The Bourne Legacy - 2012

"The Bourne Legacy" - 2012
Dir. by Tony Gilroy - 2 hrs. 15 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

Going in, "The Bourne Legacy" is in about as big of a hole as any film can be in: following up a well-regarded and well-received trilogy of films, and doing so with a new lead character (and the star of the previous films is nowhere to be seen in the advertising).  That sort of thing is the province of straight-to-DVD films that trade on a famous title without offering any actors you've ever heard of to back it up.  But I'll be damned if "The Bourne Legacy" doesn't pull it off.

As the trailer says, there was never only one.  The same program that yielded Jason Bourne has also yielded other agents.  This time, the focus is on Aaron Stone (Jeremy Renner), who is in the middle of a frozen wasteland, doing nothing but popping meds and dodging a pack of wolves.  The call is made to terminate the program, and Stone narrowly misses being rendered obsolete.  Despite surviving, Stone (presumably like the other agents) is dependent upon meds, and heads back to mainland United States to locate more (and to figure out what's going on, exactly).  However, since the government program that created Stone doesn't want him around anymore, this isn't exactly a cake-walk.

I didn't see any major negatives to "The Bourne Legacy," other than having warmed up to Matt Damon's character that was the focus of the first three films in this series.  Here, he's mentioned in dialogue and shown in file pictures, leaving the door open if they should want to return to Jason Bourne's saga.  I'm not going to say that Jeremy Renner is an equal replacement as the lead, but he's talented and believable in the action sequences.  Also, Renner's not the only actor of note here; both Rachel Weisz and Edward Norton play large roles, making it clear that this film is not a low-budget piece of crap that's only exploiting the "Bourne" franchise name and not backing it up.

In terms of the action sequences, there's some very good material here.  The big parkour/car/motorcycle chase in the Philippines is spectacular and filled with tension all the way through.  The setting itself is used to great effect and not just as a backdrop.  There's also a shoot-out at Dr. Shearing's (Weisz) house that's a very effective introduction to Stone's abilities.  But the things that make the action sequences matter are the ideas behind the film.  Both Shearing and Stone are given the opportunity to explain why it is they are doing what they're doing, and it's both relevant and meaningful.  Discussing them would be heavy spoiler territory, but it sheds a new light on the Jason Bourne films, as well.

Walking into "The Bourne Legacy," I kept my expectations low.  The original batch of films are some of my favorite action films, and I felt there was no way this film was going to be able to reach the bar set by them.  It's fair to mention that this film didn't reach that bar, but was still a pretty good action film.  "The Bourne Legacy" manages to stand on it's own, even if it's not a stand-out film like any of its predecessors.  As long as you're not trying to hold this film to the standards of the previous installments, I don't think anyone would view this as a let-down.

3.5 / 5 - Theatre

Fletch Lives - 1989

"Fletch Lives" - 1989
Dir. by Michael Ritchie - 1 hr. 35 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

Fletch may live, but save Chevy Chase playing the lead character, this film doesn't have a ton in common with the first film.  And the things that it does share, I kind of wish that it didn't.  "Fletch Lives" is a sequel to "Fletch," and carries over having the main character dressing up in disguise and giving outlandish names, as well as a tone that undermines the detective story angle of the films.

We find Fletch (Chevy Chase) in the middle of another undercover investigation, this time in an Italian restaurant that appears to be funneling mob money (these things aren't very clear, nor is the reason why Fletch, a writer for a Los Angeles newspaper, is doing the sort of thing that the police ought to be doing).  After getting the evidence he needs and returning to the office, Fletch discovers that he's inherited an estate in Louisiana from a long-lost relative.  He immediately quits and heads south to claim his property.  Unfortunately, he finds himself under pressure and in the middle of some larger plan designed to separate Fletch from his property.

