Now, if we were to live in a perfect world Nicolas Cage would from here on out only act in movies directed by Herzhog. This is a match made in heaven and I was pretty impressed the first time around I watched this movie but upon this second viewing, it´s pretty clear that this is the ultimate Cage-performance. Why in the holy hell hasn´t these guys worked together before this? What if there´s other actors and directors that are made for each other this way and we just don´t know about it yet? What if another action star, say Bruce Willis were to team up with, I don´t know… say, Paul Verhoeven for a remake of another Harvey Keitel-starring movie and the result would be frickin’ awesome? Imagine their take on “Smoke”. It could be spectacular, who knows? Hell, this could be the start for a whole string of Keitel-related remakes, done by European directors. Imagine Tom Tykwer´s “City of Industry” or Ole Bornedal´s “The Young Americans”. I think I´m onto something here…

Honestly, can´t we get these two guys to sit down and sign some sort of pact that says that “We, Nicolas Cage and Werner Herzhog, swear that we will from here on out only make movies with each other. I, Werner, shall have no other leads beside Nicolas and I, Nicolas, shall have no other directors besides Werner” How hard can that be? Because this is nothing short of a work of genius, friends. I´m sure that you have all seen it so I´m not gonna bore you with the details of what the movie is about, except that Cage plays a Lieutenant who does some bad things, like taking copious amount of drugs to ease his back pains and partake in illegal gambling that lands him in huge debt.

Cage´s character is caught in a downward spiral of drug abuse and the further down we get, the more unhinged Cage´s character, Lt. McDonogh, becomes. And this is the genius of the picture! It´s as if someone somewhere sat down and said to themselves “Goddamnit, I´m gonna write the ultimate Nicolas Cage-movie!”… and then did just that.

When the movie starts out we meet Cage and one of his fellow officers, played by Val Kilmer, in a flooded jail during Katrina. While freeing a prisoner, Cage injures his back and it´s due to this that the consummations of drugs run rampant throughout the film. Now, first of all it´s nothing short of spectacular to see Cage and Kilmer doing a scene together. Kilmer has had his fair share of a reputation of being difficult, as Cage has, and to bring the two of them together should warrant for some sort of medal of bravery in the movie industry.

But anyway, during these opening scenes Lt. McDonogh is acting pretty “normal” but then that Cage magic kicks in. It doesn´t take long before he´s pulling over a young couple in order to get his hands on their crack-stash and the young girl´s private parts, in one of the only scenes that´s actually a variation on one in the original “Bad Lieutenant”, starring Harvey Keitel. If you´ve seen that one I´m pretty sure that you remember when he pulled over the two young girls, had them simulate oral sex and jerked off, right? You don´t forget that one easily. Herzhog doesn´t take it that far in his movie, which is actually a good thing. As much as I like Cage, I´m not entirely sure that a scene with him masturbating Harvey Keitel-style is something I wanna watch. I´m also very thankful that Herzhog dropped that scene of our dear lieutenant standing naked and crying. And I´m not talking about some half assed sobbing here. If I remember correctly it´s full on baby-like wailing. And it goes on for about five minutes. Smart move, Werner!

Now, I´m all for depravity in motion pictures but if one were to compare the original “Bad Lieutenant” to this one, there´s no question about which one is the better of the two: Herzhog´s take on the material is way above Ferrara´s original and I guess it´s mainly because like a true auteur, Ferrara has his usual obsessions that he keeps exploring in his films and that whole concept of catholic guilt is one of them, which is pretty hard to miss if you´ve seen the original. The thing is that movies that deal with catholic guilt on that level can get a bit tiresome, if you´re not catholic. Well, Herzhog isn´t interested in that at all and as a moviegoer I am very thankful for that.

Instead, it´s like good old Werner decided that he wanted to make the blackest comedy he possibly could. It plays like if the Coen brothers decided to make a black comedy. I´m not talking about the kind of usual kiddie-friendly “black” comedies that they use to churn out, but pitch black stuff. We´re talking oil tower black here, ok? We´re talking a comedy that´s blacker than a coalminers´s asshole, ok?  It´s been quite a while since we used that tired old term “anit-hero” but that´s exactly what Cage is portraying here: a bona fide anti-hero! The great thing is that even though McDonogh does some pretty awful things throughout the film, Cage manages to infuse him with that weird, offbeat charm that he manages to tap into every once in a while. That somnambulant style of acting to seemed to become Cage´s trademark there for the good deal of his career, is gone.

I guess that one of the reasons why I like this one so much is that this is one of those movies that doesn´t have a clear cut good guy-bad guy and therefore lacks that classic dynamic, which you find in almost every cop thriller. Well, Herzhog hasn’t got time for that kind of crap and that´s part of what makes this one so original. It kind of reminded me of a 70´s movie in that regard, in that you don´t have a clearly defined good guy type of hero that is constantly challenging the audience to like him.

There´s so much about this movie that I haven´t even mentioned and I´m not even gonna try except for the fact that the POV-alligator shot is the work of a true genius. Not only does Herzhog manage to work a point of view shot from an alligator´s perspective into a movie but he also has the smarts to put Fairuza Balk in the same scene. An alligator and Fairuza Balk in a Highway patrol uniform… tell me, what more can you ask of life?

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Well, turns out that Robert Rodriguez is a big fat liar. Because you don´t get to see very much of this planet at all. And that´s what I was expecting! Ever since that sequence in “Alien VS. Predator”, where the Aliens attack that pyramid I´ve been thinking “That´s what I wanna see!” But now when we finally get a movie that´s set on this god damn planet the only thing we do get to see is the jungle and it looks exactly like ours, like in the first “Predator”.

But hey, I guess that´s also one of the good things: Predator is back in the jungle, for chrissakes! He´s not running around, fighting pizza delivery boys and Aliens in Small Town American sewer systems, he´s back in the jungle fighting soldiers! So I guess that this is one of those double edged swords that you hear about every now and then.

Here´s the story in broad strokes: Chosen for their different abilities, a group of individuals where some are trained to kill and some are not, must endeavor the alien race of predators that have set out to target them as prey. Dropped into the vast jungle of a distant world, these human predators must learn just who, or what, they are up against…

My one main objection with this set up would be that it takes too long to get going. If this were the first Predator movie released, the suspense would´ve been absolutely awesome and I would have absolutely flipped over it but honestly, this is a franchise we´re five movies into now so it´s pretty hard to recreate the same kind of tension that John McTiernan had going on in the original one. Maybe it can be done and god knows that Nimrod Antal tries here, but it just doesn´t work like that.

