Red review

There are two things that "Red" get 100% right. One is that they casted the film to perfection from top to bottom. This is a great bunch of performers that could have put on many, many things and instead decided to go for a fun genre piece instead. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it's a little bit admirable since a lot of them mainly do award made films. The second thing is that this is the closest I've come to liking a film by Robert Schwentke; he also directed "Flight Plan" (which I still hate) and last years "The Time Travelers Wife" (*snooze*). However "Red" still doesn't quite work.

The set up is quirky and fun enough. Willis is Frank Moses, a retired CIA agent who destroys his severance checks so he can talk to the rep in Kansas. Her name is Sarah (Mary Louise Parker) and they both seem to really enjoy each others distant company. All of a sudden however a hit squad comes after Moses in the middle of the night causing him to on the run across America. First to collect Sarah who he thinks is in danger and then to meet old allies to figure out what's going on. Morgan Freeman, Brian Cox, John Malkovich and Helen Mirren play his old buddies and off they go on one last adventure. Now seriously with people like this... what fun couldn't be had here, right? Well in the right hands boat loads. It's old people shooting up the town six ways from Sunday and even some clever humor, but it never goes all the way.

As a comedy "Red" works for a while and then allows that aspect to take a backseat to it's pretty by the numbers plot and action sequences. As an action picture it does have moments of delight. Despite it's PG-13 rating I did like the way they blew up bodies and showed it using fire to mask the gore. At the same time there are several other set pieces that aren't particularly exciting or intense; just stuff happening with no real style or even full blown clarification for why it's going on. The big ending sequence in which the team has it (mostly) figured out who is behind all this and why starts off clever enough, but really just boils down to a basic stand off and with an ending we saw coming. Well... ok... we saw most everything in this movie coming, but still there are ways of making that road there very fun.

The real strength of the movie is the fact that it's got so many talented and interesting people in it. In addition to the others there is Karl Urban ('Star Trek'), Rebbecca Pigeon ('The Spanish Prisoner' or most David Mamet films), Ernest Borgnine ('Escape from New York'), James Remar ('The Warriors', 'The Fast and the Furious'), Jullian McMahon ('Nip/Tuck') and Richard Dreyfuss ('Jaws', 'W.'). All of which are given there little moments. But nothing is enough. When certain main characters die we don't really care except for the fact that the actor is no longer in the movie. We don't know or feel for most of these people and it's a bit of a shame. This is a similar problem I've had with the last couple of Harry Potter films. I've wanted to feel something during the big, emotional or even epic moments of the film, but I don't. I see great images and performances and decent effects (seriously they haven't been outstanding for a while), but no real feeling. Direction has A LOT to do with this.

With "Red" Robert Schwentke did go into a new genre for himself. In the beginning you could see his eye and his skill as he took a few plays from Fincher's old book. But as the movie progresses his creativity wares away. I'm thinking he's getting better so maybe by his next picture he'll have gotten the hang of things, but so far I'm not too impressed. I can't and won't call "Red" a bad film, but I'll call it weak all day long. It's a fun idea that isn't made as fun as it could be. In the right hands it could've been a funny and exciting dark action, comedy as the source material seems to imply. Oh well... better luck nice time I guess.

Salt review

Apparently the ending of the summer is shaping up to kick the beginnings ass. "Salt" literally came out of left field for me. I wasn't feeling the trailers or posters or "Who is Salt?" tagline. I liked that Jolie was showing off her age a tad bit and looking somewhat less pristine than usual, but there wasn't anything there that got me exciting to see it.

But damned if I don't love a good surprise here and there and "Salt" was it. Not only does it work as an action film, but also as a more than competent thriller and chase film that recycles things we've seen before and yet displays them and uses them in a fresh and very, very exciting way. Off the bat I'm not telling you who Salt is. But I will say that shock of all shocks that tagline IS important to the plot of the movie. It's an awesome early story turn that brought me into that 'where's this headed' zone. Damn... I remember when tons of action movies had those fun moments where you just weren't at all sure what was to come next... good times.

"Salt" is written by Kurt Wimmer ('Equilibrium' and 'Ultraviolet', I think I finally forgive him for that second title), who is pretty good at using all the old tricks, but making them fun again. Salt is on the run and is a highly training enemy the CIA must track down and grab. Been there and done that, but damned if he and director Philip Noyce don't attempt to drum up some interesting tension, have fun with the characters and then go into full ass kicking mode. Noyce, who is a highly skilled action filmmaker on the level of Mann and Zwick, never gets the credit he deserves. To this day I absolutely love "Clear and Present Danger", "The Quiet American", "Patriot Games" and "Rabbit Proof Fence" and that is where "Salt" fits in. It's a smarter than usual, espionage action, thriller. It's shot fantastically by Robert Elswit (all of Paul Thomas Anderson's film) and edited by the glorious Stuart Baird and John Gilroy. Both are men who KNOW this world back and forth. Shit... why the fuck wasn't I jazzed for this movie again?!

Now we come to Jolie. As an actress she's got her ups and downs. I'll say with her action based roles it's definitely been more downs. Her work in "Wanted" was pretty good, but nothing mind blowing (pun intended), but then there's the dreadful "Tomb Raider" pictures as well as "Gone in 60 Seconds" and probably a few others that escape me. Here she finally hits that mark for me that makes me fully buy her action hero status. Very little CGI, mostly hard hitting practical action work and stunts that look fantastic and are never too over the top as to remove you from what going on. I like the fact that Jolie is willing to get dirty in the film. She willing to be beaten to a pulp, tortured, shot and so on and not look like a super model or superhero the entire time. There's even a nice little homage to the world of "Mission Impossible" that is pretty ridiculous on some levels, but she sells it. Honestly I'd like other performers looking to dive into action to look at this as a training tool. How you can sell some rather insane things and make them work for an audience. Might have sorta helped "Prince of Persia". Well... maybe not that one.

