"Constantine" - "It's not always like it is in the books."

I’m pretty loose with my reasons for picking which movies from my collection to write about, but an upcoming concert and a YouTube video I recently watched will have my next few entries a bit more focused. Let me explain. First off, I’m going to see Bush this week (thirteen-year-old me is pumped...hell, thirty-three-year-old me is pretty pumped too...nostalgia!). In case you didn’t know, Gavin Rossdale is the lead singer of Bush, but he also dabbles in acting, and Constantine is his highest profile role. I just felt like watching this again before seeing them live, so I can feel like I’m seeing a band and  Hollywood star at the same time, even if the acting didn’t exactly work out for him.

Second, I went down a YouTube rabbit hole a few days ago and ended up on a video (by one of those movie channels like watchmojo, looper, cinefix, etc.) about critical disappointments that are actually good. As you can guess, Constantine was on there, which surprised me a bit, since I (for no reason in particular) assumed this movie was generally hated/ignored. I saw it as a sign that I must re-watch it and write about it. I also got fuel for a number of future articles, because it turned out I owned most of the movies discussed in the video. So in the next few weeks, expect articles about William Friedkin’s later work (Bug, The Hunted, Rules of Engagement), The Book of Eli, and Knowing. But for now: Constantine...starring Hollywood superstar Gavin Rossdale!

Constantine was a bit of a rarity for me when it came out. It was based on a comic book, but I knew next to nothing about the source material. I’m not much of a comic book guy (I like them, but movies have taken up most of my dork budget), but I’m pretty knowledgeable. Somehow, Hellblazer flew under my radar. So I went into Constantine to see a Matrix-style action movie about angels and demons. I wasn’t disappointed. It didn’t blow me away or anything, but I remember thinking it was overall a cool movie.

Cut to 2018. When I looked for this movie in my collection, I was worried that I had actually sold it years ago because it wasn’t in my comic book movie section. I know I didn’t know the source material, but I even keep Road to Perdition, Ghost World, and A History of Violence next to Thor and The Dark Knight and whatnot. I was relieved (?) when I found it in my sci-fi section. That just shows how little I considered this a comic book movie, which might be why I liked it then, and still like it now. But knowing it’s a comic book movie allowed me to appreciate a few things about it.

For one thing, Constantine is a rated R comic book movie. That was lost on me the first time. Granted, it’s a tame R that by 2018 standards could possibly pass as PG-13, but still. I do wish they had leaned in on the R a bit more and made a truly disturbing film.

The R rating was there to set the tone. This movie is not shy about its influences. The basic equation of it is The Exorcist + The Matrix + Chinatown = Constantine. The first two make sense. Constantine is an exorcist, and Reeves was just coming off The Matrix sequels. But Chinatown? Constantine is mainly a detective film, actually, so Chinatown is a pretty good reference point. The marketing department obviously thought this as one of the posters is very similar to Chinatown’s. It’s an odd combination, but it makes for a pretty interesting film, tonally.

I’m all about tone and world-building (which is why Blade Runner 2049 was my favorite film last year), and Constantine works for me on that level. This movie went so far in creating its underworld that it hardly bothers with the real world. I found that refreshing. Instead of getting twenty to thirty minutes of Rachel Weisz’s character being convinced what was really going on, we get one scene and the movie never looks back. Normally a film of this kind leans on the two world concept for laughs or to show just how different the two worlds are, but Constantine is confident enough in its other world to stay there throughout.

If the visuals and action were a bit more interesting, I would consider this an unappreciated gem. But, especially by 2018 standards, the CG is plain and relied on too heavily. The scenes in Hell are simply uninteresting. The demon design is kind of freaky, but overall those sequences lack imagination. It’s easy to see how director Francis Lawrence ended up making I Am Legend, another promising film with disappointing CG. As for the action...well, there isn’t much, despite the film trying to look like The Matrix. And that’s fine, since the action is a bit too slo-mo heavy anyway. The tone is enough for this movie, if only they did something truly interesting with the visuals. I would have loved to see what they would have done if they needed to use a practical set for Hell.

