kellym40 film review

Action hails from new heights in ‘Skyscraper’

Rating 2.5/5

Although I found some faults with this film, it was a somewhat enjoyable experience (maybe because it was released on my birthday). More probable is that it had just enough to keep me engaged without it meandering off in many different storylines and subplots.

As one reviewer put it, it’s something of a combination of Die Hard and The Towering Inferno. Which means, it has just enough mindless action to keep an audience entertained for 102 minutes, but not much else to make you go “Wow, that was amazing.” 

Rawson Marshall Thurber wrote and directed this particular piece of movie cinema with the idea of making a summer blockbuster with a big name actor attached to it. The film does provide a spectacle and sets forth an array of action sequences. However, while it does an adequate job of creating the thrilling action scenes, it doesn’t appear to have a good grasp on setting up the major plot. Unless I just missed something along the way. I didn’t fully get the major story point until maybe half way through the film. And of course once I got it, I put the pieces together and I was back in the film. As I said earlier, I was engulfed in the film. It was that initial set up, which should have been early in the second act, that would have made it just a little more clear of why the bad guys were trying to do what they are doing.

First, before going any further, the film starts off introducing the hero Will Sawyer (Dwayne Johnson) as a highly trained Marine and FBI agent who’s in charge of a hostage negotiation that doesn’t go as planned. The suspect sets off a bomb, killing some agents and wounding others. This is the inciting incident that sets the movie in motion. He is rushed to the hospital and meets his future wife Sarah (Neve Campbell) the doctor about to operate on him. Flash-forward several years later, we find Will married with two kids. He has lost his left leg below the knee in that earlier incident. Will now serves as a security consultant where his latest job has taken him and his family – McKenna Grace and Noah Cottrell portray his children – to Hong Kong. His job is to analyze the safety of The Pearl – a self-contained city, stretching higher into the sky within the building. It’s the design of billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han)

Of course, the audience does discover Will is being set up somehow as his former team member, Ben (Pablo Schreiber) who was also injured in the blast from the beginning of the film, receives a text message indicating he is in some way working with the bad guys.

Roland Moller plays Kores Botha, who leads his team of evil henchmen into the bulding with highly flammable chemicals to set the place on fire. Will’s wife and kids were not supposed to be there, but they have returned unexpectedly because they actually live in one of the residential units in a building that is not supposed to open yet? I guess they get to stay there because Will is the security consultant.

That’s of course the moment that Johnson springs into action to save his family. This propels the movie into the second act. In the wildly imaginative, thrilling action sequences that follow, Will uses his military training (and his prosthetic leg) in creative ways in order to get to his family and stop the evildoers.

The film moved along at a decent pace for the 102-minute runtime. The effects were believable, which added to the excitement and thrills. However, they weren’t extraordinary. It did sort of feel like Die Hard in the sense it took place in a tall building as he was trying to get to his family and bring them to safety. Something to note, though, is that Johnson, while a decent action star, didn’t quite seem to fit here. Something just felt out of place with his role. That being said, most of the leading characters (good guys and bad guys) didn’t seem to have much in character development. There wasn’t much there to make you really feel for the characters.

In all, the film did have action and effects and it kept me in just enough to be entertained for a little while, but not enough to make it remarkable.

kellym40 film review

Dinosaurs, greed are back in ‘Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’

Rating 3/5

It is almost inconceivable that this makes the fifth installment in this dinosaur franchise about scientists sort of playing god and the greedy businessmen who are in it to make a quick buck. But alas, here we are. I know it’s been a little while with this review as I am trying to catch up on a few films. But I will offer some type of reflection for the film for anyone who hasn’t seen it or needs to revisit the film for any reason.

