Kevin Reviews Killing Them Softly

Brad Pitt is one of my favorite actors. He was awesome in Inglorious Basterds and Fight Club, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing him in World War Z (minus the CGI zombies). How did his performance fare in Killing Them Softly?

I had mixed feelings about this film. Brad Pitt gives the performance you would expect from Brad Pitt, nothing special here. He plays an enforcer of sorts that investigates after a mob protected card game is robbed. The robbery scene is thrilling and very well done, arguably the best scene of the film. I also liked the very end of the film, the last line spoken by Brad Pitt, specifically. He says: "America is not a country, its a business. Now fucking pay me." I liked how this film made commentary on the overly high value America places on money. Up until the end of film, Jackie (Pitt) is the non-materialistic representation of society. He is the least selfish character of the film, however, we see his other side when Richard Jenkin's unnamed character fails to pay him the full amount of money he owes him. My favorite part of this film was the underlying theme and message it sent to the audience, who must be smart enough to pick up on to really appreciate this film.

There are a lot of things I disliked about this film. From the start, the intro titles were very jarring and hard to watch and hear. This film is very dialogue heavy, which I didn't mind. What bothered me was how dull these scenes were. There wasn't a whole lot to engage myself in through most of the movie, which made me feel very detached from the story. I also found the scene where Ray Liotta is beaten to be more brutal than necessary for the context of the film. As desensitized as I am to violence, this scene disturbed me. That's not to say that it wasn't well done, because evoking that reaction out of me is a difficult thing to do. I felt a bit insulted because references to Bush and Obama were constantly being thrown at me. I was thinking, "Okay, I get it, this is set in 2008." Andrew Dominick was obviously insecure about how good of a job he was doing with the setting, and hitting us over the head with this was a bit obnoxious. Finally, I thought this film mimicked the style of Guy Ritchie, who's films I don't really like in the first place, so an imitation won't really strike me as anything special.

Overall, I would recommend Killing Them Softly only to those who enjoy crime films and want to see the economic side to the crime world, as well as those who appreciate the underlying themes and commentary made on our country. Not recommended for the faint of heart.

MY RATING:

3 out of 5

-Kevin A. Millward

Chris Reviews Lincoln

If you are a frequent reader of my reviews you should know by now that I am a sucker for Historical Dramas. History is something that I am passionate about and something that I spend as much time reading about as I do watching movies. So a film about Abraham Lincoln starring Daniel Day Lewis who happens to be my favorite actor looks like something that should be my favorite movie of the year. Did it live up to my expectations or fall flat on its face? Read below if you want to know the answer.

The Good-

As with every Spielberg film it is well shot and has high production values. The acting is good to great and their is significant emotional weight to almost every scene in this film. Daniel Day Lewis will get an Oscar Nomination for his role and could possibly be the frontrunner for the award which if he won would be his third. He has put forth the definitive performance of Lincoln, which I doubt will be matched anytime soon if ever. Also John Williams has put together another solid score that complements the film well.

The Bad-

This is a much smaller scale film than I was expecting. I was expecting an epic tale of the Civil War and Lincoln's leadership and instead what I got was a much more personal film that featured a lot of exposition. I am still trying to decide if this was a case of my expectations preventing me from appreciating a good film or if its as truly flawed as I think it is. The first act of the film with the exception of the very brutal and interesting opening battle scene is very dull. It picks up pace as the film goes along but overall this is a fairly unexciting, dry and pretentious film that seems more suited for the stage than on film. The excessive exposition reminded me of another Civil War film that was equally dull in "Gods and Generals" which I think may be a fair comparison to Lincoln. There is a moment in the film when Lincoln begins to tell a story and a man flips out asking if he is going to tell another story and that he cant hear another one, and that is how I was beginning to feel by the end of this film. There is just too many instances of people giving monologues in dark rooms for my taste. Spielberg has been experimenting in his last couple of film,War Horse was a very epic film that seemed too over the top and childish, Lincoln on the hand is much too small scale and subdued for the subject matter and lacks the excitement of his better films.  

