Non-Stop (2014)

At this point, doesn't Liam Neeson seem way overqualified to be an Air Marshall? It used to be that he had a particular set of skills, but now it seems that he has every set of skills. If they ever did a celebrity season of Survivor, I'd put my money on him to win it all.

Bill Marks (Neeson) is manning a non-stop flight from New York to London. He's an apparent alcoholic, which seems to be a common character trait with flight films recently. This all comes into play later though. Shortly after takeoff, Bill receives a series of text messages saying they will kill someone on the plane every 20 minutes if $150 million isn't wired to an account.

He initially has everyone's cooperation, but it's found that the account is in Bill's name. This points all fingers and suspicion his direction, because I guess everyone believes Bill is dumb enough to hijack a plane and use an offshore account in his own name. You'd think that would be enough keep him in the clear, but his past and personal demons cast a cloud of doubt. Bill is desperate to uncover who's really behind this, with few people he can trust.

Non-Stop has an interesting enough premise and actually does a good job of building tension. Though it's all pretty standard thriller stuff where you are thrown constant red herrings. It seems that everyone has some kind of distracting character trait giving a reason to think they are the mastermind.

I found many of the characters annoying and rude enough that I entertained thoughts like maybe they should just shoot the plane down. As they board, you see the kind of self absorbed behavior that makes people hate flying and people in general. I was surprised they didn't have someone with a anxiety dog with them. Many refused to follow directions, while demanding they had the right to know what's going on. Nobody ever seems to consider that maybe it's best they don't know what's going when there's potential hijacking risk. Maybe you're guy he's looking for, so why should he tell you anything? Anyway...

The bigger problem is when we get to the conclusion it's wildly unconvincing and borders on the ridiculous. It's the kind of ending where they went too far out of their way to have an "original" motivation for the bad guys. It would have been a bigger twist if they just had basic goals in mind. Complexity isn't a requirement for a good thriller; you can still be relatively straight-forward. Why can't it just be about the money? Why do their actions have to make a statement?

There's also a terrible quick-cut, shaky-cam fight during this climax, which was a shame because earlier there's a fight that takes place in a bathroom stall that I thought was shot really well. More than a few things happen towards the end that had me shaking my head at how far-fetched they were. It's a shame the end subtracts so much.

Really the only reason to watch Non-Stop is for Liam Neeson. His commitment lends credibility and makes you take the film more seriously than if another actor had been cast. You get the wrong guy as your lead and you have another Passenger 57 on your hands. The rest of the cast is a waste, which is a shame because I love Julianne Moore and Corey Stoll. Stoll, in particular, was criminally underused. Fresh off her breakout role in 12 Years a Slave, Lupita Nyong'o has a small role, but isn't asked to do much either. I didn't even realize it was her at first. Only Michelle Dockery stood out to me, as she's the only person besides Moore that has much face time with Neeson.

Here's one weird nitpick. At one point, Liam Neeson puts his hand on the seat in front of him and there's a close up shot of his hand. It's a totally unnecessary shot, but the weird thing about it was that the close up was very likely of a hand model. If you notice his hands in any other scene, or pretty much any movie he's ever been in, you can tell the hands and nails didn't match at all. This isn't a knock on Neeson, as he's the kind of rugged man's man that wouldn't get a manicure. It wouldn't fit his character either. Just a weird shot since there was no need for it at all.

Non-Stop is a serviceable thriller that's watchable mainly due to the presence of Liam Neeson. It's the kind of forgettable film that's best enjoyed if you don't think about it too much. If you're all caught up on your Oscar flicks, and have nothing else to do, there are worse ways to kill two hours. I'd recommend saving it for rental though.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Lego Movie (2014)

It's been said that The Lego Movie is little more than a extended toy commercial. Even if I agreed with that, my general response to this is, "Who cares?" Legos are awesome, and so is The Lego Movie!

How rare is it that you have a series of toys that has stood the test of time. I played with Legos when I was a kid, particularly the generic 80's Space Legos referenced in the film, and decades later my nephews are playing with them. Only they have much cooler Star Wars and Superhero themed Legos. Plus, there's the great Lego video game series, too. Admit it, you've played them. I suppose it helps when you film is based on a product that has a broad, built in audience.