In 1993, Steven Spielberg directed a screenplay by Michael Crichton, which was based on Crichton’s book, Jurassic Park. The film boasted with amazement and wonder, and delighted audiences worldwide. There seemed to be something special and magical with that film. Obviously there was, because it spawned two sequels and now a “rebooted” franchise. The third installment, Jurassic Park III (released in 2001) appeared mediocre at best. Fourteen years later, Jurassic World was released. For some reason, I really enjoyed that film. I thought it brought back some of the original magic back from the first film. However, one thing that I did have reservations about was how many times do we have to see scientists playing with an incredible force of nature, like dinosaur DNA, to create not only replicas of actual dinosaurs, but also genetically create new species?

That question was answered earlier this year with the release of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. As a film, it was adequate in bringing action, a little suspense, and excitement to audiences. But again, the premise was essentially the same.

The film, directed by J.A. Bayona from a script penned by Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connolly, postulates the island where the original park was is in danger of becoming ravaged by a soon-to-be erupting volcano. The question is asked, should they be saved? Jeff Goldblum returns as Dr. Ian Malcolm. He sits before a congressional committee to give his thoughts on that question. He ultimately tells the committee to let nature take its course. And of course there are people on both sides of the issue. Bryce Dallas Howard once again portrays Claire Dearing, who is running a save-the-dinosaurs nonprofit, and is frustrated by congressional inaction. Part of the story involves a supposed safe-haven for the dinosaurs, but the men behind that have ulterior motives. They negotiate a way for Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) to accompany in order to help retrieve “Blue,” the raptor trained by Owen in Jurassic World. Rounding out the cast as major players are Rafe Spall, Justice Smith, Toby Jones, Daniella Pineda, Ted Levine, and BD Wong.

The action and story moved along at a reasonable pace. There was plenty of dialogue and action to keep me in the film. And of course as in any of these films in this franchise, there has to be a part where everything seems all unicorns and rainbows until some idiot makes a wrong move and releases some ferocious dinosaurs.

The performances were nothing extraordinary, but the actors brought the characters to life with believable action and motivation. They played well off their surroundings and special effects. And speaking of special effects, they were virtually flawless. I mean that in a way where nothing really seemed to appear fake or unbelievable.

Bottom line – this movie was geared to be a sort of summer blockbuster. It had an estimated budget of $170 million. It has garnered a total of $384,164,925 in the United States as of July 22, and a cumulative worldwide total of more than $1 billion as of July 19. These stats are according to http://www.imdb.com. The film used the familiar conventions that have worked in the past. And for me, they seemed to work just fine. Some may not care for that (and I usually don’t), but it worked for me here.

kellym40 film review

Spidey swings into action in the Marvel Cinematic Universe in “Spider-Man: Homecoming”

Rating 3.5/5

Ever since the release of Marvel’s Captain America: Civil War last year and the introduction of everyone’s favorite wall-crawler, fans and movie goers alike couldn’t wait for the new Spider-Man in his first solo outing within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It was fun to see the character within this universe and this film appeared to be more fun, vibrant, and comical than Sam Raimi’s take starting in 2002 and Marc Webb’s reboot in 2012.

And another thing about reboots/remakes, I have heard people say that this is the third reboot of Spider-Man. That’s fine to say, but the truth is it isn’t. The character didn’t come to the big screen until Raimi directed the Tobey Maguire picture in 2002. And of course that spawned two sequels. It wasn’t until 2012 when Webb directed The Amazing Spider-Man (what would then be a reboot). It wasn’t a remake because it was a different story than 2002’s Spider-Man. This installment is of course not a remake, and I don’t consider it a reboot. Although, in a way it is because it is rebooting the character within the MCU, but at the same time it holds it own as a stand-alone Spider-Man film.

Okay. Enough of that.

While Raimi seemed to kill his franchise with Spider-Man 3 and Webb doing the same with the 2014 follow-up The Amazing Spider-Man 2, this film appeared to punch some life into the character. This first solo outing did not disappoint. Director Jon Watts brings much more fun and a new take on the character than we’ve seen in the other five films. I’m not sure why it took six writers to put together this film, but what’s done is done. Watts co-wrote the script with Jonathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley, Christopher Ford, Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers. Either way, the filmmakers brought the character back to the beginning. Peter Parker received his powers when he was only a teenager. This film really brought out the angst of a teenager wanting to do more with his powers, and his impatience and eagerness to help along with his sarcastic quips.

