"American Sniper" Is a Great Movie. Key Word: Movie.

American Sniper

Movies based on true stories are always prominent during awards season, but this year it seems like overload. True stories are great for getting the audience to connect with the material (“This really happened!”), but they are also subject to controversy. The controversy isn’t about accuracy because no sensible person expects a 2+ hour movie to tell an entire life or event; it’s about changing too much (the common complaint about Selma), or it’s about the subject of the film in general (in this case Chris Kyle in American Sniper).

You will find very little controversy within American Sniper. But check the newspaper (the Evansville Courier ran a cartoon last week that essentially compared Chris Kyle to a terrorist), television (Bill Maher took issue with Kyle’s heroic portrayal), or the always happy internet (Google “Chris Kyle” and you’ll find results on the first page that refer to him both as a “hero” and a “monster”), and it is obvious that there is controversy about Kyle. The great thing about American Sniper is that you have to look for the controversy away from the film. It does not force the conversation on you. Some are degrading the film for that very reason, but it’s actually the best part about it. Plus, it is possible to come away from the film with complex thoughts and emotions (my wife and I certainly did); this is not some American brainwashing propaganda film.

American Sniper is based on the book co-written by Kyle about his life, military career, and acclimatization back to regular life. (Full disclosure: I have not read the book yet.) So while many people take issue with America’s involvement in Iraq at all, Kyle presents it as a noble endeavor. Because of that, this film is reminiscent of We Were Soldiers, the Mel Gibson Vietnam film. That film largely ignored the politics of the war and presented a straightforward war film about the soldiers instead of the typical Vietnam film that dealt with the politics and chaos of it all. Most movies about conflicts in the Middle East are almost solely focused on the politics of war as well, and, unsurprisingly, audiences don’t want to see that because the real events are still relevant and fresh in our minds. American Sniper, for better or worse, gives audiences what they want to see: a simplified version of the war starring a hero you can root for. Ask anyone who has seen the film, they will tell you it’s amazing. It seems that the regular audience member wants a movie like this, and I am inclined to agree with the masses on this one.

American Sniper, while too simplified (more on that later) at times, is an excellent character study anchored by a great, almost unrecognizable Bradley Cooper and tense, well-done action sequences. Cooper is the true standout of the film. It’s not my favorite performance of the year (mainly because I take issue with performances that are essentially impressions of well-documented famous people), but it is one of the most impressive transformations this year. (By the way, “year” still applies to 2014 since this came out in limited release in December.) Cooper disappears in this role mainly by bulking up, but it’s his voice work and mannerisms that impressed me the most. He’s been nominated for an Oscar three straight years now, but this is the first time he’s truly deserved it.  

Cooper’s performance alone could carry the film, but thankfully director Clint Eastwood handles all of the war action quite well, showing everything in a very straightforward manner. The action scenes don’t attempt to place you in the war zone with a shaky camera and chaos. Instead, they are very traditional sequences, which is refreshing in this age of ultra-realism in movies. Eastwood also did a great job of portraying the paranoia Kyle felt back in America. Scenes that would seem very plain under other circumstances, like a child’s birthday party, felt as if they were taken from a tense spy thriller. In fact, the scenes portraying Kyle’s PTSD were more effective than the action, which is a testament to Eastwood’s ability as a director.

As for the simplified treatment of the war, American Sniper presents Chris Kyle as a man who wants to join the military for purely noble reasons: to protect America. There’s no question about whether it’s right or wrong for America to be there. It’s not as if Kyle is the one who declared war anyway; he’s a soldier, so he goes. After that, the film is about him wanting to stay in Iraq to protect his fellow soldiers. This motivation was heroic enough, but they took it one step further and created a rival sniper known as Mustafa. (Slight SPOILERS until the end of this paragraph) This inclusion provided the war segment with a beginning and an end which takes away from the more interesting conflict in the film: what happens when the war ends? In the film, it makes it appear that Kyle has accomplished everything he needed to do, but that is too simple. It would have been more powerful for him to come home with things left unfinished in Iraq. The way it is in the film makes it seem like, “Mission accomplished, let’s go home.” I’m all for keeping this film simple and pro-soldier, but it’s hard to ignore that things did not end up all that accomplished in Iraq. Historical accuracy aside, it would be a much more powerful decision if Kyle returns home and has to make peace with the fact that things aren’t complete over there. This might seem like nitpicking, but it keeps the film from being as complex and interesting as it could be. This simplicity lessened the film for me. If it was more complex, it may have ended up being my favorite film of the year instead of just making my top ten (by the way, my top ten will be out in the next couple of weeks).

