Matt Damon reprises his role as the titular former CIA agent with a
hazy past. Jason Bourne is the fifth installment in the action franchise, and
the third to be directed by Paul Greengrass. ~ Daniel Gelb, Rovi
Director: Paul Greengrass
Cast: Matt Damon, Julia Stiles, Tommy Lee Jones, Vincent
Cassel, Alicia Vikander
Release Date: Jul
29, 2016
Rated PG-13 for Intense sequences of violence and action,
and brief strong language.
Runtime: 2 hr. 3 min.
Genres: Action/Adventure, Suspense/Thriller
Review:
Jason Bourne marks the welcome return of Matt Damon and
Paul Greengrass to the Bourne franchise.The results are mostly good with only a few hiccups here and there,
mostly script wise.Matt Damon easily
slips back into Bourne’s skin with solid results.Damon has always given Bourne a tortured
quality which is rare in the spy genre and one of the things that makes the
franchise so interesting.There are
plenty of new faces in this entry with one lone returning cast member being
cast off after setting the plot in motion.Tommy Lee Jones, at his most scowly, serves as the big bad this go
around and he’s serviceable even though his character is slightly
underwritten.Vincent Cassel suffers a
similar fate the assassin on Bourne’s trail throughout the film which is a
shame because it’s a waste of a fine actor.Alicia Vikander, who you can tell is serious because her hair is pinned
up throughout, does the best she can with the character she’s given.A late act turn is fairly interesting but
would have made for a more interesting plot line had it been explored
throughout the movie.The biggest issue
with Jason Bourne isn’t that it’s a bad movie, far from it, its that it feels
very familiar, following familiar beats we’ve followed through most Bourne
films.Still, Greengrass delivers some
fantastic sequences especially the logistically impressive Greek riot sequence
and collateral damage excess of the final act’s Vegas sequence.The hand to hand fight to top off the film is
probably one of the brutal fights I’ve seen in recent memory.Jason Bourne adds up to a solid film even
though it’ll leave you wishing there was a bit more innovation.
Dearest Blog: Yesterday I took a pass on the company picnic (Outdoors? In July? Are they kidding?) to head up to Marquee Cinemas and catch up with Jason Bourne.
Spoiler level here will be mostly mild, nothing plot-specific, but I do offer an opinion at the end that some might consider slightly spoilerish. If you're worried, read after you've seen it, please!
Jason Bourne is back with a vengeance, looking for answers and on the run for his life.
Ahhhhhhh...dear Reader(s)...remember the good not-so-old days when Jeremy Renner appeared poised to take the reins of both the Bourne and Mission Impossible franchises?
Fast forward a few years, a pair of Hollywood A-Listers decide to hang onto their cash cows, and Renner is again relegated to being the Avengers' Katniss Everdeen. (But at least he got a backstory, am I right??)
There's nothing wrong with Matt Damon, of course, but you may count me among the silent minority that would have enjoyed this picture a lot more with Renner at the fore.
Jason Bourne kicks off with a chase scene that outlasts even that one from Jupiter Ascending that put me to sleep three times and was still rolling when I woke up. I mean, this thing GOES ON. The sequence includes some pivotal moments, but it also highlights one of the movie's key weaknesses right out of the gate: too much filler.
Jason Bourne has more running than a Ten-era Doctor Who episode and enough vehicular carnage for a Transformers movie; had filmmakers exercised even a bit of restraint, they'd have had a far better end product. Much of the action is filmed in up-close-and-personal fashion.
The fight scenes are brutal and well executed, but the wiggly camera work is enough to trigger a seizure. It's a passable tactic when used wisely, but, here, again, there's just too much of it. Damon is appropriately grim in the lead, his sour expression a constant reminder of the Very Serious Situation at hand.
Oscar winner Alicia Vikander is a disaster, bringing all the dimension of a paper doll to her important role, while struggling mightily to hang onto the same accent for any two consecutive scenes. The rest of the supporting cast is unremarkable, but fine for what's asked of them.
The story is no more or less convoluted than any other installment in the series, sure to leave questions if (like me) you've mostly forgotten the earlier films, but not so deep that any fan of action flicks couldn't enjoy it even if he'd never seen a Bourne movie before.
Finally, as if Jason Bourne weren't enough of a jumble, three-quarters of it feels very much like an ending, but the last act does a complete about-face and clearly sets the stage for more.
Jason Bourne clocks in at an excessive 123 minutes and is rated PG13 for "intense sequences of violence and action, and brief strong language."
Boasting action a-plenty and a solid cast that deserves better, Jason Bourne is, unfortunately, a bit of a snooze.
