Bruce Willis

‘G.I. Joe: Retaliation’ Almost Turns Macho Stupidity Into Art

BrianTT — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:36:39 -0400

Rating: 3.0/5.0

CHICAGO – “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” is the kind of dumb summer action blockbuster that works in the season when the kids aren’t in school and the movie theater is used as an excuse to get in the air conditioning as much as see anything approaching filmmaking. It nearly works in March. Nearly. There are some great action sequences, some fun performances, and the kind of macho nonsense that appealed to the 13-year-old boy inside of me who never grew up. At the same time, there’s a plot that makes almost NO sense, clunky plotting, and horrendous 3D converting after the fact that makes the fight choreography look awful. So, it comes down to how forgiving you are of the latter and how much you’re itching to see the former. When I say, “dumb fun,” do you focus on the first word or the second one? That will determine whether or not you should see “G.I. Joe: Retaliation.”

Stick with me here. The plot recap is gonna get a bit rocky. The Joes, led by Duke (Channing Tatum) and featuring Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), Jaye (Adrianne Palicki), Mouse (Joseph Mazello), and Flint (D.J. Cotrona), are sent to Pakistan to retrieve some nuclear weapons by the President (Jonathan Pryce). Only it turns out that the President is really Zartan (Arnold Vosloo, although he has no lines) in disguise. President Zartan frames the Joes and has most of them killed in his plan to plunge the world into Cobra chaos. At the same time, he sends Firefly (Ray Stevenson) to break Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee) and Cobra Commander (Luke Bracey) out of a legendary underground prison. And I can’t even get started on figuring out exactly how RZA and Bruce Willis got into the plot. Oh, and Jinx (Elodie Yung) and Snake Eyes (Ray Park) get involved at some point. Don’t ask me how.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation
Photo credit: Paramount Pictures

Don’t ask the writers either. There are chunks of “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” that make absolutely no sense. And when the film doesn’t take itself seriously, this nonsensical, cartoonish plotting didn’t bother me. It is based on a toy line and cartoon series, friends. Let’s not expect “Inception.” And there are a few actors and set pieces in which this blockbuster aspect of “Retaliation” really works. For example, Jonathan Pryce is having an absolute blast as the kind of maniacal world leader who plays “Angry Birds” as World War III is starting. He’s great fun in both roles (the still-alive, “real” President and the Zartan-in-disguise one). It’s also worth noting that a few of the actors really get the charismatic action star thing, most notably Johnson, Lee, Stevenson, and Palicki. They’re more fun and well-cast than most blockbuster actors you’ll see this summer.

So why not give “Retaliation” a pass? I’m tempted and I honestly might have if it weren’t for the stupid, boneheaded, nonsensical decision to convert it into 3D after the fact just to get a bit more of your cash. When the 3D isn’t completely useless – half of the film doesn’t seem to have any of it all – it’s annoying. The 3D post-filming conversion process makes a film with an action aesthetic like this (choppy) almost impossible to watch. You can barely tell what the hell is going on in 2D and the third dimension makes that worse. If you have the choice, avoid the 3D version.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation
Photo credit: Paramount Pictures

The only time that the 3D is effective is in the best sequence in the film and what will be one of the best action scenes of the year – a mountaintop, wire-fu sequence with Jinx, Snake Eyes, and a gaggle of red ninjas waiting to fall to their doom. It’s a great scene, the kind that would have sealed the deal for me 25 years ago and I’d be lying if I said otherwise. And while it’s the best scene in the film, there are some other notable action sequences. The prison break and the general chaos of the climax are both way more enjoyable than the entirety of “Olympus Has Fallen” or “A Good Day to Die Hard.”

“G.I. Joe: Retaliation” should have been better. Tighten up the plotting. Kill half of the “we’re doing it for our dead brothers” dialogue (not that there’s anything wrong with that, it’s just overdone). A little more Palicki & Johnson, a lot less RZA, maybe no Willis. As is, it’s a near-miss, a movie that I’ll probably end up watching on cable if it pops on but will have forgotten in two months when the real blockbusters like “Star Trek Into Darkness” and “Fast & the Furious 6” truly deliver the dumb fun. Hey, maybe some of it will even be kinda smart.

“G.I. Joe: Retaliation” stars Dwayne Johnson, Adrianne Palicki, Jonathan Pryce, Byung-hun Lee, Elodie Yung, Ray Stevenson, D.J. Cotrona, Ray Park, Bruce Willis, and Channing Tatum. It was written by Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick and directed by Jon M. Chu. It opens on March 28, 2013.

