Instant Action: The Warriors (1979)

That’s a lot of colorful gangs, literally!

Screenplay By: Walter Hill & David Shaber

Directed By: Walter Hill

Young men; sweat flowing from their pores, dirt on their bodies, and venom in their veins. Those are the characters in The Warriors. They may be from the future, the past, or the present. They have no time because they inhabit a masculine place that is timeless. The street toughs we meet in The Warriors are the summation of what it means to be a man, what it once meant to be a man, and the fear of the future man.

As the men of The Warriors sweat, attempt rape, and try to murder one another the viewer can only sit and watch. They are so powerful in their masculinity that we are helpless to stop them in their actions. We are forced to watch, there’s no hope of turning away from the onslaught of their manliness. It’s not easy to watch at times, even if it is always oddly exhilarating. Their fights enchant, their attempts to woo women are boorish, and the way they dress is mesmerizing. Hard to watch, but an enticing watch nonetheless.

Walter Hill is the man in charge of the introverted action in The Warriors. The men he presents appear to be part of the outside world, but they really aren’t. They are their own world, a world within which they are trapped. When they are confronted by the actual outside world they know not how to react. How can children react when they are shown something that scares, titillates, and presents them with something completely alien?

Youthful the Warriors are, full of piss and vinegar. They’re also scared, and that is their main driving force. They are scared of a world they don’t know and a society that will never accept them. That’s why they so easily toss around a word like faggot. Eventually homosexuality will be accepted, and yet they still won’t. They don’t understand being gay, just as they don’t understand women, the law, or anything but trying to be tough.

The film moves at a breakneck pace, it can’t stop because its main characters can’t stop. They aren’t just in a race to save their lives, they are in a race against time. At some point in their nebulous era the Warriors will become old, and that scares the young men most of all. What if they are old and haven’t accomplished anything? How will they deal with time passing them by and leaving them in the dust? They aren’t equipped to handle such change, and it is their fear of this change that they are truly running from.

Lean and mean, The Warriors comes at the viewer like a fast moving wrecking ball. Mr. Hill orchestrates his cast and the material in exquisite fashion. He gets the most out of every bit player, every costume, and every flash of a weapon. Mr. Hill focuses on the men of this world, throwing all other characters to the side. One female is allowed in their midst, but she is treated as second fiddle to the dying manhood of the gang. Keep on running Warriors, run all night and day. There’s no sunset for you retreat into, and no happy ending to save your hides. Walter Hill gives his young men no place to hole up; their ugliness, bravery, and stupidity is on display for all to see.

Rating:

7/10

Cheers,

Bill Thompson

Instant Action: Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Severus Snape was always a dicey fellow, eh?

Screenplay By: Pen Densham & John Watson

Directed By: Kevin Reynolds

As big and dumb of a Hollywood action-adventure movie as one could ever hope to find. I’ll tell you what, I don’t care how big and dumb this movie is. I love every second of this movie. Every dumb gesture, every over orchestrated musical cue, and every attempt at insipid sentiment. There’s nothing wrong with a Hollywood movie that pleases, and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is an example of a Hollywood movie that pleases.

There are a few areas where Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves genuinely excels. The location filming and the costume design are of special note. They evoke the feel of being in an olden time, of really being present in Sherwood Forest. It’s not an easy sensation to achieve, especially considering I obviously wasn’t alive back when Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is supposed to of taken place. Yet achieve that sensation the movie does, and I applaud the movie for its efforts in this realm.

Another area where Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves has always impressed is in its action scenes. They are simple action scenes really, but they are very well done. Kevin Reynolds is able to establish place and time easily. He also has an eye for blending swashbuckling old school action with a more modern savagery. It’s an odd mixture, but in this film it works surprisingly well. The attempts at emotion within the action also work nicely. I could never shake the feeling that I was watching an old Hollywood action-adventure with the way Mr. Reynolds presented his pathos within the action.

In most other areas Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves should be a dud. The acting is pretty bad, the score is overwrought, and the film is full of overly sentimental moments. For whatever reason none of these potential deficits end up being actual deficits. The film is able to pull all of its elements together into one cohesive package. The well done and the subpar facets of the film come together to make Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves an enjoyable experience.

Like I said earlier, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is big and dumb. Usually that’s a bad thing, but not when it comes to this motion picture. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves succeeds precisely because it is okay with being big and dumb. The mawkishness, the overdone nature of the picture, it just works. I enjoy watching Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves just as much now as I did oh so many years ago and that is the sign of an action film worth its weight in gold.

Rating:

***

Cheers,

Bill Thompson

Instant Action: Road House (1989)

I’m not sure I’d be bragging about fucking guys in prison!

Screenplay By: Hilary Henkin & David Lee Henry

Directed By: Rowdy Herrington

--Patrick Swayze without his shirt on performing T'ai chi ch'uan in front of a barn.

--A waitress who appears only to fawn over Dalton, bring him breakfast, and then randomly sing.

--Terry Funk showing up, in general.

--A guy gets his throat ripped out by another dude.

--The love interest has fake baked skin that looks like rubber.

--She also sports implants that look like rock hard, sagging, bags of sand.

--Let’s not forget that she has a foreign accent for reasons that are never touched upon.

--Patrick Swayze is a bouncer who also has a degree in philosophy.

--Our villain is a villain because he has to be a villain, not for any actual reason.

--A man gets trapped by a stuffed polar bear.

--The bar owner changes graffiti from “for a great fuck” to “for a great Buick.”

--Dalton is too tough for pain, in fact, “pain don’t hurt.”

--Dalton sports a knife wound that a VHS tape could be shoved in, but it doesn’t need to be cleaned, just stapled shut.

--And finally, “I used to fuck guys like you in prison.”

Normally I don’t do reviews in the above style, but Road House is a movie that deserves the bullet point treatment. I even left a bunch of stuff out, trust me there’s a lot more greatness contained within the film. Road House isn’t a great movie, it’s pretty darn awful. Within its awfulness it reaches a place where it’s comfortable being awful and because of that it ends up being pretty darn good.

I’ll say this much for Road House, Patrick Swayze has a charisma about him. I can’t claim to have been the biggest fan of Mr. Swayze, but I always liked him as an actor. Road House is a great example of how Mr. Swayze could make ridiculous characters believable. Dalton is a bouncer philosopher, he’s pretty much a joke from the word go. Yet, as the film plays out Mr. Swayze won me over to the Dalton character through the sheer force of his charisma. There’s nothing to dislike about Mr. Swayze’s performance, he’s the one aspect of Road House that I would say is legitimately well-done.

The chances of me disliking a movie like Road House are very slim. It’s a terrible movie that revels in how terrible it can be. Ridiculous and over the top, but Road House is likable because of those elements. The action is a weird mix of brawling and beginner level kung fu, and it works every time a fight breaks out. It’s a tad too long, but that’s the only outright negative thing I have to say about Road House. When I want to watch a movie about a bouncer philosopher who rips dudes throats out, but is nice about it, there’s no other movie to turn to besides Road House.

