Archive Review: Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) - 2.5/5 Stars

Like most '90s sequels, "Lethal Weapon 3" proves the third time's a flop. The movie isn't horrible. It's watchable and provides the antics fans of the first two films have come to expect, but it offers no stimulation. It's flat, uninspired and typical. Riggs and Murtaugh aren't pushed in new ways or given any opportunity to grow as characters. Riggs (Gibson) is up to the same wisecrackery and Murtaugh (Glover) is still "too old for this ****."

The plot is pretty standard. Murtaugh is days from retirement (isn't he always days from retirement?) when Riggs sets off a bomb he was trying to diffuse when he should've waited for bomb squad. Gosh, he's so darn reckless that Riggs! You'd think writer Jeffrey Boam ("Lethal Weapon 2," "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade") would stop leaning so hard on blanket personality descriptors of the characters. Anyway, the two get demoted to street duty where as luck would have it, they witness criminals taking something in an armored truck. They end up getting wrapped up in a major LAPD case involving an ex-cop stealing tons of automatic guns and selling them to gangs and such.

The story never captures the full scope of what's going on. There's little sense of urgency and the alternative technique of mystery isn't used either. Murtaugh and Riggs just continue to be in the right place at the right time to catch bad guys in the act leading to pivotal turning points. I failed to feel any sort of emotion while watching the action in this film, I merely assumed something good would happen but not even Richard Donner could deliver on the action front.

Another point to harp on is supporting cast. Boam brought back Joe Pesci's character in a small role where he's selling Murtaugh's house and also trying to get in on the action. Pesci is one of those actors that you either want to focus on or forget about because he's either very good or too much. Obviously in "Lethal Weapon 3" he's the latter. Rene Russo also joins as the martial arts-savvy Internal Affairs sergeant whom Riggs gets the hots for, naturally. Just the mere technique of throwing in a love interest cop for Riggs to get serious about (which he does to not believable effect) is offensive to those who have a sense of what effort a sequel needs to make to be any good.

Apathy would be the best way to describe the way one receives "Lethal Weapon 3." Whereas its predecessor was infinitely more imaginative and impressive as a sequel, the horse needed to complete this trifecta was too similar and just dressed up to look different. Much of it is being stale, much of it is just not being a good script.

2.5/5 Stars

"Lethal Weapon 3" (1992)

Directed by: Richard Donner

Written by: Jeffrey Boam, Robert Mark Kamen, Shane Black (characters)

Starring: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Rene Russo, Joe Pesci

Archive Review: Hancock (2008) - 2.5/5 Stars

John Hancock is far from your average superhero, but the trailer told you that. What the trailer doesn't tell you, is that after the rogue anti-hero drunkenly parades about as advertised, he has to develop a backstory and make the film go from a clever spin on a hot- ticket genre to an emotional action drama. There are entertaining and unique elements that make "Hancock" standout, but they end up secondary to a hodge-podge and two-faced plot concept.

It's easy to be deceived these days by the shear unruly star-power that is Will Smith, especially when he's attached to a project dealing with superheroes, a genre that has been a cash machine. He's talented no matter what he does, and in that regard, "Hancock" is enjoyable. While I personally felt his character was too much of an a**hole as the script so frequently and unoriginally puts it, that doesn't mean Smith isn't good at it. He's just a great hero no matter the film. 

To quickly summarize, Smith plays "Hancock," a lonely, drunken jerk with Superman powers and a public approval rating of zero. When he saves Ray's (Jason Bateman) life, Ray offers his services as a P.R. consultant and the two work to change his image. Eventually, you get to Hancock's back story and some strange but obvious twists take the film down a different path that to explain would be a major spoiler.

So from the perspective of a producer that has a decent script with a highly marketable concept written by some nobodies and with a director (Peter Berg) attached whose best action credit is 2007's "The Kingdom," I would definitely want to sign someone to play Hancock who is going to guarantee me top spot at the box office. Well, voila. Smith is such a proved commodity with an amazing streak of top first weekend box office spots that he could get any contract he wants and he should do that. 

