Samurai films tend to lean toward either overly talkative and boring or hyper-stylized to the point that credibility comes into question. Striking that middle ground, however, can lead to greatness, or rather — great honor. Takashi Miike’s “13 Assassins” might not match the great Akira Kurosawa films, but boy does it come close, and it does so with themes and blades of equal sharpness.

If swords-and-sandals flick “300″ had been less concerned about abs and Gerard Butler screaming war hyperbole, it would have looked and felt like this film. Anyone who hails Zack Snyder’s 2006 film as a masterpiece should pull up a seat with this film for two-plus hours and see how it’s really done.

Both the aforementioned film to which comparison is inescapable and “13 Assassins” tell a story about how the number of men indicated in their titles fought against an army numerous times the size. In this film, the reasons for fighting a battle most certain to result in death are less glossy and brash, as well as guided by some consideration for historical relevance.

The story takes place at nearly the end of feudal era Japan, when samurai have become nothing but show thanks to a lengthy time of peace. Yet one lord seems to undermine this peace with acts of cold-blooded violence: the shogun’s half brother, Lord Naritsugu (Gorô Inagaki). It is expected, however, that when he returns from Edo, he will have a place on the shogun’s council and have political influence to go with with warmongering ways. After a respected samurai commits harakiri in protest, the elder of the shogun council charges a samurai named Shinzaemon (Kôji Yakusho) with putting together a squad of samurai to kill Naritsugu before there’s widespread unrest.

The beginning of the film shows us Naritsugu’s cold and horrifying ways with enough brutal imagery to make anyone want to pick up a sword against this guy. The story then continues with the assembling of the 12 assassins (the 13th comes later) and their strategy for accomplishing the task. Yet on the other side is Hanbei Kitou (Masachika Ichimura), the samurai sworn to obey and protect Naritsugu who must develop counter-strategy to foil Shinzaemon, an old classmate of his from the dojo.

The game of strategy boils toward a 45-minute climactic battle in which the 13 assassins use everything from trickery to explosives to straight-up sword hackery against an army of 200 men from Naritsugu’s clan. The delivery of these sequences rivals any modern action film, and that includes battle cries, little humorous lines tossed in for fun and especially creativity. One samurai takes out 30-plus guys in a narrow corridor that he prepped ahead of time with several swords carefully stationed throughout.

But most impressively, “13 Assassins” never loses sight of what its whole conflict is about. The plot doesn’t exist merely as a formula guaranteed to produce an unforgettable culminating battle. Throughout the entire film, characters are questioning the values passed down to them for hundreds of years of honor and duty. Having essentially stood their whole lives as symbols of a fading age, they take on this quest in search of finally fulfilling that purpose of total commitment and servitude, yet this battle will teach them what it truly means.

Essentially, this is not the same movie if set in another time or another place, which sets it apart as a truly great action film. As replicable as a story of a small band of skilled warriors taking on the impossible is (it possesses a great number of similarities to what’s considered the best of its kind, Kurosawa’s “Seven Samurai,” for one), writers Kaneo Ikegami and Daisuke Tengan give “13 Assassins” its own thumbprint with the context.

Miike then delivers the full impact of all the tones from pure syrupy action to dark, shocking drama. He knows exactly how to take a high-tension scene to a whole other level by creating a full spectrum of what we see versus what is kept from us, especially in terms of violence. As soon as he wants to export those talents to Hollywood, someone better answer. We could use more action films like “13 Assassins.”

4.5/5 Stars

13 Assassins
Directed by Takashi Miike
Written by Kaneo Ikegami, Daisuke Tengan
Starring: Kôji Yakusho, Takayuki Yamada, Masachika Ichimura, Gorô Inagaki

Pulp flicks can sometimes get a bit too ahead of themselves. Sometimes all you need is a hobo, a shotgun and a twisted sense of justice.

Rutger Hauer stars in “Hobo with a Shotgun,” the second film after “Machete” to be derived from a fake trailer created for the Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino double-feature “Grindhouse.” Although the Hobo and that dangerous Mexican share revenge from the same cold plate, Jason Eisener does decidedly more with decidedly less.

Beneath the bulky jacket and hobo stench lies something somehow untainted. When most exploitation flicks get down to the dramatic side — if they ever get that far — usually flop. Most viewers would prefer the Hobo waste no time getting to that shotgun, but Hauer hints at a depth to that vigilante justice. No matter how hypocritical he might actually be, he’s darn convincing and dare I say poignant.

The film takes place in what was once called Hope Town but has since become “F*** Town.” The streets are full of bums, druggies, prostitutes and corruption of all kinds. The Hobo hops off the train to find the town in this state and cannot sit idly by. After trying to intervene with the mistreatment of a whore (Molly Dunsworth), the Hobo learns the hard way that a mob boss named “The Drake” (Brian Downey) runs things in this town with his two dopey and perverted sons.

Credit to Eisener and co-writers John Davies and Rob Cotterill for taking their time building the proper motivation, which feels odd to say as screen writing almost never warrants praise in a film of this kind. Yet when our Hobo must choose between purchasing a lawn mower to start his landscaping business or pulling that shotgun off the shelf to help “clean” the streets, the decision makes sense — kill or be killed. The Hobo metes justice “one shell at a time” and to the delight of gore fans everywhere.

The blood flows here as sure as the one-liners do, which makes “Hobo” a true child of the neo-grindhouse movement. Most admirably, the gore goes unexpected places; our heroes, for example, see their fair share of personal injury and beyond the extent to which most protagonists must stare down fate. Plus, despite the mercilessly foul lines delivered prior to most executions, there’s actually some strangely thoughtful dialogue, such as the Hobo’s little monologue to the newborns in the maternity ward of the local hospital. It’s funny, but it’s also kind of got a point — even hobos were innocent little babies once.