By BRIAN TALLERICO
Content Director
HollywoodChicago.com
brian@hollywoodchicago.com

‘A Good Day to Die Hard’ Makes For Bad Movie Night

BrianTT — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:09:58 -0500

Rating: 0.5/5.0

CHICAGO – The franchise has been in steady decline since the original “Die Hard,” quite simply one of the best action films of all time, but that still doesn’t prepare one for the truly horrendous “A Good to Day to Die Hard,” a complete waste of time on every level. Loud, obnoxious, boring, cartoonish, morally reprehensible, and just plain stupid, “A Good Day to Die Hard” is just bad, bad, bad. The movie bears so little resemblance to the first film in the franchise that they literally share nothing in common other than an actor and a character name (and this is clearly another script that was originally conceived as a non-franchise film and then barely forced into the series like a square peg into a round hole). If someone at Fox is wise, they’ll just rename this something generic before its DVD release and admit that this isn’t really a “Die Hard” movie. Just call it “A Good Day.” Or “Day to Die.” Or “Hard to Watch.”

With almost no set-up (other than to have our hero at a shooting range to prove he’s still got the goods), John McClane (Bruce Willis, looking bored as ever) jets off to Moscow to find his son Jack (Jai Courtney, looking like Sam Worthington’s less-interesting younger brother), who was recently arrested for shooting a man in a crowded Russian nightclub. Just as Jack is about to testify against a notorious Russian criminal named Komarov (Sebastian Koch), a trio of car bombs are set off outside the courthouse, a truck filled with soldiers deploys, and the true action of the piece begins in earnest with a car chase that would make Michael Bay roll his eyes. It turns out that dear Jack wasn’t actually a petty criminal in Moscow but an undercover CIA agent and dear old dad is there just in time to mess up a major international operation. Hey, he’s John McClane. That’s what he does.

A Good Day to Die Hard
Photo credit: Fox

Wait, no it’s not. When did the everyman hero who was forced into action against terrorists in the original film turn into someone who would give any Marvel character a run for their money physically? In “A Good Day to Die Hard,” McClane is not just able to outrun a helicopter shooting rockets at him, perfectly maneuver his vehicle atop crowded Russian streets (while committing roughly 100 counts of vehicular manslaughter), and fall from stories high without breaking a bone, but he does so with a wink and a smile. “A Good Day to Die Hard” doesn’t just require suspension of disbelief, you need to not know what “suspension” or “disbelief” means to enjoy it. It would help if you didn’t know what “of” means too.

This is about the point where an action movie-loving reader accuses a film critic of being too hard on their favorite escapist genre. Trust me. I love a dumb, fun action movie. And I’ve seen enough serious fare lately to truly need a blockbuster. I would have embraced “A Good Day to Die Hard” if the movie had ANYTHING to embrace. Trust me. I tried. There’s not a single funny or clever line of dialogue. Not a single worthwhile action scene that isn’t in the previews. Not a single fun plot twist. It’s the kind of movie that has a weak villain and no real heroes. Everyone’s an asshole, even McClane. There’s not even a worthwhile bad guy, long a trademark of the series. Alan Rickman, Jeremy Irons, even Timothy Olyphant – McClane needs an opponent. His opponent in this film is logic.

A Good Day to Die Hard
Photo credit: Fox

It makes a twisted sense that writer Skip Woods seems obsessed with video games (he wrote the awful “Hitman” and is working on a “Kane & Lynch” adaptation along with, wait for it, a “Hitman” reboot called “Agent 47”). There are numerous times when “A Good Day to Die Hard” employs video game logic, whether it’s in the wooden performances, misguided morality, or complete inability for anyone trying to kill the hero to actually do so. However, by the time that Woods and the truly untalented John Moore (“Behind Enemy Lines,” “Max Payne”) get to the final act, comparisons to cartoons and video games actually don’t work anymore. Most cartoons and video games are more fun.

Why not a zero rating? “A Good Day to Die Hard” is not offensively bad and I reserve that rating for films that truly offend the form. This one isn’t memorable enough to be considered offensive. It’s just stupid. Really, really stupid.

“A Good Day to Die Hard” stars Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Sebastian Koch, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Yuliya Snigir. It was written by Skip Woods and directed by John Moore. It is rated R and will be released on February 14, 2013.

By BRIAN TALLERICO
Content Director
HollywoodChicago.com
brian@hollywoodchicago.com

Stunning, Creative Vision of ‘Looper’ with Joseph Gordon-Levitt

BrianTT — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:41:04 -0400

Rating: 4.5/5.0

CHICAGO – It’s so refreshing to see a talented filmmaker that has been allowed to bring his unique vision to the screen without compromise. You know the feeling when you’re watching a product of a marketing focus group or producer interference and when you’re seeing something fresh, new, and personal. We too rarely get the latter. Whatever you may ultimately think of it, Rian Johnson’s “Looper” is undeniably not a focus group project. It is personal, dark, daring, weird, and refreshingly unique. It is also one of the best sci-fi films of the last several years.

