Lawman

Although this film was an imperfect one for a couple of reasons, it was nevertheless a noble effort of producer/director Michael Winner's to present a thought-provoking Western in his 1971 film Lawman.

After seven cowboys shoot up the town of Bannock and unwittingly kill a resident, Marshal Jered Maddox travels to the nearby town of Sabbath to bring in the guilty parties.  Despite the efforts of the town's sheriff to convince Maddox to drop his pursuit, even with the circumstances of the charges and the likelihood of light punishment for the perpetrators, Maddox insists on bringing them in one way or another, regardless of the pressure imposed upon him by residents of the town.

The thing about Lawman which is most striking is the fact it is a thoughtful Western.  It looks at characters driven by circumstances or pride, who are forced to face the consequences of their actions and how they face it, characters who are driven to do their job to the fullest extent and characters who become complacent in their lives.  It also looks at how easy it is for us to want justice, but challenges us to ponder if we'd be willing to want justice even if it affect us in a negative manner.

Burt Lancaster, as Maddox, did a masterful job of portraying a marshal determined to fulfill the tasks required of his job, no matter the scope of the crime, and no matter the cost to himself or to others.  In addition to Lancaster, Lawman also features several well-known actors giving superb performances, such as Robert Ryan in the role of the complacent sheriff of Sabbath, Lee J. Cobb as the cattle baron who doesn't want violence (but would rather not go back), and Robert Duvall as another of the targeted cowboys compelled to not go back due to the cost it would take upon his family and his land.

As I wrote already, I see Lawman as an imperfect film for a couple of reasons: while the script by Gerry Wilson is a fine, thought-provoking story, I came away with the opinion the film could have been better served had it been longer than 99 minutes, and I regarded the numerous occasions where the cameras zoom in and zoom out as largely unnecessary.  In what was otherwise a well-written and well-acted Western, I give Lawman two and a half (of four) stars.

Killers

I had no interest in seeing it when it hit theaters, and I had no interest in seeing it when it came out on DVD, but against my better judgment, I watched the 2010 film Killers with my family, and I have nobody to blame but myself for wasting ninety minutes which I'll never get back.

The gist of the film involves a woman named Jennifer, vacationing in France with her parents to move forward from a bad breakup, where she meets Spencer, who is, unbeknownst to Jennifer, a CIA assassin.  They fall in love and Spencer leaves his job for a new life with Jennifer.  Three years later, comfortably settled in their life, Spencer's past comes back to haunt him when he discovers a bounty has been put on his head, and everybody (particularly his neighbors and perceived friends) is after him.

Well, where to begin with my beef about this film?  For starters, the script.  The plot is fine, but the way the story unfolds is borderline ridiculous.  It's one thing to feature characters who turn out to be sleeper agents, but to the extent Killers goes with some of these characters, it becomes absurd.  Also, the reaction from the character of Jennifer to her husband's secret life doesn't help; it's just plain silly!

The fact Ashton Kutcher plays the role of Spencer makes the film worse.  He has comic talent, sure, but he's playing a CIA assassin; he does not come across as believable at all.  Katherine Heigl has some funny moments as Jennifer, but more silly moments sadly.  The bright spots in Killers are Jennifer's parents, played by Tom Selleck and Catherine O'Hara.  Their performances are hilarious, making it a shame the script was so lousy in the first place.

I give this film one and a half (of four) stars.

Iron Man 2

If you thought Tony Stark revealing who he is to the world in Iron Man was something, what follows in the much-anticipated sequel from last year, Iron Man 2, makes his revelation look like a mere footnote in a newspaper.

Six months after revealing he is Iron Man, Tony Stark has new problems, ranging from a U.S. Senator wanting to confiscate his technology for military purposes, a rival defense contractor seeking to one-up him, and the arc reactor which has been keeping Stark alive is slowly poisoning him.  On top of that, a man connected to his father's past enters the scene with only one purpose in mind: revenge against the Stark family.  Well, it could be worse!

