"Next of Kin" - Swayze and Neeson Take on the Mob, Appalachian Style!

*I write these articles under the assumption that you’ve seen the movie, so...SPOILERS.

I watched the documentary about Patrick Swayze that ran on the Paramount Network a few weeks back and decided to revisit one of my Swayze movies. Honestly, I’m not a huge fan, but I do like most of his films. But off the top of my head, I only own Road House, Next of Kin, and Donnie Darko, and let’s face it, Darko isn’t exactly a Swayze movie. Road House has been made fun of and/or celebrated enough already (although I will still write about it eventually), so I went with Next of Kin, a forgotten Swayze movie about revenge and the struggle between the law and family loyalty. The film is notable for me because my father used to call me Briar during my college years, due to my resemblance to Liam Neeson in this film. It’s not because I’m tall or even look like Neeson; it was because I had a scraggly Appalachian-y beard, wore an old baseball cap, and had a coat very similar to Briar’s. In fact, I still kind of dress like that, but my beard is a bit better these days. Anyway, that’s the weird reason why I connect with this movie.

Neeson and Swayze: Kickin’ Ass, Appalachian-style!

Next of Kin tells a fairly basic story about two very different worlds: the mobbed up streets of Chicago and the lawless hills of Appalachia. Patrick Swayze and Liam Neeson are brothers, torn apart over their desire to steer their younger brother, Bill Paxton, along what they see is the right path. When Paxton is killed in Chicago by a mobster, Neeson heads to Chicago to get revenge because he doesn’t think Swayze’s devotion to being a cop will allow him to get true justice for their brother.

That set up allows for plenty of interesting story beats, but the best of them is the rivalry between Swayze and Neeson. Their scenes together are by far the best moments of the film. They argue a lot, but when they share a moment (like when Swayze tells him that Neeson is going to be an uncle) they truly come across as brothers. It makes their fight scene in the bar that much more meaningful...and funny. Since they’re brothers, any fight between them, while very violent, has a hint of humor because you can imagine that this is probably the hundredth time they’ve fought. 

The movie gains some much needed momentum when Swayze and Neeson finally decide to work together. Unfortunately that doesn’t last very long. Swayze goes out on his own, and Neeson goes after the mobsters by himself, dying in the process.

Neeson’s death is the biggest misstep of the film. There is already one dead brother, why add another? I know it prompts the rest of the family to come up to Chicago, but that whole sequence was unnecessary, in my opinion (more on that in the next section). The ending of the movie would have been so much better if it was Swayze and Neeson taking on the mob by themselves. 

You can’t fault the filmmakers for not including Neeson more in the film. In hindsight, of course a team-up of Neeson and Swayze would be amazing. But Neeson wasn’t well-known at the time, and he wouldn’t be known as an action star until after Swayze’s illness and death. As it is, Next of Kin at least gives us a glimpse of these two working together. And when you’re dealing with two actors this awesome, a glimpse can be enough.

Why Is There a School Bus Full of Snakes in This Movie?

The big action set piece of the film involves all the hill people going to Chicago to avenge Liam Neeson’s death. It is by far the silliest part of the film, and the sequence is largely played for laughs. It’s all a bit unnecessary, especially since it would have been better if the final confrontation was between the mob and Swayze and Neeson. 

Some of it is okay, like the guy throwing the hatchets and the guy using a bow and arrow. Then it gets a little silly with the one dude using dogs to chase down some mobsters. But it ventures into flat out stupid territory when the school bus full of snakes shows up.

Let’s break this down. First off, I don’t recall snake-handling being an Appalachian thing. I’m from southern Indiana, so I live a couple minutes away from Kentucky. So I’m in the general vicinity of the people in this movie, even if the eastern Kentucky they are from is hours from my location. The point is, snakes are not a prominent part of that culture, from what I know. There’s the occasional redneck snake church, but the snakes in Next of Kin are not used for religious purposes. 

Next, why take the school bus of snakes all the way up to Chicago? It’s not an ideal vehicle for that long of a trip. And why didn’t the other hill people tell him to stay home for this one? 

