BITE-SIZED REVIEW: The Marine (John Bonito, 2006)

John Triton (John Cena) is a former marine looking for purpose.

When his wife Kate (Kelly Carlson) is kidnapped by a gang of bloodthirsty bank robbers led by Rome (Robert Patrick), he finds that purpose.

Cue much shooting, chasing and explosions.

A couple years ago, I reviewed Marines 5 & 6. Since I haven't learned my lesson from the Spider-Man/Cutting Edge catastrophes, here we are with 2006's The Marine, the first instalment in the long-running Marine franchise!

CUE EXPLOSIONS!

I remember seeing the poster for The Marine advertised in the middle of town. From memory, it stuck out because it was up for far longer than the movie was in theatres.

The Marine stars John Cena in his first attempt to become a movie star. The movie was part of WWE's broader strategy of moving into motion pictures.

What initially struck me about The Marine is how small-scale it feels. 

This is ironic because the Marines I have seen had far lower budgets and set their action in one location. Those movies were directed by James Nunn, who knows how to wring every dollar to make something cinematic. While Marine 5 and 6 are low budget DTV movies, they make that lo-fi-ness a part of their storytelling.

Plus they still feature plenty of action and unique set pieces. 

By contrast, The Marine features plenty of explosions but the action is pretty rote.

Since this movie was made for the big screen I was expecting the canvas to be bigger - the most action movie set-piece is Cena’s introduction - he does a one-man-army and rescues a group of captured Marines from a compound in Iraq.

Otherwise, we get a couple of shootouts, a car chase and a finale of bigger explosions. While the action scenes are flashy, there is not a lot going on in them. 

The filmmakers know how to stage an explosion, but other than that, the action is shot and cut like a tribute to Michael Bay - cut too fast and lacking in a sense of geography or narrative coherence.

With hindsight, the big problem with The Marine is how badly it misjudges Cena’s screen appeal.

Sure, Cena is a mountain of muscle but he is not intimidating. 

Even in this early role, Cena is too expressive to convince as a no-nonsense killing machine. It is the reason why he was a babyface/good guy in wrestling. 

The Marine feels like it wants to be Commando - the hilariously big explosions certainly feel in that universe - but it lacks the wit and the right star to make it as fun as it wants to be.

It's not terrible, but it is easy to see why The Marine was not hit in cinemas.  

RANKING (so far)

1. The Marine 5: Battleground (old review)

2. The Marine 6: No Quarter (old review)

3. The Marine

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BITE-SIZED REVIEW: The Gauntlet (Clint Eastwood, 1977)

 Ben Shockley is the worst cop in Vegas - a drunken libertine, he is on the outs with his department and spiralling toward oblivion. And then he gets assigned to protect a witness (Sondra Locke).

When they are ambushed, Shockley realises that forces within the department want them dead. The pair go on the run, in an attempt to get to trial.

I read about The Gauntlet years before I watched it. When I finally did, my expectations were too high.

After watching a couple of Eastwood’s directorial efforts, I think I finally figured out why I never really bothered doing a deep-dive into his work.

Famously, Clint likes to move fast and do only a few takes. He also does not like to do too much work on the script once he is onboard. There is a looseness to his work that always bumps me - based on the types of movies he likes to make, it feels like the performances need some shaping, while there is always some clumsy camera-work and clumsy editing which throw me out. I am not into polish, but with Eastwood’s work I always want them to be more seamless on a technical level. 

At a plot level, The Gauntlet is a straightforward man-on-the-run thriller. A couple go on the run together, and over the course of the movie they fall in love. It is a simple concept and going into the movie I thought that narrative simplicity would work for Eastwood's pared-down aesthetic. 

I love the opening of the movie. We get some jazz playing over helicopter shots of the city s the credits play. The camera settles on a car outside the police station and we meet our hero.

Introduced spilling out of his car, Eastwood wants to hammer home how different Shockley is from his most iconic role. Ben Shockley is like Dirty Harry if he had no self-control and was more nihilistic. The characters are so close that it is easy to read this movie as an unofficial sequel.

I really enjoy this opening because it combines visual story-telling with exposition delivered on the move. In a series of tracking shots, we follow Shockley into the station as he pulls himself together and talks to his partner, played by Pat Hingle.

After this opening, we follow Shockley to his initial meeting with Sondra Locke's Gus. 