Some sequels are as not as good as their predecessors, and a few surpass them, but Iron Man 2 is as equally good as Iron Man.  The cast, which featured quite a few familiar faces, carried the film well.  As expected, Robert Downey, Jr. delivered once again as Tony Stark, as did other standouts like Mickey Rourke as the film's villain, Ivan Vanko, and Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer, the complete antithesis of Tony Stark.

Scarlett Johansson, as Natasha Romanoff,  only got to shine towards the end of the film, while Samuel L. Jackson, as Nick Fury, is there to primarily help move the story along, but director Jon Favreau, who also reprised his role as Stark's chauffeur, provides quite a bit of the comic relief in an enlarged part.  And, of course, the face of Marvel Comics himself, Stan Lee, makes a cameo appearance as Larry King (you need to watch the film to get it).

I enjoyed watching Iron Man when it came out, and I enjoyed watching Iron Man 2; I knew I should've seen it in theaters! I give it three (of four) stars.

Inception

When I saw Batman Begins, I saw a good film.  When I saw The Prestige, I was impressed.  When I saw The Dark Knight, I was blown away.  But when I saw Christopher Nolan's latest film, the science fiction thriller Inception, I knew I should have seen it in theaters last year.

An exiled industrial spy who specializes in obtaining secrets through dreams is given the chance to return home, by an industrialist he has just extracted secrets from, if he undertakes the task of inserting a thought into the mind of a rival, a process known as inception.  With his team assembled, he sets about on his task, but must confront the guilt of his past, which manifests itself in his dreams and sabotages his efforts.

To say the least, this was one amazing film.  The credit belongs primarily to Christopher Nolan, for writing a story unlike anything I've ever seen before and directing a film which raises the bar for superb filmmaking to a higher level.  Throughout the film, I was never confused as the story unfolded, nor did I find myself ever having to suspend disbelief as I continued watching.  The dream sequences featured in Inception were nothing short of mind-blowing.

Not only was Nolan's presentation of the story flawless in my opinion, his direction also resulted in mature and solidly good performances from cast members Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Ellen Page; I didn't expect such good acting from any of them.  DiCaprio, in particular, has been cast in numerous roles where he is unable to convince me he is the character, whether it's Howard Hughes or a Rhodesian soldier of fortune.  With Inception, DiCaprio gives arguably his best performance as an actor in 12 years.

Intelligent writing, superb directing, excellent cinematography and visual effects, and mature acting from a great cast including DiCaprio, Levitt, Page, Marion Cotillard, Cillian Murphy and the one and only Michael Caine, Inception gets a full four stars from me.

Vampires Suck

Have you grown tired of the fervor over the Twilight films?  Would love it if you never heard of Team Edward and Team Jacob ever again?  Well, thanks to two filmmakers, a film aimed at you and me came out in theaters last year, the Twilight spoof Vampires Suck.

Like the Twilight series, you see a young woman (in this film, named Becca) moving to a gothic-looking town in the Pacific Northwest, meets two young guys, discovers one of them is a vampire and the other a werewolf (sorta), has to choose between them, and blah, blah, blah, blah...you know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, Vampires Suck is not only a spoof of Twilight, but also of vampire movies of recent and just about any and all movie and television program popular with teenage audiences.  And while it's refreshing to see a film which mocks one of the more overrated films I have seen, it is unfortunate that Vampires Suck, for the most part, sucks.

Much like all of the recent spoof films to come out in the last decade or so, the comedy in Vampires Suck includes some truly hilarious gags and jokes, but it's far too littered with over the top gags so painful to watch, it's not funny.  I mean, using a baby in a juggling scene?  Who thought that was funny?

While this was a film not worth paying the $5 to see in theaters (and I'm glad I didn't see it in theaters last year), I'd prefer to see this one to any of the Twilight films any day of the week, and it is worth watching at least once; just get it on Netflix or wait for it to appear on cable.  I give Vampires Suck two (of five) stars.

Knight And Day

There are several films I wanted to see last year, but for one reason or another (usually, it was preserving my piggy bank), I couldn't go to see them.  Now that I can see them, it drives me nuts to see how good these films were; if only I could've been in theaters when they came out!