It´s not like it´s boring but to have a movie called “Predators”, which kind of suggests that you´re gonna go the Cameron route like he did with “Aliens” and create one of the all time greatest shoot ´em up-flicks, and then not have any Predators show up for at least 40 minutes? That´s just wrong, Nimrod! By the way, I wonder what it´s like going through life with a name like that? “Nimrod”? Fortunately, it worked out for this guy because like I said, they could´ve done a hell of a lot worse finding a guy to direct this one. Antal has proved himself to be a reliable director ever since his debut “Kontroll” (which I wrote about here) and the fantastic “Vacancy” (which is his best work to date, in my opinion). He kind of dropped the ball on his last flick, the heist-gone-wrong-story “Armored” but he still proved to have an appealing old school approach to the genre, which I hope he manages to maintain. Which is particularly pleasing in this one because when it becomes time for some of the action sequences, that means that because Antal approaches this like an 80´s movie it basically means that you can actually see what´s going on. It´s not filled with cuts that are so quick that they feel like they´re subliminal. Christ, it´s as if Michael Bay and his awful legacy on the film industry never occurred.

But anyway, instead of showing anything of how their planet and world order works, they reveal nothing at all so that they can keep on thinking about which direction they wanna go in future movies. The mythology is intact, so to speak. But I can´t help it, I wanna see more!

This is apparently a wild game preserve that our characters are dropped into and they have been handpicked by our old friends with the vagina-like faces because they have different talents that makes it a sport for the Predators to hunt and kill them, ok? But like I said, we´re five movies into the “Predators”-franchise now (or three unless you don´t count the ones where they squared off against the Aliens) and I think it´s time they blow the lid off of these creatures and their world. Here´s a list of things I´d like to see in the next movie:

• If one were to judge from the Predator´s weapon technology, they are pretty advanced, technologically speaking, which makes one wonder what their cities look like. I mean, we´ve seen what their holidays resorts look like (earth and the preserve in this one) so for the next one, I´d like to get a glimpse of their infrastructure, ok?

• Do these Predators work for a living? Since this is a wild life game preserve, I´m figuring this is something they do in their days off, right? What the hell are they up to when they´re not hunting elite soldiers in the shape of Adrian Brody and Laurence Fishburne?

• What else do they do for fun? Do these fuckers drink? Do they go online and download Predator-porn? I´d love to see a scene with a drunken barroom brawl between two Predators, fighting over some girl or something like that.

I really hope that this one make enough money so that the producers and the studio find it worth making at least a couple of more installments because as you can see, it´s pretty obvious that there´s more stuff to be mined from this mythology.

When it comes to the acting in this one, let´s just say that if we compare this to the last installment, we´re talking Oscar material here. I mean literally, because as you might remember Adrian Brody, who I guess plays the lead, did win an Oscar for “The Pianist”. Now, he isn´t the kind of guy you expect to show up in a movie like this but after the awful disaster that was “Giallo”, I say that anything goes. The great thing about Brody in this movie is that he´s not treating it like “Ha, ha, look at me! I´m an Academy Award Winner and I´m in a Predator movie!” Instead he´s taking it pretty seriously and he´s bulked up pretty good for this part so I´d say that he´s pretty believable as the silent, tough guy-type. But still… he´s Adrian Brody so when he´s next to Danny Trejo in a scene, there´s no doubting which one of them would win if push came to shove, ok? But all around, they managed to get some pretty good actors in there. Alice Braga from “Redbelt” is there as well, so I´m not complaining.

All in all, this is an above average action movie, it´s just that I had certain expectations that it didn´t live up to. But I really hope that Rodriguez gets to produce the next one, as well. The lean-mean approach they took with this one really works, with no subplots and shit like that. I´m glad that someone learned something from the abomination that was “Alien VS. Predators: Requiem”.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

This is the action movie event of the year, hell, probably the decade for all I know and I´m sure that no one has missed the fact that this movie opened this weekend. I´ll admit that I had my fair share of trepidation when I walked into the theatre because how the hell could this movie live up to the hype? Really, was it even possible? Well, as it turns out, it is! I´ll admit that I didn´t have that “Holy shit, what the hell is going on”-experience I had when I saw “Rambo” on opening day but let´s be fair here, there´s no way in hell that when it comes to action sequences that that movie will ever be topped. This is a different kind of beast, yet it is very obvious that both these movies have sprung from the mind of Sylvester Stallone.

I´m not gonna bore you with the story because I´m sure you all know what it´s about (a group of mercenaries take on an evil dictator), but it´s the sequences that surround the action set pieces that makes this kind of unique in today´s action movie landscape. It is unique in that it is essentially a throwback to the kind of action movies we grew up with. You see, this is a movie about men. It´s about men, made by men and aimed squarely at men, boys, guys, dudes, whatever! If it were scientifically possible to transfer pure testosterone onto celluloid, this is what it would look like.

But you know, like I mentioned it´s the more quiet scenes that gives the movie its depth. Now, when I say “depth”, I´m not talking Bergman-like despair here, ok? But just like in “Rocky Balboa”, Stallone is preoccupied with what life does to men, particularly men of action and violence. How does it affect you to be the source of and witness to such cruelty as Stallone´s character, Barney, is? Well, one of my favorite scenes of the film is when he has a conversation with his old friend Tool and they discuss this matter in their own macho kind of way. This could have been a pretty bad scene that would have served as nothing but a segue into the next action scene but as faith would have it, this guy Tool is played by none other than Mickey Rourke, so you see… It´s pretty fantastic, if you know what I mean.

Man, I just love how Mickey Rourke looks these days. I mean, no matter what he´ll do, no matter how much he´ll try there´s no hiding this guy´s emotional scars from the many beatings he´s taken in life and it´s exactly in these kind of roles that they´re put to perfect use. But unless you slept your way through “The Wrestler” you already know this.

I have to say that I was pretty impressed with the way that Stallone managed to make every single member of The Expendables hard as hell, although it does feel like some of Randy Couture´s scenes may have ended up on the cutting room floor, but that´s probably a good thing. Randy “The Natural” Couture may be the toughest of the bunch in real life but it´s pretty obvious that the guy is not a professional actor.

However, when I say that every one of The Expendables is “hard as hell”, that´s a truth with some modification to it because if we´re gonna be honest: Jet Li? No matter how hard he´ll try, he´s never gonna be “hard” in that macho kind of way that a guy like Stone Cold Steve Austin or Dolph Lundgren is, even when they´re sleeping. But at least, Stallone is aware of this and instead uses Li for what he´s good at, which is jumping all around the place and kicking the shit out of people.

I would have loved to see more of Gary Daniel´s henchman character, though. He does a pretty good job of snarling his way through the movie and the fight scene he has is one of the best I´ve seen in many years.

