"G.I. JOE: RETALIATION" (2013) Review
Following the success of 2009's "G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA", Hasbro and Paramount Pictures followed up with a sequel set a few years after the first film. Unlike the 2009 movie, this latest film was not directed by Stephen Sommers. And several cast members from the first film did not reprise their roles.
When the G.I. Joes are framed for stealing nuclear warheads from Pakistan, Cobra minion Zartan - in disguise as the President of the United States - orders their elimination at their camp in the Middle East via a military air strike. The latter kills most of the Joes, including one Conrad "Duke" Hauser, who had been awarded his own team of Joes following the incidents of the 2009 film. The survivors - Sergeant Marvin "Roadblock" Hinton, Alison "Lady Jaye" Hart-Burnett, and Dashiell "Flint" Faireborn - make their way to the U.S. to learn why the Joes had been destroyed by the President. When Zartan (as President) announces that COBRA troops will replace the Joes, Lady Jaye realizes that he is an impersonator. The trio seeks help from the original Joe, General Joseph Colton. Other Joe survivors include Snake Eyes, who has returned to his old order in Japan to train a new apprentice, Jinx. When COBRA operatives Storm Shadow (who had survived his duel with Snake Eyes in the 2009 film) and Firefly (an ex-Joe) rescue COBRA Commander and Destro from an underground maximum-security prison in Germany, the former sustains injuries during the escape attempt and heads for a Himalayan temple to recover. Snake Eyes' new order leader, the Blind Master, learn of Storm Shadow's new location and orders Snake Eyes and Jinx to capture him so that he can answer for the late Hard Master's death.
I might as well admit it . . . "G.I. JOE: RETALIATION" was a disappointment. Many might be wondering about my disappointment, considering the prevailing view of the its predecessor, "G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA". The 2009 movie may not have been a cinematic masterpiece or anything close to it, but I thought it had been a fun movie filled with strong characterizations and a somewhat decent plot. I cannot say this new "G.I. JOE" flick had been a lot of fun for me. Despite my disappointment, the movie did possess some virtues.
The main virtue turned out to be leading man, Dwayne Johnson. The actor did the best he could to keep this movie together. And as he has done in his past movies, he gave it his all. I can say the same about Byung-hun Lee, whose portrayal of Storm Shadow proved to be even more interesting and complex in this second film. I was also impressed by the always talented and dependable Jonathan Pryce, who had the double duty of portraying the disguised Zartan and the real President of the United States. Adrianne Palicki injected some energy into the story with a lively performance as fellow Joe, Lady Jaye Hart-Burnett. Despite his limited appearance, Channing Tatum seemed a lot more relaxed as Duke Hauser in this film. He also had a nice chemistry with Johnson. Also, the movie boasted one of the best action sequences I have seen in recent film. I speak of Snake Eyes and Jinx's attempt to capture Storm Shadow from the Himalayan temple and prevent the latter's men from rescuing him. Director Jon M. Chu really outdid himself in that sequence.
So . . . what was it about the movie that I found disappointing? Despite Chu's outstanding direction in the Himalayan sequence, I was not that impressed by his work in the rest of the film. I missed Stephen Sommers. I also missed Channing Tatum's presence after his character was killed off 20-30 minutes into the movie. He went from leading man in the 2009 movie to a guest star in this latest film. Most of all, I missed some of the cast members from the first film. Not only did I miss them, I would like to know what the hell happened to them? What happened to Ripcord, who was Duke's longtime best friend? What happened to Scarlett, Heavy Duty, Breaker and General Hawk? Where they also killed during the airstrike against the Joes' Middle Eastern base? Did some of them leave the Joes before the events of this movie? What happened to them? What happened to Anna Lewis DeCobray? The end of the 2009 movie saw her in protective custody, awaiting for American scientists to remove nanomites from inside her body. Was she still in custody during the events of this movie? Did anyone bother to inform her about Duke's death? Apparently not, since she was never mentioned in the film.
