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

DRUGSTORE COWBOY

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Gus Van Sant
Year: 1989
Cast: Matt Dillon, Kelly Lynch, James Le Gros
Genre: Crime/Drama
MPAA Rating: R

I applaud Gus Van Sant, Jr. I really do. Over the course of his lifetime, he’s made a multitude of thought-provoking, inspiring films that manage to capture and expose seemingly unnoticed aspects of reality (a classic example in Goodwill Hunting). In his most potent movies (Milk at the top of the charts), he effortlessly moves the audience in a way that only those who have experienced it can fathom. I didn’t get this feeling when I saw Drugstore Cowboy. Instead, I felt particularly unaffected.

However, my hopes were considerably high when the film started. Beginning with what I took to be a sound, promising structure, Drugstore Cowboy zooms in on the lives of pathetic (right?) druggies that get by by their drugstore raids. Following their intricate schemes, they proceed to retreat to their apartment and shoot, literally, whatever substance they managed to accumulate on their pillage into their veins. Thereafter, bickering, and serious self-examination follows. This is the tired route that the movie takes over and over again and, before long, it becomes quite purposeless.  

The problem lies in the narrative; what were the filmmakers trying to tell us? Were they exposing the desperation that people can be succumbed by in this world? Were they trying to incorporate a theme about physical abuse? Or, did this movie even have a narrative? All of these thoughts occurred to me as I sat and watched the ongoing (yet well captured) display of these peoples’ day to day lives. At the end, I was left wondering what it was I just saw.

In conclusion, it’s safe to say that Drugstore Cowboy’s screenplay took us nowhere. It isn’t a movie with a clear intention. It’s sort of just existent. What started as an ambitious, exciting slice of life headed downhill, becoming more and more meaningless as it went along. Among the film’s few assets are Matt Dillon and Kelly Lynch. While they really stand out, I do wish I could name more.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

AMERICAN HUSTLE

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: David O. Russell
Year: 2013
Cast: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Jeremy Renner
Genre: Crime/Drama
MPAA Rating: R

        Long before the widely praised American Hustle came out, I, as an unconditional lover of film, was infatuated with Christian Bale’s purported charisma in the sneak peeks (trailers) that detailed very little of the movie itself. And, long after seeing the movie, his performance had the same effect. Coherently, this is another one of David O. Russell’s crisp, accurate films that was anticipated before its arrival, and greatly commended afterwards. In short, American Hustle gave film lovers something to look forward to, and it didn’t let us down.

        Within seconds of the opening shot, awe plastered itself upon the width of my face. “Who starts a movie off with some guy fixing his fake combover?”. The quiet brilliance was nearly too much to handle, so when very next shot displayed a trio of some of the finest living actors throwing around potent lines of dialogue, I knew I was going to love it; I don’t stand corrected.

        Often times, people use the phrase “before its time” as a complement, and understandably so. For film, when a large quantity of it (stylistically speaking) has gone downhill since the 90’s, it would be more than appropriate to say that American Hustle is after its time. Truly, that’s what I enjoyed so much about it. I’m not sure if it was his intention, but David O. Russell modeled his newest film’s structure after that of Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas (though it was far from derivative), opening with a shot in need of explanation from a linear structure, starting from the beginning. Then it took us back through that scene again, and continued the story. It was, quite honestly, the best way this movie could have been written, and it was presented very well.

        But it did feel like I was sitting in the theater for a long time. Admittedly, it’s not as engaging as his other works (specifically Silver Linings Playbook), a result of the inability to identify a protagonist or main conflict in the story until about an hour or so into the picture. However, it kept me entertained (for the most part), and it was so well made that whatever lags that may have occurred in the development of the plot can and should be dismissed.

        Of course, it’s not just the steady, evocative direction that makes it among the best films of the year, though. Probably the two most evident aspects of this motion picture that qualifies it as such are the powerful performances and the artistic costume design. Not a scene went by when I wasn’t in awe at the beauty of the wardrobes and the craft of the hair styles, or, on another note, swept away by the accuracy of the time period captured.