I´m not even gonna try to say that this was a movie that I watched objectively. If this would have turned out to suck, I think that I just would have lied and told everyone I liked it anyway. You know, kind of like if that party I compared it to at the beginning had sucked, when people would have asked how it was you don´t wanna admit that you´ve grown apart as friends and that you don´t have that much in common any longer and that it was an awful evening, right? You would´ve just said “Fine!” That´s what I was fearing with this movie: what if Stallone doesn´t have “it” any longer? What if this is just his way of cashing in on his newly regained box office respectability, after “Rocky Balboa” and “Rambo”? Well, fortunately the old man knows exactly how to construct a ripping action yarn.

If there´s one thing I didn´t enjoy with the movie, it´s the fact that Stallone does have a tendency to let the cuts come a bit too quickly in the fighting scenes. I would have liked it if the camera would have been allowed to rest longer on the actors but hey, at least it´s not Michael Bay we´re talking here! It´s not that bad.

As great as it is to see all of these guys together on screen, I have to say that it´s a little greater to see some more than others. Naturally, I´m talking about Dolph Lundgren! It´s about frickin´ time that this guy appears on the big screen again. Now, I am a Swede just as Dolph but honestly, if there´s one actor out there who deserves to be rescued from the straight-to-DVD-trenches, it´s Dolph goddamn Lundgren! I mean, look at this guy´s face! It´s like his genes were constructed to do one thing and one thing only and that is to star in action movies and the older he gets the more brutal he looks. I thought that he delivered a fantastic performance in the latest “Universal Soldier” movie, where he came across as almost sort of a Frankenstein´s monster of a man and I would love to see him do more roles where he plays on this newfound ruggedness.

Now, I haven´t even mentioned that scene. You know which one I´m talking about, the one featuring a certain bald headed actor and a certain governor of California. Well, it´s pretty funny to see the three of them together on screen and the great thing is that Stallone has actually managed to not make it feel contrived or forced and even manages to get a laugh in there, as well. Which is another thing I appreciated about the film: it´s got a lot of humor in it but wisely, it is grounded in how the characters behave and not in the kind of wisecracks or one liners that we´re mostly used to.

This is basically the kind of movie that you get drunk while watching, or at least you wanna get drunk after having watched it, as I did. I can promise that I won´t have more fun at the cinema this year than I did while watching this one. You gotta be reminded every now and again that it´s pretty good to be a man so thanks for that, Stallone!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Well, I think you can but it clearly changes things. Which is a goddamn shame because “Edge of Darkness” is a pretty solid thriller and Mel Gibson is back on form as the kind of stoic, resolute character we´re used of seeing him as. Gibson plays Thomas Craven, a single father and a Boston homicide detective. His 24-year-old daughter Emma, his only child, is killed on the front steps of his home. At first it appears that Craven was the intended target but pretty soon he discovers that his daughter was the one they were aiming for…

This basically means that we get to see Mel Gibson do what he does best in movies: threaten guys and beat them up, while gathering information. Hey, remember “Payback”? I´m not sure if you aware of this but it has been scientifically proven that “Payback” is in fact one of the best action movies of the last 20 years. I don´t care which version you watch, the theatrical one (which apparently Gibson took control over, which would explain a prolonged torture scene where the bad guys crushes his feet) or the director´s cut “Straight up”-one, they´re both fantastic!

And even though “Edge of Darkness” is in no way close to rivaling that movie´s in the departments of bad ass-ery and hardboiled-edness, this is still the closest thing Gibson has come to it since then. And that my friends, is a good thing. A very good thing…

You see, this is the kind of action movies they don´t make that many of nowadays. It´s a pretty somber story and surprisingly “slow”-paced. I put “slow” within quotation marks because I myself didn´t find it to be slow but I´m pretty sure that some of you out there will find it that. If you do, I don´t know what to tell you other than that you are clearly wrong.

The director Martin Campbell is one of those guys that I haven´t paid too much attention to, due to the fact that besides directing one of the best Bond movies ever, “Casino Royale”, he´s also the man responsible for such movies as “Vertical Limit” and the unbelievably awful “Zorro”-sequel. But after watching this one, I actually suspect that this guy is one of the best action directors out there today. That scene at the opening of “Casino Royale”, where Bond beat the hell out of a guy in a bathroom was spectacular and there´s a great, little scene like that in this one where Gibson goes to question his daughter´s boyfriend, where he makes use of what´s available to him in the room in order to beat the crap out of the guy.

But still, while watching this one it´s impossible to not think of the fact that this guy, Mel Gibson who once was Martin Riggs to the whole world and whose movies you enjoyed is now the same guy who´s shouting “I need a womaaaaaaan! A real womaaaaaan!” on those tapes. And that makes it pretty hard to enjoy a movie starring him, which sucks pretty hard because I think that this is the best Gibson has been in ages. I don´t know what he´s been up to these last couple of years but it sure as hell has taken its toll on him. Gibson is one of the few actors out there who actually looks his age and all that drunk driving and other mischief clearly shows in the lines of his face. And it´s fantastic! He´s got that gravelly voice now, as well, which every action movie star should have. Gibson looks and sounds fantastic, I think.

But it´s still with a weird sensation of guilt that I watched and enjoyed this movie. Are you supposed to enjoy a movie starring someone who is clearly unwell in the mental department and is heard threatening the life of his girlfriend on tape? Is it possible to separate the art from the artist? I personally don´t think that you can. You can still enjoy the works of someone demented on some sort of level but the fact that this has been created by someone who is clearly in poor mental health, will always be looming over you. And let´s face it, Mel Gibson has used up whatever amount of goodwill he may have possessed in the past. Which is why, if you attempt to recommend this movie to someone you may be exposed to some weird looks and remarks like “Do you mean the one starring Mel Gibson? That insane fucker? Did you actually like that one?” Just be prepared that this may happen. Which is a shame, because like I mentioned earlier this is one of the best action movies I´ve seen in a long time! It reminded me of a 70´s movie in the way that it actually takes its time to tell an exciting and interesting story, instead of just catapulting itself into the next set piece after the other.

Seeing as Gibson has ruined his career, this may very well be the last movie we see him starring in and if that´s the case I think he should be pleased with himself. In a way it kind of reminded me of Clint Eastwood´s swan song “Gran Torino” in that it has that somber vibe to it and it´s got kind of a fitting ending, if it does turn out to be Gibson´s last foray into the action genre.

