The Iron Lady

Hey... Jobs... Jobs! Long Walk to Freedom... Long Walk to Freedom! THIS is how you do a biopic.

Now I feel like I may be putting this movie at a slight advantage because honestly, I don't know that much about Margret Thatcher. I don't know the intricacies of her life and I was watching the movie not knowing exactly how its going to end. I had a general idea but nothing specific whereas I knew the life stories of Steve Jobs and Nelson Mandela pretty thoroughly prior to watching their biopic. So I guess that's a disclaimer.

But that doesn't put aside the fact that this movie is just done a lot better.

And believe it or not, this is the same director who did Mamma Mia... The same director who did that god awful piece of garbage Mamma Mia directed this really really well done film. Now I don't think I've ever critiqued Mamma Mia on the way it was directed, its just a bad film. But then that woman makes this film? Wow, I'm impressed. Can we give Phyllida Lloyd more work please?

Okay, taking a step back for a second (I literally just finished the movie so I need to gather my thoughts and give a fair and balanced review).

The Iron Lady is a biopic on the life of Margaret Thatcher (played by Meryl Streep), the former and first female Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Where to start with this movie because right off the bat they get a lot of things right.

First off, they begin the story near the end of Margret Thatcher's life. I don't know exactly how old she is but she looks pretty old whenever they flash forward to her older years.

Point is, she's old. She needs to some assistance with her living situation and all the while she's having hallucinations of her dead husband (played by Jim Broadbent).

This setting serves as a jumping off point as she looks back on her life all the while deciding what she's going to do about these hallucinations that she knows aren't real but she can't quite let go of yet.

I could see this screenplay playing out just as well on a stage as I can on film, it plays out, not like a Shakespearean play, but a play nonetheless and with a background in theater, I love this approach.

But anyway, the flashbacks begin when Margaret is young. Growing up in Grantham, idolizing her political father, you understand her background and you understand why her political beliefs shaped the way they did.

By the Way, I don't know who this Alexandra Roach is but I was impressed with her performance. I almost wanted to see her on screen more despite knowing that eventually the film would transition to Streep but I was perfectly content seeing this actress go for a while.

While the beginning is streamlined a bit, it focused on the parts that seemed important and didn't waste time with Margret Thatcher in a wheat field dropping acid or something like that... (I really didn't like that scene from Jobs).

It didn't need a montage, it showed the highlights of her life and then moved onto the more important parts which include her being proposed to by her husband Dennis and being elected to Parliament.

Everything that happened here fed into the story and helped develop the character.

So the first act is her younger years and her getting into politics and where those conservative beliefs that Thatcher is known so well were formed.

The second act is her rise to power and the changes that she had to make to her self and the sacrifices she had to make in order to get to that point.

All the while the story is being helped along by flash forwards to her dealing with the ghost of her husband and both of them reacting to these flashbacks.

Funny note: In the past five years we've had two critically acclaimed films, this one and The King's Speech, and both of them have focused on high ranking British officials and both of them had them in voice lessons trying to learn to speak in a more commanding voice.

I think that's funny and interesting at the same time.

But the transformation she goes through from polite but fiery housewife looking Margret Thatcher to the Margret Thatcher we know from history is actually really interesting.

The third act is really her rise and fall (and technically another rise and fall) of her time as Prime Minister.

And honestly, this is the stuff that gets really good. It really puts a human face on a woman who many believed was just a conservative with no heart for the people when really all she wanted to do was do what she thought was right. And this is where this movie does it right because a good movie builds on itself. And everything that has come before this third act builds on itself. Friendships, rivalries, beliefs, convictions, relationships, they all come to the tipping point in this last act.

But the more important part of it all is that this story is not so much a story about Margaret Thatcher as a Prime Minister, is more about her as a woman.

Now I've read some things about this film criticizing it for not really having a stance on whether or not it agrees with Thatcher or thinks she's just a crazy old woman by the end of it. But I saw it more as a personal story. And with the performance of Streep, it puts the movie far ahead of any political drama. While the story mainly follows Thatcher through her rise to power, the underlying point of this movie is dissecting her as a person. What a career like this can do to a woman who by all standards of the day, should have just stayed at home and not gotten into this boys club in the first place.

With the exception of her daughter and her living assistant... I can't really think of any other women in this film. Its a monstrous story and as far as biopics go, I thought it did a pretty good job.

Now, of course, a lot of the credit goes to Meryl Streep. Streep absolutely kills this role. Let's be honest, I'm probably never going to watch this movie again but there's a possibility, with more time, I might rethink the actual merits of the movie itself. But I know that I will not rethink the performance by Streep because it is really fantastic.

And that's why I had to compliment Roach's performance as well because it flows so well together. And the great part is, its not like Roach is doing her best to do a Streep performance, they're both working in tandem to create the best representation of Margret Thatcher.

Streep does have a talent for making me forget that its her and while I think some of Streep's performances are a little bit overrated, I do have to hand it to her on this one, she just kills it as Margret Thatcher.

Now, again, I can't speak to the historical accuracy of this movie, just like I couldn't really speak to the historical accuracy of the Jobs movie. However, what I can say is that with the direction of the film, the performance of Streep, The Iron Lady is a good film. A lot of this is in direct comparison to Jobs because that is an example of a biopic that is a mess while this movie is structured a lot better and has a lot more going for it. It had a three act structure that built upon itself, it had solid performances, and it had a culminating climax that I even had struggles keeping my eyes dry for.

Is it a masterpiece, I don't think so. Even now I can understand the complaints people may of had with the movie. But if for anything, you can definitely enjoy a great Meryl Streep performance and learn a little bit about Margret Thatcher in the process.

But those are my thoughts on The Iron Lady. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below. You can also send me your thoughts to me on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for movies I should review in the future. I will make them my priority. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on movie news and reviews from this blog.

I'll leave you with this. It was a little hard to find something funny to put at the end of this review because honestly, when you look at Meryl Streep's career... she's not really that funny. Great actress, not really funny. But here's Christina Applegate doing that for her. Enjoy!

Taken 3

... Its Taken 3 what did you expect?

In 2008, Liam Neeson took the world by storm by starring in a small French action film called Taken where he played an ex-CIA agent who goes to Paris when his daughter is kidnapped by French gangsters and try and sell her in the sex trade.