        So, will it win Best Picture? To answer with words said by the movie’s own (Bale), “people believe what they want to believe, but the guy who made this, was so good...” that it sure has a solid chance.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE COUNSELOR

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Ridley Scott
Year: 2013
Cast: Michael Fassbender, Brad Pitt, Javier Bardem, Cameron Diaz

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        Every aspect of the 2013 release The Counselor (minus the philosophically damned script), tells you that this is a Ridley Scott film. If you enjoy the way he carefully directs by bringing scenes to a slow creep and then having things interrupted with an act or two of brutal violence, then this will satisfy you, the fan of said director. I have to say that, initially, I had become bored with the first 30 minutes or so of this slick, trashy (might as well throw in stylized) sort of two hour resembling of a cable TV drama (rated for mature audiences of course). It started off as pretentious and self indulgent. You have actors constantly engaging in conversations with each other that go on longer than needed. And the dialogue is all about the meaning of life and such. Therefore, I kept thinking to myself, why does everyone in this vehicle have to be so smart? Although the performances were substantial (with the exception of the continuously miscast Cameron Diaz), it seemed as though the script required almost all the cast members to be Socrates (the supposed founder of Western philosophy).

        Brought to life by rookie screenwriter Cormac McCarthy (his novices shows in his screenwriting even though he's a well accomplished novelist) and dedicated to Ridley Scott's brother (famed director Tony Scott) who committed suicide during filming, The Counselor examines a lawyer who, on the side, gets involved in drug dealings with the Mexican cartel. Hoping to get a huge return back and taking different angles of advice from a drug kingpin named Reiner (played with a goofy stature and an even goofier haircut, by Javier Bardem), "Counselor" (he has no name, this is what everybody calls him) eventually gets in way over his head. He is warned by a middleman named Westray (played by Scott veteran Brad Pitt) that such a deal might be the wrong path to be taken. Furthermore, it doesn't help that he puts his, I guess, pregnant wife (Laura played by Penelope Cruz) in harm's way throughout. Let me put it this way, I found myself more embroiled with "Counselor's" fate as every other character began to die off. I read a separate review that said this motion picture was sort of a dark neo-noir. By definition, neo-noir films deal with social ramifications so I guess that critic pretty much got it right.

        Anyway, if you can get past the gnawing characteristic of the aforementioned tainted screenplay, then you'll find that this movie barrels along by becoming more intriguing and more involving. You realize that Scott knows that there is a problem with the script (he didn't write it), but he decides to be in complete control of the camera anyway. He directs with confidence and funnels little nuggets here and there from his other movies, plastering them into this one. His cast is vast and diligent (a couple of cameos by some notable screen talents). He films sequences either from a long distance away or close up with two actors trading words in a small, claustrophobic space. Last but certainly not least, he puts a relatively unknown yet well seasoned Michael Fassbender in the lead role. Known in this flick as simply "The Counselor," he is able to carry the whole two hour running time quite well. He's in almost every frame (Fassbender looks a little like a young Jeremy Irons and has Ewan McGregor's manneristic smirk) and goes toe to toe with some big name actors (Brad Pitt) that seem to fade in and out of the proceedings. In the end, you don't quite know what the future has in store for him. But you get a sense that his character is the type of person who falls prey to the notion of bad things happening to not so bad people.

        All and all, The Counselor, as a movie, likes to leave little tracings of symbolism here and there (especially in the opening scene). Its intentions are to let you know that it has deeper interludes that extend far beyond the simple art of a drug deal. Yes, there are little flaws that are evident (some of the dialogue is borderline laughable and cringe worthy) but in the end, it still comes off as weirdly sophisticated. It's for the moviegoer who can hold his or her attention span and not harbor to all the disposable drivel that's thrown in year after year (stuff like remakes of classics which I've been ripping on since March). To be honest, I don't know if I would put this thing on my top ten list of 2013. However, it resonates with you minutes after you see it. And that's something I look for when I want to garner a recommendation. It also has the type of ending shot that I like where the camera focuses on a main character's face and goes suddenly to blackout (without any type of fading). With The Counselor, you get a mostly trademark Ridley Scott film and heck, usually he's incapable of making anything mediocre. Halfway into the second act when things get dangerous, Brad Pitt's character states, "I'd say it's pretty bad, then multiply it by ten." Yeah, I'd say this flick is not so bad, so I'll just give it three stars.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

