Priest

priestrating-2.5Priest wasn't really a movie I expected much from; it had a good cast and looked like the type of thing I could have found interesting, but I just didn't have any faith that it was going to work out. Then, of course, there were all the people who talked endlessly about how terrible it was.

I don't care whether or not it represented the comic well, as I've never read it and have no interest in doing so. The only metric that's going to matter to me is whether or not I'm intrigued, entertained, or enjoy the film. In that regard, it was better than expected, especially given how negative everything I'd heard was.

That's not to say it was a great film. The movie suffered from feeling a bit scattered and... well, small. My girlfriend went so far as to say that nothing happened during the movie; it wasn't so much that nothing happened as what did happen was very straightforward. Point A moved to point B which moved to point C and ended at point D. There was the requisite killing of vampires. There was some action. Paul Bettany looked like a badass. Maggie Q looked like a badass. Cam Gigandet was, surprisingly, non-douchey. Karl Urban was villanous in a two-dimensional but not scene-chew-y sort of way. Several good actors appear in minor roles. Somehow, director Scott Charles Stewart gets really decent actors to line up to work with him... Perhaps it's his connections from his visual effect days, but Legion was nothing to write home about (so I doubt his previous work is drawing them in). In large part Legion's problems had to do with the script and, again, that's the case here with Priest. Legion had a crap ending and not enough plot and Priest maintained a baseline throughout, never really moving outside of its comfort zone.

The technology and environment of the film with its desert vistas, Wild West ghost towns, and futuristic dystopian cities make for a very different sci-fi action movie experience. And the motorcycle and vampire designs were both pretty cool. It was a definitely different take on vampires, if nothing else.

It's a shame that a visually-appealing movie with good actors can't find enough story to actually become something worthwhile, but I don't regret watching it. It was an amusing trifle, but it's not something I'll come back to again.

imdb   amazon

X-Men: First Class

rating-3.5x-men-first-classI have to admit that I grew up reading X-Men; it will undoubtedly color my entire perception of the movie series and, ultimately, view it more negatively than it would if I had never read the comics. The fact that I haven't read comics since the early 90's doesn't seem to matter, as all the comic movies seem to mine the time period before I stopped reading for their films. It may be the fact that those were the only truly good years of the X-Men that they feel the need to constantly go back to the 80's Claremont well for their material.

The X-Men films have never truly satisfied me. I know the characters and situations well and the movies never did a particularly good job of handling the characters and giving them a plot that brought everything together in a completely coherent way. Though there are moments of real enjoyability, they're only moments. One might think that my familiarity is breeding contempt, but I'm almost as familiar with the whole Marvel milieu and I intensely enjoyed Iron Man (and its sequel), Thor, Hulk, Captain America, and, to a lesser extent, Incredible Hulk. I hated the Spider-Man movies, as they were really shitty, but X-Men, for all it did do well, just didn't sit right with me. It was probably the fact that, if you strip away the flashy looks and big actors, the scripts just weren't that good. And the X-Men were never a team until The Last Stand, the most-hated of the series for the majority of people, but at least they didn't split up Scooby-Doo-style like they did at the end of X2.

Given how much they'd beat the same characters to death over those first three movies (Magneto got way too much use, as if they don't have a good rogue's gallery of villains to choose from), I was disappointed that their logical continuity sucked. If you expected this movie to make rational sense in concordance with the previous films, then you'll be unhappy if you start thinking about it too much. All of a sudden Mystique, who couldn't have cared less about Charles Xavier in the previous films, was more or less his adoptive sister for most of his formative years. Many of the characterizations don't seem to fit with that's already established.

But about the actual movie... A problem with the writing of this entry, aside from nothing particularly interesting happening, a weak plot, and silly use of a concept as interesting as the Hellfire Club, is the fact that they're basically back to square one and this is another damned origin movie, where the setup ends up eating all the running time of the film and the plot takes a back seat. Adding to this the weak background cast, with a bunch of stupid characters (like Angel... who the fuck came up with that chick?) and ones that felt mismanged with total indifference (like Havok).

