kellym40 film review

War is depicted on a grand scale in ‘Dunkirk’

Rating 4/5

In viewing Christopher Nolan’s World War II epic Dunkirk, (who wrote and directed the film) I am sort of reminded of past films such as Saving Private Ryan, or more recently Lone Survivor. They say war is hell. War can be ugly. War can be  brutal no matter what time period. The action in the film is set in a time where there seems to be no hope and is shot in such a way where the audience is on the front lines the entire time because Nolan drops you there in the beginning and doesn’t let up.

A few days have passed since viewing the film and thinking about it over that period and even now as I am writing, the film has merit and it stands on its own as a cinematic achievement. I first, however, didn’t know what to think about the film. It actually caught me off guard because it time jumps, moves from one sequence to another and then back to a previous sequence and so on. It is non-linear and I just wasn’t expecting that.

The film brings emotion and true character to the story. Although somewhat slow moving in a few places in the second act, it stil stays true to the characters and brings their thoughts and emotions to the screen.

It displays the incredible events of the evacution of British and Allied soldiers, in late May and early June of 1940, who where entrapped in the harbor and beaches of Dunkirk, France by the Germans, who were making a final sweep of the Allied forces. Hoyte van Hoytema, director of cinematography, has  made the backdrops of beaches, sea, air, and land central characters within the frame of the story to provide intriguing locations and interactions among the characters who pass through sequence to sequence. And Hans Zimmer’s score is nearly breathtaking. It adds so much to the characters and story, and it underscores the tension, mood, and action of every scene. I don’t believe there was a moment where there wasn’t musical underscoring. I think that brought me in the film and helped sustain my interest.

This film was an ensemble film with no one character taking the spotlight. Fionn Whitehead, Damien Bonnard, Aneurin Barnard, Barry Keoghan, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy, and Jack Lowden portrayed some of the more prominent characters but they were part of the large ensemble who interacted magnificently among the bits and scenes that made up the crafty sequences in the film. And of course, Kenneth Branagh portrayed Commander Bolton, who was leading the evacuation from the port at the beach. You saw the emotion in his eyes and actions as he gave the orders to load the injured on the ships, all the while taking special care to realize the brevity of the situation as enemy planes flew overhead dropping bombs.

It’s not an action packed, exciting adventure film, but it is another depiction of the brutality of war and a true test of the human spirit. It is amazing what humans can do in the eyes of tragedy and harrowing events. With the music and evolving character stories, the film held my attention and allowed me to be immersed in the story. Films that go on and on with a lot of expository information that never seems to really go anywhere, loses me. Dunkirk, despite its somewhat slow character moments at times, was not one of those films.

 

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

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.

 

 

kellym40 film review

The mystic world comes to Marvel in ‘Doctor Strange’

Rating 3.5/5

Marvel appears to be on a roll. The studio’s films have not seemed to disappoint. At least they have not disappointed me. At this point, Marvel’s “Doctor Strange” has been out for more than a month and has made over 220 million dollars. As I’ve mentioned before, I am not really up on comic books and I know very little about the Doctor Strange character, but I (as always) will give an honest review of how I view the movie as a whole from a filmmaking standpoint.

Doctor Strange tells a mystical story with just enough thought and “eye candy” to keep the viewer interested. This film is an origin story that, by my calculation, fits into the Marvel Universe some time around Captain America: Civil War, as Stephen Strange is mentioned in the film. This film gives insight to the character’s origin.

As the film opens, we are treated to an exciting action sequence that sets the events rolling as the bad guy steals something that could possibly result in some very bad things happening. This of course leads us to the introduction of the heroic main character. Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbacth), with a sense of arrogance, is a brilliant neurosurgeon who relies on his skillful hands and professional skills to carry him through life. One evening, he becomes the victim of a vicious car accident resulting from his fast, reckless driving. He is faced with the possibility of never practicing medicine again because of the massive nerve damage done to his hands. Desperate for any nuance of hope, he discovers a place where he could heal himself. So he travels to Nepal to train under a teacher known as The Ancient One (Tilda Swinton). While there, he also meets a disciple, Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor), and befriends him as Strange learns how to use mystic powers to bend reality and control time.

The action moved along at a decent pace. This was done with a skillful use of montages, imaginative scenery, and provoking dialogue. I felt the story never faltered and the action never seemed forced or trite. It flowed well all the way to the climactic showdown with Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelsen), and then Dormammu, a powerful cosmic entity.

This film was driven by highly effective special effects. Too often in special effects driven films, the story and characters suffer and are not fully developed. Here, they become part of the story and add the magic and excitement of the film. At times though, the effects appeared to be something from Christopher Nolan’s Inception, or sometimes characters running about through a landscape designed by M. C. Escher, but still they seemed imaginative and original to the film.