“Hobo with a Shotgun” adds just enough bite to its bark, whereas most of its brothers and sisters simply make noise. Somehow Eisener manages to weave all the cliché exploitation elements into something all too easy to enjoy.

—

4/5 Stars

—

Hobo with a Shotgun
Directed by Jason Eisener
Written by Jason Eisener, John Davies and Rob Cotterill
Starring: Rutger Hauer, Molly Dunsworthy, Brian Downey

Festering somewhere in the chaos of “Sucker Punch” is an exotic narrative twisted into an epic adventure waiting to be born. But Zack Snyder has pulled his bun out of the oven way before he’s given it time to rise.

A multi-layered rock fantasy that could find a permanent home on MTV2, Snyder’s premature brainchild is a mind**** of a film; literally every fantasy in his mind and that of creative dorks like him (boys and girls included) popped open like a champagne bottle spewing glorious slow-motion foam everywhere at the hands of one not strong enough to control it. Snyder fills his canvas with everything he or we could possibly imagine, but with nothing except visual motifs to tie it all together.

“Sucker Punch” feels like a personal project Snyder should’ve kept locked up a little (okay, a lot) longer. Sure, after “Dawn of the Dead” and the financial surprise that was “300,” he earned himself a creative license with Hollywood dollars long before the few filmmakers who ever earn that kind of power usually do. Snyder, however, jumped at the chance to work on his own story way too soon. Narratively the film is missing connections between a lot of its dots and the characters, while likable, possess zero back story and consequently have no motivation.

To be as brief as possible, after Snyder’s music video prologue for a remix of Annie Lennox’s “Sweet Dreams” that explains how Baby Doll (Emily Browning) got sent to a mental institution thanks to her nasty stepfather, she discovers the hospital appears to be a front for a burlesque show/brothel run by Dr. Gorski (Carla Gugino) and namely the asylum director, Blue (Oscar Isaac). Girls Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Amber (Jamie Chung) and Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) are performers, but Baby Doll steals the show as she’s found a way through losing herself in dancing to unlock a dream world that can help her and the others escape. This dream world creates fantastical missions against Nazi zombies, giant Samurai, dragons and more that help them get what they need in reality to make their escape.

At times, I truly believed a book adaptation of this story would be perfect. It would allow the time and opportunity to enter the head of Baby Doll as well as her detained friends and give time for Snyder’s ideas to germinate. As odd as this sounds, Snyder would’ve done amazing work with this film had he adapted it from a well-crafted novel that already made sense and didn’t leave its audience with fingernails upon scalp. His execution rates better than almost any director with action, but his talent is just that so far: execution (and I don’t mean that with morbid sarcasm).

The one cooked-through element of “Sucker Punch” is what you’d expect from Snyder: the action. The visuals are jaw-dropping. The only thing missing would be a little gravity or even the slightest bit of logic justifying the bizarre scenes for each dream world escapade. These fight scenes draw inspiration from any movie you could imagine, with one involving a castle, dragons and goblins that strongly echoes “Lord of the Rings.” The hazy yellow world Snyder has created simply stuns and his style and perspective choices during fight scenes remain impeccable. You can’t deny the man his incredible gift in this regard. He also knows how to support his visuals with music. It will be awhile before soundtracked films overtake or at least match composed films in this genre, but Snyder will be viewed as the godfather when it happens.

It’s tough to make it through a chaotic and abstract film that doesn’t appropriately lay its foundation, so the rip-roaring visuals help. Some moments in the plot are in fact a bit more jarring than expected and elicit more of a reaction than I’d like to give the film credit for, but these talented young actresses help in spite of the hollow cores of the characters they’ve been handed.

Where foundation and execution flip-flop for “Sucker Punch” comes from the creative seed. In that regard, there’s a foundation for an film that could be revelatory, but Snyder’s focus on the stylishness of the delivery slices it up into vague and incoherent chunks. It can safely be deemed a story championing self-empowerment, but we never feel that because of the seemingly random and abstract ways he dresses it. Honestly, if Christopher Nolan had this in his brain and could’ve scripted it, you’d be looking at a hailed cinematic achievement. Snyder just got ahead of himself. Some people will recognize the potential had Snyder waited and really tailored the story perfectly, but most will see the randomness and lack of control.

—

2.5/5 Stars

—

Sucker Punch
Directed by Zack Snyder
Written by Zack Snyder and Steve Shibuya
Starring: Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Oscar Isaac

A small but existent segment of the American population believes that any and all combinations of cars, guns and naked women make for the perfect care-free cinematic cocktail. But like any cocktail, there’s a perfect blend required, not simply throwing them in a blend-er. Behold the difference between the “Fast and Furious” franchise and “Drive Angry.” The former, for example, understands that women make the cars more beautiful, whereas Patrick Lussier, writer and director of “Drive Angry,” believes that they go together because they’re two things men like.

“Drive Angry” is not the awful kind of schlocky grindhouse flick, but it’s completely hollow filmmaking. Shot in 3D, when you watch the film in the “inferior” two dimensions, you can tell the film was meant to be watched in 3D the way bullets and shrapnel come toward the camera. Fans of the 3-D medium who despise converted 3D will rejoice at the director’s intention to use it, but this intention serves nothing more than the purpose of gimmick. In other words, cars, guns, naked women — and 3D.

Who better for the driver seat than Nicolas Cage? Sporting yet another hairstyle, Cage gets to play angry stoic man escaped from hell. Vengeance, of course, lies at the heart of any reputable exploitation flick, so at least Lussier and writing partner Todd Farmer understand their genre. The execution, however, comes off as amateur, especially in an age with folks such as Robert Rodriguez pulling off the genre in a modern era with more success — and humor especially.

