Taken 3 (2015)

Here we go again guys; Liam Neeson is back and once again he just can’t seem to keep tabs on his poor family’s whereabouts. After Taken 2, I thought for sure this “series” (it’s a trilogy now, imagine that) was dead and gone for sure; I mean, everyone had their turn being Taken (first the daughter, then the mom, and finally Neeson himself, everyone’s happy right?) not to mention the movie was one of the worst movies I’d ever seen. Apparently, I was wrong and the obvious, clear next step in the series was to make a Taken movie where no one actually gets Taken (brilliant, right? This was the actual pitch for the movie), on the contrary, this time there’s been a murder.

First of all, the notion that no one gets “taken” in this Taken sequel is technically false. Admittedly, it’s not the main focus of the plot, but Liam Neeson, Famke Janssen, and Maggie Grace all get taken at one point or another (as well as the evil businessman stepdad) sorry to be a stickler, but I just had to point it out. Now that that’s out of the way, what the movie does focus on is a completely unoriginal plot (Taken meets Fugitive! Right guys?) where Liam Neeson attempts to prove his innocence in his wife’s murder the only way he knows how, by using a very particular set of skills.

There’s so much wrong with this movie as an action flick, it almost feels like a parody. For example, the plot itself is a cheap rip off of an older, better Harrison Ford vehicle, but it doesn’t stop there. The editing is atrocious and seems almost intentionally messy to hide Liam Neeson’s actual lack of “skills” (forgive me Mr. Neeson, you’re still the best); in one scene we see Neeson run up to the fence, and then there’s a cut, and then he’s on top of the fence, and then another cut and finally cut to him “landing” on the ground; I’m not sure Liam Neeson actually descends a real full flight of stairs, let alone does any of the stunts this movie would have you believe. The dialogue is cripplingly expositional and bland, evil stepdad explains to Neeson and his spec ops friend what the Spetsnaz is at one point, which is clearly just a line intended for the audience; sloppy lines like this persist throughout the film.

In what I’m sure is an attempt to make up for the particularly bland and cliché villain in this film (really, an ulgy Russian guy with weird teeth? Like every cliché action movie ever?) Forest Whitaker is cast as the “super interesting unordinary detective who’s chasing the hero but doesn’t really believe he’s guilty he’s just doing his detective duties” guy and the movie makes several lame attempts at making him “different.” They give him a knight from a chess set and a rubber band to play with throughout the movie, but fail to explain the significance of either. Also, how does he know that Liam Neeson is really innocent? Bagels, yeah that’s right, bagels, and I’m pretty sure it can’t get more ridiculous than that (unless you’re watching Taken 2).

I could go into a lot more detail on how utterly ridiculous this movie is, but honestly I don’t think it’s worth the time. Granted, it might be a bit better than Taken 2, however, that isn’t exactly glowing praise. It’s a real shame because the original Taken was a solid action movie that shouldn’t have been developed into sequels. Of course, Taken 3 is making good money at the moment, so I’m sure we can all expect a Taken 4 coming soon worldwide in a couple of years, hey maybe they’ll shake it up a bit and his grandson will get taken.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 3

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2446042/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Selma (2014)

Selma may be the greatest, most important film of 2014. That’s right, not Boyhood (which is brilliant) or Birdman (which is equally brilliant) as many critics would have you believe. Don’t get me wrong, both of those films are great and deserving of praise, but neither of them is quite as meaningful as Selma. Selma, of course, is the story of Martin Luther King Jr. but make no mistake this isn’t merely a biopic; rather, this film is a very specific snapshot of King’s life, one that focuses mainly on his fight for the African-American’s right to vote and his march from Selma to the capitol of Alabama. The choice to make a Martin Luther King film purely about this one part of his life is nothing short of brilliant and if anything it makes the movie more impactful than a simple overall take on the man himself.

One of the more poignant films made about the civil rights movement (that I’ve seen), Selma honestly couldn’t have come at a more perfect time. The parallels between Selma and Ferguson are almost undeniable and the life and work of Dr. King seems more relevant than ever now. Selma doesn’t dwell on the violence, but it doesn’t shy away from it either. It’s hard to watch the Bloody Sunday scene on the bridge without tearing up, but this movie isn’t about the oppression and violence, or the white man; it’s about Dr. King and his fight for freedom and the dream that he fought so hard to make come true and that’s what makes this film stand out.

As for David Oyelowo’s performance as Dr. King, it’s damn near perfect and he’s practically indecipherable from the man himself; it’s really a crime that he wasn’t nominated for his role and the Academy should feel ashamed that they missed an opportunity to make a real statement here by giving him a very deserved nomination. Everyone else is incredibly well cast, as well, especially Tom Wilkinson as President Johnson, who absolutely nails the part. Also, shout out to Oprah Winfrey, who blends perfectly into her role as well.

