Revenge |

Archive for Revenge

BULLET IN THE HEAD (2013)

MOVIE REVIEW: BULLET TO THE HEAD (2013)
By Michael Arruda

This movie earns its title and then some.

BULLET TO THE HEAD is one brutal action flick, featuring more bullets to the head than a Corleone family reunion.

James Bonomo (Sylvester Stallone) is a hit man who hates cops, mostly because he’s spent his life in and out of jail and doesn’t trust anybody, cops included, as he’s seen his share of crooked law enforcement officers in his day. After he and his partner finish a hit, they are double-crossed by the folks who hired them, who send in a hit man of their own, an ex-military beast of a man named Keegan (Jason Momoa, who was CONAN THE BARBARIAN in the 2011 reboot of that franchise), who promptly slays Bonomo’s partner—- displaying some vicious knife work— but fails to complete the job, as Bonomo turns the tables on him, sending him fleeing from the scene with his tail between his legs, at least for the time being.

It turns out that the man Bonomo and his partner killed was an ex-cop from D.C. The man’s former partner Taylor Kwon (Sung Kang) arrives in New Orleans to investigate his death, and his investigation leads him to Bonomo. Kwon wants more than just Bonomo. He wants the men who hired him, because he wants to get to bottom of the whole sordid affair by taking down the men at the top. Bonomo wants these men too, because they killed his partner, tried to kill him, and never paid him his money.

Faster than you can say buddy cop movie, Bonomo and Kwon find themselves working together to find the men behind the murders. The trail leads them to a slick lawyer, Marcus Baptiste (Christian Slater), who throws huge parties where beautiful women prance around in their birthday suits, and to the man he works for, Robert Morel (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) a baddie who went to the Lex Luthor school of villainy, as he’s obsessed with purchasing real estate.

Morel of course hires Keegan to kill both Bonomo and Taylor, and when that plan fails, he sends Keegan to kidnap Bonomo’s daughter, Lisa (Sarah Shahi), for leverage, since Bonomo and Taylor have in their possession a flash drive containing incriminating information against Morel.

As you might expect, Bonomo doesn’t like having his daughter kidnapped, setting the stage for a confrontation between Bonomo and Keegan that is worth the price of admission.

I really liked BULLET TO THE HEAD. In the triumvirate of recent action movies I’ve seen the past month— Schwarzenegger in THE LAST STAND (2013), Jason Statham in PARKER (2013), and now Stallone in BULLET TO THE HEAD, I liked BULLET TO THE HEAD the best, as it’s the most complete movie of the three. That being said, I liked Statham’s take on the character of Parker a lot, with his unique set of rules and sense of honor, and so I liked PARKER just about as much as BULLET, but in terms of sheer brutality, BULLET TO THE HEAD takes the prize.

Sylvester Stallone, at his age, 66, still makes for one convincing bad ass tough guy, and when he looks at Jason Momoa’s Keegan at the end of the film and says “I’m going to kill you,” the audience believes him. Rarely has Stallone played a colder killer than Bonomo.

The deaths are up close and personal. Director Walter Hill, a veteran of these buddy cop movies, going back to the 1980s with films like 48 HOURS (1982), with Nick Nolte and Eddie Murphy, brings the camera in close for some jarring execution style murders that are actually quite wince-inducing. I found myself looking away a few times, and the two gentlemen in the seats in front of me, not tiny men by any means, jumped on a couple of occasions.

There are also some memorable fight scenes in this one, as again, Stallone still looks like he can really bring it. The concluding bout between Stallone and Jason Momoa is every bit as good as the clash between Stallone and Van Damme at the end of THE EXPENDABLES 2 (2012). One of my gripes about the concluding hand to hand fight in THE LAST STAND was that Schwarzenegger’s opponent looked so wimpy. Not so here. Momoa looks like he could handle both Stallone and Schwarzenegger at the same time.

Speaking of Momoa, he’s quite impressive as the unstoppable killer Keegan, and he delivers one of the better performances in the movie. Often these big tough guy villain roles come off like robots, but Momoa’s Keegan is infused with personality.

Sarah Shahi is also very good as Bonomo’s daughter, Lisa. She’s a tattoo artist who moonlights as a doctor, helping her dad patch up his buddies from their various bullet and knife wounds.

Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Robert Morel, the guy in a suit pulling all the strings, played a similar bad guy role in KILLER ELITE (2011), making life miserable in that movie for Jason Statham and Robert De Niro. Akinnuoye-Agbaje, you might remember, played Mr. Eko on the TV show LOST.

Christian Slater is sufficiently slimy as shady lawyer Marcus Baptiste, but it’s nothing we haven’t seen Slater do before.

Perhaps the only weak link in the movie is Sung Kang as Stallone’s cop buddy Taylor Kwon. Kang’s acting is decent enough, but the clean-cut pretty boy Kwon stands out like a bright cheery light in an otherwise dark gritty movie. I would have preferred a Mark Wahlberg-type in the role.

The screenplay by Alessandro Camon is a winner. While the plot is nothing more than your standard buddy action flick, an excuse, really, to allow Sylvester Stallone to make tough guy wisecracks and beat up on the bad guys—and because Stallone is so good at this, it lifts the material above what it otherwise might have been without him— there were still some nuances to the story which I really enjoyed.

I liked the character development of the hit man Keegan. As we learn more about what makes him tick, we find out that he’s driven by a sense of honor more than the almighty dollar, and when his boss Morel shows no loyalty to the men he employs—he’s only interested in money— this doesn’t sit well with Keegan. Keegan actually cares about the men who work alongside him. Of course, he also loves killing.

The story also does a good job convincing us that Stallone and Kang want to work together. At first, I thought, no way, Stallone’s Bonomo hates cops, so there’s no way I’m going to believe he’d want to work with Kang’s Kwon, but screenwriter Camon succeeds in pulling this off. In one instance, for example, old school Bonomo is clearly impressed with the wealth of information Kwon has at his fingertips on his smart phone and realizes the advantages of working with the officer outweigh his personal disdain for his profession.

BULLET TO THE HEAD is a completely satisfying action thriller. It’s brutal, dark, and intense from its opening execution scene to its closing clash featuring Stallone and Momoa going at each other with axes.

Sure, its buddy action movie plot offers little we haven’t seen before, but what it lacks in originality it makes up for in ferocity.

I give it three knives.

—END—

Michael Arruda gives BULLET TO THE HEAD ~three knives.

