REVIEW: John Wick: Chapter 2

Should you have been someone who was ensconced in action movies of the eighties, you will very well know the 'one man army' sub-genre.  These movies would feature a muscled up star, whose glistening pipes would be shown off at every opportunity.  Or, if the action hero didn't have massive muscles, they would be seen doing things like the splits or training in their martial art on the beach.  Or, if you didn't have that, you had Steven Seagal, and there was much mourning throughout the land.  These heroes would most likely be too cool for school, with a perfect example being Sylvester Stallone's Marion Cobretti, who was so cool that he kept a match in his mouth, fully reflective aviators, and a propensity to eat his pizza with scissors (yes, that is totally a real thing).

In 2014, Keanu Reeves starred in John Wick, a movie that was a wonderfully modernized love letter to these action flicks of the past.  Three years later, we have the sequel, John Wick: Chapter 2.  Keanu Reeves is back as the hitman that can't be killed, once again finding that just when he thinks he's out, they pull him back in.  The glimpse of the world that was established in the first film is evolved, with hotels specifically for hitmen, tailors for hitmen (they need to look sharp), and a firearms sommelier.  There is the very bland talk between Wick and a local police man named Jimmy, who we sense is a regular figure in Wick's life, needing to show up when Wick's antics cause noise complaints and explosions.  This, while being extremely funny, felt to be a comment on the fact that these action heroes cause such a disturbance and rarely face repercussions from authorities.

While the template may be something from the past, this is a film that is updated, with fresh feeling action sequences, full of imaginative shots from director Chad Stahelski.  Every battle feels different from each previous encounter, with a style of choreography that can be mesmerizing.  We get plenty of hand to hand action, as well as well constructed gun fu.  I remember when someone came to me praising the 'awesome' fights in Underworld, only for me to scoff when those sequences were merely same-old gun battles.  John Wick: Chapter 2 never settles for the ordinary.  Into the mix we get tight editing, as well as some longer single shots, and a side-scrolling nature at times that reminds me of an epic fight scene from Old Boy.  No longer does the action hero fire an automatic weapon wildly from the hip, managing to take out hordes of villains who were unable to aim back (Commando, I'm looking squarely at you).

In this film we have a direct continuation to the first movie.  John Wick is all about getting his car back, and avenging the death of his dog.  After the customary opening fight sequence, Wick finds that his past has caught up with him.  A criminal named Santonio D'Antonio (Riccardo Scamarcio) appears, reminding John Wick that he helped him get out of the assassin life, and a debt is owed.  Wick, who just wants to live out his life in peace, honours the debt before finding out that D'Antonio screwed him over.  You never screw over John Wick.  You don't steal his car.  And, by all means, you don't kill his dog.  Speaking of the dog, suddenly in the sequel, which apparently takes place mere days after the original, Wick has a mature dog.  While some might think this is a plot hole, I saw it as an ode to how sequels sometimes changed elements from the first movie to the second.  I thought it pretty smart.

The mere mention of John Wick's name in this world is enough to spark fear into the hearts of even the most hardened of criminals.  Rumour has it that he once killed three men in a bar with only a pencil.  This dates back to the first film, and it is super exciting in the sequel when we get to finally get to witness him doling out the pain in the form of an HB pencil.  There is much in the film that gets set up with proper pay off, something that makes the world that is created more alive and flexing.  It should be noted that while the movie ends with a definite setup for a third film, it is still a completely satisfying experience of itself.

Showing up in the movie is Laurence Fishburne, an all seeing and all knowing (obvious call back to his roll as Morpheus in the Matrix movies where he starred opposite Reeves) king of homeless hitmen.  The entire idea is absurd, but, in this world, you take everything and just go with it.  If there is a gun sommelier, why not some fantastic monarch of killers that spend their time laying under pieces of cardboard in subway stations?  This is just one of the many ways that this fictional universe is developed.  The fact that director Chad Stahelski and writer Derek Kolstad aim to grow the environment adds new layers from the first movie.  While it is the same setting, it becomes its own thing, growing in a way that makes me so desperate to see what more is revealed in the upcoming third movie.

Keanu Reeves may have once been seen as a joke for playing Ted Theodore Logan (founding member of The Wild Stallions) in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, but he showed in Point Break and then Speed that he could pull of action adventure.  His role as Neo in The Matrix showed that Reeves was down with learning skills and performing choreographed action sequences.  As we may have forgotten him for a number of years, he reminds us of his depth of ability in playing an action protagonist.  This is someone who is game for aiming for excellence, and his role as John Wick has kept him as relevant as ever.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Journey's End

It is a shame how there are some movies out there that come and go without people becoming aware of them.  Each year there are some hidden gems that get limited releases, go to rental, and receive little in the way of promotion.  One such movie from this year is World War One set Journey's End, an adaptation of a play written by R.C. Sherriff.  Apparently, this is the fifth adaptation of the play.