The basic story is a Matrix-esque hero's quest. When attempting to protect a weapon called the "Kragle", Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman) warns Lord Business (Will Ferrell) of a prophecy where someone known as the "Special" will find the Piece of Resistance, the only thing that can stop the Kragle.

Later, we meet Emmet (Chris Pratt), an average guy with no special skills or qualities. While working on a construction site, he sees a woman, Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), frantically searching for something. When trying to catch up to her, he stumbles down a hole and finds the famed Piece. He has a vision and shortly after is arrested by Bad Cop (Liam Neeson). Emmet learns of Lord, now President, Business' plan to use the Kragle to destroy the world. Believing Emmet is the Special, she rescues him and off they go to thwart President Business' plan.

It's almost hard to put into words how much fun is packed into The Lego Movie. There literally is a laugh a minute, with the gags coming in such rapid fire succession that it's easy to miss everything that's going on. Like many of the better animated films, the humor doesn't pander to a particular age group. There's something for everyone. At times you'll hear a big laugh from the kids, then maybe a handful of adults at something a little more obscure. They even throw in a subtle dig at generic sitcoms and pop music aimed at the masses.

As we get to the conclusion, there's a slight twist that gives the story some weight and makes it more than just about jokes and pretty animation. You'll look back on the film and realize that some of it's creativity, and even the simpler moments, are really more about the imagination of a child. It also reminded me of times where I would refuse to let my nephews take a Star Wars action figure out of the package, as to not ruin it's condition or integrity, when they simply wanted to play with it. Toys, especially Legos, are meant to be played with and inspire creativity, not sit on some old guy's shelf hoping it will gain value some day. Sure collecting has its place, but it helps to be reminded about their true purpose.

Despite Legos not having a ton of articulation, the animation is surprisingly fluid. There some very creative use of Legos to animate rounded shapes like clouds and water. There's some great Transformers type stuff, as well. This is also one of the few movies that I wouldn't hesitate to recommend seeing in 3D. The format fits the the vibrant images and animation well.

Where The Lego Movie really shines is with it's voice cast. As I've mentioned in previous animated films, it's a strength when they can cast recognizable voices, but they don't distract or take you out of the movie. While the cast is filled with big name stars, you're likely to not recognize many of voices until you watch the credits. Many I thought were impressions until I saw they cast the actual person. Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Morgan Freeman, and the rest are all great, but I think most people will remember Will Arnett's portrayal as Batman as the best of the bunch. He's absolutely hilarious, and sings the best Batman related song of all time. Charlie Day was also another standout as his voice fit his character perfectly. I think you'll see a lot of people quoting his, and other lines, from the film for a while.

Lastly, I have to mention the directing team of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. These are the same guys behind Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and 21 Jump Street, so they are really knocking it out of the park so far.

The Lego Movie is truly a great animated family film that appeals to the kid in all of us. It's smart, hilarious and features both great animation and voice acting. I know it's early in the year, but I can already see this in my best of 2014 list and easily my favorite animated film. I can't recommend this movie enough.

5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Spaceship!

Taken 2 (2012) - Movie Review

Maybe Liam Neeson should stay home for a while...

Seriously he shouldn't go anywhere.  He either gets in a plane crash or someone gets kidnapped.

Spoilers ahead...

It's been a year since the events of Taken and things seems to be looking up for Bryan Mills.  He has a much better relationship with his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen), and things are going well with his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace).  In the past he'd be gone after a few weeks, but is now present in their lives, even taking time to teach Kim how to drive.  Why a college student living in LA doesn't know how to drive yet I'll never understand.

Anyway, there's not much to the plot.  You learn that the father of Kim's kidnapper from the first film wants revenge. He then attempts to kidnap the Mills family while they are vacationing in Istanbul.  Mills fights back.  That's it.  That's the entire plot.  There aren't any surprises here and it's pretty predictable.

