The A-Team

“The A-Team,” the 2010 adaptation of the famous television show from the ‘80s, is best compared to another 2010 film, “The Losers.” Both films are silly, over-the-top, and include action scenes that are hilarious, and even though the plots may be incomprehensible at times, they still give you one enjoyable time.

The film was directed by Joe Carnahan, who previously directed the wild action film, “Smokin’ Aces,” which also had somewhat of a dirty plot, but a lot of great action scenes to make up for it.

The film is about a group of Army Rangers who first met up in Iraq. The team includes Colonel Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson), Lieutenant Templeton “Faceman” Peck (Bradley Cooper), B.A. Baracus (Quinton ‘Rampage’ Jackson), and Murdock (Sharlto Copley).

After becoming the first people to call for dangerous missions, they are told about a set of bars used in printing American money that are now in enemy hands. They are also specifically told not to go on this mission, but as you can guess, they go anyway.

After the mission is complete, their commander, General Morrison, played by Gerald McRaney, is killed in a strange explosion. They are then believed to have been helping the man who took the bars, a Black-Ops agent named Pike, played by Brian Bloom.

The team is sent to four separate maximum-security prisons after being dishonorably discharged from the service, but they are not there long before they are helped in their escape by a CIA agent, Lynch, played by Patrick Wilson. Now the team must recover the bars and prove themselves innocent in order to clear their names.

The highlight of “The A-Team” is its insanely imaginative, over-the-top action scenes. The action of this film plays out more so for the comedy it has rather than believability. If you try to take it too seriously, then there is a possibility that you are not going to have any fun watching it. For example, take one of the action scenes halfway into the film that involves the team trying to escape on an airplane. While airborne, the plane is hit by a missile, blowing it to pieces, but the team is alright because they’re in a tank. You heard right, apparently there was a tank on the plane conveniently including parachutes. Now they are slowly flying towards the ground in a tank with the jets that attacked them still circling.

Another scene has one of the protagonists swiftly climbing down a rope that is hanging along the side of a skyscraper while the enemy shoots at him. Surprisingly, the villain is unable to hit the protagonist with so many bullets from a machine gun despite the hero being completely open while descending the rope. Nor is the hero injured when he falls a good part of the way.

Jessica Biel plays Charissa Sosa and in a post credits scene, we see the original actors who played Face and Murdock with their film equivalents. Dick Benedict (the original actor who played Face in the show) plays Face’s (Cooper) fellow tanning bed client, credited as “Pensacola Prisoner Milt,” and Dwight Schultz (the original actor who played Murdock in the show) plays the German neurologist who examines Murdock (Copley).

I only saw parts of episodes of the original show, but I never sat down and watched an entire episode nor have I gone back to see the original show from beginning to end. I can’t really compare this adaptation to the original show and say how good or bad of an adaptation this is. However, from what I can remember, I thought this film was just fine. I probably liked the silly action in this film and thought that the film was just a nice little popcorn flick. If you want to see it, this is currently streaming on Max. Check it out if you want. If you don’t like it, I understand.

Next week, we will look at the “Clash of the Titans” sequel in the continuation of “Liam Neeson Month.”

Clash of the Titans (2010)

Thirty years after the original film's release came the 2010 “Clash of the Titans” remake, and many things were changed. Perseus now starts as a humble fisherman, Princess Andromeda is not his love interest, Hades is the main villain, Pegasus has changed from white to black, and the robotic owl Bubo has been replaced by a young girl who never ages. Mike Massie said in his review, “While much of it has been altered for no apparent reason, some things have received an overhaul appropriate to the advancements in technology – namely the special effects and creature designs.” Even though a lot may feel that no CG can replace the classic look of Ray Harryhausen’s inspired creations, updates to the Kraken, the Stygian Witches, and the giant scorpions, and even new additions like the Djinns, are creative and can be very impressive. However, when it comes to Medusa, the stop-motion Gorgan still wins.

A child found abandoned in the sea, Perseus (Sam Worthington), is taken in and raised by the fisherman Spyros (Pete Postlehwaite). When Hades (Ralph Fiennes) kills his adoptive family, Perseus discovers his true lineage as the son of Zeus (Liam Neeson). Driven by a desire for revenge, he embarks on a seemingly impossible mission—to vanquish the Kraken, a creature so formidable that even the gods of Mount Olympus fear it.

