Tag: Quick Thoughts

Quick Thoughts: ‘Dragged Across Concrete’ – ‘Triple Threat’ – ‘Us’

There’s a line in this film where someone says, “I’m in until I’m not,” and that more or less sums up my feelings on Craig Zahler’s Dragged Across Concrete. Much like the recent Destroyer, there’s a lot to love (literally a lot, as Concrete clocks in at over two-and-a-half hours), but it doesn’t quite stick the landing, which holds it back from being truly special.

Still, it’s got the best performance from Mel Gibson in quite some time, Vince Vaughn is nearly flawless as Gibson’s fellow detective, Tory Kittles shows off some range, and the rest of the cast is well up to the challenge.

Story-wise, it’s like a far bleaker Jackie Brown, but creatively I’d also compare it to Sorry to Bother You, in the sense of putting a lot of detail into a fictional world, and that both movies’ auteurs directed the films, wrote the screenplays, and co-wrote the music (though the reality of Sorry to Bother You is far more heightened).

I’ve not seen Craig Zahler’s other films, Bone Tomahawk and Brawl in Cell Block 99, but I knew going in that he has a propensity for grisly violence, which Concrete eventually gets to and will undoubtedly turn some people away, but in all honesty it wasn’t as much as I expected.

All-in-all, not a must-see theatrically, and not for everyone, but it’s a good slow-burn crime drama, if that’s your thing.

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)



People generally see martial arts movies to see martial arts, and from that perspective you can’t say Triple Threat doesn’t deliver.

I mean, when you’ve got a film starring Tony Jaa (Ong-Bak), Iko Uwais (The Raid), and Tiger Chen (part of the Kung-Fu team from The Matrix trilogy), you know you’re going to see some high-quality (and high-flying) fight choreography, and that alone is worth the rental fee. In particular, I enjoyed how they handled strength relative to size, which a lot of other martial arts movies treat with videogame physics, but Triple Threat somehow made it feel more grounded.

Unfortunately, there’s not much else to latch onto in terms of the story or acting, which holds the movie back in terms of comparisons to other offerings in the genre, but hey, it’s a movie by fight fans for fight fans, so I’m not going to sit here and hate on it too much.

Rating: ★★★☆☆



I have to confess, I missed out on the zeitgeist of Jordan Peele’s previous offering, Get Out. I caught up with it eventually at home and wasn’t that impressed, but I felt a little guilty about judging it without getting the full experience, so I made sure I went to see Us opening night in a packed theater.

And, well, I still wasn’t that impressed.

I’ll admit that perhaps Peele uses a cinematic language that I just don’t understand, but my problem with Get Out was that it tried to combine concepts that just didn’t work together for me, and I have a similar issue with Us (though I can’t really get into it without spoilers).

Now, I will say that there is a lot of cleverness in the screenplay in terms of set-ups and pay-offs, I can’t not praise the film for that, but it’s all more for little things, and I just couldn’t find the ultimate point of what the movie was going for, which is frustrating.

One last thing I’ll say though is that if you do decide to see Us, do your best to not have any preconceived notions about it in your mind, because I did (thanks Twitter…), and I would say that also hampered my experience.

Rating: ★★½ (out of five)

Quick Thoughts – July Mega-Post – ‘Mission: Impossible – Fallout’ ‘Sorry to Bother You’ ‘Skyscraper’ ‘The Equalizer 2’

Mission: Impossible – Fallout

My affinity for these movies is fairly well-documented, from the first one to the last one.

And why not?  After all, when the consensus “worst film” in your franchise is a John Woo guns-motorcycles-doves-knives spectacular, you know you’re doing something right.

A lot of that credit belongs to J.J. Abrams for resurrecting things in 2006 (and staying on as a producer ever since), which was perfect timing, because when the James Bond franchise zigged to more gritty and grounded, Mission: Impossible zagged to what classic Bond always was: a globetrotting, fun, high action, insane stunt-filled series.  The key difference is that where the Bond actors would step aside for a stuntman (or stunt driver, or stunt pilot), Tom Cruise, more often than not, gets in there and does these amazing feats himself, and Fallout is no different; so much so in fact that to me the movie played more like a Bond Greatest Hits album than a Mission: Impossible film, which is fine by me.

Hate him all you want for whatever reason you want, I choose to respect Tom Cruise for this: he was an action star at 27, and is still an action star at 57, and while this may be the last Mission: Impossible movie with him in the lead, it looks like he’ll be an action star for at least a few more years.

