Reviews

This is another gangster film where there isn't all the action of the traditional entry in the genre. If Goodfellas is Saving Private Ryan, then Black Souls is more in the vein of The Thin Red Line, not the same caliber as that film but you get my drift.

This is much more of a character study of the players involved. The eldest of a trio of brothers has spent decades tending to his farm and staying out of the family business, which is for the most part unnamed shady stuff. But when his son goes to visit his goon of a brother with intentions of joining the dark side, a sequence of events fall in place resulting in a finish that I don't think anyone can see coming.

Not a lot happens in the first 2/3s of Black Souls in an action sense, and if I was in the wrong mood I might not have liked this as much as I did. But I thought the conflict between the four chief characters (the dad, his two gangster brothers, and his son) was established very convincingly. Come with patience to this one and you will be well rewarded. One of the scenes near the finish is simply magnificent.

Headshot looked so golden off the trailer. I was a huge fan of The Raid and thus it's star Iko Uwais. Uwais also stars here as a stranger who awakens from a coma with a case of amnesia and a bullet hole in his forehead. Just who is he and how was he shot? And how is he connected to a brutal gang leader who has just escaped execution? These are the questions at the core of the plot of Headshot.

Headshot has some great fight scenes for sure. WhIle not nearly as polished in that department as The Raid, it still swings a big enough stick to showcase that Indonesia continues to be a force to be reckoned with in the action arena. There is also a key factor surrounding the background of the gang and how it recruits that adds a compelling aspect to the otherwise clichéd storyline.

But that factor and the good fight scenes are hindered by terrible dialogue and the aforementioned clichés. Uwais is fine here and shows he has the chops to be an A list international star. He also is helped by a terrific Sunny Pang as the vicious gang leader Lee. But they are not nearly enough to save Headshot. The Raid was top shelf stuff. Headshot is Monarch mixed with good juice.

The Equalizer is loosely based on the 80's TV show of the same name, but it might have more in common with the corny action movies of that era that featured one man armies against hordes of bad guys. Denzel Washington takes the title role as a mysterious ex government agent of some sort who is trying to live a life of normalcy. But when he befriends a prostitute played by Chloe Grace Moretz and she falls into trouble with her Russian mob pimps, he falls back to his old skill set to reap punishment on her accosters. And Washington's Equalizer ain't no punk b---h.

Like the Stallones and Schwarzneggers of the aforementioned 80's films, Denzel is a wrecking ball of ridiculous force and wrath. But while those old 80s flicks lacked style and creativity, director Antoine Fuqua breaks out the tricks and flash of his growing repertoire and holds nothing back in the manner in which Washington dispatches baddies. While I raised an eyebrow at the ease in which a 60 year old Washington worked his way through his adversaries here, I was still entertained by a decent script and well shot action scenes.

A Most Wanted Man is set in the post-9/11 free world that we all know and accept today, but it feels like an old school spy flick. And maybe that is because it is based on a John LeCarre novel, LeCarre being arguably the greatest spy novelist ever. And that's a good thing.

Director Anton Corbijn is able to build a strong thriller largely on his all star cast's performances with little use of on screen violence, no easy task. Philip Seymour Hoffman is wonderful in his last role as a veteran German special agent Gunther Bachmann who has suffered from the stresses of his career. He smokes and/or drinks in nearly every scene, and while coolly working through his responsibilities, seems like he may be on the verge of a heart attack or postal episode at any moment. The weight of his job's actions are heavy on his conscience, and it is with that demeanor that he approaches his latest task at hand. Bachmann must investigate and vet a Chechnyan who has arrived illegally into Germany and may be up to something sinister.

Its a brilliantly played tale of espionage and a tribute to the skills of one of the best actors we have seen in the last 20 years in Hoffman.

2012 and early 2013 saw a strong surge in decent horror films. But there has been a significant drought of quality in the genre over the last 12 months, and unfortunately Deliver Us From Evil doesn't break the trend. There are a lot of animals acting weird, humans acting weirder, and a no nonsense police officer who refuses to believe in obvious supernatural occurrences. Sound familiar? That's because it is. Moviegoers have seen variations on this plot many times before. But does it make up for the lack of originality with style or well shot creep moments? Not really. The film's final 30 of its lengthy 118 minutes save it from being a total bust, but is that really a good thing? Horror fans deserve more.

