ANOMALISA: A Stop Motion Emotional Masterpiece

Now playing at a indie art theater near you (and at least one multiplex near me):

ANOMALISA (Dirs. Duke Johnson & Charlie Kaufman, 2015)

At first, Charlie Kaufman?s stop motion animated follow-up to his toweringly brilliant 2008 opus SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK, is a very strange experience.

Yet after a little while, I started to forget that I was watching life-like 3D-printed puppets, and began to feel like I was watching real people ? sad, lonely, restless real people, who were much more affecting than in most dramas that actually feature real people.

But then the filmmakers, Kaufman and co-director Duke Johnson, would do something like having the protagonist?s face malfunction (and even detach like a mask), and I would be jarringly reminded what I was really viewing.

There?s also the element of that every character, men and women, except for the two leads is voiced by the same actor ? Tom Noonan, who previously appeared in a pivotal role in SYNECDOCHE, who is actually credited here as ?everyone else.? This takes a little getting used to, especially as there are times that Noonan sounds erringly like a soft-spoken Jimmy Fallon.

David Thewlis, best known for his role as Remus Lupin in the HARRY POTTER films, voices the principal protagonist, the middle-aged Michael Stone, author of the bestseller ?How May I Help You Help Them: 5 Ways To Improve Customer Service.? Thewlis? Michael, who at times sounds like a drunken Pierce Brosnan, has come to Cincinnati for a speaking engagement and after we witness him making awkward chit?chat with a cabbie, his hotel clerk, and busboy ? again, all Noonan-voiced, but also with the same non-descript faces ? he gets antsy and phones an ex named Bella, who lives in town that he hasn?t spoken to for over a decade.

Despite her shock at his call, Bella agrees to meet him for a drink at the hotel bar. The meeting doesn?t go well and Bella storms off. Later, Michael desperately and frantically finds himself running down his hotel?s hallway knocking on doors claiming he?s looking for a friend. He happens upon the room of two women, Emily and Lisa, a couple of sales reps who drove from Akron just to see Michael?s speech. Noonan voices Emily (again same face as everyone else), but Jennifer Jason Leigh, in her second stellar performance of 2015 after THE HATEFUL EIGHT, provides the slightly chubby, but pretty and nervously charming Lisa?s voice.

Michael invites them out for a drink ? by this time he?s had a half a dozen Belvedere martinis ? and the three share some laughs together. On the way back to their rooms, Michael asks Lisa if she?ll have a nightcap with him. Emily encourages Lisa to accept the offer (?he?s gorgeous?), and Lisa and Michael retire back to his room.

Michael is thoroughly taken by Lisa ? continually telling her how lovely she is, exuding a loving warmth while she talks about her day and especially as she sings an acapella rendition of Cyndi Lauper?s ?Girls Just Want To Have Fun? (she even does an Italian language version of the song). Lisa talks about learning the word ?anomaly? from Michael?s book and relating to the term, and he dubs her ?Anomalisa.?

Before you know it, we?re watching puppet porn, but, don?t worry, it?s nothing like the infamous sex scene in TEAM AMERICA. Somehow it?s about as tasteful as stop motion puppet intercourse can be.

After that, the film goes on a surreal tangent with a dream sequence in which Michael is called to an office in the hotel?s basement by the hotel manager, who tells Michael that he loves him, and that he shouldn?t be with Lisa.

Michael awakens and, in his shaken state, proposes that he wants to leave his wife and run off with Lisa. Things get screwy though when Michael has a bit of a breakdown at his keynote talk, and the film cuts to him returning to his wife, 5-year old son, and a bunch of surprise party people at his home ? all, again, voiced by Noonan with that same damn face.

ANOMALISA is based on a play Kaufman wrote for composer Carter Burwell?s ?Theater of the New Ear? series of what were called ?sound plays? that was produced with the same cast in 2005, which explains Michael?s speech/rant that calls out the President as being ?a war criminal.?

It?s great that the sex scene and the slew of f-bombs dropped make the film the first R-rated animated movie that?s ever gotten an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature, but I think it should?ve picked up a Best Screenplay nomination as well. Not one line of dialogue felt convoluted or off at all ? as a written work, ANOMALISA is a flawless concoction.

