Review: "THE EQUALIZER 2" is Brutal and Personal

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 40 of 2023 (No. 1929) by Leroy Douresseaux

The Equalizer 2 (2018)

Running time:  121 minutes (2 hours, 1 minute)

MPAA – R for brutal violence throughout, language, and some drug content

DIRECTOR:  Antoine Fuqua

WRITER:  Richard Wenk (based on the television series created by Michael Sloan and Richard Lindheim)

PRODUCERS:  Antoine Fuqua, Todd Black, Jason Blumenthal, Tony Eldridge, Mace Neufeld, Alex Siskin, Michael Sloan, Steve Tisch, and Denzel Washington

CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Oliver Wood (D.o.P.)

EDITOR: Conrad Buff IV

COMPOSER:  Harry Gregson-Williams

ACTION/CRIME/THRILLER

Starring:  Denzel Washington, Pedro Pascal, Ashton Sanders, Orson Bean, Bill Pullman, Melissa Leo, Jonathan Scarfe, Kazy Tauginas, Garrett A. Golden, and Sakina Jaffrey

The Equalizer 2 is a 2018 action movie and crime thriller directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Denzel Washington.  It is a sequel to the 2014 film, The Equalizer.”  Both films are based on the television series, “The Equalizer,” which was created by  Michael Sloan and Richard Lindheim and was originally broadcast on CBS from 1985 to 1989.  The Equalizer 2 finds Robert McCall out to make the people who murdered someone he loves pay for their crimes with their lives.

The Equalizer 2 opens on a train headed to Istanbul, Turkey.  Robert “Bob” McCall (Denzel Washington) is about to serve his unflinching brand of justice on man who kidnapped his daughter in order to punish his ex-wife.  McCall still lives quietly in Boston, where he works as a Lyft driver and assists the less fortunate, the exploited, and the oppressed.  Among the people he is currently helping include Samuel “Sam” Rubinstein (Orson Bean), a Holocaust survivor trying to recover a painting of his sister, Magda, who died in a Nazi death camp.  Lately, he has taken an interest in Miles (Ashton Sanders), a troubled African-American teen who lives in the same apartment building.  Miles has tremendous artistic talent, but he is also being recruited by a violent, drug-dealing street gang.

However, the big action is in Brussels, Belgium.  There, Robert's friend and former DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) colleague, Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo), is investigating the apparent murder-suicide of DIA “agency affiliate” and his wife.  That investigation costs Susan her life.  McCall begins investigating Susan's murder with the assistance of her colleague and his former DIA teammate, Dave York (Pedro Pascal).  Determined to avenge Susan's murder, McCall will have to go deep into his past and risk endangering people very close to him.

With his Oscar-winning turn in 2001's Training Day, Denzel Washington proved to be a convincing bad guy.  With 2010's The Book of Eli, Washington showed that he could be a bad-ass, kick-ass, action hero with fancy martial arts-styled moves.  The first take on The Equalizer allowed Washington to blend hero and anti-hero in a visceral mix.  So in anticipation of The Equalizer 3, I decided to see The Equalizer 2, of which I have seen bits and pieces on television over the past few years.

In the original film, the screenplay by Richard Wenk had McCall constantly in peril or made it seem as if he were in danger even when he was not.  Wenk returns for the sequel and delivers a script that adds compassion to the standard revenge thriller.  McCall can be a gentle soul helping a teen go through growing pains that are filled with danger, and he can lend a kind ear to an old man whose current quest could be the real thing or the result of a failing memory crashing from the accumulation of data over a long life.  On the other hand, McCall will also break a mutha down to the blood and bone if he deserves such a reckoning, even if it means killing him.

The Equalizer would be a standard revenge thriller if its avenger were portrayed by just any other movie star, but Denzel Washington is a consummate professional and charismatic actor.  That means he can deliver the meat and potatoes and the art to every performance – whether it is Shakespeare on stage or Hollywood entertainment product destined for the multiplex.  In this second film, Washington super-charges his performance in order to make the personal so personal that it is murderous. 

Director Antoine Fuqua plays Washington's skills for everything he can get out of this brilliant actor.  Fuqua is an impressive director in his own right, especially when it comes to dark, violent, dramatic thrillers, such as Shooter (2007).  Together, Fuqua and Washington deliver in The Equalizer 2 a film that slightly surpasses the original.  I find myself endlessly fascinated by it because The Equalizer 2 is a really good thriller.

7 of 10

A-

★★★½ out of 4 stars

Wednesday, August 30, 2023

The text is copyright © 2023 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

---------------------------------

---------------------------------

Amazon wants me to inform you that the affiliate link below is a PAID AD, but I technically only get paid (eventually) if you click on the affiliate link below AND buy something(s).

Comics Review: "Kolchak: The Night Stalker – 50th Anniversary Graphic Novel" is a Great Tribute, Great Read

KOLCHAK THE NIGHT STALKER 50TH ANNIVERSARY SOFTCOVER

MOONSTONE BOOKS

STORY: David Avallone; Jonathan Maberry; Peter David; R.C. Matheson; Kim Newman; Tim Waggoner; Steve Niles; Rodney Barnes; Gabriel Hardman; James Aquilone; Nancy A. Collins; James Chambers

ART: Julius Ohta; Marco Finnegan; J.K. Woodward; Paul McCaffrey; Clara Meath; Szymon Kudranski; Jonathan Marks Barravecchia; Gabriel Hardman; Colton Worley; Warwick Caldwell-Johnson;

COLORS: Zac Atkinson; Szymon Kudranski; Colton Worley; Warwick Caldwell-Johnson;

LETTERS: Tom Napolitano; Tom Napolitano with DC Hopkins

EDITOR: James Aquilone

COVER: Colton Worley

MISC. ART: Jerry Ordway with Zac Atkinson; J.K. Woodward; Dan Brereton

ISBN: 978-1-946346-14-8; paperback (October 21, 2022)

188pp, Color, $24.99 U.S.

Kolchak: The Night Stalker – 50th Anniversary Graphic Novel is a 188-page comic book anthology that celebrates the fiftieth anniversary of the former ABC television series, “Kolchak: The Night Stalker.”  This graphic novel is edited by James Aquilone and published by Moonstone Books.

“Kolchak: The Night Stalker” was a television series that blended horror, fantasy, and science fiction.  It aired on ABC during the 1974–1975 season for a total of 20 episodes.  The series was preceded by two ABC television movies, The Night Stalker (1972) and The Night Strangler (1973).

The TV series and two movies followed wire service reporter named Carl Kolchak, who was played by the late actor Darren McGavin (1922-2006).  Kolchak worked for the Chicago branch of the Independent News Service (INS), a small news wire service.  He often investigated mysterious crimes and events and they were usually caused by forces, creatures, monsters, entities, etc. that were of supernatural, science fiction, and/or fantastic origins.  Carl Kolchak was created by the late writer, Jeff Rice (1944-2015).

2022 marked the fiftieth anniversary of the debut of “The Night Stalker” TV movie (specifically January 18, 1972).  To commemorate that anniversary, editor and publisher, James Aquilone, launched a crowdfunding campaign to raise money for an anthology graphic novel telling all-new comics stories that would span Carl Kolchak's entire career as a reporter of the supernatural and as TV’s greatest monster-hunting reporter.

The result was a hugely successful campaign and the eventual release of Kolchak: The Night Stalker – 50th Anniversary Graphic Novel.  This special 188-page graphic novel is comprised of 12 all-new stories that chronicle the adventures of the intrepid Carl Kolchak from the 1930s to the early 2000s.

The stories are written by a stellar line-up of novelists, television writers, and comic book scribes.  The list includes David Avallone, Rodney Barnes, James Chambers, Nancy A. Collins, Peter David, Jonathan Maberry, and Steve Niles, to name a few.  The artists include Jonathan Marks Barravecchia, Szymon Kudranski, Paul McCaffrey, Julius Ohta, J.K. Woodard, and Colton Worley, to name a few.

THE LOWDOWN:  There is more than one edition of Kolchak: The Night Stalker – 50th Anniversary Graphic Novel, including one that will contain a series of prose stories featuring Carl Kolchak.  My review will be of the 188-page “Cover A” paperback edition that contains the 12 stories and a short illustration gallery of variant cover art.

First, allow me to gush, dear readers.  If Kolchak: The Night Stalker – 50th Anniversary Graphic Novel is not the best horror comics anthology of the 21st century that I have read, it is definitely in the top three.  I can't think of a better one that I've encountered over the last twenty-plus years.

It is bracketed by a fine opening story and a pitch-perfect closing story.  The opening tale, writer David Avallone and artist Julius Ohta's “The Funny Place,” introduces a young Carl Kolchak who is coming into his own.  Avallone does not make the mistake of doing what the film, Solo: A Star Wars Story,” did and show us the origins of every single habit for which television viewers and fans would come to know Kolchak.  I'd like to see Avallone and Ohta produce a YA graphic novel expansion of their take on young Carl Kolchak.  I know it likely won't happen, but a fanboy can dream...