Without spoiling too much, “Looper” is really two movies (and, to be fair, it’s the first half that easily surpasses the second in terms of sheer force of ingenuity). Actually, it may be three or four. It’s a film not unlike “Inception” in the way Johnson always stays ahead of the viewer in terms of storytelling. He gives you just enough road map to stay on the trail but he’s leading the way the entire time and you don’t know for sure what’s around the next bend. It’s amazingly unpredictable in terms of not just plotting but character and style. There have been very few sci-fi films in the last two decades that were this confident. It brings to mind films by Steven Spielberg (“Minority Report”) and Christopher Nolan (“Inception”) -– incredible company for Johnson to keep.

Looper
Photo credit: Sony Pictures

In one of many elements that separate “Looper” from so many cookie-cutter sci-fi adventures, Johnson wastes no time throwing you into his high-concept world. It’s sink or swim. We’re not only introduced to Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) but a near future in which the economy has collapsed to the point that homeless people clog the streets and telekinetic powers have advanced (although not beyond a bar pick-up trick of floating quarters just above your hand). In this bizarre-but-familiar world that reminds one of “Minority Report” (in that it’s clearly the future but also grounded in our current day), Joe is a very wealthy man. He has made his money as a Looper, a highly-skilled, highly-covert assassin.

Joe and his fellow Loopers (including Paul Dano) don’t operate like normal hit men. Thirty years from now, time travel has been invented and quickly made illegal. Becoming a product of the black market, pulling a Marty McFly became an occupation of the mob. They take targets, send them back in time, and a Looper kills them on sight. The money for the job is strapped to the victim’s back. He disposes of a body that isn’t even supposed to exist. The Looper profession is so underground that the men who kill know that they will one day have the unenviable task of taking the hood off their kill to see their own eyes, thus closing their “loop” and giving them their name. At that point, they know they only have 30 years left but they’re rich and retired.

Looper
Photo credit: Sony Pictures

Joe’s world starts to unravel after his buddy Seth (Dano) refuses to kill his future self and close his loop. Joe learns that someone is closing all the loops in the future on a reign of terror. And before you know it, future Joe (Bruce Willis) is fighting back and running away from his younger self. From here, “Looper” becomes a bizarre chase movie in that Johnson never quite underlines where our loyalties should lie. Do we want Joe to catch his older self and close the loop? Or do we want the older Joe, who is fighting to return to the love of his life, to succeed and save the future? And when a single mom (Emily Blunt) and her son (Pierce Gagnon) get involved, the narrative spins off in another unexpected direction altogether.

“Looper” is always spinning in a new direction. Whether it’s the ingenuity of Seth’s fate, the AMAZING flash-forward that details how young Joe turns into old Joe (which is a master class in visual storytelling), or the tension when one of the hired guns (Garret Dillahunt) of Joe’s former employer (Jeff Daniels) catches up to him, you’re never ahead of Johnson’s storytelling. It’s the kind of film that sci-fi fans will watch over and over again, dissecting its themes, references, and plot threads. The first half feels like noir while the second becomes practically a “High Noon” Western. And yet it’s all so tonally consistent. There’s a bit of narrative sag in the middle when Johnson hits a few similar beats as Joe hides out at a farmhouse but it’s a minor complaint.

Looper
Photo credit: Sony Pictures

On a performance level, “Looper” works all around. It takes some time to get used to Gordon-Levitt’s prosthetic makeup that’s designed to make him look more like a young Bruce Willis but that doesn’t lessen the impact of his performance. It’s a remarkably non-flashy turn for a protagonist in an action sci-fi movie. Joe is disciplined and by-the-book and JGL never over-plays his character, letting the story do its job instead of stealing focus. Willis is similarly solid but he does get a few great scenes to show off his acting chops, particularly a spectacular diner exchange between the Joes. Emily Blunt is typically engaging and Daniels rules.

As great as the cast is in “Looper,” this is Rian Johnson’s accomplishment on every level. It’s rare these days to walk out of a modern sci-fi blockbuster and think not of the visual effects or action scenes but the incredible screenplay. It’s so daring, dark, and weird that my first thought when it was over was “How did that get made?” Props to Film District and everyone who was willing to bet on this project instead of trying to soften its very-sharp edges for a wider audience. The bet has paid off with one of the best sci-fi films of the last decade.

“Looper” stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Piper Perabo, Paul Dano, Pierce Gagnon, Garret Dillahunt, Noah Segan, and Jeff Daniels. It was written and directed by Rian Johnson. It opens on September 28, 2012 and is rated R.