Now, much has been made about the historical accuracy of this film. Some claim that it paints the President in a poor light and dramatizes his opposition to Dr. King, when in actuality he supported King. In my opinion this argument is petty and ridiculous and is akin to those who argue that some slave owners were “really nice” to their slaves and never whipped them, or whatever nonsense racist people say. Bottom line, they owned slaves didn’t they? And the bottom line here is that voting rights for African-Americans wasn’t a priority at all to President Johnson and he definitely dragged his feet the whole way. In fact, the only reason his hand was forced was to prevent more violence. In addition, he was also privy to J. Edgar’s constant wire-tapping and threatening phone calls; perhaps he wasn’t aware of the details, but he had to have known it was happening. To his credit, Johnson does seem to empathize with Dr. King’s cause and he does end up making the right decision, if only not to go down in history as a bigoted racist like the governor of Alabama at the time. Also, so what if the film has made a few historical tweaks to dramatize the film? Other filmmakers do this sort of thing all the time and virtually no one complains; you have to ask yourself why it’s such a big deal when Selma does it.

Finally, if you’ve heard that Selma isn’t getting good reviews (something I’ve heard a few people say) this is false. If you look at Rotten Tomatoes it currently sits at ninety-nine percent with an average score of 8.7, and virtually every legitimate critic has given it a positive review, and with good reason as Selma is a damn good film (also the audience rating is at eighty-eight percent with an average 4.2 out of 5). Ultimately, don’t let the media (or American Sniper) distract you from seeing this one, it may be one of the more important films of our generation and it’s sad that it hasn’t garnered more press and attention, but then I guess it isn’t exactly surprising. Martin Luther King has taken us a long way, but unfortunately, it seems we may still have a long way to go.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 9.5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020072/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Unbroken (2014)

Unbroken is the undeniably incredible true story of Louis Zamperini and also simultaneously the first directorial feature from mega-star Angelina Jolie; together these two aspects have given the film a lot of hype and it’s not hard to see why; both are commanding figures and together they have made for a rather compelling film, but what exactly makes it so intriguing? Make no mistake, there’s an over-abundance of World War 2 films in the film world (although I’m not exactly complaining as it was one of the more interesting times in history), especially here in America where we love to remember the last great ass-kicking we felt good about, but Unbroken isn’t exactly like your average World War 2 film. What sets this film apart, however, isn’t necessarily what is in the movie, but what isn’t.

I won’t waste time telling the story (that’s what watching the movie is for, after all) but suffice it to say Zamperini is the perfect picture of an American and a good Christian, or so he’s portrayed in the movie. He runs fast, he fights hard, and he survives, but if I have one major complaint about Unbroken, it’s that the film never really delves into what motivates the man. Why does Zamperini power on when so many have given up? It’s hard to even fathom the amount of determination that is required to survive what Zamperini went through, and I’m still mystified by it; don’t expect the movie to explain his motives, this is simply a show and tell story, but it is a fairly good one.

The most interesting aspect of this movie by far is the relationship between Zamperini and the POW camp leader, Watanabe; it almost seems as if Watanabe likes Zamperini, as if something attracts him to the young Olympic athlete, but he hates himself for it and he takes it out on Zamperini and the rest of the prisoners. I almost wish the movie had focused more on this dynamic as it is very intriguing, but it seems just a scene or two away from being complete.

As for the performances, both Jack O’connell and Takamasa Ishihara are on top of their game and they largely carry the film, albeit with some more than capable directing from Angelina Jolie. For her first film, this is most certainly an ambitious project and I have to say she mostly pulls it off. Does the film have its faults? Of course, as I mentioned earlier it doesn’t develop the characters as much as I would have liked and it didn’t necessarily excite me as much as it seems to have with others; also, I would have appreciated more of a more humanized look at the other Japanese guards and even some of the American prisoners, but this movie is solely about Zamperini and it does a very serviceable job of telling his story.

In the end, that’s exactly what Unbroken is, very solid and serviceable, but does it really make the audience feel something? I would say that would depend on your views going into the film more than what the movie itself evokes as far as emotions for the characters. Still, this is a great first effort and I’m excited to see Jolie’s next effort. Ultimately, this seems to be a film that will be remembered for launching the careers of Jack O’connel and Takamasa Ishihara respectively as well as Angelina Jolie’s directing career. However, I’m sure Zamperini would appreciate this biopic, it’s just a shame he wasn’t on this Earth quite long enough to see its release. 

