SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME

By Marc S. Sanders

Spider-Man: Far From Home is a good movie for all the wrong reasons.

People, it’s not much of a super hero movie. Rather, it teeters more on a teen angst comedy. The teen angst material works very well. I laughed a lot and I found all of this material very touching. Peter Parker struggles with a “like,like relationship” with MJ. His pal Ned is getting in good with another classmate, and his European vacation is getting upended because Nick Fury keeps getting in the way. Again, this is all funny and really cute material. I laughed often. Really enjoyable.

That being said, where’s Spider-Man? He’s hardly in the costume and he’s truly fighting a rather subpar villain. Then again, when I read the comics Mysterio (Jake Gyllenhall, doing the best he can here) was never a favorite of mine. Mysterio’s nefarious ways are a bit implausible. I don’t want to spoil what he’s exactly up to but I wasnt exactly feeling the suspense or admiring his schemes. It’s a little too over the top ridiculous.

The other hero, Nick Fury does not really live up to his character as well. He makes dumb decisions and believes the preposterous storyline a little too easily. Fury had never been written this way before. He’s not this stupid. It irritated me.

I like Tom Holland in the Peter Parker role, and the rest of the cast is good, especially Peter’s pals, Ned, Betty Brant, Flash and MJ. Jon Favreau is likable, and Marisa Tomei makes for a good younger Aunt May.

If only the producers went with a different villain in Spidey’s rogue gallery. Where the heck is Kraven The Hunter already????

I like the whole cast, but there was much to be desired here in the script. The 2nd act is a mess which left me wondering how could this be…if that just happened, and again….where is Spider-Man???

So yeah, Spider-Man: Far From Home is not what it could’ve been but rather something else altogether. That’s maybe good…and bad.

GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONTSTERS

By Marc S. Sanders

Godzilla: King Of The Monsters

Imagine our reaction upon learning that the cast of this epic features the following:

Academy Award Nominee: David Strathairn

Academy Award Nominee: Ken Wantanabe

Academy Award Nominee: Vera Farmiga

Academy Award Nominee: Sally Hawkins

The FBI Guy from The Wolf Of Wall Street: Kyle Chandler

Emmy Nominee: Millie Bobbie Brown

Emmy Nominee: Charles Dance

…and the guy from Speed and Terminator 2: Judgement Day and most importantly the 2nd episode of What’s Happenning!!!: Joe Morton

Here is a film where scientist Vera Farmiga justifies waking up 10 million ton monsters on earth because it will “SAVE THE EARTH FROM POLLUTION DUE TO OVER POPULATION.” (Ahem, couldn’t she have just called Thanos?”)

Here is a film where scientists reason that the only way to communicate with Gorjira (a bad ass looking three headed Hydra) is by humpback whale frequency. (Ahem…one more thing…couldn’t Spock simply travel back to the mid 1980s and pick up George & Gracie?)

Here is a film where Boston is brought down to rubble save one street conveniently available for a Hummer to race down so that Kyle Chandler and Vera Farmiga can race back to their house to find daughter Millie Bobbie Brown safely taking refuge.

Despair not though my friends.

Boston survived!!!

There was one sole remaining functioning traffic light still standing following the mass destruction. That’s all I need for self assurance.

Let me tell you something though. You get your money’s worth out of this mashed potatoes of a film. One of the best comedies of the year!!!

It was a lot of fun.

THE CALL OF THE WILD

By Marc S. Sanders

I never thought I’d say it but a fully drawn CGI dog grabbed at my heartstrings with the 2020 film adaptation of Jack London’s literary classic The Call Of The Wild.

A gravelly voiced Harrison Ford narrates the ongoing journey of the St. Bernard named Buck who is kidnapped from his master’s home and eventually ends up in Alaska where a gold rush is in full swing. People from all places have come to the winter landscape during the turn of the century to purchase sled dogs as they venture off into the snow capped regions to uncover precious gold and get rich.

Buck is first recruited to drive two mail carriers (Omar Sy, Cara Gee; likable performances) through the Yukon. Though, he’s domesticated at first and not experienced with the command of “mush” and running in frigid temperatures to keep in step with seven other dogs, including the cruel canine leader known as Spitz. Soon, Buck vies for his place as leader with strength and determination and especially the respect he’s earned from the other dogs.

