Action and Adventure films - 2016
| The Magnificent Seven | Jason Bourne | The Legend of Tarzan |
| London Has Fallen |
____________________
 |
So, the world needs killers. Yes, I know how that sounds, but that is kind of the message of The Magnificent Seven.
It would be nice if we could all live fruitful, fair, peaceful lives. But we all know there will always be people trying to take things from you. They will use violence, wealth, public position, or just the vileness of their words to take from you and benefit themselves. And in this particular world, there is no Captain America or Superman to come along and set things right for you. We sometimes have to do it ourselves.
So, how does one not be a victim? Popular wisdom and logic indicate that we can’t set out not to be something. You have to affirmatively choose something to be. Who is less of a victim than a gunfighter with experience killing? This is the real world champion of the oppressed.
The Magnificent Seven is a re-make of the famous western of the same name from 1960, as that film was inspired by the Japanese film, Seven Samurai (1954). In this film, as the ones from before, seven men who are armed killers - bounty hunters, gunfighters, soldiers, warriors of one sort or another - band together to defend poor, hapless peace-loving folks from a powerful, ruthless man with an army bent on stealing their land and forcing them from their homes.
So, how was it?
Gifted action-drama director Antoine Fuqua does a good job with the story, the action, and the character presentations. But in these days of Netflix short series, it seemed as if the two hours and thirteen minutes runtime didn't allow the proper time to flesh out the characters and properly develop the plot. I'm looking forward to someone doing a seven-hour version of The Magnificent Seven. (It seems like a natural to me.) I would have liked to hear more about the backstories of these men. I'd also have liked more information on how the hero, Sam Chisholm (Denzel Washington), came up with the notion of recruiting the men he did.
The Chisholm character has an emotional motivation for his defense of the homesteaders, but it's not even hinted at over the course of the story, just spilled at the end. The only character who displays much emotional depth is the young woman, Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett), who hires the Seven. Chris Pratt is cast as Faraday, the gambler/gunslinger. Pratt is likeable, as he usually is in action films, but I felt he was seriously miscast as a character that was written as a deadly, drunken, borderline nuts anti-hero. I kept imagining a young Michael Biehn in the role - someone lean and with a hint of crazy in his smile. Faraday also does something near the end of the film that simply wasn't believable given Pratt's portrayal of the character. I simply couldn't buy it.
The Magnificent Seven is a good time at the theater and doesn't feel as long as it is. But it seemed a bit like Washington wasn't giving it his best and Pratt didn't know how to approach the role. I'm looking forward to the inevitable series.
- Swift
____________________
 |
Matt Damon returns after a nine-year absence to the film franchise that made him an action star. Was Jason Bourne worth the wait?
The story: Years after surviving the events of The Bourne Ultimatum (2007), Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is living an isolated existence. He has recovered from his amnesia and earns enough money to survive by participating in illegal fighting matches. He is contacted by his former ally, Nicky Parson (Julia Stiles). In her efforts to uncover evidence of CIA wrongdoings, she has found additional information about Bourne’s past that he had never been aware of. However, Nicky’s acquisition of the information draws the attention of CIA Cyber Operations Head, Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander) and CIA Director Dewey (Tommy Lee Jones). The CIA begins to aggressively hunt for Parsons, including bringing in a special operative referred to only as “the Asset” (Vincent Cassel) – a particularly ruthless assassin who bears a grudge against Bourne.
Director Paul Greengrass, the man who made the second and third films (The Bourne Supremacy (2004), The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)), returns for this film. His rapid paced story-telling interlaced with breakneck action is still evident. Jason Bourne has the look and feel of these other films, so it seems like familiar territory. The chase scenes and fight scenes are still top notch.
My only complaint would be that, as with a lot of action films these days, the action seemed a bit overlong and the scenes where we get to know the characters and develop some attachment to them were all too short. Other than Damon’s and Stiles’ characters, it was hard to find anyone to like in this story, taking away from the audience’s reason to care about how all the fracases came out.
It’s good to see Damon as Bourne again. If another film is made, hopefully they will flesh out their characters a bit more next time.
- Swift
____________________
 |
The Legend of Tarzan, directed by David Yates (the director of the final four Harry Potter films), brings us the first Tarzan live-action feature film of note since Tarzan and the Lost City (1998).
The events of the film take place years after Tarzan/John Clayton (Alexander Skarsgard) and his wife Jane (Margot Robbie) have left Africa behind to live in England. Though he still exhibits vestiges of having been a “lord of the jungle,” he seems to have mostly adjusted to English life as heir to his family’s wealth and has become a fairly soft-spoken member of the House of Lords.
