Movie Review: The Crow: City of Angels

The Crow: City of Angels is a wannabe doppelgänger of its older and more prominent sibling. In its quest to better itself, it only succeeds in being a lesser replicate of the cult film that began it.

The problem plaguing sequels is their stubbornness to piggyback on their relative rather than demonstrate how they differ and can be successful in their own right. I’ve seen it too many times. Sequels are meant to build off the original, making additions and further insulating the piece while constituting itself as an individual feature. Too many times sequels have played their cards the same way as their predecessors did, formulating a creation mindless as a clone. It only knows what it has been taught by its elder. It has no cognitive function or inner direction. It just follows the script.

This leaves a film rehashing the footsteps of another, going through the paces with the lifelessness of a weathered doll. It’s stodgy. There are no wheels turning or current of energy flowing through it. It’s as animated as a mannequin, faceless and without an identity to distinguish it from all the others. It’s practically invisible at its own party because all of the guests who have been invited have naturally been attracted to the superior, The Crow, which has more energy and enthusiasm than his woebegone brother.

City of Angels is a prime example of why every promising movie does not need a sequel regardless of established fan base. Based on a plethora of examples, I think we’ve seen we can’t count on Hollywood to make sequels that do justice to the original work. Sadly, critical acclaim from follow-ups is not a certainty, no matter the sometimes glorified state the original finds itself. Sequels become remakes, the opposite of what a sequel should be.

The Crow didn’t need a remake and it didn’t need a sequel. It has a unique aura surrounding it, even perusing the mystical but amorphous Crow. The lack of knowledge of the character at times worked in the film’s favor, spurring curiosity. City of Angels spurns all that with a new director who lacks the vision Proyas had. It’s obvious this film is under the control of a different hand. This project’s brokenness is ubiquitous. The production is more depressing than the atmosphere. The acting, especially by the man beneath the spotlight, Vincent Perez, is a fresh serving of histrionics, quips and dialogue so malignant I feel I should be wearing a hazmat suit. It’s hard to find Perez culpable, however, given the character write-up.

The motif of the film overrides the players trying to carrying the film and with no calling to the audience, there’s little reason to stick with it or find any value in the banners it does manage to raise. It’s a message taken verbatim from the 1994 work but with no new composition.

The bug that crawls all over this piece is the lack of productivity. Like the wheels turning on a bike with no chain or a car left in neutral on the plains of the Midwest, the vehicle is left stagnant, milling in the limited space it’s afforded and susceptible only to its own gravity. City of Angels weighs so little gravity doesn’t have a reason to act upon it and so it’s left still on a remote campus.

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. (Captain America: Civil War, Deadpool, Avengers: Age of Ultron, The Avengers, The Babadook)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Olympus Has Fallen, The Cable Guy, The Cabin in the Woods, Tears of the Sun, Edge of Tomorrow)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (The Running Man, 10 Cloverfield Lane, Creed, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, Crimson Peak)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (The Crow, Hardcore Henry, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2)

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. (X-Men: Apocalypse, D-Tox/Eye See You, Constantine, Race, Everest)

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. (Bloodsport, War, The Ridiculous 6, The Lost Boys, Zombeavers)

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. (Centurion, Planet of the Apes, Stonados, Redemption, Pride and Prejudice)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (Avalanche Sharks, Catwoman, The Gunman, The Visit, The Fantastic Four)

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 Coed and the Zombie Stoner, The Forbidden Dimensions, Cyborg, Outcast, Sabotage)

My score for The Crow: City of Angels: 34.

A short review for a short film, it’s been a little too long since I’ve seen this to write a thorough piece, not that City of Angels deserved that anyway.

Movie Review: The Punisher

“Go with God.”

“God’s gonna sit this one out.”

Frank Castle (Thomas Jane) is an undercover FBI agent and during a sting, the son of crime boss Howard Saint (John Travolta) is killed. Castle retires and goes to a family reunion in Puerto Rico where the worst happens: his entire family is murdered. His parents, distant relatives, the love of his life and his only son.