The Expendables was one such film; another was the action-packed adventure Knight And Day.

On her way to Boston, June meets a total stranger named Roy, and in no time at all, is thrust into a whirlwind adventure as she reluctantly accompanies Roy throughout America and Europe, encountering along the way government agents, a crime lord and his soldiers, and a potential weapon worth killing for.  Sounds like quite the rollercoaster ride, doesn't it?

Without doubt, Tom Cruise was the primary reason this film is as good as it is.  He handled himself well in all of the action scenes as a secret agent who must stay one step ahead of both his bosses and his enemies to stay alive, but the casualness he shows throughout the film as Roy in doing his job made me laugh hard.  I haven't laughed that hard at anything he's done since his performance in Tropic Thunder.  The other important role in the film, the character of June, was played well by Cameron Diaz, who provided quite a few laughs in her own right as the woman who winds up tagging along with the secret agent who's “got it”.

Some of the action scenes require a little suspension of disbelief, but it's not a big deal, as the story itself comes across as well-grounded (thanks to the script by Patrick O'Neill), and director James Mangold does a great job of presenting the story in a way that didn't confuse me as it unfolded.  A fun film with plenty of action and plenty of laughs, I give Knight And Day three (of four) stars.

The Expendables

The task seems simple enough: go to an island nation (after getting half of the promised money), kill their dictator, come back home and get the rest of the cash.  What could possibly be wrong with this picture?  In the case of the 2010 action film, The Expendables, everything.

A band of mercenaries, led by a man known as Barney Ross, look into a simple, yet challenging job: to kill a Latin American dictator.  only to realize the real target is an ex-government operative seeking to make money from the illegal drug trade, but personal complications challenge Ross (and his teammates) to question what he must do now.

This is a film I've been wanting to see made for quite some time.  The major appeal of The Expendables is not the film itself, but the cast; it features a Who's Who of action stars led by director/star Sylvester Stallone and includes Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren and (in cameo appearances) Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

What makes The Expendables a wonderful film to watch is to see the camaraderie between the mercenaries, much like what is seen in other great films such as The Magnificent Seven, The Dirty Dozen and Tears Of The Sun.  The characters are all unique, with their own issues and (in some cases) quirks, are humorous at times, characters I came to like as the film went on, and of course, individuals you never, ever want to mess with!

Acting-wise, everybody delivers, with standouts including Mickey Rourke as Tool and Eric Roberts as the villainous James Munroe.  The action is excellent, with a good amount of time given not only to Stallone, but also to co-stars Statham and Li (and boy, do these guys kick butt!).  Stallone's great achievement is as the film's director, presenting an exciting action tale and keeping it balanced between himself and the rest of the stellar cast (and also between the action and the story).

This was definitely a film I should have seen in theaters last year!  I give The Expendables three (of four) stars.

The Wolfman

When I saw the trailers for this film, I was less than impressed.  It looked like it had the makings of a lousy remake of a great classic, but after having seen this year's The Wolfman, I have to say it was better than I expected.

Much like the basic story of the original film The Wolf Man, Lawrence Talbot returns to his family's estate in England after so many years upon the death of his brother, and no sooner than he returns, he comes into contact with what turns out to be a werewolf and is bitten by it.  Sure enough, it takes only a matter of time before Lawrence becomes one himself.

What surprised me about The Wolfman is the fact that for a remake, there's very little to connect it to the original film.  The names of several characters and the basic (and I mean basic) outline of the story remain.  Also of notice was the appearance of the film; it had a gothic look to it, which I liked.

The best part of the film is the story; there's actually a backstory which serves the main story very well (the original film never really had a backstory at all).  I certainly didn't expect to see the plot twists I saw, or, for that matter, the insertion of a “Ripper angle” in the story (you have to see the film to know what I'm talking about).