Summary-

For all of my complaints about this film I still found it mildly entertaining. As I said Daniel Day Lewis gives a good performances that makes watching the film worth while. Overall though this is a very dull historical drama that is one of the weaker films in Spielberg's career.   

MY RATING-

A generous 3.5 out of 5     

Chris "Da Franchize" Hart

Chris Reviews Hitchcock

Some of the most fun films are the ones that take a look at the film industry itself. Films like Ed Wood come to mind, which is a fun look at one of the most inept filmmakers of all time through the lens of the always interesting Tim Burton. While I was hoping for Hitchcock to be a good movie due to my previous experience with films in the genre I really had no Idea what to expect. So is Hitchcock a film worthy of its namesake? Obviously you should read below to find out.

The Good-

Anthony Hopkins is great in this! Not only does he visibly look like Alfred Hitchcock but he really becomes him and explores the emotions of a truly disturbed man. The relationship between him and his wife is fascinating and Helen Mirren is great in the role. The two of them really carry this film and I would not be surprised to see one if not both of them up for Oscar Nominations for this. The rest of the cast is solid as well and the story is fun and interesting. It pays adequate homage to one of the greatest filmmakers of all time and is a fun film that can be appreciated by both movie buffs and the average audience member alike.

The Cons-

While this is a very solid movie, outside of the leading performances there is nothing spectacular about it. It is not as memorable as a film like Ed Wood which I think is more of a directing issue rather than a writing or acting one. Other than that there is nothing that really bothered me about the film.

Summary-

Hitchcock is a fun historical drama that really anybody can enjoy. The two leads are outstanding and should receive Oscar Nominations for their work and the story is very engaging. Despite those strengths it never elevates itself above being a good film when it could have been a great one.

MY RATING

3.5 out of 5

Chris "Da Franchize" Hart       

Chris Reviews Red Dawn

I saw this film opening night this past Tuesday but was unable to write a review then as I left to go out of town the following morning. In fact I saw a number of films over the break so look out for some more reviews in the coming days.

Now the original Red Dawn is a cult classic, Its a somewhat decisive film that while its very campy and cheesy is a lot of fun and features some interesting political commentary. So does the remake feature the same fun and political commentary? Read below to find out....

The Good-

The original Red Dawn has always been a film that stirs the feeling that many young boys have of wanting to survive in the wilderness and shoot bad guys and this Red Dawn retains some of that juvenile desire. Chris Hemsworth is solid in the Patrick Swayze role of the original although they are very different characters. Where Swayze was that cool older brother, Hemsworth is very much the bad ass war veteran who knows what to do but is not particularly likeable. Other than that I really don't have much praise for this film, and I was stretching to write that much good stuff about it in the first place.

The Bad-

This film is truly a mess! With the exception of the opening act, the plot is almost incoherent. The basic premise of the North Koreans invading the United States is pretty easy but they attempt to set up a larger plot that leads into a potential sequel. That is one of my biggest problems with the film compared to the Original. In the 1984 version we get a shockingly violent ending that makes a somewhat anti-war statement at the end, resulting in a much more unique film than it is given credit for. In this version we get a very Hollywoodized film that is more interested in making money than being innovative or unique. Not only is the plot very weak but the acting is atrocious, especially Josh Peck. He sucks the life out of every scene he is in and is definitely the biggest weakness of the film. Not only is the plot terrible and the acting awful but even the action scenes are just mediocre. Yeah there are a lot of explosions and shootouts, but there is no emotion or importance behind them. Red Dawn is essentially just a montage of action scenes that lack any type of coordination and really don't serve any purpose to the plot. Even the bad guys are very weak, they really don't do anything once they invade. We have no perception of what their intentions are and what the bigger picture is outside of a few throw away lines.