As for the rest of it, the direction was the best of the series; Matthew Vaughn never seems to take a misstep when it comes to filmmaking and the style is great, even with the 60's retro-ness permeating the film. The acting is also top-notch (despite most people's complaints about January Jones, who wasn't terrible), though I question the need for the number of people they threw into the mix.Jennifer Lawrence was totally new to me, but I was impressed with how she managed to play the petulant, silly Mystique, despite how obvious the plot beats were. McEvoy and Fassbender were top-notch and Kevin Bacon really managed to surprise with his performance. Perhaps Mr. Bacon needs to take these kinds of roles more often, because it's become too easy to forget what a good actor he actually is, as rarely as i seem to see him anymore. Despite the fact that I think tossing Moira MacTaggert in as a CIA agent (the woman is a doctor and Nobel prize-winning scientist, for fuck's sake; why turn her into a spy?) was exceptionally dim-witted, I appreciated getting to see more of Rose Byrne, who I never seem to tire of in any role. It is a good cast, all-around, and they seemed to have fun together, making it fun to watch. Even still, that wasn't enoughto completely please me.

I was stuck spending most of the movie waiting for them to start tidying up the messy plot, which only seemed to be written the way that it was to make as many comic-related things happen as possible, never stoppng to ask if they were even right for the movie. The setpieces felt almost predestined and the actions around them served only to set them up. If I were to write this movie, it's definitely not at all the tack I would have taken.

Many will prfer this version of the X-Men, having no connection to the comics, as they find it humanizes the characters. That's fine and good, though I would have a hard time believing that anyone would like it better than the more fun, more interesting movies that Marvel is producing themselves. It makes me wish that they would just get the rights back from Fox so that the X-Men could be the proper X-Men again and that all the movies could tie back together. Maybe someday, but for now we've got to hope that they've learned something from this movie and that the next film won't be another Wolverine. Still, it was a good enough film to warrant viewing.

imdb   amazon

Hanna

hannarating-4.0Hanna is an odd combination of action movie and art film, seamlessly bouncing between calm pastoral moments and Bourne-style fight scenes. Saoirse Ronan plays the titular heroine, a teenage assassin sent to kill the woman responsible for the death of her mother. Eric Bana plays the man that raised her and trained her to be a perfect killing machine in the desolation of the harsh Scandinavian wilderness, without any of the amenities that we in modern society are accustomed to. Most of the movie takes place as Hanna wends her way through the world, confused and unable to completely comprehend minor social interactions and things as simple as light switches. In the moments between Hanna killing her persuers, we see the wide-eyed innocence of a young girl in an alien world.

It's a beautiful-looking film with interesting techniques, often accompanied by a strange but somehow fitting electronic soundtrack. The acting is excellent; Ronan plays the role of Hanna better than most adults could. Rarely have I see any child actor play anything as well as this. Bana and Cate Blanchett give some star power to the cast and Jason Flemyng and Olivia Williams round it out with minor roles. I can't think of any problems with the choice of cast or crew working on this film.

The one failing of the movie that takes it down the notch from "great" to "good" is its somewhat-sloppy and less-than-satisfying writing. It would be hard to complain specifically without spoiling the movie, but let it be said that I could write an essay of what the script does wrong in its final third. The intelligent, inquisitive and ruthless Hanna makes several strange decisions and suddenly turns into a nervous, self-aware and petulant teenager, despite the fact that this defies all logic. She allows people she's been shown to love to be hurt, runs when she could easily kill her attackers, and shows none of the tactical intellect and quick thinking that she showed in an extended setpiece toward the story's beginning. The complete change in tone and outright stupid choices in writing soured the entire end of the film. What could have been a truly great picture was diminished by the sloppiness of the plot.

Still, as sloppy as it is, it's hard not to recommend the film, as it's an experience that I don't think I've seen in film, combining the visceral with the innocent. It's both an excellent action piece and a strange coming-of-age story all tied up with the verve of an art house film.

imdb   amazon

Colombiana

rating-3.5colombianaI have to admit that I'm kind of a sucker for a Luc Besson/Robert Mark Kamen film. They're usually not the brightest movies, but they're pretty much always action-y fun. If you ignore Kamen's work on the Karate Kid films, there's a pretty decent body of work between them: The Fifth Element, Taken, the Transporter movies, Unleashed, District B13, The Professional, La Femme Nikita... None are Oscar material or will live on for eternity as an artistic statement, but they all aim to entertain and give something back to an action genre that has become cliched and stale.