The story revolves around a young officer fresh out of training, Second Lieutenant Raleigh (Asa Butterfield), who requests from his high ranking uncle that he be posted with an acquaintance of his, Captain Stanhope (Sam Claflin).  With rumours of a massive German attack imminent, the young Raleigh is undeterred in his optimism and naivety of what the war is actually like.  Stanhope is a far cry from what Raleigh knew him as.  He is a veteran of the war who constantly drinks to cope with the tragedy he has been witness to.  We learn that Stanhope had a courting relationship with Raleigh's sister, and, because of that, he is terrified of how young Raleigh will now see him and what he will relay back to his sister.

Butterfield has been acting on screen since the age of nine.  He is a child actor who has grown up and seems to refuse being remembered simply as a child actor.  This role sees him as a young man, an elevation for him that he takes and runs with.  To me, it was similar to Will Poulter's performance in The Revenant, where he showed he was now taking on adult roles.  Butterfield has the innocence, but it is tested, and Butterfield handles himself remarkably well.  Claflin, who I had recognized from his solid role as Finnick in The Hunger Games movies, works to make sure Stanhope is a rich character who is caught in his own head, yet shows a sincere empathy at times.  We toss into the mix the wonderful Paul Bettany as Lieutenant Osborne, close friend of Stanhope, and we have ourselves a nice acting trio that are dedicated to the emotions and nuances of the project.

It is easy to understand how this was a play, because it primarily takes place in an officer's bunker in the trenches.  While there may not be much changing in the way of scenery, it never gets boring.  The script probes these characters, and they evolve in front of us.  Tension itself is present, and is heightened when Stanhope is commanded to have his soldiers perform a raid of the German trenches.  He is told that he has to send two officers along, and must decided if he will send his friend or young Raleigh.

One of the nicest things about Journey's End is that director Saul Dibb understand both his budget and the environment needed to tell the story correctly.  The trenches are built in a way that makes us feel they are authentic and full of doom, and there is never any attempt to shoot something that won't look good.  Restraint is needed for this kind of decision, as too many directors fall into the trap of trying to create a scope that is beyond their means.

With both a solid script and engaging performances, this movie is an easy recommendation.  It is a wartime drama that is personal and has a wonderfully complex character in Stanhope.  We get involved emotionally with the decisions, behaviours, and actions of these people, feeling the pressure of what they are facing.  It may have only made one hundred and sixty thousand dollars in theatres, but it is easily worth the few bucks to spend on renting it.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: The Legend of Tarzan

Finally, a film maker bold enough to not do an origin story.  One of the most frustrating creative movements over the past many years has been the desire to create origin stories.  It doesn't matter how well known the source material is, such as King Arthur and Peter Pan, any story that is made for some inane reason always needs to centre on how it all began.  Writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer need some instant recognition for the fact that 2016's The Legend of Tarzan not only skips being an origin story, but that it finds the titular character many years later as he lives a sophisticated life in England.

The people behind this film understand that audiences are not dumb, and they don't always need to be pulled by the hand into a story.  They plop us down, and, while there are some flashbacks showing some of the history of Tarzan and Jane, we are given an adventure with what is presented as an already established character.  This impressed me, as well as their choice to throw in themes of exploitation and slavery.

That being said, I can't say that it was the most riveting script.  Belgium baddie Lem Rom (Christoph Waltz) needs diamonds from the Congo, and strikes a deal with a tribe.  Rom will deliver Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgard) to the tribe's leader (who seeks to avenge the death of his son at the hands of the vine-swinging hero) in exchange for access to diamonds of great wealth.  Rom orchestrates a reason for Tarzan, also known as John Clayton, to revisit the land of his youth.  Along with him comes Jane (Margot Robbie) and American George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson).  Williams is tagging along to show proof of slavery taking place, an older character that is also seeking his own form of redemption.  Rom grabs Jane, and it is up to Tarzan to save her.

It is essentially a damsel in distress story, although director David Yates makes a comment on that fact and tries to show that Jane is indeed strong.  You can't go wrong with having her played by Margot Robbie.  Heck, you also can't go wrong with having Samuel L. Jackson in the mix.  The problem, however, seemed to be the performance of Skarsgard.  Tarzan in this film almost always has a look on his face that seems he is as bored as someone waiting for a pigeon to read through The Lord of the Rings books.  There is a scene where Tarzan is swinging on a vine through the jungle with Williams on his back.  A close up reveals that once again, he looks bored.  Skarsgard is capable of so much more, and I don't understand the concept behind this portrayal.