Some of the new additions to the cast did not help this movie. I hate to say this but D.J. Cotrona's portrayal as G.I. Joe Flint Faireborn had struck me as dull. Boring. Mind numbing. My God! Even Joseph Mazzello, who made a brief appearance as a Joe sharpshooter on Duke's team, struck me as ten times more livelier. I love Bruce Willis. I have been a fan of his for years. But what in the hell was he doing in this film? I could have understood if he had replaced Dennis Quaid as General Hawk, commander of the Joes. Instead, Willis portrayed the original Joe, General Colton. Yes, he participated in the movie's final action sequence. And yes, he provided some arms to the team. But what was he doing in this film? His character seemed like such a waste. And Willis seemed as if he was going through the motions. Ray Stevenson gave a lively performance as ex-Joe turned COBRA minion, Firefly. The problem is that the screenplay failed to mention what led him to leave the Joes and join COBRA. Luke Bracey replaced Joseph Gordon-Levitt as COBRA Commander. And honestly? He was not that interesting. Not only did I miss Gordon-Levitt, I now believe the movie should have allowed Zartan (as the President) to serve as the movie's main villain. What else can I say about "G.I. JOE: RETALIATION"? Other than the main villain's goal seemed similar to the villain's goal in the 2009 movie? Okay . . . I said it. Thanks to the screenwriters, the details of COBRA Commander's plot initially seemed different. But using arms to achieve world power seemed disappointingly familiar.
Despite the presence of Dwayne Johnson, Byung-hun Lee, a few others and an outstanding action sequence in the Himalayans; "G.I. JOE: RETALIATION" proved to be a disappointing follow-up to its 2009 predecessor. Mind you, "G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA" was no masterpiece. But it was a hell of a lot more fun and substantial than this piece of work.
"HAIL, CAESAR!" (2016) Review
When I first that Joel and Ethan Coen was about to release a new film, I rejoiced. When I learned that this new movie - called "HAIL, CAESAR!" - would be set in old Hollywood, my joy increased. Then I discovered that this new film would be released in February of this year. And . . . my anticipation decreased. Somewhat.
Now, why would my anticipation for "HAIL, CAESAR!" dampened after learning about its release date? Simple. February is one of those months that is considered by the movie industry as the graveyard for second-rate films. A Coen Brothers film set in February. This did not sit well with me. But my enthusiasm had not dampened enough for me to forgo "HAIL, CAESAR!". I simply had to see it.
"HAIL, CAESAR!" is the fictional story about one day in the life of Eddie Mannix, the head of "physical productions" at Capitol Pictures and a "fixer" who keeps the scandalous behavior of its stars out of the press. The Lockheed Corporation has been courting him with an offer of a high-level executive position, but he is unsure about taking it. While Mannix contemplates a career change, he has to deal with the following problems for his studio:
*Unmarried synchronized swimming actress DeeAnna Moran becomes pregnant and Mannix has to make arrangements for her to put the baby in foster care and then adopt it without revealing herself as the mother.
*Mannix is ordered by the studio's honchos to change the image of cowboy singing star Hobie Doyle, by casting him in a sophisticated drama directed by Laurence Laurentz. Unfortunately, Hobie seems uncomfortable in starring in a movie that is not a Western and gives an inept performance.
*While fending off the inquiries of twin sisters and rival gossip columnists, Thora and Thessaly Thacker, the former threatens to release an article about a past scandal involving Capitol Pictures veteran star Baird Whitlock and Laurentz, when they made a movie together some twenty years earlier.
*Mannix's biggest problem revolve around Whitlock being kidnapped, while filming one of Capitol Pictures' "A" productions, an Imperial Roman drama called "Hail, Caesar!". A ransom note soon arrives, written by a group calling itself "The Future", who are a group of Communist screenwriters, demanding $100,000 for their cause.
There were a good deal about "HAIL, CAESAR!" that I enjoyed. Primarily, I enjoyed the fact that the movie was set during the Golden Age of Hollywood and that it was about the Hollywood industry during that period. I enjoyed the fact that this was one Old Hollywood movie that was not a murder mystery, a biopic about the rise and downfall of some actor, actress or director. And I was especially relieved that it was no borderline nihilist portrayal of Hollywood like 1975's "THE DAY OF THE LOCUST". I had no desire to walk out of theater, harboring a desire to blow out my brains. Instead, the Coens' film gave audiences a peek into a Hollywood studio circa 1951 with a good deal of irony and humor.
Out of the five story arcs presented in the film, I really enjoyed three of them - namely those story lines that focused on Hobie Doyle, DeeAnna Moran and Mannix's new job offer. Although I suspect that the DeeAnna Moran character was at best, a superficial take on Esther Williams, I believe the storyline regarding the character's pregnancy was based upon what happened to Loretta Young in the mid-1930s. I found this story arc mildly enjoyable, thanks to Scarlett Johansson's funny performance as the blunt-speaking DeeAnna. But I would not regard it as the movie's highlight. I also found the story arc about Mannix's new job offer from Lockheed mildly interesting. There almost seemed to be a "would he or wouldn't he" aura about this story arc. As any film historian knows, the real Eddie Mannix never received a job offer from Lockheed. Then again, he worked at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), not the fictional Capitol Pictures. And he was married twice with no kids, not married once with kids. So, at one point, I did find myself wondering if the events of the day would drive this Mannix into accepting Lockheed's offer.
However, I felt that one of the movie's real highlight centered around the Hobie Doyle and Capitol Pictures' efforts to turn the singing cowboy into a dramatic actor. Why? It was funny. Hilarious. Not only did Alden Ehrenreich give a rather enduring performance as the charming Hobie Doyle, he was funny . . . very funny in one particular sequence. In fact, I could say the same about Ralph Fiennes, who portrayed the elegant director Laurence Laurentz tasked into transforming Hobie into a dramatic actor. I did not find this scene mildly amusing, as I did many of the film's other scenes. Instead, watching Laurentz trying to direct the limited and very awkward Hobie in a sophisticated drama nearly had laughing in the aisle. Both Ehrenreich and Fiennes were incredibly funny and talented. The other highlight proved to be Josh Brolin's performance as the much put upon Eddie Mannix. Brolin did an excellent job of carrying the film on his shoulders. More importantly, he gave a tight and subtle performance that allowed his character to serve as the backbone to all of the surrounding chaos.
"HAIL, CAESAR!" was set in 1951, a time when the Hollywood studio system was going through a traumatic shake-up. And this period was definitely reflected in two story arcs - Mannix's job offer and the kidnapping of Baird Whitlock. However, a part of me wishes that the movie had been set in the 1930s - especially the early 1930s, when Hollywood was battling the censors and the Great Depression. Oh well, we cannot have everything. But I was not that particularly impressed regarding the story line involving Mannix's concerns over Thora Thacker's knowledge about some past scandal regarding Baird Whitlock. Why? The movie's screenplay barely focused upon it. The entire story arc was wasted. And so was Tilda Swinton. I find this doubly sad, considering that Swinton gave a sharp and funny performance as the Thacker twins. Instead, the Coens used the Baird Whitlock character for another story arc - the one centered around his kidnapping at the hands of a group of Communist writers and a Communist contract player named Burt Gurney.
I might as well put my cards on the table. This story line featuring Baird Whitlock's kidnapping did not strike me as well written. In fact, I did not like it at all. Neither George Clooney's funny performance or Channing Tatum's dancing skills could save it. The main problem with this story is that Whitlock was basically kidnapped to provide funds for Gurney, a song-and-dance performer who was a thinly disguised take on actor/dancer Gene Kelly, who was known to be a hardcore liberal. The end of the movie revealed that Gurney took with him, the ransom from Whitlock's kidnapping, when he defected to the Soviet Union via a Russian submarine. The entire story arc struck me as simply a waste of time. And I found myself wishing that Whitlock had been used for the scandal story line, featuring Thora Thacker.
I certainly had no problems with the movie's production values. Jess Gonchor did a fairly decent job in re-creating Los Angeles in the early 1950s. His work was ably assisted by the film's visual and special effects teams, Nancy Haigh's set decorations and Roger Deakins' cinematography. However, in the case of the latter, I could have done without the occasional use of sepia tones. I also enjoyed Mary Zophres's costume designs. But they did not exactly knock my socks off. One aspect of the film that I truly enjoyed were the different "film productions" featured in the movie - especially the ones for DeeAnna Moran and the Hobie Doyle/Laurence Laurentz debacle. I know what you are thinking . . . what about the dance sequence featuring Burt Gurney and dancing extras portraying sailors? Well, I found it well executed. But the whole number, including Tatum's performance, seemed to be more about skill, but with little style.
In the end, I rather enjoyed "HAIL, CAESAR!". I believe the Coen Brothers did a fairly successful job in creating an entertaining movie about Hollywood's Golden Age. The movie also featured excellent performances from a talented cast - especially Josh Brolin, Alden Ehrenreich and Ralph Fiennes. However, I think I would have enjoyed this movie a lot more if it had ditched the kidnapping story arc in favor of the one featuring the potential Baird Whitlock scandal. Oh well, we cannot have everything we want.
"THE HATEFUL EIGHT" (2015) ReviewFollowing the success of his 2012 movie, "DJANGO UNCHAINED", Quentin Tarantino set about creating another movie with a Western theme that also reflected today's themes and social relationships in the United States. However, due to circumstances beyond his control, Tarantino nearly rejected the project. And if he had, audiences would have never seen what came to be . . . "THE HATEFUL EIGHT". The circumstances that nearly led Tarantino to give up the project occurred when someone gained access to his script and published it online in early 2014. The producer-director had considered publishing the story as a novel, until he directed a reading of the story the United Artists Theater in the Ace Hotel Los Angeles. The event was organized by the Film Independent at Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) as part of the Live Read series. The success of the event eventually convinced Tarantino to shoot the movie."THE HATEFUL EIGHT" is at its heart, a mystery. I would not describe it as a murder-mystery, but more like . . . well, let me begin. The story begins in the post-Civil War Wyoming Territory where a stagecoach rushing to get ahead of an oncoming blizzard, is conveying bounty hunter John Ruth aka "The Hangman" and his handcuffed prisoner, a female outlaw named Daisy Domergue. The stagecoach is bound for the town of Red Rock, where Daisy is scheduled to be hanged. During the journey, an African-American bounty hunter named Major Marquis Warren, who is transporting three dead bounties to the town of Red Rock, hitches a ride on the stagecoach. His horse had died on him. Several hours later, the stagecoach picks up another passenger, a former Confederate militiaman named Chris Mannix, who claims to be traveling to Red Rock in order to become the town's new sheriff. The stagecoach passengers are forced to seek refuge at a stage station called Minnie's Haberdashery, when the blizzard finally strikes. The new arrivals are greeted by a Mexican handyman named Bob, who informs them that Minnie is visiting a relative and has left him in charge. The other lodgers are a British-born professional hangman Oswaldo Mobray; a quiet cowboy named Joe Gage, who is traveling to visit his mother; and Sanford Smithers, a former Confederate general. Forever paranoid, Ruth disarms all but Warren, with whom he had bonded during stagecoach journey. When Warren has a violent confrontation with Smithers, Daisy spots someone slip poison into a pot of coffee, brewing on the stove. Someone she recognizes as a fellow outlaw, who is there to spring her free from Ruth's custody. And there is where the mystery lies - the identity of Daisy's fellow outlaw."THE HATEFUL EIGHT" marks the sixth Quentin Tarantino movie I have ever seen. I also found it the most unusual. But it is not my favorite. In fact, I would not even consider it among my top three favorites. And here is the reason why. "THE HATEFUL EIGHT"struck me as being too damn long with a running time of two hours and forty-seven minutes. I realize that most of Tarantino films usually have a running time that stretches past two hours. But we are talking of a film that is basically a character study/mystery. Even worse, most of the film is set at a stagecoach station - a one-story building with one big room. Not even Tarantino's attempt to stretch out the stage journey at the beginning of the film could overcome this limited setting. And due to the limited setting and film's genre, "THE HATEFUL EIGHT" is probably the least epic film in his career, aside from his first one, 1993's "RESERVOIR DOGS". At least that film did not stretch into a ridiculously long 167 minute running time. I also thought Tarantino made too much of a big deal in the confrontation between Major Marquis Warren and General Sanford Smithers. Apparently, Warren had a grudge against Smithers for executing black troops at the Battle of Baton Rouge. I find this improbable, due to the fact that there were no black troops fighting for the Union during that battle, which was a Union victory. There were no black Union or Confederate troops known to have taken part in that particular battle. Tarantino should have taken the time to study his Civil War history. But what really annoyed me about the Warren-Smithers confrontation was that Tarantino thought it was necessary to include a flashback showing Warren's encounter with Smither's son, which resulted in the latter's death. I realize that the Warren-Smithers encounter allowed Daisy's mysterious colleague to poison the coffee. But a flashback on Warren and Smithers Jr.? Unnecessary. I also found Tarantino's narration in the film somewhat unnecessary. Frankly, he is not a very good narrator. And I found one particular piece of narration rather unnecessary - namely the scene in which Daisy witnessed the coffee being poisoned. Tarantino could have shown this on screen without any voice overs. Despite these flaws, I must admit that I still managed to enjoy "THE HATEFUL EIGHT". It featured some outstanding characterizations and dialogue. And it seemed the cast really took advantage of these well-written aspects of the script. I am not surprised that the film had received numerous nominations for Best Ensemble. Although the running time for "THE HATEFUL EIGHT" might be longer than it should, I have to give Tarantino kudos for his well-structured screenplay. He took his time in setting up the narrative, the mystery and his characters. And although he may have overdone it a bit by taking his time in reaching the film's denouement, Tarantino delivered quite a payoff that really took me by surprise, once he reached that point. Unlike many movie directors today, Tarantino is a firm believer in taking his time to tell his story. My only regret is that he took too much time for a story that required a shorter running time.But what I really liked about "THE HATEFUL EIGHT" is that it proved to be a new direction for Tarantino. In this age filled with lack of originality in the arts, it was refreshing to see there are artists out there who are still capable of being original. After viewing the movie at the theater, it occurred to me that is was basically an Agatha Christie tale set in the Old West. Tarantino utilized many aspects from various Christie novels. But the movie resembled one movie in particular. Only I will not say what that novel is, for it would allow anyone to easily guess what happens in the end. Although many of Christie's novels and Tarantino's movies feature a good deal of violence, "THE HATEFUL EIGHT" featured very little violence throughout most of its narrative . . . until the last quarter of the film. Once the Major Warren-General Smithers confrontation took place, all bets were off. I wish I could comment on the movie's production values. But if I must be honest, I did not find it particularly memorable. Well, there were one or two aspects of the movie's production that impressed me. I really enjoyed Robert Richardson's photography of Colorado, which served as Wyoming Territory for this film. I found it sharp and colorful. I also enjoyed Yohei Taneda's production designs for the movie . . . especially for the Minnie's Haberdashery setting. I though Taneda, along with art directors Benjamin Edelberg and Richard L. Johnson, did a great job of conveying the Old West in that one setting.Naturally, I cannot discuss "THE HATEFUL EIGHT" without mentioning the cast. What can I say? They were outstanding. And Tarantino did an outstanding job directing them. As far as I know, "THE HATEFUL EIGHT" marked the first time at least three members of the cast have worked with Tarantino - Jennifer Jason-Leigh, Channing Tatum and Demián Bichir. Otherwise, everyone else seemed to be veterans of a Tarantino production, especially Samuel L. Jackson. "THE HATEFUL EIGHT" marked his sixth collaboration with the director. It is a pity that he was not recognized for his portrayal of bounty hunter, Major Marquis Warren. As usual, he did an outstanding job of portraying a very complex character, who not only proved to be a ruthless law enforcer, but also a somewhat cruel man as shown in his confrontation with General Smithers. Actually, most of the other characters proved to be equally ruthless. Kurt Russell's portrayal of bounty hunter John Ruth struck me as equally impressive. The actor did an excellent job in conveying Ruth's ruthlessness, his sense of justice and especially his paranoia. Walton Goggin's portrayal of ex-Confederate-turned-future lawman seemed like a far cry from his laconic villain from "DJANGO UNCHAINED". Oddly enough, his character did not strike me as ruthless as some of the other characters and probably a little more friendly - except toward Warren. Jennifer Jason-Leigh has been earning acting nominations - including Golden Globe and Academy Award Best Supporting Actress nods - for her portrayal of the captured fugitive Daisy Domergue. Those nominations are well deserved, for Jason-Leigh did an outstanding job of bringing an unusual character to life. Ironically, the character spent most of the movie as a battered prisoner of Russell's John Ruth. Yet, thanks to Jason-Leigh, she never lets audiences forget how ornery and dangerous she can be.Tim Roth, who had not been in a Tarantino production since 1995's "FOUR ROOMS", gave probably the most jovial performance as the very sociable English-born professional hangman, Oswaldo Mobray. Bruce Dern, who was last seen in "DJANGO UNCHAINED", had a bigger role in this film as the unsociable ex-Confederate General Sanford Smithers, who seemed determined not to speak to Warren. Despite portraying such an unsympathetic character, Dern did an excellent job in attracting the audience's sympathy, as his character discovered his son's grisly fate at Warren's hands. Michael Masden gave a very quiet and subtle performance as Joe Gage, a rather silent cowboy who claimed to be on his way to visit his mother. And yet . . . he also projected an aura of suppressed danger, which made one suspect if he was Daisy's collaborator. A rather interesting performance came from Demián Bichir, who portrayed the stage station's handyman, Bob. Like Madsen's Gage, Bichir's Bob struck me as a quiet and easygoing man, who also conveyed an element of danger. I was very surprised to see Channing Tatum in this film, who portrayed Jody Domergue, Daisy's older brother. Although his role was small, Channing was very effective as the villainous Domergue, who could also be quite the smooth talker. "THE HATEFUL EIGHT" also featured excellent supporting performances from the likes of James Parks, Dana Gourrier, Lee Horsley, Zoë Bell, Keith Jefferson and Gene Jones. Yes, I found "THE HATEFUL EIGHT" too long. I feel it could have been cut short at least by forty minutes. And I was not that impressed by Quentin Tarantino's voice over in the film. I could have done without it. But despite its flaws, I cannot deny that I found"THE HATEFUL EIGHT" to be one of the director's more interesting movies in his career. With a first-rate cast led by Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, Walton Goggins and Jennifer Jason-Leigh; and a screenplay that seemed to be an interesting combination of a murder mystery and a Western; Tarantino created one of his most original movies during his career.
