attributes such as regulating his efforts to closing doors carefully. He does this through trial and error. While the film get's off to a slow, albeit phenomenal pace, once it picks up speed, it goes full bore. Raimi punctuated dialogue heavy scenes with action. Webb seemed to make the dialogue more bearable, and less theatrical, and worked it around the action.
Also, Webb realized what Raimi and Burton failed to do; "You don't have to kill the antagonist!" While the only gripe I have, is that the agenda of Curt Connors's alter ego, The Lizard is pretty cheesy. Like it's out of a Bond film or an episode of The Tick. Webb did a different take on the style of how Spidey traverses the city. Where Raimi used a greenscreen to superimpose the acrobatics, it looked flat like Spidey was swinging in front of a cityscape painted wall. Instead, Webb opted for a more visceral and dynamic style befitting this Spidey's bolder, more confrontational style. Even utilizing first person camera angles here. Webb actually wanted the viewer to enjoy the ride as it were, without cutting it too short.
Also,Spidey is shown as human. He is shot and limps about while gazing in the distance at how much farther he has to go and sighs.Little,trivial things like these ground Spidey and to me, make him seem less perfect and more human as Spidey still retains his fallibility. Sadly, for Raimi fans, the more humble beginnings do not warrant the appearances of either Norman or Harry Osborn and no J.Jonah Jameson chewing up scenery since Webb is going for a re-telling origin story. This is how Spider-Man was supposed to have been told. Not Raimi's over-inflated and over-ambitious take.
Pathfinder (2007)
Poor Attempt at storytelling
From the start, Pathfinder was Bad. The direction was weak. Nispel clearly doesn't have the chops to do action. Which should say something since it requires the least experience to break into films. Nispel's other films were "Frankenstein", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and the re-imaging of "Friday the 13th". All horror films. Pathfinder hopefully will be his first and last attempt at making action films this bad. Like I've criticized Mark Steven Johnson for is the same as Nispel for printing the first and probably the only takes. The actors are of the amateur caliber under Nispel's direction with over/under doing it. But Pathfinder doesn't try to be anything it isn't. With that said, it doesn't try to make a concerted effort at the whole action theme either. What does salvage the film from being a total waste is Daniel Pearl's lush and rich color palette darkening that gives the film a moody and ominous look and feel. The art direction and production design are also to the film's benefit. The Vikings or Norsemen truly look feral and formidable with the anachronistic and faux pas goat horns and canine riddled helmets. This truly gives them a touch of aesthetics to help sell the idea that the Natives are over-matched.
Clearly, Nispel felt that the less we know about either faction, the less sympathy we'd have for either. It seems the Natives were meant, merely fodder for gratuitous (yawn) scenes which are gratuitous for the sake of gratuity and to make you feel contempt for the Vikings. The whole "story" is that the Vikings, for sheer boredom decide to satiate their inexplicable desire to just kill "savages". There isn't any "McGuffin" here to help move the story forward, no exposition for the characters, little if any semblance for the hero, Ghost's dramatic arc where he learns something about himself for personal growth, and a page ripped from the Michael Bay book of film making: Tell the story without cliché'd words. Use action and random explosions as the characters,story, and plot. By the way, Michael Bay was a producer on "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". So if Nispel's learned anything from him, it's how to emulate him. That is NOT a compliment.