Cloud Atlas

I was extremely intrigued when I first saw the trailer for Cloud Atlas, though I admit I wasn’t sure what it was about. What I did know was it was a film combining numerous story lines over the past, present and future, and was based on a novel by David Mitchell. I also know it was a film by the Wachowski’s, best known for The Matrix Trilogy, and boasted a hell of a cast including Tom Hanks, Hugo Weaving and Halle Berry.

Here’s the premise as described on IMDb: “Everything is connected: an 1849 diary of an ocean voyage across the Pacific; letters from a composer to his friend; a thriller about a murder at a nuclear power plant; a farce about a publisher in a nursing home; a rebellious clone in futuristic Korea; and the tale of a tribe living in post-apocalyptic Hawaii, far in the future.”

I'd seen plenty of positive reviews prior to seeing this film, so I must admit my expectations were high despite not knowing what Cloud Atlas was really about. Unfortunately, I walked out of the theater disappointed. I was impressed with the acting and storytelling technique, but I more disappointed in the stories themselves and left with a feeling that I missed something—I'm still not sure what Cloud Atlas was all about and feel like I missed something.

Let me start with the things I like, the first of which was the acting. All of the aforementioned actors, as well as a bevy of others, each starred as numerous characters in the films, one in each of the timelines. For instance, Hanks was a doctor in 1849, a cocky author in the publishing farce, and a futuristic tribesman in a post-apocalyptic Hawaii. It was cool watching all of these actors tackle various roles, ones where they were oftentimes unrecognizable, and I'd be thrilled to see others do it in future films.

Hanks did a good job as always, as did Berry, but my favorite performances came courtesy of Weaving and Ben Whishaw, the former as hilarious as Nurse Noakes, while the latter killed it as composer Robert Frobisher. This was my first time watching Whishaw, and I can already tell he’s going to be a major player in Hollywood in the years to come. Other actors who did a fine job were Susan Sarandon, Hugh Grant, Keith David, Jim Sturgess, JimBroadbent and Doona Bae, just to name a few.

I also thought the filmmakers did a good job telling six different stories via one medium. It was a tall task and I thought it flowed well; however, the movie was a little too long for my liking, coming in at three hours, and there were times where I thought, "When is this going to end." Never a good feeling to have when I just paid to be entertained.

Along with the length, I wasn’t thrilled with the individual stories. While the filmmakers put them together well, their interconnectedness wasn’t as profound as I expected. It’s my belief that if each story had been made into a film all its own, they’d each be on the weaker side (the composer storyline was the best in my opinion). Don’t get me wrong, I can see how the happenings in one story lead to repercussions in the others (which was the film's goal), but overall it was kind of bland.

Cloud Atlas wasn’t terrible by any means, but it was not the profound, revolutionary movie that was being billed. The story-telling technique was cool, and I could see it working quite well in other formats (i.e. comic book movies), but as is I wasn’t impressed. Cloud Atlas was too long, filled with tiresome stories, and failed to inspire. I’d wait for the DVD on this one.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 45%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Argo

Month’s back, when I first heard about Ben Affleck’s latest directorial project, Argo, I thought it was a comedy. At first glance, the material, which was plucked from history after recently being declassified, was too outrageous to be anything but comical; however, the trailer made it apparent that this was a very serious movie. After seeing it this past week, I must admit, all the Oscar talk is warranted as it was simply a great movie.

For those who don’t know about Argo, here’s the storyline as written by Kenneth Chisholm on IMDb: “In 1979, the American embassy in Iran was invaded by Iranian revolutionaries and several Americans are taken hostage. However, six manage to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador and the CIA is eventually ordered to get them out of the country. With few options, exfiltration expert Tony Mendez devises a daring plan: to create a phony Canadian film project looking to shoot in Iran and smuggle the Americans out as its production crew. With the help of some trusted Hollywood contacts, Mendez creates the ruse and proceeds to Iran as its associate producer. However, time is running out with the Iranian security forces closing in on the truth while both his charges and the White House have grave doubts about the operation themselves.”

