"SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" (2019) Review

"SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" (2019) Review

The Marvel Cinematic Universe finally ended its third phase with the release of its second Spider-man movie called "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME". Released after the franchise's mega hit, "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME", this second Spider-man movie is regarded as a follow-up to the previous film.

Set in June 2024, eight months after "ENDGAME", former S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nicholas Fury and his top aide, Maria Hill, investigate an unnatural sandstorm and discover it was created by a creature known as an Earth Elemental. A super-powered man from an alternate universe named Quentin Beck arrives to help them fight the creature. In New York City, those students who had been killed by Thanos' Snap and revived by the Hulk's "Blip" prepare to finish out the school year they had been forced to repeat. Among them are Peter Parker aka Spider-man and his fellow members of the school's academic decathlon team, who the school rewards with a two-week European vacation. Still grieving over the death of Tony Stark aka Iron Man, Peter anticipates enjoying the trip and using it as an opportunity to confess his growing feelings for fellow classmate, Michelle "MJ" Jones. However, while the Midtown students are in Venice, Italy; Peter is contacted by Fury, who delivers a pair of glasses equipped with an Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) called E.D.I.T.H. that had been given to him via Stark's will. E.D.I.T.H. was an augmented reality security, defense and artificial tactical intelligence system. Fury also asks Peter to help him, Hill and Beck to deal with a new threat to Earth, the Elementals. Longing to spend time with MJ, Peter rejects Fury's request. But when a Water Elemental threatens to overwhelm Venice, Peter dons a new Spider-man suit given to him by Fury and Hill and helps Beck deal with this new threat.

I might as well be frank. I was not a fan of 2017's "SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING". I simply thought it was a badly written film with very little imagination. I also consider it to be one of the worst films within the MCU franchise. I never had a problem with Tom Holland as Peter Parker aka Spider-man. But with Jon Watts back as director, I had doubts that my feelings for "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" would be the same . . . or similar. I did not think that this sequel to "HOMECOMING" would be a vast improvement over the 2017 movie. And this is why a family member literally had to drag my ass . . . wait a minute. I should be more honest. I had every intention to see "FAR FROM HOME". It was the only major film that was being released around the Fourth of July holiday and I needed something to do. So, was the movie worth a trip to the theaters?

One of the joys I had managed to derive from "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" were its European locations. I have not been that impressed by the photography featured in many of the MCU films. But I could not help but be impressed by cinematographer Matthew J. Lloyd's work in this film. I found it unusually sharp and colorful for this franchise. And it did help that he had utilized his talent for scenes shot in Venice, Prague and London. I also felt that Leigh Folsom Boyd and Dan Lebental's special effects had enhanced Lloyd's work. Another aspect of "FAR FROM HOME" that impressed me were the special effects created for the Elementals.

Another aspect of the film that I enjoyed were the performances. Tom Holland gave his usual excellent performance as Peter Parker aka Spider-man. Samuel L. Jackson's portrayal of Nick Fury proved to be a bit more skillful than usual, deliberately conveying the idea that Fury seemed to be a bit off in this story. This was due to the fact that his old Skrull friend from "CAPTAIN MARVEL", Talos, was impersonating him. I thought Jake Gyllenhaal gave the best performance as the costumed vigilante Quentin Beck aka Mysterio, whose sincere and warm manner hid a possibly sinister agenda. I was pleasantly surprised by Zendaya, who gave a more nuanced performance as Peter's new love interest Michelle "M.J." Jones than she did in "HOMECOMING". However, I remained unimpressed by her screen chemistry with Holland. There was another screen pair that proved to be surprisingly impressive was Jacob Batalon and Angourie Rice, who portrayed Ned Leeds and Betty Brandt, Peter's roommates. Thanks to their performances, I really enjoyed Ned and Betty's summer romance that took everyone by surprise. The movie also featured funny performances from Tony Revolori, J.B. Smoove, Martin Starr, Marisa Tomei, Jon Favreau and a surprising cameo from J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. The only real disappointing performance came from Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill. She seemed to be used as background, instead of a supporting character. I blame the writers.

Thanks to the European locations, Matthew J. Lloyd's cinematography and the cast's performances, I can honestly say that I enjoyed "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" . . . more than I did 2017's "HOMECOMING". But despite the above, I was still disappointed with the film. There was simply too much about this movie that rubbed me the wrong way. And I find this sad, considering that Spider-man has always been my favorite Marvel Comics character for years.

The main aspect about this movie that irritated me was the main villain's goal. The Disney/Marvel publicity machine had hinted for months that "FAR FROM HOME" would explore the aspects of an alternate universe. In fact, the Mysterio character was supposed to be from an alternate universe who had arrived in this one to defend Earth against the Elementals. Instead, this all proved to be cheap plot twist that originated from revenge. The main villain, Quentin Beck, was a former Stark Interprises employee, who had been fired by the late Tony Stark for his unstable personality. Stark had also stolen Beck's holographic technology for his own private use, embittering the latter even further. With Tony dead, Beck settled with deceiving Peter Parker into handing over E.D.I.T.H. to him. I could not believe what this story had been reduced to . . . another Spider-man movie in which the main villain had a grudge against Tony Stark.

Then again, I should have known better. For some reason, the movie's narrative seemed unwilling to touch upon or explore any grief that Peter may have experience over Tony's death. I take that back. The movie featured one scene in which Peter and Tony's former security chief, Happy Hogan, did discuss the dead Avenger. But there were no other scenes in which Peter dealt with the emotional consequences of Tony's death. Instead, he spent most of the movie being torn between plotting to win M.J.'s love and "helping" Beck and Fury deal with the Elementals. Which would have been fine with me, considering my dislike of Tony Stark. But instead of allowing Peter to face the emotional consequences of Tony's death, the movie included scenes of Robert Downey Jr.'s mug being plastered on a wall or a billboard or in a dream. After I saw Downey Jr.'s face for the fourth time, I had to fight the urge to throw something at the movie screen. It was sooooo fucking annoying. What I found even more annoying is that for the second time, the main antagonist's villainy sprung from some past action of Tony Stark's. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has managed to make two of Spider-man's well-known villains more about Iron Man, instead of him.

I still find it ridiculous that the MCU seems hellbent upon making Spider-man's villains more about Iron Man, instead of Spider-man. And then there was the matter of E.D.I.T.H. Why on earth would any responsible adult will a dangerous piece of technology like E.D.I.T.H. to an adolescent? Why? Why did the screenwriters treat this dangerous and irresponsible action on Tony's part as a source of comedy? Come to think of it . . . when did Tony make this decision to bequeath the glasses to Peter? During the last five years of his life, Peter had been dead, thanks to Thanos' snap in "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR". He had been resurrected at less than two hours before Tony's death. So, when did Tony decide to bequeath E.D.I.T.H. to Peter? Had he included this legacy in his will before the events of "INFINITY WAR"? If so, why did he fail to change his will following Peter's death? Especially, since he and Pepper Potts managed to get marry and conceive a daughter? Or did he create a new will, while building a time machine (MASSIVE EYE ROLL) for the Avengers? I have never heard of anything so stupid in my life . . . even for a comic book movie. One more thing - how did Quentin Beck and his co-conspirators discover that Tony had bequeathed E.D.I.T.H. to Peter? Was Tony stupid enough to post his will electronically? And why in God's name would the MCU allow Tony to create something so dangerous and not treat it so seriously? What was the franchise thinking?

I had assumed that "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" would explore the aftereffects of both Thanos' snap and the Blip that had resurrected Peter and others who had been killed by the former. It barely did. The movie revealed that Peter and his aunt, May Parker, were helping other resurrected victims of the Snap in Queens, New York; who had had returned to life to find themselves homeless by staging some kind of fundraiser with Spider-man. I had learned via the MCU Wiki page that May Parker had also been killed by the Snap. I find this odd, considering that the same website had made it clear that she had survived the Snap back in 2018. And if both Peter and May had been killed by the Snap, why did they NOT end up homeless after being resurrected? How did May resume her profession (whatever it is) after five years? How did she get her money back? Did her bank refund her money following her resurrection? The more I think about Peter and May's situation regarding the Snap and the Blip, the more I find myself disgusted with the MCU's handling of its overall narrative. Audiences never saw May deal with the discovery that her nephew was Spider-man. Audiences never saw Peter and May struggle after their resurrection. It seemed as if the screenwriters of this movie had become emotional cowards. Or perhaps I should simply label Kevin Feige as an emotional coward?

I have noticed that in past movies, he has never allowed the franchise to deal with the aftermath of serious events. At least not in the movies. "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." had to deal with the aftermath of the agency's fall back in 2014. The series had to deal with the rise of Inhumans - something that the movies never touched upon since the topic first came up back in 2014/2015. And now, it seemed apparent that the MCU seems unwilling to deal the aftermath of both the Snap and the Blip. Looking back, "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" was the wrong movie to follow "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME". It was willing to be some ham-fisted ode to Tony Stark, but it was obviously unwilling to explore how people like Peter and May Parker dealt with their deaths and their resurrections.

Speaking of the Snap . . . guess who else got killed? All of Peter's friends from his school's Academic Decathalon Team. ALL OF THEM - Michelle M.J. Jones, Ned Leeds, "Flash" Thompson and Betty Brandt. All of them. All of them had been killed by Thanos' Snap and resurrected by the Blip. All of them. You cannot imagine how much I found this incredibly contrived. According to the movie's narrative, those students who had been killed and resurrected were given a two-week trip to Europe during the summer. So . . . Peter, his four remaining companions from the last film, and a handful of other students were the only ones from Midtown School of Science and Technology who had undergone the Snap and the Blip? Just them? How convieeeennent. By the way, this was a shoddily planned trip. The movie never featured them visiting any place of academic interest. No one discussed or brought up the possible trauma of being killed and resurrected. No one.

And when did Peter become interested in Michelle "M.J." Jones? Audiences last saw her casually conversing with Peter at the end of "HOMECOMING", while he was mourning the end of his relationship with Liz, Adrian Toomes aka the Vulture's daughter. Sometime between the 2017 movie and this one, he became attracted to M.J. My God, how frustrating! It almost reminds me of the rushed development of Princess Leia Organa and Han Solo's relationship in the STAR WARS Original Trilogy. At least in that franchise, "STAR WARS: EPISODE IV - A NEW HOPE" revealed hints of Han finding Leia attractive. I saw no such hints in Peter's feelings for M.J. by the end of "HOMECOMING". So . . . when did he fall for her?

I was also surprised about how Nick Fury aka Talos managed to change the group's itinerary at short notice in order to get Peter to continue with the so-called "Elemental threat". How did he achieve this without alerting the school board or the travel agency? This made no sense to me. Speaking of the fake Nick Fury and Maria Hill . . . why? Why on earth would Fury allow two aliens (even if they were friendly) to impersonate him and Hill? Why? If he was on vacation, he should have immediately cancelled it when the so-called "Elemental threat" first appeared. But he did not. Why? This is not how someone as paranoid as Fury would behave. Was he really on vacation? This whole scenario regarding his identity was simply a joke to me. After the joke about his eye in "CAPTAIN MARVEL", it seems as if the MCU is hell bent upon making him the franchise's punch line. Has Kevin Feige recently developed a grudge against Samuel L. Jackson or something? It was worse for Hill/Soren since she/he barely said a fucking word. By the way, what has Fury been doing since the breakup of the Avengers? Which government agency was he working for when the Snap happened? Or was he operating his own security firm? How did the Snap and Blip affect his livelihood? I get the feeling that the MCU will never explain anything.

I would discuss the movie's ending, which featured Peter's identity as Spider-man being exposed by Beck or one of his colleagues. But I was too disgusted with the film to overall care. I am certain - or I hope - that this issue will be addressed in what I HOPE will be the final MCU Spider-man movie. Granted, I enjoyed the film's photography and the European locations. I enjoyed the performances of the cast led by Tom Holland. I especially enjoyed Jake Gyllenhaal's performance. And I enjoyed the romance between the Ned Leeds and Betty Brant characters (they eventually got married in Marvel Comics).

Unfortunately, the sloppiness and laziness of the film's writing, the narrative's unwillingness to address issues from the last two Avengers films, the heavy-handed ode to Tony Stark and Jon Watts' mediocre direction has led me to regard "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" as a complete bust. This is the second time that a MCU Spider-man movie has completely disappointed me. I really wish that Sony Pictures would resume producing Spider-man movies without any output from the MCU. I really do.

"SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" (2019) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the twenty-third film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME". Directed by Jon Watts, the movie starred Tom Holland as Peter Parker aka Spider-Man:



"SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" (2019) Review

"THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" (2004) Review

"THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" (2004) Review

I have seen only four movies directed by Roland Emmerich. All of them were disaster films of some kind, whether they centered on an alien invasion or a natural catastrophe. Of the four movies, only one of them I had failed to see in the movie theaters. That movie happened to be Emmerich’s 2004 movie, "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW".

The movie depicted the catastrophic effects of global warming in a series of extreme weather events that ushers in global cooling which leads to a new ice age. "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" began with a paleoclimatologist named Jack Hall on an expedition in Antarctica with his two colleagues, Frank and Jason. While drilling for ice core samples on an ice shelf for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Jack almost falls to his death, when the shelf breaks off. Later, Jack presents his findings on global warming at a United Nations conference in New Dehli. Unfortunately, many diplomats and Vice President of the United States Raymond Becker remain unconvinced by Jack’s findings. But Professor Terry Rapson of the Hedland Climate Research Centre in Scotland believes Jack's theories. Two buoys in the North Atlantic simultaneously show a massive drop in the ocean temperature and Rapson concludes that melting polar ice is disrupting the North Atlantic current. He contacts Jack, whose paleoclimatological weather model shows how climate changes caused the first Ice Age, and can predict what will happen. Jack believes the events will take hundreds or thousands of years. But his team and NASA's meteorologist Janet Tokada build a forecast model with their combined data.

Across the world, violent weather causes mass destruction, including a massive snowstorm in New Delhi, a hailstorm destroying Tokyo, and a series of devastating tornadoes in Los Angeles. President Blake authorizes the FAA to suspend all air traffic due to severe turbulence. Meanwhile, Jack's son, Sam is in New York City for an academic competition with his friends Brian Parks (Arjay Smith) and Laura Chapman (Emmy Rossum). There, they befriend a student named J.D. (Austin Nichols). During the competition, birds migrating south suddenly fill the sky and the weather becomes increasingly violent with intense winds and rains. Sam calls his father, promising to be on the next train home. Unfortunately, the storm worsens, forcing the closure of the subways and Grand Central Terminal. As the storm worsens a massive tidal wave hits Manhattan, causing major flooding. Sam and his friends seek shelter in the New York Public Library.

After seeing the last Roland Emmerich film, 2009’s "2012", I came to a conclusion that the director likes to follow a pattern regarding his disaster films. One, most these films usually feature a dysfunctional family or divorced couple, a new romance, cheesy dialogue (especially from minor characters), questionable science, an annoying government official, a head of state – friendly or otherwise, a friendly foreign-born colleague and a noble scientist in one of the leads. Well, "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" certainly featured every one of those traits. Which goes to show that the movie is not exactly an epitome of originality. I also have one more complaint. In my recap of the movie’s first forty minutes, I failed to point out that Dr. Lucy Hall, Jack’s ex-wife and Sam’s mother, remained behind at a Washington D.C. to care for a very ill young patient, while the city’s remaining citizens are evacuated to Mexico with the rest of the country’s southern citizens. Northern citizens, along with Sam and his friends in New York, are forced to remain behind and wait for rescue. The movie made such a big deal about Lucy’s willingness to sacrifice her safety for the sake of her patient. Yet, very little time passed before an ambulance appeared to evacuate both doctor and patient to the south. Talk about a wasted storyline.

Despite my quibbles about the movie’s lack of originality and the Lucy Hall storyline, I must admit that "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" has become one of my favorite disaster movies of all time. I really enjoyed it. I was surprised to discover that screenwriters Emmerich and Jeffrey Nachmanoff may have used the historic 1993 Storm of the Centuryas an inspiration for the film. The screenwriters also did an able job of setting up the story with a series of natural disasters – the breaking of the ice shelf in Antarctica, the hailstorm in Tokyo and the series of tornadoes in Los Angeles. Emmerich and Nachmanoff also did an admirable job in setting up the movie’s centerpiece – the tidal wave that hits New York City – with a series of events that began with Terry Rapson and his colleagues detecting the drop in oceanic temperatures and ended with a heavy rainstorm that threatened Manhattan. With the exception of the Lucy Hall storyline in Washington D.C., I feel that this movie was well-paced not only by the screenwriters, but also by Emmerich’s direction.

However, I cannot talk about "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" without discussing the film’s special and visual effects. And I must be honest that I found them mind blowing. The special effects teams supervised by the likes of Louis Craig, John Palmer and Christian Rivest did a superb job in depicting the film’s natural disasters. I also found Greg and Colin Strause, Greg Anderson, Remo Balcells and Eric Brevig’s visual effects featured in the movie equally stunning. And with the assistance of cinematographer Ueli Steiger, these two teams made the Manhattan tidal wave and Ice Age sequences two of the most memorable I have ever seen in a disaster film. I have not been a fan of the musical scores featured in Emmerich’s films such as 1996’s "INDEPENDENCE DAY" and 1998’s "GODZILLA". But I was surprised to find myself impressed by Harald Kloser and Thomas Wanker’s score for this film. It had a haunting and smooth quality that seemed lacking in some of Emmerich’s other films.

Despite my love for this film, I must admit that I found it almost difficult to endure some of the cheesy dialogue and acting by many of the minor characters. In fact, one could find some of the worst acting by minor characters in the sequence featuring the New York City tidal wave. Thankfully, "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" featured a solid cast that proved to be more talented than many of the minor supporting actors. I think that Dr. Jack Hall might prove to be one of my favorite Dennis Quaid roles. I realize that the actor is more known for portraying sexy, roguish types in movies like "THE BIG EASY" and "THE RIGHT STUFF". But I must admit that I found it refreshing to see him portray a no-nonsense and intense type like Jack Hall. He was ably supported by Jake Gyllenhaal’s portrayal of the character’s son, Sam Hall. Gyllenhaal must have been at least 22 or 23 years old at the time, but he skillfully projected a sardonic weariness, tinged with a little offspring resentment that strongly impressed me.

I also enjoyed the performances of Ian Holm as the intelligent and warm-hearted Terry Raspon; Sela Ward as Jack’s nearly frantic ex-wife Dr. Lucy Hall; and Emmy Russum as Laura, Sam’s tender-hearted, yet ambitious love interest. Perry King’s President of the United States may have come off as a little too noble, but he still gave a solid performance. Austin Nichols was also solid as the Washington D.C. visitors' new friend, J.D. I was especially amused by Arjay Smith’s portrayal of Sam’s sardonic friend Brian; Glenn Plummer as the blunt, yet hilarious homeless man who decides to remain at the public library with Jack and his friends in order to survive; and Nestor Serrano as Jack’s no-nonsense boss at the NOAA. But the one performance that surprisingly impressed me came from Kenneth Walsh as the irritable Vice-President. The actor ably developed his character from a snide and bureaucratic politician to a man who had the grace and wisdom to realize that he had been wrong to doubt Jack.

I realize that "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" had received mixed reviews upon its release nearly seven years ago. Many critics had complained about the questionable science behind Roland Emmerich and Jeffrey Nachmanoff’s story and some of the film’s other flaws. I could care less about the questionable science, since the movie is basically science-fiction. But I believe that its virtues – a solid cast led by Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal, stunning special and visual effects, a well-paced script and solid direction Emmerich – outweighed the flaws. And this is why "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" has become a personal favorite of mine.

"THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" (2004) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the 2004 science-fiction disaster film called "THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW". Directed by Roland Emmerich, the movie starred Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal, Emmy Rossum, Sela Ward and Ian Holm. 


"THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW" (2004) Photo Gallery

"END OF WATCH" (2012) Review

"END OF WATCH" (2012) Review

If there is one present day screenwriter who has written so much about the working-class neighborhoods of Los Angeles, it is writer-director David Ayer. In the past, he has written crime dramas such as "TRAINING DAY", "THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS", "DARK BLUE" and "STREET KINGS". Just last year, he added another entry in his crime filmography with last year's "END OF WATCH". 

Shot in documentary style (at least some of it), "END OF WATCH" followed the daily grind of Brian Taylor and Mike Zavalas, two young Los Angeles Police Department beat officers who are both partners and close friends, who patrol the streets of South Central Los Angeles. Taylor, a former U.S. Marine, is video recording his police activities for a film class, much to the annoyance of his fellow cops. The partners deal with a fire, occupants of a crack house, a public disturbance call that leads to a fight between a Bloods gang member named Tre and Zavalas, and a noisy party filled with Latino gang members that include a leader named Big Evil. But when Taylor has a hunch about Big Evil and convinces Zavalas that they should stake out the house of the home of the gang leader's mother. When they do, the partners pull over a truck that leaves the house, arrest the driver and discover ornately-decorated firearms and a large amount of money inside the truck. Further investigations of the house leads to the discovery of more arms, human trafficking victims, and a warning from an ICE agent that the partners have stumbled into an operation with ties to the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico. The agent warns Taylor and Zavalas that they are over their heads, but the two officers end up ignoring him. The young officers' private lives are also explored. Zavalas' wife is pregnant with their second child and Taylor meets and ends up marrying a young woman named Janet.

"END OF WATCH" is not a bad movie. It provided an interesting look at the daily lives of police patrolmen in the working class neighborhoods of Los Angeles. In a way, it almost reminds me of the 1988 movie, "COLORS". In many ways. The movie also benefited from some superb performances by leads Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña. The two actors managed to create a sizzling screen chemistry that made the close relationship between the two characters believable. They especially shined in the movie's last reel, which featured Zavalas' account of an embarrassing and funny encounter with his in-laws. And I also found Ayer's direction very energetic. To my surprise, I was not even bothered by the the movie's handheld camera format. And Ayer's handling of the shootout between the two cops and Big Evil's gang members, who are working on behalf of the Mexican cartel, was outstanding. In fact, I consider this last scene to be the movie's pièce de résistance.

Despite the virtues I have listed . . . I did not like "END OF WATCH". I do not dislike the movie. But I did not like it very much. Part of my disappointment with the film has to do with David Ayer's screenplay. I could not tell whether he had intended for "END OF WATCH" to simply be a documentary style look into the lives of two police patrolmen . . . or a story about two police officers' troubles with a Mexican crime cartel. It seemed as if he was trying to mix two different crime genres and failed to balance it out. It did not help that the subplot regarding Taylor's film project had no real impact on the movie's main narrative and it was simply discarded two-thirds into the movie. Ayer's script allowed an ICE agent to warn Taylor and Zavalas that they had stumbled into a Mexican cartel operation following their arrest of the truck driver. But when an ICE surveillance camera recorded a cartel member putting a hit on the two young officers using Big Evil's gang, the ICE agent failed to make a reappearance to warn the pair. Instead, Ayer's script allows Tre to issue the warning. And I found myself asking . . . why. Why did Ayer allow Tre to issue a warning about the hit and not the ICE agent? 

Aside from Brian Taylor and Mike Zavalas, the movie's other characters strike me as one-dimensional . . . especially the character of Tre and the members of Big Evil's gang. In fact, some of their dialogue felt as if it was over two decades old and had been lifted straight from "COLORS". Ayers tried to broaden the other characters. He managed to somewhat succeed with the Gabby Zavalas character, portrayed by Natalie Martinez. But everyone else seemed to fall flat. David Harbour was simply wasted as disenchanted police officer Van Hauser, who continuously warned the two younger officers that the L.A.P.D. will stab them in the back one back. Unfortunately, Ayer never explained Van Hauser's mindset. Watching "END OF WATCH", I found it hard to believe that Anna Kendrick was once nominated for an Academy Award. She was surely wasted in this film as Taylor's girlfriend and eventual wife. And her character struck me as even more one-dimensional as the gang members.

I wish I could say that I liked "END OF WATCH". The trailer had impressed me. I was also impressed by the performances of Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Michael Peña, who projected a dynamic screen chemistry. And I found the shootout between the two cops and Big Evil's gang dynamic. But somewhere along the way, the one-dimensional supporting characters and questionable subplots simply left me cold.

"END OF WATCH" (2012) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the 2012 crime thriller called "END OF WATCH". Directed by David Ayer, the movie stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña:


"END OF WATCH" (2012) Photo Gallery