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

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

Neeson uses his skills to run in ‘Taken 3’

Rating 2/5

After 2012’s follow up to Taken, we get a third (and supposedly final) installment to the Taken franchise. In this film, nobody’s really “taken,” except maybe for the audience. Released in 2014, Taken 3 brings back writers Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen and director of the second film Olivier Megaton for a seemingly tiresome ploy to somehow capitalize on the moderate success of this particular action franchise.

This film also brings back the Mills family – Bryan (Liam Neeson), Lenore (Famke Janssen), and Kim (Maggie Grace) – and is set in Los Angeles. Bryan and Lenore are still divorced, but have a friendship going after the events of the other films and having Kim in common. This relationship puts a damper on Lenore’s current beau, Stuart (Dougray Scott), who simply asks Bryan to stop seeing her. After an opening sequence that doesn’t really get answered until much later (and is a weak plot point at best), Bryan goes to meet his ex at his place after receiving a text from her. He arrives and soon discovers she has been murdered. Of course, the police are alerted anonymously and Bryan has to fight his way out to go on the run.

That’s the premise. And that’s what moves the film into the second act and an unbelievable high-speed foot chase. Bryan leads the police through the streets to a house where he barges in on the unsuspecting couple, runs upstairs, then finally to a garage where he somehow knows there is a hole, covered with boards, underneath a car, that leads to the sewer. And I thought some of the sequences in the second film were a bit outlandish. I suppose, though, if you are an excellent former CIA operative with incredible skills, it could be slightly plausible you would have escape routes, weapons and gear hidden around the city like some great covert Easter Egg Hunt. But I digress. Bryan is on the run and his mission is to find out who murdered his wife and who framed him.

The film’s redemption is Neeson’s performance. Despite the obscure sequences, plot, and storylines, he still brings something to the character, but not at the level of his first outing. I’m sure he did what he could with the material he was given and Megaton’s direction. The addition of Forest Whitaker as Franck Dotzler, the police officer charged with bringing Mills in, but is always seemingly one step behind, offers a decent performance. However, it still lacks depth. For the most part, the performances were lackluster and 2-dimensional.

The cinematography is not as breathtaking in this film as the other two (France and Turkey) although it seems to utilize the locations well and serves the purpose of the film. But with that, the action and story doesn’t quite move along as well in this outing (not necessarily because of the cinematography, but story itself) because it is more drawn out (at nearly 20 minutes longer) than the first two installments. The camera movements made the fight scenes and chase scenes a little too fast-paced to easily follow to allow the audience to fully be aware of the surroundings and scope of the action.

Taken 3 is not about the characters being taken, it’s about the audience being taken, taken for a near 2-hour ride of quick-moving, incongruent scenes with a weak story. The characters, story and action of this film did not have enough substance for me to enjoy this film as sometimes that helps me retain interest. Maybe a better vision for this film would have helped. I don’t know. What I do know, there are other films, and even a television show, in this genre that do it better.

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

Mills uses his skills again in ‘Taken 2’

Rating 2/5

I suppose it was inevitable there would be a follow-up to Taken. The sequel showed us what would happen if Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) and his wife (Famke Janssen) were taken. The same writers Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen return, but fail to bring it to the same level as the first one. There are moments in this film where it might be exciting and interesting, but there seems to be far more inadequacies that take me out of it to fully enjoy the film.

Olivier Megaton’s direction is an attempt to follow its predecessor but falls short in its delivery of the same level of action and continuity the first one had. It still follows that this film be built around a phone call between Bryan and Kim (Maggie Grace) like in the first one when Kim was taken. If this was the thought behind these films, perhaps I could write a screenplay based on a conversation I had with a friend over the old phrase “Where’s the beef?”

The film opens in Albania where Murad Krasniqi (Rade Serbedzija), the father of one of the men Bryan killed in the first Taken film, is with his clan at the burial site of his son and the rest of the others Mills killed because they simply got in his way. So of course he vows to get Mills and make him pay for the death of his son. Never mind the fact his son seemed to take enjoyment out of taking young female tourists and making them sex slaves.