The closing story, writer James Chambers and artist Paul McCaffrey's “The Last Byline,” is masterstroke as a concluding story in an anthology.  It recalls Kolchak's debut, The Night Stalker; is a summation of his work and motivation; and is a fitting end … with his boots on.

In between, the writers and artists introduce new spins on the adventures of Carl Kolchak, such as Nancy A. Collins' and Warwick Caldwell-Johnson's “The Sin Feeder” and Jonathan Maberry and Marco Finnegan's “The White Lady.”  Writer Rodney Barnes and artist Jonathan Marks Barravecchia summon the spirit of original “Kolchak: The Night Stalker” episode, “The Zombie,” with the superb “Voodoo Child.”  It is a timely rumination on the pervasive poverty of black and brown inner city neighborhoods and also police violence, with a seeding of George A. Romero's “Dead” films.

I actually cannot pick a personal favorite story from Kolchak: The Night Stalker – 50th Anniversary Graphic Novel because they are all so damn good.  “The Nest” by Tim Waggoner and Clara Meath may be the sweetest.  I unequivocally endorse Kolchak: The Night Stalker – 50th Anniversary Graphic Novel.  I think the version that I am reviewing costs $32 to purchase from James Aquilone's Monstrous Books website.  I am sure, dear readers, that some of you have spent much more on reading material that is not nearly as good as this book.

I READS YOU RECOMMENDS:  Fans of Carl Kolchak and of “Kolchak: The Night Stalker” will very much want Kolchak: The Night Stalker – 50th Anniversary Graphic Novel.

[This volume includes introductions by R.C. Matheson and James Rice.]

A+

Reviewed by Leroy Douresseaux a.k.a. "I Reads You"

https://twitter.com/jamesaquilone

https://monstrousbooks.com/

https://monstrousbooks.com/shop

https://moonstonebooks.com/

https://www.facebook.com/MoonstoneBooks/

The text is copyright © 2023 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this blog or site for reprint and syndication rights and fees.

----------------------

Review: DOWNTON ABBEY: A New Era" Celebrates the New with the Old

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 43 of 2022 (No. 1855) by Leroy Douresseaux

Downton Abbey: A New Era (2022)
Running time: 124 minutes (2 hours, four minutes)
MPAA – PG for some suggestive references, language and thematic elements
DIRECTOR:  Simon Curtis
WRITER: Julian Fellowes (based on the television series created by Julian Fellowes)
PRODUCERS:  Julian Fellowes, Gareth Neame, and Liz Trubridge
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Andrew Dunn (D.o.P.)
EDITOR:  Adam Recht
COMPOSER:  John Lunn

DRAMA/HISTORICAL

Starring:  Hugh Bonneville, Laura Carmichael, Jim Carter, Raquel Cassidy, Brendan Coyle, Michelle Dockery, Kevin Doyle, Michael Fox, Joanne Froggatt, Robert James-Collier, Allen Leech, Phyllis Logan, Elizabeth McGovern, Sophie McShera, Tuppence Middleton, Lesley Nicol, Harry Hadden-Paton, Maggie Smith, Imelda Staunton, and Penelope Wilton with Dominic West, Hugh Dancy, Laura Haddock, Jonathan Coy, Jonathan Zaccai, and Nathalie Baye

Downton Abbey: A New Era is a 2022 historical drama film directed by Simon Curtis.  It is based on the British television series, “Downton Abbey” (ITV, 2010-15), which was created by Julian Fellowes, who also wrote the screenplay for this film.  A New Era is also a direct sequel to the 2019 film, Downton Abbey.  In A New Era, the Crawley family go on a grand journey to uncover the mysteries behind the dowager countess' recent inheritance, a villa in the south of France.

Downton Abbey: A New Era opens in 1928.  Tom Branson (Alan Leech), the son-in-law of Robert Crawley, Lord Grantham and 7th Earl of Grantham (Hugh Bonneville), is marrying Lucy Smith (Tuppence Middleton).  Lucy is the former maid and the recently-revealed daughter of Lady Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton), and she will become the heiress to Lady Bagshaw's extensive estate.

Returning from the wedding, the Crawley family experience two big surprises.  First, they learn that Lord Grantham's mother, Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham (Maggie Smith), has inherited a villa near Toulon, in the south of France, from a gentleman she knew in the 1860s, the Marquis de Montmirail.  He has recently died, and his son, the new Marquis (Jonathan Zaccai), has invited the Crawleys to visit the villa, named “La Villa des Colombes” (the Villa of the Doves).

Violet is not well enough to travel, but she is particularly anxious for Tom and Lucy to go, because she has decided to transfer ownership of the villa to Sybbie, Tom's daughter with the late Lady Sybil Crawley.  So Lord Grantham and his wife, Cora Crawley, Countess of Grantham (Elizabeth McGovern), lead a small group of family and servants to the south of France, where the late Maquis' wife, La Marquise, Madame Montmirail (Nathalie Baye), awaits them with a mind to challenge her late husband's will.

The second surprise is that a studio, British Lion, wishes to use Downton as a filming location for a silent film entitled, The Gambler.  Although Robert, Lord Grantham is initially opposed to the idea, his eldest daughter, Lady Mary Talbot (Michelle Dockery), convinces him that the money from the film could be used to replace Downton Abbey's leaky roof.

So the film crew arrives.  The members of the staff at Downton Abbey are intrigued by the chance to see the stars of the film, the leading man, Guy Dexter (Dominic West), and the leading lady, Myrna Dalgleish (Laura Haddock).  Lady Mary appears to make an impression on the film's director, Jack Barber (Hugh Dancy), and he soon needs her help.  The Gambler is being made just as a great change is occurring in the world of cinema, one that could prematurely end production of the film.

These are just a few of the dramas and melodramas, both large and small, that threaten to upend the lives of those upstairs and downstairs at Downton Abbey.

The original television series, Downton Abbey, began airing on the British television network, ITV, in 2010 and ended in 2015, after six seasons and 52 episodes.  It aired on the American broadcast network, PBS, as part of its “Masterpiece” series from 2011-20, before moving onto streaming services, Peacock and Netflix.  The final episode of “Downton Abbey” was set on New Year's Eve, 1925.  The first film, 2019's Downton Abbey, is set in 1927, 18 months after the TV series finale.  Downton Abbey: A New Era opens in the following year and picks up on some of the plot lines from the first film.

As I wrote in my review of the first film, when I first heard of “Downton Abbey,” I mostly ignored it, although I watched a few minutes here and there.  One Sunday afternoon, however, while channel surfing, I came across the show and recognized an actor (maybe American actress Elizabeth McGovern).  I decided to see what she was doing on the show and within a few minutes I was hooked.  It wasn't until two hours later I realized that I still had chores to do, but it was hard to pull myself away from the TV.  I found myself in the thrall of “Downton Abbey's” hypnotic powers.

I also found Downton Abbey the movie hypnotic, and a New Era was no less hypnotic, in large part because director Simon Curtis seems to have a grasp of all elements of the film, down to the details.  Both films offer many of the same ingredients of the television series that made it so popular and have since made it an enduring favorite.

One thing that A New Era does that the first film did not is offer a lot of change, including one monumental change.  Much of that change directly or indirectly involves the ailing dowager countess, Violet Crawley, as she settles her affairs and prepares the family for her eventual passing.  Series creator and screenwriter of both films, Julian Fellowes, specializes in historical ensemble dramas, such as Gosford Park (2001), and historical costume dramas, such as The Young Victoria (2009).  Fellowes spends much of this film introducing a sense of newness or of renewal in the lives of the denizens of Downton Abbey and of those connected to them.

There are new relationships and changes in employment, including the promise of another wedding and of two acquaintances becoming a couple.  Individuals assume new positions in the Crawley family, and even members of the film crew get new leases on their careers and in their personal relationships.  Downton Abbey: A New Era is truly the dawning of a new era in this world, and while this film does indeed have two primary settings, its story feels a bit more focused than the first film's story.

If you liked the television series, you will like this second film, to some degree, because it is more Downton Abbey.  Honestly, as with the first film, I love it and want more.  Downton Abbey: A New Era makes me happy, and I look forward to what is next...

8 of 10
A
★★★★ out of 4 stars

Saturday, July 16, 2022


The text is copyright © 2022 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved.  Contact this blog or site for reprint and syndication rights and fees.

-----------------------

-----------------------

Amazon wants me to inform you that the affiliate link below is a PAID AD, but I technically only get paid (eventually) if you click on the affiliate link below AND buy something(s).