And as I have said before, I am not anywhere near a comic book aficionado, but what I do know is this take on the character seems to be more in line with who the character is. It may be correct to assume this was generally a crowd-pleasing success. There are those that would still probably knit-pick on some details here and there, but I believe most would still appreciate the web-slinger in the vast MCU.

The new Spider-Man (aka Peter Parker) is Tom Holland. He brings a fresh charisma and charm to the youthful, unlikely hero. He is also younger than Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield were in their respective outings as the web-head. Additionally, Holland plays a younger Peter Parker than the previous films. His cameo in Captain America: Civil War last year was definitely surprising and seemed to steal the show at that climactic battle.

I will admit this film has a bit of an ambiguous beginning. Or maybe I just missed something. The film takes place within a few months after the events of Civil War, but supposedly begins eight years prior in what was left after Loki released his carnage in New York from 2012’s The Avengers. That timeline doesn’t seem to quite add up but I assume Marvel knows what they’re doing.

I probably won’t go on about plot details here, but just say the story slowly unfolds in the beginning. And I say that because it just moved a little slow for me in a couple of places, but I see that it was for the establishment of plot points and character introduction and development. And overall, the film moved at a decent pace for its length at roughly 133 minutes. I won’t say the performances here were really moving and captivating, but they weren’t bad either. Holland’s performance really stood out though. He looked younger, playing a younger version of Peter Parker than we’ve seen in the other films. Marisa Tomei returns as at Peter’s aunt May where she was first seen in last year’s Civil War. I think she fulfilled the role nicely with the amount of screen time she had. Although, I still somewhat question the casting choice. I mean, again, she was adequate in the role but the look of her character wasn’t what I was expecting. (But that’s okay. I won’t judge). Peter’s love interest Liz (Laura Harrier) was a nice addition. I do know that Peter had romantic interests other than Mary Jane Watson and Gwen Stacy. What added to the humor and various comedic moments was the interaction he had with his friend Ned (Jacob Batalon). Even the appearances of Robert Downey Jr. and Jon Favreau added to the humor and gave their usual energy and humor to Tony Stark and Happy Hogan. I think the film focused on the inner struggles of Peter coming to terms with his powers and his eagerness in wanting to do more.

I suppose that is why there wasn’t much of a villain in the story as I would have liked. And while Michael Keaton’s acting was not to blame here, and not to say he didn’t have a bad performance as Adrian Toomes, but I was kind of hoping for a little more out of his character. That might be the case as the post-credit scene hints. It is nice to see Keaton making some films again. And to go from playing a superhero in Batman to an actor playing a superhero in Birdman to playing a villain in another superhero movie, is something that I don’t think has been done before. Kudos to Keaton!

This was a fun film and a great addition to the MCU. The cinematography was great and the use of colors and locations added to the film. That is something I’ve noticed comparing Marvel and DC. Marvel uses bright colors and is more fun and vibrant and seems to show off more energy. The DC universe just appears to be more dark and gloomy. But at any rate, I was pleasantly surprised with this solo outing from the web-crawler. Of course, it’s Marvel. I don’t think there has been a Marvel film released that I haven’t enjoyed.

 

 

kellym40 film review

More secrets uncovered in ‘Jason Bourne’

Rating 3/5

Just when you thought it was over, or at least I did before Jason Bourne was released last year, Bourne is back and Matt Damon returns to play the title role. I mentioned this in my review of The Bourne Ultimatum that this character could seemingly go on forever, much like Bond. Although, I can’t really see anyone else playing Bourne. An attempt was made to continue the action with The Bourne Legacy storyline with Jeremy Renner in a Bourne-like character. That film had its merits but fell just under par from the Bourne trilogy. Jason Bourne had some action and kept the storyline open for another possible appearance by the Robert Ludlum character. But the question remains, should there be another appearance? Paul Greengrass returns to direct Jason Bourne and also co-wrote the script with Christopher Rouse for this installment.