RUNNER RUNNER

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Brad Furman
Year: 2013
Cast: Justin Timberlake, Ben Affleck, Anthony Mackie
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        I'm going to start this review off by saying that Justin Timberlake is in way over his head (I'm not just talking about the character he plays) in Runner Runner. The first movie I ever saw him in was Alpha Dog and he was excellent, you know, as a supporting player. Now we have him occupying one of the lead roles (along with the effectively slumming Ben Affleck). I gotta say that watching this dude assist in carrying a feature length film can sometimes be very frustrating. If you can get passed the fact that he looks about 15 years old and deals with heavy handed thugs from Costa Rica (along with hard nosed, manipulative FBI agents), then Runner Runner might be your spiked cup of tea. What we have here is a shallow, empty, and implausible farce of a movie (I find it hard to believe that the events that take place are rumored to be the make up of a true story) but somehow, someway, an entertainingly bad one at that. Its director, Brad Furman, directs with the slickness equivalency of an oily racetrack. I've seen his last film (The Lincoln Lawyer) and I totally knew what to expect. Like "Lawyer," Furman supplicates Runner Runner with a juicy script (lots of zingers, too), a nice brisk pace, and decent performances (even if the actors involved are a little miscast). This exercise is basically the movie equivalent of the best fast food you ever ate. It's not healthy, it goes right through you, and it has extra cheese. I'm gonna hold my breath and recommend it for its witty, smart aleckness in the script and its continued effort to get the viewer, to like it no matter how silly things unfold. Like I said earlier, Timberlake strainfully appears to be in uncharted territory with the demands of his role (in this beautifully locale-furnished setting). But the phrase, "it's only a movie," is unequivocally on his side.


        Taking place in two different countries (two different climates, too) and moving the plot along with total aplomb (within the first, I don't know, twenty minutes, everything is set in motion) Runner Runner tells the story of Richie First (apparent A-lister Justin Timberlake), a student at Princeton University who almost gets kick out because of his association with online gambling (he basically turns other students on to it through his own site and then gets a cut when they win anything). He can't pay his tuition without this money he earns so he decides to do one last game on his own. He does this in order to make a profit of $60,000, which should cover everything for one year (woah, college is expensive). When he gets cheated by an off shore con artist name Ivan Block (played with a slimy urgency by Ben "I don't look like a guy named Ivan" Affleck) and loses all of his supposed winnings, Richie gets on a plane and confronts the cheater (self made millionaire) and asks him for his money back. Ivan returns his winnings but also wants him to stay in Costa Rica and work for him (of course, without this plot element how could the movie go on?). From then on, Runner Runner almost completely leaves the online poker element and goes straight into the fallible world of marginalized greed and deception. To give the film some added dramatic heft, Timberlake's Richie is also being followed by an FBI agent named Shavers (played by Anthony Mackie who steals all the scenes he's in and creates a character you keep wanting to see). Shavers wants Richie to help him take Ivan down. If he succeeds, he won't go to jail and will indeed get back safely to the states.


        Throughout the film's moderate length (an hour and a half plus change), I was fitfully entertained (not by plausibility but by sure dimwittedness). The ending, well, that was my favorite part. Let's just say that the film's conclusion, although a little twangy, will have you frolicking in your seat (possibly laughing heartily as well).


        When it's all said and done, Runner Runner is kind of predictable (The trailer pretty much explains most of the movie. The rest you can easily figure out on your own), but it's fun, breezy, and downright cheeky (especially when you have Mackie delivering crackling dialogue every time he's on screen). Honestly, just when you think things might head downhill, this film picks up the pace and willingly takes you with it. It's definitely not a movie going experience you would (or should) take seriously (there's a lot of times when I thought to myself, "yeah right"), but if you (gulp) decide to take a chance on Runner Runner, you just might like it like it.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

MANHUNTER

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Michael Mann

Year: 1986

Cast: William Peterson, Kim Greist, Joan Allen, Brian Cox

Genre: Crime/Mystery/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        Manhunter feels as if one put a large amount of effort into it, so I almost feel bad saying that it was a large-scale disappointment. I thought that the guy who churned out Heat and Collateral could make a satisfying entry into the “Hannibal Lecter” narrative (?), but I was wrong. Everything about Manhunter feels “poor”, and I’m not talking about the budget. Brian Cox is the poor man’s Anthony Hopkins, just like how William Peterson is the poor man’s Jodie Foster, just how the plot of this thing is like a train that runs out of gas. As I watched the movie, I felt like if I wanted to like it, I would have had to put a hole in my pockets, but instead of doing so, I stand up proud for the predecessor (that actually came after it’s release), The Silence of the Lambs.

        Considering that it clocks in at two long hours, this exercise feels like a drawn out episode of CSI. It contains nowhere near the amount of psychological layers that it should, and the plot has more holes than an episode of Scooby Doo! Where Are You?. In fact, in terms of simplicity, I’d say that by that comparison, my judgment stands uncorrected. 