Rating:

7/10

Cheers,

Bill Thompson

Instant Action: Captain Phillips (2013)

Yet another reason why I stay on land!

Screenplay By: Billy Ray

Directed By: Paul Greengrass

I’ve been lukewarm on Paul Greengrass for most of his filmmaking career. At times his filmmaking can be exhilarating; BloodySunday, and United93. Just as often Mr. Greengrass’ filmmaking is pedestrian and subpar; TheBourne Supremacy, and TheBourne Ultimatum. Finding the middle ground between a traditional approach to filming and the Chaos Cinema approach is of the utmost importance in a Paul Greengrass film. When he falls prey to his desire to quick cut everything so that he removes any sense of place, time, or space in his action is when Mr. Greengrass is at his worst. He need not go full traditional in his filmmaking approach, but he must avoid the rabbit hole of Chaos Cinema.

Captain Phillips represents the middle ground, as Mr. Greengrass avoids quick edits and cuts in favor of shot composition that always expresses time and place. The ins and outs of the ship and lifeboat that make up almost all of Captain Phillips’ locations need to be understood by the audience. Mr. Greengrass stays out of trouble by focusing on where people are in relation to the vessel they are on at that given moment. Quick cuts and fast editing would have been extremely detrimental to a scene where we need to see a Somali pirate distracted by a noise and drawn away from one side of the ship.

Mr. Greengrass also trusts his actors implicitly in Captain Phillips. It helps when your lead is someone as dependably trustworthy as Tom Hanks. However, it’s in the supporting characters that Mr. Greengrass shows his trust. The temptation had to be present to rely on Mr. Hanks to carry the majority of the film. While it remains true that Mr. Hanks gives far and away the best performance in Captain Phillips, he doesn’t carry the film. Tense moments are dependent on the acting of the supporting cast. Important moments in the film are wholly on the shoulders of actors like Barkhad Abdirahman as Bilal. Mr. Greengrass doesn’t pull back from the supporting cast, he stays on them and allows for them to carry the majority of the weight of the film.

By avoiding fast cuts and editing the action in Captain Phillips carries an intensity it would otherwise lack. There’s nothing revolutionary about the action in Captain Phillips, but it gets the job done. I felt like I was being allowed an intimate portrait of men putting themselves in danger. A lot of this is achieved by the way Mr. Greengrass peppers the action throughout his film. It comes in spurts, and when it does come the action in Captain Phillips charges the film up to a near breaking point. Intensely intimate action isn’t easy to come by, and Captain Phillips delivers it in fine fashion.

There’s been some controversy around Captain Phillips and the legitimacy of its story. I’ll say this, I don’t care whether or not the story behind Captain Phillips is legitimate. What I care about is the end product that is the film and the level of quality it achieves. I can tell you that Captain Phillips is a darn great film, and that’s all it should be. Captain Phillips is a film, not a historical document, and as a film it’s an exciting jaunt.

Rating:

9/10

Cheers,

Bill Thompson

Instant Action: Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

All of that over a vanilla twist ice cream cone!

Written By: John Carpenter

Directed By: John Carpenter

The real highlight of Assault on Precinct 13, for me at least, was the score from John Carpenter. His writing and direction as pretty great as well, but his score for the film is fabulous. It’s the height of economical mood setting. I’ll readily admit that I’m usually not a fan of synth scores, but the score for Assault on Precinct 13 hit me hard, right out of the gate. It sets the tone for the film, and supplies Assault on Precinct 13 with all the atmosphere it could ever need.

Beyond the score the atmosphere of Assault on Precinct 13 was my favorite element of the film. It’s oppressive, and in an odd way very dirty. When we first see the gang members sitting at a table they are nowhere near as sweaty as the atmosphere made me think they were. That’s a trend that continues throughout the rest of the film; the atmosphere takes over the film in many instances.

The action in Assault on Precinct 13 is a befuddling aspect of the film. On the one hand it’s set up rather well. On the other hand there are moments within an action set piece where the characters appear to be shooting off into nothingness. There is one particular moment when Bishop fires off a couple of rounds from his rifle and the bullets fly straight at a guy despite the fact that his rifle was pointed six feet in the other direction. Still, taking the action as a whole into consideration I did enjoy the way it’s implemented and carried out.

I found myself concerned near the end of Assault on Precinct 13 that the film was running out of steam. It started at about the time to the cutaways to the patrol car began to pop up. They serve a purpose within the film, but it seemed like every time they came back from one of those cutaways the film had to work like heck to gain back its momentum. Luckily the cutaways weren’t many, and for the most part the film is able to use its atmosphere and score to keep the film moving at a brisk pace.

There’s a certain amount of depth to be found in Assault on Precinct 13. I’ll be honest though, I didn’t care much about the depth in the film. It’s present, I know it’s there and I recognize it, but I wasn’t drawn to it like I was the other elements of the film. I don’t think Assault on Precinct 13 is as cognizant of its thematics as, say Halloween or Escape from L.A., but it does know that it has more to say and it says more when it needs to.

Assault on Precinct 13 didn’t blow me away like I had initially thought it was going to. I had a fun time with the film, and I loved the score to death. That being said, I was left cold by some elements of the film. Not enough for me to not consider Assault on Precinct 13 great, but enough for me to not be completely in love with this film from John Carpenter.

Rating:

7/10

Cheers,

Bill Thompson

Instant Action: No Holds Barred (1989)

I'll take some more of Stan Hansen, thank you very much!

Written By: Dennis Hacken

Directed By: Thomas J. Wright

No Holds Barred is a very ridiculous film, there’s no two ways around that. I’m not going to focus too much on that though, because I think the ridiculousness of No Holds Barred is obvious and appealing. The dookie scene in particular is on a whole different level from the rest of cinema. The paper thin characters, the cheesy 1980s music, Hulk Hogan’s acting, and the action scenes that revolve around muscle bound guys who can barely move, these are but a few of the ridiculous factors that make No Holds Barred pretty darn great.

I take the above as a given when it comes to No Holds Barred, but for a hardcore wrestling fan there’s a lot more than meets the eye with this film. Vince McMahon has his hands all over the production of No Holds Barred, and in the most interesting ways. Brell is the clear villain of the film, but he’s doing the same things that Mr. McMahon did to destroy the promotional wrestling system. The style of wrestling being promoted by Brell is that of brawling with very little technique, a style that came to dominate the way Mr. McMahon wanted his wrestling to look. The man bankrolling No Holds Barred is the real life version of Brell, and that’s pretty darn fascinating to watch go down.

There are other interesting tidbits in No Holds Barred. Take the character of Bubba, as played by Stan Hansen. In my mind this was a clear screw you from Mr. McMahon to fans of more realistic pro wrestling. He knew how hardcore wrestling fans loved Mr. Hansen and would seek out The Lariat’s work in Japan all the time. It makes perfect sense then that he’s portrayed as an out of shape and lumbering oaf in No Holds Barred. Someone like Mr. Hansen doesn’t fit the muscle bound look that Mr. McMahon favors in his pro wrestlers.

