EDGE OF TOMORROW

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Doug Liman

Year: 2014

Cast: Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton

Genre: Action/Sci-Fi

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Sci-Fi movies that I find myself wholeheartedly caring about, and investing in, the characters and what's on screen are far and few between, but there's something notable about Edge of Tomorrow that forced me to do so, and subsequently, enjoying. It could be the fact that it plays something like 1993's Groundhog Day and reminded me of something like 2005's War of the Worlds. It could also be the fact that it blends a multitude of unique, entertaining facets of filmmaking and compiles it into one explosive, exciting film that you shouldn't miss.

        This is Mr. Tom Cruise's fourth Sci-Fi entry in the past four years (next to Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, Jack Reacher, and Oblivion) and I'm prepared to say that it's heads and tails above all three other above referenced films. It combines elements of each, but ultimately, it's a brand new, refreshing film that I, gratefully, caught a sneak peek of on a late Thursday night opening week. 

        But without further ado, Edge of Tomorrow is a film that takes place over the course of a day, though it feels like a million. Why? Because Cage (Cruise) is trapped inside of a repetitive day-reset wherein every single time he dies, the day begins again. His mission, as he's, before actually facing combat in the military, forced into it by a higher power, is destroying the "omega" of the alien force that has threatened the front line (and beyond), which he is fighting in. Along the way, an abundance of crucial information to the story is revealed which makes the proceedings all the more fun.

       As far as the acting is concerned, it isn't first rate (Cruise doesn't give us a Charlie Babbitt, but something of a Jack—from Oblivion) but the special effects are! What fun it is to see Edge of Tomorrow; if—impossibly, you aren't engrossed in the screenplay, the visual stunners provide enough of a show to justify a trip to see this movie, the likes of which is, actually, worth seeing in 3D.

        Something I consider after every viewing of a Cruiser is how many times (if at all) I'm going to be revisiting the movie at hand. Based upon how unexpectedly I wound up enjoying Edge of Tomorrow, it's safe to say that it might find its way in front of my eyes again, and I await that day with anticipation of a great summer film.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

ROBOCOP

Cole's Rating: ★★★
Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: José Padilha 

Year: 2014

Cast: Joel Kinnaman, Gary Oldman, Micheal Keaton, Samuel L. Jackson

Genre: Action/Crime/Sci-Fi

MPAA Rating: PG-13

         The only possible way that you can enjoy Robocop (2014) is if you take everything for granted—and I mean everything. Assume it's possible for a company called Omnicorp to implant a "chip" in someone's head to simulate emotional control. Assume it's possible to just create a robot that is more efficient than the latest technology with no effort whatsoever. And also, assume it's possible for this to be legal. If not, you're not going to get much out of this viewing other than dissatisfaction. But if you turn off the realistic thought processes in your brain, Robocop is going to be one heck of a ride.

        The director of this reboot, José Padilha, shoots this flick at a fast, steady pace, refusing to slow down to elaborate or explain certain plot elements, and, as a result, winds up with a movie that is relatively hard to believe, but still the antithesis of boring. There’s a level of confidence that the screen emits as the movie progresses, and you can tell that the director had a lot of fun making it. From scene one, there’s a detectable sense of vision, and it makes this movie a real payoff. It begins, brilliantly, with the corrupt Samuel L. Jackson character speaking to the American public about the political battle over allowing the robots to rule the streets and serve as cops so that real humans don’t lose their lives. The flip side of this is that the robots have no human empathy and are illegitimate sources of reliability when it comes to dealing with a human life, he explains. As the movie progresses, a disfigured police officer becomes a candidate for a solution called “Robocop”, that comes with its own problems.

        This movie has a lot of veteran actors in it that treat it like serious material; I dug it. There's no Academy Awards that are going to be given here, but that doesn't mean that the actors don't give good performances, because they do. With just a few exceptions, it's true fun to watch this cast bring the story of Robocop to life.

And when it comes to describing the quality of the action scenes, forget about it. All I can say is this: I’ve never seen my uncle fist pump out of excitement before, and when the most intense battle sequence in the film hit the screen, his eyes widen, fist flew in the air, and voice escalated to “this movie’s awesome!”. The futuristic society is brought to life all too well; the effects blend with the fast-paced direction and character involvements. It wouldn't be a sin to call this movie a popcorn flick for the ages.

I feel that, as a critic, it’s my job to credibly persuade my readers whether or not to see a movie, and, with Robocop, I feel that it got a bad rep that it didn't deserve. So, I’ll end on this note: ignore it’s lack of believability. Embrace it’s well intended actors/actresses even though there is a handful of cringe-worthy moments. Love Robocop for the unabashed, high-quality level of entertainment and consider it a craft. I mean, after all, audiences ate up Transformers!

-Written by Cole Pollyea

LONE SURVIVOR

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Peter Berg
Year: 2013
Cast: Mark Wahlberg
Genre: Action/Biography/Drama/War
MPAA Rating: R

        Lone Survivor goes like this: talk-talk-bang-bang-bang-bang-boom-bang-boom-bang-boom-bang-bang-bang-bang-end. In short, if violence—and I mean intense violence—is up your moviegoing alley, then this is a must-see because Lone Survivor is all about the action. It daringly sheds its ability to be a character study and, in turn, becomes a violent, heavy-handed war film. I dug it, even though I grew tired of it after awhile.

        Wahlberg and company star in this exceptionally well shot movie about a group of special force marines who set out to capture, or even kill, Taliban figure Ahmad Shah. Little do they know that their intentions are about to be compromised by roaming members of the community whose lives lie in the hands of said marines. By choosing to spare their lives and let them go, they put themselves in a extremely vulnerable situation in the mountains of Afghanistan.

         First off, it's important to make note of the fact that Lone Survivor is not a movie that is powered by its performances. In fact, I'd say that, for a war film, its performances are just decent. The acting feels routine, and if anyone in this movie was even remotely attempting for an Academy Award nomination, that notion wasn't delivered in the slightest bit.