I do think Sony's chosen release for "Salt" is unfortunate. While it's a prime film for the summer, still I think it could've been a monster success if released during a dead heap of the spring or fall. Much like what studios did with "Taken" or "The Transporter" films. I feel like right now it's just caught in the massive coat tails of "Inception" and will only get lost in the shuffle of other big ticket action pieces coming in August. "Salt" is absolutely one of the most generally entertaining and fun films I've seen all summer; trumping "The A-Team" and even "Predators". Have you seen "Inception"? Are you looking for something lighter that you can kick back and watch some good ole' fashioned ass stomping, but with some cognitive thought and a story? "Salt" is by far your best bet.

Knight and Day review

James Mangold's "Knight and Day" suffers from one big fat problem; it doesn't know what movie it wants to be. What's worst is when it kind of decides, it's a weaker choice and ends up killing any fun hoped to be had from the film.

Before I jump into this I wanna say that I'm not a bandwagon hater of Cruise. He's more a showman than an actor, but then again most big names are. He gets flack from people saying he plays the same characters and the same people and yet isn't that something most actors and actress end up doing at some point? As great as Sean Penn is he has played watchable scumbags a dozen times with fairly the same look, movements and voice. Samuel L. Jackson is usually playing Samuel L. Jackson in either scream mode or soft spoken, but intelligent mode. Johnny Depp plays the creep or weirdo more than anybody else. And really when's the last time Christopher Walken DIDN'T play himself in a film? Like everyone else Cruise has taken easy street and looked for better things; however I really feel that a heavy percentage of the backlash comes from the 'he's crazy' sector. And yet we all seems to have forgotten drunken Mel Gibson screaming about jews, John Mayer using the term nigger (twice and not in a tolerable way) or Christian Bale tearing a DP a new one for moving a light. The point is leave the bullshit TMZ stuff at the door or just stay at home all together because tabloid B.S. rarely has anything to do with ones final work.

The set up is this, Roy Miller (Cruise) is a spy running from the CIA and a group of Spanish arms dealers. June (Diaz) is his somewhat unwilling accomplice after they meet in the airport and he saves her by landing the plane that he killed everybody on. Don't worry they were all bad guys. The next day June comes face to face with agents telling her the same thing Miller told her they'd tell her right before they take her away and kill her. This leads to some high flying stunts, CGI action sequences and lots of dead people. Normally this description from me would amount to a meh, but something about the first thirty to forty minutes is actually kind of fun. And the biggest reason is because of Cruise and Diaz's chemistry. Their banter can sometimes be eye rolling, but other times quite charming and funny. For example during the big freeway chase/shoot out scene, Cruise's reactions and handling of June is really funny just because of how happy he is to see her. It's one of those stupid juxtapositions that's just goofy enough to work.

On the other end are these pieces of the movie that just feel way too hokey and completely take you out. But there is a straight forward point in the movie where it finally decides what to become. It's comparable to Mel Gibson's "Edge of Darkness" from January. The beginning had stuff I liked and stuff I didn't, but then came a point where I was completely on board and loving every second of it. "Knight and Day" however takes another path and turns what was an up and down movie and just heads straight down by delving further into lame cliches and ridiculous action sequences that kind of work followed by ones that really have no place in this movie.

A great way to fix this all would have been to not aim at being this summer action, comedy; but aim at what it's material probably began as. "Knight and Day" sounds and at times feels like a real throwback to the 60's spy films. Handsome spies and the foolish women that strangely fall in love with them faster then you can say Ian Flemming. Seriously watch some of those movies from back then; it doesn't matter what country made it the chick always ends up lovin' on Mr. Spy within one to two meetings. Had this film tried more to be a romance with action bits things could have worked out. Or at the very least NOT taken itself quite so seriously so when those crazed action sequences arrive you don't feel like they're from another movie.

Furthermore I think director James Mangold ('Walk the Line' and '3:10 to Yuma') could have passed on making this one. While I think he's very skilled and love that he doesn't stick to one genre, this needed a type of style he doesn't have. Mangold is more a person for drama and less for humor or stylized action of this caliber. I think poking around for an action director looking for something with more character and less action, but work really hard on the little there is would have really helped things out. Pierre Morrel, Joe Carnahan, even Edgar Wright or Tony Scott might have turned out a real first class piece of entertainment. Instead a safer and ultimately weaker hand was played.

All that said my first thought on "Knight and Day" was that this wasn't a movie Cruise or Diaz needed to make. The "Romancing the Stone" styled action, romantic comedy is great for performers looking to boost up their viewership and get their name out there some more. James Franco or Colin Farrell would've been pretty damn cool to see as Cruise's charming and collected spy on the run Roy Miller. For an actress this would have been a nice role for someone like... oh hell I'll say it... Kristen Bell, who NEEDS something out of left field to take her out of this shitty, shit, SHIT rom-coms she's doing. However I can understand FOX's thought process on getting big names to sell this movie. I can see them sandwiching the quite impressive throwback poster between "True Lies" and "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" and thinking... we've done it again.

Unfortunately I don't this will get the bucks they might be hoping for. As one critic said, 'if Knight and Day doesn't find it's audience this weekend, then it never will' and that's the truth. As it stands Cruise/Diaz is fighting off an Adam Sandler movie (which I'll be reviewing soon...) and next week will lose to both "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" and M. Night Shyamalan's "The Last Airbender". So any success it's going to have must happen now or it will be forgotten in the pile of junky summer movies out right now. Actually... that's where this one belongs anyway.