Action and Adventure films - 2014
| John Wick | Sin City: A Dame to Kill For | Expendables 3 |
| Hercules | 300: Rise of an Empire |
____________________
 |
It has been quite a while since Keanu Reeves has been graced with a hit. Several years have gone by since the days of Speed and The Matrix. His more recent offerings - 47 Ronin and Man of Tai Chi - haven't exactly set the world on fire. But now he's back as the title character in John Wick.
This film probably won't be talked about at the Academy Awards. The story has an interestingly limited scope, but it's actually a familiar tale. A retired gunman is drug back into the violent world he left behind. He is driven to avenge a wrong and those who committed it soon come to realize the horrible mistake they have made. The story could have been told with gunfighters in the old west. It could have been told with martial artists in the far east. Here, it's the criminal underworld integrated into the modern New York City urban jungle.
The film starts with John (Reeves) battered and bloodied in a banged up vehicle. He appears to be at death's door as he stumbles out and collapses in the darkened street. He pulls out a cell phone and watchs a video of a woman on a beach. For John, and us, the present gives way to the past. In flashbacks we see him losing his wife to cancer (the current movie disease) and she leaves him a puppy to bond with after she passes. The little dog is a glimmer of light in his lonely little island of self-imposed isolation.
Then, enter the bad guys who add unforgivable injuries to a man who had already felt broken. And while there is nothing John can do to retaliate against the big "C," these guys are just flesh and blood. John Wick becomes the John Wick of old; not exactly the Boogeyman, as his old associates describe him, the guy you send to kill the Boogeyman.
This is what I would refer to as a classic "guy's movie" - fist fights, gun fights, car fights, a code of conduct (though a brutal one), and a few samples of female eye candy (not all harmless). The film's director, Chad Stahelski, in his first film, does a good job of creating this underworld as if it is a particular wavelength within the New York landscape, largely isolated to itself and its denizens. He gets into the action early, escalates it quickly, and from there on one just holds on.
It was fun seeing Keanu Reeves kick ass and he does it pretty convincingly for a guy who's 50 years old now. All the killing can be a bit disturbing, but everyone John takes out is "living by the sword," so to speak, so they have assumed the risk of the violent life of thieves and killers they have chosen.
While watching John Wick engage in countless fights, it made me think of a movie version of a video game - a basic plot and lots of mayhem. In fact, John Wick is a playable character in Overkill Software's Payday 2 video game.
Critical response to this film has been good and it has been reasonably profitable. It fits in with the popular archetype of the single, unstoppable hero against impossible odds, as similarly portrayed by Jason Statham in the Transporter films and Liam Neeson in the Taken series. Since this type of film has carved out a niche for itself these days, can John Wick 2 be far behind?
- Swift
____________________
 |
Sometimes, it’s just about the art.
When I was young and was first reading comics, I wasn’t really that conscious of the elements the comic consisted of. I was into the characters and the action. I wasn’t aware of how well the story was crafted or how well it was drawn. But over time I came to notice that I enjoyed some comics better than others. To my surprise, it wasn’t determined so much by the characters and the stories didn’t vary that much. My preference was determined more by how everything looked. This is when I started paying attention to the names of the artists. Quite often, the art was actually more important than the story. Judged by this standard, Sin City: A Dame to Kill For isn’t a bad movie.
Yes, there are stories here. But they are fairly predictable and the characters are noir stereotypes. McCarthy (Josh Brolin), the gunslinging anti-hero. Ava (Eva Green), the femme fatale who uses and tosses men aside like used tissues. Marv (Mickey Rourke), the two-fisted, but dull-witted juggernaut. Nancy (Jessica Alba), the stripper with a heart. And on and on . . . a succession of characters and stories that are clichés. But there is nothing wrong with that if clichés are what you want to see.