One last thing about the simplification issue others have with the film. A lot of people, like Michael Moore, take issue with how the soldiers in the film refer to Iraqis as “savages” throughout the film. This issue would make sense if it was done through narration or someone that is not involved in the war. Look at any number of documentaries from the Iraq war; the soldiers involved, whether they thought they should be there or not, do not go around referring to combatants as humans. Soldiers have to do the most inhumane thing you can do: they have to kill. It wouldn’t do well for the psychology of a soldier to stop him/her and say, “Let’s cool it with the ‘savage’ talk. That’s someone’s son trying to kill you.” Even if we should not be there, we cannot expect our soldiers to worry about being politically correct. To be clear, that doesn’t mean any wartime atrocities are justified. But it does mean that a soldier in a film calling a potential enemy combatant a “savage” isn’t all that upsetting or surprising. It’s necessary. Now, if I, a common civilian, refer to a group of people I have no personal knowledge of as “savages,” feel free to call me out for it. You’ll be right to do so. But soldiers have the right to refer to their enemies however they see fit to get them through a situation the rest of us are not involved in.

Despite some relatively minor issues, American Sniper stands out as one of the year’s best. People getting worked up either for or against the film need to take a step back from it and realize it’s not trying to rewrite history or anything. It is first and foremost a film. American Sniper is engaging, entertaining, tense, incredibly acted, and emotional. Perhaps it simplifies things a bit too much here and there, but that’s what movies are for sometimes, to take the complex real world and give us a story to connect to for a little while before we have to acknowledge reality again. And for those who take issue with that, the film could not ignore the unexpected, non-movie end to Kyle’s life. In fact, that final dose of reality is just the jolt the film, and the viewers, need after it’s all said and done. It left my theater in complete and utter silence, which it should be after dealing with a film about war and its effect on people. 

 American Sniper receives a:

"Guardians" Is the Weirdest, Possibly Best* Marvel Movie Yet

Guardians of the Galaxy

*I say "possibly best" because I need to let the movie sink in for a while before I claim it to be the best among a lot of very entertaining movies.

And you thought Thor was the weirdest part of the Marvel movie franchise.  As the superhero movies have branched out beyond Earth in recent years with the Thor films and The Avengers, I wondered how far mainstream audiences would go with Marvel into deep sci-fi territory.  Very far, it turns out.  Guardians of the Galaxy (which I will refer to as GotG from here on out because I’m lazy) presents an entirely new group of superheroes who only comic book fans will recognize in an entirely alien setting.  That’s exactly the kind of stuff I like, but I assumed regular audiences wouldn’t be so thrilled since they wouldn’t have an iconic character to get behind.  It turns out audiences and critics alike will go with a movie as long as it’s one of the most fun films of the summer.  (Side note: This shouldn’t be all that surprising since Star Wars could be described the exact same way, and people seemed to like that.  I would point out, however, that “Star Wars” didn’t get the marketing blitz that GotG did.)

GotG works so well because the titular galaxy it takes place in is so large and diverse.  Like most deep sci-fi works, there are many worlds in GotG, so when one is threatened it’s not as big of a deal as it normally is in a film.  What this means is that the film can still be fun while the stakes are quite high.  Characters can joke around at the direst of moments, and it feels normal.  That wouldn’t work if someone was trying to stop a nuke from blowing up America or something.  But when the planet on the line is Xandar, then who cares if we’re laughing while it is potentially destroyed?  (No offense to the fictional Xandarians.)

A goofy sci-fi action film needs a goofy cast of characters to inhabit it and GotG definitely has that covered.  This might just be the high of recently watching and loving this movie, but I’m leaning towards the Guardians over the Avengers at this point.  The group is led by Peter Quill, AKA Star-Lord (Chris Pratt), a kind of Indiana Jones/Han Solo hybrid.  He is joined by Gamora (Zoe Saldana), a green-skinned step-daughter of evil titan Thanos (and she’s not the weirdest member of the group by a long shot…); Drax (Dave Bautista), a literally literal (meaning he takes everything people say literally) vengeance seeking hulk; Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper), a genetically-altered raccoon who can talk and is a weapons specialist; and Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel), a living tree that can talk, sort of (he only says, “I am Groot”).  With a group like this, the movie pretty much has to be goofy and fun.