Lastly, and most importantly, what did the snakes accomplish? The only thing that happens is a gangster gets locked in the bus with the snakes. We don’t see the snakes bite him or anything; he just freaks out. So the snake guy drove a busful of snakes about ten hours away to scare one mobster. That’s a bit of overkill, isn’t it? Even if the snakes were featured more prominently in the plan, how much damage could they have done? 

I suppose my biggest issue with the school bus full of snakes is that it’s entirely included for laughs. Next of Kin isn’t humorless, but this is still a fairly serious movie about murder and revenge. The goofiness of the snake bus at the end takes away from that a bit. I mean, Neeson dies, so we get a bus of snakes instead. That is not a fair trade. Let me finish by making that clear: a Swayze/Neeson team-up is better than a school bus full of snakes.

Random Thoughts 

The case for the DVD mentions a pre-Twister Bill Paxton. That kind of marketing cracks me up. So someone is on the fence about buying this movie, so they read the case; does that info put them over the edge? Hey, this movie also has a pre-Heavyweights Ben Stiller! And a fellow pre-Twister Helen Hunt! And don’t forget about pre-Firefly Adam Baldwin! Man, I have to buy this movie featuring all these actors before their better-known works!

I don't know why exactly, but I love how cities are portrayed in late '80s / early '90s movies. They are absolute hellholes, but they appear lived in and more realistic than they do in newer movies.

Ted Levine! Makes me think of an Appalachian Buffalo Bob...that's a horrifying thought. 

Hey look, it's pre-Twister Bill Paxton!

Swayze's hair is a thing of beauty, especially when he fancies it up for a violin recital.

Ben Stiller had an underrated early career as a punchable twerp.

Something tells me that knife Adam Baldwin takes off of Paxton, that the camera lingers on for ten seconds, is going to factor into the story later.

Adam Baldwin gives a lovely speech offending every demographic in the country, including hillbillies. 

I know it's meant as a memorial, but that picture of Paxton at his graduation is hilarious.

I like the random hillbilly moments showcased when Swayze goes home: axe throwing, deer head in the fridge, random dude playing with a snake, little kids practicing with a bow and arrow, etc.

Those pictures of Briar and Gerald hanging out that Swayze sees in Briar's...house, I wonder how those were made. Did Neeson and Paxton just hang out on a farm drinking beer one day while someone took candids? I sure hope so.

"Okay, fellow criminals, let's get in the most blatant mob car of all time and follow this cop without attempting to disguise ourselves at all!"

There are some weird hotels in this movie. The one at the beginning was "Men Only," and the one Briar stays at is also only for men and doesn't allow food in the rooms. Also, why not just have Briar stay at the place from the beginning? That way you could establish the Harold character earlier, since he ends up being such a friend to the hill folk.

Adam Baldwin is such a fucking prick in this movie. I hate him more each time he speaks, which is a credit to his performance. 

Baldwin calling the head mobster "Papa John" is distracting. If that pizza chain was more prominent back then, surely they would have changed it.

The song about brothers playing while Briar is in lockup is a bit on the nose.

All of this over a vending machine company…

Is this movie sponsored by Old Style?

Why kill Ben Stiller off camera? And why did they bring the fuck-up mobster along?

Holy shit, I just realized the dude with the snake is the "Are you kidding?!" guy from Road House.

"Finally I just said, 'Fuck it,' and shot him."

Why do the mob guys like Chinese food so much?

Swayze: "Yo." *Throws knife directly into goon's heart as he turns around.

So did he resign at the end? To do what exactly? I know his job is dangerous, but quitting your job right when your wife gets pregnant is stupid. Hell, what am I talking about? This is Swayze. He'll figure something out. 

..

"Seraphim Falls" - War Is Purgatory.

*I write these articles under the assumption that you’ve seen the movie, so...SPOILERS. Also, this means I don’t waste words summarizing the plot of the movie. Honestly, my articles are best read after recently watching the movie.