        But the thing about Lone Survivor is that it didn't feel like a movie that absolutely needed strong performances (though it, obviously, would've been nice to have them), and that's what gives the visceral scenes of war violence a sense of empowerment. The authority to go forward with such a confident style of filmmaking was also brought to life by the skillful camerawork, a craft of director Peter Berg.

        And what made up for the acting, emotionally, were the well-sewn-in minutes of real-life material that concerned not only pictures and videos of the actual people who are portrayed in the film, but also footage from the marines' training. These pivotal portions of the movie were completely effective, and didn't feel contrived whatsoever.

        Conclusively, Lone Survivor is a nicely edited, action packed war movie that, while it doesn't really feel like Academy Award worthy material, is still a legitimate, worthwhile movie to watch on a Saturday night with some pals. And on the big screen, the experience that this movie can provide is even better—and even more frighteningly realistic.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

ALL IS LOST

Cole's Rating: ★★
Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: J.C. Chandor
Year: 2013
Cast: Robert Redford
Genre: Action/Adventure/Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Stop me where I'm wrong. Robert Redford is stuck on a boat. Did I hear stop? I shouldn't have, because that's absolutely right. Robert Redford is stuck on a boat in All is Lost. Now, stop me where I'm wrong once more. Robert Redford is stuck on a boat and I care enough to watch him for nearly two hours. Did I hear stop? I definitely should have, because that is completely inaccurate.

        Cinematic escapism is an important thing nowadays. Being able to turn on a movie—a thriller—and become concerned with, and immersed in, the world that it creates is a desirable thing. The fact that All is Lost purports to be a movie that can serve as such a piece is an insult to our expectations. This movie's writing and direction, while steady, is merely unconvincing—and unsatisfactory. The screenplay doesn't create nearly enough opportunities to get to know the main character, and as a result, I'm left wondering how exactly the audience is supposed to care what happens to this man during his plight that is, while uninteresting, still well captured.

        While All is Lost isn't nominated for Best Picture, two other movies that share similar attributes are, being Captain Phillips and Gravity. I'm not a huge fan of Captain Phillips, but I do like Gravity, and I can say this: both of those movies are far more involving, and both far more worthwhile to watch. The reason for that is the screenplay for each movie seamlessly develops the characters in distress, and adds psychological layers that make it a viewing that is, well, more fun.

        All is Lost is, however, nominated for Sound Editing in this year's Academy Awards. It's status in these awards represent what I consider to its exact quality. I don't consider it a poorly made film because I'm someone who needs to be stimulated to an incredible extent in order to enjoy a movie, as I'm not. I just think that, ultimately, while its visual and sound effects may garner some attention, this movie, otherwise, just isn't worth viewing. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Francis Lawrence

Year: 2013

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence

Genre: Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi

MPAA Rating: PG-13

       Before teen dystopian novels became dull and redundant (yes, I’m talking about Divergent), there came a trilogy of teen novels called The Hunger Games. As they caught publicity and the eye of certain filmmakers, it seized its opportunity upon the silver screen. For a follow up to a good film (The Hunger Games, 2007), Catching Fire isn’t bad. It showcases a lot of the same stylistics used in it’s predecessor, and offers new insight, too. What’s more, it’s also very entertaining.

        To begin, after a performance beyond anyone’s wildest expectations in the 2012 masterpiece, Silver Linings Playbook, everything Jennifer Lawrence stars in is worth seeing. Her talent continues to be displayed as she sustains the character of Katniss Everdeen, “Girl on Fire”, who, here, is re-entered into the Hunger Games, a 75th anniversary that supposedly would solve all of the governments revolutionary problems. But things are not what it seems, and Katniss, yet again, is put against the odds.

        But it is a sequel, so it can’t just get off scott-free (haha). While this element was more evident in the first film of the series, it still irked viewers including myself here, that being the lack of adult material. Of course, it was put out to attract a teen audience (job well done), but the way it avoids the intimacy and violence is a clear indication that reigns were applied. However, it is important for there to be some films that earn that PG-13 rating, but it is one thing that held Catching Fire, and The Hunger Games for that matter, back from being better.

        As I sat with my class of students on a field trip we attended to see this movie, I heard whoops and cheers all the way throughout the duration of the movie. Some of those whoops and cheers came from kids who had seen the film multiple times before. It is a movie that is, by no means, a masterpiece. For example, it’s structured rather awkwardly in some portions of the film. Nonetheless, it’s a successful chapter in the creation of Suzanne Collin’s dystopia. To conclude, I would say that it caught fire with the fans, and spread like mad.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

GHOSTS OF MARS

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: John Carpenter
Year: 2001
Cast: Ice Cube, Natasha Henstridge, Ice Cube, Pam Grier
Genre: Action/Horror/Sci-Fi
MPAA Rating: R

        Between early 2000 and late summer 2001, three movies about the planet Mars opened in theaters nationwide. Ghosts of Mars (the film I'm reviewing) happened to be the last one to come out (the other two were Mission to Mars and Red Planet, both being box office duds). Normally, this would be a disadvantage, but to put it mildly, this 17th feature by one of my favorite directors of all time (John Carpenter), happens to be a complete misfire entirely on its own. There isn't a whole lot that can save this movie. It copies a little off of Carpenter's own, much better work (the fight scenes are solid but they seem straight out of Big Trouble in Little China and the plot elements echo a little from the critically acclaimed Assault on Precinct 13) and, in general, it feels like a rushed production complete with a bland opening credits font. Now granted, what Carpenter did with his earlier films is justifiably good. They had a low budget look to them like this one, but they also had an admirable story, solid direction, reputable acting, and above all, a good script. Ghosts of Mars doesn't really have any of these things and, if it did, I was totally unaware after a mid-day viewing. I'm sad to say that this is a clear hack job from someone who I will always think of as a master of fear and thrill. Since "Mars," he has only made one more feature film in the past twelve years (The Ward). I genuinely hope that this misstep didn't shake his confidence, but I could be wrong.

