Lightning Review: Mr. Brooks

This review was originally posted for the 2017 Decades Blogathon, hosted by Three Rows Back and Digital Shortbread.

Synopsis
Mr. Brooks (Kevin Costner) is a successful businessman and philanthropist. However, he hides a terrible secret: he is addicted to killing and is the serial murder known as the Thumbprint Killer. After his latest kill, he is approached by a man calling himself Mr. Smith (Dane Cook) who witnessed the killing and agrees not to go to the police if Mr. Brooks takes him on his next murder. Meanwhile, Detective Atwood (Demi Moore) is on the search for the Thumbprint Killer.

Review
Mr. Brooks feels demented in all of the right places. When it comes to Kevin Costner, I have decently high expectations. Or I should say, I can count on him to not give a bad performance. As the titular Earl Brooks, he doesn’t disappoint. It is clear that Earl might put on a visage but underneath he is struggling to keep his inner demon in check. Costner easily switches from a calm, cool father and businessman to a serious and broken killer. However, the star of the movie is William Hurt as Marshall, Earl’s “inner demon,” an imaginary friend of Earl. Throughout the movie, Marshall is constantly pushing Earl to give into his cravings and kill. Hurt is simply maniacal as Marshall. Every scene of his had me leaning towards the screen, intrigued and caught up in his performance. Stand-up comedian Dane Cook traditionally does comedic roles in movies (surprise, surprise), so Mr. Smith was a different kind of role for him. I’m curious to see how the part would have been different if someone who traditionally acts in thrillers had been in the role, but Cook was good for what it was.

I really liked that Earl’s subconscious was personified as Marshall. This almost gives a scapegoat of sorts to Earl’s actions, almost like it was Marshall who pushes Earl towards killing, despite his reservations. It also creates some interesting questions. How long has Marshall been around? Is he a childhood imaginary friend or was he created when Earl started killing? Was he created to deflect Earl’s actions from himself? The concept isn’t wholly original but the implementation is unique. There is a subplot where Detective Atwood (Demi Moore) is dealing with her divorce that contributes to the plot very little. It could be removed, or at least trimmed down, to keep the focus on Mr. Brooks and Mr. Smith.

I thought Mr. Brooks was GOOD 🙂 Kevin Costner gives a good performance as the two-faced business man but the scene-stealer is William Hurt as his imaginary friend, Marshall. Some might say that this film goes on for one scene too long (literally one scene) but it leaves Mr. Brooks in a precarious place either way. One thing is for certain, you’ll think twice about who people truly are on the inside despite what you see on the outside.

Trailer

Cast & Crew
Bruce A. Evans – Director / Writer
Raynold Gideon – Writer
Ramin Djawadi – Composer

Kevin Costner – Mr. Earl Brooks
Dane Cook – Mr. Smith
Demi Moore – Det. Tracy Atwood
William Hurt – Marshall
Marg Helgenberger – Emma Brooks
Danielle Panabaker – Jane Brooks
Ruben Santiago-Hudson – Det. Hawkins
Aisha Hinds – Nancy Hart
Lindsay Crouse – Captain Lister
Jason Lewis – Jesse Vialo
Reiko Aylesworth – Sheila (Jesse’s Lawyer)
Matt Schulze – Thorton Meeks

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit Review

Synopsis
Based on characters created by Tom Clancy, Jack Ryan (Chris Pine) is an US Marine veteran who is recruited by CIA agent William Harper (Kevin Costner) to be a financial analyst after he was seriously injured when his chopper was shot down. When Ryan discovers a Russian scheme to collapse the US economy, he travels to Moscow where he goes from an analyst to an active field agent. Ryan must quickly unravel the plot before Viktor Cherevin (Kenneth Branagh) can bring his plan to fruition, while at the same time keep his relationship with his girlfriend Cathy (Keira Knightly).

Review
I do not have much experience with anything Tom Clancy related, whether it’s his books, previous Jack Ryan movies, or the video games. So when I went into the theater to see Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, I had no expectations about the characters. I went to see it simply because it is a spy thriller and the trailer looked pretty cool. For me, this movie’s trailer maybe made me expect a little to much from the film and in the end, I felt let down.