        Mann directs this whole picture with such hope. As the viewer, I felt it too. For the majority of the plot development (oh, I forgot to mention that it’s basically the same plot as The Silence of the Lambs with a few twists), I kept waiting and waiting. “When’s this thing gonna take off?”, I thought. Finally, the excitement came, but with a price. The stupidity of the film magnified to the point of discomfort. 

        Does this have any assets? Of course. It builds up well, doesn’t leave the viewers behind too much on development, and it offers a premise that is original, but subtle (as you’ll find). It doesn’t boast its creativity like “Lambs” did, even though it really should have considering the conclusion. It’s serviceable, per say, but when it comes down to it, it’s standing weakly at second in line.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE COTTON CLUB

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Francis Ford Coppola

Year: 1984

Cast: Richard Gere, Diane Lane, Gregory Hines

Genre: Crime/Drama/Music
MPAA Rating: R

        Francis Ford Coppola is quoted as saying, "I have genius but no talent". Honestly, I think he has both. But with his December 1984 release The Cotton Club, he unfortunately loses a little of this talent by failing to format a somewhat cohesive storyline.  If you ignore that sort of minor flaw, you still get a splashy mob flick that is highly stylized, highly energized, and done with mounds of real panache.

        Taking place in 1930's Harlem (ah the good old days) and projecting itself as a movie that tries to cram in 2-3 stories in a two hour period, "Cotton Club" tells the tale (or tales) of musician Dixie Dwyer (played by Richard Gere who has amazing screen presence here), his uncontrollable resistance to move up the mob chain, and the resorting-to-murder brother he has to look out for (played with gusto by Nicolas Cage). The film also examines the life of a racially discriminated tap dancer (Gregory Hines) who struts his stuff at where else, The Cotton Club.

         Projecting itself as a sped up version of Coppola's masterpiece The Godfather (there's a scene toward the end that pays complete homage to it), this vehicle has a fantastic look (very accurate for the time period and not too overdone), brilliant acting by Richard Gere (Dwyer) and Nicolas Cage (Dwyer's brother Vincent), and well choreographed, exhilarating tap dance sequences. Coppola, who is in total command of the camera (and his craft) wants to make sure the viewer is worn out by the time the credits roll. He is accurate, doesn't give an inch (he's a perfectionist, all you gotta do is watch the Heart of Darkness documentary), but seems too busy filling the screen with an overload of indelible images. I guess he insists on doing this instead of keeping the viewer focused on exactly what's going on with this talented cast (boy, do they give it their all!). Try as I might though, I can't fault him. Entertaining and never boring, The Cotton Club excels at making the audience feel unsafe (just like the actual characters in the movie) and it's at least, in my mind, a moderate success. This veritable gangster movie is the equivalent of a sugar rush (in a good way of course). It's one "club" you might want to check out.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Take on PRISONERS

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Denis Villeneuve 
Year: 2013

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Maria Bello, Jake Gyllenhaal

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

In 2007, a movie of infinite intellectual stature and vivid potency hit theaters around the US (naturally) and left a major mark on cinema; it forever raised the expectations of a crime-drama-thriller. And this was definitely in the back of my mind as I viewed the latest movie of the same genre(s), PRISONERS. 

The aforementioned movie I referenced was David Fincher’s ZODIAC, a genuinely haunting motion picture that, in my mind, should have at least garnered Best Picture in 2007. Why, one may ask, was I reminded of that masterpiece when I viewed PRISONERS, then? In addition to having similar plot development, it stars the same actor and is extremely absorbing. Here, two respective little girls are out frolicking in the cold after their families finish their Thanksgiving meal, but sooner or later, their families notice that they’ve been gone for some time. After an extensive search around the house and neighborhood, it’s concluded that these little girls have been kidnapped.

As terrifying as the initial entry into this movie sounds, it only gets more frightening, adding layers and layers onto the mystery with every scene. While it lacks the audacity and therefore brilliance of Fincher’s direction in ZODIAC, Canadian director Denis Villeneuve does an adequate job of holding the reigns; at some times I’d say he’s holding too tightly, and at others, not enough. For the most part, it flows nicely and what’s happening on screen is simple yet fascinating. 

As for the acting, most members of the cast pull through. While I believe that Hugh Jackman sincerely overacted his part, Jake Gyllenhall’s quietly powerful performance reiterates why he’s so talented in the acting industry. As for the other participants (who should’ve received more screen presence than they did), they did just fine. I wouldn’t quite say PRISONERS was made to specifically showcase acting talent, though.