The surprisingly strong cast makes up for the uninspired visuals and action. Reeves may not look like his comic book counterpart, but he’s comfortable playing a sarcastic prick. Weisz is good, as usual. Shia LaBeouf is only mildly annoying in a sidekick role that is identical to his role in I, Robot, but it makes no sense for him to be in this movie when the source character is an adult who is more equal than sidekick. They should have left the character out entirely, and for a large chunk of the movie, they do just that. Djimon Hounsou is perfectly cast as Midnite, but like Tilda Swinton, Peter Stormare, and yes, Gavin Rossdale, he isn’t given enough to do.

That’s my biggest problem with this movie this time around. It seemed like all of these characters had much more to do but got cut down to keep it at two hours. Rossdale, in particular, seems like an afterthought. He turns out to be responsible for the deaths of two of Constantine’s allies, but he has all of two minutes of screen time. I wonder if he was just that bad at acting or if it was to save time. His performance didn’t seem bad. He tends to menacingly whisper more than speak, but he definitely conveyed a demonic smarminess, which, I believe, was the goal.

The supporting roles ended up feeling more like cameos, but I wanted to spend much more time with all of those characters. I didn’t bother watching the deleted scenes on my “deluxe edition” DVD because I can only justify devoting so much time to this movie, but I can only assume these characters had at least one more scene each. If not, they should have.

Speaking of devoting too much time, I’ll wrap this up. Don’t worry, I’ll still do my signature rambling random thoughts for this movie, but I’m going to go back to making that a section I add at the end. I like Constantine, but I don’t know why I bought this. I literally only watched it again because of that YouTube video and because of an impending Bush concert, and I will likely never watch it again. I would sell it, but who would buy it, especially since I lost the mini-Hellblazer comic book that came with it? Oh well, at least I know now that it belongs in my comic book section, not the sci-fi section.

Random Thoughts

“It’s not always like it is in the books.” Keanu says this about halfway through, and I think it is only there for fans in anticipation of the bitching about how he doesn’t look like the comic book character.

There’s a great bit of product placement when Constantine looks at a Chevy billboard soon after getting a cancer diagnosis. The ad reads: “Time is running out...to buy a new Chevy.” First, I wonder if Chevy knew this was going to be the placement and were on board with it. Second, I appreciate product placement that doesn’t hide. Ads exist in the real world; what’s wrong with a character looking at one? That seems more natural than Constantine clearly getting into a Chevy multiple times.

Definitely only own this because it was during my “must buy one DVD a week” phase.

DVD extras really hammer on why Keanu doesn’t look like Constantine. “It just didn’t look right…” What they mean is, “he wouldn’t look enough like Neo.”

Yes, I watched some DVD extras, but I just couldn’t bring myself to watch the promised 18 minutes of deleted scenes.

Producer Laura Schuler Donner claims this was in the pipeline even before the first X-Men (even though this came out five years later) as evidence that they were committed to the story. But I think this movie only exists because of The Matrix.

Richard Corliss compares this to Blade Runner in a blurb on the box! What?!

Had no idea this was Francis Lawrence’s first film. Honestly, it’s quite impressive, both that he was given such a big first film and the overall style of a first-time filmmaker. And I actually think the CG is better in this film than in I Am Legend.

Peter Stormare might be the most interesting version of the devil I’ve ever seen.

Gavin Rossdale’s half-melted face legitimately disgusted me.

I kind of crapped on the film’s CG and whatnot, but there are a couple cool moments. I liked when Constantine chased Rachel Weisz through the building. And bits here and there (grabbing the hospital bracelet as dozens of demons grab him, shining a light to drive off a horde of demons, kicking a crab directly into the camera [seriously, I like that for some reason]) were decent.

Kicking a crab is a good place to stop. Next week: The William Friedkin PTSD Trilogy - Rules of Engagement, The Hunted, and Bug.

"Fury" - A Review in Which I Sincerely Praise the Acting of Shia LaBeouf...