If you were one of the many viewers of The Last Exorcism who was pleasantly surprised at it in terms of quality and scariness, consider me among your peers. Joining the ranks of movies like REC and Troll Hunter, The Last Exorcism was another example of the strengths of using the mockumentary/found footage style popular in horror today. These films dictate that less can be more when conveying scares. The Last Exorcism Part II, however, is an example of how building on those successes with a bigger budget and wider platform does not equal automatic quality. In fact, The Last Exorcism II is just terrible.

The story continues the tale of Nell, the subject of the doomed documentary of the first Last Exorcism. We last saw Nell held captive at some kind of satanic ritual before the film ended in grim fashion. In the follow up, time has fast forwarded some and Nell has not only somehow survived the events of The Last Exorcism, but she has escaped to the big city and been placed in a halfway house for troubled women. At first it seems like she may be able to move beyond her troubled past, until of course "creepy" events transpire that show things clearly aren't getting better.

There really is nothing redeeming here at all. As the plot develops, viewers are treated to run of the mill scare tactics that were played out the last ten times they were copied in equally abysmal films. Any semblance of creativity that was present in the original Last Exorcism has been replaced with economy rate, cookie cutter filmmaking. The end result is so yawn and eye roll inducing that it could easily make my most disappointing sequel list of all time.

It has been some time since the events of X-Men: The Last Stand. Logan (Hugh Jackman), the honorable yet brutal warrior of the mutant super team, has grown disenchanted with life and is living in the wilderness of Canada. Haunted by memories of his lost love Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), the loner is a victim of his own immortality. He has all the time in the world, but nothing left to live for.

That is until Yukio (Rila Fukushima), a messenger from a man he once saved many years before named Yashida (Haruhiko Yamanouchi) , tracks him down with a luring proposition. Yashida , now a technology mogul, is nearing the end of his life. He claims that before he passes, he wishes to grant Logan the gift of mortality in exchange for saving his life so many years ago.

Of course, everything is not as it seems. And it is not long before Logan is caught up in family politics involving Yashida's heirs: fiery son Shingen (Hiroyuki Sanada) and captivating granddaughter Mariko (Tao Okamato). After Yakuza goons make an attempt to kidnap Mariko, Logan rescues her and finds new purpose in keeping her protected. As they camp out in hiding, the two fall for each other and he is able to find relief in confessing his past to her. But peace does not last for long as Mariko is eventually snatched away from him, leading the Wolverine to give chase and track her down by any means necessary.

The thing that makes The Wolverine work on so many levels is its maturity. Christopher Nolan showed with his Batman trilogy that superhero movies could be loyal to the sometimes serious tone of comics but still be accessible to the masses. Movies based on Marvel characters for the most part have not followed suit. While entertaining, the Marvel movies (the Punishers being the exception) have been light hearted affairs that focus more on action and laughs than story or character development. Logan, however, is a serious character with grown up problems who deserves a script to reflect that. Director James Mangold and Jackman have a done a solid job in bringing that angst to the screen. The Frank Miller and Chris Claremont penned story arc that Mangold and his crew of writers have borrowed from for this movie is considered to be one of the best in Wolverine canon. In fact, the first two-thirds of The Wolverine are so good at developing the mutant's character, that viewers do not even notice the lack of constant action scenes that are so prevalent in superhero films today. It is a testament to Jackman's now effortless portrayal of the troubled protagonist and also to Mangold's ability to match the atmosphere of the dark content of early Wolverine comics.

This is not to say that The Wolverine lacks explosiveness. There is just enough fighting and chases throughout those aforementioned first two-thirds, and a little too much of it in the final act. It is in the final act where Mangold slips a little, digressing back into a standard Marvel piece heavy on smoke and mirrors instead of genuine substance. But Marvel's smoke and mirrors still outdazzle most of its competition on any given movie night and audiences will not be let down here.

