Jack Reacher

Before I get too far, let me disclose one thing: I am a huge Tom Cruise fan.  Sure, he's kinda of a kook in his personal life, but he makes awesome movies.  That's all I care about.  Does (insert actor's name here) make awesome movies?  If the answer is yes, then who cares what they do at home?

 

"Jack Reacher" isn't going to rock your world.  You won't go around quoting it with your friends.  You probably won't rush out and buy it and watch it every few months.  You will, however, have a really good time for 2 hours.  What more is there for me to ask of a movie?

 

"Jack Reacher" is a pretty basic story.  A horrible crime is committed.  A badass is called in to investigate.  A corporate conspiracy is unearthed.  People are punched.  Guns are fired.  It is the execution of such generic action schlock that is the key to "Jack Reacher" being so enjoyable.

 

This is not a smart movie.  The dialogue is just enough to get the story across and Jack's sass talk and one-liners are mostly groan worthy.  "Jack Reacher" is a film that rests upon its actors, its fast pacing, and its steady action.  So, let's examine those 3:

 

1) THE ACTORS-Tom Cruise is just Tom Cruise.  He's just coasting on his natural on screen charisma.  But as I stated earlier, I never get sick of that.  Rosamund Pike is great in a role that goes from audience surrogate (she's there to have the plot explained to her) to damsel in distress.  But she makes those thankless jobs seem more weighty.  Plus, she's lovely to look at.  Werner Herzog (the fucking incredible director who's every film should be on your "must watch" list) lends his eerie voice and general weirdness to a extremely unwritten villain role.  Herzog makes you believe he is pure evil whom men fear enough to give their lives up to him.  But the story doesn't do that, he does by just being Werner Herzog.  Finally, Robert Duvall shows up at the end to be fucking awesome (but like Cruise and Herzog, he's just being Duvall).

 

2) THE PACING-"Jack Reacher" starts and ends with a whole bunch of people getting shot.  Everything in between is a relentless march to that finale.  It may have some stupid moments in it, but every scene is there to progress the story forward.  It never lets up and it never boring.

 

3) THE ACTION-I was so upset that there are no behind the scenes documentaries on the disc I watched, because I really wanted to learn about the rigs they must've used for the big car chase.  It is a scene that relies heavily on real cars hitting real cars and plenty of high speed city driving.  The action in this scene and the others, be it fist fights or shootouts, is always coherent and well filmed.  Director Chris McQuarrie and his second unit team never give in to shaky cam or chaotic filming.  It's nice to watch an action film when you can follow the action.

 

"Jack Reacher" is just a pleasing movie experience.  It's better than it deserves to be and I'm fine with that.  If you need a way to kill 2 hours, I can think of worse ways to do it.  Check it out.

 

7 out of 10

Citizen X

Not the strongest poster.  But "Citizen X" is actually a TV movie made by HBO.  It is definitely made as a movie.  No commercials.  No episodes.  Just one continuous movie (albeit filmed in 90s TV friendly 4:3 aspect ratio), so I'm including it in this movie blog!

 

"Citizen X" recounts the events surrounding the Russian serial killer Andrei Chikatilo.  The film focuses mainly on the detective who is trying to catch him.  While it is a serial killer movie, "Citizen X" is more a look at the consequences of the crippling Soviet bureaucracy. 

 

Someone looking for more about the actual killings and the mind of Chikatilo should just read up on it.  There are many great articles and books about this case.  "Citizen X" will leave the gore hounds unsatisfied.

 

But if you want a strong and thoroughly entertaining drama about a couple of men who had to fight the Soviet Union just to catch a child killer, then this is the movie for you!

 

The four leads are great.  Stephen Rea is always wonderful and he brings his A-game to a very emotional performance.  But he is helped by having Donald Sutherland to act off of through most of the movie.  Sutherland is cheeky and jaded and stern all at once.  Max Von Sydow makes a couple brief appearances, and he gives a better performance in a few minutes than most actors do in an entire film.  Finally, Jeffery DeMunn (Dale from "The Walking Dead!") as Andrei Chikatilo is quiet and meek and henpecked.  His soft exterior make it more unnerving when he gives in to his savagery.

 

I was pleasantly surprised with "Citizen X."  I view TV movies with trepidation.  But I am happy to say that I emerged not just unharmed but elated by the excellent film I just watched.

 

7.5 out of 10 

An American Werewolf in London

As far as I'm concerned, this is it.  This is the single greatest movie about werewolves ever made.  "An American Werewolf in London" is everything a movie could be done nearly flawlessly. 

 

Writer/Director John Landis had sent the last few years before AAWiL blessing the world with "Kentucky Fried Movie," Animal House," and "The Blues Brothers."  He then turned his impeccable sense of humor toward horror.  In doing so, he crafted the most touching werewolf movie you'll probably ever see.  It's as much a story of a young man dealing with the death of his best friend as it is a dark (and sometimes light) comedy.  But it's also a brilliant showcase of practical effects and gore.  There's a reason the transformation scene won an Academy Award.  There is nothing like it.  No CG werewolf will ever compare. 