While this film had all the necessary elements that made the original Bourne trilogy so explosively popular (the high-speed car chases, heart pounding fight scenes, imaginative situations) it failed to deliver the intriguing dialogue and character development previously seen in the other films. On most every mark, the film was as good as its predecessors, except for the aforementioned faux pas.

Previously mentioned, there seems to be many directions and storylines future installments could go. But it appears these stories have taken a detour from the source material. What made the original trilogy so special and popular, I believe, are the storylines, the characters, action, the use of camera shots and angles, the dialogue, and of course Damon’s performance. The elements pulled you in and had you fixated on Bourne’s outcome. You wanted to see what happened to him. I know I did.

But after three films with this character (this being the fourth), where do we go from here? The ending did seem to open it up for further adventures. But honestly, I am satisfied on where it is. I was satisfied after The Bourne Ultimatum. I don’t know if there is much more to say about this character and this series that hasn’t been said already. Matt Damon is Jason Bourne. But this film attempted to dive deeper in the Bourne saga and bring up other facets, secrets, and other agents into the mix in an attempt to expand Bourne’s story. Bringing Tommy Lee Jones, Alicia Vikander, and Vincent Cassel to the cast were nice additions and as with the other films, the characters were unique and interesting.

The film is set up, more or less, to stand on its own. It does well in this endeavor. Bourne is classified as the protagonist of the series, but not necessarily a hero. While there are “bad men” pitted against Bourne, there are not villains in the true story sense. They play as obstacles that our protagonist must maneuver around in order to stay alive and search for his own truth.

Some have said this is a great chapter in this series. That it builds upon what the previous films established. I see it differently. I do agree that is was a fine piece to be included in the franchise, but it fell slightly to its predecessors. I think what missed for me mostly with this film was that I achieved a satisfaction and a complete story with the original trilogy, so this film (while entertaining and interesting) did not do much more for me with Bourne’s story and character.

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

Another Bourne story unfolds in ‘The Bourne Legacy’

Rating 3/5

Continuing the Bourne story with The Bourne Legacy, we find a new character (as previously mentioned in my previous Bourne trilogy reviews) that is in the secret program Bourne was in (because there was never just one). I wasn’t sure how this story was going to play out when I first heard about the film, because you know, Matt Damon wasn’t in it. As it is, The Bourne Legacy was engaging and entertaining but not quite as thrilling as the original Bourne trilogy.

In this story Jeremy Renner plays Aaron Cross, a participant in the secret government program that enhances the participant’s mental and physical agility, who is still “training” at a secret facility. The events of this film coincide with the events of the last Bourne film (The Bourne Ultimatum). This made the film interesting to watch and at the same time a little confusing keeping the main Cross storyline straight with the Jason Bourne sub-storyline as the hunt was on for his capture.

Due to the rogue antics of Jason Bourne, the powers that be wanted to shut down the program and eliminate all remaining participants. They try to take out Cross at his training area but were unsuccessful. Scott Glenn, Stacy Keach, Albert Finney, and Edward Norton are in the cast as the leads of the secret program that would be considered the villain of the story, much like Joan Allen and Brian Cox were previously.

After the attempt to eradicate Cross at the facility, he runs to find the doctor he had previous contact with during the program, Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), because apparently she knows how to manufacture the pills he thinks he needs in order to stay at the top of his game. The program offered pills for the participants in order to keep them programmed and “trained” for what is needed of them. So, he needs pills. Dr. Shearing can make them. They travel across the world in order to get them made. That seems to be the main thrust of the story with Cross.