Affleck not only directed the film, he starred as the aforementioned Mendez. Before I get into Affleck’s acting chops, let me just say that I think he’s a hell of a director. This was his third major film, which followed the critically acclaimed Gone Baby Gone (2007) and The Town (2010), and I’ve been impressed with them all. Affleck has earned my respect as a director and I look forward to his future projects.

With that said, I’ve always been hesitant regarding Affleck’s acting abilities. I don’t know why exactly, but I’ve never considered him anything more than a mediocre performer. Don’t get me wrong; I’ve always been satisfied with Affleck, just never blown away. I liked him in Reindeer Games, Pearl Harbor, Daredevil, Smokin’ Aces and The Company Men, just to name a few, but he didn’t perform exceptionally. He didn’t do that in Argo either, but admittedly his portrayal of Mendez is was fulfilling.

What Affleck did have was a strong supporting cast, and together they brought the story to life. Alan Arkin and John Goodman did tremendous as two Hollywood vets who helped bring the film within the film to “life”, and both are being mentioned for a Best Supporting Actor nomination. I’ve long thought Goodman was a talented actor, and it’s nice to see him finally get his due. Other stand-out performances were delivered by Breaking Bad’s Bryan Cranston, who played CIA handler Jack O’Donnell; and Clea Duvall (no relation to Robert Duvall), who played hostage Cora Lijek.

Argo had an interesting storyline anchored in history and supported by a strong cast. At no point did I feel the film lagged; in fact, I think Affleck did a stupendous job injecting tension into what were fairly blasé situations. I quickly became invested in the characters and at times it felt as if I was among the hostages trying to escape with my life. It’s not often that a movie is able to establish that sort of connection.

I was also impressed with the time period modifications. The film takes place in 1979, and everything was spot on. From the outfits to technology, a great deal of attention was paid to every detail, which gave the entire film a sense of authenticity. It also made me wonder how different crises were back in they day without the convenience of cell phones and the Internet.

If you’re looking for an action-packed shoot-em-up film, Argo’s not for you (I don’t recall a gun being fired in the movie); however, if you want a top-notch thriller driven by performance, dialogue and suspense, then look no further. Argo is one of the best films of the year, and I recommend you see it while you can,

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 87%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Looper

I’m a big fan of both Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, so it didn’t take much convincing for me to go and see Looper, the new Action/Sci-Fi/Thriller time-traveling flick. What’s more, the film looked like an original, which was nice after a summer full of reboots, sequels and comic-book movies.

For those who don’t know what Looper’s about, here’s how IMDb describes it: “In 2074, when the mob wants to get rid of someone, the target is sent 30 years into the past, where a hired gun awaits. Someone like Joe, who one day learns the mob wants to 'close the loop' by transporting back Joe's future self.”

The movie was written and directed by Rian Johnson, who previously directed two episodes of Breaking Bad (Fly and Fifty-One) and 2005’s critically claimed Brick, which also starred Gordon-Levitt. Johnson has a reputation as an up-and-coming filmmaker that brings a healthy does of originality to his films. Johnson’s style is a bit different and somewhat of an acquired taste, but I was more than willing to give it a try.

Ironically, Looper had me going in circles as to whether or not I liked it. The story was certainly unique, but it began to convolute itself with an assortment of elements. For example, as if the time-traveling story wasn’t engaging enough, Johnson throws in a telekinesis component that eventually leads to a bunch of new conflicst. What starts off with Joe (Gordon-Levitt) taking on the mob entities, most notably Jeff Daniels’ character Abe, soon breaks into tangents such as Joe vs. Old Joe (Willis), Old Joe vs. the future/Rainmaker, etc. There was a lot going on, and while I think Johnson did an admirable job juggling it all, I couldn’t help but wonder if the film would have been better had it devoted itself to just one major element/conflict.

