Flight

I love movies that seem impossible but have "Based on true events" at the beginning of the film.  Like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre- how on earth is that based on true events.  Flight has the same effect.  It raises the question, is it even possible to turn a commercial airliner upside down and fly it so for several minutes?

Well for starters this story is loosely based on terrifying stories of drunk pilots who project sob stories while they put thousands of lives at risk.  The "true" part only refers to pilots who have flown drunk and a loose connection with one particular alcoholic pilot who fought his addiction after he was imprisoned for flying intoxicated.  The incredible flight at the beginning of the movie in which Denzel Washington turns the commercial airliner upside down to keep it from crashing out of the sky never happened.

The first 45 minutes of the film was incredible.  Denzel's character while flawed, does something so incredible you forget how bad of a person he is.  After saving almost everyone on board, Denzel goes into hiding and struggles to fight his alcoholism   Denzel Washington's performance was absolutely incredible.  Not surprising- its what we have come to expect from the talented actor.  His performances always leave you feeling strongly one way or another about his character.  John Goodman's character was also quite entertaining.  However about half way through the movie, Denzel's character takes a bad turn and the character reverts back to his drinking habits.  The movie at this point seems to drag a little.  The momentum really slows down and you are really just waiting for the ending.

There were some subtle faith aspects to this film which I also thought was interesting.  The overarching question seemed to be was the issue that brought down the plane an act of God, was it God that gave Denzel the power to do something no other pilot alive could have done- drunk or sober, or was it simply the fact that Denzel was a remarkable pilot?  It always seems to me that faith really is a strong factor in flight whether you pray before take off, pray as you crash to the ground, or ask why God would do such a thing after a horrific crash.

Overall the film was good.  Denzel definitely deserves a nod for an Oscar however there are other actors that beat him this time around (more on that soon!).  While the flight catastrophe was impressive on the big screen, I don't see any reason not to wait for dvd.  Its worth a watch if only for Washington's excellent performance.  I give the film overall 2.5 stars though.

Movie poster from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1907668/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Halloween Movies!

Check out my Halloween movie page to the right side!  I review some of the Halloween movies I am watching this month and let you know what will have you sleeping with the lights on and what are just downright ridiculous and an affront to film making.  The reviews will be short by highlight some classics like Poltergeist, Halloween, Friday the 13th and more!



Movie poster from: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7leGWc6cXVYPpz2agZSiPNBHcy-BOChj-03OVE_Bzb6jaQ2YmnU9SNndyedN4B8YCgvHALB6h82zJCO7QehbC6CDYrU5xi6iwumjMOuWxJAEN1XF0b0EkQj12OMWZNAijRBgXQUZ09r5m/s1600/trick_r_treat_poster-425x578.jpg

Looper

Looper is currently being hailed by some as the time travel movie that redefines time travel movies.  Since opening last week it has taken over the #1 spot in the box office and has over a 90% ranking on  Rotten Tomatoes  But is it that good?

Looper does have an interesting and new take on time travel.  Jeff Daniels says it best, "This time travel crap, it fries your brain like an egg".  Very true.  Trying to understand a time travel movie and the mechanics and reality behind it is almost as exhausting as creating the world, rules, and consequences.  Really Rian Johnson probably deserves the most credit out of the whole cast and crew for being able to not only direct this movie, but also write a movie that, in my opinion, has very few holes and does a great job explaining the physics of a world where time travel is possible.  Rian Johnson really hasn't done anything else other than write and direct a little known movie, The Brothers Bloom, and direct a few episodes of Breaking Bad.  But this movie underscores his potential as both a writer and director.

Looper is about a future in which time travel has been invented but outlawed.  The most dangerous mobs in the future use it now to dispose of people they want dead.  Apparently in the future, murder is much more difficult to get away with due to an advanced tracking system.  So the mob sends the victim back to the past where they have an assassin, or Looper waiting to kill them.  Sometimes when the mob sees fit, they want to seperate themselves from their current Looper.  They do this by sending back the Looper's future self, and the Looper kills themself from the future, effectively closing the loop.  They are paid very well and then have the next 30 years to enjoy life before the mob kidnaps them, sends them back to the past and they get killed.  Confused?  Yeah, its a movie you have to see.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, a top-notch Looper who one day is forced to close his loop when his future self appears as the target played by Bruce Willis.  Future Joe has come back on purpose to the past to change the past and prevent his loop from being closed.  The two then embark on a mission from opposite ends and different goals which is weird since they are the same person.

While the story was great and the action was good, my one flaw I felt the movie had was the makeup on Levitt. I feel like they used a lot of makeup and prosthetics to make him look more like Bruce Willis.  It was weird to kind of see a familiar face but then not.  I don't feel like any of the changes they made to Levitt's face really made him look more like Bruce Willis, other than contacts to change his eye color. And sometimes I felt like the makeup was harsher than other times. Another words it wasn't consistent the way he looked in every scene. I feel like they could have left that out and it would have been better.

Overall I really liked the movie.  I think it was great and different and entertaining.  I do not think it revolutionizes time travel movies though like Terminator, Bill and Ted's, 12 Monkeys, or Back to the Future did.  But I do think it was a fresh take and well done. I give the film 4 stars and definitely recommend taking a look at it in theaters.



Movie Poster from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276104/

Lawless

Lawless is the true story of the Bondurant boys who were legends in the bootlegging business in Franklin County Virginia.  The story follows the three Bondurant brothers who could not be more different.  The leader of their group, Forrest Bondurant played by Tom Hardy, was a simple minded, brutal but quiet, businessman.  The middle brother, Howard played by Jason Clarke, was addicted to his own product- the crazy alcoholic.  And the youngest brother, Jack played by Shia Lebeouf is the dreamer that romanticizes everything about their lives but is harmless and shy's away from violence.

The story revolves around these three brothers trying to continue their illegal operation after a special deputy, Guy Pierce, shows up to take his share of all bootlegging operations or shut them down.  Forrest is the only bootlegger who stands up to this insanely violent government official.

This was a great movie with some great acting.  I think this continues to prove Tom Hardy can be Bane, an architect for dreams, or a 1920's bootlegger whose life becomes a legend.  Shia Lebouf also did very well.  Gary Oldman's character of Floyd Banner was great however he did not seem to play much of a role in the movie.  I was surprised that such a big actor would really only have 2 scenes that could have easily been edited out.

I also found it very interesting that the novel this movie was based on was written by Matt Bondurant, the grandson of Jack Bondurant.  It lent a sense or truth to the movie even in it's most outlandish scenes.  The movie was great and very entertaining, but be forewarned- extremely violent!  It's one of those movies that does not need to be so violent and at times it is very disturbing and difficult to watch.  While the movie was incredible, it does remind me of how movies used to simply put the idea of violence in our head and let our imagination go as far as we felt comfortable going.  That may sound weird but I feel like such extreme violence simply targets shock factor which takes away the incredible talent of the actors, writers, director, and the incredible story being told.

Overall I really liked Lawless and would definitely recommend seeing it.  It's one that doesn't need to be seen on the big screen but I would still recommend checking it out in theaters if you can.  Based on the story and acting I give the film 4 stars out of 5.




Movie poster from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1212450/

Total Recall (2012)

Colin Farrell, Jessica Alba, Kate Beckinsale, and Bryan Cranston all star in the new remake of Total Recall.  After watching the original 1990 version with Arnold Schwarzenegger, I have to say it does not stand the test of time.  What used to be a decent sci-fi flick is actually quite bad when watching it now.  The new Total Recall will probably have the same effect in 20 years.

The new Total Recall was very entertaining and action packed.  The story is similar but not exactly the same.  Colin Farrell plays a factory worker who is bored and unhappy with his life (even though married to the incredible Kate Beckinsale).  He goes to an underground place called Recall which implants memories into their clients brains so they can experience things they may have not been able to do in their real lives.  He chooses a super spy program with excitement, betrayal, and action.  However after the program, it becomes unclear to him whether he is still in the program or if he really was a spy before in his real life.

The one real surprise for me was how great Bryan Cranston was as the villain.  For me Cranston will always be associated with Malcolm in the Middle.  But after seeing his character here I am sold on him being a late comer to the big show.  For those of you already watching Breaking Bad, you know how great of an actor he can be.  I will definitely start watching this show now to see more of his brilliant work.

As I said the action and special effects were entertaining.  While this is certainly not the best movie of the summer, it was fun to watch.  Nothing was so big and over the top I would say you have to see it in theaters.  But when you are at home wanting to watch a good action flick, this definitely fits the bill.  I give this movie 3 stars out of 5.

The Bourne Legacy

The Bourne Legacy is the fourth installment in the Jason Bourne series and the first one replacing Matt Damon with Jeremy Renner.  Renner plays Aaron Cross, another, more advanced version of Jason Bourne that was a product of the Treadstone project.  As Edward Norton starts to shut down the entire program from the top to bottom, Renner and the scientist that developed the genetic enhancements on him, go on the run fighting to find out who was behind the shut down and find a way into hiding.

While all three of the Matt Damon Bourne movies were good, I really started seeing flaws in each one after the first one and really haven't thoroughly enjoyed one since the Bourne Identity.  The Bourne Legacy is an even further departure from the novels and while Aaron Cross is the main character, it is actually a cover name for Jason Bourne, not a totally different person as in the movie.

This movie had 3 major problems which made it by far the worst in the series.  1) The script.  The script  was not good and did not allow the audience to really witness impressing performances from the main acting team.  It further failed with too much technical jargon.  The story and entire "Bourne" process was totally changed and therefore needed way too much explanation for a 4th installment.  A lot of the explanation was incredibly scientific so that 99% of the audience seeing this movie probably did not understand any of the science behind this whole story.  I am not someone who thinks movies or scripts should be dumbed down for the audience but can indeed actually educate the audience.  But in this instance, we just needed an incredible action movie.

2) This was not an action movie.  There was action, but none of it overly impressive.  Matt Damon's character had some incredible fight scenes that just was incredible to watch.  This movie did not have anything overly impressive.  Some fight scenes were cool, but nothing fantastic.  Jeremy Renner was impressive as the character and did well.  But based on script and directing, he did not have the chance to really become "Bourne".  Even the final chase sequence was not overly exciting.

3) It seemed to really have an end.  Each of the other Bourne movies left the end open for a next installment.  While they all stood on their own and could have ended at any point, I felt that this one had a definite ending which kind of stops the story.

While this was not a good Bourne movie, it wasn't horrible- it just could have been a lot better.  I hope Universal does not stop with this 4th one as the final Bourne movie.  I feel like if they go back to the original story and build off that, it could continue as a lucrative franchise.  I give it 3 out of 5 stars.  I would recommend checking this out on DVD.  Its entertaining and if you enjoyed the first 3 Bourne movies, this will be entertaining as long as you realize, its only loosely a Bourne movie.

Drive

So I missed the boat on this movie.  Drive came out last year featuring Ryan Gosling, Bryan Cranston, Albert Brooks, and Ron Perlman.  When it came out, people went crazy over it and commented on how great of a movie it was.  Incredibly violent but in a very indie, quiet way.  While this was not the film that really launched Ryan Gosling's career (girls still oogle over him from The Notebook), but it was his first movie that solidified him as a interesting action hero that could act, kick butt, and look good.
As I said, I somehow missed this movie and while it has been on my list of movies to see, I just now got around to it.  It was not my favorite.  I think the hype definitely does not match the film.  The story revolves around a driver (Ryan Gosling- nameless) who is paid to be the getaway driver for thieves, robbers, and all around bad guys.  He befriends a woman next door whose husband gets sucked in for "one last job".  Ryan's character decides to help by being his getaway driver but through a web of deceit and double crossing gets caught up in a pretty sticky situation with some of the highest elite criminals.
The story was very unique but the film just seemed a little too independent.  There were times that the movie was so slow and I just lost interest.  I also did not find any of the actors all that likeable.  Even Ryan's character seemed very distant and one dimensional.  I did not feel involved in any of the character's development or problems.
Not a bad movie, but I had just been told to expect so much more.  Maybe this rare, bad review of the movie will allow others to enjoy it more than I did.  I give the movie 2.5 stars out of 5.  So many people talked about this movie which is why I watched it, but I definitely could have saved my time and watched something better.