 

 All in all, I’d say that PRISONERS is among some of the best films so far this year. I don’t know if it will last over the years, but I can say that there were few seconds of screen time in which I wasn't engaged. At the end of this picture, take a ruler and measure how far your back is from the seat. I think you’ll find that you might need a yardstick or two.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click HERE for Jesse's Take on PRISONERS

Jesse's Take on PRISONERS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Denis Villeneuve 
Year: 2013

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Maria Bello, Jake Gyllenhaal

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        Produced by busy bee actor Mark Wahlberg and helmed by acclaimed Canadian director Denis Villeneuve, Prisoners is the type of vehicle that is perfect for a fall moviegoing season. It was filmed in Georgia (which I believe, was made to look like a drab part of Pennsylvania), takes place during Thanksgiving, and harbours a non-stop sense of doom and gloom from its opening frame (I think the sun shined maybe once during the entire two and a half hour running time). Listen, I'm not gonna sugarcoat it for you, this picture is long, feels long, and it really takes its time. Villeneuve uses old school filming techniques and doesn't project anything flashy at all.  However, the story, when it's all said and done, is somewhat conventional. Therefore, I think it was necessary for the events to be drawn out and dragged through the muck a little. Based on an initial viewing, I realized that Prisoners would have felt like a TV movie and/or a Law and Order episode if the running time was trimmed to, say, an hour and a half. Thankfully, it comes off as an extended director's cut (I'm not the only critic that felt this way) and that, to a fault, is what makes the flick work. Watching it, I was reminded of a David Fincher film (without Fincher's signature style, though) and not just because it starred staggeringly disciplined actor Jake Gyllenhaal. Prisoners is basically a mild spawn of Fincher's Se7en and Zodiac. It's not quite as effectively creepy as those films, but it's definitely good enough to recommend.

        Part kidnapping movie, part police detective character study, and part fatherly vigilante escapade, Prisoners tells the story of two families (neighbors from across the street) who get together on Thanksgiving day. The Birch's (Franklin Birch played by Terrence Howard and Nancy Birch played by Viola Davis who barely registers here) and the Dover's (Hugh Jackman and Maria Bello as Keller and Grace Dover) have a relaxing, calming holiday until their respective daughters wander off and go missing. This then gets the attention of a socially inept area detective (Mr. Loki played with vigor by Jake Gyllenhaal) who garners almost complete control over handling the missing persons case. As days go by and a potential suspect who might've taken the children gets bounced free, Jackman's angry, frustrated character eventually decides to take the law into his own hands. As the film slowly creeps toward its conclusion, you get small twists and turns (as well as slightly minimal character revelations).

        On the acting front, one thing to notice when viewing Prisoners is how it pushes aside the other performers in the main cast (Oscar nominees like Viola Davis and Terrence Howard) and puts its main focus on Jackman. Now I'm not saying that Hugh Jackman is a mediocre actor. I just don't think he has the fiery chops to take on such a serious, dramatic role. His fault lies in the extreme overacting and preening to the audience. He seems to be saying, "hey look at me, I should be nominated for an oscar!" With all the focus on him, the other player's roles become seriously underdeveloped. It gets to the point where you hardly see them anymore. Using little to no background music, there are a lot of carefully set up scenes in Prisoners. To a fault, Jackman appears in almost all of them.  Jake Gyllenhaal (Detective Loki), the only other actor receiving top billing, takes up almost as much of the shared time. The difference with Gyllenhaal is that he quietly outacts his co-star. His minutes on screen are underplayed but they feel more genuine, more studied (Gyllenhaal's character's facial ticks like eye blinking were a nice touch), and generally more effective. He seems born to play his role. Jackman, on the other hand, has one persuasive agent (he probably needs to stick to his strengths, which are the X-Men movies). 

        As a fall release that feels as if it's a journey or a metaphoric expedition, Prisoners has a teaser of an ending that may leave viewers holding their hands in the air. The overlength may also be a factor when it comes to their varied attention spans. I however, found this exercise mildly absorbing and it was able to keep me interested. You may find the opening ten minutes a little muddled and weak in terms of set up, but after that, this exercise will place you in its grip (not too tightly) and not let go. Like I said earlier, Prisoners makes its case for being serviceable because it rides the wave of other crime dramas filling the screen with gloomy, overcast, and rain-drenched sequences. While watching it, you can almost sense that it does hold back just a little. This film doesn't take too many risks and it may not haunt you like it should (Villeneuve's direction is overly careful). But hey, it still gets by mainly because of its look and Gyllenhaal's icy magnitude. All in all, if you like crime thrillers that take their time and don't try to jerk you around with the camera, Prisoners might just set you "free".

