“STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE” Review (✫)

Yousa in big doo-doo dis time.

Never again. Don’t ever let this happen to Star Wars ever again. When Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace was announced, George Lucas’ fan base exploded with excitement, preparing themselves to witness the beginning of Anakin Skywalker’s story before he became Darth Vader. Oh, are they going to be disappointed. This movie is every bit as stupid as the title sounds and then some.

Dating back 32 years before the events of the original Star Wars, The Phantom Menace finds the elder Ben Kenobi as the young padawan understudy Obi Wan (Ewan McGregor), serving under his master Qui Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson). They are assigned by the jedi order to defend Queen Amidala of Naboo (Natalie Portman) from the vicious Trade Federation, a group of long-necked, bulgy-eyed aliens that are so bloated and ugly that a Jim Henson puppet would be mortified.

The Jedi meet an assortment of characters along their journey. A younger, more polished R2-D2 sits aboard a Naboo space ship. A C-3PO without any outer plating (or as he likes to call it, being “naked”) wobbles around in a tiny Tatooine hut. A clumsy, idiotic gungan named Jar Jar Binks (Ahmed Best) bumbles and falls everywhere like a ragdoll. And, of course, a young boy named Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd) wanders around the dusty sands of Tatooine, illustrated here as a messiah-like figure to the force and the galaxy.

When I watched Star Wars many years ago as a small boy in Brownsville, TX, the thing I fell most in love with was its characters. The adventurous bounty hunters and princesses, the wise jedi, the noisy droids, the sinister sith, all of them enchanted me with their uniqueness and peculiarity. So many sci-fi epics rely too much on special effects to provide their spectacle. With Star Wars, the humans, aliens, and droids were the spectacle, and the groundbreaking visual effects complimented their presence without taking away focus from the story.

The characters were the best thing to come out of the original Star Wars trilogy. They’re the worst thing here. Oh my God, are they the worst thing. These characters are so bland, dull, and uninteresting that they could have all been replaced by droids and we wouldn’t have noticed the difference.

Take Liam Neeson as one victim, err, example. Here we have a fine actor, demonstrating his finesse in performances for movies including Darkman, Michael Collins, and Schindler’s List, the last of which earned him an Oscar nomination. In all of those movies, he has demonstrated an ability to express fear, anger, disappointment, courage, heroism, and earnest in both big, showy scenes and small, personal ones. Yet here, his ability as an actor is almost completely erased, being asked to throw on robes and swing around a lightsaber in the place of a performance. We have nothing from his character to make us remember or even care about him. He has one, cold-hard emotion throughout the film, and that emotion is serious. There is nothing else about him to make him either fun or fascinating, not in comparison with the charisma and calmness we got from Alec Guinness in the original series.

But Neeson is not the worst part of the movie. Indeed, he is only one victim among an entire assembly line of failures. Portman is plastic and looks like she doesn’t know why she’s on the set. McGregor is functional, but doesn’t demonstrate much purpose beyond linking this movie together with the original. I’ll cut Jake Lloyd some slack since he’s only a child actor at 10 years old, but I will say he did nothing to service his role and make me believe he’s supposed to become the most feared force in the galaxy. That’s not as much his fault as it is others though. I’ll come back around to that in a bit.

The biggest catastrophe in this movie is Jar Jar Binks, and he’s so damaging to the picture that I have to dedicate two paragraphs to his stupidity. He’s supposed to serve as the comedic relief, but believe me when I say there’s nothing comedic about this cretin. He bumbles and trips everywhere like a drunken idiot, speaking in nonsensical English so distorted that it would make Yoda want to take grammar lessons. “Ooey mooey”, “mesa” and “yousa” are not beyond his flawed vocabulary, and his voice is so whiny and high-pitched that it makes me want to strangle him by his flappy ears.

Compare Jar Jar to 3PO, a successful attempt at comedic relief in the series. 3PO is funny because he tries to be serious and fails. Jar Jar tries to be funny and comes off as annoying. If 3PO tripped and fell on himself as often as Jar Jar did, he would dent up his entire body plating and probably damage his processing core. Maybe that’s what happened to Jar Jar: he fell on his head so many times that he forgot how to use it.