Review: First "DOWNTON ABBEY" Movie Brought Me a Little Happiness

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 32 of 2022 (No. 1844) by Leroy Douresseaux

Downton Abbey (2019)
Running time: 122 minutes (2 hours, 2 minutes)
MPAA – PG for thematic elements, some suggestive material, and language
DIRECTOR:  Michael Engler
WRITER: Julian Fellowes (based on the television series created by Julian Fellowes)
PRODUCERS:  Julian Fellowes, Gareth Neame, and Liz Trubridge
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Ben Smithard
EDITOR:  Mark Day
COMPOSER:  John Lunn

DRAMA/HISTORICAL

Starring:  Hugh Bonneville, Mark Addy, Laura Carmichael, Jim Carter, Raquel Cassidy, Brendan Coyle, Michelle Dockery, Michael Fox, Matthew Goode, Geraldine James, Robert James-Collier, Simon Jones, Allen Leech, Elizabeth McGovern, Sophie McShera, Tuppence Middleton, Stephen Campbell Moore, Lesley Nicol, Maggie Smith, Imelda Staunton, and Penelope Wilton

Downton Abbey is a 2019 historical drama film directed by Michael Engler.  It is based on the British television series, “Downton Abbey” (ITV, 2010-15), which was created by Julian Fellowes, who also wrote the screenplay for this film.  Downton Abbey the movie continues the story of the Crawley family as they prepare the family estate for a royal visit.

Downton Abbey opens in 1927, eighteen months after the end of the television series.  Robert Crawley, Lord Grantham and 7th Earl of Grantham (Hugh Bonneville), receives word that King George V (Simon Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) intend to visit Downton Abbey during their royal Yorkshire tour.  Downton is the Crawley family's large estate in the English countryside of Yorkshire (County of York).  Both the family and the staff of Downton Abbey are excited by the news.

Lord Grantham puts his daughter, Lady Mary Talbot (Michelle Dockery), in charge of the preparations for the visit.  Lady Mary feels that the current head butler, Thomas Barrow (Robert James-Collier), is ill-equipped to manage such an important event.  Thus, she recruits retired head butler, Charles Carson (Jim Carter), to briefly return from retirement in order to assist her, much to Barrow's chagrin.  However, once members of the royal staff begin to arrive at Downton in advance of the King and Queen themselves, they act rudely towards the Downton staff and make it clear that they will supplant them for the duration of the royal visit.

Meanwhile, a feud brews between Lord Grantham's mother, Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham (Maggie Smith), and Maud, Lady Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton), the Queen's lady-in-waiting and a relative of the Crawleys.  Lord Grantham is Maud's first cousin once removed, so he should inherit Maud's estate.  However, Maud has plans regarding her maid, Lucy Smith (Tuppence Middleton), who has a mysteriously close relationship with Maud.  Meanwhile, Tom Branson (Alan Leech) meets Lucy, and they strike up a friendship.

These are just a few of the dramas and melodramas, both large and small, that brew as a royal visit threatens to upend the lives of those upstairs and downstairs at Downton Abbey.

The original television series, Downton Abbey, began airing on the British television network, ITV, in 2010 and ended in 2015, after six seasons and 52 episodes.  It aired on the American broadcast network, PBS, as part of its “Masterpiece” series from 2011-20, before moving onto streaming services, Peacock and Netflix.  The final episode of “Downton Abbey” was set on New Year's Eve, 1925, and the movie is set 18 months after the TV series finale, according to an interview the writer and director gave to the Hollywood film site, The Wrap.  The King George V depicted in this film reigned from 1910 to 1936.  He was also the father of the next king, Edward VIII, who abdicated a few months into his reign.  Thus, George V's second son, Prince Albert, Duke of York, became King George VI, who was also the father of the current Queen Elizabeth II.

When I first heard of “Downton Abbey,” I mostly ignored it, although I watched a few minutes here and there.  One Sunday afternoon, however, while channel surfing, I came across the show and recognized an actor (maybe American actress Elizabeth McGovern).  I decided to see what she was doing on the show and within a few minutes I was hooked.  It wasn't until two hours later I realized that I still had chores to do, but it was hard to pull myself away from the TV.  I found myself in the thrall of “Downton Abbey's” hypnotic powers.

I also found Downton Abbey the movie hypnotic.  It offers many of the same ingredients of the television series that made it so popular and have since made it an enduring favorite.  The film both expands and extracts those elements, as needed, for the main plot – the royal visit.  Actually, creator Julian Fellowes' screenplay allows all the regular members of the TV cast to do what is expected of their respective characters, while allowing them to shine in the small moments of this film.  New characters, such as Imelda Staunton as Cousin Maud and Tuppence Middleton as her maid, Lucy, who shine in their respective supporting roles.

Some of the subplots here could work as story lines for an entire season of the television series.  That includes an assassination subplot and a first gay romantic experience, the former seeming forced and unauthentic and the latter being something beautiful, but woefully underdeveloped.

If you liked the television series, you will like this, to some degree, because it is more Downton Abbey.  Or you will be disappointed, to some degree, because it does not meet your expectations of what more Downton Abbey should be.  Honestly, I loved it, and I wanted more.  Downton Abbey the movie made me happy, and I look forward to the soon to be released sequel, Downton Abbey: A New Era.

8 of 10
A
★★★★ out of 4 stars

Wednesday, May 18, 2022


The text is copyright © 2022 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved.  Contact this blog or site for reprint and syndication rights and fees.

---------------------

---------------------

Amazon wants me to inform you that the affiliate link below is a PAID AD, but I technically only get paid (eventually) if you click on the affiliate link below AND buy something(s).

Review: Denzel Does Good Guy/Dark Side in "The Equalizer"

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 27 (of 2015) by Leroy Douresseaux - Support Leroy on Patreon.

The Equalizer (2014)
Running time:  132 minutes (2 hours, 12 minutes)
MPAA – R for strong bloody violence and language throughout, including some sexual references
DIRECTOR:  Antoine Fuqua
WRITER:  Richard Wenk; (based on the television series created by Michael Sloan and Richard Lindheim)
PRODUCERS:  Todd Black, Jason Blumenthal, Tony Eldridge, Mace Neufeld, Alex Siskin, Michael Sloan, Steve Tisch, Denzel Washington, and Richard Wenk
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Mauro Fiore (D.o.P.)
EDITOR: John Refoua
COMPOSER:  Harry Gregson-Williams

ACTION/CRIME/THRILLER

Starring:  Denzel Washington, Martin Csokas, Chloë Grace Moretz, David Masters, Johnny Skourtis, David Meunier, Bill Pullman, Melissa Leo, Alex Veadov, Haley Bennett, James Wilcox, Mike O'Dea, E. Roger Mitchell, and Vladimir Kulich

The Equalizer is a 2014 action movie and crime thriller from director Antoine Fuqua and starring Denzel Washington.  The film is based on the television series, “The Equalizer,” which was created by  Michael Sloan and Richard Lindheim and was originally broadcast on CBS from 1985 to 1989.  The Equalizer the movie focuses on a man with a mysterious past who helps a young female prostitute, which brings him into conflict with her owners, ultra-violent Russian gangsters.

The Equalizer introduces Robert “Bob” McCall (Denzel Washington), a man who lives quietly in Boston, Massachusetts, where he works at a “Home Mart” hardware store.  McCall spends his nights at the Bridge Diner where he has befriended Teri (Chloë Grace Moretz), a young call girl who also wants to be a pop singer.  She is pimped out by local Russian gangsters that are led by a man named Slavi (David Meunier).

After Slavi beats Teri into a coma, McCall attempts to rescue her from Slavi.  The aftermath of that meeting brings Teddy Rensen (Martin Csokas) to Boston.  Rensen is the enforcer/fixer for Russian mafia leader, Vladimir Pushkin (Vladimir Kulich), but McCall decides to do some fixing of his own.

The Equalizer is a thoroughly satisfying movie... at least to me.  I guess that I should qualify this review by admitting that I am a huge fan of Denzel Washington, whom I consider to be one of the world's best actors of the last three decades.

Since his Oscar-winning turn in 2001's Training Day, Washington has proven to be a capable bad guy.  With 2010's Book of Eli, Washington showed that he could be a bad-ass, kick-ass, action hero with fancy martial arts-styled moves.  Ostensibly the hero in The Equalizer, Washington mixes bad guy with bad-ass in Robert McCall.

The screenplay by Richard Wenk has McCall constantly in peril or makes it seem as if he were in danger even when he is not.  Director Antoine Fuqua plays that for everything he can get out of it.  He makes a crime film that moves like an action movie, and Fuqua makes everything so tense that he fashions a thriller that strengthens the crime and action movie elements.

And Denzel glides through it all with lethal inevitability and assurance, so much so that I have to give special credit to actor Martin Csokas.  He delivers the kind of performance that makes Teddy Rensen an adversary who is a believable threat to Robert McCall.

The Equalizer is a game of death that is hard to stop watching, even if it is light on story and character development (which would have made this movie a classic).  I was a big fan of the original television series, which I have not seen in years, and therefore, remember little of it.  I do remember that the series did delve into character.  Well, the recent announcement of a sequel to this film means that there could be improvement on the character front.  In the meantime, take time to enjoy a slick and stylishly violent movie, The Equalizer.