You should definitely check this one out. It´s a keeper and if you don´t like, you need to stop watching those Michael Bay-movies because this is how it´s done…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

I don´t know about you but I live a pretty straight-laced life: I´ve got a job, an education, a girlfriend and an apartment. Like most of us, in this privileged part of the world. And like most of us, I reckon that I have some dreams and hopes for the future. We all do. Even the dope fiends you see sitting at the bus stops every now and then have that. But that´s something that you don´t think about too often but this is exactly what Giovinazzo has done with this movie: he´s asked himself “What are the dreams and hopes of these outcasts? What do the prostitutes´ lives look like when they leave their corner at the end of the day/night?”

Givonazzo builds his movie around a fairly large cast of characters. It sort of plays out like “Short Cuts” with crack-addicts. We get to follow Marybeth (Kerry Washington) who´s a pre-op transsexual working as a prostitute and living with her lover, Benny (Desmond Harrington), a small time burglar. Manny (Victor Rasuk) works two jobs: the late shift in an all night bodega surrounded by young junkies, drug dealers and prostitutes, and as a security guard in a Welfare hotel. At home his wife, Concetta (Shannyn Sossamon), takes care of their sick infant son. Willy, ten years old, lives in the Welfare hotel with his sister, mother (Illeana Douglas) and her violent boyfriend.  Romeo (Evan Ross), an up-and-coming street thug, roams the streets with his gang. Upset over the murder of his younger brother, and feeling partially responsible for not being there during the shooting, he terrorizes anyone who comes in his path.

As you might´ve noticed, this isn´t the feel-good movie of the year, ok? The fact that the opening scene shows us a girl being raped and then urinated on oughtta give you an idea that you´re in for a harsh ride. This is Buddy Giovinazzo serving up a main course of misery, mixed up with brutality, with a side order of tragedy, drug abuse and broken dreams. Those of you out there who remember his debut film, “Combat Shock” shouldn´t be too surprised. What sets this film apart from other “drug”-movies, such as the not-as-satisfying “Spun” is the fact that Giovinazzo hasn´t made this movie to titillate anybody and show them that “this is what life is all about in Cracktown. It can be pretty cool, so come on down”. Unlike many other films in this genre, this isn´t emotional pornography or misery for misery´s sake! Giovinazzo has a mission and that is to show us that even these outcasts of our society have dreams, hopes and that they pretty much want the same thing as we do: love, loyalty and friendship.

Christ, that was deep, huh? Did you get your handkerchief out there?

But that´s what I love about this film: that it shows us what these characters go through when they´re at home, after they´ve spent a day on the street turning tricks. And it´s not that different from our lives, except for pouring a glass of wine, they smoke some crack cocaine. Other than the choice of which drug we choose, it´s basically the same. And this realization is pretty moving at times.

Now, this wouldn´t be very moving at all, if Giovinazzo hadn´t managed to get some pretty great actors for this film. Illeana Douglas is great as the drug addicted mother, who wants to get her kids out of Cracktown but keeps drifting back into her addiction. Evan Ross is absolutely frightening as Romeo but the special gong for great acting has to go to Kerry Washington and Desmond Harrington as the couple, where she´s a pre-op transsexual. This is one of the more touching love stories I´ve seen in quite some time. Harrington does a great portrayal of a guy, who´s not necessarily gay but in love with this man who´s in the process of becoming a woman. The fact that Washington´s character is much more sophisticated and well versed in the ways of the world and very much aware of this, lends another layer of tragedy to the story. But Harrington really does a fantastic job at conveying how much he loves this person and the scene where he declares his love for her is pretty goddamn moving. There´s some fine, fine acting going on here.

I mean, their story alone would´ve made for a great movie but Giovinazzo throws it in there with three other equally as compelling story lines. There´s more going on, character-wise, in fifteen minutes of this film than in that entire fucker Michael Bay´s career. The fact that this movie feels frighteningly realistic only adds to its greatness. It´s obvious that Giovinazzo know these characters and loves them, as well. In any other movie, these characters would be nothing else than some sort of freakish-looking supporting character, but Giovinazzo puts them smack dab in the middle of things and treats them with the sort of dignity and compassion I haven´t seen before. And thanks to the great performances, the fact that most of these characters do pretty horrific things, you never once think of them as “bad guys”. That´s some pretty good writing for ya, I´d say, and this makes Giovinazzo the natural heir to Hubert Selby, JR:s legacy. Like Selby, he writes about tragic fates without it ever getting too sentimental or pitying them. This is kind of like “Last Exit to Brooklyn” for our century.

You know, ever since “Short Cuts” this type of movies with multiple storylines have been pretty popular and a sure-fire way to woo the critics. Robert Altman was the one who pioneered this genre with his masterpiece “Nashville” back in the 70´s and re-vitalized it with “Short Cuts” twenty years later. But since then there hasn´t been that many contributions to the genre that´s worth mentioning, except Paul Thomas Anderson´s masterpiece “Magnolia”. The thing I´m getting at is that I thought that this genre was as good as dead, especially since that awful “Crash” made its way into the Academy Awards with its heavy handed preaching of “We´re all connected” and “Racism is everywhere but we´re all humans”. That was it, I thought. Now, everything we´re gonna see are bad “Crash” rip off´s and I don´t wanna subject myself to that because the original was pretty damn crappy to begin with. That´s why this movie is such a breath of fresh air, it´s a goddamn speed injection into this genre´s arm, with its grittiness and realism. You see, Buddy Giovinazzo has the same message of humanism and empathy that that hack Paul Haggis hammered home with his “Crash”, only he does it in such an infinitely more interesting way. Eat that, Paul Haggis! This is the way you do it… and don´t you forget it. Giovinazzo proves with this movie that he is today´s #1 chronicler of modern society´s outcasts and their broken dreams and hopes. We need more filmmakers like that… And less like Paul Haggis.

Watch it. It´s a good one.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

But you know, no matter how fascinating I found The Runaways to be, I never ever thought that someday I would be sitting down to watch a movie about them! A movie starring that girl from the “Twilight” movies as Joan Jett, no less! And that little kid from “Man on Fire” (and the “Twilight” movies, as well) as Cherie Currie! If you would´ve told me that a couple of years back I probably would´ve said “Sure, in an alternate universe” and then I would´ve waited for the dwarves to appear and sing me a song on streets made of candy. But here it is: “The Runaways”, starring Kristen Stewart as Joan Jett, Dakota Fanning as Cherie Currie and Scout Taylor-Compton (Laurie Strode from Rob Zombie´s “Halloween”) as Lita Ford. And you know what? It´s pretty goddamn entertaining!