While I didn't feel as though there was a lot of excitement in the story itself, I felt that the action sequences were well done for the most part.  They moved along well, and brought some excitement.  That isn't always the case, though.  There is a staggeringly poor overindulgence of slow motion used in one of the final scenes.  It really felt as though, since this is a Warner Bros film, that they were trying to harness the spirit of Zach Snyder.

Speaking of Mr. Snyder and his influence, Yates' decision to filter almost the entire movie in a grey and drab format is baffling to me.  This eliminates all power that the lush colours of the Congo could provide, making the greenery dull and lame.  I do not know how you could be setting a film in one of the most captivating locations on the planet and take away its majesty.  This is a repeating of a sad strategy for film makers to make things more gritty since Christopher Nolan's Batman series was such a success.  I feel that the way to capture a gritty feeling, if that's what Yates was shooting for (if he wasn't, I have no explanation for his robbing of colours), is through the actual telling of the story.  A camera filter is no substitution for substance.  There are some moments where things are shot in an amber light, but, once again, the greens are not true.  The use of colour in this film felt like a shortcut to something that was not needed.

An aspect that both helped as well as hindered this movie was it's special effects.  There was an enormous use of CGI taking place (a little too much for my taste in this type of story), and sometimes it was seamless.  At other times, it was painfully obvious that a computer took precedence over a location scout.  When movies are inconsistent with these types of effects it doesn't take much to jerk the audience out of the moment.  The use of CGI can be wonderful and still tell great stories.  Jon Favreau showed the world what was possible in Jungle Book, a film that is almost all computer graphics that came out mere months before The Legend of Tarzan.  My thoughts on CGI is that if you cannot pull it off well, simplify your scope.  On The Movie Breakdown podcast, my co-host Christopher Spicer and I have seen a number of movies that understood what they were capable of and stayed within those limits.  I can't fault Yates for wanting some ambitious shots, but I feel like he should have known what was working and what wasn't.

Ultimately, this is no horrible film.  It moves along, and Robbie and Jackson are as fun to watch as they always are.  The script is bold in some aspects, and just normal in others.  I would have definitely liked to see a portrayal of Tarzan that wasn't so monotone.  If you are a great fan of the stories of Tarzan, it's not going to be a waste of time.  If you are looking for something that is an adventure that will whisk you away to exotic locals with lots of excitement, save this one for a rainy day and there are not many other options.

Rating - 2 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Gotti

After my sister and I saw The Karate Kid, we tried having our own little kumite, ending up with me in pain.  Director Kevin Connelly seems to have seen Godfellas, gathered a group of friends, and decided to play 'gangster,' shooting their antics on camera.  If that excites you, then watch Gotti.  If, like a sane human being, that sounds like an awful way to create a movie, then do everything you can to make sure you do not come in contact with this film.

Quentin Tarantino revived the career of John Travolta, helping him get his second Oscar nomination for his performance as Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction.  After this happened, Travolta was everywhere. No longer did he have to hang his career on the success of the Look Who's Talking franchise (it's crazy to remember that this was an actual franchise).  It wasn't long until there was a dark cloud over his career that came in the shape of Psychlos enslaving man animals in Battlefield Earth.  The film was a wreck of a disaster, and a laugh fest when I saw it in theatres.  Things never seemed to be quite the same as they had been in the 90s, although he was part of a few successful films in the first decade of the new century.  Before long he was in criminally horrid films like Killing Season and The Forger.

This year, things have not managed to look up for this actor who was once so popular that he was in twelve movies across a four year span.  The latest role of Travolta is playing real life gangster John Gotti, a New York mob boss.  I will say this, it seems like ole J.T. is committed to the role and the accent that goes along with it.  While it isn't much better than a stereotypical Italian American accent, it is far ahead of the tripe that he served up in Killing Season.  Still, his performance is miles from any reason to spend even a minute with this film.

Penned by Lem Dobbs and Leo Rossi, the story follows the rise and eventual fall of Gotti.  Frustratingly, director Kevin Connelly uses too many awkward methods for telling the tale.  We get John Travolta book ending the film by looking into the camera and talking, we get narration, and an ice cream headache's worth of flash forwards and flash backs.  Any notion of a flowing story is completely lost in this incoherent mess, using a barrage of techniques that should normally be used sparingly and not in the presence of others.

With all of the jumping around, the makeup department is the unsung hero of this film, working to transform Gotti, but for some reason doing next to nothing to show the age changes of his son, who the story is apparently also about.  By the end of the movie, it is clear that Connelly envisioned John Gotti Jr (Spencer Rocco Lofranco) as a main character with an arc, but, like other elements in the movie, there is no sincere development towards this.