Even though he hates his demigod origins, Perseus won’t make the journey alone. A mighty sword forged by the gods themselves is his weapon, and accompanying him is Io (Gemma Arterton), a beautiful woman “cursed” with not aging (along with flawless makeup and a healthy glow), and the soldiers Draco (Mads Mikkelson), Solon (Liam Cunningham), Ixas (Hans Matheson), and more, including volunteers, scorpion-riding desert people, and other fodder for the various beasts they meet. Like the original, their first stop is to find the Kraken’s weakness in the garden of Stygia, and the last is to cross the River Styx into Medusa’s liar.

The costumes, armor, castles, makeup, creatures, and special effects are all larger in scale than the original. Still, the cheesiness hasn't left despite some ridiculous dialogue, Zeus’ shining wardrobe, and unnecessary flashbacks. At least an intelligent homage or two is inserted. However, where’s the groundbreaking music or the chance to surpass the classic design of Medusa? Why does the use of 3D in this movie have such little impact on the visual appeal? Massie said, “This remake is also just in time to have the Kraken (a cross between the “Cloverfield” behemoth and the enemy soldiers in the “Gears of War” video game) belittled by the flying colossus in “How to Train Your Dragon.” With larger roles for lesser characters, the ferryman’s upgraded boat (possibly due to bribes), a pitifully uncreative alteration for Calibos, and Ralph Fiennes’ portrayal of a character noticeably too much like Harry Potter’s Voldemort, this not-so-epic odyssey is more tedious, generic, and recycled than it ought to be, especially considering the time the filmmakers have had to polish the story and imagery.”

As everyone might have guessed, this remake could be better. It does not hold a candle to the classic original film, especially with the lasting effect of Ray Harryhausen’s work. This is another example of CG not making a remake better than the original. I don’t recommend seeing this because of how forgettable it is. I honestly had forgotten what I thought of this film after a while, which gives you an idea.

Next week, I will examine an adaptation of a classic TV show in the continuation of “Liam Neeson Month.” I apologize for the late posting. I fell asleep because I was so tired after work today.

Wonka

A special treat tonight everyone: I just finished watching “Wonka,” which came out in December 2023, on Max while exercising. Since everyone knows the original film is one of my all-time favorites, I think it would be best to let everyone know what I thought of this latest film.

Ernesto Diezmartínez started his review by noting, “Since the great Hollywood studios immersed in the swamp of intellectual property, that is, the endless production of sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots and films based on comics and youth and children's best sellers, the largest and most influential film industry of the orbe has punished us with a series of commercial products as interchangeable as disposable. Some examples: Marvel's stories can spread from cinema to television and vice versa, we see without blinking the continuous replacement of actors who play any superhero (be Batman or The Spider Man) and we run into the small screen or the big screen with the origins of any more or less canonical saga, whether it's Star Wars, Harry Potter or The Hunger Games. The result of this more than creative business bet is that the great Hollywood productions have been stuck in frank puerility for two decades, but in the intranscendence. Or, to put it in the measured words of Alejandro González Iñárritu, in the open and frank cultural genocidal.”

Diezmartínez continued, “Of course, within this ill-styled Disney model - that is, in this type of production and exhibition centered on intellectual property - there are exceptions to the rule: tapes that, even coming from this same iterative impulse, manage to rescue with dignity well-known stories (Batman: the knight of the night, Nolan, 2008), turn a shameless commercial product into a contradictory topic of cultural conversation (Barbie, Gerwig, 2023) and, now, with Wonka's recent premiere Wonka(United Kingdom - U.S. Canada, 2023), successfully rethink the origin of a certain classical film/literary character from another perspective and even from another genre, because we are faced with a musical film clearly anchored in the Hollywood tradition of My Beautiful Lady (Cukor, 1961) and, above all, Mary Poppins (Stevenson, 1964), because Neil Hannon's songs open directly from his tones and even some of his melodies.”

“Wonka” is a prequel to a story that has been told in two film versions, the classic 1971, directed by Mel Stuart and starring Gene Wilder in the role of Willy Wonka, and Tim Burton’s 2005 remake with Johnny Depp playing the titular character. Both, as you know, are based on Roald Dahl’s original novel, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a classic children’s book that, as a good serious story (not serious), manages to combine the creation of a delightful place consisting of magic and fantasy – the chocolate factory of the oddball Willy Wonka with an exemplary story where the main child – the Charlie of the title – must learn what he should accept and which cons he should avoid, facing some challenges that, as Diezmartínez describes, “in the best style of the Welsh writer,” do not lack either fun or cruelty.