After Smith, the marks for "Hancock" are pretty much middle of the road. The CGI and Berg's directing style is too sloppy for what should be a clean-cut summer blockbuster. His refusal to use any camera stabilizing device works for a few scenes, but most of the time it's just dizzying and the close-ups become obnoxious. The plot concept, which paints a picture of Hancock as a hero and then fills it in with the origin story later instead of the other way around, makes for an interesting affect, but instead of enlightening what we know about Hancock, it ends up taking the film in another direction entirely. While you might think this movie would leave you with themes about turning one's life around and becoming the best you can be, that gets glossed over and you're left themeless.

If you want summer fun at the movies that is about as clumsy, destructive and amusing as the title character is, you should check out "Hancock."

2.5/5 Stars

"Hancock" (2008)

Directed by: Peter Berg

Written by: Vincent Ngo, Vince Gilligan

Starring: Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman

Archive Review: Predator (1987) - 3.5/5 Stars

Never saw the original "Predator" until today. It's worth mentioning that Robert Rodriguez is producing a re-make that's just started filming.

"Predator" boasts a few unique claims, one being that it's the only movie to feature two US governors. The "Jaws" and "Alien"-inspired monster attack film also gave birth to one of the most original creatures we've ever seen instead relying on aliens or dangerous animals. But most of all, it's the ability of "Predator" to deliver entertainment on bare-bones plot structure.

Arnold Schwarzenegger stars in director John McTiernan's breakthrough action thriller about a team of commandos on a hostage rescue mission in a Central American jungle who on their way back find themselves being hunted one-by-one by some extra-terrestrial hunter with stealth armor. 

The beauty of "Predator" is that's all for the plot. No sub-plots, no character development, nothing -- just gunfire and guts. Only occasionally does a mindless film like this one come along, recognize that its mindless, and just execute "entertaining" right down to its very definition.

The cast is completely talentless, but Schwarzenegger appears to have finely honed his ability to be an action star without distracting us with a thick accent. His recognizability at this point in his career is enough to like him in the film. Jesse Venture adds a bit of variety to the cast and makes for a nice fun fact many years later.

It would be one thing if there was no good reason for "Predator" to be devoid of everything but spine, but an alien with hunting gear and dreadlocks killing commandos for good sport needs nothing but some clever action sequences and effective suspense. Like "Alien," we don't see the Predator in full until way into the movie and that's half the excitement necessary to enjoy it.

Other movies try and give us back story, romance and clever twists when they aren't capable of delivering them well. "Predator" says "you want blood and aliens but not the same old presentation? You got it." Good film-making has never been simpler.

3.5/5 Stars

"Predator" (1987)

Directed by: John McTiernan

Written by: Jim and John Thomas

Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger

New on DVD: X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) - 3/5 Stars

The superhero genre reached a higher echelon in 2008 with "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight," and considering the success of 2/3 of the X-Men franchise so far, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" can certainly be held to those standards, especially a movie whose title alone suggests getting right down to its hero's adamantium core.

But "Wolverine" plays more like a spin-off, defining "origins" as the back story and not the psychological workings of the character. It's weak on themes, but loaded on more new mutants with new powers, explosions and plenty of subplots. Basically, it fails where "X-Men 3" did, trying to do too much at once, rushing the plot along and sacrificing the deeper reason audiences are drawn to Hugh Jackman's character other than he's cool and has a crude, sarcastic sense of humor. However, it succeeds much of the same way X3 did and beyond: more explosive action and creative use of an immense visual effects budget. Although director Gavin Hood doesn't bring more insight into the film with his work, he certainly has as good of an eye for the stylish as anyone.

The first sign that you know this movie isn't going to be top tier for superhero flicks is the number of mutants/villains. For a story about one, singular X-man, there are way too many other characters to follow: Col. Stryker is their ringleader, but Sabretooth (Schriber), Wade Wilson/Deadpool (Reynolds), Bolt (Monaghan), Gambit (Kitsch), Wraith (will.i.am), Agent Zero, the Blob and young Cyclops (not to mention a slough of extras) make the film dizzying. Especially at the beginning, we need to see more Wolverine -- it's his movie.

To the film's credit, its quick movement makes it easy to watch and entertaining and there's some surprisingly good comedic timing on Jackman's part for an action movie. Seriously though, it must have been a blast (no pun intended) on the set during action sequences because they actually destroyed everything they possibly could: CGI, real and both. This film is the beginning of what will surely be mind-blowing visual effects at the movies this summer. Hood gives new visual strength to the franchise and provides a much more epic feel to this film -- it's clearly about this grand journey for Wolverine, even if it's more spectacle than introspective.