The action scenes in No Holds Barred are also kind of fascinating. Said action is big muscle bound gorillas who are barely able to move clunking around throwing badly telegraphed punches and kicks. For Mr. McMahon this was the stuff of pro wrestling action, no one wanted to see actual athletes, but rather they wanted to see oiled up muscles and bad tans. It’s amazing to watch the action in No Holds Barred unfold because it’s quite terrible, and yet everyone involved with the film clearly thinks they are producing top flight action set pieces.

The climactic showdown is also delightful to break down. On the one hand the film wants the viewer to believe that Zeus is a killing machine who is laying waste to the hero, Rip Thomas.  On the other hand the film wants the viewer to buy into the fact that Rip is holding back for ulterior reasons. Those two things can’t both be happening, at least not in terms of creating drama and tension in the finale. Yet, Thomas J. Wright’s film plays the finale as if both of those are really happening and it’s almost mind boggling in its execution.

As a pure action film, No Holds Barred is tripe. There’s almost nothing to recommend and I can see why so many cinephiles easily dismiss No Holds Barred as a waste of time. However, there’s a lot to digest in terms of the prescient nature of the film towards the pro wrestling landscape. Is it possible for a film to be incredibly dumb and really smart at the same time? In the case of No Holds Barred it certainly is and that’s why this film is an alluring watch.

Rating:

7/10

Cheers,

Bill Thompson

Instant Action: The Last Stand (2013)

If you keep making movies is it really the last time you'll be standing?

Written By: Andrew Knauer
Directed By: Kim Jee-Woon

The Last Stand is not a complicated film. There's not a whole lot under the hood of Kim Jee-Woon's American directorial debut. That doesn't mean The Last Stand is a bad film, it's far from that in fact. This movie eschews any sort of deep thematics for pure action. It helps that said action is presented in dynamic fashion, but that's about what I expect from Woon-ssi. The Last Stand focuses almost exclusively on action. There's no character building, no real attempts at drama. The film does shoot for a few comedic moments here and there, but on the whole The Last Stand is a film that's only interested in providing action and thrills.

Whether or not the film provides action and thrills depends on what the person watching the film is looking to get out of said film. If a cinephile watches The Last Stand hoping for a great story or engaging character beats then they will be let down. That's not the film The Last Stand wants to be. The people who will enjoy The Last Stand are those who like a little spice in their life, the sort of people who dig it when action escalates to absurd levels. I'm one of those people, and that's probably why I ended up enjoying The Last Stand as much as I did.

The action in The Last Stand is that of escalation. Each action sequence is bigger than the previous one. As the action gets larger Woon-ssi's direction gets tighter. The car chase during the cornfield is a prime example of the way the South Korean export handles action in an engaging manner. When the chase starts off the camera keeps track of the two cars. We know where they are and what is going on. That all changes as the chase morphs into a cat and mouse game. The filming style becomes one of disorientation, because our drivers are disoriented and so must we be. Of course once the car chase comes to a climax the camera regains its centering effect. The big finale, both with the cars and the showdown on the bridge, is completely in focus because Woon-ssi is interested in providing concrete closure to the action scenes he has constructed.

The characters and the story in The Last Stand may not be that engaging. The action, however is very engaging. That's why the film puts all of its eggs in the action basket. The film is at its weakest in the few moments where it tries for drama or for extended bits of comedy. It's not that The Last Stand isn't funny, it's that too often the film overdoes its attempts at humor. Andrew Knauer provides some slick one liners, but the scenes keep going and the dialogue keeps trying to be funny to lessening degrees.

The Last Stand is far from a perfect movie. It falters in a few areas, but the overall package Kim Jee-Woon delivers is a fun bit of action film. I enjoyed the way the action was filmed and how the film hit its action elements hard. This is a step back for Woon-ssi, because he's a director capable of much more than a fun action film. Still, The Last Stand is an enjoyable film and it's not a disgrace to the catalog of its director. This isn't the film that people will remember Kim Jee-Woon for, but The Last Stand is a well made actioner, and sometimes that's all I really want.

Rating:

7/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Instant Action: Ninja (2009)

Ninjas with night vision is a pretty terrifying idea!

Written By: Boaz Davidson & Michael Hurst
Directed By: Isaac Florentine

There's some story at play in Ninja, and it's serviceable. That's faint praise, but it's okay for the story in a film that isn't really about a traditional plot based story to be merely okay. There's a good guy, a bad guy, some people who get caught in the middle, an object that is desired, and lots and lots of mayhem ensues. That story provides the framework for Isaac Florentine to film a pretty nifty action film. Ninja is first and foremost an action film, and there's nothing wrong with a well made action film, I'll let you in on that little secret for free.

The action in Ninja deserves to be focused on it because it is, as I said, pretty nifty. I was most impressed with the placement of Mr. Florentine's cameras. He presents a panorama of action with very little camera movement. Essentially he places his cameras in specific places and then allows for the action to come to the cameras. He's not so much interested in following the fray, but filming the fray as it happens. The end result is action that is both expansive and easy to follow. The filming of Ninja leaves the impression that there's more action taking place than meets the eye, if that makes any sense. It's kind of hard to describe, but because of the method Mr. Florentine uses to capture the action of the film there's a fullness to said action. Characters aren't confined to one corner of a room, or one floor of a building, the fight can take place anywhere and move anywhere.

Mr. Florentine is very adept during Ninja at making the action easy to follow. Ninja is not made using the disorienting Chaos Cinema approach to action that I loathe oh so much. No, the action in Ninja is of the sort where I can see a character get grabbed, know that he's near a window and then follow the action as he is thrown from the window and into the path of another oncoming train. Being able to follow the action is such a small thing, but it's very important when it comes to crafting an enjoyable action picture. Mr. Florentine gets it right when it comes to filming action and recognizing that the audience wants to be able to follow what is happening.

This is my first film from Scott Adkins, and I'll have to admit I wasn't super impressed. He was decent as Casey Bowman, but he didn't blow me away. There's a roughness to his style of martial arts that I could see working much better in a more brawling sort of film. He's not bad in Ninja, far from it, but for as much as he has been hyped up to me I'll need to see some better work from him in some other films for that hype to be warranted.

The same is not true of Mika Hijii, who I knew nothing about coming into Ninja and ended up being happily surprised by. She played Namiko quietly throughout, but when an action scene required her to get rough and tumble she more than had the goods. An important moment for me was her fight on the subway. She didn't shrink away like some sort of scared and fragile violet. She did some impressive ass kicking of her own, before succumbing to the simple laws of physics. Which was another aspect of the film I appreciated. I've grown a little tired of the hundred pound woman, or even man, who can take on numerous behemoths at the same time and prevail easily. Sometimes simple body weight and physics dictate that the smaller person is going to lose the fight, regardless of gender. I was happy that Ninja gave Namiko her time to shine, but also kept it real in regards to her size and the result of her fight based on said size.