Despite my hatred of all of these characters, I don’t blame the actors for their representation. I blame writer-director-creator George Lucas, who arguably had the most involvement in this film as opposed to the previous ones. How could he have misfired with this film so badly? 20 years ago, he gave cinema some of its most cherished characters, and now, he’s given cinema some of its most hated. With the imagination and the ambition he’s committed to the sci-fi genre for years now, I cannot explain how badly he’s written and directed this cast except for sheer lapse of judgement. There’s no other reason to explain how dull and uninteresting these characters are, or how moronic and insipid Jar Jar is.

What of the visual effects? The cinematography? The editing? The score? Read my previous reviews. You know what I think of them. A potentially good movie can be produced poorly, but likewise, a bad movie can also be produced wonderfully. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is some of the best-looking garbage you’ll ever see. To quote one of Jar Jar’s companions in the movie: “Yousa in big doo-doo dis time.” In English, that means you’re in deep… well, you know.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

All Aboard The ‘Murder On The Orient Express’

In a business as rapidly changing as the entertainment industry, casting news comes and goes spontaneously. Yet every now and then, you see an announcement so big that it can’t help but turn heads.

Take my reaction when I found out about the announced cast for the Murder on the Orient Express remake. For those of you that don’t know, Murder on the Orient Express is a mystery-thriller based on the novel of the same name by Agatha Christie. The plot follows detective Hercule Poirot, who is investigating the murder of a business tycoon aboard a train called the Orient Express. The book was originally adapted into a 1971 film by Sidney Lumet (12 Angry Men, Network) and had an all-star cast including Albert Finney, Lauren Bacall, Sean Connery, Anthony Perkins, Vanessa Redgrave, and Ingrid Bergmann, who won her third Academy Award from that film.

The remake looks to be another all-star. Directed by Kenneth Branagh (Henry V, Thor), this adaptation stars Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Judi Dench, Michael Pena, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens actress Daisy Ridley. The film is slated for a 2017 release date.

Normally, I’m not one to be enthusiastic for Hollywood remakes of classic films (as evidenced by my reaction to Jon Favreau’s Lion King remake). But I’m actually intrigued by this one. For one thing, I haven’t heard of The Orient Express before this casting announcement (which shows I need to brush up on my film history, darn it), so this remake isn’t affected by any preconceived notions I may have had towards it. Secondly, even if I had seen the previous film and were as passionate about it as I was about The Lion King, I still would have been excited about this movie.

I mean, look at the cast. It’s big enough that I’m willing to overlook the fact that it’s a remake.

Branagh, however, has a shifty track record when it comes to filmmaking. His adaptations for Henry V and Hamlet were met with critical acclaim, and audiences responded very well with his interpretations of Thor and Cinderella. On the other hand, Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein was weird, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit was boring, and Love’s Labour’s Lost was completely horrendous. For Branagh, his directing skills ranges from masterful to disastrous. If there’s anything to be concerned about with this film, it’s his involvement as director.

What do you guys think? Are you excited to board the Orient Express, or are you going to wait for the next stop? Comment below, let me know.

– David Dunn

SOURCE: Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter

Jon Favreau Is Remaking ‘The Lion King’

“The circle of life” should not apply to remakes.

Unfortunately, it does.

Walt Disney recently confirmed that they are doing a live-action remake of yet another Disney classic: The Lion King, to be directed by The Jungle Book director Jon Favreau.

No.

Just no.

No.

NO.

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS.

I am so distraught by this for many reasons. The Lion King is a masterpiece. Period. No criticisms, no complaints, no improvements, no areas that it’s lacking in. It is flawless by definition, trailing slightly behind other Disney masterpieces such as Pinocchio and Beauty and the Beast. There is zero purpose behind remaking it. Remaking The Lion King would be as ridiculous as rebooting Toy Story. There is no reason for it. None.

“It’s for the visual effects,” you might say. As visual as the original? Animated films has proven time and time again that they can compete with CGI-heavy blockbuster films. If the opening shots of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King has proven anything, it has shown that they can have as much depth and perplexion as a live shot. It just depends on the details you give them.