Good detective series make you want to return to a specific world, and having completely failed to establish a world that anyone would want to re-visit in the first installment, most of "Fletch Lives" is set in a small Louisiana town.  This is a step in the right direction - at least, this provides a cast of very specific characters to play off of that don't require a lot of explanation.  Although Los Angeles could provide the same, that wasn't taken advantage of in the first film.  Here, before Fletch even at Belle Isle, he has a "Song of the South"-type dream sequence while flying there, complete with animated animals.  Once in Louisiana, there's a band of inept Ku Klux Klan members, slow-talking, gentlemanly lawyers, good ol' boys, lazy help, bikers, holy rollers...  everything you'd find in a Lego "Southern Living" starter kit.  That's okay, this is slightly more comedy than detective story, so comedic tropes help out matters.

Also, "Fletch Lives" takes a half-step in the right direction regarding the tone of the film.  It's still not successful, and I think that Chase's portrayal of Fletch as just becoming a little more dickish when under pressure doesn't work, but the other characters have a little more room to breathe.  A couple of them actually get the chance to run with the ball - R. Lee Ermey plays Reverend Jimmy Lee Farnsworth (a Jim Bakker stand-in, and released the same year as "Full Metal Jacket," which blows my mind), and Randall "Tex" Cobb plays a hirsute thug who introduces himself by letting Fletch know that he's in jail for "molesting a dead horse."  And Cleavon Little has a decent role as the apparently dim-witted Calculus Entropy.  The Fletch character plays a lot better when people are able to either play along or against him, and it's a shame that nobody figured that out until film #2 in the series.  Also, by embracing a running joke (the brakes on Fletch's inherited pink Cadillac don't work, so he always ends up stopping by running into something inanimate), it's clearer that we're meant to laugh (and not take Fletch's seeming unawareness of danger at face value).

I think that "Fletch Lives" is a better film than "Fletch."  The funniest material is light years ahead of the highs of the first film (the Bibleland material in particular), and I wasn't as actively annoyed by the problems with the second film, either.  But it's still not a good film.  As a comedy, it's okay at best, and as a detective story, there's little suspense.  I don't know if it's a script issue or an acting issue, but the fact that Chase as Fletch never seems the slightest bit concerned about whatever is hanging over his head doesn't play as a devil-may-care attitude, it simply undercuts all dramatic tension (and not in service of anything else more important, either).  If a guy's got the opportunity to dress up as a maid or with false teeth, why would an audience care about anything, either?  Fletch clearly doesn't take anyone else seriously, but in a way that removes the villains' fangs.  Seeing as how both director and star made the same mistake in two films running, it looks more like a mutual inability to tell this sort of story than a fluke.

2 / 5 - TV

Fletch - 1985

"Fletch" - 1985
Dir. by Michael Ritchie - 1 hr. 38 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

A serious question: how much do you dock a movie for not aging particularly well?  I guess that's not even entirely accurate, it's more of a question of whether one should take into account when a film was made, even if that means forgiving some things that seem really, really goofy in the present day?  I know that not every film is going to age well (particularly comedies), but the development over the last twenty-seven years of this particular type of comedy character kind of makes "Fletch" look rudimentary.

Irwin "Fletch" Fletcher (Chevy Chase) is a newspaper reporter, currently undercover on the beaches of Los Angeles, trying to crack open a story about who is pushing drugs on the beaches.  "Fletch" is a pseudo-detective story (the tone is supposed to be funny, not dire), so he's constantly clashing with his boss, drives a beat-up shit-wagon, is hounded by his ex-wife's lawyer for past-due alimony, is threatened by the police chief (Joe Don Baker), and quickly gets dragged into a scheme, where a rich businessman hires Fletch to murder him (it's an insurance scam).  Since this is a comedy primarily, it's worth mentioning that Fletch's shtick is to don disguises, offer up false names, and motor-mouth his way through every situation.

Before I get into my problems with "Fletch," let's throw a little praise.  It's a fast-paced comedy, and the plot actually works to propel the film from beginning to end (instead of wrapping everything up in the last fifteen minutes after spending the previous hour-plus ignoring the plot).  Also, there's a few familiar faces here and there, like Geena Davis and George Wendt, which is part of the fun of watching non-contemporary films.  More fun - seeing what Los Angeles looked like a bunch of years ago.