                Fury

Good acting, Shia, but I don't know about that mustache...

                  American tank movies are few and far between in cinematic history possibly because of the less than enthralling claustrophobic quality of a tank.  It might also have something to do with the fact that the German tanks were superior to American tanks during World War II so there aren’t many feel-good, gung-ho true stories to work with.  This might be why writer/director David Ayer decided to write a fictional story for his tank movie, Fury.  But while the film might be a bit gung-ho, there is certainly nothing feel-good about it.

                Fury, at its core, is a miserable story about the horrors of war.  It doesn’t dwell on the horror or even condemn it, however.  Instead, the focus is on what war does to a man, or group of men, in this case.  Fury is a warts and all depiction of brotherhood through war.  Most war films cover this unique relationship, but few filmmakers have realized that the tank is the perfect setting to condense that complicated situation into a film.  (The only film that came to mind as I watched this was The Beast, an under-watched 1988 film about a Russian tank crew in Afghanistan.)  While the inside of a tank does not make for a compelling visual, it does wonders for character interaction.

                The characters are what make Fury interesting, but also strange.  The plot of the film is essentially about a newcomer, Norman (Logan Lerman), to the crew of the titular tank, Fury, and his initiation by fire (quite literally) into World War II.  Since this is a fictional story, there is no historic grand battle for Fury to take part in, instead the plot is relegated to vague missions about “holding the line” and not giving up.  The story truly does not matter since this is a character study.  It is a strange character study because we learn almost nothing about most of the characters apart from their role in the war.  Some might see this as a weakness, but it is actually beneficial to the story.  Fury does not attempt to create complete characters, just men shaped by war.  It isn’t important to know what Brad Pitt’s character did before the war.  Perhaps it would add a level of complexity to the proceedings if it turned out that this brutal man was actually a librarian or something, but that would be cheesy and unnecessary.  No matter what jobs these characters had back home, there job now is to kill other people.  Fury attempts to show the disturbing effects war has on the soldiers.  Whether or not it successfully does that is up for debate.

                When we meet the tank crew, they are already battle-hardened and on edge.  Don “Wardaddy” Collier (Pitt) is the tough leader, whose most important mission is to protect his men.  (There is actually no point in naming the other characters because their names are fairly forgettable and/or underused.  In fact, I didn’t know what Brad Pitt’s character’s name was until I looked it up on IMDb a few minutes ago.  This all goes back to the lack of character development beyond the moment of each scene.)  The other men in the tank are played by Shia LaBeouf (the religious one), Jon Bernthal (the redneck), Michael Peña (the driver), and Logan Lerman (the new guy).  Just because the names of the characters are not important does not mean that these are one-note characters.  It just means they can be identified more easily by their first impression. 

                Instead of getting to know these characters in depth, we just discover them in battle, which is the point of the film.  If Fury has something to say about the effects of war on a person, then knowing anything about that character beforehand belittles that point.  It does not matter what these characters were, look at what they have become.  And they have become brutal, cold killing machines.  This makes Fury more of a spiritual companion to Full Metal Jacket more than Saving Private Ryan.  Although, tonally, this film is even more depressing than Jacket.  All of the main characters say or do things that make you wonder whether they are “good” men throughout the film.  They are never meant to be hated, though, quite the opposite.  These men are meant to be pitied for what war has done to them.  Because of that, and because of casting, it’s easy to end up liking this crew, despite some of their harsher moments.

                Brad Pitt brings some natural authority to his role, and he’s as likable as always.  It was a bit hard to divorce this character from the one he played in Inglourious Basterds, however.  It’s not that they are all that similar (though they both are very good at killing NATzees…), it’s just that the roles are close together in his filmography.  Bernthal provides the sole comedic relief of the film with his almost cartoonish redneck antics, and that is certainly welcome in such grim proceedings.  Peña is proving to be a very diverse actor with this role (I know him mostly from comedies like Eastbound & Down and Observe and Report).  Lerman doesn’t get a lot to do aside from look scared/angry, but he handles it well.  Surprisingly (to me, at least), LaBeouf was the most impressive.  Perhaps it’s because of his off-screen behavior, but he’s hard to take seriously.  But here, he truly appeared to be in the moment, and his performance allowed his character to be the most complex of the film. 