But it?s also a beautifully acted and aesthetically pleasing piece, in which Thewlis and Leigh?s transcendent voice contributions breathe an exuberant amount of humanity into these abstract proceedings.

Yet again, Kaufman has made a movie that nobody else would make ? or even think of making, even if he had help via co-director Johnson. Like just about every movie he?s made ? from the mindblowing movies he?s written (BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, ADAPTATION, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND) to his directorial debut (SYNECDOCHE) ? it?s brainy brilliance with a battered heart. 

A drama about real life using the fakest of props that somehow says more about confused loneliness than any other movie in recent memory, ANOMALISA is Kaufman?s latest masterpiece. Seek it out to see the most emotion anybody?s ever put into stop motion.

More later...

Sizing Up The 2016 Oscar-Nominated Docs

The conversation about next month?s Oscars, the 88th Academy Awards (ABC, Feb. 28), may be deservedly dominated by the whole #OscarsSoWhite thing, but I?d like to bypass that mess for now to take a look at the nominees of a way less controversial category: Best Documentary Feature.

It?s one that you can easily catch up on too, as three of the five nominees are available for streaming on Netflix Instant: Matthew Heineman?s CARTEL LAND, Evgeny Afineevsky?s WINTER ON FIRE: UKRAINE?S FIGHT FOR FREEDOM, and Liz Garbus? WHAT HAPPENED, NINA SIMONE?

The remaining docs, Joshua Oppenheimer?s THE LOOK OF SILENCE, and Asif Kapadia and James Gay-Rees?s AMY are available on Blu ray and DVD, as well as streaming services such as iTunes and Amazon Video.

As it was the first doc I watched after the nominations were announced earlier this month, I?ll start with Heineman?s CARTEL LAND, about cartel members and vigilante groups on both sides of the Mexico-US border in the Mexican drug war that?s been raging since 2006. It?s at times shocking the access Heineman had as he follows along such subjects as Tim ?Nailer? Foley of the paramilitary outfit called ?Arizona Border Recon,? and Michoac?n-based physician Dr Jos? Mireles, of the Autodefensas, who were founded in 2013.

Much of the film plays like a shaki-cam action thriller, and its startling to hear the stories of the beheadings, and mass murder of innocent citizens by the evil Knights Templar cartel, but the film lost me a bit in its last third as it gets into murkily shot interrogation/torture scenes, and a lengthy bit in which Mireles sleazily hits on a young woman also muddied my takeaway. CARTEL LAND is two thirds of a powerful doc about how power corrupts, especially in the lawless border zones. Its intrigue is great enough for me to see why it was nominated, but I really wouldn?t bet on it to win.

There?s a similar amount of blood on the ground in Afineevsky?s WINTER ON FIRE, about events that happened around the same time, but on the other side of the world in the Ukraine. Through footage and interviews, Russian-Israeli director Afineevsky tells the story of the protests in Ukraine?s Kiev in December 2013 through February 2014, that started out as peaceful student demonstrations but escalated into violence with police and paramilitary forces attacking and killing many of the protesters. It can be pretty tough going as the focus can seem as scattershot as the unwieldy crowds on display, but the film has an impactful passion to its breakdown of the proceedings, and much like CARTEL LAND, the access the filmmakers have is truly eye-opening.

The theme that people have the power to come together to make change is one that many, many docs share, but WINTER ON FIRE through its deep examination of material that I?m guilty of ignoring by not watching news reports or by not clicking on links that better informed folks than me post on Facebook stands out more than just about any other big issue doc I?ve seen in ages. It?s got tough competition in this category, but this Netflix production could well be a wild card.

What has a bigger chance at the win is Oppenheimer?s THE LOOK OF SILENCE, which is a companion piece to Oppenheimer?s previous Oscar nominee, 2012?s THE ACT OF KILLING ? both of which are co-directed by somebody credited as ?Anonymous.? The reason for that mystery credit is severely apparent when viewing either or both films as they concern the still living, and still in power perpetrators in the Indonesian killings of 1965?66. 