The movie was gritty, action packed, and started a whole lot of running jokes about Liam Neeson talking on the phone in a dark threatening manner.

I personally love the first Taken movie. Yeah its not Citizen Kane but there's something to be said about a 60 year old Liam Neeson just going out and beating the shit out of a bunch of people that is just fun. Its like the Bourne movies if Jason Bourne was a retired old guy.

But then they made a second movie.

Believe it or not, Taken 2 was actually the first movie that I ever reviewed on this blog. Its a rough review so give me some slack, but the Taken trilogy has a special place on this blog.

That being said, in that blog I made a personal plea to Mr. Neeson himself and asked him to not do a Taken 3. He's done two successful movies about the same thing, there is no reason to do a third one.

And what happened? Well... they didn't make the EXACT same movie... at least not the exact same movie as the last two Taken movies.

When we catch up with former CIA agent Brian Mills, he's got a pretty good thing going. His daughter (played by Maggie Grace) is his biggest fan and they have a pretty good relationship. He's got his CIA buddies and they go out golfing, and to top it all off, he's got a great relationship with his ex-wife (played by Famke Janssen). In fact he has almost too great of a relationship with her.

His ex-wife Lenore is married to a businessman named Stewart (who they for some reason decided to change actors from Xander Berkley to that guy from Mission Impossible 2, Dougray Scott.). Their marriage is not going well and Lenore has no problem talking out her problems with Brian. Something that Stewart has been having issues with for a while now.

But that won't in anyway be a big deal later on in the movie...

Anyways, Brian's life is going so well and he goes home when he gets a text from Lenore telling him to meet her at his place. However, when he gets there, he finds Lenore dead and the police hot on his tail. In particular he has an overly ambitious detective (played by Forrest Whittaker) who will stop at nothing until Brian is brought in to face justice for his wife's murder...

Wait a second, this sounds familiar. Successful man is framed for the murder of his wife. There's an ambitious cop on his tail as the man must work to clear his name of her murder? Holy shit, this is the plot to The Fugitive.

I mean... its not the worst movie to rip off but its just kind of a strange turn from the subject matter of the past Taken movies. Go from an international video game movie (video game as in its very linear and to the point) to a knock off of a very personal crime thriller. I mean a crime thriller is a crime thriller but this movie has a very different feel from the past movies and it felt a little strange.

Now the execution of this knock off is a little bit different and more adapted to the time we live in now and the kind of franchise that Taken is in, but overall, Taken 3 is the The Fugitive.

I mean, for the review's sake, it makes this movie a lot easier to review because I mean... its The Fugitive. Again, not a horrible movie to rip off but if you're trying to top the Fugitive, its just not going to happen.

Both Forest Whittaker and Liam Neeson are good actors but they just don't have the same chemistry and rivalry as Ford and Jones.

I like Whittaker but the man is boring in this movie. I didn't get the feeling that this man was some kind of brilliant detective and I don't care how many chess pieces or pieces of rubber band he plays with, he's not decisive like Tommy Lee Jones was.

So yeah... Taken 3 really shot itself in the foot because the minute that you realize that this movie is just ripping off The Fugitive you just compare it to The Fugitive and if you're going against The Fugitive, you're just going to lose.

So taking The Fugitive out of the mix, the movie I guess is a decent departure from the complaints that I and a lot of people had from the second Taken film, that it was the exact same movie. I mean its not. But in that case, why was this movie called Taken. I'm not asking for a repeat of the last two movies... in fact, why did there even need to be a third movie? Taken 2 really wrapped itself up nicely and there was nothing that carried over to this film.

Maggie Grace is still Maggie Grace. She doesn't do much for the plot except be something that Brian cares about. And then you have Stuart.

Now, as a fan of 24 and of Xander Berkley, I have no idea why they replaced Xander Berkley with Dougray Scott.

And don't get me wrong, I like Dougray Scott. I liked him in Mission Impossible 2, I've liked him in other things. The man was going to be Wolverine until he turned it down and it was taken by Hugh Jackman.

But the big problem I have with this guy is that he's an Scottish actor who hasn't quite gotten down the American accent yet.

And one of the parts that was actually kind of funny was when you have Liam Neeson and him talking and you played who can hold their American accent the longest.

And it wasn't like this role was switched because the character is minor and nobody would notice or care, no Stuart's role is actually pretty big in this movie and its pretty damn obvious that this is not the same character from the first movie.

Maybe I'm making a bigger deal out of it than I should, but it was obvious and annoying.

Good things... I mean... the action was good. I mean the franchise delivers on something that its been pretty consistent on throughout the franchise. Another thing that was entertaining was Brian Mills character. Not so much that it was complex or not but he'd go into these gun fights with just a pistol and only fire it a couple of times.

Its actually really funny cause there's a part where he's storming this bad guys apartment and they all have shotguns and assault rifles and he just has a pistol. I had a bunch of moments where I was yelling for him to pick up the assault rifle, to actually use the shotgun instead of fighting for it with a gun and then throwing it down when the guy was finally dead.

But Liam Neeson does not need assault rifles. All he needs is a pistol (barely) and his bare hands. It doesn't matter if its terrorists, cops, or wolves, nothing will stand in his way, and that is something that Taken 3 continues.

Is Taken 3 a good movie? Oh god no. I don't think anybody here or where you are reading this ever thought this movie was going to be good. So I think they really had a couple options to go on. Do they do the same thing they've done two times already? Do they make it more over the top and beat everyone to the joke because they know its already being made? Or do they try something different?

Oddly enough, they took the third option. The unfortunate part is, they only took it half heartedly and the result is a lazy action flick that while it seems like its doing something different, just seems half assed at best.

Taken 3 is entertaining. But really only up for one watch. If you're a fan of the trilogy, you might enjoy seeing the franchise slowly choke on its laziness, but you're not gonna see anything incredible. If you watch Taken 3, be warned.

But those are my thoughts on Taken 3. What did you think when you saw it? Comment and Discuss below. You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 and send me your thoughts for future reviews that I will make my priority. You can also follow me to get updates on movie news and reviews from this blog.

I'll leave you with this. Here's Liam Neeson reading your child a bedtime story. Enjoy!