I don't want to imply that "Fletch" doesn't work, exactly.  It's just that, in the intervening years, the comedic crux of this film has been, shall we say, borrowed, and to better effect.  If you want to watch someone dress in costumes and play different characters, why not enjoy Roger (the alien) from "American Dad?"  If you want to watch a smart-ass detective bluff his way through solving crimes, perhaps "Psych" would be a good TV show to watch.  And to the point, "Psych" is a superior evolution to "Fletch."  Having a main character to play off of makes the difference between two friends playing and one person big-footing everyone in sight.  Here, it felt like Chevy Chase was delivering at least eighty-percent of the film's dialogue.  Largely, the other characters don't matter; they're all drowned out by Fletch's incessant chattering.  Perhaps that's the point, though.

At the time "Fletch" was released, Chevy Chase was a big comedy star, and no doubt the humor would have played better.  Age has taken it's toll on that aspect, changing what was probably viewed as a glib film into one that feels a bit desperate.  Desperate in the sense that Chase's character is being hounded on all sides, and his non-stop repartee feels like an attempt to keep any of it from sinking in.  If he can't hear anything but his own voice, then the rest of it isn't really real.  Even the romance sub-plot doesn't give off any sparks, because Fletch is too busy trying to make everyone else look stupid for not knowing who Ted Nugent is, for instance.  With everything else in his life in shambles, being a little smarter than everyone else is all that Fletch has left to hang on to.  I've found this when watching other older comedies: once the humor fades away, what's left is an entirely different film.

And how about those things that are really dated, and kind of detract from the experience of watching "Fletch?"  I'll stick with two: opening/ending credits, and the soundtrack.  I'm sure at the time, the synthesizer soundtrack didn't sound out of place, but let me assure you, it's not only out of place, but really awful, too.  It keeps popping back up in transition shots, trying to remind you that, ha ha, this is a comedy!  But since a lot of the humor has been eroded by time, it works against the film that a current audience would see.  And in a related issue, the film begins with a bad 1980s synth-pop song running over a black screen, while what feels like the entire cast's credits run.  Instead of starting off with a bang, it would be easy for someone to think that someone else had forgotten to rewind the VHS tape before they returned it, and that you were at the end of the movie.  And the end credits?  Have you ever wanted to see the credits run over a series of still shots of Chevy Chase mugging from all of the scenes throughout "Fletch?"  If so, you're in luck.  I mean, that's what you'll get to see, not that it's awesome, or anything other than unbearable.

I had a fond recollection of "Fletch," but upon this re-watching, it's apparent that Chevy Chase could have used a little help along the way with this one.  But he has no one to play off of, no one really gets the chance to do more than be the straw men that they need to be in order for the story to play out.  It's not as if "Fletch" is horrible or anything, but there are certainly better Chevy Chase films out there.

2 / 5 - TV

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure - 1989

"Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" - 1989
Dir. by Stephen Herek - 1 hr. 30 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

Your mileage might vary wildly on this one, but I think that "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" is one of the best comedies of its era.  Part of that might because the timing was right for me, but I've found this film to be endlessly re-watchable (and laugh-out-loud funny every time).  There's a high probability that something contained within is going to trip up one of your pet peeves, but it would be a good idea to take Bill S. Preston, Esquire, and Ted "Theodore" Logan's advice: be excellent to one another, and party on, dude.

Bill (Alex Winter) and Ted (Keanu Reeves) are a pair of dim-witted, yet good-natured high school seniors from San Dimas, California who aren't even good at the things that they're supposed to be good at.  They're fully committed to turning Wyld Stallyns into a legendary band, but their practices are derailed by a debate over whether they need to make an awesome video first, which will then lure Eddie Van Halen into teaching them how to play guitar, or if they need to get Eddie Van Halen to teach them to play guitar, which will then result in a triumphant video. Bill and Ted are also, barring a miracle, about to flunk out of school, which means that Ted will be sent to a military academy, and Wyld Stallyns will come to an end.  In what has to be on the shortest list of greatest highdeas of all-time, Rufus (George Carlin) is sent back from the future with a time-travelling phone booth, which Bill and Ted are to use to collect historical figures, who will be used to deliver a history report that will save their educations (as well as the world, since Wyld Stallyns music is supposed to be a catalyst for achieving world peace).