Colombiana, for its part, tries to fit easily amongst all of the previously-listed films. Perhaps it fits a little too easily, lacking a bit of the invention or excitement of many of those films. Coming only a short time after Taken, a nearly perfect epic of revenge-meets-spycraft film that doesn't skimp on detail or try to add a glossy unrealistic sheen to the story, Colombiana feels slightly hollow, short on plot, and a little too feel-good by its ending.

Still, there's plenty to enjoy about the movie. Zoe Saldana commits well to the action and the character. Often actresses seem to be unable to appreciate a physical performance while maintaining any acting nuance; Saldana manages to run the gamut emotionally while seeming powerful, despite the fact that she looks malnourished in her tiny shorts and body-hugging catsuits. Perhaps the movie doesn't find the perfect balance to allow Saldana to show emotion and character and then have action sequences and assassinations. The opening flashback to her character's childhood is paced perfectly, as is its follow-up in a prison where her character pulls off an assassination that would make Agent 47 proud. But, as her daily life between jobs, her family relationships, and her inability to connect with others in any deep or meaningful way becomes the focus, the film loses momentum. Personal entanglements lead to her being chased by both the FBI and criminals that want her dead. The revenge plot at the center of the movie becomes muddied by extranious characters and relationships, though the film is ultimately saved by the action setpieces leading up to its climax.

Perhaps it's not as satisfying or perfect a film as it should be, but in comparison to the less-serious action fare of the Transporter films or District B13 movies, it stands as a decent, well-made movie. At its heart is an action film and those looking for more will undoubtedly come away displeased, but for those who just want some good ass-kicking and explosions, Colombiana fills the void nicely until the next Taken comes along.

imdb   amazon

Drag Me To Hell

drag_me_to_hellrating-1.0Remember the one where the guy crosses the gypsy and gets cursed, horrible shit happening to him throughout the stupid fucking movie, labelled inappropriately as "horror", as the gypsy's curse wreaks havoc across his life? Yeah, I didn't watch Thinner either, but it was a roundly stupid idea, even for a fucking Stephen King adaptation.

You, like I, probably said to yourself "The day of the gypsy movie, much less the idea of gypsy curses in movies, is over and we'll never have to see this shit again." Apparently Sam Raimi, hack douchefuck that he is, didn't get the memo. Floating on all the undeserved credit of nerd love for the mediocre old saws, the Evil Dead movies, and the bland and ever-more-stupid Spider-Man films which were ruined under his watch, Raimi is allowed to make pretty much whatever he wants. For the longest time, that was restricted to producing endless and dull dimly-lit and heavily-filtered Japanese horror remakes. But, now, Raimi sticks his own toe into the fecal waters that pour forth from his ample theatrical bowels.

I will spare you all of the usual paid reviewer witticisms. "This movie drags the viewer to hell." "When you see Drag Me To Hell, you're asking for it!" Thanks, failed journalism major. I'll stick to the pertinent details and leave the shitty, inept stand-up comedy routine to Dane Cook.

Written by Sam and his untalented co-writer/brother/quack doctor, Ivan Raimi, who was partially responsible for the suck-ness of Darkman, Army Of Darkness, and the Spider-Man movies (particularly Spider-Man 3, which he actually got full credit for), Drag Me To Hell is one of the most awful, badly-written movies in contemporary history, especially to come out of the conventional studio system and not just be some 14th-rate slasher movie made for $6,000 by a bunch of kids with delusions of grandeur. No, this load of unwanted horseshit and slapstick absurdity was wrung from the world of high-budget film and well-known actors.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Justin Long, Apple's prime cocksucker, shits up the screen in this movie, as it is his wont in life to be the Poor Man's LeBeouf of the "mediocre theatrical release" world. Alison Lohman delivers the first majorly disappointing role of her career, apparently taking all her acting cues from Long's rucksack of blank stares and stupid faces. Though she's been good in many other films, Lohman's acting chops are incredibly weak, as is her character, in this particular lark. She was apparently no match for the list of indignities thrust upon her and her wide-eyes and blank look do little to pass for acting, though little about this movie is passable enough to force even her bad acting into perspective.

