One thing I look forward to on my trips is the time to catch up on some movies. Here are a few I fit in these past few trips, with some brief thoughts (plus my rating, using my arbitrary 64-point scale).

The Grey, 2011. Fairly typical Liam Neeson fare, without many likeable characters (and of course this time the villains are the weather and wolves rather than ne'er-do-well humans). Not a bad flick on the whole, beautifully shot. The ambiguous ending was an interesting choice. 48.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, 2007. I'm not sure what I was expecting from this one, but it was different. Again, a visually beautiful film (Roger Deakins remains my favorite DP). A bit slow story-wise, but an interesting slice of history. Good cast, great acting. 39.

John Wick, 2014. I dig revenge flicks. This was a fun watch with a nice high bodycount. Truck-sized holes in the plot, of course, and not very high on the originality scale, but still a good ride. 47.

Lone Survivor, 2013. I've not seen many modern war movies, but this one was impressive. It tells the true tale of a team of 4 Navy SEALs on a mission in Afghanistan. The mission goes badly wrong, of course, and the title already gives away how many make it out alive. But there's a good twist near the end, which makes it a little more heartwarming than expected. If you like war movies in general, I would recommend it. The credits feature photos of the real men portrayed in the film, which was a nice touch. 56.

Taken 3, 2014. Since I dig revenge flicks, I loved the first Taken film. The second one was not as good, but still pretty decent. This one is definitely the worst of the lot, with a lot of going-through-the-motions feel and some overly-frenetic editing on the action set pieces. Neeson is clearly getting too old for this shit, as the trope goes. Still pretty fun, though. 44.

The Raid 2: Berandal, 2014. I enjoyed the first Raid film from 2011, which was a very straightforward action flick about a squad of cops storming the apartment building stronghold of the Bad Guys. Brutal, bloody, nonstop. The sequel tries to cobble together a far more ambitious plot, with the hero cop from the first film betrayed by his crooked superiors and forced to assimilate into an organized crime family whose psychotic and ambitious son is scheming to overthrow his father and orchestrate a war with other crime syndicates. It's all a bit much, and more than fits comfortably into the story. But we're here for the fight scenes, which definitely deliver. 42.

Guardians of the Galaxy, 2014. I'd obviously heard lots of good about this film, notably the soundtrack, which I did find to be a very nice touch. I enjoyed the story and the characters, and I could tell that everyone had a blast making the film, which I always appreciate. I will look forward to the upcoming sequel. 52.

Maniac Cop, 1988. I'm not even sure how this one ended up on my radar, maybe it's because it features Bruce Campbell or had some connection to some other film I like. Anyway, it was a fairly typical '80s horror film, with the twist that the killer seems to be a police officer. But is he really? Cheesy to the max, but I enjoyed it. And there were two sequels to look forward to! 37.

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, 1974. I've been meaning to watch some Sam Peckinpah films, really I've seen very little of his stuff though I know he was a huge influence on Tarantino and surely many others. As do most movies made in the era, this one reeked of the 70s, even though it was set in Mexico. Fairly enjoyable, though much of the violence and nudity seemed gratuitous and the ending was kinda ridiculous. I guess all of that is a Peckinpah thing, though. (Side note: I didn't realize going in that the lead was Warren Oates, who played police captain Braddock in Blue Thunder, which was a favorite flick of mine as a kid. That one was actually released after he was killed by a sudden heart attack in 1982.) 38.

Little Boy, 2015. I had a free evening in Bakersfield so I figured I'd catch a movie at the theater. This was the only one that appealed, as it appeared to be a whimsical and magical story set during WWII, all of which seemed up my alley. I didn't realize it's actually one of the recent spate of faith-based films, though thankfully it wasn't TOO heavy-handed with that stuff. Overall it was a good story, though the kid playing the title role left much to be desired, the story was definitely thin, and relied on a bit of bait-and-switch at the end to ensure the required happy ending. I enjoyed it well enough, but can't really recommend it. 35.

All Is Lost, 2013. This was a hell of a film, very impressive. In case it slipped below your radar, it features Robert Redford (playing an unnamed character credited only as Our Man) as a man sailing his small sailboat alone across the Indian Ocean when it's struck and crippled by a drifting cargo container full of tennis shoes. From there it quickly becomes a struggle for survival, of course, though one with a fairly deliberate pace as Our Man squares off against the sea. As a one-man show with almost no spoken dialogue at all (apparently the script was only 32 pages long), it's a sort of dramatic tour de force for Redford, who apparently even did most of his own stunt work (at 77 years of age, no less!). It was a stunning film all the way through (even if it did maybe botch the occasional technical detail), and I very much enjoyed it. 57.

Speaking of Roger Deakins, I'd been wanting to re-watch No Country For Old Men, so I'm in the middle of that presently. Good stuff.