The argument for “Wonka,” written by director Paul King, raises the arrival in London of a young Willy Wonka, played by Timothée Chalamet, who arrives in the big city with the dream of opening a chocolate shop. Although he shows his unique talent by giving locals a magical and flying chocolate, the imagined and excited Wonka ends up as a slave to a landlady, Mrs. Scrubbit (Olivia Colman) who forces him to work day and night washing sheets with another group of prisoners like him. Unfortunately, Wonka has more trouble, as the evil chocolate cartel led by the crooked Slugworth, played by Paterson Joseph, has already tasted his magical chocolate, so he won’t allow that competition to have the smallest chance to open his shop. Meanwhile, Wonka ends up befriending the cheerful orphan Noodle (Calah Lane), who dreams of escaping Mrs. Scrubbit, while the unfortunate young chocolatier, always positive, finds out a strange and small individual of orange skin and green hair (Hugh Grant as the best one here) has been stealing his chocolates at night. With the help of the other prisoners (Jim Carter, Natasha Rothwell, Rich Fulcher, and Rakhee Thakrar), Wonka manages to escape Mrs. Scrubbit’s workshop to start making chocolates made from giraffe milk but Slugworth, his colleagues (Matt Lucas and Matthew Baynton), and the chocolate-addict police chief (Keegan-Michael Key) destroy his plans.

Diezmartínez mentioned, “Following the same path in his irresistible diptych about the charming Peruvian bear Paddington (2014 and 2017), King introduces us to a young Willy Wonka who lacks the dark features of his literary and cinematic incarnations. That is, Wonka captures the magic of the Roald Dahl universe but not its darkness, although this is more a characteristic than a defect. The infidelity of the original Willy Wonka has to do with the kind of stories that interest King: that of noble and good immigrants, faced with pettiness and greed. That barely grown-up child who is Chalamet's Willy Wonka may doubt at some point his dreams, but it is obvious that any hesitation is temporary, because for Paul King generosity and empathy have no choice but to succeed.”

Diezmartínez continued, “In the form, Wonka is a typical musical of our century, that is, more musical-opereta than musical-ballet. As Bob Fosse understood in his time, King knows very well that his star doesn't sing badly the rancheras, but it's clearly not made for the dance seriously, that is, it's not Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly (although, who is?). So, if Chamalet doesn't dance much, as was the case with Shirley MacLaine or Liza Minelli in Fosse's cinema, then let him dance the frame, let the rhythm mark the cuts between taking and taking. In this way, Mark Everson's montage gets some musical numbers - especially "Scrub scrub" and the second performance of "You've never had a chocolate like this" work not as mere illustrations of the sticky melodies, but as genuine and proud cinematic pieces.” The image is the one that dances in front of us and our feet, from our seats, join them. That is a good thing.

I found myself thoroughly enjoying this film. If you have Max and have liked the story of Willy Wonka, then see this movie. This one should not be missed; I promise you that. You will find yourself loving this movie and might be going out to get chocolate, but I wouldn’t recommend that.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Check in this Friday for the continuation of “Liam Neeson Month.”

Schindler’s List

For this month, I had a few ideas of what I wanted to do, but I decided I would dedicate this month to the great Liam Neeson. Let’s start with the 1003 classic, “Schindler’s List.”

Oskar Schindler would have been easy to understand if he’d been a predictable hero, fighting for his beliefs. Seeing that he has cons – drinking, gambling, womanizing, being controlled by greed, and wanting an upper-class life – makes his life a problem.

This is a man who saw his opportunity at the beginning of World War II and moved to Nazi-controlled Poland to open a factory and hire Jews at wages they could barely live off of.  He wants to become a millionaire. Roger Ebert said in his review, “By the end of the war, he had risked his life and spent his fortune to save those Jews and had defrauded the Nazis for months with a munitions factory that never produced a single usable shell.”

Why did he change? What happened to make him change from a villain to a savior? Thanks to Steven Spielberg’s film “Schindler’s List.” it does not try to answer that question. Any possible answer would be too easy, which would not keep the mystery of Schindler’s life. Ebert noted, “The Holocaust was a vast evil engine set whirling by racism and madness. Schindler outsmarted it, in his own little corner of the war, but he seems to have had no plan, to have improvised out of impulses that remained unclear even to himself. In this movie, the best he has ever made, Spielberg treats the fact of the Holocaust and the miracle of Schindler's feat without the easy formulas of fiction.”

The runtime is a little over three hours and like all great movies, it seems too short. It starts with Schindler, played by Liam Neeson, a tall, strong man with an intimidating presence. He dresses in expensive suits and frequently goes to nightclubs, buying caviar and champagne for Nazi officers and their women, and he likes to get his picture taken with the top brass. He wears a Nazy party emblem proudly on his button. He has perfect black-market contacts, he can find nylons, cigarettes, and brandy: He is the right man to know. The police are happy to help him open a factory to build protected cooking utensils that army kitchens can use. He is happy hiring Jews because their wages are so low, and Schindler will keep getting rich that way.