While THE ACT OF KILLING, streaming on Netflix Instant in both theatrical and director's cut versions, dealt with members of the death squads chillingly recounting and reenacting their killings, THE LOOK OF SILENCE involves the perspective of the survivors and the victim's families, particularly a 44-year-old optometrist named Adi Rukun, as he confronts the men responible for his brother Ramli's death in he 1965 Indonesian genocide of more than a million alleged Communists.

The reaction that these men have recalls all the Nazi-rationales - i.e. ?I was just following orders? - with, of course, nobody taking responsibility for their actions. But it goes further than that, and deeper than ACT, when Rukun gets warnings from relatives that his life may be in danger for going through with this project, but he doesn't shy away from asking one of his interviewees, who's now in the legislature: ?How do you do politics surrounded by the families of the people you've killed??

THE LOOK OF SILENCE is incendiary stuff indeed, and it has a good shot at the gold - that is, unless a certain crowd-pleasing music biodoc has the edge.

That would be AMY, Kapadia and Gay-Rees?s doc depiction of   British R&B-soul singer Amy Winehouse, which is the only documentary here that's in the top 10 grossing indie films of 2015 (it's #10 - of course). 

I raved about the film last summer (?Amy Winehouse?s Rise And Decline Makes For A Devastating Doc? 7/10/15), and would love it if it won. It's an up close and personal biodoc, with so much revealing footage of the troubled yet true songstress, that, via a strong home movie vibe, often makes us feel like we're were right there with Ms. Winehouse, whether riding with her in a car between gigs, or hanging with her in Camden flat. 

But it's the excerpts from the woman's performances, most of which have individual lyrics in handwritten fonts superimposed, that make this such a stunner and highlight what a tremendous loss Winehouse's death was to the world. So yeah, I'm pulling for this one.

Lastly, there's another music biodoc that's almost as equally deserving - Liz Garbus' WHAT HAPPENED, MISS SIMONE? about legendary singer, activist, and North Carolina native Nina Simone (1933-2003). It's the only movie on the ballots that actually pays tribute to a black artist, but, yeah, it was made by a white person. Then, hey, it's the only doc in the category that was directed by a woman, so there's that.

Anyway, the footage amassed here in this doc that takes its name from a Maya Angelou quote is stellar. Clips such as Simone performing ?Little Liza Jane? at Newport in 1960, appearing on Hugh Hefner's short lived TV show Playboy's Penthouse to play Gershwin's ?I Loves You, Porgy,? and her comeback show from her self-imposed 8-year exile at the Montreux Jazz Festival in 1976 had me later going to YouTube to see more. 

Garbus' exploration of the volatile yet very vulnerable Simone's journey from aspiring classical pianist to '60s civil rights icon is riveting (especially considering that this was a woman who told Martin Luther King, Jr. that she was ?not non violent?), as are the tales told about her tumultuous relationship with her husband manager Andrew Stroud (surprisingly an interviewee). 

Simone's daughter, Lisa Simone Kelly, sums the messiness of her mother's later years best: ?People seem to think that when she went out on stage, that was when she became Nina Simone, but my mother was Nina Simone 24/7, that?s where it became a problem.?

But when it gets down to the last ten minutes, even a cursory skim of Simone's wikipedia entry will tell you that this film glosses over a lot of juicy stuff about the lady's demise in its race to conclusion. Despite that flaw, this biodoc is strongly recommended. It would be quite the upset if it won.

At this point, I'm predicting a win for THE LOOK OF SILENCE. Things change a lot in the weeks leading up to the show, so I may change my mind for my official predictions to be posted a few days before the broadcast, but for now, it really feels like its Oppenheimer and Anonymous' year.

* Triangle area folks should take note that the Full Frame Documentary Festival?s Winter Series will be showing CARTEL LAND on February 16th at the Carolina Theatre in Durham.

More later...

