action/thrillers
Even our most celebrated actors have a movie or two that while not necessarily bad, are nondescript and forgettable entries in their otherwise sparkling catalogues. The Little Things is such a film for Denzel Washington. He’s wasted here. Why even bring him in to play the same old curmudgeonly sheriff we’ve seen a hundred times? I can’t pick out anything particularly interesting about the character that would require a thespian of Denzel’s caliber. The script is unfocused and meandering with a lack of direction that feels lifeless. The murders are supposed to be grisly and reminiscent of thrillers such as Seven or Kiss the Girls but all feel sterile and uninteresting. It doesn’t help that none of the victims have even a drop of character development. They have names and faces in the literal sense, but the script doesn’t lead you to believe that you should care about either. Jared Leto is the most compelling character on screen by a country mile. His quirky car mechanic with the awkward gait is weirdly likable even though I don’t think he was supposed to be. His characterization teeters back and forth between humorous and malevolent. It’s hard to tell whether to laugh at him or be frightened. I’m not sure the script knows which reaction it wants to engender. Rami Malek sleepwalks through the film and as with Denzel you wonder why he was cast to play such a dull character. There is no reason for me to recommend this film but if you’re reading this and you subscribe to HBO Max (and let’s be honest, you subscribe), you have nothing to lose in giving it a shot. Just don’t go in expecting anything close to what we’ve come to expect from Denzel or Rami.
The Little Things receives a score of 5/10 for general audiences with a half-point bonus for die-hard Leto fans. His performance is the only reason to watch this film.
Who would’ve guessed that Milla Jovovich and Tony Jaa would have such great chemistry? Monster Hunter, written and directed for the screen by Jovovich’s husband Paul W.S. Anderson, is perfectly fine for the audience it courts. The movie exists to showcase Jovovich, Jaa and to my surprise, Ron Perlman, fighting fantastically rendered CGI monstrosities and looking very cool doing it. There is most definitely an audience for this type of movie and Anderson knows it. Anderson and Jovovich are responsible for the Resident Evil films that along with Monster Hunter are also superficially based on a video game property. The original 2002 Resident Evil is largely considered one of the better or best video game movie adaptations. It’s not exactly high praise – video game movies are notoriously awful. Monster Hunter won’t be making any best-of lists but save for the first 20 minutes or so which is comprised almost entirely of the groan-inducing military schtick we’ve come to expect from Michael Bay Transformers movies, I was very entertained. The second act of the film focuses down onto the two principal actors with Jaa trying his best to acclimate Jovovich to her new surroundings. The mutual admiration and genuine desire to protect one another comes across even if the amount of time it takes for the two to realize they are on the same side is comical. Their first encounter is legit 10-minutes straight of the two delivering blows to one another that would absolutely incapacitate any non-superhuman. Once they start working together it’s a fun ride. Jaa and Jovovich are just as likable here as they are in their other films, the CGI is excellent and Anderson’s action direction is confident and easy to follow unlike a lot of other movies in this genre. If you go into this film anticipating a rousing story with thoughtfully nuanced character arcs you will be disappointed. Also, quit taking yourself so seriously. The movie is called Monster Hunter.
Monster Hunter receives a score of 6/10 for general audiences and 7/10 if you know by now what to expect from Anderson+Jovovich and enjoyed their other films.
Catharsis is defined as the purification of emotions through an extreme change in circumstance that results in renewal and restoration. Most films succeed or fail on the strength of their effectiveness in providing such moments. Spoiler alert for a 23-year-old film, but the moment Liam Neeson’s Bryan Mills reclaims his teen daughter from those who would do her harm represents one of the most cathartic ever captured on the big screen. The brilliance of Taken is how its quite literally one-note story - something that would be the downfall of a film in most instances - represents its strength. The film is singularity of purpose personified. The “man possessed” storyline isn’t exactly novel and one can imagine John Wick taking place in the Taken universe, but this film feels different. The script is razor sharp and perfectly paced without a drop of fat or excess. The laser focus of Mills in surgically obliterating and exploiting all obstacles in his path is perfectly captured by the visceral direction and Neeson’s Batman-like ability to overcome with smarts or force. Bryan Mills doesn't behave like he know's he's in a movie. He takes the path of least resistance because that approach is most likely to result in the recovery of his daughter. Every second counts both in the context of the films story and how the film is edited. Is Taken the perfect action movie? It’s certainly in the conversation. The subsequent films would be increasingly ridiculous (sort of like John Wick) and Mills would grow comically untouchable/indestructible but Neeson kicked off a bankable, quality action franchise at the age of 56. He did so without the benefit of the Taken IP being a reboot or re-imagining of something else. The man is a national treasure. Taken is a sterling example of how the right casting, confident direction and a little style can overcome even the most pedestrian and rote of stories. I re-watched the film for this review and it hasn’t aged a day.
Taken turns a premise more suited for an episode of television into one of the most memorable and re- watchable action films of the past 3 decades. In that respect, it’s a modern classic. 10/10.
There is an episode of South Park which pokes fun at self-aggrandizing, overly indulgent Californians by showing them constantly getting high, quite literally, on their own farts. Christopher Nolan, as with Inception, was sniffing his own farts when he wrote and directed this one. But it works. I openly admit to a preference for Nolan’s bat-trilogy over any of his other works. That proclamation is maintained in the case of Tenet. It’s still a great film and wholly entertaining from start to finish. Has Nolan made a bad film? Tenet is maddeningly complex and thought-provoking with grand ideas deconstructing the concept of time from theoretical/philosophical and more literal scientific standpoints. I like to think i'm of moderately above average intelligence and I couldn't explain it all to you. As with Inception, it's going to take repeat viewings to make sense of it all. That's half of the fun of going down into the Nolanverse rabbit hole. All of the high-minded pseudo-science is wrapped up nicely with the dizzying array of mostly on location action set pieces one expects from a tentpole summer blockbuster. Is there an action film of Tenet’s size, scope and budget where the love interest is a foot taller than the protagonist and the movie intentionally films multiple scenes clearly highlighting it? I loved that decision by Nolan.
Tenet gets a 8.5/10 for general audiences and a 9/10 for Nolan aficionados.
Don’t go see Jiu Jitsu if you are going in expecting any of the following: cohesive narrative structure, character arcs, a story that is unique in any meaningful way, believable human dialogue or a film any random person chosen from a crowd would describe as “good.” Do go see Jiu Jitsu if you enjoy: stunningly well shot fight choreography, AAA video game production values (a compliment, to be clear), a million nameless henchmen dispatched in increasingly interesting ways, and a primary antagonist that is paradoxically devoid of any discernible motivation or basic characterization…but so darn cool and bad-ass with a sword and other magical weapons he conjures from thin air that you forget he exists only to punch and be punched. Jiu Jitsu is stunningly dumb and leans into its own absurdity. Director Demetri Logothetis is on to something. The film creates what I will describe as a new action sub-genre: action fiction. I believe it’s being marketed as “action science fiction” (I say believe as I never watched the trailer) but there isn’t a single drop of meaningfully thought out science to be found in this film. It doesn’t need it. What it does have is the magic of Nic Cage at peak Nic Cage even if all his fight scenes have jarringly quick cuts or needlessly wide shots designed to mask the fact that Cage can no longer do action. It’s super noticeable as all other fight scenes lack the rapid cuts. You don’t need to cut around Tony Jaa. I recommend Jiu Jitsu as a sort-of throwback to a time when all an action movie needed was a star for the poster and enough story to justify the fights. Check and Check.
Jiu Jitsu receives a score of 4.5/10 for general audiences and a 7/10 if you want to turn you brain off and watch people getting kicked in the face by aliens that for unknowable reasons practice planet earth Karate.