Schindler’s skill is in bribing, scheming, and conning. He knows nothing about running a factory and finds Itzhak Stern, played by Ben Kingsley, a Jewish accountant, to handle that side of the business. Stern moves through the streets of Krakow, hiring Jews for Schindler.

Because the factory is a protected war business, a job there may guarantee a longer life.

The relationship between Schindler and Stern is made by Spielberg with a large delicacy. at the beginning of the war, Schindler wants only to make money, and at the end, he wants only to save “his” Jews. We know that Stern understands this. However, there is no moment when Schindler and Stern clearly say what is happening, maybe because saying some things out loud could cause them to get killed.

This delicacy is Spielberg’s strength throughout the film. Ebert mentioned, “His screenplay, by Steven Zaillian, based on the novel by Thomas Keneally, isn't based on contrived melodrama. Instead, Spielberg relies on a series of incidents, seen clearly and without artificial manipulation, and by witnessing those incidents we understand what little can be known about Schindler and his scheme.”

We also see the Holocaust vividly and terribly. Spielberg gives us a Nazi prison camp commandant named Goeth, played by Ralph Fiennes, who is a subject of the stupidity of evil. Ebert said, “From the veran da of his "villa," overlooking the prison yard, he shoots Jews for target practice. (Schindler is able to talk him out of this custom with an appeal to his vanity so obvious it is almost an insult.)” Goeth is one of the weak hypocrites who upholds the idea but makes himself an exception to it. He preaches the murder of the Jews and then chooses a pretty one named Helen Hirsch, played by Embeth Davidtz, to be his maid and falls in love with her. He does not find it evil that her people are being murdered, and she is spared because he has an affection towards her. He sees his personal needs as more important than right or wrong, life or death. Ebert pointed out, “Studying him, we realize that Nazism depended on people able to think like Jeffrey Dahmer.”

Shot in black and white on many of the actual locations of the events in history (including Schindler’s original factory and even the gates of Auschwitz), Spielberg shows Schindler dealing with the evil of the Nazi system. Ebert noted, “He bribes, he wheedles, he bluffs, he escapes discovery by the skin of his teeth. In the movie's most audacious sequence, when a trainload of his employees is mistakenly routed to Auschwitz, he walks into the death camp himself and brazenly talks the authorities out of their victims, snatching them from death and putting them back on the train to his factory.”

What is amazing about this film is how completely Spielberg tells his story. The movie is perfectly acted, written, directed, and seen. Individual scenes are skillful in art direction, cinematography, special effects, and crowd control. Ebert credited, “et Spielberg, the stylist whose films often have gloried in shots we are intended to notice and remember, disappears into his work. Neeson, Kingsley and the other actors are devoid of acting flourishes. There is a single-mindedness to the enterprise that is awesome.”

At the end of the film, there is a heavily emotional scene, involving the actual people Schindler saved. We learn that “Schindler’s Jews” and their descendants today number about 6,000 and that the Jewish population of Poland is 4,000. The obvious lesson would be that Schindler did more than a whole nation to save the Jews. That would be too easy. The film’s message is that one man did something, while in the face of the Holocaust, others were damaged. Ebert said, “Perhaps it took a Schindler, enigmatic and reckless, without a plan, heedless of risk, a con man, to do what he did. No rational man with a sensible plan would have gotten as far.”

Ebert noted, “The French author Flaubert once wrote that he disliked Uncle Tom's Cabin because the author was constantly preaching against slavery.” “Does one have to make observations about slavery?” he asked. “Depict it; that’s enough.” And then he added, “An author in his book must be like God in the universe, present everywhere and visible nowhere.” That would describe Spielberg, the author of this film. He shows the evil of the Holocaust, and he tells an incredible story of how it was stolen by some of its planned victims. Ebert said, “He does so without the tricks of his trade, the directorial and dramatic contrivances that would inspire the usual melodramatic payoffs.” Spielberg is not present in this film. However, his restraint and passion are seen in every shot.

This is one of the most emotional films out there. Especially the ending with the breakdown, which you can see the emotions to it. A man who once was torturing the Jews tried to save them, but it didn’t work out the way he wanted. I do recommend this film, but this is a film that you may not be able to watch in one sitting. You might have to watch it in parts with the length of the film. Currently, it is streaming on Prime, so you can see it on there. Check it out and see for yourself.

Next week I will look at a terrible remake of a classic film in “Liam Neeson Month.”