        Projecting itself as an exercise with many unhinged flashbacks (heck, the whole hour and a half running time is told in one large flashback) and exhibiting a rushed sort of unpolished opening credits sequence (not to mention showing a rather cheap looking set design right off the bat), Ghosts of Mars tells the story of how the red planet is a colony and almost all of it is a liveable type of atmosphere for humans. A team of police officers led by Commander Helena Braddock (a wooden Pam Grier) venture to Mars and must take on a prisoner transfer (James Williams played by Ice Cube). While there, they discover that the planet is overrun by possessed humans (of an extreme violent nature) who sort of look like a cross between Linda Blair (The Exorcist) and zombies with lots of make-up. Like I said earlier, this flick is told in the form of flashbacks upon flashbacks with Carpenter using a lot of dissolves (fade ins and fade outs) that just add to the cheese factor. I know he's a better director than this, and I've seen what he's capable of. Maybe he didn't have total creative control. That, I guess, remains to be seen.

        With all the nonsense going on in "Mars," the one true bright spot might be the inflicted martial arts-inspired action sequences set to Carpenter's rather subdued heavy metal soundtrack. In terms of casting, I think Ice Cube (James 'Desolation' Williams) gave pretty much the best performance. Listen, the guy is no Laurence Olivier, but he fit his role like a glove and had a lot of fun with it. In the lead role, Natasha Henstridge (Lt. Ballard who is second in command) was okay despite coming off as a little arrogant and smug. As for the rest of the cast, well they pretty much phone their performances in. In a way, it seems kind of fitting for a movie this lazy and, well, this contrived.

        In retrospect, I can't, for the life of me, fathom why this motion picture took place on or had anything to do with Mars (I meant a really fake looking sound stage made to look like Mars). I mean, the whole premise was the defeating of and escape from crazily possessed, demonic entities. The red planet seemed like just a last minute background story to go along with the couple of other bad movies that it inspired. As for the plot letting us know that Mars is an okay location for human beings to survive on without proper space suits or helmets, all I gotta say is gimme a break! Having the cast walk around the planet this way just makes their surroundings seem much more fake. In general, Ghosts of Mars takes itself way too seriously to begin with. It's the type of disposable fluff that has "straight to DVD" written all over it. As for Carpenter, I don't know him personally, but I'm sure he recovered from this debacle. Basically, Ghosts of Mars didn't have a "ghost" of a chance at fulfilling his full potential as a renowned filmmaker.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Take on CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Paul Greengrass

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi

Genre: Action/Adventure/Biography
MPAA Rating: PG-13

I often hear the phrase, “don’t judge a book by its cover”. It’s a metaphoric statement to be sure, but in the case of film, this can translate to “don’t judge a movie by it’s title, year, cast, director, or what have you”. It’s too broad a statement to ring true, so when people asked why I wasn’t going to like the new Tom Hanks movie, Captain Phillips, (because I told them that I predicted it to not be that great of a movie) for me to explain to them that I was judging it before seeing it was futile. Their response was “you can’t judge a book by its cover”. Yet as I write before you, the readers, today, I find myself recycling the words I said weeks ago, before the film’s release. “The trailer says it all. It probably masks a good performance by Tom Hanks, but the plot is too fleshed out in the description. My money says that it doesn’t have much more to offer than what it purports, which isn’t immensely spectacular, so therefore, I don’t believe it will be that great of a film.”

Captain Phillips chronicles the week (or so) long journey of Captain Phillips, from the superficial conversation about the small troubles back at home with his wife and kids to a hostage situation with Somali pirates on a freighter ship in the middle of the ocean. If you’ve seen the trailer, I’m telling you nothing new, and that’s this movie’s major flaw.

 
Director Paul Greengrass is quite fond of his shaky camerawork. I’d stick my neck out and say that it gave me a major headache in his previous The Bourne Ultimatum, but here, I found it quite effective. It matched the pure terror of the situation, and best of all, it felt documentary-like. Along with the effortless way in which Hanks plays your ordinary guy, the first thirty or forty minutes is captivating, legitimate stuff. Then after the initial entry, the movie takes a plot turn that we all knew was coming. The Somali pirates start to press hard, and then the film successfully turns into an exhilarating motion picture. With steady, controlled handle of the cast and knowledge of the plot, Greengrass keeps ahold of the reigns for a good chunk of time, making this scary, exciting, and worthwhile. 

But then after it hits the hour and twenty minutes (or something like that, this movie is long) mark, it starts to deflate like a balloon, sucking all life, vitality, and exuberance out of it slowly until the only thing it’s got dragging the weight is Hanks. Considering all this, my first comment when the movie was over was “They should just give Hanks the Oscar right now.” And I meant every word of it. Mr. Hanks is one of the most talented actors in the industry, without question. He possesses the so coveted ability that is creating an invisible emotional connection with the audience, and his films all benefit because of it. From scene one, the thing that struck me first was believability. Hanks paints the images on his face and in his words more vividly than nearly any artist could on paper. 

What’s unfortunate is that he couldn’t totally save it. What can I say? The script just ran out of ideas, becoming more tedious and tedious as it went. I found myself yearning to walk out of the theater after some time because I knew how it was going to end, and after the repeated continuation of scenes inside the lifeboat, I had had enough. I knew what was coming (it’s got Hollywood written all over it, hint hint), and I wanted it to either end with a bang or end sooner. To my misfortune, it didn’t. The expected and necessary peak of the climax never quite came.