Bill’s Bizarre Bijou: THIRTEEN WOMEN (1932)

Posted in 1930s Horror, Bill's Bizarre Bijou, Melodrama, Pre-Code Films, Vengeance! with tags 1930s Films, George Archainbaud, Irene Dunne, Myrna Loy, Pre-Code, Revenge, Ricardo Cortez, Thirteen Women on March 15, 2012 by knifefighter

Bill’s Bizarre Bijou

By William D. Carl

This Week’s Feature Presentation:

THIRTEEN WOMEN (1932)

Welcome to Bill’s Bizarre Bijou, where you’ll discover the strangest films ever made. If there are alien women with too much eye-shadow and miniskirts, if papier-mâché monsters are involved, if your local drive-in insisted this be the last show in their dusk till dawn extravaganza, or if it’s just plain unclassifiable—then I’ve seen it and probably loved it. Now, I’m here to share these little gems with you so you too can stare in disbelief at your television with your mouth dangling open. Trust me, with these flicks, you won’t believe your eyes!

In the pre-Hayes Code days of 1932, you could get away with an awful lot in motion pictures. Hollywood films were rife with prostitutes, glorified gangsters, adultery, murder, child abuse, rape, and nudity. One film of that year, however, proved so salacious that Warner Brothers cut it from 74 minutes down to a meager 59 minutes in length. Rumors of graphic killings, homosexual affairs, and gun-fighting women on trains persist to this day, but sadly, this footage is all lost. What is left of the film, THIRTEEN WOMEN (1932), is a miracle of crazed, trashy, pulp filmmaking, and it still maintains its shock value when seen today. One can only imagine what it would have been like in its entirety. I believe it would be hailed as a classic of its kind, standing alongside the film versions of Fu Manchu and the early dramas of James Cagney.

THIRTEEN WOMEN begins with the Raskob Sisters getting ready for their trapeze act at the E. Marvel Circus. June has just received her horoscope from the mysterious Swami Yogadachi, and it informs her that because of something she will do, someone very close to her will die and she will end up in an insane asylum. In walks Hazel, an old friend from school days long past, played by Peg Entwistle, an actress who actually killed herself two days after the release of THIRTEEN WOMEN by throwing herself off the ‘H’ in the Hollywoodland sign! The two women are frightened by these ominous letters, but Hazel informs June that it must be some kind of prank, and the show must go on. The trapeze artist, tormented by the words in the letter, becomes more and more nervous. She and her sister swing high above the crowd in a pretty terrifying, silent sequence. Each time June grabs for her sister, she nearly misses, until at one point, she jerks her hands back at the wrong time and her sister falls to her doom.

In the office of Swami Yogadachi, we find 1930’s villain character actor C. Henry Gordon (SCARFACE-1932, MATA HARI-1931) speaking with his “secretary” (oh you know what she REALLY is), Ursula Georgi, played by a pre-Nora Charles Myrna Loy (THE THIN MAN – 1934, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES-1946, and MR. BLANDINGS BUILDS HIS DREAM HOUSE – 1948). Myrna’s all made up in a fabulous dress made from copper coins and wearing slanted Asian eye make-up. She slinks over to the Swami, who has just completed a horoscope for another woman. He maintains that it only shows happiness for this woman, Hazel. Ursula stares him down and informs him that twelve women, all related by a round robin letter and their days in school together, must not lose their faith in the occult. She kisses him, explains they were lovers in a previous life, and then asks about what he sees in the stars for her future. He says, “It is death I wrote for you…not pleasantly. Your body, mangled like that. An accident, the stars say. A railroad, perhaps.” She says, “Strange. So are you to die, like that.”

The great Myrna Loy in THIRTEEN WOMEN.

She hypnotizes him into sleep, takes his happy horoscope, and changes it to inform the recipient that she will commit murder and go to prison. It is Hazel, who proceeds to fulfill the prophecy, screaming as she brutally stabs her husband.

We are then introduced to sensible single mother Laura Stanhope, played by Irene Dunne (THE AWFUL TRUTH-1937, A GUY NAMED JOE-1943, I REMEMBER MAMMA-1948, and many others great films). Laura calls Helen, who has recently lost a child and is receiving horoscopes claiming she will soon kill herself. Laura has also received a letter, stating that her son will die before his next birthday. She says it’s all a bunch of hooey, and she is going to prove it. She invites Helen to her house, where all the remaining girls from their sorority will meet, thus proving the Swami a fake. Helen agrees and books a train ticket.

Meanwhile, Grace, another gal from the sorority, tells Laura that they are all doomed, that she believes everything the letters say. The Swami has just sent her a letter stating that he, himself, will die before July 1^st. On June 31^st, Swami Yogadachi unwisely tramps to Grand Central Station with Ursula, who makes him leap in front of a train in a stunningly edited sequence. She then hops on her own train, the very one transporting the grief-stricken Helen to California.

On the trip, she speaks with Helen, who says she regrets the way Ursula was treated at school, then she shows the Eurasian woman a gun she keeps with her to prove to herself that she won’t kill herself. Not exactly a good plan! Ursula lurks behind her, nudging her closer and closer towards suicide until the sobbing Helen shoots herself through the head while Ursula listens at her door, smirking with satisfaction.

The suicide is investigated by Police Sergeant Barry Clive (Ricardo Cortiz-THE WALKING DEAD-1936, MR. MOTO’S LAST WARNING-1939), and the trail leads to Laura Stanhope and her son, whose birthday is fast approaching. Ursula, now in California, is sleeping with the Stanhope’s chauffer, Burns, played by tough guy Edward Pawley (G-MEN-1935, EACH DAWN I DIE-1939). First, the crazed woman tries to poison the little boy with candy. Then she gives Burns a rubber ball filled with explosives, saying “Give this to Bobby with all your love. And don’t drop it!” When he refuses, she comes on to him, wearing another revealing and fabulous dress, and convinces him to give the boy the lethal present. “He won’t know anything,” she whispers into his ear. “He’ll bounce it. Children always bounce rubber balls, don’t they?”

Myrna Loy terrorizes Irene Dunne in THIRTEEN WOMEN.

The next fifteen minutes contain many tense moments as the rubber ball is placed in various precarious positions (the film is alarmingly easy-going about putting a four-year-old child in mortal danger), a wild car chase with an out-of-control limousine, a harrowing sting operation, a chase through a train, and the big confrontation between Ursula and Laura. Ursula was a half Hindu, half Japanese girl who was sent by a missionary to school. She had to “learn to be white”, because if you were Asian and a man, you were a thug. If you were Asian and a woman, you would become a prostitute. The girls of the sorority learned that she was passing for white and made her life so miserable she had to leave the academy. Thus, her lust for revenge was born, a desire to see every one of the women in that sorority to either be killed or tormented by loss. It’s a plea for tolerance, and it’s hard not to feel sorry for Ursula, even though she’s just attempted to blow up a little kid. Loy is so adept with her acting, especially her eyes, she brings real sorrow to the plight of this “half-breed.” The attempt at sympathy for other races, however, is muddled completely by the fact that this woman is a monster through and through, so the whole progressive point of the movie becomes moot.