The 007 franchise has a recipe that is pretty simple in ingredients but has still been able to keep audiences buying tickets for over 50 years. You have a super villain, a girl (sometimes two), some gadgetry paired up with a beautiful automobile, and top tier chase and fight scenes that are the best in the business. Aside from minor variations on this formula, it is one that has not changed in half a century.

For the most part, this has not been a bad thing. The James Bond series has spawned one of the best action films ever in Casino Royale and even the mediocre ones are enjoyable to watch. Most critics and fans alike will say that the Daniel Craig led phase of the Bond series is 1-2 with a grand slam in Casino Royale and a strike out with bases loaded in The Quantum of Solace (although I feel that is a little unfair on the latter). So now we have Skyfall at the plate and with Sam Mendes at the helm and Javier Bardem checking in as the bad guy, anticipation for a big score could be no higher.

MI6 is in chaos. After Bond is accidentally shot by his colleague during a fight with a hit-man, he is presumed dead when his body is not located. His boss, M (Judi Dench), is facing heavy scrutiny and being pressured to retire by British Intelligence Chairman Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes). Shortly after an inquest into Bond's demise, M receives a taunting email from an unknown sender and then the offices of MI6 explode, killing many workers. Bond, who is actually hiding out and gathering his wits, learns of the attack and returns to London. Since he has already been declared deceased, he must pass some psychological and physical tests, all of which he fails. Nevertheless, M inserts him back in the field to search after her tormentor. The usual Bond type globetrotting detective work ensues which leads him to Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem), a former MI6 operative turned freelance cyber terrorist. Silva has a very large bone to pick with M, and through that MI6 as a whole.

Besides Craig, who could prove to supplant Sean Connery as the best Bond ever, Bardem is one the few good things Skyfall has going for it. This is no mere copy of Anton Chigurh, the hit-man from No Country For Old Men for whose role earned Bardem an Oscar. Silva is one of the most layered Bond villains in decades and the story of him going bad fits well within the 007 universe. But there is some ridiculousness in his skill as a hacker, and it is one of the many problems with Skyfall's plot.

The ongoing worry with Bond movies is directors must know when something is too over the top when crafting the action that is the backbone of the franchise. Do too much and risk jumping the shark. Do too little and audiences are underwhelmed. Mendes somehow manages both in the same film. Silva's character's issue is that he is too much of a genius, too clever for the sake of the story. We are expected to believe that he has no problem hacking into M's personal email and computer with ease and later into MI6's entire system. He masterminds an escape from custody that is so reliant on perfect timing that it is too much too swallow, even for a Bond movie. The essence of a great villain is that he is able to overcome adversity by outthinking the good guys. But here, the good guys are so inept that Silva's feats neither impress nor seem possible.

The other big problem with Skyfall is the mediocrity of the chase and fight scenes. Mendes shoots a beautiful film, no doubt, and there is a fight between Bond and a baddie on top of a Shanghai skyscraper that is nothing short of gorgeous. But the rest of the action has an uninspired feel to it. There are no wow moments and one can't help but feel like you have seen these shootouts many times before.

The relationship between M and Bond is given more story here than in any movie of the series that I can remember. I understand the reasoning but it is all done with such a heavy hand that it comes off as melodramatic. And that's really the whole gist of what is wrong here. Mendes has attempted to make Skyfall the most character driven Bond movie ever but in the end I didn't want to ride to where these characters were being driven to.

Mama focuses on two small girls who are left in a cabin after their troubled father is killed by a malevolent spirit. Fast forward five years where the father's brother Lucas still has search parties trying to locate the missing girls. When one of the parties stumbles across the cabin where the girls have been holed up, they discover the children who are now in a feral state. The pair are brought to be examined by a psychiatrist, and eventually a judge rules they can be ordered to the care of Lucas and his girlfriend Annabel (Jessica Chastain). Once the children are moved in, it becomes noticeable that they have brought something sinister with them from that cabin in the woods.