However, like the Bourne trilogy before, it seemed Cross was a step ahead and appeared nearly unstoppable as he was being pursued. I suppose that element has to exist in order for the film to exist, but if Cross was caught too soon then there wouldn’t be much of a film. So the chase scenes continued. Chase after chase, the hero eludes his pursuers and then we’re left with an ending similar to how each of the previous films ended with our hero seemingly bound to live a happy and free life away from the program.

Norton and company played their characters with precision and determination. They were nearly flawless in their actions within the story framework. Renner had conviction with his character that almost matched Damon’s as Bourne, but just a bit under par. Weisz was convincing as an unwitting participating doctor in the program. She had a bit of frailty to her character but also showed a strong will and ferocity when needed.

I think what missed for me was the slow start to the film. For me, it took a little bit for the action to get going and nearly lost me. Once Cross met up with Dr. Shearing, it did pick up but it still wasn’t quite enough to sustain my total interest as the other films did. As a stand alone film, it seemed quite entertaining, but as part of the Bourne universe it lacked some of the Bourne standards. Additionally, Legacy’s chase scenes (nearly a necessity for action films) were a bit much and had the appearance of going on and on like the Energizer Bunny. They didn’t have the same exciting appeal as the original Jason Bourne trilogy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

Bourne uncovers more truths in ‘The Bourne Ultimatum’

Rating 4/5

This Bourne trilogy might be considered overrated. Some might say the story is inconceivable. Why do you need three films to discover one’s identity? I think the answer is that it really doesn’t matter. As I’ve said of the other two films before this installment, the film’s story and characters are engaging enough to buy in to this world that has been created. The audience is free to cheer on Matt Damon’s Jason Bourne character. It is clear now that Bourne (or whatever his true name really is) does not want to be a part of this secret government program any longer, and it is this inner conflict and the continuing pursuit of his “enemies” that make these compelling characters to watch.

Run, Jason, run. And run some more. The successful techniques and elements used in Identity and Supremacy are prevalent here in this film, which adds to the success of these films. Tony Gilroy returns with writers Scott Z. Burns and George Nolfi to pen the script to create this thrilling world with truly living three-dimensional characters to entertain. Director Paul Greengrass helms this production and brings together the elements almost flawlessly for a well-coordinated piece of film. As with the other films, the camera movements, quick shots, music, cinematography, acting and dialogue come together with seeming ease.

I have said this in my previous review that it almost seems preposterous the kind of situations that arise and Bourne finds himself in. Because I don’t pretend to admit that I know everything there is to know about the government, CIA, and its secret programs and operations. I am aware they exist. But the sequences in these films are so well done that Greengrass skillfully weaves the story into the action of the film to provide enough excitement to again sustain that suspension of disbelief and be fully engaged in the film.

Everything comes together to complete this trilogy. However, it still leaves more. One might think what other circumstances and situations Bourne might find himself in? How do the government officials with all their resources bent on stopping Bourne and not be able to do it? Bourne is someone is has a remarkable set of skills and uses those skills skillfully in order to stay ahead of his enemies and to stay alive.

In respect of not sounding too repetitive, there is not much more to say about this film (or the other two in the trilogy) that hasn’t been said or mentioned. This character seems to go on and on. I read another reviewer that mentioned Bourne could feasibly go on for years to come, like James Bond, with other actors portraying this character. As I mentioned in my review of The Bourne Supremacy, Matt Damon is Jason Bourne. I can’t really see anyone else playing this role. But I suppose it could be done since it was done with Bond (Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan to name a few). Time will tell what is in store for this character and these stories.

There must be a variety of stories that could be taken from the Robert Ludlum novels as it has spawned this trilogy, a fourth film (previously mentioned in another post) with a Bourne-like character and the story unfolding as the events of this third film are playing out. And a fifth film, released last year, in which the Bourne character is back in Jason Bourne. And guess who’s back to portray Bourne? That’s right. Matt Damon returns for a fourth time as Jason Bourne. But how much more of his story is there? We shall see. For now, we can sit back and get caught up in the action and excitement of this world with the Bourne trilogy.

