Johnny’s a street crimes cop in New Orleans sent to help out homicide with a string of brutal burnt-alive executions. By coincidence the whole thing centers around his old friend Colin (Sean Patrick Flanery), who he knew was in some kind of trouble, but he didn’t know it was gonna be this. I guess since Johnny’s on thin ice with internal affairs anyway he doesn’t bother recusing himself from the case.

Alot of recent DTV movies have been filmed in New Orleans because of the tax breaks, but this is the rare one that really needs it for the theme of the movie. I noticed a hint of left wing politics in director William Kaufman’s THE HIT LIST, where a screwed-over war veteran snaps after watching an anti-gay marriage editorial on cable. Here it’s even stronger. This is a movie for these times – Bush is gone, but the effects of his era still linger. Parts of New Orleans are still a hellscape of dilapidated, spray-painted, abandoned homes. Soldiers and mercenaries are back home from Bush’s wars, but hardly back to civilian life. They’re fighting over evidence of their war crimes – “evil, evil stuff” Flanery says (although the tape we see later is standard shootings and not the fucked up Abu Ghraib type shit his description conjures in your mind).

Costas Mandylor (with a big scar on his face) is the heavy, and I was happy to see Bas Rutten, one of my favorite MMA personalities, in a rare movie role as one of his henchmen. At first it seems like he’s just gonna be wasted as a standard Bald Guy With Accent Standing Behind Bad Guy, but toward the end he gets to be real mean and do a small amount of pummeling. Strong actually slams Bas (yeah, right) and then does some moves on knife-wielding guys that suggest either Rutten helped with the choreography or Johnny’s seen his self defense video. I’m still waiting for the role that takes advantage of Rutten’s craziness and sense of humor, but this is better than nothing.

Method Man (credited under the silly pseudonym “Clifford ‘Method Man’ Smith”) has a small but excellent role as a feared gang leader. He has a freaky Two Face type disfigurement and gets to seethe with anger, reminding me of the scary pre-deodorant-commercials-with-Redman Method Man of the early Wu-Tang records. Good for him – he gets alot of roles, but usually not very good ones.

Tom Berenger plays the chief, who actually gives him sincere advice instead of yelling at him. The chief shakes his head in disgust at a Picayune headline that says “Baghdad on the Bayou.” I’m glad he didn’t see the opening credits, which intercut footage from the war with footage from the flood. These characters are still at war – even the cop who’s not a veteran might as well be after what he goes through. At the end there’s a typical situation where Johnny could take the bad guy in, but is about to shoot him instead. Just when you expect the straight-laced partner to say “Don’t do it!” he says, “Finish him!” like it’s MORTAL KOMBAT. Afterward he’s shaken, and Johnny gives him PTSD advice.

I prefer THE HIT LIST for its great premise and the tight structure it lends itself to, but Kaufman is definitely one to look out for. This is a pretty standard type of cop thriller but with a strong mood and texture that make it work as an explanation of its time and place. Even as DTV movies start to improve you can’t really say that about most of them.

Anyway, I figure Johnny Strong is ready for his FAST AND THE FURIOUS sequel.

Carano (if you haven’t seen her real fights maybe you saw her cameo in BLOOD AND BONE) plays Mallory Kane, an experienced operative for a private contractor who does covert missions rescuing hostages and shit like that. She begins the movie having, you know, like… a disagreement with her colleague Channing Tatum (FIGHTING), and then she flashes back through the story of how she got doublecrossed as she hauls ass in a commandeered vehicle, headed to settle the score with her boss/ex-boyfriend (Ewan McGregor).

The other agents and bosses include Michael Fassbender, Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas and Mathieu Kassovitz. The fights are choreographed by J.J. Perry (UNDISPUTED II) and are the clear highlight of the movie. We’re seeing alot of MMA-inspired submission holds in action movies these days, but not usually with this kind of blunt efficiency. It almost reminds me of seeing Seagal’s early movies the first time because the fights are so quick and dirty and the hits look and sound so hard. You know I love elaborate, stylized Shaw Brothers type numbers. This is the opposite of that, but it’s another great approach. These characters are very professional. It always seems like they really are trying to subdue their opponent as quickly as possible, not trying to show off. No time for sadism or to stop and say a line of dialogue. The lack of music and the not-too-exaggerated sound effects also add to the sense of realism. Sometimes I felt like an eyewitness. Uh, hey guys… break it up?

Mallory’s also Seagal-esque in her total domination of foes (all male), but she’s not as indestructible. She tends to get knocked around at first, which makes it great when there are witnesses. It’s like, oh no, look at this fuckin woman beater, he’s gonna seriously hur– oh, shit. What is she doing to him? She’s not quite The Terminator. She sports a number of bruises and cuts throughout the movie.

Soderbergh, thank God, agrees with us about the sad state of action filmatism. I’m happy to report that he lives up to his word, taking advantage of Carano’s skills by not shooting too close up and by doing lots of long takes. And he mostly avoid handheld cameras. Check out this behind the scenes photo where you can glimpse some sort of crazy next-gen technology they’re using that actually holds the camera for them:

Can you believe that!? I think it’s used to move the camera smoothly or possibly to hold it still and, like, point it at stuff. Kinda hard to wrap your mind around. It’ll be interesting to see if other directors decide to start using this technology. I have also heard that tripods have been invented. (not verified)

I was writing somewhere else about how crazy it is that Soderbergh wanting to shoot the fights clearly is a major selling point mentioned in all the interviews, articles and reviews. I believe as recently as 10 years ago this would’ve seemed ridiculous to even mention. At that time it would be considered basic filmatistic competence, now it’s rare enough that it’s considered a novelty. Still, I think these fights would stand out even if we were in a better era for action movies. It’s true that they’re refreshingly against the grain, but they’re also just plain good.

As long as I’m using Seagalogical comparisons I should say that this is most like the Golden Era Seagal works, where the action is more street-level violence, hand-to-hand scuffles, and less guns, car stunts or CGI. They hired Carano because of her Muay Thai and her MMA, so it would be stupid to waste a bunch of time acting like she’s a champion sharpshooter. But she is on the run so they do give her a couple really exciting foot and car chases, the car ones mainly shot from inside, reminding me of parts I loved in CHILDREN OF MEN, THE DRIVER and UNIVERSAL SOLDIER: REGENERATION. You feel like if she crashes you’re going through the windshield.

One little detail I noticed that illustrates Soderbergh’s respect for clear filmatism is during a foot chase. The camera is looking down on Mallory running. There’s a traffic light or something hanging between us and the street, but as Mallory turns she arcs right around it so that our view of her is never blocked. Almost as if they, like, planned the shot in advance.

I think all the fights are done without music, but alot of the other scenes are heavily score driven, another great one by David Holmes. It’s reminiscent of OUT OF SIGHT with its driving basslines, super-tight drums and eerie electric pianos, but with horns in more of a Lalo Schifrin style. Very GET CARTER with maybe a drop or two of James Bond.