What made Taken so much fun was that it really caught everyone by surprise.  Nobody was expecting much from it, but it was tension filled and had all these great moments of impact.  They captured lightning in a bottle, and ended up with a hit.  Naturally, a sequel was coming, but unfortunately, Taken 2 is a step back in quality.  There's so many silly and convenient things done with the plot that it feels amateurish at times.  Here's a few examples:

• Early in the film, Kim steals some clothes from a random locker, and they appeared to be men's clothing, but they happen to fit her perfectly.
• Mills has Kim throw several grenades around the city and nobody ever seems to mind or notice.
• Naturally, Kim is forced to drive in a high speed chase, and is suddenly now an expert driver, even though she failed her previous drivers test.  Quick learning curve, eh?  
• During this scene Mills basically says to Kim that since she can't shoot a gun, then she needs to drive.  This made me wonder that considering Mills 'particular set of skills', and what happened to his daughter in the previous film, how come he hasn't bothered teaching her self defense or how to use a gun?  Wouldn't that be something a person like Mills would be concerned with in case someone attempted to kidnap her again?
• Midway through the film, Mills and Kim crash through the US embassy, and their car gets all shot up in the process.  You see soldiers converging on the car, yet in the very next scene Mills is walking around town again hot on the heels of the kidnappers without any explanation of how he got out of the embassy.  It seems like a really important step was skipped there.
• The first time Mills escapes from the kidnappers, he leaves his ex-wife behind without having her hide or securing her somewhere, allowing her to immediately be kidnapped again.

The bad guys were pretty stupid, too.  It was like how when a Bond villain tells him his entire plan, but then leaves the room allowing him plenty of time to escape.  What's the deal with the main bad guy (Rade Serbedzija) anyway?.  His son kidnaps Mills' daughter, among many others, Mills gets his daughter back killing the son in the process, but the father thinks he's the one that needs revenge.  Seems like you're pretty much in the even column at this point.  Mills even get the opportunity to explain this to the guy, and he just didn't care.  He was about as cookie cutter and single minded as a villain can get.

Yeah, I get it.  Taken 2 isn't a movie meant to be steeped in realism or worrying about things like logic.

There's some really awful dialog, and it's not just with the bad guys.  I even thought some of the dialog between Mills and Kim was very uncomfortable.  He's asking her things like if she loves her boyfriend, and if she's ever been in love before.  That just seemed weird to me.  The script by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen badly needed some punch up.  There were many missed opportunities to inject some humor or one liners that would have put some fun in the film.

Taken 2 was directed by Luc Besson's current go-to guy, Olivier Megaton (Transporter 3, Columbiana), which is a great name for an action director.  Megaton does a good job with keeping the pace of the film tight, and it doesn't really suffer from any slow down in the action, but it's just too one-dimensional.  That's as much to blame on Besson and Kamen though.  It also has a pretty unsatisfying ending.  

The action isn't bad, but it's still a step back from the first film.  In early fight, it was nearly impossible to tell what was going on due to all the quick cuts and rapid moving camera work.  The only time you seemed to get a real good shot of the hand-to-hand action was towards the end when he fights a guy in a track suit that's roughly the same age as Liam Neeson.  He also seems to kill several guys in the movie without really doing much to the guy other than hitting them, which I thought only Chuck Norris could do.  Neeson was at his best once he had a gun.

Liam Neeson wasn't bad, but he can play this role in his sleep.  He didn't seem as invested this time around.  There's one cool thing that they did where they show you a little insight into the thought process once he's kidnapped, and you see how he's taking in details, so he knows where and what the situation is, but it gets abandoned shortly after.  Maggie Grace got a little more to do this time around and actually got to take part in the action and rescuing.  I do think it's kind of funny that she's almost 30 and still passing for much younger.  I think we'd all like to know her anti-aging secrets.  I love Famke Janssen, but it only seemed like she was in the movie only to be consistent with the first film.  Her role this time around consisted of either crying, or waking up from being unconscious.  It's not her fault, the script just didn't give her much to do.