Scott Derrickson directed the film and also co-wrote it along with writers Jon Spaights and C. Robert Cargill. Famed Marvel producer Kevin Feige helmed that role once again. The filmmakers put together a film that was entertaining and they understood how to blend the elements of storytelling together seamlessly. This is another solid showing from Marvel that is continuing to build the foundation to its ever-expanding superhero universe.

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

Emotions are dug up in ‘The Lovely Bones,’ but don’t get past the surface

Rating 2/5

With a mixture of drama, a little suspense and mystery, and a dab of humor, The Lovely Bones presents a story that could be interesting and engaging, but it misses on a certain level. Writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens wrote the script based on the book by Alice Sebold. Some of the blame for the finished product might be put on them as they tried to adapt the book to film. Partial blame could also go to director Peter Jackson.

The story is about 14 year old Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) who is murdered and then seemingly lives in a sort of purgatory state as she looks down on her family as they deal with her loss. Caught between taking vengeance upon her murderer and allowing her and her family to move on in peace, she looks back on the events that led up to her demise and attempts to make sense of it all.

Her mother, Abigail Salmon (Rachel Weisz) is trying to move on, but her father, Jack (Mark Wahlberg), is having trouble letting go. He frantically pieces together anything that might be able to shed some light as to where she is. He really never gives up the hope that Susie is still alive. During his “investigation,” his oldest daughter, Lindsey (Rose McIver) begins to believe and tries to help her father. Meanwhile, Jack brings Abigail’s mother, Lynn (Susan Sarandon) in to help during their tragedy to help take care of the kids, especially the youngest boy, Buckley (Christian Ashdale).

The other key players are the serial killer George Harvey (Stanley Tucci), Len Fenerman (Michael Imperioli), the detective who investigates the case, Susie’s love interest Ray Singh (Reece Ritchie), and Ruth Connors (Carolyn Dando), a clairvoyant who helps Susie and later becomes involved with Ray.

While I liked the premise and story, it just seemed, at times, the film didn’t know what it was supposed to be – a drama, mystery, or fantasy, or maybe something else. That was a major setback for me. Because really, it had just enough to keep me into the narrative of the film but not enough to thoroughly enjoy it for what it was. The characters intertwine in this story that has promise but just misses the mark. That is to say the performances were adequate for the story, but it appeared the focus was on little Susie as she attempts to make sense of what happened and find her own peace and so that her family would be able to move on. In that, the action moved along well but seemed to abandon a lot of time to deal with the emotions from the family.

During the course of The Lovely Bones, the audience is on a journey with Susie (who also narrates throughout the film) to see how her family is coping and to see if they discover the identity of her murderer. It was one of those films where you would like to see everything wrapped up nice and neat with a happy ending. But even the ending, although there was some satisfaction, didn’t fulfill the needed emotions to be fully satisfied from watching Susie’s journey. It left me with some mixed emotions and I just wasn’t sure what to feel.

kellym40 Uncategorized

A gritty depiction of war and survival in ‘Lone Survivor’

Rating 4/5

They say war is hell. And nothing could be further from the truth as depicted in the events of this film. Not since Saving Private Ryan have I seen such a realistic display of the brutality of war. Writer/director Peter Berg adapted the book, Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10, by former Navy SEAL Leading Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg) and writer Patrick Robinson.

Operation Redwing was a mission to capture or kill Ahmad Shah, a feared Taliban leader, in June 2005. The mission started as a team of four was sent in on a nearby mountainside to do reconnaissance on the target. The team consisted of Luttrell, Lieutenant Michael Murphy (Taylor Kitsch), Gunner’s First Mate Second Class Danny Dietz (Emile Hirsch), and Second Class Petty Officer Matthew “Axe” Axelson (Ben Foster). The mission begins flawlessly, but soon turns disastrous. Communications begin to falter, cutting them off from the command post and then the mission becomes compromised as a small group of goat herders come across their path. Knowing there is a possibility of them being aligned with the Taliban, the men are faced with a difficult moral decision. As they debate their mission’s purpose and the rules of engagement, they are faced with three choices. Ultimately deciding to let them go, the men move to higher ground in hopes of better reception to call in an extraction team. However, they soon find themselves trapped as they become heavily outnumbered and outgunned. This ensuing sequence is intense as the four men fight for their survival, trying to dodge bullets and RPG fire, jumping off the steep cliffs hitting trees, rocks and hard ground.

The performances are excellent and provided a sense of realism to the story. The direction did the story justice from the opening that told the origin of the mission to the gut-wrenching sacrifices these men made (and every military man and woman make in times of war) during their fight with the Taliban and to the final moments of the rescue operation of the lone survivor. The dialogue was real and added to the everyday moments these men had at their base to the heightened sequences of action throughout the film.

This remarkable true story of survival was one of the finest displays of heroism during impossible odds. The mission began like an ordinary reconnaissance mission, but soon nothing seemed to go as planned and quickly became a fight for survival. One could go back, and through a series of “what if’s,” could see a different outcome and these men would have more than likely survived the ill-fated mission.

If there is one flaw in the film, it is character development. Aside from seeing some SEAL training and camaraderie among the guys, there is very little we get to know about these men other than most of them have significant others. However, that does not belittle the story or narrative of the film. The film’s deep impact is not compromised and brings forth a strong account of military brotherhood, survival, and sacrifices this small group of heroes made and how one lived to tell the tale.

kellym40 film review

Four friends bring fun, sentiment to ‘Last Vegas’

Rating 3/5

The premise of Last Vegas brings the idea of four life long friends coming together again for a big hoo-rah after nearly 60 years. This kind of formula has been seen before and since the release of this movie. However, it still works. It works, due in part, to the acting talents of Michael Douglas, Robert De Niro, Morgan Freeman, and Kevin Kline. That’s not to say the film isn’t flawed, but the flaws are minor and are somewhat lost through the fun overall story.

The film generally has a nice story of friendship and forgiveness, mixed with a love triangle (twice). The film begins with four young boys who seem to do a lot together. They protect each other. They have fun together. Flash forward to nearly 60 years later and we find the four are living their lives, but they still have a yearning to have some fun. It starts with Billy (Douglas) who is dating a much younger girl and suddenly proposes to her. So what does he do? He calls his childhood buddies to the wedding in Las Vegas. We then see Archie (Freeman), after suffering a minor stroke, living with his son (who treats his father as a child, becoming very protective). Sam (Kline) is married, but still misses his youthful times. Archie and Sam, on their way to the airport, decide to stop by and pick up Paddy (De Niro). Here we learn Paddy and Billy have had a falling out. Paddy reluctantly agrees and the three head off to Vegas.

Upon arrival, they meet up with Billy and get to the hotel only to find the hotel is still being renovated as they squabble over who was supposed to make the reservation. They go to the casino, to the bar, to the pool and manage to obtain a room for the rest of the weekend until the wedding. While there, they meet a beautiful lounge singer Diana (Mary Steenburgen) who Paddy seems to instantly fall for, and Billy is not far behind. This brings up a similar love triangle from their childhood where they both liked the same girl. This ultimately resulted in their riff between each other. This plays out, though, through comedy and a touching gesture that turns their friendship around.

Jon Turteltaub directed the film written by Dan Fogelman who created likeable characters and an enjoyable story with humor, love, and sentiment. The film ran for 1 hour 45 minutes, which seemed a tad long to tell the story, but the story was good and the pace seemed to flow. However, one problem of the film’s story was when the guys meet Dean (Jerry Ferrara), a seemingly obnoxious 20-something and that whole line in the story just didn’t seem to satisfactorily play out. There were a couple of decent moments with the character, but it just didn’t seem to fit in as well with the rest of the film.

De Niro, Freeman, Douglas, and Kline all turned in fine performances, as did the supporting cast. It wasn’t stellar. But it didn’t have to be. It was a very enjoyable film. And now it seems there is a sequel in the works with an unknown release date. Time will tell if it will be as enjoyable and satisfying as this first go around.

 

 

kellym40 film review

Action takes a flight in ‘Non-Stop’

Rating 3/5

What makes a good action film is of course action. Then of course there are also those other pesky elements such as story, character, dialogue, and so on. If you put all those elements together and fine-tune them, you can have a good film. Non-Stop may not be your typical thrill a minute, action story, but somehow, on some level it delivers.

Once we get through the ordinary introduction of characters, we board the flight in which the action will take place for most of the film. Liam Neeson plays air marshall Bill Marks who is aboard a transatlantic flight and soon discovers a terrorist plot unfold. He receives a text message asking Bill to persuade the airline to wire $150 million to a bank account. And if he is unable to do so in the next 20 minutes, someone on the plane will die. He believes it is one of the passengers, but as he tries to unravel the plot of this mysterious terrorist, he more and more becomes a suspect by the other passengers due to his erratic behavior.

Bill is probably the most complex character on the plane. He still suffers from a personal tragedy, he’s tired and suffers from alcoholism. But on the surface, he seems tough, determined and headstrong. The other supporting actors were decent, but they didn’t seem to have much depth to their character. And that’s not necessarily their fault. The material provided by writers John W. Richardson and Christopher Roach didn’t provide the characters a rich background. However, this did work to some advantage for the story. Since Bill is unsure who the terrorist is, he suspects one of the passengers. So the other characters have a mystery surrounding them, which keeps Bill (and the audience) guessing. Julianne Moore plays Jen Summers, one of the passengers who befriends Bill while boarding the plane. Corey Stoll is New York cop Austin Reilly, Scoot McNairy is a tech geek named Tom Bowen, Michelle Dockery is flight attendant Nancy, Lupita Nyong’o is another flight attendant Gwen, Anson Mount is Bill’s fellow marshall Jack Hammond.