I guess some people have claimed that Carano’s acting is weak. I completely disagree, I didn’t notice a single poor line delivery or anything like that. But even if she wasn’t as good I think that complaints like that are missing the entire reason for this movie to exist. By casting a fighter to act Soderbergh is offering an alternative to the usual practice of casting an actor to fight. Compare Carano in HAYWIRE to Angelina Jolie – an Academy Award winning (and 2-time SAG winning, and 3-time Golden Globe winning) actress who I like – playing a very similar character in SALT. Jolie’s fine in the movie, but does she carry herself as convincingly as a woman who knows how to handle herself in a fight, in a double-cross, in a chase? Does she look like she’s the one doing the fighting and running and jumping? Does she move on screen in ways that are as interesting, as badass? Of course not. If somebody prefers the Academy Award winning actor’s version of this character it’s a free country but still, you gotta be fuckin kidding me. If Carano’s acting was weak it would be worth the sacrifice.

I mean, I don’t think Tony Jaa’s a very good actor, but I bet his version of ONG BAK is better than the version with, say, Viggo Mortensen would be. Although I would definitely watch that. Actually, maybe that’s a bad example. You know what, there’s room for both. Let’s have both.

Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal liked HAYWIRE, but in his final paragraph as he compliments Carano for being “very much at home in a strong cast” he writes, “It remains to be seen whether Ms. Carano’s star presence will take her beyond action roles, but she’s certainly appealing in this one…” I’m sure he didn’t mean anything by it, but it’s a funny attitude that people have, as if for some reason Carano would’ve done this movie in hopes of eventually getting enough experience to be in a period drama or a romantic comedy or something. Like you do a genre movie as an audition for “real” movies “beyond action roles.” The truth is it’s usually the other way around. You do an amazing dramatic performance and then you’re allowed to play a super hero or super villain (see: Eric Bana, Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hardy, etc.) In fact, most of the respected supporting cast here had to do years of “beyond action roles” before they would ever be cast in something like this.

But I’m sure Morgenstern would agree that it would be a waste of Carano’s gifts if she tried to do non-fighting roles. At least wait until your body’s getting frail, like Jackie Chan.

I like most of Soderbergh’s movies, and even the ones I don’t love are almost always an admirable attempt at something interesting. Who else can do both an upbeat studio movie starring George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and Julia Roberts, and a micro-budget partially improvised experiment starring a lady he found working at a KFC? And seem to be passionate about both? He’s the only one. I love his broad range of interests, but of course my favorite movies by him are the ones where he tries to combine his commercial entertainer instincts with his thoughtful artist ones. My favorite from him is still the one that balances those the best, OUT OF SIGHT. It manages to be broadly entertaining, funny, romantic and joyful, but also a little bit mournful and contemplative. Like Elmore Leonard.

I think HAYWIRE is aimed for that same balance, but tips closer to THE LIMEY and what I consider Arthouse Badass. I’d like to think it could win over a wide audience like DRIVE did, but it didn’t seem to work on the middle aged couple who talked through pretty much the entire movie, or the two little kids that some lady brought. (The kids were quieter than the adults, but afterwards one reported “I didn’t like that movie that much.”) I figure they might not like the way both story and character are more implied and referred to than spelled out. In the opening we don’t really know what they’re talking about, as the events happen they’re a little confusing, eventually the explanation is pretty simple. But it’s kind of like the “Rabbit’s Foot” in MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE 3: it doesn’t really matter that much specifically why they’re after her. It just matters that she finds out. And hopefully beats some dudes up.

Same goes for the character of Mallory Kane. I mean, you know I would enjoy it if there was a “Just How Badass Is She?” line in here somewhere. But I like that they don’t waste our time with some dumb backstory. Tatum tries to guess one, but (like the one the Joker tells in DARK KNIGHT) it’s probly bullshit. If you need one, just make some shit up, it would’ve been like 2 or 3 lines of dialogue and you would’ve been happy. “You might think I joined the service because of my dad. The truth is, he was never there for me. Always off fighting some battle, even after he came home. I got into alot of trouble. Burglary, car theft. Eventually I took it too far, almost got killed, got locked up instead. There were two ways I could’ve gotten another chance: from Jesus, or from The Marines. I chose the Marines.”

Blah blah blah, why do we need to know that? We know Mallory Kane through what she knows: how to avoid being tracked, where to hide, when to surrender, how to relate to cops. We know she was in the Marines, and isn’t anymore. We see what her dad does, what he’s willing to do for her, and also the look on his face when he sees what she does. But even that’s pretty ambiguous – I read a little bit of fear, and then a little pride, but I wasn’t entirely sure.

Actually the father-daughter relationship is one thing that’s similar to OUT OF SIGHT, where Karen Sisco’s ex-cop dad seems to be her best friend. But Bill Paxton’s alot younger than Dennis Farina, or Terence Stamp. Man, we’re getting old. Game over, man.

Now that I think about it I don’t remember any explosions in the movie. That’s weird. Maybe that’s why they don’t like it. Explosions are important. There’s also a major sequence early on that’s done kind of like a music video, with people talking but we don’t hear it. Nothing too challenging but you know how people are. Sometimes they’re disappointed if they don’t get exactly what they expected, exactly what they got last time. Do something even slightly off-kilter and you might get sued.

I don’t think it’s as extreme as what happened with THE AMERICAN, but based on the Rotten Tomatoes computer machine HAYWIRE seems to be well liked by critics and not liked by “audiences.” Therefore I’m afraid I shouldn’t dream about the Mallory Kane series of movies that should so obviously happen. Soderbergh has said he plans to retire soon, and also that he did everything he wanted to do in an action movie with this one and can’t see himself doing another one unless he thought of something new. But I think it would be great if he stayed on as a producer and helped other cool directors to take the character in different (but still clearly photographed) directions.

I mean if he really wanted a WRATH OF KANE or a LONG LIVE THE KANE I’m sure he could do it DTV if he had to. That wouldn’t be that much different from what he did with BUBBLE and THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE, which were released on DVD the same day as theaters.

Oh well, I’m happy we at least got this one. That alone is a miracle. It’s just so random that he happened to see Gina Carano on TV and then remembered her when his version of MONEYBALL fell apart and he kinda felt like doing a spy movie. If Soderbergh DVRd or Hulued everything he wouldn’t even have known who she was to make a movie about her. Thank you, TVs and remote controls. I owe you one.

.

.

.

(Note: I think this is the fight Soderbergh saw, or at least it’s the one she’d just had before he met her. She didn’t want to go because she still had a black eye.)

The Stath puts together a team and starts his series of tricks and ambushes of the Brits on his hit list. They have to be clever about it because they have to first get a videotaped confession, then kill them but have it look like an accident. That’s hard enough, but another ex-S.A.S. guy who’s not on the list (Clive Owen) stumbles across their suspicious snooping and starts interfering with their whole plot. So there are some fights, some car chases, some guns.

I like how the posters and the DVD/blu-ray cover tell you the most important thing you need to know: these are some guys that wear sunglasses and shoot guns. But they leave off my favorite member of the sunglass-wearing/gun-shooting team: Dominic Purcell, believe it or not, in a role a little better than I’ve seen him in before. He wears a ridiculous mustache and sideburns well and they adapt organically into his disguises as he fakes a couple different nationalities. (Nobody buys his Welsh, though.) He has a really good comedic moment where he’s on a beach with his gut hanging out and fakes an ice cream cone accident to cover letting the air out of a tire.