So this is basically the rise and fall of The Runaways and it´s based on Cherie Currie´s book “Neon Angel”, so what we get here is Currie´s and Jett´s version of what happened. The other members of the band are featured as fleeting presences, at best. Supposedly, there´s a documentary out there called “Edgeplay” that lets the other members have their say but I haven´t seen that one. And to be honest, isn´t it Jett and Currie´s version of how it all went down that we´re interested in? I know I am, at least.

If you´re not familiar with the story about how The Runaways came to be, the band was masterminded by Kim Fowler (played by an amazing Michael Shannon in the movie) who brought the girls together and drilled them in how they were suppose to act, sing, behave on stage and pose. He was the one who found a fifteen year old Cheri Currie in a nightclub and introduced her to Joan Jett and the other girls. “Jail bait rock” he calls the music in the movie and I guess he´s right. You know, while watching this movie I thought it was actually pretty disturbing how young the girls were when they started in the band, considering how sexual Cherie Currie was portrayed in every picture that was taken. Naturally, I didn´t reflect over this when I myself was still in high school but it´s pretty icky today, when I am in my early 30´s.

But anyway, what makes this movie so much fun is the fact that it is surprisingly well acted by everyone involved. Dakota Fanning does a great job of capturing that sex kitten quality that Cherie Currie had and Michael Shannon is, as always, pretty fantastic as Kim Fowler. It´s definitely the most show off-y role of the film but where this part could´ve easily turned into a loud mouthed caricature in the hands of a lesser actor, Shannon manages to keep it on the right side of believable.

But writer-director Floria Sigismondi has an ace up her sleeve and that ace is Kristen Stewart. I think it´s time that I finally face up to the fact that this gal can really act! I know that in the “Twilight” movies she doesn´t do much besides looking sad and pale, while delivering her lines in a twitchy manner, but it´s a whole different deal here. She´s got that Joan Jett swagger down to a tee and if you´ve ever seen any of the old live footage of The Runaways, you can also see that she´s perfected that sloppy way of playing and holding the guitar that Joan Jett had. I´m telling you, it´s pretty goddamn impressive! I read somewhere that Joan Jett was an executive producer or something on the movie and that she stayed on set all throughout filming so that Stewart could hang out with her and observe her. Well, that sure paid off. Man, wouldn´t that be a cool job? To hang out with Joan Jett all day long…

I guess that one could argue with how much of this movie is actually true. Like when Kim Fowley puts the girls through “heckler boot camp” and brings a bunch of kids to their rehearsal space to throw empty cans at them while playing so that they can get used to that when they start playing the clubs. I´m not so sure that Fowley and Jett wrote their biggest hit, “Cherry bomb”, on the spot just so that Cherie could have something to sing for her audition but honestly, it sure makes for a more entertaining movie so I´m all for it. Why let the truth get in the way for a great tale, huh?

But in all sincerity this is actually a pretty fascinating tale. It focuses on Cherie Currie and basically how a young girl like her loses her innocence and Dakota Fanning does a hell of a job of portraying that. The movie opens with her getting her first period and by the end we´ve seen her trying to buy a bottle of booze for breakfast, steal painkillers from her dad and have girl-on-girl sex with Joan Jett, among other things.

When it comes to movies about music, I guess that my favorites is still “Almost Famous” and “High Fidelity” but that´s just because those movies are told from the perspective of a fan, rather than from that of a rock star as “The Runaways” is. That´s why I think it´s easier to identify with those films and why they hold a deeper emotional resonance with me. The one objection I have with “Almost Famous” is that it does get a bit too sappy at times. “The Runaways” doesn´t have this problem. Floria Sigismondi keeps the tone very well balanced, without getting preachy or sentimental.

It´s about time that The Runaways get recognized for what they were: a great band that managed to write great songs, be insanely cool and pave the way for other women in rock. Without The Runaways, no The Go Go´s and no The Donnas, so thanks for that…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

This sequel basically picks up right where the first one ended and then we´re treated to one of those “One year later” cards. So now we get to see Laurie Strode (Taylor Scout-Compton) as she is today: punked out with something that resembles dreadlocks and black torn clothes. Basically, your average teenage clothes, if it weren´t for the fact that she has giant scars everywhere. It´s pretty much the same with Annie (Danielle Harris). The two of them are living together with Annie´s dad, Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif). Laurie is trying to cope with the aftermath of the previous Halloween massacre by visiting a psychiatrist (Margot Kidder) and pumping herself full of various prescription drugs.

Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) has written a book chronicling the murders and Michael´s insanity and is doing a publicity tour, promoting it. Even his publicists thinks that the book is in particularly bad taste but that doesn´t stop Loomis from making a stop in Haddonfield for a photo shoot at Michael´s old house. Meanwhile, Michael Myers is making his way over the plains towards Haddonfield. He is guided by the specters of his younger self and his dead mother (Sheri Moon Zombie)…

I think that Zombie´s concept of actually watching how his characters deals with the aftermath of being part of a massacre like the girls were in the first movie, is a great one! But it doesn´t quite work… If it´s due to his lead actress, I´m not sure. Because the main problem with this movie is that in this movie, Laurie Strode is just an unsympathetic, crying, whining teenage girl. It doesn´t matter that she´s been to hell and back, it´s extremely hard to care for her in this incarnation. I had trouble caring about her in the first one because I thought that Scout-Compton was too bland an actress, which left me wishing that Zombie would´ve given the role of Laurie to Danielle Harris instead. The pattern repeats itself here, because if Scout-Compton was too bland in the first one, in this one she is downright annoying and flat out unsympathetic. I´m not sure that that was what Zombie was going for.

Which once again leaves me pining for Danielle Harris and wondering what she would´ve been able to make with the Laurie character? Unfortunately, in this one she´s sort of pushed aside and doesn´t get much to do. And that is what is wrong with this picture: she and Brad Dourif´s character are the only ones who come close to resembling anything sympathetic. Everyone else is a racist redneck, an opportunistic asshole or just stupid.

The other major mistake Zombie makes here is that he turns Dr. Loomis into this fame-hungry pop psychologist, which leaves the door open for Malcolm McDowell to start overacting like a madman. I had a real problem with this. Dr. Loomis is supposed to be the voice of reason, albeit a paranoid, insane voice of reason but still. He is not supposed to be someone who wants to take advantage of what Laurie and the others have been through but that´s unfortunately what happens here. I guess when you got McDowell playing a part it´s easy to take this route because there is something deeply unsympathetic about the guy but I could never ever see Donald Pleasence´s character behave this way.

I think it´s admirable that Zombie plays it straight here and that he actually treats death as something horrifying and scarring, because not many horror movies do that. It´s not like we get to see how the characters in the “Saw” movies cope with their day-to-day life after being trapped in one of Jigsaw´s sew-your-ass-to-your-mouth-traps, right? So kudos for that, Zombie! But this is the first time that a movie directed by Rob Zombie actually feels like it´s directed by someone who wants to be Rob Zombie.

