Bullitt: Good, old fashioned action

 

I caught Bullitt unexpectedly on TCM a couple of weeks ago, when I was channel-surfing. What a surprise it turned out to be. I mean, I had heard about it, but I never expected to enjoy it as much as I did.

The film follows Lt. Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen), who is recruited by politician Walter Chalmers (Robert Vaughn) to provide protection to an important surprise witness he plans to present before the Senate in a hearing about organized crime. But things go awry when a pair of hitmen storm the safe house where the witness is staying, mortally wounding him. Bullitt sets out to capture the men responsible while investigating the truth behind the witness.

Most people know this film for its iconic car chase, which occurs around the middle of the film, when Bullitt pursues the pair of hitmen across the streets of San Francisco. But, as great and cool as it was, the film has so much going for it beyond that. The film took a really mature approach to the genre that made some modern cop films feel like cartoons, and the authentic and sober take on the police/investigative aspect was a breath of fresh air. Oh, yeah, and that car chase.

The performances aren't any less. I was particularly impressed by Robert Vaughn's slimy portrayal of Chalmers. And even though McQueen plays Bullitt as a mostly emotionless, tough cop, as the film progresses one can appreciate the subtleties of his performance. If anything, I think that the part where Bullitt's girlfriend (Jacqueline Bisset) rants on him after stumbling upon a crime scene he's investigating felt forced and a bit awkward. In a way, I felt as if it had come out of nowhere, just to add some sort of "personal conflict" to Bullitt's persona. But that's a small complaint.

Despite some intricacies to its plot, Bullitt is a pretty straightforward film. It doesn't rely on gimmicks or other cheap tricks, but rather on the tension and intrigue it builds. I was initially leaning towards a high B+, but the more I think of it, the more I liked it. I will settle on an A-, but even that's bound to change with time.

(All pictures belong to Warner Bros. and its affiliates)

Dredd: Judgment time

 

Set in the future, Dredd presents a bleak outcome for humanity. Crime is rampant and law enforcement officers called Judges are given the power to dictate sentences swiftly in the scene of the crime. The lead character, Dredd (Karl Urban), is an emotionless, but effective judge. "THE Judge Dredd", as he is called by one of his peers in the film. He is assigned the supervision and assessment of a rookie, Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), who is sought by the Hall of Justice, mostly for her psychic abilities. Their first assignment together has to do with a triple murder inside a 200-story slum tower called Peach Trees, which is controlled by Ma-Ma (Lena Headey), a ruthless drug lord. Soon, Dredd and Anderson find themselves trapped inside the building and fighting for their lives.

I don't even remember if I saw the 1995 version starring Sylvester Stallone, but I gave this remake a watch this week. For the most part, the film is an entertaining action film, full of violence. IMO, its biggest flaw is its similarity to the Indonesian film The Raid: Redemption. Dredd follows the premise of law enforcement officers trapped in a highrise building controlled by a druglord down to a T, which isn't bad in and of itself. But having seen one deflated the effect that the other might have had. Plus, I think that limiting the scope of the film to an enclosed location hindered the possibilities.

The opening act does a good job of establishing the setting, the post-apocalyptic world full of crime and poverty, and its main character. But once the metal doors at Peach Trees close in on the Judges, the film's possibilities are as trapped as the characters. I think it would've been interesting to see more of the world they were living, but instead, the plot is simplified to a shoot-em up with hordes of nameless thugs running at our heroes. I felt that the source material had possibilities for a better and deeper film. There was a moment near the end where I was actually surprised, and thought that the film would go somewhere, but a futuristic medical kit took that away as well.

That isn't to say that the film wasn't good. I thought it was still entertaining, but not much else. I liked some of the directorial choices of Pete Travis (this is the first film of his that I see). Some of the establishing aerial shots were great, and his use of slow motion to illustrate the effects of the "Slo-Mo" drug were inventive. As far as performances go, Karl Urban does what the script asks of him and he delivers, with an emotionless, stoic performance, but there's nothing much one can say about that. Thirlby and Headey were both solid as the rookie Anderson and the druglord Ma-Ma.

Overall, the film is pretty formulaic, but still fun to watch, so my sentence is a B.

(All pictures belong to Entertainment Film Distributors, Lionsgate, and all its affiliates)

The Retro-80's Machismo of The Expendables

I'm sure everyone that watches any of The Expendables films knows what to expect: pure retro 80's, macho adrenaline, lots of explosions and mindless action. And that's exactly what they deliver. Each of them to varying degrees of success, but never really straying from that formula of being a tongue-in-cheek, action-filled vehicle for "faded" 80's action stars, or wrestlers-turned-action-stars.

The Expendables follows an elite team of mercenaries led by Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone). The team is completed by actions stars of then and now like Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, Jet Li, Terry Crews, and Randy Couture. Stallone also serves as screenwriter, and director of the first installment.

This first one was the "experiment", for lack of a better word, and hence the less unpolished one, IMO. I saw it earlier this year and, although I enjoyed and respected its intentions, I felt it missed the mark in some aspects. First, I thought Stallone and Co. didn't take advantage of the opportunity they had to play off the concept and premise and make a really fun film. As a result, the film feels a bit dull at times. Second, Stallone's direction was a bit muddled, particularly in the last climatic fight, which should be key to this type of film.

The sequel corrects most of those flaws. First, Stallone brought director Simon West who, although far from a great director, has a more sure hand in handling the action. The scenes flow with a better pace and there's a better control of the camera. Second, I felt the approach to the film was more tongue-in-cheek, which makes the film feel more relaxed and less interested in achieving anything beyond what is intended.

There's little to look for here performance-wise. The joy comes from watching these 80's old stars duke it out and kick-ass together while exchanging witty one-liners. Stallone does a decent job carrying the lead role, and the expanded "cameos" of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis work well. Plus, there's a pretty funny appearance by Chuck Norris. Does it feel forced? Sure, but I was still chuckling at the absurdity of it. What little drama there is comes  from Liam Hemsworth's role. Despite being predictable and a bit of a cliché, he does it well and sells the part.

Like with the first part, I think the most fun comes from the villain. Eric Roberts did a pretty good job in the first one and, surprisingly, the same happens here. I think this will be the first time I say this, but Jean-Claude Van Damme was easily the highlight of the film. He played the villain (appropriately called Vilain) with the sort of swagger and cockiness that all those cool, 80s villains exuded. His final fight with Stallone was also pretty good.

Overall, a pretty solid action film. Not much more, but I'm sure that's exactly what Stallone had in mind. It gets a solid B from me. (For what it's worth, my wife kinda liked the first one more :-D)

(All pictures belong to Lionsgate and its affiliates)