Owen’s part is interesting because if they edited the scenes in a different order he would be the good guy. Statham and team are introduced first, so we identify with them, but they’re guilty of the exact same kind of murders these S.A.S. guys are being avenged for (”I’m just glad I never did a raghead,” Purcell says – a racist way of admitting that they could easily be the ones on the list). In his circle Owen is the perceptive one who figures out there’s a plot afoot, and that nobody will listen to. He even gets set up to take a fall for them – the whole hero thing. He could be Tom Cruise in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE. He’s totally the good guy.

He does have a mustache though, that’s the only thing that really makes him evil. He has a glass eye too, but you notice the mustache first.

One detail I like is the tension between Clive and the emerging punk culture in Britain. In one scene he’s in a bar and some punks turn on the juke box while he’s trying to watch a news report about a dead soldier. He yells at them for having no respect. In a funnier scene a crazy old ex-S.A.S. guy beats the shit out of four skinheads for keying his car.

I’m happy to report that this doesn’t have all the dull trappings of modern action. There is some color in it, some sunshine, some variation in locations. Some of the face-to-face fights are a little shaky, but overall the action is pretty old fashioned workmanlike, for better or worse. There are some suspenseful sequences (like when they gotta force two other vehicles into an accident) and some good moves (bread loaf silencer, tied-to-chair-flip, tunnel chase hornet’s nest elbow [done by Ben Mendelsohn, the most evil guy from ANIMAL KINGDOM]).

DeNiro’s a prisoner for most of the movie but does manage to be involved in a couple big shoot outs and later has a scene where he uses his charm to keep Statham’s girl (Yvonne Strahovski) from panicking. Like the movie itself this mentor character is not exactly one of the greats, but is pretty likable. I like how he calls 44 year old Statham “kid” or “kiddo” all the time, and how he decides he has to go back to get his watch during an escape attempt.

This KILLER ELITE has nothing to do with the Sam Peckinpah movie THE KILLER ELITE. It’s adapted from a 1991 book called “The Feather Men” by Ralph and Joseph Fiennes’s third cousin Sir Ranulph Fiennes. That sounds made up, but it’s true. That’s the guy’s name and he really is related to them. The book was promoted as non-fiction even though the words “FACT OR FICTION?” were on the cover and that seems to be sort of a self answering question. You wouldn’t put that on the cover of “Angela’s Ashes.” From summaries of the book it sounds like it’s different from the movie in that the assassinations take place over 17 years, and Clive Owen probly is the good guy. His group are called “The Feather Men” and they save Sir Fiennes from being killed by what would be Statham’s group, “The Clinic.” In the movie I guess his character is one of the ones that gets killed. The text at the end still claims it’s a true story, so maybe out of spite Fiennes now says it was all made up.

Anyway, KILLER ELITE’s not bad. You could do worse. I guess it made sense to put Statham in the remake of THE MECHANIC because he really is putting together a body of work that in a way makes him the closest thing we have to a modern Charles Bronson. Or at least a white Jim Brown. He just needs some more DEATH WISHes under his belt. But he’s got a bunch of THE EVIL THAT MEN DOs.

I forgot all about it after Michael Jai White’s NEVER BACK DOWN 2, but the star of part 1, Sean Faris, looks and acts an awful lot like Tom Cruise. But FREERUNNER is pretty low-rent for Tom Cruise even when he was younger. It’s not good, but it’s not the usual type of churned-out-dispassionately bad DTV, it’s more of a scrappy independent we-gotta-get-this-shot-somehow production. It’s artisan crap.

The Channing Tatum one sounds like it was gonna be a POINT BREAK or THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS knockoff but with the bank robbers doing parkour. This one is more of a BATTLE ROYALE/THE CONDEMNED/DEATH RACE type of formula. Whatsisdick plays a guy who competes in an illegal parkour race organized by a dangerous British dude (he says “wanker” alot) and backed by online betting. He has a hot club singer girlfriend, a hacker friend and a dream to move somewhere on the ocean. So he comes up with a plan to secretly bet all his money on himself (for some reason that’s not allowed) and then he would just have to win the race. What a scam. Then he would take the money and run (and climb walls and jump off stuff I guess). So it’s kind of a weird idea for a parkoursploitation movie – it’s all about dreaming of getting out. They never did that with breakdancing. One last headspin, and then I’m retired for good. I guess somebody needs to do the breakdancing-to-the-death movie. I’d watch that.

About 35 minutes in the plot switches up. Since the movie is sloppy it doesn’t come off like a narrative trick, it just seems like they got sick of the first premise and decided to start a new one. Now the racers get abducted mid-race and a different bad guy forces them to compete in a different illegal race where they have to wear explosive collars like BATTLE ROYALE. The first place winner gets a cash prize, everybody else gets blowed up. All the action is hosted by a blond Access Hollywood type hostess. It’s funny that these evil rich people could find some model-turned-TV-presenter who’s willing to joke around about people’s deaths. Then she exposes her tits, so they must’ve just hired a porn star I guess.

The movie seems weirdly out of touch. The hacker/girlfriend’s-stepbrother character hangs out at a place always referred to as “the cybercafe.” They use the term 3 times in one scene. He comes close to blowing the original plan before the plot changed because he almost forgets to click “send” after filling out his bet. There’s a painfully unfunny scene based on the cliche of the old cashier at the drugstore who calls for a price check when you’re buying condoms. At the end the secret to victory over evil is that he says “Love bites, doesn’t it?” and his girlfriend knows it’s a signal to bite the bad guy.

The parkour scenes are unimpressive. Sure, they jump across alot of roofs, they do gratuitous flips. But it’s all very repetitive and without much art or spectacle to it. There’s none of the thrill of the chases in DISTRICT B13 or the YAMAKASI or the opening of CASINO ROYALE. And in the first big race the filmatists make the knuckleheaded decision of slathering the scenes with sloppy handheld cameras and stupid graphics. I guess the idea is to make it look like the home videos parkour guys would make for Youtube and shit. Okay, then put it on Youtube, don’t make me pay to rent the DVD.

I did think it was funny that when he comandeered a motorcycle he had to do a flip onto the bike. I mean come on man, are we really supposed to believe that was the easiest way to get on that thing? Then he does a wheelie too. He’s just a fuckin showoff. He’s not really parkour because the point of parkour is to be efficient, to get from point A to point B in the quickest way. No slowing down to do wheelies. But by some definitions freerunning is different from parkour and is more about creativity than efficiency. So yes, he is a freerunner and freemotorcycler.

Anyway, not very good.

It’s a hitwoman movie, but not the post-Tarantino type where you see they’re just like us and watch TV and stuff. It’s the opposite. The one where she’s so driven that she has no real life. Her man friend (Michael Vartan from ROGUE) has to quiz her just to try to get her to say where she’s from. And she won’t say. All we really see about this Cataleya lady outside of her job is that she enjoys dancing by herself and sucking on lollipops. Those are her hobbies. By sheer coincidence those are also the type of things Luc Besson would like to see an attractive actress doing.