Sometimes when you read the premise of a horror movie on paper, they sound pretty ridiculous. So as I write these next few sentences on the plot of Mama, I can understand how over the top the movie sounds. Without giving too much away, the spirit is actually what has taken care of the girls for the last five years while they were missing. She is now a maternal figure of sorts and jealous of anyone else who has come into their lives. Reading that, I know it all sounds outrageous, and it is. But it actually works in the context of the movie. What doesn't work is the ho hum pace set by half hearted scares that we have seen before in movies just as bland as this one. These are what would make Mama an around average horror flick. What makes it a bad watch is the moronic ending to close all the averageness. Viewers under 15 may not roll their eyes during Mama's final 20 minutes, but anyone over that age bracket is in for sure disappointment.

Rooting against big budgeted Hollywood excesses is an on and off again pastime for me. While I enjoy a summer blockbuster just as much as anyone when they are good (see The Avengers), I can't help but snicker when I see a terrible idea go down in flames (see the Lone Ranger).

And so was the expectation with World War Z, director Marc Forster's adaptation of the critically acclaimed Max Brooks' novel. The book was clever in that it was written like a historical retelling of a real event, the event here being the zombie apocalypse. Forster and screenwriter Matthew Carnahan shun most of Brook's narrative style, giving the author's witty concept the Hollywood makeover. It should be noted that World War Z had one of the more troubled production phases in recent film history with rumors circulating that its budget had skyrocketed to as much as $400 million (In reality, it was more in the $200-$250 million range). Recasting, script rewrites, and director-star squabbles were all in the mix which usually is a recipe for disaster come release time. But not only has WWZ defied odds by being a runaway hit looking now to eventually turn a profit, it is also one of the most expertly concocted thrillers in recent memory.

Brad Pitt stars as Gerry Lane, a former United Nations investigator who is enjoying retirement playing Mr. Mom with his wife and two children. After he and his family narrowly escape the onslaught of the zombie outbreak in downtown Philadelphia, they eventually are whisked to safety aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier where Gerry is recruited by his old U.N. boss to assist in tracking down the outbreak's source. Lane then begins what will eventually become a globetrotting investigation where he and crew face the deadliness of the infection head on in Korea, Israel, and England.

Pitt is rolling into his middle age roles nicely. He plays Lane as a low key, slick government flatfoot whose previous experience in crappy situations helps keep him alive in the madness here. And it is pretty much his show the whole way through. He is aided throughout the film by different groups of people with little development of any of these side characters. It is a small drawback and the non stop thrill ride of the film's events more than make up for it.

Forster creates sequence after sequence here that one ups the previous one on the nail biting meter. Brook's zombies are not your slump around, Walking Dead type zombies. As savage as they were in 28 Days Later, the creatures here are even more beastly in their speed and brutality. Forster borrows some from Danny Boyle's masterpiece early on but finds his own narrative as WWZ moves forward. From an airplane landing on a pitch black military landing strip to an escape from an over ran safety compound in the middle of the day, Forster keeps viewers glued to the screen no matter where the setting is. The film culminates in a masterfully paced final act in which Pitt and friends zero in on possible relief for the catastrophic epidemic.

WWZ is smart while not being pretentious and exciting without being outrageous. It is everything one can want in a summer blockbuster and hopefully the beginning of an excellent franchise.

If you blinked your eyes too fast, you may have missed 2009's The Collector, a gorefest about a serial killer who traps families in their homes and slays them in spectacular fashion. It did not do very well at the box office and it didn't even get the surge in visibility most movies get when they are released on DVD. Truth is, it wasn't a spectacular movie, but it did entertain with its house of horrors death traps that were elaborate in the vein of the Final Destination series.

But, like that series, witty ways of dispatching people is not enough to keep a franchise enjoyable. In the Collection, director Marcus Dunstan has upped the blood factor in remarkable fashion, killing off 100 or so party revelers in the opening 10 minutes. The massacre is ridiculously executed (pun intended), and sets the tone for the remaining 80 minutes.

The little style that Dunstan displayed in The Collector is absent. Here it just feels like he is trying to one up himself with each brutal murder. The plot is predictable and dull, even for a subpar horror flick. And the dialogue is not even Busch league level, more like summer softball in the park with your co workers level.