Marvel has succeeded with all of these increasingly weird properties for multiple reasons.  The cast is usually spot-on, they spend plenty of money for each film, but, most importantly, they hand off the riskiest films to fellow geeks.  Joss Whedon was the perfect choice to helm The Avengers, and lesser-known geek-friendly writer-director (hey, that’s the first time I’ve used three hyphenates in a row!) James Gunn is equally perfect for GotG.  I am a huge fan of Gunn’s first feature, Slither, so I knew when he got this job that GotG would be something special.  Hats off to Marvel for handing off their properties to people who know what they’re doing.  By the way, if you haven’t seen Slither, check it out.

Gunn (and co-screenwriter Nicole Perlman) bring a great sense of humor and nostalgia to the film that makes it stand out even more from the “traditional” Marvel properties.  All of the films in the series have their comedic elements, but GotG is a bit different in that it’s a bit more self-aware.  An example of this would be the fact that Star Lord refers to the mysterious orb at the center of the movie (like the Tesseract or Aether from other films) as having an “Ark of the Covenant vibe” essentially saying the film is a bit like Indiana Jones and these movies always involve some mysterious powerful substance that is never clearly defined.  My least favorite part of all of these films are the Infinity Stones for the very reason that they’re mysterious, are simply called “powerful,” and bad guys want them for bad reasons.  It’s just too vague and uninteresting.  GotG at least calls itself out for it, which makes it easier to stomach.  Moving on, the nostalgia aspect sets the film apart even more.  Star Lord is taken from Earth in 1988 and happens to have an “Awesome Mix Tape” and a Walkman with him.  This allows the film to be scored to music from the late 70s and early 80s.  The contradictory nature of that music set to sci-fi action and locales is funny and kind of cool, really.  And since Star Lord is the only character from Earth (that we see, anyway), he gets to do some Marty McFly-esque referencing as he discusses Footloose in a mythical fashion and refers to John Stamos as a famous outlaw. 

Much of the humor is thanks to the delivery of the cast.  Pratt is a natural as Star Lord.  He has received the most attention for getting in such great shape for the role, and that is impressive, but what makes him stand out in a Marvel movie is his delivery of goofiness, which isn’t surprising given his work on Parks & Recreation.  Regardless of why he gets recognition, he definitely deserves it and carries the film easily.  Saldana is fine as Gamora though the tough sci-fi girl role she always plays is wearing kind of thin.  Dave Bautista surprised me the most with his matter of fact delivery.  The fact that he takes everything literally made for some of the funniest moments.  The voice work for Rocket and Groot is fine, but what’s more impressive about these characters is that they ended up being the most sympathetic members of the group, and they were created through motion capture. 

GotG is still an action film, though the action feels like an afterthought.  That’s not to say there aren’t plenty of impressive fights and whatnot, it’s just that, at this point, we’ve seen a world or galaxy or whatever saved from annihilation by some vague cosmic power so many times that it’s no big deal.  How many times can we see a giant ship of some kind crash into stuff before we get kind of bored with it?  That’s really not a knock against the movie; it’s just that this film handles everything else so much more interestingly that the action isn’t the focus. 

Guardians of the Galaxy (I’ll write it out one more time) is also unique in that almost everyone seems to love it.  That is truly refreshing because I am very used to loving a movie only to see the message boards filled with hate (to be fair, that’s still happening, but it seems much lighter than usual for a movie this big).  That said, I don’t think everyone will love this, and I certainly don’t recommend it to everyone.  The first fifteen minutes of the film involve so many different extremely sci-fi settings and situations that it starts to sound like gibberish.  That could possibly put people off of this movie.  If you can get past that kind of stuff, however, I think there is a movie here for everyone.  It looks pretty crazy, but it offers the kind of fun entertainment that almost anyone can enjoy.  Now let’s see if The Avengers: Age of Ultron can top this next year.  Honestly, I don’t see how it can.

Guardians receives a:

"The Hangover" Series Comes to a Much Needed End

Directed by Todd Phillips, written by Phillips & Craig Mazin, starring Zach Galifianakis, Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Ken Jeong, and John Goodman - Rated R

Finish it...

 

 

 

 

 

I pretty much swore off writing reviews of comedies a little while back because comedy is harder to judge than any other form of entertainment.  Not to get into my whole theory as to why reviewing comedies is a pointless exercise, let’s just say that some people might find The Hangover Part III hilarious, others will be indifferent, and others will hate it.  Duh, right?  That is exactly why I don’t like reviewing comedies, but this film deserves a review mainly because it is the end of the series.  As for my official stance on the film, I’m indifferent.  I laughed a few times (never all that hard), rolled my eyes here and there, and left the theatre slightly amused and glad that the series had come to an end.