To be fair, I believe I’d appreciate this film even more with a second viewing, which would allow me to pick up on subtleties I know I missed. Much like Inception, this film was an original, and sometimes it’s hard appreciating an original the first go around after your brain has been bombarded with big-budgeted blockbusters and sequels. On the same token, Looper had just a $30 million budget, which meant Johnson was limited in the amount of special effects and location shoots he could accomplish. He was aware of this and did an excellent job of spending money where it’d get the most bang for a buck.

Not only did Looper have a strong story, the performances were solid. Gordon-Levitt gave one of his best performances to date, and will continue to rise in Hollywood. Likewise, Emily Blunt was barely recognizable as Sara, and I feel that’s a testament to her talents. Willis’ showing wasn’t anything great, but he shouldered his load and did a decent job, while Daniels, while underused, was ominous as a man from the future. Along the same lines, the lesser known Noah Segan, who worked with Johnson in Brick, did a great job as Kid Blue, a clumsy yet devoted henchman.

Here are a few other random thoughts on the film:

-       Gordon-Levitt’s prosthetic, which he wore to look more like a young Willis, was great. I had heard it was noticeable and off putting, but I didn’t find that to be the case. In fact, I didn’t even notice it.

-       Paul Dano had a limited role as Seth, but he made the most of it. The guy is a talented actor and having him as a supporting character helped strengthen the film as a whole.

-        It was cool to see the black cowboy outfits the hit men in the future wore were teased in one seen. Keep an eye open for a “Bad Bob” poster and toy in the Cid’s bedroom.

-       Note Blunt’s character, Sara, uses some sort of mechanized crop duster to water her crops. It’s essentially a “Rainmaker”.

I left the theater feeling conflicted about Looper, but the more I thought about it the more I liked it. I’ll definitely give it another watch when it comes out on DVD, and in the meantime I’d recommend to those who go and see it, keep an open mind and remember that it’s an original. If you judge it against the norm, you will not fully appreciate what it has to offer.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 71%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Taken 2

After being on the road for three weeks and unable to make it to a theater, the films I wanted to see upon my return began to stockpile; in fact, the day after I got back from Europe, I went to see the one at the top of the queue (which actually takes place in Europe)—Taken 2.

I was a huge fan of 2008’s Taken, which was a surprise hit with the masses and made Liam Neeson a legitimate action star. To remind you of that film’s premise, and you’d best know before going to the sequel, I’ll turn to IMDb: “A retired CIA agent travels across Europe and relies on his old skills to save his estranged daughter, who was kidnapped on a trip to Paris to be sold into prostitution.”

Now, here’s IMDb’s description of Taken 2: “In Istanbul, retired CIA operative Bryan Mills and his wife are taken hostage by the father of a kidnapper Mills killed while rescuing his daughter.”

I tempered my expectations for the sequel for fear that it might have been slapped together as a money-making machine and would neglect the things that made the first so great—a father’s unwavering devotion, no timidity, and a certain level of justified ferociousness. The biggest red flag that might be the case was the director of the first, Pierre Morel, had been replaced by Olivier Megaton, best known for Colombiana and Transporter 3.

In the back of my head, I expected Taken 2 to suck, and I was prepared to deal with it; after all, the first film came out of nowhere and set the bar high. Much to my surprise, Taken 2 proved to be more than a decent sequel. They did a few things wrong, but overall I felt it captured the essence of the first film while exploring the grey area between justice and revenge.

Taken 2 toed the line of being a cookie-cutter copy, but there were enough subtle differences to set it apart while capitalizing on storylines established in the first. Again, Neeson proves an unlikely badass, and Maggie Grace, who played his daughter Kim, did a good job of transitioning from victim to aggressor. I was also very pleased to see Famke Janssen have an expanded role as Mill’s wife Lenore. To say she was underutilized in the first would be an understatement, and I’m glad they learned from that mistake.