The movie is a mess, the acting is mundane, and the story is a shame.  I counted forty three producing credits listed on IMDB.  That is way too many people involved with this movie who did not slow things down to ensure the script even matched that of a grade twelve creative writing class.  Throughout the film, there is boredom, but it isn't the end of the world.  It is not so crazy offensive that you question the morality of those involved.  And then the movie ends, and you realize that we really should be questioning the morals of these people.

Out of the blue, at the end of the movie, an effort is put forward to turn John Gotti into a saviour.  News style man on the street interviews (yet another jarring narrative technique in the film) show citizens praising the gangster.  As the final few minutes wind down, there is an unshakeable understanding that Connelly and company didn't just want to tell this story, but that they admire this man and want to frame him as a benevolent member of the community.

All ethics aside for a moment, there is only one scene in the entire movie leading up to this that shows Gotti in a positive community light.  He gets one of his thugs to assist an elderly lady, and assures a young man that the local boxing gym won't close.  That's all.  Forty five seconds to establish what turns into the entire effort of the film.  From a purely technical standpoint, this is something that should infuriate the audience.

On an actual human level, this film is disgusting.  John Gotti Sr was a violent murderer.  He ended people's lives.  That is something that for some reason Connelly, Dobbs, and Rossi seem to either overlook, or to commend.  The fact that this movie turns into a shrine to this man is horrendous, despicable, and telling.  To have time, money, and effort put into something that is sincere about making this man into a hero is chilling.  It makes me question the moral compass of these people, and any conclusions that I come to are not flattering to them.

What started as just a sub par film morphs into a dirty little project.  I don't like the idea of writing people off and making judgements about the rest of their career, but I find myself wanting to do that with these people.  This movie is a stain on film making, and any praise that I would have for technical elements like make up are overshadowed by the deifying of a murderer.

Rating - 0 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Walking Out

I have seen some bad movies lately.  Some of them have been for The Movie Breakdown podcast, and others have simply been because bad movies and I go hand in hand.  While browsing through titles on Netflix, I cam across a film from 2017 that I had never heard of before.  A quick bit of research showed that this was perhaps a solid film, one to break me free of the mundane that I had been trapped in.  A guy can only hold court with Uwe Boll for so long before he needs to rinse his mouth out.

The movie is called Walking Out, which is based off a short story by David Quammen, and is written and directed by Alex and Andrew Smith.  The setting is Alaska, and is about a fourteen year old David (Josh Wiggins) who is fresh off a flight from Texas to spend some time with his father, Cal (Matt Bomer).  Josh is a typical young teen, his attention given to his phone.  Cal is a manly man, living in the mountains and hunting for his own food.  He isn't portrayed in any kind of negative light with regards to his lifestyle.  He isn't some neanderthal who is uncivilized with a penchant burning diesel for kicks while waving a Confederate flag.  Cal is a model of responsible gun ownership and ethical hunting, very elegant in the reasoning for his lifestyle.  He takes David hunting for birds before getting him ready to head deep into the wilderness to hunt a moose that he had been tracking.

This hunt is very important, and Bomer shows well the seriousness of it.  Cal explains to his son that he shot his first moose when he was fourteen, when his father took him hunting.  We see flashbacks of a young Cal with his father (played by Bill Pullman) on the hunt, and we see that the red and black hunting hat that Cal is wearing is the same one that his father wore when they went hunting.  This trip with David is of the most importance to Cal.  He never sees his son, and we can tell through the directing and Bomer's performance that there is an essential need to pass some wisdom and tradition onto David.  Every piece of Cal's heart and soul desires to show his son the beauty of living in harmony with nature, enjoying the beauty of the landscape and being thankful for the bounty that it provides.

They set out into the vast mountain landscape, something that the Smiths and cinematographer Todd McMullen aim to capture with excellence.  We get a sense of the expanse, the rugged nature, and the danger associated with such a location.  At the same time the shots allow us to get an intimate understanding of Cal's connection with nature and the very heart behind why he feels he must spend this time with his son.

During the hunt danger lurks, with the Smiths creating a pulsating tension at times when we know that the wilderness could have tragedy in store for David and Cal.  It comes and goes like waves on a beach, rolling in and showing the vulnerability of the two before retreating back in amongst the trees and snow.  Eventually fate strikes, and it is up to David to get him and his father back to civilization before the elements take their lives.

While this could be waved off as a standard wilderness survival tale by some, the elements of the father son relationship create a rich experience, especially since there is also the historic relationship between Cal and his father getting revealed through the film.  It is more than just survival, it is about identity as well as a driven father fulfilling what he sees as his duty to his son and his own father.  Cals love for his son becomes apparent, and the really evolving dynamic is not just David's affection for his father, but his embracing of the very things that Cal desires him to adopt.

