Any 'Takers' For A Routine Heist Flick?

by Brett Parker

Takers is a routine heist flick that borrows so heavily from past films that you half-expect it to site its sources out loud, something that one character, in fact, ends up doing. The film strives for both the glamorous flashiness of Ocean’s Eleven and the gritty realism of Heat, yet these two sensibilities weigh down on each other and prevent the film from fleshing out a distinct significance all its own. It’s a heist flick as lightweight as can be, yet if your willing to meet its ladmag swagger and noir-tinged pretensions halfway, you might just be able to enjoy yourself.

The film begins by introducing us to a team of highly-skilled and super-stylish thieves who conduct their crimes in the Los Angeles area. There’s the mastermind Gordon (Idris Elba), point man John (Paul Walker), hardheaded Jake (Michael Ealy), athletic Jesse (Chris Brown), and stone-cold pro A.J. (Hayden Christensen). We first see them robbing a high-rise bank in the downtown L.A. area equipped with machine guns, ski-masks, and a helicopter escape. The job is pulled off with such skill that the no-nonsense detective Jack Welles (Matt Dillon) can’t find the smallest lead to bring the team down. With their hot cars, sexy women, and classy threads, these thieves appear to be living quite the outlaw lifestyle.

That is until the day Ghost (Tip “T.I.” Harris) drops back into their lives. Ghost was a member of the crew until he was shot and jailed during one of their heists. He did five years in jail without ratting out any of his crew members, something he feels deserves payback. His plan: assemble the crew to pull off a highly-dangerous armored car robbery right off the streets of L.A. The crew feels they don’t have the time, or the foresight, to pull off such a tricky heist, yet fearful of Ghost’s betrayal, they decide to go through with it anyways. As motives grow more ambiguous and moves escalate towards danger, Detective Welles works frantically to take down the crew before they pull off yet another extraordinary steal.

Takers shows little trace of originality or dimensions to elevate it from being a routine genre piece. The characters are one-dimensional stock personalities who don’t really have any memorable lines nor contribute any dramatic depths. It shows the players and moves of a crime plot, yet holds no revealing thoughts about the nature of crime itself. While the film tries to emulate the penetrating feel of a Michael Mann crime picture, it forgets that Mann always digs to find the poignancy and suppression within hunter-gatherer stories. Director John Luessenhop keeps things so by-the-numbers that searching for deeper meanings feels irrelevant. If it weren’t for the films pretentious style, perhaps the cast could’ve let loose with some of the ring-a-ding fun of the Ocean’s Eleven pictures. With their Rat Pack activities and dandified confidence, the Takers could’ve displayed the same sense of playfulness and exhilaration as Clooney’s boys if the film’s tone wasn’t so dominantly somber.

Yet deep down, I’m a huge sucker for a heist flick. It’s one of my favorite genres (with Ocean’s Eleven being one of my all-time favorite movies) and I can get so caught up in the hulking fronts, the elegant styles, the confident masculinity, the high-octane heists, and the over-the-top dangers that can be found in these films, especially if its done with a con artist’s smirk. Takers can’t live down the better crime films that have gone before it, but it seems perfectly content with the clichés it revels in. It puts up a front even though we suspect a lack of confidence underneath. The whole enterprise is disposable pulp, but if you can fine tune yourself to all the stylish testosterone and slam-bang trashiness that entails, you might just be able to have the silly good time I had.

Takers has such a shameless need to please that it doesn’t attempt to hide its lifts from earlier films such as Reservoir Dogs, Casino Royale, True Romance, and countless others. Even Ghost fully admits that the film’s climactic heist is a complete rip-off from The Italian Job remake. Yet if you’re willing to forgive the film for its cinematic thievery, a little fun can be had from a few of the action scenes. There’s a silly-cool scene in which the string-bean A.J. pounds mercilessly on gigantic brutes trying to beat him out of money, proving that camera angles and editing can make any skinny guy look tough. Chris Brown lacks a promising future in acting, yet his breathless foot chase through the Los Angeles area holds our attention rather efficiently. My favorite scene shows the Takers showing an amazing display of teamwork as they strategize their way through a frantically deadly hotel room shootout. It’s really the only scene in which gripping danger and the crew’s slickness truly shine.

The film was lucky enough to assemble a varying range of talented pros, yet the script gives them zero room to display any hints of character development. It’s great to see talented character actors Ealy and Elba get time to shine in a Hollywood vehicle, yet their characters have nothing significant to show off. Walker and Christensen have found a nice outlet to show off some cinematic coolness, but they fall victims to diminished screen time. Still, the guys show they can hold it down in a crime piece, displaying smoldering confidence and hulking shells quite nicely. The two meatiest performances come from Dillon, who treads heroically through an ocean of cop role clichés, and Harris, who miscalculates as the sinister Ghost. His character is meant to be a shadowy criminal mastermind, yet Harris’ street thug demeanor feels all wrong for the role. It diminishes the character potential for more authority, complexity, and ambiguity. A more thoughtful actor like Terrance Howard would’ve scored an absolute touchdown in this role.