Jobs

So with the new Steve Jobs movie that just released starring Michael Fassbender, I thought it was time I finally got on board and started watching the biopics on Steve Jobs.

I find Steve Jobs very interesting, but more as a popular figure. I know Job's story and I know that he was kind of an asshole but an asshole that had an incredible vision. So while a movie about his life is somewhat interesting, its not the highest on my list of priorities to watch. And this movie was even lower of a priority of what I heard about how this movie did when it was released. But again, its time I got on the bandwagon and looked into the story of Steve Jobs.

The movie starts at a really random place. It starts with Jobs introducing the Ipod. Now don't get me wrong, the Ipod is really an ingenious piece of machinery but in the context of the entire movie, its not exactly relevant to the conflicts that seem to be the main parts of Job's life they want to touch on.

But that's kind of a theme throughout the movie so I'll keep going.

Also before I move on, I'm really glad they didn't spend a lot of the movie with Ashton Kutcher in old Steve Jobs make up because while he looks pretty good throughout the movie, this was not a good look for him to start on.

The movie then cuts to an episode of That 70s Show where Michael Kelso (played by Ashton Kutcher) has dropped out of college and he isn't quite sure what he wants to do with his life. So he drops some acid, goes to a couple art and computer classes, and goes to India.

You think I'm joking but I'm not.

Listen, I'm sure Steve Jobs did drugs when he was younger. It was the 70s, the guy was a little bit eccentric, I have no doubt he did a lot of drugs. But we've got a lot of ground to cover. This guys life was a lot more interesting than him dancing in a wheat field and some half assed attempt to bring in the fact that he was adopted, even though that never comes up again.

And that's a big problem with this movie. Again, Steve Jobs has a lot of angles of his life you can focus on. You can focus on the fact that he dropped out of college, you can focus on his relationship with his college girlfriend and how eventually they have a child together but Steve is so preoccupied with his work that he refuses to acknowledge that he's her father.

Or probably the most important part they could have focused on: the founding of Apple.

Seriously, the first act of this movie could have been a movie in itself. You've got Jobs and Wozniak starting up this business and they hire a bunch of their buddies come to help out, including a kid who lives in his neighborhood.

This could have been a whole movie in itself. And yeah, even acid dropping Jobs in college could have been half a movie in itself, but the point is, this movie tried to do way to much. Its trying to tell every minute detail of this guys life without really explaining why these parts were important.

I've seen movies that focus on a large portion of someone's life, they did it in Long Walk to Freedom, they've done it in a lot of other movies and sometimes it works, but a lot of the times, it doesn't.

So yeah, the way this movie starts off, not that great. However, it does pick up a little bit when they start up Apple. It starts off with them in his parents garage, then it just keeps growing and growing, all the while, Jobs is the driving vision of it all.

And this is where Ashton Kutcher actually starts to do a good job. Again, the whole beginning of him being lost and traveling to India, while I'm sure its important to the Jobs story, really made me think I was just watching a low key Michael Kelso from That 70's Show.

But when he starts getting focused on his vision for Apple, when he starts putting in front of everything, his friends, his family, that's when things get good.

Because in many ways, you don't like what he's doing. You don't like how he treats his friends, you don't like how he ignores his daughter. But at the same time, you know the outcome, you know that his vision is the right one and nothing will stand in his way.

Now, the problem with this that really holds it back from being a great performance as opposed to just a good performance is the writing. Its the structure of this film. Unfortunately, like the beginning, this movie takes on every issue that affected Steve Jobs and makes it a passing thing.

The main storyline is his journey through Apple. That was the main story, but then they throw in all these little side things that are suppose to be little nuggets about his life but turn into plot devices that go absolutely no where.

Its like the movie expects you to know a lot more about certain aspects of his life and make quick nods to them.

And then the even bigger issues, like the cutting out of his friends who helped him build Apple to where it becomes, that's kind of brushed off as well. There's about a five minute scene where they're sad about it for a second and then they're moving onto the next thing.

And its unfortunate because I think a lot of this movie has a lot of potential.

While I was skeptical about the selection of Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs, he's definitely not the worst part of the movie. He's good. And I feel like with a better script and some better direction, this could have been a great performance. But unfortunately, its just good. You can tell that Kutcher put a lot of work into this performance. I think if this movie had been written better and had been structured differently, I think this could have turned Kutcher's career in a totally different direction, as opposed to where it is now with 2 and a Half Men...

I wouldn't say the rest of the cast is poorly casted because I do enjoy a lot of the work from a lot of the people in this movie. Josh Gad played Steve Wozniak. J.K. Simmons plays a chief investor of Apple. Dermot Mulroney plays Job's first investor and I thought he did a really great job. These aren't bad choices and they're not bad actors, I don't know if its their performance or again the structure of the movie, but they're just not an exciting cast and that could be forgiven if they were utilized well, but they're not. Steve Wozniak kind of disappears half way through the movie and only appears later when he's leaving Apple.

Again, they're not bad choices for the roles and I think they did a good job, however, I just don't feel like the movie really gave them enough justice and therefore I can't say they're good performances.

Conceptually, great. The execution however is just not there.

A common theme throughout this movie.

Now I could delve into the historical accuracy of the movie because I've heard conflicting thoughts on both sides. I've heard that the movie takes a lot of liberties on the events that actually unfolded and personally, I don't really care.

If I wanted to know the exact way that the events of Steve Jobs went down, I'd watch a documentary or I'd just research it myself. This is a Hollywood movie, the purpose of it is to entertain and create a certain amount of drama.

And exaggerated or not, the story of Steve Jobs is a story that creates for a lot of drama. Unfortunately, the way this movie executes it is just not that great because they're juggling too many things at once.

You could make an entire movie about Job's time at Apple, his rise to the top, his power plays with his shareholders, the entire hiring of John Sculley. This could make an incredibly entertaining movie in itself. And a part of this movie really wants to be that Social Network kind of movie, where its glorifying a man who in all honesty, was a bit of an asshole. His vision takes priority.

Unfortunately, this movie didn't want to go the whole extra mile of making this as cutthroat and political as I think it probably could have been.

I watched a review of this movie a while back that predicted that this movie would have been better if it had been written by Aaron Sorkin and now the new Steve Jobs movie is written by Aaron Sorkin and that's why I'm really excited to see it.