All that said, and it’s hard to put my finger on exactly why, the script for Fallout feels like a step back compared to the last two films (not to mention my boy Jeremy Renner feels conspicuously absent).  However, I will still give it four stars because the action and stunts are more than big-screen worthy, and because the movie does reward long-time fans (making reference all the way back to the first, and yes, second one).

Rating: ★★★★☆

 

Sorry to Bother You

Often times, when I find myself having to sit through a movie’s trailer dozens upon dozens of times (*COUGH*EighthGrade*COUGH*), I become resentful and refuse to see it on the principle of how annoyed I am, but in the case of Sorry to Bother You, I was always looking forward to it, just because it looked so refreshingly original, which it most definitely is.

In fact, not only is it an original script from writer/director Boots Riley, he also contributed a number of songs to the film’s soundtrack with his band, The Coup, so the whole project has a real homegrown vibe to it (but in a good way, not a crappy student film way).

Fair warning, the third act goes off the rails, which will divide people, but in terms of comedies with social commentary and satire, it’s the best I’ve seen since Ingrid Goes West (though the style of much of the satire is akin to the original Robocop, which, again, is a good thing).

It’s definitely not a movie for kids, and I’m sure it’ll piss some people off, but I enjoyed it and would absolutely recommend it to adults with brains.

Rating: ★★★★☆

 

Skyscraper

I know I’m not making a revelatory statement when I say that this movie is like if Die Hard and The Towering Inferno had a baby in Hong Kong.

In fact, it’s safe to say that not only do most people going to see this already know that, but the movie knows that they know that, and therefore delivers exactly that.

What I’m trying to say here is that the movie knows what it is: a fairly mindless yet relatively satisfying piece of popcorn entertainment.  Is it dumb?  Yes.  Is it as dumb as it could be?  No, and I appreciate that.

It’s nothing special, and you’re either on board or you’re not, but if you are, you’ll have a good time (and I even noticed and liked some of the music, which feels so rare these days).

Rating: ★★★½

 

The Equalizer 2

Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m starting to get the sense that Antoine Fuqua is not a great action director, because though I think these movies are okay (largely because Denzel is Denzel), I have issues with both that hold me back from enjoying them as much as I theoretically think I should.

My major problem with the first one was I felt the “badassness” was way overwrought, and I thought the movie would have been better served by underplaying it a bit; but I guess be careful what I wish for, because the sequel swings the pendulum hard the other way, but overall I didn’t find the story as interesting as its predecessor, so, I don’t know.

There are some satisfying moments and plotlines, and I really can’t hate on the slower pace (and the James Bond-esque cold open was kind of nice), but, I can’t say I’ll be all that disappointed if they never announce an Equalizer 3.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Classic Movie Quinella – ‘RussellMania’: The Kurt Russell Marathon – Land of the Free

Another Super Bowl Saturday, another actor marathon at Alamo Drafthouse Yonkers: Caged, Stallone Zone, Van Dammage, Burt Day, ‘HEY, ARNOLD!‘, and now, RussellMania 2018.

I had sky high hopes for this one, but for the first time in attending these events, I actually left fairly disappointed.  Don’t get me wrong, I love Kurt Russell, I love my new hat, and I got to see four movies I had never seen before (which I do place a certain value on), but overall it just wasn’t quite the same enjoyable ride I’ve become accustomed to over the past five years.

The man himself needs no introduction though, so let’s get into these movies.

 

Movie #1: Tango & Cash (1989)

Right off the bat, I was wrong.

Seeing as how this film lead off Stallone Zone (click the link to read the Tango & Cash review), I figured there was no way we’d see it again here, but, as I said, I was wrong.

I will say, it was interesting watching it again as a Kurt Russell movie rather than a Stallone movie, but I don’t really have anything more to say now than I did in 2014.

Rating: ★★★★☆

 

Movie #2: Breakdown (1997)

I remember my cousin putting this on once at my aunt and uncle’s house, probably around the time it first hit DVD (which was technology beyond my imagination at the time), only I don’t think I watched past the first half hour or so, so I never realized until seeing it on the big screen that Breakdown turns into an action movie by the end (spoilers?).

Before that though, the movie feels extremely Hitchcockian, so much so that you could believe it’s a remake of something Hitch actually made (though to my knowledge it is not and I’ll happily give full credit to writer/director Jonathan Mostow).  The story’s simple enough (I’d actually make a gentle comparison to The Belko Experiment, just in terms of imagining yourself in the same situation), and it doesn’t fall into the trap of becoming too twisty, which I appreciated.