By BRIAN TALLERICO
Content Director
HollywoodChicago.com
brian@hollywoodchicago.com

Sylvester Stallone in Formulaic ‘The Expendables 2’

PatrickMcD — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:16:04 -0400

Rating: 3.0/5.0

CHICAGO – Face it, it is fun to see the major action stars of the 1980s, ‘90s and now – Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Chuck Norris, Dolph Lundgren, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger – together again for “The Expendables 2.” Why the hell can’t anyone write a decent story for them?

The film improves on the first movie, not that there was that a long way to go. The action is more relevant and bolder, plus the villainy of Jean-Claude Van Damme is smarmier, but the overall product is the same formulaic crap that plugs into any action film. There is a sense that this joke-filled concept should rise above the usual, and it doesn’t. Additionally Stallone (who co-wrote the screenplay) seems very tired going through the same action poses. It would have been better if the Expendables main mission prevented him from plotting “Rocky 7.”

The elite mercenary force known as the Expendables is shown in the middle of a mission as the story unfolds. They are trying to spring a Chinese billionaire in the middle of armed camp, and the subsequent shootout, hand-to-hand combat and weaponry use would make Sgt. Rock blush. Ross (Sylvester Stallone) is back at commander, Christmas (Jason Statham) sharpens his knives expertise, Ying Yan (Jet Li) uses expert martial arts, Gunner (Dolph Lundgren) is still dangerous, Billy the Kid (Liam Hemsworth) is still young and Hale Caesar (Terry Crews) handles all the weapons. Along the way a so-called “lone wolf” named Booker (Chuck Norris) also helps them out.

Ross (Sylvester Stallone), Christmas (Jason Statham) and Caesar (Terry Crews) in ‘The Expendables 2’
Photo credit: Frank Masi for Lionsgate

In saving the billionaire, they also free Trench (Arnold Schwarzenegger), who now owes Ross a favor, and connects their next mission to Mr. Church (Bruce Willis), a CIA operative who needs to retrieve a secret plutonium stash – and provides the reluctant Expendables with a code expert named Maggie (Nan Yu). The appropriately named Jean Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme) is also after the treasure, and kidnaps Billy the Kid to trade for information. This mission just got personal.

It’s good that the film begins with a Chinese-based story, because with his recent plastic surgeries and questionable mustache Sly Stallone looks like Charlie Chan. Sly seems to be going through the motions, spewing his lines in the famous marble mouthed delivery, but with less enthusiasm and energy. The 67 year old actor is determined to convince us that he still can run, shoot and navigate the action film route, but can’t seem to write a part for himself that he can buy into. It’s a stale shoot ‘em up with the usual destroy-the-world/save-the-world mentality, and even the fun of having everyone together can’t make the story rise above banality.

The rest of the mercenary force doesn’t fare much better. Jason Statham, who has done some great action films on his own (like this year’s “Safe”), is reduced to an awkward bromance with Stallone, and they have zero chemistry. The roles should be reversed, Statham should be giving the orders. Another opportunity was lost with Dolph Lundgren in the cast. He and Stallone haven’t fought in either Expendables film – like their face off as Drago versus Balboa in “Rocky IV.” Finally, the femme fatale Maggie is serviceable as portrayed by Nan Yu, except for the potential of a coupling with Charlie Chan…er…Stallone.

The big three – Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis and Jean-Claude Van Damme – all have expanded roles with mixed results. Arnold seems tentative given that he was the Governator, and will take awhile to “be back.” Willis and his famous smirk – the one that has made him an island owner – will never fear the cashing of a paycheck. Van Damme gets to really ham it up as the villain named Vilain and doesn’t disappoint. The final confrontation with Stallone isn’t as good as his barking of orders and chewing of scenery in previous scenes.

Booker (Chuck Norris) is Readying his Roundhouse Kick in “The Expendables 2’
Photo credit: Alicia Gbur for TriStar Pictures

There are some positives in the film. As mentioned, the sheer nostalgia rush of getting all the action gang together, combined with some very so-bad-they’re-good catchphrases can’t help but be fun. It’s as if all the collectible action figures at Comic Con have came to life. Terry Crews is becoming a nice go-to for the “cynical black guy,” and adds his own touches along the way. And despite line readings that sounded like he was on nitrous oxide, the appearance of Chuck Norris and his beard fist was welcome.