Matt Bomer is someone that I am familiar with as an actor.  He played the ever calm hitman John Boy in one of my favourite movies in the past few years in The Nice Guys.  He also had a role to play in both Magic Mike movies and was in the recent remake of The Magnificent Seven.  His portrayal of Cal is easily the best performance that I have seen of his, with the character so full of paternal care, devotion, and a deep-seeded need for his own internal atonement.  It is a delivery that nails everything needed, a vision into Cal that takes him off the screen and presents him as a real person that we can feel for.

Josh Wiggins is a fairly new talent, with Walking Out being only his fifth project.  It is hard to tell that this young man is relatively new to big screen acting.  On the shoulders of David is not only the need to survive, but to embrace the life and passions of his father.  David is a vehicle in a way for Cal's redemption, but that doesn't make David any less of a character.  The performance shows vulnerability, dedication, and an ability to evolve.  The arc of David is quite interesting, and it is topped of by a very powerful scene were David puts his toque on Cal's head to warm him up, and then putting upon his own head the red and black hunting hat.  It is a subtle moment, but one of the most powerful in the film as it signifies not only David becoming a man, but stepping into the lineage of his father's family.

This movie's best tool is that it doesn't sink to base or moderate levels of technique to manipulate emotions.  At the end of the film, every feeling that was going through my body was cultivated throughout the hour and thirty five minutes of run time.  It was an honest, grounded culmination that didn't tell me how to feel, but allowed me to sit in contemplation with my own emotions.  Without a doubt, I found this to be one of the lesser known gems of 2017.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: The Legacy of a Whitetail Deer Hunter

Josh Brolin is Buck Ferguson, a professional deer hunter with a show that highlights his travels across the globe as he hunts whitetail deer.  The movie starts off in the style of his television show, slightly poking some fun at the kind of character that he is, but not taking it into ridicule.  While the character of Buck Ferguson may be somewhat of a stereotype, he is our honest and sincere protagonist.  He is a good ole boy whose adventures are captured by his longtime friend and camera man, Don (Danny McBride).  The intention of his next outing is to bring his son Jaden (Montana Jordan) along and guide him in the hunt for Jaden's very first deer.

Before heading out on the hunt, Buck goes to pick up Jaden from his ex-wife's (Carrie Coon) house. She is now with Greg (Scoot McNairy), and it is evident that Buck feels threatened by this man who is now taking over the role of raising Jaden.  Greg's present to Jaden before he goes is an assault riffle, which led to one of my only moments of laughter in this movie.  For some reason, this is a world where giving a child of twelve military grade firearms is fine and dandy, and it was indeed a fun little joke.  However, the movie absolutely wastes the great talents of McNairy and Coon by doing little more with them.  I was really sad that these people were cast only to be seen for less than five minutes.

The pressure is on Buck to see this mission to get Jaden a deer succeed for multiple reasons.  First of all, he wants to pass down the love of hunting to his son.  Secondly, this is how Buck views Jaden transitioning into becoming a man.  Thirdly, this is a way to do something with Jaden that Greg won't do, and a way to try and reinsert himself as Jaden's father.

It is all noble, but the problem here is that the script (written by John Carcieri, Jody Hill, and Danny McBride) seems to miss great opportunities to really add some depth to the story.  Brolin is a champ and shows incredible dedication to the character of Ferguson, and it pays off in that we do like this person and want the best for him.  His flaws are quite apparent, but that doesn't matter.  Brolin works to make sure we have an attachment to him, and to wish the best for him.

Unfortunately, it really seems to be that Brolin is the only one really throwing himself completely into the film.  McBride is alright, but his character really wasn't written to be super deep.  I do like Danny McBride a lot, but it just wasn't much of a character for him to play.  Jaden, on the other hand, could sometimes be quite grating.  It may not be Montana Jordan's fault, but his voice feels like it could shatter adamantium at times.  I don't want to be too hard on child actors, but it felt to me like he was the weak link in this film.  Part of the problem was the character he was playing, a child who I didn't really care if he became a man or not.  Jordan is now found in the television show, Young Sheldon, and I hope it's a platform for him to learn more and grow.  I think there's something in him that could really work, but it wasn't harvested in The Legacy of a Whitetail Deer Hunter.