A second story puts him at the hands of a very cruel master named Hal (Dan Stevens). Buck and the other dogs suffer at his cruelty to continue the journey in search of gold only to get rescued by the frontiersman John Thornton (Harrison Ford). John and Buck’s relationship is the best and most touching piece of the film as it comes at a time when both characters need one another. John mourns the loss of his son as he decided to leave his wife. Buck is hurting physically while still perplexed at his Yukon surroundings.

I liked The Call Of The Wild. Though my suspension of disbelief was shattered as quick as it started. While it’s hard for me to accept that Buck will get Thornton to dry out on alcohol, as well as insist that he lead the pack by putting his foot-I mean paw- down, I could not help but be taken up in the midst of it all. Look, if Disney’s many animal characters can grab the emotions of countless moviegoers, then why can’t CGI “Buck” do the same as well. “Moving Picture Company” are the architects behind the CGI and they have achieved a nice blend of performance, emotion and effects with Buck and the other animals.

Harrison Ford responds well to the unreal animal that’s by his side. I bought it all whether they are on the canoe fighting the rapids or sharing a tent together or when Thornton sadly realizes that Buck is mapping out a new life in the wild, with a beautiful white Timberwolf. The director, Chris Sanders, periodically offers Buck a spirit to guide his destiny in the shape of beautiful yellow eyed, midnight black wolf as well.

I can’t say if this film follows London’s book precisely or goes completely off course. All I know is the film really took hold of me as I worried for Buck’s outcome. I left the film thinking of the silly, misbehaving Buck in the comfort of a master’s home all the way through the harsh elements of nature, and his encounters with the cruelty of man but also the respect of man. I really enjoyed The Call Of The Wild.

EXTRACTION

By Marc S. Sanders

Why do some filmmakers find it to be of such “impactful dramatic narration” to show a snippet of the end of the story or film within the first two minutes of its beginning? That’s what disappointed me in the latest Netflix release Extraction featuring Chris Hemsworth as a skilled Australian mercenary hired to rescue an Indian drug lord’s son that has been kidnapped by a competing drug lord.

Hemsworth plays Tyler Rake, action hero name!!! He’s an alcoholic that manages to maintain his buff physique. I’d like to know the secret to these big action brutes, and how they stay so fit while downing bottles upon bottles of liquor and pills. Tyler has two days to get Ovi Mahajan Jr (Rudhraksh Jaiswal) out of an area of Bangladesh that is completely controlled by Amir Asif (Priyanshu Painyuli) the most powerful drug lord in Dharma, Bangladesh. Ovi Sr is another drug lord trapped in prison. Cops, civilians, street kids, practically everyone in the area operates under the command of Amir.

The rescue happens early with Tyler taking out over a half dozen guys that are holding Ovi in a run down apartment. He kills them every which imaginable. Fist, gun, knife, rake (in a top floor apartment?), you name it. From there, the bulk of the film focuses on how Tyler and Ovi are going to get safely out of the area.

Extraction is directed by Sam Hargrave and produced by Hemsworth’s Marvel super hero producer pal, Joe Russo. It is based on a graphic novel and it’s easy to recognize that. The violence is fast and gory and unforgiving. A major player gets a head shot assassination while standing at a urinal. Hargrave freezes the scene for a moment like a comic book panel. Dialogue throughout the film is somewhat limited to what could only fit in one of those speaking bubbles you find in comics.

Hargrave had me going with a number of long steady cam moments. One in particular has Tyler driving a Mercedes down a busy street while getting shot at, crashed into and rocket launched. The camera goes in and out of the car from the back seat to the front seat to the hood and the trunk and around the bad guys surrounding them. It reminded me of that celebrated sequence from Children Of Men directed by Alfonso Cuaron. Only thing is, Hargrave is not as seamless as Cuaron. I give an ‘A’ for effort, though you easily catch the breaks in the flow.

Tyler gets some assistance from David Harbour, who plays another sleazy kind of cut up, just like in Quantum Of Solace. Can this guy do anything else? (I know…Stranger Things. How about something even more that that though?). He just didn’t do anything for me here.

Tyler also gets some welcome assistance from a female mercenary named Nik Khan (Golshifteh Farahani). She’s completely bad ass, and her character really comes alive in the last 30 minutes.