Surprisingly, the ending was the most satisfying part of the film. All the subplots converge, it makes sense and the loose ends that fans of the first three films will notice get tied up fittingly at the end. For the whole first hour of the film you're juggling Wolverine and Sabretooth's rivalry, Stryker's team of guys with powers, Wolverine's romance with Kayla out in the wilderness, what's happening to the team of guys with powers ... why the heck kid Cyclops is in the movie ... it's not overwhelming, it's just not as enjoyable when you can't focus on one thing or character as much as you'd like. Still, the ending justifies the strange means, at least in terms of the epic battle that ensues.

"Wolverine" is not a travesty for the genre, but it certainly doesn't meet the expectations for a thorough superhero movie experience. You get amped up action and style over meaning and that makes it entertainment more than catharsis. Expect to be entertained and little else and "Wolverine" will satisfy your itch for the summer movie season.

3/5 Stars

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" (2009)

Directed by: Gavin Hood

Written by: David Benioff, Skip Woods

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Danny Huston, Ryan Reynolds

Archive Review: Romancing the Stone (1984) - 3/5 Stars

Kathleen Turner stars as a romance adventure novelist who ends up on a romantic adventure of her own in "Romancing the Stone." Naturally, fans of romance adventures will most enjoy this one, but to its credit there's a good balance of action to make this film enjoyable for just about everyone.

"Romancing the Stone" is a writer's fantasy about a writers' fantasy that comes true. Screenwriter Diane Thomas must've been something of a hopeless romantic herself to create Joan Wilder and have her live out a story similar to her books. Wilder is a single woman in her 30s living with her cat who finds out her sister has been kidnapped and that the ransom has been sent to her randomly in the form of a treasure map. Joan flies to Columbia where another man interested in the map sends her off into the jungle instead of straight to her destination where Indiana Jones more or less in the form of Michael Douglas as Jack Colton finds her and helps her begrudgingly.

The film certainly capitalizes on the popularity of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" only targeting itself at women. Joan is a naive and hopeless beauty-in-waiting and Douglas the rebellious adventurer who helps her for initially selfish reasons that turn into romantic ones. Their chemistry is a bit forced, but each fits perfectly into his/her role that we easily approve.

From an action sense, director Robert Zemeckis, in his first major film, keeps the film light but suspenseful enough to keep our interest. Considering the writing calls for cat and mouse the entire time as Joan and Jack run from the corrupt the Colombian police officer Zolo and his men as well as Danny DeVito, a lot hinges on Zemeckis' creativity to keep the constantly recycling scenes of fleeing from gunfire feel more pressing each time until the climax. He also brings a healthy sense of humor that makes the movie easier to enjoy, knowing that even its maker wants this to be nothing but light-hearted entertainment.

"Romancing" is predictable adventure with even more predictable romance, but Zemeckis finds a way to make it inherently more likable than even Turner or Douglas as talents do. In a film where there would be plenty to role our eyes at, Zemeckis graciously spares us the trouble.

3/5 Stars

"Romancing the Stone" (1984)

Directed by: Robert Zemeckis

Written by: Diane Thomas

Starring: Kathleen Turner, Michael Douglas

Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - 2.5/5 Stars

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a horror movie for epileptics, a 2.5-hour exhibition of a hurricane in a hardware store, a relentlessly loud first movement in a symphony of destruction. It is a summer blockbuster on steroids: you'd like to laud the accomplishment, but it feels like cheating. In other words, "Fallen" appears to be the greatest spectacle of visual effects and stunts ever made, but simultaneously the most overproduced screaming pile of junk Hollywood has served us in this computer-generated era.

You have to give Michael Bay credit, the man sticks to his directorial convictions: explosions, chases and more explosions. Despite getting reamed for years for his overkill style, he seems to feel like it's not worth making a sequel unless you're committed to visually dwarfing the first one. What his approach, and the approach of this entire film should have been, was not to overload this thing and instead hit the audience hardest where it counts most. "Fallen" is more than overly ambitious: the script is a barreling mack truck and the audience like roadkill stuck in its grill.