The visuals in SC2 are good, but not so different than in the first film. If anything, this film lacked the subtlety of the first. As pastiche-y as Sin City was, the characters seemed genuine. That seemed lost this time. The most fully-developed of the four stories was “A Dame to Kill For.” But the length of this tale seemed to short-change the other stories, which seemed rushed. I preferred the way that while Sin City related its stories, they were all fairly balanced and kept their primary characters mostly to their own tales. Like many others, I was a Marv fan after seeing Sin City. So, he had his own short story in SC2, but also figured prominently in two of the other three tales. It is possible to have too much of a good thing. Putting Marv everywhere gave the impression that the other characters couldn’t carry their stories on their own.
A Dame to Kill For was bound to suffer from chronological problems, because it tries to be both a prequel and a sequel. This proved to be confusing to the point of distraction, especially when released a full nine years after its predecessor. Should the directors, Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller (who also wrote the screenplay and the original comic series), decide to revisit the series, it might be wise to simply move forward with their time frame and concentrate on a handful of more balanced stories.
- Swift
____________________
 |
In The Expendables 3, the longevity of the team as a whole takes center stage, as its earlier membership and origins are explored, and new blood is recuited. There have been numerous disappointed noises from fans about this film. The desires seem to be that Stallone and company should keep cranking out campier fare as they did in Expendables 2, where they line up as many old action-hero icons as possible and give them all witty one-liners to toss off as they machine-gun down innumerable nameless henchmen into gallons of fake blood. Make no mistake, there is plenty of carnage in this film and there are some amusing bits. But after all, this is a story about people fighting and dying. How funny and campy should it be? And who says that it has to star the same old action stars and no one else forever?
In the plot, shortly after Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) and his usual Expendables team - Christmas (Jason Statham), Gunner (Dolph Lundgren), Caesar (Terry Crews), and Toll Road (Randy Couture) - break a veteran team member (Wesley Snipes) out of prison, they have a almost deadly encounter with another Expendables original member, Conrad Stonebanks (Mel Gibson). This event triggers the rest of the tale of good guys vs. bad guys, duty, and revenge. It brings up issues of how far into violence-for-hire one can go and still have a conscience. Does interpersonal loyalty over-ride the lines each person draws between right and wrong?
Barney chooses to go after Stonebanks but recruits a new, younger team. Promotional materials suggested he was seeking a younger, and thus faster and more tech-savvy team. His real reason was that he considered this mission so dangerous that he refuses to allow his long-time companions to go. He wanted a team he truly considered "expendable." But things rarely go as planned. Speed and cutting-edge technology aren't the exclusive province of the young. And Barney comes to care about this new, younger group in spite of himself. Eventually, old and new unite, bound by their common inclinations and goals, if not what music they grew up listening to.
What worked in this film? Stallone does a good job of playing the old soldier and leader who insists on a drawing of lines of right and wrong, pursuing his own justice, but also has concern for those he leads into harm's way. His character carries those burdens the most and I felt he depicted that well. The same way Stallone defines this film series, Barney defines the Expendables.
Antonio Banderas joins the Expendables as Galgo, some much needed comic relief, as an overly chatty, agile spaniard mercenary with a knack for survival. At times his character bordered on being a bit too much, but they mercifully backed off later. I realize they were just establishing the character, but some of that could have been cut.
In spite of all the people wanting to drive Mel Gibson from the public eye, he can still do good work. He isn't given that much to do in this film, but he does shine in a scene with Stallone where the circumstances of their falling out are brought to light. They have a good showdown scene at the end of the film, though it suffers in comparison to the one Stallone has with Jean-Claude Van Damme at the end of Expendables 2. But that's a tough act to follow.
It was good to see Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jet Li back, though I wish we could have seen more of Li. Harrison Ford has enough gravitas to take over for Bruce Willis as the group's CIA contact, but he was looking a bit old for the part (even among this cast). It was a nice touch making him a daredevil pilot ala Han Solo. It would have been nice if they could have sneaked in a line like "never tell me the odds . . . " Kelsey Grammer has a good turn as an old comrade of Barney's who helps him recruit a new crew.