And it just so happens that Bryan is in Istanbul on a private security assignment and has brought his family along for a little R & R in the country. Of course these bad guys find out and decide to take Mills and his wife while Kim is in the hotel room preparing to get ready to meet them after a little swim. Here’s where the phone call comes in, because apparently these guys aren’t smart enough to check for and take any forms of communication away from him before they tie him up. Bryan calls his daughter to tell her that he and her mother have been taken and gives her instructions to help them escape. And of course, being a former CIA agent, he has a case filled with “emergency equipment” like hand grenades, a map and other material. Here’s a part where inconsistencies comes in to play. He tells Kim that the men who took him are going to come after her. So he helps her get out and as she is doing so she is running barefoot through the rooms and halls of the hotel and finally gets to a window. She steps out barefoot on the ledge. But as the bad guys close in, one of them notices a sandal on the floor by the window. A. Single. Sandal. She didn’t have any footwear running through the hotel, but suddenly she leaves a single sandal by the window? It’s those little things that take me out of the film.

Now I know there are probably numerous inconsistencies in various films, but it’s the execution of character, action, story and other elements in a film that can hold my interest and suspension of disbelief for the sake of the film. Taken 2 did not do that for me like the first one did. The film really left me with no real connection with the characters. Yes I was sort of rooting for Mills to kick some ass and take some names as he fights for the freedom of himself and his family, but a real emotional connection was lost to me in this film. Thankfully it does move rather quickly and only has a 92-minute runtime.

Taken 2 plays as a slick, fast-paced action flick but its substance leaves something to be desired. If fast paced action is what interests and entertains you, then Olivier Megaton and company might just have the thing for you. But if you’re looking for a little more, then this film probably misses the mark.

kellym40 film review

Bryan Mills has a particular set of skills in ‘Taken’

Rating 3/5

In 2008’s Taken, Liam Neeson stars as Bryan Mills, a former CIA operative who uses his particular set of skills to rescue his daughter while on a trip to Europe with a friend. Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen penned the script that gave director Pierre Morel a framework of action and a world in which these characters could play.

I don’t think the film is an accurate depiction of what the CIA is or does, but it does show what a father of Mills’ background might do in a situation such as the one depicted in the film. From the start, Mills is not particularly happy about his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) going off to Europe to “study” with a friend. Come to find out they are there to party and have fun. He already has a somewhat strained relationship with his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) and when Kim tells him she wants to go to Europe he immediately is apprehensive because he knows how cruel the world can be for people, especially two teenage girls. But through some assurances, he allows his daughter to go and thus sets the action of the film in motion.

The plot was simple enough I suppose. Was it accurate? Probably not entirely. Was it believable? Not necessarily. But it had a decent set up and plenty of action to keep me in the film. The characters seemed to be drawn efficiently with enough characteristics to make the bad guys bad and the good guys good. Neeson portrays Mills with precision while seemingly being a master of every skill imaginable that aids him in finding his daughter. It almost seems, though, that if all CIA agents were as skilled as Bryan Mills, the world’s terrorists should be afraid, very afraid. I would say it is probably one of Neeson’s better performances. Kim is not seen through most of the film after she is abducted, but Grace still brings a frightened reality to the character. Janssen is not seen much through the second act either, but delivers a believable and honest performance.

It seems the film was set up around the phone call that Mills makes to his daughter to check up on her after she failed to call when she arrived at her destination. About this time, men who the girls just meet enter and abduct the unsuspecting visitors. He tells his daughter that she will be taken and he tells the kidnapper on the phone that he will find him and he will kill him. With that, the kidnapper says “Good luck.” So, with the help from his CIA pals, he manages to get the name of the kidnapper and Mills begins his cross-country trek to get his daughter back.

Mills becomes a one man army and stops at nothing in his pursuit. It does make for an entertaining film even with some of the sequences seemingly implausible. But supposedly with the skills and expertise that Bryan Mills has, nothing is impossible (or improbable) in the course of the film.