 
Considering that it harbors a cast that truly hits it home here (including the newbie Somali actors that protruded in a casting call to secure a well-deserved spot in the cast), it’s a crying shame that I was let down by Captain Phillips. Keeping that in mind, I will say this, though: it’s probably the best two and a half star rating that I’ve ever given a movie. It’s moving enough, it’s well-shot enough, and it’s enjoyable enough. But it’s just not good enough.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click HERE For Jesse's Review

Jesse's Take on CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Paul Greengrass

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi

Genre: Action/Adventure/Biography
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Paul Greengrass seems like the ideal director to helm a movie about real life dramatizations. This can involve anything from terrorism to hijacking to the rifle shooting of a group of protesters (events or happenings that categorize some of his work). He is a former journalist and that may explain some of his career choices when it comes to various film projects. Of the three or more pictures I've seen of his, my understanding is that he likes to direct material that is based on true events (world news related, 9/11, you know, that sort of thing). Using hand held cameras and showcasing a sort of documentary feel, Greengrass picks unknown actors for a lot of roles in his films. He also shoots a flick in a way that allows these actors to have a smooth, unassuming style of delivering their lines. Scenes in his movies (like the near perfect United 93) have a real life feel to them. They almost suggest that you're not watching a movie but actual live content as it happens. This trademark is wholly evident in the Tom Hanks vehicle Captain Phillips. It's a 2013 release in which everyone seems overly natural on screen (this is a good thing). It's also one of the best pictures of the year (so far). With a superb, perfectly plotted opening 30 minutes and a sense of raw fear that accompanies the majority of that time, "Phillips" gets off to a stupendous start. What keeps it from perfection is a slightly bogged down second act in which the filmmakers sort of run out of steam. "Phillips" involves the act of kidnapping and piracy. With this notion in my mind, you'll find that a lot of the scenes between the kidnappers and the hostage seem like unnecessary filler. It doesn't help that the conversations between them are terse and involve minimal dialogue. Overall though, I'd say that this choppy (yet effective) nailbiter ends on a riveting, amped up note. It gives Hanks a chance to give one of his "Hanksian" performances (I didn't make up that term by the way) and it provides audiences a reason to believe that Greengrass is one of the most accurate, innovative voices in American cinema. If the film has any flaws, it would be the almost too by-the-book style of explaining true events and the aforementioned selected hostage/pirate episodes. From a director's standpoint, that sort of thing seems admirable. From an audience's viewpoint, it can be deemed monotonous and repetitive.

        Beginning without any opening credits (that's a Greengrass trademark) and featuring a small appearance by Catherine Keener (considering that she had a minor role, it would've been nice to see more of her in the movie), Captain Phillips tells the true account of Captain Richard Phillips (a straight faced Tom Hanks). He is a merchant mariner whose ship, the Maersk Alabama, gets hijacked by Somali pirates in 2009. Their first order of business is getting on board and holding people up with machine guns. Then, they ultimately want the insurance money (or as they say, they want millions). When these pirates don't get what's coming to them, they eventually get on a small vessel boat and take the Hanks character with them as a hostage (this is where the movie loses some of its dramatic power before regaining it in the final, explosive ten minutes).

        That's the overall gist of "Phillips" and with films like Bloody Sunday and the aforementioned United 93 (and this one as well), Greengrass likes to include a lot of faces that you've never seen on screen before. He squeezes terrific performances out of all of them and, in my mind, this takes the star power away and lets the viewer concentrate more on the story. This technique also makes a lot of the material seem more like real life (as mentioned earlier in the review). With Captain Phillips, a lot of the actor's lines seem improvised. And what he does with the casting of the antagonists (the hijackers with Barkhad Abdi as their leader) is absolutely amazing. These gentlemen had never acted in a movie before and got picked out of a group of 700 people (in an open casting call). Their screen presence is undeniably electric (the looks in their eyes are searing) and they hold their own with a 30 year acting veteran like Hanks. Speaking of star Tom Hanks, with the casting of unknowns being the director's strength, you wonder if the addition of him as the lead would hurt the proceedings. Honestly, I don't think it matters because this dude is a reputable icon and a darn good actor anyway (not an easy combination to pull off). Playing the "everyman" to perfection, he can undeniably get away with it because he effortlessly embodies the character of Richard Phillips. He sort of underplays this performance in certain spots and acts with a slew of dead on mannerisms (he only emotes when needed). With the exception of him clearly campaigning for an Oscar in the last few minutes of the film, I'd say that this is one of his 5 best screen performances of all time (especially concerning believability). I saw the actual Captain Richard Phillips on the news a week ago, and Hanks nails his persona. He looks like him, has the same facial expressions, and his accent is dead-on.

        All in all, the real life story of Captain Phillips was the perfect film for an accomplished director like Paul Greengrass and a Hollywood goody goody like Hanks (watch him in the last scene, not many films showcase stuff like this) to make. It has its ups and downs, but my overall observation is that it has what a lot of films today lack, which is the natural gift of sophistication. It also meets the basic Oscar criteria because of its association with its multiple Academy Award winner and the addition of its heroic true story value. You could also throw in historical value, too, as we all know that the Academy craves their antiquity. In its possibly overlong running time (it's not significant enough to fault it for), Captain Phillips is an accurate, professionally told, true story, an "everyman" drama, and a directorial showcase all rolled up into one. Oh yeah, and it's a solid action adventure with good sea legs, too. I always wanted to say that.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click HERE For Cole's Review

THE FAMILY

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Luc Besson
Year: 2013
Cast: Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, Tommy Lee Jones
Genre: Action/Comedy/Crime
MPAA Rating: R

        On a beautiful Tuesday afternoon, I decided to take in a screening of the aptly titled, The Family. As I viewed this hollow, shallow, and tired exercise in modern filmmaking, I asked myself a simple yet loaded question: does Robert De Niro really need to be in another mob fest? My answer: an emphatic no. With characters that have not an ounce of human compassion and scenes of unnecessarily brutal violence (I'm sure even mobsters exhibit a small ounce of decent human behavior unlike the cast in this dreck), this thing actually still wants you to laugh with it as well. So, is it a black comedy? Oh no. It's too dumbfounded to be that. Fargo is a black comedy. Dr. Strangelove is a black comedy. The Family couldn't tie their shoes, that's for darn sure. Truth be told, I don't really know what kind of film this is. I have no idea what it tries to be. The most shocking thing is that every rote scene turns extremely dark toward the last half. Therefore, I figured there was no point in having any of the characters try to extract laughs from the audience in the first place. This is a film you see once and that's it. I have no doubt in my mind that its box office status will drop like a heavy stone in a deep body of water.