But this movie just doesn't really accomplish either goals it sets out to achieve. It wants to glorify Steve Jobs but still show the cutthroat nature of the man. It wants to hold him on a pedestal but still show the way he cuts out his friends all for the vision of Apple. Its a very fine line to tight rope on and unfortunately the movie just doesn't deliver on that.

The last thing I'll mention about this film is that there's a weird Christ complex that they create with Kutcher's Jobs.

I don't quite understand it as Jobs was Buddhist and there's not really any kind of religious ties throughout the rest of the movie but there are a lot of points in this movie where Jobs is just surrounded by people and they're following him like they're his disciples. He ends the movie with a call out to the misfits of the world.

Is it intentional? I don't really know. But it underlines another problem with this movie and that's the really forced messages that get shoved down the audiences throats.

Now I don't know if the new Steve Jobs movie has these similar underlying messages that aren't that subtle, but there's a line in the trailer where someone asks Michael Fassbender what he does because Steve Jobs was not a brilliant computer scientist, a lot of the times he would think up an idea and slave drive a lot of people to create it for him. Fassbender responds, Musicians play their instruments, I play the orchestra. He also has a couple of ringer lines like Artists lead and hacks show for a raise of hands. Its lines like that that make for great trailer fodder but they don't make up the entire movie.

Unfortunately, this movie is made up of a lot of those lines and they're just forced in there. It takes you out of the movie and it just adds to the mess of a structure this movie is.

I'm really looking forward to the new Steve Jobs movie and this movie has made me want to go out and see it right away, because there is a story here. There is a very interesting story of a man who was taken too early that had incredible vision. I could comment on how quickly this movie came out or seemed to come out after Job's death, but that's bound to happen when someone this inspiration passes away. It happened with Long Walk to Freedom, and it happened with this movie.

Is Jobs worth checking out? Sure. I think if you want a sparknotes version of Job's life, and a halfway decent performance from Ashton Kutcher, I don't think it will hurt you to check this movie out. However, I'll be holding my breath until the Fassbender version to say what movie gave the better version of Job's life and better representation.

But those are my thoughts on Jobs. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below. You can also give me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 and send me ideas for movies I should review in the future. If you want future updates on movie news and reviews, you can follow me on Twitter, I update regularly.

I'll leave you with this. Here's the trailer for the new Steve Jobs movie. Which one do you think is going to be better? Enjoy!

The Bourne Identity

If you can't tell, I'm in a little bit of an international spy thriller movie mood lately. And what better movie to slake that thirst than the movie that really revolutionized the entire genre: The Bourne Identity.

Its pretty obvious that the Bourne movies had an incredible impact on the genre. Since 2002, spy movies have been trying to recreate what the Bourne movies did for such a long time. And if I'm continuing the rant that I had in my Legends review, Bourne came at just the right time.

After 9/11, the spy genre was no longer the campy, Pierce Brosnan Bond hokey genre that it had been for years. Suddenly everything became serious and everything became political. I think the reason Mission Impossible 2 is looked down upon so much was because that was the point where the genre had almost become a joke of itself because while I love that movie, its campy as hell. And why Brosnan's Bond career went down the tubes because Die Another Day just wasn't the Spy film we wanted in these desperate and confusing times.

The movie we needed was The Bourne Identity.

The Bourne Identity opens up to a floating body of a nameless man (played by Matt Damon) with amnesia. He gets picked up by some Italian fishermen. The only thing that they found with him was a clue pointing him towards a bank account in Zurich.

The man soon figures out not only that he calls himself Jason Bourne, but he has a wide variety of skills including speaking multiple languages, tying complex knots... oh and beating the shit out of people. All of these things come second nature to him and he is looking to figure out his past and who exactly he is.

All the while, the movie jumps to an agent with the CIA named Ward Abbott (played by Chris Cooper). Abbott is trying to deal with a rising political situation involving an exiled African dictator (played by Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) who says that the CIA is trying to assassinate him.

Along with the African dictator, Abbott is trying to track down Bourne as there is a clear connection between Bourne and Abbott's covert CIA operations.

Now, if you don't know what that connection is, I don't know what rock you've been living under because if you don't know that, you really don't know anything about the Bourne movies. And the truth is, if you really watch this movie, that connection is pretty obvious.

If you don't know it, go watch this movie and come back to this review. While it might be considered spoilers, its not like I'm giving away the ending to the Sixth Sense here, it should be pretty obvious.

Abbott is the director of a secret CIA organization called Treadstone that uses CIA assets to perform the covert operations of the United States government in the international world. And the fun part is that throughout the movie you see these assets go out and kick some ass and they're going after Bourne at the same time.

I've already explained the majority of the plot but Jason Bourne must discover his past with the help of a German woman (who honestly is just a rando) (played by Franka Potente).

The short and face value story of this movie is that its great. Its a great spy thriller as our main character unravels the mystery behind his past. There are some great action sequences, the casting, I think it some of the best casting I could ever see in a movie, and the performances are great because of that great casting.

This is the role Matt Damon was born to play. I mean its been over a decade that he's played this role and he's going to be coming back to play the role again because its so iconic. This is where it all began and its great from the beginning. Its kind of fun watching this and then seeing where he is now with movies like The Martian. Frank Potente, even though she's not the greatest part of the movie, she still does a good job and creates a good counter to Damon's cold and frankly confused look throughout the movie.

I think its a role that really gets overlooked sometimes, but Chris Cooper as Ward Abbott is just fantastic. Without giving too much away, its a shame that he didn't come back for the later films because he was just pitch perfect in this film. The rest of the cast is pretty small, but they bring something really great to the film and it all ties together very, very well.

Now... is the movie perfect? Believe it or not. No.

And of course, here's the point where I say don't get me wrong. Because its true this movie is really great and its one of those movie I would recommend to anybody who loves the spy genre and want a well acted and action packed movie.

But when you compare this movie to the movies that follow, I really think that this is one of those cases where the sequels are better than the original.

And that's not on the performances or the story, although I would say Matt Damon came into the role more in later films.

The main part is the tempo of the film.