 

Writer/director Todd Phillips took a lot of flak from fans and critics alike for The Hangover Part II.  A lot of people were angry because he essentially made the first film over again with a different location and only slightly different jokes.  I was actually one of the few apologists for that film when it was initially released, and I stand by my immediate response to that film.  When I left the theatre, I felt like I got my money’s worth.  I laughed quite a bit, even if most of it was predictable.  That film, however, did not hold up well at all during a second viewing.  A comedy doesn’t have to be re-watchable, but the best comedies certainly are. 

 

Because of this backlash, Phillips promised that Part III would be different.  Well, he certainly came through with that promise.  This movie is a borderline action-comedy rather than a full blown laugh fest.  I can’t tell if it’s intentional or not, but I do know that it’s not nearly as enjoyable as the first film. 

 

The plot involves the wolfpack of Alan (Zach Galifianakis), Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Doug (Justin Bartha) and their psychotic friend/enemy Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong).  Mr. Chow has stolen some gold from a ruthless gangster (John Goodman) who kidnaps Doug, telling the rest of the wolfpack that he’ll kill Doug if they can’t deliver Chow and the gold.  So the movie is still a detective story in essence; it just doesn’t involve the investigators being hungover the whole time.  Oh, and it’s not all that funny. 

 

Don’t get me wrong, I laughed a few times as I watched this movie, but nothing truly cracked me up (well, maybe the sight gag after the credits…).  It’s all slightly amusing, but it has become boring.  If you still find the simple sight of Zach Galifianakis funny then you’ll like it, but there are no new and interesting jokes regarding his character.  It’s as if Todd Phillips expects everyone to laugh just because Galfianakis is present.  To his credit, a lot of people will laugh, but I need more than just a shot of Galifianakis with his shirt off if I’m expected to laugh. 

 

The other problem with the film is Chow.  I found him amusing in his thankfully few scenes in the first film, but he was unbearable in the second film.  I thought he was simply annoying, and not in a funny way.  Chow is a bit more bearable in this film, and I do admit to laughing at a few of his lines and a bit of physical comedy.  But overall, the character is one-note and should be left on the sidelines.  Once again, though, if you find that character funny before, you’ll love it.

 

The Hangover Part III just didn’t do it for me, but I am glad it exists, and I am happy that the franchise has been brought to an end.  I am also glad to see the box office for the film is not all that great, ensuring that this is the last installment.  I don’t think the sequels “ruined” the first film or anything, because a film stands on its own and no prequel or sequel can change it.  They are definitely unnecessary, though.  I think my own purchases regarding the series says it all: I bought the first film, I rented the second movie on video and wondered why I wanted to watch it again, I have watched Part III once and that is enough.  Perhaps “once is enough” should have been the mantra of the filmmakers.

Despite the Idiotic Title, "Silver Linings Playbook" Is Worth Watching

Silver Linings Playbook - Written and directed by David O. Russell, starring Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver, John Ortiz, Shea Whigham, Dash Mihok, and Chris Tucker - Rated R

 

 

   

Writer/director David O. Russell made one of my favorite films a couple of years ago with The Fighter.  I was impressed with the style, the music selection, and, most importantly, the story that was ingrained with the location.  Oh, and the great performances helped a bit, too.  Now with Silver Linings Playbook, Russell has created a movie on the same level as The Fighter, though Silver Linings is a bit weaker than that great film.

 

Before a critique of this film can truly begin, I have to mention the idiotic title of this film.  Silver Linings Playbook.  When people hear or read that title, they have no clue what you’re talking about, even if they’ve seen the previews.  It’s just such a needlessly stupid title.  This is not as bad as Russell’s other effort, I Heart Huckabees, but it’s close.  The problem with these quirky titles is that it drives people away.  Hell, the title made me want to hate the movie before I saw it.  There’s a very easy fix for this.  Drop the Playbook part.  Yeah, football factors into the film quite a bit, but this film could just as easily been called Silver Linings and lost nothing.  You can tell the film company felt the same way because in every preview I have seen, the narrator drops Playbook from the title, and the word is extremely smaller than the other words on the poster.