                The performances in a war film are the most important aspect of it, especially if it is making a statement on war itself.  But it’s also very important to present the action in a realistic way, as well.  Fury has some of the most effective and tense battle sequences of recent memory.  It is also shockingly gory at times.  It does tiptoe that fine line between realism and glorification, but realism does win out, for the most part.  There are still battle sequences that the more gung-ho viewer can fist pump to, but most viewers will feel the brutality rather than cheer it on.  The only thing that hampers the action is the music.

                Normally, the score to a war film is naturally patriotic, somber, rousing, etc.  And that is as it should be.  But Fury is an anti-war film meant to display the real brutality of the violence.  There was no soundtrack during the real battles of WWII, and Fury would have been even more effective if the filmmakers would have left out the soundtrack as well.  The audience doesn’t need “sad” music playing when characters have died to let us know that it is sad.  It is just insulting to the audience to think that they wouldn’t know when to feel sad.  Also, using music that sounds borderline militaristic during battle scenes takes away from the realistic tone the film was going for.  It doesn’t ruin the film, but it certainly cheapens it from time to time.  When it comes to disturbing violence, silence is the most effective option.

                Despite that slight misstep, Fury should go down as one of the better war films in recent decades.  While it wasn’t memorable enough to be considered one of the best ever (the topic of war has just been covered too much for new ground to be broken…), it has certainly earned its place as one of, if not the, best tank film ever made. 

Fury receives a:

"Lawless"

Directed by John Hillcoat, written by Nick Cave, starring Tom Hardy, Shia LaBeouf, Jessica Chastain, and Guy Pearce - Rated R

Surprisingly fun movie from the director of The Road...that just doesn't sound right for some reason.

 

 

I’ve been following the careers of director John Hillcoat and writer/musician Nick Cave since I saw their phenomenal film, The Proposition.  Hillcoat followed that film with The Road which, while divisive, I found to be very engaging, if not extremely depressing.  The Proposition was certainly depressing as well, so I was surprised to find that Hillcoat and Cave’s latest collaboration, Lawless, was a fun movie.  Don’t get me wrong, Hillcoat’s previous films are enjoyable, but they are miles away from fun. 

Lawless lends itself to a fun tone because of the true story/legend of the Bondurant family of Tennessee during the Prohibition years.  The story of the Bondurant brothers is certainly violent, but it’s handled in a folksy, old-fashioned tall tale kind of way that left me with a smile on my face.  The story is a lengthy tale of a backwoods Virginia bootlegging family that had to deal with everything except actual law enforcement.  The setting of the film is truly lawless, as the cops seem to be much more villainous than the criminals.

The cops as the bad guys routine is nothing new.  If anything, Lawless makes it much simpler and removes any trepidation from the viewer.  Typically, when I find myself rooting for the lawbreaker of a film, I have to stop and deal with the fact that I am rooting for someone who is causing others harm (the first seasons of “Breaking Bad” come to mind).  Lawless can sidestep that because of the law that is being broken.  Most people, at this point, find Prohibition to be a ridiculous moment in our history.  It didn’t stop anyone from drinking and it gave rise to mass crime and corruption.  With that mentality, you can easily look to the cops as problems rather than solutions. 

The Bondurant boys of the film are just making their way in Franklin County, Tennessee.  It’s just that making their way involves making moonshine.  In a typical movie, the main issue would be cops busting up the stills.  That’s still the an issue, but the cops are only after the Bondurants because they don’t want to cut a deal with a mobster who wants to consolidate all off the alcohol he sells in the big cities.  The leader of the Bondurant clan, Forrest (Tom Hardy), is stubborn to say the least and decides to take the family down a different path, and brothers Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) have to accept that.  Creepy crooked cop (hello, alliteration) Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce) represents the forces attempting to stop the Bondurants.  What follows is less backwoods war and more lighthearted, folksy goings-on scattered with extreme violence and surprising comedy. 