I'm sure there are some die hard slasher film fans who can appreciate the Collection somehow, but you can definitely count me out of that group.

The most important part of a buddy cop movie is the chemistry between the two leads. In End of Watch, it is said chemistry between Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena that is the backbone to this story. The film, chronicling the two as young LAPD patrol officers Brian Taylor and Miguel Zavala , is a buddy cop movie for the modern era. You still have the entertaining banter between the two leads that has been a staple of the genre since its popularity surged in the 80's with movies like Lethal Weapon and Tango and Cash. But director David Ayer gives an interesting spin in shooting technique as the majority of End of Watch is shot documentary style, a trend extremely prevalent amongst recent horror films.

The premise of this style of shooting is that Gyllenhaal's character is taking a film class and he is using his footage for a class project. But its not just the cops who are documenting the film's events; practically everyone is recording. Both the gangs Taylor and Zavala cross paths with are filming as well, which lessens End of Watch's culpability even more than it would if it was just Taylor with the camera. But, it's a relatively small concession to make in order to appreciate the rest of the movie.

Ayer doesn't pull punches here. While the back and forth between the two cops is hilarious at times, the events that make up their days on the job are not. The situations they face are intense, adrenaline packed affairs, but Ayer does a good job at not making them feel like some dumb popcorn action movie. The suspense is high and an unusual sense of eeriness for a movie in this category is prevalent at times. Its a good thing. From a missing child report that ends in gut wrenching results, to the search of a suspected drug trafficker's house that unearths something much more sinister than drugs; Ayer captures the grim realities in all their terror.

But something also prevalent throughout End of Watch is an underlying sense that you are being recruited to be a police officer. There is a rah rah sentiment that underscores Taylor and Zavala's heroics all the way leading up to the poorly executed, predictable ending. I couldn't help but feel that I was being dictated to as exactly why I needed to like these two guys. They are heroes, husbands, fathers, great cops. The two display no scratches in the armor, which ultimately makes them less memorable, no matter how funny or charismatic.

Compared to its peers like Friday the 13th, Halloween, and Nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre series has been underrepresented a little. This is actually a good thing if you consider the overcrowded horror franchise it makes its playpen in. It would lead one to believe that with less entries tossed in the ring and with more time between them, the potential for making better movies should be high. But if Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D (what a title) is the evidence, then one believing that would be wrong.

TC3D is the type of movie that lowers the bar for slasher films. The story expands on the events of the original film, but (while ripping off Rob Zombie's Halloween redux) is so ridiculous that few will appreciate where writers have taken the series. And even while trying to steer the franchise in a new direction, TC3D pantomimes its predecessors in execution with the same order of business we have seen already.

There's lots of blood and overkill here with no panache to the madness and zero enjoyment to be had.

The first Grave Encounters was a decent enough found footage horror flick that had just enough humor and jump scenes to make it a somewhat likable watch. This sequel follows a young filmmaker who is convinced the events depicted in the first Grave Encounters are real. He sets out with his crew in tow to make a documentary detailing his findings.

The problem with Grave Encounters 2 is it has lost any cool or fun factor from the original. This is a pretty much a bland rehashing with new, boring characters in the same, now boring setting of a closed down hospital.

The first Grave Encounters was a reminder that you can sometimes find something to like in a low budget, no name of a movie streaming on Netflix. Grave Encounters 2 is a reminder that most the low budget, no name movies streaming on Netflix suck.

The Avengers definitely had the house riding on it. Marvel set up the film for success, releasing solo pictures of each character in the group with varying degrees of quality from pretty good (Iron Man) to terrible (Iron Man 2). Fortunately, the rest of those prequels were in the good to above average range, laying out a huge amount of hype for the granddaddy to outshine them all.

On that level, the Avengers definitely does not disappoint. It is a leading candidate for the best Marvel movie thus far (the other two being X2 and X-Men: First Class), showcased by an excellent script and easy chemistry between the ensemble cast. It would probably be expected to think that Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man is in a league by himself here but he is actually outshined by Mark Ruffalo and Tom Hiddleson (Bruce Banner/Hulk and Loki, respectively).