Ultimately, it comes down to personal taste as to whether or not the third act works for you.  I’m okay with it, but I understand others feeling somewhat betrayed by it.

Either way though, I’d still say it’s solid.

Rating: ★★★½

 

Movie #3: Used Cars (1980)

Before Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale made one of the greatest movies of all time (review here), they had a string of less successful endeavors (I Wanna Hold Your Hand, 1941), culminating with 1980’s Used Cars (although they did write one of my favorite episodes of Kolchak: The Night Stalker).

Used Cars isn’t great, and its definitely a touch bloated, but it’s not without its charms.  For one thing, it’s Kurt’s first R-rated performance, which is interesting to see at odds with his still-lingering Disney good guy persona, and it’s got Jack Warden doing some classic one-actor-playing-twin-brothers schtick, and a good amount of the satirical humor still holds up today.

It also hearkens back to a time when comedy wasn’t strictly a bargain basement genre and studios weren’t afraid to throw in a little more production value when necessary, even for an non-family friendly comedy.

Not everybody will fully enjoy Used Cars because it’s such a product of its time, but for me, that’s why I found it interesting and why I’d give it another watch someday.

Rating: ★★★½

 

Movie #4: Executive Decision (1996)

Speaking of the kinds of movies that don’t get made anymore, let’s talk Executive Decision (which is one I was hoping for, for better or worse).

Stuff like this just has a certain je ne sais quoi that feels missing from Hollywood of the present (the fact that it was made pre-9/11 definitely has something to do with that).  It’s not like we have a dearth of action movies these days, but Executive Decision takes itself seriously in both story and tone where a movie today would have a wink and a nod (it’s no surprise that the last similar example I can think of, Behind Enemy Lines, was also a story by Jim and John Thomas).

I think it’s fair to say that Kurt plays against type here, at least relative to the “action man” roles he was known for at the time, but, even in a lame tuxedo and nerdy spectacles, he’s still cooler than we could ever dream of being.

“All-star cast” may be a stretch (it’s no Airport ’77), but, at the time, Executive Decision certainly had a mix of experienced pros and hot up-and-comers (most notably Halle Berry).  Given that it’s a 90s action movie, I’ll say everyone does a fine job.

That said, let’s call it what it is, “Die Hard on a plane.”

Still worth a watch though, just get comfortable.

Rating: ★★★½

 

Movie #5: Escape from L.A. (1996)

This is not how I wanted the day to end.

I don’t want to merely compare this movie to Escape from New York, but I don’t think it leaves you with much of a choice.

Honestly, Escape from L.A. is depressingly bad in comparison to its predecessor.  New York was a low-budget underdog that managed to find an audience and punch a bit above its weight class.  It stands on its reputation more so than its actual quality, but at the same time it was a fairly progressive movie in terms of film-making, what with the use of the Panaglide (an early “cousin” of the Steadicam) and new techniques that allowed Dean Cundey to shoot many city blocks deep using only streetlamps for lighting; not to mention how the film allowed Kurt Russell to truly pivot away from his Disney comedy roots.

On the other hand, L.A. is essentially The Asylum version of New York, with a copy-and-paste script, horrendous CGI effects, and terribly cheesy performances.  In fact, the only element you can point to as being better than the original is the fact that they shot a scene at the real L.A. Coliseum, but the movie is still so terrible that it doesn’t even matter.

Escape from L.A. is awful, it was rightfully a box office bomb, and if you truly love Escape from New York, you should never ever watch it.

Rating: ★☆☆☆☆

 

So, there you have it.  Not the best day, but definitely not all bad.  Just kind of middling, and therefore not what I expected given Kurt’s body of work.

I guess they can’t all be winners.

 

This hat though, this hat is a winner.

Quick Thoughts – March Mega-Post – ‘Isle of Dogs’ ‘The Death of Stalin’ ‘Unsane’ ‘Red Sparrow’ ‘Thoroughbreds’

Isle of Dogs (2018)

Some people will probably call me crazy (in addition to “rich, white, and bored”) for giving this movie a perfect score, but, what can I say?  I enjoyed it from end to end and will probably go see it again to pick out things I missed the first time (and maybe again after that).

I was a bit skeptical that Isle of Dogs would be worth the wait (the four years since The Grand Budapest Hotel is the longest gap between Wes Anderson features), but that notion was quickly put to bed.  Every frame of the film is a rich feast for the eyes (which is logical given the time intensity of stop-motion animation), and every performance is a joy to listen to (regardless of your ability to understand all of them at all times).

It’s a simple enough story about a boy and his dog, and whatever influences it has are certainly worn on its sleeve, but somehow the movie still manages to feel original.

I’m on record as saying that I don’t get hyped up for the Oscars anymore, which is still true, but, I will say that if Isle of Dogs doesn’t win Best Animated Feature next year, it’ll be a travesty (although, if I’m being really honest, I’d like to see it as a Best Picture nominee, but then again I don’t really care about the Oscars).

It’s heartfelt, it’s funny, but, mostly, it’s pure movie magic if I’ve ever seen it.

Rating: ★★★★★

 

The Death of Stalin (2017)

As you might guess by its title, The Death of Stalin (based on the French graphic novel of the same name) is about…the death of Stalin, and the power struggle in the immediate aftermath.  What you might not guess is that it’s not some hoity toity political drama, but rather every major player is portrayed to be petty and foolish, if not downright stupid.

This is all thanks to writer/director Armando Iannucci (don’t be fooled by the name, kids; he’s Scottish, like Peter Capaldi), whose work I’m vaguely familiar with.  I’ve seen In the Loop and an episode or two of Veep, so I know his political-satire-as-dark-comedy style.  You might not think it would work for Soviet Russia, but I thought it was fantastic.

One of the greater purposes of humor is that it allows us to process the unpalatable in a way that leaves us with our sanity intact, which is precisely what this film does.  It uses satire and farcical comedy to demonstrate the extreme absurdity of the totalitarian regime of Stalin and his cohorts.  Certain critics have found this clash to be in poor taste, or simply unfunny, but I think this film makes its point rather eloquently, and the performances from Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale in particular help bolster it even more so.

Honestly, the only element I’m really taking points off for is some digital night shooting that took me out of the movie, and a few bits of humor didn’t quite work for me (that’ll happen in a comedy), but other than that, it’s hard to ask for more than what The Death of Stalin delivered.

Rating: ★★★★½

 

Unsane (2018)

Right off the bat, I’ll say this is a great example of a 21st Century Hitchcockian Thriller.

The story is horrifyingly plausible (credit to screenwriters Jonathan Bernstein and James Greer), the performances are believable (kudos to Claire Foy and Jay Pharaoh), and the movie fills you with an utter sense of dread that would make Brian De Palma proud.

There’s really just one problem.  The film was shot on an iPhone.

I don’t know if this was done purely as an experiment, or strictly to keep production costs down, or what, but I can tell you that it doesn’t appear to be a thematic choice.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like the whole movie is ruined because of this, I just think it would be to the movie’s benefit to look (and sound) like a movie, and there are moments when you are painfully aware that this was done on a phone and not something more substantial.

It’s a fine film, I’ll be happy to watch it again in the future, but it’s difficult for me to say it’s a must-see on the big screen, and I wish that wasn’t the case.

Rating: ★★★½

 

Red Sparrow (2018)

There’s a fairly popular notion regarding espionage these days that we don’t even need spies anymore because everything can be done by computer, and the response to this in media has largely been to equip fictional spies (both regular and super) with more and more technology, regardless of how cartoonish it seems.

The major reason why I enjoyed Red Sparrow so much is that it completely ignores this erroneous line of thinking, and brings spycraft back to the same old game it’s always been: psychology.

In short, Red Sparrow feels like a throwback in the best way, without feeling obsolete (definitely le Carré-esque, if you were wondering).  Apparently some people have found some of the more “adult” elements to be rather shocking (which is kind of shocking to me because I didn’t think people were shocked by anything anymore, at least when it comes to movies), but I didn’t feel that it was exploitative relative to the story being told.

This film is a slow burner with some action, but no action for action’s sake, which may not be enough for some people, but I appreciated how grounded it was.

Not for everyone, but it’s not the trash you may have heard it is.

Rating: ★★★★☆

 

Thoroughbreds (2017)

Of all the movies in this post, this was probably the one I was the most let down by, and that’s not even saying it’s bad.

Thoroughbreds is a fine film on every level, but it’s tough for me to say there’s anything particularly special about it (which is kind of sad given that it’s Anton Yelchin’s final film performance, but what are you going to do?).

Of the two leads, I give the edge to Olivia Cooke in terms of her performance, and the story at least feels somewhat original, but in the end I’m left feeling like the movie is in the shallows rather than the deep end where it should be.

Worth seeing once, but far from a must-see.

Rating: ★★★☆☆