Extraction is decent entertainment. Honestly, I was getting a little bored as the killings went on and on. How many different ways can a guy be shot in the head? I guess that’s why Tyler swings a dead body like a baseball bat to take out another guy or mashes a guy’s head into a car door window. You know, to mix it up a little bit.

Hargrave’s film does go beyond the normal conventions of action films at times. There are a few twists that got my attention but it’s mostly a film narrated in body count and bullets.

However, because of these mild surprises, again I ask why show me obvious material from the story’s ending as a quick pre title sequence? It would have been a much more satisfying surprise for me as a viewer had I not known what was to eventually come into play.

BIRDS OF PREY

By Marc S. Sanders

Margot Robbie is a champion actress. Just look at Bombshell (I thought she was more memorable than Oscar winner Laura Dern.). Look at I, Tonya. (I thought she should have won the Oscar that year.) Harley Quinn? She’s perfect in the role as a ditzed out, mallet carrying party gal villain turned anti hero from the Batman universe. Only problem is that as good as she is in the role, I can’t stand Harley Quinn. This is a child who just won’t sit still.

Robbie takes on her second turn in the role following the abysmal Suicide Squad. This time she produces Birds Of Prey (and The Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn). It’s an improvement from Squad but it still seems to be all over the place. It happily acknowledges that it time jumps and corrects itself. It is happy to drop F bombs because the producers wanted a R rated female driven equivalent to Deadpool. (It never had to be Deadpool.) It even goes in rewind mode (you know, with the cassette tape sound) because the viewer or the fans of Harley need to experience the lunacy of Harley. She talks looney so we need to feel looney while she voiceovers the story that’s going on here.

The Gotham gangster Black Mask (Ewan McGregor – the next candidate in line trying to replicate Jack Nicholson’s Joker, just like Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones and Arnold Schwarzenegger and on and on), wants to find a diamond that was swallowed by a kid named Cassandra Cain. Harley recruits herself to protect Cassandra, while waiting for her to shit it out. Hilarious material here. Side stuff tells us that Harley has split from the Joker.

The problem with Birds of Prey is that it does the work for the audience. I was constantly reminded that Harley is cuckoo, that I didn’t get the chance to discover it for myself. Robbie’s delivery is perfectly on point. The issue is the writing by screenwriter Christina Hodson is hackneyed. The character’s antics are too in your face. Look at Heath Ledger. The Nolans only revealed so much about the Joker. When their film ended, I wanted to learn more. Where did that guy actually stem from? He was a Joker like no other before him. The character wasn’t shoved in my face like Harley is. I had to think about him during and after the film.

The supporting cast is nothing of interest either. Rosie Perez, a great actress, plays third or fourth fiddle here as a Gotham cop who doesn’t get the credit she deserves from a department of mostly men. Mary Elizabeth Winstead just carries a crossbow that people mistake for a bow and arrow, and she gets frustrated with that. Yeah that’s ironic, I’m sure.

Still, despite the title, Harley is the main protagonist. Warner/DC got the right actor for the part. So why couldn’t they write her with more depth than this? The film starts out fun with a silly Looney Tunes animated update but then it gets all scattered with Harley breaking a thug’s legs and blowing up a chemical factory. She also shoves cheese whiz in her mouth. You go, girl!!!

Think about it. Harley used to be a renowned psychiatrist who is dropped in a vat of acid and abused terribly by Joker, only to break free of him and find her own way. This film really only TELLS us this. A better film would have SHOWN that to me. A better film would have made this the story from beginning to end. I’d love to have seen Harley before she went nuts.

You know what? I might’ve then become Harley Quinn’s biggest fan.

INCREDIBLES 2

By Marc S. Sanders

Disney/Pixar and (yeah, let’s single him out) Director Brad Bird continue to impress with marvelous feats of imagination. Yet I’m not necessarily referring to the art of their animation, outstanding action scenes or the colorful superhero names. Rather, it’s the story that usually stands above all else in each entry that’s released year after year.

Allow me to sidetrack for a moment. Consider a film like Lethal Weapon 2. It’s a fun movie that I’ve always liked, but it was not just an action movie. I mean, think about it. There’s a reason the first film was on Roger Ebert’s Top 10 list of 1987. It focused on the trauma and suicidal tendencies of a burned out cop along with some great action and humor. It’s sequel however, just did the same thing. Just more of the same stuff, despite a very capable partner that was featured in the film. The partner remained the sidekick again. Not much effort in thought the second time around (or 3rd or 4th).