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click HERE for Cole's Take on PRISONERS

ZODIAC

Jesse's Rating: ★★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★★

Director: David Fincher
Year: 2007

Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey, Jr.
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        In the wake of Jake Gyllenhaal's latest crime drama Prisoners (slated for a late September release), I thought I'd revisit one of his best films and, what is contending for my money, as his best overall performance. Now Gyllenhaal, in anything good or bad, puts his heart and soul into many a role. His performance, much like the movie I'm now reviewing, is a tour de force. Zodiac, also a crime drama, portrays him as political cartoonist turned novelist and would be detective Robert Graysmith. While watching Gyllenhaal on screen, you can see many faceted layers to his acting persona. He dives into the proceedings with a feeling of anxiousness, fear (fear of failure, that is), disciplined intensity, and earnestness. The members of the cast that fully accompany him are Mark Ruffalo (plays David Toschi, a proficient police detective with a noticeably high metabolism) and Robert Downey, Jr. (playing a burned out crime reporter who resorts to drugs and alcohol). They also are excellent in their roles and never miss a beat. Other members of the cast that filter in and out include Anthony Edwards, Elias Koteas, and Brian Cox.

        Being a highly dialogue driven movie, Zodiac brings together a lot of reputable actors to keep the film from being boring and repetitive. Its director, David Fincher, excels at dealing with flicks that involve what I like to call, "the violence of the mind". Like in his 1995 hit, Se7en, he'd rather show the aftermath and have you think about what you might have saw instead of having actually seen it. Zodiac is similar to Se7en for a portion of the totality. However, it does show some murders (only about three with much less gore), doesn't concentrate as much on the killer (leans more toward telling the story of the killer's pursuer, especially in the second half), and it provides a lot more detail/insight contained in its script by James Vanderbilt (he wrote The Rundown and Darkness Falls to name a few). Taking in its absorbing 2 and a half hour running time, you can tell that everyone involved wanted to get every last detail just right. As I have stated in previous reviews, putting a true story out on film means honoring the material as much as possible. After reading the background information about Zodiac and viewing it multiple times, I applaud Fincher and company for churning out this highly detailed, rather exhausting masterpiece.

        Playing like two different films in one (the first half is 1969 to 1972 and the obviously noted second half is 1976 to 1991) and showcasing a sort of underwhelming, drab sense of time and place (this is actually very effective), Zodiac depicts true events revolving around the San Francisco Bay Area serial murderer known as well, the "Zodiac" killer. From 1969 to 1972, this person is pursued extensively (partly by newspaper reporters and police inspectors) and eventually never brought to justice. Only a few years later does a nobody cartoonist (who is unbelievably infatuated with the case) reopen things on his own. He thereby threatens to wreck his marriage, fracture his health, worsen his family values, and even expose himself to the mysterious killer by going on TV. The reasoning for all this: he just wants to see the "Zodiac," look at him in the face, and know that he found the right person. Another reason: he feels that no one else cares or wants to capture the vigilant (it might make sense because too much time has passed, this person only killed a few people, and, in the last 5 years, San Francisco had over 200 murders).

       As I said earlier, Zodiac is all about detail. The timelines that are shown in small captions at the bottom of the screen state the date, the place, and even the exact time. Then there is the feel of this exercise. It's no doubt that Fincher's vision was his own but I was somehow reminded of 1976's All The Presidents Men. It's obvious that both films rely heavily on dialogue. And I guess they both sometimes take place in a newsroom. Are they similar in plot? Not really. But the sense of urgency in both pictures accompanied by the eerie musical score (coming in at rare intervals), made me believe that Fincher might have been a little influenced (subconsciously I suppose) by that 1976 Best Picture nominee.

        Anyway, Zodiac was released in early March of 2007. And although it didn't garner one single Academy Award nomination, I still consider it one of the 5 best films of said year. With keen, meticulous direction and dynamic acting from the leads, this vehicle sweeps you into its superior, linear narrative. It really puts the "true" into true story. Next to the similar, yet more gruesome Se7en and his other dialogue driven masterpiece being The Social Network, this is David Fincher's finest hour. Overall, Zodiac is a treasure and a sure "sign" of movie greatness.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: Bottom line: Zodiac is a masterpiece. The writing is flawless, the acting is terrifyingly well done, and the movie's aftermath is thought-provoking disturbance on the viewers mind. This is no slasher piece or dull biopic, but a genuine, bona fide tour de force brought to you by no other than the genius and gifted director David Fincher. Zodiac has a reserved spot on my top twenty films of all time list.