I’m still working through all of the westerns in my collection, and I chose this one because, similar to Appaloosa, I forgot I even had it. I remember being very excited for this movie when I saw the previews for it, and then it never really came out. It ended up only getting a limited release then it was released on DVD, which is how I saw it. I really don’t understand why this happened. The two leads, Pierce Brosnan and Liam Neeson, were bankable enough (then and now) to warrant a wide release. And while the film ends up in pretty unique territory, the majority of it is traditional western. I suppose someone at the studio was not impressed with the final product. And that’s a shame, because this is an entertaining and thought-provoking western that deserves a larger audience.

War is purgatory.

One of the main things I remembered about Seraphim Falls was that the first time I watched it I considered Pierce Brosnan to be the good guy, then the flashback reveals he’s more of a villain than Neeson (based on what we’re shown, we don’t know what kind of military officer Neeson was). I thought that was an interesting way to tell the story for multiple reasons.

First of all, it’s always more interesting to play with an audience’s expectations. We identify with Brosnan because the story begins with him and mostly follows him. He’s portrayed as someone just living on their own who is being hunted by Neeson for unclear reasons. Neeson, on the other hand, is shown to be ruthless to the point that he comes across as evil, though most of his actions are fair, if cold-blooded (he shot the young guy out of mercy, he killed Ed Lauter’s horse because Lauter backed out of their deal, and it was Neeson’s horse, and killing Wincott...well, that was a bit evil, but Wincott was the skeeziest of the crew, so it’s forgivable). 

A movie is much more interesting if you have to decide who you should root for, if anyone. Brosnan’s actions post-Civil War make him seem like a decent person, and it’s not like he intentionally killed Neeson’s family (though fault ultimately must fall to him since the war was basically over at that point). Neeson, in the flashback, seemed like a good family man, but since that tragic day he has become more villainous in his quest for vengeance. Neeson’s turn is nothing new. It’s revenge story 101: the pursuit of vengeance often turns the victim into the villain. 

Brosnan’s character is more interesting because aside from the flashback, he’s not very remorseful. He’s basically a survivalist. By living a solitary life as a trapper in the mountains, he’s obviously decided that society is not for him, but that doesn’t mean he wants to die. So he’ll survive all the horrible crap that happens to him in the early moments in the film, and he’ll kill anyone trying to kill him. He’s not against Neeson killing him, but he’s not going to let him do it, either. I found that refreshingly realistic. People do terrible things or are responsible for them, but that doesn’t mean they lose the will to live. But what exactly is keeping Brosnan going? 

We find out in the end that war is what kept these two men going, even into the afterlife. Without his search for vengeance, what is Neeson’s life? Without being pursued, what is Brosnan’s life? Their personal conflict borne of a national war defines them beyond their natural lives. 

It’s clear by the end that at the very least, the last fifteen minutes of this movie take place in the afterlife, specifically in purgatory. Both characters come across a Native American in charge of water named in the credits as Charon (the ferryman of the River Styx in mythology) and the devil (Anjelica Huston’s character’s name is fucking Louise C. Fair), who provides them with weapons to continue their war (both characters appear out of nowhere, by the way). When Brosnan and Neeson meet one last time they decide to lay down their arms and go their separate ways, and they disappear into the landscape. I don’t see how anyone can argue that any of that was meant to be actually happening in reality. 

What can be argued is when Brosnan and Neeson die. The most likely answer is that they die of dehydration while chasing each other in the desert. I like to think that they’ve been dead the entire movie, and the flashback is the only thing that actually happened in the “real” world. I don’t have any evidence of this exactly, aside from the whole movie seemingly populated by lost souls in desolate settings. I prefer this interpretation because of what it means to the movie thematically. (I acknowledge my theory is probably wrong since the film provides a time and place stamp at the beginning, not to mention there’s nothing too weird in the film until Charon and Louise C. Fair show up. This is still the way I prefer to interpret the movie, though.)

Seraphim Falls is essentially an anti-war movie. The two main characters only find peace when they realize that they don’t have to fight, much like how humanity in general must realize that war does not have to be inevitable. Why I like the idea that these two characters (and every character, really) are dead the whole time is because it makes the effect of war that much deeper. These men lived by war, possibly died by war, and now continue their war into eternity, unless they change their ways. Them being dead the entire time makes it more interesting because it makes the struggle a much longer process. If they die in the desert, then they are only in purgatory for a few minutes. If they’re dead the whole time, who knows how long this has been going on? It makes their decision at the end to drop their weapons more meaningful if they finally change after all this time. Either way, the ending is effective, and it makes Seraphim Falls much more than just a western.