The locations used in this movie are well used, and director Jody Hill really does a solid job of bringing the audience into the hunting trip at times.  Hill also shows some talents at the end when the cast is traveling through white water on an inflatable mattress.  Half of the shots during that sequence felt well imagined, but the problem was the editing and the other half of the shots.  There is never enough time spent on any one shot to feel like the characters are actually there.  It keeps jumping to close ups, a technique that seems to scream that stunt doubles are used for the rest.  I can't fault Hill for not wanting to put young Jaden on a mattress in white water without a helmet, but there are other ways that the sequence could have unfolded to create a more intense viewing experience.

This is an alright movie, but it is one that is easily forgettable.  The script feels like the biggest misstep here, keeping me from really caring about anyone other than our loveable Buck Ferguson.  It's a Netflix original movie, and right now there is an independent movie on the platform that completely outshines this one.  Walking Out is a drama that has a similar plot of a divorced father wanting to impart the love of hunting on his young son.  It is beautifully shot, technically wonderful, and superbly acted.  If you're going to watch a father/son hunting movie on Netflix, don't watch the one I just spent forty five minutes writing about.  Watch Walking Out.

Rating - 2 out of 4 stars

REVIEWS: Escape Plan & Escape Plan 2: Hades

The ultimate dream of any 80s action fan was to see Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone in the same movie.  Both had their loyal fanbases, and to see the two of them rocking the same plot would have caused some sort of fanboy apocalypse.  The closest we got at the time was in Last Action Hero when Arnold was in a video store and stood beside a cardboard cutout of Stallone in Terminator 2, and claiming that he loves that guy.  The Expendables in 2010 gave us a bit more of them, and the second and third movies would provide even more.  But then in 2013 we had Escape Plan hitting theatres.  It was twenty years too late and a plot that didn't court their 'one man army' personas that they equipped in their early years.  I understand that they are older and it would be less believable, but did we really want to see them finally teaming up in a movie where all they were doing was trying to escape from prison?  Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman work that game, and the characters don't need to be muscled up hulks.

The first movie starts off with Ray Breslin (Stallone) in jail, planning to escape.  Part of his plan succeeding means that he has to get placed in solitary confinement.  He sees that happen and then works his magic, getting out of the prison through some convoluted means that kind of get explained later.  The police chase him down, and when he gives himself up it turns out this wasn't just a normal prison break.  Vincent D'Onofrio meets the prison warden and explains that Breslin is a security expert who is hired to enter prisons and assess their weaknesses by breaking out.  'Aw shucks, you got me,' seems to be the warden's attitude, for some reason forgetting that Stallone's method of getting into solitary was that he killed multiple prisoners.  That's right, he murdered people, but it is okay because he wasn't really supposed to be in jail.

Breslin then gets an offer to try out a secret black site, a prison that is off the books and is a solid pay day.  Breslin can't resist, and he is captured and brought to this intense prison.  However, when he gets there he seems to freak out at the fact that the prison walls are glass and he uses the safe word given to him to end the program within about an hour of being there.  It turns out that they don't accept the safe word, and now Breslin is really trapped and needs to work his way out.  A friendly fellow prisoner named Rottmayer (Schwarzenegger) joins forces with Breslin, and the two aim to get out.

This isn't any kind of mesmerizing plot, but it isn't incredibly bland.  Other than Breslin being allowed to murder human beings in the name of security checks and the stupid looking prison guards that for some reason have extra protection over their shoulders and biceps and nothing but a black cotton/polyester blend over their vital organs, this movie isn't insulting.  Sadly, it just isn't that interesting, the twist at the end falls flat, and a character turn is spotted within the first ten minutes.  This just isn't the film that people yearned to see Stallone and Schwarzenegger in.  Both leads are likeable enough, but there is only so little that their characters do in this film.

Fast forward five years, and we have the sequel, Escape Plan 2: Hades.  The movie starts off with a hostage situation with militant Muslims, and they are fixing to kill westerners.  The good news is that it turns out that Breslin has inserted some of his security specialists into the situation, because everyone knows you can just wander up to extremists and request being put in with a group of hostages.  Also, one of Breslin's people is embedded with the terrorists, because these are obviously the types of people that would let a caucasian American become one of them so quickly without suspicion and put him in a position of responsibility.  That opening sequence and the logic behind it will hurt your brain if you dare think about it, so lets be kind and just pretend that everything in this movie is going to make sense.  That's how were are going to get through this, you and me.  We are going to pretend that it is all logical and makes sense.

As though he were Steven Seagal, Stallone is barely in this movie.  It focuses mostly on characters that we know very little about, with actors that we know very little about.  One of them was in God's Not Dead 2, which means nothing good for this film.  Trapped in a crazy implausible prison are three of Breslin's guys, and they wade through a muddled plot as they try and work out how to escape.  For some reason one of the guys waits until over halfway through the film to point out a prisoner who knows the entire layout of the prison.  This is the kind of plot that we are dealing with, instances happening without logic, only being slotted in places where the plot needs something new to happen.