        Taking place in a small town near France and based on the 2010 novel called Badfellas (wow, there's an original title!) by Tonino Benacquista, The Family is about De Niro's mafia boss character (Giovanni Maznoni), his wife (Maggie played by Michelle Pfeiffer who, I guess, gives this flick's strongest performance), and their two children (newcomer John D'Leo and Glee star Dianna Agron). Based on previous events in which Maznoni snitches on a crime kingpin thereby sending said person to prison, De Niro's clan (now going under the last name Blake) goes into a witness protection program. They end up living near Normandy, France and are being watched and/or supervised by an FBI agent named Robert Stansfield (played by Tommy Lee Jones, who deserves better). As I stated earlier, The Family undercuts scenes of brutal beatings with moderate sitcom humor until it goes into deeper, darker territory. To say that this picture is uneven is a gigantic understatement. The fact that it references De Niro's 1990 acting triumph Goodfellas is insulting and it turns The Family into a parody rather than a real movie.

        All in all, I guess what boggles my mind is why Martin Scorsese agreed to produce a mafia vehicle directed by the guy who wrote The Transporter flicks (Luc Beeson, who always seems to bring a slick, empty look to the proceedings). What's even more puzzling is the fact that Tommy Lee Jones (Stansfield) signed on to play such a nothing role as the sad sack who watches over De Niro's character. Ultimately, The Family is an uninspired mess. It's an out-of-place popcorn flick (the violent bloodbath toward the film's conclusion reminded me of one of the Die Hard films) and a startlingly un-human mix of mob comedy and fledgling drama. Yes, the acting is decent and the direction is numbingly serviceable. But by the time the final credits roll, you'll realize how disposable it is. In its 112 minute running time, all the events that took place could easily recycle themselves many times over. Translation: there is no need to see this, whatsoever. As I walked out the theater, I realized that I'm fortunate to not be a part of a "family" like this.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Jesse's Take On: ELYSIUM

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½
Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Neill Blomkamp 

Year: 2013

Cast: Matt Damon, Jodie Foster, Alice Braga

Genre: Action/Drama/Sci-fi

MPAA Rating: R

        With a somewhat original and visionary take on the sci-fi genre, Elysium gave me the ultimate spine-tingling feeling I've been hoping for in a summer movie. This flick has elements of other science fiction fare, but it doesn't try to copy them; it just tries to add new perspectives. Director Neill Blomkamp (he shot the Academy Award nominated District 9) has a unique style all his own. He likes to bring a sort of dirty, non-pristine look to his films (not exactly the same but in a similar vein to what Ridley Scott did with Alien). And at the same time, the cinematography is undoubtedly top notch. Being that Blomkamp is from South Africa, the film I'm reviewing, along with District 9, has the look and feel of one of its cities which is Johannesburg. So in a rare feat these days, Elysium combines, effectively, the complicated elements of futuristic culture with stellar action sequences. Yes, this exercise can sometimes lose a little focus with its sort of jumbled storyline, but by the last half hour, everything seems to come together just fine. As I viewed this picture with its hair raising, horn-filled musical score, I was reminded (in a lightweight sort of way) of two classic films: The Road Warrior and Blade Runner. Again, Elysium does not copy off these films by any means. But it serves as a worthy companion to both of them (it has the distinction of feeling like a true dystopian flick and a post apocalyptic flick like the aforementioned movies).

        Giving star Matt Damon a deglamorizing role to sink his teeth into, Elysium takes place in the year 2154. The planet has become split up into two completely different worlds. A beautiful space station called Elysium (of course), is tailor made for the wealthy and disease free. Then there is earth, a now poor, overly populated slum where the order that exists, projects misery to everyone living there. Damon's character (Max Da Costa) is propelled to take on a mission that might possibly bring the two worlds together and provide uniform equality. Here's the dilemma: he's got to get past a cold, icy Secretary of Defense (Jessica Delacourt played stiffly by Jodie Foster) and John Carlyle (William Fichtner), a misguided CEO of the Armadyne corporation (they built Elysium). I'm not going to give anything more away. You just have to know that Elysium's plot doesn't quite kick in immediately. You just have to be patient and let this concoction take you for a ride.

        Harboring a solid enough cast, I would only consider Jodie Foster to be Elysium's weak link. She is a great actress, no doubt about it, but this is not the Jody Foster we know and love. Saddled with an unnatural, uncomfortable screen presence and a silly accent (I guess it was British, but I could be wrong), this might be one of the worst performances she has ever given in her 40-plus year career. On the other end of the spectrum, there's Damon. I can say, with confidence, that he has found the perfect role to enhance his attributes as a rough and rugged actor (the image of him firing machine guns in slow motion is pretty darn cool). He gets totally put through the wringer in this slam bang actioner, and he indelibly shines throughout (his character reminded me of Jason Bourne but more vulnerable and living in the near distant future instead of present day).  

        With summer sort of coming to a close, I'm glad I took in a screening of Elysium. It's a refreshing and welcoming surprise considering what's been out lately at your local multiplex (in August, there hasn't been anything to write home about, that's my report). In a sense, this is a cunning, breathtaking, challenging, and exhilarating sci-fi trip par excellence. I truly want to see it again.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click HERE For Cole's Review

FROM DUSK TILL DAWN

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Robert Rodriguez 
Year: 1996
Cast: George Clooney, Harvey Keitel, Quentin Tarantino, Juliette Lewis
Genre: Action/Crime/Horror
MPAA Rating: R

        From Dusk Till Dawn is, by no means, a great film. In fact, I’d barely call it a good one. There are two reasons I’m recommending it, and I’ll bet you can guess why. Here’s a hint: Mr. Tarantino has his name on it. Now, he didn’t direct; Robert Rodriguez did, but Tarantino wrote and acted. With these two’s history, you know that when they put their heads together, the result isn’t going to be subtle or unnoticed. In fact, those are the last adjectives I would use to describe their 90’s gorefest because the first thing that comes to mind when I think of the film is silly, then I have to force myself to recall the first 45 minutes (before the movie took a turn for the worst).