Creativity for “Drive Angry” comes in the form of Cage’s Milton shooting down several religious fanatics trying to kill him with farming tools — all while maintaining sexual intercourse with the waitress from the bar next door. That could be chalked up to a genre signature, but it doesn’t serve any other purpose in the film. Usually the nudity or sex tells us something about the lone wolf lead character or adds to his mystique, but it really doesn’t in this case. Milton’s motivation is to get back his baby granddaughter from a Satanist cult that intends to sacrifice her. Having escaped from hell to do so and with Satan’s “accountant” (William Fichtner) on his tail, his actions should be pretty clear-cut. After all, he doesn’t even fall for the young blonde he’s picked up for the ride (Amber Heard).

Heard represents that kick-ass feminist force in the male-centric exploitation flick. Piper vice grips her boss’s balls when he puts his hands on her at work and then promptly quits, goes home early in her ’69 Charger with “I Break for Pussy” on the bumper and finds another woman on top of her fiancé. I won’t spoil what happens after, but this spirit creates the bond between her and Milton as well as a troubled past relationship between Milton and his daughter for which Piper provides a second chance. Heard will one day be too A-list and above this material, so she’s refreshing in the role.

Fichtner, who plays the devil’s right hand of sorts, also brings a fun performance to the film. He’s not one of those typical self-assured villains in spite of his other-worldly abilities, but he possesses the same malice. The slightest sense of humility makes him a memorable character despite the cliché role. Billy Burke as Jonah King, the Satanist who fancies himself better than everyone else, goes a bit more over-the-top, but also makes an effective villain.

The action of “Drive Angry,” though much more about guns and gore than cars, satisfies for the most part except when it kowtows to the 3D. For those not watching with special glasses, that sort of zaps you out of the story.

“Drive Angry” ends up being everything you’d expect it to be, provided you expected a 3-D camp-fest manufactured in a petri dish. There’s definitely a place for those kinds of films, but the distinguishing factor between good and bad exploitation lies in disguising the man behind the curtain, the puppeteer or whatever force putting that product together merely to entertain at the surface level. “Drive Angry” entertains, but the failure to conceal prevents any investment into the story or characters.

—

2.5/5 Stars

—

Drive Angry
Directed by Patrick Lussier
Written by Todd Farmer, Patrick Lussier
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Amber Heard, William Fichtner, Billy Burke

Few films can brag that they were adapted from a fake grindhouse movie trailer, which is exactly what makes “Machete” special. Few filmmakers can pull off an exploitation flick quite like Robert Rodriguez and although “Machete” will never be a cult classic, Rodriguez is to thank for helping popularize this often laughed-at sub-genre. There are a growing number of movie fans who enjoy mindless films that don’t take themselves seriously and “Machete” is one of the leaders in this revolution.

Rodriguez is notorious for developing long-standing working relationships with a number of his actors and “Machete” serves as a good chance to give them some work. One of his best friends in that regard, Danny Trejo, gets his first huge starring role as Machete Cortez, a federale whose high sense of honor led him to a betrayal and the death of his wife at the hands of Mexican drug kingpin Torrez (Steven Seagal).

Fast forward three years later and Machete lives in Texas as your typical illegal day laborer, although he misses his blade dearly. When a man named booth (Jeff Fahey) pulls him off the street and tells him he’ll get $150 K if he assassinates a local anti-immigration senator (Robert De Niro). Machete nods silently in agreement, but the job was a setup and Machete must go on the run from a corrupt politician in addition to an ambitious immigration officer (Jessica Alba).

How often do you get a cast that includes Alba, De Niro and Seagal? It’s more mind-blowing when you mention the rest of the cast: Michelle Rodriguez, Cheech Marin, Don Johnson and Lindsay Lohan. The eclectic cast makes “Machete” that much more interesting of a watch.

The film roars off to a gory and delightfully cheesy start that includes slicing, dicing and Machete carrying a naked girl over his shoulder. The setup of the film’s events surprises in terms of being equally amusing and slightly intriguing. The script does a really nice job capturing our interest that the moment of obnoxious mayhem comes as a bit of a surprise.

But after a scene in which Machete is taken to a hospital in critical condition, rips off tubing and then slices some guys up with surgical tools (followed by a window escape using a man’s intestines as a rappelling rope), “Machete” hits a plateau. Despite some funny moments, “Machete” fails to surprise us and gets a bit lost in illegal immigration satire. The political agenda is held up by Alba’s character and sadly, the girl can’t even act dramatically when the film she is in is a joke. It’s painful watching her try to act not so seriously — I’ve given up hope on her credibility as an actress unless she’s in something melodramatic with fight scenes.

It’s hard to tell exactly how “Machete” loses some of its luster, but the events and the techniques simply become predictable, even if they’re as over-the-top as when Machete’s brother, a gun-toting priest played by Marin, gets nailed to a cross. Although amusing, it doesn’t take us by surprise. Even the final battle royale against a bunch of “wetback haters” doesn’t take the film to the next level as the buildup drags and the payoff is unclever carnage. The only strengths in the end are the carefully orchestrated deaths that exploitation films are known for: giving the bad guys what they deserve.

Rodriguez definitely intended, for the sake of the genre, to beat us over the head with visual clues as to what ridiculousness will happen next, but rather than play it up, it stays a bit subtle and the anticipation isn’t there. By the climax, the film has become a tiresome exercise in poor visual effects and reprises of previous techniques. However, only Rodriguez could assemble the cast and dream big enough to make a B-movie with an “A” feel.