At the time, Eastwood and Locke were in a longterm relationship. It has been well-documented that the relationship was rocky and their breakup ended with Eastwood effectively blacklisting Locke from Hollywood. 

While this movie was produced years before, the pair have little chemistry. Their 'rapport' such as it is, is a warring back and forth that came off as tiresome and familiar. 

I cannot help but think this was the result of Eastwood the director - he is famous for only doing a few takes, and I think that might be the reason why the central relationship never develops in an organic way. There is a broadness and lack of nuance to their dynamic which threw me out of the movie.

The movie features some impressive action sequences, particularly the destruction of Gus's home, and the final sequence - featuring the pair driving an armour-plated bus through a barrage of police fire - is impressively staged.

But in a chase movie like this, you need to care about the characters being shot at. And with The Guantlet, I never did.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

BITE-SIZED REVIEW: It Came From Beneath The Sea (Robert Gordon, 1955)

An octopus and an atomic bomb meet in the ocean…

Ever since I was a child, I have loved octopus. Ironically I have never watched this movie before. 

This movie is a Harry Harryhausen production, and broadly speaking, you do not go to Harryhausen movie to watch the scenes he did not create. 

That being said, every other element of the movie is condensed to the Essentials: a group of scientists and soldiers gather to figure out what is going on, and then proceed to argue over what to do for the next hour until they come up with a solution. 

 

There really is not that much to talk about. The character arc of the movie is our military hard man realising that the woman scientist is someone worth listening to.

This movie is almost as stripped down as Earth vs The Flying Saucers. 

Redundant statement: The stop-motion sequences are the best part of this movie.

  

The one (slight) drawback is that the Octopus does not have as much character as Harryhausen’s other creations. This might have to do with the fact that octopus are not the most expressive animals - but who goes to the movies for realism?

The octopus is much more of a menace that must be overwhelmed.

That does add to the movie’s slightness - one of the best elements of a movie like Jason and the Argonauts or 20 Million Miles to Earth is that the creatures feel like characters in their own right. Even Talos the statue feels weirdly alive.

The octopus is still iconic, but it does lack that strong sense of characterisation. 

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Copshop (Joe Carnahan, 2021)

Valerie (Alexis Louder) is a rookie cop having a bad night.

A mystery man (Frank Grillo) is sitting in her cell block with a price on his head, with a hitman (Gerard Butler) who got himself locked up so he could claim the head.

If that wasn’t bad enough, other parties are on their way to kill all of them.

This movie starts the way all movies should - with Lalo Schifrin’s main title from Magnum Force.

 

It is a callback to the action flicks of the past, particularly the early seventies when the western gave way to urban action film.

This one splits the difference by taking place in Nevada, so we get some western-style settings and some old-fashioned fast draws.

A siege movie, Copshop is pleasingly small-scale. I am a fan of action and thriller movies set in one place I was impressed with Kimi for similar reasons.

I wish I liked this movie more. 

There is something about Joe Carnahan’s movies that I can never quite buy into.

He is never boring - I generally enjoy picking over his movies like a vulture. If the movie does not work, he always has some clever plot turn or weird character that makes it memorable.

With this movie, it feels like he wants to operate between earnest genre piece and self-aware homage, but never figures out where he wants it to land.

But in doing so, he ends up with something that feels just a little bland.

The interplay between the cast is good, but about halfway through it felt like the distrust and conflict was neutered.

This movie is totally fine, but it is elevated by a breakout performance by Alexis Louder.

Cop heroes are a dime a dozen but I cannot remember an action movie where the cop protagonist is not burned out and traumatised. 

Valerie actually seems to enjoy her job, and has a good rapport with her colleagues. 

Once the action starts, she shifts into action hero mode and the plot starts to follow a familiar line. Which is no bad thing.

Valerie is a throwback to the action heroes of the late 80s, like John McClane - she is even in a white tank top for the third act. 

Valerie might be inexperienced but she knows what she’s doing and is a good improviser. She also feels like she is constantly under the gun. The character wins because like all action heroes she is driven to overcome any obstacle in the pursuit of justice.

It is not a new archetype but Louder and the script makes the confection feel fresh.

One element I loved was that while Valerie is a good shot, but she does end up injuring herself during a hectic moment. It’s a moment of originality that prevents it from feeling entirely predictable. 

The script gives Valerie a familial military background through her male line (a familiar trope with action women). However the filmmakers twist this backstory by having her great grandfather be a soldier for the Third Riech.

Are the filmmakers trying to make a comment on the fascism underpinning action movies? Or the US police?

Probably not. It feels like a serve for the sake of a serve, a way to show that Louder’s character does not fit the boxes the men are try to put her in.

Copshop is a little rote on its own terms but hopefully it serves as a launching pad for Alexis Louder to bigger things.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle (Curtis Hanson, 1992)

TW: brief mention of sexual assault and suicide.

Claire Bartel (Annabella Sciorra) is a happily married woman expecting her second child.

After she is assaulted by her obstetrician (John DeLancie), she makes a complaint.

This leads to more accusations from other victims, which leads to the doctor committing suicide. 

Emotionally bereft and financially ruined, his widow Peyton (Rebecca De Mornay) miscarries their child. 

Seeking vengeance for her loss, Peyton takes on another identity and gets a job as a nanny for Claire’s new baby.

Slowly, Peyton worms her way into the Bartels’ lives, determined to destroy Claire and take away everything Peyton believes Claire stole from her…

A couple of years back I started reviewing Screen Gems’ run of thrillers starring black actors. Part of their appeal is that they are callbacks to the thrillers of the nineties, in which middle class white people have their world turned upside down by a villain.

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle might be a prime example of the form. 

The key draw of the picture is Rebecca De Mornay as Peyton, the titular hand. De Mornay is perfectly cast. 

De Mornay is a ‘cool’ presence - she is at her best at presenting a placid surface, whether as Tom Cruise’s girlfriend experience in Risky Business or as the lawyer in Guilty as Sin. I have not seen enough of her work so considering this a working assessment, but she seems to be at her best repressing. The one movie I have seen where the character was more open and exposed - Runaway Train - I found it hard to buy her.

Peyton is the polar opposite. A lot of the movie’s strength comes down to the way De Mornay keeps her character’s rage at  a low simmer, like the way she stares down her husband’s attorney after he has run through the financial fallout of his demise.

There is a creepy minimalism to her performance that kept me on my toes.

While De Mornay is a fine antagonist, I really wanted to like this movie more. While there are some creepy moments, it never felt like the tension was ratcheting up. 

The early scenes which precipitate the plot are disturbing, but the movie lacks a sense of danger.

Part of the problem is that I could not get invested in our heroes. There is something so pristine about the central family that I could not get onboard. 

Part of it is I think the filmmakers have leaned too hard into making the protagonists likable and ordinary. It is important to this type of movie that the domestic environment is established as stable and morally sound, so that it can be upset and destroyed by the arrival of the villain.

The other aspect of it is that I never found the couple that interesting. 

I could not work out why I was not engaged until Juliane Moore showed up as a family friend.

Her role is small but in only a few scenes Moore brings life to this cookie cutter world.

Every other character feels like they are on rails, but Moore feels like a human being - she is smart and funny, and feels more vulnerable in a way that is more nuanced and fleshed-out than any of the other characters. There is a weight and history to her performance that is sorely missed in the rest of the movie.

Nothing against the lead performers but the main couple is presented as so trusting and plain I was a little frustrated with how Peyton is able to insert herself into their lives. 

The other element which turned me against the movie was the character of Solomon (Ernie Hudson). A learning impaired man who saves the day at the end, Solomon feels like a caricature from a different movie. Casting a non-disabled person never smells right, and the family’s slow turn toward recognising his worth feels like the worst kind of redemptive arc. There is a kernel of a great idea in how Peyton turns the family against Solomon, but he would need to be a character.

A movie about a disabled person trying to stop a villain who tries to gaslight people about them is a terrifying idea. But for it to work, it needs a character who is fleshed out and not just a saintly trope to make your main character feel good.

The Hand The Rocks The Cradle has some good qualities, but it feels too cookie cutter to truly worm its way into being genuinely scary. I might change my mind if I have kids, but on this viewing it felt like this movie left something on the table.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Spider-Man: No Way Home (John Watts, 2021)

Peter Parker’s (Tom Holland) secret identity has been blown, and the ripple effects have affected everyone he knows and cares about.

Determined to fix what happened, Peter convinces Dr Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) to create a spell that would undo the timeline so that his identity was never spoilt.

