Change Your Image
itclark64
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (2014)
Same City
The tag line for the 2005 Sin City was "Walk down the right back alley in Sin City and you can find anything"; the sequel walks down the same back alleys. Nine years later the visual style hasn't changed and it returns to the mostly same characters instead of exploring new ones. You would think in an entire city there would be more characters and more stories than the ones from the last movie. As enjoyable as the movie was and as good as it was to see some of the old faces again this sequel felt smaller than the original.
A Dame to Kill For is very much a sequel to the original Sin City and that is not necessarily a good thing. The stories and art style are based off of Frank Miller's graphic novel series. The movie like the original is split up into three different stories that follow around three different characters in Sin City. Also like the original the stories are not in chronological order. The stories take place both before and after the stories in the original film, depending on which part your talking about. In the original the jumping around in chronology and moving to several different characters gave the feel of a larger city with many moving pieces. It would have been nice if they had expanded on that for the sequel. Instead they focus on pretty much the same main characters with some additional supporting characters. The stories aren't bad, they are actually quite good, just not as good as the original.
If you've seen the trailers for this movie or saw the last movie you have a pretty good idea what the movie is going to look like. Robert Rodriguez crated a visual masterpiece in 2005 by adapting Frank Millers graphic novel style to film. If you've read any of the original graphic novels, watching these movies is essentially watching moving versions of those books, with sound. I wasn't going to see this movie in 3D since traditionally, dark movies are hard to see through 3D glasses. I accidentally selected the wrong showing and ended up watching it in 3D anyway. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it worked. The heavy contrast made it easy to see what I was supposed to see and the occasional 3D effect actually enhanced the experience. If your not a fan of 3D and don't want to pay the extra money for the the ticket, this wont be worth it to you but if you need to have the full experience, it definitely makes the movie better.
I watched the original Sin City right before I went to see this one and I was reminded of how many actors in that movie have died in the past nine years. It's understandable that they left those characters out or had to replace the actors with new ones. Brittany Murphy passed away a few years ago and didn't have a large role in the first movie but it would have been nice to see her serving drinks again in the sequel. It was a tragedy when Michael Clark Duncan died. He played the intimidating Manute in the original and in this one is played by Dennis Haysbert, who does a good job filling those massive shoes. What I can't understand is, why did they replaced Clive Owen with Josh Brolin. Before I saw the movie I was hoping it would still work and I will talk more about why it doesn't work in the spoilers section. Lets just say I would have liked it better if Clive Owen returned. If you haven't seen the original then Josh Brolin's performance won't seem out of place. He's a good actor and plays the part well; its just an odd casting choice.
It's really nice to see Mickey Rourke again as Marv. He's never the main character like the beginning of the 2005 Sin City but he's in most of the movie and everything you loved about the character before is still there. He's a violent brutish tough as nails criminal that decimates his enemies during conflicts but he does it for the best intentions. His character is all about protecting women who are unable to protect themselves. He asks nothing in return, he just believes that it's wrong to hit a girl and will break your face if you disagree with him.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Eva Green have the most substantial new roles. The one new main character is played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It's a good story but it's relatively short compared to the other two and isn't distinct enough to really stand out. Eva Green plays the titular Dame to Kill For and once again knocks it out of the park. She stole the show in the recent '300' sequel (also based on Frank Millers graphic novels) and she practically does it again in this movie. One more role like this and she is in danger of being typecast as a seductress....and I'm okay with that. In addition to the ultra violence throughout the film Eva Green's scenes give this movie its R rating. You see a lot of her. It's more than just sex though she is able to play a range of emotions and the audience as well as the other characters are swept along with her. She makes you believe that she is a dame to kill for and is the best part of the movie.
Overall it was a good movie, it just didn't capture the magic of the original. It may be because it took nine years to make this sequel. It's a shame too, because I really like these movies and considering the box office numbers it's unlikely another one will get made.
The Expendables 3 (2014)
Another Action Star Dream Team
Like the other two Expendables movies Expendables 3 isn't about story, concept, stylistic visuals, or character. It's about is action, action stars, and being manly. The characters aren't characters at all they are the persona's of every famous action star (and apparently sports star) that they can cram into one movie. The latest iteration has the most stars yet but it feels crowded and rushed because of that. The action scenes are good but if that's all your interested in there are better movies out there.
The Expendables movie series is like like the superhero team up of the Avengers but its with action stars. It's less about characters and more about the persona based on each actors previous collective roles. This time most of the old favorites return (five major stars from the previous two films don't make an appearance) and there are several new stars joining the franchise. The fun in these movies is seeing all these great stars on screen together at the same time. Some of them are good actors and all of them have an incredible screen presence. The movie feels a little bloated with all the different stars and many actors don't get nearly enough screen time. With so many big stars and their characters so underdeveloped, I can't remember what the name of any of their characters are. I just think of them as their name in real life. Since the stars are the whole draw of the movie, it's no wonder they didn't bother spending time on character or plot development.