Why do I own this?

This is probably one of those that I would not have purchased if it came out today. Still, after all these years, it made for a fresh viewing, as I had forgotten most of it. Plus, I’m a sucker for westerns in general.

Random Thoughts

Some of the previews on the DVD make sense, but a couple are odd choices. I’m looking at you, Seinfeld -Season 8 and Half Nelson.

I watched this in August, but I still felt cold during those early scenes with Brosnan.

Brosnan taking that bullet out of his arm and cauterizing the wound is pretty hardcore.

Michael Wincott! He makes any movie better.

Ha ha! Forgot that he killed the first guy by dropping a knife into his forehead. 

Definitely forgot that he cut open the dead dude to warm up his hands…

The rare non-wormy Kevin J. O'Connor role.

That is an interesting use of a bear trap.

I know Jimmi Simpson and Nate Mooney's characters don't have official last names, so I'll just assume they're McPoyles.

How distracting is that, though? The McPoyles showing up in a movie before they were the McPoyles is crazy. It would be one thing if they were in different parts of the movie, but they're together and are even relatives (cousins) according to their names in the credits.

There's plenty going on Biblically early on, but things definitely get more overt later on, with them running into missionaries and talking about God not being out there.

This is certainly a film about extremes, starting in a snowy landscape and ending in a hot desert. 

Brosnan emerging from the horse carcass makes the movie for me. It's just so sudden. The first time I saw watched this, I had to scan back and watch it a few more times.

Brosnan's character must've seen Empire. The taun taun scene inspired him.

Talk about a slow burn (no pun intended) to get to the explanation for Neeson's vengeance.

But my God, what a bleak flashback. 

"You said the house was empty!"

"They're Rebs, Captain."

That's a hell of an excuse to burn a mother and her two children (one an infant) alive.

"For they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword." 

Does that quote refer to Neeson's family? You fought a war, so your family dies? It doesn't seem to be about Brosnan himself or he would have let Neeson kill him.

Wes Studi's character, in the credits, is called Charon. And he guards the only water source around. But Charon ferries the dead across the water. So now it seems these two are dead already.

Which is even more evident when Louise C. Fair shows up at the end. That name is about as subtle as De Niro's in Angel Heart: Louis Cyphre.

I suppose my takeaway from the ending is that these men are dead and in purgatory. They will stay there as long as they keep their vengeance and war alive. Once they lay down their weapons, their souls are freed. I like it, especially since that message can apply to the loving as well.

.

"The Grey"

Directed by Joe Carnahan, written by Carnahan and Ian Mackenzie Jeffers, starring Liam Neeson, Dallas Roberts, and Frank Grillo - Rated R

"I'm going to start beating the s*** out of you in the next five seconds.  And you're going to swallow a lot of your own blood, over a billfold."  Gee, Sorry, Mr. Neeson, I'll put it back...

 

 

 

The emergence of Liam Neeson as an action star lately has never made much sense to me.  How do his characters of Briar (Next of Kin), Darkman (Darkman, duh), Priest Vallon (Gangs of New York),  and Qui-Gon Jinn (The Phantom Menace) not qualify as action roles?  Not to mention multiple other films in which he shows his tough side, like Seraphim Falls and Kingdom of Heaven.  For whatever reason, Taken is the only example people use when they want to proclaim Neeson’s action side.  Well, forget Taken (it’s extremely overrated anyway), because Liam Neeson has been an intimidating man onscreen for quite some time.  Also, forget the previews for The Grey, because this is not Taken with wolves.  “The Grey” is a surprisingly existential film in which Neeson gets to show his acting chops and his tough side.