 

Title aside, this is a fun, touching film.  Bradley Cooper plays Pat, a former teacher who has a mental breakdown when he catches his wife cheating on him.  He’s recently out of a mental hospital and is trying to get his life together in the hopes of rekindling his marriage.  When he meets fellow troubled person Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), things get a bit more complicated. 

 

This is a film that hinges on performances, as both leads are mentally unstable.  Cooper does a very good job with a character that could easily become infuriating to watch.  He gets into these rapid verbal trains of thought that can be tiring, but he handles them quite well (the direction from Russell helps).  He has this natural charisma that makes it impossible to hate him no matter how rude or exhausting he becomes.  It is truly one of the year’s best performances. 

 

Jennifer Lawrence continues her streak of great performances with Silver Linings.  She doesn’t get to do as much as Cooper here, but she has plenty of emotionally heavy scenes that she carries with ease, and she complements Cooper quite well.  The rest of the cast, including Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver, Shea Whigham, John Ortiz, and Chris Tucker, is fine, but this film belongs to Cooper and Lawrence.

 

Writer/director Russell makes it an easy film to watch, too.  This could be a darkly serious tale of mental health, but Russell is beginning to trademark this serious-funny element.  In The Fighter, Christian Bale’s addiction was treated seriously, but there were also moments of comedy.  It’s awkward, but it’s life.  Plenty of times I found myself laughing during Silver Linings even though I knew it was kind of wrong, and I think that was the intent of the filmmakers.  Also, Russell has developed this style of following the characters with the camera that is very effective, especially when you’re dealing with mentally troubled characters.  When Pat is about to lose it, the camera swirls around him as he tries to rein things in, only to lose control.  It’s not in-your-face style or anything; it creates a sensation similar to what the character must be going through.

 

If Silver Linings ever loses anybody, it might be with the slightly goofy plot.  The film’s final moments hinge on the result of a football game and a ballroom dancing contest.  As weird as that is, it gets even goofier as the characters plan out these moments and literally root for their side to win.  I suppose it was meant to be figurative as they cheer for their sports but are actually cheering for their loved ones, but it still felt a little stupid at times.  Also, the plot element with the police officer who shadows Pat felt a bit incomplete and, at times, ridiculous.  I would have to spoil a few things to get into that point, so just look to the end of the review if you’ve seen the film and want to know what I’m talking about.

 

Aside from those shortcomings, Silver Linings is a fine film.  It’s not going to make my top ten list or even my honorable mention (it just didn’t grab me like The Fighter did), but it’s certainly one of the better films to come out this year, and it deserves a larger audience than it has gained so far.  If you get a chance, check it out.  You’ll laugh, maybe cry, stare in bafflement, get annoyed, you know…life stuff.  Just try to ignore that stupid title.

 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

All I want to get into here is that cop, played by Dash Mihok.  I enjoyed Mihok's performance and everything, but I was left very confused by the character's presence.  So the cop is set up as this neighborhood officer who is supposed to keep an eye out for Pat since he's just been released from the mental hospital.  First off, does that actually happen?  Is Philadelphia such a safe city that police officers can be assigned to body guard duty for random citizens?  That rung completely false to me.  Things get extremely strange when the cop just happens to show up every time Pat starts to mess up.  if it's at his house, fine, but how was the cop so close to Pat outside the movie theatre that he could step in so quickly?  Was he really just following Pat around?  It got to the point that I thought the cop was part of Pat's subconscious and the cop represented his mind physically attempting to calm the situation down.  Maybe that is the case, but it's certainly never explained that way, and I feel that there should have been more explained concerning the cop.  But maybe it's just me.

"The Hangover Part II"

The Hangover Part II - Directed by Todd Phillips, written by Phillips, Craig Mazin, and Scot Armstrong, starring Ed Helms, Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and Ken Jeong - Rated R

They can keep making the same plot over and over again as long as it stays funny.

After the surprise success of the R-rated The Hangover two years ago, it became apparent that a sequel would happen. As with all sequels there was the fear that the filmmakers would rest on their laurels and phone in a bland, money-grabbing sequel. Thankfully, they focused on one-upping every aspect of the first film and while The Hangover Part II certainly isn’t original, it is very funny and manages to put Allen, Stu, and Phil through even crazier situations than the last time.

The Hangover Part II is nearly a carbon copy of the first film. It is about the same cast of characters and the same situation they were in the last time. This time Stu (Ed Helms) is the one getting married and it’s his soon to be brother-in-law who goes missing, but this time they are in Bangkok, Thailand. The setting is everything this time around (Bangkok is referred to as a character itself multiple times) as Bangkok is renowned for its ridiculous level of debauchery.

Normally if a sequel completely copies a previous storyline it would be awful, but this is a series about guys who party so hard they forget everything and lose a member of the group. To expect a sequel to drastically change that formula is a bit ridiculous. A comedy like this can only be faulted if it simply isn’t funny. Who is really watching this film and expecting some original, surprising plot? If that is what you expect, you should skip it. If you’re looking for laughs, it’s hard to imagine that you will end up disappointed.

The first film exceeded expectations because of a great cast. Ed Helms takes the reins of this one and the film is better off for it. He has perfected the art of the freak out and it is hilarious every time he shrieks in dismay. Bradley Cooper does a fine job as the calm member of the group as he tries to keep everyone on task. And fan favorite Zach Galifianakis keeps the man-child shtick of the first film going strong. Perhaps the film relies on Galifianakis’s appearance for laughs a bit too much, but the guy just looks funny. His appearance when he first wakes up is fantastic. Did we see that in the first one, though? Yes, but it’s still funny somehow.

The supporting cast should please most audiences as well. There are a few cameos and Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) returns. Personally, I’m a bit tired of seeing Jeong (the guy seems to be in every comedic TV show and movie these days) so Chow’s appearance didn’t do much for me. The rest of the audience seemed to really dig him, though. One cast member who has to be getting a bit angry is Justin Bartha, the missing guy from the first film. You would think that he would be part of the gang this time around yet he still has to sit on the sidelines. There’s always hope for the inevitable third film, though.

The comedy of The Hangover Part II cannot be described in too much detail because no one wants anything spoiled (especially comedy) and most of the stuff that happens in the film is not fit for publication. This is a dirty movie, make no mistake about it. It’s a film filled with drug use, violence, and graphic nudity. As stated above, this film is all about going bigger. Take everything from the first film and give it a shot in the arm and you are left with The Hangover Part II.

This is not a flawless comedy, however. At times, it tries a bit too hard to be crazy. The inclusion of a cigarette smoking, drug-dealing monkey was humorous at first but quickly became too silly. A monkey does allow for some funny dialogue (people yelling about monkeys always makes me laugh), but there was no need to make the monkey some kind of unofficial fourth member of the group.

The Hangover Part II isn’t a comedy masterpiece, but it is very funny. The unavoidable question is, “Is it funnier than the first one?” It’s too early to tell on that one. Fresh out of the theater you may find it much funnier than the first, but it needs to sink in a bit before you start comparing the hilarity of both films. The fact that it’s hard to tell says something, though. It says that this is a worthy sequel. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before, but as long as you’re laughing, who cares?

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Ken Jeong, please leave the series. I was sick of Mr. Chow by the end of the first film, but I understand that he had to make an appearance here because of how popular he's become. It looked like they had done something brilliant with him, though. He wakes up and gets ready to tell the guys what happened only to die before he can start the story. It was hilarious and unexpected...until it turned out he was still alive. Why didn't they leave him dead?

I loved how apparently Allen sees the world through the eyes of a child… it makes sense.

Mike Tyson was kind of silly at the end. But some people will enjoy his appearance.

Nick Cassavettes? What’s the point of that? I understand they needed a replacement for Gibson's replacement (Liam Neeson), but Nick Cassavettes? How many people are going to see him and think, "Cool, the director of Alpha Dog has a cameo!"?

All issues with Gibson aside, I think he would've worked out great in the cameo. Oddly enough, he has had a cameo before in which he had a lot of tattoos and piercings in Father's Day.

The Allentown song was great. Once again, yes it's just like the first film because Stu has to make up a song, but I thought it was funny.

“They shot the monkey!” I can't help but laugh at that line.

I dug the little health care dig: "Eight stitches and it only cost six dollars, how is that possible?”

"Limitless"

Limitless - Directed by Neil Burger, written by Leslie Dixon, starring Bradley Cooper, Abbie Cornish, and Robert De Niro - Rated PG-13

Just wacky and entertaining enough to get in the Evil Kurgan's good graces.

You know that statistic about how humans only use a small percentage of our brains? Limitless tries to show what it would be like if we were firing on all cylinders all the time. (By the way, if you want to look into some facts of the small percentage claim, check out this article.) What ends up on the screen is an often entertaining, though ultimately dumb movie.