7 of 10
B+

Tuesday, May 12, 2015


The text is copyright © 2015 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" is Still a Classic

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 39 (of 2014) by Leroy Douresseaux

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Running time:  119 minutes (1 hour, 59 minutes)
MPAA – PG
DIRECTOR:   Leonard Nimoy
WRITER:  Steve Meerson & Peter Krikes and Harve Bennett & Nicholas Meyer from a story by Leonard Nimoy and Harve Bennett (based upon the TV series “Star Trek” created by Gene Roddenberry)
PRODUCER:  Harve Bennett
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Don Peterman (D.o.P.)
EDITOR:  Peter E. Berger
COMPOSER:  Leonard Rosenman
Academy Award nominee

SCI-FI/ACTION/ADVENTURE

Starring:  William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, George Takei Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, Catherine Hicks, Mark Leonard, Jane Wyatt, Robin Curtis, Robert Ellenstein, Brock Peters, Scott DeVenney, Alex Henteloff, JaneWiedlin, and Majel Barrett with Madge Sinclair

The subject of this movie review is Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, a 1986 science fiction and action-adventure movie.  It is the fourth movie in the Star Trek film franchise, which is based on “Star Trek,” a science fiction television series originally broadcast on NBC from September 1966 to June 1969.  Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home finds the former crew of the USS Enterprise traveling back in time to Earth’s past in order to retrieve the only beings that can save the Earth from a destructive alien probe.

The Voyage Home opens in the year 2286.  A large cylindrical probe of unknown alien origin moves through space.  The probe emits an indecipherable signal that disables the power of every starship and space station it passes.  After taking up orbit over Earth, the probe not only sends out a signal that disables the global power grid, but also generates planetary storms and clouds that cover the Earth.

Meanwhile, the former crew members of the USS Enterprise prepare to leave Vulcan, where they have been living in exile following the events of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.  Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and his bridge crew:  Doctor Leonard McCoy (DeForest Kelley), Montgomery Scott (James Doohan), Hikaru Sulu (George Takei), Pavel Chekov (Walter Koenig), and Uhura (Nichelle Nichols), must return to earth to face charges related to their rescue of the now-revived Captain Spock (Leonard Nimoy).

Kirk and company are approaching Earth in the Klingon Bird of Prey starship they confiscated when they receive Starfleet Command’s planetary distress call concerning the probe.  Spock discovers that an animal that is extinct in their time can save the Earth from the probe.  To find the animal, Kirk and company must travel back in time to Earth of the late 20th century, specifically 1986.  Once there, Kirk and his companions must navigate a world that might be as alien to them as anything they’ve encountered in their travels through the galaxy during their own time.

Of the 12 Star Trek feature films released to date, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is my favorite.  I have seen it many times; in fact, I thought that I had already reviewed it before now, but apparently I had not.  One of the reasons that I am so enamored with The Voyage Home is that it involves time travel.  Two of my favorite episodes of the original “Star Trek” involve time travel, “Tomorrow is Yesterday” (Episode #19 of Season One) and “The City on the Edge of Forever” (Episode #28 of Season One).

I am especially enamored with “Tomorrow is Yesterday” because the USS Enterprise and her crew travel back in time to 1969, in what was then the present decade at the time of this episode’s first airing.  As a child, I wondered what it would be like to meet the crew of the Enterprise in “my time.”  Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home touches upon that same sense of wonder, the sense that Star Trek is real and now and that I could meet the crew of the Enterprise.

The Voyage Home is also the end of a three-story arc that began with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn and continued through The Search for Spock.  This movie was a voyage home in several ways.  Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and their friends were returning home to Earth, but they get sidetracked to Earth’s past which brought them to San Francisco.  This city would one day be the home of the United Federation of Planets.  In the real world, 1986 was Star Trek’s 20th anniversary.

When I saw this movie, I felt that, in a way, the characters were almost really visiting me.  Crazy?  Silly?  Yes, but the joy that Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home gave me is emblematic of the joy “Star Trek” the television series has always given me.

9 of 10
A+

NOTES:
1987 Academy Awards, USA:  4 nominations: “Best Cinematography” (Donald Peterman), “Best Sound” (Terry Porter, David J. Hudson, Mel Metcalfe, and Gene S. Cantamessa), “Best Effects, Sound Effects Editing” (Mark A. Mangini), and “Best Music, Original Score” (Leonard Rosenman)

Sunday, August 03, 2014


The text is copyright © 2014 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: Being Remastered Made "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" Better

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 38 (of 2014) by Leroy Douresseaux

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
Running time:  105 minutes (1 hour, 45 minutes)
MPAA – PG
DIRECTOR:   Leonard Nimoy
WRITER:  Harve Bennett (based upon the TV series “Star Trek” created by Gene Roddenberry)
PRODUCER:  Harve Bennett
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Charles Correll
EDITOR:  Robert F. Shugrue
COMPOSER:  James Horner

SCI-FI/ACTION/ADVENTURE

Starring:  William Shatner, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, George Takei, Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, Mark Leonard, Robin Curtis, Merritt Butrick, Christopher Lloyd, and Leonard Nimoy and Robert Hooks, Phil Morris, Phillip Richard Allen, Miguel Ferrer, and Carl Steven

The subject of this movie review is Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, a 1984 science fiction action-adventure film.  It is the third movie in the Star Trek film franchise, which is based on “Star Trek,” the science fiction television series created by Gene Roddenberry and originally broadcast on NBC from September 1966 to June 1969.  In The Search for Spock, the crew of USS Enterprise goes on a mission to recover the body of friend and crew mate, Spock, and finds more danger than they expected.

The Search for Spock follows the events depicted in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn.  Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner) won the battle against his ghost-from-the-past, Khan Noonien Singh, but it was a hollow victory.  The USS Enterprise limps back to Earth.  Doctor Leonard McCoy (DeForest Kelley) is going insane.  And Captain Spock (Leonard Nimoy) is dead… or is he?

Spock’s father, Sarek (Mark Leonard), confronts Kirk about leaving Spock’s body in a casket on the “Genesis planet” which was created by the “Genesis device.”  Sarek tells Kirk that there might be hope for Spock.  Kirk and his bridge crew:  Montgomery Scott (James Doohan), Hikaru Sulu (George Takei), Pavel Chekov (Walter Koenig), and Uhura (Nichelle Nichols), risk their careers by stealing the decommissioned Enterprise to return to the now-restricted Genesis planet to recover Spock’s body.

Meanwhile, Kirk’s son, David (Merritt Butrick), one of the creators of Genesis, returns to the Genesis planet with the Vulcan, Lieutenant Saavik (Robin Curtis), to investigate strange sensor readings emanating from the planet.  Neither realizes that an ambitious and murderous Klingon commander named Kruge (Christopher Lloyd) is also interested in the Genesis device.  Kruge is leading his Klingon ship, the Bird of Prey, to the Genesis planet, determined to obtain the secrets of Genesis.

2014 is the 30th anniversary (specifically June 1, 1984) of the original theatrical release of Star Trek III:  The Search for Spock.  It was the first Star Trek film that I saw in a movie theatre.  Before I saw it, all I knew of the film’s plot was that it involved Spock, who was dead, and that the Enterprise was destroyed in the film.  From news media reports and through word-of-mouth, I heard that some Star Trek fans (“Trekkies” or “Trekkers”) were furious about the destruction of the ship.

When I finally saw the movie, I did not find myself particularly upset about the Enterprise’s destruction.  It was done.  What could I do about it?  What did upset me was (Spoiler!) the brutal stabbing death of Kirk’s son, David, at the hands of a Klingon.  For years, I thought Kruge had actually done the stabbing, but he only gave the order to kill a prisoner.  For years, also, I avoided The Search for Spock because I found David’s death upsetting and troubling in a way I could not explain then and cannot explain now.

This recent viewing of The Search for Spock is the first time that I have seen the film in its entirety since watching it a second time on VHS in either 1984 or 1985.  I don’t remember how much I liked the film then, but I now find myself quite fond of it.

I won’t lie and say that The Search for Spock is great; it is not.  Some of scenes have blatantly bad acting.  The last ten minutes of the film is somewhat marred by tedious mysticism.  Still, Christopher Lloyd’s turn as Kruge is both brilliant and unique.  His is one of the best and most memorable performances of a villain in a Star Trek film.

Besides Lloyd, two other things about The Search for Spock grabbed me.  First, the race to recover Spock against the ticking clock of the doomed Genesis planet coupled with the Klingon threat is a captivating hook.  Secondly, the theme of camaraderie, as exemplified by the crew of the Enterprise and measured against the blood-thirsty Kruge, makes me forget this film’s blemishes.  I know my feelings about Star Trek III: The Search for Spock are about me being nostalgic for “Star Trek classic,” but I would choose it over many other films, including many Oscar-winners, any old time of day.

7 of 10
B+

Saturday, July 26, 2014


The text is copyright © 2014 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: "The Lone Ranger" is a Little Bit Stranger

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 9 (of 2014) by Leroy Douresseaux

The Lone Ranger (2013)
Running time:  149 minutes (2 hours, 29 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence, and some suggestive material
DIRECTOR:  Gore Verbinski
WRITERS:  Justine Haythe and Ted Elliot & Terry Rossio; from Justine Haythe and Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio
PRODUCERS:  Jerry Bruckheimer and Gore Verbinski
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Bojan Bazelli
EDITORS:  James Haygood and Craig Wood
COMPOSER:  Hans Zimmer
Academy Award nominee

WESTERN/ACTION with elements of fantasy

Starring:  Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, William Fichtner, Tom Wilkinson, Ruth Wilson, Helena Bonham Carter, James Badge Dale, Bryant Prince, Barry Pepper, Leon Rippy, Stephen Root, Terry Treadaway, Saginaw Grant, Joaquin Cosio, James Frain, Leonard Earl Howze, Grover Coulson, and Mason Cook.

For those who don’t know:  The Lone Ranger is a fictional character that first debuted in a radio show in late January 1933.  The Lone Ranger is a Texas Ranger who fights injustice in the American Old West with the assistance of Tonto, his Native American friend.

The radio show ran from 1933 to the mid-1950s for almost 3,000 episodes.  The character is probably best-remembered for the television series, The Lone Ranger, which aired for eight seasons (1949 to 1957) for over 200 episodes on the ABC television network.  Clayton Moore starred as the Lone Ranger, and Jay Silverheels played Tonto.  The character also made several appearance in film, the last being an infamous and unsuccessful 1981 movie.  Early in the Summer of 2013, the Lone Ranger and Tonto returned to the big screen.

The Lone Ranger is a 2013 action and Western film from producer-director Gore Verbinski and producer Jerry Bruckheimer.  Starring Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer, The Lone Ranger 2013 focuses on the earliest efforts of The Lone Ranger and Tonto to end corruption in and to bring justice to the American Old West.

[A NOTE:  Since the following review is a longish one, I’ll summarize it here.  I thoroughly enjoyed The Lone Ranger 2013, and had a blast watching it.  However, it is not a traditional Western movie, just as the Pirate of the Caribbean movies are not typical pirate movies.  The Lone Ranger is funny, but quirky.  If you look past its oddness and focus on the action, you might find it to be quite entertaining.]

The Lone Ranger opens in 1933 at a fair in San Francisco.  In a sideshow, a boy named Will (Mason Cook) just happens to meet an elderly Native American who claims to be Tonto (Johnny Depp).  Learning that Will idolizes the Lone Ranger, Tonto tells the boy the story of how he first met the legendary hero.

The story moves back to 1869.  Lawyer John Reid (Armie Hammer) returns to his hometown of Colby, Texas.  He finds the Transcontinental Railroad to be the focus of attention, but railroad tycoon, Latham Cole (Tom Wilkinson), is focused on the capture of outlaw, Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner).  John joins his brother, Texas Ranger Dan Reid (James Badge Dale), who leads the search for Cavendish and his gang.

John discovers that Native American Comanche warrior, Tonto (Johnny Depp), is also searching for Cavendish, whom the Indian believes is a creature he calls “windigo.”  Events leave John a “lone Ranger,” and he is forced join Tonto in an often-contentious but effective partnership.  But can the two new partners stop a conspiracy that is bigger and older than they may realize?

I think that the movie reviews which accompanied The Lone Ranger upon its initial theatrical release back in late June 2013 can be described as mostly negative to mixed.  I unequivocally like this movie, although I will admit that it has some flaws.  For instance, I have a question that has already been asked by other critics.  What is the target audience for The Lone Ranger?

The Lone Ranger 2013 is a Western.  It has several elements that can be found throughout the history of American Western films:  brothels, construction of a railroad, cowboys and Indians, lone lawman, outlaws, quests for redemption, revenge, and the shoot ‘em up.  However, this new Lone Ranger is nothing like The Lone Ranger television series, which was a traditional Hollywood Western aimed at a general audience and relied on stock elements that were familiar to viewers of all ages.

This movie is also a comedy and action flick as much as it is a Western, but it is not reverent about the things found in many Western movies and television programs from the 1930s to the 1950s.  The film has those big, reality-bending action scenes we have come to expect of Jerry Bruckheimer movies like the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise (which also stars Johnny Depp).  As a comedy, the film sometimes mocks elements and aspects associated with The Lone Ranger franchise.  Some of the dialogue and scenes in this movie have a single purpose – be funny.

The Lone Ranger 2013 is also surprisingly quirky.  It is kind of a “weird Western,” like the films, Jonah Hex and Wild Wild West (1999).  The movie has a strange mixture of imitation Native American mysticism and quasi-occultism, with a funky supernatural twist.  Much of that is tied to violence, cannibalism in particular.

I think that in order to enjoy this film, the viewer has to focus more on the basic plot, the characters, and the big action scenes and sequences and less on the setting (the post-Civil War “Old West”) and genre (the Western).  I didn’t mind that The Lone Ranger is an unusual Western film, and I certainly like the plot, characters, and action set pieces.

Also, Armie Hammer turned out to fit in this movie better than I thought he would.  Still, to me, it seems as if he can never make his character, John Reid/The Lone Ranger, escape the tremendous shadow cast by Johnny Depp’s Tonto.  Depp owns this movie, and that is a bigger problem for this movie than anything else.  It is more about Tonto than it is about The Lone Ranger.  In fact, whenever the story switched to other characters, I could feel myself chomping-at-the-bits for the movie to go back to Depp/Tonto.

I have to admit that I wish that we get a sequel to The Lone Ranger.  That is unlikely, as this movie is considered a box office disappointment and, to some, a flop.

7 of 10
B+

NOTES:
2014 Academy Awards, USA:  2 nominations:  ‘Best Achievement in Makeup and Hairstyling” (Joel Harlow and Gloria Pasqua Casny) and “Best Achievement in Visual Effects” (Tim Alexander, Gary Brozenich, Edson Williams, and John Frazier)

2014 Razzie Awards:  1 win: “Worst Remake, Rip-Off or Sequel;” 4 nominations: “Worst Picture,” “Worst Actor” (Johnny Depp), “Worst Director” (Gore Verbinski), and “Worst Screenplay” (Ted Elliott-screen story and screenplay, Justin Haythe-screen story and screenplay, and Terry Rossio-screen story and screenplay)

Tuesday, March 04, 2014


The text is copyright © 2014 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: "Starsky and Hutch" is Average Entertainment (Happy B'day, Snoop Dogg)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 27 (of 2004) by Leroy Douresseaux

Starsky & Hutch (2004)
Running time:  101 minutes (1 hour, 41 minutes)
MPAA – PR-13 for drug content, sexual situations, partial nudity, language and some violence
DIRECTOR:  Todd Phillips
WRITERS:  John O’Brien, Scot Armstrong and Todd Phillips, from a story Steve Long and John O’Brien (based upon characters created by William Blinn)
PRODUCERS:  William Blinn, Stuart Cornfeld, Akiva Goldsman, Tony Ludwig, and Alan Riche
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Barry Peterson (D.o.P.)
EDITOR:  Leslie Jones
COMPOSER:  Theodore Shapiro

COMEDY/CRIME with some elements of action

Starring:  Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Snoop Dogg, Fred Williamson, Vince Vaughn, Juliette Lewis, Jason Bateman, Amy Smart, Carmen Electra, George Cheung, Chris Penn, Patton Oswalt, Jenard Burks, The Bishop Don Magic Juan, and Paul Michael Glaser and David Soul

The subject of this movie review is Starsky & Hutch, a 2004 crime comedy from director Todd Phillips.  The film is based on the 1970s television series, Starsky & Hutch, a police drama-thriller that was created by William Blinn and was originally broadcast on the ABC television network from 1975 to 1979.  The film is a kind of prequel to the original television series.  Starsky & Hutch the movie follows two streetwise cops who fight crime in their red-and-white Ford Torino.

With my refined tastes, I should technically be repulsed by film remakes of 70’s television programs, but repulsed or otherwise, I’ll generally see them.  Still, I’d planned on seeing the controversial Mel Gibson Jesus movie, but it was sold out, and there was the poster for Starsky & Hutch staring me in the face.  Though I had to settle on something I hadn’t planned on seeing at the time, it didn’t really affect my enjoyment of Starsky and Hutch.  It’s a fairly funny film, but you wouldn’t have missed a cinematic event that must be seen on the big screen if you’d waited for home video or TV.

Set in a sort of anachronistic version of the 1970’s, S&H is the story of two streetwise detectives who form an unlikely partnership.  David Starsky (Ben Stiller) is an anal by-the-books guy, who actually does nothing but screw up, despite his attention to rules.  Ken “Hutch” Hutchinson (Owen Wilson) is a genial kind of guy, always hanging loose, but he is also the kind of cop who breaks the law when it suits him.  Hutch robs bookies for their loot, and he uses illegal drugs.  The mismatched pair gets on the nerves of their boss, Captain Dobey (Fred Williamson), relies on tips from an omniscient street informer, Huggy Bear (Snoop Dogg), and busts crime in Starksy’s 1974 red-and-white, souped-up Ford Torino.  Their first big case together involves a respectable businessman, Reese Feldman (Vince Vaughn), who may be a big time cocaine dealer.  However, Starsky and Hutch’s bumbling and lack of hard evidence dog their case every step of the way.

Starsky & Hutch has some extremely hilarious moments, not as many as, say, Scary Movie 3.  S&H is structured like SM3 in that S&H’s plot, story, and script are basically an elaborate, but dumb, blueprint to layout jokes.  S&H’s script is, however, nothing like the disaster of that was SM3’s script.  S&H also reminds me of another of director Todd Phillip’s hits, Old School (2003): lots of funny scenes, but ultimately a lame, by-the-book, Hollywood yuck fest that plays it way too safe.

This is also one of the times that Ben Stiller’s shtick, that of the angry, quick-tempered nerd, works for the film.  Owen Wilson is a great screen presence; the camera loves him, and the role of the amiable Hutch easily fits Owen’s usually warm and generous film persona.

I generally enjoyed this film’s deep tongue in the tongue-in-cheek mode.  Starsky and Hutch is not to be taken seriously, nor does the film try to make you do so.  The quasi-70’s setting is a hoot, at least early on, but the film’s period atmosphere eventually dissolves into mere background noise.  There should have been much more Snoop Dogg because he surprisingly has good screen presence.  Also, Will Ferrell’s (who doesn’t get a screen credit) riotous turn as Big Earl, a man in the county lockup with serious man crush issues, is certainly a reason to see this film, at home or in a theatre.

5 of 10
B-

NOTES:
2005 Razzie Awards:  2 nominations: “Worst Actor” (Ben Stiller) and “Worst Supporting Actress” (Carmen Electra)

Updated:  Sunday, October 20, 2013

-----------------

Review: "Star Trek Into Darkness" a Spectacular Trip

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 64 (of 2013) by Leroy Douresseaux

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Running time:  127 minutes (2 hours, 7 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence and brief sexual content
DIRECTOR:  J.J. Abrams
WRITERS:  Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof (based upon the television “Star Trek” created by Gene Roddenberry)
PRODUCERS:  J.J. Abrams, Bryan Burk, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Dan Mindel (D.o.P.)
EDITORS:  Maryann Brandon and Mary Jo Markey
COMPOSER:  Michael Giacchino

SCI-FI/ACTION/THRILLER with elements of drama and comedy

Starring:  Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Benedict Cumberbatch, Peter Weller, Alice Eve, Noel Clarke, Nazneen Contractor, and Bruce Greenwood with Leonard Nimoy

Star Trek Into Darkness is a 2013 science fiction and action film from director J.J. Abrams.  This movie is the 12th film in the Star Trek film franchise, which is a continuation of “Star Trek,” the beloved 1960s television series.  Star Trek Into Darkness (also known as “STID”) is the follow up to the 2009 film, Star Trek, which was a reboot of the franchise by J.J. Abrams and writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.  STID pits the crew of the Enterprise against an unstoppable and mysterious force of terror from within their own organization.

The 2009 film was stunningly clever and wildly imaginative, and a jittery, sexy, and fresh take on a venerable science fiction classic.  STID is not necessarily fresh (or not as fresh its predecessor), but it is a crazy, sexy blast.

Star Trek Into Darkness opens in the year 2259.  Captain James T. “Jim” Kirk (Chris Pine) still commands the starship, the USS Enterprise.  Kirk’s top officers and the most trusted members of his crew are Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto), Lieutenant Nyota Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Lt. Commander Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban), Lt. Commander Montgomery “Scotty” Scott (Simon Pegg), Lt. Hikaru Sulu (John Cho), and Ensign Pavel Chekov (Anton Yelchin).  Together, they are in the midst of another wild adventure.

Early in the film, Capt. Kirk pulls a stunt that gets him into trouble with Starfleet.  He gets a chance at redemption after Commander John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) launches a series of terrorist attacks against the Federation (United Federation of Planets).  At the behest of Fleet Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller), commander-in-chief of Starfleet, Kirk leads the Enterprise on a mission against Harrison.  To capture this fugitive, however, the Enterprise must travel to Kronos, the home world of the Klingons, an alien race that is practically in a state of war with the Federation.

Star Trek Into Darkness is epic; it’s like three or four mini-movies put together to form one big, massive, sci-fi extravaganza.  It is a rousing adventure, a riveting action-adventure in space, and a swashbuckling, seafaring adventure set on the tumultuous oceans of the starry space-ways.

The film largely focuses on Kirk and Spock, and thematically, the story revolves around their personality traits, quirks, and flaws.  Revenge is also a theme, best personified by the “John Harrison” character, although I am conflicted about Benedict Cumberbatch’s casting and performance as Harrison.  Physically, Cumberbatch is miscast because he is too pasty-faced and looks more like a sneering kid than a monster/terrorist.  His athletic build looks pudgy even in a sleek bodysuit.  Cumberbatch vacillates between being too posh or too pissed off; it makes the character occasionally comical.  Cumberbatch is STID’s big misstep that luckily does not become a fatal flaw.

On the other hand, Simon Pegg is superb as Scotty.  He provides spot-on, dead-on humor in the film, and Pegg maximizes his impact upon each scene in which Scotty participates.  Pegg is STID’s best foot forward.

I understand that some hardcore Star Trek fans (Trekkies or Trekkers) were upset about at least not exited by STID.  I am not a hardcore fan, but I love me some Star Trek – the original television series, especially.  Star Trek Into Darkness feels like Star Trek to me.  J.J. Abrams’ two Star Trek films are the breathtaking, mind-blowing adventures that earlier Star Trek television series and films could not be – mainly for budgetary and technical reasons.

Thus, the Star Trek movies of J.J. Abrams and writer Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof, in some ways, do not look like their Star Trek predecessors.  But the spirit of Star Trek is there, even behind all that shiny computer-generated, special visual effects.  I unreservedly endorse that you, dear readers, follow Star Trek Into Darkness into a grand time at the movies.  This film is not without its flaws, but somehow, STID’s imperfections make it seem all the more beautiful to me.

9 of 10
A+

Thursday, September 19, 2013


The text is copyright © 2013 Leroy Douresseaux. All Rights Reserved. Contact this site for syndication rights and fees.

Review: "Thunderbirds" is a Good Family Film (Happy B'day, Jonathan Frakes)

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 13 (of 2005) by Leroy Douresseaux

Thunderbirds (2004)
Running time:  95 minutes (1 hour, 35 minutes)
MPAA – PG for intense action sequences and language
DIRECTOR:  Jonathan Frakes
WRITERS:  William Osborne and Michael McCullers; from a story by Peter Hewitt and William Osborne (based upon the television series by Gerry Anderson and Sylvia Anderson)
PRODUCERS:  Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, and Mark Huffman
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Brendan Galvin
EDITOR:  Martin Walsh
COMPOSERS: Ramin Djawadi and Hans Zimmer

ACTION/ADVENTURE/FAMILY and FANTASY/SCI-FI with elements of comedy

Starring:  Brady Corbet, Soren Fulton, Bill Paxton, Ben Kingsley, Vanessa Anne Hudgens, Anthony Edwards, Sophia Myles, Ron Cook, Deobia (Dhobi) Oparei, Rose Keegan, Phillip Winchester, Dominic Colenso, Ben Torgersen, Lex Shrapnel, Harvey Virdi, Bhasker Patel, Demetri Goritsas, Genie Francis, and Andy Smart

The subject of this movie review is Thunderbirds, a 2004 science fiction and action-adventure film from director Jonathan Frakes (best known as “Commander William T. Riker” of “Star Trek: The Next Generation”).  This film is loosely based on the 1960s British science fiction television series, “Thunderbirds” (1965-66), created by Gerry and Sylvia Anderson.  This Thunderbirds movie features live-action, human actors portraying the characters, while the television series used “Supermarionation” marionettes (a kind of puppet) as the characters.

Thunderbirds 2004 finds the Thunderbirds’ trapped and their secret base invaded by their arch-nemesis, and only the youngest Thunderbird is free to save the day.  I like this film’s story, but I would have preferred marionettes playing the characters.  However, I was shocked to find that I really enjoyed this movie, which owes as much to the Spy Kids franchise as it does to the Thunderbirds TV series.

After narrowly averting an oil rig disaster and rescuing a small group of rig workers, the Thunderbirds, led by papa Jeff Tracy (Bill Paxton), return home to their secret headquarters, Tracy Island, a lush patch of land that hides a giant secret base, the home of the Thunderbirds’ organization, International Rescue.  What the Thunderbirds don’t know is that a tracking device was placed on their rescue vehicle by a henchman of long-time Thunderbird adversary, The Hood (Ben Kingsley).

The Hood launches an attack on Thunderbird 5, IR’s secret space station.  Jeff Tracy and three of the older boys rush off to TB5 to rescue eldest son John (Lex Shrapnel), who operates the station.  The Hood invades Tracy Island and takes over Thunderbird headquarters from where he launches another attack that traps Jeff and his fours sons on TB5.  Now, it’s up to youngest son and headstrong troublemaker, Alan Tracy (Brady Corbet), to gain maturity beyond his years if he’s going to rescue his father and brothers and stop The Hood’s diabolical plan to rob the biggest banks in the world.  Luckily he has his friends Fermat (Soren Fulton) and Tin Tin (Vanessa Anne Hudgens) to help him, and here comes Lady Penelope (Sophia Myles) and her driver/butler Parker (Ron Cook) on the way.

Of course, Thunderbirds is the live-action update of the hit 1960’s British TV series and cult favorite, “Thunderbirds,” created by Gerry Anderson and his wife, Sylvia.  Obviously some people are going to have a difficult time accepting human actors in place of the series original “actors,” marionettes.  However, this is a fun family movie in the vein of the Spy Kids and Agent Cody Banks franchises.  The focus is not on the Thunderbirds as a team, but more on Alan Tracy and his friends Fermat and Tin Tin as a sort of makeshift young Thunderbirds.

That aside, Thunderbirds is a great kids action movie, superbly directed by Jonathan Frakes, best known as Commander William T. Riker of “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” but Frakes has also directed several episodes of various TV series and a few feature films.  Frakes and the screenwriters deftly keep the action exciting without being intense, and they flirt with bawdy humor via verbal gags, taking advantage of Fermat and his father, Brains’ (Anthony Edwards) stuttering.

Bill Paxton seems to need half the film to warm up to playing Jeff Tracy, and Ben Kingsley is simply having fun, although he’s always a regal presence.  Nevertheless, the stars are the young trio of Alan Tracy, Fermat, and Tin Tin, and the young actors, who give striking performances, gamely carry this nice family thrill ride.

7 of 10
B+

Updated:  Monday, August 19, 2013

-----------------------

Review: "S.W.A.T." is by the Book Crime Thriller

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 126 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux

S.W.A.T. (2003)
Running time:  117 minutes (1 hour, 57 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for violence, language and sexual references
DIRECTOR:  Clark Johnson
WRITERS:  David Ayer and David McKenna; from a story by Ron Mita and Jim McClain (based upon characters by David Hamner)
PRODUCERS:  Dan Halsted, Chris Lee, and Neal H. Moritz
CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Gabriel Beristain
EDITOR:  Michael Tronick
COMPOSER:  Elliot Goldenthal

ACTION/CRIME/DRAMA

Starring:  Samuel L. Jackson, Colin Farrell, Michelle Rodriguez, LL Cool J, Josh Charles, Jeremy Renner, Brian Van Holt, Olivier Martinez, Reginald E. Cathey, Larry Poindexter, and James DuMont

The subject of this movie review is S.W.A.T., a 2003 action-thriller and crime film.  The film is based on the short-lived television series, “S.W.A.T.”  This ABC action-crime drama (Feb. 1975 to April 1976) was created by Robert Hamner and Lee Stanley.  In S.W.A.T. the movie, S.W.A.T. tries to prevent an imprisoned drug kingpin from breaking out of police custody.

When the law gets a hold of Alex Montel (Olivier Martinez), billionaire drug lord and arms dealer, Montel offers 100 million dollars (say it in a heavy Al Pacino/Tony Montana accent to get the full effect) to anyone who can free him.  Who you gonna call?  How about the Los Angeles Police Department’s finest – S.W.A.T. (Special Weapons and Tactics)?

Led by a legendary S.W.A.T. veteran, Sgt. Dan “Hondo” Harrelson (Samuel L. Jackson), the group includes LAPD’s best, brightest, and toughest: Jim Street (Colin Farrell) a disgraced S.W.A.T. officer Hondo gives a second chance; Chris Sanchez (Michelle Rodriguez), repeatedly denied admission into the S.W.A.T. program because she is a female; and David “Deke” Kay (LL Cool J), a tough street cop who can run down you and yo mama.

S.W.A.T. is a by the book action thriller that correctly presses all the right buttons except those bothersome story and character buttons.  But the fireworks, explosions, gunshots, and machismo all work, and that’s pretty much all that’s needed to make an successful action movie – one that doesn’t make you feel like you’ve wasted your money as soon as you leave the theatre.  The plot is simple and straight, and the script contains familiar American archetypes:  Jackson’s Hondo is the black mentor to Farrell’s Street, the dangerous young white stud.  Hollywood seems intent on making Farrell a matinee idol whether the matinee wants him or not.

The movie was fun, a pleasant distraction, pleasantly intense, not manically and obscenely intense like Bad Boys II, but intense in a way that lets us get excited about overwrought gun battles.  There’s even an ultra hilarious segment in which an L.A. street gang tries to liberate Montel for his 100 meeeeell-yon dollerz!  There’s no meaningful drama in the story, nothing to make you really care for the characters other than the fact that you’d like to see Street show the department it was wrong for disgracing him.  But this is good film popcorn, one I’d heartily recommend to fans of hardcore action films and one I’ll see again.

Of course, if you want a gritty cop film, something with meat on the bones, there’s always Joe Carnahan’s Narc.

5 of 10
B-

NOTES:
2004 Black Reel Awards:  1 nomination: “Best Film” (Christopher Lee, Neal H. Moritz, and Dan Halsted)

2004 Image Awards:  1 nomination: “Outstanding Actor in a Motion Picture” (Samuel L. Jackson)

Updated:  Wednesday, August 07, 2013

------------------------

Review: "Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle" Sputters

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 100 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux


Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle (2003)
Running time: 106 minutes (1 hour, 46 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for action violence, sensuality and language/innuendo
DIRECTOR: McG
WRITERS: John August and Cormac Wibberley and Marianne Wibberley, from a story by John August (from the television program created by Ivan Goff and Ben Roberts)
PRODUCERS: Drew Barrymore, Leonard Goldberg, and Nancy Juvonen
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Russell Carpenter (D.o.P.)
EDITOR: Wayne Wahrman
COMPOSER: Edward Shearmur
Razzie Award winner

ACTION/ADVENTURE/COMEDY/MYSTERY

Starring: Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Lui, Demi Moore, Bernie Mac, Justin Theroux, Robert Patrick, Luke Wilson, Matt LeBlanc, Crispin Glover, John Cleese, Shia LaBeouf, Ashley Olsen, Mary-Kate Olsen, Pink, Jaclyn Smith, Bruce Willis (no screen credit), and John Forsythe (voice)

The subject of this movie review is Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, a 2003 action comedy from director McG. This movie is a direct sequel to the 2000 film, Charlie’s Angels. Both films are based on the television series, “Charlie’s Angels,” which was originally broadcast on ABC from 1976 to 1981. As in the first film, Full Throttle stars Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu as three women employed by a private investigation agency and working for the voice known as “Charlie.”

Charlie’s Angels, the 2000 film remake of the 70-80’s TV show of the same name, was a hoot, a delightful and highly entertaining action/comedy with the guile of a cool Frank Miller comic book. Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle, the 2003 sequel, is an overblown, way over-the-top Hollywood production that’s way too full of crap, and miraculously, it still manages to be somewhat entertaining.

It’s pointless to even attempt to describe the plot, as it’s muddled nonsense. The real plot involves the indelicate manner in which the filmmakers place Charlie’s Angels in positions and situations that create mondo opportunities for shots of tits and ass. Natalie Cook (Cameron Diaz), Dylan Sanders (Drew Barrymore), and Alex Munday (Lucy Lui) return as Charlie Townsend’s (voice of John Forsythe) high tech-trained, super-powered, manga-like cuties. This time the grrrrls have to retrieve two encrypted rings, which when combined give up the locations of people in the FBI witness relocation program, and wouldn’t the bad guys love to have that info.

McG, the director of the first film, returns to helm this gigantic, flatulent cartoon that is Full Throttle. The script is lame, but all McG has to do is make the pictures look good, and, as a music video director, he knows how to do that. Imagine The Matrix on drain cleaner, Japanese cartoons (anime) on fast forward, soft porn on the rag, and comic books conceived by horny, high school upper classmen and dull-witted sorority boys and you have the Charlie’s Angel's sequel. Don’t get me wrong; there are lots of laughs. It’s difficult to tell if the filmmakers were trying to be clever or if they were cynical enough to believe that audiences really would take it ‘tween the cheeks. The end result is this dumb as a low-rent retard movie.

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle parodies action movie clichés…badly, and also throws in a stiff riff from Martin Scorcese’s Cape Fear. It’s just too over the top and too much of a crack-addled cartoon. I did like the way the filmmakers tried to created the vibe of a family extended around the Angels; that actually gave me warm feelings. Still, I was half enthralled and half bored out of my mind. For all the fun I had, there were as many moments when I wondered why the experience of seeing this felt so wasteful. This is simply too much candy, and frankly, unless you really crave an empty movie experience, you can wait for the tape. Someone might tell you that this is a sly, wink-wink, nudge-nudge movie and you have to take it for what it is. If he tries to spin trash as something smart, he is a way-too-easy ho for the big, movie making machine in la-dee-da land.

4 of 10
C

NOTES:
2004 Razzie Awards: 2 wins: “Worst Remake or Sequel” and “Worst Supporting Actress” (Demi Moore); 5 nominations: “Worst Actress” (Drew Barrymore, also for Duplex-2003), “Worst Actress” (Cameron Diaz), “Worst Excuse for an Actual Movie” (All Concept/No Content!), “Worst Picture” (Columbia), and “Worst Screenplay” (John August-also story, Cormac Wibberley, and Marianne Wibberley)

Updated: Thursday, June 27, 2013

Review: "Charlie’s Angels" Pure Pop Pleasure

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 99 (of 2003) by Leroy Douresseaux


Charlie’s Angels (2000)
Running time: 98 minutes (1 hour, 38 minutes)
MPAA – PG-13 for action violence, innuendo and some sensuality/nudity
DIRECTOR: McG
WRITERS: Ryan Rowe, Ed Solomon, and John August (from the television series by Ivan Goff and Ben Roberts)
PRODUCERS: Drew Barrymore, Leonard Goldberg, and Nancy Juvonen
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Russell Carpenter (D.o.P.)
EDITORS: Peter Teschner and Wayne Wahrman
COMPOSER: Edward Shearmur

ACTION/COMEDY

Starring: Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu, Bill Murray, Sam Rockwell, Kelly Lynch, Tim Curry, Crispin Glover, Luke Wilson, Matt LeBlanc, Tom Green, LL Cool J, and John Forsythe (voice)

The subject of this movie review is Charlie’s Angels, a 2000 action comedy from director McG (the stage name of Joseph McGinty Nichol). The film is an adaptation of the television series, “Charlie’s Angels,” which was originally broadcast on ABC from 1976 to 1981. The film stars Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu as three women employed by a private investigation agency and working for the voice known as “Charlie.”

When I first saw Charlie’s Angels, the big-screen adaptation of the late 70’s television series of the same name, I was sure that it was the best action/comedy that I’d seen in years, if ever. Having seen it again in anticipation of the 2003 sequel, I’m sure that it is one of the best action movies I’ve ever seen and one of the best action/comedies ever made. Although the film’s tongue is firmly planted in the Angel’s cheeks and the film is geared towards men, it’s so very entertaining that everyone should get the joke.

The mysterious Charles “Charlie” Townsend (voice of John Forsythe) has three very special little ladies in his employ: Natalie Cook (Cameron Diaz), Dylan Sanders (Drew Barrymore), and Alex Munday (Lucy Liu). Under the supervision of John Bosley (Bill Murray), Charlie’s Angels use martial arts, high tech skills, and sex appeal in their investigation work for clients who can afford Charlie’s agency. This time the client is kidnap victim Eric Knox (Sam Rockwell) who runs a giant software company. The girls not only have to rescue him, but also have to retrieve Knox’s revolutionary voice-ID software. However, the girls run into more than they were told to expect, including a sleazy billionaire (Tim Curry) and his mysterious, tall, thin, ass-kickin’ bodyguard (Crispin Glover).

Directed by music video maestro McG (videos for Korn and Sugar Ray, among others), Charlie's Angels is a high-octane, comic book-styled, action movie parody and farce. None of it should be taken seriously, least of all its conspiracy-within-a-conspiracy script. This is played for fun, recalling the best action movie scenes and clichés: car chases, exploding buildings, pumping soundtrack, quick-cut editing, and Matrix-style “wire-fu” martial arts. Maybe the funniest thing about this film is that this time women do the butt stomping. Usually in action movies, the girls are just the hang-ons of the male stars, following them around and screaming at the appropriate moments during gun fights, fist fights, car chases, aircraft falling out the sky, explosions, etc. This time the girls are in control. This time their sex appeal rules the story instead of just being sex used to decorate the violence. The ladies kick the butts and leave the men panting.

It’s all done so stylishly, and it’s all good and so cool. The vapid material gets inspired performances from the cast, but the actors really make this fun to watch. Bill Murray is tired though. His Bosley is just him doing his shtick, but it is so uninspired that he should have been embarrassed to see himself in the finished product. He was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

But don’t let that keep you from watching this funny, exciting, and very wild action cartoon. Come on. Pull the stick out. Sit back and be entertained by this delicious serving of popcorn movie.

7 or 10
B+

NOTES:
2001 Black Reel Awards: 1 nomination: “Best Song” (Jean Claude Olivier-Writer, Samuel Barnes-Writer, Cory Rooney-Writer, Beyoncé Knowles-Writer, and Destiny’s Child-Performers for the song “Independent Women Part 1”)

Updated: Thursday, June 27, 2013

Review: "The Wrath of Kahn" is Still Great Star Trek

TRASH IN MY EYE No. 34 (of 2013) by Leroy Douresseaux


Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn (1982)
Running time: 113 minutes (1 hour, 53 minutes)
MPAA – PG
DIRECTOR: Nicholas Meyer
WRITERS: Jack B. Sowards; from a story by Harve Bennett and Jack B. Sowards (based upon the TV series “Star Trek” created by Gene Roddenberry)
PRODUCER: Robert Sallin
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Gayne Rescher
EDITOR: William P. Dornisch
COMPOSER: James Horner

SCI-FI/ACTION/ADVENTURE

Starring: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, Ricardo Montalban, Bibi Besch, Merritt Butrick, Paul Winfield, Kirstie Alley, and Ike Eisenmann with Judson Earney Scott

The subject of this movie review is Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn, a 1982 science fiction movie. It is the second movie in the Star Trek film franchise, which is based on “Star Trek,” a science fiction television series originally broadcast on NBC from September 1966 to June 1969. The Wrath of Kahn finds the crew of the Enterprise fighting an old and practically forgotten nemesis and trying to stop him from using a life-generating device as the ultimate weapon.

In fact, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn’s plot is based on an episode of the TV series entitled, “Space Seed,” which was originally broadcast in February 1967, the show’s first season. Writers Samuel A. Peeples and Roman Sanchez apparently contributed to film’s story, while The Wrath of Kahn’s director, Nicholas Meyer, wrote the final script for the film, but did not receive a screen credit.

As The Wrath of Kahn opens, the USS Enterprise is commanded by Captain Spock (Leonard Nimoy) and has a mostly novice crew. Captain Kirk is now Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner), and now, he mostly oversees training of Starfleet personnel and inspection of starships. The Enterprise is about to embark on a three-week training voyage with Spock in command and Kirk along for observation.

Meanwhile, former Enterprise crewman, Pavel Chekov (Walter Koenig), is on the USS Reliant with Captain Clark Terrell (Paul Winfield). The two men accidentally discover that the genetically-engineered tyrant, Khan Noonien Singh (Ricardo Montalban), who once tried to seize control of the Enterprise, is still alive and has an old score to settle with Admiral Kirk. Khan learns of the “Genesis Drive,” created by Dr. Carol Marcus (Bibi Besch) and her son, David (Merritt Butrick). This device can create life on barren worlds, but it can also destroy a planet. Now, Khan wants it, but can Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the Enterprise regulars stop him?

Following the first Star Trek film, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which was considered a disappointment to some, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn became the first great Star Trek film. I can’t remember whom, but a writer I like once described the original Star Trek series as basically a blending of World War II submarine movies and the television series, “Wagon Train.” The original Star Trek was escapist entertainment with a swashbuckling adventure aspect, but it was often socially relevant, as it alluded to, in one form or another, what was occurring in the 1960s.

The Wrath of Kahn was a bit of all of that, but on a grander scale. Director Nicholas Meyer took advantage of the medium of cinema and made the drama more melodramatic, the conflicts edgier, the villains more menacing, and the specter of death more tangible than it had been on the small screen. Even the score by James Horner evokes a sense of adventure that the earlier Star Trek film did not have. Watching this movie, I almost felt as if I were a seafaring adventurer, ready for swashbuckling fun across the expanse of outer space.

The Wrath of Kahn deals with the themes of growing old, death, and resurrection. However, I think the overarching theme of this film is renewal, especially following the first film. For the characters, there is a renewal of purpose, status, friendships, etc. Khan represents the renewal of old conflicts (which carries over into the third film). The younger crew of the Enterprise hints at a renewal of the mission. To me, this Star Trek is less about winding down and ending and more about restarting.

The performances are good, and thanks to the screenplay, William Shatner has some weighty material to use and delivers what is probably his best performance in a Star Trek film. Ricardo Montalban is fantastic – plain and simple. In Khan, Montalban delivers just the kind of grand, vengeful, madman The Wrath of Kahn has to have. He is Oscar-worth and is the main reason Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn is so distinctive among Star Trek films.

8 of 10
A

Wednesday, May 15, 2013