Wanted

English/110 Minutes/2008/Rated R

“Wanted” is a great summer action flick that triumphs more in style than in depth. The story follows Wesley Gibson who is miserable as a cog in the work-a-day world. His girlfriend cheats on him with his best friend, his boss abuses him and he constantly frets over his extraordinary insignificance. One day that all changes when he learns that the father he never knew, one of the greatest assassins that has ever lived, was recently murdered.

He is then recruited by The Fraternity, a group of assassins of whom his father was a part. We follow Wesley through the inevitable training sequence (that manages not to fall into the montage trap) and on his early missions as he builds up his skills to tackle his father's killer. The Fraternity itself is a fascinating hodgepodge of characters with standouts being Fox, (Angelina Jolie in a role she is born to play) and Morgan Freeman cast against type as the leader of this gang of assassins. Wesley is played by one of my favorite actors, James McAvoy (Atonement, Last King of Scotland) and he does a spectacular job at selling Wesley's insignificance while equally well portraying his powerful side.

Visually the film is great and while being utterly over the top never falls into the realm of self-parody that was the undoing of “Shoot 'Em Up.” It helps that it is directed by the great visual stylist Timur Bekmambetov (Nightwatch, Daywatch) in his English language debut. Timur fills the screen with impossible action that somehow remains feasible and all the more pleasurable for it. A close comparison would be “Live Free or Die Hard” another over-the-top action film that never quite crosses the line of credulity. A great example from “Wanted” is the scene where an assassin flips his car over another vehicle to fire down through an open sunroof. Completely ridiculous, absolute pleasure.

“Wanted” is easily the most visually exciting movie I've seen this year. It's use of slow motion is stellar including long reverses (a bullet going through someone's head is traced back through time to the gun that fired it) and the visual representation of Wesley's different abilities is handled in such a way that the viewer immediately knows which sense he's using. There are other great visuals that I don't want to ruin by giving away. Suffice to say that the film is a visual treat and is Timur's best film to date.

Narratively the film is fairly pedestrian with the action set pieces really setting it apart. This is not to say that the film has no distinguishing and original ideas. The method of target selection for The Fraternity is interesting if a little bizarre, yet it is believable and interesting. Of course it helps that you have Morgan Freeman selling it to you (providing the gravity that he also gives in the recent Batman films). The film has some other great conceits that I won't ruin here and is great fun. I think it's safe to say that while there has been some criticism of the film's similarity to both Fight Club and The Matrix (nobodies who discover great power), “Wanted” is enough its own man that viewers who enjoyed those films won't mind the similarities.

In closing, the story of “Wanted” is familiar but it manages to overcome its familiarity with great style and a stellar cast. You'll be hard pressed to find a more exciting and fun summer movie than this. Highly Recommended.

Rated R for Strong Bloody Violence Throughout, Pervasive Language, and Some Sexuality

Rambo

English/91 Minutes/2008/Rated R

Those not wishing to read the entirety of this review will hopefully find the following summary satisfactory. Rambo is a good action film that finds its roots in a real life tragedy. It is not exploitative even though it is very graphic. It is recommended. For those interested in a more full-bodied defense, read on...

“Rambo” is a film that contains much that is unpleasant but I hardly feel that it is morally indefensible or disgustingly pro-violence. My contention is that the film brings a satisfactory end to Rambo's story while staying true to the underlying elements of the character. It is ironic that a film star who made the right-wing uncomfortable with his first film seems to make the left-wing uncomfortable with his latest film. I think, however, that this film is just as effective at starting discussion as any Oscar-worthy film on the subject and in this review I will tell you why.

The story of the latest “Rambo” installment is fairly simple. John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) has once again gone into hiding, this time in Thailand where he spends his time in purgatory and exile, wrangling poisonous snakes. Into his world come a group of missionaries, including Sara (Julie Benz), who want to cross the border into Burma (Myanmar). There has been a genocidal campaign by the ruling government for the last 30 years to drive out an ethnic people called the Karen (pronounced KAH-rin) to take over their land. These missionaries are going to help. Rambo asks, “are you bringing any weapons.” No they say, they are not. “Then you aren't changing anything,” he says. He has no interest in helping these people. Yet in a rain-soaked confrontation Sara is able to convince Rambo to take them up river and he does so grudgingly. When the missionaries don't return their Pastor hires a group of mercenaries to get them back and Rambo must take them up the river as well.