I'm also feeling like I should take a moment to document my 64-point scale, for future reference. Basically:
<20: Dreck, of varying production value.
20s: Not a complete waste of time, but not much redeeming quality either.
30s: Enjoyable, worth seeing, but not worth multiple viewings.
40s: Quality stuff. Not necessarily worth seeking out for re-watching, but the sort of thing you'd not flip away from while channel surfing.
50s: Outstanding filmmaking, with solid writing, great performances, and high production values. Deserving of re-watching on purpose.
60s: Stellar stuff. The cream of the crop, timeless classics, desert-island fare.

The LEGO Movie
I took the older two girls to see this last Friday evening, since we're all big LEGO fans. It was even enough to interest Hermione, who generally says she would rather wait for a movie to be available to watch at home rather than go to the theater to see it. At least Hallie enjoys going to the theater! Anyway, I'd heard really good things about the movie, and I was not disappointed. I think the pacing was a little uneven in places, but the animation was generally excellent, the voice acting was solid, and the writing was very good. The plot is clever, revolving around President Business, who somehow rules all the various themed worlds of LEGO but is against change and non-conformity, hence his evil plan to use something called the KRAGL (which I don't think I'm spoiling too much to reveal it's KRAzy GLue) to freeze all the LEGO worlds into the configuration he deems perfect. Meanwhile, the Master Builders are after the Piece of Resistance, the only thing that can stop the KRAGL. Enter Emmet, a typical construction worker from LEGO City who finds the Piece of Resistance and finds himself labeled The Special, subject of prophecy and legend. Can he overcome the curse of empty-headed conformity to become a Master Builder and save the world? Lots of laughs, lots of action, a touch of pathos, plenty of jokes aimed at the adults in the audience, essentially everything I want in an animated flick--plus LEGO! Worth seeing again for sure, just to watch for more details and in-jokes!
Verdict: 55 on my 64-point scale.

Oh look, another review from me! I should say upfront that I've long been a fan of Quentin Tarantino's work. Maybe not the man himself--he sorta strikes me as an obnoxious and self-absorbed man-child, but the guy is clearly a savant when it comes to absorbing film and synthesizing it into his own stuff. Reservoir Dogs was a revelation. Pulp Fiction remains one of the greatest things ever committed to celluloid, as far as I'm concerned. His work after those two was a little more hit-and-miss, and I hadn't seen either of his last two films, so I finally got to Django and am currently watching Inglourious Basterds.

So anyway, Django Unchained. As the title implies, the film revolves around Django (played with conviction by Jamie Foxx), a negro slave in the antebellum American South. He is sought out by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a German immigrant dentist-turned-bounty-hunter, who wants Django's help in identifying some fugitives he's pursuing. During the commission of the job, he becomes intrigued by Django and essentially takes him on as his apprentice, promising to help Django locate his lost wife--after an escape attempt, she and Django were recaptured, branded as runaways, and sold off separately. They track her to the Mississippi plantation of Calvin Candie (brilliantly and smarmily portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio), where Dr. Schultz and Django pretend to be interested in the gladiatorial "sport" of mandingo, in which slaves are trained and forced to fight unarmed battles to the death for the amusement of their owners. Candie's elderly house-slave Stephen (in a nasty turn by Samuel L. Jackson) sees through the ruse, forcing Django into battle with Candie and his men.

This is essentially Tarantino's twist on the spaghetti Western of the 1960s, as also implied by the title (presumably after the Django films of 1966-72). That said, it is a splendidly-lensed piece of work, taking excellent advantage of the western and southern scenery--live oaks draped with Spanish moss abound, and the towns and plantations are atmospheric. The director of photography was Robert Richardson, who has worked on Tarantino's last few films as well as Martin Scorsese's stunningly-beautiful Hugo, so no surprise that it's a visually spectacular film.

It's also a very violent film, as one expects from Tarantino. There's a brutal mandingo fight, there's a slave torn apart by dogs, there's a torture scene or two, and of course there are gunfights galore, all filmed with no shortage of blood splashing and gushing here, there, and everywhere. Some of it is gratuitous, to be sure, but not as much as you'd get in the torture-porn horror film genre. And the story, punctuated as it is with brutality, is still a good one, and populated with a diverse and fascinating set of characters.

Conclusion: well worth the watch, especially if you're a Tarantino fan. It's a good ride of a film, with a good mix of pathos, humor, and the good old ultra-violence. I give it a 54 on my 64-point rating scale.

Next up in my very-infrequent series of media reviews is 2003's Oldeuboi (Oldboy). Let me say, first off, that (as Count Rugen berated Inigo Montoya) I have an overdeveloped sense of vengeance, so revenge/justice flicks tend to go over well with me. I'm sure that's a big part of the reason why my all-time favorite film remains The Shawshank Redemption. I think there's just so much INjustice in the world, and so rarely do we see true-life stories about the real villains getting their just deserts, that a movie that does so well really appeals to me. Plus there's the notion that I am so very far removed from badassery personally that I like to live vicariously through someone who has the intellectual, emotional and practical ability to create their own justice when all else fails. Taken? Yes please.

So anyway, all that's to say that I went into Oldeuboi knowing almost nothing about it, aside from the fact that it's part of director Chan-wook Park's so-called Vengeance Trilogy, and that it's very well-regarded. So I was looking forward to a good, straightforward vengeance flick, right? Yeah, not so much.

I definitely see where the high regard and cult-classic status comes from--it's a very well-made, atmospheric, and intriguing film, with quite a twist. And as such, it's hard to explain much of the plot without spoiling it, but I'll try. We open the film with Oh Dae-su, drunk and belligerent, clearly on a downward spiral as a husband and father, and generally making a fool of himself in a police station. Shortly after being released, Dae-su disappears from the street, and wakes up imprisoned in what appears to be a shabby hotel room. There he stays for 15 years, with only the television as his companion. Through the television he learns that his wife has been murdered, and that he is the prime suspect. Over time he trains himself to fight, mostly by punching the walls until his knuckles become callused, and he also begins trying to break through his wall to the outside, at which he eventually succeeds--or is allowed to succeed. In short order, he meets Mi-do, an attractive young woman working at a sushi restaurant whom he recognizes from his television. They form a quick attachment and become lovers, and begin their detective work by visiting every restaurant in town until Dae-su recognizes the food he was given during his captivity. That clue leads them to Woo-jin Lee, the mastermind of Dae-su's imprisonment, who gives Dae-su 5 days to unravel the mystery. If he does so, Woo-jin will kill himself. If he fails, Mi-do will be killed instead. And as Dae-su unravels the mystery, we suddenly find that the revenge film we're watching is not the revenge film we thought we were watching.

And that says enough, I think. I should note that there is definitely violence in this film, some of it fairly brutal and graphic torture-style stuff that I sort of fast-forwarded through because eww. There's one sex scene that's somewhat intense as well. But the acting and characterizations are superb, the cinematography is remarkable (with a nod to the iconic corridor fight scene), and it's a great film that deserves its accolades. As is often the case with successful foreign films, there's an American remake starring Josh Brolin (as Joe Doucett.. Oh Dae-su, Joe Doucett, you see what they did there?) and Elizabeth Olsen (younger sister of Mary-Kate and Ashley), directed by Spike Lee. I may have to give that one a watch to see how badly they mangled the original, because I can't imagine they improved upon it.

Regardless, I give Oldeuboi a 57 on my somewhat-arbitrary 64-point scale.

I know, I've been a bad LJ citizen lately, sparse on the posts and comments. Sorry!

And I'm just wrapping up my workweek, but I thought I'd type up a quick review of the movie I finished last night, 2011's Drive with Ryan Gosling, Bryan Cranston, Carey Mulligan, Ron Perlman, and Albert Brooks.

I think this film was suggested to me by a blog I occasionally follow, dedicated mainly to Richard Stark's Parker novels. They occasionally recommend other books and movies that draw parallels to the world of those books, and Drive was one of those suggestions. The main character, never given a name beyond 'Kid' and credited as 'Driver', is a quiet, rather enigmatic fellow. Apparently quite gifted behind the wheel, he's an auto mechanic and Hollywood stunt driver by day, and moonlights as a driver for professional criminals who need to make a clean getaway from robberies and whatnot. He lives in a small, run-down apartment, where his neighbor down the hall is Irene, a young woman living alone with her son while her husband is in prison. Driver makes a connection with her and her son, so when the husband is released from prison with a dark shadow still over his head, Driver offers to help him get out from under it by serving as the driver for one last robbery. It goes wrong with a double-cross and a bag full of mob cash, and Driver finds himself in the middle of a tangled web involving himself and everyone he's connected to.

Enough plot--it's nothing new, but handled well enough and with a few nice twists and surprises. The director, Nicolas Winding Refn (selected for the project by Ryan Gosling, apparently) brings an interesting style to the film, not least through his musical choices--a few electronic pop tunes that were recorded in the 2000s but which hearken back to the 1980s and add a distinctive feel to the scenes they accompany. I actually found the music a bit jarring at first, since it's so different from most movie soundtracks, but it did grow on me. The performances are solid, especially Carey Mulligan as the sweet-but-strong Irene and Gosling as the mostly stone-faced Driver of very few words. Most of their relationship is portrayed wordlessly, but they make it work. Similarly, even though Driver himself emotes little and says even less, and displays quite the penchant for brutal violence as the film progresses, it's never in doubt that his heart is in the right place, and he's doing the things he does to protect both himself and the people he cares for. Bryan Cranston takes a nice turn as Driver's boss and friend. The weakest characters are the assorted gangsters in the film, who are fairly one-dimensional.

I should mention the violence: there is a decent amount, and it is fairly intense. It's actually rather shocking when the first bloody death occurs, since there's been no hint of that sort of violence up to that moment. That said, the violence and even the automotive action scenes are handled with a great deal of efficiency--they are short and no-nonsense, without the extravagances of too many angles and slow-motion. Refn also does not shy away from blood and gore, so be warned about that.

Finally, the ending did feel quite unresolved to me--I'm sure that was intentional, and call me shallow, but I would have liked to see a bit more resolution.

Overall, not a bad flick, though definitely not the flick I was expecting. I'd give it a 47 on my arbitrary 64-point scale, would watch again.

Time to go home! Have a good weekend, people!