Bruce Willis made a good joke about his participation in the film. With age catching up to “The Expendables,” he quipped, “Hopefully they’ll start shooting the film while we’re young enough to survive.” Yippee kay yay…

“The Expendables 2,” opens everywhere on August 17th. Featuring Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Chuck Norris, Dolph Lundgren, Bruce Willis, Terry Crews, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Screenplay by Richard Wenk and Sylvester Stallone. Directed by Simon West. Rated “R”

By PATRICK McDONALD
Senior Staff Writer
HollywoodChicago.com
pat@hollywoodchicago.com

Wes Anderson’s ‘Moonrise Kingdom’ Delights with Clever Tale of Young Love

BrianTT — Thu, 31 May 2012 10:22:26 -0400

Rating: 4.5/5.0

CHICAGO – Wes Anderson’s “Moonrise Kingdom” is a true delight — a fun, clever, and, of course, whimsical tale about the days when love seemed worth running away from home over and getting a scout badge meant the world. Easily Anderson’s best film since “The Royal Tenenbaums,” “Moonrise” is arguably the most tonally consistent film he’s made to date, a thoroughly enjoyable endeavor that one would have to be pretty cynical to dismiss entirely. While Anderson’s distinct style will be off-putting to some, most who have fallen under his spell before are likely to do so again by the light of “Moonrise.”

Anderson & Roman Coppola’s beautifully streamlined script wastes no time with set-up for what is essentially a very simple tale – two kids run away from home. Well, sorta. One runs away from the Khaki Scouts Camp at which he lives and actually has no home to return to as his foster home parents decide not to take him back. Sam (Jared Gilman) runs away from “no home.” And he does so to find the gawky girl that he’s had a penpal relationship with for the last year, the sweet Suzy (Kara Hayward), and head off into the wilderness. Neither Sam nor Suzy are what you would call the most popular kids in school. He faces abuse by foster home brothers that look like they’re practicing for “The Outsiders” and she seems ignored by a family in which she has three younger brothers and two distant parents (Frances McDormand & Bill Murray). It makes sense that these two social outcasts would be drawn to each other.

Moonrise Kingdom
Photo credit: Focus

And so, a year after spotting her at a church show about Noah’s Ark, Sam breaks free from the Khaki Scouts Camp run by Scout Master Ward (Edward Norton) and crosses an island to find her. They run away together, tracing an old Indian path, reading her favorite books, listening to records on a battery-powered player, and being chased by an increasing number of people, including the rest of the Scouts, Suzy’s parents, and a sad-sack police officer named Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis). Eventually, Social Services (Tilda Swinton) has to get involved. (Yes, her character’s name is “Social Services.”) Jason Schwartzman, Harvey Keitel, and Bob Balaban are hilarious in small roles.

Wes Anderson’s best films have always channeled his whimsy through the eyes of children or simply adults who never grew up. One can easily draw a straight line from Dignan in “Bottle Rocket” to Max Fischer in “Rushmore” to Sam Shakusky in “Moonrise Kingdom.” Anderson’s recent work seemed to replace that innocence, that sense of committed wonder, with pretension. He’s back to doing what he did so well with his first three films here.

Don’t worry. Anderson isn’t losing his style. In fact, he’s almost embracing it more than ever but with more thematic purpose. “Moonrise Kingdom” is a distinctly affected piece. There’s no denying it. When Sam seems to be having an honest moment with Suzy that’s broken by a desire to inventory what they brought, one can feel Anderson being more excited about the opportunity to frame the inventory in his unique way than to shoot the character development. And yet, I would argue that this is his least cynical and least affected piece overall. It’s almost as if his time with “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” allowed him to embrace the childish whimsy again instead of the dreary pretension.

Moonrise Kingdom
Photo credit: Focus

It helps to have such an amazingly talented cast, several of whom haven’t had this much fun in years. It’s great to see actors like Willis and Norton, who, let’s be honest, have made some bad choices lately, proving how straight-up enjoyable they can be as actors. We know Bill Murray and Jason Schwartzman are going to rock in a Wes Anderson movie but Willis, Norton, McDormand, and Swinton are just as delightful. The children are a bit harder to judge on a performance level in that their characters are so mannered. Even through that, I found both young actors effective, especially Hayward.

On a technical level, “Moonrise Kingdom” is a remarkable accomplishment. The great Alexandre Desplat proves yet again why he’s at the forefront of any discussion of the best film composers working today with a delightful score and regular Anderson cinematographer Robert S. Yeoman frames the film beautifully. Art direction, Anderson’s choice of music, incredibly tight editing – every technical element is above par.

Why not a perfect score? There is a missing emotional beat, a reason to truly care about the saga of Sam and Suzy. However, it’s a minor complaint and one that I think could be dismissed with time. “Moonrise Kingdom” is close to perfect now and, just as the hazy memories of young love smooth out the rough edges over time, I have a feeling it will get even better with time.

“Moonrise Kingdom” ‘stars Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Harvey Keitel, and Bob Balaban. It was written by Wes Anderson & Roman Coppola and directed by Anderson. It is now playing in New York and Los Angeles and will be released in Chicago on June 1, 2012.