Get Hard

***DISCLAIMER*** The following review is entirely my opinion. If you comment (which I encourage you to do) be respectful. If you don't agree with my opinion (or other commenters), that's fine. To each their own. These reviews are not meant to be statements of facts or endorsements, I am just sharing my opinions and my perspective when watching the film and is not meant to reflect how these films should be viewed. Finally, the reviews are given on a scale of 0-5. 0, of course, being unwatchable. 1, being terrible. 2, being not great. 3, being okay. 4, being great and 5, being epic! And if you enjoy these reviews feel free to share them and follow the blog or follow me on Twitter (@RevRonster) for links to my reviews and the occasional live-Tweet session of the movie I'm watching!  With a title like Get Hard, will there be any jokes about erections--yes, there will be a ton of them.

Get Hard ? 2 out of 5

I?m a pretty big fan of Will Ferrell and I enjoy Kevin Hart here and there.  However, the trailers for Get Hard weren?t really selling me on the film.  It didn?t look terrible but it didn?t look funny enough where I had to get out there and see it in the theater?and it didn?t really seem to be that great where I had to watch it the minute it came out at RedBox (I dropped your name, I will gladly take a check now).  However, I was bored and didn?t really see anything else that was striking my fancy and decided to take a shot?if nothing else, I concluded, it has to have some funny moments with Ferrell and Hart in it.  Right?

The sad reality is this shot can probably be taken from any number of Ferrell's films...
and I'm saying that as an admitted fan of the guy.

James King (Ferrell) seems to have life by the short and curlies.  He has the hand of a gorgeous woman (Alison Brie) and he has gathered a decent wealth due to his career as a hedge fund manager at his soon-to-be father-in-law?s operation (Craig T. Nelson).  However, one day he is arrested for fraud and embezzlement and is looking at spending a lot of time in prison even though he swears he?s innocent.  Scared that he won?t survive the ordeal, he hires Darnell (Hart)?the gentleman who washes his car, to help him prepare for his sentence.  The kicker here is that King is a tad on the slower side and thinks because Darnell is black he?s been to prison.  Darnell is a harmless guy who hasn?t even turned in a library book late and isn?t the man who can really teach a person how to be a badass in prison but he needs the money King is offering and agrees to toughen the rich man up.  However, it?s not long before Darnell starts to believe King and thinks someone else is responsible for the embezzlement and framed King.

One can easily assume by the reaction of Hart that Ferrell's character is getting hurt in some way...
and most likely the pain is being inflicted upon the genitals.

Get Hard starts out pretty decently with some gags I really enjoyed at the expense of the 1%-ers.  However, it didn?t take long before I found I was laughing less and less and groaning more and more.  Predictably, the film?s title and its play on erections come into play and are too often involved in gags that go way too long.  Then, the film brings in the not surprising jokes about prison rape and a lot of jokes about racial stereotypes.  Granted, these jokes are never offensive and aren?t really just pointless material in order to shock but are, instead, really just lazy and just way too obvious.

Craig T. Nelson is frighteningly realistic as a 1%-er.

It's funny because Hart is super tiny.

Formulaic humor and jokes that just don?t resonate with me is one thing, however, there was something that was a lot harder to overlook.  Like a lot of comedies that feel like the humor isn?t that strong, there?s the feeling that they are trying to make up for it but extending the bad jokes into longer scenes.  Sorta like the production is trying to course-correct and turn shit into gold...or unfunny into funny.  Very often, this extension of jokes just come off like the director had no idea when to yell cut or could never figure out where to properly edit a scene down in order to stop the pain of a joke that isn?t working or the attempt to "fix" the joke that isn't working.  It gives a lot of scenes the feeling that the sequence was improvised but only improvised once and with little-to-no discussion over the possibility of trying something new that could work.  It made for a film that, too often, gets uncomfortable to sit through because you are just watching two very talented comedic players struggle to make unfunny material humorous.  I like Ferrell and Hart and this film just felt like I was watching them fail at the thing I know they are good at.  It was like a comedy open mic, in that sense.

Pictured:  The struggle just mentioned in the last paragraph.

Finally, the hardest part to overlook was the fact that Will Ferrell, very often, looked like he just didn?t care about the film.  Hart is giving his all?even when it?s clear that he thinks the scene isn?t working?and he?s really trying to bring the funny but there were times that Ferrell looked like he wasn?t 100% committed to the role he was playing.  Sure, there are times when both Will and Kevin are quite humorous but there are just as many times where it appears they are giving ?The Check Cleared? level of dedication.

I will admit that any scene with Kevin Hart and this gentleman was very, very amusing.

Get Hard has its moments very early on and a few sparsely littered here and there but, for the most part, I just didn?t find the film funny.  Matters weren?t helped due to the fact that all the jokes feel overly familiar and can be seen coming a mile away but the worst part of all of it is the perception that the two leads don?t look like they really care about the product.  I had hoped this was going to be a sleeper hit type of comedy for me where I go in with little-to-no expectations and walk out holding my sides in from laughing but I ended up being a tad disappointed.

Project Almanac

***DISCLAIMER*** The following review is entirely my opinion. If you comment (which I encourage you to do) be respectful. If you don't agree with my opinion (or other commenters), that's fine. To each their own. These reviews are not meant to be statements of facts or endorsements, I am just sharing my opinions and my perspective when watching the film and is not meant to reflect how these films should be viewed. Finally, the reviews are given on a scale of 0-5. 0, of course, being unwatchable. 1, being terrible. 2, being not great. 3, being okay. 4, being great and 5, being epic! And if you enjoy these reviews feel free to share them and follow the blog or follow me on Twitter (@RevRonster) for links to my reviews and the occasional live-Tweet session of the movie I'm watching!  Gotta go back in time...and maybe not watch this one...or at least wait a lot longer before I do.

Project Almanac ? 2 out 5

If you follow the blog and are a loyal reader of my silly little reviews, you might have gathered that I?m not the biggest fan of the ?found footage? sub-genre and you might have noticed that I remind everyone of this fact literally every time I review one.  There was a time when you couldn?t escape these damn things and thanks to the insane success of the first Paranormal Activity, a ?found footage? horror film was seemingly released about every hour for a good few years.  Rarely do you see this sub-genre take existence in realms that aren?t meant to scare you so it comes as a breath of fresh air when that does occur.  When I saw the trailer for Project Almanac, I thought it looked pretty cool and was hoping it would be a slick, non-scary approach to the often formulaic and too often underutilized fertile ground that exists in ?found footage.?  Eh, sadly, my expectations were kinda dashed.

Pictured:  Time travel...I guess.

This picture will travel through time and post itself later
in the review.

David (Jonny Weston) is a brilliant high school student who has a bright future ahead of him but a financially troubled family next to him.  He hopes he can get a scholarship to an excellent school because his mother can?t afford to pay for his education but things don?t look so well when he gets accepted into the school he wants but the financial aid doesn?t come through.  However, the answer to his problems arrive in a very unconventional way?in their basement, they discover that his wayward father had invented a time machine but wasn?t able to perfect it and get it working.  Using the help of his mighty brain and with the assistance of his sister Christina (Virginia Gardner), his buddies; Quinn (Sam Lerner) and Adam (Allen Evangelista) and the woman he has a crush on; Jessie (Sofia Black), the group figures out the machine?s secrets and they proceed to party with time itself and it seems that David is going to get everything he wants.  However, they soon learn that their meddling has some repercussions and creates a ripple effect through time, leaving death and terror in the new timeline they?ve created.  Now it seems that David is left with a choice:  Correct everything they?ve done and lose what he?s gained or leave it as is and see what other damage has been done.

Why are all time travel devices made from easy to get items?  What is hiding in my
junk drawer that I can use to travel back in time with?

The movie starts off fun enough and it seems like the movie might be enjoyable.  However, as the film progresses, the story becomes less enjoyable as the movie focuses too much on teenagers trying to have a good time with time travel than it is with worrying about having a conflict the group has to overcome.  Granted, unlike other time travel films (and this movie will forcefully remind you of every, single, solitary time travel film ever made), Project Almanac showcases the small, petty things a normal person?especially a teenager?would do if they had access to a time machine.  The kids go back and use their knowledge win the lottery, make bullies look bad, party at a concert and just go back and fix missed opportunities that would otherwise normally just become memories of regret that only show up when you are trying to get to sleep at night.  This part of the feature is amusing and a sorta realistic approach to time travel when in the hands of kids who aren?t of the legal drinking age but it?s clear that this dynamic is the main focus of the film and it starts to get tedious and makes the film feel like it is going nowhere.