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 7.75

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1809398/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

What happened, Ridley Scott? At one point in time I would have strongly considered the mastermind behind Alien and Blade Runner one of my favorite directors; his director’s cuts were stuff of legend (Blade Runner and Kingdom of Heaven to name a couple) and even if Robin Hood was a bit of a misstep, he was the master of swords and sandals flicks (Gladiator remains of the best examples of this genre). However, with his most recent film, Exodus: Gods and Kings, Ridley Scott has really made me question whether or not he might have lost the touch.

Exodus is of course the movie that has become infamous for its mostly all-white cast (in case you’re unaware this is a movie all about Egyptians, who almost certainly don’t look very white), which has caused more than a few people to boycott the film and the country of Egypt to ban it altogether. So just how bad is the casting, really? Well, let’s put it this way, the cast in any film, shouldn’t distract from the movie; in the case of Exodus, the casting is so off-putting, it was hard for me to concentrate on anything else. First of all, Joel Edgerton plays the role of Ramses, and for those who don’t know Joel Edgerton, he might possibly be the least pharaoh-like person to ever grace the movie screen, and the choice to cast Sigourney Weaver as his mother is even worse. These aren’t the only bizarrely miscast roles, however, there’s also Christian Bale as Moses (cue the “guy named Christian plays Moses” jokes) Aaron Paul as Joshua (who’s not even supposed to be in this story) and finally the casting of God himself, but more on that later. Remember, these people are supposed to be Egyptian (and Jewish) characters, and not only are they not remotely Egyptian or Hebrew, but they’re so far from it I can’t even take the film seriously. Literally, every scene looks like white people dressed in poor imitation Egyptian makeup shouting at each other with bizarre accents (are they supposed to be Egyptian accents? Or Egyptian-like English accents? I’m so confused). All of this might (but probably wouldn’t) be excusable, if the movie itself was actually entertaining, but alas, it is not.

Normally, I’m not one to be a stickler over changes from the original source material in an adaptation, as long as these changes are at least somewhat creative and bring new light to the story; I can safely say this is not the case with Exodus. I’m sure “fans” of the original story won’t appreciate many of the changes here, and I can’t say that I did either, mostly because they’re just plain disappointing. For example, the oft-referenced burning bush scene is completely ruined here; for whatever reason instead of god speaking to Moses through a burning bush, he instead stands next to a burning bush, while Moses takes an oddly timed mud spa bath (I know it doesn’t make sense, but this is what happens). Not only that, but the god in question is played by a rather unimpressive eight year-old boy with a bad haircut, which is far from inspired casting but I wouldn’t expect much else at this point.

Of course, one of the big moments of this story and thus the film is the ten plagues (which I’m all but certain have been condensed down into nine for this movie). Unfortunately, this is where the movie really stumbles. Instead of being the highlight of the story as it should be, it comes off formulaic and boring. Every plague is the same; show the plague; show the people reacting to the plague; show the pharaoh’s reaction; show the aftermath and lather, rinse, repeat. By the time the more visually impressive plagues come along I could hardly be bothered to be interested anymore, and those familiar with the story will most likely be disappointed in how little Moses has to do with any of it.

There’s plenty wrong with Ridley Scott’s latest effort, but honestly, it’s not even worth going into in any great detail. The red sea parting looks fine visually, but it’s nothing new, and the ending is somewhat anti-climactic (actually, it’s very anti-climactic, but I barely cared anymore at that point anyway). If you’re looking for a faithful adaptation, look elsewhere; if you’re looking for an exciting swords and sandals type epic, look elsewhere; seriously, just look elsewhere, period. If you want to watch a good adaption of this story, I suggest The Prince of Egypt, it’s on Netflix right now; or if you’re looking for good Ridley Scott, The Gladiator is on there too; but, ultimately, just anything besides Exodus: Gods and Kings.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 3.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1528100/?ref_=nv_sr_1

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

#Onelasttime. For those of you that haven’t seen it, that’s the hash tag promotion campaign that’s being used for the final installment of the Hobbit series: The Battle of the Five Armies. The reason I mention this is because this specific tag line, the line they hope you’ll (subconsciously) read and become excited for the film, is obviously important. What does that say exactly? Well, to me it says the filmmakers are inviting us back for one last journey through Middle-Earth, and it promises to be an epic tying-together of all the films before it, and that includes the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The reason I wish to clarify this to begin with is because (at least from my perspective) the makers of this film (Peter Jackson chief among them) have seemingly promised us another film in the line of the original Lord of the Rings, as if to say that the film they have most recently created, should be held to the same standard of the original trilogy. Not only that, but the whole series has been sold as being same quality as the original Lord of the Rings, and this finale is being hailed as every bit as epic and satisfying as The Return of the King. Given this, as I watched the film I found myself comparing it to the original Lord of the Rings, and as has been the case throughout this trilogy, I wasn’t impressed with the comparison to say the least.