Bill and Ted aren't the first pair of perma-stoned dimwits to show up in cinema (and they never actually address or use drugs of any kind), but they perfectly embody falling into success.  They go with the flow, and  both Reeves and Winter had to spend time in their careers living down these characters; an indication that they both really nailed the parts.  The characters kind of know what to do, do it not particularly well, and still end up bumbling into a better spot by the time things have wrapped up.  The fact that they're both so inept and so free of malice makes it a lot easier to root for them along the way.

But just because the main characters (and the setting itself, San Dimas) are kind of dopey and unaware of their surroundings, that doesn't mean that this is a dumb movie.  A constant refrain of elders is complaining about where kids get their information from.  But instead of viewing that as a bad thing, this film assumes that there really are people who think that Julius Caesar is the "salad dressing dude," and drops some legit historical figures in a decidedly not-reverent setting.  Each of the historical figures stays true at least to what you might think of them: Napolean is a dick, Socrates is eager to learn, Abraham Lincoln won't tell a lie, even when nobody believes him.  And if you dropped all of these people in a mall, why wouldn't Joan of Arc end up commandeering an aerobics class?  Why wouldn't Genghis Khan find a sporting good store, and arm himself a little better?  All of this might not add up to a doctorate thesis, but someone knew enough to pick entertaining characters, throw them together, and keep them straight.

One more thing about the... uh... demeanor of Bill and Ted.  This film was made at a particular time and place, when Nancy Reagan was shouting "just say no" from the hilltops.  So, while Spicoli from "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" had no problem being very clear about his medicinal preferences a few years prior, Bill and Ted borrow the behavior and avoid addressing the issues.  You can see the same sort of phenomenon from the "Wayne's World" movies, too.  Fast-forward a few years, and you get more transparency on this issue as well.  In this instance though, I don't mind it.  There's one simple reason: "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" is a very tight, tightly-paced film.  If you have seen films like the "Harold and Kumar" series, the drug scenes can derail things.  They're used almost like a love scene would be used in a drama film, and there's no time for that in "Bill & Ted."  Also, often times, when portraying somewhat aimless characters, there's a tendency to let the plot drift as well, which absolutely doesn't happen here.  Bill and Ted have a goal, they have steps to take to achieve that goal, do so, someone's funny in every scene, and then the film is over.  Even the love story is another function of the main idea behind the film, that of the time-travelling phone booth.

For me, "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" is a superficially dopey, clever, tight comedy.  It doesn't aim for darkness (like "Heathers," a much darker then-contemporary high-school comedy), but jabs are thrown (like with the jock who didn't put much of a report together, finishes with "San Dimas High School football rules," and gets a standing ovation for it).  So many of the plot twists are absurd, so a viewer either has to accept that or move on to another film.  But there's a self-awareness to the absurdity, a kind of wink to the audience that they're all in on the joke together.  It adds up to a brisk, funny film that I've watched probably dozens of times (I wore out two admittedly cheaply-produced VHS tapes of this film), and which never gets old.

4.5 / 5 - DVD

Hit and Run - 2012

"Hit and Run" - 2012
Dir. by Dax Shepard and David Palmer - 1 hr. 40 min.

Official Red Band Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

So, if you had the opportunity to make a film that you wrote, directed, and starred in, and got to cast your (beautiful actress) girlfriend as your love interest, and have the main bad guy wear a bizarre set of dreadlocks, you'd probably go for it, right?  Also, let me include a parade of pretty sweet cars.  And also included in this deal are some pretty funny character actors to round things out.  That's a movie I'd make, at least.  And Dax Shepard managed to make all of this happen, which sounds like a pretty sweet deal for him.