By BRIAN TALLERICO
Content Director
HollywoodChicago.com
brian@hollywoodchicago.com

Talented Ensemble Wasted on Incredibly Dull ‘Red’

BrianTT — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:51:14 -0400

Rating: 1.0/5.0

CHICAGO – They say you can learn as much from a bad movie as you can from a good one. If that’s true, what’s the lesson to be taken from the extremely boring and misguided “Red”? Perhaps that moviemaking is not the sum of its parts and that you can’t just get together an amazing cast, shout action, and expect magic.

There’s simply no denying that “Red” features a spectacular cast with Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Richard Dreyfuss, and Mary-Louise Parker, but the caliber of the ensemble almost makes the piece all the more baffling. What did they see in this script? If the film featured a B-level cast and was released straight-to-DVD, no one would give a damn about “Red” but when people this talented get together there’s an expectation of entertainment that this inert comic book adaptation just doesn’t deliver.

The most often-ridiculed genre used to be video-game-to-screen but we’re starting to develop a film festival from Hell of inferior films based on non-superhero comic books. Sliding just barely above the horrendous “The Losers,” “Red” is another graphic-novel adaptation about a group of killing machines fighting the man. But while films like “Watchmen” and “Wanted” sometimes stumbled due to an over-use of style, director Robert Schwentke goes the other way and develops absolutely no personality of its own. Most of the cast sleepwalks through the piece and except for a couple of clever shots that you’ve already seen in the preview, there’s nothing colorful about this mess.

Red
Photo credit: Summit Pictures

A half-asleep Bruce Willis stars as Frank Morris, a man who used to be one of the world’s deadliest but has been reduced to the boredom of everyday life in suburbia. Frank is so desperate to make a connection that he’s begun flirting with the representative (Mary-Louise Parker) who handles his pension and the two have developed a long-distance relationship of sorts. Before Frank can work up the courage to visit his phone buddy, he’s attacked by a group of masked men trying to kill him.

In the first of many “huh” decisions, Frank heads to Denver and essentially kidnaps his one remaining connection to the human world, assuming that the killers will next target her. The complete lack of chemistry between Willis and Parker would make this variation on “Knight and Day” unbearable alone but the pair is soon joined by the rest of the team known as “R.E.D.” (Retired, Extremely Dangerous).

Frank meets up with the cantankerous Joe (Morgan Freeman), the certifiable Marvin (John Malkovich), the flirtatious Russian agent Ivan (Brian Cox), and the smooth Victoria (Helen Mirren). The gang eventually crosses paths with a deadly younger agent (Karl Urban), a defense contractor (Richard Dreyfuss), and even the Vice President (Julian McMahon).

Red
Photo credit: Summit Pictures

On paper, it probably sounds great. But movies don’t exist on paper. Even with all of these super-talented people to watch, “Red” is an absolute bore. It’s one of those films that mistakes apathy for cool. With glacial pacing and so little character development that I longed to spend more time in the government basement with Ernest Borgnine just because he had a little personality, “Red” drags its feet from one action sequence to the next. And even the action sequences aren’t nearly memorable enough.

Director Schwentke and writers Jon and Erich Hoeber seem unwilling to take any risks with “Red.” They think that John Malkovich shooting a missile or Bruce Willis dodging the corner of a moving car are enough to keep viewers interested instead of, you know, things like tension, suspense, or sexual chemistry. To be blunt, I never gave a damn what was going to happen next in “Red.”

The biggest problem is that if a film is going to be as resolutely shallow as “Red,” then it needs to embrace its B-movie lack of depth and at least present a stylish exercise. There’s no depth to “Crank,” but at least there’s an attempt at something visceral; something that connects. With “Red,” it feels like there’s no attempt at all. So many films based on graphic novels value style over substance. “Red” went with the third option and chose neither.

‘Red’ stars Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Karl Urban, Mary-Louise Parker, Brian Cox, Julian McMahon, and Richard Dreyfuss. It was written by Jon and Erich Hoeber and directed by Robert Schwentke. It opens on October 15th, 2010. It is rated PG-13.

By BRIAN TALLERICO
Content Director
HollywoodChicago.com
brian@hollywoodchicago.com

Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham Are Halfway in ‘The Expendables’

PatrickMcD — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 07:57:47 -0400

Rating: 2.5/5.0

CHICAGO – Seeing them all together was fun. Enduring some macho joshing, even in the form of stiff dialogue, was tolerable. But doing a bad, boring action movie with Sylvester Stallone trying to prop up his “legacy” was sadly too much to bear. Jason Statham, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger are among “The Expendables.”

Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) is the leader of a mercenary force, and the film opens with an intervention on a ship that’s been pirated. His force, which includes his right hand man Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), Ying Yang (Jet Li), Toll Road (Randy Couture), Hale Caesar (Terry Crews) and Gunner (Dolph Lundgren), is introduced, and although they take care of the situation, Gunner goes rogue and Barney is looking for the next big job. He even commiserates with his best pal, Tool (Mickey Rourke).

The next gig comes in the form of Bruce Willis, as Mr. Church. He hires the team to take out a tinhorn despot general, who is starving his people on a small island country by giving up the fields to cocaine production. His partner is an American named James Munroe (Eric Roberts), running the drugs and pulling the strings behind the dictatorship.

Ying Yang (Jet Li), Gunner (Dolph Lundgren) and Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) in ‘The Expendables’
Photo Credit: Karen Ballard for © Lionsgate

Accepting the assignment, Ross and Christmas do some reconnaissance on the island, where they are ambushed by Munroe’s men (including ”Stone Cold” Steve Austin as Paine). A mysterious woman named Sandra (Giselle Itié) helps them escape the first time, and Barney can’t shake the image of her courage in the line of fire. After some soul searching, and more advice from Tool, the whole team goes back to the island for some good old school butt kicking.

There was a kick of nostalgia seeing all the 1980s and ‘90s action figures together again for the first time. Craggier and dirtier than their younger versions, their cool clubhouse and locker room banter had an air of conviviality, with a bit of a wink at the camera. The pirated ship sequence was well handled in its violent mayhem, and director Stallone even added some expressive use of night vision photography.

Jason Statham was an excellent choice as the second-in-command. What is always admirable about him, which is a prerequisite for all great action guys, is his utter seriousness and invulnerability in the face of all the absurd situations that these type of movies dish out. Statham can take it, and gives back just as good. He is also the best actor of the bunch, which is the easiest contest in the world in a movie like this, even with Mickey Rourke trying to formulate character for Tool.

On the villain side, not one does oily like Eric Roberts does, and even though Dolph Lundgren as Gunner had little reason to go rogue, it was enjoyable to see him up for the challenge. It anticipated that perhaps he and Stallone would get a chance to do a little toe-to-toe combat, ala “Rocky IV” and make the reunion even that much more complete. Another inspired moment had the tinhorn general contemplating his fate in a room bedecked with glowing candlesticks.

But to paraphrase a famous aphorism, “Mickey Rourke wept.” A freaky, weepy monologue by the Mickster is the catalyst to send the team back to the island in Act Two, and that’s when the whole film falls apart. The infiltration and subsequent wreaking of havoc is an utter bore, with an overdose of improbable escapes, fights and big guns fired, but with no new action territory explored. Extreme violence and “things that blow up” took on a hypnotic quality, as in there was so damn many explosions that a baby could have eventually been rocked to sleep to the booming rhythm.

Blowed Up Real Good: John Munroe (Eric Roberts) and Paine (Steve Austin) hit the drink in ‘The Expendables’
Photo Credit: Karen Ballard for © Lionsgate

Sly Stallone co-wrote and directed the film, and the worse of his ego is exposed in it. Here was an opportunity to have a gathering of some old favorites, and to waste them in sub-standard action fare was paradise lost. And I’m no expert on male menopause, but obviously Stallone has been doing both hormone therapy and screenplay writing to combat his extreme case. And judging by the looks of his over-pumped arms he missed the chance to add the classic pop song “You’re So Veiny” to the soundtrack.

What the second half of the film lacks, that sense of nostalgic fun expected when walking into the film, was a detriment to getting all these guys together. It made the whole exposition that much more expendable.

“The Expendables” opens everywhere August 13th. Featuring Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Eric Roberts, Mickey Rourke, Randy Couture, Steve Austin, Giselle Itié, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Screenplay by Sylvester Stallone and David Callaham,
directed by Sylvester Stallone. Rated “R”

By PATRICK McDONALD
Senior Staff Writer
HollywoodChicago.com
pat@hollywoodchicago.com

Robert De Niro, Director Barry Levinson Wade Through Hollywood’s Mud in ‘What Just Happened?’

HollywoodChicago.com — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:27:13 -0400

Rating: 4.0/5.0

CHICAGO – In his long and distinguished career, Robert De Niro has probably seen it all when it comes to Hollywood excesses and quagmires. Given that experience, he seems the perfect choice to portray an aging film producer and power broker whose influence is on the decline.

“What Just Happened?” teams De Niro with veteran director Barry Levinson (“Rain Man,” “Good Morning, Vietnam,” “The Natural”) in a provocative inside look at the current film business. De Niro is a producer named Ben whose latest film (starring Sean Penn) is in major trouble.