Saint’s henchmen and other son do the dirty work and only the grace of their own stupidity saves Castle’s life and allows him his chance at vengeance.

My favorite stories are ones of redemption and rebirth. There is a certain euphoria to be had from the moment of true justice, to be completely devoted to a character, to take part in his pain and then in his glory. These are the stories meant for me. We all weather storms and the most extreme ones illustrated in film rekindle our resolve as well as our hearts to strive on.

The Punisher does not deserve such a lavish intro, for the things that make a character restoration are not to be found here. Character-audience parallels are the unstoppable force in these tales. Without them, a redemption story does not fuse our inner selves with the film. Our need to see that justice wavers, our passion and lust for it dwindles and soon the picture becomes superficial instead of an ordeal we too are going through.

Director Jonathan Hensleigh seems reluctant to enter the deep waters of antiheroes. The notion is filled with darkness, brutality and uncompromising willpower. They’re not pretty but given their histories, the actions they take are understandable albeit reprehensible and barbaric. Antiheroes are not good people but there are mere moments when they show the capacity for good and it is in those brief examples that we put our faith in these characters. People will say the way they kill people is “cool” but that is not the basis of an antihero and anyone that believes that to be the case should get educated.

So when I see an antihero as underdeveloped as Riddick or in this case, Frank Castle and I realize the director/writers don’t even grasp what an antihero is, I wonder why they have jobs.

To make a antihero more than a coffinmaker and instead a legend, you need to show us every detail of his life. There is more substance to antiheroes than killing people and partaking of the bottle. I want to hear the gems of dialogue, see the black in his eyes, the brokenness of his character. Having Castle have a stern look on his face while becoming an alcoholic is a role a homeless man could play with just as much acting prowess as Jane does here. Granted, he’s trying but the writers fed him to the wolves, putting forth a script suffering from malnutrition. This is comparable to Green Lantern and Ghostrider. It’s that bad.

Hensleigh also decided to put in a supporting cast that feels out of place in a film that should be entering the world’s sludge and instead infuses Castle’s tragedy with neighbors who are completely oblivious to the world around them, which doesn’t make any sense when you see the rough part of town they live in. Our neighbors are played by Joan (Rebecca Romijn), Bumbo (John Pinette) and a young Ben Foster as Dave. Void of dimension and character spurring, useless is an appropriate adjective. They’re gutless, they don’t do anything and aside from a brief showing of courage from Foster’s character, nothing is tacked on to the overall product. It’s more clutter to search through than any audience should have to navigate to find the golden nuggets such films are supposed to offer.

Once again, this leaves Jane with nothing to wrap his hands around and aside from brief action sequences and sitting in his recliner downing bottles of whiskey, moves very little both as a protagonist and in a character sense.

So is Jane’s acting bad? Yes, yes it is, no question. Not his fault but still bad. Perhaps a more experienced actor could have done better. The more I watched this, the more I wished Foster and Jane had switched roles. The Punisher was made in 2004 so Foster had not yet burst onto the scene with films like 2007’s 3:10 to Yuma. However, Foster’s first big role was in 2005’s Hostage, only a year after this was made, which makes me think Hensleigh would have been better off making Foster his leading man.

However, this is Jane’s role and perhaps shining moment in his career which is a shame because I think he had a better performance in Drive Hard then this, which is really depressing when you think about it. When you look back at your career and you tell people, “Yeah, my best role was opposite John Cusack”, you know you screwed up. I don’t think that’s something anyone wants on their resume.

John Travolta is The Punisher‘s best gift to audiences as Travolta rarely seems to show up to a film outmatched. Few writings have made Travolta look out of his league or plain stupid. He delivers more often than not. In other words, he’s a winner.

With that said, Howard Saint remains but a model of a character rather than a persona in and of himself. It’s all too clear this is a movie.

“But Tim, isn’t it supposed to be a movie?”