        And if you haven’t guessed by now, the first thing that makes this movie so enjoyable is the cast. Tarantino’s movies never lack strong actors/actresses, and From Dusk Till Dawn is no exception. Harvey Keitel plays the father of two (Juliette Lewis being one) who are kidnapped by notorious robbers, played by George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino himself. I won’t disclose anymore, but if you know of the film, then I’m sure you can connect the dots on where it heads. I never said I hated the twist (it ends up working in a sense), but with how great everything prior to this plot turn was set up, this movie could be a four-star slam dunk. This assembly of the veteran actors/actresses in the film make the first half of the movie seem like Best Picture worthy stuff, and they even manage to make the second half bearable.

        The other factor that makes this recommendable and enjoyable is the writing (particularly the screenplay). Every scene is taken full advantage of, throwing in humor, intensity, engagement, and a sense of likability to the characters (most), ultimately making this a treat to fall subject to the intrigue that writers Robert Kurtzman and Quentin Tarantino so successfully create. The movie sets itself up very nicely. But then it’s the story that makes you go, “ohhhhh, that’s where this was heading”. (No positive connotation meant). It turns a contender with Reservoir Dogs into a film that Leonard Maltin called “Natural Born Vampires”. 

        If you’re looking for a fun movie, look no further. If you are looking for a masterpiece, look elsewhere. If you are a film buff, you might get a kick out of some of the vibrant writing seen throughout. If you dig cheesed out Hollywood endings, go see World War Z. From Dusk Till Dawn’s conclusion is a knockout!

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse’s Thoughts: From Dusk Till Dawn plays like two different flicks all together. The first half is a kidnapping/road movie complete with mediocre acting (George Clooney tries way too hard and Quentin Tarantino, well he's a better director than an actor) and a script that isn't quite as sharp as what Tarantino's has been known to put out. The second half is a ferocious battle between humans and bloodthirsty vampires. For me, the second half is slightly better. In the end though, it's a segment that's more stylish than anything else. Back in 1996, From Dusk Till Dawn was supposed to be Clooney's first true big screen debut (it coincided with his successful E.R. show). Unfortunately, it comes off more as a slight misfire despite Robert Rodriquez's capable direction and some effectively campy special effects. In general, this film is uneven and the vampire sequences which are meant to scare you senseless don't take themselves seriously. I put the blame on the cast because they come off as goofballs. Chalk this one up as a mixed review from me. From what I understand, this movie spawned some sequels. I guess you could call the next installment "From Bad To Worse".

2 GUNS

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Baltasar Kormákur
Year: 2013
Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Denzel Washington, Bill Paxton
Genre: Action/Comedy/Crime
MPAA Rating: R

        If I had the power to rename the film 2 Guns, I'd change it to "2000 Guns".  Every single frame is filled to the brim with them (all kinds too). Not only are the weapons in this flick used to kill people (obviously), they're also used for good old fashioned torture. Yeah, 2 Guns is a so called action comedy and it's completely out of control. As I viewed this bullet ridden, macho laden, testosterone filled, bloated mess of an exercise, I started to try and keep track of certain things. However, I lost count. I couldn't tell you how many times someone pointed a gun at someone else (complete with nasty threats too) and I couldn't, for the life of me, keep track of how many times a character said, "where's the money?" or "where's my money?" Added to that, I also had my head spinning trying to keep track of how many times the main characters weaseled their way out of trouble or certain death (I'm thinking a handful of Mexican standoffs went down during all this). One word basically describes 2 Guns: preposterous. It has a plot that is so muddled and so unbelievably elaborate at the same time. It has your standard buddy action cliches that run rampant all throughout. And it has the leads, Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg, trying to reinvent a now tired genre. They have a small sort of chemistry, but to be frank, we've seen it all before. And it has been done better countless times over.

        With three different sets of villains and virtually no one to trust (no one is safe in this film and the police are hardly anywhere to be found), 2 Guns tells the story of an undercover (possibly former) Naval Intelligence Officer (Michael Stigman played by Mark Wahlberg) and an undercover DEA agent (Robert Trench played by Denzel Washington with his typical flair) who pose as criminals (whatever) and rob a bank for two different reasons. Stigman is trying to get reinstated as an officer by delivering the money to his commanding superiors. This is to be done so that the Navy can illegally contribute to fund certain covert operations. Denzel's character, well he has to acquire the loot so he can have enough evidence to prosecute drug lord Papi Greco (Edward James Olmos) for money laundering (you have to view this movie in order for it to make sense and I would advise against viewing 2 Guns). This sets off a chain of events when the robbery goes afoul and Stigman and Trench blow their cover (not to the bad guys, but to each other). Here's the part of 2 Guns that really turns me off. The subsequent heroes that you're supposed to root for (Stigman and Trench) become more unlikable as the film glides by. By the end, you want them to be put in jail because they become almost as cold and ruthless as everyone else.

        To sum things up, there's no real reason to see this film unless you're a Denzel Washington fan. He's still the coolest dude in the room no matter what (he's even got a cool walk that is displayed in all his other movies). Wahlberg, well he's popping up in everything these days and his outright screen presence is beginning to annoy me. He needs to be a little pickier about his projects. On a slightly more positive note, I do suppose the film's eye candy, Paula Patton, might become a big star one day. And maybe it was fun to see Edward James Olmos and Bill Paxton take on villainous roles (Paxton overdoes it, though, as a ruthless bank owner with a painfully tired southern accent). But all in all, 2 Guns is "too much." It's not quite original enough to wow you (despite the endless pyrotechnics) and it's too mean-spirited for you to care about anyone involved. In the first half of the film, "Stig" (Wahlberg) says to Bobby (Washington), "did you miss me?" For me, that wouldn't be a difficult question to answer. Do I miss the good old days when buddy action movies mattered? Yes. Will I ever miss this flashy mashup of overindulgence? No way.  

