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

Killing Them Softly (2012) - Movie Review

I'll spare you from any puns about the title of this movie and the similarly named song.

We're introduced to a bunch of reject criminals planning their next 'job'.  The plan is to hold up a mafia card game, as there will be a lot of cash for the taking.  They believe it's the perfect crime because the person hosting the game, Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta), previously admitted to robbing his own game, so they know Trattman will get blamed again if another of his games is robbed.

The crime actually goes as planned, but the mafia wants the people responsible to pay.  Jackie (Brad Pitt) is the hitman hired by the mob to take care of business. He knows that Trattman was set up, but believes that the people on the street will only believe he was responsible, so Trattman needs to take the hit.  A mob representative (Richard Jenkins) only wants him roughed up.  This frustrates Jackie as he doesn't like how the mob is becoming too corporate, with simple decisions needing to go through levels of management and red tape for approval.  This is where Killing Them Softly starts to show a very cynical view of corporate culture, the government, and even the U.S.

As the movie goes on, more hits are ordered, but Jackie needs to bring in another hitman because he has a close relationship with one of the people that needs to get taken out.  He calls on Mickey (James Gandolfini) to help him out.  However, you learn that Mickey has devolved into a drunk that can't be relied on, leaving Jackie to take care of everything.

Killing Them Softly is one of those movies that I think a lot of people are going to have a hard time getting into.  It starts off very slowly until Brad Pitt finally shows up, and even then it's still pretty slowly paced.  Many scenes linger on longer than they should.  While the dialog is very funny in parts, it seemed like any scene that didn't involve Brad Pitt didn't have a lot of weight.

I liked the gritty, noir feel about it, but where the movie really excelled was in the camera work.  I'm not one to normally notice stuff like that, but they did a lot of cool things with interesting camera angles and how they used focus.  There's a scene where a character is high on heroin and the way the scene was shot, you really got a feel for how the guy was tripping and how his friend was getting frustrated trying to talk to him.  In another scene, there was a hit where they used a very stylish use of super slow motion.  However, Dredd 3D did the same, stylish, slow-motion death over the summer, and I think it looked better and fit the context of the film more. Another thing that really stood out to me was the sound.  When someone gets punched, you feel the loud thud as if you were getting hit.  The gunshots in the film are jarring at times.

The other strength of the movie are the performances.  Brad Pitt is great and totally carries the film! My only complaint is that it didn't start with his character, as he doesn't make his first appearance until almost 20 minutes into the film.  While he's not a nice guy, you can't help but root for him.  I think it's because I sympathized with his frustration of having to deal with all the red tape and bureaucracy he encountered.  He was hired to do a job and just wanted to do it without having to wait for approval for every single thing.  I thought he was the very definition of an anti-hero and it totally worked for me.  James Gandolfini has a limited role, but his interaction with Pitt was fun to watch.  I also enjoyed Richard Jenkins as the mob liaison (simply billed as Driver), but Jenkins is always great.

As I mentioned before, the movie takes a very cynical stab at America, and depending on how you feel about the current state of affairs, this may or may not work for you.  The movie takes place during the time of Obama's first election, so throughout the film there are clips and soundbites of both Obama and George W.  It's interesting to note that this is based off a book written in 1974 by George V. Higgins called Cogan's Trade.  I haven't read the book, so I don't know if those messages were also in the book or inserted by writer/director Andrew Dominik.  Dominik is from New Zealand, so it seems like an outsider's perspective of America.

The film had a great final scene though.  It was the kind of ending that gives you that punch where you can only help but laugh a little.

Killing Them Softly is a bit of a mixed bag, and I can understand how this won't be for everyone.   The slow pacing may turn off some, as well as the statements they are making about our government and culture.  On the other hand, I enjoyed it for it's gritty, visual style and it's dark humor.  Plus, it has a great performance from Brad Pitt.  This movie reminded me a lot of last year's Drive, which had a lot of style, but not a lot of meaningful dialog.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Argo (2012) - Movie Review

Argo is one of those stories that sounds so unbelievable that I guess it had to be true, and features a plan so crazy that it had to work.

Set during the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the U.S. Embassy is overrun and most of it's staff are taken hostage.  A small group escapes and hides in the home of the Canadian ambassador.  Due all the chaos and shredding of the records, it's not noticed that six people are unaccounted for.  However, time is running out and if they are found in the ambassador's home, it will be bad for Canada's status in Iran and likely death for the Americans.  One thing that was nice about the opening of the film is that it gives you a quick history lesson about the events leading up to this revolution.  This is a nice touch for those of you not up on your history, or too young to recall the events as they happened.

CIA specialist Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) is brought in to evaluate the existing plans to extract them.  The flaws in all plans are quickly pointed out by Mendez, but can't think of a better plan himself.  He's later inspired when watching a sci-fi movie on TV with his son.  He'll go into Iran posing as a Canadian film crew scouting locations, meet up with Americans, train them, and then fly them all out together.

The plan is only as good as the details, so Mendez contacts a Hollywood make-up specialist John Chambers (John Goodman) to help with the cover story.  Chambers brings in successful producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), who says that nobody will buy the cover unless there's a script and Hollywood actually believes the movie is being made.  You need to generate buzz.  They find a script for a sci-fi called Argo, a Star Wars ripoff.

You'd think they could gloss over this part, but this is practically a movie all to itself.  Storyboards are created, actors are hired, awful costumes are made, Hollywood parties are thrown and script readings are done.  Ads for Argo show up in Variety, and a fake movie is born.  This is also where a lot of the humor and surprising amount of fun comes from.  Alan Arkin and John Goodman are both great in their roles and are clearly having a lot of fun with it.  I finished watching Argo wanting to know more about these two and wishing they could come up with a way to give them a spin-off movie of their own.

The cast is stacked and everyone is so good that it's really hard to say that anyone stands out.  It reminded me of recent Steven Soderbergh films where you have guys that could be the leads in other films (like Bryan Cranston or Kyle Chandler) playing small roles as part of this large ensemble.  Ben Affleck seems to have that same ability to work with actors that Soderbergh has.  There aren't any throwaway characters or performances, and you manage to care about everyone despite not spending very much time with them.

Speaking of Ben Affleck, how does a guy go from being someone that most everyone barely took seriously not even ten years ago, to one of the best directors out there?  He's managed to do this in just three films, with each better than the last.  Argo is his best effort yet.  There's so much attention to detail, and you'll notice this from the outfits, the makeup, and even the overall look of the film.  It looks like something actually made back in the 70's.  Even the old Warner Brothers logo is used as the movie begins.  As the credits roll, you see side-by-side pictures of the real-life person and the actor playing them, and the resemblance between all of them is uncanny. Ironically, the one person that really didn't look at all like his real-life counterpart was Ben Affleck. It's kind of a surprise when he gets the details right in so many other areas that he didn't consider a different actor.  There's nothing wrong with the performance though, and I think he helps having a bigger name in the lead role.  Besides, Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms, yo!

Another impressive thing about the movie is how much tension there is in the film, despite knowing the outcome before the movie even starts.  I was on the edge of my seat as we reached the conclusion and there's a satisfying emotional payoff.  Members of the audience applauded even before the movie ended.

I know it's early in the Oscar season, and I'm sure I'm going to say this a few more times this year, but Argo really is an Oscar worthy film and Affleck should be nominated for his direction as well.

Argo is a truly great film that's nail-biting, exciting and is a blast to watch.  It proves the old saying that truth is stranger than fiction.  Ben Affleck also solidifies himself as one of the best directors working today.  This is one of the best movies of the year and one you shouldn't miss.

5 (out of 5) Death Stars