Bruce Willis in “What Just Happened?”.
Photo credit: Magnolia Pictures

His director (Michael Wincott) refuses to cut a scene that makes preview audiences squeamish.

Meanwhile, Ben’s other film (which is about to go into production) is also experiencing problems because star Bruce Willis (playing himself) is rejecting all the physical requirements necessary for the leading male role.

Ben is now a producer on the brink.

The drug-addled director requires constant reassurance, the studio executives are depending on his delivery of the latest Bruce Willis film and his estranged wife wants him in therapy so they can learn to live apart.

As an answer to the question of the movie’s title, it seems that everything can collapse to nothing in Tinseltown.

The film is based on a memoir by producer Art Linson (who also wrote the screenplay). Proving that truth is stranger than fiction, the farcical narrative delves into how egos essentially run Hollywood and how those egos are largely attached to dysfunctional human beings.

De Niro gives an organic and low-keyed performance. His Ben is a fighter who’s used to the problems and childish attitudes in his chosen profession. He just never counted on everything happening at once. There’s never the explosive De Niro we’re often used to.

Robert De Niro in “What Just Happened?”.
Photo credit: Magnolia Pictures

He’s just a man who’s calmly standing on the high ledge and wondering if he’s about to jump or be pushed. The supporting cast is hilarious and clearly relishes getting back at the industry with direct stabs. John Turturro is exceptional as Dick Bell (an agent who has more obstacles than answers).

RELATED IMAGE GALLERY
View our full “What Just Happened?” image gallery.

RELATED READING
Read more film reviews from critic Patrick McDonald.

Bruce Willis (playing a monstrous version of himself) shows off some great comic chops as he petulantly mouths off to every underling who dares to cross his “star”.

Can Willis get nominated for an Oscar for portraying Willis?

The only weakness is the redundancy of the conflict. The film clocks in at about 30 minutes too long (it’s 107 minutes in total) and has the same problems repeating themselves. “What Just Happened?” ends in a whimper – as real life tends to do – rather than a bang.

But for those who think Hollywood is a crumbling Babylon or (on the other side of the coin) a collaboration of “creative” souls, “What Just Happened?” is the ticket to the “show” of the business. Just add the six-buck tub of popcorn.

“What Just Happened?,” which is directed by Barry Levinson and features Robert De Niro, Stanley Tucci, John Turturro, Catherine Keener, Sean Penn, Robin Wright Penn, Michael Wincott and Bruce Willis, opened on Oct. 17, 2008.

By PATRICK McDONALD
Staff Writer
HollywoodChicago.com
pat@hollywoodchicago.com

Bourne is Back, Badass in ‘Ultimatum,’ Still Unrealistically Unbreakable

HollywoodChicago.com — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:23:02 -0400

CHICAGO – Matt Damon as Jason Bourne never thinks. He just does.

Bourne’s always armed with the right devices and brainwaves to foretell his next move. Should he need a rag because he’s about to rooftop hop in Morocco and his hands need protection from random glass shards, Hollywood obliges.

Matt Damon (left) and Joey Ansah in “The Bourne Ultimatum”
Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures
As badass as Bourne is, though, the film tends to forget it isn’t “Unbreakable”.

Bourne – or, as he learns in “The Bourne Ultimatum,” really David Webb – is no Bruce Willis. He’s human without supernatural CGI. While the character is designed to just be a man, the third in this series especially takes his body to the extreme. There’s no way in hell he’d still be standing at this one’s conclusion.

Matt Damon in “The Bourne Ultimatum”
Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures
Think of Rocky being pummeled by the Russian and living to tell the tale. Bourne shows a little bit of blood, utters a few “ow” growls and always gets back up in his rapid-thinking, rapid-acting prime. This ghost continues to refuse to be found.

That’s forgivable, though, because “The Bourne Ultimatum” isn’t selling you on its realism. If you’ve been following what is now a trilogy, you’ve come to expect intense action, explosions, nauseating camera work and yet another deep look into the CIA’s inner chasms.

Director Paul Greengrass (left) and Matt Damon in “The Bourne Ultimatum”
Photo courtesy of Universal Pictures
Though the story feels as if it’s being stretched ad nauseam to prolong its money-making roll, it’s still fun, I was still looking forward to screening it and I’m still glad I did.

In his three peat, Bourne goes home to steal some answers about who he really is and why he’s so unbreakable. While jumping through lots of hoops and thwarting all the “assets” our secret government has to dish out, he solves his own riddle.

The film, which opens wide on Aug. 3, is left open for an entirely new story.

By ADAM FENDELMAN
Editor-in-Chief
HollywoodChicago.com
adam@hollywoodchicago.com