I didn't hate Taken 2, and it's not the worst thing I've ever seen, but it's another case of sequelitis striking again.  It's just more of the same, except it's missing the tension and thrills of the first film. This felt like they were making it up as they went along, and it's about as lazy as a sequel gets.  I can't recommend this as anything more than a rental.  You'd be better off just watching the first Taken again this weekend on DVD and save yourself some money.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars.

Battleship (2012) - Movie Review

You sank my sense of logic!  Battleship is one of those movies that you go in knowing it's not going to be revolutionary, but you hope it will at least be a fun, summer popcorn flick.  You'll hear people say things like, "Just shut your brain off and enjoy!"  The problem is, I'm tired of shutting my brain off.  If that's a perquisite to watching a movie, that's never a good sign.

I'm sure you're thinking I'm getting old and cranky, and that like other critics I have no soul, but I'm getting tired of lazy-ass movies that simply try to flash a bunch of a explosions and images on screen to distract you from the fact that there really isn't anything going on.  It's all the typical things that Michael Bay does, but somehow it ends up being even worse.  I've heard a lot of comparisons to Skyline and I'd say that's pretty accurate as far as both movies being about alien invasions don't make any sense.

As you may have already guessed, I didn't like Battleship.  This review is going to be a little more of a rant and spoiler-filled, so fair warning...

Where to even start?  The movie begins with showing you that NASA has found an exoplanet in the "Goldilocks Zone".  On the hope that there may be life there, a signal is transmitted, boosted by a satellite in orbit.  I'm already kind of scratching my head at this because lots of exoplanets have been found in the "Goldilocks Zone."  This isn't anything new, so why are we transmitting to this planet?  Are we doing this for all planets we find?  Is this why NASA needs more money?

Let's get the first flaw major flaw of this movie out of the way:  it's way too long!  It's well over two hours, yet you can walk in 30 minutes late and you wont miss anything related to the action.  You're introduced to our hero, a drunk Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch), who breaks into a convenience store to steal a chicken burrito for Sam (Brooklyn Decker).  This scene would have been funny if it wasn't a blatant ripoff of an actual burglary.  Here's the clip of the actual event:



They reenact this in the movie as if it was something original.  This is the kind of crap I expect to see in something from the makers of Epic Movie.  Anyway, this scene is used to setup that Alex is a underachieving loser that's a disappointment to his older brother (Alexander Skarsgård), who's in the Navy.   He forces Alex to enlist in order to get his act straight.

We fast forward a few years, and I can only assume it's been a few years because it's never said how much time has passed and nobody looks any older, but Alex is now somehow a lieutenant.  I say 'somehow' because it's clear that he's still a screwup and he's about to get kicked out of the Navy.  His last mission will be for the RIMPAC naval exercises and then he's out.

Oh, but before we get to that, we're going to watch a soccer match.  Yes, you came to watch Battleship because you wanted to see a poorly shot soccer match between the US and Japanese Navy.  There's no point to this sequence other than to show you that Alex doesn't get along with one of the guys from the Japanese Navy.  Do you think they'll be forced to work together and respect each other by the end of the movie?  Oh, the suspense!

Anyway, this is seriously the first 30-40 mintues of the film and it didn't need to be there!  You can skip that first part and there's 30-40 minutes of your life you just got back.  If you wanted to establish Alex's character, it would have been much easier, and taken less time, to simply start with him already in the military and show that he's the underachieving officer, who's about to be kicked out of the military for fighting or something like that.  It's a much harder sell to show him as an absolute screw up even before enlisting, and then in just a short time he's advanced without seeing any character growth or maturity.  They tell you several times that Alex is smart and talented, but you never see him do anything that demonstrates that.

Finally, the aliens show up as the Navy is going through their RIMPAC exercises.  One of their ships is damaged entering Earth's atmosphere and causes all kinds of destruction as it crashes.  These aliens can travel light-years, but I guess they don't have the ability to detect a satellite that's in its direct flight path.  Anyway, they Navy investigates the ships that have safely landed in the ocean.  Shortly after, the aliens attack.