At least they are wearing proper goofy sci-fi personal protection equipment.

The film also loses points for having characters that lack depth.  Each character is barely developed beyond their one-dimensional skill set for the group.  David gets the honor of being the smart one and the one that gets the girl so he gets a little more depth than the rest but the other members are basically the sister, the friends and the crush.  Throughout the movie, we learn very little about them and only learn a fractional more about David's and his sister?s background.  The story already feels like it has no weight or importance due to the emphasis on partying so adding characters that feel one-dimensional, bland and flavorless made it extra difficult to fully invest in the action and it made the already cheesy and forced love angle that is being played out feel all that more pointless.

Told ya.

Additionally, like so many other ?found footage? films, the element of having everything play out through the perspective of the teens? POV and through their cameras feels superfluous.  There are a few minor times when it makes sense like when they are documenting the time travel experiments or filming David?s video he?s sending with his college application but, overall, this element feels unnecessary.  Too often events are completely incomprehensible due to the shaking of the camera and it raises too many questions?the sorta ?I?m looking too deep into this narrative but it?s bothering me" type of questions.  Questions like who actually found the footage and edited it together?  And speaking of editing, did they bring along microphones to isolate audio because there are a lot of times when natural sound and dialogue is captured perfectly during chaotic and choppy sequences and shots filmed from a few dozen feet away?  Why did they feel a need to ?document? scenes of David courting Jessica since that had nothing to do with the experiments of traveling through time?  More importantly, how on earth is the camera capturing memories when the kids travel back in time?  And if these aren?t memories but edited in footage done in post, why did the mysterious person who edited this and released it presumably on the internet take the time to create this bit of emotional narrative?  Now, I fully realize these are nitpicky complaints and some of them are things only a guy who knows too much about movies or has editing experience would even notice and that is true and I won?t deny that.  I have a history of sound editing (I use to work for the dying medium called commercial radio) and these things do stand out but they do affect my ability to completely submerge myself in the story.  These little mistakes and plot holes make it really hard to suspend my disbelief and one of the biggest reasons I just can?t get into ?found footage? films.

The hardest part to believe was the fact that he didn't draw a dick on his past self.

For all my complaints and the tedium that I started to feel while watching the film, there were elements that I enjoyed.  For example, even though the characters aren?t written with much depth, the actors are all doing a very good job.  Finally, the special effects in the film are fantastic!  However, aside from this, I just didn?t see that much in this film.

In the pre-digital age, being erased from time just meant fading away.  Now, with smartphones,
social media and toilets with Bluetooth technology, even disappearing from time gets digital.

With all my nitpicking about Project Almanac, I did see some promise in the film.  There was definitely a flashy and fun film hiding in the final product but it was lost in a boring story, lifeless characters, a lack of an interesting conflict and a presentation that was more distracting than it was helpful or conducive to compelling story telling.  I had hoped for something from this film but, in the end, just found a film that held potential but just ended up boring me.

Run All Night

***DISCLAIMER*** The following review is entirely my opinion. If you comment (which I encourage you to do) be respectful. If you don't agree with my opinion (or other commenters), that's fine. To each their own. These reviews are not meant to be statements of facts or endorsements, I am just sharing my opinions and my perspective when watching the film and is not meant to reflect how these films should be viewed. Finally, the reviews are given on a scale of 0-5. 0, of course, being unwatchable. 1, being terrible. 2, being not great. 3, being okay. 4, being great and 5, being epic! And if you enjoy these reviews feel free to share them and follow the blog or follow me on Twitter (@RevRonster) for links to my reviews and the occasional live-Tweet session of the movie I'm watching!  Since he ran all night, I guess he ran so far away...boy, I really pulled that Flock of Seagulls reference outta my ass, didn't I?

Run All Night ? 3 out 5

Liam Neeson definitely has some star power behind him and it?s a power that completely influences some of the films I will see.  For example, I never would have paid to see Battleship in the theater if it wasn?t for him being in the film.  However, as badass as the guy is, his ability to convincingly be someone who has that special set of skills that involve bustin? suckas in the face doesn?t always translate to the entire production of the film being good, decent or even watchable.  He?s been in some stinkers (for example, Battleship) but is Run All Night as awesome as Taken or is it as bad as the sequels to Taken?