In what is supposed to be a morality tale, Lohman, the world's most inept and spineless loan officer, chooses to do her job properly and deny charity to an exceptionally gross, cranky, and unpleasant old cunt who can't pay her bills, despite the fact that she has a truckload of family members whom we see later, none of whom could have apparently helped the old whore. But she's a gypsy and, as we all know, they're gross, antiquated, thieving scumbags. The skank makes a huge scene and fondles Lohman while pleading to save her home and Lohman has her ejected from the bank, as any sane person would. The gypsy blames the girl for "shaming" her and curses her, then stalks her and attacks her in the parking garage, where a slapstick-y scene of violence insues, including the woman's false teeth popping out and the toothless old hag gumming on Lohman's chin for long, uncomfortable moments. The fact of the matter is that this movie (or Sam Raimi) has far too deep of a fascination with bodily fluids, as saliva and phlegm and many other grotesqueries fly around with abandon, coating everyone and everything. After the fight, the woman puts a proper gypsy curse on the silly girl, who has days to live before some bullshit goat-headed demon drags her away to hell. (I thought the curse was the fact that Lohman was forced to be in this piece of shit in the first place.)  Oh, did I mention that the demon is invisible? Invisible monsters are always fun, in that they aren't at all. I'm pretty sure we got enough of that bullshit all the way back in the 1950's heyday of fishing line and invisible creatures/people chosen for the plot because it could be filmed for virtually nothing. It's a big, stupid, hacky cheat and nothing vaguely interesting or frightening is seen for the whole movie. Or even unseen. It would have made sense if Raimi made the movie himself on a shoestring, but this was well-financed and filled with CGI. Why the invisible monster? Instead, your audience is paying to watch a shadow outside a door or window for an hour and a half.

Remember the scene in Evil Dead II where the weird noises spiraled around the room as Ash stood and listened, staring at the walls? Did you ever want to see a movie where that scene lasted an hour? Well, Drag Me To Hell is that movie. Almost every shot in the last two thirds of the film is Lohman staring at a wall, window or door as she listens for sounds and nothing happens. The shots grow stupidly, comically long, like a bad parody of The Grudge films. Just shots of doors and staring faces that last for minutes at a time while you watch absolutely nothing of interest happen. I'm sure it's everyone's dream film. I know you're rushing to your Netflix queue or whatever it is that you kids do these days.

The old woman dies after cursing the girl, so she can't lift the curse, not that she would, being an evil gypsy and all, so poor Allison is stuck going through the third-rate Final Destination "let's figure out how this supernatural bullshit works" plotline. I'll save you a large amount of your precious time by telling you that every character is tedious, nothing happens, no one does anything vaguely intelligent, there's a weak-ass seance scene (another thing moviegoers have been longing for all these years), Lohman tries to pass the curse back off onto the dead gypsy, and the ending features a "twist" where Justin Long inadvertantly helps his girlfriend stay cursed and she's dragged off to hell, as implied in the title. Oops, "spoiler alert". If I ruined the movie for you, good. The movie ruined more for me than that, so I'm saving you. You should be thanking me, you fucking ingrate.

It's clear from the writing of the movie that it was never salvagable; one viewing and this much is assured to be true. (And it makes a lot of sense why this idea sat on Raimi's shelf, unused, for over a decade.) But the direction does nothing at all to steer it toward being intelligible, watchable, or passable as a film. The shitty shots of nothing, the scatalogical nature of the story combined with the abject stupidity of a gypsy curse plotline, the idiotic slapstick scenes that Raimi claims are "dark comedy" (only "dark" or "comedy" under the definitions of a Three Stooges admirer of Raimi's caliber); all these elements are the hot mayonaisse and old, uncooked pork that you're asked to choke down and be happy about.

imdb   amazon