But it starts when she’s a ten year old girl (played by rookie child actress Amandla Stenberg) in Colombia and her parents are killed in front of her by drug lords. Normally this would horribly traumatize the kid and years later she’d be a trained fighter. A nice touch here is that she’s already a little badass when it happens. She doesn’t cry, she sits calmly with her father’s betrayer, then stabs him, climbs out the window, does a bunch of acrobatics on the side of the building, and leads the henchmen on a chase across town. There’s a motorcycle involved, a sewer, and of course parkour – remember how in 1992 Colombian druglords always had two parkour guys on the payroll, just in case? It’s not a DISTRICT B13 level of chase scene, but you gotta respect a movie where a little girl leaps over a person while running through a crowded market. Not sure how they did that stunt.

There’s no explanation for how she became so awesome, unless you count that they show her reading a Xena comic book. After making her way to the States she tells her soon to be parental figure/murder mentor (Cliff Curtis from LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD) “I used to want to be like Xena, the warrior princess.”

“Not anymore?” he asks.

“Now I want to be a killer. Can you help?”

“Sure.”

I mean, this is not good that she’s doing this, but more 10 year olds should have this kind of initiative. She knows what she wants to do with her life and she goes after it.

Half an hour into the movie it skips ahead 15 years to when she’s a professional, then it takes its time parseling out information about how her operations works and what she’s been up to.

The first hit we see is the one that gets the FBI on her ass. It’s a good sequence although her plan requires two specific jail cells to be connected by vents large enough for her to crawl through. That seems unlikely, in my opinion. I wonder if she knew the ventilation setup in advance, or if she just went in sure she was so awesome she could pull it off no matter what. She’s definitely confident. That’s proven later when she enters the mansion of a Ponzi scheme crook through his shark tank.

Adult Cataleya is played by Zoe Saldana, that crazy blue bitch from AVATAR. She’s very graceful and precise in her movements. She’s also beautiful, and that’s obviously central to the appeal of the movie, so it’s too bad she has the body of a ballet dancer. I’m not saying I disliked the part where she runs around in booty shorts and a tank top trying to escape a SWAT team, but it could’ve used at least 25% more va-va-voom. In fact, I think this character has an eating disorder. She never brags about eating drug kingpins for breakfast, because she doesn’t eat breakfast. She actually tells Vartan that. He also has trouble getting her to eat dinner, she always wants to go right into the sex. When he makes her lunch she leaves. When she’s a kid she knows how to induce vomiting. These are all signs. This girl needs help.

Seriously ladies, breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

Director Olivier Megaton hasn’t really lived up to his awesome name yet, but I think this is alot more enjoyable than his TRANSPORTER 3. I just think he lacks the sense of fun of a TRANSPORTER 2. This is all very serious like the earlier Besson movies. But it has some good parts and the action is at least readable. I like when the villain is making a Just How Badass Is She? speech and uses the cliche that “she’s like mist,” and right then a fuckin missile flies into the house. Looks like she’s not gonna bothering being a ghost or an invisible ninja this time out, she’s just gonna get right to it PUNISHER WAR ZONE style.

I also gotta give praise to the fight in the bathroom – a home one, not a public one. She utilizes the tub, hand towels, toothbrushes, even the glass he probly uses to rinse out his mouth. No, she doesn’t wash her hands afterwards. So she doesn’t succeed in the hygiene department but she does use the location well.

One criticism of the detective work in this movie: I think maybe you guys took too long to figure out that the rare flower drawn on the victims is THE FUCKING KILLER’S NAME. And that she wears a necklace of it at all times for extra identification. That was not that cryptic of a clue, she’s not the fuckin Zodiac.

I’m not sure about the title of the movie. Is “Colombiana” like “Americana”? Is this saying that vicious drug lords and cold-blooded assassins are a little piece of Colombian culture for us to enjoy? That doesn’t seem right.

Another thing I’m not sure about: there was this rumor that this was re-written from a script that would’ve been a sequel to LEON THE PROFESSIONAL but Besson couldn’t get the rights to it. I don’t know, if they made a sequel and it was just about her getting revenge for Leon’s death that might be fun to watch but I’m not sure it would be worth doing. That story might’ve been made up. Anyway it would’ve been totally different because the villain is pretty standard issue foreign-criminal-who-lives-in-mansion, he has nothing in common with Gary Oldman’s reptilian mega acting pill popper and classic music afficianado.

A buddy of mine that enjoyed this movie okay had a big problem with the ending, so this paragraph is a SPOILER about that. When she gets to the last guy, the big drug lord guy, she doesn’t kill him with her own hands, or even see it with her own eyes. After all that she’s content to trick him into getting into a van where he’ll be eaten by her dogs. My buddy thought that was too impersonal, it was unsatisfying to him and didn’t make sense. But I don’t know, I think it’s kind of fitting. That guy didn’t personally kill her parents, he was responsible but did it from a distance. She treats him the same way. Don’t even give him the satisfaction of being there in person. She misses his death like a movie dad misses his son’s little league game. Sorry, champ. I swear I’ll be there next time.

I don’t know man, I’ll probly forget all about this movie soon, but I enjoyed watching Saldana as Cataleya and at the end of it I was happy for her. I hope now that she straightened that revenge shit out she’ll start eating more healthy. And maybe she can go back to following that dream of being like Xena.

Tintin (Jamie Bell from UNDERTOW) is a boy reporter from Belgium. I think. But I don’t remember them specifying where it was or having Belgian accents, and I didn’t notice any cameos by famous Belgians like Jean-Claude Van Damme and other famous Belgians. But I’ve read it’s based on a Belgian comic strip.
You know, I should say “boyish reporter,” because it’s not clear how old he is either, and he sort of lives the lifestyle of an adult. He seems to live by himself and be able to travel the world without a parent’s permission. And is a dog owner.

I guess I don’t have much concrete information for you about who this Tintin is, but I can definitely tell you that he is a reporter. We know this not because we’ve ever seen him write a damn word in his life but because there are a bunch of framed newspaper articles on his wall. No, they’re not by him, but they’re about him and the headlines refer to him as a “reporter.” So it’s been verified.

The one adventure of Tintin begins one day when Tintin is just unwinding the way he probly always does on his day off: having his caricature drawn and then randomly deciding to buy a model boat from a dude on the street. Luckily for journalism and adventure it just so happens that the boat has a clue to a hidden treasure hidden inside it and that a couple other people are hot on its trail and get there right after Tintin does and also he stubbornly refuses to take a whole bunch of money for the boat even though a minute ago he only wanted it on a passing whim.

Before long, bad guys are coming after him and he’s tracing the origins of the boat, trying to find out what’s going on and then chasing the treasure that turns out to be what’s going on. He befriends an alcoholic captain guy (Andy Serkis in a rare human role) whose past turns out to be intertwined with the bad guy’s due to reincarnation and curses and that sort of bullshit. There are boats, planes, camels, clues, etc.