I’m coining a new term: Corona Release. Corona Releases are films that in any other year would receive some form of traditional theatrical run but instead debut on VOD with little fanfare and the limited theatrical release associated with 2020. Fatman, Ava and Jiu Jutsu are examples of corona releases. Archenemy is the latest. It’s a film with an interesting but undercooked premise: an unkempt hobo is convinced that he’s from another dimension where he’s a superhero. He somehow got dropped off in our dimension and to the surprise of no one stepping over his drunk body, his powers don’t work on earth. I went into Archenemy primarily interested in seeing Joe Manganiello’s best Hancock impression and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the supporting cast. Zolee Grigg’s blue haired Indigo is the heart of the film and she and Skylan Brook’s Hamster do a great job of presenting believably sympathetic characters. The movie is interspersed frequently with crudely stylized comic book artwork in similar fashion to Ang Lee’s 2003 Hulk. I couldn’t shake the feeling that this was less a creative decision and more a result of the film’s microscopic budget. The barebones story works fine and the acting is perfectly acceptable but Archenemy feels more like a 90-minute episode of an ambitious superhero television show rather than a movie you’d watch in theaters. I struggle to identify who the movie is for. It’s not a proper superhero film and the street-level elements don’t present anything original on which to base a recommendation. It’s a gritty reboot of Kick-Ass minus the humor, colorful presentation and fight choreography. Don’t go in looking for consistent action. You’ll be disappointed. Archenemy is far from must-see but there are worse ways to spend $5.99 on a rainy corona weekend.
Archenemy receives a score of 5.5/10 for general audiences with a half-point bump if you love all things superhero or superhero-adjacent.
John Wick: Chapter 3 of the increasingly “all action/little substance” Wick-iverse largely abandons any attempt to tell a meaningfully nuanced story. Wick, played again by the inimitable Keanu Reeves, benefits greatly from leftover sympathy generated in the first installment. It’s why we keep showing up. But as covered in my review of Chapter 2, the fights seem increasingly hollow in comparison. Wick’s only motivation is “don’t die” and for me that’s not enough to sustain a two-hour film. As with many franchises reaching movie number three, the film throws a lot at us hoping some or most will stick. John Wick on a horse? Motorcycle chases that are also sword-fights? It’s all here. Hardcore fans of the series will find Chapter 3 perfectly fine. About halfway through I was bored. I understand that Wick is an action icon because of the shootouts but as entertaining/impressive as it might be from a technical standpoint, there are diminishing returns on slaying nameless, non-threatening assassins. Wick is not immune. Remember how we got to see the backstory/quiet moments of several goons in the first film? I miss that. Chapter 3 is saved by the final act and a plot development that switches things up and creates real story stakes. The under-appreciated Mark Dacascos is a welcome addition as the hand-to-hand heavy even though we learn nothing about him outside of “he’s the bad guy.” His character’s oddball sense of humor juxtaposes nicely with the film’s overall grim nature. Hollywood needs to give Mark more roles while he’s still active. Halle Berry is a surprise standout. It appears she did much of her own stunts and the dog-assisted shootout for which she is centerpiece stands out as wholly unique to this film and an achievement in incorporating animals into action.
John Wick 3 receives a score of 6/10 for general audiences and 7.5/10 for die-hard fans of the series. The movie is saved by the final act and casting of Mark Dacascos/Halle Berry in strong supporting roles.