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

Terror mounts at high altitudes in ‘Snakes on a Plane’

Rating 1.5/5

Well my title might be a little misleading. Because I don’t think the characters in the film were ever really terrified, just maybe slightly alarmed. The danger seemed almost laughable, and still slightly plausible. But the execution of the script never really made be feel for the characters to care what happened to them. Although the film did deliver one of my favorite lines in cinema as only Samuel L. Jackson can deliver it, Snakes on a Plane was filled with a smorgasbord of seemingly repetitive shock effects that the suspense and “terror” is drowned out and does not sustain the film for its nearly 105 minute run time.

The plot is simple and seemingly basic. Jackson plays FBI agent Neville Flynn. He is on a flight from Honolulu to Los Angeles transporting a witness (Nathan Phillips) to testify against a bad man. The bad man is so bad that he manages to load the cargo of the plane with crates of deadly, poisonous snakes. And that’s how the snakes get on the plane. The snakes get loose and begin creating havoc among the passengers of the plane killing several. The survivors then have to deal with the threat of the snakes for the remainder of the flight. The survivors include flight attendants Juliana Margulies, Rachel Blanchard, Lin Shaye and Bruce James; passengers Sunny Mabrey, Flex Alexander, Kenan Thompson, Keith Dallas, and pilot David Koechner (who later meets his demise, but more on that in a bit). There are a few others but they’re hardly worth mentioning. They either die early in the film or they have such a low impact on the story or outcome of the film that they don’t really deserve a mention.

While the survivors scramble to keep alive, Flynn is in contact with his FBI buddies on the ground and gets them to scramble around to find a snake expert to develop anti-venom to treat the ones who have been bit, but still stay alive long enough for the plane to miraculously land. It makes for some mindless entertainment but it is not thrilling enough to keep me totally involved in the story.

Some problems exist with the story. How does the villain of the story know for sure the snakes would get out? (I mean supposedly there is some kind of pheromone or something released which apparently gets the snakes agitated and that’s why they start attacking everyone, but if they don’t get out then what’s the point?) As I said, the pilot survives for a while, even after getting bit in the arm, but then later is killed late in the second act. Now there is no one to fly the plane. So Flynn asks if there is anyone with any kind of flight experience. And guess who has experience – Kenan Thompson. However, his experience comes from a flight simulator. The miraculous landing comes from Thompson taking the controls and Jackson delivering his line about getting these “motherfucking snakes off this motherfucking plane.” His plan is to shoot out a window and watch as the snakes get sucked out of the plane while holding on for dear life. The plane is safely landed in the hands of someone who is just good at a video game, which might be plausible in the world of this film but still seems a bit far-fetched.

What else can be said of Snakes on a Plane? Not much. With its flaws and low-key performances, it does have some credibility, just not much to write home about. Perhaps just enough to write a seemingly scathing review for a blog? Well here it is. This film might be another one of those movies that would be good for some mindless entertainment on a lazy afternoon, but nothing more than that. David R. Ellis’ direction was nothing great here. Maybe in the hands of a more prolific director it might have been something, but as it is it leaves something to be desired. The script, written by John Heffernan and Sebastian Gutierrez, left a lot to be desired and seemed mediocre at best.

So if you’re in the mood for some great acting, a good story, compelling characters, then you might have to check out something else like a Scorsese picture. You won’t find much of that here. But if you want to kick back, have a few laughs, and let your mind wander in the presence of tedious storytelling and senseless action, then pop some popcorn and buckle in.

 

kellym40 film review

Bourne is back in ‘The Bourne Supremacy’

Rating 4/5

Director Paul Greengrass helmed the follow-up to 2002’s The Bourne Identity. Tony Gilroy returns as screenwriter, again adapting the script from Robert Ludlum’s novel. In this installment, there is more of the same from the first film but is taken to another level as we learn more about Bourne and his past as an event forces him out to again go on the run to face the ones who are after him.