Incredibles 2 avoids the same trap. While the first one focused on Bob Paar and his alias, Mr. Incredible, this new film relies on Holly Hunter’s Elastigirl, known by day as housewife Helen Paar. Yeah, as I’m writing this, I’m realizing she’s kind of recruited for a mission the same way her husband is, but the perspective seems fresh; consistent in step with other female hero protagonists like Wonder Woman and Katniss Everdeen.

Adding to the effectiveness of this film is that these larger than life characters are humanized. Dad is out of work, following a government mandate. So he stays home with the kids and mixes the pinks with the whites while trying to get the atomic demon baby Jack Jack to sleep. Side note: Jack Jack is an awesome scene stealer. There’s a reason this kid was on every toy shelf and t-shirt in countless variations from the end of summer through Christmas. He’s now up there as one of my favorite Pixar characters.

A surprise reveal is no surprise at all. So don’t set yourself up for disappointment. Just relish in a very cool new villain known as The Screenslaver. He’s no Syndrome but he’s pretty intimidating nonetheless.

As a major comic book geek, another thing I appreciated was that Bird’s script and direction follow a pattern of the golden and silver ages of comics without all the heavy drama that comic film adaptations depend on today. There’s a bad guy wreaking havoc and the superheroes come in to save the day. There’s no heavy pseudo tragedy to get in the way. Often I don’t mind that, but here it’s absence is refreshing. Just make it about a bank robbery and a bad guy with the “mwah ha ha” maniacal laugh and it’ll satisfy. It kept the movie light, playful and especially funny.

So glad that I was able to take time out to see Incredibles 2. Go find your super suit and soar to seat in front of the screen.

NOTE: there is a scene midway through the film that might be disruptive for people prone to having seizures. It contains the equivalent of an actual strobe light effect and it lasts a good 2-3 minutes. Please take that into consideration. If you want to know when it takes place, message me and I’ll clue you in when you might want to excuse yourself from the viewing.

DEADPOOL

By Marc S. Sanders

Okay….so here’s where I risk getting the “What!?!? You’ve got to be kidding me!!!!” response from fellow nerds.

Sorry, but I don’t get the hype or the reason why this stupid character called Deadpool continues to have legs in mainstream comics or, now, movies.

I was hoping to see something more fun than just one wisecrack after another.

Granted, the movie consistently breaks convention of everyday blockbuster movies beginning as early as the opening credits, but it also mires in absence of story…..I mean ZERO story. NONE!!!! NADA!!!! ZILCH!!!!

I like spoofs like Airplane! especially. Now I see that I like spoofs as long as there is some narrative. I guess I want the movie to hold my hand a little as it takes me on the journey. Sue me….okay?!?!?!?

This movie has no direction, and jumps in flashbacks and forwards countless times. I can not remember a movie before this one that had, I think 4 beginnings, sorry, maybe 5 beginnings. LET’S GO ALREADY!!!!

Yes, there are some good gags that I smirked at or goodness me, even laughed at but those moments ended quickly. Ryan Reynolds is trying waaaaaaayyy too hard to channel the smart alec ways of Robert Downey Jr and he’s boring trying to do it. He makes the character and the movie Deadpool look like a stand up comedian who wore out his welcome. I was waiting for the cane to yank him off screen. (In a movie like this, that could’ve happened.)

Here’s what I recommend, buy a ticket to The Big Short (a real movie; a genuinely funny movie that demonstrates how to break the 4th wall effectively), only before it starts, sneak into the end of Deadpool to watch the secret scene at the end of the credits. For fans of John Hughes 80s movies, that’s the best part.

BRAVEHEART

By Marc S. Sanders

Mel Gibson’s Braveheart is a barbaric film. It’s barbaric in its nature, its violence and its characters. It’s also a magnificent piece of moviemaking.

It’s incredible how Gibson can depict himself in violent battle sequences swinging his sword and tumbling over enemy extras while directing the film. Braveheart is truly one of the best films to be directed and produced by its lead actor.