This movie is a slow burn. And again, don't get me wrong, a slow burn is not a bad thing. But this movie has a habit of having a lot of talking and figuring out the mystery with quick bursts of action here and there and I have to say, the later movies felt a little bit more balanced. Now, I might bite my words because Supremacy is also on Netflix so that review is coming soon, but from what I remember, this movie is a lot slower than the sequels and if I had hyped up The Bourne movies as these awesome action movies, the Bourne Identity might seem a bit boring to some people.

Also this is really nitpicking and more of a comical complaint than a real one but when I say everything got brought to the next level in the sequels, I mean everything including Damon's physique.

This isn't so much a complaint of the movie, and its not totally Damon's fault as he was younger and didn't really know what this franchise would turn into, but while he can still kick ass in this film, he looks pretty small compared to the physical monster that he would become in later.

Bourne is the kind of character that only got better with age and in Identity, while Damon was in his early thirties when they made it, he looks more like Will Hunting than he does Jason Bourne.

Again, not totally his fault, it just shows that the ante was raised with the later films and in retrospect, while Identity is a great film, it just got better and better as the sequels came out. And I can see that Damon's performance is only going to get better, especially with set photos for the 5th installment where he's returning, where we get this.

The man is a beast. 

But if you look at The Bourne Identity as its own film, its still really is great. I obviously am going to continue reviewing these Bourne movies and if I end up rethinking my position on the movies only got better with each sequel, I will have to redo this review. But on its own, The Bourne Identity is a solid film. Its got great action, great performances, a great backdrop, and a great story. 

The thing I like about this film is that it captured the feeling we had towards the genre without having to use ethnic stereotypes. Its not like 24 where Jack Bauer made us feel better about 9/11 by going after Middle Eastern terrorists. Jason Bourne opened up a fictional view into the lengths being taken to protect national security, something I think the United States became incredibly interested in by the time this movie came out. Like I said at the beginning of the review, Bourne was not campy, or hokey like popular spy thrillers had been. It was gritty and to the point and complex. There's no bad guy sitting in a chair stroking a cat at the end of The Bourne Identity, and it felt more real, something that we became more and more interested in in the 2000s. 

Whatever nitpicks I can come up for this film, there's no denying that it was a game changer and it would only continue to be one for the next five years. But that's a story for another review. 

Those are my thoughts on The Bourne Identity. Give me your thoughts in the comment section below. You can also send me your thoughts via Twitter @cmhaugen24. You can also send me your thoughts on movies I should review in the future. I'll definitely make them my priority. Follow me to get updates on future movie news and reviews. 

I'll leave you with this. While I don't watch Jimmy Kimmel that often because I don't think he's as good as other late night show hosts, I do enjoy watching all the clips of his feud with Matt Damon. Here's a relevant clip of that feud. Enjoy!

Survivor

So... remember when I reviewed The November Man? In that review I said that I'm totally fine with Pierce Brosnan going through a sort of revival where he tries to do the same action franchise revival that Liam Neeson did? Yeah... Pierce, with movies like Survivor, that revival is going to take a lot longer than you think.

I must put it out there, I do like Pierce Brosnan. I think that the man is a talented actor as long as he choses the right films. And I do want to see him succeed. However, he doesn't seem to always make the right choices. And Survivor is a great example of that.

The funny part is, its not totally Brosnan's fault. Survivor stars Milla Jovovich as Kate Abbott, an employee for the American embassy in London. I have to give this movie credit, they really do try their darnest to make this government bureaucrat a lot more badass than she actually is. I'm not one hundred percent clear on what exactly her job is, but I do know that the reality of it is that she has a very mediocre job. When I say mediocre, I mean its pretty run of the mill. She's no spy, she's just a government employee.

Well anyways, Kate is working for the American embassy when she starts to notice some suspicious people wanting to enter the United States. She brings it to her superiors but they either quickly dismiss her or tell her to hand it over to the British Police to investigate. But Kate refuses to let it go. And it turns out that the people she is investigating don't like her investigating them so they quickly put a hit out on her.

And who do they hire to take out this one really insignificant government employee?

James Bond of course!!

Before I move on, wouldn't it be awesome if all these action roles Pierce Brosnan is doing were just James Bond after he left MI-6?

There's a theory out there that James Bond is just a codename, like Jason Bourne, and that it just keeps getting passed down from one handsome rogue to the next.

Whether you believe that theory or not, wouldn't it be nuts if Brosnan's Bond faked his death and all the action movies he's trying to revive his career with were just him after his time as James Bond?

Moving on though, if that is the case though, you'd think that this assassin they hire would be the worlds deadliest and cunning assassin ever.

Unfortunately, that's really far from the truth.

Brosnan is an assassin called "The Watchmaker". And he's more of a person who would be on an episode of The Blacklist who sounds menacing but in reality can be taken down in less than an hour episode on TV.

The Watchmaker is hired to kill Kate Abbott and he does probably the worst job I've ever seen an assassin do in these kinds of movies.

Seriously, he's suppose to be this worldclass assassin who has an incredible arsenal of weapons, explosives, and tactical knowledge and he keeps on setting off these explosions that kill everyone except for this lowly government worker.

And its not like he's going after Jason Bourne here. Kate really only escapes his attempts at her life by just running away.

And if you're going after one government worker, why don't you just break into her house at night and shoot her while she's sleeping? Why pin this elaborate conspiracy on her, a conspiracy that is easily proven false.

I don't know who to blame here, The Watchmaker, his employers, the writers. I don't know. But if you're going to get Pierce Brosnan to be this world class assassin, give him the dignity to be a smart villain.

And that's really the movie. There's a really complex plot and conspiracy that runs throughout the movie and to be totally honest, I had a really hard time following it. There are elements of it that I like but (and I don't care about spoilers) it ends with Brosnan trying to shoot the New Years Eve ball as its dropping because... terrorism.

While there are some other known actors in this movie, some of them I even really like (like Dylan McDermott) the majority of the movie centers on Milla Jovovich and Pierce Brosnan and their game of cat and mouse.

And I'm sorry, Milla Jovovich is an awful actress.

There's a reason she's only known for those shitty Resident Evil movies, its because her acting is some of the most wooden acting I've seen in a long time. I'm glad that she has other things going for her like her music and fashion career because her acting is really horrible. And it doesn't really help that she's on the run the entire movie and only interacts with a few people. She doesn't have many people around her to help and therefore its a lot more obvious.