Summary-

I did not expect a great film by any means, in fact I expected a pretty bad film and in that it met my expectations. I did not hate it the whole way through because I had set the bar so low. That being said I was really disappointed in this film. While it technically does a lot of the same things as the original, it lacks the fun, intelligence and energy of the 1984 version. I'm sure there will be those that like it, but if you have any taste for good film making stay far away from this film!

MY RATING

2 out of 5

Chris "Da Franchize" Hart  

Kevin Reviews Lincoln

I'm not a history buff, so I didn't expect to love Lincoln. However, there are a lot of good qualities about this film that make it worth a watch.

First and foremost, Daniel Day-Lewis is phenomenal in this film. You can tell he did a lot to immerse himself in the role of Abraham Lincoln. I won't be surprised if Daniel Day-Lewis wins an Oscar for his performance in this film. Secondly, I loved the star-studded cast of this film: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (obviously, if you haven't already learned he is my favorite actor), James Spader, Tommy Lee Jones, and even Walton Goggins (one of my favorite actors from FX's The Shield). For the most part, the performances from the supporting actors were also good. I was getting the vibe that Tommy Lee Jones was not into this film. His performance seemed tired and jaded. I think in general he is becoming burnt out with acting, and his acting days may be over soon. 

While the acting was great, that's about the only memorable thing in this film for me. If you are a history buff or are really into politics, you may really enjoy this film, but I am neither. This was part of why it was difficult to engage myself in this film too much. Also, I think Spielberg shouldn't have made this film. His time could be spent better elsewhere, and this didn't look or feel like Spielberg's work. My final complaint is the ending. "Spoiler" alert: after Lincoln dies, the camera pans to a flame, which dissolves into Lincoln as he gives a final speech. While I think this method is extremely cliched, it can be done if done the right way. But the whole "the legacy lives on" approach was extremely melodramatic and trite, which left me with a bad feeling in my stomach and left me rolling my eyes as I left the theater. 

Overall, Lincoln is worth your time if you are a history buff or a hardcore Spielberg fan. If you're not, you may want to spend your money on something else. 

MY RATING:

3 out of 5

-Kevin A. Millward

Kevin's Review of Skyfall

I've heard mixed things about Skyfall. Some critics claimed this was the best Bond film to date. Some of my friends said this was very slow paced. Chris enjoyed it. What did I think? Read on and find out.

Honestly, I went in expecting a slow, boring film. My co-workers USUALLY don't steer me wrong. I should have listened to their advice before going into the train wreck that is The Bourne Legacy. I was pleasantly surprised. While there wasn't quite as much action as I had anticipated, the film made up for it with witty and comic dialogue. There were several instances where the audience would burst into laughter and chuckle. The writers clearly put a lot of thought into appealing to non-Bond fans, which made this a somewhat easy watch. The cinematography in this film is phenomenal. Editing was pretty good, too. I loved the fight scene on the rooftop, where the fight is shot in just one angle, which is rare to find in modern action scenes.

There were a few things I didn't like about film. I wish we could've seen more of Javier Bardem's character. His character wasn't very fleshed out, either. Additionally, the final action sequence was a little disappointing. There were a lot of setups for this scene, and the payoffs happened so fast, it seemed silly with how much time was spent on them. Finally, the soundtrack was nothing to write home about, especially the title song.

In conclusion, I must say this is one of the better Bond films I've seen. This one really made me like Daniel Craig as James Bond, which is something I never thought I would say. Skyfall is a solid Bond film that fans and non-fans can appreciate and enjoy.

MY RATING:

4 out of 5

-Kevin A. Millward

Chris Reviews Skyfall

If you are a follower of this blog you should know by now that Skyfall was one of my most anticipated films of the year. I had tremendously high expectations of this film (like Prometheus) and had to view it twice before I could even begin to write a review. Did Skyfall live up to my ridiculous expectations? Read below to find out.....