THIRTEEN WOMEN barrels along at a furious pace, all the more so for its missing scenes. Stylishly directed by the prolific George Archainbaud (BLONDE TROUBLE-1937, THE DEVIL’S PLAYGROUND-1946), the movie has at least five action/horror sequences that are all the more exciting by the lack of music, especially that trapeze plummet opening. A shout-out must go to the costume designer, whoever that may be. There is no credit for the person responsible for the wild outfits worn by Ursula Georgi, sexy and daring and exotic, the perfect gowns for the murderous half-caste. They would almost be acceptable in a FLASH GORDON serial! The movie also includes an early score by the brilliant Max Steiner (GONE WITH THE WIND-1939, KING KONG-1933, NOW VOYAGER-1942, CASABLANCA-1942, and 237 others). Although sparingly used, the music is quite effective and understated.

The film was based on a salacious novel by Tiffany Thayer, the Harold Robbins of the 1920s and 1930s. He wrote books filled with murder, sex, and violence, rife with misogyny and racism. F. Scott Fitzgerald once called his books “Slime…in drug store libraries.” Dorothy Parker stated, “He is beyond question a writer of power; and his power lies in his ability to make sex so thoroughly, graphically, and aggressively unattractive that one is fairly shaken to ponder how little one has been missing. Thayer died while writing a 21 volume (series) about the Mona Lisa, which was never completed. Many have called his works literary potato chips, not good for you, but hard to stop eating once you’ve started. .” Wow! Where can I find a copy of one of his novels?

Even in its truncated 59 minute form, THIRTEEN WOMEN casts a weird, dream-like spell. If only we had the missing fifteen minutes, it could have been a pre-code classic. As it stands, it’s still a wonderfully campy, shocking, and exciting relic with an amazing performance by the lovely Myrna Loy. Warner Archive has put out a nice copy of THIRTEEN WOMEN, and it deserves to be seen by a whole new generation.

I give THIRTEEN WOMEN three explosive rubber balls out of four. Just don’t bounce it!

1 Comment »

The Geisha of Gore Looks at Two Classic Films by Nobuo Nakagawa

Posted in Ghost Movies, Classic Films, Geisha of Gore Reviews, Colleen Wanglund Reviews, Japanese Horror, The Afterlife, 2011, Visions of Hell with tags Classic Japanese Cinema, Ghost of Yotsuya, ghosts, Hell, Jigoku, Nobuo Nakagawa, Revenge, Samurai, Tokaido Yotsuya Kaidan on March 16, 2011 by knifefighter

Classic Japanese Horror: Two Classic Films by Nobuo Nakagawa
By Colleen Wanglund, the Geisha of Gore

Nobuo Nakagawa is probably one of the most famous film directors you’re not watching. Nakagawa was a prolific Japanese filmmaker who directed almost forty movies between 1938 and 1982 (he died in 1984). He is a genius of the horror genre and considered by many to be the father of Japanese horror. Nakagawa is known for such movies as SNAKE WOMAN’S CURSE (1968), THE DEPTHS (aka THE GHOST OF KISANE {1957}) and VAMPIRE MOTH (1956) which is thought to be the first vampire movie in Japanese cinema. The movie which seems to get the most praise and recognition is Nakagawa’s JIGOKU from 1960.

JIGOKU was released in America under the title THE SINNERS OF HELL. The movie was remade in 1970 and again in 1999 under the title JAPANESE HELL by Teruo Ishii (HORRORS OF MALFORMED MEN {1969}), a well-known cult film director in his own right. Nakagawa’s version stars Shigeru Amachi as Shiro, a theology student who has just gotten engaged to his professor’s daughter Yukiko (Utako Mitsuya) when his friend Tamura (Yoichi Numata) shows up. Tamura offers Shiro a ride and a drink to celebrate his engagement, but while driving they hit a drunk in the road and leave him to die. Tamura is one nasty a-hole. Unfortunately the drunk was a leader of a gang and his mother who saw the car’s license plate number vows revenge. Shiro is horrified by his friend’s lack of remorse and decides to go to the police and confess. Tamura tries to stop him by telling Shiro that it won’t matter who was driving, that Shiro will lose everything.

Shiro goes back to his apartment to consider his next move but Yukiko is waiting for him there. He tells Yukiko what has happened, after interrupting her as she was about to tell Shiro something. Shiro insists they take a cab to the station but during the ride there is an accident and Yukiko dies. With his life spiraling out of control, Shiro goes home to see his parents, after receiving word from his father that his mother is seriously ill. While there he discovers his father has a mistress who is stealing money from the residents of the nursing home Shiro’s parents own. Shiro also meets the daughter of one of the residents, Sachiko (played by Utako Mitsuya, in a dual role) who is a dead ringer for the dead Yukiko. Shiro has also discovered that Tamura has followed him home, but so has the mother and girlfriend of the dead gangster killed in the hit-and-run accident. Things just go from bad to worse for Shiro, as well for the people around him.

JIGOKU is a beautiful film that is well-written and flawlessly directed with a minimalist quality. Nakagawa wanted to make something different from the ghost stories of the time and he certainly did that with JIGOKU. A somber mood runs effortlessly throughout the film, never deviating from its surreal and horrifying conclusion. At the time of its 1960 release in Japan, JIGOKU was received with shock and outrage as it contained very graphic images of the torments of Hell. The character of Tamura is a bit of an enigma as you’re not quite sure what to make of him. He is diabolical and without a conscience. What’s also so disturbing about Tamura is that he seems to appear out of nowhere and knows everyone’s darkest secrets. Is he human or a demon?

Jigoku literally translates to “hell” and the movie’s final third is a dark and horrifying depiction of Hell based on the teachings of Buddhism. Including traditions from other Japanese folklore and religions, this Hell consists of eight levels of fire and eight levels of ice. A soul’s punishment is determined by the type of sins committed while alive and can consist of anything from carrying the pain of those you have hurt, to being flayed alive. It is shots of live flaying and beheadings that lands JIGOKU a place in the splatter sub-genre and is believed to be one of the first examples of Japanese splatter horror. What is so scary about this is the belief that all souls must spend some time in Hell before moving on to Heaven and eventually reincarnation. As Shiro moves through the levels of Hell he witnesses the torments being suffered by those he knew in life. He witnesses eyes being gouged out and bodies cut to pieces, as well as hearing the never-ending screams of the sinners. Shiro is also being followed by Tamura, who tries to tempt him at every turn. Shiro is determined to prove that he is not a bad person and has a conscience. This last third of JIGOKU is quite intense and frightening. It’s almost uncomfortable to watch, but that is what a good horror movie should do—make the viewer uncomfortable.

Most of the extras in the scenes of Hell are butoh dancers. Butoh is a form of dance combining traditional and modern elements and was founded by Tatsumi Hijikata and Kazuo Ohno. Created out of the chaos of post-World War II Japan, most of the movements involve the distortion of the body. The form is primal, manic and at times sexually provocative. It was exactly what Nakagawa wanted for his denizens of Hell. Their movements capture the torment delivered to them. Hijikata also used butoh when he co-starred in Teruo Ishii’s HORRORS OF MALFORMED MEN (1969).