Tom Hardy creates most of the comedy, and violence for that matter, even if he is not the focus of the film (unfortunately).  He mumbles and grunts through each scene and it makes for some very funny moments.  He is also a very imposing character; this is the same guy who played Bane in The Dark Knight Rises.  But because he is a man of grunts rather than words, the movie relies on Jack to progress the story.

Shia LaBeouf does a fine job as Jack; it’s just that he is not nearly as interesting or talented as Tom Hardy.  This is certainly a step up from Transformers, though.  He plays a typical LaBeouf character as Jack wants to rush headfirst into everything and prove himself to anyone who is willing to pay attention.  Unfortunately for all involved, Guy Pearce is the person paying attention.

Pearce (a Hillcoat regular) livens up the screen with his portrayal of a strange, sadistic big city cop.  Every scene featuring Pearce is cringe-inducing, but he manages to keep it from becoming a moustache twirling villain role.  He is definitely the guy to root against, but he’s too weird too hate outright. 

Mia Wasikowska and Jessica Chastain (the woman who is in every other movie now) round out the cast as the love interests of two of the brothers.  They are a bit more than simple love interests, but they get the least to do in the film. 

Gary Oldman is also in the film, but I only mention him because I thought it was strange how he was plastered all over the marketing of the film yet his role is little more than a cameo.  His few scenes are great, though.  A little Oldman is better than none at all, I suppose.

The real star of the film is the writing.  This could have been a by-the-numbers “root for the outlaws” movie.  There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s been done so many times.  Instead, the writers (and reality, since this is based on a true story) injected some tall tale humor into the mix.  I don’t want to ruin anything, so I’ll just say that there are a few moments in which severe violence happens and the resolution of said violence is not what you might expect.  It makes the movie slightly ridiculous a few times, but it is a welcome kind of ridiculous.  I laughed aloud multiple times watching this film, and I believe the filmmakers wanted that response.

Overall, Hillcoat and Cave have created an interesting film.  It’s much lighter than their previous collaboration, but if anyone needed to lighten up for a next film, it was these two.  So check it out when it comes out on video, because this is about as inviting and crowd-pleasing as Hillcoat and Cave are going to get…and that is definitely a compliment.

           

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"

Transformers: Dark of the Moon - Directed by Michael Bay, written by Ehren Kruger, starring Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whitely, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, and John Turturro - Rated PG-13

Stuff blows up and giant robots kill each other, just enjoy it.

The fighting robots are back this summer and once again, a whole lot of stuff gets blown up as they duke it out for Earth’s future. Transformers: Dark of the Moon marks the third film in the series and while it doesn’t measure up to the first film, it is an improvement over the second (a film that I enjoyed a bit more than most critics). Dark of the Moon may run a bit long (it clocks in at a whopping 157 minutes) but it still provides plenty of bang for your buck this summer.

Dark of the Moon picks up a few years after the second film and most everyone has moved on to bigger and better things except Sam (Shia LaBeouf) who can’t land a job and isn’t allowed to help out his robot buddies. But of course he can’t stay out of the mix for long and eventually everyone comes together again to attempt to save the world. That’s a plain description of the plot, and there is quite a bit going on in this movie, but everyone is really showing up for the action, not the story.

The action of the previous film was problematic at times because it was hard to tell just what was going on most of the time. That problem has been fixed for the most part. While parts of the film just have too much going on, you can at least tell who is winning each fight this time around. Most importantly, though, this is a big budget film and all the money is right there on the screen. There are some great action set pieces and the last forty-five minutes of the movie is full of crazy, ridiculous action. Director Michael Bay is on his action game with this one. The 3D was pretty decent as well. This is a movie that makes the IMAX 3D ticket worth the price. But the film is also fine in 2D.