Limitless is about Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper), an aspiring writer who has hit a wall in his life. Eddie can’t even write the first word of his novel, he is often drunk by mid-afternoon, and his girlfriend has dumped him. Things start to change when a chance encounter leaves him with a prototype pill that allows him to use 100% of his brain. So Eddie decides the most important thing to do with his newfound genius-level intelligence is make as much money as possible and where else do you go to do that other than Wall Street? In fact, the simplest way to describe this movie (and I hate these comparisons, but I can’t help it) is Wall Street meets Charly/Flowers for Algernon.

The concept, that a drug can make you super-smart but leave you addicted, is interesting from a filmmaking perspective. The film only feels convoluted and messy when the withdrawal kicks in. It is streamlined and entertaining when Eddie is on the drug. This doesn’t excuse the problems of the film, but it makes you look at them a bit differently and that’s something.

Limitless starts to show some visual flair in the segments that are meant to convey what it’s like to be on the miracle drug. Director Neil Burger employs plenty of lengthy zooms that go through endless landscapes. The scenes are a little disorienting, but they are interesting to look at. Some of the images end up making the “clarity” of a fully functioning brain seem more confusing than eye-opening. But some images work, like the multiple Eddies, which show that taking the pill is basically like having copies of yourself to get all of your work done.

This is where Limitless gets a bit strange; it’s a drug movie, but it doesn’t seem to have a message. There’s nothing wrong with that, but if you stop and think about what this film is saying, you may end up scratching your head a bit. This isn’t meant to be a message film, though. The film doesn’t get deadly serious very often, and that’s a good thing. Limitless is mainly here to entertain.

Limitless is a fun watch. The montages loosen the film up nicely as we see Eddie just winning (to quote Wall Street star Charlie Sheen) at life. Getting ladies, jetting around the world, spending all his newfound cash; these scenes are clichéd (the suit buying scenes and stuff like that has a definite Wall Street montage feel to it) but amusing. Much of that is thanks to Bradley Cooper.

Cooper holds the film together. He’s in his wheelhouse with this one. Cooper gets to play his Hangover character when he’s in withdrawal and he gets to be Face from The A-Team when he’s rocking and rolling. Obviously it’s nothing we haven’t seen before, but the guy has charisma on the screen and while his voiceover felt forced and largely pointless, it’s forgivable because of his presence.

The other part of the cast that draws the most attention is the inclusion of Robert De Niro as a Gordon Gekko type during the Wall Street portion of the film. He doesn’t have much to do here except give Eddie warnings that go unheeded. He does a good job of looking upset and condescending, but that doesn’t make a character very interesting.

The Wall Street character wasn’t very interesting and that segment of the film in general drags a bit. There are all of those entertaining montages when Eddie first starts out only to lead to him…analyzing stock market trends. It’s during a segment like that when you start to question the movie and Limitless doesn’t hold up too well under a microscope. I’ll avoid spoilers (definitely check the spoiler section at the end if you’ve seen the movie), but just know that Limitless does answer most questions, it’s just that those answers are either too easy and/or kind of silly.

Once again, though, Limitless isn’t trying to be a profound experience. It’s mostly fun, a little dumb at times, but it’s mostly interesting. The concept, along with the star, keeps the film going. The film isn’t likely to have a lasting effect on anyone, but it is decent as passing entertainment and sometimes that’s good enough for the price of a ticket.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

So what’s up? Did he kill that woman? Why is he okay with not knowing? Does the drug also make you capable of committing murder without guilt? If so, that is not someone I want running the country. After doing some message board research, I found that someone claimed you see the stalker dude near that scene implying that he killed her…but I didn’t catch that. But they said the room was wiped clean. Why did the stalker kill a girl to pin it on Eddie, then wipe away any evidence that Eddie was there? What about the fact that a witness saw Eddie, but not the stalker? And if the stalker was there to do all of this, couldn’t he have captured Eddie? And speaking of that, this guy can plant a bug in Eddie’s apartment but he couldn’t find Eddie’s stash? Why bug his phone anyway? Like Eddie is going to call someone to tall them his secret hiding place.

How could this guy possibly end up in major politics? The knife in the Russian mobster’s stomach had to have had his prints all over it. How does the revelation that the previous owner was an arms dealer clear that problem up? The movie just asks you to assume a bit too much at times.