Seeing all these stars on screen at the same time, I think its clear that of all the muscle bound action stars of the 80's, Stallone is probably the best actor. That is to say he's a better actor than Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is one of the only characters that had something even resembling a character arc. The themes of his story revolve around a sense of family, getting older, and protecting the ones closest to you. Sylvester Stallone breaks up his team because he is afraid of causing his friends deaths and recruits four new people to accomplish his mission.
Two of the newbies Kellen Lutz and Glen Powell seem to be unknowns for the most part and certainly not worthy of sharing scenes with some of the genre's greats. They show up and get so little screen time they end up being completely forgettable.
Even though I'm sure some people will get a kick out of seeing Victor Ortiz in an action movie there wasn't really anything memorable about his part in the film.
Ronda Rousey has made a name for herself in the MMA world for being beautiful and tough. Of all the young newcomers her scenes were the most enjoyable to watch. She does well for not being a professional actress and her fights are definitely not forgettable. I wouldn't mind seeing her in more action films.
Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, and Terry Crews are in the movie...and that's really all there is to say about them. If you saw them in the other two movies you see them again in this one.
Wesley Snipes appears early in the film and is introduced in an elaborate inside joke. If you know what Wesley Snipes has been up to for the past decade or so then you will find this pretty amusing. He quickly develops a rivalry with Jason Statham and its fun to watch these two compete against each other while they are supposed to be working together.
Mel Gibson is also in the movie trying to make a career comeback. He hasn't been in many movies recently since he's a blatant racist and Hollywood frowns on such behavior. Even before all the media fallout I always said Mel Gibson plays crazy better than anyone else. Now I'm starting to think he might not have been acting. In this movie he plays(?) crazy again as the villain. He's a good bad guy but since he was never really known for his fight scenes, the final showdown felt a bit underwhelming.
Kelsey Grammar is best known as Frasier Crane and I can't think of a single action movie he has ever been in.
Every time Antonio Banderas was on screen I was laughing or at least chuckling a bit. His charisma just pops off the screen and works well as comic relief for the last third of the film.
A few years ago I thought I would never see Harrison Ford in movies again. He's getting old and I don't think he needs the money. After it was announced he would be in the new Star Wars, I asked myself 'Does he still got it?' After I saw this move I got my answer. He has such a screen presence for the few scenes he's in. He could have easily phoned it in but he shows up and it's just like Han Solo showed up for a couple of scenes.
That's what this movie is all about though. Big stars are all sharing screen time together. You may not get to see them for long and the action scenes might be a bit run of the mill but they are all there and that alone is pretty cool.
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
It's like a Tarantino version of Star Wars
Now, when I say Guardians of the Galaxy is like a Quinton Tarantino directed Star Wars, some might think I mean its bloody and violent. It's not. It has action in it sure but nothing that doesn't fit nicely in a PG-13 film, acceptable for family viewing in the living room. What I mean is that Guardians of the Galaxy has the kind of space adventure vibe you would expect from Star Wars, with lots of action and roguish characters; but what makes the movie special is that it has an appreciation for the nostalgic, loads of pop culture references, and an offbeat sense of humor.
The song 'Hooked on a Feeling' was featured in the first trailer as well as a scene in the movie. It is also in the Tarantino directed 'Reservoir Dogs' (one of my favorite movies of all time). The connection to Tarantino was instant in my mind. The whole movies sound track is like this, with memorable scenes made better with memorable 70's songs played over them. Just like a Tarantino film.
Nostalgia is a core component of Peter Quills character in the film and it's prevalent throughout the movie but the movies style itself is also reminiscent of a 70's sci-fi film right down to the opening credits sequence. On a side note, I've noticed recently that most blockbuster movies won't have credits at the beginning of the film; in order to get the audience into the story more quickly. I've also noticed that they won't even put up a title card till the movie is over. Which is wired 'cause I already know what the movie is called so why show it at the end of the movie. But I digress.... Guardians of the Galaxy not only has a title card at the beginning of the film, with a full credit sequence, but it puts up the title card with a good bit of fanfare. Not to mention the title sequence is now one of my favorite opening sequences in movies.
Guardians of the Galaxy is not just a Space Adventure it's a Space Adventure/Comedy. When you walk out of the theater you will have probably laughed more times than you would have from most comedy movies. In the middle of tense action scenes or moving character moments little comedy bits are slipped in...also like a Tarantino movie. The way it treats comedy gives the film a unique tone, which is kind of like when guys never want to show their true feelings, so they try to turn everything into a joke. That's what this whole movie is and I love it. It not only reflects the main characters overall attitude and motivation, but lets you know the film has a heart, without ever getting overly melodramatic.
The only thing that kind of got in the way of me enjoying the film was the overall plot did get a bit confusing and convoluted. The conflict was there but at no time did I really care how it turned out. This is really only a minor complaint though since the real heart of the movie is the characters themselves. While I didn't care what happened to that one planet, that I can't remember its name; I did care about what happened to the central characters Peter Quill a.k.a Starlord (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Rocket Raccoon (Bradley Cooper), Groot (Vin Diesel), and Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista). The movie not only did an excellent job of introducing the characters but making me care about them. The movie did such a good job with these characters, much of it due to good actors, that by the end of the movie I just wanted to hang out these guys. I can't wait to see them all again in the already announced sequel.
I AM GROOT!
SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS!
The final scene that shows after the credits however shows kind of a famous character from the 80 's
Howard the Duck. The movie theater I was in had a guy in the back yelling at the screen "Howard the Duck?! We waited all that time for that?!" I kind of understand how he feels despite my annoyance at his outburst. 'Howard the Duck' was a terrible George Lucas movie made in the 80's based on a Marvel Comics property. It's hardly something to be excited about especially if it is a hint at future appearances from this crude character. I found it funny though and perfectly fitting with the overall tone of the film. When you go to see a Marvel movie you know there is going to be an end credits scene and since this is the last movie before Avengers: Age of Ultron, it's only reasonable that audiences were expecting a tease about that movie. Especial since the last end credits scene before the first Avengers movie was an actual trailer for the Avengers. The movie punk-ed us just like Peter Quill would do. It took a serious moment of anticipation and made a joke about an old 80's reference. Just like Kevin Bacon.
Lucy (2014)
Better than I expected
When I went to go see 'Lucy' I expected to see a good action film starring the beautiful Scarlett Johansson. I got that. What I also got was a surprisingly intelligent Sci-Fi premise with interesting and creative visuals. Even though Scarlett Johansson is famous for being a pretty face I think her performance in this film prove she is more than that. I suppose I shouldn't have been so surprised considering the Writer/Director is Luc Besson, a French filmmaker that is responsible for such films as: The Fifth Element, Leon: The Professional, The Taken movies, The Transporter movies, and La Femme Nikita (a.k.a. Point of No Return).
I've read around the internet that 'Lucy' is a dumb movie because the "humans only use 10% of their brain" premise is a myth. I find it funny considering all the other ridiculous premises that exist in Science Fiction. That leads me to the conclusion that these people don't know what Science Fiction is. It's not a 100% accurate representation of proved science; that would be call Science Fact. Science Fiction takes pieces of real science or things that exist only in theory and explores what that would mean for humanity and our society. Don't think about the premise of 'Lucy' as "What if we could use 100% of our brain because we only use 10% of it". Think about the premise as "What if we had limitless access to all knowledge in the universe? What would we do with it?" It's an extremely relevant premise, considering we are currently living in the information age and the ease at which we are able to access information is growing exponentially.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)
Surprisingly Original
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was a surprisingly original movie considering it was a sequel, to a prequel, to the original 1970's quintet and the disappointing Tim Burton 2001 remake. It's nice to see a movie rely on well developed characters, a compelling narrative, and interesting cinematography; instead of one note characters, pointless plot twists, and meaningless special effects. If you can stand 3D this movie makes good use of it during the action scenes. The story is about war and how sometimes conflicts are inevitable. Even the bad guys have reasonable motivations. It's a poignant story considering the many conflicts going on in the world today. Can mankind ever be at peace? The movie asks the question but leaves it open ended.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)
Ridiculous is in the Title
With a concept as ridiculous as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles you can't expect a complex plot, deep characters, or anything to make sense. This movie knows it's ridiculous and embraces it. The advance is continually reminded of how crazy pubescent deformed martial arts reptiles are. Cool adrenaline filled action scenes and juvenile humor make it a perfect fit for its target audience. If you're a Ninja Turtle fan there are a ton of references and fanfare to satiate your pallet. Not a great movie but it's entertaining enough and probably my favorite Ninja Turtles movie.
I was never a huge fan of the Ninja Turtles. I wasn't allowed to watch the show as a kid, because my parents thought it was too violent for my young impressionable mind (they were probably right). I grew up in the 80's and the Ninja Turtles were unavoidable. I can't tell you how many of my friend's birthday parties were Ninja Turtle themed complete with pizza and a Ninja Turtle Cake. They were everywhere; on TV as a cartoon, in toy stores as action figures, and in theaters as three feature films. It's understandable that a lot of people my age, grew up with the Ninja Turtles and have an emotional connection to them. Having said that there is a certain nitpicking that goes on in nerd culture whenever there is a reboot of a beloved franchise. The Ninja Turtles were a pop culture phenomenon, not the Bible or Shakespeare; both of which have been adapted and modified by Hollywood multiple times. So any of the changes this new movie made to the lore are minor in my book. The movie is in keeping with what a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movie should be about and it does it better than its predecessors. The characters are all there; Raphael, Donatello, Michelangelo, and Leonardo. Everyone has their favorite Turtle and they each get their time in the spotlight, both character wise and in action scenes. None of the characters are very deep, this is mainly a movie for kids after all. There are times when it tries to get more heartfelt and it feels out of place. The strongest emotions I felt during the movie is when they let the Turtles just be themselves and be juvenile and silly. They are funny if you appreciate that type of humor but they can kick butt when they need to. The other standard characters are there too; Shredder, Splinter, Vernon Fenwick, and April O'Neal played by Megan Fox. As attractive as Megan Fox is she's still not that good of an actress. Lucky for her, this part doesn't require much range and she does an adequate job pulling it off. Her character is definitely the weakest link in the story. They try and center too much of the plot around her and tell the story from her perspective. She's just not that interesting to carry the movie although, if I was a teenage boy I probably wouldn't care...she is attractive. I can't imagine that there is a person out there that would fit the demographic for this movie and has never heard of the Ninja Turtles but if they do exist then the action scenes alone are enough to entertain. They are bigger than life and are just cool to watch. Nothing groundbreaking but they let the Turtles show off their ninja skills well. Every time the Shredder shows up expect things to get crazy. It did feel like they forced some of the scenes and half the plot was just a setup for the next action set piece. All in all it was a pretty decent popcorn flick. There was plenty of references that went over my head but I'm sure they will keep fans busy speculating until the inevitable sequel. I wasn't expecting much but it was better than expected.
SPOILERS!
OK, let's get a couple of fan rumors out of the way first. Eric Sacks played by William Fichtner is not the Shredder, as was rumored. He is a totally separate character. Yes, Shredder is wearing some type of Japanese power armor but it looks cool and isn't really that far off from his original look. The Turtles are not from space but there was a mention that the mutagen that was used to create them was. All in all not the travesty that it was rumored to be beforehand. There were a few things that I thought were silly. I really don't like how coincidental it is that April O'Neal knew the ninja turtles because her dad created them in a lab when she was little. It just feels like they are forcing her to have a bigger part in the story than she deserves. I was never really clear on the Turtles origin story, this one makes more sense than the previous movies, but the fact that they learned Ninjitsu from a book is a little weak. Splinter is supposed to be this master martial arts expert; are you trying to tell me that fight in the movie was his first real fight in his life outside of training the Turtles? There was also some pretty glaring potholes in the movie. First, why didn't April show here boss the pictures she took of the Turtles instead of sounding crazy? Then in the very next scene she shows that picture that is clear proof of their existence to Eric Sacks. Second, the bad guys plan doesn't make sense. Why would they dispense the gas from the top of his own tower? Wasn't his ultimate plan to make money off of selling the cure? Did they think that no one would notice that bright red gas coming from the top of his corporate tower? Plot holes and weak characters didn't ruin the movie for me though, I kind of expected that.
The Holy Land (2001)
At its core a coming of age story, but it is so much more.
The story is about a Jewish boy growing up in an orthodox Jewish family. Like many such environments he is told all the answers of life and religion and is not allowed to explore them for himself. Feeling sexually repressed he is told to go to a brothel by his rabbi to get it out of his system. There he meets and falls in love with a Russian prostitute "Sasha". Throughout the movie he meets many original but believable characters including an M16 touting American Jew that calls himself the "exterminator". Mike an American photojournalist that runs a bar called Mikes Place in Jerusalem. In Mikes place Arabs and Jews drink side by side in a late 60's early 70's hippie kind of atmosphere.
This movie is bazaar but is also believable with it's rich environments around Israel. It shows a realistic version of Israel depicting the Jerusalem night life and life in general. Some religious tension does exist in the film but is not the main focus that Americans often see in CNN and other Hollywood movies.
The movie is about growing up, about religion and the questions we all ask about god, about finding answer's for ourselves, about falling in love, about innocence, about making a life for yourself. The Holy Land takes a deep look into the human experience like none I have ever seen before but does it in a realistic way that doesn't drag you down and depresses you when you are done watching it. By the end of the movie you are thoughtful, a little sad but feel like you just experienced something special.