Unfortunately there were a few things that detracted from the film—mainly some notable inaccuracies. For example, Kim was struggling with passing her driver’s test, but was suddenly Mario Andretti in a car chase through Istanbul. Speaking of which, they portrayed Istanbul as being somewhat third-world, when in actuality it’s one of Europe’s most developed cities. Likewise, Albania doesn’t border Turkey as suggested in the film, and with so much gunfire in the city, you’d expect more of a police presence. While the filmmaker’s attention to detail was admirable in many scenes (i.e. Mills and Kim knowing to keep there heads down and call for help after plowing a car into the U.S. embassy), it was noticeably lacking in others.

The other big disappointment was lackluster death scenes, most notably two at the end. I don’t want to spoil who bites the dust, but they were offed in an uncreative manner; in fact, it was hard to tell how they even died. I chalk this up to the friendly PG-13 rating.

Taken 2 wasn’t as good as the original, but I felt it was an excellent sequel that tied in nicely to its predecessor. Simply put, if you liked Taken then you’ll like Taken 2. Also, be sure to enjoy it because the film’s writer, Luc Besson, has already said there won’t be a third.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 75%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Resident Evil: Retribution

I was a big fan of the original Resident Evil video game on PlayStation, so imagine my excitement when the franchise was turned into a movie back in 2002. There weren’t many similarities between that first game and that movie, but it turned out alright. Now, ten years later, both the video game and film franchises continue to spew out sequels. In my opinion both have been on a steady decline, but I gave the latest installment in the latter franchise—Resident Evil: Retribution—a shot on its opening weekend.

The previous films had gotten so convoluted and cluttered (where are the zombies?!?) that I set my expectations quite low for Retribution. Here’s how IMDb describes the film: “The Umbrella Corporation's deadly T-virus continues to ravage the Earth, transforming the global population into legions of the flesh eating Undead. The human race's last and only hope, Alice, awakens in the heart of Umbrella's most clandestine operations facility and unveils more of her mysterious past as she delves further into the complex.”

Let me preface this review by saying that I feel the Resident Evil film franchise has been botched. I still enjoy them, but they could be so much better. My personal preference is that they reboot it and bring add little realism (tongue in cheek dealing with zombies), much like the Walking Dead.

With that said, Resident Evil: Retribution turned out to be a little better than I expected. That’s not to say it was great, but it proved entertaining and a little more focused than the previous two films. You see, the first to Resident Evil movies are centered upon “The Hive” and Raccoon City, two very distinct locations. From there, Resident Evil: Extinction and Resident Evil: Afterlife branched out and expanded the story to show how T-virus ravaged the entire world. It was a big step to take and sloppily done. Fortunately, Retribution got back to the basics and focus on one facility.

Granted, that facility, which is buried under the Siberian tundra, has holograph-domes (for lack of a better word) that are able to recreate various locations such as suburbia, New York, Japan and Moscow. Alice, the main character played in all five films by Milla Jovovich, must escape from the facility but has the luxury of tossing in different setting. A cheap copout, but it worked.

Jovovich does a decent job as always, but the film was billed on reuniting many of the characters throughout the franchise, many of whom had perish. I’m not a fan of clones in movies, but it was nice to see Michelle Rodriquez, who was only in the first film, reprise her role as Rain; as well as Oded Fehr as Carlos and Boris Kodjoe as Luther West, though the latter wasn’t a clone.

The performances were a mixed bag. Jovovich was fine as always, as were all of the other cast members I’ve mentioned. Kevin Durand and Bingbing Li were new additions as Barry Burton and Ada Wong respectively, and I though they did a good job. I was especially pleased to see Barry (“Blood, I hope this is not Chris’ blood!”), a classic character from the original video game. Durand was a good choice for the role, though he wasn’t really a major player. One new comer that went to waste was Johann Urb as Leon S. Kennedy. He had a fairly important role in the film, but there was little to no character development. I found that to be a great shame as Leon was such a major character in the video games.

I must note that the performance of Sienna Guillory as Jill Valentine (who should be the main character in a Resident Evil film—again, reboot) was terrible and almost laughable at times. With that said, you don’t go see a Resident Evil movie for the performances, you go for the action sequences and the zombies.

In that regard, Resident Evil: Retribution did a decent job. The opening scene, which is shot in reverse, was pretty cool, and there was a scene shortly thereafter set in suburbia that caught my attention—though it seemed to be a bit of a rip off of the 2004 Dawn of the Dead opening sequence.

Resident Evil: Retribution didn’t further the overall story of the franchise much; in fact, all Alice did was escape from a research facility (though there is a last-stand type of scene as a cliffhanger). Still, it proved entertaining, the 3D effects were solid, and the action sequences decent. I liked it a bit better than Extinction and Afterlife, but not as good as the first two, which puts it squarely in the middle.

I will always hold a special place in my heart for Resident Evil, and while the five films have kept me vaguely entertained, I sincerely hope that Sony Pictures will consider a reboot and give the franchise the justice it deserves.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 53%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Lawless

Ever have one of those days where you just want to be alone and not deal with people? I recently had such a day and opted to retreat to the dark confines of my local AMC movie theater. I had been putting off seeing a movie that I had actually been quiet excited about for some time—Lawless.

The film, which was directed John Hillcoat (The Road, The Proposition) is a blend of blended crime/western drama and is based off the novel The Wettest County in the World, which tells the real-life story of three Bondurant Brothers and their bootlegging business. As IMDb explains: “Set in Depression-era Franklin County, Virginia, a bootlegging gang is threatened by a new deputy and other authorities who want a cut of their profits.”

The subject matter certainly appealed to me, but the solid cast was also a major draw. It’s been a big year for Tom Hardy, who played Bane in The Dark Knight Rises and Tuck in This Means War, and Lawless was his latest outing as he played the rough and tumble Forrest Bondurant; meanwhile, Shia LaBeouf played brother Jack while Jason Clarke tackled Howard. Throw is a supporting cast that included Guy Pearce, Jessica Chastain and Dane DeHaan and Gary Oldman—well, let’s just say it doesn’t get much better than that.

I had high expectations for Lawless, and it put it simply they were not met. The movie just wasn’t put together as well as I thought it would be. The bootlegging story was intriguing, but it was littered with side stories such as Forrest’s romance with Chastain’s Maggie Beauford, and Jack’s with Mia Wasikowska’s Bertha Minnix. Blended in are storylines concerning the bootlegging business, corrupt law enforcement and pressure from the big city players. These storylines weren’t necessarily bad, they were just hard to properly flesh out in the movie’s 116-minute run time. Each trotted along, but none were ever taken to the next level. At times the movie was slow, which is normally a good tactic in building up to something big, but like I said, it never shifted gears to the next level.

As far as the performances, they were the film's strength. I was impressed, as usual, with Hardy, and LaBeouf did a decent job. Clarke was the middle brother and least featured, but he did a good job with his time on screen. With that said, the really impressive performances were the supporting roles, with one exception that I talk about below.

Before I get to that, I’m compelled to give credit to a few of the actors. Pearce was superb as corrupt agent Charlie Rakes, who proved a menacing villain. What’s more, he was barely recognizable in character, which I believe is a testament to an actor’s ability. On the same note, DeHann, who I raved about in my review of Chronicle, was great as Cricket Pate. After seeing Lawless, I’m even more convinced that DeHaan has a very bright future in Hollywood as his talent is unsurpassed. The ladies, Chastain and Wasikowska, also did a satisfactory job, and I found the latter’s alabaster-china-doll look very appealing.

The real disappointment in Lawless’ casting was the underutilization of Oldman. He is an actor of the highest order, but his character was only in the film for a few minutes. Hardy and Oldman worked together in The Dark Knight Rises and Tailor, Tinker, Soldier, Spy, and it was almost as if Oldman took the role as a favor—no real commitment, no real development. Very disappointing.

From what I understand, Lawless was shutdown at one point, so production wasn’t exactly smooth, and for me it showed in the final product. The film isn’t terrible, but it didn’t live up to its potential. It’s worth a Netflix/Redbox rental, but I wouldn’t recommend it for theaters. On a side note, if you’re interested in the true story behind the film, I suggest you check out this article in The Daily Beast from one of Jack Bondurant’s grandchildren.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 55%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Expendables 2

I love action movies. I grew up watching Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Jean-Calude Van Damme and Chuck Norris with my dad, so imagine my excitement when all of those men teamed up for the Expendables 2. I was a fan of the first Expendables, but I was especially excited for the sequel due to the expanded cast.

As IMDb explains: “Mr. Church reunites the Expendables for what should be an easy paycheck, but when one of their men is murdered on the job, their quest for revenge puts them deep in enemy territory and up against an unexpected threat.”

For those who don’t know, Mr. Church is the character played by the aforementioned Willis, who had a brief cameo in the first film. Likewise, Schwarzenegger, who plays Trench, only appeared for a minute in Expendables. Lucky for everyone, they were back in greatly expanded roles.

Now it’s important to remember that why this is an action film, but you have to take it with a grain of salt as it’s sort of a satire on the entire 1980-2000s genre. Sure, it’s a movie that takes itself seriously and has some merit, but it wouldn’t be the film it is without the over-the-top dialogue, body count, and of course the cast.

Admittedly, if the film starred a bunch of no names, it’d be terrible. The story is cliché (plutonium in the hands of a terrorist), but given the context of the film it’s brilliant and entertaining. With that said, the keystone of the film is the cast. Stallone was back as Barney Ross, while the Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, Terry Crews, Randy Couture and Jet Li all reprised their roles. They all did a great job, but weren’t featured as prominently as they were in the first film; in fact, Li’s character, Yin Yang, was only in Expendables 2 for about the first 15 minutes of the film before promptly disappearing. I was also disappointed to see that Mickey Rourke, who was Tool in the first film, did not appear in the sequel.

Instead, more attention was paid to the film’s new additions like the aforementioned Willis and Schwarzenegger. The two weren’t prominent in the film, but they had plenty of screen time and even swapped some memorable lines (i.e. “I’m back” and “Yippie kay yay”) while kicking some major ass in a tiny car.

Another new addition was Liam Hemsworth, the brother of Thor’s Chris Hemsworth, who played Billy the Kid, a young sniper recently recruited by the Expendables. His character was still relatively young and innocent, at least by comparison as his compatriots, and he served as a reminder to the old guard of a life gone by—which helped fuel the film’s plot.

For me, the real draw to the film was bringing Norris and Van Damme into the mix. The latter was offered a role in the first film but turned it down because he thought it had little chance of success. Obviously he was wrong, so Van Damme agreed to play the film’s villain, Vilain (gotta love the names). It’s been a long time since I’ve seen Van Damme in anything respectable, so it was nice to see him here. Stallone has said that he enjoys helping reinvigorate stagnated careers, much like his own was a few years back, and I hope Van Damme's will benefit for his role in Expendables 2.

As far as Norris is concerned, he has to be the fan favorite. The 72-year-old wasn’t in the film too much, and at one point I thought his appearance might just be a cameo, but let’s just say he returns when it counts. Norris even poked fun at the legend he has become. When asked by Stallone’s character whether or not it was true he had been bit by a cobra, Norris character replies, “Yeah, and after five days of agonizing pain, the cobra died.” Norris hadn't been onscreen since 2005's lackluster The Cutter, but he lit it up and left me with a big smile in Expendables 2.

The film isn’t going to win any Academy Awards, but it was a lot of fun. Go in with some snacks and an open mind, and you’ll enjoy yourself. I was a little worried about the movie at times, but it finished strong and brought most everyone together for the climactic firefight. The only thing that could have made the Expendables 2 better was the addition of Steven Segal—but I guess they need something to complete the trilogy (fingers crossed).

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 71%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.