It feels like maybe he wasn´t as inspired this time around so he just figured “I´ll throw a bunch of characters in there who says some pretty nasty thing, have them played by old B-movie veterans who no one except the most hardcore fans will recognize, and have them killed off, while I film it all on a murky film stock”…

I mean, it´s worked the other times he´s directed so why wouldn´t it now? I´m not sure but it doesn´t. I´m not saying that the movie is a failure because as far as sequels go, it´s actually pretty good, but I guess that I was just expecting more. The last time Zombie did a sequel it was with one of the best movies of this decade, “The Devil´s Rejects” but with that one he managed to create something totally new and separate from the original. With this one he sort of rehashes his usual schtick, which is a crying shame.

I gotta say that I´m not too fond of the look of this film, either. In his previous films, Zombie has managed to create sort of a timeless quality but while shooting it pretty slick. This one is much murkier, grainier and it´s kind of hard to actually see what´s going on in some scenes. I guess that the reason for this is because this is a much more ambiguous film than the first one. The whole concept of Michael interacting with the specters of his younger self and his dead mother is an interesting one but unfortunately, Zombie fails somewhat in the execution of it.

I can understand why he wants his wife, Sheri Moon Zombie, to be in all his movies and it hasn´t really bothered me in any of the previous films but in this one it felt really forced. And as much as I like her presence (I thought she did a surprisingly good job in the first “Halloween”), I´m afraid that she isn´t up to the task of playing what is essentially a ghost. Her scenes feel contrived and forced, although they possess a very haunting quality, graphically speaking. Her scenes could´ve easily have been ditched.

Also, I gotta say that I´ve enjoyed Zombie´s dialogue that seem designed to shock you (remember William Forsythe´s rants about skullfucking in the first one?) and there´s less of that in this one. However, when it does appear it kinda feels out of place. I´m talking about (SPOILER!!!) the scene at the beginning with the two coroners who talks about getting it on with one of the corpses they´re transporting. I don´t know, it just felt like it was out of place and that Zombie included it so that he could get some shock value in there.

I´m a little bit worried about Zombie´s career as a director after watching this one. He started out with “House of 1000 Corpses” which was a pretty entertaining throwback to 70´s Grindhouse cinema but he really knocked it out of the park with “The Devil´s Rejects”. When it came to remaking “Halloween”, I think he did a much better job than most directors would but it feels like he has stagnated a bit with this sequel. He´s working with the same tools as before but the movie gets pretty repetitive, after a while. We´re constantly presented to new characters who say nasty things to each other, only for Michael Myers to come barging in and break their neck or stab the hell out of them. I suspect that maybe Zombie didn´t have a shitload of ideas for this sequel.

One thing that is pretty spectacular about the film is Brad Dourif´s performance as Sheriff Garrett. Most of us are used to seeing him as the psychotic, weird character but he really is fantastic here and the scene (SPOILER!!!) where he finds Annie, is pretty painful to watch. Dourif´s sorrow and pain in this sequence is example of acting on a level that you just wouldn´t see in the latest “Final Destination” flick or the new “Saw” sequel.

Man, I can´t believe how mixed feelings I have about this movie. I think the reason why I was feeling sort of disappointed with it is because maybe I´m comparing it too much with “The Devil´s Rejects”, which I´ve come to realize that even if Zombie keeps making movies for another thirty years, he´ll never top that one and the faster I realize that, the sooner I will be able to enjoy his other films more. I guess this is an ok movie, after all. Hell, if you compare it to most of the other “Halloween” sequels, it´s a goddamn masterpiece, no doubt about that! I still like the first one better but I have this gnawing sensation that this one will grow on me. However, I will keep cursing Zombie´s name for not giving the part of Laurie Strode to Danielle Harris…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

It´s always something of a gamble when you´re gonna re-visit one of these childhood favorites. Chances are that you´re gonna agree with everyone that kept calling you stupid as a kid because most of the times those movies you liked turn out to be pretty crappy, so you end up sitting there thinking “Christ, they were right! I must´ve been pretty stupid to like this movie, because this really blows!”

Well, in this case I had the exact opposite experience. This movie was actually better than I remember it being. And do you know why that is? Because John Landis is a genius and his take on vampirism is pretty goddamn funny, that´s why! And gory!

Marie (Anne Parillaud) is a vampire, making her rounds in a wintry Chicago. But she´s not your ordinary kind of vampire. She´s the kind that has a conscience, which means that she tries to limit her throat-sucking to the criminal denizens of her city. Everything´s hunky dory until two problems come up, she is interrupted while feeding on Sal “the shark” Macelli (Robert Loggia) and she begins to develop a relationship with Joe Gennaro (Anthony LaPaglia), the policeman who has been trying to put Sal away. Sal wakes up in the morgue very confused and very thirsty. He goes back to his old haunts and begins to create an organized crime family of vampires while Marie and her policeman lover decide to hunt him down.

Did I mention that Marie also has quite an appetite for sex? That´s right, just like all good vampires she doesn´t only crave blood. Do you hear that, “Twilight”? That´s why it´s such fun to re-visit this movie because it´s a hell of a lot more gorier than I remember it being and in the first five minutes we´ve also been treated to the wonderful sight of Anne Parillaud walking around her bedroom, in her birthday suit! We´re talking full frontal here and tell me, how can you not like a movie that opens this way?

This is one underrated film we´ve got here, friends. We all know the state of vampires these days with young girls fawning over R-Pattz or whatever the hell they call him today, which is why this movie makes me nostalgic for the vampires of yesteryear. Remember when vampires actually did some killing whenever they showed up in a movie? Hey, it sounds crazy, kids, but that´s what they did! In this one they don´t sparkle in the sunlight, oh no, sir! You see, this Marie gal can be pretty vicious when she sets her mind to it and that´s why her attacks are among the highlights of the film. They´re pretty brutal, especially by today´s standards.

And you know what else I love about John Landis´ movies? It´s because they seem designed to be one and one thing only: fun! And this one is no exception. To see Italian gangsters run around, taking big chomps out of each other´s necks is pretty hilarious. Kind of makes me wonder why the hell no one ever came up with the idea of vampire gangsters before this movie. Especially since Robert Loggia seems to be born to play this part. He really lets it rip as the mob boss. The scene where he wakes up at the morgue is particularly funny. He kind of does the same schtick here that he would later hone to perfection on David Lynch´s “Lost Highway”, when he played that gangster boss with a severe case of road rage.