The Good-

There are so many great things about Skyfall I don't even know where to start! Probably the most impressive aspect of it is the cinematography. When I heard that Roger Deakins was brought on to do the camera work, I was very excited and with Skyfall he has crafted one of the most visually interesting films in the history of the Bond film series. Not only is this a great looking film but it is well written and well acted as well. Javier Bardem will go down in Bond film history as one of the more intriguing villains in the series. From his homosexual innuendos with Bond to his final scene in the film he is a truly intimidating but fun villain. He brings back the spirit of the classic Bond villains who were both comical and serious. That can be said about Bond in this film as well, Craig has finally found the right balance of seriousness and humor to become one of the better Bonds in the series. This is not a typical Bond story either, it has implications that will forever affect the series. Skyfall tells a much more personal story that deals both with Bond and  M's past and by the end of this film Daniel Craig has become the Bond we have been waiting for.

The Bad- 

The first time I viewed this film I had a lot more problems with it, but after a second viewing many of my questions were answered. That being said there are still a few problems I have with this film. I think the thing I was most disappointed in was the score. Long gone are the days of great bombastic soundtracks from John Barry and David Arnold. The lack of a great score took away some of the impact of the action scenes that otherwise were fairly impressive. I think the biggest problem I inittialy had with this movie is the tone. It has a very restrained and subdued tone that initially bothered me but on second viewing I liked a lot better. 

Summary-

Skyfall finally wraps up the Bond becoming Bond storyline and catapults him into the next phase of the series. It is a beautiful, well acted and well written film that ranks among the best films in the series. Not only is it a good Bond film though, it is a good film overall and should appeal to Bond fans and non Bond fans alike.

MY RATING-

4 out of 5

Chris "Da Franchise" Hart

Chris Reviews The Man With the Iron Fists

This was definitely one of the more interesting looking films of the year. Whether it was good or bad you had to give RZA, Eli Roth and Quentin Tarantino props for making something so unique. That being said this was going to be a cult favorite movie at best and probably would not gain a large audience. So did it appeal to a guy that generally falls for exploitation/terrible old school action movies? As usual read below to find out......

The Good-

As I said the concept on paper sounds pretty cool and it was definitely a very unique film. I loved the concept of mixing martial arts and hip hop as I think it is something that actually goes pretty well together (like Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai mixed Samurai films with hip hop). There were some really interesting visual ideas that were presented in here as well. The best aspect of the film though had to be the acting performances that were so terrible they were funny. Russell Crowe stood out as he really phoned this one in but he just looked so terribly out of shape and essentially spent the entire film killing people and having fun with prostitutes that it was laughable.

The Bad-

Oh my gosh there is so many things wrong with this film! As I said the acting is TERRIBLE! Im sorry to say that RZA was not very exciting as the lead and he was hardly even in the film until the third act. His narration was almost incomprehensible which really made it hard to ever know what was going on. I think that is the biggest weakness of this film, you really have no clue what the hell is going on! I got the basic premise of there being some gold and that a bunch of dudes wanted to steal it but after that, the story fell apart and lost me as a viewer. Even the action sequences which were supposed to be the strength of the film, were sporadically cool but for the most part poorly edited.

Summary-

I really wanted to like this film and for the first 30 minutes it was fun. The problem is that when you have a story that makes no sense after those first 30 minutes the viewer gets lost and thus the film has no impact. It ended up becoming a collection of scenes of the most American sounding Asian actors fighting each other and Russell Crowe killing people and having fun with prostitutes. If you are a fan of bad movies and also like the martial arts/exploitation genre its watchable but for everyone else stay away!

MY RATING-

2.5 out of 5

Chris "Da Franchize" Hart      

Kevin's Movie Lookahead

Just a brief lookahead at the films I am most excited for.

I'm definitely gonna make time to see the latest Bond film next weekend. Reviews are pouring in, saying it is quite possibly the best one yet. I know Chris is really excited for this one and I can't wait to read his review of it.