I was excited for this one ’cause it’s directed by Steven Spielberg, who in my opinion is almost like the Steven Spielberg of Hollywood. He’s to movies what Steven Spielberg is to movies. This is the first time so far that ol’ Spielberg’s said “fuck all this bullshit with using cameras” and made a sort of animated style movie using the motion capture style of computer acti-mation like Robert Zemeckis used for his Christmas or Vikings trilogy. When I first heard about this I thought it was weird they didn’t just do it in live action, and I read that they did tests and decided that Tintin’s dog Snowy had to be animated and therefore they couldn’t do it in live action. I wondered if Spielberg knew that some of the dinosaurs in his JURASSIC PARK movies were animated but Jeff Goldblum was still able to stand next to them in live action. Seems like you could do that with a dog, but maybe the technology isn’t there yet.

Anyway now that I’ve seen it I get why this was a good choice, this way he was able to do it so it looks live-actiony but with lots of slapstick craziness that would’ve seemed corny and Leslie-Nielsenish with real people doing it. Also it has a very painterly look to all the colors and lighting and everything that makes it look all pretty, and you gotta do that shit pixel by pixel.

I know some people still got a problem with these unnatural human-cartoon hybrid people, like I did when I saw FINAL FANTASY, but I guess I’ve adjusted to them. It’s just like how if you haven’t been exposed to alot of people from other cultures you might be intimidated by them but after you start getting out of the house more it’s nothing. Ever since A CHRISTMAS CAROL and AVATAR I think they’ve improved the eyes enough that the animation isn’t creepy to me. I didn’t have a problem with these particular abominations against God. In fact it’s impressive how well they captured the round, naive-looking face of that simple drawing. And now they can make them forever without having to worry about covering up Jamie Bell’s wrinkles as he gets old.

Like in A CHRISTMAS CAROL they made the characters have a certain amount of “realism” to their textures and everything but also have exaggerated cartoon features like bulbous noses and round bodies. They don’t follow the “make it look like the voice actor” rule that I requested after FINAL FANTASY and received with POLAR EXPRESS, but it works. Forget wrinkles, they can also keep making them if Jamie Bell goes to jail or quits acting to become a monk. Anyway I couldn’t recognize the voices, so it didn’t distract me. For example I wouldn’t have known the bad guy  was Daniel Craig (MUNICH) if I didn’t see his name on the credits. It seemed to me like his character was designed as a combination of Spielberg and Peter Jackson (who produced the movie and is supposed to direct the sequel if they make one. I think it will – it probly did well overseas, although it’s been crushed by ALVIN IN THE CHIPMUNKS IN: CHIPWRECKED in the United States. Great, American parents. You embarrassed us in front of the world.)

It’s funny – I’ve seen quotes where Zemeckis talks about making those movies just because somebody had to break the ground on those tools and figure out how to use them. In this interview with Harry he said “I really want to make sure that we get this out there so that younger filmmakers have these absolutely breathtaking tools that they can use.”

I like that he did that, but I don’t think I ever really believed it would be influential. Now here’s no less than Steven Spielberg following in his footsteps, and not just in technology but I think in style. The undisputable highlight of TINTIN is an elaborate chase sequence that’s rendered as a single shot. It uses Spielberg’s unbeatable knack for action, but I’ll be damned if it isn’t at least partly inspired by the show-offy tracking shots Zemeckis always puts in his mot-capt films, like the one in POLAR EXPRESS where the non-existent camera follows a train ticket that falls out a window, rides a gust of wind, is carried by birds and wolves and different things and falls down the mountain before landing back in the train.

I wouldn’t say the 3D is as good as in the Zemeckis movies, but it’s used well. It adds a kind of diorama quality to it, makes it more submersive, like you’re riding through the story in a little boat or buggy. It does have a couple of parts with things reaching out of the screen too. I appreciate that. I don’t think this 3D will convert people like HUGO did, but if you enjoyed its use in that you’ll probly like it here too. It’s not like the Pixars or HAPPY FEET TWO where it looked kinda cool at the beginning and then after a while I forgot and when I remembered I couldn’t really tell if it was 3D or not. No, this is the preferred way to see the movie. But it’ll hold up on blu-ray too I’m sure.

As a non-professional I’m allowed to admit that I feel like I gotta see this one again, ’cause after looking forward to it for months I went to see it exhausted from work and was having trouble staying awake. So I might not be trustworthy when I say that the story isn’t as involving as I expected. By all accounts it’s a frenzied, non-stop movie… except mine, ’cause to me it seemed kinda slow and uneventful at times.

It’s possible I was put off by the minimalism of the character. I didn’t completely understand why this dude cared so much about following all these clues, he didn’t seem to really have a stake in it. I think it’s just one of those things you gotta go with, though. And I like that, it makes the movie different, but I don’t know, maybe it kept me from fully investing in what happened? It’s hard to say. I was asleep.

Anyway it doesn’t matter. He likes going on adventures, it’s his thing, that’s all. He’s compelled to do it, there doesn’t gotta be a fuckin mission statement about it. It’s just like Indiana Jones likes going after treasure. He’s not in it for the money. He gets off on it. Dr. Jones wants the glory of discovery and Tintin wants the framed article on his wall. The one he couldn’t write himself ’cause it would be a conflict of interest.

Everybody’s been comparing this to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. It’s a nice thought, but I think a little superficial. Yeah, it’s some time in the past and involves international travel (including in deserts) to find treasure. And in a couple parts the John Williams music sounds Indiana Jonesy. But I mean, the tone is so different. Indiana Jones is a tough-talking, cynical, asshole type of guy. Tintin is the opposite of all of that. Indiana Jones has a new girl in almost every movie, he has a girl in his class writing “I love you” on her eyelids for him, while Tintin lives in a world where there barely are any females. This is the rare movie where the hero doesn’t fall in love or already have a girlfriend. I liked that.

Also the stakes are lower. Indiana Jones was fighting against Nazis who were trying to use the power of God in their quest for world domination. Tintin is just trying to get some coins and rubies and shit before an asshole guy gets them. The raiders have their faces literally melted off because they try to see something God doesn’t want them to. This guy gets thrown off a boat because he tried to smoosh them with construction equipment.

You guys are in luck though. Spielberg actually did make a movie just a couple summers ago that had alot in common with RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, it was called KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. Look that one up, guys, I think you’ll all dig it alot.

What I like though is the unfashionable simplicity of it all. I like that they don’t pander to me by explaining who this Tintin guy is. He’s a likable cypher. You’d think they’d feel the need to shoehorn in some backstory about where he came from and his parents died in a journalism accident and the Daniel Craig guy was secretly responsible and that’s why this is so very very important to Tintin’s sweet little heart. Thank you Spielberg for knowing that it’s allowed for one out of every 250 movies to not have that stuff.

Spielberg recently said that he now sees it was a mistake to take the guns out of E.T. and all that. That’s why he could make this movie. Tintin has a gun, he gets into gun fights. It’s supposed to be funny and charming that the captain can’t stop drinking, and there’s a surprising number of liquor bottles broken over people’s heads, which has more weight in this than in a more stylized cartoon. I’m not saying any of this is “edgy,” it’s just kinda refreshing to see it done un-self-consciously like in the old days. (Glad they didn’t throw in any retro racial stereotypes though. That would be less refreshing.)

That’s the other thing, Tintin is defiantly square. In situations where you or I would say “Holy shit!” or “Motherfucker!” Tintin would say “Great snakes!” And he’d make it work. He doesn’t have to have some kind of “edge” or anything modern about him. I mean, as a point of comparison, look at these smug fuckin CGI characters:

I mean, there is obviously something to be said for a young man or animal having self confidence and all that but jesus, these fuckos look a little too proud of themselves, don’t they? Especially considering their cinematic output. If anything they oughta all look apologetic on their movie posters.

Now look at Tintin:

See? He’s a nice young man. I can’t even picture him standing arrogantly with his arms crossed, smirking like one of those fuckin jerks. He doesn’t have to be some sunglasses-wearing little shitstain or a modern cynical wiseass or somebody who you can picture ever even talking to any of those fuckin guys. He’s famous without having a drop of rock star in him. He’s kind of a dork and it’s not to be funny or ironic. He’s 100% sincere. It’s just what he is. I like that.

I like these characters, and this world. I’ll have to take another look at the actual adventure.

This review, should you choose to read it, contains some spoilers.

Man, this is the most disappointing movie I’ve seen in a long time, because of the misleading title. Before you waste your money, please know that there are no ghosts in this movie at all. I hope that lady that tried to sue DRIVE for not being THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS will consider throwing some of her legal fund at this one too. It’s just shitty to take advantage of worldwide ghostamania like that. In all other aspects though I really enjoyed it.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL (subtitle said in Shaggy voice) is animation directionist Brad Bird’s first live action movie. I think he got pissed about George Miller, Zack Snyder and Wes Anderson directing cartoons so he was like “fuck you guys” and took one of their jobs. Or maybe it’s just that most directors of this genre these days are so lacking in the basic skills of filmatism that he was called in to tutor them. Whatever the motivation, I think his talents probly serve the world more uniquely doing cartoons, but luckily they also translate well to live action so his time away from his true calling isn’t a total waste.

I really dig that this series of movies has a new director for each installment, doing their own version of it. The directors so far always have a good pedigree, although of course John Woo blew it. But still. The idea of a big Hollywood based-on-a-TV-show franchise where DePalma set the template and other talented directors come in one time and then hit the road is a good one. It’s the ALIEN model, I guess. (DePalma directed prequel coming up?)

So this one can completely stand on its own, but for those keeping track it has more connection to the rest of the series than the others do. Part 3 director J.J. Abrams (don’t even fuckin think about it, AsimovLives) stayed on as producer for this one. It connects to what was going on with that one, using Ethan Hunt’s wife as a plot point, promoting Simon Pegg’s character Benji from cameo computer expert to co-starring field agent, and it doesn’t really try to reinvent the wheel. It’s only a somewhat tweaked wheel with more and clearer action and even more of an emphasis on the team. You got Cruise, Pegg, Paula The Super-hot Teacher Lady From PRECIOUS BASED ON THE NOVEL PUSH BY SAPPHIRE PUBLISHED BY KNOPF 1996 Patton, and THE HURT LOCKER’s Jeremy Renner as the secretary’s analyst that ends up on the run with the team and having some skills to earn his keep.

The teamwork is welcome because a big part of the old TV show was how cool it was to watch a team of experts work together to basically pull off a big prank in the name of national security or whatever. (they should add Steve-O to the team in the next one. I was gonna say Ashton Kutcher because he’s more of a pranker, but Steve-O would do his own stunts.) DePalma cleverly blew up the team in the first one, but that unfortunately set it up as The Tom Cruise Show, and this is the first time he keeps one team for the whole movie. Instead of the familiar plot of Cruise getting framed and disavowed it’s the whole IMF organization. Some asshole (Michael Nyqvist, male lead of the Swedish GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO trilogy) blew up the Kremlin and stole a nuclear warhead while our IMF friends were sneaking around in there too. Not cool. He’s gotta understand that when he does something like that he makes all Kremlin-infiltrators look bad, they all get lumped in together.

One thing you learn in this movie is that if you happen to be there when somebody is blowing up the Kremlin it would be best not to be found unconscious wearing a reversible Russian army jacket. Good travel tip there.

Then the secretary of defense or whatever (Tom Wilkinson) has to give them their mission and pretend to break ties with them, that is what Spooooky Protocol means. You’ve been decommissioned, I’m hear to take you into custody, while I am briefly distracted please take this train car full of crazy high tech shit and get the fuck out of here.

Before that, when Hunt gets his first mission that he can choose to accept, the message fails to self destruct as promised. He walks away, then looks back at it, has to go give it a whack like we used to do with TVs when they lost reception. Only then does it blow up. It’s a good joke and a bad omen about their missions in this movie: everything is always gonna go wrong. They can’t break into the computers the way they wanted to, the machines that make those cool masks get stuck, they accidentally kill somebody they need alive, they get hit by a sandstorm, the retinal scanner on the side of his secret train car requires him to hop up and down because he’s too short for it, the list goes on.

The rest of the team are so used to Hunt’s awesomeness that they think nothing of asking him to climb up the side of the world’s tallest building to break into a server just so they can slow down some elevators. His high tech spiderman type suction gloves stop working, so all he has is those rock climbing skills he showed in the opening of part 2. You know it’s a Brad Bird movie when the glove he tosses blows back to the building and has its own little character moment.

Just like the climbing gloves, all of the technology they use is incredible but fallible. One of the best scenes involves an elaborate illusion used to sneak past a security guard, but it can only look right from one angle. In the opening a network of micro-cameras, databases and facial recognition software identifies and warns an agent about an assassin, but the notification distracts him just as she pulls her gun out. So maybe he would’ve had a better chance without it.

I like the new team members. Patton has a great moment where shit is about to go down and she kicks off her pumps – it’s like a secretary coming home from a long day of work crossed with Billy Jack taking off his boots. Renner impressed me because he’s so good at playing ugly weirdos (DAHMER, THE TOWN) and here he’s transformed into a suave action hero. He wears nice suits and gets in fights, but does a little more self-deprecating humor than James Bond would. I love when Hunt pulls a gun on him just to prove he’ll know what to do about it. He does.

I don’t know what to say about Tom Cruise. He’s good in the way he’s usually good. I know you’re supposed to hate him now, ’cause he’s a weirdo, but I like him as this intensely focused superman. This time they let him look slightly ragged under the eyes and a little skinny when he’s shirtless. In his climbing gear he looks like a dorky bicyclist. But I don’t think you can say he’s a more relatable character. I don’t want him to be.

Wouldn’t it be funny if he bought the rights to do a sequel to V FOR VENDETTA, just to see if they’d stop wearing those masks to protest his church?

About a half hour of the movie was shot in Imax, so when you see it in real Imax (film projector, not digital) it pops out from letterboxed to full Imax screen for these gigantic establishing shots and incredible stunts on that building in Dubai. It reminded me of seeing LAWRENCE OF ARABIA in 70mm (and there’s even a musical homage to that movie during a desert shot).