First of all, the decision to make one book (which is shorter than any of the individual Lord of the Rings books, I might add) into three movies was a poor one, and almost certainly not a decision made on merit of art or creativity; as such, this has created pacing problems throughout the series, none made more obvious than in the beginning of the final chapter. Seemingly beginning in the middle of a conflict (because it does) the beginning of the Battle of the Five Armies seems more like the conclusion of the Desolation of Smaug, and maybe it should’ve been. As a result, Smaug’s storyline climax feels rushed and fairly tacked on. I can’t say exactly where the film should have started, but I’m confident they chose the wrong spot. If you’re fuzzy on what happened in the last film, I suggest you at least rewatch the end because this sequel doesn’t bother with catching us up on the action, which is immediate.

Another problem I have with this film (and to a degree the whole trilogy) is the odd, misplaced attempts at humor throughout. One minute, we have severe devastation and destruction, images Peter Jackson portrayed extremely well in the original movies, however, in this last film (and in the previous two as well), he has inexplicably inserted “comical” gags that not only disrupt the flow of the film, but serve to make the following dramatic scenes all the more absurd. Not that the drama needs to be made to look any sillier; the acting seems forced and not entirely organic, almost as if the actors are trying too hard to make their lines all sound incredibly epic.

The Battle of the Five Armies is a complete exaggeration of any of the Middle-Earth to come before it, and as such, the staples we’ve come to expect from Peter Jackson, which once seemed more grounded, now seem overdone and comes off as fan service, and not in a good way. For example, in one scene where Legolas is of course supposed to do awesome elf-power things, he hops from one piece of debri to the next, in mid-air while he and the debri are in a free fall all the way to the top before he actually falls for real. Excuse the run-on sentence (if anything it’s a run-on action scene, or something), but I’m pretty sure this isn’t how science works. Walking on top of snow, I can take; Taking out an Olyphant single-handedly is epic, but this just simply had my eyes rolling. There are various more scenes like this in the film, which are obviously meant to be mesmerizing like in the originals, but instead come off as absurd, such as with Thorin and his “dragon sickness” (they use this term in the film about twenty times) which seemed forced and underdeveloped.

A few other random things, Fili and Kate from Lost’s romance was silly from the beginning and it gets even more so in this sequel, not because it’s a dwarf and an elf, but because of the way it’s done. They put in an unnecessary reference to Aragorn here, which sets up events that will happen from the “appendices” (which, basically, are Tolkien’s official notes on Lord of the Rings’ characters) but regardless it feels completely unnecessary in the context of this series. Also, Thorin’s cousin Dain (who’s introduced midway through) seems to almost be animated or something to that effect, which was incredibly distracting. Ever since the first Hobbit film Peter Jackson has attempted to weave teasers of what’s to come in the Lord of the Rings into this trilogy, even though the Hobbit doesn’t have much to do with this storyline. In my opinion, this cheapens the action in the Hobbit (after all it’s not nearly as serious) and also makes it really seem like Gandalf was just sitting on his hands for years until The Fellowship of the Ring. Finally, I miss the look of the old films; what’s with all the over-exposure and digital effects where there were would have been practical ones in the Lord of the Rings?

Some positive notes, the art design is top-notch as always and the dwarvish army especially is impressive (minus the odd-looking Dain). The film is also very faithful to the Tolkien universe and as such will definitely appeal to diehard fans in that regard. Also, delivers well on many of the “death scenes” and you know there’s a few of those. Martin Freeman has always made a strong Bilbo, and despite being practically non-existent in the plot once the battle begins, he still carries the scenes he’s in quite well. The battle itself is impressive overall (even if it still can’t measure up to Helm’s Deep) and takes up a good portion of the movie.

In the end, the last Hobbit movie ends as awkwardly as it started and I must confess I could never really get into it any point. Perhaps I shouldn’t compare it to the original Lord of the Rings so much, but it seems as if that’s what the filmmakers themselves are asking the audience to do, and it simply doesn’t hold the comparison. All I can say is I now fully understand what older generations of Star Wars fans felt when those prequels were released (I was too young to really remember Star Wars before the prequels were a thing). Just as with those prequels the story seems less compelling, and the action too exaggerated, and the performances not as personable; overall it’s just not what I had come to expect, and it’s why I can’t say I’m really a fan of the Hobbit series. However, am I going to marathon these films when the extended versions are released? Yeah, I probably will, and that’s why they call it a cash cow.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 6.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2310332/?ref_=nv_sr_1