Of a possible nine Weasleys, Jason Bourne gets four.
Captain Kirk
and the crew of the Enterprise encounter an alien warrior race when marooned on
a distant planet after the destruction of their spaceship in this thrilling
sequel directed by Fast & Furious director Justin Lin. ~ Violet LeVoit,
Rovi
Director: Justin Lin
Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Simon Pegg, Anton
Yelchin, John Cho
Release Date: Jul
22, 2016
Rated PG-13 Sequences of Sci-Fi Action and Violence
Runtime: 2 hr. 2 min.
Genres: Action/Adventure, Sci-Fi/Fantasy
Review:
Star Trek Beyond feels like an extended episode of the
non existent rebooted series and not a particularly good one.That’s not to say it isn’t a fun film because
it’s an enjoyable lightweight romp which comes and goes with little of consequence
really happening.Justin Lin’s direction
is action heavy as expected with lots of big set pieces which are fun and well
choreographed.The biggest asset of the
rebooted series has always been the cast and the best thing Beyond does is it
gives each of them their time to shine.Clearly most of the actors have settled into their roles.Karl Urban has always been a personal
favorite of mine as McCoy and here he’s given a much larger role which is to
the film’s benefit.Pine and Quinto are
solid as Kirk and Spock with their personal story lines feeling well thought
out and meaningful.Sadly, the overall
story is fairly weak even though there’s some nice fan service written into the
script, an NX class ship! yelled those few Enterprise
fans, but ultimately it’s a waste of Idris Elba as the villain.Elba is a fine actor
wasted underneath a ton of make up and a thinly written character which is
really a massive shame.As is Star Trek
Beyond is a mindlessly fun film but one that isn’t terribly deep or meaningful
like some of the Trek films in the past.
Dearest Blog: Today it was off to Marquee Cinemas for Star Trek Beyond.
Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers.
Midway through a five-year mission to deep space, the Enterprise crew is called upon to save the world(s) from a ruthless enemy.
While I'm a casual fan of Star Trek in general, I'm positively rabid over the current film franchise, which boasts my favorite cast of any series and movies that I'll happily watch over and over and over again. I am pleased to report that Beyond does not miss a step on the path of excellence set by the first two movies.
First we have the ensemble, for my money, Hollywood's very finest. Every person is ideally suited to his or her role, and consistently turns in sincere, entertaining performances. The more comical tone of the current installment fits co-writer Simon Pegg, Chris Pine, and Karl Urban to a "T," and the picture is not short on laugh-out-loud moments. The sad losses of Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin since the previous film cast a bit of a pall over the experience, but that is in no way the movie's fault. Bring the tissues, though. You're gonna need them at least once. Franchise newcomers Sofia Boutella and Idris Elba are both fantastic.
Michael Giacchino's lovely score is the perfect accompaniment to moments both large and small. Nice-looking sets underscore some great big effects, and the Enterprise's first appearance is, as always, a chill-inducing moment. Under director Justin Lin's hand, we get a more action-oriented movie this time out (insert Fast & Furious joke here), so the film does feel a bit more like a plain old action-comedy than any great step forward for the Trek universe, but thanks to an edge-of-your-seat story, genuine, well-written dialogue, and the cast's terrific chemistry, you're never less than fully immersed.
A few small quibbles: the movie's a little too heavy on the jiggly camera work, some scenes are impossibly dark (a by-product of seeing a 3D picture in 2D?), and whatever they were thinking when they cast Idris Elba as a character who doesn't look like Idris Elba, well, it was clearly misguided.
Star Trek Beyond clocks in at 120 minutes and is rated PG13 for "sequences of sci-fi action and violence."
A big, fun summer blockbuster that also delivers a great message about the importance of love and friendship, Star Trek Beyond has a lot to love for Trek die-hards, casual fans, and even folks without so much as a passing familiarity with the franchise.
Of a possible nine Weasleys, Star Trek Beyond gets eight and a half.
Fangirl points: Idris Elba. Did I mention Idris Elba? Because...yeah...Idris Elba.
Dearest Blog: Yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas for a pair of strange bedfellows: The Infiltrator and Ghostbusters.
Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers.
First on the docket: The Infiltrator.
A US Customs officer launches a dangerous undercover mission to catch one of the world's top drug kingpins.
It is both a blessing and a curse that The Infiltrator is good, but not special. In an age where the Internet has no problem convincing people they hate films they haven't even seen yet, being neither great nor terrible enough to be buzzworthy isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Still, structured as it is around a decorated actor (Bryan Cranston) in a role tailor-made to earn him more hardware, the tense tale ultimately can't help feeling a little disappointing.
Cranston is solid in the lead, but it's John Leguizamo who steals the show as his loose-cannon partner. Diane Kruger, Benjamin Bratt, and Joseph Gilgun are also terrific in supporting roles.
Characters are well fleshed out, so that even the worst earn a bit of sympathy. Focusing on the money side of the illegal narcotics trade, The Infiltrator is less sensational than movies that detail the gorier realities of drug running, but the intense plot has no trouble holding your attention. Sadly, if it's details that elevate a good movie to great, that's where The Infiltrator fails.
Some of the direction is decidedly amateurish, with too-obvious foreshadowing and lingering frames that almost stray into comic territory. Hairstyles, fashions, and music are sometimes not correct for the picture's 1985 setting. There's no obvious filler, but the movie runs a hair too long and drags noticeably in the second act.
The Infiltrator clocks in at 127 minutes and is rated R for "strong violence, language throughout, some sexual content, and drug material."
The Infiltrator boasts strong performances and well-definted characters, offering solid "grown-up" counterprogramming on a blockbuster family-release weekend.
Of a possible nine Weasleys, The Infiltrator gets six and a half.
Fangirl points: Jason Isaacs!
Next up: the poliarizing reboot of Ghostbusters, a.k.a. why it's best to ignore Internet trolls.
Three scientists, an MTA employee, and the world's best-looking receptionist team up to quash a ghost infestation in New York.
Dear Reader(s): We all have things we love enough to drive us past the point of reason. I am no stranger to this phenomenon, and, thus, in my presence it is best not to speak of that unfunny, unholy, disrespectful dumpster fire that is 2004's Starsky & Hutch. Herein I shall attempt to give even the staunchest fan of the original Ghostbusters a few reasons why 2016's Ghostbusters is NOT 2004's Starsky & Hutch.
Ghostbusters is a well-and-truly funny comedy, with laugh-out-loud moments throughout. Rather than bastardizing beloved characters, it reboots with new ones. Kristin Wiig and Melissa McCarthy are delightful as estranged friends reunited by the spirit crisis; their chemistry is fantastic. Leslie Jones' wisecracks and physical comedy provide the movie's funniest moments, and Chris Hemsworth is perfect as the dopey but ridiculously-hot office assistant.
There's nostalgia aplenty for those who want it, in faces both living and undead, the recurring Ghostbusters theme, and that very familiar logo.
Though rarer than laughs, there are a fair few proper scares to be had as well. The movie boasts super effects and 3D that is not just worthwhile, but great! Ghosts run the gamut from pretty terrifying to pretty hilarious. The comedy slows up a bit in the movie's second act, displaced by some fun, well-executed action sequences.
Only Kate McKinnon's character, Jillian Holtzman, is a weak link, so jarringly off that every appearance becomes an unfortunate distraction. Writers and actress must share blame for bringing to life possibly the most irritating character I've ever seen on the silver screen (and, yes, I'm including Jar-Jar Binks in that equation).
Ghostbusters runs 116 minutes and is rated PG13 for "supernatural action and some crude humor."
Ghostbusters is a uniformly funny movie with a great cast and terrific effects. Only that rare individual who strongly feels Chris Hemsworth is better used in something like Black Hat wouldn't find something to enjoy here.
Of a possible nine Weasleys, Ghostbusters gets seven and a half.
Fangirl points: Michael Kenneth Williams and one teeny glimpse of my beloved Shubert Theatre!
Cast: Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon,
Leslie Jones, Chris Hemsworth
Release Date: Jul
15, 2016
Rated PG-13 for supernatural action and some crude humor.
Runtime: 1 hr. 47 min.
Genres: Action/Adventure, Comedy, Sci-Fi/Fantasy
Review:
Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters isn’t the disaster many
predicted but it’s not good enough on it’s own to prove it was necessary
either.I’m one of the few people who
always liked Ghostbusters but was never in love with it even though I grew up
with it.There’s a definite fondness for
the original film but I never really thought it was sacrilegious to remake it
with women.The director and cast do the
best with what they have but it’s clear that there’s an issue with the
story.The overall plot hits a lot of
the same notes that the original did but with a more generic punch.As the film goes on, it does feel like
everybody is reigning it in a bit, making me wish they’d decided to go for a
full on R rated comedy.I think that
would have been a better choice for this director and cast.As is, the cast is solid throughout with
Chris Hemsworth leaving the biggest impression by displaying some strong
comedic chops.The film is a tad
overlong by about 20 minutes or with some noticeable dead spots that could have
been easily excised.The Ghostbusters’
remake isn’t a train wreck but it’s not as good as it should have been to
justify its existence.