If you don’t get out much to see many heist films, than Takers will probably work a lot better for you than it will for most. There are countless other films of this genre that are way better and Takers will have a tough time distinguishing itself from the rest. Yet if your in the mood for disposable heist thrills, which entails great suits, tough guy posturing, and outrageous action, Takers just might be able to fill your cinematic sweet tooth for a couple of hours.

'The Expendables': The Big Muscle Man Reunion

by Brett Parker

Action films of the 80s could most accurately be described as the “muscle man” era, an era in which testosterone, explosions, and the war-hungry mindset of the Reagan era spilled out across movie screens everywhere. Our heroes were grizzled hulks armed with gigantic biceps, guns, and attitudes. They annihilated countless weaklings who stood in there way, usually by pumping them full of countless lead or tearing their limbs clean apart. Bloodiness was guaranteed!. Subtlety and political correctness were nowhere to be found; these films reveled in ridiculous excess. There was, in fact, a competition amongst the era's action stars to see who could have the bigger guns and explosions in their individual films. It was brawny, it was gritty, it was masochistic, and it was so much fun!

No specific brand of action films lasts forever, for changing times brings forth changing heroes. In a post-9/11 world, a world that saw everyday people commiting truly heroic acts, a new brand of action heroes emerged filled with more vulnerability and humanity. From Spider-Man to Jason Bourne, our new crop of heroes possess everyman qualities in the face of extraordinary situations. Brains our now in higher demand than biceps; we want to relate more instead of envying. It says something that the two best action stars of this past summer were Robert Downey, JR. and Michael Cera.

Sylvester Stallone certainly feels nostalgic for the macho man bravado of yesteryear and senses a good amount of action junkies feel the exact same way. This led to the creation of his latest acting-directing feat, The Expendables, a throwback extravaganza if ever there was one. Stallone has assembled nearly every aging tough guy from the 80s into one big action vehicle, proving that these old school hulks still got what it takes to deliver big bangs for your buck! Of course, if your looking for relevance, reflection, and deep philosophies regarding the very nature of those muscle man movies, you've come to the wrong place! Stallone and his cohorts have precisely one goal in mind and one goal only: to blow up stuff real good!

The Expendables focuses on a rugged group of macho mercenaries who hire themselves out to do dirty work government agencies are afraid to touch. The team includes fearless leader Barney Ross (Stallone), blade enthusiast Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), kung-fu expert Ying Yang (Jet Li), bruising brawler Toll Road (Randy Couture), trigger-happy Hale Caesar (Terry Crews), and blood-thirsty giant Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundren). The film opens with the guys lighting up a group of pirates who've kidnapped a cargo ship, slaying them with effortless expertise. Despite their old age, these pros appear are at the top of their game, until a real challenging mission comes their way at the hands of a mysterious contact named Mr. Church (Bruce Willis). Their assignment: infiltrate a South American island and take out a ruthless drug lord named Monroe (Eric Roberts).

Ross goes to scope the place out and runs into an intel expert named Sandra (Giselle Itie) who has grown up on the island and conveys how nightmarish her environment has become. Monroe used his vast wealth to buy out the island's army and he rules the place with an iron fist. He single-mindedly pursues his drug crops and profit and isn't afraid to destroy anyone or anything in his past. Monroe's rule over the island is quite deadly and Ross realizes that to go after him could very well be sudden death for him and his comrades. Yet after a lifetime of bloodshed, Ross begins to wonder if he can redeem himself by risking his life for those in need of liberation. The other Expendables begin to feel the same way and this leads to a deadly mission that will challenge the team to the extent of their abilities and just might rescue their souls.

It really is a miracle of scheduling that Stallone was able to assemble all the big marque names of yesterday into one kick-ass action movie! The only problem is that Stallone doesn't really give them anything deep or challenging to do. The Expendables was a great opportunity for Stallone & Company to dissect the finer points of the muscle man genre or expose the plights a tough guy experiences in growing older (something Stallone did superbly in Rocky Balboa). Instead, Stallone reduces their characters to one-dimensional types that run through the motions of a mindless shoot-em-up. Of course, no one can run through those motions like these guys, but surely these aging pros have more depths to reveal than the territory they've already mastered in the 80s.