One of the nicer things about Escape Plan 2: Hades is the presence of Dave Bautista as Trent Derosa, a streetwise tough who assists Breslin.  This is someone who I was really skeptical of when it came to acting.  I wasn't really on team Bautista when he was a professional wrestler, so I was certain I wouldn't dig him in movies.  It's not like he is a man for all roles, but I do have to say that there is something interesting about his presence and performances that I rather enjoy.  The really sad thing about his acting career is that he is getting into it way too late.  He is almost fifty, and I am wishing that he worked on making this transition twenty years ago.  As it is, though, he is still huge and intimidating, and he was just not in this film nearly enough.

This is a boring movie.  While the first film wasn't embarrassing, this movie serves no purpose other than to be yet another franchise that Stallone will refuse to let go of.  There is a third Escape Plan in the works.  Stallone is going to be in the sequel to Creed (he also wrote the screenplay), there is another Expendables coming, and, for some horrible reason, there is going to be yet another Rambo.  I feel like this is getting a little embarrassing.  Stallone's refusal to let go of franchises is unfortunate, as these characters are only seeming to continue to exist to provide for work for Stallone instead of existing because there are compelling stories for them.

I suppose the short of this is that while there is nothing outrageously wrong with Escape Plan, it isn't something that's going to make you feel this was the best application of action heroes.  Escape Plan 2: Hades, however, is something that people should keep away from.  Nothing to see here.  Move along, move along.

Escape Plan rating - 2 out of 4 stars
Escape Plan 2: Hades rating - 1 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Revenge

A few weeks ago, I was treated to witnessing what I believe to be one of the best movies of 2018 so far.  With that being said, it truly is a movie that isn't for everyone.  There are a number of components to the film that would turn a number of people off.  Checking out its Rotten Tomatoes page, it is R-rated for a great number of reasons.  It is a modern day exploitation film, and as such carries elements that a lot of viewers would consider unsavoury.

What lies beneath this story is something rather remarkable.  Director and writer Coralie Fargeat uses a vile template to make comments on the sexualization and use of women in film, at least that is how I take it.  As much progress as we would like to believe has been made about equality of the sexes in Hollywood, the truth is that not much has changed since we entered the 21st century.  The state of women in cinema is so bad that there is a simple three part test to evaluate how women are used in any given movie.  It is called the Bechdal test, and it asks if a movie has a) at least two women in it (them being named is preferable, but not key), b) they talk to each other, and c) they talk about something other than a man.  It's really simplistic, but it highlights just how often even these basic elements are missed.  In Revenge, Fargeat really seems to throw the Bechdal test against the wall and leave it to rot in the first twenty minutes of her film.  The portrayal of women is that they are curvy mistresses, built for the desires of men.  I interpret this to be a portrayal of how women are used in film.  The transformation that happens in Revenge is a statement on what women could and should be in movies.

The second shot of the tale is a beautiful shot of a desert set against a bright blue sky.  Zooming out, we see it is a reflection on the sunglasses of Richard (Kevin Janssens) as he travels along in a helicopter across the vast landscape.  I take the opening shot to indicate that perhaps the world is spread out before Richard, that he is in control of it all and that it is his possession.  The colours are vibrant, the shots are imaginative, and close ups never looked so tragic and gorgeous.  This is all thanks to the imagination of Fargeat, but also to the more than apt abilities of cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert. It is all done so that the environment is enhanced, and the colour of flesh pops off the screen.

Richard, it turns out, is heading to a remote property of his in the desert with his young bed-buddy mistress Jen (Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz).  She's a blonde, if the stereotype were to suddenly descend into a French rape/revenge exploitation movie.  Richard and Jen have a wonderful time overnight, only to have their romance broken the next day by the arrival of Richard's friends, Dimitri (Guillaume Bouchede) and Stan (Vincent Colombe), who are visiting for an annual hunt with Richard.  The entire time they are there Jen's body is highlighted in the most sexual of ways, her curves being the beacon that guide the desires of impulsive men as she moves about in revealing clothing.  She is the upcoming victim, her sexuality is focused with more intent than a Hemi V8 at Barret-Jackson.

When Richard steps to take care of some things, Stan makes a move on Jen.  When she refuses his advances, he overpowers her and has his way with her.  Meanwhile, Dimitri is fully aware of what is happening and goes out of his way to do nothing about it.  When Richard returns, he is furious and tries to buy Jen's silence.  When that doesn't work, it is all about making sure nobody will ever hear Jen tell the story.  The men need to track her down and take care of her, and Jen seeks not to simply survive, but to get revenge.