And you know, since this is a John Landis movie we also get the obligatory slew of cameos from different directors and other faces familiar to horror fans. In this one we get Sam Raimi as guy who works at a meat packing plant, Dario Argento as a paramedic, Michael Ritchie as a night watchman, Linnea Quigley as a nurse, Frank Oz as a pathologist and Forrest J. Ackerman as a guy who gets his car stolen. That´s always fun with Landis´ movies: to spot the different cameos. I know, it´s nerdy, but I admit it: I wear my badge of nerdiness with pride.

But except for the cameos, it´s a pretty impressive cast: Chazz Palminteri plays Loggia´s right hand man, Don Rickles plays the mobster´s lawyer, David Proval is in there, as well as Tony Sirico who played Tony Walnuts on “The Sopranos”. It´s kind of fun to see these guys who usually show up in mob movies directed by Scorsese, send up their image in this way.

And you know, since this is a movie from 1992 we´re talking about here, do you know what the best thing about it is? No goddamn CGI! That´s right, folks! None whatsoever. I know that that sounds pretty unbelievable but that´s how they made films back then: just practical effects. This means that when the blood starts to flow, it really flows here. Landis isn´t holding back here. Imagine that they got away with this back then: a vampire comedy with an R rating? Fantastic.

It´s obvious that Landis himself is a fan boy, as well. He shows his dedication to the genre by almost always having some old horror movie showing in the background and constantly paying tribute to other films. That doesn´t mean that he´s afraid to mix it up a bit when it comes to the vampire conventions, though. The vampires in this one doesn´t need a wooden stake through the heart in order to die. Landis shows a couple of times that regular bullets will suffice more than well. They also have a reflection whenever they look in the mirror. Garlic, however, is still a problem for them. We´re also shown in one of the best scenes of the movie that sunlight still pack a punch.

I kinda appreciate this approach to making a vampire movie. I think it makes it more fun if you deviate somewhat from the standard rules and conventions. But like I said, that does not mean that you should turn the vampires in the sobbing emo kids who sparkle when they´re exposed to sunlight, ok?

So let´s just ignore the fact that Anne Parillaud may not be the best actress in the world, ok? At least not when she´s forced to speak her lines in English, which isn´t her native tongue, then she sounds a bit stilted. She was fantastic in “Nikita” but she isn´t the most charismatic vampire in this one but I´ll take her over Bella any day. But let´s ignore that and concentrate on the fact that this may be one of the last truly entertaining vampire films ever produced. So thanks for that, John Landis!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Besides, if you think about it, “Cop Land” is a classic in the sense that this was probably the last time that we got to see Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel deliver some truly great performances. Remember that back in ´97 every other movie those guys starred in had some classic lines in them? What has Harvey Keitel been up to since then, you ask? Well, he´s been in such masterpieces as “National Treasure: Book of secrets”, “Be Cool” and “U-571” (to name the best of the movies on his resume. I´ll admit that these movies holds a certain value, since they are pretty entertaining but the tragic thing is that the Keitel we´re treated to in these flicks is the one that´s going on auto pilot. You can´t exactly compare Keitel´s turn in “Crime Spree” to “Bad Lieutenant”, can you?

It´s the same thing with Robert De Niro. Sure, he was pretty funny in “Meet the Parents”, “Analyze That” and “Stardust” but 1997 was the last time we had the pleasure of watching De Niro really act, both in “Cop Land” and in “Jackie Brown”. Since then it´s all been downhill, unfortunately. I don´t know what the hell happened. It seems that De Niro has been kind of out of it ever since Scorsese decided to make Leonardo Di Caprio his new muse. I remember hearing that De Niro was supposed to play the part that Daniel Day Lewis ended up doing in “Gangs of New York” but because De Niro refused to film in France, because of that whole brothel thing where he got arrested, Scorsese gave it to Lewis instead. If that´s the case, then it´s a crying shame!

You can´t deny the fact that De Niro has managed to create some pretty iconic performances in his career, and most of them has been with Scorsese. But the one he delivers in “Cop Land” isn´t mentioned that often when you speak about the “great De Niro performances” and I can´t for the life of me understand why. It´s a subtle performance of understated grandeur! This is why I´ve always preferred De Niro over Pacino. Imagine him in this role. He would´ve started shouting and screaming before the credits were over.

But De Niro and Keitel isn´t the only ones who delivers truly great performances in this flick. I think it´s pretty safe to say that Sylvester Stallone will never top the one he gives here, as the hearing disabled Sheriff Freddy Heflin, who has had a crush on Annabella Sciorra´s character since his teens. I know that Stallone was pretty damn great in the first “Rocky”-movie but this is his crowning achievement as an actor.

The story goes something like this: Policemen have always been the idols of Freddy Heflin. Due to being slightly deaf, Heflin could never pass the physical to become a police officer himself. However, because of his friendly, amiable nature, he’s managed to get himself elected Sheriff of a small New Jersey county outside of New York City, and he lives in a town where many NYPD cops also live. Mo Tilden (De Niro) is an Internal Affairs investigator for the NYPD, and his investigation of some crooked cops leads him to this small town, and to Sheriff Freddy Heflin. Heflin begins to help Tilden, and discovers that some of his heroes may not as righteous as Heflin would like to believe…

When you watch this movie today, it´s kind of amazing how many great actors director James Mangold managed to assemble for this picture: We not only get De Niro, Keitel, Sciorra and Stallone but also Michael Rapaport, Peter Berg, Janeane Garofalo and a slightly overweight Ray Liotta, who is also at the top of his game in this movie. The scene where he threatens Robert Patrick with a dart arrow in his nose is a classic.

Now, the reason why this is such a fantastic movie, except for the many great performances on display, are two things: the first thing is that it´s basically a western set in modern day society. There´s also a sadness to Stallone´s character that you don´t often see in your average cop movie. His lifelong crush on Liz, who he saved from drowning as a teenager and which is the reason why his lost his hearing on one ear, is extremely moving and involving. You can clearly see that she has feelings for him as well, and she is aware of the fact that if she were to have married him instead, she definitely would´ve been more loved, but he wouldn´t have been able to provide for her the kind of life that her husband Joey (Peter Berg) can. She realizes this too and there´s a melancholia to Stallone and Sciorra´s scenes that are absolutely heartbreaking. It kind of reminds me of something that James Gray would have come up with.

I can´t begin to tell you how great Stallone is in his portrayal of Freddy Heflin. Mangold knows to take advantage of his hangdog looks and he has never looked sadder than here. This is a man who´s gotten his heart chewed out, beaten and stomped on by life and Stallone walks a very fine line between being pathetic and endearing. In the first scene we meet him, he´s drunk as a skunk at the local bar, playing the pinball machine and when he runs out of coins he goes outside to unlock the parking meter to get some more. This is a pretty funny scene but it tells us a lot about this character. He´s playing the pinball machine while the cops he so admires at the other end of the bar are discussing something that he knows he will never be a part of, and it´s pretty clear that even though he´s the sheriff of this town no one takes him seriously.