Jaume Collet-Serra (House of Wax, Orphan, Unknown, and this summer’s The Shallows) directed the film and made it his own. It may not have the making of an elaborate masterpiece of action, thrills and suspense, but it does provide a well-paced film with enough moments of character and story to keep me in. The film runs one hour and 46 minutes and was released February 28, 2014.

kellym40 film review

On the hunt with ‘Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter’

Rating 2/5

Taking another spin on history is plausible I suppose, if it is done right. It’s like updating Shakespeare to contemporary times. If it’s done right, it can be a wonderful production. But not updating the language or incorrectly updating the language can be disastrous. In 2012, a film came along, based upon a book by Seth Grahame-Smith, who also penned the screenplay for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. He took some historical facts and placed the undead around those facts. It made Lincoln look like some sort of 19th century superhero.

In the film, the story begins when, as a young boy, Abraham Lincoln witnesses his mother’s murder by a vampire. This of course instills a slight fear and a tremendous hatred towards the bloodsuckers. Along the way, in his young adulthood, Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) befriends Henry Sturges (Dominic Cooper) who is a hunter himself. He takes on Lincoln as an apprentice to learn the ways of killing vampires. So, that’s the basic plot. Oh yes, also along the way he befriends Will Johnson (Anthony Mackie) who then joins Lincoln at times to battle the blood thirsty creatures, and of course his future wife, Mary Todd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead).

Timur Bekmambetov took Grahame-Smith’s script and stylized the action using effects used in The Matrix. I suppose it is visually appealing. But that is only one element. The film would have the audience believe the North was losing because the South was being overrun by vampires, who were also soldiers, and that Mary Todd Lincoln was bitten by a vampire, became ill, and ultimately resulted in her death. The climax results in a bit of a lengthy sequence involving a train, explosions, and killing vampires. It might make for a visually stunning action sequence, but somehow just looks out of place for the moment and characters. If follows the sentiment that Bekmambetov and Grahame-Smith treated the title character as some sort of action-adventurer or superhero.

Grahame-Smith also wrote a short novel – Pride and Prejudice and Zombies – which also became a film earlier this year. He may have been attempting to capitalize on the huge following that occurred brought on by the Twilight series and The Walking Dead. I suppose the mash up of vampires in the 19th century and young Abraham Lincoln might be considered a fantastic idea. But it all just becomes fantasy. And I suppose that might be what the filmmakers were attempting to do here. Play out some sort of fantasy with The Matrix-type special effects and action having little to do with what history books taught us. It might make for a fun, summer escape, popcorn flick, but just seems to become a far-fetched piece of fiction.

 

 

kellym40 film review

Ghosts be afraid, the Ghostbusters are here

Rating 4/5

With the release of the ‘Ghostbusters’ reboot with a female cast, and my recent review of that film, I decided to revisit the original 1984 film and offer some thoughts. You can view the trailer for the reboot here:

Ghostbusters 2016

The original film, written by Dan Aykroyd and the late Harold Ramis, is a comedy classic that has seemed to endure for over 30 years.

The film seemed to have all the right elements that appeared to have worked together flawlessly. With the comedy team of two Saturday Night Live alums, Bill Murray and Aykroyd, and Ramis, a funny man on his own having written several classics as Animal House, Caddyshack, Stripes, and Groundhog Day, among several others, and director Ivan Reitman putting this cast, with its great supporting cast, production pieces, and the scientific, yet witty, dialogue together into comedy gold with a mixture of action, sci-fi, and a little suspense. You can view the original trailer here:

Ghostbusters – Original Trailer

A quick synopsis of the film is three parapsychologists, after being fired from their university positions, decide to set up a service in which they capture ghosts and become the Ghostbusters. Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis bring their characters to life with humor, quick-witted and intelligent dialogue, and a believable grasp of the scientific language. During the course of their adventures, they take on another member to their team portrayed by Ernie Hudson. All of the characters are varied and well acted with performances by Rick Moranis, Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potts as they round out the supporting cast.

The special effects in this film are many and decent for the time (1984) in which it was released. The story and plot appear simple but effective. The world of the paranormal and the “real” world collide during the climax of the film and results in the ultimate showdown between good and evil. The film is a well-blended mixture of a well-written script, visual effects, great direction and performances, and the right amount of comedy that flows from the characters and story rather than seeming forced and just there just for comedy’s sake.