The other huge problem is aliens themselves.  They aren't developed at all.  What do they want?  It's clear they are invading, but why?  They don't have a single line of dialog, so there's never a mention about needing resources or tech, biology or just wanting our planet.  Their primary goal seems to be that they need to reestablish communication back home, because it's assumed that their communications ship is the one that crashed earlier.  That sets up a silly subplot involving Sam and a military veteran trying to stop them.  It's silly, not just because of the characters involved, but because it's ultimately pointless.  We communicated with the aliens first.  That's how they knew to find us.  If they were capable of sending five ships to Earth, what's to stop them from sending five more, or 20?  If they never hear back from their ships, you don't think at some point they aren't sending more to investigate?

One of the worst things about the aliens is that they show that they have this threat assessment display that determines whether or not they will attack or even see you.  So basically, in Battleship, you can shoot an alien, but then stand still and put your gun down and there's a good chance it will ignore you.  This happened several times in the film.  Nevermind that they are invading the Earth for whatever reason and they're in the middle of a battle against people who have clearly fired upon them.  Also, the aliens showed at other times that they had no issues with causing random destruction that affected civilian targets that posed no threat.  Battleship doesn't worry about things like logic or making sense.

Their ship design was actually kind of cool though, but again, there didn't seem to be any consistency to their technology.  You see times where their ships will fly and other times where they hop around in the water as if they can't sustain flight.  The actual alien design was kind of silly.  When the masks finally come off, they have frigging goatees.  Yep, spiky goatees.  Even aliens have hipsters.

Battleship has some of the worst dialog I've seen in a while.  Co-written by Erich and Jon Hoeber, this movie badly needed some punch-up.  Peter Berg is a capable director, but it doesn't seem like he had a lot of control over this.  I have a hard time believing he thought some of the stuff that happens in the movie made any sense.  How did anyone involved in this think it made any sense.  There are so many things in the movie that could have been removed.  Like, there's a really bad CG shot of a great white shark swimming that looked awful, but it had nothing to do with the story.  Why put that in the movie?  There's a point in the movie where they actually play a version of Battleship staring at display screens, as the Navy and aliens try to find each other.  Really?

There are two moments in the film where someone (presumably) dies and there is absolutely no reaction from the witnessing character, even though it's someone they care about.  If you don't care about your characters to show any emotion about them, I don't care about them either.  Maybe this is due to hiring 'actors' incapable of expressing these types of emotions.  I don't want hate on Taylor Kitsch, but this is already the second shitty sci-fi/fantasy movie he's been in this year.  I get the feeling Hollywood is trying to force this guy on us.  Jeremy Renner was originally attached to this role, and he wisely passed on it to be in something else.  Rihanna doesn't have much to do in the movie other than to run in needless slow motion.  She wasn't terrible, but they did a good job of hiding her acting.  They just throw Brooklyn Decker in some tank tops and short-shorts, and then her acting consists of either smiling or making a face like she just smelled a fart.

What emotion am I trying to convey right now?  Acting!

Similar to the recent Act of Valor, the cast features a lot of military veterans.  Since these guys are not actors, I'm going to talk negatively about that.  If you cast non-actors in speaking roles, you can't expect much.  Even though he's heavily featured in the trailers, Liam Neeson maybe has a total of five minutes in the movie.  He gets a pass.  Same with Alexander Skarsgård, who's also barely in it.  Lastly, Turtle (Jerry Ferrara) shows up in a weird cameo.

In the end, Battleship is more like Battleshit.  This is a perfect example of a studio trying to make something out of nothing.  Actually, it was about something: product placement.  After watching Battleship, I had the urge to have a Coke Zero, microwave a chicken burrito, buy an AC/DC album and maybe join the Navy.  I'd love to say this is just a fun, but dumb, popcorn flick, but I couldn't even enjoy it on that level.  The movie has no personality, no excitement, and nothing in it makes sense.  It's barely worthy of a rental.

1 (out of 5) Death Stars

Wrath of the Titans (2012) - Movie Review

I was actually shocked when I heard they were making a sequel to the already lackluster Clash of the Titans remake. The remake was a movie nobody was asking for in the first place, it performed poorly and was reviewed poorly.  Despite that, they decided it was a good idea to make another. Do we at least get another good Liam Neeson meme?  Unfortunately, no.  In fact, this time around some random character actually says the line, 'Release the Kraken!'  Really?