Yes, they can do a live-action remake of The Lion King, but what visual improvements can be made beyond the original? Literally all that would change would be making it two-dimensional to three-dimensional, which in itself is a silly goal to aspire to considering the original already had a few three-dimensional shots. I’m just utterly confused and disturbed by this development. I don’t see a shred of genuine reason why it needs to be remade. It all just seems like a cash cow reigning in on a classic.

I’ll play the devil’s advocate for two things: Walt Disney and Jon Favreau. The Lion King will be the fifth film to be remade for live action, joining a class including Cinderella, Pete’s Dragon, and of course, The Jungle Book. All of them have fared well with audiences so far with the exception of Beauty and the Beast, which stars Emma Watson and comes out next year. Jon Favreau, as well, is a great visual and experiential director. He has subverted expectations time and time again, including 2008’s Iron Man, 2011’s Cowboys and Aliens, and more recently The Jungle Book remake. I expect him to make a good film out of The Lion King. I just assert that it’s extremely unnecessary.

Details will come soon on The Lion King’s planned release date and cast. Until then, I’m going to be singing Hakuna MataNAH.

– David Dunn

SOURCE: The Walt Disney Company

A Squabbling Between Children

Is this it? Is this the moment where we say the elections have officially gone to hell? My worst fears have been realized from both parties: Donald Trump is the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton is the Democratic. They had their first presidential debate Monday. Neither one is qualified for president and neither one represents America’s best interests. Now, my second worst fear has been realized: Clinton has proven to be the better option between herself and Trump. A good option? No, but we have very little to work with.

I’ve kept my lip shut about the elections for the most part up until now. Even during the primaries, I’ve tried to keep a filter on my opinions and who heard them. What good would my comments have done? Both sides were already saying the things that needed to be said about the candidates. The problem wasn’t that people weren’t speaking. The problem was that everyone else wasn’t listening.

As consequence, we are given an ultimatum: Trump or Clinton. Top socket or bottom socket. A bullet to the head or five to the chest and bleeding to death.

They are both poor candidates for different reasons. Trump is a loudmouthed bigot who has it his way or the highway. Clinton is a manipulative politician who also has it her way or the highway, but is more secretive about it. Both are self-serving singlets who are more concerned with their own success rather than America’s. I not only don’t like either of them as presidential candidates: I actively advocate that they are not fit, appropriate, or even remotely good substitutes for office. Them trying to look like presidential leaders is more laughable than an SNL comedy sketch.

Regardless of how I feel, there is one thing I cannot ignore: Clinton is more fit for office than Trump is, even if it is by a decimal point. Why do I say this? Just look at her performance from Monday night’s debate. Her and Trump both had their platform to speak on what they believed were the nation’s biggest issues. Their differences lie in what they were doing when the other was speaking.

While Trump was talking, Clinton stood there quietly. Did she react to Trump’s aneurisms? Yes, but she didn’t respond to them, not until it was her turn to speak. When it was her turn, Trump threw a temper tantrum, interrupting her, berating her, yelling over her, making sure his voice was the one heard even when he shouldn’t be speaking. He did this constantly throughout the night, like a child being ignored by his parents, screaming for attention. Without taking a stance on either candidate or their issues, his behavior was embarrassing, immature, and stupid. I stared at the screen, baffled at how this could have been the Republican nominee America had picked.

But of course, people will defend Trump for his behavior, saying things like “That’s just how he is”, or “He’s just being assertive.” He’s being assertive, alright, if you annunciate the first three letters of the word. Just because you have a big ego doesn’t give you the right to dominate over others. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship. If Trump can’t handle disagreements on a debate stage, what makes you think he can handle it in a congress chamber?

In turn, I know people will look at Hillary and think about what a manipulative crook she is. They aren’t wrong. Per the Espionage Act, Hillary shouldn’t even be in the running for president. She broke the law. She erased classified documents that should have been returned to the government. She writes the incident off as a “mistake”, which Trump rightfully corrects with “It wasn’t a mistake. It was on purpose.”