-Written by Jesse Burleson

COLORS

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Dennis Hopper
Year: 1988
Cast: Sean Penn, Robert Duvall, Maria Conchita Alonso 
Genre: Action/Crime/Drama
MPAA Rating: R

        Before the films Training Day (a flick that I believe was inspired by the one I'm reviewing), Menace II Society, Boyz in the Hood, and even the real life L.A. riots, there was this gritty take on gang violence that was directed by the late, not to mention thorough Dennis Hopper. Colors from an initial viewing, seems like an accurate, almost deftly authentic message movie that is brutal in nature and almost tries to scare a moviegoer away on purpose. I believe that it was made (unintentionally) for accuracy and less for catering to your everyday cinematic experience. Hopper, who had only made 3 films prior to this one, used a few of his early camera techniques from his masterpiece Easy Rider to set the tone for this sort of dramatic (not action oriented) buddy cop movie. He does this with the opening shot of the two leads driving through crime ridden L.A., and towards the last half hour or so with some aerial stuff. He was a unique director who seemed to envision what a motion picture could be long before anybody else. With the casting of two legendary screen icons (Robert Duvall and Sean Penn) and what seemed like total freedom to shoot anything and everything around the City of Angels, Hopper shot Colors and it hit theaters (with a lot of buzz) in the spring of 1988. Truth be told, there are a lot of things to admire about this vehicle. What kept me from recommending it is simple. Colors doesn't quite know what it wants to be (this is especially evident in the relationship between Penn and Duvall). It also doesn't have a clear direction of where it wants to take the viewer. Scenes of police interrogation go on too long and seem repetitive. They don't allow anything to really take shape. Like I said earlier, Colors seems accurate. But I'm afraid, it's almost too accurate. And what you get is something that could only be tolerated by, say, a real police officer who has been in the trenches and can access the films subject matter. Where as the similar Training Day was thought provoking, suspenseful, and confidently climactic, Colors just feels like a bruised and battered, lumbering film.

        With actual real life gang members as extras and a lingering feeling that all the main actors rode with (observed by as well) actual cops (role researching must have been at an all time high) before filming began, Colors takes you through the armpit of Los Angeles (notably East L.A. and South Central L.A.) where police officers Bob Hodges (Duvall) and Danny McGavin (Penn) try to maintain and possibly rid their territory of gang violence among the Crips, the Bloods, and Hispanic street gangs. Hodges is a veteran officer who is mellow in his actions. McGavin is a hot shot, hot tempered, and high strung rookie who wants to take every measure of veritable force to get the job done (there are a couple of scenes where Penn's character hits a prisoner in custody. To my knowledge, this is probably against police procedure, but it's never noted in the film). As mentioned earlier, the lukewarm dynamic between Duvall and Penn's characters is never fully realized. Throughout the two hour running time, you can't really figure out where their relationship stands. Yeah, this has the feel of a buddy cop movie where the two protagonists are constantly at odds with each other, but scenes between these guys escalate and then don't find a resolution. It's a shame that two acting heavyweights who are so good at their craft feel like they don't belong in the same movie (if I'm not mistaken, they haven't been on screen together since). Their performances are adequate, but one of them is miscast and I could never figure out which one. 

        In conclusion, there is a lot to admire upon viewing Colors. It's got decent acting, solid direction, and at least it's about something that was relevant at the time. Yes, the events depicted are slightly outdated and there is a sort of preachiness to the proceedings (the soundtrack by the talented Herbie Hancock is wrong for what's on screen because it deflates the dramatic momentum), but it's as strong of a mixed (two and a half star) review as I could ever give a motion picture. It has good intentions, promotes a strong message, and makes you think ever so slightly. As an unintentional sort of staged docudrama, it gets the job done. As entertainment value or something viewed as a hearty moviegoing experience, Colors, sadly, is just "black and white".  

-Written by Jesse Burleson

THE LONE RANGER

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Gore Verbinski

Year: 2013

Cast: Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, Tom Wilkinson

Genre: Action/Adventure/Western

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        The Lone Ranger is a big, expensive movie with a lot of ideas. After all, director Gore Verbinski is known for that sort of thing (it's an admirable trait, but it may be his downfall). At a budget of over $200 million dollars, you can tell that every inch of the screen was well spent. The period detail and set design are all top notch. But here's the thing, a lot of Gore's films have an abundance of plot threads that tend to be rooted in confusion until the final twenty minutes wraps things up, and his films also suffer from a well intentioned, yet great amount of over length. "Ranger", mind you, is one of those vehicles. However, I'm gonna hold my breath and recommend it. Yes, it's an adequate crowd pleaser, but it probably could've been trimmed down by about a half hour. In hindsight, though, this is a film that, in my mind, secures its place in any summer moviegoer's checklist. It's got Johnny Depp teaming up once again with Verbinski (these two have a solid track record you know). They've made a handful of Pirates of the Caribbean movies together and if you are a fan of those endeavors, you'll for sure enjoy this take on the famed 1950's television show. Now it is for statutory purposes, a mild adaptation on that ancient sitcom as well as the 1930's radio program. But make no bones about it, we're talking "Pirates" of the old West here. Depp playing Tonto, riffs on his goofy, likable turn as Captain Jack Sparrow in that Disney theme blockbuster (he also sort of channels the voice of his Hunter S. Thompson character in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas). We also have an up-and-comer in Armie Hammer inhabiting the title role. Despite what you might have heard, I think he was well cast (Depp too for the same reason). The character of the mask hero (John Reid is his alias) needed to have a strong screen presence and an intimidating look. In real life, Hammer is 6'5", and he puts the napoleon complex of most actors being short to rest. All in all, "Ranger" entertains you with its tongue and cheek humor, its rollicking action sequences, and its accurate, stylish look of that time period (late 1800's to be exact). Also, it rides the curtails of the trait made popular by the "Pirates" movies in which you witness how many times characters escape death or peril in a 2 hour and 30 minute exercise. To be honest with "Ranger", I may have lost count, and that was only about an hour in.