There were moments in Taken that seemed a little outlandish, almost preposterous. But the film had enough action to keep me in the film and entertained. It’s one of those films that could make you go “hmmm,” but still has the action, story, and characters to be a watchable film.

kellym40 film review

A murder mystery unfolds in ‘All Good Things’

Rating 3/5

The title of the movie comes from the name of a health food store that plays a small part within the film’s narrative. It seems to take actual events and puts them into this mysterious crime story written by Marcus Hinchey and Marc Smerling and is directed by Andrew Jarecki. It moves along at a slow pace through most of its 101-minute runtime but picks up more in the final act.

The story revolves around David Marks (Ryan Gosling) who marries free-spirited Katie (Kirsten Dunst). They live a happy life in Vermont where they open the health foods store. All is well until David’s father, Sanford (Frank Langella), who owned valuable real estate property that included strip clubs, massage parlors, and so on, wants David to join the family business. After a while, David returns to New York to join his father, while Katie lives a quiet, unhappy existence. A little time passes and David begins to change from the person Katie fell in love with and married. The marriage begins to fall apart. Katie disappears. She is never found again.

The narrative begins in the seventies and goes through Katie’s disappearance in 1982 to the early 2000’s. Gosling does well here in the role of David, which is pivotal to the story. He plays the character with a low-key performance as needed at the beginning. So as we go through the story we can see his character’s transformation unfold through the years.

Katie struggles to see who David is and his dramatic transformation. Kirsten Dunst plays her as a loving, kind woman and changes to a quiet desperation as she attempts to understand her husband’s transformation until her disappearance.

It is through two separate murder investigations of Malvern Bump (Philip Baker Hall) and Janice Rizzo (Diane Venora) that David’s life is revealed. Looking into his life, through his relationship with his wife and her vanishing to his relationships with Bump and Rizzo, David is suspected of being involved with his wife’s disappearance and with the two murders, but is never charged.

While the film had a somewhat compelling story and varying characters, the ending seemed, to some extent, a bit confusing. I was unclear to the outcome of what actually happened to Katie and it left me unsatisfied on some level. Of course, maybe that was the film’s intent. At any rate, the story and characters held me enough to be entertaining and enjoyable.

 

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

‘The Purge’ should be illegal

Rating 1/5

Every so often there are films that one wonders just how they got made. The Purge is one of those films. Some people must see something and therefore the production begins. Someone must have seen something in this film to bring it to light. James DeMonaco penned the script as well as took on the directing duties. Some of his writing credits include some television as well as the 1996 comedy Jack starring the late Robin Williams, The Negotiator, Assault on Precinct 13, and his latest credits include the two sequels this film spawned – The Purge: Anarchy and the recently released The Purge: Election Year. He also directed the other two films in this series.

DeMonaco’s idea here is in the future someone thought it would be a bright idea to allow a 12-hour period where all violent crime is legal. The result of this “Purge” is low crime, low unemployment, and a civil, peaceful society. This sounds like a great idea on the surface, but somehow it presents a contrived, idiotic thought. This occurs because this Purge happens just once a year. This silly notion that one night of “rioting” will keep people at bay for a year just to do it all over again is simplistic thinking as if the Purge creates some kind of catharsis to last them a whole year. The film is set in 2022, which at the time of its release (2013) was just nine years away. Given the state of this country’s current status with all the shootings and violence, it’s hard to imagine the events of this film occurring. It’s a nice thought, but seemingly far-fetched.

The film stars Ethan Hawke and Lena Headey, who play James and Mary Sandin, a wealthy couple who live in a gated community with a high tech security system in their home. James works for a company that sells these systems and virtually everyone in the local community owns one. James and Mary have two teenage children Charlie (Max Burkholder) and Zoey (Adelaide Kane). In order for the film to progress, DeMonaco’s script enables the neighbors to resent James for his wealthy living from the profits of these security systems and the Purge allows them to take vengeance upon the Sandin family.

The performances were nothing extraordinary. The actors were decent with what they had to work with from the apparently generic horror film type characters DeMonaco created. There didn’t seem to be enough suspense or thrills to keep me in this film and really care for these characters. I suppose there was enough revenue this film collected in order to produce two sequels now in this series (which I probably will review sometime down the line), but for now I’m left with this trite piece of work.