FILM REVIEW OF ''BRICK MANSIONS" (2014)

Acclaimed French filmmaker Luc Besson has a knack for recycling material.  Nevertheless, he knows how to write riveting action thrillers. “La Femme Nikita,” “The Transporter” trilogy, “Kiss of the Dragon,” “Taken,” “Taken 2,” “Lockout,” ‘The Family,” “Leon: The Professional,” and “Colombian” illustrate his expertise.  Besson’s heroes and heroines are stalwart souls who refuse to be intimidated by either formidable foes or odds.  Revenge usually lies at the heart of the matter, and the cruel, heartless villains get their just comeuppance by fade-out.  Back in 2004, Besson wrote a gripping little actioneer about French ghettos entitled “District B13.”  Essentially, “District B13” combined elements of the futuristic Kurt Russell sci-fi saga “Escape from New York” with “48 HRS.”  A convict who had murdered a corrupt cop in a fit of rage teams up with an indestructible undercover detective to infiltrate a crime ridden neighborhood.  They must retrieve a deadly bomb that has fallen into the hands of desperate drug-dealing criminals who live like warlords.  The possibilities for conflict are predictably rampant.  “District B13” served not only as the film title, but it also is the setting for all the anarchy.  Since law & order never prevailed in the District, Parisian authorities have sealed it off with impressive containment walls that enclose it like a fortress.  They are also evacuating their police forces to leave those lawless citizens to their own designs.  

Meanwhile, “District B13” gave audiences their first glimpse of stunt man David Belle.  Officially, Belle originated Parkour.  Parkour is a form of hand-to-hand combat where the combatant exploits his surroundings for maximum advantage.  Meaning, our hero searches first to find ways out of a predicament and then fights only when individuals block his escape route.  Belle qualifies as a competent enough actor, but his gift for adapting himself to his surroundings so he can elude the villains is extraordinary.  Belle performs his outlandish feats with the grace and agility of a youthful Jackie Chan.  The character that he portrays is not a professional lawman, criminal, or mercenary.  He is just a law-biding citizen seeking justice for others.  Later, in 2009, Belle reprised his role in the dynamic sequel “District 13: Ultimatum.”  He makes his English-language film debut in editor-turned-director Camille Delamarre’s “Brick Mansions” (** OUT OF ****), with the late Paul Walker as his co-star.  Since Belle speaks with a heavy French accent, Vin Diesel dubbed him for American audiences.  You’ll have to strain your ears to detect traces of that signature growl that has made Diesel famous.  Unfortunately, this lukewarm action thriller is neither half as good as either of the “District B13” nail-biters.  Belle upstages Walker in all their combat sequences, and the two actors display little camaraderie.  Perhaps the language barrier prevented them from bonding.  Presumably, “Brick Mansions” constituted little more than a paycheck movie for Walker between his “Fast and Furious” epics.  What is worst is that Besson has rewritten crucial parts of his original “District B13” screenplay for this flawed remake.  Essentially, it boils down to a case of fixing something that didn’t require fixing.  Indeed, Besson has taken the edge off the action in many instances and packed in the clichés that he didn’t stick in either of the “District” movies.

Basically, freshman director Camille Delamarre and Besson have transplanted the action to Detroit in the year 2018 and their dystopian storyline isn’t a far cry from the urban renewal machinations in the “RoboCop” franchise.  The “RoboCop” thrillers occur in Detroit, too.  Skyrocketing crime plagues the Motor City, and the Mayor (Bruce Ramsay of “Collateral Damage’) has constructed an impregnable wall around the troubled sector where the police wage a holding action until they can extract themselves.  In a sense, “Brick Mansions” resembles “The Purge.”  You can do anything you want within this labyrinth of housing projects designated Brick Mansions.  Sure, the storyline shares similarities with the latest incarnation of “Dredd,” except skyscrapers run by warlords don’t loom in this woebegone ghetto.  African-Americans traffic in drugs like heroin and cocaine, and Tremaine Alexander (Robert Fitzgerald Diggs, a.k.a. RZA of “American Gangster”) is the alpha male of Brick Mansions.  The first time we see our hero, Lino (David Belle of “Femme Fatale”); he is destroying a fortune in heroin.  Alexander’s gun-toting henchmen swarm into Lino’s apartment complex, but he manages to escape them because he knows every nook and cranny in the place.  Later, Alexander’s second-in-command K-2 (Grouchy Boy) comes up with a plan to lure Lino out.  They take his ex-girlfriend, Lola (Catalina Denis), as a hostage.  Miraculously, Lino breaks into Alexander’s stronghold and rescues Lola.  He and she hold Alexander at gunpoint so his ruffians won’t kill them.  At the police station, a corrupt cop turns Alexander loose and jails Lino.  In “District B13,” the hostage was our hero’s sister.  The sister made better sense in the first film than the ex-girlfriend.