"Fallen" enlightens us that humans and transformers actually have a history on Earth, the only plausible way to harvest a story after a straight-forward, sensible and enjoyable first film. Two years later, the U.S. Military and the Autobots have joined forces to eliminate the surviving Decepticons that threaten Earth. After the opening scene ravishing China, however, it's not that simple. Our human hero, Sam Witwicky (LaBeouf), has discovered that a shard from the first film's All Spark, an energy source giving life to Transformers, has been with him all this time, and now it's suddenly transferred crucial information to him that contains the whereabouts of another energy source somewhere on Earth that could give the Decepticons their revenge. As with the first film, that's not all. Dozens of characters and subplots (Sam going to college, the Obama administration trying to shut down the operation between the Army and the Autobots and of course the sexiest woman alive, Megan Fox, trying to get her boyfriend to say three small words.

As for new Transformers, it seems as if Hasbro, creators of the hit action figures for decades now, put a mandatory quota on needing x number of new products appearing on screen for toy-mongering children to beg their parents for. "Fallen" is loaded with new bots, including the famous Devastator, a five-transformers-joined-into-one monstrosity that resembles a living junkyard and is even equipped with "testicles." 

Yes, that's part of "Fallen"'s obnoxious and horrific sense of humor. It was pretty even hit- or-miss in the first movie, but this film is even more insulting to its audiences comedic intelligence. Take "the twins" for example: idiotic gold-toothed stereotypes in the form of those compact Chevys (GM, how fitting) throwing insults at each other. They are second to only Jar Jar Binks. The writers also seem to think adding Sam's new college roommate is a good idea -- when John Turturro (also pointlessly back) stuns him to sleep to shut him up, it's almost as if they knew what an annoyance he was. It's hard to believe that at least Orci and Kurtzman, who delivered an awesome "Star Trek" script last month, were behind such frivolous dialogue. I can't fault them for the absurdity of the plot and lack of themes -- they were paid a lot and their hands were tied -- but the forced humor? Terrible.

Still, as easy as "Fallen" is to rip on, it gets a few stars out of respect for the man hours it must've taken to turn this film over in less than two years and make it as much of a visual masterpiece as it is. Though Bay could have made it less frenetic with not as many camera circle-arounds, you can tell every sequence had to have been planned so far ahead and done perfectly on every take. Let's hope the next one, Bay or no Bay, condenses quantity into quality and gives this franchise back its storytelling dignity. At the least, let Hollywood learn, in the peak of the CG era, that less is more.

2.5/5 Stars

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"

Directed by: Michael Bay

Written by: Ehren Kruger, Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman

Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, John Turturro

Archive Review: Gone in Sixty Seconds (2000) - 2/5 Stars

Carjacking is generally a good time, but Dominic Sena manages to make it unexciting in "Gone in Sixty Seconds," a remake of the 1974 film. Aside from a good final chase, this film spends more time talking about stealing cars than actually doing it. At the least you'd expect a two-hour showcase of some beautiful automobiles, but you get cheated out of that too. Instead, you get a cast full of unfunny hollow characters running into problems trying to steal cars, and when they finally do, they last, well, sixty seconds.

Sena, whose credits include working on Janet Jackson videos, is interested in ineffective style choices. It's expected in a movie about grand theft auto that there's going to be excessive glitz and a lot of visual dressing up of an average story line, but instead of adding exciting flare, Sena chooses to set things on fire in unwarranted places and set to cheesy electronic "let's wear leather and get in and out of cars" music.

The story is pretty straightforward and the plot moves quickly despite a few holes. In it, Nicholas Cage, who's notorious for picking all kinds of projects good and terrible, stars as retired car thief Memphis Raines, who is brought out of retirement when his kid brother Kip (Giovanni Ribisy) gets in trouble with a big overseas car broker. The broker threatens to kill Kip if Memphis doesn't steal an order of 50 cars within three days. Memphis assembles a team of quirky thieves young and old to save his brother's life while a pair of detectives follow his trail.

Infamous '90s action producer Jerry Bruckheimer has the right idea in getting this movie made, but the team of Sena and writer Scott Rosenberg (who wrote the Cage thriller "Con Air") just doesn't get the job done. It would have been perfectly acceptable for "Gone in Sixty Seconds" to be a high-adrenaline film for action junkies with a flimsy plot, maybe even hyper-masculinized, but we don't even get that. There's a great opportunity for the story to bring us into the world of car boosting, but we learn nothing about how a car is stolen other than brief images and dialogue. I don't think they had reason to believe everyone was going to start stealing cars with that information. 