Prior to seeing this movie, I really wondered why I haven't seen Jovovich in more things. After seeing this movie I know exactly why.

And then you've got Pierce who I've talked about more than I probably should. The problems are more in his character and the abilities of this world class assassin. Brosnan himself isn't a world class actor but he's better than this movie and he at least is a little bit entertaining when you forget how ineffective he is.

The overall of this movie is that it just isn't very good. Its trying to be something more than it is without even trying that hard. And it shows. This is the kind of movie that almost should have been a direct to DVD release. If this movie had advertised itself than nothing more than a B flick, I wouldn't be giving it so much shit, but you can tell it has the budget and star power of a movie that is trying to be taken seriously without actually trying.

Don't waste your time with Survivor. There are better cat and mouse movies than this one and its not really worth it.

But those are my thoughts on Survivor. What did you think of it? Comment and Discuss below. You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 and you can also send me request for future reviews there as well. Follow me to get updates on future movie news and reviews.

I'll leave you with this. In honor of Pierce Brosnan and the upcoming Spectre, I'm going to show the Cracked After Hours on James Bond. That is where I get a lot of my theory. Enjoy!

Legends

You ever wanted to see a combination of 24 and The Bourne Identity?

Now when you say it like that, the show sounds very very cool, especially when you throw Sean Bean's name into that mix. However, is it really as cool as it sounds?

Legends takes place in Los Angeles. It focuses on FBI agent Martin Odum (played by Sean Bean). Odum is apart of a secret branch of the FBI focused on deep cover operations. He goes undercover with aliases and assumed names that the show refers to as Legends. I don't know if this is an actual term used in law enforcement but its effective for the show so it works.

Martin Odum is your typical no nonsense FBI agent saving the United States from terrorists. He doesn't play by the rules and the Patriot Act is his sword for swift American justice.

In essence, Martin Odum is Jack Bauer.

The similarities are really uncanny and its funny because the show's main writer and creator is Howard Gordon, who was a executive producer on 24. In many ways, you could possibly see this as Gordon's run at a non-real time action thriller. The similarities just continue as every episode has at least one fire fight in it and a lot of terrorists die at the hands of the hero.

Where the show differs however is that the main thread throughout all the episodes in the series is that Martin Odum goes undercover in almost every episode. And when I say he goes undercover, he goes under deep. There's a lot of fun moments throughout the show where you see Odum get into his character. You see him enter his Legend and become whoever he is supposed to be.

In many ways, its like an actor creating a character for a show. While its not that dramatic all the time and they actually mention that in the show, it really does show the acting chops of Sean Bean as he creates a new persona and actually makes it different than that of Martin Odum.

 But what would a Jack Bauer like character be without his co-workers. And I was actually pretty surprised at how much I liked the supporting characters in this show.

Right off the bat you have Ali Larter who I've seen in a lot of things but most prominently in Heroes (which I would probably say she's the best in). Larter doesn't have an incredible filmography as she's been in some kind of shitty movies like Final Destination and Resident Evil. However, in this show she actually does a pretty good job. She's not really there to do a lot of acting, but she's good for the role.

Then oddly enough you have Deb from Napolean Dynamite (Tina Majorino) playing your quiet nerd computer type. I enjoyed her as well. Morris Chestnut plays another FBI agent who becomes increasingly interested in Odum's background.

The best way to describe this cast of characters is... pretty stereotypical.

Of course you've got Martin Odum, your rogue federal agent with no consideration for the rules. You've got his handler in Ali Larter who doesn't trust him but thinks he's very reliable nonetheless. You've got the nerd computer type in Tina Majorino who's very different in her style but very capable. And then the rest of the characters have their conventions and its very formulaic.

Does it work? Oh yeah, it definitely works. Is it very original? Well no.

Even the underlying backstory throughout the investigations of this FBI organization, while interesting, isn't incredibly original.

You see from the very beginning of the show, Martin Odum has a secret past that even he doesn't know that much about. Odum starts his own investigation into a past he doesn't remember. He starts having flashbacks to his old life and it becomes an integral part of the story along with the investigations he's doing with the FBI.

Like I said, the show is a fun mix of 24 and The Bourne Identity.

That's all I can really say about the comparison because I don't want to give too much away.

This might be a surprisingly short TV review, but the fact of the matter is, this show is pretty darn simple. Its Sean Bean possibly entering a Liam Neeson like phase of his life where he's in his fifties but still able to kick some serious ass. He's playing a federal agent with a secret past, a fun Jack Bauer/ Bourne hybrid, and he's surrounded by a half way decent cast who fit all the stereotypes of a successful action thriller TV show.

I guess the interesting part about this show is that its coming out now instead of ten years ago.

I don't know if I've written about this on this blog before but when you start doing shows and movies centered around terrorism and fighting it, recently they've been going about it in a different way than 24 did back in the early 2000s.

If you watch 24 now, you'll kind of be amazed at what they're able to do, all in the name of national security. And at the time it made a lot of sense. 24 came out during a time in our nations history where 9/11 was still prominent in our minds. It was totally acceptable for Jack Bauer to shoot a terrorist in the kneecap if it meant that he was able to stop an impending attack on American soil.

Nowadays, I don't feel like you can get away with as much anymore. I think that there is a change in political perceptions and mindsets that make it a little bit more difficult to say that the hero is totally justified in breaking the law or going against the constitution.

But in Legends, there's a odd return to the 2000s as Martin Odum and his co-workers flat out ignore the 4th amendment, laughing it off like its more of a suggestion than an actual law they have to follow. Even in interrogations where there would always be at least one person in 24 who would shout their objections to Jack choke holding a suspect up against the wall, Ali Larter and Morris Chestnut barely have any objections to Martin Odum slapping around a suspect if he just wants answers to a question.

Its definitely an interesting throwback and I'm wondering if Legends is just an anomaly because it has the same producer as 24, but its definitely an interesting comparison.

Overall, I really enjoyed Legends, but that might have had a little bit to do with the fact that I enjoyed 24 so much. If you haven't seen 24, you still might enjoy it for the very fact that Sean Bean is exceptional in it. The rest of it is really kind of formulaic but that doesn't mean that its bad. There's really a forgoing of everything related to the constitution but that kind of goes into that throw back to 24 and how similar it is. I can recommend this show a lot because I enjoyed it. Hopefully you will to if you give it a watch.