—

3/5 Stars

—

Machete
Directed by Robert Rodriguez
Written by Robert Rodriguez and Álvaro Rodríguez
Starring: Danny Trejo, Michelle Rodriguez, Jessica Alba, Jeff Fahey

Ever since 2002, Hollywood has had a case of mistaken “Bourne Identity,” pulling the trigger on any script that weaves government Intelligence with guns and combat and centers on a protagonist who doesn’t know his or her own strength. “Salt” is another byproduct of the “Bourne” era, yet barely executes half as well as that consummate secret agent thriller.

Angeline Jolie plays the titular “hero” in question, a CIA agent. When she interrogates a Russian who claims a Soviet sleeper agent will attempt to assassinate the president of Russia, she finds the finger pointed at her as that exact agent and so she goes on the run, very quickly putting her innocence out of the question, whereas the film would lead you to believe it’s a “is she or isn’t she?” movie. Whenever that’s the case, you can bet the answer lies in the gray area, but nevertheless, that’s “Salt.”

Why movie scripts can’t simply let go of old Cold War themes and plots warrants a rigorous head scratch. Writer Kurt Wimmer (“Law Abiding Citizen,” “Equilibrium”) has a history of penning films that are never as believable as they are entertaining and “Salt” follows suit. The idea of bitter “comrades” awakening sleeper agents 20 years later that they trained and planted in the USA in hopes of reigniting nuclear war might top his list of improbable.

Yet “Salt” has a nuclear warhead in Angelina Jolie, Hollywood’s most treasured femme fatale. When Tom Cruise left the project, she became the sexy choice and consequently might have saved a Cruise-led “Salt” from complete annihilation critically and financially.

Philip Noyce (“Patriot Games,” “Clear and Present Danger”) could direct a film like this in his sleep and he may well have. I was able to watch the director’s cut, which is insignificant when you don’t see the theatrical cut, but I didn’t find anything other than the action all that redeeming, so I imagine it made no difference. His expertise lies in flipping the adrenaline switch on and satisfying that part of every viewer that’s just waiting for the action to kick into gear. It’s very obvious when something will happen, but the results are less predictable than you’d expect.

The real problem with “Salt,” preposterousness aside, comes in story structure. In order for the effective twists and turns at the end (not unforeseeable, but still exciting), Wimmer and Noyce both have to downplay Salt’s character. Frankly, she sucks for most of the film. She’s a terrible protagonist because — without giving anything away — the script’s not-so-well guarded secrets are held in priority above her character development. Irrelevant flashbacks to her “husband” are an attempt at humanizing her, but her present actions become too strong for those sympathy cards to work.

Espionage thriller and action movie fans will find comfort in “Salt” and continue to be drawn to Jolie’s performances in these roles, but those who can’t keep their fingers out of plot holes and have to ponder the feasibility of a story will be frustrated throughout most. For me, the twists at the end sorting the film out and making it “matter” more saved it from total mediocrity.

—

3/5 Stars

—

Salt
Directed by Phillip Noyce
Written by Kurt Wimmer
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber, Chiwetel Ejiofor

There are very few movies out there that will amp you up like “The Expendables.” Maybe not so much for the ladies, but Sylvester Stallone’s battle royal of action stars and other renowned muscle men from the last three decades will convince almost every man that lifting weights, eating a steak and potatoes dinner and cruising about looking to kick some ass is a great idea for the immediate future.

But what “The Expendables” possesses in pure testosterone it lacks in just about everything else. The plot and subplots are entirely, well, expendable.

Including cameos from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis, the cast Stallone assembles is simply grunt-tastic, maybe minus the absence of a Jean Claude Van Damme. Combining Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren among others makes the film impressive enough. If you think all those names plus others smells of gimmick and nothing else, you’re wrong. Seeing these guys together is most if not all the magic of the film.

Stallone leads this team of war vets and other skilled fighters turned assassins for hire who possess deadly gun and knife accuracy as well as fist-fighting skills. They take a job in Venezuela to depose a dictator whose the puppet of an ex-CIA man. There are a few other details, but again, pointless as far as what this movie aims to do. Successfully, however, does this allow for the explosions to commence.

Every gun shot, every fiery blast, every punch and every knife jammed through some dude’s throat (and that happens several more times than you’d think) gets amplified both visually and through sound effects. The action never loses excitement or intensity and that alone keeps “The Expendables” from journeying into simply bad movie territory. Stallone clearly understands that all can be forgiven (or we can at least be distracted long enough) when things go boom in creative ways. Stallone and Statham’s sea plane escape and subsequent revenge on the Venezuelans on the dock makes for one of the most enjoyable action sequences of the year.

It’s amazing as an action-lover how quickly you can forget pointless cameos, unfunny attempts at levity and cliché action movie plot devices. One might find it easier to chastise Stallone for making a film that must pummel its audience into submission with gunfire and explosions, but I say success where most others fail; half the films of this ilk use the same technique and don’t manage to keep critics from seeing through the fiery guise. “The Expendables,” for the most part, does wow its audience enough to find enjoyment where there otherwise would be repetitiveness.

—

3/5 Stars

—

The Expendables
Directed by Sylvester Stallone
Written by David Callaham and Sylvester Stallone
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren

It had been 12 years since John McClane (Bruce Willis) last stopped a criminal mastermind’s mass terrorist plot and “Live Free or Die Hard” tries to make up for every single one of them. John drives three pedestrian cars, a police car, a mack truck and flies a helicopter; he survives at least three long-distance falls and outruns two or three explosions; he saves two lives (including someone close to him) and kills at least a dozen. Well, that last bit was at least expected.

The long-awaited fourth Die Hard film delivers on the explosive and inventive action fronts like any solid action film, especially one in this beloved series, ought to. Director Len Wiseman (“Underworld”) proves he can handle the challenge of a mainstream action flick with ease and considering “Live Free or Die Hard” teeters on the edge of preposterous throughout its run time, the fact that he grounds any of this in realism warrants applause.