It goes without saying that it’s refreshing to see a movie in this day and age that’s packed with action and never had me frustrated by disorienting closeups, shakiness or poor staging and editing (delete previous sentence, goes without saying). There’s alot going on but it flows. Even a deliberately confusing chase in a sandstorm comes off at least as coherent as the current Hollywood standard for non-sandstorm action in movies like SALT or WARRIOR. This is crucial because it’s not much of an exaggeration to call it non-stop action. They’re always hurtling ahead – even the handful of debriefing or pre-planning discussions tend to take place in moving vehicles on the way to some place they gotta sneak into. Without involving action and a good storytelling rhythm this could easily be one of those torturous movies of endless banging and yelling like THE MUMMY or the TRANSFORMERSes. But for me it was constantly entertaining and breezed by like a much shorter movie.

Bird is able to work the little character subplots in without slowing that constant forward movement. At the end there’s a “phew, let’s all take a few minutes to unwind and enjoy not being shot at” type of scene and I thought it was a nice way of doing it. Okay, we’ve blown the roof off, let’s use like 2 or 3 minutes to tie together some emotions and stuff.

My only real complaint is that after packing the movie with so many clever gimmicks and suspenseful sequences some of the stuff at the end seems a little weaker than what came before. Renner hovering through a fan via magnet power, for example, is played as a goofy sideplot. So it doesn’t have half the tension of Hunt trying not to fall off the building earlier or of course his cable work in the silent vault in part 1. And the showdown with Nyqvist in a revolving car garage seemed like it could’ve been the climax of a Pierce Brosnan Bond movie. It’s a small complaint though. That stuff is fine, but it’s the earlier stuff I keep thinking about.

I love the opening of the movie, where Hunt is being broken out of a Russian prison. To the horror of his team he decides to go off plan to sneak back through and rescue his informant (who has no idea he’s a secret agent, or that he’s not Russian). It’s a fun scene where he uses hand signals to Pegg to open specific security doors, carefully orchestrating the releasing of prisoners in order to create the right amount of rioting to facilitate his escape. It’s a great setpiece but after the movie was over I realized how significant it was to the character. If he’d stuck with the original plan and left that guy behind he wouldn’t have had access to crucial resources that ended up saving the day.

So is it karma, or is it brilliant strategy? He tells his team he couldn’t leave an informant behind to be killed, and tells the guy “I look after my friends.” But he might be just saying that to sound nice, it might really be that he’s always thinking 72 steps ahead. I’d like to say that it’s the first one and his selfless act ended up saving his ass later. But I’m not really sure.

Either way, they stopped a nuclear war. I’m for it. Keep doing that, guys.

* * *

BONUS SPOILER: In the opening there’s an IMF agent we haven’t seen before that gets Estevezed. It turns out you’re supposed to know he’s an actor from the TV program Lost. You may remember that TV’s Felicity played that same role in part 3. As long as J.J. Abrams is producing these things I think we know what’s gonna happen. Jennifer Garner will be an agent that dies in part 5 and the Cloverfield monster in part 6.

DOUBLE BONUS SPOILER: I kept waiting for the Lost guy to come back as a ghost, as part of the protocol, but it never happened. RIP OFF.

TRIPLE BONUS SPOILER QUESTION: Do you think it’s a reference to GOODFELLAS that she ended up in Seattle (well, Vancouver I think) at the end? That’s where witness protection put him in GOODFELLAS. I wonder if they know each other? Man, IMF could’ve taken out the mafia so much faster than the cops could’ve. That would be unconstitutional though I think.

The titular Santa who gets the also titular revenge is played by an actor I really like, Ken Foree. Of course I always knew him as Peter from DAWN OF THE DEAD. Through the ’80s he mainly did TV guest star gigs on Knight Rider and Scarecrow and Mrs. King and shit like that, with only the occasional movie appearance like JOJO DANCER YOUR LIFE IS CALLING or FROM BEYOND to fulfill any of his potential. I was real excited when I recognized him in LEATHERFACE: THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE III (his Good Samaritan survivalist character is an enjoyable part of a not-great movie) and like alot of horror fans I always wished he would show up more.

That seemed to sort of happen after 2005 when he played the Lando Calrissian type character in THE DEVIL’S REJECTS that welcomes Captain Spaulding to the safety of his brothel. Now he’s one of the Rob Zombie players, showing up in all the Zombie pictures, and like Sid Haig that means he also gets a bunch of side-work in movies so low-rent even I wouldn’t think about watching them. I could be wrong, so please let me know if you know of a good one, but I got no faith in most of ‘em. I made the mistake of trying to watch that NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD 3D with Haig and it made the DAY OF THE DEAD remake seem pretty good by comparison.

Anyway BLACK SANTA’S REVENGE is pretty much what the title says it is. It’s a violent revenge tale about a guy who dresses as Santa for poor kids at a community center that takes toy donations that they’re actually gonna give to the kids that asked for them. Then some assholes steal all the toys at gunpoint and say they hate Christmas.

Now Santa has a headwound and he’s depressed as shit, fantasizing about a kid calling him “nothin but a punk ass beeyitch” for not following through with the presents, having a drink at a titty bar. Suddenly he notices one of the toy-thieves, follows him to a warehouse and murders everybody involved in the toy-donation-thieving ring. There is a little bit of Santa-themed dialogue, for example he yells “Ho ho ho, you naughty motherfuckers!” as he opens his attack, and a thug bangs his head against the ground while grunting “Milk drinkin… cookie eatin… mother… fucker!”

There are little references that you’d expect from Badazz Mofo – a Jim Kelly line from ENTER THE DRAGON, a Dolemite phrase (”rat soup eating motherfucker” of course), a song listed on the credits as “Sounds Like John Carpenter Theme.” But thankfully it treats it more seriously than as a joke, despite the obvious absurdity. I do think it would work alot better if it made a little more sense – like, what charity has a Santa that promises specific toys to kids planning to really give it to them from donations? And how are we supposed to believe that some guy is gonna get money from selling shitty used teddy bears? He’d have trouble moving them at a garage sale.

I guess I don’t believe it, but if it was gonna be phony anyway it could’ve had some ridiculous explanation, like somebody accidentally donated a doll full of a superdrug or something, I don’t know.

Also, why is he Black Santa? Is it because white Santas don’t volunteer at the community center, even though most of the kids there are white? It doesn’t seem to make a difference in the story at all. Does anybody ever give him shit about not fitting the common image of whitey Santa? They don’t really deal with it. I guess I like my blaxploitation to have some kind of racial conflict, like the racist white sheriff who loses his wife to Dolemite, or Mamuwalde refusing to deal with Dracula because he’s a slave trader. But I guess that wouldn’t be in the spirit of Christmas to have that kind of divisiveness in here. Instead Walker chooses to honor the spirit of the holiday by emphasizing the importance of charity, and by delivering savage vengeance upon those who fuck with charity.