In a world where justice exists, Clinton would not even be up on that stage. Instead we get the blonde milf and her twin. And no matter how much I detest both of these figures, I can’t deny that Clinton kept her composure and Trump cracked under the pressure. Which is funny, because how does a guy get that angry while at the same time being the only one to say the most maddening things?

Another reason why Clinton proves to be the more reliable choice: she has political experience and he doesn’t. She’s been first lady of the United States (Monica Lewinski was the second). She’s been New York Senator. She’s been Secretary of State. Talk smack about how poorly she’s served in her positions all you want (please do, she deserves it): you can’t deny that she’s at least held an office.

Trump, on the other hand, has zero political experience. Zilch. Nada. None. His main platform is that he’s a creator of big business, which he is, that much you can’t deny. But it hasn’t been without its inconsistencies. Trump Steaks, Trump Mortgage, Trump “University” (The last of which is the most disastrous). He has failed business venture after business venture, and he has the bankruptcies to match it. And don’t even get me started on the fallout of employees he’s had as well.

You might argue that his outsider view of politics would help him in office. As opposed to Ben Carson? Where was that argument for him when he was in the race? At least he didn’t insult Heidi Cruz or Rosie O’Donnell.

Nope, we have Trump and Clinton. And if Clinton’s biggest crime is using the system to her advantage, Trump’s biggest blunder is bludgeoning the system with an elongated spear before blowing it up with a nuclear missile. Voting for Clinton would be participating in a crooked system. Voting for Trump is suicide.

I’m going to make an early prediction that Clinton is going to win the presidency. Why? Because the elections are about perception, not problem-solving. If it were about problem-solving, governor Gary Johnson would be allowed to debate on the stage alongside Trump and Clinton, given the fact that he has one of the highest third-party followings in election history. He was legitimately left out for one reason: to drive higher ratings from a conflict between an orangutan and a fraud.

The two debaters threw rhetoric and sprouted elevator speeches for over an hour instead of offering real incentives and solutions to problems our country is experiencing. They talked about what needed to change. They didn’t talk about how they were going to change it. And since these elections are about perception and not problem-solving, this statement from a cocky Clinton is what convinced me that the masses are going to go with her December:

“I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate,” Clinton laughed. “And yes, I did. You know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president.”

Shoot. With that much boldness and confidence? The worst part is I believe her.

I don’t know who I’m voting for come December. I simply don’t know. At this point, the elections have come to voting against the worst candidate as opposed to voting for the best one, like it should be. I’ve even toyed with the idea of not voting this season altogether, although I don’t know what exactly ignorance would accomplish.

All I know is this: democracy is threatened when an illusion of choice is presented. Regardless of who you vote for, we have no choice in what happens next. The only choice we have is in how we choose to participate. Whoever wins, America has already lost.

– David Dunn

Tagged , , , ,

Rod Needs Some Help From A Woman

I had a few thoughts while reading Rod Liddle’s editorial in The Sun about Emma Watson delivering a speech to the UN this past Saturday. She was talking about feminine equality.

Rod: Hermoine Granger has been addressing the United Nations General Assembly. Nope, not kidding.

Me: Who else is more qualified to address the UN? Ron Weasley?

Rod: The actress Emma Watson is a UN “Goodwill Ambassador”. What’s that, when it’s at home? I haven’t a clue.

Me: If you haven’t a clue, then you probably shouldn’t be talking about it in the first place. Just a thought.

Rod: Anyway, instead of telling them all the rules of quidditch or how to turn someone into a frog, she bored them all rigid with whining, leftie, PC crap.

Me: I thought Emma Watson was talking to the UN, not Hillary Clinton?

Rod: Just like all actresses do if people are stupid enough to give them the chance.

Me: I think the same applies to newspaper reporters.

Rod: Why do we indulge these luvvie slebs, most of whom know nowt?

Me: I believe the correct spelling is “naught.”

Rod: I don’t object to them having views and expressing them. I just don’t understand why we take them seriously.

Me: See note above luvvie slebs.

Rod: I suppose they got Emma in because Angelina Jolie is a bit tied up with other stuff at the moment.

Me: At least her divorce went down better than yours did.

And then I closed the window. If you can’t spell “naught” right, your opinion isn’t worth reading in the first place. Rod should have a woman spellcheck his writing before he publishes his next article.

– David Dunn

SOURCE: The Sun
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

“SNOWDEN” Review (✫✫✫)


The persecution of the American dream. 

Before you will have read this review, the government will have read it first. That is a fact that each of us must face and understand, although we shouldn’t necessarily accept it, even though many will tell us that we should. It’s been three years since Edward Snowden has leaked classified information about the NSA spying on its own citizens, and they still haven’t apologized or confronted the issue up front. To me that is an admission of guilt, and the movie Snowden is their sentencing.

Taking place years before the NSA leak, Snowden, portrayed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is an American just wanting to do his best to support his country. He’s worked in numerous jobs with the government before, including the Special Forces and C.I.A. But when Snowden is employed by the NSA, he makes a devastating discovery: the government is surveilling all of its citizens, everywhere, 24/7.

How bad is it? Imagine Uncle Sam looking over your shoulder every second of every day, and you’ve got a pretty accurate idea of the government’s hold on you. Your phone. Your iPad. Your MAC computer. Even if any of these things are off, their cameras and audio software can still pick up everything you’re saying or doing. And that’s not to mention the NSA’s access to your internet, social media, emails, private messages, and video chats, along with every other surveillance tool at their disposal.

This is where the film finds its emotional core, caught square in the middle of political paranoia, distrust, and dread. Our hero is caught in that same place as well, navigating the morality and technicality of this reality trapped, like a mouse running lost through a maze. The end result feels exactly how it sounds: thrilling, revealing, and disturbing.

I’m going to get your biggest concern right out of the way. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is absolutely mesmerizing as Edward Snowden. Like the best method performances, Gordon-Levitt focuses on the slight mannerisms and habits of the real-life figure and mimics them to near exact precision. This is an actor who has taken on a variety of roles in action films, including Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, and Looper. There is no indication in the film that this is the same actor minus appearances. He embodies everything he needs to about Snowden: his social awkwardness, his physicality, his stammering, his idle movements. Everything that he did made me feel like he was a second Edward Snowden. My only complaint is that his voice is a little low-pitched compared to Snowden’s, but for an otherwise flawless performance, this is one flaw I’m willing to forgive.

The screenplay is also very well composed, giving vital insight into this man’s perspective that perhaps we didn’t know how to feel about before. Writer/director Oliver Stone isn’t unfamiliar with controversial subject matter. From confronting the U.S.’s treatment of veterans in Born on the Fourth of July, to conspiracy theories in JFK, to violent escapades in Natural Born Killers, Stone is experienced with telling a wide variety of stories and how they affect modern society. Snowden seems like a perfect fit for him. Stone confronts the facts headfirst, not shying away from any of the details, no matter how disturbing they may be to us. The resulting message does everything a film is supposed to do: it thrills us while at the same time informing us.

All the same though, there were some moments that just did not work with this picture. I’m talking about scenes and elements that sharply collided with the movie’s tone and took you out of the experience rather than further immersing you. The first thing I’m going to mention is the score by Craig Armstrong, which is an unusual thing to mention because in a movie about Edward Snowden, you would think your first complaint wouldn’t be about the music. In one early scene during Snowden’s special forces days, the score was so soupy and melodramatic you would think they were trying to emulate Saving Private Ryan. Kinda off-tone for a movie about government surveillance and whistleblowers, don’t you think? His score does eventually come back to the sharp rhythms and ominous tones that are appropriate for a subject like this, but even then, the soupy melodies repeat two or three more times in the picture. The inconsistencies in this score take us out of the moment of tension that we’re supposed to be feeling and throws us into a state of perplexity, as if we’re not sure what sort of movie we’re supposed to be watching here.

But then in other scenes of the movie, you can’t fairly place blame on the music. Some scenes were just plain directed badly. In the omnipotent climax of the film, the highlight moment of the picture, the one where Snowden commits the act that we all know he’s inevitably heading towards, he finishes doing what he does, then he… smiles? His life has just been ruined, he’s now officially going to be hunted by the government as a fugitive, he has to run away from his home, his family, his friends, everything he has ever known to live in a country all by himself. And in this moment of self-sacrifice and legal martyrdom, he chooses to smile with the sun brightly illuminating his face, his hair blowing carefree in the wind? That’s not on-the-nose, cheesy, silly, and plain corny in any way, Stone. There’s no way to excuse a scene like that. It demanded a reshoot.