Mark Bomback and David Marconi’s story runs terrifically at full speed, though it is fairly obvious that the script had to be tailored for the likes of John McClane. The cyber-terrorism plot of hackers controlling all the major networks and servers in the U.S. and playing with traffic signals and interfering with police communications is not the first premise that someone writing a film for an old school hero such as John McClane would conceive. I was not surprised to see Marconi’s name on the story as the film was highly reminiscent of his 1998 thriller “Enemy of the State,” one of the first of what are now way overdone “techno- thrillers.”

The story has McClane working for Homeland Security and investigating a hacker name Matt Ferrell (Justin Long) after it appears someone has messed with the department’s network. Here is where John finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time yet again as someone’s out to kill Ferrell. Much like Samuel L. Jackson’s role in “Die Hard with a Vengeance,” Long gets to be the baggage to play off of Willis and also provide some sense of freaking out seeing as McClane has no reason to do that anymore.

Much of “Live Free” models itself off of “With a Vengeance,” not necessarily a poor choice considering that film was equally as exciting as far as pacing and action quality. Timothy Olyphant as the criminal mastermind Thomas Gabriel at least has a bit more practical motivation for his crime than Jeremy Irons did as Simon Gruber. In this film, McClane finds himself in the mix rather than the actual target partly a byproduct of making this script a Die Hard film rather that building one from scratch.

Olyphant is solid as a villain although it certainly takes a bit of time to take him seriously. Colorful villain is probably not his strong suit but its nice to see him in a lead. Long works well as a balancing act for Bruce. He’s one of few in his circle of comedian buddies that appears to have what it takes to cross into other genres and both play the lead or a character role.

At times, “Live Free” is like getting repeatedly hit by a car and not dying (which happens to at least two characters), but Wiseman clearly understands that McClane’s character (and all the characters for that matter) is most important in a Die Hard film. You simply can’t hinge everything on the action. No, the movie doesn’t evolve John as a character in any way, but it doesn’t suck him dry of his humanity either, even if he should’ve died at five different points in the film. Yet again, that’s the Die Hard shtick, love it or leave it.

—

3.5/5 Stars

—

Live Free or Die Hard
Directed by Len Wiseman
Written by Mark Bomback, David Marconi
Starring: Bruce Willis, Justin Long, Timothy Olyphant, Maggie Q

There are countless ways to interpret a comic series for the big screen, not including story. “The Losers” could’ve been done as a straight-up action film about a team of black ops soldiers getting revenge on the man who left them for dead, but director Sylvain White opts to honor the source material with an equally slick production. Although it fattens the film up with action movie clichés, it gels with the tone of the script and the carefree romp that is “The Losers.” More importantly, it passes fun action movie rule number one: acknowledge your film is nothing more than a fun action movie.

Just like the A-Team or any other group of specially trained individuals featured in TV or the movies, each member of The Losers has his own area of expertise. Jeffrey Dean Morgan plays Clay, the leader, Columbus Short as Pooch the large/explosive weapons specialist, Idris Elba as Roque the I honestly can’t remember, Chris Evans as Jensen the techie with an awkward sense of humor and Oscar Jaenada as Cougar the sniper. Together, when a mysterious walkie-talkie voice named “Max” messes up their pre-opening credits mission and shoots down the helicopter they were supposed to be on, they go under the radar (aka everyone thinks they’re dead).

That’s when they meet Zoe Saldana as Aisha, the beautiful but deadly woman that offers them a chance to get back in the United States and to find “Max.” Hardly trusting her but left with few other choices, they agree. The story jumps from city to city and mission to mission without much set-up time in between. We also get a firsthand look at who Max is and that he’s looking to purchase some new-age sonic weapons called “snukes.”

“The Losers” plays out like a video game. Each scene follows a formula consisting of mission debriefing and/or scene where the characters argue over whether the mission is the right thing to do and then we go straight to the mission to watch the characters in action. There are a few scenes with Clay and Aisha, one being the only time hand-to-hand combat appears in the film (which is too bad, the scene looked and felt cool) and then there are some jumps over to the way Max crosses just about every man he works with. The film approaches him as some heartless classic television villain with an excessive sense of humor.

The script keeps its wit about it, which is to say it wants to be funny and hardly is. Evans carries a lot of that weight as Jensen. His portrayal is thorough, but the character has some really bad writing behind him. Max is supremely unfunny, though it does work as a portrayal of a classic fictional villain.

The pacing and cleverness of most of the action scenes makes “Losers” a good time. It would’ve been nice if not every big sequence ended in a poorly done CGI explosion (only a couple explosions appeared to be real stunt work) but the creative intent behind it was generally solid. The film and especially its script cuts a lot of corners, but respected writers Peter Berg and James Vanderbilt know exactly what they can’t afford to cut if the film and its main characters are to stay relevant and though White is no master, he adds some respectable machismo and visual prowess to what’s left.

—

3/5 Stars

—

The Losers
Directed by Sylvain White
Written by James Vanderbilt and Peter Berg, Andy Diggle (comics)
Starring: Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Idris Elba, Chris Evans

To label “Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief” as Harry Potter with Greek mythology is to fault the zebra for having stripes because the tiger had them first. The hero’s journey story of a young protagonist realizing he or she has a destiny and entering a world previously unknown to him or her is as ancient as, well, Greek mythology. Was 20th Century Fox hoping that Percy would become the next Harry at the box office? Without question, but it should be judged on its own merits, no matter how similar the two are.