The film also tries to provide a few laughs and succeeds a few times, though most of it ends up being a bit on the childish side, most notably the small robots. The rest of the laughs are provided by the goofy side characters. John Turturro, Kevin Dunn, Julie White, Francis McDormand, Alan Tudyk, Ken Jeong, and John Malkovich all ham it up to bring a few laughs. It’s all about your personal taste, but I found Tudyk and Malkovich to be the funniest. And Sam’s parents were thankfully toned down in this movie after their ridiculous outing in the last film.

Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson both show up again, but LaBeouf is the only actor who gets a character to work with. No big deal, a large cast means more one note characters, but Sam has become a whiny jerk this time around. He whined a bit in the first two films, but it was okay since he was young and still a student. This time he’s supposed to be a full-fledged adult and he just complains constantly, blaming everyone but himself for his troubles. He was more annoying than funny. Some of his freak-outs are humorous, though.

The part of the cast that is getting the most attention in the press is Rosie Huntington-Whitely, a.k.a. Megan Fox’s replacement. It’s understandable that the filmmakers would crack a joke or two about Fox’s departure, but they go into overkill showing off their new hot girl. Also, the addition of Patrick Dempsey in a side plot with the replacement is just strange.

Dark of the Moon is very entertaining but the length of it could be a major issue for some, especially if you’re watching it in 3D. Your eyes might start to feel the strain after an hour and a half or so. The film could easily drop thirty non-action minutes. Some of the new love interest stuff could go and maybe a few of the comedic roles could have been trimmed down a bit.
A movie that overstays its welcome isn’t a bad movie, however, and Dark of the Moon should please most viewers. It can be a bit goofy and everything but there is plenty of awesome action and the visual effects are top notch. You get your money’s worth and that’s about the best thing a summer movie can do.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Maybe it's just because I'm a fan of his work in "Eastbound & Down," but I thought Andrew Daly's short scenes were great. His reaction to Ken Jeong's death was hilarious.
Speaking of which, Ken Jeong dies! After getting my hopes up in The Hangover Part II, this is the film that delivers the goods. He wasn't all that bad in the film, but I am seriously suffering from Jeong overload at this point and it was nice to see him take an early exit.

Nice to see Chicago get destroyed for a change. Not nice, necessarily, but I'm tired of watching New York, L.A., and D.C. get blown up.

The little robots taking down the giant ship reminded me of Anakin at the end of Star Wars: Episode I. By the way, did they die? The ship didn't blow up or anything so they may have survived but it is never shown.

Anyone else think Optimus was a dick for killing Megatron after Megatron had just saved him? The guy was offering a truce and Optimus rips his head off. Now that's diplomacy.

"Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps"

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps - Directed by Oliver Stone, written by Allan Loeb and Stephen Schiff, starring Michael Douglas, Shia LeBeouf, Carey Mulligan, Josh Brolin, and Frank Langella - Rated PG-13

"Stop telling lies about me and I'll stop telling the truth about you." Unfortunately, this is the only decent line I can remember from the film.

The original Wall Street was a look at an era of excess. If you look back at that film about the deceitful Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) and upstart Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) you get a real sense of the world of Wall Street in the 1980s. It wasn’t just about how the stock market operated; it was also about the 80s in general. Just watch the sequence when Bud buys an apartment; a Talking Heads song plays as we see so much excess it’s almost funny.

I mention all of this because the sense of a world is missing from Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. I never got the sense that the new young upstart, Jacob Moore (Shia LeBeouf), was entering a new world. Another aspect missing from this new Wall Street was good dialogue. The original is an insanely quotable film that is filled with amusing insults and witty remarks concerning the financial world. There’s a line here and there that sticks out in this film, but no one will be quoting this in the future.

Wall Street: MNS was a bit of a letdown for me because it lacked focus and just didn’t know what it wanted to be. It gets off to a good start, though. In fact, the beginning is almost like its own little short film featuring a very effective performance by Frank Langella. As I said, there are not many good lines of dialogue in the film, but Langella transcends that problem with his booming voice. Unfortunately, Langella isn’t in the film very long.

After Langella’s exit, the film’s real story begins. Jacob Moore decides to deliver some payback to the man who forced Langella out of his investment firm, Bretton James (Josh Brolin). To do that, he enlists the help of Gordon Gekko, who has reemerged in the financial world after a jail stint and a new book. Gekko is willing to help Jacob as long as Jacob attempts to reconcile him with his estranged daughter, Winnie (Carey Mulligan), who is engaged to Jacob. That’s all interesting but only because it’s unexpected. Seeing Gekko as an actual human being rather than a greedy scumbag was new, but the new Gekko is just kind of pathetic.

The revenge subplot was interesting and in keeping with the original’s tone, but there wasn’t enough actual Wall Street action. I know some people might be put off by financial babble, but that belongs in a film about Wall Street. Money Never Sleeps played more like a family drama that happens to involve players in Wall Street.

That said, the few scenes that involve finance are all great. Brolin has some nice moments (in many ways, he is the Gordon Gekko of this film) and his interactions with Douglas and Langella are entertaining.

Brolin and Langella impressed me the most, but there’s not really a weak performance in the film. Shia LeBeouf actually stands up against all of the heavy hitters; I only found him weak in a few of the sappier scenes with Mulligan. Mulligan does a decent job, but all she really gets to do is act sad throughout. Susan Sarandon is okay as Jacob’s hectic mother, but I was mainly just wondering what she was doing in the film. And Michael Douglas gets right back into Gekko mode quite easily. Of course, he’s played a lot of characters similar to Gekko over the years, but he’s still charismatic and fun to watch.

The acting was all there, but the story wasn’t. I have to blame the majority of this film on Oliver Stone. True, he didn’t write the screenplay for this one, but that’s the point. How can Stone direct a sequel to one of his own screenplays and not write it himself? That’s why the great dialogue was missing and I’m assuming that’s why this was more of a Lifetime Original movie than a Wall Street movie. If you disagree with me on the Lifetime jab, just watch the last fifteen minutes of this film and tell me that that isn’t a weak and sappy ending.

Stone’s biggest influence was his decision to not write the film, but he still tries to add a little something in the form of strange and out of place split screen sequences, dissolves and wipes, and visual aids for sequences about how communication travels and how fusion energy works. I could’ve done without all of it; however it wasn’t distracting or detrimental to the film, just kind of pointless.

Wall Street does offer quite a few references for fans of the original. I won’t say who shows up, but there are some amusing cameos. There are a lot of David Byrne songs (“This Is the Place” by Talking Heads even plays over the credits), but none of the new music sticks out like the original’s soundtrack.

The biggest fan service, though, is the fact that Gordon Gekko is in it. Sure, he’s a tame and sad Gekko, but he’s still very watchable. It’s unfortunate that the film lacked focus and Stone didn’t write it. It doesn’t ruin the original (though some will believe it did). All it really did was make me realize how much I loved the original, and that’s not all that bad.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Okay, that ending was ridiculous. Suddenly Gordon Gekko has a heart? Screw that. If there's a film character that I never want to see change in, it's Gekko. Also, what exactly did he really do that makes Winnie change her mind? It all seemed forced and way too sentimental.

Langella's death scene was easily the most moving scene in the film.

The bailout scene was pretty great. Even before Eli Wallach mentioned the end of the world, I was thinking that the scene could easily have been put into an "end of the world" movie and you would barely have to change the dialogue.

By the way, what was with Wallach in this film? It's cool to see such an old timer still acting, but I didn't understand the whistling thing he kept doing...just seemed a bit weird.

Charlie Sheen's appearance as Bud Fox was kind of amusing, but the more I thought about it the more I hated it. He basically showed up to show that he turned into successful scumbag and learned nothing. Actually, it was Sheen playing himself. Weak.

I enjoyed Michael Douglas as Gekko in the last act of the film...you know, when he gets to be old school Gekko. The previews set up Gekko to be like that the entire film...if only it was true. It was a good ten minutes or so, though.

