Den Of Thieves

It is common for Hollywood to insert local Los Angeles scenes, landmarks and various other references to the local region in their projects. It was always the other side of Los Angeles, though. The side that was never a part of my Los Angeles existence.. minus the occasional gangster/ghetto flick set in Compton/South Central.
As a matter of fact, the 'local' news networks never covered anything that was local to me. We basically didn't much exist.
Out of sight, out mind, as they say.

And that is basically how the people at the business end of Los Angeles' wealth and glitter scene viewed  anything south of the wretched Imperial Highway Corridor. In actuality, once you survive passing through that corridor, things get a little cleaner... and much cleaner as you pass further toward the Palos Verdes Peninsula, with it's 2-3 million dollar homes.

The Imperial Highway Corridor intersects with what is known as the Harbor Gateway Corridor, along I-110 (known as The Harbor Freeway), ending at the Port of Los Angeles.

The region trapped against the coast by these two corridors of suckage is called The South Bay. It's a different scene, a different mix of cultures, creating a separate identity due it's cultural isolation from what most people think of as Los Angeles. Part of The South Bay also includes a few localities more culturally and politically associated with what is called South Los Angeles. The communities of South Los Angeles contain a lot of suckage.
It is in this world where I grew up, in the City of Gardena, that straddled the  nicer South Bay and less so, Harbor Gateway to the east and Imperial Corridor to the north.
On the map to the right >>> My home was located where the 'n' and the 'a' meet in 'Gardena'. (Clicking on the map makes it bigger.)

Needless to say, I, like most from Gardena, preferred to look westward when it came time to leave the house. I spent most of my life after age 15 (when I acquired motorized transportation) in the land that lay west. (you would have, also).

Never have I seen a movie that was scripted, set, and filmed almost entirely in the isolated land that I had spent the first half of my life stomping through. And this is where Den Of Thieves got my attention, in the very first scene, showing the Gardena Memorial Hospital and the Hustler Casino... both of which are 4-5 blocks from my childhood home, that my mom still occupies.

Enough background... on to the film...
Gerard Butler plays Detective Nick o'brian, who leads of rough and tough crew of street detectives monitoring a crew of well-organised and clever thieves who have been robbing banks.
They set their sights on a grand prize, the local Federal Reserve... the bank to the banks.

Several of the plot twists along the way, as some of the characters are developed, might leave one scratching their head... but all come together toward the end, as the thieves and detectives attempt to outwit each other, ending in a shootout worthy of  "Heat" while stuck in that all-to-familiar South bay phenomenom: a traffic jam where you least expect it!

Props to the creator of this film, Christian Gudegast, for making this so real. All the references to the local scene are here, from South Bay only slang terms, tattoo styles, the mix of ethnics (yes, Samoans are a real presence here), a vague reference (simply 'Harbor') to the county hospital/trauma center (where you go after you been shot), even a remark about the ethnic make-up of a high school football team vs another (from a school where I had a lot of friends from).

Go see it. It's a good movie.

Hostiles

Hey, look... It's another movie critique!
What the??
Yeah, I know...
It's been a while since I offered one up.
Why?...
Because...
It's been a while since I'd seen a movie.
A couple years, I think. Maybe longer. I just didn't like all the comic book type fare Hollywood was producing and I decided to boycott.

After years of slumber, I looked up to find...
Wow!, the creative class has started creating again.
There are some good films out there at the moment.

Had a much needed 'Mom date' today, and took the old lady to the movies. She likes Westerns. Okay, enough of about me..
On to what matters...

Hostiles is a story based upon a soon-retiring Calvary officer (a decades-long, seasoned and bloodied veteran of the Indian Wars) being ordered to safely return an aging and dying Chief (a personal nemesis), to spend his last moments in his ancestral lands.

This is not a match made on earth. Both  men hate each other. For very honest reasons. And this is where the honesty of the story ends.

80% of what happens next, is total, fucking, bull shit.

Along the way. they encounter hostiles of their own, they fight against them... yadda yadda,
The aged, murderous Indian (who is presented as gentle and brave) is wiser and more sincere than his hateful, bigotted White enemy... more yadda...

NOW you can see where the Hollywood crowd totally loves this movie.

In a latter scene, this group of noble Indian prisoners ally with their 'woke' White captors... to fend off a crew of Indian hating White men... and this is where the film totally lost me.
As a former bondsman, I have received some small amount of training as to how to react/defend when facing a hostile man, or four... It's called Tactical Training.

I'm sitting there... like... what the fuck are you doing???? You're all gonna die... you're asking for it!

Keep in mind... this band of now-brothers is led by a seasoned Indian war chief, and a highly successful and bloodied, 25 year veteran Calvary Officer... these are not combat stooges.
Yet, there they are... totally stooged out.
The movie ended for me in that moment.
Yeah, the film rolled for another 15-20 minutes or so... but I wasn't even in the room anymore. Could no longer suspend belief for the sake of  escapism...Not emotionally/intellectually, anyway.

I'm talkin... 'Bondsman 101' here..., pretty basic stuff ...

Until this moment, I was willing to forgive some of of the plot induced 'head scratchers' (what was that? i'm not sure... yeah, those moments)

"The best western since 'Unforgiven' " Hollywood tells us... I guess nobody in Hollywood saw '3:10 To Yuma', which I have favorably reviewed on these same blog pages.

On to performances...

Christian Bale was pretty awesome here. He is a real actor. . I thought he delivered his complex character pretty well... but toward the end... would have been nice if his facial expression changed somewhat. I don't blame him. He's an employee, following his director's  direction. The Director failed him. Myself... I would totally enjoy being who he was here...


Wes Studi was splendid playing the role of Wes Studi. This dude has one role in Hollywood, and he nailed his one role perfectly... for the umpteenth time... 'Mailing it in' is easy to do when it's the only letter you write.

Everybody else could have been played by... anybody else... This is a not a deep film.

Two weeks ago, I saw a direct-to-video Western on HBO.
"In A Valley Of Violence" is a fine Western of the old school, with good acting from Ethan Hawke and (surprise!) John Travolta.
Look that one up.
You'll thank me

Fury

The setting is Germany, April of 1945, the final closing weeks of WWII.  S/Sgt "Wardaddy" Collier (Brad Pitt) leads his tank crew on the final push toward Berlin. Having just lost their  driver to a sniper, another soldier (Norman Ellison) is assigned to the crew.

He's green, a fresh arrival who hasn't seen the inside of a tank before... nor a single combat action. Plus/and... he doesn't know how to fire a machine gun, or anything else he's going to be expected to do at this point. He is certainly not prepared to kill.

Needless to say, he's having a bad day and getting badly treated by his new comrades, who do not trust him because they know they cannot rely on him.
He will eventually prove his worth to this unfeeling, battle-calloused group of men who fight and bicker constantly amongst themselves.

Much has already been said about this film: It's dirty, gritty and grimy. The violence and battle sequences are extreme (and extremely personal). It makes too much note of American atrocities. Yadda, yadda, yadda... go ahead and 'Wiki' the title of the film. It's there.
No, seriously...  Do it, then come back to me... I'll wait.

Yes, I caught on to the brutality, the soulessness, the lack of virtue among the American fighting man when placed in the most uncivilized of circumstances while charged with a fucked up list of shit to live through.
Short story:
-War sucks. We been told that already through lot's of other movies.
-Americans were the good guys. Yeah, same thing... we know that already... (next!)
It's refreshing (dare I say 'Brilliant') for somebody to make a war movie that doesn't ground itself to either of those topics?

As one reviewer put it: ""Fury" is a brutal film that too easily celebrates rage and bloodshed to no clear end beyond ugly spectacle."

He is wrong, just as wrong as everybody else.
All of it, the 'celebration of rage and bloodshed for ugly spectacle' was leading up the true depth of meaning of a man's love and desire for his own center (the meaning of life, as you will),  fully showcased in the intro to, and within, the final battle scene...

Sent on a mission to defend a vital crossing, and losing 75% of their combat strength along the way,  the crew of Fury (the name of their tank) finds itself stranded at that very crossing due to a land mine.
With 300 SS infantry approaching, Wardaddy advises his men to escape, hide in the distant tree line until the enemy passes,...
and then begins to get back into the tank himself, claiming 'This is my home'.
He can't bring himself leave his tank to save his own ass, and prepares an ambush for the approaching Nazi's.
The other four refuse to leave.
Unspoken, yet upon their faces, they feel it too...
and stay to fight it out...
as a family...

a family of demonically possessed animals, for sure, but they are a family, all that bitching and bickering aside...
Fury is their home, too.

Called out from the only homes they knew (as young men, teenagers actually), required to expend their lives for a cause not of their choosing (or may not have understood), while held to a code with more grey lines than black and white ones... they found their own tangible sense of purpose, a home, the center of their being, in the best way they could (maybe the only way offered/allowed?)
Everything they are: what they've become, and all they can hope to be, is right there, within and through, that tank.
It's some seriously sacramental shit:
 -They are One with Fury.
 -Without Fury, they are none.
They are home.
Fighting savagely, they demonstrate their nobility; their purpose; they kill; they survive; they kill some more; they survive some more;  they are who they are; they kill and survive for Fury; they kill and survive as Fury...
they kill and survive because they are one...
One with Fury...
All sins to be redeemed through their passionate commitment for the one thing that unites them, bestowing  them with purpose, identity... and Life.
Dare anybody judge them now?

This is what I saw.
Everything, the entire film, all of it, was building to this moment.
Everybody else missed it.
Yet, it's right there, on the freakin poster, for Christ's sake!!!!
Even in the title, yo!
How much of a freakin clue do you need?
All the artistic license, the extreme depictions, the larger-than-life assholeness of the characters had a reason, ok?
This film is not a lesson in history about the good guys on the righteous side of a horrible war, so put that 'Saving Private Ryan', 'Band Of Brothers' and 'Sands Of Iwo Jima' stuff on a shelf for a while and see this for what it is.
This is a tale of purpose and redemption that just so happens to be set in a time of war.
In addition...
This IS a good, epic war flick, if not like the others.
It belongs with the rest of them, on the same shelf, maybe next to 'Kelly's Heroes"?

Purpose and Redemption. How did all these reviewers not see it?

Red Dawn

Anybody still remember that low budget hit from 1984?
This Red Dawn is a bit different with several tweaks to the story line while still maintaining the same story.

Originally set in a small fictional Colorado town (presumably one similar toVan Horn, Texas, the tweakers took the story into not-so-small Spokane, Washington, and this is where it goes bad:
The scene of North Korean paratroopers descending into crowded Spokane neighborhoods was rather hard to accept.
Invasion forces just don't operate that way, instead preferring to drop beyond populated areas and work their way in. Way too dangerous to drop in among startled and pissed off indigenous within a  gun-ownership society.
It is NOT possible to establish a defensive perimeter (what every invader seeks to do, and even more so with lightly-equipped paratroops) in the middle of a population center... while immediately and simultaneously setting about the tasks of subjugation and oppression... which happens here.

Also hard to accept is the idea that all of Spokane (population well over 200,000) was willing to take it hard and deep from a bunch of gooks except for a measly 8-9 high school kids.
Maybe the folks of a Van Horn (population, 2500) could be 'shocked and awed' quickly enough for a couple thousand troops to take control, but I doubt such in a larger Spokane.

Herein lies the problems with Red Dawn 2012.
Everything is bigger. Bigger explosions. Bigger enemy. Bigger goals and objectives. Bigger action. Bigger is not always better.
If some thought the fantasy of the original was far fetched (I did not at the time, as I was much younger, more idealistic), they will find this one stretching the limits of credibility to the point of just plain stupid.
They had a good thing in the original, something to build off of and improve. There was plenty to improve upon, too.
But they didn't.
They just went Bigger.
"Bigger = Better" is the mindset best suited for the sophomoric intellect, like those small dick dudes who drive big trucks.
Exactly the same demographic who would see this as a great film, though it is not.

But yer high school-aged son will love it.

Killer Joe

Chris (Emile Hirsch) is a drug dealer who finds himeslf in debt to the mob. It's a dire matter of the money or his life, so his family contracts with Killer Joe, a Dallas police detective who moonlights as a hit man, to snuff their mother (as despicable a person as the rest of them) in order to collect the insurance money.
The family doesn't have the fee-for-service upfront, so Joe takes possession of the emotionally delicate(or maybe not), virginal younger daughter (Juno Temple) as retainer until the cash comes through...

A few notes:

• Gina Gershon came through with the Entrance Of The Year.  I won't spoil it here, but rest assured that it is in yer face. No, really.
• An act of on-screen brutality hasn't cause my head to turn away since  Irreversible did, twice , in 2003.
• Oh again, as per Gina Gershon... I was reminded that she still has the sexiest pair of lips on-screen... or anywhere else.
• Matthew McConaughey (as Killer Joe)  really can act. Who knew?
• Gershon and the fried chicken leg. OhMyGod...
• Some dogs are asking for the bullet...
• Thomas Haden Church: you seen him already, yet never noticed his being there. In this film, he does 'Bag Of Hammers'  more truthfully/real life-completely than I ever seen before.
• Juno Temple has gotten my attention. Whatever she does next, I'll check it out.

Awesome, awesome performances by the entire cast.
The settings and camera work were right on, delivering the proper vibe and setting the emotional pace for a well built film, if a bit dark for most.

Call it 'Trailer Trash Noir' if you want, but I haven't seen  a film this disturbingly rich in years, and maybe never.

OK, Irreversible was disturbingly rich. (if you haven't seen it, why not?). But there was no comedy in it. This film, though not as awesome, does contain a sick level of comedy. Maybe that makes it a tad more awesome? You decide.
Go see it.
(leave the chick at home, OK? This is not a date movie.)

Savages

Ben (a botanist) and Chon (former Special Forces/Mercenary), played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Taylor Kitsch,  are two best friends from high school who start their own marijuana growing/marketing business in 90s-era Laguna Beach, California.
They are making millions through their grow and distribution network until a Mexican cartel arrives with offer they cannot refuse...
Which they do.
This does not go over well.

So... we got this flower-sniffing hippie teamed up with a professional warrior taking on the most brutal of Mexican cartels for the  privalege of being independent and real...
While the two share the same girlfriend in every sense you can imagine.
This girlfriend (Blake Lively) narrates/voice overs the movie.

The girlfriend, "O" as she is known, sums up the two this way:
"Ben's philosophy is 'Don't fuck with anyone.'...  Chon's philosophy is 'Don't fuck with Ben'..."
Ben is idealistic,  Chon is the muscle,.. and they are dedicated to each other...
And to O.
Yes, this does get interesting...

Oliver Stone directs this one, starring a few names that matter though they should not: Benicio Del Toro and that chica from Desparado....  um... yeah, Salma Hayak.  Or is it Selma? Whatever... That's her. I was less than impressed with both stars, as well as the third name, John Travolta.
The problem is that their performances are not believable:
Instead of seeing see the Cartel Boss, the Enforcer, or the DEA Agent, the viewer gets to see Benicio, Salma and John overly dressed for these parts.
Give me a break. You're supposed to be 'the stars'. If all you're gonna do is mail it in, at least use sufficient postage.

It's the story that saves this endeavor. Lot's of action, violence, brutality, some sex... it's fairly intense. I liked it.
Go ahead and see it.

Hunger Games

Several hundred years into the future, two teens (one male/one female) from each of twelve governmental districts are chosen by lottery to partake in The Hunger Games, a national spectacle where the participants fight to the death on national television until there is one survivor.

It's blood-dripping reality TV that takes on a bizarre twist with all the pomp and ceremony leading up to the big event. Creepy.

The film centers on Katniss Everdeen, played by Jennifer Lawrence, a tough and nimble gal who volunteers for the games when her younger sister is chosen. Lawrence is on-screen for nearly every shot, something she pulled off well before in "Winter's Bone". She'll be a big star now.

It's a good story, something American cinema desperately needs to break out of it's comic book fad. Also appreciated is the lack of over blown digital effects, another sad trend.

On the negative side, slow moving. I had hard time focusing my attention to what was going on before me. I'm thinking that I wasn't the only one since there seemed to be way to much conversation happening among my fellow theater goers, many of whom walked out early.
My estimate, maybe 15% of those who started the show did not finish. What started out as a nearly full room produced several empty seats around me before closing time.

Or, it may have been the 'shaky camera' style. This is where stable-image techniques are nearly abandoned for handheld camera work. This element is fine for some things, like the D-Day landing in "Saving Private Ryan", but totally sucks when 90% of the movie is filmed this way.
I think more than 90% of the movie was filmed this way. I was getting motion sickness just sitting there. By the time the end credits rolled, I was sick to my stomach. Almost too queasy to make the drive home. It was bad.

Be warned.
This is a difficult movie to watch, but not for it's subject matter.
Sequels are already in the works. I won't be seeing any of them if filmed in the same manner.

Act Of Valor

Short on actors and any real acting, but high in action, and it's very real action at that, is a good way to describe Act Of Valor.
As you've all heard by now, this film stars real Navy S.E.A.L.s, both former and currently active, in the leading roles.

I've seen lots of action flicks in my time, but this is the very first one that can be considered an art house quality film because it does things other action flicks cannot. For starters, they had to use real S.E.A.L.s because the standard stuntman couldn't perform what was required.
It's everything you heard it was.

I can see this being the launch for another set of sequels much in the tradition of the James Bond series. A new S.E.A.L. movie every few years, with a different storyline, yet loosely based upon real geopolitical events

Go for it, take the kids and the wife. You'll be glad you did.

Red Tails

Black History Month being just around the corner and all, I was expecting something more akin to Glory. I thought I was going to see a historical representation of the Tuskegee Airmen. You know... their struggle for recognition and respect? Maybe some good character representation? Guess again.

Set against the backdrop of Occupied Italy, we are introduced to the 332 Air Squadron. Thinking that Negro pilots lacked the necessities for front line aerial combat, the brass kept them out of the way and largely out of the papers, flying hand-me-down craft and relegated to menial tasks, like coastal patrol and attacking trains and truck caravans.

Eventually they get their big break: protecting heavy bomber squadrons and do a stellar job, earning the respect of the white pilots and... you get how it goes from there.

Much footage is placed on Aeriel maneuvers and over done explosions. The action kinda goes like this: Vroom-Vroom, boom-boom, Whoooooo!

In between all that Vroom-Boom-Whoooooo! there isn't much else that makes a great movie out of a solid idea.
The characters walk around like cardboard cutouts performing all the cliches you'd expect: the 'Nigger' slur fist fight; the maverick pilot; the guy who drinks too much; the overtly religious guy; racist Germans; romance with a local girl; the CO who smokes a pipe all the time...
It's a shame. There was a lot of talent on that screen depicting a diverse and interestingly believable collection of personalities. All of it wasted.

So what is this? A poorly done historical retelling of a first rate military unit? Or a sidetracked wham-bam-hooey intended to sell popcorn? I'm not sure. I don't think the creators are either.

Just as water and oil don't mix, neither do Top Gun and Glory. Red Tails can't make up it's mind as to just what kind of story it wants to tell, and suffers for it.

Moneyball

Based upon a book by the same name, Moneyball is the story of one man's (Billy Beane) attempt to rethink the game and restructure a small market team (in this case, the Oakland Athletics) that could compete with larger economic powerhouses such as the Yankees.

Defying the collective wisdom of baseball's best minds, Beane takes a more analytical approach to player recruitment relying on a different set of stats in order to find undervalued players.
Anybody who follows baseball already knows of the eventual success of the new paradigm.

If you're looking for dramatic story telling, go elsewhere. This is about baseball, not broken hearts, vengeance, romance, comic books or any of that other stuff movies are usually made of.
Instead, it's just an excellent baseball movie.
Check it out.

If you really, really like baseball, see it twice.

Straw Dogs

It's been a long time since I'd seen the original and tell you the truth, I forgot about most of it, only being reminded through flashbackish deja vu as this version of Straw Dogs played itself out.
There are some differences in the story line: In the original, the protagonist is a nerdy American mathematician who accompanies his Lolita-ish wife to her home village in England.
In this version, he is a trendy Hollywood screen writer accompanying his television-star wife to her hometown: a rural backwater in Mississippi.

The psycho-thriller tension starts from the beginning as David Sumner(James Marsden) and Amy(Kate Bosworth) arrive in town to reclaim the gorgeous southern homestead that belonged to her daddy. The locals, one of whom is Amy's former boyfriend, immediately treat David with suspicion and disrespect. David responds with attempts to suck up and fit in where he could.

For the most part, David is a big weenie who lacks the balls to stand up to the local jerks who taunt and ogle his wife, much to Amy's dismay. One day they lure him out on a hunting trip and leave him stranded in the woods, taking advantage of the situation to rape Amy.

The rest of the story largely follows the original in reliable detail, and the wussy excuse for a husband eventually finds himself in the situation where he has to man up and fight for his and Amy's life.
Much carnage takes place, and it's pretty cool stuff.

I recommend this movie to anyone who:

• Is interested in proper remakes of classic films.


• Enjoys watching brutish redneck bullies get theirs.


• Appreciates graphic and angry violence.


• Likes seeing Kate Bosworth's slender and sexy legs dance before their eyes.


• Appreciates watching Kate Bosworth's braless and pokie boobies bounce across the screen.

One major bitch on my part...
If you want to portray southern white tail deer hunting, hire somebody who has the first clue about it. If this movie is any guide, the uninitiated would would leave the theater believing that that rural Mississippi is chock full of Boone And Crockett class bucks the size of elk, and absolutely nothing else.

Warrior

Joel Edgarton and Tom Hardy star as two feuding brothers who haven't seen each other in years. Nick Nolte stars as their father with a long history of violent drunkeness. He's been clean and sober for a few years but is still paying the price for all he's done to his family. Nolte is brilliant here. One of the best performances I've seen from him.

Set within the Mized-Martial arts scene, the two brothers compete for a large purse in a kind of tough man competition, combined with a strong dose of family drama fueled with testosterone. Edgarton and Hardy turn in strong performances and really look the parts of MMA fighters: lean, muscular and freakishly ripped.

It's a good movie, even if the story is a little far fetched. The fights are beautifully done, leading up to the great master battle that pits the two brothers against each other.

I was expecting more of a feel good ending on par with Rocky or something like that. It doesn't deliver in that respect, but maybe it wasn't supposed to.
Overall, it's good theater, richly done, that lacks any emotional staying power.

Colombiana

After Femme Nikita and Leon, writer Luc Besson adds to his list of 'Chicks You Don't Want To Fuck With', while Zoe Saldana headlines Columbiana into an epic fail.

The basic story: Celeya is a young Columbian girl who witnesses her parents' murder by some criminal gang/cartel and vows vengeance. She find her way to Chicago to be raised by an uncle who trains her for a life as a contract killer.

And she'd be pretty bad ass about it too, if she was believable. Something about a skinny little Saldana (who can't weigh more than 110) incapacitating large muscular men with roundhouse kicks, blasting away with heavy machine guns (that should be shaking her bones from their sockets), with a tendency to do her best fighting in a leotard is just a whole lot of too much for me to accept.

Zoe Saldana is one of the most graceful actresses on the screen today, moving with a smooth fluidity to match her ballet background. She's got the skills for this kind of action-chick role. No doubt, it's hard to take your eyes off of her. But if anybody is in dire straights for a bacon double-cheeseburger, fries and a shake it is her. And shame on the lame-ass director (Olivier Megaton) for casting her without fattening her ass up first.
Or any previous director idiot. This isn't Saldana's first action role as she's become the go-to terminatrix for a few directors lately. Well, I'm not buying into it anymore.
Mark it: This day forward, before I pay to see Zoe fight bad guys I need to see some proof that she's capable of attacking a pizza.
This is getting ridiculous.

That's not all. The script has massive holes it. Weired shit happens without explanation. Dots don't connect. Too much is assumed. Little is explained. Characters are shallow. Special effects are overbearing. It's not even fun to watch.

What could have been a great movie with a terrific plot and the right imagery is little more than a massive wad of crap.

The Help

It's the early 60's, where every home in the upper-crust society of Jackson, Mississippi is staffed with a black maid. A budding writer, Skeeter (Emma Stone) has just returned from college and among the drama decides to write a book based upon the experiences of The Help. A look through their eyes, and what it's like to raise the white woman's child and care for her home while living a life second class citizenship.

What can work better than a movie based in the Jim Crow South among the backdrop of race and the struggle for civil rights? In some ways, we've seen all this shit before. We've heard all the stories, usually followed by some moral finger-wagging toward white people. This story spares us finger wagging while presenting us with a cross-section of humanity from the time.

• Skeeter: as the writer, she finds herself at odds with the racial attitudes held by most of her peers.
• Aibileen (Viola Davis): a middle-aged maid who is the first to risk sharing her thoughts for Skeeter's book.
• Minny (Octavia Jackson): close friend of Aibileen who's penchant for sass talk means she has trouble keeping a job.
• Hilly Holbrook (Bryce Dallas Howard): a snobbish alpha bitch who's "Home Help Sanitation Initiative" will mandate segregated restrooms within private residences who hire black Help. Her facilities fetish provides the spark that ingnites the story.
• Celia Foote (Jessica Chastain): social outcast from the wrong part of town, employs Minny when nobody else will work for her. She has issues fitting in and can't seem to learn the 'divide' tween white boss and black help, viewing Minny not as employee but as friend and confidant.

It is mostly Viola Davis' Aibileen who carries the story while Octavia Jackson's Minny steals every scene as the action see-saws from serious to comedic. I guess in the end what we've really got is a funny drama or a dramatic comedy. Take your pick.
It's a very good movie;, good enough that I expect it's makers will be hearing from the academy come Oscar time.

Conan The Barbarian

Remembering the original, I was looking forward to this remake. I wasn't expecting perfection, but I was hoping that they wouldn't over do it with FX and other digital bullshit. Maybe a remake on par with True Grit 2011? That would have been a beautiful, beautiful thing indeed.

Instead, we are given something much more faithful to the original character that Robert E. Howard created a very, very long time ago...
Yeah, that's right. It's not the same Conan The Barbarian movie. Not even near the ballpark, and you are informed of such with the opening scene presenting the birth of Conan on a battlefield as his warrior mother lays dying from her wounds. This was a wince-ful scene that could have been produced better. Instead, it comes off as digital-tech moshed with claymation tech, and badly presented as reality.

In praise, I don't think it's possible to better cast the role of Conan than the choice of Jason Momoa. He was perfect, doing a much better 'Conan' than Arnold Schwartzeneggar ever could. (Sorry, Brian.)

From there, Conan begins his legendary life of warrior awesomeness, killing everything that moves; mythical, magical or otherwise. Much of it while accompanied by his roving band of warrior Rastafarians.
And therein lies my first bitch: All the enemy clans look borrowed from other successful movies. They got Last of The Mohicans, Excalibur, Gladiator, Braveheart, Clash Of The Titans... and then a slave tribe of topless white girls, all of whom possess lithe bodies graced with firm breasts of impeccable proportion (OK, I didn't really mind that part too much).
The lack of creativity doesn't end there. Before long this project gets all Lord-Of-The-Rings on us, with overly sensational imaginary cities that become unbelievably destroyed. It's all too fantastic for my preference, and I was ready for it to be over about 1/2 hour before it was.

All in all, this one tries too hard to do too much, and fails convincingly.

Evocations: Last Of The Mohicans, Krull, Excalibur, Gladiator, Flesh And Blood, Lord Of The Rings, Braveheart, Clash Of The Titans

I'm sitting there in the theater, watching a remake I had been anticipating, hoping to God 'they' didn't fuck it up...
When every scene reminds me of another scene from any one of several movies I'd seen before...
But not once am I reminded of the uber-classic original.

Is it me, is the times, or is it just the current trend?

I think I'm going to start tacking 'reminder notes' at the bottom of every movie posting.

Cowboys And Aliens

An unnamed loner with a funky wrist shackle appears in the New Mexico desert and wanders into a town that is soon attacked by aliens, who kidnap some of the town folk.
Lots of weird happenings as the stranger, who by this time has been identified as notorious outlaw Jake Lonergan with amnesia, forms up a posse and leads them on a trek to battle the aliens and rescue the hostages.

Daniel Craig plays Jake Lonergan. He puts forth a fairly decent cowboy portrayal that reminds me of characters from westerns of yore with his mannerisms and attitude.
Olivia Wilde is eye appealing as a warrior alien from another world who's come to earth to help in the fight.
Harrison Ford and Keith Carradine, as local boss and sheriff respectively, mail it in as only they know how...

All in all, not a bad diversion. Nothing original, either. I was reminded through out of other movies from years gone by: Close Encounters, Battle: Los Angeles, Krull, Conan the Barbarian, The Terminator... the list can go on forever. I've mostly given up on seeing anything original in the theaters for a while, so this is as as good as anything else out there.

The Devil's Double

It's been a long time since a film allowed me to forget that I was sitting in a theater watching a movie as thoroughly as this one did.
The Devil's Double tells the true story of Latif Yahia, a young Iraqi lieutenant forced into service as Uday Hussein's body double/decoy/bullet catcher. This journey into the life of Uday exposes Latif to a world of unimagined privilage, mindless opulance, and brutal cruelty leaving him searching for a way out.

Dominic Cooper plays the roles of Latif and Uday. This means that he is often on screen twice at the same time, usually talking to himself. No easy feat for any actor to pull off convincingly, having to inhabit two different personalities for the same project. If he hasn't earned some sort of academy acclaim (or whatever) then that would be an injustice. Kudos as well for the editing of the scenes. It's flawless and seamless.

Limited release, but as far as I know it's playing all the major cities. Hopefully, it will roll out for a wider audience soon cause to catch it on Netflix would be a dishonor. This is a big screen effort.

If you can, go see it. It's worth it.

The Trip

An early Father's Day had my son accompanying his Dad, who truly is the greatest Dad in the world(just ask him... his Dad, I mean), to someplace he's never gone before: The Arthouse.

The Trip is a film about two British comedians who travel the northern English countryside because one of them has an assignment for a magazine concerning the finest restaurants in the area and, for some reason, is unable to bring his girlfriend along so opts for his friend and rival actor to go with with.

The film consists largely of banter and insults delivered tween bites of fancy dishes with the picturesque countryside as backdrop.

B O R I N G ! ! ! !

We walked out after about 45 minutes.

The Hangover Part II

The original Hangover was pretty funny, though the humor got a little too low to tickle my funny bone in a few places.

Sure, not much is different, with the same formula being followed:
A trashed hotel room in a party city, an strange animal, a wedding to go to, a missing person to find, permanent body damage, an Asian gangster, and a cameo by Mike Tyson.

So... you have the same plot and gags, wrapped in the same paper, but with a different bow with all the lowest elements carried forward while the true wit and brilliance from the original was dumped in the gutter, literally.

I barely got a chuckle and half of a giggle the whole time, but the rest of the audience seemed to really love it. To each his own, I guess, but the monkey was pretty cool.

So... I wasn't expecting much from The Hangover Part II that would differentiate from the original in any quantitative sense, and for this reason I was hesitant to waste my time on it.
I should have have followed my instincts.