But if nothing else were wrong, there's still no tension or sense of what's at stake. Kip, for some reason, is really cool about everything and it's his life is on the line, so if he doesn't care, why should we? The brother tension between him and Memphis is simply that, not a developed subplot by any means, nor is the sexual tension between Memphis and Sway, Angelina Jolie's character, who's reasons for helping with the mission appear to be to avert sexism. Robert Duvall and Chi McBride also play two-dimensional roles. Apparently the fact that Kip might die (even though he doesn't care) is good enough for everybody.

"Gone in Sixty Seconds" is mostly a predictable and conventional story line, but it's effectively so, helping keep our attention despite the film's complete lack of an edge. It gives just enough to convince its audience something exciting is coming and meets that expectation with average marks. But I don't even think a car-lover would find this more than marginally entertaining.

2/5 Stars

"Gone in Sixty Seconds" (2000)

Directed by: Dominic Sena

Written by: Scott Rosenberg, H.B. Halicki (1974 film)

Starring: Nicholas Cage, Giovanni Ribisy, Robert Duvall, Angelina Jolie

Review: The Hurt Locker - 4.5/5 Stars

Though there have been a few attempts to quickly turn over a good film about the Iraq War or a similar conflict ("The Lucky Ones," "In the Valley of Elah," "Jarhead," "The Kingdom"), none achieve on so many levels and try to capture the true experience of today's soldiers like "The Hurt Locker."

Former embedded journalist Mark Boal (who wrote the story for "Elah") captures the spirit of this particular war with his story about a team of bomb diffusers who work with IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices). The story mainly focuses on one bomb specialist, Sgt. Will James (Jeremy Renner), who enters the picture after the team's beloved Sgt. Thompson (Guy Pearce) dies on the job. James is highly skilled, but also totes an action junkie attitude that creates tension between him and his fellow squad members.

What will unfortunately surprise a lot of people watching this film is its director, Kathryn Bigelow. If you have any doubts of a woman's ability to make a Grade A action film than throw them out the window. Bigelow, who also directed action cult favorite "Point Break" and the okay film "K-19: The Widowmaker" paves the way for women action directors with this excellent film. She sets a precedent for what today's war film should look like with the raw, camcorder style that gives "Hurt Locker" its realistic, documentary feel. Screw the awing cinematography of "Saving Private Ryan," the Iraq War is not to be glorified by the camera in any way, especially considering it's still going on.

Other war films dabble in the glory of war, the traumatic effects it has on its soldiers and its many other evils, but "Hurt Locker" dares to consider the temptations, the allure of war despite its disastrous affects. Its main character, James, is certainly troubled, but not because of seeing death or risking it every time he tries to diffuse a homemade C4 bomb -- it's because he needs the adrenaline rush of feeling like he's doing something dangerous and important.

To Bigelow, that is the defining characteristic of this war and James embodies it. He alone at times is the sole cause of action and tension in the film. We think to ourselves that he's in a dangerous situation with a bomb threat -- then he takes his protective suit off and the intensity is magnified. In that way, Bigelow plays off our own desire to see action and suspense. It would be a whole lot nicer if the guys stayed out of trouble considering they're set to be sent home in less than a month's time, but it wouldn't be exciting. James mirrors our own action fetishism in that way, and herein lies the film's true excellence.

"The Hurt Locker" is an interesting film and the first originally poignant piece of cinema to be attached to the Iraq War in a way that makes a statement that films embodying Vietnam or World War II haven't already made. It's unknown cast is talented and helps keep the film much more realistic. There's something about seeing actors that are too well known in war films that instantly glamorizes it and detracts from its impact. 

To boot, there's a lot of great suspense and action. Scenes where nothing ultimately happens put us on the edge of our seats because they're well set-up. The soldiers' paranoia among other things translates well to an audience unaware of the true dangers of the Iraq War and highlights what makes this time significant in our history compared to any other. This is the kind of movie that could be used as a means of understanding the Iraq War years and years from now, especially in terms of grasping the perspective we had before it was even over.

4.5/5 Stars

"The Hurt Locker"

Directed by: Kathryn Bigelow

Written by: Mark Boal

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes

View Trailer