 

Landis would carry his experience on this film into his work on Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and the hugely underwatched vampire film "Innocent Blood."

 

This is one of my very favorite, can-quote-the-whole-thing movies.  If you haven't seen this, get on the ball.  You're really missing out.

 

9 out of 10

The Wolf Man (1941)

While widely regarded as the Daddy-of-all-werewolf movies, this is not necessarily true.  Universal Pictures had released a werewolf picture 6 years before they did "The Wolf Man."  That movie, "The Werewolf of London," was the first movie to have a human-esque werewolf (although even it is not the first werewolf movie).  "The Werewolf of London" just does not hold a candle to "The Wolf Man" (but you should still watch it here). 

 

What sets "The Wolf Man" apart are a collection of sterling performances, strong mythology, great storytelling, and a truly iconic monster.  There's not much I can delve into that hasn't already been said about this movie.  Great film scholars have more than justified its place in the canon of cinema classics.

 

I'll leave it at this.  If you love great movies, see "The Wolf Man."  If you love horror, see "The Wolf Man."  If you think being "into werewolves" means wearing a "Team Jacob" t-shirt, then for God's sake, see "The Wolf Man."

 

9 out of 10

Stoker

This was one of my most anticipated movies of 2013.  "Stoker" marks the American debut of one of my favorite directors Park Chan-Wook.  If you don't watch his films, stop reading and do that now (especially "Oldboy").

So how did Korea's greatest living director fair in the U.S.A.?  Exceptionally well!  "Stoker" ended up being everything I could hope for.

Now, it should be said that Park Chan-Wook films are not for the feint hearted.  Park likes to make his audience uncomfortable.  His characters may not be very likable.  But his movies are beautiful and hypnotic.

"Stoker" is a film about a young girl who's father has just died in a horrible car accident.  Her mother allows the dead husband's long estranged brother to come live with them.  But Uncle Charlie is not what he seems.

I have nothing bad to say about this movie, which can make for a pretty dull review.  I do want to put a special emphasis on the three lead actors.  Nicole Kidman is just as impressive as always.  She may take a bit of a back seat to Mia Wasikowska and Matthew Goode, but her character has the greatest emotional range.  And not a false note is struck.  Wasikowska and Goode finally prove to me that they are great actors.  Goode especially is firing on all cylinders.  Uncle Charlie is so creepy and charming.  Matthew Goode is not a physically imposing man, so all the fear that other characters show toward him needs to be justified by his performance.

Before I finish up, I wanted to put in this warning.  I want everyone to watch "Stoker" but "Stoker" is not for everyone.  The biggest thing to warn potential viewers about is that the movie is very sexual.  That does not mean sex scenes.  "Stoker" deals with awkward teenage sexuality and has an incestuous streak running through it.  Remember, I said Park Chan-Wook movies make you uncomfortable.  If you have the constitution to sit through it, you will be rewarded with what is probably the best film of 2013 thus far.

9 out of 10


The Last Exorcism: Part II

This is easily the most unfortunately named movie of the past few years.  How can there be another last exorcism?  It's either the last one or not.

 

Despite kinda enjoying the first "Last Exorcism" (the second to last exorcism?), the title had me in a negative mindset.  Plus, I only kinda liked that first movie and sequels are rarely better than the originals.  Turns out "The Last Exorcism: Part II" is that rare creature.

 

TLE:P2 (good acronym) starts off on entirely the wrong foot.  There's a pre-title prologue involving a man and woman trying to find the source of strange noises in their house.  It is a scene so heavy packed with jump scares that it quickly becomes obnoxious.  But after a few minutes of screeching violins and people calling each others names because they got separated in their own house and forgot that it's 2013 and they have electric lights, the movie actually starts.  And it's a solid movie.

 

TLE:P2 is ultimately a tale of unrequited love and a woman's journey to find her true identity.  The cool thing is while that sounds more like a Julia Roberts movie, just throw a demon in the mix and you get an interesting cinematic cocktail.

 

The story is pretty generic (not necessarily a bad thing in horror movies).  We follow Nell a few months after the events of the first movie.  She's in a mental institution.  She getting back to normal.  She's got a job, friends, maybe even a boyfriend.  The stage is set for her demon to return.

 

The best thing TLE:P2 does is to throw out the "found footage"/fake documentary thing right away.  Every minute of it is a real movie with actual cinematography.  And it grants the movie the ability to craft an atmosphere.  TLE:P2 is less scary as it is spooky.  It relies more on creepy lighting and unsettling images than gore or screams.  It feels like a movie from the early 90s.  It has many elements reminiscent of "The Prophecy" or "Candyman." 

 

Ashley Bell is great in this movie.  In the first movie, she was as good as people can be in the "found footage" format.  But here, she gets to explore a character.  She maintains an innocence that serve to make her demonic outbursts so unsettling.  I hope we see her in more roles.  TLE:P2 would not work without her skilled performance.

 

Now, trying to sell a horror movie as being light on the blood and being about love may not draw too many in.  There are plenty of horror fans who appreciate a movie that is a little more story-driven, but I encourage even those who think of the "Saw" series as great horror to check this one out.  The actual exorcism is performed by a voodoo priestess, a paramedic, and a guy who is basically old John Constantine.  And that's not even the coolest part.

 

6.5 out of 10

Jack the Giant Slayer

I don't know how to approach this review.  "Jack the Giant Slayer" is so bad that I just want to basically write that for the review: it is so bad.  That's it.

On the other hand, the experience was so baffling and brutally moronic that I feel the need to talk it out.  Like crisis counseling.

So that's what I'm gonna do.  Talk it out.  And like therapy, I'm going to address my issues one at a time.

Here goes:

1) If you're going to make a mega-budget, CGI extravaganza, then maybe try to have good CGI.  The giants (who are not just background or throw away villains, but major characters with plenty of close-up screen time) are especially bad.  The giants would look fine in some Dreamworks animated movie about "Jack and the Beanstalk," but here they are terrible.  It looks like a modern version (albeit set in olden times) of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"  The difference being that "Roger Rabbit" is supposed to have people interacting with cartoons.  Speaking of cartoons...

Just go watch this movie instead.  Seriously.

2) When it is convenient for the story, the characters obey the laws of cartoon physics.  People are crushed to death, stabbed, burned, etc. throughout the whole movie.  But Jack can apparently survive huge falls.  He first survives a 500+ foot fall not via primitive parachute or something clever.  No, he survives by hitting every branch on the way down.  He is unscathed.  Not just not dead.  He literally has no scratched, bumps, welts or anything to indicate that he essentially fell off the Space Needle.  Later, Jack, the princess, and a knight played by Ewan McGregor (I can't remember the character names and I literally just finished it!) are climbing down the beanstalk when it is cut down.  McGregor survives the fall of about 6,000 feet by landing in the water.  Jack and his lady friend land in a haystack.  This actually happens!!  They all walk away unscathed.

Pictured here: Nicholas Hoult as Jack

3) The jokes are awful and filmed in ways that do not convey a comedic moment.  Director Bryan Singer is pretty good at making dramas but his eye/ear/whatever for comedy is broken.  If you're looking for a night of laughs with the whole family, I hope you like farts and booger eating.

LOL!

4) The makers of this movie try to have their PG-13 cake and eat it too.  The editing is baffling.  There are scenes of plot-necessary death that don't necessarily need to be shown, but the film cuts away from them before the implied action of that death.  So, when Stanley Tucci stabs an good-hearted monk to establish his bad-guyism, we get no indication that he did stab that monk.  Instead we get Tucci with a knife and he flinches. Cut to next scene.  If the monk was walking down a road later in the movie, it wouldn't seem at all out of place.  This happens a few other times too.  But when giants and soldiers need to crushed, burned alive, gored, or shot in the face with arrows, they show all that!

What does this even mean anymore?!

5) The characters are awful.  I would go so far as to say that there are no characters just people with names.  They do not grow or have anything in their history to press them forward.  Jack is shown in a prologue to be obsessed with a beanstalk/giant myth and a has a youthful desire to be a knight.  But I'm convinced that this minor backstory was added after completion of the film.  When Jack is older and is given the beans and told that they are ancient, magical beans, he has no friggin' clue what he's holding.  If that story had been the basis of his life, you'd think he would make at least a slight connection.  Also, he never looks up to the knights around him or aspires to be like them.  He only puts himself in danger because he has a crush on a girl.

 More dimensional than any character in the movie.

6) Brace yourself for plenty of awkward "action" shots that may have been cool in 3-D but at home in 2-D are just ugly.  In the theater, with your 3-D glasses on, these shots may have served as a momentary distraction from the turd burger of a film you paid $9 to eat.  But at home, they just add to the pile of suck that is "Jack the Giant Slayer."

Go ahead.  Take a bite.

7) Jack destroys the kingdom to save the kingdom.  No kidding.  He literally razes to the ground the very thing everyone is fighting to protect.  Jack, the hero of our tale, caused more destruction than all the giants combined.  Also, he only kills two giants.  The guards on the parapets, firing their fully automatic crossbows, killed more giants than that.  Jack is the worst hero imaginable.

Mission accomplished.

But on a positive note, I liked Ewan McGregor.  He seems to know that the movie is an idiotic 3-D mess, so he plays his part as big and goofy as possible. 

At the end of the day, I say run from "Jack the Giant Slayer."  Run and don't look back.  It's the kind of movie you rent to let the in-laws know they overstayed their welcome.  Just truly, truly retched.

2 out of 10