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

DARK BLUE

Jesse's Rating: ★★★★

Director: Ron Shelton
Year: 2002
Cast: Kurt Russell, Ving Rhames, Scott Speedman
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        I have always been a big Kurt Russell fan. He plays anti-heroes, bumbling superheroes, and the everyman character to perfection. Yet, until Dark Blue, I never saw him as a serious dramatic actor who could contend for, say, an Oscar. Now granted, Kurt didn't get nominated for his turn as a corrupt L.A.P.D. cop in the movie I'm writing this review on; but he should have. His performance has many more layers than what we're used to seeing from a once famed child actor. What can I say? As Sergeant Eldon Perry, he is flat out volcanic. Watching him on screen, you feel as if he's acting for his life. I was blown away. Not only is this his best performance ever, but the film outside of Russell, is fantastic as well. Its director, Ron Shelton (White Man Can't Jump, Tin Cup), is not known for shooting cop flicks. He's more your lessons-learned-through-sports movie guy. He does, however, in this exercise, know the darkest parts of L.A., and he knows how to get his actors to say what they mean and mean what they say. Let's be honest, going into the theater back in 2003, I didn't think a guy who played Elvis and a director who made Bull Durham could deliver a gritty, absorbing, and overwhelmingly solid cop thriller. I have to admit I was mistaken and pleasantly surprised at the same time.

        Now Dark Blue does come off as a little confusing in the first 10-15 minutes. But thereafter, it settles down to tell its story in a brilliant sort of way that an audience member can not think too hard and be massively entertained at the same time. Based on a short story by crime novelist James Ellroy, concerning the famous Rodney King trial, and serving as a backdrop to the L.A. riots of 1992, Dark Blue makes its case as a character study for Russell, his superior officer (commander Jack Van Meter played Brendan Gleeson who specializes in cold, heartless types), and his nervous young partner (detective Bobby Keough played by Underworld's Scott Speedman). Russell's character and Speedman's character take orders from Van Meter who, on the side, has two street thugs that regularly steal and murder for him (the murders aren't the main intention, it's about the money). In return, he lets them stay out of jail, therefore putting the burden of having said detectives (Keough and Perry) find, shoot, and arrest similar suspects who had nothing to do with the crimes. As the film carries on, Perry (Russell) along with Keough (Speedman) have epiphanies and start to question their overall motives. Meanwhile, assistant chief Arthur Holland (played by a powerfully gentle Ving Rhames) is trying to crack the whole internal investigation wide open and expose any corrupt doings within the department. 

        This is a smooth, intricately woven plot machine. As I viewed it for a second time, I was heavily reminded of 2001's Training Day. Both films are similar in their examination of the misguided, fallen nature of L.A.'s finest. In terms of the lead, Russell plays a sort of less nastier version of Denzel Washington's Alonzo Harris. Even the endings of these films seem sort of familiar. Both actors in each movie spout off soliloquies and speeches when their vehicles reach their conclusions. The difference with Dark Blue is that it's a lot less bloody and it deals more with moral issues minus the over-the-top gratuitous violence (just call it Training Day lite). Yes, Training Day is also very good. But "Blue" goes deeper and exhausts you as the viewer in different, more thought-provoking ways. 

        One of my favorite things I like to do as a critic is find motion pictures that are vastly underrated and painfully overlooked by other critics and the movie going public. Dark Blue may be one of the most underrated films I have ever seen. It came out at the wrong time of the year (March of 2003), wasn't marketed terribly well, and, as a result, tanked at the box office. The fact that it hasn't grown a mild cult following also has me scratching my head. Bottom line: If you haven't seen this masterpiece, please do so. It makes you question how police work gets done, it forecasts a harrowing sense of dread from the opening scene re-shown an hour and a half later, it has sequences in which Ron Shelton puts you right in the middle of L.A.'s terrifying South Central mind field, and it has Russell plowing his way through the movie like a bull in a china shop. All in all, Dark Blue is a gem, a revelation, and one "dark" film indeed.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

CLOCKERS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Spike Lee
Year: 1995
Cast: Harvey Keitel, Mekhi Phifer, Delroy Lindo
Genre: Crime/Drama/Mystery
MPAA Rating: R