The film begins with Bourne living happily with Marie (Franka Potente, from the first film) on a beach in India. Soon they are on the run after Bourne notices a man out of place. From there, things escalate and Bourne is thrust into another adventure with high stakes on the line. The film does not fail in delivering the fights, chases, and fast-paced character driven action that made the first film a success.

This installment brings together the usual thriller components and hurtles from location to location across the world, while never being bogged down with unnecessary action, dialogue, story and character development. Matt Damon returns as Jason Bourne and still brings the energy and intensity he had in the first film. I think what makes these films stand out for me is partly because of Damon’s performance. He brings the right level of energy without being overbearing and still true to the character and story. He wasn’t a flashy, over-the-top character to just exist because he is a character written on a page. He brings life to the character and it is hard to imagine any other actor in this role. Matt Damon is Jason Bourne

Joan Allen joins the cast as Pamela Landy, a CIA agent charged with finding Bourne after evidence emerges that Bourne was involved in a murder of a CIA agent and his criminal contact in Berlin. Brian Cox returns as Ward Abbott, essentially Landy’s boss. And Julia Styles reprises her role from the previous film.

The plausibility of some of the events in the film from ever happening (or happening they way they were portrayed in the film) is borderline preposterous, like similar events in the Taken franchise, but Bourne just does it better. It makes Bourne look like a guy who knows what he’s doing and does it so well. This is in part due to the fact the source material seems to be more credible than the Liam Neeson franchise. What also sets these films apart, as in the first film, is the use of the various locations and music to underscore the developing story. I also like the quick camera cuts and close up shots during the fight scenes. It seems to put the audience in the middle of the frantic action taking place on screen. Some may not like that. I think it adds to the film.

Are these films perfect? Not really. But they are very effective in telling the story while keeping the audience entertained and enthralled and they have just the right amount of movie magic to maintain that suspension of disbelief. Greengrass and company have scored another hit with this franchise. Identity doubled its production costs while Supremacy took in more than half of its production costs as revenue. There doesn’t seem to be anything slowing down the momentum of this engaging trilogy.

kellym40 film review

Thrills and action prevail in ‘The Bourne Identity’

Rating 4/5

Say what you will about action movies. Say what you will about thrilling thrillers. Say what you will about Jason Bourne, a character portrayed by Matt Damon in the film adaptations of the Robert Ludlum novels. Tony Gilroy and William Blake Herron took Ludlum’s world of the CIA and trained assassins and created a fast-paced, high-energy story about a man whose lost his memory and tries to escape the world in which he was in, all the while running to find a new life for himself.

The Bourne Identity could be considered a skillful action movie in that the action scenes (fights and chases) are done well. Director Doug Liman has put together a highly efficient film where all the film elements seamlessly move together to produce a quite entertaining, enjoyable, well-acted film.

In the film, Jason Bourne (Damon), a CIA operative in a secret program trained as an assassin, is found floating in the sea and awakens with no memory of who he is or his former life. As he fights his way to discover his identity, he realizes the path to his past is much more than he thought. As the story unfolds, pieces of his past are revealed but apparently not enough to fully infiltrate his true self because two more films were warranted for the scope of this character and his past. And not only two more films in this Bourne trilogy, but a separate film (based on a Ludlum novel) with a different character, similar to Bourne (because Bourne wasn’t the only one in the program), and most recently a fifth film entitled Jason Bourne. But I am swaying off the topic just a bit and those reviews will follow in future posts.

In his quest for his identity, he enlists the help of a woman Marie (Franka Potente) he met a bank and learning he has a particular set of skills he doesn’t seem to remember how he obtained those skills. He offers Marie $10,000 to drive him to Paris. Along the way, he discovers clues about his past while evading numerous agents out to kill him because the government officials heading up the secret program believe he is a rogue operative and needs to be stopped because he seems to be a threat to the government.