John Wick might have more bodies on his hands than any movie character ever. He and the films he inhabits are deadly serious and supreme fun. The notion that any one man can be so dangerously untouchable in a world inhabited by men and women singularly defined by how dangerous they are is a ludicrous premise but in the Wick-iverse it works. You can tell Keanu Reeves is having a blast playing an analogue of The Punisher, all id and driven by vengeance. For Both Wick and The Punisher, the guns are characters in the story and both wield firearms like extensions of their own bodies. The pistol is to Wick as lightsabers are to Jedi. And if the suit does indeed maketh the man, Wick doesn’t disappoint. The story of John Wick 2 isn’t manifestly different than anything we’ve seen before in other shoot first films but those movies don’t have Keanu Reeves. The international setting is a great fit for expanding the mythology. A host of minor yet impactful character actors pepper the film with manic energy even if we are asked to overlook the absurdity that seemingly every citizen, even the violin player, is an assassin. Everyone quite literally has a gun pointed at him but Wick, despite occasionally wincing in pain, is essentially invincible. Let’s call it “Taken Syndrome,” a condition where in each sequel our protagonist becomes less of a human vigilante and more of an invulnerable superhero. As a result, the emotional core noticeably erodes with each new offering. Chapter 2 has more action but it’s a lesser film than the original. Wick’s motivation in the first was clear while in this iteration he’s simply trying to survive until the end. It’s still a blast to watch and peak Keanu Reeves is a treat. Shout out to Common for a great turn as mid-level boss - If they used a stunt double for him, I couldn’t tell.
John Wick 2 receives a score of 6.5/10 for general audiences and an 8/10 for fans of Reeves and the stalwart Wick franchise.
Even if you’ve seen the film it might surprise you to learn that the first bullet in John Wick, starring ageless wonder Keanu Reeves, isn’t fired until the 29 minute mark. John Wick is an action film with style and substance and a protagonist who reminds us that there is beauty in simplicity of purpose. The film sets up Wick’s primary backstory within the first five minutes and does so with almost zero dialogue. There is a conveyor belt of action movies released to theaters year after year and most don’t get that if a genre film is to appeal to anyone outside of its built-in audience, it must have a compelling story with relatable and sympathetic characters. Otherwise, the punches and kicks are meaningless. Plenty of brainlessly vacant action movies turn a profit but If the goal is a lasting phenomenon with franchise-level chutzpah a la John Wick, setup is equally important to fight choreography. Do you have a suitable framework for a film minus the gun fights and car chases? If you can’t answer that question in the affirmative, be afraid. John Wick is really good at killing but he’s a pop culture fixture because of his humanity and motivation for being the best there is at what he does. His will is invincible but he is not. The movie rightly pauses in between shootouts for Wick to evaluate his wounds and patch himself up enough to fight another day. The seemingly small decision to clearly show the consequences for each encounter makes every bullet that hits (or misses) that much more impactful. Am I the only one noting that some of Reeve’s movements seemed pulled directly from that of Christian Bale in Equilibrium?
John Wick receives a score of 8/10 for general audiences and a 9/10 for action wonks.
In the ever-growing pantheon of disaster movies, Greenland does nothing to distinguish itself. There is barely any story or character development here to speak of. Go ahead and file it under the instantly forgettable “Corona Release” category (see our review of recent release Archenemy for the definition of corona release). Greenland begins ominously enough and does a satisfying job setting up the realistic manner in which our protagonists learn of an impending meteor shower. Media coverage begins as the harmlessly benign science-y stuff most of us ignore before transitioning fairly rapidly from meaningless to terrifying. The movie then grinds to a halt. It’s a problem when in a disaster film the media sound bytes have more bite than the meteors. Greenland spends a painfully long time post first-bombardment lingering on the predictably volatile human drama while highlighting almost none of the carnage and mayhem showcased in the trailer. For a solid hour-plus the already simple plot doesn’t really advance. Part of the challenge of any genre film is creating a balance between character development and genre “action” (in this case, meteors). Greenland takes the curious route to abandon all action for the entire second act along with a sizable portion of the final act. Is it worth the wait for the finale? Not really. If a meteor shower was the cataclysmic event that took out the dinosaurs, Greenland makes it all look fairly unremarkable. Gerard Butler does a fine enough job with a role that doesn’t ask much of him other than looking concerned and/or very concerned. Ditto for the supporting cast. Greenland is fine as a two-hour diversion, just don’t go in expecting anything novel.