It doesn’t help that director Chris Columbus, who first brought Harry Potter to the big screen by directing the first two films, is behind the camera for “Lightning Thief” too, but you can’t blame Fox for going after a proved talent when it comes to adapting young adult adventure fantasies for the big screen. Columbus’ eye for adventure is in fact what keeps this adaptation of the Rick Riordan book entertaining, albeit his ability to create the epic doesn’t cover up his inability to do much in the way of subtlety.

The plot is typical fantasy: Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) shockingly learns he is demi-god as explained by the mentor figures protecting him and that he’s a critical figure in some controversy he doesn’t know about. He is then introduced to the world of being a demi-god and discovers he’s cut out for the life and embraces his destiny. Lastly he goes on an adventure with friends to retrieve some object that culminates in some kind of battle brought on by a plot twist regarding a deceptive character.

Since that’s nothing a fantasy fan hasn’t seen before, it’s the trappings of the Percy Jackson world that will make or break the film. The success varies in this area, with what doesn’t work resulting from Percy’s adventure taking him through unexciting modern-day North America where the entrance to the Underworld is ironically next to the Hollywood sign, the Pantheon recreation in Nashville is the closest thing there is to “Greek history” and the reflective backside of the iPod Touch is the most convenient tool for looking at Medusa’s reflection. Creative, yes, but compare that to the magic and imagination of Harry Potter and that’s the biggest difference separating the two films.

The casting decisions and the excitement for Greek mythology fans to guess who or what is coming next definitely helps keep “Lightning Thief” stay fresh and somewhat more surprising. As for the nucleus of young actors, Lerman easily has the look and ability of the young hero and even a voice and style that’s barely discernible from Shia LeBeouf’s. His closest friends are a satyr named Grover played by Tropic Thunder co-star Brandon T. Jackson, who knows his character is somewhat of a stereotype but roles with it nicely and Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario), daughter of Athena, the calm and collected beauty deliberately intended to break stereotype. The supporting roles and cameos of key mythological figures are endless: Sean Bean, Pierce Brosnan, Rosario Dawson, Uma Thurman and more.

As a more engaging way for young ones to learn some facts about Greek mythology, “The Lightning Thief” trumps numerous textbooks. Any child could see this movie and have a bunch of mythology to Google from the classic names of all the gods as well as Perseus, Medusa and Hydra to the lesser-known Furies and Lotus-Eaters. Other films of the genre have been more entertaining, but of the few young fantasy adaptations that have tried to fill the shoes of a soon-departing Harry Potter, “Percy Jackson” at least puts up a watchable, amusing fight.

—

3/5 Stars

—

Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief
Directed by Chris Columbus
Written by Craig Titley, Rick Riordan (book)
Starring: Logan Lerman, Brandon T. Jackson, Alexandra Daddario

It’s possible that any sequel ten years in the making would be bound to fall flat. “The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day” might have been destined to do so from the beginning. The cult following if not worshipping of the original beckoned creator Troy Duffy to bring us the McManus brothers once again, even if the first film suggested future chapters were likely. In terms of story and script, “All Saints Day” neglects most of what made the first film engaging from start to finish. Instead, style dictates the direction of Duffy’s sequel and the objective to please die-hard fans, not as much those such as myself who really enjoyed the original’s infectious bravado and rhythm and were hoping the sequel would at least provide as much.

I really liked the 1999 film, applauding its signature feel, unique characters and religious undertones to counteract any possible label of yet another slow-mo vigilantes with guns story. I’ve quoted “there was a firefight!” a good couple of times in the ten years since, but my love of the film only went that far. Only a small portion of me would receive satisfaction just by seeing Connor, Murphy and Il Duce back together again; the second would have to win me over just as much as the first had to.

The set-up is that the boys (Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus) are hiding out from the law in Ireland with Poppa (Billy Connolly) when they get word that back in Boston, a priest has been murdered and made to look like it was they who did it. That’s all the motivation they need to shave their beards, grab their guns and get some revenge. It’s a suspect motivation. Their characters are so much weaker in “All Saints Day” as a result. They’re less funny and less believable to boot. The first film showed us they were human and simply had the gall to be vigilantes. This time they come across as untouchable. They also quarrel exactly like they did in the previous film and make similar jokes. These don’t come across as “comforts” so much as blatant attempts to reap more benefits from the original film’s success.

The supporting cast lent so much to the original as well. Clifton Collins Jr. overdoes everything and his character is such a poor man’s version of Rocco to begin with. Julie Benz is a horrible attempt at replacing Willem Defoe’s FBI agent. Her fake Southern accent is brutal and doesn’t rise above stereotype. Defoe provided such a rich and unique character for the film to focus on. Instead, “All Saints Day” tries to rip off its predecessor once again by having Benz’s Eunice listen to music when she reconstructs crime scenes too. The homage is given so little attention as is the case with most homages in the film.

I hate harping on why a film wasn’t like the first, but “Boondock Saints” painted such a special niche for itself and Duffy tries so incredibly hard to recreate some of that film’s success that the criticism is warranted. It starts with the script, however, which wasn’t made to be good on its own so much as cater to the cult fan base. Mixing in Il Duce’s backstory along with what was already going on was too much, for example. Mainly, however, is that “All Saints Day” lacks a true antagonist. Benz is actually an ally to the twins’ cause for much of the film, so no true force keeps them in check. This also renders the slow-motion action sequences devoid of that payoff feeling you got from the first film. Instead, “All Saints Day” is all show and even then the entertainment value doesn’t measure up.

—

1.5/5 Stars

The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day
Written and directed by Troy Duffy
Starring: Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus, Billy Connolly, Julie Benz

It’s time to suit up, because the comic film genre has a new face bringing it back to life and it’s a shiny one. “Iron Man” delivers everything you want in a comic book adaptation. It’s also probably the best thing to happen to Marvel Studios since Spider-Man 2 – that’s nearly four years and a lot of money with disappointing delivery. A good start for the first film fully produced by the studio.