While this is going down in Brick Mansions, undercover cop Damien Collier (Paul Walker) has an agenda of his own.  His father, who was a decorated cop, died under suspicious circumstances when he plunged into the Brick Mansions.  Since then Collier has put Alexander on his short list of suspects who need to pay.  The Mayor has been planning to renovate the Brick Mansions when the gangsters steal a deadly bomb.  Collier accepts the assignment to retrieve the bomb.  He wants more time to acquire intelligence about the Brick Mansions.  The Mayor refuses to give him more time.  Instead, he pairs him up with Lino.  Naturally, the two men don’t trust each other.  Worse, the criminals have tampered with the bomb and activated its countdown.  Our heroes have less than 24 hours to disarm it.  “Brick Mansions” packs enough surprises to make it palatable, but this is pales by comparison with Walker’s “Fast and Furious” franchise, and the shoot’em ups and close-quarters combat are considerably less gritty.  “District B13” carried an R-rating, while “Brick Mansions” earned an PG-13 rating.  Only hardcore Paul Walker fans will appreciate his second-to-last movie.

                                  

FILM REVIEW OF ''I, ROBOT" (2004)

Rule # 1: Hollywood shouldn't make some books into movies.

Take, for example, science fiction author Isaac Asimov's "I, Robot."  This is a classic collection of cautionary short stories about the unforeseen complications in a robot's logic as it struggles to obey the three laws of robotics. Even when the robots appeared insane, Asimov was careful to show that by the lights of the robot's "positronic brains," they are behaving logically.

Rule # 2: Movies with multiple stories don't make millions.

Too many characters.  Too many ideas.  Too much originality.  Too much segmentation.  Consequently, when Hollywood lays its hands on literary legends like Asimov, they dumb down his work.  In the Will Smith mystery-thriller "I, Robot," Australian director Alex Proyas of "The Crow," Oscar-winning "Beautiful Mind" scenarist Akiva Goldsman and "Final Fantasy" scribe Jeff Vintar have retained the three laws of robotics.  Unfortunately, they have turned an otherwise literary classic into a formulaic, action-paced, paint-by-the-numbers, potboiler about an heroic, wise-cracking Chicago cop in the year 2035 who abhors robots. 

"I, Robot" (** OUT OF ****) opens with the three laws of robots.  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.  2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

An alarm clock awakens divorced homicide detective Del Spooner (Will Smith of "Bad Boys") to another wonderful day. After a shower scene designed to display Smith's buff body, especially his curiously scarred "Rambo" pectorals, the filmmakers have our swaggering stereotypical lone wolf hero don his ghetto street clothes, unpack a vintage pair of 2004 Converse All-Star sneakers, and cruise off to his first crime scene of the day in his tricked out Audi.  The headquarters of the U.S. Robotics Corporation--a Microsoft-type company—towers against the skyline of Chicago.  U.S. Robotics plans to put a robot in every home.  The company boasts that the ratio will be one robot per five humans.  An unexpected tragedy occurs to threaten this massive robotic roll-out. Apparently, U.S.R.'s chief robot designer, Dr. Alfred Lanning (James Cromwell of "Babe"), has committed suicide.  The visionary scientist hurled himself through his office window and fell hundreds of feet to the lobby.  Spooner learns that Lanning had requested him specifically, so Del could listen to a message Lanning recorded for him on a preprogrammed hologram. Initially, Lanning's cryptic remarks mystify Del.

When he visits Lanning's office, he discovers that the good doctor couldn't have jumped through the window. Del tries to break the window next to the window that Lanning shattered.  He barely makes a dent when he smashes a chair against it.  U.S. Robotics scientist, Dr. Susan Calvin (Bridget Moynahan of “Coyote Ugly) is assigned to escort Spooner around the premises.  No sooner does Del realize that the killer may still be in the room than the killer surprises him and escapes.