But those are my thoughts on Legends. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 and you can also send me your requests for more movies and TV reviews I should do in the future. If you follow me you can get updates on future movie and TV news and reviews.

I'll leave you with this. Without giving too much away, I'll just say, Sean Bean survives a long time in this show, despite having an incredible history of always dying in movies and TV. Heres a compilation. (Spoilers) Enjoy!

Dumb and Dumber To

Some movies should not have sequels. Some movies should not have sequels 20 years after the first one. Some movies should not waste the time of two very talented actors. One of those movies I was talking about was Dumb and Dumber To.

Now I was never a die hard fan of the first Dumb and Dumber. If its on TV I'll definitely stop and get a couple chuckles out of it. The first one made me laugh... hard. That being said, I don't put it up there as one of my favorite comedies of all time.

All film is subjective and comedies more than ever are examples of that rule. You may not like a movie and there are circumstances over circumstances that could have contributed to you not liking that film.

I don't see Dumb and Dumber as a comedy classic like some people do because I was exposed to it late in my movie watching experience and even when I did see it, I really only saw it once. But for some people, this is a beloved movie and they have seen it over and over and over. Again, I like the first Dumb and Dumber. Its a funny movie. But I don't bask in its glory. And I really didn't see the need for a sequel.

So while I was interested in seeing this movie, even after the huge response from the trailer, I didn't see this in theaters. And I'm really glad I didn't.

So what's the story.

Set 20 years after the first one, Lloyd Christmas (played by Jim Carrey) has been sitting in a vegetative state from the rejection he experienced from the first film. His friend Harry (played by Jeff Daniels) comes to visit him every day. And finally after 20 years, Lloyd finally reveals that this vegetative state was just one big prank on his buddy, and of course, because their idiots, Harry thinks thats awesome.

Now I'll give the movie credit. This made me laugh. And don't let me trick you into thinking I didn't laugh at this film. This and a lot of other parts gave me a good laugh. The problem with this particular moment was that it was in the trailer. I knew this joke was coming to when it finally came, I had a quick ha and then I moved on. But I'll get more into that later.

Moving on, Lloyd and Harry reunite and they discover that Harry has a daughter somewhere. Because Harry is in need of a kidney, and Lloyd is too dense and selfish to hand over his, they decide to go track down Harry's daughter.

The rest of the movie is your standard road trip movie. And its basically the same kind of road trip movie you got from the first movie...

In fact... a lot of the movie is similar jokes and gags you got from the first movie.

I mean like I said, I wasn't a die hard fan of the first movie to begin with, but even I could recognize the same gags and same jokes that were in the first movie that they really just copied and pasted onto the second movie.

But hey its funny right, cause they're older right?

Well no.

And here's the thing. I've been trying to give some kind of intelligent explanation as to why I didn't like this movie, or why its not as good as the original, and why it was a mistake to really make this movie in the first place.

But the truth is, this movie is stupid. Yeah you could say its dumb but its not even worth that horrible pun I could have made. This movie is not meant to be any kind of intelligent movie or ground breaking film.

Its called Dumb and Dumber To. You really get what you paid for when it comes to this movie. Now, if this movie is your thing then... okay. And you may like this movie just because it happens to be the sequel to the movie you loved when you were younger. And thats... okay too.

But what I might argue is that while both this movie and its original are dumb movies that are by no means Shakespeare, the first Dumb and Dumber was at least iconic in its humor.

I recently watched the first one and I still laugh pretty hard at the few parts I find really funny. I think the reason the first movie was so successful was because it wasn't trying to prove anything. It was just a road trip movie about two dumbasses played by two very talented comedic actors. And whether or not they were totally known at the time to how talented they were and how talented they'd become, this movie just got to show off how Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels could make you laugh just by being stupid.

And while I will give Dumb and Dumber To some credit, it is a lot of fun to see these two return to those roles and try their darnedest to recreate that fun time you had, the movie just doesn't allow for it because they were trying to recreate something instead of creating something even more memorable.

Too many jokes were recreated, or just down right stolen from the first movie that they really overshadowed the new jokes. And once the retelling of jokes got old because they just kept doing it, the movie just became a little sad, especially when you see how old those two actors have gotten. And then you realize how old you've gotten and you just aren't sure what to think anymore and by the end you're pretty checked out and it takes a couple viewings to even sit through the end to the point that you care...

That may have gotten a little bit personal but I hope you understand my frustration with this movie.

Comedic sequels are difficult to do because like all sequels, they have to ride a fine line between recreating what made the first movie good but still build something new and make the movie good on its own. Comedies have an even tougher job when it comes to sequels because not only do they have to do that, but they have to make you laugh (and are expected to do it harder than before).

So I'm done trying to write a review for this movie (because I've been trying to write this for a while now). I didn't like Dumb and Dumber To. Period. I enjoyed seeing Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey return to their roles and yeah, even a man in prison can smile once in a while, but in the end, it wasn't as funny as the first one, it relied too heavily on old jokes, and it just didn't have lasting power.

What did you think of Dumb and Dumber To. Am I wrong? Let me know. Comment and Discuss below!

You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24. There you can send me your thoughts on this movie and others and send me your requests for future reviews. If you follow me you can get updates on more movie news and reviews.

And in case you were wondering, no I have not seen the Star Wars trailer yet. We'll see if I give in, but I've told myself that I want to walk into that movie totally surprised and not know anything. Unfortunately, I feel like I know too much already but for now I'm sticking to my guns and not watching the trailer.

I'll leave you with this. Its a short video but its in honor of Back to the Future Day. I'm sorry I couldn't do more to honor the far better movie series here, but this is the best I can do for now. Enjoy!

Kill The Messenger

Let's talk about Jeremy Renner

This guy is in a lot of movies and definitely becoming (if he hasn't already become) a huge movie

star. He's been in a lot of action franchises as well. He's Hawkeye int he Marvel Cinematic Universe, He was the star of one of the Bourne movies, he was the heir to the Mission Impossible franchise until Tom Cruise remembered that he drinks virgin blood, won't grow old and revitalized his action star career. The truth is, the man cannot really get a break and just hasn't gotten his own acton franchise despite the unrelenting attempts over and over again.