Anyway, after I saw the trailer for Wrath of the Titans, I thought it at least looked cool. Plus, it has Rosamund Pike dressed like a warrior.  It could have Rosamund Pike dressed in anything and it would have my interest on some level.  Could Wrath of the Titans be any worse than Clash?

The good news is that Wrath is better than Clash.  The bad news is that it's only marginally better.  I can pretty much sum up this movie into one word: flat!  Everything about the movie felt flat to me.  The dialog, the characters, the attempts at humor.  There's very little in the way of effective dialog or humor anyway.

While the effects are pretty good and there are some decent action scenes, you never feel any real threat or that the main characters are in any peril.  It doesn't help that the movie is pretty bloodless.  I can't buy in to a film featuring guys with spears and swords and that there's any danger when you barely see a drop of blood.  Granted, the lack of blood makes this something that you can allow younger kids watch, but if you like a little more maturity to your fantasy, you won't find it here.

This also suffers from the 'inconsistent powers' thing I hate in action movies.  Early on, Perseus gets pretty banged up by a creature and needs medical assistance after.  Throughout the rest of the movie, he's being hit with rock-smashing punches from gods and just popping up from them like it's no big deal.  Which is it?  You can be hurt or you're indestructible?

To illustrate the point about there being very little peril, the central plot of Wrath is that the gods are the ones in danger this time.  The movie begins showing you that Perseus (Sam Worthington) has rejected his destiny as a demigod and is content with fishing with his son.  Gemma Arterton couldn't be bothered with being in this, so her character has been killed off at some point, leaving Perseus a single father.  He's visited by Zeus who tells him that because nobody is praying to the gods anymore, they are losing power and this is causing the big, bad demons to break out of the underworld.  Zeus states that Hades (Ralph Fiennes) is attempting to resurrect Kronos, the father of Zeus, Hades and Poseidon (an unrecognizable Danny Huston).  It took their combined powers to stop him last time.  I don't understand how Kronos is anyone's father when he's this giant, lava monster.  His spawn are humanoids?  Anyway, Zeus wants Perseus to help, but Perseus just wants to fish with his son.  Oh guess what, stuff happens and Perseus is forced into action.

This movie is a 'God of War' video game come to life, expect that they took all of the fun, the interesting story and characters out of it.  You're better off simply playing a video game than watching this.  At least with the video game you'd be more invested in what was going on.

The main problem with Wrath is that there's nothing to give a shit about.  You've got this great cast and nothing ever happens to make you care about anything.  I mention Rosamund Pike, but she's barely given anything to do.  She might as well not been in the movie.  Bill Nighy played Hephaestus and I didn't even realize it was him until the credits rolled.  There's this scene towards the end where Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes' characters team up finally and for a second it's really cool, but then it's over just like that.  I don't want to hate on Sam Worthington, but he's probably the blandest actor in movies.  He's just so wooden and uninteresting.  You'd think an action star would be buff at least.

The 3D and IMAX do nothing for the film.  Clash of the Titans was notorious for being a bad example of converted 2D to 3D films looking terrible.  Wrath seems to have been filmed in 3D, but it still does nothing for the movie.  Save your money and watch it in normal 2D.

Director Jonathan Liebesman didn't do a very good job with the material.  He also directed the equally uninteresting Battle: Los Angeles.  As I've complained about other poor movies recently, this suffers from having too many people involved in the story.  Worse yet, they are mediocre writers at best.  Greg Berlanti (Green Lantern), David Johnson (Red Riding Hood) and first time writer Dan Mazeau.  Movie studios need to figure out that movies like this do not work when you have this many people involved, especially when their previous work was n6othing to get excited about.

Wrath of the Titans upgraded the special effects and the 3D from Clash of the Titans and it has better action.  However, the story and characters are still lifeless.  It's video game, popcorn entertainment at best.  I can't really recommend seeing it in the theater though.  Save it for rental.

I probably would have given the original 2 Death Stars, so I give Wrath of the Titans 2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars.