The Hitman's Bodyguard

An interesting premise blending two of the action genre’s most interesting occupations, “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” is an action buddy comedy in the vein of “Lethal Weapon” or “Rush Hour” with one stark contrast; they are nemeses. It’s a spy versus spy of sorts, and I love the marketing angle and the casual way in which they are selling the idea. On paper, it’s actually pretty great. But I have one major problem that exacerbates the whole film.

Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds) is a AAA rated executive protection agent until he loses a client in a predictable opening sequence. The incident relegates him to what appears to be the shell of a man protecting B-list clients, although his skill set is still top notch. Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson) is a legendary hitman with a flawless execution. They are naturally thrown together when Kincaid is scheduled to testify against a Russian warlord (Gary Oldman) and he needs protection. What ensues is the typical reluctant bonding experience where both begin to appreciate the other’s craft and they each learn a little something about themselves, softening up a bit and growing both professionally and personally.

The action is fantastic. Great chases, explosions, fight scenes, and a very humorous banter. But Samuel L. Jackson will be sixty-eight years old in December. He’s in great shape for his age, but how many sixty-eight year olds can out-gun Interpol special forces agents? How many sixty-eight year olds can jump from a roof or get shot through the leg and keep running? I haven’t met many, but I would absolutely love to meet one. That’s my main gripe, and the fact that he can’t get through a sentence without cussing isn’t something that necessarily offends my sensitivities as much as it offends my respect for the man as an actor. He’s a one-trick pony, and more power to him for making his living spouting the same vulgar rhetoric every movie he’s in, but for me it gets a little old. Just like him.

Ryan Reynolds is his typical self as well. Full of one-liners and witty comebacks, he’s definitely more believable as an action star because, well, he is one. He carries his character just fine, but as half of the equation, it just doesn’t work to carry a whole film.

The plot being as simple as it gets, this is a fun film. It exceeded my very low expectations, but make no mistake. This is no “Lethal Weapon.” In fact, this rates pretty low on the buddy action comedy scale, but it is two hours of entertaining, mindless, popcorn-munching viewing. Take a little comfort in that, and I’m sure that the box office will reflect the audience’s desire for just that.

Novice director Patrick Hughes (“Expendables 3”) delivers a pretty impressive set of action sequences, but not a whole lot more. The film lacked some of the grit of some of the previous buddy films of the genre in favor of a more comedic approach, but that can be forgiven easily in the name of entertainment. I have a soft spot for Mel and Danny, but do recognize that that was nearly thirty years ago, and the general taste has changed significantly. One’s own personal influence only has so much clout when recommending entertainment to a broader audience after all.

If you’ve seen everything else and you’re looking to kill some time, or just stay cool on these dog days of summer, “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” will do better than some, but trust me, there’s much better film out there right now (see “Wind River.”) 6/10.

Logan Lucky

Steven Soderbergh, the man behind the “Oceans” trilogy, “Magic Mike” films, and one of my personal favorites, “Out of Sight,” returns to the genre that has been his bread and butter; the light-hearted, slightly cerebral, slick heist films. Let’s be honest, he’s made heists look pretty cool numerous times on the screen (and easy to boot), and that’s part of the holdup here. There isn’t much going on that we haven’t seen before plenty of times. Criminals who have thought of every little detail, while the audience is just a little bit in the dark until the reveal at the end.

“Logan Lucky” is a typical West Virginia redneck larceny story, with not so typical characters. The Logan brothers, Jimmy and Clyde (Channing Tatum and Adam Driver) put into play a scheme to rob the cash room of the Charlotte International Motor Speedway during a NASCAR race. They enlist the help of criminal Joe Bang (Daniel Craig) and his two nephews, Fish and Sam. Throw in the Logan sister, Mellie (Riley Keough) and you have your crew. In the periphery, Katie Holmes is Jimmy’s baby mama in a bit of a misguided parallel storyline, although her performance is the best she’s done in quite some time.

The acting is terrific, and the leads all seem to be enjoying themselves from start to finish, particularly Daniel Craig who plays a hardened safe-cracker with a good deal of prison clout. Driver is given the role of quirky and dry comic relief, and Tatum packs on a few pounds and shirks his usual charming good looks in exchange for a chance to play a flawed, yet likeable lead.

There is a lot of opportunity here for character development, with Dwight Yoakum, Seth McFarlane, Katherine Waterston, and Hilary Swank standing out as well-played characters, but the film moves along too quickly, which is a double-edged sword. The heist is certainly the looming endgame, but Soderbergh likes to pace his films quickly, refusing to linger on any scene too long. This doesn’t allow us to get to know any of these characters quite well enough, and that’s a bit of a shame.

“Logan Lucky” was written by Rebecca Blunt, a possible pseudonym with speculation by numerous sources that it might actually be Soderbergh or his wife, Jules Asner. As of now, there hasn’t been any credit taken, but this makes for an interesting sidebar trivia item, which is something consistent and admirable about the director. He certainly knows how to make movies fun, and it shows on screen. This might be his greatest strength, and it redeems any lingering reservations about any redundancy in his style. Sure, you could probably line up his heist movies side by side and you would notice more than a few similarities, but there is a certain levity that jumps from the screen in his contributions to this genre. The actors seem to be caught up in the mirth as well, and that adds a certain intangible effect to his movies that make them enjoyable in the end.

In terms of the screenplay itself, there is a bit left to be desired. There’s no back story, no motive for the heist in the first place, and nothing compelling to make us root for any of the characters to succeed beyond it being a bunch of rednecks knocking over NASCAR. The West Virginia redneck setting is simply a ruse to get the audience to forget that they’ve seen this all before. At least three times.

“Logan Lucky” gets points for execution and acting, but lacks originality. It’s like “West Side Story” doing “Romeo and Juliet.” Great film, clever change of setting, but ultimately a completely recycled story. If you can get past this little detail and just let the experience wash over you, I bet you might find this film pretty dadgum entertaining. 7/10.

Wind River

I would be extremely remiss if I didn't share my thoughts on the exceptionally crafted "Wind River." The latest concoction of writer/director Taylor Sheridan, this will certainly cement his place among the most talented and thoughtful double threats in the game today. After 2014's "Sicario" and last year's "Hell or High Water," he's continued his gritty and realistic storytelling narrative with a particular homage to the forgotten women of the Native American reservations, and he's done it by letting the story (and perhaps one particular character) do the talking.

Although set in rural Wind River, Wyoming, it's a true Western at heart. The best Western since "No Country for Old Men" mind you. The setting is chilling. Literally. Sub-zero conditions in the spring in the Rocky Mountains, we find a young woman barefoot and frozen to death. Ruled a homicide, the local tribal police call in the FBI, and we meet agent Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen). She enlists the help of local fish and wildlife hunter Corey Lambert (Jeremy Renner) and with chief Ben (Graham Greene), they begin the search for the guilty murderer. As the clues lead them where they don't want to go, they search for justice for the woman's family, and closure for the community.

The brilliance is in the small things. From the supporting characters who make the most of single scenes, to the stationary camera shots just perfectly capturing the majestic setting. There is a melancholy sense of beauty, desperation, and isolation while presenting it in a freezing climate that makes you shiver in your seat. The dialogue is witty, but not contrived. It drives the narrative like a well-oiled machine, whether it's the whimsical ruminations or the necessary prose targeting the audience.

The climactic finale should go down in history as one of the finer and more harrowing extended scenes in recent memory. In fact, I couldn't stop thinking about it for nearly a day. Sheridan has a way of bringing out the raw, primal emotions in his actors, whether he's behind the camera or the written narrative. Taylor Sheridan is simply my new favorite (Sorry Coen Brothers). He is a master of the modern Western in the way that can only be compared to author Cormac McCarthy.

Jeremy Renner delivers what might be his finest performance yet, even moreso than "The Hurt Locker." He embraces his character and shows us the pain he carries behind his eyes in every scene, while being the heroic semi-reluctant protagonist that the film needs. In fact, this performance will almost make you forget about Hawkeye, who is clearly the weakest of all the Avengers.

"Wind River" is simply stunning. It currently sits atop my best pictures of the year, and it will take something quite stunning to knock it off its perch (there are a few contenders on the horizon). I would expect five awards nominations; actor, picture, director, writer, cinematographer. With an August release, the odds are stacked against the film at this point, but I for one won't forget about it anytime soon. 9/10.

The Dark Tower

There have been over sixty Stephen King film adaptations since 1976. He’s been crowned the literary master of the thriller genre, and has spun more tales than a dozen highly trained authors could ever conceive of, which means that there are inevitably monster hits (“The Shawshank Redemption,” “The Shining,” “Stand by Me”), some stinkers (“The Lawnmower Man,” “Maximum Overdrive”), and of course some of my personal favorites (“Apt Pupil,” “1408,” “Misery”). The common thread among his stories is that they are so wildly diverse, that there is virtually no common thread. I would hate to see what his nightmares are like. On second thought, I would pay to see what his nightmares look like.

“The Dark Tower” has been rumored for a film adaptation for decades. It is odd to me that they chose book number three in the eight book series to start the franchise (which may not continue if the box office doesn’t show stronger results), but I suppose the epic story really is so grand in scale that the film really can only be a snippet of the whole story, and maybe producers though this was the most exciting portion. If that’s the case, the franchise is doomed.

Everything you might expect and hope for, including the best sequences, are shown in detail in the previews. This is never a good sign. The Dark Tower is a mysterious source of power that is essentially all that is keeping the universe together, and the forces of evil from running rampant on Earth and all other worlds. Walter (Matthew McConaughey) also known as the “man in black” is trying to destroy the tower with his army of skin people, and his secret weapon is the brain energy of abducted children. Only Roland (Idris Elba), the last of the famed Gunslingers, can stop him. With a .45 revolver forged from the blade of Excalibur. Young Jake (Tom Taylor) holds the power to destroy the tower with his unique and pure mind power, so the battle between good and evil will come to its last stand.

Whew. The story is a whimsical fantasy mixing old West heroism, the power of youthful innocence, and biblical evil. The film jumps right in with a slightly confusing attack on the tower, and doesn’t really get any better or clearer. There is simply too much going on that needs a few thousand pages of prose to set up and explain, and I can’t fault Stephen King for that in the slightest. This project is simply too epic and should have been a Netflix mini-series instead of a single film.

As a stand-alone film, it fails pretty miserably. Think of it this way; imagine watching season three of “Lost” without any other contextualization. It’s a little bit like that. I’m also dubious of the casting choices for the two lead roles, and that made the biggest difference for me. Elba is a fantastic actor, but when I heard that Javier Bardem was being considered for the role a few years back, I thought he would be a perfect fit. I still feel that way. Elba was a fine gunslinger, but there is something dark, mysterious, and decidedly not British about the character, and Bardem’s strong silent approach would have been more fitting.

McConaughey got to play his usual cool self as the personification of death, but he was a bit wooden and on emotionless autopilot. I would have preferred someone with a more physically imposing presence, maybe someone a bit weathered and grizzled. Someone older and more masculine. It would have changed the marketing angle for certain, but I think it would have made for a stronger overall film.

Admittedly, I haven’t read the source material, I mean seriously, who has the time? Over four thousand pages is pretty time consuming. I suppose fans of King in general and fans of the novel in particular will give it a look, and I’m curious to hear what the overall reaction is, but I for one wasn’t very impressed. There are certainly better ways to spend your time and money. 5/10.

Detroit

It’s a little early for Best Picture candidates to come out, isn’t it? Oscar winning director Kathryn Bigelow has made a name for herself by shooting gritty, realistic depictions of modern warfare (“The Hurt Locker,” “Zero Dark Thirty”). “Detroit” is merely a departure in setting, not genre.

Set in 1967 Detroit, the mix of economic depression and rising racial tensions come to a head at the Algiers Hotel, a cheap oasis for black youth to escape the literal war zone in their neighborhoods. Police, State Patrol, and National Guard are patrolling the burning streets while looting runs rampant. A curfew is in effect, but it’s just another day in paradise for most of the black youth who just want to live their lives and let loose with some alcohol and loud music. A toxic blend of police aggression, miscommunication, and being at the wrong place at the wrong time, sets off a series of cold-blooded killings and the subsequent aftermath. When the smoke clears, what’s left is a previously untold story that becomes another part of America’s shameful racist legacy.

A mostly unknown cast surround rising stars John Boyega and Will Poulter, who play a black security guard and the racist ranking police officer on scene, respectively. Anthony Mackey adds star power, but the real standout performances are by Algee Smith (Larry), and Jacob Latimore (Fred), who are really the central figures to the entire story. Larry is a singer with a silky smooth voice, and Fred is his biggest fan and best friend. Caught unaware, they are portrayed as the real innocent victims, even more so than the other patrons of the Algiers. Bigelow somehow is able to make the two of them stand out in a true ensemble cast, all delivering outstanding performances, which is a testament to both their acting, and her direction.

There was one maddening question I kept asking myself throughout, and you will too as you find yourself sucked into the extremely well-done tension. But as expressed at the end of the film, much of the accuracy of the actual events are unknown, so award winning writer Mark Boal took some liberties to add dramatic effect. His restraint shown in his liberties pay off handsomely, and what the viewer gets as a result is two and a half hours of what feels more like a documentary than a blend of fiction and non.

What stood out to me was not how tragic the events seemed to be, but how timely and shockingly poignant the story is with the current Black Lives Matter movement. Not to get too off-track, but “Detroit” truly struck a nerve; in a good way. The aim was to dig deep into the soul of the viewer and tap into the uncomfortable recognition of racial inequities that still exist in our society. To shed light on the real problem with police brutality, which isn’t necessarily that cops are racist, but that there is a stark cultural divide in perspective and lifestyle between those who are charged with protecting the people, and the citizens. This is particularly noticeable in 1967 Detroit, but certainly is relevant still today.

“Detroit” is a gritty and sometimes somber reminder of how things once were during the Civil Rights Movement, but what really sticks is the question; have things really changed that much? The emotions will be stirred in you, and you will leave with a real sense of tragedy, but also that this was an exceptionally made film. If buzz can stick around, expect award nominations to prevail. This is certainly one of the best films I’ve seen so far this year. 8/10.