        Never quite deciding whether it wants to be an action adventure or a full-on comedy (there are scenes that literally separate the two, especially with the background music), The Lone Ranger tells the story of John Reid (Hammer), a Texas district attorney who while on train ride to visit his brother (ranger and fellow law enforcement officer Dan Reid), finds himself in the middle of a robbery/hijacking orchestrated by cowboy thugs (William Fichtner as Butch Cavendish, is the ring leader with a sort of penchant for human hearts) with nasty facial scars and unkempt, yellow teeth. The thugs escape only to kill John's brother later in an act of unclear revenge. Hammer's character decides to hunt down the killer of his brother with the help of an eccentric, playful Indian named Tonto (Depp, carrying a dead bird over his head that he actually pretends to feed). By doing this, Reid unknowingly becomes "The Lone Ranger" through the act of masking his identity via name and appearance. Why you ask, because as Tonto states, "all good men must wear mask."

        As far as casting goes, Depp plays yet again, a kooky liberated character. Hammer, having brilliantly played twins in The Social Network, is a bold, risky choice that sorta pays off as long you don't take him too seriously like the more famous Superman and Batman. You see, within almost every frame, there are countless extras and bit parts. But the strongest hint of acting belongs to supporting player Tim Wilkinson (railroad tycoon Latham Cole). As a former Oscar nominee, he provides the film's juiciest dialogue. He truly has one of the best acting voices in Hollywood. Alas, he doesn't get to spice things till well past the halfway point.

        In essence, The Lone Ranger could've done without a few hiccups here and there. For one, I found the present day scenes with Depp as an old man (possibly 90 years old and reflecting on his life via side show) sort of unnecessary but mildly amusing (was it a fantasy? Did it come from the kid's mind who was listening to Tonto's yarn spinning?). In my brain I tried to avoid the notion, you know that maybe all the events in "Ranger" might have never took place (I'm not a huge fan of this concept). Also, toward the climatic train chase that really ties the whole thing together, you have an out of place helping of The Lone Ranger theme music coming on. I got annoyed by it because it didn't actually fit the flow of the scenes (why do the filmmakers feel it necessary to pay tribute to network shows they are adapting? For gosh sake's the movie is its own entity). Nevertheless, this is the type of cinematic toy that gets by on its strengths. It's campy goodness that succeeds with the humor and likability of the leads, the Indiana Jones style of escapism, and the rock n' roll style of Mexican standoffs (I hope Tarantino doesn't get jealous). I don't know if I'd hail it as groundbreaking, but with two and a half hours to kill, this is pure summer matinee bliss. And to echo the first part of my review, a plethora of film ideals is better than little or none at all.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Take On: MAN OF STEEL

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Zack Snyder

Year: 2013

Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe

Genre: Action/Adventure/Fantasy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

         To date, Man of Steel is my second favorite film so far this year. Now given, it hasn’t been an incredible year for movies, I still think that this is a cinematic achievement—for some of its totality. My only wish for a movie like this, which is chock full of ambitious and irresistible elements, is that it could withhold its magnitude for the entirety of its running time. Director Zack Snyder isn’t capable of making this happen, but who knows that it was really him? Maybe Michael Bay swooped in towards the second half of the film and took over. I swear that I saw his fingers around the lenses of the camera during the action scenes. And if I should say so myself, they were tinted a bit green.

        Man of Steel begins with the introduction of the knock-out cast. Russell Crowe plays Jor-El, Superman’s father who sends him to Earth in a last second attempt to preserve his life from the apocalyptic (or soon-to-be apocalyptic) Krypton. A cold Michael Shannon plays General Zod, a Krypton-trained warrior who wants to rebuild his home planet on Earth. And finally, Henry Cavill plays the Superman character quite well, however, comparably not as good as Tom Welling in the Superman series titled Smallville. But as the movie progresses, I discovered that Cavill became more and more comfortable in the main role (and unshaven, might I add). Amy Adams looks the part as Lois Lane, who’s under-developed relationship with Superman is only a cause for the inevitable sequel. Kevin Costner also plays a big role in the movie, even though his screen time may be miniscule. He helps build the backbone for Superman as a child, and his performance is Academy-Award worthy (he is in the best scenes of the movie). The cast is excellent, the story is riveting, and it’s all carried out through a series of both chronological storytelling and flashbacks.

        You may ask, “what could go wrong?”. Well, instead of continuing the movie’s epic case of storytelling, it takes the easy, Hollywood way out by turning the whole thing into a sabotage picture: blowing things up and tearing buildings down. I will give the director credit though. Something that he possesses that most directors do not is the ability to be imaginative with the action scenes. I’ve never seen anything like it. So I guess I was wrong about seeing Michael Bay’s hands; after all, he could never make action scenes like this. I guess the greenish color was foreshadowing Snyder’s greater success (not to mention monetary benefits) to come, maybe even with Man of Steel 2.

        I took my nine-year-old brother to this picture, and I don’t think I will take him to another like this again. The movie takes a lot of intriguing plot turns, which is something that he had a hard time keeping up with. In fact, I think that’s what I liked about the first half of the movie. The plot is constantly developing at a nice, breezy pace, and the only thing that you might have to say is to slow down. I only found myself saying it once, as I was thoroughly impressed with how interesting the tellings panned out. Let’s hope that between our viewing of this and our viewing of the sequel, Snyder starts reading books instead of watching Transformers. That is if he decides to stick with it. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click HERE for Jesse's written review of Man of Steel

Click HERE to watch the video on YouTube