Scenes of the Crime Blog-A-thon: The Lookout

As you may know after reading some of my blog posts, one of my favorite actors (if not, my number one favorite actor) of all time is Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I've read up on him and I agree with many of his thoughts about the film industry as well as what an actor should be expected to do to prepare for a role. I've been watching every film that he stars in, and recently, I watched The Lookout.

In The Lookout, JGL stars as Chris Pratt, a once promising high school athlete who faces many challenges after being involved in a car wreck. I felt a bit of a Memento vibe when watching this film, as Chris forgets a lot of things and has to rely on notes to remember them. Chris works as a janitor at a bank, which he discovers is going to be robbed. He is forced into participating in the robbery, and finds himself in more danger than he initially anticipated.

The Lookout is one of those films you can take for face value and enjoy in one viewing. This film is not deep or extremely memorable in any sense, but it is well worth watching because of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance and because it is an all-around good crime film. The best thing about this film is the characters, which are easy to follow and develop a sense of compassion for. You can easily empathize with JGL's character because he's a good guy that gets caught in a bad situation. This could potentially be a good character study film as well as a crime thriller.

I can see where this film could get some criticism. Chris' therapist, Janet, is in one scene in the film and we never see her again. There are subtle (and not so-subtle) hints of a romantic/physical relationship between the two of them, and this subplot never really pans out. As a whole, this is a somewhat generic crime film from the standpoint that it sticks with many of the conventions of the crime genre, and doesn't bring a whole lot of new ideas to the table.

The Lookout is a film with great characters but a story most of us crime fanatics have seen many times before. I watched this film purely to see Joseph Gordon-Levitt in a different role and to continue my studies on a phenomenal yet underrated actor that I'm sure will garner some attention for his acting and directing talents.

MY RATING:

3.5 out of 5

-Kevin A. Millward

Scenes of the Crime Blog-A-Thon: Chris Reviews Black Dynamite

I have to give credit to Kevin for exposing me to this movie. We both have discovered a love for exploitation movies and recently there have been a lot of parodies of these types of films coming out (Grindhouse and Machete for example). Of all of the parodies of these types of films I have seen this is arguably the best. 

Black Dynamite is a former CIA Agent who sets out to avenge his brothers death after he is killed by pimps and drug dealers. He cleans up the streets and in the process uncovers a ridiculous plot that leads him to Kung Fu Island and eventually the White House!


Often times movies that are intentionally bad, feel very forced but in Black Dynamite it never feels that way. It feels like the filmmakers actually loved the material they are parodying and so they are able to strike the right tone. This is a film that is filled with amazing and memorable moments. There are moments of hilarious ineptitude such as the scene where the boom mic drops down into view and Black Dynamite continues to stare at it while he is delivering his lines. There are moments of pure absurdity such as the scene where Black Dynamite and his crew put together the secret plot of the Asians on Kung Fu Island who are trying to shrink all Black Men's penises by drinking Malt Liquor. Not to mention a plethora of fun and hilarious fight scenes.

Black Dynamite is an excellent example of a Bad movie that is very good. It shows bad filmmaking but not excessively, bad acting but that is funny and dialogue that is really bad but creatively bad. This is just a fun Action/Crime/Comedy film that is a must watch for any guy that has that juvenile sense of humor that makes us love films like the Naked Gun so much. So go on to Amazon this instant and order the blu-ray for only 10 bucks because it is well worth it!

MY RATING-

4.5 out of 5

-Chris "Da Franchize" Hart

  

Scenes of the Crime Blog-A-Thon: Chris Reviews Eastern Promises

(This post is being published as part of the Scenes of the Crime Blog-A-Thon with Furiouscinema.com.)

I've recently been on a bit of David Cronenberg kick. I started with A History of Violence then moved on to Eastern Promises as it is essentially a companion film to the former. After watching some of Cronenberg's earlier films such as The Fly and Videodrome it is interesting seeing the evolution the he has made as a director. Earlier in his career he liked to analyze the physical aspects of horror and violence with less emphasis on the psychological aspect but now it seems he has flipped his focus on that subject.

Eastern Promises is an utterly fascinating film that I think will likely take me a while to fully appreciate which has been the case with most Cronenberg films. It has the feeling of a much more conventional crime film than A History of Violence but still feels very fresh and unique.

The film tells the story of a midwife (Naomi Watts) at a hospital in London who delivers a baby whose mother dies during childbirth. She finds a journal written by the mother among the woman's personal belongings but is unable to read it as it is in Russian. She finds a card on the inside that leads her to a Restaurant owned by a major Russian Mob Boss (Armin Mueller-Stahl). The film weaves the story of the midwife searching for the relatives to take care of the baby with the story of this Russian Mob family and a driver for the Mob (Viggo Mortensen) who ascends to power.

This is a brooding Crime film that really explores the Russian Mob which is an area I have not seen explored in the genre before. One such interesting aspect was the significance of tattoos in the Russian Mob as they carry the life story of these mobsters. Not only does it explore interesting subjects but it also features some great acting. Viggo (very different looking in this!) gives a clearly great performance which he was nominated for Best Actor for and I think he is really what elevates this film from being a decent Crime movie to a great one.

The other aspect of what made this film great was David Cronenberg himself. His ability to make uncomfortable to watch fight scenes and truly realistic and ugly deaths is a rare skill. Specifically the infamous Bath House scene where Viggo is completely naked and fights off 2 mobsters armed with linoleum knives. Which brings up an interesting style choice that Cronenberg makes with this movie. There are no guns in the entire film, all kills are done with straight razors and knives which adds to the discomfort. While he is making more of a psychological analysis in this film he is still able to create those visually disturbing scenes which have been a staple in his films his entire career.

I don't want to give too much away about this film because I think everyone needs to see it. There are some interesting twists that happen that if I give away definitely ruin the movie. Suffice it to say though, Eastern Promises is an amazing film. It has a hypnotically brooding tone that makes it hard to turn away and just when you start to get bored it throws a shockingly violent and disturbing scene to get you back into it. So for anyone craving a good old violent mobster movie I encourage you to watch this one right now!

MY RATING-

4 out of 5

-Chris "Da Franchize" Hart  

 
 

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