I'd probably piss myself if Neeson gave me that look because it's clear an ass-kicking
is coming.

Jimmy ?The Gravedigger? Conlon (Neeson) might sound like a name of a professional wrestler but he?s a former mob enforcer who has fallen on hard times and spends more time drinking than mob enforcing.  His life caused a schism between himself and his son Mike (Joel Kinnaman).  One night, Jimmy?s former boss Shawn Maquire (Ed Harris) rejects a deal his son Danny (Boyd Holbrook) set up and it results in Danny killing some men and Mike accidentally becoming a witness.  Jimmy comes to his son?s aid and kills Danny.  Shawn, rightfully upset, tells Jimmy that since the former enforcer killed his son, he will see Jimmy?s boy meet the same fate.  Now Jimmy must do everything he can to protect his son.

He can protect his son because he has a certain set of...guns to help kill people with.
What did you think I was going to say?

The trailer to this one looked pretty cool and seemed like it would have some killer, gritty action sequences.  However, as much as I like Liam Neeson, a lot of his movies aren?t as good as he is as an actor so I?m reluctant to shell out the cash to see it in the theaters.  This one definitely looked cool but it also, most certainly, was going to be a film I would wait to see when it hits the home market.  Overall, I?m glad I waited because it definitely wasn?t worth the cash for a theater visit BUT it?s not as bad as some of his other recent films have been.

*Pew Pew*

Common was so badass it was a crime
he wasn't in the film more.

My feeling that the film would have some killer action was definitely a dead-on prediction because the film does not disappoint in this department.  There?s a great car chase when Jimmy is trying to rescue his son from the cops (because, not surprisingly, the cops are dirty and in the pocket of Maquire), there?s a fantastic fight sequence between Jimmy and the hitman played by Common in a burning building and the final shootout during the last moments of the film makes sure the adrenaline rush doesn?t end before the credits hit.  This is really the best part of the film.

Ed Harris' performance is pretty intimidating.  Just this pic is making me ready to
surrender and give him whatever he wants so he won't hurt me.

Gun Cam!

Additionally, there?s some really great performances in it.  Liam Neeson?s character starts out a little silly as he?s sheepish and a vile drunk who says inappropriate things to women.  While these character elements work for the character, Neeson just couldn?t pull them off convincingly.  However, once his character gets into form as he returns to being a badass enforcer extraordinaire, this slippery start to the performance is easily overlooked.  Furthermore, Ed Harris is predictably amazing in his role as the antagonist and he provides an excellent antithesis to Liam Neeson and Joel Kinnaman is giving, quite possibly, the best performance I?ve ever seen him in.  Prior to this film, I haven?t been too impressed with his work.

The crazy eyes that bothered me in RoboCop are definitely under control now.

Let's be real:  Nolte probably got the role because he was
living on the set under a pile of rags.

Ultimately, however, Run All Night does have some flaws that stop it from being better than just an average feature.  For example, Nick Nolte is in the film and acts as a walking plot device in order to create more tension between father and son.  In theory, this isn?t a bad thing but the character just sorta appears in the story and is never seen from again, so he feels like his whole existence was just too lazily create drama.  Additionally, the actual moment when the antagonist is stopped by Jimmy feels a bit hollow and not as important as it should be.  Finally, Common plays a really cool hitman character that is hired to come in and take out Mike and there was endless potential to this character but he feels terribly underutilized.  While his moments are cool and provide some killer action sequences, his potential promised so much more and not enough was done with him.  This complaint also applies to the cop character played by Vincent D?Onofrio as this character has a past with Jimmy ?The Gravedigger? Conlon but he just sorta comes and goes within the story.

Even though his character was underutilized, anytime D'Onofrio is in a movie is
a win in my book because that dude is talented!

Run All Night is a serviceable but not too memorable action film.  The cast is great and the action is definitely satisfying but the story doesn?t feel that unique and it?s is only hampered by some lazy moments in the plot.  It is definitely one of the better films that Neeson has starred in during the last few years but the film does fall short of the potential it has.