In the 13th century, King Edward Longshanks keeps a firm rule of British monarchy over Scotland. He finds the Scottish to be unruly and out of order. Taxes alone will not keep them at bay. So he declares it noble to have any Englishman bed a newly Scottish bride before her husband has the opportunity. Therefore, to avoid this experience, William Wallace (Gibson) marries his true love Murron (Catherine McCormick) in secret from the British Empire.

Following the escape from rape by an English captain, Murron is taken, with her throat slit to draw out Wallace. From that point on, Wallace never puts down his sword as he begins the Scottish uprising for freedom from British rule.

Braveheart is not a complex film and we’ve seen films like this before with swords and shields over wide open battlegrounds. However, the construction of Gibson’s film is outstanding. The extras that make up the British and Scottish armies are dense with breadth. The battle scenes are bloody and fierce with axes, swords, bows & arrows and burning tar.

It’s also a moving piece as Wallace remains steadfast with drive to deliver freedom for his people. It’s not so much a character arc for Wallace. He only changes once Murron is killed from wanting to remain peaceful to war torn and strategic in his attacks.

Instead, a good arc comes from Angus McFayden as Robert The Bruce, a confused Scottish nobleman who allies with William but whose judgement is clouded by his aging father. McFayden gives some brief voiceover narration. His character delivers a few surprises as Wallace continues to do damage to Longshanks’ territorial control.

Patrick McGoohan plays Longshanks and he’s another good villain in a long line of English antagonists. He’s determined to keep his rule and bloodline intact despite his gay, weakling for a son whom he forces into wedlock with the princess of France, Isabella (Sophie Marceau).

There’s a lot of dynamics to Braveheart. Battle scenes of blood and gore with burning flames and garish makeup are the main attraction. However, Gibson’s film offers up conflicts of interest found in Randall Wallace’s script. Romance between William and Marron as well as the rich history that led to Scotland’s independence and the almighty power of England and its conceit that would lead to the country’s defeat against a man’s will to lead his brute army to something greater which they never envisioned.

Braveheart is good entertainment.

THELMA & LOUISE

By Marc S. Sanders

The strength of a good solid picture often depends on a strong cast from the top billing, above the title actors, to the bit supporting players who only have a few minutes of screen time.  Thelma & Louise, directed by Ridley Scott, is that film.  The opening credits of the movie come up in black and white over an out west landscape with an endless dirt road in the center of the screen.  Hans Zimmer’s harmonica and banjo, country sounds build on Scott’s camera work here.  The names of each actor are brought up: Susan Sarandon, Geena Davis, Harvey Keitel, Christopher MacDonald, Michael Madsen, Stephen Tobolowsky, and someone named Brad Pitt. The scene goes to color and then it blacks out and comes up on Louise’s (Sarandon) crowded diner where she waitresses.  Nothing is unfamiliar here.  Yet, it seems a little haunting in a way.  We are about to uncover a history to some common folk who live on the southern bend of America, and we will start in the state of Arkansas.

Louise has made arrangements with her best friend Thelma (Davis) to do a weekend cross country road trip to a cabin in the woods.  This is the southern odd couple.  Louise is always put together, clean and organized.  She’ll check herself in the mirror.  In a crowded ladies room, she’ll check her makeup and tidy her hair while intoxicated patrons are pushing around behind her.  Thelma is scatterbrained.  She’ll bite off a piece of a candy bar, put it back in the freezer and make three more stops back at the freezer for a couple of more bites.  She also will dump a dresser drawer of clothes into a suitcase, taking no time to sort through what she’s packing.

Both women have been treated unfairly by the men in their lives.  Thelma’s husband, Daryl (MacDonald) is a proud white trash carpet sales manager who treats his wife with absolute control, complete disregard and thoughtless disdain.  Louise just can’t even get a hold of her boyfriend Jimmy (Madsen), a musician who can’t commit to anything.  On the first night of their trip, the two ladies hit the road in an iconic 1966 green Ford Thunderbird convertible (one of the greatest, most memorable vehicles in film screen history), they’ll realize there may be worse men than the ones they’ve encountered.  Following an attempted rape, a shooting occurs and the ladies are hitting the road, hoping to make it to Mexico.