* * *

TOKAIDO YOTSUYA KAIDAN (THE GHOST OF YOTSUYA {1959}) is based on the most famous Japanese ghost story of all time, which was written by Nanboku Tsuruya in 1815 for Japan’s Kabuki Theater. Iemon Tamiya (Shigeru Amachi, who also starred in JIGOKU) is a ronin, a masterless samurai who has been refused the hand of Iwa (Katsuko Wakasugi), the woman he loves, by her father. Usually a samurai becomes a ronin when his master is killed—it is then up to the ronin to avenge his master’s death and then commit ritual suicide. Iemon is not one of those devoted samurai. Enraged by Iwa’s father’s refusal, Iemon kills the father along with another man. Naosuke (Shuntaro Emi), a servant and the only witness, tells Iemon he will help him hide his crime. They tell Iwa and Yomoshichi (Ryuzaburo Nakamura),the young man Iwa is betrothed to, that another man attacked and killed their fathers. Iemon ultimately marries Iwa and vows to avenge her father’s murder. While on a pilgrimage to pray at a shrine, Iemon and Naosuke stab Yomoshichi and throw him over a waterfall. They then tell Iwa and Sode (Noriko Kitazawa), Iwa’s sister, that the same man who killed the girls’ father has also killed Yomoshichi.

Some time has passed and Iemon and Iwa are living in Edo (Tokyo) and they have had a son. Naosuke and Sode are also in Edo, but neither of the sisters knows this. Naosuke has been promising Sode that he will avenge her father’s death. Sode has promised to marry Naosuke when the task is completed. Iemon and Iwa are poor, and he has grown tired of Iwa asking when he will avenge her father’s death. Iemon meets the daughter of a wealthy samurai and wishes to marry her; but he is already married. Oh, that pesky wife just getting in the way. Naosuke devises a plan to get rid of Iwa and clear the way for Iemon’s marriage. Iwa is poisoned and dies, but not before the poison has disfigured her face. Iwa knows she is dying and why, so she takes her son to the grave with her. Her body is disposed of and Iemon marries his new bride. Out of grief and betrayal Iwa’s spirit haunts Iemon and it affects everything he has lied, schemed and murdered to attain. Iwa has vowed revenge and she will have it.

TOKAIDO YOTSUYA KAIDAN is not the first film adaptation of the original play but it is the most faithful, following the story almost exactly as it was first written. It is a beautifully directed movie with a suitable dark atmosphere throughout. The sisters are very sympathetic characters and Iemon and Naosuke are truly villainous. The special effects are fantastic with Iwa’s face becoming “monstrous” after drinking the poison and her ghostly image is very scary, appearing quite often to sabotage Iemon’s plans. Nakagawa seemed to have taken inspiration for the filming of TOKAIDO YOTSUYA KAIDAN from early Hammer Studios films. This was a low-budget movie but it certainly doesn’t look it. TOKAIDO YOTSUYA KAIDAN is a movie for the horror purist and fans of good old-fashioned ghost stories. What also stands out is the story itself (both the original and this movie) is based on two real-life murders that took place during the samurai period in which it is set. The first crime involved two servants who murdered their masters and the other involved a samurai who murdered his concubine after learning she was having an affair. The story also takes place during a time when women were seen as merely possessions and they suffered greatly. The ghost represents the spiritual power of the woman, allowing her to take revenge for her bad treatment (come on, now, I’ve told you this before).

Both JIGOKU and TOKAIDO YOTSUYA KAIDAN are excellent movies from Nakagawa and if you get the chance to see them, you really should. They are each beautiful, dark and haunting in their own ways and great examples of early Japanese horror cinema.

DRIVE ANGRY 3D!

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Action Movies, Campy Movies, Cinema Knife Fights, Demons, Fast Cars, Nicolas Cage Movies, Satanists, VIOLENCE! with tags 3D, Amber Heard, David Fichtner, demons, Devils, Drive Angry, Fast Cars, Hell, Nicolas Cage, Patrick Lussier, Revenge, Satanists on February 28, 2011 by knifefighter

Cinema Knife Fight: DRIVE ANGRY 3D
By L.L. Soares (and Michael Arruda)

FADE IN

(The scene: A long stretch of highway. LL SOARES is driving a Dodge Charger as fast as it can go, miles of desert on either side of him. Motorhead’s song “Ace of Spades” plays loud over the car stereo)

LS (shouting): Oh there you are. I’m here driving solo, reviewing the new movie DRIVE ANGRY that just came out in theaters. My sidekick is bowing out on this one…

(The music stops and MICHAEL ARRUDA’s voice comes on the radio)

MA: Hello? You there?

LS: Hey! I was enjoying that song!

MA: Yeah, well, I just want to set the record straight. I didn’t bow out on this one on purpose. I’m stuck at my house buried under several feet of snow; snow, it seems, that has been falling since January! I mean, the snow banks around here have gotten so big they’re going to start lending money.

LS (turns off radio): Like anybody cares. I was enjoying that song. Hopefully, he’s gone now. (Turns on radio. “Ace of Spades” is playing again.) That’s more like it. So, where was I? Yeah, DRIVE ANGRY.

(MA’s voice returns on the radio.)

MA: What do you mean? Nobody cares? I have readers who would care if I’m stuck in the snow someplace.

(Flash to a little old lady seated in front of a computer, tapping impatiently at the screen rather than the keyboard.)

LITTLE OLD LADY: Where’s that Michael Arruda? I haven’t seen his reviews in a while. He writes such sweet things about these movies.

(Scene returns to LS driving in car.)

LS: Hey, how did you know what I said if I shut the radio off first?

MA: Actually, you dissed me as you were turning the radio off.

LS (grimaces at camera): Yeah, I’ll buy that. Sure.

MA: So what did you think of DRIVE ANGRY?

LS: Actually, the full title is DRIVE ANGRY 3D, I guess. Although I’m sure some theaters somewhere were showing it in 2D.

DRIVE ANGRY gives us Nicolas Cage as John Milton (get it?)—.

MA: —That would be a reference to that classic of literature, PARADISE LOST by John Milton.

LS: Thank you, Professor. But this John Milton is a long-haired, intense guy who just escaped from hell in a souped-up car.

Turns out Hell is just a giant prison, and he’s a breakout artist. The reason he’s come back is to save his baby granddaughter, who has been abducted by Satanists. The baby’s mother – John’s daughter – was part of a cult, but got second thoughts, so the leader, the charismatic Jonah King (Billy Burke), killed her and took her baby, and is planning to use the infant to make a blood sacrifice to Satan. The plan being to open a portal and bring Hell to earth.

Meanwhile, a demonic lawman, called only The Accountant (William Fichtner) is hot on Milton’s trail, intent to bringing him back to the land of fire and brimstone. (Most people probably know Fichtner as the crooked federal agent from the TV series PRISON BREAK.)