Finally, for the record, I hate that "Money Never Sleeps" subtitle. Couldn't that have gone with "The Bailout" or "The Collapse" or "Too Big to Fail" or something? Hell, how about just putting a "2" at the end of the title and being done with it?

Joseph Gordon-Levitt: The Anti-Shia LaBeouf

It occurred to me recently that former child actors Joseph Gordon-Levitt ("Third Rock from the Sun") and Shia LaBeouf ("Even Stevens") have chosen career paths that are polar opposites. Gordon-Levitt has gone the respectable route with the recent 500 Days of Summer (which I look forward to watching, but has not out in theaters near me), and the critically acclaimed Brick and The Lookout. I found his performance in Killshot to be quite impressive as well. He seems to be searching for quality roles in low budget films and it has worked. His appearance in G.I.Joe is questionable, but I'll wait to see it before I cast judgment on him. Regardless of his upcoming big budget film, Gordon-Levitt has become a solid actor who adds prestige to any picture he is involved in.

LeBeouf, on the other hand, has starred in one big budget movie after another, usually playing clichéd or completely bland characters that require him to react to a green screen. But this has led to massive success. I must admit, I wanted to hate this guy from the get-go, but his unoffensive, plain characters are almost impossible to hate. The worst I can say is that I feel indifferent about each character he plays. Can anyone honestly say they cared about what happened to Sam Witwicky or Mutt Williams. To me, those two characters just got in the way of the action. This is not to say that I haven't enjoyed LaBeouf's movies. I enjoyed both Transformers movies for what they were (loud, hectic action movies) and I am even one of the few people out there that really enjoyed the latest Indiana Jones. Labeouf was amusing in his comedic side roles in other big budget films as well (Constantine and I, Robot), but there is really nothing to this guy. There are plenty of lesser known actors who could play the goofy, dorky high school kid. That might be the one thing that is keeping him going. He can play a high school kid (like in the unlikely hit movie Disturbia) and he seems sincere when freaks out about his lack of iTunes access and cell phone privileges.

So the younger crowd might be able to identify with him on a technological level, but he won't stay young forever, and that is obviously becoming a problem. LaBeouf went with a more adult type role in Eagle Eye (though he was a childish, scared adult) and that didn't turn out nearly as well as Transformers. He is about to hit a major brick wall: adulthood. Joseph Gordon-Levitt saw this coming a mile away and has been working on it for the past few years.

Take Brick, for instance. This is a film noir set in a high school. Gordon-Levitt takes the high school role, but he gets to play it like he's Bogart as Sam Spade. He acknowledges that he's not an adult, but he can act like one at least. Gordon-Levitt knows that he looks young, but that doesn't mean his characters have to act like it. The Lookout is another prime example of this. He plays a brain damaged (memory loss) former high school star athlete who gets caught up in a bank robbery scheme. This was his major step out into film adulthood. He followed this with a quality performance in Stop Loss, followed by a great turn as a redneck stick up man in the under seen Killshot. In Killshot, there is certainly an immature side to his character, but I would hardly consider him a high school kid. If anything, Gordon-Levitt played a kid who probably dropped out of school by the time he was sixteen. Now he is Cobra Commander and even if G.I.Joe turns out to be garbage, I doubt that people will claim that Gordon-Levitt is the problem.

I am not just comparing these two actors side by side because they both started out as child actors, though. I feel that these two actors represent two sides of American youth. The popular kids in school and the trendy people who don't follow movies too closely probably identify with LaBeouf because it's easy. The dorks and movie buffs out there shrug off LaBeouf (or downright hate him) and side with Gordon-Levitt because of his acting ability and his character decisions. I'm willing to bet that the people who identify with LaBeouf don't even know who Joseph Gordon-Levitt is. Me, I'm proud to be part of the dorks and geeks. I'm just a bit worried that Gordon-Levitt is entering LaBeouf land with Cobra Commander. But I'm sure it's just a bump in the road on his way to continued and more prominent critical success.