Eventually, Del captures the robot and interrogates him.  Before he can get far, U.S. Robotics' CEO Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood of "Thirteen Days") storms into the police station.  He demands the return of his property.  Robertson reminds Del that the authorities cannot charge robots with murder.  Not only have robots never posed a threat to humans, but also only humans can be charged with homicide.  Inevitably, Del's world-weary boss, Lieutenant John Bergin (Chi McBride of "Gone In 60 Seconds"), chews him out for crying 'robot' every time something happens to him. Del remains far from convinced, however, about the innocence of robots.  He bears a grudge against them.  During an accident, a truck rammed both his vehicle and another car with a 12-year old girl inside.  Both cars sank into a river.  A passing robot witnessed the accident and dived in to rescue Del. Our protagonist told the robot to save the little girl instead, so he feels guilty about her death and despises robots.

Gee, doesn't this sound familiar? Like a movie from the 1980s? A rebellious but maimed cop battling a corporation with a dark secret.  Hey, didn't Tom Selleck do something like that in the 1984 epic "Runaway?" Or what about 1982's "Blade Runner?" Or "Westworld," where the robots cannot kill humans either.  Del spends the rest of "I, Robot's" predictable 115 minutes trying to prove to everybody that robots are dangerous. He worries especially because his mother (Adrian Ricard of "Bulworth") has won a robot in lottery. Meanwhile, despite all this horrible publicity, Robertson plans to market a new line of robots, and he wants Del off his back permanently. Of course, hard-headed as Del is, he doesn't take no for an answer, even when Bergin takes his badge and suspends him from the force.

Basically, aside from his charismatic performance, Will Smith's futuristic detective doesn't appear too far removed from his wealthy playboy cop in the "Bad Boys" franchise.  Unfortunately, he doesn't have a sidekick like Martin Lawrence to take up the slack in this occasionally exciting but largely superficial sci-fi saga. Not even his quips seem catchy.  Smith spouts lines like: "Does believing you're the last sane man on the planet make you crazy? 'Cause if that's the case, maybe I am.”  Probably his best line, and that isn't saying much, is: "Somehow 'I told you so' just doesn't quite say it." "I, Robot" looks cool, if you don't think about some of the gaping plot holes. Wait until you see what Del's secret weapon is. Talk about a cop-out!  If you think about it, Del qualifies as a cyborg.  The villainous robots aren’t intimidating.   Meanwhile, two action sequences, a careening vehicular chase scene in a freeway tunnel and a demolition robot that destroys a mansion with Del in it, stand out from everything else thing.  Despite its plea for tolerance, which was handled better in "Bicentennial Man," "I, Robot" breaks no new ground in the robot genre. 

FILM REVIEW OF "LOOPER" (2012)

“Looper” (* out of ****) qualifies as a sordid science fiction thriller about time travel with an awful ending.  Stir a little H.G. Wells in with some Stephen King and add a pinch of “The Sopranos,” and you’ve got the basics of “Brick” director Rian Johnson’s contrived, unconvincing chronicle.  Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt are cast as one in the same character in this disappointing actioneer that pits them against each other with a no-win outcome.  Furthermore, both protagonists emerge as more anti-heroic than heroic.  If you dismiss the fact these talented thespians bear scant resemblance to each other, you must still consider the scarcity of information about a distant future as well as a warped premise.  These shortcomings constitute the chief flaws in this imaginative but predictable sci-fi saga that unfolds in an erratic manner, lacks quotable dialogue, and features one character with no qualms about shooting innocent adolescents. By the time this uninspired, R-rated, 118-minute, spectacle has worn out its welcome; you have no reason to care about anybody, including an obnoxious telekinetic tyke who doesn’t know when to keep his trap shut.  Mind you, the future has never appeared more dystopian.  Some people are born with a mutation that enables them to levitate objects, and these fellows find that they can lure facile-minded babes into bed by making quarters float above the palms of their hands.  The economy has hit bottom, and vagrancy has become epidemic. Citizens can execute vagrants on the spot if they feel so inclined.  Any time Hollywood undertakes a time travel tale, the filmmakers conjure up some of the ugliest vehicles.  While the cars and trucks look hopelessly tacky, the motorcycles resemble something Luke Skywalker wouldn't ride.  Basically, you see a guy straddling a cylinder with handle bars.  Computer-generated special effects blur everything beneath his feet so he appears to be cruising on a cushion of air. 