Greenland receives a 5.5/10 for all audiences. There is nothing here on which to base a recommendation. Watch Dante’s Peak or Daylight instead.
Whenever I overhear or read someone describe a pure action film as dumb my inner monologue counters with “do you think they were trying to make a smart movie? The answer in this imaginary back and forth is often no. Sometimes the answer is “kind of.” Sometimes you just need enough backstory to make us truly care about the fate of the protagonist. And Chris Hemsworth. In the 80’s and 90’s all an action movie needed was a star for the poster and enough oomph to the story to create real stakes. Sam Hargrave, Extraction director and second unit director of season 2 of The Mandalorian, picked up on this and smartly returns with Extraction to this old school type of actioner that cares little about dazzling us with the script. Its only want is to provide a logical and emotionally compelling canvas on which to unleash an A-list action star. In this case it’s Hemsworth. There are many other modern examples. John Wick in Keanu Reeves. Liam Neeson in Taken. Denzel Washington in The Equalizer (my personal favorite modern action franchise – I hope we get a third). As long as the story is coherent and the dialogue isn’t completely stilted these films succeed because they live and die on star power and ingenuity of stunt choreography. Sam Hargrave cut his teeth collaborating with the Russo Brothers as stunt coordinator on MCU films such as Captain America: Winter Soldier. That film has inarguably the best hand to hand combat of any MCU film and now we know why. When it comes to hand-to-hand fight choreography incorporating bladed weapons and firearms, Hargrave delivers over and over and gives us what we want. Yes, much of Extraction is nameless henchmen dispatched in increasingly complex and thrilling sequences. It absolutely works. Hemsworth is electric and Extraction is the best Netflix-produced action film to date. Aspiring action film makers will watch this film for inspiration.
Extraction receives a score of 8/10 for general audiences and a 9/10 for a smart script that knows it’s target audience and delivers.
Seems we can’t go a year without a new Black Widow-lite female assassin film. Lucy, Salt, Hanna, Red Sparrow and Atomic Blonde are just a few of the recent examples. I get it. It’s fascinating and fun to uncover the mindset and fractured psyche of an individual who’s chosen such an unsavory lifestyle. At least it should be. Humans are also hard-wired into the desire to engage with the mysterious and beautiful stranger. With “shadowy assassin” as tired a trope as it is, it piques my interest when a film tries something a bit different with it. Ava, in showcasing the titular professional killer in her decidedly uncool and mundane moments makes such an attempt. An assassin with regular people problems and family drama? A female Martin Blank? There could’ve been something there. Sadly, it all feels poorly conceived and barely thought out. It doesn’t help that the acting of Ava’s family members and ex-husband, played by Common, feel stilted and from a different movie. Ava, directed by Tate Taylor, also suffers greatly from the suspension of disbelief required to buy pixie-like Jessica Chastain effortlessly dispatching assailants 2x her size with fairly rudimentary martial arts. Action scenes are nonetheless fairly well-shot and feature a handful of sequences that feel fresh - high praise considering the amount of bloat within the dime-a-dozen action thriller genre. One first act sequence stands out for the wrong reasons, however. Ava struts high-heeled through a war-zone of heavily armed soldiers taking each down nonchalantly and unconvincingly. Plot armor is the only reason she does so without being shot in the head. The film starts to feel schizophrenic and silly in the second half focusing too much on boring love triangles and character setups that never payoff. Ava is at its best during the first act when it focuses on Chastain’s skill as an assassin. Casting a winking-at-the-camera Geena Davis of Long Kiss Goodnight fame as Ava’s mom was a nice touch. Watch that movie instead.
Ava receives a score of 5/10 for everyone. It doesn’t do anything to stand out in the overstuffed female assassin genre and the family subplot is tired and uninteresting.