Yes, but a movie is not meant just to be a movie. It’s meant to be an experience, a journey, an adventure, a submersion in human emotion. The Punisher offers none of these and really never tried to.

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. (Interstellar, Chappie, American Beauty, Gone Girl, Mulan)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (The Cable Guy, The Cabin in the Woods, Tears of the Sun, Edge of Tomorrow, The Amazing Spider-Man 2)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Equilibrium, Dead Snow: Red vs. Dead, Snowpiercer, The Family, When the Game Stands Tall)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Black Sheep, Twisted, Parker, House at the End of the Street, The Raven)

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. (Drive Hard, Run All Night, Rage, Zoolander, The Expendables 3)

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. (Erased, I, Frankenstein, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Billy Madison)

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. (Centurion, Planet of the Apes, Stonados, Redemption, Pride and Prejudice)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Colony, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, The Grey, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Thor: The Dark World)

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.” (Sabotage, Gallowwalkers, Tucker & Dale vs. Evil, Safe, Watchmen)

My score for The Punisher: 58.

Perhaps not as poor as my memory originally told me it was, The Punisher is deserted like a garden unwatered. Weeds fester and kill the morning glories before the sun is ever given a chance to rise. You’d be better off watching the Netflix television series.

Movie Review: Drive Hard

Something my brother and I love to do is poke fun at the sludge Walmart calls film. My brother picked this up and we got a good laugh out of this. The front cover of this just screams stupid. The title is the cherry on top. Drive Hard? Really? That’s the best you could come up with?

But it got better still because it had John Cusack in it. No offense to Mr. Cusack but I hate him, possibly more than any actor in Hollywood today. He has been in so many sewage films that watching a film with Cusack is like trying to acquire the willpower to put your head in a poop-filled toilet. It’s grotesque, it’s unsanitary and it’s unpleasant and you can’t think of any reason why you’d want to do that and for good reason: normal, sane people don’t put their heads in poop-filled toilets.

After watching Equilibrium earlier, I looked through Netflix and guess what’s in the New Releases section? Drive Hard.

I don’t believe in coincidences and so I felt obligated to watch this. I wasn’t looking forward to it. It’s John Cusack, guys. It’s like having diarrhea and vomiting while stepping on LEGOs. You wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

On the other hand, Cusack actually got a win on the board for his work in The Raven. Not overly memorable but the guy didn’t push my buttons for once and dare I say, might have tried to act in it. Maybe Drive Hard would grant me such a mercy.

Drive Hard starts with an ad from the Australia Department of Tourism. Not really but like Peter Jackson with Lord of the Rings, director Brian Trenchard-Smith provides us with a lot of panoramic shots of the city landscape and countryside. Australia looks like a nice place, guys.

The way this story plays out is far less exciting.

Former racecar driver Peter Roberts (Thomas Jane) is now a part-time driving instructor and is finding it difficult to provide for his wife and daughter. His wife didn’t like him driving so he quit and Roberts now has no real motivation to get up in the morning or really do anything with his barren life. It’s evident in the film’s opening scenes his wife and daughter are embarrassed by him and view him as a nuisance more than a husband and father.

His first client of the day is Simon Keller (John Cusack) and right away you can tell something is off. Garbed in black with driving gloves on, Keller seems to be taking the whole thing a little too seriously or as Roberts is about to find out, a little too recklessly, but Roberts has no idea how reckless they’re going to get.

Thomas Jane is from The Punisher by the way and if you didn’t know that don’t worry because it didn’t hit me during the entire movie. I’m usually really good with facial recognition but it never hit me this was the same guy. I’m sure the fact that The Punisher was such a terrible movie probably had something to do with it.

Anyway, Keller has Roberts drive to the bank so he can pay him for the lesson only to come out shooting with a briefcase and suddenly Roberts is a hostage getaway driver.

Drive Hard shoots right out of the barrel but not smoothly. There’s a difference between striving forward and getting sloppy. Drive Hard chose the latter, kerplunking and clanking out of the starting gate in a way films are simply not supposed to. It accelerated at a TV show pace like the whole story needed to be told in a half hour.