So the plot is lightweight, the dialogue is horrible, and the characters show more attitude than personality. That's because Stallone's main focus is the ferocious action scenes, ones that demonstrate the shoot-em-and-slice-em velocity that was so prominent in the 80s. Stallone shows off a bloodthirsty glee as bones crunch, limbs fly, and bullets zing. The flimsy plot is all really just a transparent build-up to the film's violent final act, which is an all-out orgy of death and destruction. As our gritty heroes pound on countless bad guys mercilessly, we realize this is what we truly paid a ticket for and jump on on the ultra-violent band wagon. Technically, we can't help but admire the fact that the editing work by Ken Blackwell and Paul Harb frantically presents this ballet of blood as an assault on the senses while the musical score by Brian Tyler surprisingly gives off a classical feel.

Ironically, the only transcendent moments in the film are the ones revolved around no action at all. There's a killer moment where Mickey Rourke, as Ross' old friend and tattoo artist, speaks of searching for his soul after a lifetime of violence. It's the only revealing and convincing moment in the film thats out to prove that tough guys, do in fact, have feelings too. Of course the best scene in the film has become the most talked about one: the scene in which Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Bruce Willis share the screen for the first time in film history. Of course, these three were the biggest superstars of this genre and have always been something of fierce competitors, always trying to outdo each other in their movies. Well now they're finally together in a scene that not only sets up the plot for the film but shows off an electrifying peeing match where their egos bounce off each other quite nicely. It's probably the most logical way they could've shared the frame, with biting wit and a giddy subtext.

In the end, we're willing to forgive the film's flaws and emptiness because, essentially, it feels so good to see all the old guys again! They all, in fact, can still do it as good as they used to! Stallone proves that he can still dish out the attitude and the agility to lead his way through an action vehicle, Statham has shown no softening in his intimidation factor, Li still has all the right moves for an aging little guy, and Crews is cheerfully delightful as a man who loves to show off obnoxiously-outsized weaponry. My favorite performance comes from Lundren, who gives his dim-witted, hulking brute a psychotic edge that's surprisingly startling. It's been years since the big guy has shown up on the silver screen, yet his towering and tragic Frankenstein who dominates every scene that he's in!

Stallone has spoken out in recent years about how society can be neglectful towards it's elderly population. He feels there isn't really a forum for them to speak anymore despite the fact that they can be just as willing and able as all the younger citizens. The Expendables, like the last Rambo and Rocky Balboa demonstrates Stallone's single-minded goal of proving that the old guys can still get things done in a youth-obsessed society. It also may demonstrate the old school message that cultural and global problems can be solved by blowing away all our enemies, but we're willing to smirk and let that slide. After all, we're just staring at lightweight fun. The Expendables may not transcend it's genre, but at least it can stand with the mindless romps that ultimately led to the film's very creation. As long as you check your brain at the door, you can have yourself a bloody good time!

A Comedy For 'Schmucks'

by Brett Parker

Its one thing if a bumbling geek happens to be annoying. Its another if a geek goes out of his way to intentionally evoke great annoyance. This idea represents my main problem with Dinner for Schmucks, the Hollywood remake of the hit French comedy, The Dinner Game: we're asked to feel sympathy for a hapless loser who causes chaos for no clear reason besides his own twisted amusement. That Steve Carell is cast in the role of this idiotic hellraiser shows that the filmmakers want us to connect with the likeability within this nightmare nerd, but the evidence onscreen makes us curiously feel put-off. The rest of the movie has a cast that can do no wrong and a killer comic premise, but it settles too easily into mundane slapstick instead of realizing the fullest potential of its biggest jokes.

The film opens with a corporate man named Tim (Paul Rudd) seeking a promotion in his company. He dreams of swimming with the big sharks on the higher-floors in order to impress his loving fiance, Julie (Stephanie Szostak), and upkeep their lavish lifestyle. After an impressive presentation, Tim is allowed to rub elbows with the corporate big shots, led by the arrogant Lance Fender (Bruce Greenwood). Fender even invites Tim to an annual dinner hosted by the company cohorts. Yet this is no ordinary dinner: each company man has to bring a clueless idiot to the dinner as their guest for the sole purpose of making fun of them. Whichever man brings the biggest idiot to the party wins a first-prize trophy. If Tim really wants to secure his promotion, he'll have to go through with this mean-spirited meal.

Julie becomes appalled at the news of this dinner and Tim debates whether or not to go through with such a cruel activity, that is until he accidentally runs into Barry (Carell) with his car. Almost anyone can tell that Barry is a goofy loser, a socially awkward weirdo whose main hobby is stuffing dead mice and dressing them up in artistic displays (Barry has mice riding a Ferris Wheel, dining at restaurants, flying kites, etc.). Tim thinks running into Barry was an act of fate and that he'll be a lock to winning the biggest idiot prize at the dinner. Yet as Tim invites him to this deceptive event, Barry now feels he has a new friend and turns up unexpectedly in Tim's home life. Barry proves to be a tornado of mayhem and causes gigantic problems for Tim over the course of one crazy night. He drives away Julie, he brings an insane former fling (Lucy Punch) back into Tim's life, he has him breaking into the apartment of a zany model (Jemaine Clement), and he causes him to be audited by an IRS weirdo who believes he can control minds (Zach Galifianakis). Can Tim survive long enough to make it to the dinner with Barry?