I will see Killing Them Softly solely because Brad Pitt is in it. He is one of my favorite actors and is good in almost everything he's in. This film looks promising and I can't wait to see his performance in this!

I haven't yet seen The Hurt Locker, but I plan on doing so before this film is released. The trailer doesn't reveal much but if it's anything like what I've heard about The Hurt Locker, it should be good.

This is going to be my one guilty comedy. Come to think of it, I don't think I've even seen any comedies in theaters this year. I'm a big Seth Rogen fan, and even though this movie looks terrible, I will probably be laughing out loud just because I love his acting style. I'll laugh even harder if this movie actually gets good reviews.

Of the films on this list, I'm most excited for Django! Quentin Tarantino is my favorite director. I won't go into why on this post, but he's awesome and I already know Django will be yet another Tarantino classic. I'm not big into westerns, but this one has the potential to be one of my favorite movies, like many of Tarantino's films are. If I'm not working Christmas Day, you can bet your ass I'll be watching this one!

After Django Unchained, this is probably the next film I'm most excited for. Featuring an all-star cast with lots of sex and violence, this looks like it could be the movie that starts the year off with a bang. I'm disappointed it got pushed back to January, but that's just more time for me to get excited for it!

What else can I say about this film, other than the only reason I'm seeing it is for Arnold?

Being a die hard fan of Die Hard, I will go see this film. It is directed by John Moore, the director of the god-awful Max Payne, so it may fall flat on its face. I've also heard rumors that there isn't going to be the same John McClane humor we all love, which is also a disappointment. But like I said, I love Die Hard so I'll see it.

Flight: A Film That Doesn't Fly Too High

I tried not judging Flight by its cover art, which was terrible. The original art was just a blue sky with a tiny ass plane way up top. The second one is Denzel which is slightly better, but not much. Did Flight soar to greatness or did it result in a failure to launch? (Sorry, I had to). Read below to find out.

Okay, this blog is called Two DUDES Doing Movie Reviews, so obviously I'm going to take a DUDE stance on this. Within the first ten seconds of the film, we see female full frontal, so this film definitely had my interest. Side note, I seriously have no idea why half the audience gasped at this scene in the film. Read the freaking rating. Flight is rated R for a bunch of reasons, one of them being nudity. Nudity means private parts, like boobs and butts, and sometimes genitals, so don't be surprised when you see that in the movie. The film continues to follow the life of Whip Whitaker, pilot and alcoholic. Whip leads the fast life of drugs, booze, and sex, and it catches up to him when a routine flight goes wrong. This film focuses on his addiction to alcohol and how it destroys his life and those around him. I really liked the man vs. self theme in this film, as well as how Whip is his own worst enemy. Whip is the only thing holding himself back from moving on with his life and reconnecting with his ex wife and son. Some critics say this is Denzel's best film. I would argue there are much better films he has been in, but his performance here is still nothing short of fantastic, as always.

I had a lot of issues with this film. A lot of the characters aren't likable (especially the lead) which makes it difficult to have any real moral compass in a film that lacks any moral center whatsoever. Plagued with lies, drinking to excess, and an almost abusive father figure, Whip is not a very likable character. Even his girlfriend gets annoying. I didn't like John Goodman either, even though it seemed like most of the audience did. My biggest issue with this film is one scene that features Whip's attorney and NTSD buddy helping him cover up that he's drunk by doing cocaine. This seemed extremely far fetched and silly, and it took away from the serious tone of the film.

Flight takes off because of Denzel Washington's fine performance as an alcoholic and unrepentant liar, but doesn't quite level off because of some silly scenes that make what could've been a great film a good one. Still, this is worth watching, especially if you are a big Denzel fan like I am. This is certainly not a bad film, but it's not really a great one either.

MY RATING:

3.5 out of 5

Kevin A. Millward