I fully believe everything I saw in Snowden. I don’t doubt a single frame in it. I believe it is real and it scares me. That’s a good thing though, because its supposed to scare you. The things you’re watching are things that have happened to you, and you should not be okay with them. You may not know the full story, but this is your opportunity to know.

Snowden may be the most important film you see this year, even if it isn’t necessarily the most well made.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jared Leto Warholing It

Jared Leto ain’t joking around.

The Academy Award-winning actor’s next project has been revealed as an Andy Warhol biopic, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Along with starring as the lead, Leto is also slated to produce the currently-untitled biopic alongside producer Michael De Luca (The Social Network, Captain Phillips) from a screenplay by Terrence Winter (The Wolf of Wall Street).

For those of you that are unfamiliar, Andy Warhol is a notable artist from the 1960’s who pioneered the pop art movement. An innovator in areas of impressionistic and satirical craftsmanship, Warhol created art through all sorts of mediums, including illustrations, paintings, prints, photographs, silk screens, sculptures, music, and even films (although his short Mario Banana is one of the most mortifying things I’ve seen to date). Warhol was also one of the first men to openly express his homosexuality, despite it being sharply frowned upon back then.

I am nothing short of thrilled at hearing that Jared Leto is taking on the iconic artist. Leto has had a successful career portraying a different variety of characters up until this point. He’s played a suave, charming businessman (American Psycho), a psychotic killer (Chapter 27), a conflicted trans woman (Dallas Buyers Club), and more recently, a criminal madman (Suicide Squad). He’s performed all of these roles very well, and even more impressively, matched the physicality of each of them, gaining pounds of weight for Chapter 27 to going bone-skin thin in Dallas Buyers Club. He has both the talent and the physicality to match Warhol, and I’m very excited to see what he brings for the role.

We’ll have to wait until 2018 to see what Leto’s Warhol will look like. Until then, let’s just hope bananas aren’t involved.

– David Dunn

SOURCE: The Hollywood Reporter, Rolling Stone

“13 HOURS: THE SECRET SOLDIERS OF BENGHAZI” Review (✫✫✫1/2)

Hell in half a day.

Here are the facts. On Sept. 11, 2012, the same day as another infamous tragedy, a U.S. compound in Benghazi was attacked. Four Americans were murdered that day, one of them being ambassador Chris Stevens. The rest of the on-site personnel fought for their lives for over 13 nightmarish hours against an enemy as cruel as they were relentless. This much is indisputable.

In the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks, there were accusers from all sides looking for someone to blame. The Republicans blamed the Democrats for being ignorant to the threat in the middle east. The Democrats wrote off the Republican’s criticisms as embellishing the truth. In their accusations against the other party, both forgot about the party that mattered the most: the American survivors. They didn’t care about left-wing or right-wing democracy. They cared about one more gasp of breath, the next plane that was flying out, how soon they could see their families again, maybe even hearing their voices one last time. You can talk politics about the situation all you want, but you cannot deny the 13 hours when someone’s family members were stuck in that hellhole.

I myself do not care about two party politics. They distract from the larger issues at hand, such as the growing anti-American sentiment in the middle east or getting our own citizens back home to us. Michael Bay apparently shares my emotions as he brings us 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, an exhilarating and heart-racing look at the soldiers fighting on the front lines, not the politicians making speeches from behind them.

In this adaptation of the real-life tragedy, 13 Hours follows the Global Response Staff (GRS), a team of ex-military operatives assigned to protect a U.S. compound based in Libya. Keep in mind, this is not an official embassy. Technically speaking, the U.S. isn’t even supposed to be in Libya. But legalities haven’t stopped the U.S. from operating outside the law before, and it’s not very likely to start now.

There are six men assigned to the GRS task force. One of them is Jack Silva (John Krasinski), a father of three with another one on the way. The rest of the team members aren’t so different from Jack. In one pivotal scene before the aforementioned events take place, all of the soldiers are on phones and videochats, talking to their wives, sons, and daughters back home, all whom are eagerly waiting to see each of them again. In this very important moment, we see these soldiers not as killers, but as human beings.