The cast was fairly strong. Chris Pine has been the lead before in movies like Star Trek and does a decent job carrying the movie , but I think he does better when he has a larger supporting cast behind him. Kevin Costner does great as Ryan’s handler and it was nice to see Keira Knightly in something other than a period piece. But the strongest performance was from Kenneth Branagh. He brings a chilling class to his character.

Unlike most action/spy movies, this film does a good job not becoming too over-the-top. You won’t experience anything you haven’t seen in almost any other spy thriller, and frankly I wasn’t too engrossed in the ‘break America by breaking their economy’ plot, but it is a melting pot of the elements that make other spy films enjoyable. The only thing I was a little ‘eh’ on was when Ryan figured out the location of a sleeper agent. The way he jumps around and finally reaches the conclusion felt out of place with the rest of the movie.

Shaky cam really gets on my nerves. I don’t like it at all. Any time the action picks up in Jack Ryan, the camera immediately starts shaking violently and you can’t see anything, especially when several scenes take place at night. I miss the days when the cameras in action movies stayed in place and you could see the characters duking it out.

This is a bit spoilerish but it was something that bothered me about the trailer after watching the movie. The trailer makes Jack Ryan look like there is someone in the CIA out to get Ryan, which is a bit misleading. There is no element of “who can you trust?” at all. Everyone is on the same side and no double crossing. Normally I wouldn’t care, but it was such a dominate part of the trailer that I felt it needed mentioning.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit doesn’t bring anything new to the spy-genre table, but it does maintain the components that make them fun and enjoyable. Pine does well carrying the movie, but he seems to do better when he has a larger supporting cast to work with. It never becomes too over the top, mostly staying within the realm of reality. Jack Ryan isn’t a terrible movie, but it doesn’t do anything to stand out either.

Rating
3/5

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit Trailer

Synopsis (from IMDB): Jack Ryan, as a young covert CIA analyst, uncovers a Russian plot to crash the U.S. economy with a terrorist attack.

Unlike the other Jack Ryan movies, Shadow Recruit is not based on any specific Tom Clancy novel. Instead, it is an original story based on Clancy’s characters and is intended as a reboot of the franchise.  Given Chris Pine’s recent roles in action movies (Star Trek, This Means War), this role should be pretty natural for him.  It seems like producers have learned that naming movies after the book’s protagonist isn’t interesting (ie Jack Reacher, Parker, Alex Cross).  I’m most interested to see how Pine and Kiera Knightly play off each other.  If the scene in the hotel room with them and Kevin Costner is any indication, it looks like they should do well.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, directed by Kenneth Branagh (Director of Thor, Professor Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets) who also plays the antagonist of the film, will be in theaters December 25, 2013.

[EDIT 10/24/2013] The release date has been pushed back to January 17, 2014.

Man of Steel Review

The next film in my Original Six is Man of Steel.  I wasn’t actually planning on going to see this movie but some co-workers wanted me to organize a company outing after I organized a successful trip to see Iron Man 3. Then after a whole ordeal, the guys who asked me to put the event together didn’t even do. SMH.  I’m not real keen on Superman. I think he has a ridiculous powerset and is really hard to relate to.  But I tried to go in with an open mind and this was the result.

---

Synopsis
In order to save their son from Krypton’s imminent destruction, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and Lara Lor-Van (Ayelet Zurer) send their son, Kal-El (Henry Cavill), to Earth. There, he was found and adopted by the Kents (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane), renamed Clark, and must learn to live in a world who ostracizes and fears him for being different. When General Zod (Michael Shannon), one of the few surviving Kryptonians, threaten Earth, Clark is faced with the choice of protecting his adopted home or siding with his people.

Review
I will get this out of the way up front: I am not a fan of Superman. I don’t particularly care for the character, but I have tried to look at this movie without much bias.

OK, now that I have that out of the way, Man of Steel was rooted much more science-fiction than I was expecting. This made the film more enjoyable for me. Throughout the film, they gave semi-scientific explanations for the why of his powers, without going into too much detail about the how. With the state of superhero films in today’s cinema, it is fairly certain that moviegoers can suspend disbelief and accept a world where people can fly. By not delving too much into the specifics, it allowed the film to keep moving without getting bogged down with the details. But details impeding the story are the least of the film’s story issues.