Anyway, he stumbles outside to unlock the parking meter and drops the coins over the curb and that´s when Ray Liotta gives him the advice to home and sleep it off. There are a couple of scenes where get to see Heflin at home at night, one is after an encounter with Sciorra, and he´s laying on the couch, crying and listening to “Drive all night” and “Stolen car” by Bruce Springsteen and clutching the cover of his “The River” album. Now, I´ve always been especially fond of these types of Springsteen-tracks: the slow ballads about the people who spend their lives in the margins of our society and in these scenes with Stallone alone on his couch, director Mangold manages to touch upon something that very much resembles the kind of sadness one would feel when you realize that there is something very wrong with your life. It didn´t turn out the way you expected it to and when you know the reason why it didn´t, it has to be extra painful. We´ve all felt that at one point or another. Hell, if even a multibillionaire rock star like Bruce Springsteen can conjure up that feeling it´s not that unusual, it´s something that all human beings have in common and this is why Freddy Heflin is such a relatable character: he´s a decent guy who wants to do the right thing and who´s in love with the wrong woman. Who doesn´t like a guy like that?

But other than Stallone´s great performance, “Cop Land” really is a great western, updated to the late 1990´s. It basically comes down to the old “a man´s gotta do what a man´s gotta do”-type of thing and I can´t help it: I´m a sucker for that shit! I know that it´s predictable and some of you might even say that it s cliché-ridden but I say this is classic stuff. Hell, the scenes towards the end with Stallone escorting the prisoner almost borders on near mythic-stuff.

So, if you haven´t seen this one, you should! It´s a cracking thriller with a surprisingly mature streak of sadness running through it, with easily one of the best ensemble casts of the 90´s.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

But anyway, this guy is no actor, I think we can all agree on that and even though a guy like Liam Neeson isn´t exactly stretching his acting muscles in a movie like this, it´s pretty apparent that he belongs in a different league. But maybe it´s wrong of me to complain about a thing like this ´cuz after all, this is “The A-Team”, not Shakespeare, right? But you know, it wasn´t that long ago that I saw one of those infomercials that Mr. T has done where he´s selling his own grill or whatever the hell it is and the weird thing is that the guy looks exactly like he did 20 years ago! Apparently Mr. T forgot to age during the years he´s been away from the limelight. “I pity the fool who grows old!” They could´ve easily gotten away with giving him the role.

But even if you disregard the fact that Mr. T wasn´t cast in the movie, is it any good? Not really. It is kind of fun but this is a good example of the usual overkill that goes on in today´s action movies. Hell, at one point Neeson´s character even says “Overkill is underrated” but you know what, usually I´m not of the habit of disagreeing with Liam Neeson (not after watching “Taken” and realizing that the guy kicks ass like it´s nobody´s business) but I think I have to, in this case.  “The A-Team” is a bit too much of everything.

The story goes like this: The A-Team, an elite combat unit, is framed for a crime they didn´t commit. This means that they have to clear their names and in order to do this, they have to blow a lot of shit up. That´s all you need to know, really.

Let´s start off with the good things: Sharlto Copley! This guy has got the chops. I think we can agree that he delivered on of last year´s best performances in “District 9” and even though he´s not gonna get any Oscar nominations for his turn as Murdoch, he still manages to nail that insane quality that Dwight Schultz had in the original TV-series.

I guess that Liam Neeson is one of the other things that´s pretty good about this flick. I like the direction this guy´s career has taken in the last couple of years. It started when he made that western with Pierce Brosnan, “Seraphim Falls” and then in his quest to become one of baddest of asses in Hollywood he made the fantastic “Taken” and now this. I could watch a new action movie with him every week. Keep ´em coming, Liam!

But this is by now way a great movie. Unfortunately, halfway through the film director Joe Carnahan seemed to have come up with the not-so-fantastic idea that what he really wanted to make was a Jason Bourne movie, so suddenly we find ourselves in Germany at a train station with lots of surveillance cameras and shit. Very much Jason Bourne, if you get my drift.

I have to say that I had some problem keeping my interest alive throughout its running time. This is partly due to the fact that Carnahan tries to create the most spectacular action sequences, and in order to do that he resorts to the old CGI-way of movie trickery. Not my favorite way of creating an action sequence, but I don´t wanna sound like an old cranky man, so let´s skip that for now. Unfortunately, Carnahan hasn´t calmed down with his insane shaky-camera movements. If you saw his previous flick, “Smokin´ Aces” you know what I´m talking about here. He used the same technique to fantastic effect in the opening scene of “Narc” when Jason Patric is chasing a drug dealer down an alley but in that film it served a purpose. In that one, Carnahan placed us smack in the middle of a foot chase and we were supposed to wonder what the hell was going on. That´s a whole different thing. It´s never a good thing when you start to wonder what´s going on or who´s firing at who. Unfortunately, that´s exactly what happens here.

I know I said I wasn´t gonna go off on another one of these rants but I can´t control myself: honestly, what is it with today´s action directors and CGI? I´m not saying that you should actually put Liam Neeson in a tank and then throw it out of an airplane but honestly, CGI really has killed the action star! Why don´t everyone take a cue from Christopher Nolan and what he achieved with “The Dark Knight”? He managed to create some truly unforgettable action sequences there. Remember that tank flipping over in the middle of the street? You can bet your computer generated ass that that wasn´t CGI.

I also found myself wondering why the hell this movie was called “The A-Team” in the first place because frankly, it doesn´t have much to do with the original TV-series. They could´ve easily just changed the names of the characters and I don´t think that anyone would´ve suspected much of anything. Which begs the question: why the hell do you wanna remake something if you´re gonna change it so much that doesn´t resemble the original in the first place? I can appreciate the fact that Carnahan wanted to make a grittier movie but he still has to work within the realms that the PG-13 rating creates. This basically means that no matter how cool and brutal Carnahan wanted Hannibal and his team to be, they´re never gonna come close to the mayhem he unleashed in “Smokin´ Aces”. So once again: why even bother calling it “The A-Team” at all? Beats me.

But what the hell, all in all this is a pretty enjoyable, stupid action flick and I guess you could do a lot worse this summer. At least Carnahan knows what he´s doing but unfortunately, since we´re all waiting for the wonder that will be “The Expendables” I´m afraid it´s hard to get too excited about this one.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas