To Catch A Killer..."Solace"

Solace (2016)

Rated R

Starring Anthony Hopkins, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Abbie Cornish, Colin Farrell

Directed by Alfonso Poyart

The Story:

FBI Agents Merriweather & Cowles (Morgan & Cornish) have been tracking what they believe to be a serial killer. The attacks are grisly, the clues are nonexistent. So they turn to Dr. John Clancy (Hopkins), a psychic who has helped solve cases in the past. The only problem, it appears that the killer (Farrell) they seek is also a psychic, and he's way ahead of the FBI. And if John's visions are to be believed, not only can they not catch him, none of them may survive the hunt to track him down.

A fine thriller with a unique premise, having two people with psychic abilities on both sides of the law in a game of cat and mouse where it begins to become quite obvious that the cat and the mouse will change positions several times throughout the movie.

Now this may not be a Silence of the Lambs Academy Award winning performance by Hopkins, he does get more screen time and much more to do this go round than in the last dozen movies that I've seen him in, combined.

In fact, the main cast all are quite good in their roles with some interesting twists and turns of the plot along the way.

Farrell too seems to finally have a meatier role than I've seen him in, seemingly for ages. He seems to be enjoying himself in the role, and the ability to work with Hopkins was probably a plus for him in taking the part.

Overall, it kept me interested until the end, and with a few changes could've gone from pretty good to must see.

Final Grade: C+

Some Tales Aren't Worth Telling... "Winter's Tale"

Winter's Tale (2014)

Rated PG-13

Starring: Colin Farrell, Jessica Brown Findlay, Russell Crowe,

Directed by Akiva Goldsman

The Story:

Peter Lake (Farrell) is a thief on the run from Mr. Soames (Crowe) when he finds a woman named Beverly (Findlay) and falls in love.  However, Soames is going to do whatever it takes to find Lake, and kill him.

Now, add in guardian angels, demons, the devil himself, and you've got yourself a crazy adaptation of a novel that drags on for nearly 2 hours and makes no real sense whatsoever.

The End.

I was about that close to pulling this one out at the 20 minute mark, but I wanted to see if there was any bit of this movie that made any sense.

I'm closing in on 90 minutes and the movie has moved to present day, and it's about to ramp up to the final act when all will be revealed and we will rejoice with a very happy ending.

Or something.

I'm not buying it.

Literally, or figuratively.

:)


Final Grade: C-

Rewatchability/Purchase Factor: Nah.  Once was more than enough.  I'm still amazed I watched the whole thing. ;)

And Now For Your Movie Of The Week... "Saving Mr. Banks"

Saving Mr. Banks (2013)

Rated PG-13 for thematic reasons...

Starring: Emma Thompson, Tom Hanks, Annie Rose Buckley, Colin Farrell, Ruth Wilson, Paul Giamatti, Bradley Whitford, B.J. Novak, Jason Schwartzman

Directed by John Lee Hancock

The Story:

Author P.L. Travers (Thompson) has fought off the advances of Walt Disney (Hanks) for over 20 years.  He wants her book, Mary Poppins, to be brought to life onscreen to fulfill a promise to his daughters.  Travers is not interested in seeing her very personal story brought to life in an animated movie, but agrees to meet with Disney to see what will happen.  She is very insistent on everything, including recording her sessions with Disney's representatives Don DaGradi (Whitford) and the Sherman Brothers (Novak and Schwartzman).  However, it is flashbacks to the story behind the Mary Poppins story that reveal why this tale is so important to Travers and why she is so insistent on not giving it to Disney.

We all know that she relents eventually, but the journey is one worth taking to see how she gets there.

I was expecting a good movie.

I don't know that I was expecting it to be *this* good though.

The story opens with flashbacks to Travers as a girl named Ginty (Buckley) who absolutely adores her father (Farrell).  When they move to the end of the line in Australia to take on a new bank job, their mother (Wilson) is nearing the end of her rope.  Mr. Goff is an alcoholic and this is the latest in a series of jobs that have taken a toll on the family.

Yet the father is so sweet, fun and loving, it's impossible not to feel why Ginty loves her dad.

The movie moves back and forth between flashbacks of life in Australia and Travers' meetings at the Disney studios.

While Hanks does an admirable job as Walt Disney, it should be noted that the majority of Travers meetings are with screenwriter DaGradi and Richard and Robert Sherman.  In fact, Disney himself probably has the least amount of screen time in the whole movie of all of the characters. 

And that's not a bad thing.

This is the heart and soul of most of the conflict within the movie, as everything they pitch to her, she rebuffs.

Robert Sherman is the first to openly even question "does it even matter?" to many of her objections, much to the horror of his partners.

Travers remains insistent that the film not be animated and not be a musical.

So you can tell, it's a long, uphill battle for Disney's team to win her over.

However, it's when they realize how personal the story is to Travers, and how they can remedy the tale by providing a happy ending to Mr. Banks that her father never had, that Travers finally relents.

Naturally, being based on a true story, much of the tale is open to interpretation and change.

That said, I like the way the movie played out, and have a better appreciation for Mary Poppins than I did previously.

Plus, this adds yet another layer of appreciation for what the Sherman Brothers brought to Disney studios.  These two are geniuses that deserve much more notoriety and accolades than they have received.  Their songs alone provide much of the heart of the films they provided songwriting duties for.

Including this one.

Well worth a viewing.

Final Grade: A-/B+ range

Rewatchability/Purchase Factor: I'm sure I'm the only one in the house, but much like Mary Poppins, I liked it and wouldn't mind owning it and/or watching it again someday.

I'm Still Waiting On A Sequel... "S.W.A.T."

S.W.A.T. (2003)

Rated PG-13 for language and violence

Starring Colin Farrell, Michelle Rodriguez, LL Cool J, Josh Charles, Jeremy Renner, Samuel L. Jackson

Directed by Clark Johnson

The Story:

SWAT officers Street (Farrell) and Gamble (Renner) break the rules one time too often, and get suspended from SWAT by Capt Fuller (Larry Poindexter).  Gamble quits and Street opts to work in the armory with the distant hope that SWAT will once again open up to him.  Enter the returning Sgt Hondo (Jackson) who has been sent back to create a new SWAT team.  He recruits a ragtag collection of misfits including Street, and the Captain is out for their heads.  But when a notorious mobster falls into their lap, and offers a 100 Million Dollar reward for his freedom, the SWAT team is going to face their biggest challenge, ever.

Ah yes, this is a guilty pleasure of mine.

I've seen it at least a dozen times, and it never gets old.

Just a hair under 2 hours, but the pacing makes the movie just clip along and feel like it has a much shorter running time.

The movie literally moves at a breakneck pace as the team is built and then they are forced into action to move the criminal to safety.

I also think this is one of the better television shows adapted to the big screen films that has happened.

Naturally, aside from the theme song from SWAT, I barely remember the show at all. :)

All said, it was great work by all involved.  Nobody seems out of place, and all of their actions are believable to the character and/or situations that they find themselves in.

If nothing else, LL Cool J made a nice audition reel for NCIS Los Angeles.

:)

Final Grade: A-

Rewatchability/Purchase Factor: I own it, and it gets played annually, at least.

Not The Best Title, But "Dead Man Down" Isn't Half Bad...

Whooooo are you? Who? Who? Who? Who?

The Story:

Victor (Colin Farrell) is a thug working for a local crime  boss, Alphonse (Terrence Howard).  Well, it seems someone is threatening Alphonse and is slowly, systematically killing off Alphonse's people and the noose is tightening.  Meanwhile, a neighbor (Noomi Rapace) has seen first-hand what Victor can do, and she wants him to eliminate a man who caused her to become disfigured, or she'll go to the cops.  This puts Victor and all of his plans in jeopardy.

What will Victor do?

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

And WWE Studios is cranking out some really decent low-budget fare lately.  They are at it again with a nice little action thriller with their biggest star to date (Colin Farrell) before they made The Call with Halle.

Plus, they actually used a wrestler this time out, Wade Barrett, and he does just fine in his teensy weensy role.

Honestly?  It works, more than it doesn't.  Some of the parts drag, but that's what 1.5x on the PS3 allows you to zip through that and get back to the good stuff.

:)

The scenes with Farrell and Howard are dynamic and exciting. 

As for Noomi... zzzz... she's actually the least interesting part of the film. 

It's funny, the movie is really set up rather intricately compared to what you may (or may not ) have seen in the trailer, which seems that she is asking Victor to kill Alphonse for disfiguring her.  Couldn't be farther from the truth, but that the clips could be spliced that way was really clever.

No, it turns out that Victor has much deeper reasoning for wanting to bring down Alphonse, and goes through very elaborate measures to do so...

Only to have the girl muck it up at the end.

Thankfully, they salvaged it, and it didn't end up like the last Farrell movie (London Boulevard) that was interesting all the way up until the end, and then it derailed.

Final Grade: C+

Rewatchability/Purchase Factor: I could, but I doubt I will. ; )

Are You Tough Enough to Live on "London Boulevard" ?

London is one tough town...

The Story:

Mitchel (Colin Farrel) is one tough ex-con.  He gets out of jail and wants to go straight and becomes security for a reclusive actress (Keira Knightly).  Sadly, Mitchel's quest for vengeance for a friend, and the dark London underworld keep trying to drag him back into the gutter.  He has to make a decision about what to do, and with that decision comes some massive consequences for a whole lot of people.


Okay.

You all know me by now, and you know I'm a sucker for a happy ending.  Granted, not every movie has to have one, but when I get stuck with a downer of an ending, it can ruin an otherwise pretty cool picture for me.

This is a movie that falls into the latter category.

It didn't have to have a downer of an ending, but it did. 

The violence and escalating repercussions were warranted and made sense in the movie.  Up until that point, the movie rolled along at a pretty decent clip, the story was engaging and enjoyable.

The ending was a bit depressing, a real gut punch that I frankly didn't care for, and judging by how careful Mitchel had been up to that point came across as disappointing and frustrating.

In other words, don't show remorse to your enemies, because it will come back to bite you in the end.

This film is available to stream instantly as of this writing on Netflix.

Final Grade: C+  Getting a big downgrade due to the ending.  Bah!

Would I Own It: Nope. 

"Seven Psychopaths" in Hollywood? I Demand a Recount!

There's a lot of crazies in California...

Here are 7 of them.


The Story:

Marty (Colin Farrell) is a struggling screenwriter who is mentally blocked on his latest screenplay, Seven Psychopaths.  He's been getting some ideas from his good friend Billy (Sam Rockwell) that is helping him to flesh out and create the psychopaths that the tale requires.  Meanwhile, Billy and his pal Hans (Christopher Walken) make some quick money by stealing pets and returning them to their owners for a big reward.  The problem?  They just stole the wrong guy's (Woody Harrelson) dog, and he's not going to rest until he makes them pay!


The film lives up to its name.  There are indeed seven, if not possibly more, psychopaths on the loose in this film.  While Harrelson, Walken and Rockwell are chewing up the scenery at every turn, Farrell tries to remain the sane center, grounding the flick in reality.

The movie is absurd, and delightful, often at the same time.

If you saw Martin McDonagh's first film, In Bruges, also starring Colin Farrell, you kind of get the idea of what to expect:  Clever dialogue, crazy characters, and bloodshed aplenty.




If you haven't, you should, it's a pretty good film.

Seven Psychopaths takes all of that, and ramps it up several notches.

Everyone does a great job, stellar acting from top to bottom.  Walken actually plays the more subdued character this go round, taking a backseat to the zany Rockwell and the angry Harrelson.  The dialogue has flashes of insane brilliance, but stays pretty consistent great throughout.

The film isn't for everyone, but if you like black comedies, you're probably going to enjoy this one.


Final Grade: B
Is It Worth Adding to My Film Collection: It could be, but probably will not.  Since I am the only one who would watch it at my house, I usually have to pass on movies like this. 

I Wish I Could Un-Remember This Remake..."Total Recall"

The remake that YOU demanded!

You didn't?

Well, someone did, and this is what we have to show for it.


The Story:

A troubled worker (Colin Farrell) has been having some bad dreams.  He tells his wife (Kate Beckinsale) about them, then goes about his dreary routine with his best friend.  But he wants something more.  So he decides to go to a place and have some memories implanted into him about being a secret agent.  Only it turns out...he already is one!

Dun Dun Dun!

To their credit, the makers of this version abandoned Mars and said "hey, the concept behind Total Recall is kinda cool, what can we do to make a similar story, but still be different."

And with that, they succeeded, and actually succeeded quite well.  The story they wanted to tell is actually kind of interesting.

In execution however...

There is something that just isn't there.

Could it be Quaid/Hauser's insistence on "I need something more...my life sucks...if only I were a secret agent..." ? Talk about laying the exposition on thick.

Maybe it's Beckinsale's turn as an unstoppable killing machine...except she's not a machine, and not really very good at killing her intended target.

Perhaps it's Jessica Biel who seems too soft of a character to be a higher up in the resistance.

Maybe it's just the lack of Ah-Nuhld?

Hard to say, but while the original Total Recall is not a cinematic masterpiece, it's pretty decent cheese that actually has aged well and still is as compelling as ever.

Again, the storyline is good and solid.

But everytime the remake takes a step forward, it takes two steps back.

Why the insistence on the same names?  I found myself trying to remember who played that character in the original film instead of investing in these new characters.

Why did they insist on keeping some things from the original and jettisoning others?

Really, was the lady with the 3 boobs (makes sense on Mars...less so on Earth) really necessary?  Of course, with today's generation, I remember when the film came out and either the studio or the actress had to go on social media and say "no, that's not real, it's special effects".

Duh.

We're getting stupider by the generation, and remakes like this aren't helping.

Any goodwill I tried to maintain with this film went out the window at the end when the line "Consider that a divorce" was NOT used.


I can't, in good faith, recommend seeing it.  Just watch the original again and have a blast.