Iron Man is not the most well-loved of Marvel characters, but at this point in the Marvel universe, he feels like next logical step to give the comic company a boost in the right direction. The man is Tony Stark (Downey Jr.), a millionaire playboy in the arms-dealing business. On a routine demonstration trip in Afghanistan (updated to the modern era), Stark is captured and held hostage by a rebel band of Afghanis who demand he build them one of his best missiles. Instead, Stark devises a plan to build a suit of armor so he can escape.

A victim of the very weapons he created, Stark’s uniqueness in comparison to other Marvel heroes Stan Lee has created is that he learns the error of his ways, his ignorance to the evil his industry produces, and the experience changes his perspective. It’s not a vengeance story, it’s one of personal redemption.

Downey Jr. carries this film. Not entirely, but the film focuses more on his discovery and creation of Iron Man than it does on him being Iron Man and fighting evil, a wonderful choice by the writers. Downey Jr.’s witty acting fits this perfectly. It must be said: finally there is a superhero with a sense of humor. “Iron Man” is the most genuinely funny superhero film to date, and it certainly beats the awkward attempts of “Spider-Man 3.”

Marvel was way overdue for introducing a new character after the third installments of the X- Men and Spider-Man franchises. An origin story, the reason why those other franchises took off, was in order. As an origin story, Iron Man’s story is not bogged down by excessive characters and the plot is straightforward. There have been other Marvel origin films such as “Hulk” and “Daredevil” that butchered the execution of a good origin story, but “Iron Man”outdoes them by staying zeroed in on Tony Stark and his process of becoming a metallic hero. For example, many of the scenes are of Tony in his lab, testing the Iron Man suit. While not much is going on, they captivate because we see Tony Stark reinventing himself before our eyes in a way we only wish we could ourselves. After all, there’s no law that superheroes have to spend most of their time fighting in costume in a film. “Iron Man” reserves that for the climax of the film and doesn’t dwell there any longer than it must. You want more, but what you do get is satisfying.

The supporting cast really helps too; they’re all really down-to-earth actors which keeps Iron Man out of the pretentious superhero hero film category. Bridges plays his first truly evil role as Stark’s adviser-turned-nemesis, Obadiah Stane, while Paltrow provides a nice change of pace as Stark’s personal assistant Pepper Potts. Even Terrence Howard is likable as Stark’s friend and military ally, Jim Rhodes.

The only thing to complain about in “Iron Man” is that there isn’t enough — it lacks that truly epic feel. Those who enjoy this movie will want their cake and to eat it too. So much time, though rightly so as discussed, was spent on Stark’s development of Iron Man that there wasn’t enough room for more awesome action sequences in the suit and most disappointing of all, further thematic development, which is what made “Spider-Man” revolutionary. It’s hard to complain for long that a film had to much focus on character development and not enough action, but when you like a film, you want to get 100 percent from it.

Jon Favreau should receive incredible applause for outdoing the skepticism he unjustly received when it was first revealed he would be at the helm. There are plenty of treats for the comic book fans in this film and there’s great realism to this film than previous films too focused on great one-liners and the like, which is what someone of Favreau’s persuasion can bring to a genre in so much need of that normal/ human touch. Without him, “Iron Man” would not so impressively rocket Marvel into a new era of comic adaptations.

—

4.5/5

Iron Man (2008)
Directed by Jon Favreau
Screenplay by Hawk Ostby, Marc Fergus, Art Marcum, Matt Holloway
Comics by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Don Heck, Larry Lieber
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwenyth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard

Any good film, book, essay or song has a grabber that catches your attention and hooks you through the rest of that work. “Speed” is a two-hour grabber. It is the consummate thrill-a- minute movie, the kind where all sins of bad acting and preposterous events are forgiven because the action and suspense are like a wild concoction of sugar and crack. This action movie will bring out the adrenaline junkie in just about anybody.

Far from perfect or even basically intelligent, “Speed” is about exciting as movies get. After an “eccentric” old man (Dennis Hopper) rigs a crowded elevator with explosives to collect a ransom, two LAPD cops, Jack and Harry (Reeves and Daniels), stop him, but he gets away. Days later, he rigs a public bus with a bomb. Once the bus travels 50 mph the bomb will arm. If it drops below that mark, it will explode. To make things more thrilling, he drags Jack into the crisis.

Writer Graham Yost toys with us like a cat with a ball of yarn. Everything that could go wrong does go wrong. Yost hurls all kinds of unforeseeable problems at Jack and the rest of the characters. He must’ve sat down and made a list entitled “things that can go wrong when you’re on a bus that can’t slow down.” It sounds sort of elementary, but it’s actually clever. He strings them together effortlessly as if they were dominoes as opposed to separate plot points. Either way, it’s better than the alternative of “how many times they can narrowly escape the inescapable,” but there’s some of that too.

Unfortunately, if there were a Razzie for Worst Performance by an Ensemble, “Speed” would be up for the award. It doesn’t say much for Keanu Reeves when his best quality as an actor is being stoic. If he cried at a real family member’s funeral I’d probably think he was faking it. It works for “Speed” however because he’s the on guy not freaking out and in control — well, except for one notable three-year-old temper tantrum. Co-star Sandra Bullock in one of her earlier roles is annoying, setting a precedent for much of her career. Even Dennis Hopper takes a bit to become a convincing nutjob. Then again, it’s all easily overlooked in a film as breakneck as “Speed.”

Eternally engaging, suspenseful and cleverly constructed, “Speed” is a bar-setting action film. No other movie will be able to go near the stay-moving singular vehicle hostage action movie without bringing “Speed” to mind. It’s a category of its own, a heck of an action cocktail that will leave you punch drunk to the point where just about any line of dialog is a keeper.