Thelma & Louise is at least Ridley Scott’s most sensitive film.  It was not the first or last time he used women as leads in his pictures.  Yet, the film moves symbolically along the stretches of highway and dirt roads as a means to reveal the strength and confidence a woman can have when she escapes the controlling shadow of a man.  At least that’s what I think.  The beginning of Scott’s film, with an Academy Award winning script from Callie Khouri, displays the title characters as weighed down by their past and current lives.  It is only when the two break free (with little options following an unforeseen dilemma) they understand they can be stronger than any man who’s ever dominated them before.  As the road trip moves on, they will encounter more hang ups and they will make mistakes, but by the time the third act comes along Thelma and Louise will sever any restraints that have held them back before.  It is such a gratifying story.

My father encouraged me to go see this movie with him.  It was 1991.  I was graduating high school.  I’d seen trailers for this picture and it was loaded with high energy country music.  I don’t like country music, typically.  In fact, I only can like country music when it is incorporated into a film.  Thelma & Louise is the best example of that feeling.  I hated the title.  Still kind of do.  It doesn’t have the ring of say Starskey & Hutch or Batman & Robin.  However, those are guy pairings.  Thelma & Louise are about two women, and I was never going to forget that.  Once I saw the film, I could not stop thinking about it.  I grew so accustomed to Ridley Scott’s direction and use of cinematography with Adrian Biddle.  The sun on the screen felt hot.  The dirt on the character’s faces and the Thurderbird felt gritty.  The sunburns on Sarandon and Davis felt sore and dry.  The glow of the car’s dashboard light felt bright in my vision. The settings spoke to me.  There’s a great moment where Louise seems to shed her feminine and dainty skin so to speak.  She hands over her jewelry to an old timer sitting on the side of road at an abandoned truck stop.  No words are shared between them.  This guy was born on this spot.  He’s never moved from this spot and Louise will leave her history behind with him.  Later, as the stakes grow, with the FBI and law enforcement closing in on the fugitives, there’s a moment where Thelma tells Louise, that she feels awake; like really awake and alert.  I knew what she was talking about.  I’ve already been on this hike for two hours with these characters, along with the crimes and entanglements they’ve gotten into and the movie has my full attention.  All these years later with repeated viewings, and I still feel that way.  I feel absolutely awake the moment the movie begins.

Khouri supplies her script with a variety of men.  Some are sensitive like the detective played by Keitel who knows that a murder didn’t just happen maliciously.  There’s more to the circumstances at play, and he’s hoping for the best for the ladies.  Some are just procedural like Tobolosky, who doesn’t recognize them as women, only as fugitives. Some are enlightening, yet deceptive like Brad Pitt’s hitch hiking handsome and charming loner that the ladies pick up, and some are simply cruel and vicious, like the rapist or Thelma’s husband, Daryl (MacDonald).  Maybe a trucker along the way is like that as well.  How will Thelma and Louise respond to each of these guys?  As the story contains a gamut of what all these men are, I never regard the picture as a middle finger protest to the male population.  Not at all.  There are men who will give women a chance and will treat them with respect and at least equality, within their surroundings.  Khouri’s script allows time for that.  Sadly though, thirty years later there are still men who will treat women like punching bags with no value and esteem.  It’s wrong.  It’s why the “Me Too” movement had to eventually come into play, long after the release of this picture. 

At the risk of sounding political with potential for debate and preach, watching Thelma & Louise last week, I could not help but think of recent current events that have occurred in mid year 2021.  Bill Cosby was set free from his prison sentence following a technicality that justified his release, but never exonerated him of his crimes of rape.  A former kid actor named Drake Bell was sentenced to three years’ probation for sending sexually explicit materials and texts to an underage girl.  More physical details have been implied on that relationship but Bell was never charged with anything on that topic.  Hence, no jail time.  A Disney channel actor has a warrant out for his arrest following missing a court date with similar charges as Bell.  Following the early rape scene in this film, the attacker is shot and killed in a parking lot.  The ladies consider going to the police and explaining what exactly happened, but they choose to run.  Why?  Because, they know that the police would never believe them.  They were witnessed minutes earlier drinking and partying with this guy in a bar.  Why would anyone believe he would try to rape one of them?  Reader, I know what they mean.  I understand.  Each time I watch the movie, I truly understand.  I know what Thelma and Louise are talking about.  It’s sad.  It’s wrong.  It infuriates me because it’s so unfair.