However, I don't really feel bad for the guy. You shouldn't either. It may seem like he's gotten shafted a little bit in the action franchise world but not too many people can say that they're in at least three action franchises. Yeah he's not the star of one but that shouldn't matter.

On top of that, the guy can act. And I think people forget that. I think they've tried so hard to get him his own action franchise that people short change him to just someone who is in action movies. He's been the star and the best part of a lot of movies, like The Hurt Locker, American Hustle, The Town, and a lot of other movies.

So you really get two types of movies when Jeremy Renner shows up on screen. Either its an action franchise that is trying to make him a huge action star but ends up probably focusing on other people, or its a drama with an exceptional performance from Renner, but the kind of movie that will be forgotten pretty quickly after the next action franchise attempt.

I initially thought Kill The Messenger was going to be another attempt at an action franchise. Luckily, I was wrong.

Kill the Messenger stars Renner as a reporter named Gary Webb at a small news paper in California. Gary Webb is going about his business living a pretty normal life until he catches wind of a story involving a drug ring in San Fransisco having tied to a Nicaraguan rebel group. As Webb begins to dig more and more, he uncovers the rebel groups involvement with the CIA as well as its income source which happens to be selling crack cocaine to drug rings in Los Angeles, causing the surge of crack cocaine addiction in the area, especially with African Americans.

The story breaks and Gary Webb becomes a house hold name in a matter of days. But with a conspiracy comes the threats, and the danger. And to be honest, I really thought that that was going to be the majority of the movie. Once this conspiracy is uncovered, I thought that it was just going to be him getting chased by the US government or some shady organization. But again, I was wrong.

First off, the investigation part of this movie, while short, is really entertaining.

Andy Garcia makes a pretty cool cameo in the middle of the first act and it just kind of makes the entire first part a lot of fun. He's not a huge part, its just symbolic of the mystery behind all of this.

Everything else kind of falls into place and again, while the investigation is actually a pretty small portion of the movie, its a lot of fun.

But what comes after is actually really interesting. For a little bit, Webb becomes a famous reporter, everyone is on his side, everyone is interested in hearing what he has to say.

And then things go awry. People start poking holes in his story. He can't find his sources, and people begin to call him a fraud. You soon realize that this movie didn't have to be this guy just getting chased by shady organizations and assassins. First off, that's not how it happened, and second off, the interesting stuff comes from Webb being essentially torn down by public opinion.

Before I really get into that, another reason why this movie wouldn't work as an action movie is just the character of Gary Webb himself.

Again, I know Gary Webb was a real person and you can't make an action movie about a real person if their life didn't include that. But if you look at the character himself, without knowing that he's a real person, Gary Webb is not an action hero.

I mean I have to give the movie a little bit of flak for choosing Jeremy Renner because as many glasses and beards you give him, he's still gonna look like a character from a Bourne movie. But Renner actually does a pretty good job at playing this guy as he was, he was a middle aged man who was pretty much past him prime at this point. I don't mean to insult the guy but he wasn't an action hero. And Renner actually does a pretty good job at trying to mask the whole Renner super spy look he always has going on.

But there's a point in the movie where everything shifts. It really is a rags to riches to rags story here and when Webb falls, he falls hard. And its a combination of everything. I don't really know if the US government has their hands in everything, but there's basically a point where he gets brought in to talk to some US officials and they basically say:

And they really do.

This movie really makes me reconsider any of the conspiracy movies I've seen in the past because you realize at a certain point, they don't need to kill him. They can do much worse to him. His reputation gets destroyed. He loses his career. He loses his family. He even loses his motorcycle!

That was a little bit silly but you get the point, this guys life goes from the best thing since sliced bread, to the worst existence ever.

But what actually makes this movie great in the end is the ending. He is set to receive an award in journalism for this report. This award was given to him when he was on top of the world and at a time when he was much more popular.

There's even a moment where he gets up to receive his award and everyone is cheering for him, they're happy that he won this award. He looks happy. Its kinda cheesy but it works. Because then you realize that its all a fantasy and when his name is called, there's barely any applause and people are disappointed that he won. And Renner delivers this speech that is actually really great. That he doesn't regret anything, and all he wanted to do was write the truth. I mean it won't go down as one of cinema's greatest speeches but it really is an entertaining speech and a great way to end the movie.

And like I said, this really is a rags to riches to rags story with a modern twist on it. Especially given that this actually happened.

Now can I say for certain that this movie is totally accurate. I have no idea to be honest. That's always the caveat when you watch movies "Based on a True Story". They can try and be as close to the actual events as they can, but in the end, it is a Hollywood production and it needs to be entertaining.

Luckily this movie is. It does have a few moments where it does feel long and maybe drawn out more than it needs to be. His fall from grace is really actually a plummet because its not gradual at all. In one scene he's on top of the world, really in the next he's losing everything very quickly. And at times, it does get a little bit over the top with the things he loses, like when he loses his motorcycle.

Another thing worth mentioning is that this is really Jeremy Renner's movie. I liked the other performances of the movie, but in the overall scheme of things, this is Jeremy Renner's movie. I think maybe having some more from the other performances would have complimented Renner's performance more, but as it is, its a good representation of Renner and really shows that he is a good actor.

But overall, the movie I think really got overlooked. I don't even remember this movie having much of a theatrical release and its too good of a movie to be straight to VOD. If you can find this movie, I definitely think its worth checking out. It might not be the best biopic from 2014, but I think it was an underrated one.

But those are my thoughts on Kill the Messenger. What did you think when you saw it. And what do you think of Jeremy Renner? Is he better in roles like Hawkeye or should he focus on these more serious roles? Comment and Discuss below.

You can also send me your thoughts on this movie and others on Twitter @cmhaugen24. There you can send me your thoughts and requests for future films. I love discussing film. If you wanna get updates on movie news and reviews, following me is a good way of getting that.

I'll leave you with this. I don't know if I put this on an earlier review, and if I did, sorry for the repeat but it is a funny video. Prior to everybody thinking that Hawkeye was cool after Age of Ultron, he did this video on Fallon and it really speaks for itself. Enjoy!