The villain of the piece, Captain Rom (Christoph Waltz), a Belgian military man attempting to exploit the Congo for King Leopold, makes a deal with a powerful chieftain (Djimon Hounsou) to deliver Tarzan. The tribal leader has a grudge against Tarzan and in exchange for him, he will trade a wealth of diamonds allowing Rom to build an army within the Congo.
Belgian officials invite Tarzan/Clayton to tour the Belgian Congo, supposedly as a goodwill / public-relations trip. George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson), a representative of the U.S. government with an interest in the treatment of the Africans in the region (and an actual historical figure) encourages Clayton to go.
Shortly after their arrival, Clayton and Jane are captured by Rom’s soldiers and the adventure begins. Clayton re-connects with his roots of being Tarzan and with the help of his African friends – men and beasts – and Williams, they work to thwart Rom’s plan.
Legend is an entertaining film and it’s nice seeing Edgar Rice Burroughs’ classic character getting a modern screen treatment. The presentation of the apes and the jungle vine swinging with the benefit of current cgi technology is a welcome addition, even if some of the vine swinging seemed a bit on the unreal side.
I felt at times that Skarsgard’s Tarzan might have been a bit understated while Margot Robbie’s Jane might have been a bit overstated. Tarzan, though formidable, never really got the chance to show just how impressive he should be in his element. On the other hand, while I know Margot’s star is on the rise in Hollywood, there was just a bit too much Jane in this movie.
The inclusion of Jackson’s character, Williams, was an interesting choice for this story. While at first it seems as if he will just bring comic relief, his character, with his military experience and intelligence, is a significant asset in the fight. As an actual person who existed at that time, he seems worthy of a story or two about his own life.
Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained)is properly menacing and despicable as Rom, however as in Spectre, I’m getting the feeling that he may need a Tarantino script or direction to truly shine.
Again, it’s nice seeing Tarzan back on the big screen with the benefit of modern effects. I personally hope they have a chance to have another go at it with Tarzan a bit bigger-than-life and a more imaginative story.
- Swift
____________________
 |
Imagine a buddy movie action film where the buddies are the President of the United States and his faithful, indestructible action-hero secret service bodyguard. Together, they take on a horde of terrorists who have taken over London after killing a half-dozen world leaders. Does it sound as preposterous as G.I. Joe: Retaliation? No. It's much worse.
London Has Fallen is the somewhat unlikely follow-up to the surprise demi-hit from 2013, Olympus Has Fallen. That film, directed by Antoine Fuqua (The Replacement Killers, Training Day, King Arthur, The Equalizer) was based on the plot that North Korean terrorists seized the U.S. Capital with the President, Vice-President, and several other top officials and a single secret service agent, using guerilla tactics in much of a Die-Hard style, pulls off their rescue and thwarts the villains' evil plan. The film did surprisingly well, in spite of its implausible plot, and this is something of a testament to Fuqua's skill as a director. He was able to make the characters interesting and the threats suspenseful. Unfortunately, London was directed by the inexperienced Babak Najafi, who was simply unable to lift the film above the film's ridiculous premise.
In this film, President Asher (Aaron Eckhart) is accompanied by secret service agents, including Mike Banning (Gerard Butler), to the state funeral for the British Prime Minister in London. Shortly after their arrival, Pakistani terrorists who have infiltrated the police force and other parts of the city open fire with automatic weapons and bombs. The leaders of several countries are either shot or blown up as Banning, acting as a combination of Jason Bourne and John Rambo manages to keep Asher alive through armed street chases and even an attack on their helicopter by surface to air missiles. I could tell you more, but honestly, who is making this stuff up?
What was good about it? Since neither Aaron Eckhart nor Gerard Butler, both fairly likeable actors, have managed to obtain true action star status, it's nice to see they have found something to star in and ply their trade. And their performances were just fine.
However, this film suffers in comparison to the first. The plot is even more preposterous - terrorists, in the space of two years, hatch a plot in which they largely infiltrate the London security infrastructure and successfully pull off the murder of multiple world leaders without anyone having any suspicions at all. Yeah. This is the stuff of direct-to-video films. Character development and suspense-building are apparently beyond our new director's skill set. Several opportunities to develop characters and relationships other than those of the two main characters were squandered. And while the chase and fight scenes are somewhat suspenseful, the unbelievability of what is happening disengage the audience from taking it that seriously.
With a production budget of $10 million less and a running time 20 minutes shorter, it's a bit as if they expected little and decided not to try as hard. This is one you can skip.
- Swift