        In the fall of 1995, I found myself in the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan (on a weekend leave from college) highly anticipating the newest Spike Lee film. Later that night, I viewed it in a large theater with possibly 20-25 screens. There were other action films, comedies, and dramas that I could have chosen from, but I had to see Lee's latest outing. He was a controversial director back then and still reins as one today. In the 90's, his films were a bit more mainstream than they are now. To me, they were like events. And after watching the trailer for Clockers, I knew I had to get to the multiplex right away (opening night was when I attended a screening). Slightly disjointed, messy at times, yet totally absorbing, Clockers remains one of Spike Lee's most interesting and most forceful cinematic feats. It holds a varied cast of actors known and unknown (I'm just speculating, but I think a lot of the people on screen were plucked off the street without any acting experience thus adding to the film's realism), a plethora of varied styles of directing, a fantastic opening credit sequence, and a massive need to get its message across. With most of Spike's films, you generally see a sort of sporadic narrative. Clockers has this but it still manages to be a solid helping from the Brooklyn-rooted director.

        Produced by legendary filmmaker Martin Scorsese and based on a novel of the same name by Richard Price (he wrote the screenplay as well), Clockers tells the story of a small-time drug dealer named Ronald "Strike" Dunham (played by Mekhi Phifer who, at the time, had never acted in a film before and got picked out of 1,000 people in an open casting call). He works with a bunch of other fellow dealers who are labeled "clockers" (they are basically 24 hour drug pushers). When "Strike"'s brother (Victor Dunham played by Isaiah Washington) is accused and confesses (in self defense) to murdering one of "Strike's" rival dealers working at a fast food restaurant, "Strike" is then somehow caught up in the whole investigation. He's pulled in different directions and has to take sides based on his relentless pursuers being a morally concerned cop (Rocco Klein played by Harvey Keitel who gives a Harvey Keitel-like performance) and a parasitic drug lord (Oscar caliber stuff from Delroy Lindo as Rodney Little). A couple of things to note about this film: the acting by the entire cast down to the bit players, the supporting players, and the leads is sensational in every way. Second: the drug solicitation scenes that are featured at various intervals are disturbingly real and authentic. As you view them, it feels less like you're watching a movie and more like you're experiencing real life as it happens.

        Registering at a running time of just over 2 hours, it's safe to say that there is a lot of movie to take in with Clockers. This vehicle is a character study, a drug flick, and a murder mystery all in one. You have a meaty script by Richard Price (he wrote The Color of Money and Ransom), a searing musical score from Terrence Blanchard (he's Lee's right hand man when it comes to musical scores), and an extremely dark-hued look from cinematographer Malik Hassan Sayeed. In essence, Spike Lee has every resource possible to flex his directorial wings. This, in my mind, is one of the strongest films he has made as a director. His technique is exuberant. You get a lot of slow motion scenes (set to music, of course), a shot that pans over the view of one of the film's most pivotal moments (a protective murder of a burnt out drug addict by a young boy), some solid jump cuts (at the beginning during one of the drug deals), and high energy flashbacks that are quick and to the point. A lot of the film's best sequences are not only set to Blanchard's score, but also to a mixed pop soundtrack with songs from Seal, Crooklyn Dodgers, Chaka Khan, and Rebelz of Authority.

        Clockers is a heavy urban crime drama with powerfully realized, individual scenes. It is, without a doubt, a solid interpretation of Lee's rather large body of work. He tries hard to be a good storyteller and sometimes slips a bit. But somehow, someway, he still gets the job done here. The film's last ten minutes, which feel subdued and project a bit of a relief from all the chaos that came before it, channel a feeling of radiant hope. This reassures the viewer that an exercise this depressing and melodic can still end on a positive note. With that said, Clockers, for me, was definitely worth a re-viewing. It's a Spike Lee Joint that "clocks in" as something I would wholeheartedly recommend. 

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: Spike Lee, who is known for his controversial and therefore ambitious filmmaking, made a film based whole-heartedly (there is not a shred of hesitance sensed here) in and about the "projects" and the trouble that ensues while growing up/living there in 1995. With a cast that lets us down not for one scene and a script that is accurate straight from the get go, the only thing that I have to complain about is how Lee tries to be too much of a storyteller when, in reality, he should exercise his ability to capture, well, reality (which he excels at). He really drives the point that crime doesn't pay home here, and at one point in the film, it becomes annoying and relatively unbearable. But when you have a fitted musical score, some applaud-worthy camerawork, a fundamentally good story, and a cast that really does some fine work, you get a good, classic piece of filmmaking like Clockers.

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".