The blueprint for this film maintains no real intrigue and lacks a hook. The boring plot synopsis coupled with that counterproductive cover poster will most likely leave this film on the shelves. I see no real reason why you would want to pick this up. If it looks like a B-movie and it reads like a B-movie, chances are it’s a B-movie.

I’ll admit sometimes it’s worth the risk but my experience is nope. Watch what interests you, don’t pick up things that look stupid. Pretty simple.

It claims to be an action-comedy, yet remove the adrenaline-less car chase and you have little to jump at.

Drive Hard is a character-driven story. Roberts is falling into self-loathing and Keller’s a thief that delivers the pep talks and advice that Roberts so clearly requires.

These characters are not typical yet not genuine either. Keller, despite being a thief, doesn’t kill people and doesn’t lie. He’s an honest guy, something that seems contradictory of what a thief is supposed to be but I accepted it as a road less taken and expected further progression down this road. Drive Hard doesn’t go any farther.

There’s a certain irony in watching a film titled Drive Hard where there is no driving force pushing the story forward. It would be as if a NASCAR driver drove 15 laps around the track and then went for a pit stop. The mechanics fill the tank, tap the back, saying, “go, go, go” and nothing happens. They run to the side and look in the window and no one’s home. The driver has disappeared.

The laidback approach stints the tempo and tone. At no point did I think anything was going to happen. There’s no engine and no conflict. Keller robs the bank, Roberts eludes the cops but aside from the continuous dialogue between the two, there’s plenty of land ready for farming that Trenchard-Smith remains oblivious to. Instead, he swerves the camera in the direction of a corrupt police force and money laundering scheme. This refocusing mutated a subplot into a second story fighting for tape time, adding yet another negative to an already error-filled equation.

This is typical of Cusack’s films and yes, I know Drive Hard‘s faults are not his doing. John Cusack wasn’t a negative. He was a positive.

One of Cusack’s best tools in his acting repertoire is the ability to pander and emphasize things the script doesn’t tell him to. In essence, to extrapolate some sort of character and improvise in front of the camera. Cusack has wit but is generally awkward. Dialogue just doesn’t go through him naturally.

Here, Drive Hard embraces that bumbling and makes it a part of the character rather than a part of Cusack. Keller’s sarcastic, straightforward and calm, composed demeanor bashes against Roberts’ out-of-sorts personality.

As the rubber wears down, Roberts and Keller develop a friendship in the most absurd of circumstances. The conversations aren’t devoid of humor albeit very dry and that quirkiness is what kept this vehicle going even though Cusack and Jane had to push it themselves.

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. (Interstellar, Chappie, American Beauty, Gone Girl, Mulan)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (The Cable Guy, The Cabin in the Woods, Tears of the Sun, Edge of Tomorrow, The Amazing Spider-Man 2)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Equilibrium, Dead Snow: Red vs. Dead, Snowpiercer, The Family, When the Game Stands Tall)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Black Sheep, Twisted, Parker, House at the End of the Street, The Raven)

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. (Run All Night, Rage, Zoolander, The Expendables 3, Homefront)

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. (Erased, I, Frankenstein, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Billy Madison)

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. (Centurion, Planet of the Apes, Stonados, Redemption, Pride and Prejudice)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Colony, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, The Grey, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Thor: The Dark World)

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.” (Sabotage, Gallowwalkers, Tucker & Dale vs. Evil, Safe, Watchmen)

My score for Drive Hard: 53.

For once, Cusack is a highlight of a film and I mean that wholeheartedly but Trenchard-Smith’s need for directionless subplots is such that Cusack and Jane don’t get the time they deserve or the writing depth they should. With no engine and no conflict, Drive Hard is about a friendship made in a getaway car and it would have done the cast and crew a favor to put a cam on the dash and just let them drive rather than continue to try to make a B-movie action flick that all in all was more at a D-grade level.