Along the way, Milton picks up feisty blonde firecracker Piper (Amber Heard), at first for her car, and then later the two bond and she agrees to help him get his granddaughter back.

So Jonah King and his men are out to kill Milton. So is The Accountant. And Milton is intent on avoiding The Accountant and killing King and his minions, and saving the baby. Got it so far?

MA: Yep.

(We go back to the LITTLE OLD LADY, who is now getting into a souped-up 1957 Chevy and is gunning the engine)

LITTLE OLD LADY: I’ll teach them to give me a Cinema Knife Fight review without sweet little Michael Arruda! GOSH DARN IT!

(She peels out in a screech of tires)

(Back to LS)

LS: This movie creates its mood right from the get go, letting us know this is going to be an all-out, over-the-top, balls-to-the-wall, live-action loony tune from the very first scene. Nick Cage does his usual hammy overacting (he gives an enjoyable performance here, but it’s getting harder and harder to believe this guy once won an Oscar) as Milton, and Fichtner is damn near perfect as the demonic Accountant (who looks exactly like the FBI man he keeps telling everyone he is – his suit doesn’t get rumpled even once). Hell, the acting is good all around here, including Burke (the dad from the TWILIGHT movies – I knew he looked familiar) as the very charismatic Jonah King (you can believe this guy leads a cult) and the hot, tough, and fun-to-watch Heard as Piper. Other good supporting players include David Morse as Milton’s long-time friend, Webster, and Tom Atkins as the chief of police trying to chase everyone else down.

From the trailers, I thought this was just going to be a straight story of a normal guy chasing down the cultists who stole his daughter (is Nick Cage really old enough to play grandfathers now? I guess he is). I didn’t find out about the supernatural elements until a few days before the movie opened, and I didn’t know what to expect from that. All this talk of Hell and demons and vengeance smacks a lot of a previous Cage outing, GHOST RIDER (2007), which was flawed at best. But for some reason, it all works better here. John Milton is a man on a mission and Cage gives us enough intensity and his just plain patented goofiness throughout to keep the fans wanting more.

(Cherry red ’57 Chevy roars up behind him and drives up beside him)

LITTLE OLD LADY: Where is Michael Arruda this week, you mean man!

LS: Huh? What are you talking about? I’m trying to do a movie review here, lady.

LITTLE OLD LADY: Damn, smartass kids!

(She pulls out a shotgun and aims it at LS)

LITTLE OLD LADY: I represent “Old Timers For Arruda” and we are not going to tolerate reviews that leave him out.

LS: Lady, he’s stuck in the snow. It’s not my fault.

LITTLE OLD LADY: Not good enough, sonny!

(Before she can shoot, LS rams her car with his, and she goes over the railing, spinning down the hills, bursting into a giant ball of flame)

LS: So long, sucker! (cackles in glee)

Where was I?

MA (voice on the radio): You were wrapping up your review, I think. I have to admit, I’m sad you killed that old lady. She sounded very smart.

LS: Yeah, it is kind of sad to think I might have killed off your only fan.

MA: Get to the review!

LS: The dialogue gets a little absurd at times, but the silliest lines are the ones coming out of Cage’s mouth, and he says them as if they were diamonds. No one makes bad dialogue sound good and funny like Nicolas Cage.

For the most part, the script is pretty good, the acting top-notch, and the direction by Patrick Lussier – whose remake of MY BLOODY VALENTINE (also in 3D) in 2009 was one of the better horror flicks since the new 3D renaissance – keeps things moving at a nice speed throughout. Sure, there are plenty of goofy aspects to the proceedings, but they’re all part of the ride—speaking of which, there are also some very cool cars in this flick, too.

Is the 3D worth it? Well, there are stretches where you kind of don’t notice (as is the case with a lot of 3D movies), and then, suddenly, a bullet will come your way, or part of someone’s skull will hurtle towards you. This movie earns its R rating with plenty of blood and dismemberment, as well plenty of nude girls, so what’s not to love? That said, I’m still not a big fan of the whole 3D thing, and didn’t think it added that much to the movie. I still think the entire 3D craze is a sham created to raise ticket prices and sell new televisions. But when a movie is an entertaining as this one – and most 3D movies aren’t – I’m willing to let it slide. But I bet it would have been just as fun in regular 2D.

MA: I’m with you on this point. The majority of the new 3D movies haven’t been worth the extra ticket prices.

LS: So is this movie worth seeing? Hell yeah. After the showing I went to, there were surveys so I filled one out. One question asked “Why did you want to see this movie?” and I checked off “Nicolas Cage” with a giant X next to his name, and smaller x’s for William Fichtner and the fact that it was “Directed by the guy who made MY BLOODY VALENTINE.”

DRIVE ANGRY is a hoot and a holler and a drag race out of hell and back. I give it three and a half knives.

MA: Sounds like a lot of fun, and I’m sorry I missed it.

(LITTLE OLD LADY’s voice come on the radio)

LITTLE OLD LADY: You better be part of the next review, Michael! I am boiling mad!

(LS turns off the radio. The vast desert on either side of him turns into walls of flame as he takes a right turn into Hell)

LS: Well, I’m home. So long folks! See you next time.

FADE OUT

LL SOARES gives DRIVE ANGRY 3D – three and a half knives

Meanwhile, MICHAEL ARRUDA is stuck in the snow

1 Comment »

TRUE GRIT

Posted in 2010, Cinema Knife Fights, Coen Brothers, Westerns with tags Coen Brothers, Hailee Steinfeld, Jeff Bridges, josh brolin, Matt Damon, Revenge, Rooster Cogburn, True Grit, Western on December 27, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: TRUE GRIT (2010)
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE: The back room of a general store. The proprietor tries to keep MICHAEL ARRUDA from going back there, but he pushes on. In the room, they encounter empty whiskey bottles on the floor, and LL SOARES asleep among the inventory. The proprietor lifts his arms in defeat and leaves)

MA: Wake up, you old codger, we’ve got a movie to review.

LS: Saints and tarnation! Can’t a man be allowed to sleep the sleep of the dead even one day a year? I paid that proprietor dearly to prevent anyone from coming back here and disturbing my slumber. How the hell did you find me?

MA (lifts an empty whisky bottle and sniffs): It wasn’t too hard. Wake up. We’ve got a movie to review.

LS: Dammit, Michael. It’s Christmas Eve. Can’t you let a brother sleep late for once?

MA: It was your idea to review this one. Up and Adam! (He kicks the steamer trunk LS is sleeping in)

LS: AAAARGH!

MA: Come on. I have family members to visit. Gifts to hand out…..

LS (interrupts): Houses to haunt. I know, I know.

(LS jumps up, covered in old, worn long underwear and pulls his pants on)

MA: What’s with the eye patch?

LS: I was raising a bottle and accidentally poked myself in the eye. Do you mind?

MA: Eye don’t mind at all, yuk, yuk!

LS: Oh, get stuffed. We’ve got a movie to review, don’t we?

MA (smiles): Yes, we do! And eye do believe it’s your turn to start.

LS: You’re going to need an eye patch of your own in a minute! Okay, I’ll start it then.

TRUE GRIT is the new movie by the Coen Brothers, Joel and Ethan of course, and I was really looking forward to this one. Based on the classic novel by Charles Portis, some of you pardners might remember that it was filmed once before, by director Henry Hathaway, with John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn, in 1969. It was the only movie to get Wayne a coveted Oscar statue. But some people have complained that the Hathaway/Wayne version took some liberties with the source material. The Coens aim to rectify this by adhering closer to the novel. Of course, I can’t tell you if they succeeded in doing this. I haven’t read the book.

MA: Neither have I. (LS glares at him.) What? I said “I”, not eye!

LS: Aye. While Wayne was not the most talented of his brethren – there were certainly other leading men of his generation with more range and actorly gifts – he did a great job with the character of Rooster Cogburn (as his Oscar clearly illustrates), and I’m a big fan of the original film. So I wasn’t sure if it really needed to be remade.

But the Coen Brothers, in their infinite wisdom, deemed it so. So who am I to argue? I donned my winter attire and went out to the movie palace to partake of their cinematic Christmas gift. And I have come away with mixed feelings about the new TRUE GRIT.

I’m not saying I didn’t enjoy the movie, because I did. I thought it was extremely well-made and well acted. I’m just not sure if I appreciated the tone all that much.

MA: Really? Then I’m eager to hear what you have to say, because for the most part, I enjoyed the tone of this one. I didn’t have a problem with this movie until its ending, which I found anticlimactic. Why are endings so challenging for filmmakers these days? Don’t answer that now. Go on with your thoughts about tone. I’m interested.

LS: Let’s dissect this pickled frog, shall we?

The story is mainly about poor Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld). Her father, a farmer, was shot to death by a hired hand named Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), who also robbed him and fled the scene. Mattie is a serious, determined girl, and all of 14 years old. She has come to town to have her father’s coffin shipped back home and to secretly arrange for vengeance upon her father’s killer. When she is told it is unlikely that the killer will be apprehended – the man has fled to “Indian Territory” (which will someday be called Oklahoma) and there’s a shortage of federal marshals to pursue him – Mattie takes it into her own hands to hire a marshal directly, with money in hand, to make sure the job gets done. Of the possible lawmen to hire, Mattie chooses Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), because he has “true grit” and is known for not bringing them in alive (he usually kills the men he pursues). Since she wants her father’s killer dead, she is overjoyed to find such an ornery and foul-tempered brute to do the job. When she first spies Cogburn, testifying at a trial about men he’d shot, she knows she has made the right choice in the matter.

And so she goes about resolving some of her father’s business to acquire the money, and hires Cogburn to do the deed. Of course, Cogburn is also a whiskey-drinking drunkard as well as a man of the law, so it’s tough to get him motivated at first. But he comes around quickly enough. One of her demands in their exchange of money, however, is that she has to go along on the journey. Her intention being to kill the man himself when they find him, with her father’s own gun, which she has collected from the boarding house he stayed at when he was last alive.

The rest of the film recounts their journey to find the elusive Chaney and bring him to justice. The polecat has taken up with the outlaw Lucky Ned Pepper (Barry Pepper) and his gang. Cogburn aims to take Ned in tandem, to collect a reward for his hide as well.

MA: And I enjoyed this tale of the journey. It’s what happens once they find good old Mr. Chaney that I have trouble with. By the way, don’t forget Matt Damon….

LS: Ah, yes. Mr. Damon portrays a Texas Ranger by the name of LeBoeuf (which he pronounces “LaBeef”). LeBeouf has been trailing Chaney for a while now, attempting to take him back to Texas for a sizable reward. It seems Chaney had been up to mischief in that state as well, killing a Senator and his dog, and LeBoeuf plans to claim the bounty. But he hasn’t had much luck and seeks to throw in his lot in with Mattie and Cogburn, because I guess he believes the more, the merrier. Besides, Cogburn knows the Indian country well and would at least provide a useful guide for LeBeouf. He even cuts the man in for a percentage of the reward. Both men see Mattie as a complication, a thorn in their respective hides, but she proves she is more than capable of keeping up with them.

And so, our merry band departs Arkansas, hot on the trail of Tom Chaney.

The acting here is all top-notch. Starting with Steinfeld, who is pretty much astounding in her role.

MA: She is amazing, no doubt about it. Her performance in TRUE GRIT is among my favorite parts of the movie.

LS: The young girl plays a no-nonsense, ultra-serious character who will not back down in her quest. I don’t think she cracks a smile once in this movie, and she takes charge of every situation she is in with little or no effort. TRUE GRIT is really her story, and Steinfeld is more than up for the job. Her performance is a powder keg here, and I hope she gets nominated for an Oscar herself.

MA: She’s definitely worthy of an Oscar.

LS: Jeff Bridges, at this point in his career, has become almost as iconic as John Wayne was when he portrayed Rooster Cogburn.

MA: Hold your horses, there, pardner! That would be emphasis on “almost.” I love Jeff Bridges just as much as the next guy—

NEXT GUY: I take offense at that comment. I don’t love Jeff Bridges at all!

MA: Sorry. I thought I was just using an expression.

NEXT GUY: You should be more careful with what you say.

LS: Scram, you smelly varmint!

(NEXT GUY exits.)

MA: As I was saying, I’m a big fan of Bridges, but he’s nowhere near to the icon that was John Wayne. Wayne’s one of the all time biggest stars in film history. And even though Wayne over the course of his career didn’t show a lot of range—as he tended to play himself over and over— he was damn good at it. I’ve become a huge Wayne fan as I’ve gotten older.

LS: Be that as it may, Bridges is the superior actor.

MA: Yes, I would agree with that.

LS: Like I was saying, I love this guy like a second cousin—

NEXT GUY: Better you than me.

LS: Go away!

But I do have some bones to pick with Bridges’ performance here. First of all, the man speaks in such a gruff, mutter, that in some scenes I wasn’t 100% sure what was being said. But, thankfully, that doesn’t happen too often. My other objection is that at times he is portrayed as a bit of an oaf, an idiot, for the sake of comic relief in a story of revenge, and that wasn’t much to my liking. A couple of jokes at his expense is one thing, but there are parts of this film where I thought Cogburn came close to becoming a joke.

MA: I didn’t think he was a joke, but if you’re thinking of the scene where he tries to show off his shooting abilities to LeBoeuf and Mattie Ross, and he’s obviously drunk and at that time not a very good shot, yes, that scene was a little annoying. But I don’t remember there being much more than that.

LS: Yes, that scene where he tries to shoot items he throws up into the sky to impress Mr. LeBeouf becomes rather comical at Cogburn’s expense, but he redeems himself in a true crisis. My problem is how Cogburn is portrayed as pretty much a buffoon throughout he tale – constantly blathering on about silly details of his life like an old hen, shouting when he’s better off using stealth, etc. This is more the fault of the screenwriting than the acting, however, and Bridges does his best to keep the character both noble and oblivious throughout, despite the drunken binges and such.

MA: I really enjoyed Bridges a lot in this movie. As powerful as Hallee Steinfeld was in this film as Mattie Ross, I thought Bridges was equally as good as Rooster Cogburn. I thought both their performances were among the best I’ve seen this year. Bridges was certainly more satisfying here in TRUE GRIT than he was in last week’s TRON: LEGACY.

LS: As many people may know, I’m not a big Matt Damon fan. In some films his earnestness and resemblance to Howdy Doody have made it difficult for me to take him seriously, but he continues to wash away that initial reaction and prove himself a decent enough actor. In TRUE GRIT, Damon is clearly the comic relief character (or is that Cogburn?), who thinks he is much smarter than he truly is. And I think he’s an improvement over Glenn Campbell, who played the same role in the 1969 version.

Of course, Mattie shows both men up for the fools they are. Damon’s character also redeems himself when he needs to. But two fools in one tragedy seems a bit overdone to me, even if this were a work by Billy Shakespeare.

MA: I usually enjoy Damon a lot, but I thought he was just OK here. I didn’t find LeBoeuf particularly compelling or all that enjoyable. I’ve seen Damon deliver some riveting performances, taking a role and making it his own. That’s not quite the case here. LeBoef is Le-Boring.

LS: Josh Brolin plays Chaney, when we finally meet him, as a whiny man-child, not much worth the time spent pursuing him, and not much of an adversary at all, which I guess is the point, but I found his character to be a bit grating. Which is odd, since I’m usually such a big fan of Brolin’s.

MA: I wouldn’t know. Brolin’s screen time here is ridiculously brief, it’s flippin annoying! It’s one of the problems I have with this movie. The three main characters spend all this time tracking down Chaney, and then when they find him, it’s over so quickly.

I actually thought Brolin was fine. I wish he had had more of a part. As it stands now, blink and you might miss him.

LS: You’re exaggerating again.

MA: I know, but I’m making the point that he’s not in this thing much. Often, my favorite part of a movie is its villain. Tom Chaney isn’t much of a villain. And why not? Because we don’t get to know him.

LS: Barry Pepper is actually much better in his small role as outlaw Lucky Ned Pepper. He looks and acts as battle-worn as his character should be, and deserved more screen time.

MA: Yes, he does. TRUE GRIT is obviously the story of Mattie Ross and Rooster Cogburn, and as such, the movie succeeds. I enjoyed their story immensely, but the movie as a whole would have been better had more time and care been given to the villains in the story as well.

LS: Agreed. I liked this movie a lot. I thought it was very well-done, and I think Steinfeld steals every scene she is in. But my complaint is with the tone of these proceedings. As I mentioned before, there’s a bit too much comic relief in a story that deserves more introspection. Sure, Cogburn is a drunk and a blowhard, but if he’s been so successful at his job, he must be much more of professional killer than we are led to believe here. A bit more clenched-teeth mercilessness in the face of adversity would have been nice. It’s like the movie starts with telling us his reputation as a cold-blooded bringer of vengeance and then the reality is that he’s a clown. Which is all well and good, but I would have been happier to see more of his rattlesnake fangs.

A scene in a shack where one man loses his fingers and another has his head blown off was more to my liking – an intense scene that goes from casualness to violence in the blink of an eye, but there’s not much else like that to be seen here. Even if you were to have one eyehole covered in a patch, as Rooster does.

MA: A great scene! One of my favorite scenes of the movie, very intense! I wish the ending had been as intense as this scene!

LS: Are you referring to an absurd bit of storytelling toward the end where Cogburn rides a horse to death to get a snake-bitten Mattie to a doctor, and once the horse dies, he carries her miles further in the snow to their destination? Is this the scene you didn’t like? Because you’re right, it’s kind of dumb.

MA: No, I was actually referring to the confrontation— or lack thereof— between our good guys and Tom Chaney, but you’re right about the rushing to the doctor scene. I mean, I was fine with it until the horse dies and Cogburn picks up Mattie and carries her across the countryside. I think after a few yards he would have passed out, but he carries her for miles! Yeah, right.

LS: Look, I love the Coen Brothers to death, and I wanted to love this movie, but it’s not in the same wheelhouse as films like NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007) and FARGO (1996), which better knew how to temper their laughs and grimaces of pain. Actually, I don’t remember laughing much in NO COUNTRY at all, which is probably why it worked so well for me. In these grim scenarios, laughing in the face of reaper is often better served in small doses, unless you’re going to create a virtuoso work of absurdity like my favorite of their films, THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998), in which the tone suits its material perfectly.

MA: I’m hot and cold with the Coen Brothers. While I enjoyed NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and FARGO, I didn’t enjoy BURN AFTER READING (2008) all that much. Oddly, one of my favorite movies of theirs is the quirky O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? (2000).

LS: And there you have it, my review of TRUE GRIT. I give it three and a half knives. Not the full four of an exceptional film, but close. And certainly not the five knives of a masterpiece. The Coens have made a couple of films that approach greatness in their oeuvre, but this one falls a bit short for me.

MA: Me, too. Actually, for most of this movie, I was enjoying it a lot, and it was approaching four knife status. However, the ending took care of that.

I thought the pacing to TRUE GRIT was slow and deliberate, and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I was completely wrapped up with Mattie Ross’ and Rooster Cogburn’s story, and even though this film of their journey together took its time, I enjoyed every minute of it.

There were lots of enjoyable scenes. You already mentioned my favorite, the “finger slicing scene,” but I also enjoyed the sequence where they come across the hanging body from the tall tree branch. I loved the small details, like the sound effects of the bird chomping on the corpse’s face.

I enjoyed the sequence where they met the Bear Man. It was very mysterious and captivating.

I thought the shoot out following the “finger slicing” scene was also rather intense and well done.

Everything up until the ending was excellent. Up until the ending, TRUE GRIT is a compelling western, well-made, and totally engrossing.

But the conclusion lacks oomph; it’s anticlimactic. What should have been a dramatic confrontation between Rooster Cogburn and Tom Chaney never happens. This is because, ultimately, TRUE GRIT is a character study of Mattie Ross and Rooster Cogburn. It’s not a chase movie, or an action picture about the pursuit of an evil bad guy. The evil bad guy is nothing more than an afterthought here.

Does this ruin the movie? Absolutely not! It just prevents it, in my book, anyway, from completing the deal and achieving 4 knife status.

As a result, I give TRUE GRIT three knives.

LS: Fine. Some might say that TRUE GRIT is a bit off the beaten path for us, since it’s not horror. But it is a genre film—that genre being of the Western persuasion. Besides, there were mighty slim pickins’ this month for horror films. And as this year went on, we did seem to be branching out a bit in other territories…much like Rooster Cogburn and his crew.

And now that you’ve wrung this review from me, Michael, can I please go back to my slumber?

MA: Of course. I’ve got to get going anyway. I have to go scare— I mean, visit some relatives today.

(Door opens behind MA. A young 14 year-old girl enters the room.)

GIRL: Are you two the Cinema Knife Fighters?

MA & LS: Yeah.

GIRL: A bad man shot a lousy movie about my daddy. I’m here to clear his name. Will you review the movie and tell the truth about my daddy?

MA: Your daddy’s name isn’t Edward Cullen, is it?

GIRL: Nope.

MA: Good, then I’ll see the movie.

LS (exasperated): I just want to sleep, dag gum it! Can’t you handle this one yourself, Arruda?

MA: You can sleep all you want—after we help this girl. Now, tell us about this movie.

GIRL: Well, first of all, it’s all lies, and second—-.

(As girl tells her story, the camera pans away, exits through window of general store, and in a wide crane shot pulls away, revealing saddled horses hitched to the store and a snowy surrounding landscape, and we hear LS shouting, “Damn it, where’s that whiskey bottle I was saving for Christmas?” followed by the crack of a glass bottle shattering, and MA saying, “There ‘tis.”)

—END—

Michael Arruda gave TRUE GRIT – three knives.

LL Soares gave TRUE GRIT - three and a half knives

FASTER

Posted in 2010, Action Movies, Crime Films, LL Soares Reviews, Spirit of the 70s, VIOLENCE! with tags Billy Bob Thornton, Carla Gugino, Chevelle SS, Dwayne Johnson, Existential adrenaline, Faster, Revenge, The Rock, Throwback to 1970s films on November 29, 2010 by knifefighter

FASTER
Review by L.L. Soares

Who knew I’d ever actually want to see a movie starring The Rock? I mean this is the former wrestler whose career choices have been pretty dismal since he decided to pursue acting. Whether its throwaway stuff like THE SCORPION KING (2002) and GET SMART (2008) or family-safe pabulum like THE TOOTH FAIRY (2010) and THE GAME PLAN (2007), he hasn’t really lived up to his potential. Until now. I’m finally a Rock fan. Maybe I should be calling him Dwayne Johnson. He doesn’t go by “The Rock” anymore, does he?

When I saw the trailer for FASTER, I knew I had to check it out. Why? Because it instantly reminded me of 1970s revenge dramas like DEATH WISH (1974) and WALKING TALL (1973), edgy 70s flicks where merciless men got revenge for grievous wrongs. (Which is funny, because Dwayne starred in a lackluster WALKING TALL remake in 2004, too, but it didn’t have the kick this one does.)

So I went to see FASTER, totally expecting to be disappointed by the actual movie itself. The trailer had to be a fluke, right? And something even weirder happened.

I had one helluva time with this movie!

The plot is incredibly simple. It begins with our man Dwayne (his character in this movie is simply known as “Driver”) getting out of prison after a 10-year stretch. Nobody is waiting for him outside the gates, so he just starts running—anything to get him away from that place—and ends up in a junkyard miles away where a 1970 Chevy Chevelle SS—which is a character in the movie all by itself—has been left for him and is waiting under a tarp. He grabs the keys, hops in, and the movie begins for real. He has a list and some photographs. He needs to find the people on the list and kill them. There’s a purity to this movie’s single-mindedness.

Why does he want to kill them? Ten years ago, he was the driver for his brother, as part of a crew robbing a bank. They got away with it, but some rival gang showed up at his brother’s house, intent on stealing their haul. When they don’t give it up, Dwayne’s brother gets killed and he gets shot in the head for his troubles. But he lives!

He lives long enough to do a stretch in the big house. But once he’s out, it’s payback time!

Who else is involved? Besides, Dwayne and his vendetta, we’ve got two cops who have a hard-on to bring him to justice. One is simply called “Cop” in the credits (Billy Bob Thornton) and he’s a piece of work. A sleazy, unkempt drug addicted little guy with nine days to go before he retires, and one last chance to vindicate himself as a human being by helping to solve this case. His reluctant partner, Detective Cicero (the excellent Carla Gugino in one of the few roles in this movie that have an actual name), wants nothing to do with Billy Bob, but he’s been assigned to help her by the boss, so she deals with it.

There’s also a hit man (Oliver Jackson-Cohen as a character simply called “Killer”) who has been hired by the mysterious person behind the double-cross ten years ago that got Dwayne’s brother killed. Killer is an overachiever who kills people just to show he can. He’s a yuppie who has succeeded at everything he does, from making a killing in the financial realm to overcoming polio as a kid to recreate himself as a perfect physical specimen. There is nothing this guy can’t do. Then he’s hired to kill our Mr. Johnson, and he becomes obsessed with finishing a job that continually eludes him.

So that’s it. Dwayne ratchets up the kills, as the cops and the hit man are on his trail trying to stop him. It doesn’t matter that he doesn’t try to hide. That he’s all over the news. That wherever he goes, people should recognize him. Nobody stops him. Even when he goes into businesses and shoots employees in their cubicles. He’s a killing machine. He’s a great white shark on two legs. He keeps moving forward until someone can stop his trajectory.

There’s one scene involving a conversation about forgiveness (I won’t say more than that) that threatened to derail this movie and ruin it for me, but it’s not a big enough flaw to scratch the paint too much.

But aside from that one misstep, which was meant to humanize Mr. Rock, in a movie where he really doesn’t need humanizing, this flick is pretty much flawless. Like a cross between DEATH WISH and VANISHING POINT (1971)— that car alone screams 1970s and it earns its keep throughout—as Johnson drives from one victim to another, intent on righting wrongs and splattering as much brain matter as he can.

The utter coolness of this movie even goes down to the soundtrack. It’s by Clint Mansell, from one of my favorite bands from the late 80s-early 90s, Pop Will Eat Itself. He’s since gone on to a solid career as the composer of soundtracks, mostly with Darren Aronofsky (REQUIEM FOR A DREAM (2000) and 2006’s THE FOUNTAIN to name just two). There are also some very cool song choices, especially “Short Change Hero,” a neo-soul powerhouse tune by the band The Heavy that plays over the ending credits.

Like I said before, I always thought Dwayne Johnson had charisma, but he has made some awful choices for movie roles. FASTER finally justifies his career change. And everyone else involved turns in solid performances, too, from the various sleazebags Johnson hunts down, to Billy Bob (I’ve been a fan of this guy since the first time I saw him, in SLING BLADE) to Gugino and Jackson-Cohen.

It’s rated R for violence and language. But the film does have a bit of puritanical streak running through it, however narrow. There’s no nudity, and even in a scene that takes place at a strip club, the ladies keep their underwear on.

Existential in tone. Pure adrenaline in pacing. Merciless in execution. FASTER is a blast from a sawed off shotgun compared to the other films in Johnson’s filmography.

I give it three and a half knives.

-the end-

4 Comments »