What follows is a no-holds barred assault on the senses and perhaps the sensibilities of some viewers. Unlike other critics I don't think the film exploits the real life tragedy of Myanmar for the sake of a film, at least no more so than a “Hotel Rwanda” or “Blood Diamond.” Rather it takes the opportunity of a summer action flick to shine a light on a little discussed subject. I'm sure I am like many other viewers who, after seeing the film, decided to look up what was really going on in Myanmar and see how people are helping.

For the film itself, while it is as graphic as you have been led to believe, is a great opportunity for Rambo to use his fighting skills to purge himself of his demons. I personally feel that a level of reality has finally been brought to a series known for a high body count. For example in “First Blood Part II,” Rambo kills at least a hundred people but its done in a stylized way; all fun and no consequences. The new film is not squeamish in showing what happens when violence really occurs. If we find that distasteful then the film has, in some ways, done its job. If we also find it exhilarating it says something about us as humans and as viewers.

“Rambo” does harken back to a time of simpler moralities where bad guys wore black hats and the good guys were good. Yet it's simple story is sometimes at odds with its realistic depiction. It comes closer in its realism and its desire to depict violence as nasty and unpleasant but it does not make a full demythologization like we saw in Clint Eastwood's “Unforgiven.” Instead the movie engages us viscerally in the simplistic rah-rah pleasure of great 80s action films of which this franchise is a pillar. This is what I feel many critics and viewers have had issue with.

As I have said of other war, holocaust, genocide movies, anyone who wishes to bring to the screen stories of these tragedies has a choice to make. They can go totally abstract with the depictions of violence like the scene in “Schindler's List” where people are marching into the crematoria or they can try for some level of verisimilitude. At the far end of that scale is essentially a document of atrocities in all their vile detail to the point that any message you have is drowned out by the desensitization of the viewer. Essentially we turn off and zone out.

There is also the accusation that any film who opts for more realistic portrayal of horrific deeds is somehow exploiting the tragedy for the purpose of entertainment. Then there are those who say that nothing less than the full monty is acceptable. There are of course downsides to both ends. Anything less than documentary is considered sacrilege and any graphic depiction less than that is exploitation. Thus Rambo finds itself in the camp of films that take their stories from real tragedies and make from them 90 minutes of entertainment with a serious face. That is the great criticism of the film.

And this is the major theme that must be addressed by any critic who recommends the film as technically the film is well made. The acting is better than previous installments (save the first) and the story is tight and engaging. Stallone shows a sure hand when it comes to filming action set-pieces and this installment should be praised for the increased realism.

For example, Rambo no longer takes on a whole battalion alone, and not always in face to face combat. Many of his successes focus on surprising the enemy or outwitting them instead of merely outrunning-and-gunning them. In fact much of his success is based on a mixture of luck and the involvement of others. He still gets his hands plenty bloody but the feeling of the film is different. John Rambo as portrayed by Stallone is no longer the lost boy of First Blood or the steroidal invulnerable badass of the later flicks. Rather this Rambo is utterly familiar with himself and hates what he is. In his mind he only brings death.

Consider if you will Rambo's place in time. John Rambo was a veteran who was cast out by his country. He did his best to help POWs still unaccounted for in Vietnam. One could only imagine how he would feel about veterans these days getting poor treatment at Walter Reed. He was over in Afghanistan in the 80s helping the Mujuhadeen finish off the Russians. But when the Russians left the Taliban came to power. We now live in a world where 9/11 has taken place and we find ourselvse again in an unpopular war. Wherever Rambo goes trouble is waiting and in his world nothing ever really does change.

At the same time, Rambo is not conflicted about his personal use of violence. Rambo says that killing is easy for him and it is hinted that he enjoys it. He has long since given up any pretense to fighting a good fight or doing a greater good. I think he may even realize the futility of violence in the long run. This is not to say that “Rambo” is a work of quiet philosophy. There is still the expected body count and the simplistic villains.

Rambo himself doesn't have much dialogue and what there is mostly imperative “go here, do this.” The brief moments of philosophy can fit on a poster (and they do): “live for nothing, die for something.” However, Rambo has not aligned himself with some greater good. Rather, John Rambo has been looking for a good reason to die, because he doesn't have a good reason to go on living. The scene where he is prepared to give his life for someone else (literally) is a far cry from the old Rambo.

I think it is also significant that this is the first time that Rambo is not sent on a mission by a government or on behalf of one. He doesn't do it for money or even for love (Benz is easily half his age and the character isn't exactly a lover). Instead he takes on this mission because he has learned to care about people again. He also realizes that killing is what he does and that no one is as good at it as he is. And he has plenty of people to kill.

The villains in the piece are rather one dimensional and are portrayed as utterly, irredeemably evil (one is even a pedophile) and to their credit all the villains perform admirably in rather thankless roles. The supporting cast fairs a little better with a group of mercenaries who, while also rather one-dimensional, make their presence felt and we care about what happens to them. In a great turn, Graham McTavish plays a surly former SAS man who ends up being surprisingly sympathetic. The missionaries are fairly expendable and are for the most part interchangeable, with the exception of Benz and Paul Schulze as their leader.

In fact Rambo has been criticized for showing the missionaries as weak and naïve. Benz's character is particularly singled out for supposedly being a throwback to the damsel in distress. However, in this case I found it to be a little more realistic. With a lack of training and days tied up in a hog pen with little food, I'm sure we would all find it difficult to be more proactive.

As a film, “Rambo” does what it sets out to do which is revamp and revitalize a forgotten series, entertaining while shedding light on an important topic. Topical films have a habit of being incredibly dated and falling prey to the passage of time. Such was the fate of “Rambo III” and may be of this new Rambo as well. The new Rambo just happened to be made at a time where many in the critical establishment do not want to see endorsements of violence and the heedless portrayal of bloodletting of the type featured in the film.

The great sin of Rambo is that it addresses an important topic in a politically incorrect fashion. If, for example, Stallone had paid for a documentary about Myanmar, no one would have gone to see it. If this film were a drama starring a white woman as a heroic doctor who is killed for helping the Burmese people, it would critically lauded. Finally if this were a foreign language film about a Burmese woman who must use her wits and her sexuality to survive being in a prison camp until she is liberated by fellow rebels, it would win an Oscar. The issue with Rambo is not that it is a bad film. Rather it is pilloried for making a good film in a politically incorrect way and thus it cannot be appreciated either as entertainment or serious commentary.

Personally I find that the film is a good conclusion for the character and if none other was ever made I would consider the franchise well ended. Rambo finds his peace at last and we are given hope that while he may have been a man of violence, that is not all that he is. Recommended.

Rated R for Strong Graphic Bloody Violence, Sexual Assaults, Grisly Images and Language

Death Train (aka Im Auftrag des Vatikans)

English/104 Minutes/2006/Not Rated

"Death Train" is an average TV movie that is undone by a ridiculous ending and overdirection. With three words I can tell you whether or not you'd like this movie. If the words “Catholic Kung-Fu” sound like brainless fun have I got a movie for you.

“Death Train” tells the story of Matthais (Simon Dutton, who looks like James Van Der Beek), a former soldier in the war in Kosovo. He has come to a monastery to live out his days in peace. However, he is secretly being groomed by the society “Pugnus Dei” (roughly Fist of God) who work as “Catholic secret agents.” Matthais along with his friend Gladius (Stephan Bieker) along with their mentor Matthew are on the pilgrimage train to Lourdes, where all sorts of afflicted people come to pray for healing.

Among the passengers is Sandra and her son Joey who has a rare blood disease that the insurance won't pay for. Also among the passengers are Lennart (Arnold Vosloo), Jurek (Mario Irrek), and Zandi (Michelle MacErlean), gangsters who have stolen a killer virus. Once the police discover who is aboard they refuse to stop the train and the only ones who can save the day are Matthais and Gladius.

Matthais is a typical suffering hero, like Cain in Kung Fu who always tries to avoid combat and killing people to leave his past behind. But like any typical action movie he is forced by circumstance to fight the gangsters one by one, hand-to-hand, usually on top of the moving train. It may sound ridiculous and it is but the fights are well filmed and much of the stunt work (car chases, explosions, helicopter crashes) is straight from the Joel Silver playbook (something has to happen every 10 minutes).

The film has above average writing for most of the picture. The solutions for innoculating the passengers and some of the plot twists and resolutions are clever and for the most part feel organic to the story. Again, if you can get past the silly premise the movie plays like “Under Siege 2” meets “The Da Vinci Code.” It's just unfortunate that it falls apart in the final reel.

In the last 10 minutes the story and the characters' actions are physically impossible, not even feasible and turn out to be just plain silly. I can deal with one dimensional villains and silly plot conceits (what I call a “gimme” every movie gets one) but once a film crosses the line into utter impossibilty then I can't enjoy it.

The film's other great black mark is the over editing and direction of the film. There are several great moments of direction (note the flashback scene where we get a dutch angle from the ground. But for everyone of these comes something really boneheaded like the constant use of ramp up and ramp down of film speed. Also every explosion is shot from 10 different angles and cut and recut so we see it over and over, sucking out any coolness or pleasure that comes from these stunts by becoming overlong and irritating.

If you're looking for a fun Friday night film you could do better, but you could also do worse. The film is predictable and derivative but fun and the acting and writing are above average for a TV film. If it wasn't for the ending it might have been worth watching. I can't say I recommend “Death Train” but if you're looking for some decent hand-to-hand fights and don't mind the concept it's a lot of fun.

Not Rated: Contains Violence and Brief Language

Death Racers

English/85 Minutes/2008/Not Rated

“Three years from now, war began.” - Narrator (sic)

Death Racers is not a good movie. The acting consists of broad stereotypes, the cars are street models with aluminum pipes stuffed with plastic rockets fixed to the roofs for weapons. In short, Death Racers looks like something your nutty cousin would make, with a few exceptions. But they are important exceptions.

This film is released by The Asylum which is a production company that specializes in knockoffs. For example when a movie like Transformers is released Asylum brings out “Transmorphers” and with “Death Race” hitting stores, “Death Racers” is the inevitable knock off. Generally the films are excreable and hilariously bad and range from “so bad its good” to just bad. In the case of “Death Racers” the knockoff is better than the real deal. Although that may be damning with faint praise.

The story of “Death Racers” is fairly straightforward. In a post-apocalyptic future (think "The Running Man") a large section of an unnamed state has been cordoned off as a prison (think "Escape From New York") where the worst of the worst are sent. An evil genius (played by WWE's Raven) prisoner has learned that the prison just happens to be over the state water supply (talk about poor city planning). The villain's plan is to use liquid Sarin he has synthesized to poison the water.

The only way to stop him, apparently, is to give some inmates cars tricked out with weapons and have them go hunt the villain down. On the way they can score points by killing other criminals, 10 for each, with 400 points for the evil genius. The first party to 1000 points gets to go free. Of course this will all be televised (on basic, no pay-per-view).

Our cast includes former wrestlers/recording artists Insane Clown Posse (Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope), a white guy pretending to be Hispanic (Jason Ellefson), and two lipstick lesbian black-widows (Jennifer Keith and Therese). The stage is set for offensive humor, offensive language, and bloody kills. In this regard “Death Racers” definitely delivers.

The film makes me think of some Troma releases (like "Maniac Nurses Find Ecstasy") but without the craft that made for some of their better films ("Toxic Avenger," "Bloodsucking Freaks"). The acting is better than you might expect from an Asylum release and the plotting (and some of the dialogue) is also above average. This is a case where a pretty good movie is handicapped by its budget. If the guys who made this had access to the cast and material that Paul Anderson did for “Death Race” this might have been a decent film, at least from a technical perspective.

It must be said that standards are typically lower for this kind of release and some rough edges (if not total mess) are to be expected. The main characters (I.C.P.) benefit from playing essentially outgrowths of their public personas. If you are unfamiliar with their work their performance probably won't make a lot of sense, but think of them as the Troma of rap music. They make offensive, gory, over the top rap music playing as maniacal clowns. The rest of the cast is actually pretty good (even if a having a wrestler as an evil genius is about as credible as Tara Reid in “Alone In The Dark”) with some standout performances by Jennifer Keith (Double-Dee Struction) and pseudo-Latino Jason Ellefson (Fred “The Hammer”), although his performance includes some racial humor that might be a bit much for people and is genuinely offensive (which is rare in films these days).

The camera work mixes a high contrast flat look for some outdoor scenes, bizarre video effects (mirror images), running moments back and forth, and having a lot of victim POV shots. Most of the blood effects are pretty limp, showing their lack of budget (and perhaps lack of imagination). With a limited supply of extras and stunt people most of the cars drive at a leisurely 5 or 10 miles an hour while "victims" throw themselves into the cars. There are some exceptions where the lack of blood or blood in the right places actually feels more realistic and makes for some genuinely disturbing moments of violence. On the upside, since we're dealing with wrestlers, a lot of the hand to hand action actually looks pretty good. There is even a scene of animal violence (not real).

It is the genuine moments that make the movie worth watching. There's even subtle social commentary about “Homeland Security” and the use of military forces for less than noble reasons as well as the manipulation of the media surrounding those moments. All of this was missing from the major release "Death Race." It's safe to say that this movie is closer to the black exploitative heart of the original "Death Race 2000."

At its best "Death Racers" recalls better movies such as "Robocop," "The Running Man," and Takashi Miike's "Full Metal Yakuza" (that metal penis). At its worse it is a technical failure with some questionable acting. If you can look past the budget limitations though this movie is worth watching. The plot is better and the resolution more satisfying (and surprisingly dark) than the Paul Anderson film and is recommended.

This movie is perfect for late night parties and for having a good laugh with friends. It also comes ready for drinking games! Just take a shot every time the TV announcer says “DEATH RAAAAACE!” You'll pass out before the ending.

Not Rated: (im)Mature Audiences, Bloody Violence, Pervasive Language, and Some Sexual Content

Death Race

English/2008/106 Minutes/Unrated

Some kinds of movies are review proof like the Friday the 13th sequels or the 90s Batman movies. They exist as cinematic candy, guilty pleasures, and empty calories. Death Race is such a movie. It makes no pretense of being a good film and is technically deficient in many areas. It is by far the least of the films in Paul Anderson's oeuvre (if you're allowed to use such a fancy word in a review of a movie like this).

The story is very basic and certain elements strain what little credibility the movie has. Jensen Ames (Jason Statham in full beefcake mode) is a former race driver who is framed for the murder of his wife and sent to prison where he is recruited by Hennessey, the wicked warden (played by an icy Joan Allen), to compete in a “Death Race.” The race is essentially a demo derby version of Nascar with guns. Players compete for their freedom (as every prisoner has since “The Running Man”) by winning the race and/or killing all the competitors. All of this is streamed live to the viewing audience who, even in a collapsed economy, can afford the $250 to watch the pay-per-view special

There are even “power ups” to collect that are basically sensors drivers run over to activate their weapons. It all sounds very video game like (in a rudimentary way) but I think it would probably be an accurate version of what a game show of this sort would resemble. The races themselves are competently filmed but none of the compositions stand out. It feels haphazard in much of the film. The directing shines in small moments like the detailed assembling of a bomb (which brought back memories of the opening of “Resident Evil.”)

The cast is excellent although some are perhaps surprising to see in a movie of this sort. Joan Allen as the warden plays mean but one dimensional as a woman who is out to keep high ratings and kill anyone who gets in her way. In fact, hearing Allen say “cocksucker” is perhaps a highlight of the film (it is even repeated at the end of the credits).

Another surprise face is Ian McShane. He of “Deadwood” fame and an actor I really like to see. He plays the stereotypical role of the old convict who doesn't want to leave the prison. He makes the most of the role and lends some gravity to the proceedings that keep reminding me of what the movie could have been. Between McShane and Allen there is a lot of potential here, but it's mostly wasted.

As for Statham himself I enjoyed his performance and in the early scenes we got to see some more of the spectrum of his range instead of the cool detachment he's banked on since “The Transporter.” Statham is a good genre actor but when put face to face with McShane or Allen he just doesn't seem to rise to the occasion.

As with any prison film you have a colorful assortment of villains each having his own particular gimmick including a guy named Grim who calls himself Grim Reaper (I think there must be a clause in the book about movies like this where you have to have a guy called “grim” or “reaper”). There is the on track villain of the piece Machine Gun Joe (Tyrese Gibson) who carves a notch in his face every time he kills someone. You get the idea.

For a love interest (or lust interest) the drivers are always paired up with beautiful ladies from the women's prison who act as navigators and handle some of the weapons (like the classic oil slick). Of course there are no fat or ugly women in prison so our hero gets hooked up with a well tanned nicely endowed hot girl (Natalie Martinez). I don't think it's coincidence that the hero loses a kind and attractive loving wife for a “bad girl” that looks like she stepped out of a men's magazine. Ultimately I think that's what is most offensive about the movie. The implication that somehow the hero is better off for all of this. His revenge while cinematically interesting feels rather hollow and the ending is tacked on.

The emphasis on spectacle, graphic kills and blatant misogyny and homophobia (one racer has a male copilot and it is implied he is gay) make this perhaps the most offensive and least pleasing of Anderson's films. The movie is edited in a way that rarely lets your eyes rest and the soundtrack while sonically interesting just hammers away from the opening credits and we never get a moment of silence until the end of the credits. The movie has no sense of moderation, the tone always being full tilt.

The movie ultimately doesn't work as a prison film (too little prison), fails as a racing film (the races are so chopped up it's hard to tell the locations and status of the drivers), and is rather thin as a revenge flick. That being said it's still a lot of fun and I would list as a guilty pleasure. So while the official word is Not Recommended, I have to say watching shit blow up for 90 minutes is a lot of fun and in that department, Death Race delivers.

Unrated: Mature Audiences, Strong Violence and Language

Mongol

Mongolian/120 Minutes/2007/Rated R

Mongol is a fascinating melting pot. Written and Directed by a Russian (Sergei Bodrov) with a Japanese main actor and all the dialog in Mongolian this 2007 Oscar nominee for Best Foreign Film was a triumph of multicultural filmmaking. Unfortunately the film doesn't quite live up to its promise.

Mongol follows the rise of lowly Temudgin who grows from a son of a tribal leader into a slave and finally ruler of all the Mongolian hordes. We know him today as Genghis Kahn. As interesting as this story may be, in the movie it isn't told all that effectively. The story feels episodic and tends to spend long stretches of film focusing on parts of Temudgin's life that are rather bland (he spends twenty minutes in the film sitting in a cage) and skips over ones that would be fascinating (instead of showing him building his army he just shows up in a sequence with his horde ready to go).

The acting is great. Temudgin is played by one of my favorite Asian actors, Tadanobu Asano (Ichi the Killer), and is instantly believable. His long suffering crafty wife, Borte (Khulan Chuluun), and blood brother Jamukha (Honglei Sun) all turn in great performances.

The cinematography and direction are some of the best I've seen in a while. The open fields, cracked deserts and rocky wastelands bring to mind John Ford and his use of Monument Valley. The environment is truly a spectacle and is alone worth the price of admission. There are some really unique camera angles too such as a POV shot from a sword and well assembled large scale battles.

The downside to all of this is that the writing is somewhat lacking. The script feels episodic and a majority of the movie features Temudgin being captured, running away and being captured again. The film frequently infers that he is watched over and favored by the gods with some inexplicable happenings (he falls into an icy pool and doesn't freeze, his chains mysteriously come off) but this feels like excessive mythologizing and smells of bad writing.

Once Temudgin decides to become the great leader of the Mongol people his army just appears with no explanation of how he convinced a band of men to join him. What are the roots of his dread-inspiring hooded troops with dual swords? The final scroll talks about a battle where a whole kingdom is laid to waste but we are never shown what happens. Add to all of this an anti-climactic final battle and you have a film that never comes together as more than the sum of its parts.

In the film's defense it was made on a relatively low budget ($20 Million) and Bodrov squeezes every dime out of the money and puts it on screen. As this is the first of a supposed trilogy perhaps the sequels will be a little more meaty, but as a standalone feature Mongol fails to live up to its potential. Grudgingly recommended for some great cinematography and acting.

Rated R for Sequences of Bloody Warfare