I can’t really say you need to seek this out. It seems like probly exactly what it is – some film fans who decided to have fun trying to make one. They probly regret a few things and they probly learned things they would use if they tried again. I would be happy to regret a couple of bad green screen shots on their behalf (like the shot where a door opens onto what appears to be a stretched jpeg of some toys).

It’s not great. But I like that it’s not as smart-assed as I expected. It’s not really Troma-esque in tone. It even ends on a sentimental note. Best of all, Foree treats it as a dramatic role and not acting like he’s trying to be funny. And he doesn’t get that many leads so it’s nice to see even a 20 minute short that centers on him. I’d watch a feature version if they made one.

Alot of the movie is sneaking around in different disguises, using different identities, meeting with other assets, trying to stay cool under questioning. Cloak and dagger type shit. It gets exciting a few times, like when he beats a KGB agent to death in a bathroom, or when he sets off a firebomb as a distraction. But there are alot of stretches of the movie where it feels like not much happens. Like most Eastwood movies it’s pretty long, at 136 minutes, but this one feels like it doesn’t really need to be that long.

Of course it’s all leading up to Clint stealing that jet, so the climax is a state-of-the-art-for-1982 special effects sequence of the fictional jet flying around real fast. STAR WARS dude John Dykstra oversaw the effects which involved taking lots of real flight footage, speeding it up and superimposing a model jet onto it. This is the same year as RETURN OF THE JEDI and the scenes I guess are kind of similar to what they did with the speedy bikes in that picture but not set long ago or far away.

Even in the worst Eastwood movies he’s still gonna be enjoyable to watch as he grimaces at authority and occasionally makes a smart ass remark or something. And it’s kind of interesting to see him playing a supposedly old pilot yanked out of retirement so many years before doing it again in the way more enjoyable SPACE COWBOYS.

There’s a nice moment when he’s undercover and has to scuffle with a soldier, and he has a chance to kill the guy but stops himself and says “Ehhh… you didn’t do anything.” I don’t think the irony was intentional, but it makes an interesting counterpoint to the jet sequence later when he seems to be pretty indiscriminate about blowing up every plane or helicopter that comes near him. It sort of shows the difference between fighting somebody face to face or fighting through machinery.

My favorite thing in the movie though is a little detail that he never finds out about – that one of his main qualifications was that he was a similar size to the Russian who flew the Firefox. In other words, they chose him because they thought he would fit into the suit.

The DVD of FIREFOX has a surprisingly good extra on it. Under the inconspicuous title “Clint Eastwood: Director” is a 30 minute vintage documentary made for British TV. Clint talks about FIREFOX and his approach to directing. In the style of the time they have him re-enact arriving at work for the day, so he drives up to his reserved parking space and struts into his office.

At the end he and “friend Sondra Locke” go to Washington DC for the FIREFOX premiere, done as a fundraiser for a military charity. He poses for photos with Reagan administration officials Edwin Meese and Caspar Weinberger. Meese is probly a big DIRTY HARRY fan, as he was known for opposing the idea of Miranda rights. Both were involved in the Iran/Contra scandal, especially Secretary of Defense Weinberger, who was indicted on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice (but it doesn’t count ’cause he was later pardoned by George H.W. Bush).

But I don’t really see anything uncomfortably right wing in FIREFOX. Obviously it’s a Cold War movie, and the Russian villains are cartoonish, but there’s not any of that preachy anti-communist stuff in there. They just have some bad KGB people and some nice Russians who want to get rid of them. And a jet.

At the time FIREFOX might’ve seemed a little better than it does now that it’s so dated, but then again it happened to come out in June of maybe the greatest movie summer of all time. It was competing for screens with CONAN THE BARBARIAN, ROAD WARRIOR, STAR TREK II, POLTERGEIST and E.T. And then after its release came BLADE RUNNER and THE THING. Shit, I don’t even have to bring up ROCKY III, or lower profile outlawvern.com favorites like VISITING HOURS, FRIDAY THE 13TH 3D, THE BEASTMASTER or CLASS OF 1984 to show that it doesn’t only pale in comparison to Clint’s other movies, but to the non-Clint movies that were coming out around the same time.

In Clint Eastwood: Director the interviewer asks Clint about why he had risked making a comedy movie with a chimp sidekick (not this one – a different, better movie) and he talks about the importance of trying the things that appeal to him even if people tell him it’s a bad move, and if he didn’t do that he’d still be in Italy filming westerns every year. He says of his fans, “They expect maybe a certain kinda action, a certain kinda entertainment, and hopefully they get it. If they’re disappointed then we’ll give it to ‘em next time.”

Next time, in this case, was HONKYTONK MAN.

(to be continued)

Ultimately Sam is a heroic character, ’cause he puts himself at risk to do the right thing. But he’s also kind of an asshole in a way that I think is interesting. His insults to his dead father and living brother are like his police work – a little bit over the line. Apparently his little brother is still traumatized by his cruel bullying when they were growing up, and he shows no remorse when he finds this out. Like Joel Edgerton in WARRIOR he’s accused of being a coward, leaving the family with an abusive father, but he was young and didn’t know what to do, etc.

Amy Smart (Felicity), seeming a little more enthusiastic than in her last wrestler picture, THE HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN, plays their sister who loves them, flaws and all. She’s the executor of the will and she tries to bring them together and make peace. I don’t think that’s her on the cover though, I think that’s some other girl that’s in the movie. She never gets a gun ’cause she sits out the action. But she does convey a sweet, sisterly compassion in her scenes that makes it sort of believable that these lunkheads would humor her and give it a shot. (Although I guess it’s the money that really motivates them.)

The condition of the will is that the boys have to run a business together for 2 years before they get the money. This could’ve very easily turned into a movie about a bakery, a laundromat or a Dairy Queen franchise, but they just end up following a Mexican cartel guy that skipped bail on Leo. This gets them mixed up in the kidnapping of a millionaire (Gregg Henry). So Leo uses his bail bondsman knowledge but is always shown up by Sam’s detective work/guns and Douglas’s special skills that get them through doors. By that I don’t mean picking locks, I mean that women love him and help him out.

Cena’s muscles are distractingly giant, almost the male equivalent of those crazy watermelon-sized fake boobs they used to have in the specialty pornos. But it’s funny ’cause he still has some kind of everyman charisma. I think he’s gotten more comfortable on screen since THE MARINE, but maybe I’ve just gotten used to him. He doesn’t quite know how to deliver all the quick band-and-forth banter in this one, but he’s almost there. It’s not a Dennis Rodman situation. I liked him in this, and the playful insults and competition flying between the three brothers who probly, hopefully at least, really care about each other.

As far as this year’s slate of WWE pictures go, INSIDE OUT is a little more my speed. I like the way it fits into the old ex-con-getting-pulled-into-more-trouble type formula but adds little quirky tweaks and unexpected nuance. But this is an enjoyable movie that some people would probly prefer. Hats off to WWE Studios for trying out different things and at the same time improving the overall quality of their works. I hope they continue to grow and some day have a backlot tour to rival Universal’s. I look forward to THE MARINE 2: THE RIDE and the SEE NO EVIL Halloween maze.