The pacing of the story felt very wonky to me. Maybe I have come to expect a certain story structure for a hero’s origin movie, but this threw those conventions out the window. The first act was entirely on Krypton, where we learned about why Kal-El was sent to Earth and the events leading up to Krypton’s destruction. This portion was one of my favorites, showing off the sci-fi element of the film and giving the story a better reason for Kal-El sent to Earth besides “Because our planet is about to explode.”

The next act, where we meet a grown up Kal-El who is now know as Clark, is what bothered me most about this film. When I think of an origin story, I expect at some point for the hero to learn how to use their powers while helping people and making mistakes in the meantime. This step was essentially skipped. He was saving people in this part of the film, but only because he was in the right place at the right time. Although it is explained why he isn’t actively helping people, I think this bothers me more because when he finally dons the outfit, he’s just like “BOOM, I know how to do all this perfectly.” Part of what makes origin movies fun for me is the character learning how to use their powers. Personal preference I guess.

Story-wise, I think it was a smart choice to make Zod, a character who can go toe-to-toe with Superman, rather than Lex Luthor, Superman’s most recognizable enemy, the villain of the first film. This allows two things: 1) Shows Superman’s physical strength, and 2) opens the door to have Luthor come into the inevitable sequel and gives Superman the time to show his mental strength as well. Not to mention, with all the destruction at the end, it gives Luthor a primer to turn the people of Earth against Superman, an obstacle he must overcome in the sequel (just spitballing).

It was very evident that Man of Steel was a Zack Snyder film. The fight scenes, particularly the final fight scene, were over-the-top action scenes, very similar to Watchmen or Sucker Punch, but way more grandiose and destructive that could have taken a page from Michael Bay’s playbook. I’m all for outrageous action sequences (part of the reason I enjoy Sucker Punch), but this is too much crazy, even for me.

Henry Cavill does fine as Superman, giving the character the a more serious demeanor than previous incarnations of the character. It is an interesting take on the character because it is so different from past portrayals of Superman. In the comics and previous film appearances, Superman is optimistic and upbeat, but Superman in Man of Steel is almost the complete opposite. He is reluctant to help others, and doing so only if it’s absolutely necessary. I understand they were going for a more “grounded” Superman, but they still could have done so with him still being willing to do what is right, regardless of the situation.

The stand out performances of the movie definitely came from the villains. Shannon was able to portray a certain menacing characteristic that is difficult for many actors. He is also able to make you empathize with him; that Zod’s actions are driven by his desire to do what he feels is in the best interest to ensure the survival of his people.  I would have to say my favorite performance, and maybe even the best of the film, was Ayelet Zurer as Faora-Ul. She doesn’t say very much, but her poise and the way she holds herself on screen is enough to convey the strength of her character.

Spoiler alert, Superman wins and Zod loses.  Now, as normal as this is for any movie, by all accounts, Zod should not have lost.  He was a soldier, bred specifically to be a warrior.  Clark, on the other hand, has no fighting experience, going back to my previous point about the origin story. Realistically, Clark should have easily have been beaten when faced with an opponent possessing an identical skill set but has actual fighting experience.

My lack of love for Superman notwithstanding, Man of Steel was a generally enjoyable movie. Despite overly exaggerated action sequences, the heavy science-fiction elements and the great acting by the entire cast added to the entertainment.

Rating
3/5

Trailer

Cast & Crew
Zack Snyder – Director
David S. Goyer – Screenplay / Story
Christopher Nolan – Story

Henry Cavill – Clark Kent / Kal-El
Amy Adams – Lois Lane
Michael Shannon – General Zod
Diane Lane – Martha Kent
Russell Crowe – Jor-El
Antje Traue – Faora-Ul
Harry Lennix – General Swanwick
Richard Schiff – Dr. Emil Hamilton
Kevin Costner – Jonathan Kent
Ayelet Zurer – Lara Lor-Van
Laurence Fishburne – Perry White
Dylan Sprayberry – Clark Kent (13 Years)
Cooper Timberline – Clark Kent (9 Years)