Callie Khouri and Ridley Scott created an outstanding adventure picture with suspense, and lots of natural humor by means of the outlaw way like Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid.  A surprising robbery midway through the picture is hilarious and serves as a legit character change for Thelma.  Davis is great here.  She has scenes of drama and fear throughout the movie, but she also has time for laugh out loud moments.  Alternatively, the Louise character that Sarandon portrays seems to hinge on the dramatic element.  I love a hanging thread that Khouri weaves into the script of an unknown traumatic occurrence that happened in Louise’s past.  I am certain that Sarandon knows what it is even if the audience doesn’t entirely know.  Later in the film, the humor that Louise encounters comes through as Thelma transitions over to a new kind of personality.  These women don’t change individually.  They change together.  It’s a great couple dynamic for sure.

The film is sexy and at times sweet as well.  Yet, it’s also very terrifying, with very real drama.  Thelma & Louise is an important picture to see.  I plan to show it to my teenage daughter when she is a little older.  The rape scene holds me back right now as I find it hard to watch and requires a mature eye.  Nonetheless, I want her to be aware of what is out there.  I want her to know how people, men in particular, respond and treat women.   I want her to be alert and strong when faced with any kind of adversity, deserved or not; justified or not.  I find that some movies offer the best lessons of life about the cruelty and kindness of the world.  Most especially when they are filmed with sensitivity and authenticity, like Schindler’s List or The Shawshank Redemption.  Countless viewings later with thirty years behind it, and I still learn from Thelma & Louise.  It’s another one of my favorite movies.

THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3 (2009)

By Marc S. Sanders

While the remake of The Taking Of Pelham 123 is not the best of the Tony Scott directed/Denzel Washington headlining thrillers, it’s still a good time. I’m a sucker actually for most of their films, though as of this writing I’ve yet to see Man On Fire. Washington and Scott made several action pictures together. You depend on Scott to work in all the fast cuts to wake up your pulse and allow Washington to form a variety of characters. Denzel Washington didn’t have to appear like the macho tough guy with the ripped muscles. In Pelham, it could not be more evident.

Washington plays Walter Garber (first name salute to Walter Matthau of the original film), a dispatch operator for the New York City subway line with years of experience in all facets of operation and management. However, he’s been demoted due to an ongoing investigation that he has accepted bribes. Now let me say that I like this angle. He’s not a typical alcoholic or drug addict that we might have seen a Bruce Willis guy do one too many times. This is something different and unexpected. Washington also appears with a pot belly, glasses and no fashion sense. He’s not a decorated war veteran. This is not an action hero. Screenwriter Brian Helgeland got it just right, with this character at least.

John Travolta is your bad guy known as Ryder, and I’m afraid he’s cut from similar cloths of his other career bad guys. He screams in the same way. He has the psycho meltdown attempts at hilarity. So he’s more of the same really.

Ryder and his crew hijack one car off the subway line that comes out of Pelham Bay, NY. Garber answers the call from Ryder with his demands for money within the hour or a hostage will get killed minute by minute after the deadline.

Now Helgeland and Scott are very aware of the absurdity going on here. When the apathetic Mayor (a welcome James Gandolfini) agrees to pay the cash, it has to be transported all the way from the bank reserve in Brooklyn. This requires Scott’s signature moves of racing police cars and bikes through congested New York City to get it to Ryder before the deadline. Only midway through this long sequence which gobbles up tons of the film’s running time, does someone ask why they just didn’t use the helicopter. Cue my colleague Miguel E Rodriguez: “Then there wouldn’t be a movie!!!!”

As much as I like the action shots, because I’m a guilty pleasure sucker for that stuff, I have to insist that there still could’ve been a movie; a better movie. Helgeland’s script wasn’t imaginative enough, or the producers insisted on more car crashes and things blowing up real good. The original with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw maintained tension for its two hour running time. This remake could have learned a little more from its ancestor. Two great actors are at your disposal, and you might have gotten some good dialogue like that of Clarice & Hannibal, perhaps.

Still, the conversations between Washington and Travolta are serviceable on at least one side with most credit going to Washington. Surprises into the Garber character keep the film interesting. Travolta? Well, I saw this guy in Face/Off and Broken Arrow and Swordfish and on and on.

The Taking Of Pelham 123 always had my attention. Yet, I wish it showed me even more new things than just its unlikely hero. Denzel Washington shouldn’t have to be the only one putting in overtime.