So, speaking of the new crew - Kellan Lutz, Glen Powell, Ronda Rousey, and Victor Ortiz. It was, of course, wonderful watching the lovely and poweful women's MMA star Rousey get her share of action. But I was disappointed that a boxing champion like Ortiz wasn't given a chance to show us his flashing fists. Powell spent too much of the climax in an elevator shaft. Lutz was set up as a potential future Expendables leader, but since the actor has shown limited appeal in previous action roles (the universally panned Legend of Hercules from earlier this year), I wonder if he will actually be back.
The Expendables 3 is a good third entry in the franchise and gives it room to grow in the future. I hope they get that chance.
- JC
____________________
 |
I really wanted to like this movie. Hercules is such a classic hero. It has been noted that he was probably the original superhero. Just as Zorro is the masked, dark-clad precursor of Batman, Hercules is the brave, impossibly strong forerunner of Superman. Hercules is the irresistable force that puts the beat down on men, monsters, and deities that have it coming. That is who he has always been.
But just being strong and fighting for justice doesn't make a great character. Would anyone care as much about Superman if he were just a guy with powers - no explanation, he just has them. Forget Krypton. Forget red and yellow suns, alien technology, and losing his entire species. That makes him dull, you say? Well how about this? We'll give him a zany gang of character actor sidekicks. No? Lame? I would agree. And this is why I am so disappointed in Hercules.
In this re-imagining of the Hercules mythology there is very little mythology in it. There are depictions of stories from Hercules' life - his mother's tryst with Zeus, slaying the serpents in his crib, performing his 12 labors - but then we are told these were inventions of his storyteller companion. He was just an abnormally strong guy who went from slave to soldier to mercenary. The stories were to promote him in his line of work and to frighten his adversaries. In fact, other than the hero's abnormal muscle power, there is not one bit of magic or a single mythological beast in the whole film. (That's why this review is on the Adventure page and not Fantasy.)
So, does this mean the film is bad? Not entirely. It's always fun watching Dwayne Johnson flex his impressive musculature, kick butt, and be the likeable action hero he plays in nearly every movie. But I didn't really buy him as Hercules. He was more like Roadblock in a Hercules outfit. By eviscerating the legend, he is nothing near the Hercules you assume you're paying to see. If they had just hinted anywhere that the legend was true it would have been OK and this film could have kicked off a Hercules film franchise. But a non-mythological Hercules? I really doubt it.
Brett Ratner directed this film. And though he has shown a flair for directing buddy/action flicks like Rush Hour, he also has a notorious track record when it comes to honoring rich source material - X-Men 3. Someone with a bit more regard for the history of this character might have been a better choice.
In all, the film has some nice effects and has its share of action, but pacing problems, predictability, and an all too down to Earth Hercules make this film a bit of a letdown.
- JC
____________________
 |
If you can maintain the visual style of a movie in the sequel how important are the other elements, such as convincing sympathetic performances and an engaging plot?
300: Rise of an Empire recaptures the stark comic-inspired look of the original 300 (perhaps even going a bit beyond it). It also gives us plenty of muscular warriors without much on. But most of the character development is devoted to the villains this time around and much less to our protagonists.
The hero of the story, Themistocles, played by Sullivan Stapleton, is portrayed as a Greek career soldier and now General of the Athenian army. There is precious little to his character to humanize him. He is strong and brave and a good leader. There you have it. He is essentially a buff John Wayne. Much more effort is made to develop the role of Artemisia, played by Eva Green. Unfortunately, it seems that the director, Noam Murro, must have concluded that anything based on a graphic novel should have nothing in it resembling subtlety. As Artemisia, Green chews up the scenery in ways that make her performance in Dark Shadows seem understated, whether she's giving a speech, swinging a sword, or attempting a seduction. Amongst other things, this film has one of the least believable, tasteless, sex-as-pure-aggression scenes I've ever seen. And after the hundredth (more or less) silhouetted token skull-splitting scene, my film companion and I started laughing out loud at the sheer over-the-top ridiculousness of the whole thing.
This film is an entertaining enough watch. Green is quite appealing and the visuals are interesting, if a bit unnecessarily gory. Just don't expect anything that resembles history.
- JC