Ruffalo is spot on as Bruce Banner, bringing an easygoing nature to a role that was played with much more brooding by both Eric Bana and Edward Norton. The laid back-ness offers the yin to Hulk's destructive yang, adding needed context to the misunderstood hero's backstory.

Hiddleson continues to impress as the troubled Loki, thirsty to drink vengeance against his brother Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and willing to enslave Thor's beloved Earth to do so. Most movie adaptations of Marvel villains are pretty simple affairs, but Hiddleson wills viewers to fully understand the depth of his hatred and propensity for chaos.

Chris Evans is fine as Captain America, although the fact that he plays the Human Torch in the Fantastic Four (another Marvel franchise) bothers me greatly. I'm sure there are other actors who can carry Cap's shield, so to speak. Samuel Jackson, Jeremy Renner and Scarlett Johansson reprise their roles as Nick Fury, Hawkeye, and Black Widow to round out the crew and add another layer of bad ass-ness to the film.

The plot here is standard comic book fare: Loki has teamed with a group of alien baddies to steal the power of some sort of cosmic cube that Fury is hanging onto, and the Avengers need to stop him before the world goes to poop. It's not important to explain the story as much as it is to note that Joss Whedon is proving he is a master of the spectacular. Avengers is the type of summer movie the season is made for and fully worthy of the box office receipts it tallied.

If you have read through my reviews, you will know that I am a stickler for realism in movies that should command it. This is my outlook and if you are watching something with me, its to the point of being annoying. But it is what it is. And Killing Them Softly suffers early on from a plot point which is so unrealistic that it affects the level of the rest of the film. But let me give a brief rundown of the setup here.

Its 2008, and the economy is collapsing. The underlying parallel drawn throughout Killing Them Softly is that the downturn has carried over into the underworld as well. Criminal organizations have lost their clout, street level cons don't respect the bosses, no one is making any money. Its in this setting that semi-wiseguy Johnny Amato (Vincent Curatola) recruits a hapless thief named Frankie (Scoot McNairy) to rob an underground card room frequented by goons and ran by Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta). The kicker of their plan is that it is common knowledge amongst local wiseguys that Trattman himself orchestrated the last robbery on his card room. So if the card game is robbed again, everyone will blame Trattman, thinking he set it up himself. Of course, things do not follow said plan, and once the robbery has happened, the big shots call in hit-man Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt) to track down the bandits.

Killing Them Softly is brilliantly acted. Pitt is spot on as a frustrated button man who belongs in a different era where those who violated the gangster code were dealt with severely. James Gandolfini also shines as New York Mickey, an old school fixer who is way past his prime. Cogan summons for Mickey thinking he needs a veteran partner to get the cleanup done properly. However upon Mickey's arrival, Cogan quickly realizes that he may be a liability instead of an asset as Mickey is a boozehound broken up by his failing marriage. The scenes between the two are like watching a couple of prizefighters speculating on MMA boxing, two old warriors being left behind by a world that has moved on without them. Likewise with Pitt's moments on screen with Richard Jenkins, who stops in as the unnamed middle man between Cogan and the unseen crime bosses.

But back to the aforementioned unrealistic plot point. It is revealed early that these gangsters were robbed once already by Liotta's character and they decided to let it slide because he is so likable. To me, that just kills the culpability of the rest of the film. It may be that director Andrew Dominik was trying to point out that that is just how far these gangsters have slid to let a disrespect like that go unpunished. But I feel it is an unforgivable error, and the film is kept from being great due to it.

What are Forest Whitaker and Clifton Collins Jr. doing in this? Light It Up is a ridiculously melodramatic piece on problems in low income area schools. While the topic is one that needs to be addressed, the film uses every cliche in the genre and comes off as a textbook popcorn flick. The characters are cutouts from the inner city version of The Breakfast Club or even The Faculty. Watch this with your children when they turn 13 or 14. With them, it could be an outlet for a lesson on current social problems. For anyone older, it will be nothing more than something to watch and spit on at 4 in the morning, as I did recently on Bravo. Matter of fact, what was this doing on Bravo?