The Grey may appear to be a simple story of survival against the elements…and wolves, but it is much, much more.  While the previews promise plenty of action featuring Neeson squaring off with wolves, it ends up delivering on a deeper level.  This is a story about survival, faith, life, and death.  The film begins with a suicidal Neeson.  He’s struggling with memories of his wife (it is not clear what has happened to her) and he has taken his misery to Alaska.  Neeson bides his time protecting pipeline workers from wolves, but this is not enough of a distraction.  Yet he can’t bring himself to end his life.  He is stopped, seemingly by fate, and that is how he ends up on a doomed flight back to civilization.  When that flight goes down in the Alaskan wilderness, The Grey truly begins.

The movie is quite simple in that it is all about Neeson and a handful of gruff survivors and their quest to survive.  A survival movie can get bogged down in misery if the filmmakers are not careful and while The Grey can certainly be described as depressing, it can also be described as realistic.  The film’s realism isn’t in the tense set pieces or wolf encounters (both feature some moments that strain believability), but rather in the characters themselves and their reaction to the situation they are in.  The writers of the film, director Joe Carnahan and Ian Mackenzie Jeffers (adapting his own short story), anticipate every question the viewer might have in a very natural way.  Once Neeson seems to be barking all the orders, others speak up, pointing out that no leader had been selected.  Some survivors get strong and noble, wanting to deal with the dead, while others raid the drink cart and take a more pessimistic approach.  This is all to be expected, but the characters all feel real and never come off as one-note, even if they fit into certain types. 

It helps that the characters are inhabited by some talented supporting actors.  Dallas Roberts does a fine job as the morally sound Hendrick, even if he does come off as a bit preachy at times.  Ben Bray provides some emotional punch as Hernandez.  And Frank Grillo is the surprise of the film as Diaz, the pessimistic loner of the group.  But this is still Neeson’s film and he carries it well.  Neeson has always been an imposing figure and when you see him threaten another survivor, you know the other guy is going to back down.  He can hold a movie through sheer physical presence, but he anchors it with his emotional gravitas.  When Neeson is struggling with past memories or cursing God, you believe he is feeling true anguish.  It makes the battle for survival all the more compelling. 

Director Joe Carnahan has a hand in making The Grey a success, as well.  The look of the film is perfectly stark and at times beautiful.  The handheld style (akin to The Wrestler) gives the viewer the feeling that we are on the journey with Neeson.  Carnahan crafts a number of memorable sequences in the film, all of them extremely suspenseful.  The best of these scenes is the aforementioned plane crash, which rivals the sequence in Fight Club for intensity. 

As a survival movie The Grey is fine, but what elevates it are the existential ideas behind the film.  The characters begin to question their situation.  Those of faith feel that there is a reason why they survived while those without consider it a simple coincidence.  The film doesn’t provide answers about faith, but rather makes a statement about the human spirit.  It is not faith that dictates life, it is the person.  Even with that point, there are deeper places you can go with this film.  The wolves can serve as physical representations of death.  The crash can be seen as a kind of purgatory in which the characters must acknowledge their faults and consider their lives.  Can you poke holes in any of these theories?  Absolutely, but isn’t it great that you can apply such ideas to a movie that is sold as “Liam Neeson vs. the wolves”? 

The Grey is not the action film that some may be hoping to see.  But if you keep an open mind, you’ll be pleasantly surprised (as I was) to find that it is a film with action elements that is much more concerned with saying something about humanity.  And when Liam Neeson wants to say something about humanity, you listen.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Sticking with the purgatory theme, a lot of it makes sense.  Diaz realizes his life has been a waste and makes peace with his death (one of my favorite scenes, by the way).  Hernandez realizes what is most important in his life.  Neeson accepts death, not just his own, but also his wife's.  And...that's it.  The other survivors who only survive to be killed don't really get those moments.  So why are they there aside from being wolf food?  Still, it's an interesting idea.  And the film still works outside the theme, so the point could just be about survival and acceptance and there doesn't need to be a reason.

I would definitely watch Liam Neeson vs. the Wolves.

Glad a bit of humor was thrown in there with the references to Alive and a character asking if Neeson was going to turn into a werewolf.

Hey God, when Liam Neeson calls You out, throw him a bone...don't just send more wolves.  That's a bit harsh.