The results aren't bad, either.  Shepard stars as Charlie Bronson, who is in the Witness Protection Program, has been dating Annie Bean (Kristen Bell), a motormouth college professor, for a year.  They live in the boonies of California, and Charlie is being protected by a borderline inept Federal Agent Randy Anderson (Tom Arnold).  When Annie gets a job offer that is ridiculously tailored to her skills, it comes with the caveat that it's at a university in Los Angeles, which happens to be the city that Charlie has fled.  And from there, hilarity ensues.

First off, there's a lot of funny dialogue in this film.  It's not really a slapsticky comedy, although you might be forgiven for expecting a little bit of that.  One of the appealing things in "Hit and Run" is watching a real-life couple chirp at each other good-naturedly (mostly).  Both Shepard and Bell are pretty funny, and their hyper-speed psychobabble exchanges are good.  One important thing here: every character believes they're right about whatever they're doing.  Tom Arnold's character might be constantly on the verge of a nervous breakdown, but he's trying really hard.  Bradley Cooper's character (the dread-locked Alex Dmitri) might be overreacting, but then again, all things considered, he might not be.  And even Charlie sees Alex's point after he drops a bombshell on him late in the film.

So while there isn't a ton in "Hit and Run" that's brand new (unless you really want to see a real lemon party on the big screen - that's in the trailer, so it's not much of a spoiler), it seems like the people involved had a good time, had good reason to have a good time, and the film itself is a good time.  And it's also got a pretty decent soundtrack, which is worth mentioning.  You probably already know whether or not you want to go see a film starring Dax Shepard (and his fingerprints are all over every aspect of this film).  I did, and wasn't let down.

3 / 5 - Theatre

The Expendables 2 - 2012

"The Expendables 2" - 2012
Dir. by Simon West - 1 hr. 43 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

I don't know how something can be both satisfying and frustrating at the same time, but "The Expendables 2" manages to achieve both.  I don't know how you juggle so many ingredients, while simultaneously having so many actors that probably can't carry this type of film at this point successfully, but I'd argue that this film just barely succeeds at that.

Plot?  Well, have you ever wanted to see like every action star ever in one film, teaming up against evil?  Of course you do.  This time, Barney Ross' (Sylvester Stallone) crew is lured into chasing down a macguffin, which is hijacked by Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme) and his crew, the Sangs.  When one of the Expendables proves to be exactly that, Barney has a new goal: "Track 'em, find 'em, kill 'em."  And stuff blows up.  That part is pretty important, too.

The only other film that I've seen (which admittedly isn't a comprehensive list) that deals with the idea of aging action stars is "Red," and that proved to be a hit as well.  And while that film was more clever, the entire point of "The Expendables" films is overkill.  There's nothing clever about dozens of heads exploding, about gathering possibly too many stars in one film, or about the execution of the ideas within.  What "The Expendables 2" does have is a level of self-awareness.  It's not for me to say whether it's too much or not, but for folks of a certain vintage, it's pretty awesome to have Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis stealing each other's famous lines back and forth.  And if you've ever heard a "Chuck Norris is so tough that..." joke, you'll appreciate his role here.

In terms of the action, it's not bad at all.  The opening sequence, where the Expendables free a prisoner from a Nepal prison via invasion, is really good.  And the end sequence, where the Expendables face off with the Sang in an airport, is also good.  One valid question going is how these guys look physically; are they still the same action stars you remember, and can they still move convincingly?  That part's a mixed bag.  Instead of harping on the negative and whatever cosmetic enhancements are on display, I'll just offer up that Jet Li's fight sequence is excellent, and that Jean-Claude Van Damme still has the athleticism and swagger that made him a star.  I kind of feel like Van Damme might get more roles on the basis of his performance here; he's really believable as a dickish villain (I swear that's a compliment), and he could probably get more mileage from that ability in a less-crowded film.

So where's the disappointment come from?  I feel like the "Expendables" movies have all the tools at their disposal to make a really great film.  Not a decent one, not a pretty good one, but a straight-up great action film.  This film certainly delivers everything you'd expect going in: the explosions, the gun fights, the muscles, the tough-guy banter.  And it doesn't rest on nostalgia as the draw - the filmmakers certainly tip their hat when appropriate, but this isn't a sentimental victory lap for a generation of action stars.  Twice now, we've gotten good-ish films (you'll appreciate them more if you grew up on this sort of thing).  I want more out of this franchise.  Maybe that's not fair, and I should just accept that this is the sort of thing I'm going to get out these actors at this point in their careers.  It feels like something more is tantalizingly just out of reach.  If there's a third installment, I'll be there.  I hope that that film would be the one to finally knock it out of the park.

3 / 5 - Theatre

Ted - 2012

"Ted" - 2012
Dir. by Seth MacFarlane - 1 hr. 46 min.

Official Red Band Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

I go back and forth on my opinion of Seth MacFarlane and his work.  There have been times where I eagerly watch whatever he's responsible for, and there are times where I despise his work (for a variety of reasons, which I will address later).  But ultimately, you have to take someone and their work for what it is, and not what you wish it was, nor what it could be.  With most of MacFarlane's work, including "Ted," that ends up making the results something of a mixed bag.

John Bennett is an unpopular kid, and during a particularly stressful period of time makes a wish that his teddy bear was alive so that he would have at least one friend.  This wish comes true, Ted (the bear, voiced by MacFarlane) becomes famous (understandably so), and then gets forgotten.  Fast-forward to the modern day, and John (Mark Wahlberg) is working at a rental car agency, inexplicably has been dating Lori (Mila Kunis) for four years, and still hangs out with his teddy bear.  Unfortunately, the bear (and John) have developed some counterproductive habits, which is getting in the way of John and Lori's relationship.  This means that Ted has to move out on his own.

Here's the thing: formulas are formulas because they work.  It would be supremely easy to describe this film in terms of what it rips off.  There's MacFarlane's own work (a cutesy, debauched prominent character, like "American Dad's" Roger or "The Family Guy's" Brian), and there's that probably eighty percent of the plot is from "Clerks."  Seth MacFarlane didn't invent this wheel, but he does make it feel like it's one of his wheels.  If you were to describe "Ted" as three episodes of "The Family Guy" in tone and plot, you wouldn't be far off (part of this is using actors that he's familiar with, like Kunis, Patrick Warburton, a voice-over by Patrick Stewart, or even seeing characters from his shows have cameos, like Ted doing a Stewie voice, or the almost English-fluent club guy).  But, while the lack of originality is sometimes infuriating, this is what a Seth MacFarlane product is going to look, sound, and feel like.  At this point, you're either on board or not, and neither view is going to make one whit of difference.

Once you've accepted that MacFarlane is not the sort of creative force who tries to continually re-invent himself (and after a decade-plus of "The Family Guy," you should have arrived at that conclusion by now), then you have to look at the film in question and decide whether this is a good Seth MacFarlane project or not.  In terms of other cartoon directors who have made the jump to feature films, "Ted" is better than "The Simpsons" film, but not as good as any of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's post-"South Park" films.  It probably falls in the middle of Mike Judge's oeuvre; better than "Beavis and Butt-Head Do America," but not as good as any of his live-action films.  "Ted" is a funny film from people who are talented at what they do, and I enjoyed it.  I don't think that it was particularly ambitious, but then again, that's asking for something that isn't usually present in MacFarlane films.

I am aware that I keep hammering on the fact that pretty much everything to do with "Ted" has to be judged on Seth MacFarlane himself, but when you write, direct, and voice-act one of the lead characters in a film, who else to judge it by?  I'd suggest that if you like R-rated comedies, you could do worse than this one.  It's an opportunity to put a few things that Fox won't let MacFarlane normally do (full-on swearing and boobies, for example) into a film, and if you're a fan of the man responsible for "Ted," it's worth checking out.  Just be aware that, for good or bad, if you're familiar with his work, "Ted" is exactly what you think it's going to be, no more, no less.

3 / 5 - Theatre