Johnson’s screenplay is as amoral as his narrative premise is warped.  Imitating the best Mafia movies of director Martin Scorsese, Johnson relies on the voice-over narration of his lead character to acquaint us not only with his unusual profession but also with the seedy world where he thrives.  Kansas in the year 2044 serves as the setting.  Presumably, Johnson is making an ironic “Wizard of Oz” joke with his futuristic fable.  The premise of “Looper” is that a guy can live the high life by killing individuals from the future who have been sent back to the past.  Joseph Simmons (Joseph Gordon-Levitt of “The Dark Knight Rises”) is a killer who was brought up the ranks by his boss, Abe (Jeff Daniels of “Blood Work”), to do his dirty work.  Actually, Abe was beamed back from the future to coordinate the equivalent of Murder Incorporated.  In the 1940s, the Mafia relied on hired gunmen from out of town to ice enemies on their own turf.  For example, if the New York Mafia wanted to dispose of an adversary, they contracted a Chicago gunsel to eliminate him.  The rationale was that the authorities always sought a motive.  What motive would a Chicago mobster have for killing New York mobster that he didn’t know?  This remained standard operating procedure until the authorities figured out the connection.  

Mobsters in the year 2074 cannot murder their adversaries because humans have become too easy to track.  Since the mob cannot kill their own, they contract hits out to mobsters from the past.  Gunman designated ‘loopers’ kill and dispose of these victims that the mob has beamed back so nobody can find them.  Our hero wields an exotic shotgun called a ‘blunderbuss,’ and the looper waits near a cornfield in the middle of nowhere with his weapon and a tarp spread on the ground.  Eventually, a bound man with a bag over his head and silver ingots strapped to his back materializes.  After he murders his prey, Joseph incinerates him so no traces remain. When a gangland assassin in the future has worn out his welcome, however, the mob sends him back to the past so he can kill himself.  They call this ‘closing the loop.’ After Young Joe botches the job of killing Old Joe, he has to dodge the bullets of his former associates—known as ‘gat-men’--until he can corner and kill himself. Losing one’s older self is referred to as ‘letting his loop run.’  Joe’s quick-witted alter-ego from the future (Bruce Willis of “Twelve Monkeys”) escapes and searches for a mysterious person code named the ‘Rainmaker.’  This enigmatic individual wants to eradicate any trace of the loopers.  Older Joe has been given a map with three possible addresses for this ‘Rainmaker.’  Joe wants to wreak vengeance on the ‘Rainmaker’ because the ladder dispatched trigger-happy gunmen who accidentally murdered his Asian wife. 

Instead of keeping things simple, Johnson complicates matters with a subplot about a kid with telekinetic powers.  Cid (Pierce Gagnon of “The Crazies”) lives on a sugar cane farm with his mom, Sara (Emily Blunt of “The Adjustment Bureau”), who runs the place by herself.  One of the locations that the Old Joe has is Sara’s farm.  He suspects Cid may be the reason that assassins are knocking themselves off.  Essentially, what we have here is a good assassin and a bad assassin who share the same body from drastically different decades.  Young Joe stakes out Sara’s farm so he can terminate Old Joe with extreme prejudice.  This uneven, poorly-plotted, high body count stinker doesn’t flow well and is often confusing, too.  Moreover, the logic is questionable.  Wouldn’t it be easier for the future mob to kill their enemies and send the remains back to the past for disposal?  Furthermore, what would happen if the victim that they sent back managed to escape like Old Joe and gum up the works?  As far as that goes, how does Abe know when a man is going to be sent back to the past. In most movies, you look for a character that you can either love or envy.  Nobody is lovable in “Looper” and parts of this movie are just plain downright dull.

FILM REVIEW OF ''DREDD 3-D" (2012)

“Vantage Point” director Pete Travis and “28 Days Later” scenarist Alex Garland have conspired to make a hopelessly abysmal reboot of the British “2000 AD” comic strip.  New Zealand actor Karl Urban steps into the boots that Sylvester Stallone wore in director Danny Cannon’s “Judge Dredd” that bombed at the box office back in 1995.  Despite its estimated $50 million production cost, “Dredd 3-D” (* OUT OF ****) looks like a low-budget, made-for-television movie.  Although it takes place in a distant, post-apocalyptic America of the future, this science fiction saga delivers little high octane action and no narrative revelations.  Unlike the first “Judge Dredd” epic with its flying cars and motorcycles, “Dredd 3-D shuns “Blade Runner” airborne automobiles and hovering motorcycles.  This shallow, straightforward British/South African co-production confines itself strictly to only a few settings. Most of the low octane action occurs in an enormous skyscraper complex that houses about 60-thousand citizens.  Whereas the original “Judge Dredd” concerned our hero’s efforts to exonerate himself for being framed for the murder of a journalist on the basis of DNA evidence, the new “Dredd” amounts to a pedestrian police procedural set in a sprawling city state.  Karl Urban channels “Dirty Harry” with his raspy, low-key, monosyllabic dialogue delivery.  Indeed, he never removes his helmet during this 95-minute, R-rated urban outing. Essentially, Urban looks like Beetle Bailey because only his mouth and chin are visible. Granted, this is in keeping with the way Judge Dredd appears in the comic strip, but “Dredd 3-D” is a feature film, not a one-dimensional comic strip. 

“Dredd 3-D” unfolds in a post-nuked America.  Basically, only one city exists, and it is Mega City, with some 800-thousand residents.  Mega City occupies the east coast of the United States, roughly encompassing Boston and Washington, D.C., while everything else that lies outside its wall consists of scorched wasteland.  The Stallone “Judge Dredd” occurred in part outside the walls of Mega City,” while “Dredd 3-D” is set wholly within Mega City.  Crime has reached epidemic proportions, with twelve serious crimes occurring every minute and 17-thousand happening each day.  Street judges are so overworked that they can at best only intervene in six percent of all crime.  When “Dredd 3-D" opens, our helmet-clad hero is straddling a motorcycle and pursuing three villains in a car as they swerve through traffic while using a new drug called ‘Slo Mo.’  Judge Dredd (Karl Urban of “Star Trek”) has no problem subjugating all three criminals.  At the Hall of Justice, he learns that he has acquired a new partner, an aptly named Cassandra Johnson (Olivia Thirlby of “No Strings Attached”), who possesses psychic powers that enable her to read an individual’s mind.  Earlier, Cassandra failed an aptitude test that would have qualified her to be a judge.  These street judges have the legal authority to sentence criminals on the spot and even execute them if their misconduct is bad enough. The Chief Judge wants to get Cassandra another chance so he assigns her to Judge Dredd to reassess her candidacy as a judge. “Dredd 3-D” is reminiscent of the Dirty Harry police thriller “The Enforcer” where Harry was saddled with a rookie detective.  Anyhow, these two are dispatched to Peach Trees, a ghetto-like high rise where a major criminal, Madeline Madrigal (Leana Headey of HBO’s “Game of Thrones”), dominates the drug trade.  She has three men injected with Slo Mo, skinned alive, and hurled to their deaths from the top of the tower.  Dredd and Cassandra are dispatched to investigate.  No sooner have they set foot on the premises and arrested one suspect than they find themselves trapped in the tower.  The ruthless criminals have shut Peach Trees down and sealed it off completely so that nobody else can exit it.  What ensues is a blood bath with a high body count that our indestructible heroes survive with a close shave or two. 

“Dredd 3-D” is as one-dimensional as a cardboard punch-out book.  The characters are sketchy, and the actors who incarnate them bring little humanity to them.  Whereas “Judge Dredd” was a sardonic exercise in mock-heroic action, “Dredd 3-D” is as humorless as it is moribund.  Leana Headey is looks like a Cosmo model with scars on her right cheek.  Actually, all the villains look pretty cool, but they are at the same time incredibly incompetent.  At one point, they devastate an entire floor trying to perforate our heroes with three, six-barreled Gatling gun style General Electric M134 mini-Vulcan machine guns.  These weapons can pour out between 2000 and 6000 rounds of 7.62 mm shells a minute.  Villains like these dastards constitute little challenge for our heroes.  If this weren’t lame enough, even Cassandra with her psychic powers cannot divine the thoughts of a suspect that Dredd and she have already arrested and who is standing behind her.  This villain is able to free himself from his bonds and abduct her!  Nothing about this Judge Dredd movie is innovative.  A showdown like this between our heroes and an army of hoodlums was depicted with greater savagery in “Punisher: War Zone” (2008) and the most recent movie “The Raid—Redemption.” As for the 3-D effects, they add nothing to this lackluster exercise in déjà-vu.  Originally, 3-D movies were designed to make the audience duck when a flying projectile winged its way at them.  3-D movies like “Dredd 3-D” resemble the images that were once available on those vintage Viewmaster Viewers where you loaded a picture disc into it.  Not surprisingly, “Dredd 3-D” lives up to its title.