In most stories of good guys and bad guys, the good guy (hero) is someone the audience is supposed to feel for. They should be cheering him on and developing a connection with him (or her) so that when the hero triumphs there is a satisfaction and a relief felt by the audience. In a story such as this, the hero is a trained assassin who goes on missions in order to save American lives, but that may not always be the case because he may not always be told the whole truth (for the sake of the mission and to protect the government and have deniable plausibility. But there might be a connection here with this particular character because as he is learning who he was, and it becomes clear he doesn’t want to do that anymore. He wants to be left alone and live a different life away from the government. This is a character driven story in that Bourne drives the action. He runs. He fights. He rests. Confronts some of his enemy. Repeat. This is a standard formula in most action films of this genre.

The action sequences are well choreographed where Bourne seems to be a one-man army taking on several assailants at once and appearing to be thinking one step ahead of his enemy at all times, which include Chris Cooper, Brian Cox, and Clive Owen. The performances were outstanding. Damon brings a sincere, energized look and feel to the character and all the actors brought something to their individual characters, which made them distinct, interesting, and entertaining and moved the story and action along. There were wonderful locations and the cinematography just added to the film and never seemed to lack in keeping it from being dull.

One might view The Bourne Identity as mindless entertainment. It might have some flaws, but I believe they would be miniscule compared to the story and action of the film. It was an entertaining, character-driven thrill ride, unlike the Taken films. Bourne just seems to do it better.

kellym40 film review

Johnson flexes some muscle in ‘Hercules’ and fails to make a punch

Rating 2/5

There could be much to say about director Brett Ratner’s 2014 Hercules, but I don’t think there really is. I suppose, though, if you enjoy some action, fighting, a little humor, campy dialogue, and Dwayne Johnson flexing a little muscle while pushing over a large statue, then this might be for you. It’s like if you like that sort of thing, that’s the sort of thing you like. Writers Ryan Condal and Evan Spiliotopoulos are credited for the script that boasted 98 minutes of the aforementioned campy dialogue (although not as campy as most of the Kevin Sorbo television series of the ‘90’s) and seemingly bland story.

Earlier in the same year, audiences were treated to The Legend of Hercules starring Kellan Lutz and directed by Renny Harlin. In that film, (which I have not seen yet, but probably will appear in a future post) a story surfaces, which supposedly is grounded more in the traditional Greek mythology of Hercules’ origin. Ratner’s version portrayed Hercules as sort of a mercenary for hire, which is apparently based on another story of the famed demigod, leading a small rag-tag team of “misfits” on quests to earn gold. It was like if the A-Team was set in the fantastical realm of Greek mythology. If you need to overthrow a king, and if no one else can help, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire Hercules.

The performances were nothing extraordinary here but basically cookie-cutter two-dimensional characters with no real distinguishable characteristics. They really had nothing that allowed me to have an interest to what happened to them. The film also starred Ian McShane, John Hurt, Rufus Sewell, Aksel Hennie, Ingrid Berdal, Reece Ritchie, Joseph Fiennes, Tobias Santelmann, and Rebecca Ferguson, and of course many others; but again there was nothing that made me feel for the characters or care about their activities and story arcs.

I will admit, though, some of the fight scenes and big battle scenes were decently choreographed and done to an almost precision point that served the film well for what it was. I just particularly didn’t care for the type of film it appeared to be. However, even with its faults, the film was somewhat enjoyable on some level. There was some entertainment in the characters but it didn’t have enough to sustain my interest through the duration of the film. Other films seem to do it better with a more engaging story and characters even though there might not necessarily be a lot of action in every scene with huge explosions and fights.

There are those that may find this particular kind of film more enjoyable. That’s not to say it wasn’t watchable, because it was. It’s just not something I would necessarily see again if I didn’t have to. It might serve a purpose to have something playing in the background while performing another activity or something to watch for some simple entertainment on a lazy afternoon.