As for the acting, especially of Benicio Del Toro as Lawrence Talbot, it was better than I expected.  In fact, at times, I must say Del Toro somewhat like Lon Chaney, Jr. when he played the same role in the original film.  Anthony Hopkins, as Sir John Talbot, gave a solidly good performance, as I've come to expect from such a reliably good actor.  And in addition, there were good performances from the supporting cast, which included Emily Blunt, Hugo Weaving, Art Malik and Geraldine Chaplin.

The one downside of The Wolfman was the narrative pace.  There were two stretches of the film in which the narration was more slowly-paced than the rest of the film.  Considering it was directed by Joe Johnston, a director known for fast-paced movies (like Jurassic Park III), it was a little disappointing.  Otherwise, Johnston did a good job of presenting the film.

A better-than-I-expected remake with a well-told story served well by its backstory, good performances and a wonderfully gothic musical score from Danny Elfman, I give The Wolfman three (of four) stars.

Manhattan

Based on the fact this has been to date Woody Allen's most commercially successful film, I think it's fair to say his 1979 comedy Manhattan is his most popular film to date.  However surprising that might be to Woody Allen himself, I can certainly see why.

Isaac, a twice-divorced, 42 year old television writer, who is working on a book and trying to get out of a relationship with Tracy, a sweet girl who happens to be 17 years old, quits his job, meets (and ultimately falls for) Mary, a journalist who also happens to be his friend's mistress.

For me, what makes Manhattan stands out, not only as a Woody Allen film, but as a film in its own right, is its cinematography and music.  Shot in black-and-white, Manhattan reminded me of the old classic films from the 30's and 40's.  The music, from the great composer George Gershwin, gives the film its sentimentality.  It also gives New York City an appeal only a film can give.

As a romantic comedy, Manhattan was undeniably funny and, at times, melodramatic as any other romantic comedy.  The four main performances, given by Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Michael Murphy and Mariel Hemingway, were convincingly good.  Watching Allen as Isaac going through the mine field that is his romantic relationships makes me laugh sometimes, but also makes me sympathize with him as well.  Same also with Mariel Hemingway as Tracy, even though she's far too young for Isaac, she's no less sympathetic at times.  The one surprising thing I noticed in the film was how young Meryl Streep (as one of Isaac's two ex-wives) was; I'm used to seeing her in more recent films.

A sentimental, nostalgic, sympathetic, funny, enjoyable and rather light-hearted look at people and relationships, I give Manhattan three (of four) stars.

Crimes And Misdemeanors

Perhaps of all the films Woody Allen has made, his films on relationships and human nature may be regarded as his best, and perhaps if not at the top of the list, his film from 1989, Crimes And Misdemeanors, could be considered among the top three.

The film centers on two characters and the directions they take in their lives: an ophthalmologist named Judah and a documentary filmmaker named Cliff.  Judah's life (and his marriage) is on the verge of going upside down because of a two year long affair with another woman, and Cliff, unhappily married himself, falls for a producer he meets while working on a documentary about his brother-in-law, a successful television producer he hates.

What I saw in Crimes And Misdemeanors was a dichotic presentation of individuals faced with problems in their relationships with others, their outlook on life, the decisions they take and how they deal with the consequences of their actions.  What made the film dichotic in its presentation was the general atmosphere; one story was told as a dark drama and the other as a lighthearted comedy.

One thing I've noticed in Woody Allen films is that few members of the cast really stand out in their performances.  The performances are usually adequate on the whole, and the films themselves fall squarely upon Allen himself as writer and director in order to succeed as films.  With Crimes And Misdemeanors, the standout performances included Martin Landau as Judah, in one of his best performances as an actor, Woody Allen as Cliff, Sam Waterston as Ben, a rabbi who counsels Judah on his problems, and to a lesser extent, Alan Alda as Lester, the successful television producer, and Mia Farrow as Halley, the producer Cliff falls for.

Both Allen's writing and direction in this film were superb; the way he told and presented both stories, leaving me in stitches one minute and deeply meditative the next, was done smoothly.  There was nothing awkward in the presentation, and the ending sums up best what the film is all about.  A film that definitely gets better with each viewing, I give Crimes And Misdemeanors three and a half (of four) stars.