Completely random, but I have to point out the stupidity and awesomeness of a couple things. First, watching Bradley Cooper slurp up drug-laced blood like a meth-addled vampire was ridiculous and hilarious. Second, I love how a drug that makes you smart makes you realize that the best way to attack someone in a park is by brandishing a little girl in ice skates as a weapon. How was that a better idea than a baseball bat or any of the other possibilities shown? So dumb…but kind of great, too.

"The A-Team"

The A-Team - Directed by Joe Carnahan, written by Joe Carnahan, Brian Bloom, and Skip Woods, starring Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Quentin "Rampage" Jackson, Sharlto Copley, and Jessica Biel - Rated PG-13

The Kurgan laughed right along with the A-Team through each crazy action scene.

The original “A-Team” TV show was a bit before my time, so I only know of the group of renegade commandos from the occasional rerun, but more so from the parodies of the show (an episode of “Family Guy” comes to mind). I’m pretty sure I’m the key demographic for this film, then, because the film gets so ridiculous at times that you might think it actually is making fun of the old show. This is not a bad thing. It just means that The A-Team is aware of what it should be: a crazy, fun action movie.

If you’re a fan of the old show, however, you needn’t be worried. There are plenty of references to the show to enjoy, including catch phrases, a certain member’s fear of flying, and an iconic van.

The A-Team is basically an origin story for the team. The beginning of the film shows how the four leads meet. Then it cuts to eight years later in Iraq, where the team has been very successful in covert operations. Then, just like the intro lines from the TV show state, the team is framed and sent to military prison, only to escape soon after. I’m not going to get into the whats and the whys of the story because…who cares? Stuff gets blown up and that’s all I need.

I also need some entertaining characters and this film comes through in a big way. There’s Hannibal (Liam Neeson), Face (Bradley Cooper), B.A. Baracus (Quentin “Rampage” Jackson), and Murdock (Sharlto Copley of District 9 fame). They are all very much one note characters: Hannibal puts the plans together and leads the group, Face is the reckless ladies’ man, B.A. is the tough guy, and Murdock is the crazy pilot. They all work together well and, most importantly, the actors truly seem to be having fun.

The fun factor is really important here because the action is so ridiculous. In case you haven’t seen the preview, let me summarize one particular sequence. The team steals a transport plane that is holding a tank. They get blown out of the sky, but they took shelter in the tank, which is parachuting to the ground. As they fall through the sky, Face opens up the hatch and mans a machine gun and shoots down the drone that shot the original plane down. And, believe it or not, it gets even more ridiculous after that, but you get the idea. What makes this scene okay is the fact that the characters realize how crazy the situation is. They are laughing the whole time and cracking jokes. The scene would be stupid if it was played with complete seriousness.

The actors truly seem to have such chemistry together that this film almost feels like a sequel. I was okay with most of the casting, though I thought Quentin “Rampage” Jackson was a bit too cheesy at times. On the opposite side of the spectrum, I though Sharlto Copley was great as Murdock. I really enjoyed his erratic performance. Neeson and Cooper were definitely well-suited in their roles, as well.

The supporting cast doesn’t have much to do, except for Patrick Wilson, who is very amusing as the smug CIA agent, Lynch. Jessica Biel is kind of sleepwalking through the love interest role, though all that’s asked of her is to stand around and look good, which she does well.

The actors make the movie fun and all, but this is still a film that lives and dies by its action set pieces. Aside from some frenetic, Tony Scott-type editing in the beginning (Scott served as a producer on the film), the action is shot well. As stated already, the action is over the top, but it looks good and there a number of impressive sequences. And, of course, all kinds of stuff blows up. The A-Team is a movie that literally shoots off fireworks at one point, and that’s fine with me. The only downside is that the final set piece relied a bit too much on CG effects, but it’s still quite awesome.

The A-Team is a film that shouldn’t be taken too seriously, mainly because it doesn’t take itself seriously. Just because the film is ridiculous and self-aware doesn’t mean it’s without faults, though. The film does get serious a couple times and it seems unnatural. The most notably instance of this is the subplot in which B.A. turns nonviolent, which might be the most ridiculous and cheesy part of the film, and that’s saying something. Plus, the story, dealing with CIA intrigue and stolen currency plates, is weak. These things are easily forgiven though due to the fun factor.

The A-Team is a great popcorn movie. I’m sure some people out there could sit through it and scoff and pick it apart. If that’s fun to you, then have at it; you shouldn’t have too much trouble degrading this film. If you prefer your fun in the way of crazy action, then check out The A-Team and laugh along with the crew as they go from one outrageous action scene to the next.