I'm interested in seeing the rest of the Ninja films, as well as more from Misters Adkins and Florentine, and Hijii-sama. Ninja is the sort of direct to video goodness that is becoming harder and harder to find these days. It brings the action goods in thrilling and industrious ways. There are plenty of action films out there begging for your time. Trust me when I tell you that Ninja is one of the action films worth making the time to see.

Rating:

7/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Instant Action: The Spirit (2008)

That's a lot of fake CG backdrops for one film!

Screenplay By: Frank Miller
Directed By: Frank Miller

The Spirit is what happens when a man with the maturity of a teenage boy is allowed to make a film. That doesn't guarantee a bad or terrible film, but it can certainly result in a film of very low quality. I stopped caring about Frank Miller as a comic book writer sometime around the late 1990s, when it became all too clear that he had nothing new to say and that he was trapped in an extended adolescence. The same nihilism that infected all of Mr. Miller's comic book writing is present in The Spirit, which is unfortunate since the comic it's based on is a rather hopeful noir.

Now, I don't care much about the fact that Mr. Miller deviated severely from Will Eisner's work, that's fine by me. The problems with The Spirit go well beyond any adaptation issues. It's, simply put, not a well made film. Mr. Miller's version of The Spirit is all too fake and soulless. This is true for both the characters and the look of the film.

Mr. Miller's adopted the look of the Sin City film wholesale, which is fine but he's taken it a step further by making it where the characters aren't able to mesh with the computer backgrounds that surround them. When two characters are standing in the snow and not a single drop of snow falls on either character because the computer program won't allow for it, well that's just a terrible design flaw in the film. That's how The Spirit comes across visually, as one massive design flaw.

The characters in The Spirit can't be described as human, or even too comic book like. Rather, they are robots existing in a computer playground. This may have sounded great on paper, but in realization it leaves a film that is a chore to get through. It's easy to not care about any of the characters in The Spirit because Mr. Miller's plodding and tactless script never gives the viewer a reason to care about said characters. Without characters to care about it leaves the action hollow and empty, same with the story.

There's a scene in The Spirit where for no reason whatsoever Eva Mendes' character lifts the lid up on a copier, sits on the screen, and photocopies her ass. There's no reason for her to do this, it's only in the movie because for Frank Miller women don't matter other than as bodies to be ogled. Come to think of it, there's no reason for much of anything that happens in The Spirit. It's a misguided attempt at bringing a classic comic strip to the big screen. The Spirit should be the nail in the coffin for Frank Miller as a voice in the film world, which is okey dokey by me.

Rating:

3/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Instant Action: Death Wish (1974)

To wish for death, or not to wish for death, that is the question!

Screenplay By: Wendell Mayes
Directed By: Michael Winner

There are a couple of very important elements at play in Death Wish. Firstly, Paul Kersey is not on a revenge fueled ride from the get-go. The film takes its time to get him to the point where he is willing to fight back, and more specifically to pull the trigger on someone's life. We spend time with Paul, we get to know what makes him tick and how much the changes in his life are effecting him. This all leads to the most important moment of the film, when Paul finally fights back against a thug. He commits the act of pulling the trigger and what follows is different from most revenge films. Paul feels remorse, maybe not for the person he has killed but for the person he is becoming. Paul returns to his house and throws up, he's so torn up over what he has done that his own body is rebelling against him.

The two elements discussed above aren't the only elements that pull Death Wish away from the revenge pack. I was very impressed with the fact that the thugs who accosted Kersey's daughter and killed his wife are never seen again in the film. Were Death Wish made today chances are that the film would have ended with Kersey finally confronting the thugs who set him on his murderous path. Death Wish isn't the story of those thugs, it's the story of Paul Kersey and that's why it's important that he not meet up with those thugs again. Sure, Death Wish is a fantasy, but it's not the happy ending where everything is tied into a neat bow type of fantasy. Had Paul met up with the men who changed his life that would have created too neat of an ending and taken away from the wonderfully ambiguous nature of the film.

Charles Bronson is especially worth talking about when it comes to Death Wish. I've never pegged Mr. Bronson as a terrific actor, and I'm still not sure if he has the most range. However, range is not what is needed for the role of Paul Kersey. Mr. Bronson plays the role super quiet, and that makes sense as he is the representation of the silenced and humiliated everyman versus the loud thugs. I don't know what more anyone could want from Mr. Bronson as an actor, his performance as Paul Kersey is pitch perfect. He may not be the world's greatest thespian, but after Death Wish I'm much more convinced that Charles Bronson is an actor who knows how to play to his strengths.

It's tempting to call Death Wish a satisfying film. While such a label would fit I'm not sure if it's actually an apt description. Yes, there is some joy to be had in watching thugs be gunned down. There's plenty of joy to be taken from the filmmaking craft on display from Michael Winner. That being said, Death Wish isn't the sort of revenge tale that is about good versus evil. Paul resorts to evil to fight evil, a decision that makes sense but is still troublesome. Death Wish is gloriously ambiguous in the way it handles the social problem of vigilantism. It's easy to make a case for Paul's actions being justified, but it's just as easy to make a case for Paul's actions being over the line.

I wasn't sure what to expect going into Death Wish. I'm happy to report that the film was a smashing success. Mr. Winner's film gave me plenty to think about and plenty of filmic elements to rejoice over. Death Wish finds the right middle ground between drama and revenge tale. Most importantly Death Wish never rushes, it takes the time to establish its characters and its world. The tempo and the tone of Death Wish is spot on throughout, and that's why it remains a fine piece of action cinema all these years later.

Rating:

9/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Instant Action: Sin-se-gae (New World, 2013)

This world doesn't seem like it's much better than the old one!

Screenplay By: Hoon-jung Park
Directed By: Hoon-jung Park

South Korean cinema has been a favorite of many a cinephile for a few years now. A bevy of high quality films and great directors have made the country of South Korea a bastion of cinema for the majority of cinephiles. A film like Sin-se-gae fits into the mold of what is dominating South Korean cinema at the moment. It's a smartly made crime thriller with a wee bit of a nasty side. It's not as mean and nasty as some of the more popular recent South Korean films, but it substitutes a wry sense of humor for meanness. In Sin-se-gae the story, characters, bursts of violence, and comedy all come together to form one heck of a motion picture.

I didn't expect to laugh as much as I did during Sin-se-gae. If one were to pay attention to the faces of every character, sans Jeong Cheong, Sin-se-gae comes across as the dourest of films. Everyone is so serious all the time, but when contrasted against the antics of Cheong the seriousness of the rest of the characters becomes kind of funny. Cheong is a killer, he's nowhere near a good guy, but he has an odd charm about him that makes him easy to like. He livens up the picture and his mere presence helps the other characters to find a comic middle ground. Sin-se-gae isn't ra ra funny, rather it's funny in an offbeat and deadpan manner. The humor in Sin-se-gae is the sort that's not served up for the viewer on a plate. But, if the viewer pays attention to the film they will find plenty to laugh about.

Sin-se-gae is as exhilarating as it is funny, probably even moreso. The majority of the film is calm, but peppered around said calm are bursts of violence and energy. One in particular that will catch the attention of any action minded cinephile is a gang fight that winds up with one guy against many in an elevator. It helps that one of the characters in the elevator is supremely magnetic, but the direction of that sequence is top notch as well. The end result of the violence doesn't really matter, it's the way that sequence manages to capture the essence of a character and provide bloody good energy that makes the scene special.

Hoon-jung Park's film makes good use of story and character to make sure that the story twists aren't ever actual twists. At first they appear to be twists, but thinking back about the time I spent with these characters their ultimate fates isn't a surprise twist at all. The screenplay of Sin-se-gae digs its claws into its main characters and makes their interactions matter. They are tropes, but because we delve so deeply into what makes them tick they transcend their trope origins. The story in Sin-se-gae is strong, and it takes its time to present characters who take their place in life versus being part of a twist.

Another great movie from South Korea, who would of thunk it? Sin-se-gae is well made in every way and a very enjoyable time at the movies. Park-ssi's film is full of energy, well thought out characters, and a story that is as satisfying as it is daring. While America is stuck churning out the same mob movies over and over again, Sin-se-gae proves that Asia is still where the best, and most inventive, crime movies are coming from.

Rating:

9/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Instant Action: True Lies (1994)

Jamie Lee Curtis performing a striptease always makes for a good time!

Screenplay By: James Cameron
Written By: James Cameron

True Lies is a very ridiculous film, but it owns its ridiculousness. From the start of the film until the very end logic and common sense are thrown out the window. This can result in a lesser film, one that is too concerned with being a cool action movie. However, such an approach can also result in a film that is lots of fun because of its willingness to go with the ridiculous. Whether it's our hero cracking someone over the head with a hand dryer he ripped off the wall or our villain managing to prance across the top of a moving jet there's no such thing as grounded in True Lies. That's okay though, because the film is about lying and it makes sense that the film would build a fantasy world full of lies.

There are parts of True Lies that are irksome. It's a bit too flabby, and it overdoes the bombasity on a few occasions. It does seem to go a little overboard in its presentation of its female characters as essentially helpless beings. I'm willing to let those problems slide because of how much fun I had with the film. The problems the film contains are easily overcome by James Cameron's willingness to go with the crazy ideas in his head. Maybe some of the crazy comes from the original film that True Lies is based off of. Whatever the case may be True Lies sticks to its guns and that allows the film to be better than it has any right to be.

This is the second time I've reviewed an Arnold Schwarzenegger film for this column. I was hoping to avoid double dipping too early, but in this case it's necessary as Mr. Schwarzenegger is not the focus on my review. Rather, it is the aforementioned James Cameron. He's not the best writer in the history of cinema, and his sense of humor is very broad (but effective, truth be told), but he's as dynamic of an action filmmaker as I've ever come across. Not only is the action of Mr. Cameron able to oscillate from small to incredibly large, with relative ease he's able to give a consistent view of his action. This isn't the fast cutting and editing of the Chaos Cinema approach to action. Mr. Cameron likes longer cuts that establish place and space nicely. It's hard to get lost in Mr. Cameron's action because he always make sure to let the viewer know the where and what of the action.

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here but I feel comfortable saying that Mr. Cameron is one of the best action filmmakers in the history of cinema. I much prefer his style to that of say, Michael Bay or Paul Greengrass. Their style is definitely their own and there are plenty of fans of the Chaos Cinema approach. The landscape and structural style of Mr. Cameron connect with me in a way that Chaos Cinema has never been able to. At one point our hero, Harry Tasker, is fighting his way out of a warehouse. There's a lot of action going on, and the film spreads the action evenly between the foreground and the background. When someone is shot we know where they are in relation to every other character and their general surroundings. That seems like such a small matter but it's so important to well framed action.

Another aspect of Mr. Cameron's action filmmaking that consistently impresses is his use of varying weapons and methods of action. True Lies isn't two hours of the same guns being used in the same shootouts over and over again. The artillery used is varied, and so are the scenarios for the action. There's a small bathroom shootout that is about the intimacy of combat. There's a chase scene that is about the thrill of the catch. Finally, there's a big end piece that is about the importance of scope. Mr. Cameron presents varied and unique action that is always compelling and always well done.

It's not the best film from James Cameron, but True Lies is a great piece of popcorn entertainment. I use that term lightly because while the thematic content of Trues Lies is superfluous the same cannot be said for the action. True Lies is a terrific example of an action film that is great because of the mechanics of its action. In an action film the action kind of matters, but that's not all True Lies has going for it. Equal parts funny and adventurous, True Lies is a rip roaring great time at the movies.

Rating:

9/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Instant Action: Rage and Honor (1992)

I have some honor, but I used to be filled to the brim with rage!

Written By: Terence H. Winkless
Directed By: Terence H. Winkless

I've heard a lot about Cynthia Rothrock through the years. I recall her being a staple in various trailers I would catch on the 1980s direct to video horror VHS tapes I rented back in the day. She was tiny, but she was always kicking someones ass. For me, this was sort of a revelation because I had grown up with the image of women not being able to hold their own against men. Miss Rothrock was something different, in the trailers at least. I was never able to get around to seeing any of her movies due to availability. When I finally saw one of her films pop up on Crackle I decided it was time to give the tiny but mighty mouse a try.

After all the hype and expectations, Rage and Honor was a major letdown. The film is billed as a vehicle for Cynthia Rothrock, but it's more of a vehicle for the oafish Richard Norton. He's a total drag, nowhere near as dynamic or interesting as Miss Rothrock. While he's busy supplying terrible dialogue with little to no charm, Miss Rothrock is forced to skulk in the background. So much of the focus is put on Mr. Norton that when it finally comes time for the end game, Miss Rothrock is barely a factor. It was kind of sad watching Miss Rothrock be tossed to the side in favor of such an inept action actor as Mr. Norton.

When the film did focus on Miss Rothrock it was at its best. She is tiny, but she packs quite the punch and she has a very effervescent personality. The camera is drawn to her, and she makes the most of those moments with the camera. I was able to buy her as an ass kicker because of how dynamic she seemed. Basically, watching Miss Rothrock was like watching the energizer bunny, only even cuter.

Sadly, Rage and Honor doesn't stick with Miss Rothrock and spends most of its run time trying to make sense of a nonsense plot. At a certain point the story is straining so much to make sense that it wraps all the way around into making even less sense. As stated earlier, it doesn't help that the true focus of the film is the cardboard cutout named Richard Norton. He has no charisma, and his movements in the fight scenes struck me as especially clunky and not visually pleasing. His character, and his acting, is a major detriment to the film, but he is where Terence H. Winkless thinks the film is at its strongest.

I'll be searching out more from Cynthia Rothrock moving forward, but Rage and Honor was a major letdown. The toothless action, ogre like hero, and lack of time spent with Miss Rothrock are all large issues within the film. Were the action better and Miss Rothrock the actual lead of Rage and Honor I could see myself giving the film a pass. As it stands Rage and Honor is a feeble attempt at an action film that squanders all the good it contains. It's hard to have a bad movie when Brian Thompson is the villain sporting a killer mullet. Yet, Rage and Honor is such a movie, and that's not excusable.

Rating:

3/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Instant Action: Cobra (1986)

I'll tell you who's awesome, the guy with the scissors and the pizza, he's awesome!

Screenplay By: Sylvester Stallone
Directed By: George P. Cosmatos

It's hard not to love a film where the hero cuts his pizza with a pair of scissors. Let that little factoid sink in for a second, Marion "Cobra" Cobretti is such a god damn loose cannon that he cuts his pizza with a pair of scissors. This is a man who can't do anything normal. He has to drive a vintage car. Cobretti has to have a gun with a custom tip handle. A health nut, that's what makes this man different. Or, what makes him different is that he's a rebel who can't get along with his bosses. Lest we forget, he's also different because he doesn't shop at King's Grocery. There's also his license plate that proudly proclaims both his car and he are awesome. I'm sure that when the film was being put together each of these traits were thought of as cool little additions. When added up they equal one hilariously over the top quirky character. But what really makes the character is that Sylvester Stallone isn't in on the quirk. He plays Cobretti as straight and as seriously as possible, because you know, it's only natural for a man to cut his pizza with a pair of scissors.

Let's get one thing straight, Cobra is a pretty awful film. It has a barely present plot, some truly awful acting, and just about every police subgenre stereotype I can think of. Let's get one other thing straight, Cobra is so awful that it ends up being pretty darn good. From Cobretti's awkward attempts at hitting on Brigitte Nielsen to the musical choices that turn a gritty crime film into neon colored 1980s mainstream pop fare, Cobra is a movie that is comfortable being terrible. It all comes back to how serious the film is, and how it truly feels like no one is in on how terrible of a film they are making. Frøken Nielsen probably thought this was the dramatic turn that would bring her stardom. But it's hard to think of a movie as anything other than awful when Cobretti's sidekick is a guy who is only concerned with what candy he will be eating next. Of course, I may be finding his character unintentionally funny as I will forever remember him as Poppie from Seinfeld.

On a more serious note, there is the action and the performance of Brian Thompson. The action is okay, if a bit too rushed and over the top. The over the top aspect isn't really a negative as it kind of fits in with the motif of a film so bad it's good. The rushed nature of the action is a problem because it does lead to certain situations where time and place are lost. That's a bad thing, even in a movie that's only saving grace is how bad it manages to be. Mr. Thompson however, is a gem as the Night Slasher. He's sleazy, grimy, and completely believable as a serial killer. I kind of wish he had been in a different and better film, because the Night Slasher is a great villain and responsible for most of the atmosphere present in the film.

Cobra is one of those films that I will hold up as an example of how bad cinema can be enjoyable cinema. I had a great time with the craziness of Cobra and its unintentionally quirky lead. There may be some out there who think Cobra is an altogether terrible movie. I am not one of those people, there's no way I ever could be with this film. Cobra manages to transcend its status as a terrible film and become something else altogether. Like it's lead character, Cobra is bad, but it's bad in all the right ways.

Rating:

7/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Instant Action: Under Siege (1992)

I wore this videotape out as a young'un!

Written By: J.F. Lawton
Directed By: Andrew Davis

Steven Seagal is an interesting bird, especially in Under Siege as Casey Ryback. He's an anti-hero, but not in the traditional sense of the word. He's not anti-establishment, but he loves to cause trouble for those in and out of the establishment. Ryback is a trained killer, but he'd rather cook than kill. His fighting style leaves a lot to be desired as far as visual appeal is concerned. He appears to have no interest whatsoever in women, until the final moment of the film that is. He's not really heroic, he's more workmanlike than anything else. Ryback is a man doing his job, a job he believes only he is capable of doing. Then of course there is his seeming invulnerability, a trait that easily separates this character from most other characters Mr. Seagal has played.

I'll be honest right off the bat, I wore out a VHS copy of Under Siege as a kid. I can't tell you how many times I watched the movie as a whole, or the birthday cake scene in particular, but I know that one day I went to watch the tape and it had completely unspooled. Revisiting the film it's hard to put into words exactly what it is about Under Siege that I find so appealing. I recognize that it is a film with glaring flaws, but the entire package that is the movie overcomes all of those flaws. I'm sure there is a tinge of nostalgia to my continued love of Under Siege, but I do truly believe there's a pretty great action movie taking place.

Under Siege came out at a time when the obvious comparison for any action movie was to Die Hard. Mr. Seagal's film was labeled Die Hard on a boat. I can see the reason for that label, but I don't find that it completely fits. The invulnerability and aloofness of Ryback's character is the main reason the Die Hard comparison falls flat for me. John McClane is the everyman, a guy we believe we could share a beer with, and who we believe could die at any moment. Casey Ryback is a killing machine, one who we can't relate to on any sort of buddy level. The film tries to set him up as somewhat of a normal guy early on, but as soon as the killing starts it becomes clear that Ryback is as far removed from normal as a hero can get. His lack of vulnerability is at first a problem, but as the film progresses it becomes more of a film about how Ryback will win the day than whether or not he will win the day. Under Siege takes the opposite approach of Die Hard, it presents a hero who is extremely skilled, never in any real danger, and who mows down the enemy with relative ease while never quite seeming human.

The action in Under Siege is hard to quantify, it's awkward and nowhere near the type of action I usually prefer, yet it works. The knife fight between Ryback and Stranix is anticlimactic and doesn't really play well as a visually dynamic exercise in action filmmaking. There's no real tension to the scene, and there's never any doubt that Ryback will prevail. All of this should add up to a poorly constructed scene that lets the viewer down. That's not the case however as Andrew Davis goes so much with the fact that his main character is invulnerable that the scene is able to establish a different action dynamic. It's more important to watch Ryback prevail than it is for us to fear whether or not he will come out of the encounter alive. That scene informs much of what has come before and allows the clunky and almost visually unappealing action of the rest of the film to be seen in a better and far more kind light.

The world of Under Siege is also populated by a host of colorful supporting characters. We don't learn much of anything about said characters, but that doesn't stop Stranix or Krill from being very interesting to watch. We don't learn anything about the character of Colm Meaney's Doumer, but I'll be damned if I didn't find the lack of definition given to his character immensely interesting. In a way that describes Under Siege as a whole. It's not a completely formed film in a traditional action filmmaking sense. Yet, what happens during the film is interesting and manages to be an engaging experience in spite of the flaws contained within the film. Steven Seagal is not among my favorite action stars, but Under Siege is a great example of how he can deliver a borderline great action film because of his eccentric persona. Maybe my thoughts are clouded by foggy VHS dreams, but I still find Under Siege to be an eminently watchable action film.

Rating:

7/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Instant Action: Olympus Has Fallen (2013)

Our government doesn't shut down for anything, except for budget talks that is!

Written By: Katrin Benedikt & Creighton Rothenberger
Directed By: Antoine Fuqua

A key scene in Olympus Has Fallen is when the protagonist, Mike Banning, has captured a pair of terrorists for questioning. As soon as one of them laughs he stabs said funny man through the throat in under thirty seconds. For all intents and purposes that scene could be viewed as a throwaway moment within the film. However, it is my belief that this scene is the glue that holds the film together and represents why the film ends up working despite its flaws.

There are plenty of flaws to be found in Olympus Has Fallen. The story is as bare a story as one could hope to write. The characters are one dimensional and exist only to serve the plot. The lighting is far too dark for its own good during some key moments. It could be argued that the film deals with violence and consequence in an irresponsible manner. The complaint could be levied against Olympus Has Fallen that it is a big dumb action flick and nothing more.

All of the above are valid criticisms of Olympus Has Fallen, yet in the end I believe Antoine Fuqua's 2013 effort pushes past its limitations and comes out the other end a well made action film. It all comes back to the terrorist interrogation scene, a scene that is so quick it seems like it's not a big deal. It is the quickness of that scene that matters, the swiftness with which our protagonist deals with a problem. That surmises how Mr. Fugua deals with momentum in his film. It's not an abstract idea, in Olympus Has Fallen momentum is integral to the way the film moves and comes at the viewer. Things happen fast, so fast that they don't allow for the viewer to stop and truly think about the limitations that are trying to hold the film back. Scene after scene flashes across the screen, and always the momentum is being picked up, even the exposition is worked into small chunks so that it can't hold back the inertia achieved by the film. The terrorist doesn't have time to keep laughing, the film won't let him, and he is to be disposed of post haste, because that's the world of the film.

I did get a kick out of Olympus Has Fallen. I'm not about to declare it the very best that cinema has to offer. However, as far as big budget actioners go there's nothing wrong with enjoying Olympus Has Fallen. Mr. Fuqua's film hits the viewer hard, and relies on forward momentum and sustained intensity to keep the viewer interested for the entire ride. Sometimes good momentum is all that's needed for a quality filmic experience. Olympus Has Fallen has momentum in spades, and it makes good on getting the most out of said momentum. It may be big and loud, and silly at times, but Olympus Has Fallen delivers an intense action experience that is far removed from being a stereotypically dumb action film.

Rating:

7/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Instant Action: The Grey (2011)

Wolves are pretty awesome, even in this movie, they're still pretty awesome!

Screenplay By: Joe Carnahan & Ian Mackenzie Jeffers
Directed By: Joe Carnahan

Is The Grey an action film? That's the question I found myself asking, until I realized I shouldn't be asking that question. Of course The Grey is an action film, action is peppered throughout the film. The reason I initially felt like disallowing The Grey as an action film solely resides in the dramatic content of the film. The Grey isn't an action film first, it's a drama first. The action in The Grey exists to support the soul searching of Ottway, and his intrepid companions. The wolves are a source of internal horror made external, and while they do provide the action that's the not their true purpose. Yes, The Grey is an action film, but it has other aims and it doesn't shy away from putting the focus on its non-action aspects.

There isn't a plot comes to a conclusion sort of ending to The Grey. For some this will be disconcerting, a point of consternation even. For me, such an ending is refreshing and the ambiguity of the film left a delightfully tingly feeling in my brain. I like when movies challenge, when they ask me to look beyond the obvious and peer underneath the surface. Near the middle of The Grey I began to form theories about what the actual film was saying and why it was saying it. In the end a theory put forth by my wife is what swayed me the most. I followed this theory to its natural conclusion and that's when the film, and its ending really came alive in my mind.

The action, or horror depending on how you look at it, gives life to the demons plaguing Ottway. The story isn't about a group of men trying to survive, rather it's about one man attempting to come to grips with his inner demons. The wolves are an external threat, but they are representative of his internal fears and regrets. The characters we spend time with represent the various ways that Ottway has dealt with adversity throughout the years. The Grey ends up being a film of stages, or rather a film about stages. Essentially we are following the various stages of Ottway's life and his dealings with grief. Of course, that's not to say that what we are seeing isn't happening, it's up to the viewer to decide what reality is, what a demon is, what is struggle, and what the point ultimately is in The Grey.

A key scene for me in the film comes early on, when one of the surviving characters is dying. Ottway, Liam Neeson, tells this man that he is going to die. Joe Carnahan avoids theatrics, and keeps things small and intimate. We see the shocked faces of the other characters, and we get a shot of Ottway gently placing his hand on the dying man. Ottway talks the man through his final moments, and what is left is the raw vulnerability of humanity. The rest of the film is fundamentally about dealing with this scene. The ramifications of facing your own mortality up close and trying to overcome the domestic and foreign ills that haunt us.

I'm not super familiar with the work of Mr. Carnahan. In fact, The Grey is the first and only film I've seen from Mr. Carnahan. I'm not sure if the rest of his work is as deeply poetic and tender as The Grey. It doesn't really need to be though, because The Grey exists and is fully comfortable in the tender clothes Mr. Carnahan shrouds it in. The Grey is an action film, with sequences that are thrilling, suspenseful, violent, and well-choreographed. It's also a drama, a tender tale of the fragility of life and the efforts humanity will go to in avoiding owning up to their own fragile mortality. The Grey is a well-made film, an action movie with a soul, and a deep rumination on the nature of the human spirit.

Rating:

9/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Instant Action: Siu lam juk kau (Shaolin Soccer, 2001)

I played soccer, I don't remember it being anything like this!

Written By: Stephen Chow, Chi Keung & Min Hun Fung, & Kan-Cheung Tsang
Directed By: Stephen Chow

I'll give Siu lam juk kau one thing, it sure as hell isn't afraid to be gloriously over the top. Soccer balls caving in brick walls, goalies having their clothes burned off by the heat of a soccer ball hit like a rocket blast, and a fat guy who is so hungry he'll eat raw eggs off of a dirty shoe. Those are just three examples, and they aren't even close to the most over the top examples found in the movie. Siu lam juk kau goes all out, for its entire run time Stephen Chow's film consistently seeks the boundary of plausibility and moves past it some more.

That approach does lead to Siu lam juk kau being a very broad film. The comedy, the action, the acting, and the story all all exceptionally broad. Nuance isn't just a vague concept in Siu lam juk kau, such a concept doesn't exist period. This has its positives and negatives, and the two manage to pretty much cancel one another out. Having a character be so driven by food that he eats raw eggs off of a shoe is an example of broadness that is a negative within the film. At the same time having the love interest of the film show up near the end with a shaved head that makes her look like an alien, that's a broadness that is positive. Xiānshēng Chow manages to find a middle ground, an area where the over the top broad nature of the comedy can be both a good thing and a bad thing. That's an impressive feat because on numerous occasions Siu lam juk kau teeters towards being far too broad. But, the film always manages to counteract a negative with a positive, something unfunny with something funny, and that's one of the reasons that Siu lam juk kau is very watchable.

The other area where Siu lam juk kau excels is in its application of martial arts. The martial arts in Siu lam juk kau are also very over the top, but they are quite exhilarating to the eye. Realism is not what Siu lam juk kau is going for, instead what it's asking of its audience is to accept and enjoy what the film is providing. I was able to do that far easier with the action than I was with the comedy. The action choreography is very well done, and has an energetic charge to it. This allows the action to help the comedy, and in turn the action helps to increase the overall value of the film.

I wasn't blown away by Siu lam juk kau, many portions of the film did fall flat for me. However, more of the film worked for me than did not. I was able to look past the unappealing elements of the film, and enjoy Siu lam juk kau for the over the top slapstick action comedy that it is. Siu lam juk kau didn't leave me with a burning desire to see more from Xiānshēng Chow. But, in this one moment and for this one film I was impressed by what Xiānshēng Chow offered and had a good time watching his film. I'd say that makes Siu lam juk kau much more of a success than a failure, and time well spent with a movie.

Rating:

7/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Instant Action: Hummingbird (Redemption, 2013)

I'm not sure that this film understands what it means to be a good man...

Screenplay By: Steven Knight
Directed By: Steven Knight

Continuing my desire to use this column to seek out the work of action stars this week I bring you Jason Statham. I've rarely seen Mr. Statham outside of a Guy Ritchie film, and that appears to have been a mistake on my part. I really did not like Mr. Statham in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or Snatch.. While I enjoyed In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale that wasn't due to it, or Mr. Statham, being great in the traditional sense. Hummingbird offers a different take on Mr. Statham, at least a different take from his work with Guy Ritchie. In Hummingbird Mr. Statham is a presence, he owns the screen. Charm isn't the right word, it somewhat applies, but not completely. There's just something about Mr. Statham that the camera loves. The best explanation I can come up with is that the way he carries himself intoxicates the camera. Mr. Statham exerts himself upon the film, his presence overrides the film in ways that it really shouldn't. That's presence, and that's something Mr. Statham has in spades in Hummingbird.

Hummingbird excels visually, and in its action scenes. The visuals are, well, gorgeous, but not too gorgeous. Cinematographer Chris Menges makes terrific use of the claustrophobic nature of the British underworld. Everyone knows everyone and the camera placement of Mr. Menges accentuates how close together the citizens of London's underworld live. There's a grimy feel to the work of Mr. Menges, for all the visual flare he provides Hummingbird with he allows the film to have a more lived in texture. The director, Steven Knight, focuses on the hands of his characters a lot, further adding to the textured feel of the film. This plays out even more in the action scenes where the fighting dynamic is one of brutal violence that seeks to end the fight quick. The action in Hummingbird isn't that of the dance, rather it's that of the car hitting the wall. Fancy moves are replaced by strikes intended to maim and end the fight in the swiftest fashion. So much action is based on the beauty of the dance that is fight choreography, and in that respect the quick and efficient action of Hummingbird felt very different.

Where I have trouble with Hummingbird is in the theme of the film. The story is fine enough, a simple sort of man against internal/external demons sort of fable. The script delivered by Mr. Knight is looking for something more than that simple tale though. That's where I think the film trips up, because I'm not sure Mr. Knight really knows what he wants his film to say. At times it feels like Hummingbird is going for a Robin Hood correlation. Then it will seem as if the film is acknowledging the fact that the protagonist is no better than the people he is fighting against. But, then the film will play up the actions of Joey, Mr. Statham, as those of a man of principle who deserves the respect of the viewer. It felt as if Mr. Knight could never come to grips with the Joey character and instead of a focused character he left one on the screen who is quite muddled. This, of course, leads to a muddled main theme. Th drive of said theme is never able to gain inertia because the dueling nature of the Joey character often works against the thematic drive of the film.

Mr, Knight's film makes for a very interesting watch. The film is confused about what it wants to be, at least that's the case in terms of its theme. Hummingbird works just fine as an action film, but the added drama muddies the water of the films intentions. I'm not convinced that's entirely a bad thing though, because the lack of focus displayed by the film is one of the films most interesting aspects. Jason Statham has become a big action star, and after Hummingbird I can see why. The film takes full advantage of the package that is Jason Statham, and that's one of the reasons why Hummingbird is an interesting film worth checking out.

Rating:

7/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Instant Action: The Stranger (2010)

Slow and awkward equals great action now, good to know!

Written By: Quinn Scott
Directed By: Robert Lieberman

The sort of casual approach I've been taking to this column is to attempt with each new review to focus on a specific type of action, or a movie starring a specific action star. Back in the days when I watched professional wrestling all the time I never thought I'd be writing about Steve Austin, action movie star. I'm still not sure if I'm doing that, because while Mr. Austin is in a movie he certainly isn't a star and the action he delivers hardly qualifies as action. That lets the cat out of the bag I guess, but The Stranger is very much an awful movie with an awful actor in the lead role.

The thing about an action star is usually, not always, they can make even the worst movie seem eminently watchable. Cynthia Rothrock, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Jackie Chan (for example) have been in their share of movies that should have been horrendous. The very presence of those actors helped to elevate the film, to make it more than the rest of its surrounding parts. The Stranger puts all of its eggs in the basket that is Steve Austin and hopes that he can carry the film with his style, persona, and presence. That's the biggest mistake The Stranger makes, because Mr. Austin is not able to carry a movie and that means all the poorly done elements of the rest of the film stick out even more.

The biggest problem with The Stranger is Mr. Austin, specifically his ability as an action actor. The film tries to hide his lack of acting chops by keeping his talking to a minimum. That was a smart choice, but the film is counting on the action actor part of Mr. Austin to do more than it can. He's clumsy, awkward, without any flare, and most importantly, super, super slow. Mr. Austin's action scenes move like a cow making its way across the pasture. His moves can be seen two steps before they happen, and his slowness only serves to slow down the actors he's interacting with. As a professional wrestler Mr. Austin was a brawler, and it worked. In the context of a wrestling match his boorish, wear you down with brief flashes of speed, style worked in spades. Translated to the big screen his style is just boorish, and slow, and a pain to watch.

Not helping matters is the direction of Robert Lieberman. I swear, if the same flashback isn't repeated over and over this hour and a half movie would only be about an hour and ten minutes. Some of my umbrage towards the flashback usage I throw at script writer Quinn Scott, but it's Mr. Lieberman who presents the flashbacks in the same manner every single time. The direction of Mr. Lieberman matches the boorish nature of his star for the most part, but during the action scenes he attempts to compensate by filming them as if they were shot in a blender. There's a car chase scene that is bereft of tension or suspense because we're never given any visual space to work with. Mr. Lieberman moves his camera around as if it doesn't matter where the motorcycle or car are in relation to one another and their surroundings. There's nothing worse than a lazy action director who confuses rapid camera movement with the implementation of visually interesting action.

When the best thing I can say about your film is that it's awful it's clear that a lot of mistakes were made in the production of said film. There's very little left to say about The Stranger other than that it is an awful representation of an action film. It's biggest sin is that it gives the very alive and vibrant genre of direct-to-video (or in this day and age I suppose it would be direct-to-BD/DVD) action a bad name There are plenty of great action films that never saw the darkened effect of a theater screening room. The Stranger isn't one of those movies, it probably would have been for the best if both it and Mr. Austin were never delivered upon the wold of action cinema.

Rating:

1/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson