Movie Review: The Rundown

“Does that look like a refrigerator to you?”

Fresh off Bulletproof Monk, we move to Peter Berg’s The Rundown, another of my childhood favorites.

This one was another mistake, clear as day to me now. Crazy how much people change in 10 years.

Yet, like with Bulletproof Monk, I can see why I was drawn to it.

There’s something very likable about Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. A talented showman from his days with WWF/WWE, he’s quite capable of a convincing performance.

Then, I look at his resume and I just…ugh.

Doom, The Tooth Fairy, The Game Plan, G.I. Joe: Retaliation, Hercules, San Andreas. It’s not good, folks. His name will likely come up in one of the next episodes of Winners And Losers and it’s not looking like he’s gonna be the last one standing in the ring this time.

Despite all that, I still feel drawn to the guy. He’s got panache and a lot of confidence and I guess it’s hard not to be lulled by that.

He carries that same ego and tenacity in his first lead role. Brazen and emboldened, the Rock is…well, the Rock. He’s gonna mess you up and Berg can’t help but remind us of that early.

The Rundown‘s opening sequence is one of its numbered highlights but that’s not to say the film straight stalls out and nosedives the rest of the way.

There are a few dialogue morsels sprinkled throughout, most funneled through Christopher Walken. The Rundown prides itself on its action comedy identity and so runs its mouth a lot, echoing give-and-go banter between Johnson and costar Seann William Scott during large swatches of the viewing experience.

This budding camaraderie helps time run smoothly early but as the film progresses, begins to become more of an annoyance than aid. It’s as if the film had begun to transform into a Scott movie. The dialogue begins to invade American Pie territory and that’s when it’s hard not to abandon ship.

Once the writing tidbits begin to dwindle, the picture starts to lose its luster. While Berg came into shooting with the intent to focus on stunt choreography and action design, there are significant spreads of the film which involve none, leaving the production solely reliant on this brother bash-type trash talk. When it’s working, it’s corny and awfully frat boyish but at least sustaining tread. When it’s not, it’s mind-numbing.

These vocalized vomits are Scott’s forte, sadly. Each of his films tend to introduce themselves as a pleasant but raucous evening of booze and babes, jokes and jabs thrown amongst bros all in good fun but eventually, as is usually the case, the night comes to the generally inevitable conclusion of a passed out partygoer fresh off disposing of the night’s stomach deposits.

I’ve seen this story before.

So while The Rundown earns points early, the midpoint of the film is likely the tale’s precipice. From here, our story squanders valuable time on treasure discovery and whipper snapping, something it simply can’t help itself from indulging. These scenes are plot pushing at its finest and are very easy to discount when you recollect the film’s happenings during the credits. Try to remember them. They help explain the aftertaste later. Is that….vinegar?

Rosario Dawson and Walken don’t get anywhere near the amount of screen time they deserve, especially in the back half and I suspect that’s one of the likely causes for this roll down the mountain.

The picture goes out swinging with an action sequence in its final third, trying to corral its audience back. While enjoyable, the punches it misses over the course of the run time linger in the mind more than the ones it hits.

Despite how it’s aged, I’m gonna miss The Rundown. I’m clearing my bookshelf and there are a lot of films that likely won’t make the cut. This was probably the last time I ever watch it, a movie, like Bulletproof Monk, I’ve watched a dozen times but is time to let go.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog, I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale. 

90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Batman Begins, The Matrix, L.A. Confidential, Her, Taken)

80-89  It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Spider-Man: Far From Home, Dumb and Dumber, Pokemon Detective Pikachu, The Matrix Reloaded,Wanted)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Solo: A Star Wars Story, The Matrix Revolutions, Triple Frontier, I am Legend, Ip Man 2)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (2 Fast 2 Furious, Doctor Strange, Johnny Mnemonic, Jason Bourne, Suicide Squad)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (XXX, The Silence, The Fast and the Furious, Brooklyn’s Finest, Death Race)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (Doom, The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, Power Rangers, Underworld: Evolution)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30′s ironically define the 1930′s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (Bulletproof Monk, High-Rise, Most Likely to Die, Independence Day: Resurgence, The Crow: City of Angels)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (XXX: State of the Union, The Snowman, Avalanche Sharks, Catwoman, The Gunman)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (The Extendables, The Coed and the Zombie Stoner, The Forbidden Dimensions, Cyborg, Outcast)

My score for The Rundown: 62.

If nothing else, The Rundown served as a platform for Dwayne Johnson’s career. Berg gave the potential this guy had a spotlight and the rest is history but as a product, The Rundown reminds me of Conor McGregor these days. It has boisterous flair and almost endearing arrogance, a true talent for histrionics but an inability to make it 12 rounds or execute at the critical moments.

Movie Review: Bulletproof Monk

It’s been over a year since I’ve reviewed a film. Over the last few weeks, I’ve read all of my critiques and have been reminded how bad I used to be at this. Chunky, repetitive, wordy and hyperbolic, many of my earlier pieces often resembled the same criticism I was dishing out. They’re truly hard to read, so poorly edited. Maybe some day, I’ll go back and rewrite them. Far too much plot summary, far too little analysis and some of the scores have aged terribly.

Thankfully, I was also told how good I used to be. It took many years to get there but when I was at the top of my game, truly turning on all cylinders, I felt I was churning out professional-level content. I found my reviews on the Matrix trilogy (The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolutions) particularly good. The Tim’s Favs page is currently under construction (Construction finished 3/31) but will continue showcasing this blog’s finest works. Maybe you’ll join me on a brief trip down memory lane.

These first few critiques I turn out likely won’t be at that proficiency. It may take a few weeks, even months, to return to form but I’m confident I’ll get there. Because I’m good enough.

Glad to be back doing what I love. Onto our feature presentation.

“Why do hot dogs come in packages of 10, while hot dog buns come in packages of just eight?”

Because hot dog companies hate us?

2003’s Bulletproof Monk was one of my childhood favorites. All children, people in general, make mistakes and this was one of mine. That said, I can see why I was drawn to it as a minor.

Monk on a Mission

Bulletproof Monk sought to defy commonly-held beliefs such as gravity. If you simply believed it didn’t exist, that you could step on the air like a stone, then you could. That type of fantastical thinking is very attractive to an impressionable mind. Part of being young is finding ways to imagine, discerning ways of thought which make life more exciting than it is. It’s why kids pretend to be superheroes, why they act in general because even at a young age, kids can understand how monotonous life can be.

So when a movie tells you gravity is below you and you can defy physics and dodge bullets, yeah, I can understand why my younger self would be awestruck. Anything that encourages breaking out of the box of rational thought. Kids need to be told anything is possible if they work hard enough, try hard enough, think hard enough. Kids need to believe that. That belief spurs creativity and ingenuity, drives them towards who they’ll become.

Many movies targeted at younger demographics are like this but the ones that separate themselves as E for Everyone do so through material which can be appreciated by all audiences. There are a plethora of ways to do this: inferred humor is a big one. Many times when you go back and watch the films you enjoyed as a kid, you find a lot of comedy your younger you never recognized. Quite a few of the animated Disney classics did this and I promise you, plenty other characterized stalwarts partake as well. Even artwork and voice acting can be appreciated regardless of age range.

Bulletproof Monk is so far from that and for reasons of its own making.

The introductory scene features a poor attempt at green screen. I will hear no arguments about the time the film was made. I talked about The Matrix not long ago. We know what was possible then. This was far below that line.

It’s lazy, honestly. That type of laziness doesn’t sit well with me as an artist, as a critic, as a viewer or as a person. This was your best effort?

Some competent wire and stunt work is overshadowed by that imposing mess in the backdrop. What are we even doing here?

This isn’t the last time you’ll see a lack of effort show up on the silver. That type of failure and seemingly complete disregard of detail is why Paul Hunter never directed another feature film.

Despite an absent director chair, the writing from Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris keeps the picture above water some of the time but it also struggles with such jagged cuts the delivery is impossible to perfect. Somewhat refined one moment and brutally elementary the next, it’s difficult to maintain any sort of pacing, especially with the structure given by Hunter. With rather blasé plot points, Bulletproof Monk‘s footing is almost entirely bolstered by dialogue and action sequences. That’s a tough bill for many screenwriters, particularly ones who were brought in to write for a kung-fu comic film. Too much talking and not enough kung fu, Bulletproof Monk is far too reliant on its characters, personas who from the outset were not meant for such manual labor.

Chow Yun-Fat’s monk is quirky and socially awkward yet extremely likable, a tender balance the duo of writers are unable to steady for the entire run time. As has become a staple of this blog, a film of two halves. While it lasts, Yun-Fat demonstrates charisma and personality. When the film becomes too plot-centric and backs away from him, you can almost hear Yankee Stadium crumble in the distance.

The mysticism and mystery behind kung fu and, in this story, an almost magic-like quality, is an interesting commodity this film has at its disposal but Hunter never goes to the well with the exception of one scene. When you’re a kid, the alluring hint of such themes is enough. When you’re an adult, hard not to question why there wasn’t further discussion on such a fascinating topic. Dive into the philosophy, immerse your audience. No one likes a tease.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog, I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale. 

90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Batman Begins, The Matrix, L.A. Confidential, Her, Taken)

80-89  It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Spider-Man: Far From Home, Dumb and Dumber, Pokemon Detective Pikachu, The Matrix Reloaded,Wanted)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Solo: A Star Wars Story, The Matrix Revolutions, Triple Frontier, I am Legend, Ip Man 2)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (2 Fast 2 Furious, Doctor Strange, Johnny Mnemonic, Jason Bourne, Suicide Squad)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (XXX, The Silence, The Fast and the Furious, Brooklyn’s Finest, Death Race)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (Doom, The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, Power Rangers, Underworld: Evolution)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30′s ironically define the 1930′s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (High-Rise, Most Likely to Die, Independence Day: Resurgence, The Crow: City of Angels, Centurion)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (XXX: State of the Union, The Snowman, Avalanche Sharks, Catwoman, The Gunman)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (Cats, The Extendables, The Coed and the Zombie Stoner, The Forbidden Dimensions, Cyborg)

My score for Bulletproof Monk: 37.

I’ve watched this film at least a dozen times and with each watch, things become more abundantly clear: Paul Hunter was out of his element and the writers and visual crew weren’t skilled enough to bail him out. An idea which had promise was lit like a birthday candle, then squashed by a vengeful brother and that was that. A prime example of art that has not aged well as it dissolves into the deep recesses of history.

The NFL Has a Problem

I said I’d do it. I said if, somehow, the most talented coaching candidate on the market didn’t get a job, we’d be here talking about this. Here we are.

Eric Bienemy is the best offensive coordinator in football. That’s not up for debate. Kansas City has been the most dominant offense for two years and has gone 25-3 in their last 28 games. That’s astounding, especially in the NFL, the highest echelon of the sport.

And if Eric Bienemy was almost anyone else, he’d be a lock for a coaching job.

But Eric Bienemy is black.

If discussions about race bother you, this isn’t the piece for you. I’m not here to argue the existence of racism. It exists.

Over the last two years, we’ve seen just about every reason from NFL executives and some media members why Bienemy shouldn’t be hired.

“He doesn’t interview well.”

“He doesn’t call plays.”

“He doesn’t have the respect of his players.”

About everything that could be thrown at a candidate’s doorstep has been. Repeatedly, those efforts have been debunked.

Watch new Eagles’ coach Nick Sirianni’s first press conference and tell anybody he interviewed well. It was a masterclass in how to spend a half hour saying nothing.

Watch Lions’ coach Dan Campbell’s caveman speak press conference in which he talked about teaching his players to “bite kneecaps.” Again, another guy who “interviewed well.”

Sirianni has never called plays before, not at any level. Yet, despite a bumbling press conference and no experience in play calling, Sirianni gets to head the Eagles.

Campbell’s never even been a coordinator so he straight leapfrogged that step of the ladder altogether.

I’m not someone who likes to talk about race. I’m not someone who likes to point the finger and call things/people racist. Race is a delicate subject and calling something racist isn’t something you can take back. Calling something/someone racist implies a lot of things.

But there comes a point in discussions and actions where it could not be anymore clear. That moment was the Houston Texans.

Because while Jacksonville passed on Bienemy to hire a coach with no NFL coaching experience and a closet full of domestic violence enablement, the Eagles hired a coach who has no play calling experience and the Lions hired a coach who has served not one minute as a coordinator, the Texans went a step further: they refused to interview him.

Franchise quarterback Deshaun Watson told ownership/management he wanted a say in the next general manager/coach and his one request regarding the coach search? Interview Eric Bienemy.

The Texans refused.

Why would that be? The coordinator for the most prolific offense in sports the last two years isn’t worth an interview?

Watson now refuses to play another down for the team. All the Texans had to do, after all the negligent things they have done over the last year, from promoting Bill O’Brien to trading DeAndre Hopkins, was INTERVIEW a black man. That was too much to ask for and now they’ve destroyed their relationship with their best player.

For the record, the Texans tried to interview Bienemy after Watson told them he was done. Bienemy wisely declined the interview and Houston settled for David Culley, the man who led the worst passing offense in pro football this year. Culley is African American but the thrown together, “we gotta do something fast” nature of the hire demonstrates how the higher ups really feel.

The NFL can run ads during the Super Bowl about racial equality. They can stamp it in the end zones of every stadium. Hollow words mean nothing. A majority of owners have demonstrated during yet another coaching cycle they have no interest in seriously considering a man of color to head their football team.

And no one is saying to hire someone because of the color of their skin. We’re saying don’t immediately disqualify someone for it. Hire the best candidate.

And when the best candidate is a black man, hire him.