Lawless

I hate to see things go to waste. Like Shia LaBeouf: very funny and charming in Even Stevens and Holes, and clearly capable of drama based on Disturbia. Then he somehow became synonymous with being smarmy, arrogant, and insufferably obnoxious. I guess he played Sam Witwicky too well. Also, "The Road" movie. Beautiful opportunity ruined by cheesy narration, terrible music, and too much happy. I hoped Lawless would be a new chance for both the Beouf and The Road director John Hillcoat. Come on, it has Tom Hardy. No such luck. Jack (Shia LaBeouf), Howard (Jason Clarke), and Forrest (Tom Hardy) Bondurant are successful bootlegging siblings in Franklin, Virginia during prohibition. The law doesn't bother them, they are well liked in town, and allegedly, Forrest is unkillable. Things shake up with two new arrivals from Chicago: Maggie (Jessica Chastain), a waitress with a past, and Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce), an eyebrow-less FBI agent who wants a cut of the business. The Bondurants refuse to bow down, and Jack tries to court Bertha (Mia Wasikowska) in his spare time. But Rakes won't give up, and when he decides to make it personal, all hell breaks loose. When your violent gangster movie features Tom Hardy as a hulking yet wise tough guy with a penchant for brass knuckles and a reputation for surviving death, why make his little brother the main character? Especially when that brother is Shia LaBeouf and is cowardly, useless, and the cause of every bad thing that happens to the characters in the film? Also, why go through the trouble of having Gary Oldman if you only have him in one scene? So yeah, the plot and characters of Lawless aren't great. In fact, both are pretty boring. God knows the actors work hard with nothing, but there's a limit. The script by Nick Cave (seriously?) is hyperbolic, shallow, and confusing, and like in The Road, Hillcoat's direction is much too slow. As I said earlier, it sucks to see things go to waste, especially an interesting story like Lawless that could've been a unique and interesting prohibition film. I admit that I'm a bit tired of big-city shootouts and fedoras. But Lawless is so endless and monotonous that I'm reconsidering that. Not much happens, but the film takes so long to do anything that I couldn't get invested. It's also relentlessly and cartoonishly violent, which is completely unnecessary and only served to take me further out of the story. Saying that I was disappointed by Lawless wouldn't be true. But at the same time, I know it could've been so much more. Especially since it's a true story, which should've been a reason to attach emotionally to the characters and narrative. Sadly everything is underdeveloped; the people are uninteresting, the dialogue is insipid, the plot is a mess, and the pacing is terrible. Lawless probably would've been silly no matter who made it, but it could at least have been more fun to watch. So stay away, because something nasty got into the moonshine.

The Expendables 2

The first Expendables was disappointing, at least to me. I didn't see the point of Terry Crews and Randy Cotoure, I wasn't big on the villain, and there wasn't enough blood. Seriously, I could make a list of people who should've been in the last movie, but that would take way too long. This inevitable sequel has a few of the people that list, and a few I didn't overall. Overall, I was more confident with this movie going in. Should I have been? Lemme tell you. Barney Ross (Stallone), Lee Christmas (Statham), and the rest of their gang of bad puns have returned, but so has Mr. Church (Willis), and he's calling in his favor. Threatening the team with prison time, Church sends them on a routine snatch-grab that turns bad fast with the arrival of Jean Vilain (Van Damme), a terrorist for hire. After Vilain makes it personal, the Expendables are left with no option but payback. Now in a world where the odds are against them, these steroid-pumped seniors must get paid back, no matter the cost. If nothing else, Expendables 2 is consistent. From the very beginning, reality is head-butted out of the way, and we are treated to a buffet of eighties action cliches, gore, bad CGI, worst plastic surgery, bromance, and Dolph Lundgren. There's more action, more blood, more one-liners, and more nostalgia. Sadly, it's not as great as it may sound. Jet Li disappears around fifteen minutes in, and Liam Hemsworth leaves soon after, only to be replaced by a generic "I can take care of myself" girl character. And my main man Jean-Claude throws barely five roundhouses. For some reason Stallone decided to focus more on specific characters than the team, and the film suffers. Also not helping is the schizophrenic and ridiculous plot that tries too often to be brooding and fails miserably. But when you see Stallone, Willis, and Schwarzenegger all together blowing away armies of henchmen, it's difficult not to enjoy yourself. I admit that I have a bias towards loving Arnold no matter his age, but still, it's pretty glorious at parts. The overall action is just better, with more attention paid to being fun to watch than brutal. And yes, there's a Chuck Norris fact. And yes, it's pretty funny. People expecting anything deep or smart from Expendables 2 shouldn't go see it. At the same time, people who want to see it shouldn't expect much. The Expendables 2 is a silly and fun action movie, nothing else. It is very flawed and very dumb, but I still enjoyed it way more than the first one. I like to check my brain at the door every now and then, so I welcomed this movie, however I completely understand why someone wouldn't like it. The Expendables 2 is a big goofy train ride that's a lot of fun if you're in the right mindset. That's all it will ever be, so take it or leave it.

The Campaign

If anyone is going to lambast the giant game of grab-ass that is American politics, Will Ferrel is a great choice. And if one were to choose Ferrel's opposite, Zach Galifianakis is good too. And of all the comedy directors that came out of the nineties, Jay Roach is one of the best. All these ingredients coming together should make something absolutely hilarious; as biting as Thompson and as side-splitting as Anchorman. The Campaign only sort of succeeds. Cam Brady (Will Ferrel)is a seedy North Carolina congressman who will say and do anything to get reelected for his fifth term. After a sex scandal, Brady's corporate backers decide to set up local loser Marty Huggins (Zach Galifianakis) as their personal candidate. Innocent and naive Marty just wants to help the people, but a dirty campaign manager (Dylan McDermott) changes his whole world and forces Brady to start get desperate. With both sides going nuts, war is declared, things get personal, and hijinks ensue. A political comedy is a comedy that would understandably be hard to do. What with the brilliance of Jon Stewart, Colbert, South Park, and hundreds of others out there, it's gotta be hard to stand out. That's why The Campaign gave me quite a bit of hope, because the people involved are so great. And there are a lot of moments that are side-splittingly funny, but it's just that: moments. The film as a whole isn't that great. I blame this mostly on the script, which to be honest is thin on character and doesn't go far enough. As a result The Campaign isn't as focused and tight as it should be. Still, when the film is funny, it is damn funny. The best jokes in the movie are really biting satire on the whole Super-PAC corporatization of congress and its representatives from both parties, and I laughed hard. But there are just too many in between moments that aren't funny and go on way too long without progressing or developing anything. There's a message about Citizens United that's forced into the end, and I almost want to say that it doesn't go hard enough on the corporations that it sets out against. I also wish there were more analogues for real world politicians, but hey, ya can't have it all. The Campaign is a step down from Jay Roach's other political and comedic films, and Adam McKaye's writing, but it's a step up for pretty much all else. It's good to see Will Ferrel outside of dramadies and Mexico, and it also moves Zach Galifianakis from his Awkward Beard-Man persona for once. Sadly the script is underwritten and a bit of a mess, and I know it could've been better. In the end The Campaign has many great moments, but just never rises to the level it should have.

The Imposter

True crime is great; TV, books, whatever. I can spend hours watching Unsolved Mysteries or looking up serial killers on wikipedia. The subject of what darkness is just behind the layer of society and morality is fascinating to me.This also ties into my love of mystery fiction, specifically the hardboiled stuff by Raymond Chandler and Edgar Allen Poe. I love stories of weird circumstances, dad ends, gumshoes, and dark secrets. Who knew you could have all that with a documentary? In mid-1994, thirteen-year-old Nicholas Barclay disappeared while walking home in San Antonio, Texas. His family did an extensive search, but nothing came up. Three years later, they get a call from a shelter in Spain claiming they have Nicholas. Nicholas' sister personally went to pick him up. The person she brought back claimed to have been kidnapped into a child prostitution ring. He also looked nothing like Nicholas, had different colored eyes, and spoke with a French accent. But the Barclay family took him in without question. Why would they? Were they that desperate? And what happens when the impostor becomes scared of those he's duping? For lack of a better term: holy cow is this movie engaging. I was literally on the edge of my seat for most of it, and I was talking and thinking about the film for days after seeing it. The documentary interviews everyone involved with the case, including Nicholas' family, an FBI agent, a private eye who noticed early discrepancies, and the impostor himself. We get the facts of the story packaged with speculation from two equally unreliable narrators, and the director handles it magnificently. I'm no Marlowe, but I have mild confidence in my observational skills, and for the first time I did real detective work. I won't say my conclusion, but let me say I was surprised. Most unique about The Imposter is how the story is told. The film is a completely new and original take on crime documentaries, and it's cool. As we listen to first hand accounts from the various taling heads, we watch high quality reenactments, news footage, and home movies that reveal intricacies that otherwise wouldn't have been included. The Imposter also makes use of voice filters, nonlinear narrative, and creepy music to tell a truly haunting and bizarre tale full of lies and unsolved suspicions. For me, watching this film was like reading a great whodunit novel. What killed me was the fact that it was all real. Not "based on a true story" real. Nobody's names were changed, no sides are taken. There's just the facts, set up in an incredibly fascinating way. It's definitely a film I'd see again with others who haven't seen it, if not just so I can reexamine the story. There's really nothing else for me to say except go see The Imposter because it's awesome.

The Bourne Legacy

I really do love the Bourne movies. They're a great representation of serious and realistic action films, and I enjoy the hell out of them. The original Bourne films with Matt Damon are visceral, engaging, and smart. And you know what? I was open to Jeremy Renner being a new character in the same universe, because realistically there had to be other secret agents besides Bourne who weren't sent after him. So when the trailers had Ed Norton saying Bourne was but the beginning, I allowed myself to get psyched. I'm not sure that was wise. Taking place during the second half of The Bourne Ultimatum, The Bourne Legacy follows Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner), another agent of Outcome. After surviving an attempt by Eric Byer (Edward Norton) to eliminate loose ends in wake of the Bourne scandal, Aaron finds that he is running out of the CIA drug that allows him to function as an enhanced individual. Unwilling to face withdrawal systems, Aaron seeks out his program physician (Rachel Weisz) for help after saving her from being taken out as well. The good doctor suggests they go to the main lab and try to cure Aaron's addiction, and the pair starts a race against time. Ok, that isn't exactly the plot. I admit, I paraphrased a bit, but for good reason. The real plot makes much, much less sense. Maybe it's because I haven't seen Bourne Ultimatum in a while, but that shouldn't be a reason for me getting lost in the narrative like five times. Considering how long it's been since the original trilogy came out, I feel like Legacy should've been an easy refresher. Remember, the Damon films, especially Ultimatum, are pretty complex. But even if I remembered the original ones perfectly, the whole pill thing still wouldn't make a lick of sense. Jeremy Renner is a good actor. He was the best part of The Hurt Locker, I dug him in Ghost Protocol, and he's Hawkeye. But he's not given much to work with here. The action scenes, while awesome, are few, far between, and short. So when Renner has to single handedly bring the story forward through the convoluted dialog, he doesn't do so well. I'd love to see more of Aaron Cross, he's an interesting character, but Legacy falls on its face developing him. And as gorgeous as Rachel Weisz is, her character is really boring in this movie. Bourne Legacy is not a bad movie, no matter how awful I've been making it sound. It's just not really good, per se. It's the perfect example of "not bad," or "could be better." Hopefully, there will be another film that improves on Legacy's mistakes, because while I miss Matt Damon, Jeremy Renner could be great if only they give him the right script. In the end The Bourne Legacy is a fine first effort at a totally new kind of Bourne movie. It isn't fantastic or horrible, it's honestly just ok.

Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai

Takashi Miike is nothing if not a defier of stereotypes. He is a director best known in America as the director of gore-fests like Audition and Ichi the Killer, but has directed at least five kids movies. Miike is one of the most prolific and weird cult filmmakers in the world, but was chosen to make the Phoenix Wright movie. He has quickly become one of my favorite Japanese directors, in no small part because of his 2011 masterpiece 13 Assassins. With Hara-Kiri, Miike returns to the world of the samurai, this time with a different approach. On a peaceful afternoon in feudal Japan, the prominent Li clan is visited by a middle-aged samurai named Hanshiro (Ebizo Ichikawa). Hanshiro claims to be poverty-stricken and alone, and wishes to commit suicide on the grounds of a famous house, in front of its three most revered warriors. Worried that Hanshiro just wants money for pity, Li retainer Kageyu (Koji Yakusho) attempts to scare him off with the story of Motome (Eita), a ronin who bluffed and was brutally killed. Unknown to him though, Hanshiro was closely related with Motome, and has a plan for revenge. I was immediately surprised by Hara-Kiri when I learned that Takashi Miike's method of directing the film was the complete opposite of 13 Assassins. By that I mean he uses the same hair-raising tension and suspense as he did in Audition. Hara-Kiri is constructed like a stageplay, forgoing wall-to-wall violence in favor of subtle development and a stripped-down feel. The lack of CGI, orchestral music, and fancy editing serves as a highlight to the fantastic cinematography and lighting, as well as the occasional drag in the story. But what really shines are the performances. Ebizo Ichikawa plays Hanshiro with the restraint of Geoffrey Rush and the power of Toshiro Mifune, setting up a wall of calm that feels like it's uncomfortably surrounding you. Koji Yakusho is in top form, an the rest of the cast handles the film like serious thespians. So even though this is a long and sometimes boring movie, there is a very intense atmosphere that keeps you guessing and surprised. Hara-Kiri is really a suspense film dressed in a kimono and katana. My one warning to those who may wish to watch Hara-Kiri is that it's very sad. There were parts where I almost fast-forwarded because it's so melancholy. We meet characters in flashbacks that are extremely likable, and we root for them, but they just can't catch a break. Two scenes were especially hard-hitting for me, and I almost laughed at how sad it was. But overall Hara-Kiri is a very well constructed and cerebral film that is made and performed beautifully. Not as good as 13 Assassins, but worth watching all the same.

The Dark Knight Rises

What a wild and amazing ride Christopher Nolan has taken us on. In the past seven years he's revolutionized superhero movies, made Heath Ledger legendary, created hundreds of internet memes, and brought philosophy back to blockbusters. He has changed the way the world looks at action movies, and of course made Batman more relevant than he has ever been. So after two nearly perfect films, his conclusion must be even better right? Right? Eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, Gotham is nearly rid of crime, and Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has hung up the cowl. Hoever, he hasn't been able to move on, and spends his days as a shut in. After an encounter with Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) and some encouragement from Alfred (Michael Caine), Bruce seems ready to rejoin the world as everyone's favorite eccentric billionaire. That is, until Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is nearly killed by Bane (Tom Hardy), a mysterious masked man with a hard-on for Batman. Bane is bigger, stronger, and more cunning han Bruce, so when Batman returns to the streets, he might not get the triumph he expected. See that big paragraph I just wrote as a plot summary? It's about five run-on sentences long, which is standard for me. And I left out almost half of the movie. I didn't mention Marion Cotillard or Joseph Gordon-Levitt, nor did I actually develop the stakes of the story. That's how much this movie has going on in it, and I don't necessarily mean that positively. Nolan proved with Inception that he could masterfully handle complex plots, but here is cup overflows. By going all in immediately, The Dark Knight Rises loses the carefully structured narrative of its predecessors and is honestly a bit of a mess. It's like The Godfather 3; there are just too many new characters and plot points, and there's no real binding piece like in the last one. Also, while it's unfair to compare anyone to Heath Ledger's Joker, Bane is a disappointment. His big Darth Vader mask covers so much of his face that we see no movement, so even though he has a cool voice and is the amazing Tom Hardy, it sadly feels dubbed in. And I love Tom Hardy, so this is hard to say. But it's like seeing a shark in a tank; menacing yes, but not very scary and a bit detached. That isn't to say I didn't like the movie. I could nitpick it all day, but I had a great time and was satisfied. I wasn't blown away, but besides Bane the acting is top-notch, and most of the script is too. I shouldn't even have to tell you about how great the music and direction is. Interestingly, the best part for me was Anne Hathaway. They never call her Catwoman, but Hathaway owns the role, being smart, cool, and sexy all at once without missing a beat. So in the end, it kinda sucks that The Dark Knight Rises isn't the earth-shattering conclusion to the trilogy that I wanted so badly for it to be. Yes, I'm a bit resentful that I didn't cry at the end. The film really should've given Tom Hardy a better mask, and they never should have kicked David Goyer off the writing team. But this is still a solid and worthwhile ending to an incredible franchise, so my gripes don't really matter.