"Unknown"

Unknown - Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra, written by Oliver Butcher & Stephen Cornwell, based on the novel by Didier Van Cauwelaert, starring Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, January Jones, and Bruno Ganz - Rated PG-13

This movie isn't good...it isn't bad...it's just there.

Unknown is a completely average psychological thriller that is not likely to stick around in anyone’s memory, but it is passable entertainment for a matinee. The previews for the film try to sell Unknown as a Taken sequel, but fans of that film will be disappointed. (For the record, I’ve never understood the popularity of Taken, which I found to be an average action film at best.) Unknown does feature a lead performance from Liam Neeson, however, and that counts for something.

Neeson plays Martin Harris, a doctor visiting Berlin to take part in a symposium on plants and crop engineering. Before he can make it there he is involved in a car wreck that leaves him in a coma. When Martin wakes up, he finds that his wife (January Jones) doesn’t seem to remember him and another man is claiming to be Martin Harris. This sets up the central conflict of the film: who is Martin Harris? Needless to say, Neeson spends the entire movie trying to figure that out as he questions those around him and even himself.

The uncertainty of the lead character does allow Unknown it’s only bit of style. Director Jaume Collet-Serra is able to create a real sense of disorientation throughout. It makes the early portions of the film quite effective. Unfortunately, the film devolves into a Bourne Identity wannabe later on with a few frenetic car chases and fight scenes.

Unknown stays slightly afloat thanks to Neeson. He has always had great screen presence and while he’s not doing anything particularly impressive in this unlikely “aged action hero” phase, he is still fun to watch. Diane Kruger makes for a decent unlikely accomplice, but it is Bruno Ganz who enlivens the film with an eccentric performance as a relic of the Cold War. Frank Langella also makes an appearance later on, but is not given much to do. The weakest part of the cast is Jones. She may be perfectly suited in her role on “Mad Men” but she is completely out of place in a film like this. At no point is she truly believable and at times her acting is poor enough to be distracting.

This is mainly a film about the mystery and as far as that goes, it does keep you guessing. Well, maybe not guessing, but the film does remain interesting throughout. There may be a few things left slightly open, but a close viewing will show that everything does get tied up, even if there are some questions that would lead to some plot holes. Unknown isn’t meant to be closely inspected, though.

As an action film, however, Unknown fails quite miserably and it is even boring at times. Neeson’s investigation is a slow, uninteresting process for the most part and the stakes of the film are revealed a bit too late. Until you’re aware of what is going on, it’s hard to care about this mystery.

There’s not much else to say about Unknown, and that might be the most telling aspect of the film. Plus, it’s hard to discuss some of the film’s larger faults without spoiling it. There’s just not much here. It’ll pass a couple hours and you might enjoy a bit of that time, but you probably won’t remember it for very long.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

This movie is similar to plenty of other thrillers about mistaken identity and/or memory loss, but what stuck out to me were the similarities to Total Recall. Except that film was left a bit more open to argument. This movie is problematic in that Neeson regains his memory, but doesn’t regain his personality. That didn’t make sense to me. So he remembers that he was once a cold-blooded assassin, but doesn’t remember why? He just decided to be good? That needed a bit more development, in my opinion. It would’ve been interesting to at least see a struggle within when he realized who he once was, rather than just an instant condemnation of his past actions and an immediate chance for salvation. Oh, and what a punishment, he trades in January Jones for Diane Kruger. And why is Kruger okay with running off with a killer? Sure, he’s fine now, but is it not crossing her mind that he might revert back or that maybe he’s actually lying about everything?

Jones may have been terrible, but at least she gets blown up.

Why didn’t the replacement Harris just pull Neeson to the side and explain what had happened? Why did they mess with him? Why wasn’t he taken out immediately? Why was such a bumbling assassin sent after him? I know, I know, if these issues were dealt with then the movie would have only been thirty minutes long, but some of these questions could have been addressed.

And Neeson is all about saving…corn? I didn’t care for Taken all that much, but “Give me back my daughter!” is a bit more compelling than “Give me back that genetically altered strain of super-corn!”

"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.