Steve Carell has crafted a career out of oblivious weirdos who remain likeable in spite of their acts of stupidity. His goofballs can't help their own oafishness and accidentally cause headaches for everyone around them. This time, however, Barry appears to be wreaking havoc on purpose, using his idiocy as a shallow excuse. Take, for example, a scene where Barry notices an Instant Message on Tim's computer from a scary former fling. In the moment, Barry decides to respond, pretends to be Tim, and invites this crazy woman over even though he's fully aware that Tim has a serious girlfriend that he lives with. Why do such a thing? Why intentionally cause hell for someone you're trying to become friends with? We're supposed to believe that Barry is so dumb that he's oblivious to the chaos he's causing, but you'd have to be way more incredibly dumber than Barry to not realize that you're brewing up a bad situation. He's clearly doing this to watch Tim suffer for his own twisted amusement.

Its this mini-mean streak from within Barry that is barely acknowledged by the film and is written off as hopeless dorkiness. It's hard to buy and it's even harder to buy later on when Barry turns on the self-pity routine and we're supposed to connect with him once he turns to marshmallow. It's at this point in the script where Tim is ordered to stop being mad at him and start warming up to his vulnerable side. Yet Tim really should be infuriated by this man's behavior, he really is annoying, for him and for us.

Can a movie character be chaotic and unrelenting yet still be likeable in our eyes? I point you to the supreme example of Katherine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby, the finest screwball comedy ever made. As Susan, the lunatic heiress hopelessly in love with Cary Grant's Dr. David Huxley, Hepburn shows us a nutty madwoman showing no mercy in trying to stay close to her dream man, whether it be stealing his car, hiding his clothes, getting him arrested, and putting him in the path of an unpredictable leopard. Susan is unmistakably relentless, but thanks to Hepburn she also has a sweetness and romantic yearning that's hard to dismiss. She may cause serious mayhem for David, but it's all out of a lovestruck devotion built on genuine affection. The film's most touching moment comes when Susan, after being scolded by David, pours her wounded heart out to him, declaring her maddened love for him. She wins us over and she eventually wins over David too, for all that chaos was just what he needed to stir up his humdrum existence. It'd be nice to think that Barry also has a desperate need to be liked, but surely he could've thought up more sincere ways than destroying Tim's apartment and relationships on purpose.

The rest of the film has the usual slapstick hijinks you'd expect in such a sitcom, although most of the gags seem watered down and never break loose towards anything truly hysterical. Part of the problem is that the plot drifts away from the central business at hand and towards the tornado of Barry's comic destruction. The plot would've benefited more hilariously if it deeply dissected it's main ideas more prominently. To what level of shame does Tim truly feel as he carries out his amoral agenda? What exactly is Barry's point of view on his own behavior? What could these two really get out of their relationship together, considering the deceptive motives behind it? How do they both really feel about the actual dinner? The film tries to force contrived answers to such questions without earning them through character development.

Considering the talent on-board, especially Director Jay Roach's comic experience (the Austin Powers series, Meet the Parents), there are some moments of interest to be found. Although the script miscalculates with the characterization of Barry, Carell holds a bug-eyed devotion to his character's zaniness that is a true testament to his comic gifts. Even though Tim's motives aren't exactly likeable, Paul Rudd allows us to empathize nicely with his journey of frustration and redemption. My favorite performance comes from Galifianakis as the IRS Mind Reader. I can't remember the last time a screen comic could be so utterly hilarious while doing little to nothing. The small, wheezy laugh he lets out while reading a tax record is the single funniest moment in the entire film. It must also be said that the film's climactic dinner scene, in which a room full of idiots are allowed to cut loose, does produce genuine laughs through delightful characters. We meet several strange cases such as a man who communicates with birds, an animal psychic, and a blind fencing champion (yes, you heard me). I was touched by how much these fools cherish their own quirky antics, revealing the corporate sharks behind this dinner to be the true sleaze that they are. It leads up to a wonderful moment where Barry seems generally confused as to why such fascinating people were invited to a party as “idiots.”

Dinner for Schmucks falls short because it holds a biting premise that grows too soft and a softy character with too much bite. The plot could've let loose with a dose of nastiness while the sweet and likeable Barry helped to deflect it. Curiously, the opposite appears to happen. It seems like comic gold to have Carell's sincerity bounce off of Rudd's frustration, but this outing proves to be a waste of a pairing and idea.