—

3.5/5 Stars

Speed (1994)
Directed by Jan de Bont
Written by Graham Yost
Starring Keanu Reeves, Sandra Bullock, Dennis Hopper, Jeff Daniels

Admitably, there’s something innately satisfying about watching the hypothetical demise of the entire planet by means of natural disaster/earth crust displacement. There might even be something profound science fiction-wise lurking about in the concept of the Mayan apocalypse and the end of the world as we know it. For better or worse, “2012″ is a little more interested in humanity’s gross interest in its own near-extinction aka stuff crumbles.

Who better to envision such a disaster than “The Day After Tomorrow” director Roland Emmerich, also the thrills genius behind “Independence Day,” a fact that gets mentioned in every trailer for his subsequent movies as if no film has come close to the “gold standard” set forth by that 15-year-old antiquated alien invasion movie adored because of an infamous movie speech.

To his credit though, Emmerich doesn’t make boring movies. “2012″ is long, but it’s not all that dull. It just takes about a half hour for hell to break loose — literally, if hell is indeed underground, it tears it loose in California.

Before the offensively unrealistic escape scenes though, we get our set up that an Indian scientist has confirmed that the Mayan apocalypse will indeed happen on 12-21-12 and it leads to an operation organized by world leaders to build massive refuge boats. It’s kept entirely secret, however, to avoid unnecessary mass hysteria. Reasonable considering almost the entire world population is going to be wiped out anyway.

To relate to this disaster through people we get Jackson Curtis (Cusack) who is divorced but trying to mend his relationship with his kids when disaster strikes. On a trip to Yellowstone with the kids, he meets Woody Harrelson who has been following the conspiracy and possesses maps to the ships, a helpful tidbit when all of LA starts to go underwater. Fortunately, his ex’s (Peet) boyfriend has taken flying lessons and they manage to procure the maps and escape certain death when Yellowstone becomes the world’s biggest erupting volcano.

If there had been any attempt by Emmerich to make the escape realistic, it might have saved his movie for me, but it’s too implausible to ignore. Once they get out of the United States and time marches on it becomes less of a sore spot, but it certain cuts into one’s enjoyment of the film. I like to be entertained on a base level, but I don’t like to be insulted in my make- believe either.

The visual effects are strong and certainly watching things just disintegrate is among the most enjoyable aspects of the movie. Then there’s also that little thrill you get from disaster flicks when people who suck die painful deaths. Emmerich is certainly all about killing off characters that violate his moral principles; this script does hit on the idea of our world leaders being selfish and thinking they would be the most vital to start the human race over again, but other than one impassioned speech, ignores themes in general.

In this trend of apocalypse movies, there is certainly a chance for a film to come along and provide that sick thrill of seeing destruction yet also raise some important questions about human nature. “2012″ is not that film, but it does highlight the possibility for that film.

2.5/5 Stars

2012
Directed by: Roland Emmerich
Written by: Roland Emmerich, Harald Kloser
Starring: John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Oliver Platt, Amanda Peet

“Crank” is a high-octane concept movie that busts out of the gate and never stops. Unlike most adrenaline-junkie action films, however, “Crank” justifies its juiced-up rip-roaring wackiness because the movie is actually about someone who needs to keep his adrenaline up in order to live. Not many other “action porn” movies can say they have such a luxury — or excuse. “Crank” does fly off the handle a bit under Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor’s surreal and frenzied direction, but it’s a pretty entertaining 90-minute joy ride.

Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) is a hit-man who wakes up to find an angry rival has injected him with “synthetic Chinese ****” that will kill him over the course of time. In his mad pursuit of vengeance, he discovers that keeping his adrenaline up is the only way to stay alive. Good thing, because otherwise there’d be no reason for the drug use, excessive violence or public fornication in this movie. Without that, you’re looking at maybe the opening five minutes and that’s it.

Safe to say, this is a guy’s movie. If you’re a woman, you should probably avoid it. All the women are objects in this movie save Amy Smart as Chev’s girlfriend and even she’s supposed to be comically ignorant. The only idea/thought she contributes to this movie is to perform vehicular fellatio on her boyfriend during a high-speed chase.

Neveldine and Taylor do a great job creating the sense of an adrenaline rush in their film. It’s not merely all the violent content and chases that make it exciting, but the speed of the takes and the variety of angles and techniques. The editing is fantastic. Early on in “Crank,” when the film is at its best and really milking its breakneck premise, there’s a scene where Chev busts into a gas station mini-mart and stocks up on energy powder and drinks. There’s footage that follows him around handy-cam style and then there’s mock security cam footage of it too. Cut together it not only looks good but gets across that frenetic style they’re going for. There’s a lot of interesting divided screen work here too.

All is great in “Crank” until the second act overdose. After one notable scene in Chinatown between Chev and his girlfriend, everything is pretty much out of control. Everyone wants to kill everyone and Chev has run all over the place by this point. The audience is pretty much out of breath and the Chinatown scene is the film’s not-too-literal climax of Neveldine and Taylor’s attempt to blend action and hilarity.

The mark of a testosterone and adrenaline-driven film is always the amount of unnecessary nipples and exposed breasts. None of them are necessary in this film and there’s a decent number. But that’s entertainment, just in liquid form inside a tall aluminum can that says “Friggin’ Awesome” on the label. The lengths this film will go to make you think “awesome” or laugh at the outrageousness are great. “Crank” is a big bucket of greasy man-ness and you indulge until you’ve hit the breaking point.

—

3/5 Stars

Crank (2006)
Written and Directed by: Mark Neveldine, Brian Taylor
Starring: Jason Statham, Amy Smart