The spell goes wrong, and Peter is suddenly confronted with multiple villains who claim to have fought Spider-Man before…

This movie is fun, and tries to tell a story. It also tries to bring Spider-Man down to earth and reassert Peter Parker’s moral code. 

It is also the eighth of these movies that I am reviewing so it probably suffers from my burnout.

Let’s get the ‘big secret’ out of the way.

The idea that Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield were not coming back feels like the worst plot twist to try and hide.

Maybe it was watching their movies back-to-back in two days (never again), but I got the nostalgia kick seeing them show up. And I am glad they were included in such a major way.

It does make for some weird moments - the two Peters narrating their personal tragedies feels like an earnest take on the origin montage from Into the Spider-Verse.

Having five villains in the movie feels like an unnecessary tease - I also do not think you needed all of them (why is Sandman trying to kill anybody?).

Fundamentally, this movie is concerned with rebooting Tom Holland’s Spider-Man and bringing him closer to his previous incarnations. Having the two previous Peters there to describe their loses feels like an unsubtle critique on the comparatively easy ride Holland’s Peter has had in his previous adventures.

 

Even the set-up with Dr Strange and the forgetfulness spell feels like the filmmakers acknowledging how many times Peter has been saved by deux ex machina.

That being said, Killing Aunt May feels a little desperate - Marisa Tomei is a great actress and it is a pity she is finally foregrounded as Peter’s conscience only so she can die. 

What this movie does get right is Green Goblin. 

First, they have figured out that Willem Dafoe’s face is a unique special effect and they should showcase its beauty. I do not care about fidelity to the source material, but I liked how they re-imagine his costume. 

Dafoe is also on his game - this performance feels more maniacal yet less cartoonish than his initial appearance.

The other returnees are a mixed bag - having five different characters means that they never get a strong showcase. I liked the redemption of Doc Ock but he is barely in the movie.

The real interesting element is the appearance of the previous Spider-Men.

I am torn on Maguire - he feels the most complete of the characters in terms of narrative arcs - his Spidey has no sense of baggage or unfinished business.

 

If the film offers an opportunity for completing a circle, it is with Garfield. Garfield is a fine actor and the problems I have with his films have to do with the scripts he had to work with.

With this movie it feels like the actor and the character getting another chance.

 

Garfield is on fire here, fitting in completely naturally while giving his own story a pathos that his fellow Parkers never reach. His performance is wounded, heartfelt and self-aware without ever feeling like he is stepping out of the movie.

The filmmakers have made his abrupt tenure work for this story - his Parker has not moved on from Gwen Stacey’s death,  stuck in limbo. 

He is so good I had to keep reminding myself Holland was the one getting a sequel - but with this multiverse concept, who knows?

I do not know if this movie really works as a story - it reminded me of the latest Fast & Furious movie in that it feels like the filmmakers are making a correction to the characters’ trajectory.

This movie feels like fan fiction and while I did like aspects of it - particularly Dafoe and Garfield’s performances - I could get the sick feeling that I was watching feature-length fan service.

There was a point when all three Spider-Men are standing in their suits and they all seemed flatter - they lacked the texture of their earlier appearances.

There is something about the way Marvel movies are lit that has never sat well with me, and watching these characters lit that way just made it feel like I was watching a car being stolen. I am not even a fan of the cars in question, but it felt wrong.

This movie has been a huge hit which will lead to more movies like it, which just mean Hollywood will have license to continue mining the same IP until the end of time.

Take that for what you will.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

OUT NOW: Kimi

Angela (Zoe Kravitz) works from home for a social media company behind the home device Kimi. Kimi is a voice operated system which can run your house and keep your life on track.

It also records its interactions, which enables Angela to fix problems as they happen.

Angela’s life is intentionally repetitive and mundane. She rarely leaves the house. And she likes it that way.

But when Kimi records what sounds like a murder, Angela realises she will have to go out into the world to solve the mystery.

One of my favourite things about Steven Soderbergh is his productivity. I may not click with everything he pumps out, but there is something reassuring about the fact that he will have another project out before you have had time to wipe the last one from your memory banks.

A spiritual sibling to his previous thrillers - particularly Haywire, Side Effects and Unsane, Kimi is a lean little piece that may not be that original, but it is highly functional and does not dawdle.

The older I get, the more impatient I get with saggy runtimes. It has started to affect my reviews. Sweetheart is a solid genre piece but I elevated to classic status as soon as I saw the runtime was 82 minutes. That is increasingly rare with big budget blockbusters. 

Kimi boasts a similar runtime - 89 minutes with credits - and it moves like it knows it.

The plot mechanics are familiar but sturdy - the film is not interested in subversion, but economy and function. This movie is designed to run.

In the central role, Zoe Kravitz is terrific. She is such a perfect fit for Soderbergh’s economic, soft-sell approach that I hope this is the first of many collaborations.

I have not seen everything she is in, but with what I have seen of Kravitz’s work it always felt like filmmakers were missing something. 

I would see her in movies and think she was fine, but it always felt like she was in the wrong parts. She always felt smarter and tougher than what was written. It was not until I watched 2019’s High Fidelity that it felt like she was in a role that felt tailor-made for her.

Since the movie is almost entirely based around her, Kimi is dependant on her holding the screen. And she does.

Angela is someone who exerts immense control over her environment. That hyper-focus is a cover for deep-seated trauma and insecurity.

Kravtiz balances a flinty distance with a constant underlying tension. It always feels like she is on edge and ready to move.

 

Once she leaves the sanctity of her apartment, there is a feral quality to Kravitz’s performance that Soderbergh compliments with moments of  sped-up camera speed that add to the sense of agitation and paranoia. She is out in the open - if she slows down or stops, she will be more exposed and vulnerable.

There is not much more to it, but that’s the beauty of a genre exercise like Kimi.

This is all about the execution. And as a tight small-scale thriller, Kimi gets the job done with style, economy and a great central performance.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Spider-Man: Far From Home (John Watts, 2019)

Peter Parker is adjusting to life after the events of movies I have never seen. 

Nearing the end of high school, he is on a school trip to Europe with his class. His only plan is to ask MJ (Zendaya) out.

But Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and a mysterious character called Quentin Beck (Jake Gyllenhaal) have other plans.

Spider-Man: Far From Home reminds me of when I would try to read Spider-Man comic books: jumping into the middle of an ongoing story, with various references to stories which have come before.

It feels like an extended middle act with a stinger for another story at its end.   

I know that is the Marvel strategy but I hate it.

 

I really like Jake Gyllenhaal in this movie - he goes big in a fun way. He was apparently in the frame to take over from Tobey Maguire if he was unable to return for Spider-Man 2. 

It is interesting to see him here, although his performance feels constrained by the script. 

Everything I dislike about this movie relates to the script.

This movie wants to be about accepting the role that people have forced on you - but the movie never follows through.

And more importantly, Peter is never truly in danger. Just imagine if the Raimi version had a European trip? No Tony Stark gizmos. No Nick Fury. Probably no money either.

Holland’s Peter may be at high school and live in Queens, but he is completely shielded from life - that is cutting off the character from one of his key elements: his relatability.

Spider-Man has always been about the conflict between superheroics and ordinary life. 

Most of Maguire’s conflict comes from his attempts to maintain a life outside of his superhero identity - he is always struggling for money, constantly late for important events and worried about his friends and family (e.g. Aunt May losing her house to the bank in Part 2).

On top of that, the Raimi and Marc Webb versions are constantly having their two lives invade and overlap with each other - one of the high points of Homecoming is when Adrian Toomes threatens Peter in the car. It is the one time he is in genuine danger - not just in the immediate sense, but in terms of everything he holds important.

The one time the movie gets close to this is when Mysterio uses his illusions on Spider-Man in the warehouse.

I criticized the marginalization of Aunt May in the Garfield-verse but Uncle Ben is completely absent from these movies in favor of hero worship of Tony Stark.

Not that Peter cannot look for role models - it makes sense as part of his character. 

But the character never imparts any major lessons, and Peter does not appear to learn anything from his death.

The most he gets is a(nother) suit.

The creation of this new suit aggravates me - it removes any obstacles. I would have appreciated some defects because of how fast it had to produced. Think about the repeated tech failures in Mission: Impossible IV, or Miles trying to figure out web shooters while being chased in Into the Spider-Verse. Marvel’s webhead is teflon-coated.

There is a nice beat where he runs out of webs and has to improvise - but it is over quickly. 

This movie ends in the place where Spider-Man existed in his previous incarnations - on the backfoot and with his personal and heroic identities in danger. 

I guess that is progress?

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.