While Jen was filmed scantily dressed, seemingly superficial, and all about her beauty, we then become witness to an engaging and powerful character transformation.  The fact that Fargeat filmed Jen to be a delicate woman whose only power is physical beauty in the beginning feels to be intentional.  Jen was presented less as a character and more of an image of how many movies before it used females in their scripts.  I was a child of the 80s, and I can say that so many movies had curvy women who needed to be rescued.  We are a little past that narrative, but not by much.  It was only a few years ago of Gareth Edwards giving us a female character in Godzilla who apparently couldn't manage the simple task of getting on an evacuation bus and had to wait for her man to come to her.  That's not hyperbole.  That happened, and it was a sad blemish in a really well crafted creature feature.

What is happening in Revenge isn't simply that Fargeat is supplying us with a kick ass female protagonist.  There are some truly remarkable film makers who have done that already.  The intention of Fargeat, or at least what I interpret, is that she wants to go far to one side of the spectrum just to turn it on its head.  Jen needed to be a naive girl who satisfied only as eye candy to the male audience.  Indeed, it is the male audience who are found in Stan, Dimitri and Richard.  They are the ones to fixate on the beauty and to reduce the individuals worth down to simply a sexual nature.

Lutz's portrayal of Jen allows for a great deal of complexity to evolve, and for a growth that isn't just entertaining, but rather empowering to watch.  It is hard for me to see her performance in Revenge and not think there are big opportunities set for her future.  Prior to this movie, I had only seen Lutz in Rings, and that's didn't turn into a film that seemed to really stretch those attached to it.  In Revenge, Lutz guides her character through many different phases and emotions.  I look forward to seeing her in another actioner, but really I have a feeling Lutz has the capability to play numerous types of roles.

There are many wonderfully vivid scenes in this film, such as Jen performing wilderness first aid on herself better than John Rambo could.  However, one stands out above them all, and, to me, is the point of the movie.  Jen has been on the run in the desert and had to fight for her life.  She has even less clothes as she did before as some have ripped away.  There is no shame or lecherous nature to this.  It is intentional, because now we are delivered a scene where the camera shows off all of the flesh and curves that had previously reduced her to a piece of meat.  Now the camera is respecting her body.  We no longer see her body as a playground for the impulsive male, but it is now a body built with the purpose of survival.  Somehow, with remarkable attention to detail, we have the exact same body before us, but now we get a sense of the true practicality of it.  Jen is no longer a gorgeous little girl brought along as arm candy.  She is powerful, she is determined, and she will mess up the men who abused her.  This is the ultimate power of Fargeat's meticulous competence, and it is a text book lesson to all film makers on how to extract depth from what was previously depicted as shallow.

Because this is an exploitation film, there is a healthy heaping of blood.  It's not realistic, but it isn't intended to be that.  It is intended to be a story against all odds, a woman battling against the destruction of her own body to destroy the damage made by awful men.  It is a wonderful bit of feminist art that is crafted in the form of something that I would not typically see as creating solid, complex female protagonists.  This is a masterclass piece of story telling that shows us all that any genre can be manipulated to carry a story with a point.  Yes there is blood, and yes there is gore, but that isn't actually the movie.  Jen is the movie.  Women in general are the movie.  Strength and one's own deliverance from the oppression of others is the movie.  It is not simply about survival, but of claiming victory over trauma.  On top of it all, Revenge is an absolutely thrilling story that delivers to the world a female protagonist that can rival the likes of Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley.  If you can deal with the visceral elements of the movie, then you need to do yourself a favour and spend some time with Revenge.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars


I need to say a little something here.  It is something that I have been saying for a long while on The Movie Breakdown, the podcast that I co-host with my friend Christopher Spicer, who has been saying it as well.  Women represent half of the population.  Period.  Fact.  Almost every action movie has a male lead.  Fact.  All of a sudden there is a woman in the lead roll in a movie and crazy, immature, suckling, basement bound, insignificant, deplorable, mysoginistic, human faeces, waste of space, waste of oxygen, waste of applying brakes, loser, man-children take to the internet and bash the film.  The reason?  Because it doesn't have a male lead.  It's not a problem with these people at all if a movie has twenty male actors to every female actor with a speaking role.  That's business as usual.  Throw in a significant woman and all of a sudden there is a problem.  This sexist behaviour is repulsive, and it is appalling.  Oh yeah, if you are the type of person who feels they have to battle the internet by leaving sexist remarks in comment sections, then you can leave my blog right now and never come back.  I don't write anything for you, and I never will.  I don't want you here.  Get out of your parent's basement and get some fresh air, preferably by playing in traffic.