And of course, you already know what happens from there.

The best thing about this movie by far is the action. That’s so unusual for me to say, because most of the time, the action is the most overused part of any movie. Here though, the firefights are so exemplary, chaotic and explosive all at once, throwing our heroes through nearly impossible stakes that keep building as the movie goes on. The one thing Michael Bay is excellent at directing is action, and the firefights get so intense and on-edge that you question if our heroes can make it out multiple times.

But that’s not all Michael Bay does well here. Surprisingly, he exercises excellent restraint in slower-paced moments as well. In one early scene, Jack and fellow team member Tyrone Woods (James Dale) are at a standstill with a Libyan militia. I think I counted eight men training their guns against the two of them in their car. Woods tells them that a drone is flying over, and if anything happens to them, it’ll launch an airstrike against him and his men. After a narrow escape, Jack asks if they really had a drone on this assignment. Woods scoffs. “What do you think?”

I didn’t notice any obvious political motives from the film. I don’t care about them if they are in there. As a film critic, I’m not looking for those. What I am looking for is emotion, pacing, timing, things that help build the mood of the scene and help further implicate the ideas the movie is expressing. The best movies combine entertainment with relevance, and 13 Hours does that stunningly well. Think of a movie blending the paranoia of Zero Dark Thirty with the violence and grit from Black Hawk Down, and you get 13 Hours.

I’ve been very critical of Michael Bay in the past, and I think rightfully so. His Transformers movies have long plagued Hollywood with its stupid writing and absent-minded, overblown action sequences, while Pain and Gain was as offensive to its real-life subjects as it was to its movie theater attendants. With 13 Hours, however, Michael Bay finds himself in the zone, expressing his own style while at the same time spreading awareness on real-life issues. Thank God for those six men that found themselves fighting for their lives in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012. Without them, those 13 hours could have gone a lot worse.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Joe Manganiello Swifts Through Deathstroke

Slade’s not playing games. And neither is Joe Manganiello.

You might remember a few weeks ago when Ben Affleck released a cryptic video on his twitter account. The footage showed an ominous image of the iconic DC comics character Deathstroke, a.k.a. Slade Wilson, standing on a dock in his signature orange-and-black costume.

There were two questions on everyone’s minds: Who is Deathstroke, and is this footage for Justice League or the upcoming Batman reboot?

Warner Bros. recently answered both questions in a report released Wednesday. Deathstroke is going to be portrayed by actor Joe Manganiello, most well known from “True Blood” and Magic Mike fame, and he will be portraying the assassin in the upcoming Batman film starring and directed by Ben Affleck.

Manganiello’s casting is both exciting and interesting. Exciting because, for the first time since CW’s TV series “Arrow”, we get to see a live-action Deathstroke duke it out on the big screen. Interesting because, prior to Ben Affleck being cast in Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Manganiello was on the shortlist for considered actors alongside Ryan Gosling and Josh Brolin. Him and Affleck might be able to bring in that sense of competition to their roles and make their characters have a more compelling dynamic in the film.

Overall, I’m very exciting for this casting news. Great actor? Check. Awesome villain? Check. More Batman? Double check.

– David Dunn

SOURCE: Heroic Hollywood, Cinemablend

‘Maze Runner: The Death Cure’ Will Resume Filming in February

A few on-set injuries can’t keep down the maze runner.

Earlier in March, production on the third entry in the Maze Runner series, The Death Cure, was postponed due to a serious on-set accident with actor Dylan O’Brien. After O’Brien was hospitalized and treated for his injuries, 20th Century Fox confirmed that they will resume filming next year, but only after O’Brien goes through a full recovery.

“We wish Dylan a speedy recovery and look forward to restarting production as soon as possible,” Fox said in a statement.

If all goes well with O’Brien’s recovery, Fox is looking to resume filming as soon as February 2017. Maze Runner: The Death Cure is currently scheduled to be released in January 2018.

– David Dunn

SOURCE: Deadline, Cinemablend