Sicario Day Of The Soldado

A worthwhile sequel.

I would go on the record and say it's not as good compared to the first movie but terrible it is not, and does do what any good sequel should. We follow Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro from the last film jumping from cartels to border patrol after several suicide bombers come from Mexico, and a ploy revolving around a cartel leader's daughter becomes the main focus. Which makes sense because these are operatives who would jump from mission to mission with little ties to the last, and while the main returning characters don't get much new, the performances are still strong especially with Benicio who gets to spread his wings more and is a perfect follow up lead because of the mystique about him in the first film. Josh Brolin still undoubtedly is the anti-hero willing to go to any extreme to get the job done and they did attempt to give him more of a moral dilemma near the end which I appreciate. Isabela Moner gets plenty of good screen time as we see her transition from hard edged schoolgirl getting into scuffs to most likely PTSD riddled survivor of numerous shootouts, and I know the trauma is her arc rather than overcoming the trauma itself but it does make me wish we got more from her. This does feel like one of those movies from the actionsploitation genre where it's not as tightly written or has as big a budget but is more made for some revenue and to ever so slightly expand upon the characters from the first film. It's not direct to DVD but more like a limited theatrical release before being swiftly added as the TV movie for the week kind of vibe. It's definitely serviceable, it's not shot bad at all, the action still has a punch, the story is involved and doesn't feel like a writer's obligation, it has good quiet moments, I was engaged to see where it ended, and I'm not even really opposed to a Sicario 3 in the future. I guess it's more a matter of what are you looking for, if you watched the first and didn't get your bullet quota fulfilled you won't find much better here, but if you liked the more dramatic angle of the first movie I think you can walk away from this one happy. Me personally I was happy to watch both even if I probably won't watch it again in the future, still solid and enjoyable but I can bow out with a smile on my face. So 3 stars, 7/10, new movie coming up next time so good times to be had!

The Wolfman

We're really keeping it in the family this week.

I've been aware of this version for some time perhaps even since it's release back in 2010, and by all accounts it seems a miracle I was able to watch it at all. It's very worthy to note this was a tumultous project to even get off the ground beginning in 2006, filming completed in 2008, but the film didn't get released until two years later with a constant search for a director and yet through it all come hell or high water Benicio Del Toro was going to be in this movie. That's some commendable ass behavior that seems rarer than a blue moon these days, he even had a producing credit, with great affinity for the 1941 original so a passion project this absolutely was for him. Taking place in 1891 England actor Lawrence Talbot returns to his home in light of his brother being murdered, and upon investigation is marked by the very creature that eviscerated his relative, leading a great many to hunt him down. This is undoubtedly a movie on it's own, yes it has sprinklings of references to The Wolf Man but ultimately does it's own original story throughout which is commendable. Being a period piece it's staggeringly accurate to the time and every penny can be seen on screen, with multiple effectively atmospheric shots in the forest that look beautiful at times, almost creating a canvas of gothic horror in a landscape where such a thing was as antiquated as the time period itself. The acting is decent, they are commited to the roles and while nothing big or bombastic is presented I appreciate the efforts all the same. Benicio is a solid leading man and big time props for him going through the special effects makeup which reportedly took 4 hours to complete, which also means brownie points for not going full CG all the time and only is used when necessary. This is one of Anthony Hopkins' more subdued performances yet even then it's easy to get involved with his character. I do believe this is the earliest film I've seen of Emily Blunt probably before she became famous and indeed it took me a hot second to recognize that was her, and she probably has the most pathos of all the characters. Again took me a brief second to recognize Hugo Weaving as an inspector who already has Lawrence pinned for the murders, and while he isn't in the movie much he does solid work and is a good opponent for Benicio to play against. I will say straight up hands down, easily the most gory and bloody werewolf movie I've ever seen and that's to be expected with special effects master Rick Baker on the production, and coincidence if ever there friggin' was one Rick won an Academy Award for best makeup for two damn werewolf movies, this one and An American Werewolf In London. Do not ask me how that works, the universe is a funny thing. Yet with all the positives present there's always gotta be one negative that keeps rearing it's ugly head, and I fully blame this on when the movie was made. God...damn it this movie is packed to the ever loving gills with jumpscares, predictable as shit, and drags the rating down because of it! I hate it with a passion. And from what I've seen the reception couldn't be more down on the movie, and while I'll say it's just okay maybe others can get more out of it than me. Clearly there are positives to be seen, but the scare factor is tired and the story and script probably needed just a tiny bit more polish to be really good if not great, but I can still say I'm happy I saw it. 2 stars, 6.5/10, let's hope for better tomorrow!

Sin City

This movie really did surprise me but not in the way you would ever expect.

Sin City is a pretty damn good adaptation based off of Frank Miller's graphic novel and it does a very, very accurate telling of the story. When I say this is a noir film, I mean it's a noir film especially in the visual sense. This is the noir film you could ever hope or wish to see, it's stylistic, dark, bloody, and faithful to the source material. Now the surprising bit I was talking about is the fact that the movie is split up into parts, almost like a compilation of short films done all in the same style. But not like you would expect. In this two hour and twenty minute venture into the dark and gritty world of Sin City, at about the 40 minute mark the end credits start to roll. Yeah, you read correctly. They literally split this movie into four parts, with closing credits and all. Hell, it takes 50 minutes before you see the title of the movie. Damn. That blows my mind, you never see this. Now storywise between all our short films, there really isn't that much connecting them like in Pulp Fiction, some plot points intersect but it is not the case with all the short stories. One follows a cop who took the fall after saving a little girl and his reuniting with her, a brick of a guy on a revenge hunt for the killing of a woman, and a man preventing an all out gang war between different sections of the city. And the I think genius part of it all is, it's played up. It's melodramatic, and almost theatrical in a way which is how old noir crime dramas, and even the pulp magazines which this movie took inspiration from were made. Another thing I found quite interesting is the fact the entire film shot on location here in Austin, although because of it's unique stylish and gritty backdrop most of the movie is computer graphics. And they did a good job with creating the look of this world with one exception. Okay so the entire film is shot in black and white as your typical noir film but there are pieces of color in the movie, usually around an object or a identifying aspect of a character. Like a guy has red shoes on, or a girl has blue eyes, but there is no real consistency with it! You see blood both red but also white, some characters have color on them and some don't, it seems so inconsistent like you think there would be some kind of rhyme or reason why this is red, that is blue, etc. but no! That's really the only bad thing I can say about this movie, everything is fine. I mean it wasn't great but it's not terrible either. Would I suggest it? Well maybe. Depends on if you like crime drama/noir movies or you enjoy seeing comic adaptations (even if it's from Frank Miller.) so I say approach it with caution. You really kind of have to be in a mood to watch this movie. But I thought it was okay so I leave it entirely up to you.

Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas

Who needs drugs when you have a movie like this?

Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas is a brilliant film, based off of the book by the same name written by Hunter S. Thompson, starring Johnny Depp in his slow rise to popularity and Benicio Del Toro. The story follows the real life story of Doctor of Journalism Hunter S. Thompson, named Raoul Duke in this movie, as he is sent to Las Vegas to write on a sport event but soon spirals into a drug riddled analysis of the 60s counterculture and the american dream. The very feel and nature of this movie does make you think, "Jesus what the hell did I take before this movie?". It's very out there, but not to the point where you get lost in confusion. It's a trip to say the least. There's great subtle humor in the movie almost all done by Johnny Depp in probably one of my top five best performances of his, and it takes repeated viewings to get everything that's happening, both in foreground and background. The performances feel legitimate, this ain't no Reefer Madness kind of drug acting. Actually now that I think about it the entire movie feels like a combination of uppers, downers, screamers, and laughers in terms of drugs, with higher than highs and lows of aftereffects on binging on every known drug to mankind since 1544 A.D. with laughs aplenty, and screamers full of tension. I definitely say to give this movie a chance, and see what you take from this trip of drug idled madness in the seediest city in the country.

And on tomorrow's review, it's actually almost a sequel to this movie. Still starring Johnny Depp, still based on Hunter S. Thompson, but made in 2011.